What Is SV40?
An Essay on Bubbles, Chemicals, and the Manufactured Cancer Industry
Author’s Note
This essay operates in two registers. When examining what the establishment claims, I use its vocabulary (virus, isolation, contamination, promoter) to show where the establishment’s own evidence contradicts its story. When stating my own view, I use terrain language. The body is a self-healing organism poisoned by four things: toxic exposure, nutritional depletion, electromagnetic radiation, and psychological strain. Injection of foreign biological matter is toxic exposure of the most direct kind. Cancer is what happens when the cell’s internal environment is corrupted by that exposure. SV40, in both its imagined and manufactured forms, is a mechanism for delivering that corruption.
Two groups argue online about SV40, and neither has the whole story.
One group says SV40 is imaginary. A monkey virus that was never isolated and never shown to cause disease. The other waves plasmid maps and points to Kevin McKernan’s laboratory findings of “SV40 promoter sequences” inside Pfizer mRNA vials, and calls the first group unhinged.
Sasha Latypova, a former pharmaceutical industry executive who has spent the last four years documenting the manufacturing fraud behind the covid injections, has done something more useful than pick a side. She has explained what both groups are actually looking at.¹
The natural monkey virus called SV40 was never isolated. The bubbles the Merck scientists photographed in 1960 and named “vacuolating virus” were cellular debris in a dying culture of the wrong species of monkey. Nothing was purified from a sick person and shown to cause disease.
The chemical compound sold today under the label “SV40 promoter” is an industrial construct. It has almost nothing in common with the 1960 bubbles except the name. It is a stack of synthetic DNA sequences built on ceramic beads through automated washes of acids, solvents, and corrosive reagents, designed to force a target cell into rapid, chaotic division.
Both truths point in the same direction. The story of SV40 is the story of an industry that learned how to manufacture cancer by injection and built a regulatory framework to protect the practice.
This work stays free because paid subscribers make it possible. They get the full book library, the Deep Dive Audio Library, and the Questions for Your Doctor, Before You Consent, and Package Insert series. No grants, no gatekeepers — your subscription is what keeps it that way.
Audio Deep Dive (for Paid Subscribers)
Two Things Are Being Called SV40
The confusion is entirely upstream of the science. It sits in the word itself.
When people say “SV40,” they might mean one of two things.
The first meaning is historical. A monkey particle allegedly discovered in 1960 by Merck scientists Ben Sweet and Maurice Hilleman, which they called “vacuolating virus” because it caused foamy bubbles (vacuoles) in the kidney cells they were poisoning. This is what Herbert Ratner and Michele Carbone would later look for in preserved 1955 Salk polio vaccine vials.¹
The second meaning is chemical. A class of synthetic DNA constructs designed decades later to drive cells into rapid division. This is what Kevin McKernan detected in Pfizer mRNA vials in 2023. McKernan, a geneticist whose laboratory ran the first independent sequencing of the covid injection contents, found the sequences at nanogram-to-microgram quantities per dose. This is a product of chemical manufacture, not a biological entity.
The two things do not share a lineage. The chemical was not extracted from the monkey. The chemical was designed. Once the functional effects of the 1960 “bubbles” were experimentally described (irritation, rapid division, abnormal cellular structures), laboratories began building synthetic constructs that would produce those same effects on command. Today’s SV40 promoter is a chemical tool, sold by biotech supply catalogs, with a family tree that runs through automated DNA synthesis equipment and not through any monkey.¹
Both of the arguing groups are right about their own object. One is right that no natural monkey virus was ever isolated. The other is right that a chemical labeled “SV40” exists and turns up where it should not. Both truths damn the establishment story. Neither truth requires the other.
Peyton Rous and the Prize for a Population Weapon
To understand where SV40 comes from, follow the Nobel money back to 1911.
