This video presents a case report and scientific analysis revealing that mRNA vaccines may cause hematological malignancies through multiple biological mechanisms, including PDL1 overproduction, spike protein interference with tumor suppressors (P-53, BAX), type I interferon suppression, TGF-beta release, plasmid DNA contamination (36-630 times FDA limits), EG4 antibody induction, pseudouridine frame-shifting, and liver metabolism disruption. The research team faced significant publication censorship, with their paper accepted twice but rejected twice after acceptance by the publisher, demonstrating how inconvenient scientific findings can be suppressed in the peer review process.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Vaccins ARNm, mécanismes biologiques et publication scientifique | Entretien avec Panagis Polykretis
Added:Hello everyone. I'm delighted to meet you again. I'm Dr. Luis Fush. I'm a intensivist and anesthesiologist specialized in ethics and anthropology of the health and I'm also specialized in the intensive care of ematlogic malignancies and oncology patients and um here we are to uh a new show of the independent scientific council of France which is an agura of researcher university teacher doctors uh pharmaceutical doctors and PhDs who try to give you a kind of a different sight over what we live to today and then and about um public health and also your personal health so that you can have a clear loyal um information so that you give or not your consent to what is proposed to you by your governments or your different doctors. Um and we give speech to a lot of different person who don't have don't have any conflict of interest with the industry uh with vaccine industry with pharmaceutical industry or with uh the public um the public institutions in charge of public health and also um freed from any conflict of interest with insurance or data data companies. So I don't have any conflict of interest and I'm pleased to host today a researcher from Italy and Greece at the same time who is Spanishist policy um and you can consider him as a a very determinate uh researcher who want to publish whatever the contrary winds are blowing and some say he could be stubborn but uh as stubborn as a mule he managed to give information and sometime an inconvenience information for the public narratives. Hello Panagis. I'm honored and pleased to meet you again.
>> Hello Fe. It's a pleasure to meet you again and thank you for inviting inviting me to speak to your broadcast.
>> Thank you very much. You already came with another of your fellow researcher to present one of your um one of your paper where you were um enlightening the 15day scam. We can call it like that. Uh which is the the bias introduced in the public counting of who is vaccinated and who is not. And you can find back uh this uh this show on our website or on our YouTube channel. And whoever you are uh you can put the thumb up, share all this information. Without you, this information will stay buried six feet under and so thank you to help us give the information. Um can you introduce yourself and say who you are and what what you are working on?
I am u a structural biologist. I have a PhD in structural biology. I actually I have worked uh three years uh uh for the University of Florence and then almost four years for the uh national research council and now I'm working as a medical researcher in the uh company ancestralize uh which is a company that uh uh is developing an application that uh I can guarantee you that will improve uh the the health and the lifestyle uh through the diet of a lot of people.
>> Thank you very much. And we host together with you uh to comment and discuss uh our dear uh friend Ellen Banoon. Hi Ellen. How are you doing?
>> Hello. I am very happy to be against to be there with the panelist.
um because I am honored to have been asked to review review the article we are talking about today and it for me it's a very important paper >> um you are can you introduce yourself for the the English speaking public who may >> so I am a pharmacist I am biologist I work in the last century in basic research in molecular pharmacology ology in anti-cancer research.
uh I do not practice biology anymore but uh I have published not not professionally but I am an independent researcher and I have published in peer review about covid disease covid virus covid vaccines and also monoconal antibodies for babies and so I am asked to review some paper about COVID COVID virus and COVID vaccines.
>> Um maybe we can share a secret. You will be invited soon in Greece. Uh what are you going to do there?
>> Yes, I am very happy. I I go to Athen in in vacation and uh I I told that to my contacts in Athen. So uh I have a lecture to do at the medical association of attendance. It's it's like um or dea in France and for for little association it's a free sinking doctors and it will be on uh Sunday 20th u Sunday 19th excuse me at uh 11:30 in the morning.
>> Uh which month are you talking about?
Th this month uh this month this this Sunday uh n 19th April April.
>> Oh good. You're very you you're very soon or or very late because we we're going to broadcast this show a bit after. So we you can tell on your on your ex channel or things like that uh what happened there. Uh thank you very much Ela. And now we are going to give the speech to Panagis. What are you going to talk about today?
Today I would like to uh highlight uh the results uh let's say of uh our latest study uh which has been uh reviewed by Dr. Dr. Heren Banon and I really thank her because uh she has done a a fantastic uh reviewing work that improved the publication a lot with very constructive uh and helpful uh comments.
uh which is a case report uh of a 39 years old woman who developed uh an acute lymphoplastic leukemi leukemia and a lymphoplastic lymphoma after her second uh fizer uh shot and uh after uh that I would like to uh talk even about the very uh long publication saga of this paper um that took almost two years and very strange things happened during this uh uh process and uh the editor the co-editor-inchief of encoarget professor Vafik Aldderi uh was very interesting interested in publishing uh the publication history of uh the paper. So we uh wrote a commentary in which we documented uh all the events uh that happened um during the uh submission process of the paper.
>> Yeah, this is a very important point that you underline there. uh the submission process is not very much well known by the people and the thing that the maybe uh homes something is is found by a researcher or scientist. It's it it's doomed to be published and the public to know what happens. Uh but that is not exactly how it it it happens. um the additional editorial process and the publishing process are really a a narrow uh a narrow pathway in which all the science doesn't go. And so you're going to explain us how inconvenient studies um can be blocked in the process. And it's really important that you made this second article to testimony about that and to keep track of this process happening in our uh very science now. So thank you very much. uh you can find the the first article on the link which is uh uh under your screen and down on your screen uh on enco target and you can also find the commentaries of panagus on his substack uh which um uh which link is there.
Thank you very much. And and now maybe we can uh get to the get to the point uh because uh uh the censorship of science is one part but there's also this inconvenienced uh uh truth that mRNA vaccines are supposedingly uh helping in the process of uh having a cancer or a meatlogic malignancy.
Um we can see your screen now and we can see the different uh authors that you have.
>> Yeah. So the paper has been co-authored by an international team of researchers.
Between them we have the oncologist uh Dr. Patricia Gentilini. We have the uh American molecular biologist Dr. Johny Lindday. the Japanese doctors uh Nafukonishi and Mazanori Fukushima who is considered one of the fathers of oncology in Japan and uh me. So this paper as I was telling before uh describes uh the case report of a 39 uh years old woman who developed an acquyoplastic leukemia and a lymphoplastic lymphoma after her second fisor shot. The uh very uh relevant thing is that in general uh case reports have a very uh easy publication process because uh uh case reports are just an objective uh report of the uh clinical history of a patient.
Uh so basically we have reported the clinical history of uh this uh patient and after that we have uh reviewed about 28 similar um cases of ematoptic cancers that have been developed after the mRNA uh vaccinations.
And uh at the end of the paper we have reported again uh only from published literature and from official guidelines from uh the FDA and the EMA. Um a list of potential uh cancer mechanisms of uh the mRNA uh vaccines against COVID 19. So it is very important to uh mention that uh this paper uh doesn't reports uh something that is controversial or something that has um a strange uh uh experimental process. It is just an objective case report and a review of already published paper papers in the peer-reviewed literature. And this um is important to highlight because usually these papers um don't uh get a hard life let's say in get published. However, after the uh the print publication of this uh uh paper, we struggled for two uh long years uh before publishing it on on target.
And uh this paper has been submitted for 16 times uh in 15 journals. And uh I will explain why there is this difference between uh 16 and 15. And the difference is because uh in the last uh journal that has been uh accepted for publication, it has been accepted for publication twice and it has been rejected twice just some days before uh the editorial office uh could put it online. I had already uh edited the paper on the template of uh uh the journal because the editorial office sent me the template to uh edit the paper in uh the format that they use to u put online their papers.
So we we were just uh waiting uh the paper to uh uh to to uh get published online but uh it never get uh it never got published and uh I started writing uh and wrote and writing and writing to the uh editorial office and to the coitorin chief and in the end uh they told us that uh the paper uh was rejected.
