One of the more remarkable things I have ever seen has been the demonization of the middle component of the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology in the past four years. The Central Dogma was formulated in late-1950s by Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA with James D. Watson: DNA makes RNA makes Protein, with the RNA in the middle being mRNA – messenger RNA. The Central Dogma was and remains a triumph of modern molecular biology, albeit with minor modification to account for retroviruses in which RNA makes DNA makes RNA makes Protein. Horace Freeland Judson covered this history for the general reader very well in The Eighth Day of Creation, 1996 (orig. 1979, and still relevant for students of modern biology).
But after some reflection it is not so difficult to understand how this one class of molecule has gotten its reputation. President Trump v1.0 rightly viewed Operation Warp Speed as a major achievement of his initial term, during which the first COVID-19 vaccines were developed using mRNA as the platform to produce the spike protein in the vaccinated, thereby conferring immunity to SARS-CoV-2. This was a considerable technical achievement, a public-private partnership that made a pandemic vaccine in record time. Unfortunately, none of the COVID-19 vaccines has worked as the people have come to rightly expect of vaccines. They prevented neither the disease nor its transmission, although they did moderate the course of disease in many patients and by doing so have accounted for millions of saved lives according to several analyses.
This relative failure was because neither previous infection nor vaccination against coronaviruses produces durable immunity to subsequent exposure to the virus. Thus, the problems with the COVID-19 vaccines probably had very little to do with mRNA. But the perception of mRNA vaccines has put a huge damper on prospects for RNA therapeutics in general, as outlined in this feature article in Nature (paywall) by Elie Dolgin from the 15 May 2025 issue. This is unfortunate, because the prospects of mRNA-based therapeutics are strong for other diseases. Much of the fallout can be ascribed to the current Administration consensus represented by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services. As is well known, despite his sporadic protestations to the contrary, RFKJr has been an incorrigible anti-vaxxer for a long time. We can leave that discussion for another time and include his efforts to tackle chronic disease.
The COVID-10 scientist’s perspective can be summed up in “From Hero to Zero” in Dolgin’s article:
Five years ago, the US government was spending billions of dollars to support the development, manufacturing and roll-out of mRNA vaccines, which played a major part in curbing the COVID-19 pandemic. Pharmaceutical companies were pouring in capital and building ambitious pipelines centered on mRNA. The technology was feted with a Nobel prize. [1] Investor confidence was sky-high… Now, in the span of just a few months, the mood across the industry has grown darker – chilled by a newly hostile political climate.
Many biotech leaders avoid speaking out in public but it is clear that a perfect storm has beclouded the future of mRNA therapeutics. Apart from the generalized attack on American biomedical science it is clear that:
Much of the current antipathy towards mRNA vaccines can be traced back to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the political and cultural backlash it left in its wake. Critics cite the compressed timelines and emergency use authorizations as signs that the safety of the vaccines was compromised. Vaccine mandates – imposed by governments, employers and schools – further fueled resentment. Meanwhile, conspiracy theories about DNA alteration and population control continue to circulate widely online, deepening public mistrust and giving political traction to opposition against mRNA technology.
What began as fringe skepticism has increasingly entered the mainstream consciousness, amplified by partisan media and political figures who frame the vaccines not as public-health tools but as symbols of government overreach. Among the most prominent of these is Kennedy, now secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), who has long questioned the safety of childhood immunizations and built his political brand on vaccine resistance. (HHS officials did not respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for the White House pointed to a public statement that did not address the questions posed by Nature.)
There is little to argue with here. Most of those leading a movement against mRNA technology seem to be “individuals in the medical freedom movement…(who)…contend that COVID-19 vaccines were rushed through approval without adequate long-term testing, alleging that safety corners were cut in the name of speed, and that the risks of mRNA platforms continue to be deliberately downplayed.”
And in these contentions lie the current problems with prospective mRNA therapeutics that have been caused by the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. As I wrote years ago in a different context:
While the science that has led to these mRNA vaccines is not experimental, the patent experimental nature of both SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines has not been discussed, very much, in public. If either mRNA vaccine turns out to be ineffective or worse, harmful, the backlash will be severe. After the rollout of the Salk polio vaccine in 1955, problems with manufacture led to several hundred cases of polio because a batch of killed virus was contaminated with live virus. The response to that mostly localized catastrophe was rapid. The production error was identified and corrected immediately and mostly transparently. By 1961 polio cases were down by 97%. 430,000 children in Denmark were vaccinated and none developed polio. The polio vaccine was ‘new’ but not at all experimental by the time widespread vaccination began.
During the current pandemic, citizens of the world have been asked repeatedly to ‘trust the science.’ Yes. But trustees of science, including politicians, practicing scientists and physicians, and scientist-administrators at NIH/FDA/CDC and their counterparts in other nations, must at all times be careful, especially when working rapidly and under great pressure, to not oversell what can be done as what must be done. These mRNA vaccines are commercial products projected to return many billions of dollars to their manufacturers in the very near term. Eli Lilly received about $320 million, adjusted for inflation, in the first year of the Salk vaccine.
That the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were oversold from the beginning was most unfortunate. What could be done rapidly using “cutting edge technology” was considered the only thing that must be done. The other response was to basically ignore a pandemic, whose underlying disease and sometimes severe sequelae were not yet well understood. Many scientists in their overweening self-importance did not adhere to the best of their principles, the first of which is that all scientific knowledge is provisional. Previous scientific research on pathogenic coronaviruses was also largely ignored. Research on SARS-CoV-2 has lagged. Non-pharmaceutical interventions such as indoor air filtration were considered only at the margin and then with homemade Corsi-Rosenthal boxes (my two seem to work well).
