DNA Contamination in Vaccines: A Potential Cancer Risk? | Dr. Jessica Rose

[FULL TRANSCRIPT BELOW] “100 percent of the vials that have been tested in five different labs around the world now have discovered some level of DNA contamination.”

Jessica Rose is an immunologist who has been analyzing datasets and testing components of the COVID-19 mRNA shots since they were released in 2020.

“If VAERS is a functioning pharmacovigilance database, then why isn’t it being used as such by the owners of the data? Why is it [that] independent scientists like me are having to do this work and bring questions to the table?” she asks.

“The onus is not on us to prove that these things aren’t safe. The onus was never on us to do that. This is appalling. The onus is on them, the manufacturers and the regulators, to prove that they are. And they claim that they have done that, but they have not.”

In this episode, we dive into her research and look into the latest studies concerning DNA contamination and vaccine injury.

“When you look at some datasets and you see things that really contradict, or a week later you see that they’ve changed the numbers in a way that is not possible, it kind of makes you wonder: is this data being manipulated?” asks Dr. Rose.

Correction: The COVID-19 mRNA vaccine shots were first rolled out in December 2020. 

Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Jan Jekielek:
Dr. Jessica Rose, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.

Jessica Rose:
I’m really happy to be here.

Mr. Jekielek:
I’ve been following your work for some time. You’ve been looking at VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System], the reporting system for vaccine injury. You’ve been looking into contamination of the mRNA vaccine vials. Please give me a sense of who you are, what your education is, and how you got into working in all these areas?

Dr. Rose:
My name is Jessica Rose, and I’m a researcher, primarily in the biology of viruses. I started my academic career a long time ago in applied mathematics where I applied mathematics to immunology. I got a Master of Science in Immunology with a focus on HIV immunopathogenesis, and I was really lucky. I got to work in a level-3 biosafety lab and also in a math lab, so it was a very hard interdisciplinary project.

Immunology is wild. I didn’t learn more about anything than I learned in those three years. Then I was invited via that project to do a PhD in computational biology in Israel, with a focus on cytomegalovirus, which is just another virus. It was more about big data analysis though, with no fun level-3 stuff.

I did a postdoc in molecular biology and switched to rickettsia, which is a type of bacteria that lives in ticks. Then I did a postdoc in biochemistry with a focus on protein biology and ABC transporters, which are transmembrane molecules that bring things like B12 into cells.
Of late, I’ve been more of a data analyst. The data analysis component has always been part of all of those degree programs. You always have to present your data in a thorough, succinct way. You get graded.

Basically, I just applied everything I learned over the years to this fight we’ve been in for the last three years to bring light and truth to what’s been going on with these Covid products. Everything about them just leaves huge question marks hanging in the air. I’m one of those people trying to resolve the question marks.

Mr. Jekielek:
We had a headline yesterday in The Epoch Times that the Canadian government is recognizing there is DNA contamination in these vials. This is one of the issues that you’ve been tackling, so I wanted to get your reaction.

Dr. Rose:
Health Canada, as far as I understand, is the regulator of the Canadian health system. They have admitted in an email exchange between the reporter and a representative for Health Canada that indeed SV40 promoter and/or enhancer elements are being described as contaminants or residuals in the Pfizer products. I’m not sure if they said anything about Moderna, but this refers to the modified mRNA products. They admitted this, but in the same breath, they said, “It’s no big deal though. It doesn’t change the risk-benefit analysis.” I say, “How does that not change the risk?” That’s my reaction.

I am very glad that this admission has come though, because for all intents and purposes, this is going to be a good thing, whatever reason they did it for. Perhaps they were tired of withholding some information that they were privy to. But for whatever the reason, this is going to get a transparency ball rolling.
It is predictable that this would happen, because the truth is going to come out. There are always people seeking it and trying to bring truth to light, and then there are always people who are dying to know the truth. You bring these two things together and—boom. So, I see it as a very good thing.

Mr. Jekielek:
Kevin McKernan was on the show and we did a deep dive into the DNA contamination that he and some of the other labs found. Can you give me a quick recap of the state of knowledge around that right now and why it is a concern?