Peyton Rous, a young pathologist at the Rockefeller Institute in New York, was handed a Plymouth Rock hen with a sarcoma. He minced the tumor, passed the extract through a filter fine enough to remove all visible cells, and injected the cell-free filtrate into healthy chickens. Some of them developed tumors.²
Rous concluded that an invisible causative agent had been transmitted. He himself hedged, conceding in his 1911 paper in the Journal of Experimental Medicine that “an agency of another sort is not out of the question.”² Mark Bailey, reviewing the paper more than a century later, points out that Rous did not isolate anything, and that his own control experiments (which used unfiltered tumor material) produced larger tumors than the filtered version. The experiment demonstrated something simpler than a viral agent. It showed that diseased tissue introduced by an unnatural route into another animal can cause that animal to exhibit a similar disease process.²
The finding was ignored as a curiosity for over half a century. Then, in 1966, the Nobel Committee awarded Rous the Prize in Physiology or Medicine. What had changed was not the evidence. What had changed was the industry.
By the mid-1960s the pharmaceutical sector had discovered the marketing power of the phrase “cancer-causing virus.” If cancer had a viral agent, then a vaccine could be developed. If a vaccine could be developed, patents could be filed. If patents could be filed, indemnified markets could be captured. Rous’s Prize was the seal on an industrial hypothesis, and it launched a search that continues to consume public research budgets to the present day.
The mechanism Rous had described was straightforward once stripped of viral framing. Introduce cell-free filtrate (ground-up organs and tumors passed through a fine filter) into the bloodstream or organs of another animal by injection, and that animal’s cells will do what cells do when foreign biological matter reaches them. They will attempt to expel the material. In the process some of them will divide chaotically, and some of those divisions will produce tumors.
Rous had discovered how to induce cancer by injection. The industry called it a virus and gave him a Prize.
Bernice Eddy and the Mouse Experiments
Bernice Eddy is often remembered as a public health heroine. She was the government scientist at the U.S. National Institutes of Health who, in 1954, warned her superiors that Salk’s polio vaccine was paralyzing test monkeys. She was ignored. The vaccine was released. Within weeks children began developing polio from the injections.³
The rest of Eddy’s work is quieter in the historical record and more important. Through the late 1950s she injected mice with ground-up organs of other mice known to contain leukemia, and she observed the development of aggressive, unrelated tumors. Cancers that appeared faster and struck younger animals than anything seen in nature.
Sasha Latypova reads Eddy’s work through a colder lens. A brick does not know what building it is holding up. That is the point of compartmentalization, and it is how large research apparatuses are organized. In the 1950s the U.S. government’s biologics division sat inside a broader research apparatus that also funded covert chemical and biological weapons programs. Eddy worked inside that apparatus. The stated purpose of her mouse experiments was to find the cause of cancer so that a cure could be developed. The operational reality was that she was building the mechanism for inducing cancer reliably, aggressively, and at younger ages, by injection.
Eddy may have been sincere in the stated purpose. That does not change what her results were used to build. Her mouse experiments were preserved and scaled by an industry that had been given the marketing hypothesis (cancer-causing virus) and the regulatory infrastructure (mass vaccine rollout) to deploy them. The brick did its job. The building went up.¹
Eddy did whistleblow, in her limited way, when she found that the Salk vaccine was causing tumors in test hamsters. She was silenced by her superiors and forced out of polio research. The work she did on inducing tumors by injection did not stop. It became the foundation of an industry.
What Merck Actually Photographed in 1960
This is where the first argument (no natural virus was ever isolated) becomes concrete. The original 1960 paper by Sweet and Hilleman is a peculiar document. It declared the existence of a previously undetectable monkey virus and named it “vacuolating virus SV40.” SV stood for “simian virus.” The 40 was for the fortieth such alleged agent cataloged.¹
Two features of the paper deserve close attention.