Public trust is fragile, and once damaged it is difficult to rebuild, in politics and science. The scientific community did not seem to understand this at critical moments of the pandemic, and this is still true after all these years, based on regular conversation with other scientists.
One Pharma/academic response, in the Bayh-Dole Era they can be one and the same, after ‘The Brand is Damaged’ [2] is found in “Rewriting the Script”:
Aiming to retain global leadership, many researchers in the mRNA sector in the United States are rethinking how to present their innovations – starting with stepping away from the term ‘vaccine’, particularly when describing mRNA-based cancer treatments. Although these therapies work like vaccines, delivering genetic instructions to produce proteins that train the immune system, they are designed to treat disease, not prevent it – hence the industry’s pivot towards labels such as ‘immune therapy’.
Companies, including Moderna, are shifting their language. Last month, Moderna – which not only makes one of the world’s leading COVID-19 vaccines but is also a front runner in personalized cancer therapy – updated the product pipeline on its website, replacing ‘cancer vaccines and therapeutics’ with the more neutral label ‘oncology’.
This should not be necessary, but it is and it is regrettable. The devil is always in the details, but the potential for mRNA therapeutics is as unlimited as any therapeutic approach can be. For example, from a post two years ago about An mRNA Vaccine that Works, we discussed a vaccine for pancreatic cancer (pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, PDAC) that can cure the previously incurable:
Vinod P. Balachandran of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York and a large international team took a multidisciplinary approach to identify T-cell antigens in long-term PDAC survivors. They found that “tumors with both the highest neoantigen number and the most abundant CD8+ T-cell infiltrates (indicative of an immune response to the tumor), but neither alone, stratified patients with the longest survival.” Moreover, neoantigens were found in MUC16, which is also known as CA125. Cancer Antigen 125 was identified more than 40 years ago as characteristic of ovarian and many other cancers and is used frequently as a clinical marker of cancer. It is a cell surface glycoprotein (a membrane protein exposed on the outer surface of the cell with sugars attached to it) and therefore readily “visible” to the immune system.
Native immunosurveillance against cancer works, and many tumors are “disappeared” before they cause trouble. When immunosurveillance can be induced with a vaccine that is specific to a patient’s tumor, the cancer may be cured. The typically perspicacious NC commenter “The Phoenix” had the following to say during our discussion of the pancreatic cancer vaccine two years ago in May 2023:
Why do we call it “vaccine”? The treatment looks promising and if it can be done at scale can be part of a multi-modal treatment regimen for cancer. But it’s not a vaccine.
Leave vaccine as it is traditionally understood to prevent disease. Call it something else like “gene induced immune mediated therapy” with a fancy acronym. Not a vaccine.
Indeed. But this should not be necessary. We scientists have retained much respect but have also lost just as much because we have not followed our vocation, which is to examine the natural world with studied disinterest in the search of useful knowledge, while knowing full well that “usefulness” is often recognized long after the research is done. [3] That political and economic imperatives militate against this is an explanation but not an excuse. We can do better, all of us – citizens (rather than consumers) by holding scientists to account and scientists by upholding our standards And both by listening with respect and paying attention to the other. This is a dream that does not have to be a nightmare. Otherwise, our future, medical and otherwise, will be much darker than it needs to be.
Notes
[1] That everyone, including those in every scientific sub-discipline, must have a “brand” under the Neoliberal Dispensation has been covered well by Wendy Brown in Undoing the Demos. Regarding mRNA vaccines, contrary to one self-described inventor in the person of Dr. Robert Malone, these were not invented by an individual. Malone was first author on the first paper to my knowledge to show that an exogenous mRNA (from a firefly) could direct the synthesis of its cognate protein in cultured mouse cells by making the cell produce the enzyme luciferase that catalyzes the light-producing reaction in the firefly Photinus pyralis. Why luciferase? Because light is very easy to measure. This Nobel Prize in Chemistry recognized the benign chemical modifications of RNA that make mRNA vaccines feasible. Of course, the disease must be preventable by a vaccine in the first place. The trials and tribulations of Drew Weissman and Katalin Karikó in procuring institutional and grant support for their seemingly recondite research are also one more object lesson that key discoveries are most often unintentional and that the only way to discover is to support scientists broadly and without the expectation of success in the form of money.
[2] ‘The branding issue for mRNA is not just a problem in the United States…An analysis of social-media data across 44 countries, published last year, found “widespread negative sentiment and a global lack of confidence in the safety, effectiveness and trustworthiness of mRNA vaccines and therapeutics.’
The underlying reference is here: From the Abstract:
The development and rollout of mRNA vaccines during COVID-19 marked a significant advancement in vaccinology, yet public hesitation to vaccination was prevalent, indicating the potential risk that future mRNA-based medical innovations will fail to be adopted…we conducted a social listening analysis to assess attitudes towards mRNA vaccines and therapeutics on Twitter from June 2022 to May 2023, contrasting online perspectives with data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Our findings reveal widespread negative sentiment and a global lack of confidence in the safety, effectiveness, and trustworthiness of mRNA vaccines and therapeutics, with frequent discussions of severe vaccine side effects, rumors, and misinformation. This underscores the need for targeted communication strategies to foster acceptance of medical treatments and strengthen public trust in order to enhance societal resilience to future health challenges.
The “global lack of confidence in the safety, effectiveness, and trustworthiness of mRNA vaccines and therapeutics” can be laid squarely at the feet of the scientific community, which in its hubris could not be bothered to remind the people that mRNA vaccines were a necessary experiment under exigent circumstances. One does wonder if things would have gone differently if this novel approach had been taken with a non-respiratory pandemic likely to yield to a vaccine. The FDA announced yesterday (20 May 2025) that it “will limit Covid vaccines to people over 65 or at high risk of serious illness.” Mortality and morbidity associated with long Covid seem to have been flushed down the memory hole, however. And given that a surge in COVID-19 is currently seen in Southeast Asia, the pandemic is clearly not over.
