RFK Jr. is correct. The fact is, there are billions of fragments of human cellular debris and DNA from the cultured cell line of an aborted fetus in every injected dose of MMR (measles, mumps, rubella), chicken pox, and hepatitis A vaccines.
Because viruses multiply in cells, living cells are used to grow viruses for vaccine production, including the cultured cell lines of aborted fetuses. Two such cell lines are MRC-5 and WI-38, which are described by a company that sells them as follows:
The MRC-5 cell line was derived from normal lung tissue of a 14-week-old male embryo…
and
WI-38 cell line is the first human diploid cell line to be used in human vaccine preparation … [and was] isolated from the lung tissue of a 3-month-old, female, embryo.
The ingredients of chickenpox, rubella, and hepatitis A vaccines each include cellular and DNA pieces from these fetal cell lines. According to the CDC’s Vaccine Excipient Table, Varivax (chickenpox) includes “MRC-5 human diploid cells including DNA & protein,” M-M-R II (which includes rubella) includes “WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts,” and Havrix (hepatitis A) includes “MRC-5 cellular proteins.”
As for the quantity of human DNA in each vial, for Varivax, as the FDA explains: “human MRC-5 cells are the substrate upon which the Oka strain of varicella is grown. In the process of isolating virus from these cells, MRC-5 derived proteins and DNA are also obtained. The nearly 2 ug [2,000 nanograms] of unmodified mammalian DNA present in each dose of VARIVAX…”
As for MMR-II, as RFK Jr. pointed out in his post above, during Dr. Stanley Plotkin’s deposition, I asked: “Isn't it true that MMR II contains approximately 150 nanograms cells substrate double-strand DNA and single-strand DNA per dose purposefully fragmented to approximately 215 base pairs in length?” Dr. Plotkin answered: “Yeah, that's probably correct, yes.” See Table 3 of this study, reflecting an average of 142 nanograms of single-stranded DNA and 35 nanograms of double-stranded DNA in the rubella vaccine component of each dose of M-M-R II; and an average of 276 nanograms of single-stranded DNA and 35.74 nanograms of double-stranded DNA in each dose of Havrix).
For DNA remaining in the final formulation, assuming pharma companies follow FDA’s guidance, they would fragment “the DNA size to below approximately 200 base pairs.” Doing the math, supposing only 100 nanograms of double-stranded DNA remain, and are broken down into 200 base pair fragments, this equals approximately 463 billion pieces of human DNA from an aborted fetal cell line in each vaccine dose; double that number for single-stranded DNA. See also https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/aborted-fetal-tissue-in-vaccines/.
My thoughts…
So since the safety guidance…
In 2017 science has now found the lymphatic drainage pathway in the brain.
Encephalopathy/encephalitis is a common and court recognized side effect
We know inflammation in the brain can cause damage especially in fetuses and infants
We still don’t know if the immune system is actually attacking itself (autoimmunity) or if there’s a whole population that has “non-self” genes in various areas.
We now know that vaccines do not stay at the injection site.
We now know macrophages can and do deliver vaccine ingredients to the brain.
We have so many people with immune system dysregulation and know its relativity to neurologically and other chronic inflammatory signals.
We now know that chronic inflammation at the cellular level doesn’t allow hormones to properly doc (hello insulin resistance, thyroid hormone resistance, etc).
We know no doctor has the time to teach this and that’s even if they’ve ever looked into it. (It’s easy to see their medical school curriculum).
And now that we all can admit that these vaccines are not safety tested the way the authorities convey they are and that a lot of doctors haven’t looked at vaccines…because why would they when they’re told they’re “safe and effective” “benefits outweigh the risks” “injuries are 1:1” “I’ve never seen a vaccine injury” but they commonly tell you eczema, allergies, neurological delays, etc are common but most certainly aren’t caused by vaccines (even though they admit they don’t know what could be causing them).
What are we going to do with this information? Keep it to yourself or share it because informed consent is the decent thing?
Regarding the way outdated guidance on DNA in vaccines.
When authoritative sources say vaccines undergo “rigorous safety testing,” what exactly has been tested — and what explicitly has not?
Parents are often reassured that vaccines are thoroughly evaluated for long-term safety. Yet when you read the vaccine package inserts themselves, many state in Section 13 (Nonclinical Toxicology), typically 13.1, that the product has not been evaluated for carcinogenic potential, mutagenicity, impairment of fertility, or genomic integration.