Dr. Rose:
Yes, and I will be as brief as I can be. If people want to read about what we did, we uploaded a preprint of our paper. It covers everything that we’ve done to date in terms of sequencing the vials. One of the most important things people should know is that there isn’t supposed to be DNA in these vials, a modified mRNA product. It’s been found in all of the vials that have been tested. The study that we published in a preprint yesterday tested 12 lots that were distributed in Canada.

Every single one of these lots, and every single one of the other lots that have been tested were contaminated with DNA or had residual DNA in it. This is absolutely concerning for a number of reasons, because in order to produce the modified mRNA, there’s a synthesis system. This is important, so let me explain it.

There are two ways that you can create your DNA in order to get your end product to modified mRNA. One, you can use the PCR and magnetic beads, which is what they did, in a process called process one for the products that were used in the Pfizer clinical trials. Two, you can use a plasmid E. coli system followed by in vitro transcription and purification of the product in a process called process two, which was put into all of the billions of people as commercial products.

The problem with this upscaling system using plasmid and E. coli is that you can have potential contamination or spillover of both the E. coli membrane contents, which is an endotoxin lipopolysaccharide. If you inject that into someone by accident, you can kill them. More likely, they’re going to get anaphylaxis.

But also component parts or the plasmids themselves could potentially carry over if your cleaning out process and your purification of the modified mRNA is not thorough. Apparently it wasn’t, because a hundred percent of the vials that have been tested in five different labs around the world now have discovered some level of DNA contamination.

By one methodology, all of them are way over the EMA limit, which is 330 nanograms of DNA per milligram of RNA. That is way over the limit. By another methodology, they are under the limit. This raises another issue of who is using what methodology to measure what, because you can actually choose a quantitative methodology in order to make it look better for yourself. If you want to make DNA look lower, you can choose a specific test.

There are all of these manufacturing practice issues going on here. How is it possible at the end stage with the purification of the DNAs, that this enzyme that chops up the residual DNA was not thoroughly filtered out? How is that possible, because they check the level of DNA in the product before it goes into you.

How could they do that and not find these residuals that we are now finding in the vials? They must have found them. They did, and we know that they did. Why wasn’t this issue and the alarm bell raised before? Why does the only document I’ve ever seen that has measured endotoxin levels have the readout redacted? That is not proprietary knowledge. That’s just a test result. There are all these head scratchers surrounding this now.

The latest news is that we’ve published our paper, so everybody is free to read what we did. Kevin and others are developing kits where people can actually get their sperm cells or stem cells or any cells that they want checked for these residual DNAs. But you need special permission or an IRB [Institutional Review Board] in order to do this kind of study.

The push is on for the elected representatives of state governments to push the colleges and the laboratories that are tax funded to get up and do this kind of work, because it really does concern all of us. I’m not going to go into the shedding issue now, but it really does concern all of us if this is actually a comprehensive problem vial-wise. It certainly is starting to look like that, so more testing needs to be done.

Mr. Jekielek:
The issue is that this DNA could be incorporated into our own DNA. Furthermore, we do know that with these mRNA products, the spike protein does concentrate in the ovaries and the testes. That basically creates a situation where there might even be some germline movement of this contaminant DNA. We don’t know, but it’s very troubling.

Dr. Rose:
Yes, especially since we were really pounded with the idea that these things don’t bio-distribute, and that we don’t have to worry about them going to the sex organs. Also they said, “There’s never going to be an issue with integration because they’re mRNA products.” Actually, line one is a reverse transcriptase which is actively producing the DNA of this modified mRNA. That has potential for integration right there. We don’t know, and we haven’t validated that yet, but it is also a concern.

Now with this DNA issue, you’re absolutely right. It’s integration. That’s the biggest concern for me, besides immunological activity against this. If we’re talking about hoards of DNA, these tiny little bits, we’re talking about an increased potential for integration. I recently read that the cell doesn’t even need to be dividing. The nuclear membrane doesn’t even have to have been dispersed in order for this stuff to get in. It can get in through nuclear pores.

This is why we have safety measures against this. This is why we test for DNA because we really don’t want this kind of contamination. In a nutshell, it could be disastrous in terms of cancer. If you have a disturbance like integration of a fragment of DNA and an essential gene, this is a horrific situation. For example, the p53, the guardian of the genome, is one of the most powerful surveillance systems for cancer. It can click onto the DNA to surveil if there are any breakages. If this gets disrupted in any way, it can’t alert the rest of the guys, “Hey, come here and repair this. We need some help here,” and then things can really run amok.