[3] It is no exaggeration to point out the scientific community skates close to the situation in which the legacy media find themselves – with diminished standing among those who pay attention to what lies beneath. This explains in part the difficulty of the academic scientific community gaining traction in opposition to the deep cuts in research support of Trump v2.0 that are likely to cause enduring damage to science, scientists, scientific workers, and public health and wellbeing.
The mRNA platform is fundamentally and fatally flawed. No need to invoke conspiracy theories. To prevent rapid breakdown and achieve the persistence required for adequate expression multiple hacks are needed (lipid nanoparticle coating, pseudouridine). This means it gets everywhere, in high concentration. Wherever it is taken up, the mRNA gets expressed and inflammatory proteins end up on the cell surface, driving immune attack and tissue destruction. In the heart, this leads to myocarditis. As many have pointed out, this issue is independent of the genetic payload, and is a feature of the platform itself.
By the way, concerns regarding genetic alteration following covid-19 vaccination are, unfortunately, warranted, largely because of the presence of DNA contamination resulting from the use of plasmids in the manufacturing process (see Buckhaults et al).
This all sounds true enough with respect to vaccines (as that term used to be understood by laymen), but if the mRNA platform were delivering a cure for a cancer, it would probably be worth the risks.
That’s a very big “if”. In any case, proper risk-benefit evaluations depend on adequate understanding and articulation of risks, and there’s no reason to believe that these will be achieved with future applications, given the shambles we’ve seen so far.
Sorry, this is now making clear you are wildly biased, as opposed to making reasonable points.
Robert W. Hahl clearly wrote ” if the mRNA platform were delivering a cure for a cancer.”
Cancer is not even remotely like a contagion which initially killed people slowly by turning their lungs into bloody goo over 2-3, filling hospitals up to the degree that patients for normal emergencies like heart attacks and strokes were left on gurneys for 24-36 hours, greatly increasing THEIR mortality rates. As in the impact on hospitals did damage beyond the infected.
And the result was panicked lockdown that were still too leaky in the US to tamp down sufficiently on the disease, and poor ability to manage the economic impact of that (and a bizarre refusal to promote masking and ventilation), so everyone gave up and now it is endemic.
Tell me what the hell this has to do with cancer, or more accurately cancers, since we increasingly are finding that cancers are more specific than previously thought.
This kind of black and white thinking is antithetical to the sort of sober analysis you pretend to favor.
I’m no mRNA fan (I did not take that vaccine) but your position is dogmatic. That is hostile to the mission of this site, which is o promote critical thinking.
I’ve offered a counter-narrative to the perspective of the article author, one grounded in basic and empirical science, precisely with the aim of promoting “critical thinking”. Nearly 5 years later, it’s clear that many have never properly considered these fundamentals and the significant risks that fall downstream. I repeat – these are risks inherent to the mRNA delivery platform – they are not specific to any particular application carried by it. The issue of DNA contamination is of general significance because of what it says about the levels of dysfunction to which regulatory agencies have sunk. We are now years following the discovery of this problem and the response has been shockingly inadequate. Discussion is almost entirely absent from public and clinical discourse.
This is the background on which we are now talking about further therapeutics based on mRNA. “The risks will probably be worth it”. As judged by who? By the demonstrably incompetent regulatory agencies? By patients and clinicians who don’t even know about fundamental problems? You didn’t take mRNA – good for you. Many who did now feel that they were coerced into something to which they never gave informed consent.
Bullshit. The fact that you admit to constructing a “narrative” is an admission you are NOT interested in critical thinking. This is the antithesis of weighing evidence to come up with better approximations of reality, and that nearly always entails nuanced views which are not terribly gratifying because among other things, complicated to document and explain.
You also presented only one link, when challenged, and it does NOT prove what you asserted it ddi.
Again, this is dogmatism. Loudly declaiming otherwise does not make it so.
As our GM, who unlike you is a scientist and does not even remotely follow party line just because, wrote in 2021:
In 2022 on the DNA scare:
And more recently:
Wow. Quite a lot to unpack here. Firstly, I think you’ve missed one of the main points I was making, which is about the informational environment and informed consent regarding mRNA products independent of any judgement of the inherent value of these products, and therefore holds regardless of how you or anyone else feels about the positives/ negatives of the technology. Regardless I’ll engage with some of your comments.
“You also presented only one link, when challenged, and it does NOT prove what you asserted it ddi.”
Re-read what I wrote. I explicitly did not set out to prove anything. You are inverting centuries of medical doctrine by placing the burden of proof on those holding the non-interventionist position. As I said, genotoxicity assessments are the norm for gene therapies.
On DNA contamination: You make the point that integration is a natural (albeit very rare) phenomenon so… what, exactly? So there’s nothing to worry about and we can merrily inject away? Total non sequitur.
“mRNA products are harmless”- if you say so! Would you like to address the points I made in my original post?
Finally, it’s very disappointing to see baseless smears on this site. For all the talk of critical thinking you seem awfully quick to shut down dissident opinion. This is a topic on which I happen to have a decent amount of knowledge, so I’m outspoken. On others I learn a lot by quietly reading the opinions of others. We’re all free to cross-check and verify what we read here.
Lorie, you attack a site writer, engage in massive grounds-shifting (which when not acknowledged is bad faith), effectively concede the point that you did not provide ANY links that substantiated your claims, yet you pretend to be a defender of critical thinking and play wounded too?
