We provided critiques to the Achs et al preprint on their preprint server in September of 2025.
We were surprised to find that most of these critiques were left unaddressed in their paper that now appears on the nature website as in press.
A few details in their methods changed from PrePrint to Nature but the resulting data from those changes did not change implying Post Hoc manipulation of the methods. Can the Authors explain this?
Not only did we comment on their preprint on the preprint server, we also publish these critiques as a Preprint on October 21, 2025.
https://zenodo.org/records/17410043
These critiques were also ignored.
We particularly pointed out their failure to disclose their conflicts of interest being employed at Vaccine research institution with Funding from mRNA vaccine company Sensible Biotech.
We have since combed over every method section of the paper and everyone of them is flawed in such a manner that it appears to be a deliberate given the known conflicts? Can the authors address these given the conflicts in play?
We have documented all of these errors on the below links.
In Summary,
1)The qPCR protocols use amplicons that range from 63bp for KAN to 233bp for SPIKE and all produce variable results. As a result the authors fail to replicate 4 other studies that see 4-6CT offsets (10-100 more spike DNA than KAN) for these amplicons (McKernan, Speicher, Buckhaults, Fleming). We believe this failure to reproduce is a function of the large variation in your amplicon size and as a result is greatly under reporting Spike DNA.
2)Achs et al equation for converting CTs to Nanograms is wrong. They ask for the input of the Fragments molecule weight which should be the plasmids molecule weight at 7824 bases for Pfizer. This error makes the entire papers qPCR section non-reproducible.
3)They do not make any attempt to adjust these qPCR estimates for the fact that their own data shows 150bp fragmentation of the DNA and their Spike amplicon is 233bp. Even in the case of their 63bp amplicon they will undercount the DNA by ~3X and thus put them over the limit.
If they really believe their fragment size if 150bp (They are wrong here well and it looks intentional), perform the math on the % of amplicons that will have a DNaseI cut site between the primers and thus fail to be captured with qPCR. This is basic Lander-Waterman math and the authors ignore this.
4)When the authors move to Fluorometry, they change the front end from qPCR? They direct inject vaccine into qPCR and CE but choose to change this front end when it comes to Fluorometry. Can the authors comment on why they did this given the prior published literature does not (Konig, Kammerer, McKernan, Speicher etc..). To address this critique you originally claimed to spike a 1Kb fragment into your prep and declare 60-95% recovery. When we pointed out the authors needed to use a 10bp ladder to understand the recovery based on size, they replaced this text in their methods to include a 25bp-700bp ladder from Thermo. After this change no recovery numbers changed suggesting a fabricated edit to the paper. They also selected a ladder that is sold on the same website as the 10bp ladder recommended but chose to not fabricate the proper ladder suggested.
5)Their CE methods fail to have any matrix controls to prove the Electrokinectic injection works on raw matrix.
6)The CE section cites a CE instruments who’s specs can never detect the 10ng limit. This is designed to never find anything!
7)The use of Illumina sequencing to monitor the fragment lengths is also intentionally flawed as the authors admit to having an ONT sequencer used by McKernan, Speicher and Buckhaults to assess fragment lengths… yet they dont use the obvious unlimited readlength sequencer but instead chose to use one that cant amplify large fragments. The sample prep going into their Illumina platform is designed to fragment DNA further. 95C for 10 minutes will fragment DNA. 2 SPRI steps, 10 cycles of PCR and cluster PCR will never detect the 1Kb fragments we are seeing on ONT. So why did you use this platform when prior papers taught against it and its clear from your use of an Oxford Nanopore RNA control, that you own a Oxford Nanopore system but chose not to use it. This looks like a deliberate choice to mislead so can the authors comment on this?
8)When your own money is on the line for expensive DNA sequencing on Illumina, you don’t resort to qPCR. You resort to using Fluorometry which you claim is unreliable for the vaccine but is reliable for how you spend your money on the most critical step.
There are several points the discussion fails to address.
1)LNP protected DNA was never considered in the construction of the 10ng limit
2)Modernas own patents teach against using for qPCR for this. You never address this.
3)Modernas own patent state the residual DNA could be oncogenic. You never address this
4)You never address Georgiou et al. Explained in the below links
CE method failures-
https://anandamide.substack.com/p/more-holes-in-the-achs-paper
Achs Fluorometry DNA prep standards are flawed
https://anandamide.substack.com/p/dna-purification-vs-direct-measurement
Why don’t the authors use a DNaseI-XT to witness how much DNA disappears in fluorometry?
https://anandamide.substack.com/p/grok-gone-wild
https://anandamide.substack.com/p/nature-simps-for-pharma
These critiques etched into Bitcoin
https://anandamide.substack.com/p/critical-review-of-achs-et-al-2025
Other explanations for Spike:Kan delta CT.
https://anandamide.substack.com/p/rnadna-hybrids-survive-digestion
https://anandamide.substack.com/p/laymans-description-of-rnadna-hybrids