Then there’s also this issue of the SV40 promoter. This is a very strong promoter that’s useful in mammalian cell systems. If that thing gets integrated upstream of an oncogene, that’s not going to be so good either. It’s cancer promoting. I’m not an oncologist, and I’m not a geneticist, so I’m learning about a lot of this as I go. But it seems to me that the likelihood for all of these factors to come together is higher than it would be without all these factors coming together, if that makes any sense.

With the combined immune-suppression that we’re seeing with the shots themselves, the component parts of the shots, the effects of the LMPs [Latent Membrane Protein], the effect of the spike, and the effect of the pseudo-use, the whole thing is a nightmare. If you combine that with this issue of potential integration, it makes you come to the conclusion that this is why we’re seeing all these reports of turbo cancers.

It’s the combination of all of these factors. Double-stranded DNA repair break mechanisms are being held back. This is published as well. People also have preexisting conditions. If you have some kind of impairment in your BRCA gene, you’re more predisposed for breast cancer. It’s like people have this stuff already too.

It makes you wonder if it’s not akin to throwing gasoline on a fire. It just seems like it’s making any current situation going on in the body just explode. Not just cancer, but also immunological stuff. These things are so inflammatory. If you have any low-level inflammation, it just seems like it’s going to aggravate it.

Mr. Jekielek:
The real issue here is that our agencies like the NIH, which have the funding, should be studying this intensely. There are a lot of troubling signals. This leads us to VAERS. What have we seen, and what should their reaction have been? I want to recap what you have learned. You’ve been doing quite a bit of work on this, and I don’t want people to forget about this.

Dr. Rose:
Yes, it’s timely to recap this now. Before all of this started three years ago, I didn’t know about VAERS. I didn’t really know anything about the vaccine battle. I didn’t know anything about this situation. I thought it was normal and standard for VAERS to be updated weekly. It’s always been that way since I started looking at this data in December 2020 when they started the rollout of the shots.

But apparently the standard before Covid started was a monthly updating of the VAERS data. As of last week, the 6th of October, it has reverted back to the monthly updating of VAERS data. We’re only going to have an update every month, but I’m not sure what that means.

Does it mean they’re going to clump all of that month’s data into one, or mean more data is going to be held back?. It’s hard to know with VAERS. But it’s sad because I knew something was going to come. They were either going to stop posting the data, or allow the data to be downloaded, or make it available less frequently. Apparently, this is just how it is.

Because of what I had witnessed in the form of mandated control of the population and this linear thinking about one way out using these injections, which is never the way to do anything with a coronavirus, I was ready to start digging into the VAERS data as soon as these reports started coming in, which was December 14th or 17th, 2020.

I have the data going all the way back to those dates. It’s very important that everybody understands that I’ve done this recently. I dug out the data for the fifth week into the rollout, which puts us at January 30th, 2021. By the end of January 2021, there was way more of a signal that would be required to at least do an investigation, because that’s what VAERS is for. It’s a pharmacovigilance system which detects safety signals by way of adverse events that are reported that weren’t detected during pre-market testing, like clinical trials. The system was actually functioning beautifully. There were safety signals left, right, and center going all the way to death.

There is a slide that I show when I want to let people know that we knew right away that these things were not safe by any definition of the word. The signal had been given, the bell had been rung, and a causality assessment should have been done. Something should have been done to assess whether or not these shots were the cause of all of the deaths.

Very early on, there was a disproportionate number of reports and singular adverse events like death, hospitalizations, and myocarditis. When you compare them to the last 30 years of data, from the very beginning it was disproportionate, and this was just at the beginning. As of October 6th, we have over 1.6 million reports in the context of the Covid products alone. That’s Novavax, Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen for the states.

Actually, I should be fair here. There were only three products in 2021. There was no Novavax, so just three products. We had just shy of a million reports in VAERS and that compares to an average for the last 30 years of 39,000 reports for all vaccines combined. If that’s not a safety signal, I don’t know what is.