And this rejection came um not from the scientific committee let's say uh but by the uh publisher because the uh reviewers and the um co-editor-inchief had accepted this paper uh twice and um we decided to write This uh uh this uh commentary which describes all the publication history of uh of um this paper in which we have documented all the uh submission dates in all the um scientific journals that we submitted the paper the rejection dates and uh uh I have some linkage links in in which I have uploaded the the letters because uh this this has been proved has has to be proven that I am telling the truth about this. So uh in order to prove that uh all all that is documented in the paper is truth. I have um uploaded even the letters from the um the journal reducting of course uh the names and the uh emails in which we can we can see that I receive for example this one is dated 26 of August. I receive a uh a letter in which the editorial office communicates that they are pleased to inform me that the manuscript has been accepted for publication.
Uh and then again um this uh the paper has been rejected the first time not by uh the uh let's say editor or the um the the reviewers.
Then I wrote them and I told them that I I was uh uh decided to uh resign from my position because I was an editorial board member uh on current proteomics uh and to expose all these facts uh and so they decided to step back. They gave us a second possibility. The um the paper has been sent to new reviewers. uh the newer reviewers gave us their uh response which was uh positive. We uh addressed all the comments by the reviewers. the paper became even more uh solid and it has been accepted for a second time and this is the second acceptance letter uh dated uh 17 october 2025 in which again they say they say I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for publication.
So I'm not complaining because uh the paper uh has been rejected many times.
I'm complaining because the paper has been accepted twice and it has been rejected twice after acceptance. And when I started writing to the uh coitorin chief in order to receive some uh explanation about about that, he replied this email and he he wrote, "Hi, you should contact the publisher directly."
This this means that the publisher was blocking the publication of the paper, not the co-editor chief, not the reviewers. And uh this is outrageous because the relationship that exist between the authors, the editor of a journal and the reviewers, it it's what uh has driven science for more than 100 years.
The publication process works like this from more than 100 years and uh never in my career but not even in all my co-authors careers because I asked them they it happened that the paper has been accepted twice and just before publication it has been uh blocked by the publisher who is not a scientist But uh he is a manager not a subject matter and being a manager he's makes him not able to judge the scientific quality of the paper. So he's judging by other things that could be for example uh a political agenda or that could be for example uh some conf conflicts of interest which we don't know because uh we haven't received uh any uh valid explanation from the publisher about uh his decision.
But uh after exposing all the publication history of the paper, let's uh understand why uh this paper was so inconvenient and uh the system uh didn't wanted to get it published.
Um and this proves how the uh let's call uh general consensus on the safety and the efficacy of the genetic vaccines against COVID 19 might has have been shaped during uh the pandemic years because if you silence completely all the critical voices and you allow uh to publish only uh the let's say uh scientists that have a positive opinion uh towards the uh genetic vaccines then what reaches the public and the the general consensus let's say is that uh all the scientists are agree that these vaccines are safe and effective. However, this was not the case and this fact proves it. uh because the voices of the of the scientists that were not complying with this uh uh agenda h have been silenced completely and um yes >> yes we can see that it's it's true in science but it's also in the information silencing the other voices and censoring the the diver diversity of opinions uh will lead to a a laundry a whitewashing of the of the the main information which is important for the narrative. So uh we have uh a lot of of information of how science contradictory science has been censored by the social media. Uh just like when um the the head of um of of Twitter and then with the Twitter files uh decided not to publish a lot of different uh threads about the different treatments for the COVID.
uh also with uh Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook and Meta and and this is really important that the people understand that it's how is manufactured a consent just like in Noam Shamsky book uh about war but it's about science and medicine there.
>> Yes, exactly. This is uh very important.
Um however personally I was uh expecting I was ready to receive censorship from uh uh social media platforms or from uh social uh or from news outlets for example. I I was expecting that but I wasn't expecting to receive this kind of censorship um from the the the scientific world uh because uh in my let's say uh imagination from when I was a young researcher I always uh considered the publication process ingenuously as a sacred a sacred process between the researchers, the editor and the reviewers. For me, it was something that um was uh the ontologically and uh morally above uh the the the interests. So I I got really hurted by by all this story just because I understood that even in science uh there are this huge uh conflicts of interest and a lot of people that are uh following uh an agenda. Do do you think there were there were direct pressure or or it was self censorship from the publisher?
>> I unfortunately I I don't know that because um I I have not uh I didn't got explanation about uh uh why the paper has been has been blocked. Uh however we can see that uh other papers that uh reported uh the carinogenic effects of uh covid-19 uh genetic vaccines encountered similar uh similar difficulties in in publishing their paper and some of their paper uh have been retracted.
Like for example the uh the Japanese study by Mickey Gibbo and professor Fukushima who is one of the co-authors of uh my study uh has been retracted from from curios with a very um brief and uh unsatisfying explanation.
Uh so the system uh let's call it system didn't wanted uh papers who report uh side effects in general but especially uh the cancerogenic uh effects to get published and up to now very few papers uh manage to get published um in in scientific literature.
One one point I may had to to explain to the public uh how how you could be flabbergasted about the the fact of this uh corruption of the editorial process is the fact that all the different um editors and also the writers um uh normally are are doomed to respect the the chart of Vancouver uh which is uh the recommendation that we have about how to publish a scientific paper.
Meaning the form is very there is a a formalism which is uh very important uh with the uh the abstract the introduction material and material and method the results the discussion and maybe a conclusion and and all after the uh revising process the reviewing process with one reviewer two reviewers uh the editors m making it in pending all of that is completely uh algo algorithmic normally and should not be transformed because this method is uh is how we guarantee the validity of the information.
>> Yes. Exactly.
>> Exactly.
And uh we can we can see why uh I think that our study has been considered inconvenient.
Uh because uh not not just because it reports another case of um of anatopiotic cancer developed after vaccination.
uh but because uh it uh um summarizes in the end uh a lot of different mechanisms that have been uh reported in in literature and to be precise we have reported eight uh different um eight different uh um mechanisms which uh if you want uh uh I can I can summarize without uh going too much in detail because uh uh so even a broad audience can uh let's say um understand this uh the these mechanisms >> and it is important to highlight all these papers all these papers have been already published uh in the peer-reviewed scientific literature >> yes sure and and I underline that uh one one more uh once more um the what you are going to describe as the height potential uh mechanisms inducing making that mRNA vaccin and induce or help having a cancer are published by other authors they mean other people um studied and managed to find how p-53 were was impaired how different the mechanism of protection against cancer were impaired and That's a very important point that you that you raise.
You it is not uh an original contribution that you make make there.
You only uh synthesize you you make a a synthesis of of what has been said about that.
>> Yes. Exactly. Exactly.
as as it is normal uh and it is a common practice in science to make uh review papers in order to um summarize the findings by others uh in in a single a single paper.
Uh so it is something that uh it is completely legitimate and uh we can see uh a bit these are even other mechanisms have been proposed. We decided to um to summarize uh the the main uh eight mechanisms that have been summarized which uh for example are uh the um the overp production of a protein that is called PDL1 which acts as an off uh switch of our tilymphosytes and by shutting down uh the T- cells uh the body loses its ability to uh find and destroy the uh cancer cells. Um, a second very uh important mechanism is uh that has been reported that the S2 subunit of the spike protein uh has the ability to uh interact and block the um tumor suppression proteins like P-53 and uh B uh CA1 and two which are responsible for fixing uh uh the uh damaged DNA and uh thus stopping uh cancerogenesis. So suppressing the the activity of these uh very important tumor suppressive proteins um we basically suppress the major uh defense against cancer.
Another uh important carcinogenic mechanism is uh the um the the the suppression of the um type one uh interferons which act like uh an alarm uh signal against viral infections and can help um the the the immune reaction against uh can cancer cells.
So uh even this is another uh very detrimental uh mechanism.
