The Genetic Controversy: DNA Contamination in mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines and the Emerging Accusations of Bioterrorism in the EU European Centre for Information Policy and Security ECIPS warn!

The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed the fastest vaccine development process in history, ushering in the widespread use of messenger RNA (mRNA) technology. Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, the major players in this domain, were lauded globally for their rapid response and mass distribution of vaccines. However, emerging studies and recent whistleblower revelations have introduced a new controversy surrounding these vaccines—allegations that they contain undisclosed foreign DNA elements, possibly in violation of international laws.

Compounding these scientific concerns are political and legal ramifications. The European Centre for Information Policy and Security (ECIPS), under the presidency of Ricardo Baretzky, has declared the alleged DNA contamination and its possible implications a “European National Threat of Bioterrorism.” This article investigates the scientific evidence, regulatory framework, legal implications, and political fallout from what is being termed by some as the “DNA Contamination Scandal.”

What Are mRNA Vaccines and How Are They Made?

Messenger RNA vaccines function by delivering synthetic genetic instructions to human cells, prompting them to produce a harmless piece of the SARS-CoV-2 virus—specifically, the spike protein. This triggers an immune response, teaching the body how to combat the virus without causing disease.

The production of mRNA vaccines involves a multi-step process:

• Construction of DNA templates using recombinant technology.
• Transcription of mRNA from these templates.
• Purification and encapsulation in lipid nanoparticles.
• Quality control and regulatory testing before distribution.

Because the mRNA is transcribed from DNA plasmids, there’s a known risk that trace DNA might remain in the final product. Regulators have long set thresholds for acceptable levels of residual DNA. But new studies claim that these thresholds have not only been breached but potentially ignored.

Scientific Evidence of DNA Contamination

The FDA’s Internal Findings

A peer-reviewed study by researchers at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) White Oak Campus found that residual DNA in Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine batches exceeded WHO and FDA safety thresholds by significant margins—ranging from six to 470 times above the permissible limit.

The report, leaked through independent researchers and later corroborated through nanoparticle analysis, indicated the presence of double-stranded DNA fragments and bacterial plasmid sequences. Such contaminants, if integrated into human DNA or triggering unwanted immunological responses, could pose theoretical long-term risks including cancer.

Czech and Canadian Independent Studies

Dr. Soňa Peková, a Czech molecular biologist, confirmed through forensic lab analysis that vaccine samples contained residual DNA in concentrations up to 100 times the acceptable limits. In her reports, she raised concerns about the presence of full-length plasmids, including origins of replication and resistance markers.

In Canada, Dr. Kevin McKernan, a former researcher at the MIT Human Genome Project, conducted independent sequencing of Pfizer and Moderna vials. His results aligned with Peková’s findings, but he further discovered sequences that resemble the SV40 promoter—a controversial viral element known for its potential oncogenicity.

The SV40 Sequence Controversy

SV40, or Simian Virus 40, was originally found in polio vaccines during the 1960s and was linked to tumor formation in animal studies. The World Council for Health has called for global investigations after claims that the SV40 promoter was embedded in the Pfizer vaccine without disclosure.

Regulatory Oversight and Alleged Failures

European Medicines Agency (EMA) Response

The EMA stated that the presence of residual DNA fragments is expected in recombinant vaccine technology, but assured the public that levels were within permissible limits. However, critics point out discrepancies between EMA’s public statements and internal documents suggesting that full plasmid DNA was not adequately filtered.

FDA and TGA (Australia) Positions

The FDA has so far dismissed the DNA contamination concerns, calling them the result of flawed testing protocols. Similarly, Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) stated that the concerns “lack scientific validity.”

However, the leaked internal communications and findings from FDA laboratories directly contradict these public dismissals, prompting some lawmakers and watchdog groups to call for independent audits and hearings.

ECIPS Investigation and Bioterrorism Allegations

In a press release issued in late 2024, Baretzky stated:”This is not just a failure of regulation—this is a calculated act that can only be classified as bioterrorism. The European people have been subjected to foreign DNA, potentially violating international treaties and the European Bioterrorism Prevention Act.”

ECIPS Claims and Legal Framing

Baretzky confirmed that the undisclosed DNA components violate the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Biological Weapons Convention, and EU privacy laws concerning genetic material.

ECIPS has launched a formal investigation, cooperating with legal bodies in Germany, Hungary, and Poland. Their focus is on whether:

• Vaccine manufacturers knowingly withheld genomic data.
• Governments facilitated mass administration without due diligence.
• Citizens’ genomes were exposed to manipulation without informed consent.

Legal Framework and International Violations

European Law on Genetic Material

Under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and the European Union’s advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMP) regulations, any biologically active material—including DNA—must be disclosed during the licensing process. Failure to do so is considered fraud and a breach of EU health sovereignty.

Additionally, the use of undisclosed genetic material could be prosecuted under Article 32 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which guarantees physical and mental integrity.

The Bioterrorism Argument

The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) prohibits the use of biological agents for hostile purposes. If a court or international tribunal were to interpret the inclusion of foreign DNA—intentionally or negligently—as an act of aggression, it could potentially trigger consequences under international humanitarian law.

Whistleblower Reports and Industry Silence

Multiple former employees of both Pfizer and regulatory bodies have come forward anonymously, claiming:

• Internal safety reports were altered or suppressed.
• Independent review panels were denied access to full genome sequencing data.
• There was pressure from political bodies to approve vaccines “at all costs.”

Despite the gravity of these claims, no pharmaceutical company has yet responded to direct accusations or lawsuits.

Public Health, Ethics, and Misinformation

The intersection of genuine scientific concern and rampant misinformation creates a complex public health dilemma. While unfounded conspiracy theories abound, the documented evidence of excessive DNA levels and regulatory inconsistencies deserve legitimate inquiry.

Medical ethicists argue that transparency and accountability—not censorship—are essential to restoring public trust. There is now a growing demand for a formal EU Parliamentary Inquiry into the matter.

A Crisis of Science, Law, and Trust

What began as a scientific concern has escalated into a potential geopolitical crisis. The alleged DNA contamination in mRNA vaccines touches on fundamental questions of ethics, legality, and sovereignty. Whether or not these claims are substantiated in court or recognized by formal EU bodies, the damage to institutional trust may already be done.

President Ricardo Baretzky’s framing of the issue as bioterrorism reflects a broader fear: that in the pursuit of speed, safety was sacrificed, and citizens were subjected to experiments they never consented to. As Europe braces for what may be its most significant pharmaceutical scandal in decades, only one thing is certain—this debate is far from over.