It’s not like this is hidden from the people who do the causality assessments. This is their data and owned by the people who do the assessment. The question is, “Why wasn’t something being done?” Typically, the answer is, “It must be because there were just so many shots given out and it’s proportional to the number of shots. It’s normal.” That’s hogwash. If you compare Covid to the flu per million doses, it’s completely disproportionate, so it’s not the number of shots.

Another piece of evidence is the range of adverse events that are being reported in the context of the Covid shots when you compare them to all vaccines combined. They are coded using something called a MedDRA code, which is the name of the adverse event that’s reported. There are 25,000 or so that you can choose from. Typically, you will see a range of 5000 different MedDRA-coded adverse events reported. But for the Covid products, the last time I checked which was months ago, it was over 14,000.

You know yourself that the damages that we’re seeing reported in the peer-reviewed literature are comprehensive. There is some kind of disruption of the immune system itself. It seems like a suppression. There is neurological damage, cardiac damage, hepatological damage, and perhaps fertility damage. It is every type of damage that you can think of.

It’s absolute BS to say that these products are comparable to products that we have already used, because they are not. They are a brand new technology; both the lipid nanoparticle, which is toxic, and the modified mRNA. They are completely new. It’s almost unshocking what we are now seeing, although in reality it is shocking. That’s what has been going on in VAERS back then up until now. It’s been a very useful tool for me to see everything that’s being published now, and basically it’s not being used the way that it should be.

Mr. Jekielek:
There was another system that was created specifically for Covid vaccine vigilance called V-safe. That system was taken offline recently. Any thoughts on why that might be?

Dr. Rose:
No, but my guess would be they think they don’t need it anymore. It’s probably akin to the reason why they’re reverting to posting VAERS’ data only once a month now. My sources say their claim is that the emergency is over. That would be the optic that they would portray. But my take would be that they’re sick and tired of people coming out with information and studies using their data that they should have done years ago and showing them up. It’s not a good optic.

Hiding public data is not a good idea—it’s appalling. There has been no transparency. The transparency of data that we’ve had has either been cut or we’ve discovered that it’s not trustworthy. I’ve learned that there are some middlemen in between. Somebody actually manipulates the data and then it ends up on the front end, but I can’t confirm that. You can look at some data sets and you can see things that are really contradictory. Maybe a week later, you can see that they’ve changed the numbers in a way that is not possible. It makes you wonder, “Is this data being manipulated?” That’s what I have to say about that.

Mr. Jekielek:
In the V-safe data, they found 7.7 percent of people had a serious adverse reaction where they required medical attention. In some cases, it was hospitalization or some kind of urgent care. What does the VAERS data tell us?

Dr. Rose:
First of all, they had a pull down tab that had a list of only 18 possible adverse events to choose from, so that 7 percent is probably a real underestimate. Let’s classify a serious adverse event. According to the VAERS handbook, it is death, a life-threatening illness, a birth defect, hospitalization, disability, or an emergency room visit. If you have one of these six things, it is considered to be a serious adverse event.

Typically, according to the VAERS handbook, you won’t really ever see anything about 15 percent serious adverse events per any group of data. If all your adverse events are 15 percent tops, this is going to be serious in a normal distribution. But for the Covid shots, this has remained consistently above 15 percent for the entire time.

Here’s another interesting thing. In February 2021, it peaked above 60, which was really weird and really anomalous. I still don’t know if that was real, but it could have been. They could have noticed, but I really don’t know. I’m not sure what happened there. I won’t speculate, and you guys can make up your own minds. It has fluctuated, but generally stayed steady at around 28 percent, where I believe it remains today. The last time I checked it was at 28 percent. This is a very high percentage of serious adverse events.

By the way, I want to be clear here, that only includes six things. It could include myocarditis because that might be why that person ended up in the hospital, but we don’t know. My point here is that all sorts of serious adverse events that aren’t classified as such are also going to contribute to the percentage.

I should have said this before, and everybody here probably knows this, VAERS is under-reported. All pharmacovigilance databases that are volunteer, a passive reporting system as it’s called, are under-reported. Some people have studied this. They say that only one in a hundred people will report. Who knows what is the under-reporting factor for the Covid shots. It’s probably 30 times based on Pfizer’s phase III clinical trial SAE rate.