And uh another mechanism that can explain the uh the nature uh of the fast developing uh tumors is the um the the release. the fact that the spike protein uh forces the cell uh to release a growth factor that is called TGF uh beta which is capable of uh re reverting let's say the uh the status of the cells to a primitive state. uh and because of this any existing uh cancer cell uh gets let's say turbocharged and becoming more aggressive and spreading faster and this could explain the phenomenon of the turbo cancers uh that have been observed in the last years.
Then there is another very important issue and this is uh uh fundamental because from my point of view uh it could bring to the end of uh the uh mRNA vaccines like we know them now uh like they are produced now is the detection of uh plasmid DNA contamination uh in in the vials.
This publication is a publication that I uh played a role uh because I invited uh Dr. David Speaker uh Dr. Jessica Rose and Dr. uh Kevin McKernan to uh submit the uh the paper in um special issue that I was uh editing in um in the journal out immunity. So they uh sent they submitted the paper and the paper has been uh revised and it has been published and it is very important because it it proves that in the vials there are from like 36 to 300 630 300 636 if I don't remember uh if I remember correctly times the uh amount of uh double strand DNA um that is allowed by the FDA uh guidelines which is 10 nanogs per uh dose.
So um this it is a very another very important uh issue uh because of two uh main things. The first thing is that u the double strand DNA uh has the potential of integrate in our chromosomes.
uh while for the uh single strand mRNA uh this is uh a much more uh difficult uh statistically um situation and uh that's why um it is very uh up to now it was very uh strictly regulated the amount of uh double strand uh DNA uh contamin ation that could exist in uh the uh genetic therapies.
While uh in this case we have not only double stranded DNA up to 600 times the allowed limits but we have even uh doublestranded DNA which is inserted in the lipid nanop particles and the lipid nanop particles we know that have the potential to spread all over the body and they have specifically designed to uh have a facilitated entrance in our cells. So we don't only have a double stranded DNA which has the potential to get integrated in our genome but we have this double stranded DNA that is uh uh facilitated in its uh spreading throughout the body and entron entering in in the cells by these lipid nanop particles.
And it is very important that uh um the the Fiser and from a study that is uh numbered 185350 and even the EMA and the FDA already knew uh from the results of this uh study performed on rats that the lipid nanop particles had the potential to spread all over the body and even in the bone bone marrow. And this has uh a important implication for the development of ematopiotetic malignancies.
And uh the second thing that is this is very uh important is that uh if you have uh a a pharmaceutical product that has 600 times the allowed amounts uh of a contamination um that you have never declared its existence because uh Fizer never declared its existence.
um you have a compliance problem because what you declare in the uh in the pharmaceutical description of the product is different of what of the that the vials contain and uh at the moment these uh contaminations that are very random uh because uh fiser in order to uh let's say purify uh the the the content of the uh vaccines uh decided to uh cut this um these plasmids into small pieces uh with DNA and this uh from my point of view but even from uh other scientists point of view like for example professor Bholds and uh professor McKen and Dr. McKenna. This makes the integration even more probable because uh if you have one piece of DNA uh you have a a certain amount of of probabilities to get uh to get it to integrate in uh the DN in the host DNA. But uh if you cut it then you multiply the ends and then you multiply uh even the the the probability of integration.
Um so this uh uh at the moment is a a huge huge issue um that uh should be investigated not only from the scientific point of view but even from the the legal and the and the um compliance with the regulations point of view because here we have a product which is different um with respect of what they have declared >> from the actual one that has been given to the people. Yeah.
>> Yes.
It is given to the people and even to uh pregnant women and young children which have uh a a risky ratio of of dying from COVID that is proximal to zero.
>> I may I may draw a parallel for the public so that they may understand really this this this important point which is a regulatory issue actually. uh if ever you have a uh one one cheese uh which is not exactly the one that has been said and doesn't contain what the what the producer what the industrial has told it is withdrawn from the market immediately whatever the consequences because it's not conform uh it's not regulatory and officially u like the one that has been said uh it is the same in your house if you put a window which is not uh um accredititated as or or one one one thing to hold your roof which is not exactly the one set by the the kay how to say that by the um the imperative the imperative regulatory things that they have to do it it you will not be insured uh and you can sue you can sue the the industrial who met that so >> but but and FDA they were aware because they used a bad methodology to to find DNA and mRNA hybrids they didn't use the good methodology and they they knew that so so they were aware of this the presence of the DNA contamination >> yes and it is crazy that uh they didn't perform this kind of analysis before uh giving the authorization for for use and they we had to wait for independent analysis after four five years that these vaccines were in the com in the commerce and uh billions of people uh have been inoculated.
So um just to go on with the with the with the mechanism we have other uh three mechanisms uh and uh uh one that has been reported from three different groups is the induction of the the the the production of the EG4 um antibodies.
which are antibodies that are uh known for being uh imunosuppressive. They provide uh tolerancy uh to uh our body and uh this has a very important implication because uh um having a high amount of EG4 uh can make you more um prone to contract uh to get uh infected by uh COVID 19 by sorry SARS SARS COV2 uh but even uh they lower the defenses against the uh carcinogenic uh cells.
And uh another very uh important issue is the um the frame shifting uh that the mRNA uh causes. Uh because uh instead of the natural uridin that should exist in uh the uh genetic material in the mRNA we have epsidurine.
This pod uridine has been introduced by um if I remember correctly uh viceman and kico and they received even a Nobel prize for this uh because it stabilizes the uh life of the mRNA uh the the synthetic mRNA in the cell because otherwise the natural mRNA gets degraded uh very fast. However, this sodurine um elongates the the lifetime of the mRNA in the cell and uh it causes a frame shifting that uh causes the production of truncated forms of the uh vaccine derived spike protein.
But it can even causes uh the production of unknown aarent proteins with unknown uh potential and action inside our cells.
And for example, they could have uh an inhibiting activity towards for example the uh p-53 the uh the protecting anti-canceric protein.
And finally, uh there is a a an a last um mechanism that we describe that is the disruption of the liver metabolism because the uh vaccine derived lipid nanop particles uh get accumulated in uh the liver and this uh disrupts um how the body processes vital nutri nutrients like iron, phospholipids and tryptophan.
And uh this can cause um a a starvation that stresses our body and consequently wakens our body. uh stresses the bone marrow created imunosuppressing and im imunosuppressed environment that can promote the uh proliferation of uh tumor cells.
So basically by writing this paper we uh gathered all these mechanisms all together along with the uh FDA and EMA documentation that proved that uh all the gene therapies that um could contain DNA contamination uh had to be very strictly uh regulated and uh had and a very of risk benefit evaluation had to be performed in order to decide when to give uh when it was to give this kind of uh pharmaceutical products to a patient.
But uh in the pandemic year years we saw uh vaccinating everybody everybody even even pregnant women and uh and this uh led to uh a rise of uh potentially let's say but we we we we are we are seeing um day by day an increase of the the the all cause mortality in in many different uh countries. We have now we can count different papers that re report and document this uh um increased uh all cause mortality.
I could ask uh I could add that one of require control for gene therapy product is the monitoring of cancers. It is asked by FDA and mRNA vaccines are gene therapy products. So it's known by the regulation agencies that cancer could be an effect of the this products. It's not a surprise.
Sure.
>> Exactly.
>> Um we can add that um most of the people will be all right and uh we can reassure the public that the wide majority of the people uh maybe received a very low dose maybe received nothing you remember that in each vial five different do uh if you have the first one and maybe not mixed all right by the nurse um you don't have the same thing as the last one. um the conservation of the product has been really uh completely um not done in the in in in the golden rules.
