European Medicines Agency (EMA) confirms that it was not informed of the presence of the SV40 sequence In the Pfizer/BioNTech injection

From here:

European Regulator Confirms BioNTech Did Not Highlight DNA Sequence in COVID-19 Vaccine | The Epoch Times

Enquiring minds want to know if the EMA (or FDA or any other health regulator)  has asked about the other undisclosed part of the “ingredients” that is many times larger than the SV40 sequence and whether it is aware of the two different testing mechanisms for determining the levels of RNA (which overstates) and DNA (which understates) in order to exaggerate and mislead on the proportion of RNA to DNA in the injections.

“It (the EMA) also said, "we have not seen any reliable evidence of residual DNA exceeding approved/safe levels for" the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

Now think about the intentional fraud of using two different methods to measure the presence of RNA and DNA – like just using PCR for both rather than one or the other.

Keep this in mind “An EMA spokesperson said earlier this year that there was "no evidence to indicate the presence of SV40 ... in the formulation of COVID-19 vaccines."

The EMA is now acknowledging that statement was not correct.

Anyway, back to the Epoch Times UK article. Check the weasel words used in response to questions.

"While the full DNA sequence of the plasmid starting material was provided in the initial marketing authorization application for Comirnaty, the applicant did not specifically highlight the SV40 sequence," the European Medicines Agency (EMA) told The Epoch Times in an email.

“..did not specifically highlight”???? Why not just say “did not disclose…”

How about this:

“BioNTech did not highlight the inclusion of the enhancer in its vaccine because "it was considered to be a non-functional part of the plasmid," EMA said. "They have since clarified this information in response to questions raised by EMA."

Non-functional??? Part of a sequence known to cause cancer? And what is the “clarified” crap? What was the clarification? “Oops, our bad, we didn’t mean to put in a cancer causing, non-functional part of the plasmid – please give us a pass”?

“The EMA said parts of the SV40 sequence are "commonly present in plasmids used for manufacturing of biological active substances," but neither authorities nor BioNTech have been able to say why the sequence was made part of the shot.

Now, would those biological active substances be in “vaccines” or “gene therapies” - which have vastly different regulatory regimes? Guess which regime is the most rigorous?

Now, you know how the SV40 was identified as a contaminant, if not an adulteration of the original Process 1 on scale up to large manufacturing of the actual product injected into arms – which was vastly different from the Process 1 used in clinical trials?

“According to the EMA, the DNA sequences, including the SV40 sequence, are "broken down and removed" during the manufacturing process. "Fragments of the SV40 sequence may only be present as residual impurities at very low levels that are routinely controlled," the EMA claimed. The agency did not provide any evidence to support the claim.”

Yeah, really. No evidence. This looks to me like the EMA is pretending it had or has any clue about what was going on in lab experiments that have poisoned billions and killed tens of millions.

Here’s a comment from Kevin McKernan.

"The best independent estimates are 100-200B fragments of the plasmid exist in each dose," Kevin McKernan a microbiologist who first identified the sequence in the vaccine, told The Epoch Times in an email. "The EMA has offered no scientific evidence to make such a claim other than 'Trust our non-peer reviewed heavily redacted failure in transparency.'

I wonder if the EMA has even bothered to correlate adverse event reports to its EUDRA system with lot numbers and tests for presence of contaminants/adulterants in the doses.

Seem an appropriate time to refer to the “three wise monkeys” in the context of “if we don’t look for problems, we won’t see any problems and won’t speak of any problems”.

“But the regulator (the EMA) said it "has seen no evidence of an association between mRNA vaccines and adverse events that could be linked to the presence of DNA material, nor are we aware of any scientific evidence showing that the very small amounts of residual DNA that may be present in vaccine batches could integrate into the DNA of vaccinated individuals."

No doubt this is the defence agreed across the world by all regulators after a few weeks of frantic emails and phone calls to engage in the CYA doctrine.

Out of interest, the Epoch Times UK also published this piece:

NHS Boss Criticises Healthcare Workers' Low COVID Vaccine Uptake in Leaked Letter | The Epoch Times

Nobody wants the “steenking vaccines”!

The article refers to the “NHS Constitution” which states (amongst a bunch of other stuff):

“You have the right to accept or refuse treatment that is offered to you, and not to be given any physical examination or treatment unless you have given valid consent. If you do not have the capacity to do so, consent must be obtained from a person legally able to act on your behalf, or the treatment must be in your best interests.”

So, I suggest the NHS Wales Chief Executive takes a huge running jump back into the nearest swamp.

Onwards!

Please subscribe or make a donation via ko-fi. Don’t worry, if you can’t or don’t want to.

Ko-fi donations here: https://ko-fi.com/peterhalligan - an annual subscription of 100 bucks is one third less than a $3 ko-fi donation a week!