First, the alleged virus was not detected in the monkey species it was said to infect. Rhesus monkey kidney cells (the substrate on which Salk’s polio vaccine was grown) did not display the effect. Instead, the effect appeared when material from those cells was inoculated onto kidney cells of a different monkey species. Grivet monkeys. African green monkeys. In these cells the cultures developed vacuoles, foamy bubbles that Merck interpreted as evidence of viral replication.¹
Second, the Merck team ran no control experiments. They did not perform the same procedure on cultures that had never been exposed to Salk material. They did not test whether the vacuolation was produced by the culture conditions themselves, by the starvation and antibiotic poisoning and mechanical trauma that make up the standard virology protocol. Sasha Latypova reads the methods section plainly. What Merck produced was foam in dying cell cultures.¹
Foam is what breaking cells do. When cells are starved, poisoned, and mechanically disturbed, they release internal contents, form vesicles and vacuoles, and eventually disintegrate. This process is called cytopathic effect in the virology literature, and it is attributed to viral invasion. The same process occurs, at identical rates, in cultures that have never been exposed to any patient material. Stefan Lanka has demonstrated this with control experiments that produced the “measles virus” cytopathic effect using nothing but the standard laboratory poisoning protocol.⁴
The 1960 Merck paper established the existence of “SV40” the same way virology has established every alleged virus. By declaring cellular breakdown to be a biological entity. The “vacuolating virus” was cellular debris in a dying culture.
That declared entity, foam in the wrong species of monkey, was then used to justify sixty years of cancer research, and eventually to name the synthetic construct McKernan would detect in the covid injections.
The Ratner Vials and the Carbone Analysis
The Ratner-Carbone finding is where the two arguments start to look like they might collide. Herbert Ratner, director of the Oak Park Health Department in Illinois, kept a small cardboard box of Salk vaccine vials in his refrigerator from 1955 until his death. He was one of the few figures in American public health who did not trust the vaccine, and he preserved the vials because he suspected that whatever was in them would need to be examined by future generations who had not been captured by the story.³
In 1997, Ratner gave some of the vials to Michele Carbone, a molecular pathologist. Carbone tested them using PCR, a technique that did not exist in 1960 and one that has significant limitations. What Carbone found, published in 1999, was that the 1955 vials contained two versions of “SV40.” One with a single 72-base-pair enhancer sequence, one with two.¹
Two problems with Carbone’s finding are worth stating directly.
The first is methodological. Testing biological material that has sat in a refrigerator for forty-four years is not testing what was originally in the vial. Whatever process of degradation, contamination, and interaction occurred over four decades produced the material Carbone tested. What Carbone found in 1999 is not necessarily what Ratner had put in his refrigerator in 1955.
The second problem is deeper. PCR does not detect whole organisms. It works by looking for short fragments of nucleic acid that match a reference sequence programmed into the test. When a laboratory says it “found SV40” in a sample, what it means is that it found sequences that match a database entry labeled “SV40.” The database entry itself was assembled from earlier PCR runs on earlier cultures, tracing back eventually to the 1960 Merck bubbles. The whole chain rests on the assumption that a real organism corresponds to the database sequence. If no such organism ever existed, PCR is chasing an echo of an assumption.¹
What Carbone actually demonstrated is that the 1955 vials contained genetic material matching an established laboratory reference. That is a real finding. It does not establish that a natural monkey virus existed. It establishes that whatever chemical, biological, or degradation products were in the Salk vaccine vials produced sequences resembling the reference. That is enough to indict the vaccine, a vaccine that was administered to tens of millions of Americans between 1955 and 1963 and to millions more worldwide. What was in it is not what the public was told was in it.
The children of Niles, Illinois, eight of whom developed leukemia in the years after their 1955 vaccinations, knew this before anyone had the tools to test for it.³
What Schaeffer Actually Demonstrated
Standard oncology places the cause of cancer in the cell nucleus. Damaged DNA, activated oncogenes, mutations accumulated over years, all located, as the theory has it, in the genetic code. This framing has consumed sixty years of federal cancer research budgets and produced little clinical improvement.
Two experiments in the late 1980s should have ended the genetic theory. Warren Schaeffer at the University of Vermont and Jerry Shay at UT Southwestern independently performed nuclear transfers between cancerous and healthy cells.⁵ The design was straightforward. Take the nucleus of a cancer cell, containing all the mutated DNA supposedly driving the cancer, and transplant it into a healthy cell whose own nucleus had been removed. Do the reverse. Observe.