Um plus we all react differently. So we can say that human most of the time is resistant to a lot of poison that we give him and it's important to remember that. So and not have a noibo effect if you have been injected by those product and this being said doesn't mean that the product is safe and effective and means that this product should be withdrawn from the market in high emergency and should not be used. there should be a moratorium on the research of this products and and we ask that with the ch with the children of hypocratis in France and with Elaine. We ask the government and the different uh uh regulators in France to withdraw this those products from the market and to and to put a moratorium on the research about this those modifi modified amaranas. It has been done in several countries also with the nose initiative in the country of the of Northern Europe and and everywhere. But it's just like if regulators were were deaf and they don't want to hear anything about that and it's the uh it's relevant to say because it's just the same thing. They don't want to know about that by blocking the publication but they don't want to know about that from the public and from the scientists. uh um as and and they don't want to do anything for the moment. So we have a huge problem with those products.
>> I could add I could add that I had a similar experience with the peer review.
I was asked to review an article on the virus study. The virus is the data baz um for for the notification of adverse effects of the vaccine. And this study was specifically on the disproportionate number of reports in virus which is a senior signal of of causal link. But I made the review but then the article was rejected without the editor reading my review because an article in nature has previously rejected this methodology.
uh I was asked a second time by Frontiers in Pharmacology to review an article using the same methodology. So I asked if the article was would be rejected outright.
I was told no. But ultimately the same thing happened the the rejection without reading the reviews. So I protested to the editor uh and I I looked for who was the editor and the editor was affiliated with the wealth world economic forum and then after frontiers in pharmacology asked me to uh be an editor for another article using the same methodology and you panagis I asked you to to review this article. So uh I think they they parted ways with with editor close to the world economic forum. It's very strange.
>> Thank you. I share I I will share with you uh uh our alerts to the um to the sanitary regulators of France. uh and you can write to those editors, you can write to those regulators and show that there is a dialectic, there is a contradiction. There are some people who are aware and we see them masking the truth trying to um manufacture the consent of the people who is lying to them about those project those products.
And it's really important that you um our dear viewers and editors uh you also react. It's not only now a matter of scientist but it's a matter of public uh action struggling to to to to get back security in our healthcare pro process.
>> Yes. And uh it is very uh important that uh even the authors, the researchers around the world that uh have results that clash with the safe and effective narrative. They have to be stubborn and brave and uh keep trying um despite all the the difficulties. They have to keep trying get published their papers because uh this is our way the the scientific way to uh communicate and to talk with the institutions. Only with some scientific papers we can go to a regulator and ask for more uh secure env evaluations otherwise we cannot and this is one of the reasons that uh I think that uh we face the scientific censorship.
>> Yes, thank you very much. We called this year um 2026 the return to Itaka. You're from Greece and you know that Ulyses uh at the end of his odysium uh get back to his kingdom and get back the the the leadership and he has to to push out uh the the pretendants to the throne and to push them away showing his his his strength. So now with the return to Itaka, we shall get back to uh uh regular and and regulated production of knowledge and uh not let it go uh saying despair that it's completely rotten and completely corrupted. Uh we we shall overcome that and and get back to our threats. So uh it's an advice to all our fellow researcher get back to ITA. it's only 16 times um trying to to submit a paper to get it submit to get it accepted. So that's not so much uh and eventually you will you will manage and uh and we have to u stop the garbage in garbage it out process that it is is happening in science and to have good things in and good things out now. Thank you very much Panagis. Uh um Elaine you wanted to make kind of a synthesis of all what is being published maybe it's the moment would you agree >> yes it's just just two minutes um I have compiled other articles to show that panagis was not alone but it's evident for us a recent publication of the bi biological mechanism underlying the link between anticovid mRNA and cancers So uh um I will I want to insist that uh nano particles have a tendency to accumulate in the bone mau. The um the concentration in the bone mau is is increased in comparison with the blood and the blood cells are produced in the bone mar. Therefore, the development of amaloto amaloto cancers following mRNA gen therapy could be expected and this is expected by by the regulation agencies.
uh uh panag talk about DNA contaminations uh especially when cells are undergoing mitosis a f when in which the nucleus is no longer present so DNA can integrate into the recipient's genome uh in in the bone marrow numerous motic divisions occur during the development of blood cells and as I post marketing surveillance of gene therapy products includes monitoring for concern by the FDA.
So some publication one was rejected as said panagis. So um no with no on the ground that the correlation between mortality rates and vaccination cannot be proven. It's not a it's not a reason.
Uh another publication said that COVID vaccine increase the risk of developing several types of cancer. But I think Vanagis you have some critics about this publication. Perhaps after you will publish the critics of this publication.
I think uh another publication says that COVID vaccine increase the risk of several cancers. It's a current publication which was not retracted.
Um another publication of professor elder and professor Kooper Vaser uh over 300 cases of turbo cancer link linked to covid vaccines in 27 countries.
Another about genomic integration mechanism in the mRNA vaccine by Peter Maclo team.
Uh ma injection induce several and lasting genetic disruptions linked to cancer and chronic disease.
And also the spike protein was uh detected in the cytoplasm and in the nucleus of metastatic breast cancer cells.
And finally uh what um there's two articles you see you cited in in your paper from um professor professor elder kuparasa and from zong about the ability to to suppress p53 and it's just example of of other papers that that all I finished.
>> Thank you for this biology lesson.
>> Thank you very much. Yes, we will learn a lot thanks to spike protein and nano part lipid nanop particles and DNA.
We will know a lot more now about the physiology and the pathology of the cancer. Um and we may also remember that in enclosenic pathways there are a lot of different regulators that can also be activated by changing how we eat, how we live, how we relate to the others. And those those points are really important for the people who have been vaccinated that it may raise a warning and make them pay attention to how not to get a cancer and and try to live differently because if maybe 20 or 30% of of uh of the raising of a cancer of the development of a cancer will be drawn by those injection there are still 70 or 80 persons that could be handled differently uh to try and stop it. Not everybody, as I told you, not everybody who has been vaccinated will get a cancer uh eventually, but uh it's kind of a warning that it raises and it it should push us to do something else.
Plus one more important point. If you receive one injection, two injection, three injections, four, six, seven, it's not the same rate of cancer also. And the the risk is increasing with the number of doses. So you should stop if you became a junkie and and you are at the seventh or eighth dose. It's never a bad moment to stop, you know. Um we say that for planting a tree. When is the good moment to plant a tree? 30 years ago or now? Um it's kind of the same thing as for the modified mRNA vaccines.
When is the good moment to stop it? It was from the very beginning never receiving it and now. Uh so uh just say no to the different campaigns that are uh done by the states uh to try and force you to uh have those injections.
um they are still publishing now uh in the institutional regulators in France recommendation to have new vaccination again and again and again and so we can see that it's not it it has no relationship with any epidemics or any any reality of care it's only to try and get rid of their vaccine they both in excess so say no Yes, this is a very important thing that you said because uh maybe the the governments around the world will continue pushing these products. Uh we don't ask the the people to be uh let's say to make a revolution. We don't ask the people to uh to be activists to fight against these uh pharmaceutical products. We just ask them to say no.
I mean it's something very it's a very simple word that requires a lot of courage but uh it is it is your health. It is your body. So uh for for the principles of bodily autonomy you can decide what to put uh in your uh organism. And uh another problem that uh we we saw with uh the mechanisms that we saw uh before that have been listed in the in the paper is that uh the the the patients when not the patient the people went to uh the um to the vaccination centers to get vaccinated. they had to sign an informed consent and I'm I'm wondering uh what kind of informed consent uh it was when even the Fiser uh the people that work in Fizer or Mona don't even know uh for example for the the problem of the contaminations what there is really inside their vials in in two vials I'm not talking about uh uh different lots. I'm talking about two vials. Even uh the the at the moment there is no one in the world that can state that two vials have the same content of molecules because this random um presence of the uh plasmic DNA contaminations makes all the vials potentially different because we are talking about billions of molecules that can be cut differently. So they are they have different content not only the amount that is contained in the vial even the the content. So we have products that do not comply with the pharmaceutical description. So how they were able to explain to uh the people that went to to get vaccinated what which were the potential threats of these products when they themselves they didn't know even the producer doesn't knew which are the the the potential harms and the content o of of of the vials. And uh really if someone is able to to to to to make a debate on this thing and uh and can say the contrary, okay, he's welcome. He's he's welcome to take two vials, two different vials from two different um uh production series and analyze them.