In any case, all of the numbers that you will hear me quote are greatly underestimated. You can probably multiply any number you hear from me or see that I post by 30, and that’s probably a better idea of how many people are actually suffering. It’s gross, for lack of a better word, that we don’t even need the under-reporting factor to be horrified at the number of reports that have been filed.

If VAERS is a functioning pharmacovigilance database, then why isn’t it being used as such by the owners of the data? Why are independent scientists like me having to do this work and bring questions to the table? The onus is not on us to prove that these things aren’t safe. The onus was never on us to do that. This is appalling. The onus is on them, the manufacturers and the regulators, to prove that they are safe. They claim that they have done that, but they have not.

Mr. Jekielek:
With these particular products there is an interesting inversion. The onus is on people to prove that they’re not safe or effective, when the counter data proving this is actually available. Does this only happen with these products or has this become a common thing?

Dr. Rose:
More people have become aware that this problem is systemic. I’ve become aware of that. I didn’t know anything about problems with other vaccines before this all started. Once you start reading and attending meetings with people who have been flies on the walls in important meetings, you start learning that there are all kinds of atrocities going on all over the place.

It’s important for me to say I’ve always gotten vaccinated. When I would travel to places where they recommended a vaccine, I was the first one lined up for it. I study viruses, and I’m very well-educated on these subjects. The concept of inoculation, giving yourself a small dose of something so when you come into contact with the pathogen for real you don’t get sick, is a genius concept, if it’s done properly. But it will never outdo natural immunity, specially in certain contexts where you’re looking for IgA-mediated immunity.

However, Covid products and that whole mega-business industry has been usurped by people who have no idea about vaccinology, about vaccines, about virology, or about immunology. They are just a bunch of bureaucrats. You can ask, “How did this happen? How did this monster grow such big muscles?”

It started out as a small problem and it clearly got bigger very quickly. But wow, it got really big. It just seems like even the regulators are involved. They go to work at Pfizer, and then they go to work at the FDA, and then it’s just this circular rotation. I’ve had my heart broken a number of times. When The Lancet did that little number about hydroxychloroquine, I said, “The Lancet is supposed to be one of the great medical journals, but it’s not anymore.” It’s the same thing with the New England Journal of Medicine.

I don’t want anyone to get the idea that this was an easy shift. I’ve been fighting myself the whole time. I think, “No, it can’t be. It can’t be. It can’t be,” but it is. Once you see enough and you hear enough, you say, “Okay, I just have to admit this is real and deal with it.”

With this realization, I will never get another product injected into me. I just wouldn’t feel comfortable, knowing what I know now about the so-called safety studies that are supposed to include 10 years of animal trials in phase I, II, III clinical trials, phase IV, pharmacovigilance, and generational studies to make sure that further generations aren’t affected, especially in the context of new technologies.

Just to summarize, this whole thing has changed my life. It has changed everybody’s life. With some people, their lives are just starting to change now, because they’re just starting to realize that what happened in the last three years was very wrong. A lot of people had a nagging suspicion, but they wouldn’t admit it. It’s much more prevalent now that people are saying, “Yes, something weird happened there.”

It’s got everything to do with people continuing to talk about all the things that were faulty and malevolent in the last three years, and talking about these mandates that were never necessary. If your product works, you don’t need to mandate it. If it doesn’t work, you shouldn’t mandate it.

Mr. Jekielek:
Do you think with these mRNA products there’s a lot more reporting in VAERS? One of the arguments is that people are reporting more for some reason, and they’ve been incentivized to do that.

Dr. Rose:
No, that’s not true. I do think awareness has been raised. There’s no doubt about that, but this is recent. The one million reports at the end of 2001 that were filed, that’s not because of over-reporting, because there was at least a three-month backlog on data that hadn’t been entered. There was actually incentivization in hospital settings and medical settings not to report.

I know so many people who sustained an injury and went to their doctor. First of all, they were afraid to even bring up that it might be the shot, because they didn’t want to be mocked. They felt fine 24 hours ago, and now they’re having chest pain. You’re having chest pain, you’re really scared, and then you go to your doctor and say, “I just happened to get my booster yesterday.” If that doctor says, “Get out of my office,” what’s going to happen to your mind and body? I’m not being dramatic here. I’ve had people tell me this was their personal experience, which is horrific.