Cancerous nucleus in healthy cytoplasm produced one tumor out of sixty-eight recipient cells. Healthy nucleus in cancerous cytoplasm produced cancerous cells ninety-seven percent of the time.
The disease was not in the nucleus. It was in the cytoplasm, the watery, mitochondrial, structured interior of the cell where division actually takes place. The mechanism by which that interior loses the electrical charge and gel-phase structure that respiration requires is developed at length in What Is Cancer? in this series, drawing on Cowan, Pollack, Warburg, and Riddick.⁶ For present purposes, only the endpoint of that chain matters. When the cytoplasm loses its structure, mitochondria cannot respire. Cells shift to fermentation. The body walls off the region. The wall is what medicine calls a tumor.
Sasha Latypova has read Schaeffer’s experiment for what it actually shows.¹ Seyfried cites it as evidence for his metabolic theory of cancer. He does not ask what property of the transferred material produced the ninety-seven percent effect. Latypova asks. What Schaeffer did, mechanically, was introduce foreign cytoplasmic material across the membrane of a healthy cell (proteinaceous debris, damaged organelles, fragments of no identified provenance). The recipient cell attempted to expel what it could not identify as its own, divided haphazardly in the process, and passed the compromised state to its descendants. This is a model of transfection. Schaeffer performed it with a pipette and cancerous cytoplasm. An injection performs it with a needle and whatever is in the vial.
The lipid nanoparticle platforms industrialize this. LNPs were built to solve the very problem Schaeffer’s setup addressed manually: the cellular barriers that historically limited how much injected material reached the cytoplasm. The stated design purpose of the platform is transfection.⁷ What Schaeffer’s experiment demonstrated is what a cell does after transfection has occurred. His result was the tumor.
The “SV40 promoter” sequences McKernan detected are not incidental contaminants. They are functional tools. Their purpose in manufacturing is to force cells to import and process the surrounding chemical cargo. Their effect on a living cell, once injected, is to do the same thing at scale. Every recipient cell that took up an LNP performed the Schaeffer transfer on itself. What pathologists began reporting in 2021 is the population-scale endpoint of that operation.¹
The mainstream position calls this an unfortunate contamination. The mechanism suggests something more direct.
What “Synthetic SV40” Actually Is
This is what the second argument (SV40 exists as a chemical in the vials) is pointing to. The modern SV40 construct is not a virus. It is not even biology. It is a specific stack of chemical residue on a ceramic bead.
Sasha Latypova has provided the clearest description of oligonucleotide manufacturing to appear in general circulation. The process bears no resemblance to any biological event. It resembles semiconductor manufacturing, and it uses some of the same equipment.¹
The synthesis begins with a small ceramic bead that carries one of four starting molecules, described as the “letters” of DNA. The bead is subjected to sequential chemical washes in a fully automated reactor. Each wash adds one more molecule to the growing chain.
The reagents used at each step are all industrially hazardous. Trichloroacetic acid in dichloromethane serves as the deprotection wash, a corrosive acid combined with a carcinogenic solvent. Tetrazole and its derivatives activate the coupling step, all explosive or flammable and all classified as respiratory irritants. Acetic anhydride and N-methylimidazole cap the unreacted chains, both causing severe skin burns on contact. Iodine dissolved in water, pyridine, and tetrahydrofuran oxidizes the phosphate backbone, the latter two being flammable carcinogens. Final cleavage is performed with ammonium hydroxide, sometimes combined with methylamine, both severely corrosive.¹
The chain grows through hundreds of these wash cycles. Each one adds one base while contributing measurable error rates. Manufacturers claim per-step efficiency of 99 to 99.5 percent. Compounded across hundreds of steps, that efficiency collapses.