There is there is a very in infinite uh uh small chance that these two virus will have the same molecular content inside.
>> Thank you much. Do you want to add something?
>> I want just to add that I am happy to be censored and not murdered all every day.
I think that very well. I am very sensored and you all of us.
I think it's better.
Well, okay. Maybe maybe uh that's two bad things. The the the list uh for sure. Uh you can find all the articles uh of Panagis uh on on target and plus um we you can find all the commentaries of this publication process which has been completely crazy uh on his substack and also on the article uh on target and uh you can share all that and maybe we can uh add something. Um, Panagis, do you want to add something before we we quit the the show?
>> I I just want to thank you both. Um, because uh you are very brave persons and we you are great scientists and uh I really I'm really grateful for your work and for giving me the possibility to expose these outrageous facts.
Thank you very much to convey this inconvenient truth. We need the uh researcher like you who go till the end.
Maybe some person who are watching us think that oh all of that is behind us and not at all. Not at all. Don't even think that uh this is not behind us.
it's just in front of us and and and um now modified mRNA tend to be uh the normal process for a lot of vaccination of products and it didn't prove in any way that they were uh safe and effective and if ever we accept this first uh um this first problem uh we will kind of consent to give our consents to all which is going to happen in the following year. So we have to um to to clear the uh the absidation uh and and show it to the people.
Here is a small synthesis of the high potential casinogic carinogenic mechanism made with AI thanks to your articles. If you inject the articles of panagus in an AI, it will produce something which is quite interesting. So you can do it. you can um it's it's you only site the sources and that's the only point. Uh thank you very much Panagus. Thank you Elen.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you Luis. Thank you.
>> Have a good day everyone. Bye-bye.
>> Byebye.
The speech is yours pan. I guess you can go whenever.
>> Uh, have you stopped the registration?
>> Okay. Thank you, Panagus. So, now the speech is yours so that you can uh present your work about encoenic mechanisms and the the case report that you did.
>> So, I can share my screen.
Can I see my screen?
>> Yes, we can see it. And you can share the sum you want.
>> Yes. Basically um this is a paper uh that we were talking about before and uh it has been co-authored by uh a very uh international let's say uh team we have Patricia Gentilini who is a former uh oncologist. No sorry it he she is an oncologist. She was uh the former director of uh uh the the hospital. No, no, sorry.
I I Can we stop the registration, please?
Sorry.
>> Okay. You want to change something?
>> Yes. I I I Can you see my screen? Um we can see your screen now and we can see the different uh authors that you have.
>> Yeah. So the paper has been co-authored by an international team of researchers.
Between them we have the oncologist uh Dr. Patricia Gentilini. We have the uh American molecular biologist Dr. John Lindday. the Japanese doctors uh Nafukonishi and Mazanori Fukushima who is considered one of the fathers of oncology in Japan and uh me. So this paper as I was telling before uh describes uh the case report of a 39 uh years old woman who developed an acute lymphoplastic leukemia and a lymphoplastic lymphoma after her second fisor shot. The uh very uh relevant thing is that in general uh case reports have a very uh easy publication process because uh uh case reports are just an objective uh report of the uh clinical history of a patient.
Uh so basically we have reported the clinical history of this uh patient and after that we have uh reviewed about 28 similar um cases of ematoptic cancers that have been developed after the mRNA uh vaccinations.
And uh at the end of the paper we have reported again uh only from published literature and from official guidelines from uh the FDA and the EMA. Um a list of potential uh canceric mechanisms of uh the mRNA uh vaccines against COVID 19. So it is very important to uh mention that uh this paper uh doesn't reports uh something that is controversial or something that has um a strange uh uh experimental process. It is just an objective case report and a review of already published paper papers in the peer-reviewed literature. And this um is important to highlight because usually these papers um don't uh get a hard life let's say in get published.
However, after the uh the print publication of this uh uh paper, we struggled for two uh long years uh before publishing it on on target and uh this paper has been submitted for 16 times uh in 15 journals and uh I will explain why there is this difference between uh 16 and 15. And the difference is because uh in the last uh journal that has been uh accepted for publication, it has been accepted for publication twice and it has been rejected twice just some days before uh the editorial office uh could put it online. I had already uh edited the paper on the template of uh uh the journal because the editorial office sent me the template to uh edit the paper in uh the format that they use to uh put online their papers.
So we we were just uh waiting uh the paper to uh uh to to uh get published online but uh it never get uh it never got published and uh I started writing uh and wrote and writing and writing to the uh editorial office and to the coitorin chief and in the end uh they told us that the paper uh was rejected.
And this rejection came um not from the scientific committee let's say uh but by the uh publisher because the uh reviewers and the um co-editor-inchief had accepted this paper uh twice and um we decided to write This uh uh this uh commentary which describes all the publication history of uh of um this paper in which we have documented all the uh submission dates in all the um scientific journals that we submitted the paper, the rejection dates and uh uh I have some linkage links in in which I have uploaded the the letters because uh this this has been proved has has to be proven that I am telling the truth about this. So uh in order to prove that uh all all that is documented in the paper is truth, I have um uploaded even the letters from the um the journal reducting of course uh the names and the uh emails in which we can we can see that I receive. For example, this one is dated 26th of August. I receive a uh a letter in which the editorial office communicates that they are pleased to inform me that the manuscript has been accepted for publication.
Um and then again um this uh the paper has been rejected the first time not by uh the uh let's say editor or the um the the reviewers.
Then I wrote them and I told them that I I was uh uh decided to uh resign from my position because I was an editorial board member uh on current proteomics uh and to expose all these facts uh and so they decided to step back. They gave us a second possibility. The um the paper has been sent to new reviewers. uh the new reviewers gave us their uh response which was uh positive. We uh addressed all the comments by the reviewers. the paper became even more uh solid and it has been accepted for a second time and this is the second acceptance letter uh dated uh 17 October 2025 in which again they say they say I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for publication.
So I'm not complaining because uh the paper uh has been rejected many times.
I'm complaining because the paper has been accepted twice and it has been rejected twice after acceptance. And when I started writing to the uh coitorin chief in order to receive some uh explanation about about that, he replied this email and he he wrote, "Hi, you should contact the publisher directly."
This this means that the publisher was blocking the publication of the paper, not the co-editor chief, not the reviewers. And uh this is outrageous because the relationship that exist between the authors, the editor of a journal and the reviewers, it it's what uh has driven science for more than 100 years.
The publication process works like this from more than 100 years and uh never in my career but not even in all my co-authors careers because I asked them they it happened that the paper has been accepted twice and just before publication it has been uh blocked by the publisher who is not a scientist But uh he is a manager not a subject matter and being a manager he's makes him not able to judge the scientific quality of the paper. So he's judging by other things that could be for example uh a political agenda or that could be for example uh some conf conflicts of interest which we don't know because uh we haven't received uh any uh valid explanation from the publisher about uh his decision.
But uh after exposing all the publication history of the paper, let's uh understand why uh this paper was so inconvenient and uh the system uh didn't wanted to get it published. Um and this proves how the uh let's call uh general consensus on the safety and the efficacy of the genetic vaccines against COVID 19 might has have been shaped during uh the pandemic years because if you silence completely all the critical voices and you allow uh to publish only uh the let's say uh scientists that have a positive opinion uh towards the uh genetic vaccines then what reaches the public and the the general consensus let's say is that uh all the scientists are agree that these vaccines are safe and effective. However, this was not the case and this fact proves it. uh because the voices of the of the scientists that were not complying with this uh uh agenda h have been silenced completely and um yes >> yes yes we can see that it's it's true in science but it's also in the information silencing the other voices and censoring the the diverse diversity of opinions uh will lead to a a laundry a whitewashing of the of the the main information which is important for the narrative. So uh we have uh a lot of of information of how science contradictory science has been censored by the social media. Uh just like when um the the head of um of of Twitter and then with the Twitter files uh decided not to publish a lot of different uh threads about the different treatments for the COVID.
uh also with uh Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook and Meta and and this is really important that the people understand that it's how is manufactured a consent just like in Noam Shamsky book uh about war but it's about science and medicine there >> yes exactly this is uh very important um however personally I was expecting I was ready to receive censorship from uh social media platforms or from social uh or from news outlets for example. I I was expecting that but I wasn't expecting to receive this kind of censorship um from the the the scientific world. uh because uh in my let's say uh imagination from when I I was a young researcher I always uh considered the publication process ingenuously as a sacred a sacred process between the researchers, the editor and the reviewers. For me, it was something that um was uh theontologically and uh morally above uh the the the interests. So I I got really hurted by by all this story just because I understood that even in science uh there are this huge uh conflicts of interest and a lot of people that are uh following uh an agenda. Do do you think there were there were direct pressure or or it was self censorship from the publisher?