Oh, and you also use a trick we see here all the time: when commenters are losing arguments they are attached to, they often resort to rhetorically or logically invalid arguments, which is a violation of site Policies. Then they whinge (which you are doing now) that they are being treated unfairly because of their views, when the issue is that they are falling wider and wider of making a sound and properly-substantiated case and instead just making wild rhetorical swings.
We restrict comment rights based on behavior.. They promote critical thinking by requiring readers to observe valid argumentation approaches (such as no ad hominem attacks), provide evidence to support important but not well-accepted or know position, and also barring abuse, informally “being an asshole.” You have been running roughshod over them.
And you make a personal attack in accusing me of making a “baseless smear”. That’s an abject misrepresentation. I said you were not a scientist, which is accurate. I otherwise took on your argument. If you can’t take well-warranted pushback, you should restrict yourself to sites that cater to your priors.
This was your position:
“The mRNA platform is fundamentally and fatally flawed.”
This is a VERY strong claim. Strong claims require strong evidence. You have yet to provide any.
You DO need to substantiate positions like that, buddy. If you did not “set out to prove anything” you should not be making big statements that call for you to off some level of proof.
So much for critical thinking. That requires an understanding and acceptance of the need for evidence. You have yet to demonstrate that you are willing to bother, that we should just accept your forcefully-voiced opinions, including DNA contamination, which is a crank claim. See: https://www.tga.gov.au/news/media-releases/addressing-misinformation-about-excessive-dna-mrna-vaccines
So RIGHT FROM THE TOP, you loudly voicing…unsupported personal opinion and actual nonsense. Not surprisingly, you don’t try to back it these beliefs, perhaps because any attempt would open up more attack surface.
As we say in our Policies (and by commenting, you are deemed to have accepted them):
When in doubt, consider this quote as a guideline:
You went WAY WAY beyond a more modest and defensible criticism, with is to lambaste the overselling of mRNA and OTHER early Covid vaccines like viral vector, to make a claim that you have yet to come close to proving, that the mRNA platform is fatally, as irrecoverably, no good.
You then fall back, to claiming your issue was “informed consent” but you make another wild sweeping assertion: “there’s no reason to believe that these will be achieved with future applications, given the shambles we’ve seen so far.” The fact that mRNA has gotten a bad rap almost assures the reverse, that a lot of patients will need a lot of information to be reassured that it’s a reasonable treatment option for their condition.
Now that you put this together, I can see why you went after RM.
Please point out where I have “attacked a site writer” or engaged in ad hominem attacks. Observations in passing about a group to which the author belongs do not count. You say I’m not a scientist. Some facts: I hold multiple degrees in scientific disciplines, including a medical degree; I am a named inventor on multiple scientific patents; I am active in research – for example, I am currently leading an international collaborative research project involving a major university. Others can decide whether that qualifies me for the title of “scientist”. Not that any of this bears relevance to the question of whether my points are valid, but I think it’s important to draw attention to the absurdity of your accusing me of making ad homs.
Looking back at what I’ve posted I concede that I was a bit scattergun in making multiple different points, but I stand by all of them. On the question of DNA contamination, for those who would like to quantify the risks more clearly (since information is not forthcoming from the regulators) I can recommend the brilliant journalist, Rebekah Barnett, who has done a lot of work in uncovering and collating a lot of disparate source documents. To specifically address the article you posted: this boils down to the TGA making two unsubstantiated claims. Firstly, that there remains uncertainty around whether the DNA contamination is in fact present; secondly that, even if it is, its concentration does not exceed safe limits. The first of these is easily refuted, by the work of Buckhaults and Mckernan, and also for example by this memo from Pfizer acknowledging its presence (“The presence of residual DNA in Comirnaty, including-sequences (SV40 elements and others), is noninfectious, non-oncogenic, and is below the recommended limits set by the WHO guidelines.”
So it’s there, but is it a problem? The TGA say no, because WHO limits are not exceeded, but this is a specious argument, because those limits, as Buckhaults clearly states, were never designed with lipid nanoparticle-enclosed genetic material in mind. This is a very important distinction, because the LNP massively increases persistence. So the DNA is there and will be deposited into the intracellular compartment. To fully quantify the risks of integration we’d have to tour the research literature – there are multiple additional barriers to overcome, such as the nuclear membrane, for example. Suffice to say that this “crank claim” is considered reasonable enough to warrant the need for total removal of residual DNA by domain experts, such as Buckhaults, and also by Moderna, as disclosed in their patent (““There are multiple problems with prior methodologies of delivering pharmaceutical compositions in order to achieve effective protein expression for both therapeutics and bio-processing applications. For example, introduced DNA can integrate into host cell genomic DNA at some frequency, resulting in alterations and/or damage to the host cell genomic DNA. Alternatively, the heterologous deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) introduced into a cell can be inherited by daughter cells (whether or not heterologous DNA has integrated into the chromosome) or by offspring.”).
I think that’s enough to support my original position, which was simply that “concerns regarding genetic alteration following covid-19 vaccination are, unfortunately, warranted”.
Now returning to my first point. mRNA-LNPs distribute throughout the body because the LNP coating prevents degradation. Expression of the mRNA payload therefore takes place throughout the body; spike protein is produced inside cells and fragments will inevitably be displayed on the cell surface (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8402319/#:~:text=In%20mRNA%2Dvaccinated%20individuals%20(BNT162b1,MHC%20class%20II%20%5B39%5D). For an overview of what happens next, see any basic Immunology text – the immune system mounts a response, likely culminating in the destruction of the cell. So we have cellular destruction happening throghout the body, including the endothelia (blood vessel linings) of the heart and brain. The problem with this platform is that this process happens in a totally undirected way over which there can be little control. Covid vaccination leads to some degree of myocardial injury in everyone, as demonstrated by the right shift of the troponin curve in this study – on a scale from negligible to severe. Where you end up on this scale is anyone’s guess, depending on many factors including the position of the needle tip with respect to your vascular system. Much of the uncertainty arises because of the additional step that is introduced by the mRNA platform between the injectable (mRNA) and the effective drug (the antigen). The mRNA must be expressed to produce the active drug, and the extent to which this will take place is unknowable a priori.