No one is being incentivized to file reports. In Canada, doctors lost their licenses for doing so. I know someone who filed five reports to the Canadian Adverse Event Reporting System and the five reports were denied. Medical professionals encouraged everyone not to report adverse events. They all said, “Don’t talk about that.” You know what I mean and everybody knows what I mean. Even if you’re a safe-and-effective-type, you know what I’m saying right now. It’s a hush topic and you don’t talk about it.

It’s absolutely laughable that anybody would say that this is over-reported. If you want to use that argument, let’s look at it. You have to compensate for the fact that they cancel each other out. We’ll just use the absolute numbers, and it’s still horrific. It’s a losing argument. I’ve never come out and said, “It’s definitely causing all of the adverse events.” It’s definitely causing some of them and we need to find out which ones.

But it’s remarkable how there are ways to determine causality, which is what we’ve always done. Like I said, we did this with the Rotavirus vaccine in 1999. There were a handful of intussusception cases in children in VAERS, the same system. The safety signal went off because they were kids and intussusception is very serious. They did their causality assessment which is the Bradford Hill criteria.

There are 10 criteria that you should satisfy. You have to satisfy six to get a verdict of very likely causal effect, and they did. They made a decision that it was very likely that the Rotavirus vaccine was causing the intussusception, so they pulled the product, which is supposed to happen. That’s called pharmacovigilance. But what has happened recently? Again, I sound like a broken record, but it’s shocking after three years that we’re still asking the same bloody question and we still have no answers. It’s crazy.

Mr. Jekielek:
A lot of awareness has been raised. Do you think that’s the reason that the uptake of these new boosters is low?

Dr. Rose:
It is 3 percent.

Mr. Jekielek:
Right. How do you explain this?

Dr. Rose:
The uptake decline? It’s from word of mouth. Everyone can say, “Don’t talk about it,” but everybody knows. Everybody knows. For example, Israel was one of the first places to get the Pfizer product, it was like the test subject. Israelis typically say, “Yes, I want to help. Yes, I’m going to do what I can.” They’re very proud and if they feel like they’re going to be helping the world, they will definitely do it.

Everyone took a shot. Everyone took two shots. Some people took three. Some people are still getting them. But when they started going for the kids in Israel, nobody got them. It just stopped right there. Something clicked in everyone. They said, “Wait, our kids are fine. Our kids are okay, so why are they pushing this on our children?”

There is awareness through word of mouth. Israel is an interesting place. A lot of people have families. It’s very interconnected and very community oriented. People looked around and said, “Okay, everything’s fine. It looks like they’re trying to push something on us that we don’t need.”

In the U.S., it’s just people saying, “No, I’m not doing that again. It didn’t work the first time. I got Covid four times, so why am I going to go back for another one? I’m definitely not going to give it to my kid.” That’s probably the thought process of many people. By the way, I’m very happy it worked out this way, because everybody should be angry, but in a constructive way.

We absolutely need to push the people who can get us to the next step. We need more data on the DNA and the vials. We need to be testing people who are injected with different lot numbers, because we may find a correlation. Some people who are injected three times may have foreign DNA in their genome, and people who are injected once may not. There are all sorts of things that could possibly happen.

It could have to do with the number of shots that you got. More shots would likely increase the chance of having this crap integrate, if it actually was in the shots that you got. I am saying that the power is in the people. It always has been, and the people are starting to realize that.

If you’re listening to this, one of the best ways you can take back your power and push back is to call up your member of parliament or your congressman to push the academic institutions and the labs who have all the funding to do these studies legally. They have all the paperwork worked out right now and they are funded by your tax dollars, so it’s only fair.

Mr. Jekielek:
Jessica, as we finish up, you will be presenting your recent findings to state legislatures. What are your plans and what’s up next?

Dr. Rose:
As a continuance of the testimony that Dr. Janci Lindsay and Dr. Phillip Buckhaults gave two weeks ago, I’m on the roster to give an update of where we stand with this residual DNA or contamination. This is going to be a call to action at the state level, because they have the power to do this. They can call the institutions, the academic institutions, and the labs to do this work. It’s probably not going to happen at the federal level, so it has to start happening at the state level.