>> I unfortunately I I don't know that because um I I have not uh I didn't got explanation about uh uh why the paper has been has been blocked. Uh however, we can see that uh other papers that uh reported uh the carinogenic effects of uh COVID 19 uh genetic vaccines encountered similar uh similar difficulties in in publishing their paper and some of their paper uh have been retracted.
Like for example the uh the Japanese study by Mickey Gibbo and professor Fukushima who is one of the co-authors of uh my study uh has been retracted from from curios with a very um brief and uh unsatisfying explanation.
Uh so the system uh let's call it system didn't wanted uh papers who report uh side effects in general but especially uh the cancerogenic uh effects to get published and up to now very few papers uh manage to get published um in in uh in scientific literature.
One one point I may had to to explain to the public uh how how you could be flabbergasted about the the fact of this uh corruption of the editorial process is the fact that all the different um editors and also the writers um u normally are are doomed to respect the the chart of Vancouver uh which is uh the recommendation that we have about how to publish a scientific paper.
Meaning the form is very there is a a formalism which is uh very important uh uh with the uh the abstract the introduction material and material and method the results and the discussion and maybe a conclusion and and all after the uh revising process, the reviewing process with one reviewer, two reviewers uh the editors making it in pending all of that is completely uh algorithmic normally and should not be transformed because this method is uh is how we guarantee the validity of the information.
>> Yes. Exactly.
>> Exactly.
And uh we can we can see why uh I think that our study has been considered inconvenient.
Uh because uh not not just because it reports another case of um of anatopiotic cancer developed after vaccination.
uh but because uh it uh um summarizes in the end uh a lot of different mechanisms that have been uh reported in in literature and to be precise we have reported eight uh different um eight different uh um mechanisms which uh if you want uh uh I can I can summarize without uh going too much in detail because uh uh so even a broad audience can uh let's say um understand this uh the these mechanisms >> and it is important to highlight all these papers all these papers have been already published uh in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Yeah, sure. And and I underline that uh one one more uh once more the what you are going to describe as the height potential uh mechanisms inducing making that mRNA vaccin or help having a cancer are published by other authors. um they mean other people um studied and managed to find how p-53 were was impaired how different the mechanism of protection against cancer were impaired and that's a very important point that you that you raise you it is not uh an original contribution that you make make there you only uh synthesize you you make a a synthesis of of what has been said about that >> yes exactly exactly as as it is normal uh and it is a common practice in science to make uh review papers in order to um summarize the findings by others uh in in a single a single paper.
Uh so it is something that uh it is completely legitimate and uh we can see uh eight these are even other mechanisms have been proposed. We decided to um to summarize uh the the main uh eight mechanisms that have been summarized which uh for example are uh the um the overp production of a protein that is called PDL1 which acts as an off uh switch of our tilymphosytes and by shutting down uh the T- cells uh the body loses its ability to uh find and destroy the uh cancer cells. Um a second very uh important mechanism is uh that has been reported that the S2 subunit of the spike protein uh has the ability to uh interact and block the um tumor suppression proteins like P-53 and uh B uh CA1 and two which are responsible for fixing uh uh the uh damaged DNA and uh thus stopping uh cancerogenesis. So suppressing the the activity of these uh very important tumor suppressive proteins um we basically suppress the major uh defense against cancer.
Another uh important carcinogenic mechanism is uh the um the the the suppression of the um type one uh interferons which act like uh an alarm uh signal against viral infections and can help um the the the immune reaction against uh cancer cells.
So uh even this is another uh very detrimental uh mechanism.
And uh another mechanism that can explain the uh the nature uh of the fast developing uh tumors is the um the the release. the fact that the spike protein uh forces the cell uh to release a growth factor that is called TGF uh beta which is capable of uh re reverting let's say the uh the status of the cells to a primitive state. uh and because of this any existing uh cancer cell uh gets let's say turbocharged and becoming more aggressive and spreading faster and this could explain the phenomenon of the turbo cancers uh that have been observed in the last years.
Then there is another very important issue and this is uh uh fundamental because from my point of view uh it could bring to the end of uh the uh mRNA vaccines like we know them now uh like they are produced now is the detection of uh plasmid DNA contamination uh in in the vials.
This publication is a publication that I uh played a role uh because I invited uh Dr. David Speaker uh Dr. Jessica Rose and Dr. uh Kevin McKernan to uh submit the uh the paper in um special issue that I was uh editing in um in the journal out immunity. So they uh sent they submitted the paper and the paper has been revised and it has been published and it is very important because it it proves that in the vials there are from like 36 to 300 630 300 636 if I don't remember uh if I remember correctly times the uh amount of uh double strand DNA um that is allowed by the FDA uh guidelines which is 10 nanogs per uh dose.
So um this it is a very another very important uh issue uh because of two uh main things. The first thing is that u the double strand DNA uh has the potential of integrate in our chromosomes.
uh while for the uh single strand mRNA uh this is uh a much more uh difficult uh statistically um situation and uh that's why um it is very uh up to now it was very uh strictly regulated the amount of uh double strand uh DNA uh contamin ation that could exist in uh the uh genetic therapies.
While uh in this case we have not only double stranded DNA up to 600 times the allowed limits but we have even uh doublestranded DNA which is inserted in the lipid nanop particles and the lipid nanop particles we know that have the potential to spread all over the body and they have specifically designed to uh have a facilitated entrance in our cells. So we don't only have a double stranded DNA which has the potential to get integrated in our genome but we have this double stranded DNA that is uh uh facilitated in its uh spreading throughout the body and entron entering in in the cells by these lipid nanop particles.
And it is very important that uh um the the Fiser and from a study that is uh numbered 185350 and even the EMA and the FDA already knew uh from the results of this uh study performed on rats that the lipid nanop particles had the potential to spread all over the body and even in the bone bone marrow. And this has uh a important implication for the development of ematopiotetic malignancies.
And uh the second thing that is this is very uh important is that uh if you have uh a a pharmaceutical product that has 600 times the allowed amounts uh of a contamination um that you have never declared its existence because uh Fizer never declared its existence.
um you have a compliance problem because what you declare in the uh in the pharmaceutical description of the product is different of what of the that the vials contain and uh at the moment these uh contaminations that are very random uh because uh fiser in order to uh let's say purify uh the the the content of the uh vaccines uh decided to uh cut this um these plasmids into small pieces uh with DNA and this uh from my point of view but even from uh other scientists point of view like for example professor Bholds and uh professor McKen and Dr. McKenon. This makes the integration even more probable because uh if you have one piece of DNA uh you have a a certain amount of of probabilities to get uh to get it to integrate in uh the DN in the host DNA. But uh if you cut it then you multiply the ends and then you multiply uh even the the the probability of integration.
Um so this uh uh at the moment is a a huge huge issue um that uh should be investigated not only from the scientific point of view but even from the the legal and the and the um compliance with the regulations point of view because here we have a product which is different um with respect of what they have declared >> from the actual one that has been given to the people. Yeah.
>> Yes.
It is given to the people and even to uh pregnant women and young children which have uh a a risky ratio of of dying from COVID that is proximal to zero.