So we have a system of drug delivery that carries very serious inherent health risks where the effective dosing is unpredictable. To me this is a clear indication that the platform is fatally flawed.
You attacked him right out of the box with your first comment, via making an absolute and strident charge, “mRNA platform is fundamentally and fatally flawed” when his post is about potential uses of mRNA. That paints any attempt of identify mRNA uses as dangerous.
Had you objected to KLG’s article in logical and reasonably substantiated manner, or even well supported your opener (which would then render it merely sensationalistic, to get attention), this would merely be a debate where readers could look at KLG’s evidence and arguments along with yours and come to a determination (or decide it really was very much up in the air). But your tone was strident you were also dismissive towards Robert W Hahl, who was first to respond to you.
As for the information about your background, at best it shows you are science adjacent, and not a scientist. Nothing you have described suggests that you have designed or run scientific studies. (For instance, what is a “scientific discipline”? Statistics? And what is your “medical degree”? If you were an MD or had an advanced degree say in bioscience, the norm would be to say that. The coyness with that and the lack of a mention of having been licensed suggests your degree might be in nursing, pharmacy medicine, or even osteopathy, which does confer prescription powers in many US states. None of those, which are all plausible, would provide much background related to the matters at issue here).
As for your big claim about mRNA being ever and always a bad idea, it appears all you have to back it up is “DNA contamination.” You refer to journalist (!?!?!), one supposed expert, and then a lot of general medical handwaving as opposed to evidence that any such event is frequent and serious enough to add up to anything. This when other experts who are not beholden to mRNA vaccine makers have dismissed this idea as bollocks.
For a longer-form rebuttal, GM (who is an actual biomedical scientist), roused himself to respond:
This topic is closed.
Indeed, as the article stated, mRNA therapeutics might be appropriate for purposes other than vaccination, so why did its owners risk using the technology inappropriately?
We now know, “Covid vaccines” do not confer immunity or prevent transmission. . An article an article in the British Medical Journal highlighted that the vaccine trials were not designed to even try and assess if the “vaccines” limited transmission*.
“Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us”. https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037So they were never the key part of public health management of the pandemic, were they?
What was their point? It’s still not clear.
Well, a lot of money was made!
Pfizer’s post authorisation monitoring studies demonstrate additional 1-year arrhythmia risk of around 1/350, presumably secondary to subclinical myocarditis, which was pegged at 2-3% by one study. That’s already an awfully high adverse effect burden to overcome before considering other organ systems, and would be causing all kinds of alarm bells to go off about the mRNA platform in a normally functioning medico-regulatory-legal environment.
We require links. Where is your backup? You misrepresented the one link you provided.
And the British Heart Association says:
https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/coronavirus-and-your-health/myocarditis-and-covid-19-vaccines-should-you-be-worried
Subclinical myocarditis
Pfizer’s monitoring study – see pages 137/138 for arrhythmia.
Just a quick followup in response to the above (I can no longer comment there). I acknowledge your point that my tone could be perceived as strident and maybe even dismissive. I perhaps should have prefaced my original comment with, “Thank you for your considered article, but…”, which would in fact have been an accurate reflection of my thoughts. I apologise if any offence was caused to the article author, Robert W Hahl, or any other commentator.
In the interests of dispelling any notion that I’ve been “coy” or somehow disingenuous I can confirm that I worked as an MD some time ago (although no longer) and I have a PhD in a biomedical field.
Thanks for providing this space for open discussion. I realise it must take a lot of time and energy to maintain your high level of engagement.
Can we be clear, mRNA is not a cure.. it is a treatment. If your life depends on it, you will have to take the mRNA for the rest of your life.
Well, that’s Pharma’s Holy Grail, isn’t it? A therapeutic that mitigates the disease but doesn’t cure it. Something that will produce revenue for decades. It will also be easy to create new patents to replace old when they reach end of life-time.
you will have to take the mRNA for the rest of your life.
I’ve been getting my annual flu shot for the last 25 years and I expect to go on getting it.
Early on in the pandemic, I read a review of mRNA technology in a Cell press journal. When the mRNA is taken up by a cell, that cell starts producing a protein that is a foreign protein. Cells that make foreign proteins, just like when infected with a virus, present that protein on the cell surface to trigger the immune system to destroy that cell using proteins like the Major Histocompatibility complex. This is why the mRNA vaccines created more soreness in the arm and any cell that takes it up will likely be destroyed by the immune system. this does cause damage. One friend of mine in addition to soreness had terrible swelling in the arm after the mRNA Covid vaccine. I had heart palpitations after the second shot. And every shot caused me to feel much worse than any other vaccine. I am very concerned about long COVID and would appreciate even the imperfect months long protection during waves of Covid. I switched to Novavax and have minimal to no soreness in my arm and don’t feel sick after receiving this shot. For me at least. They most certainly lied about side effects. The pervious comment noting the need to modify the mRNA to make it more stable and coat it by inserting it into lipid nano particles is also correct. Otherwise the mRNA degrades to quickly before entering the cell. It is not just mRNA floating around.
The current FDA leadeship hates Novavax more than Pfizer and Moderna for Covid, but they have a “plan” to limit all Covid vaccines (which would likely be Pfizer and Moderna) to people at risk of adverse effects or death with Covid. In their view, elderly people with chronic conditions are the only one who have to worry about Covid.