After 10 bases, roughly 90 percent of the resulting molecules are correct. After 50 bases, roughly 60 percent. After 100 bases, roughly 37 percent. At 200 bases, the typical length of a commercial building block, the fraction of perfectly-formed molecules is a minority. The rest are errors. Partial chains, mis-inserted bases, side reactions with the toxic solvents that leave chemical modifications no one intended and no one tests for.¹
The “SV40 promoter” delivered in mRNA injections is a sequence roughly 500 base pairs long, assembled from multiple smaller fragments and stitched together using PCR. Each fragment carries its own error distribution. The final construct is a chemical soup of intended sequence, misassembled variants, and impurities from every solvent used in every wash. This is what is being injected into people, alongside the surrounding lipid nanoparticle payload, at concentrations several orders of magnitude above anything that would ever appear from a biological source.
The oligonucleotide industry sells these constructs for laboratory use with explicit disclaimers that they are not for medical purposes. Even when a manufacturer claims cGMP (current good manufacturing practice) compliance, the guarantee typically covers only 60 to 70 percent of the product shipped. The regulatory pathway that allowed such material to be injected into hundreds of millions of people during the covid rollout is documented in Sasha’s earlier work on the U.S. Department of Defense contracts and the PREP Act indemnification structure.¹ ⁷
The relevance for SV40 is precise. Whatever effects the modern “SV40 promoter” produces in a recipient’s cells (cellular irritation, forced import of foreign chemical material, aberrant division, disruption of cellular architecture) are produced not by a virus but by a stack of industrial chemicals with declared carcinogenic and toxic properties, delivered directly to the cytoplasm and nucleus by design.
The mainstream story asks whether there is SV40 contamination in the mRNA injections. The correct question is what this chemical is, what it does to cells, and why it is being injected into anyone at all.
The Closed Loop
The pattern that emerges once the pieces are placed side by side is not a series of accidents.
Peyton Rous demonstrates in 1911 that injecting cell-free filtrates of ground tumor tissue produces tumors in recipient animals. The industry names his finding a virus. Bernice Eddy in the 1950s establishes that injecting cellular material from leukemic mice produces aggressive tumors in unrelated tissues in healthy mice. The Salk polio vaccine, grown on monkey kidney cells, is administered to over a hundred million people. Sweet and Hilleman at Merck, in 1960, find “SV40” in the vaccine. Foam in the wrong species of monkey, declared to be a virus, quietly acknowledged behind closed doors, publicly denied. The vaccine is left on shelves for another eighteen months while a substitute is prepared. The 1955 vials are almost all destroyed. The children of Niles begin developing leukemia. Herbert Ratner keeps his refrigerator running.
The Rous Nobel Prize is awarded in 1966. The cancer-causing-virus framework becomes the organizing hypothesis of cancer research for the next half-century. Federal research dollars flow into virus hunting. The chemical structure of the “SV40” construct is worked out through the 1970s and 1980s. By the 1990s the sequence is available in laboratory supply catalogs as a promoter tool. Automated DNA synthesis technology, developed alongside the semiconductor industry, allows manufacturers to produce the construct on demand.
The covid mRNA injections, developed under U.S. Department of Defense contracts and delivered to billions of people worldwide, contain synthetic SV40 promoter sequences at concentrations that surprised even the researchers who found them. Regulators acknowledge the presence of the sequences and decline to act on the finding. The PREP Act, passed in 2005, protects the manufacturers from liability. Judges have ruled that the presence of undeclared toxic ingredients in vaccine vials does not constitute willful misconduct, because it is the U.S. government’s policy to permit those ingredients to be there.¹ Sasha Latypova has argued that the amplification of the SV40 story itself serves to focus outrage on Pfizer while shielding the U.S. Department of Defense program that produced the injections.¹
The loop is closed. What Rous demonstrated with a syringe and a chicken has been industrialized. Injection of foreign biological and chemical material into healthy people produces cancer, at scale, in a population that has been told the injections prevent disease. The Nobel Prize identified the mechanism, the industry scaled it, and the regulatory apparatus protected the whole arrangement.