>> I may I may draw a parallel for the public so that they may understand really this this this important point which is a regulatory issue actually. uh if ever you have a uh one one cheese uh which is not exactly the one that has been said and doesn't contain what the what the producer what the industrial has told it is withdrawn from the market immediately whatever the consequences because it's not conform uh it's not regulatory and officially um like the one that has been said uh it is the same in your house if you put a window which is not uh um accredititated as a or or one one one thing to hold your roof which is not exactly the one set by the the des how to say that by the um the imperative the imperatives the regulatory things that they have to do it it you will not be insured uh and you can sue you can sue the the industrial who met that so >> but but and FDA they were aware because they used a bad methodology to to find DNA and mRNA hybrids they didn't use the good methodology and they they knew that so so they were aware of this the presence of the DNA contamination >> yes and it is crazy that uh they didn't perform this kind of analysis before uh giving the authorization for for use and they we had to wait for independent analysis after four five years that these vaccines were in the com in the commerce and uh billions of people uh have been inoculated.
So um just to go on with the with the with the mechanism we have other uh three mechanisms uh and uh uh one that has been reported from three different groups is the induction of the the the the production of the EG4 um antibodies.
which are antibodies that are uh known for being uh imunosuppressive. They provide uh tolerancy uh to uh our body and uh this has a very important implication because uh um having a high amount of EG4 uh can make you more um prone to contract uh to get uh infected by uh COVID 19 by sorry SARS SARS COV2 uh but even uh they lower the defenses against the uh carinogenic uh cells.
And uh another very uh important issue is the um the frame shifting uh that the mRNA uh causes. Uh because uh instead of the natural uridin that should exist in uh the uh genetic material in the mRNA we have epsidurine.
This pod uridine has been introduced by um if I remember correctly uh viceman and kico and they received even a Nobel prize for this uh because it stabilizes the uh life of the mRNA uh the the synthetic mRNA in the cell because otherwise the natural mRNA gets degraded uh very fast. However, this sedurine um elongates the the lifetime of the mRNA in the cell and uh it causes a frame shifting that uh causes the production of truncated forms of the uh vaccine derived spike protein.
But it can even causes uh the production of unknown aarent proteins with unknown uh potential and action inside ourselves.
And for example, they could have uh an inhibiting activity towards for example the uh p-53 the uh the protecting anti-canceric protein.
And finally, uh there is a a an a last um mechanism that we describe that is the disruption of the liver metabolism because the uh vaccine derived lipid nanop particles uh get accumulated in uh the liver and this uh disrupts um how the body processes vital nutri nutrients like iron, phospholipids and tryptophan.
And uh this can cause um a a starvation that stresses our body and consequently wakens our body. uh stresses the bone marrow created imunosuppressing and im imunosuppressed environment that can promote the uh proliferation of uh tumor cells.
So basically by writing this paper we uh gathered all these mechanisms all together along with the uh FDA and EMA documentation that proved that uh all the gene therapies that um could contain DNA contamination uh had to be very strictly uh regulated and uh had and a very of risk benefit evaluation had to be performed in order to decide when to give uh when it was to give this kind of uh pharmaceutical products to a patient.
But uh in the pandemic year years we saw uh vaccinating everybody everybody even even pregnant women and uh and this uh led to uh a rise of uh potentially let's say but we we we are we are seeing um day by day an increase of uh the the the all cause mortality in in many different uh countries. We have now we can count different papers that re report and document this uh um increased uh all cause mortality.
I could ask uh I could add that one of require control for gene therapy product is the monitoring of cancers. It's it's asked by FDA and mRNA vaccines are gene therapy products. So it's known by the regulation agencies that cancer could be an effect of the this product. It's not a surprise.
Sure.
>> Exactly.
>> Um we can add that um most of the people will be all right and uh we can reassure the public that the wide majority of the people uh maybe received a very low dose maybe received nothing you remember that in each vial five different do uh if you have the first one and maybe not mixed all right by the nurse um you don't have the same thing as the last one. um the conservation of the product has been really uh completely um not done in the in in in the golden rules.
Um plus we all react differently. So we can say that human most of the time is resistant to a lot of poison that we give him and it's important to remember that. So and not have a noibo effect if you have been injected by those product and this being said doesn't mean that the product is safe and effective and means that this product should be withdrawn from the market in high emergency and should not be used. There should be a moratorium on the research of this products and and we ask that with the ch with the children of hypocratis in France and with Elaine where we ask the government and the different uh uh regulators in France to withdraw this those products from the market and to and to put a moratorium on the research about this those modifi modified MRNAs. It has been done in several countries also with the nose initiative in the country of the of Northern Europe and and everywhere. But it's just like if regulators were were deaf and they didn't want to hear anything about that and it's um uh it's relevant to say because it's just the same thing. They don't want to know about that by blocking the publication but they don't want to know about that from the public and from the scientists.
uh um as and and they don't want to do anything for the moment. So we have a huge problem with those product.
>> I could add I could add that I had a similar experience with the peer review.
I was asked to review an article on the virus study. The virus is a data baz um for for the notification of adverse effects of the vaccine. And this study was specifically on the disproportionate number of reports in virus which is a senior signal of of causal link. But I made the review but then the article was rejected without the editor reading my review because an article in nature has previously rejected this methodology.
uh I was asked a second time by Frontiers in Pharmacology to review an article using the same methodology. So I asked if the article was would be rejected outright.
I was told no. But ultimately the same thing happened the the rejection without reading the reviews. So I protested to the editor uh and I I looked for who was the editor and the editor was affiliated with the wealth world economic forum and then after frontiers in pharmacology asked me to uh be an editor for another article using the same methodology and you panagis I asked you to to review this article. So uh I think they they parted ways with with editor close to the world economic forum. It's very strange.
>> Thank you. I share I I will share with you uh uh our alert to the um to the sanitary regulators of France. uh and you can write to those editors, you can write to those regulators and show that there is a dialectic, there is a contradiction. There are some people who are aware and we see them masking the truth trying to um manufacture the consent of the people who is lying to them about those project those products.
And it's really important that you um our dear viewers and editors uh you also react. It's not only now a matter of scientist but it's a matter of public uh action struggling to to to to get back security in our healthcare pro process.
>> Yes. And uh it is very uh important that uh even the authors, the researchers around the world that uh have results that clash with the safe and effective narrative. They have to be stubborn and brave and uh keep trying um despite all the the difficulties they have to keep trying get published their papers because uh this is our way the the scientific way to uh communicate and to talk with the institutions. Only with some scientific papers we can go to a regulator and ask for more uh secure env evaluations otherwise we cannot and this is one of the reasons that uh I think that uh we face the scientific censorship.
>> Yes, thank you very much. We called this year um 2026 the return to Itaka. You're from Greece and you know that Ulyses uh at the end of his odysium uh get back to his kingdom and get back the the the leadership and he has to to push out uh the the pretendants to the throne and to push them away showing his his his strength. So now is the return to Itaka, we shall get back to uh uh regular and and regulated production of knowledge and uh not let it go uh saying despair that it's completely rotten and completely corrupted. Uh we we shall overcome that and and get back to our threats. So uh it's an advice to all our fellow researcher get back to ITA. it's only 16 times um trying to to submit the paper to get it submit to get it accepted. So that's not so much uh and eventually you will you will manage and uh and we have to u stop the garbage in garbage it out process that it is is happening in science and to have good things in and good things out now. Thank you very much Panagisk. Uh um Elaine you wanted to make kind of a synthesis of all what is being published maybe it's the moment would you agree >> yes it's just just two minutes um I have compiled other articles to show that panagis was not alone but it's evident for us the recent publication of the bi biological mechanism under underlying the link between anticovid mRNA and cancers So uh um I will I want to insist that uh nano particles have a tendency to accumulate in the bone mau. The um the concentration in the bone marrow is is increased in comparison with the blood and the blood cells are produced in the bone mar. Therefore the development of amaloto amalotoical cancers following mRNA agent therapy could be expected and this is expected by by the regulation agencies.
uh uh panag talk about DNA contaminations uh especially when cells are undergoing mitosis a f when in which the nucleus is no longer present so DNA can integrate into the recipient's genome uh in in the bone marrow numerous motic divisions occur during the development of blood cells and as I post marketing surveillance of gene therapy products includes monitoring for concern by the FDA.