Public comments are open until Thursday, I think. So if you are in the US, make a call for Novavax.
Can’t speak to where you live but in Australia we were copiously informed of the side-effects you describe with respect to the mRNA vaccines.
And with the AstraZeneca vaccines (not used in the US iirc) when there was evidence of harm (and I mean actual evidence, not VAERS-based frivolity) in the form of (very rare) clotting events, it was immediately withdrawn from deployment and its usage re-evaluated, and then discouraged in younger (under 50) patients.
So if the issue is trust and who to believe we seem to have such a dispute right here on the page. Those of us who know little about medicine are reluctant to comment on such matters, but as Americans all of us know a great deal about our media landscape of incessant promotion in the name of profit seeking. If the scientific community feels itself under assault perhaps the root cause would be less RFK and more their corporate partners who often seem fast and loose with the truth. A ban on pharma advertising (RFK is for it) would be a good first step.
Yes. Unfortunately, I think you are largely on your own. Covid showed us that when it comes to matters of importance you cannot afford to outsource your critical thinking to authority – be it medical, scientific or journalistic. Having a medical bent is no great protection against bias – quite the opposite I find, probably because medics a) must protect an identity that is tied up with an at least superficially functioning medical system and b) being largely affluent, struggle to conceive of a system that is often malign. I use malign here with respect to the system’s outcomes, rather than in a conspiratorial sense.
A couple of guiding principles. Until recently it was considered reasonable to take the precautionary principle when it comes to messing around with complex biological systems. Until recently it was considered reasonable to hold strong priors in favour of non-intervention. One upshot of this position is that it requires a lot of favourable evidence to shift the non-interventional prior. That means large many-year placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials, ideally conducted by independent parties. By this criterion the mRNA products are still experimental, of course, as are many other medicines.
Ferocious censorship of any alternative viewpoints (Safe and Effective!!) was one of the things that convinced my that all was not well.
Two doctors on YT discussing a peer reviewed paper was pulled by YT.
A discussion with Brett Weinstein, Malone and Kirsch also disappeared in a day.
If there is no problem, you don’t have to hide things.
do KLG and GM strike you as profit-seeking corporate sycophants who play fast and loose with the truth?
One does not have to be a medical expert to synthesise information, synthesise and adjudicate two competing arguments, or even just to know bullshit when they see it.
Truly surprised that no one has pushed back on this comment.
If you’re saying that the mRNA Covid vaccinations potentially change the germ line, I think you need to put forward some very strong proof. Otherwise, this is just making stuff up.
I did put a reference in there. Here you go:
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/CommitteeInfo/SenateMedicalAffairsCommittee/PandemicPreparedness/Phillip-Buckhaults-SC-Senate-09122023-final.pdf
The finding of DNA contamination (certainly in the Pfizer lots and I believe also in some Moderna lots) has been reproduced multiple times, notably by Mckernan, he of the Human Genome project, who has done a lot to shed light on this important issue.
Needless to say, since we’re talking about gene therapies, it’s obviously not for me or anyone else to prove that this does happen, but rather for the interventionists to demonstrate that it does not. That’s why, in more sensible times, manufacturers were typically required to submit the results of genotoxicity studies prior to approval.
And the regulators response to DNA contamination has followed this plan:
There isn’t any.
Well there is alittle.
But it’s under the limit (which is probably too low a limit for RNA in a lipid nanoparticle.
Well, it’s over the limit but it won’t hurt you.
Not at all reassuring.
Coming soon:
Well, it will hurt you, but it’s only a little cancer.
Have you considered this new mRNA therapeutic for your mRNA therapeutic-induced cancer?
That doesn’t prove what you said and now I’m sure that you don’t know what you’re talking about. There’s DNA in any biological product. It doesn’t change the germ line. That’s like saying a blood transfusion will modify your genome.
I pointed you towards a document provided by Phillip Buckhaults, Professor of Molecular Genetics, who testified before senate about the risk of genomic modification. Do you also believe that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about?
Anyway, you’re deflecting. I repeat – it’s not for me or anyone else to prove this to you – the point is that regulatory agencies have failed abjectly at managing the serious risks inherent to gene therapies. In the case of the Covid mRNA products, the risk of genomic modification is heightened because of the unique way in which the contaminant DNA is packaged, inside the lipid nanoparticle, protecting it from degradation. You’d know this if you had actually read the document.
Much depends on the DNA or RNA. There is no doubt that some DNA and RNA can alter germ lines, as proven by the presence of vestigial DNA sequences derived from viruses in human and other animal genomes. Other examples exist. The DNA in blood transfusions, other than the rare cases of infectious agent contamination, is human DNA or if packed red cells there is no DNA at all. So that’s a specious example. Like most here I’m not a trained medical scientist, but RM’s critique makes sense and merits consideration.
I would interject a few things about germ lines. Female ones in particular since those are the patients that I saw over and over again during the vaccine rollouts.
A much more common problem than was widely reported during that time when everyone was getting the vaccines, was the frequent sight in my exam room of young menstruating-age women who would a few days after the vaccine begin having menstrual flow like they never had before. This was not common, but nor was it unusual. Indeed, I had a few post-menopausal women begin to have severe menstrual flow issues immediately after their vaccine or booster. You can play the – “coincidence” card all you like – good luck – I am a 35 year ABIM certified veteran. I know when something is unusual – and that several months was unusual to the extreme. This was to the point that just dozens of female health care workers, younger, refused the vaccine and when the mandate came out – went to work at the grocery store instead, The word on the street was very loud. It was crystal clear to me that Fauci and Walensky could say all they wanted – this scuttlebutt about menstrual problems was far more compelling to huge numbers of these young women. The nursing homes and hospitals lost so many employees during this time – a huge number of these facilities have never recovered. This was being reported by colleagues everywhere. But this was also during the time when the Biden Administration was doing maximum censorship. It was only a few places online like this site that were even remotely discussing it. But this continued on.