What Is Being Delivered Now
What the pathologists are calling turbo cancer is what this mechanism looks like at population scale. Aggressive tumors in young patients, multi-focal presentations, recurrences within weeks of surgery: the pattern falls out of the same causal chain, compressed onto a shorter timeline. SV40 is not the whole input. The Diblasi analysis published in 2024 cataloged fifty-five other undeclared chemical elements in the injectables, twelve of the fifteen lanthanides among them. The fuller mechanistic and clinical picture is developed in What Is Turbo Cancer? in this series.⁸
The word “SV40,” first attached to bubbles in a dying monkey kidney culture, later attached to a synthetic chemical designed to force cellular division, is what ties the historical origin to the present product.
Both groups arguing online are right about the piece of the story they can see. The natural monkey virus never existed. The synthetic chemical does exist and is now inside a substantial fraction of the world’s population. Neither fact is the whole picture. The whole picture is that “cancer-causing virus” was a marketing invention that grew into a manufacturing capability, and the population is the market.
The document is publicly available. The signatures are on it. The mechanism was published in 1911. The children of Niles were the first cohort. They were not the last.
How To Explain It To A 6 Year Old
Imagine a story with two versions.
In the first version, a scary monster is hiding inside your body. You cannot see it. Scientists say they found it long ago in some monkeys, and it might give you cancer. They want to make a medicine to fight it.
In the second version, there was never a monster. What the scientists found in the monkeys was just broken pieces of the monkeys themselves, because the scientists had poisoned the monkey cells to make them break. They mistook the broken pieces for a monster.
But here is the strange part. The scientists took what they thought was the monster shape, and they built something new. A real chemical, made in a factory, still called by the monster’s name. When they mixed this factory chemical into other medicines, it made cells go wild and grow into lumps.
The monster was never real. The factory chemical is real, and it is being put into things and given to people. Both things are true at the same time. That is what makes the story confusing, and that is what this essay is about.
In Print
Seven of my books are now available as paperbacks, printed to order through Lulu and shipped worldwide. The Unvaccinated lays out the completely unvaccinated as a comparison group across twenty chapters and five appendices — as far as I know, the only book of its kind. Medicalized Motherhood follows a woman through 123 documented interventions from teenage pill to postpartum discharge. Drilling for Profit argues that cavities, gum disease, and crooked teeth are a dietary problem the dental profession treats surgically. What Your Vet Can’t Tell You applies the same critique to pets — food, vaccines, and a profession trained by the industries whose products cause the harm. Escape from Psychiatry documents the fabrication of the DSM, the collapse of the serotonin hypothesis, and the specific damage done by every major psychiatric drug class.
Two more take up what the first five leave out — the remedies the first five explain why you need. The DMSO Book covers 100,000 studies, zero deaths, and one approval — the suppressed science of medicine’s most versatile compound. Chlorine Dioxide: The Forbidden Remedy collects the interviews, protocols, and evidence from the doctors and researchers they tried to silence.
A physical book reaches the person a Substack post never will — the sceptical relative, the friend who won’t click a link but might open a book, the visitor whose eye lands on a coffee table. Buy one to keep, and one to give away.
References
¹ Sasha Latypova, “’SV40’: How to turn bubbles into a vaccine injury cover up and a multi-billion industry, too,” Due Diligence and Art, July 2026. See also Latypova, “The SV40 Promoter in Covid Injections,” September 2023, and “Breaking: Pfizer is going under the bus...,” October 2023, for the argument that the SV40 discourse itself has been amplified as a Pfizer-focused distraction from the broader Department of Defense program. See also Latypova, “Is cancer a metabolic disease? Critical review of Dr. Thomas Seyfried’s presentation,” Due Diligence and Art, April 2026, for the transfection reading of the Schaeffer cytoplasm-transfer experiment.
² Peyton Rous, “A Sarcoma of the Fowl Transmissible by an Agent Separable from the Tumor Cells,” Journal of Experimental Medicine, 1911. Analysis by Mark Bailey in A Farewell to Virology (Expert Edition), September 2022, and in Mark Gober, Sam Bailey, Mark Bailey, and Stefan Lanka, An End to Upside Down Medicine, Waterside Productions, 2023.
