Results: … we found preliminary evidence of a dose response relationship of the amount of DNA per dose and the frequency of serious adverse events (SAEs). This relationship was different for the Pfizer and Moderna products. Size distribution analysis found mean and maximum DNA fragment lengths of 214 base pairs (bp) and 3.5 kb, respectively. The plasmid DNA is likely inside the LNPs and is protected from nucleases. Conclusion: These data demonstrate the presence of billions to hundreds of billions of DNA molecules per dose in these vaccines. Using fluorometry, all vaccines exceed the guidelines for residual DNA set by FDA and WHO of 10 ng/dose by 188 – 509-fold…
So, in reading through this, I see several problems, but the authors note these mostly. The primary being that they used two different methods of detecting DNA in the vaccine samples and got two wildly different values. The qPCR returned normal numbers and their fluorometry had wildly higher numbers. It’s been years since I’ve done a fluorometry study, but I feel like my qPCR numbers were usually more reliable. If that’s still the case, saying that widely distributed vaccines have high amounts of DNA in them is just wrong, because the qPCR values returned numbers well under the FDA acceptable amount of DNA in the COVID vaccine.
And saying that they detected DNA fragments at all is something of an ‘uh duh, yeah’ statement for the title. You’ll always find SOME DNA fragments. As long as they are under some identified acceptable boundary (hopefully itself established in other studies) then it shouldn’t affect the vaccine’s efficacy or increase SAEs. Add to that VAERS is there to report EVERY adverse event that happens during vaccine trials and afterward, finding a correlation between DNA found in vaccines and increased reports in VAERS is like finding a correlation between increases in butter sales in Maine correlates with increased murder rates in Chicago. It’s somewhat interesting right now, but definitely doesn’t rise to the level “holy shit, we need to re-science this ASAP!”
Osf. io
What even is this source?
It’s the Center for Open Science which runs a number of pre-print sites, including one on their own site where this paper was posted.
With such a serious issue, I’ll wait to see what emerges from the other end of the peer review process.
deleted by creator
mod note: some of these reasons for reporting links sound like canned reddit moderation shorthand. Not that I spent much time in that zoo. Just guessing. Is Conspiracy History an actual category of link quality? I don’t filter a lot here and will occasionally draft someone to help. Same general advice as everywhere else: If you don’t like something vote it down and move on. moderation here isn’t paid and I’m not going to spend time chasing down every posted link. enjoy the discussion though. each person is able to block seeing any other user’s posts. use it, I do
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the risk of foreign DNA an auto-immune response? If so, with such high foreign DNA, it could explain the many reported cases of myocarditis.