The important issue – when you are sitting on an IRB – menstrual irregularities like this are assumed to be GERM CELL PROBLEMS until proven otherwise. Since the vaccines had never been tested in any adeqyate way shape or form for safety issues, a trained and reasonable clinician must take note of what they are seeing. I immediately began to change my tune with young women in my practice with regard to these vaccines – to hell with what ACOG was saying.
Now we are starting to see things like this – https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/13/4/345 – this is the third one this month. With real clinical data, not peer-reviewed, pre-print – but data nonetheless – that yes ovarian function and follicle development do seem to be having some issues. Very early on, Pfizer was forced to release data about the distribution of the nanoparticles – this after months of telling everyone that it stayed in the arm – that was a complete lie and they knew it. One of the largest concentrations in that Japanese data was the OVARIES.
While these rat and other animal studies are not necessarily dispositive in humans – as a member of an IRB for years – I can assure you that they more than likely are similar – these continued findings are becoming a drumbeat. A drumbeat that becomes more concerning on every new dataset. I thank God that I insisted with my nieces and great nieces of menstruating age 4 years ago – DO NOT TAKE THESE. Even more grateful am I that they listened. Now I am reading reports that a female upper FDA scientist refused to take the vaccine in 2020-2021, while she was pregnant. Her comment was paraphrased -= “They are experimental. I have no idea what this will do to my baby or breast milk – I did not take them”
I hate to overshare but I am not convinced.
I got a VERY severe case of post menopausal bleeding, pretty much all the time, to the degree that I had to get a D&C, which still did not solve the problem.
And I got J&J only, one dose.
So I don’t see how this implicates mRNA since J&J was viral vector.
This meta study shows that recruitment and analysis of menstrual irregularities was for Covid-19 vaccines, and not mRNA specifically.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11412023/
This was not that large a study but did look at results by vaccine type. Moderna, which was higher dose mRNA, did not produce as much irregularity as Pfizer or J&J:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9295013/
This study of Middle Eastern women had controls:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9835440/
Thank you, KLG, for a very balanced post on the perception of mRNA technology after the SARS-CoV2 “vaccines” (quotes because, thinking about, perhaps these need re-branding given they were neither disease preventing nor transmission blocking – were they also some kind of disease-modifying immuno-prophylaxis?).
One other factor that gets lost in a topic that generates more heat than light is the appropriateness of the strategy behind the mRNA vaccines versus other vaccination technologies. My understanding (I forget from where, probably from In the Pipeline) is that Moderna and others switched from oncology (every biotech entrepreneur’s first indication, for mRNA as for other technologies) to develop vaccine programmes because in other indications they had trouble delivering the dosages required to treated without provoking reactions to mRNA carrier whereas vaccines offered the hope of “one and done”.
Some obvious questions follow. First, is introducing mRNA in an undirected way and then generating modified-for-stability spike protein intracellularly sensible, compared with say introducing attenuated/inactivated virus or virus proteins into the blood/lymph where lymphocytes will find them? Second, is a pegylated micelle an appropriate thing to introduce, with the risk of patient reaction to the pegylated construct?
I worry that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines represent a medical version of “if you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail”….
(Full disclosure, when I ran a biotech company, my chairman was an anti-sense pioneer and a long-time contemporary / frenemy of Stanley Crooke at ISIS so I have heard many tales from the frontlines of oligonucleotide therapy. Stanley Crooke is quite a character. https://www.oligotherapeutics.org/the-personal-journey-of-stanley-crooke-the-creation-and-development-of-ionis-and-beyond/)
“Be aware of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein: There is more than meets the eye”
May 2021 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34100279/
The picture I got somewhere along the way was sort of like the spike part of the virus could possibly cause as much trouble or more than lots of whole viruses. Then I found the link above. One of my prior sources was an MD or PhD (can’t remember) that was heavy into gene therapy; name also hard to remember. He would do youtube talks while walking, like Alex Christoforou.
Probably the Merogenomics guy. Here he is is on a peer reviewed paper showing DNA contamination.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9tlqUjwAvg
Yep, that’s him. Thank you!
Haven’t finished the article above yet, and have read only about one sentence in a lab leaks article in the Feb/Mar “Capitol Hill Citizen” newspaper. Nevertheless I feel I’m on pretty solid ground if I say all gain-of-function research needs to stop.
I’ve come across evidence that Mikolaj Raszek has a PhD, but is not a medical doctor. It could be errant. Still at that time I found him interesting on “the spike.” Don’t know what he’s saying these days.
I find this sentence interesting: “Thus, the problems with the COVID-19 vaccines probably (????) had very little to do with mRNA.” I’m glad I didn’t let something get shot into my arm (later to be found in my ovaries, brain and heart tissue) in the hope that it would “probably” kill the virus or “probably” limit its transference. I would prefer to see various studies (not funded by the manufacturer themselves) that concur mRNA delivery systems have little to no side effects such as the many induced by Pfizer and Moderna’s products.
As I see it, the mRNA vaccines were oversold, with even then President Biden claiming they prevented COVIDinfection and transmission.* When this turned out not to be true, the entire vaccine supporting crowd doubled down instead of doing the responsible thing, which would be to (1) apologize for previous over-exuberence, (2) admit that we are doing our best in a crisis with limited information, (3) be transparent with findings regarding the mRNA vaccine**, (4) have open dialogue about the mRNA vaccines. ***
Not only did they double down, but Matt Taibbi’s reporting on the Twitter Files shows the extet to which those in power policed social media to supress true stories of vaccine-related injuries with the justification that three truth might increase vaccine hesitancy.
