Health Canada’s outdated regulations pose a health threat amid pharmaceutical influence

Amidst a backdrop that saw many Canadians coerced into injecting the novel products through government-imposed mandates, restrictions and intense social shaming, recent investigations have discovered the presence of a plasmid known as an SV40 promoter.

This contaminant was not previously disclosed to Health Canada and they only confirmed knowledge of it after it was brought to their attention by independent scientist and genomics expert Kevin McKernan.

McKernan, who has 28 years of experience in the field of DNA sequencing and was a key participant in the Human Genome Project, has been sounding the alarm on shot instability and other quality and content concerns for years. His most recent finding, that the contents of these shots can integrate into our DNA, has sparked major controversy.

Yet Health Canada previously responded to a Rebel News' query about just that, stating that the DNA fragments were small and posed no risk because they were “nonfunctional.”

Through email communication on Friday, October 27, 2023, Health Canada’s senior media relations advisor Anna Maddison stated:

“The SV40 promoter enhancer sequence was found to be a residual DNA fragment in Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The fragment is inactive, has no functional role, and was measured to be consistently below the limit required by Health Canada and other international regulators.”

A replica of this response was also forwarded to Rebel News originating from an anonymous viewer query to the Biologic and Radiopharmaceutical Drugs Directorate (BRDD) Division of Health Canada on February 14, 2024.

Within weeks of this, McKernan published depictions of his independent investigation revealing evidence suggesting DNA replication of injected materials occurring inside vaccinated cell lines. This directly contradicts Health Canada’s claims that these fragments and residual DNA are inactive.

University professor Dr. Phillip Buckhaults discussed his concerns with DNA fragments in a state senate health committee where he highlighted that it’s not necessarily the size of the DNA pieces that matter, but rather the amount contained within each vial. He states that previous vaccine regulations were inappropriately applied to these lipid nanoparticle-wrapped modified RNA shots.

Buckhaults has since taken to X to clarify his remarks. While he confirms the DNA contamination, he emphasizes that public alarm should be avoided until actionable information is available. He advocates for policy recommendations including new genome integrity monitoring programming in light of lipid nanoparticle mRNA injections and to stop lining regulatory pockets with pharmaceutical funding.

After all, it was noted that Health Canada was eyeing up more funds from pharma as early as 2017.

Through proposed amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, the minister of health would be empowered to set fees by ministerial order, rather than going through the more complicated User Fees Act process that included a justification to Parliament for any fee changes.

The Drug and Alcohol Association of Canada came forward the next year, in 2018, to share that “Historically, Health Canada has used these fees to fund 50% of its operating costs in regulating prescription medication, but plans to raise this to 90% with the coming fee increase.”

The article goes on to share that before the implementation of user fees in 1994, Health Canada was entirely funded by tax dollars. “Now, with the majority of its funding arising directly from the pharmaceutical industry, questions have been raised about whether or not the goal of drug companies to sell their products in vast quantities poses a conflict of interest with Health Canada’s responsibility to provide safe and effective drugs to Canadians,” it furthers.

This raised concerns that reviewers might overlook safety issues under pressure to meet deadlines for funding from private pharmaceutical companies to cover their own regulatory costs.

McKernan spoke about inappropriate regulations and funding conflicts at the International Crisis Summit that took place in Washington, DC in February.

"The DNA inside these vaccines are very different than the DNA they wrote these regulations for," he said. "They wrote them for cell-substrate genomic DNA which is from growing things in eggs and other cell cultures."

"What they have in this is a mammalian origin of replication. When it gets into the cell, it makes more of itself. That's an exponential. That's something that you have to flag very carefully... We don't know to the extent that this exponential risk is there but I do worry that we're going to see [an increase in] cancer and Alzheimer's," McKernan added.

He continued to discuss why Health Canada and the FDA’s assertion that residual DNA and the SV40 promoter are harmless is erroneous.

Someone had to delete the presence of the SV-40 sequence, McKernan claims, because regulators should know that promoters like SV-40 are always needed to make a plasmid. Regulators would have had to ignore their guidelines that state promoters like the SV-40 elements must be disclosed.

"They're either completely inept or they're in on the crime," he says.

To clarify all of the above information, Rebel News’ senior editor reached out to Health Canada to query how they adjust scientific stances according to new information, what process is undertaken to investigate the above-mentioned concerns (if any), how potential implications will be relayed to Canadians, if new regulatory oversights for lipid nanoparticle modified RNA injections have been considered, and budgetary issues around industry funding ethics.

Health Canada did not respond.

Have high-profile multimillion-dollar lawsuits, such as Carrie Sakomoto’s vaccine injury claim and Dan Hartman's lawsuit for the untimely death of his teenage son Sean Hartman, caused Health Canada to become reluctant to answer questions? Or perhaps their acknowledgment that Pfizer failed to disclose the SV-40 promoter has made them media-shy.

Regardless, the veil of their regulatory transparency and openness policy framework appears tattered, revealing more questions than answers.