That language is not hidden. It is part of the manufacturer’s own regulatory disclosure.
This creates a disconnect that parents are noticing:
How can something be described as rigorously safety tested when certain long-term biological outcomes — including cancer risk, fertility effects, and DNA insertion — are explicitly not evaluated?
The answer isn’t that regulators ignored safety.
It’s that safety conclusions in these areas were inferred, not directly tested — based on biological assumptions developed decades ago.
The residual DNA safety limits used in vaccines today were developed in the mid-1980s, discussed internationally in the late 1980s, and codified in U.S. regulatory guidance in the early 1990s. Those limits were based on the best biological understanding available at the time — but that understanding has since changed dramatically.
Back then, regulators assumed:
• Only long, intact DNA posed risk
• Fragmented DNA was biologically inert
• Mammalian cells did not readily uptake naked DNA
• DNA integration required viral machinery
• Stem cells were not uniquely permissive
• Limiting amount + fragment size was sufficient
• Residual DNA at low levels was a theoretical, not practical, concern
Those assumptions were reasonable in 1989.
They are no longer fully accurate in 2025.
Modern biology has shown that:
• Fragmented DNA is biologically active
• Cells — including stem and progenitor cells — can uptake DNA fragments
• DNA sensing and repair pathways interact with extracellular DNA
• Integration without viral integrase is rare but mechanistically plausible
• Inflammation, cell division, and tissue repair increase DNA interaction probability
By ~2015, several of the foundational assumptions used to justify residual DNA safety were scientifically outdated — even though they remain embedded in vaccine guidance.
Why delivery context matters
Vaccines are commonly delivered intramuscularly, during deliberate immune activation — sometimes in the presence of live attenuated viruses or replicating antigen. Intramuscular injection plus immune activation creates:
• Local inflammation
• Increased endocytosis and cell permeability
• Upregulated DNA repair pathways
• Recruitment of immune cells and progenitor cells
• Lymphatic drainage and systemic biodistribution
Modern gene-therapy guidance treats IM delivery, biodistribution, persistence, and co-delivery context as risk-relevant variables. Vaccine residual-DNA guidance largely does not — because it was written before this biology was understood.
If the original assumptions were wrong, what could that actually mean?
Not certainty.
Not proof.
But real-world biological possibilities that have never been ruled out.
If residual DNA behaves differently than assumed in the 1980s, potential impacts could include:
• Rare genomic integration events, especially during early development
• Increased cancer risk in very small subsets that would evade population studies
• Autoimmune activation, where foreign genetic material is persistently recognized as non-self
• Chronic or delayed inflammatory signaling, particularly in the nervous system
• Neurological vulnerability during critical periods of brain development
• Sex-mismatched DNA effects, where opposite-sex genetic material interacts with developing stem cells in ways that were never evaluated
These outcomes would likely be:
• Rare
• Non-uniform
• Developmentally timed
• Not immediately visible
• Difficult to detect epidemiologically
Which is exactly why absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Another unexamined variable is sex-mismatched DNA exposure. Modern biology recognizes that sex-specific genetic material can be biologically recognized as non-self and that stem cells are more permissive during development. Whether trace residual DNA originating from the opposite sex, introduced during early childhood immune activation, has any biological relevance has never been directly evaluated — because earlier models assumed it could not matter.
None of this proves harm.
None of this says vaccines don’t work.
It says something simpler — and far more reasonable:
Current residual DNA safety conclusions are based on inference from 1980s biology, not direct testing using modern genomics, stem-cell science, biodistribution studies, or DNA-repair knowledge.
Parents are not rejecting science by asking these questions.
They are asking for science to catch up with itself.
In every other field involving genetic material — gene therapy, viral vectors, cell therapies — regulatory frameworks evolved to reflect modern biology. Vaccines are the exception.
Asking whether legacy assumptions should be re-validated is not anti-vaccine.
It is pro-scientific rigor.
Wonder if the people who profit from vaccines will allow the science to be done by HHS? Then wonder how long until assumptions are updated, regulatory (safety) guidance is updated, and then how long they’ll allow manufacturers to adopt to new standards? Wonder if your grandchildren will get safer vaccines. I sure hope I’m still alive when the product is fitting to the science. Wonder if gender dysphoria, autoimmune conditions, or chronic brain inflammation and subsequent damage will still be around?