So some publication one was retracted as said panagis. So um no with no on the ground that the correlation between mortality rates and vaccination cannot be proven. It's not a it's not a reason.
Uh another publication says that COVID vaccine increase the risk of developing several types of cancer. But I think Banagis you have some critics about this publication. Perhaps after you will publish the critics of this publication.
I think uh another publication says that COVID vaccine increase the risk of several cancers. It's a current publication which was not retracted.
Um another publication of professor elder and professor Cooper Vaser uh over 300 cases of turbo cancer link linked to covid vaccines in 27 countries.
Another about genomic integration mechanism in the mRNA vaccine by Peter Maclo team.
Uh ma injections induce several and lasting genetic disruptions linked to cancer and chronic disease.
And also the spike protein was uh detected in the cytoplasm and in the nucleus of metastatic breast cancer cells.
And finally uh what um these two articles you see you cited in in your paper from um professor professor elder kuparasa and from zong about the ability to to suppress p53 and it's just example of of other papers that that all I finished.
>> Thank you for this biology lesson.
>> Thank you very much. Yes, we will learn a lot thanks to spike protein and nano part lipid nanop particles and DNA.
We will know a lot more now about the physiology and the pathology of the cancer. Um and we may also remember that in encogenic pathways there are a lot of different regulators that can also be activated by changing how we eat, how we live, how we relate to the others. And those those points are really important for the people who have been vaccinated that it may raise a warning and make them pay attention to how not to get a cancer and and try to live differently because if maybe 20 or 30% of of uh of the raising of a cancer of the development of a cancer will be drawn by those injection there are still 70 or 80% that could be handled differently uh to try and stop it. Not everybody, as I told you, not everybody who has been vaccinated will get a cancer uh eventually, but uh it's kind of a warning that it raises and it it should push us to do something else. Plus one more important point. If you receive one injection, two injection, three injections, four, six, seven, it's not the same rate of cancer also. And the the risk is increasing with the number of doses. So you should stop if you became a junkie and and you are at the seventh or eighth dose. It's never a bad moment to stop, you know. Um we say that for planting a tree. When is the good moment to plant a tree? 30 years ago or now? Um it's kind of the same thing as for the modified mRNA vaccines. When is the good moment to stop it? It was from the very beginning never receiving it and now. Uh so uh just say no to the different campaigns that are uh done by the state uh to try and force you to uh have those injections.
um they are still publishing now uh in the institutional regulators in France recommendation to have new vaccination again and again and again and so we can see that it's not it it has no relationship with any epidemics or any any reality of care it's only to try and get rid of their vaccine they both in excess so say no Yes, this is a very important thing that you said because uh maybe the the governments around the world will continue pushing these products. Uh we don't ask the the people to be uh let's say to make a revolution. We don't ask the people to uh to be activists to fight against these uh pharmaceutical products. We just ask them to say no.
I mean it's something very it's a very simple word that requires a lot of courage but uh it is it is your health. It is your body. So uh for for the principles of bodily autonomy you can decide what to put uh in your uh organism. And uh another problem that uh we we saw with uh the mechanisms that we saw uh before that have been listed in the in the paper is that uh the the the patients when not the patient the people went to uh the um to the vaccination centers to get vaccinated. they had to sign an informed consent and I'm I'm wondering uh what kind of informed consent uh it was when even the Fiser uh the people that work in Fizer or Mona don't even know uh for example for the the problem of the contaminations what there is really inside their vials in in two vials I'm not talking about uh uh different lots. I'm talking about two vials. Even uh the the at the moment there is no one in the world that can state that two vials have the same content of molecules because this random um presence of the uh plasmic DNA contaminations makes all the vials potentially different because we are talking about billions of molecules that can be cut differently. So they are they have different content not only the amount that is contained in the vial even the the content. So we have products that do not comply with the pharmaceutical description. So how they were able to explain to uh the people that went to to get vaccinated what which were the potential threats of these products when they themselves they didn't know even the producer doesn't knew which are the the the potential harms and the content o of of of the vials. And uh really if someone is able to to to to make a debate on this thing and uh and can say the contrary, okay, he's welcome he's he's welcome to take two vials, two different vials from two different um uh production series and analyze them.
There is there is a very in infinite uh uh small chance that these two virus will have the same molecular content inside.
>> Thank you much. Do you want to add something?
>> I want just to add that I am happy to be censored and not murdered all every day.
I think that very well. I am very sensored and you all of us.
I think it's better.
Well, okay. Maybe maybe uh that's two bad things. The the the list uh for sure. Uh you can find all the articles uh of panagis uh on on target and plus um we you can find all the commentaries of this publication process which has been completely crazy uh on his substack and also on the article uh on target and uh you can share all that and maybe we can uh add something. Um, Panagis, do you want to add something before we we quit the the show?
>> I I just want to thank you both. Um, because uh you are very brave persons and we you are great scientists and uh I really I'm really grateful for your work and for giving me the possibility to expose these outrageous facts.
Thank you very much to convey this inconvenient truth. We need the uh researcher like you who go till the end.
Maybe some person who are watching us think that oh all of that is behind us and not at all. Not at all. Don't even think that uh this is not behind us.
it's just in front of us and and and um now modified mRNA tend to be uh the normal process for a lot of vaccination of products and it didn't prove in any way that they were uh safe and effective and if ever we accept this first uh um this first problem uh we will kind of consent to give our consents to all which is going to happen in the following year. So we have to um to to clear the uh the absidation and and show it to the people.
Here is a small synthesis of the high potential carinog casinogenic mechanism made with AI thanks to your articles. If you inject the articles of panagus in an AI, it will produce something which is quite interesting. So you can do it. you can um it's it's you only site the sources and that's the only point. Uh thank you very much Benis. Thank you Elen.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you Luis. Thank you.
>> Have a good day everyone. Bye bye.
>> Byebye.
Related Videos
51:25
Biotechnology
EAStalk “Electrochemical sensors as a platform for improving Animal Welfare” with Dr Sofia Teixeira
euraquaculture
176 views•2025-06-20
10:06
Biotechnology
Cesare, son of San Mauro (eng)
AkuOutdoorFootwear
608 views•2016-02-03
0:47
Biotechnology
Why Gen Z is Taking Creatine (It's NOT for Muscle Growth)
Michealhealth
830 views•2026-04-22
43:57
Biotechnology
Guillaume Durin - Catch and Release - Extraction and Purification of NGS Grade DNA and RNA from FFPE
Labroots
851 views•2015-01-27
1:13:59
Biotechnology
Webinar: Unlocking Competitive and Sustainable Agriculture Through Plant Breeding Innovation
americanseedtradeassociati3281
319 views•2024-06-28
2:08
Biotechnology
AI in neurology: predicting protein structure
VJNeurology
622 views•2023-07-06
2:42
Biotechnology
Stevia Innovative technologies for cost effective and sustainable production of Reb M
ingredionemea201
207 views•2023-03-14
2:27
Biotechnology
Biological Effects of Radiation
CDC
551K views•2015-08-27
Trending
13:25
Business
Playstation NO DISC/NO BUY Fight Is Over...
DavidJaffeGames
4K views•2026-07-23
22:40
Business
Steam and Xbox Just Dropped The Hammer On PlayStation
OhNoItsAlexx
9K views•2026-07-23
16:52
Anthropology
Americans Confused in Australia for 17 Minutes Straight
IWrocker
17K views•2026-07-23
20:36
Business
SuperBike Factory Has Gone... What's Next for the Motorcycle Industry?
thatbikersimon
11K views•2026-07-22