If we succeed in convincing them to say, “Yes, we’re going to start doing this,” this is going to be huge, because it will probably start a chain reaction for the other states to do the same thing. Who doesn’t want to be first in line to find out the truth? That’s pretty exciting.

I will be talking about our paper that we have in preprint, but they also want to hear about VAERS and myocarditis. There are a few papers that came out recently about heart damage that are shocking. Yes, it seems like a lot of the deaths are associated with cardiac damage and fibrosis. I’m going to be talking about that too.

Mr. Jekielek:
Could you summarize what this new paper is saying?

Dr. Rose:
I can probably summarize it in one line by reading you the title; “Forensic analysis of the 38 subject deaths in the six-month interim report of the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine clinical trial.” This was published really recently on October 17,2023. The headline in the abstract is most importantly that we found evidence of an over 3.7-fold increase in the number of deaths due to cardiovascular events in the BNT162b2 vaccinated subjects compared to placebo controls.

This is yet again another piece of evidence. Sorry to talk about VAERS again, but this has been evident in VAERS for years. The potential for the fibrosis in the cardiac tissue, in the myocardium specifically, all relates to myocarditis or even cardiac amyloidosis. This paper points out, it’s not just mild and transient, as we were told for the longest time. There’s no such thing. Just think if you have fibrotic tissue in the place of the cells at the myocardium that are supposed to be very elastic, so that your heart can beat. Think about it.

The analogy I’ve been using is the difference between a rubber band and a yarn string. If you pull on a yarn string, there is no give. A rubber band has give. It’s like replacing the rubber band material with yarn string. The heart won’t be able to beat properly. They did a study looking at the condition of the heart tissue of young people who got multiple shots and who feel absolutely fine; no symptoms of anything, no chest pain, no nothing, and they found a lot of scarring.

Peter McCullough, a full-time cardiologist, talks about this. If you have an adrenaline surge, which you have when you’re exercising or during your sleep at 3 am when we always have adrenaline surges, you could die. In my opinion, this is why people are dying in their sleep. It’s a cardiac-related event where the heart just can’t beat anymore.

As Peter points out all the time, this is why if you have a diagnosis of myocarditis, you’re not supposed to exercise for a little while. You’re supposed to have your heart recover in whatever way it can, because the heart cells can’t replenish themselves. You’re supposed to put on the brakes on the adrenaline surges that come with physical activity. Yes, it seems like these things are heartbreakers.

Having said that, if you feel good, if you’ve had multiple shots and you feel good, don’t freak out. You’re probably fine. We’re not talking about everybody who got the shots being very badly affected. We’re talking about a portion of people, but I’m also not underplaying this. I just don’t want to be a fearmonger because we’ve had enough of that.

People do email me and say, “I’ve had so many shots. Am I going to die?” I say, “First of all, I’m not a medical doctor, so I can’t give you medical advice. But as a human being and as an empathetic being, I can tell you, if you feel good, you’re fine.” This is what Pierre Kory, an ICU doctor, said the other day, “If you’re a year out and you feel fine, then you’re fine.”

It’s very important for people to maintain not just a good physical lifestyle, but also a good mental lifestyle. Try not to be too stressed out and in a fear state too often, because that absolutely destroys your immune system. This is coming from an immunologist.

It’s important to eat well and have clean drinking water. It’s important to exercise and to get sun. It’s important to ground yourself and fast every now and then. Apparently, autophagy is fantastic for your body, for getting rid of garbage in your cells. But it’s also really important to just go easy on yourself and not be in flight mode all the time. If you start hearing about scary things like DNA contamination, be concerned, but don’t think that you’re going to die of cancer tomorrow. That’s the best way for me to put it.

Mr. Jekielek:
That’s fantastic advice and I’m going off to meditate later today. Jessica Rose, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show.

Dr. Rose:
It’s been a long time coming. It’s been a pleasure speaking about the serious stuff and also talking to you. It’s been a pleasure for me.

Mr. Jekielek:
Thank you all for joining Dr. Jessica Rose and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I’m your host, Jan Jekielek.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.