³ Helen Ratner Dietz, “Salk vaccine cover-up resonates today,” Oak Leaves, July 20, 2005. See also Torsten Engelbrecht, Claus Köhnlein, Samantha Bailey, and Mark Bailey, Virus Mania, third edition, 2021.
⁴ Stefan Lanka, control experiments on the measles virus cytopathic effect, documented in Mark Gober et al., An End to Upside Down Medicine, Waterside Productions, 2023.
⁵ Israel BA, Schaeffer WI, “Cytoplasmic suppression of malignancy,” In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology, 1987;23(9):627–632. Howell AN, Sager R, “Tumorigenicity and its suppression in cybrids of mouse and Chinese hamster cell lines,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1978;75(5):2358–2362. See also Thomas Seyfried, Cancer as a Metabolic Disease, Wiley, 2012, for the broader metabolic framework in which the Schaeffer experiment is typically cited.
⁶ Unbekoming, “What Is Cancer? An Essay on the Warburg Shift, the Cytoplasm, and the Particle in the Vial,” Lies are Unbekoming, July 2026.
⁷ Sasha Latypova, extensive documentation on the covid-19 countermeasure programs, U.S. Department of Defense contracting, PREP Act indemnification, LNP platform design, and manufacturing quality failures, published across Due Diligence and Art, 2022 through 2026.
⁸ Unbekoming, “What Is Turbo Cancer? An Essay on the Cocktail in the Vial, the Cation Charge State, and the Cancer That Is Not New,” Lies are Unbekoming, July 2026.
Additional Sources
Michele Carbone and colleagues, “SV40-Like Sequences in Human Bone Tumors,” Oncogene, 1996. Carbone and Ratner analysis of preserved 1955 Salk vaccine vials, published 1999.
B.H. Sweet and M.R. Hilleman, “The Vacuolating Virus, S.V. 40,” Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 1960.
Kevin McKernan, “Sequencing of bivalent Moderna and Pfizer mRNA vaccines reveals nanogram to microgram quantities of expression vector dsDNA per dose,” Anandamide Substack, 2023.
Otto Warburg, “On the origin of cancer cells,” Science, 1956.
Thomas Cowan, Cancer and the New Biology of Water, Chelsea Green, 2019.
Thomas Cowan and Sally Fallon Morell, The Contagion Myth, Skyhorse, 2020.
Dawn Lester and David Parker, What Really Makes You Ill?, independently published, 2019.
Christopher Exley, “The toxicity of aluminum in humans,” Morphologie, 2016.
Herbert Shelton, Natural Hygiene articles on vaccination and anaphylaxis.
Lida Mattman, Cell Wall Deficient Forms: Stealth Pathogens, CRC Press, 2000.
Diblasi J, et al., “True or False? At Least 55 Undeclared Chemical Elements Have Been Detected by ICP-MS in COVID-19 ‘Vaccines,’” International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research, 2024.
Truth Be Told: I’ve Accepted an Invitation to Speak on The Unvaccinated
On September 17th, I’ll be giving a one-hour presentation titled The Unvaccinated as part of a six-hour livestream called Truth Be Told. This is the first time I have accepted an invitation to an event, and I have been honoured with the opening act. The livestream begins at 12pm EST.
Vaccination is the subject closest to my heart, and this is another opportunity to spread the word. The format will preserve the pen name.
Jamie Andrews (Decentralized Science Projects) and Agent131711 (Dinosaurs) will also be presenting. Jamie’s Virology Control Studies work led to an interview here last year. Agent’s research shaped my essays on vitamin D and dinosaurs. Tickets are here. The code UNBEKOMING is $5 off and applies automatically at that link. Replay available afterwards. Hope you can make it.
Unbekoming I feel immensely grateful to you for your amazing work and all you are sharing. Thank you so much...
Excellent piecing together of much sordid history.
Injection-free is the way to be!