One could object that these are political wrongs that should not reflect poorly on the scientific community. However, the failure of much of the scientific community to tamp down the exuberence and object to the politics shows that we cannot rely on them in the future to step up and do the right thing.
The scientific and medical communities need to rebuild trust, and that starts with an admission of what they got wrong. I haven’t seen that yet.
* I’ve heard the objection that Biden was presdient, not a scientist, and so his words should not count. While it may not be fair or right, his words count more because they have a wider audience while being backed by the authority of his office.
** Tranparency includes not being required to go to a judge to force the relaease of mRNA trial results before 75 years (!) have run.
*** A while back in Water Coooler, I participated in a discussion about Dr. Peter Hotez refusing to appear on Joe Rogan to discuss vaccine safety. Dr. Hotez’s reasoning was that he should not have to defend The Science against the deniers. Of course, Rogan has a huge platform and Dr. Hotez’s refusal looked like weakness on his part. Moreover, it was trust in The Science that was and is crumbling. Like it or not, at that point you have to come out and defend it in popular culture. That refusal to have an open debate and confront opponents makes people like me skeptical. Just trust us? No.
Make a point never to forget. Joe Biden’s words of… “If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in the ICU unit and you’re not going to die.” That’s forever stamped in my mind. That level of lying couldn’t just be from his brain melting.
That scared me.
The other thing was Vitamin D. It’s not a panacea but the data suggested it seriously dropped chances of getting infected by a ballpark of 30%. I don’t think there ever were recommendations from large institutions for the elderly and black to take their Vit D. You basically had to be lucky enough to find a doctor to tell you to take it.
So… the big theme was leaving really good options off the table, for absolutely no reason. Just take the damn vax. I tried warning a few liberals that they were suffering from tunnel vision but pushed me away.
IMHO Biden was a big part of the problem. He took similar super strong form, factually challenged views on Ukraine: “We’re America. We’re the most powerful country in the history of the world. Of course we can beat Russia.”
Fauci said in an interview (60 minutes iirc) that Vit D could be helpful and was worth taking, I think with respect to covid but also just in general if you’re not getting much sun, and that he took it himself.
You cannot make that a general, strong-form public health recommendation, or indeed subsidise vitamin D supplements to the public as a policy (fanciful, I know, but still) because:
is obviously arrant nonsense.
The biggest problem with the vaccine was the mandate in youthful populations who got much lower personal benefit, and faced unknown risk including subclinical myocarditis. This mandate was based on the false premise that the vaccine stopped transmission, so even the social benefit was grossly exaggerated. The political impact has been immense – less willingness to take established vaccines, distrust of federal agencies, and support for Trump (Biden having presided over the mandates).
COVID-10 near the top should be COVID-19
Stimulating article KLG. “Re-writing the script” is a good description of the last five years’ adoption, development, launch and deployment of mRNA therapies around a highly inappropriate and greatly exaggerated health threat (covid), using a a heavily orchestrated “pandemic” narrative and devising public policies (lockdown, PCR testing and mis-/over-sold vaccination), which harmed public trust in politics, medicine and science.
The script/narrative and history of the covid pandemic doesn’t bear close analysis: 40 Facts You NEED to Know: The REAL Story of “Covid”.
https://off-guardian.org/2023/03/24/40-facts-you-need-to-know-the-real-story-of-covid/
Fundamental problems with mRNA as a vacciine, which I don’t see as soluble.
1. No dose control. some people will make none, some will make too much
2. No control over where it goes. It does not “Stay in the arm” It can go to the heart where it makes immune system attack the endothelium
3. No control over persistence. Now have documeted cases of spike being made into the month tiem frame where the study ended.
It’s a Frankenstein Monster, let loose in the body. Maybe as a cancer treatment, the risk is acceptable. As a vaccine in a healthy person, never.
> which I don’t see as soluble
I believe there is work being done on targeting RNA therapies to specific tissues (I believe that liver-targeting is already pretty easy), but results are surely a long way off for most tissues.
I worry about cancer treatment applications that involve recruitment of the patient’s immune system. If immune dysregulation due to repeated Sars-2 infection becomes widespread, that would seem likely to impact immunotherapies of all kinds.
I find this topic too contaminated by all the craziness of some of the people talking most loudly to be able to get at what the real risk/benefit is that we should be considering. A lot of the same people howling about the killer “jab” also go on and on about the 2020 election “steal” and the climate “hoax” and Bill Gates using 5G to insert microchips into your DNA or whatever. I got the Salk polio “jab” in 1956 and didn’t get polio, unlike some of my slightly older cohorts. Did my parents know that some kids had died from the vaccine or gotten polio from it? I don’t think so, but they were also the type who had lived through the Depression and World War II and trusted those in authority, which few people now do. Now anybody can find online an expert, complete with doctorate, that will take either side of a controversy. You can find plenty of experts that will say climate change is a hoax, just like you could find ones that would say smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer back in the 1960s.
What I find lacking in the discussion of mRNA vaccines is not the theoretical mechanism by which it could cause bad effects but measurements of how common and how severe the bad effects really were in practice. How many excess deaths resulted from the vaccines versus what we were experiencing in the year before they became widely available? How were those excess deaths or longer term disability separated statstically from what COVID-19 was causing anyway? How did those numbers in the countries that led with the mRNA vaccines compare to those in countries like Russia that were using a traditional type of vaccine?
For personal reference, I have had the following shots: J&J (initial), Moderna, Pfizer, Moderna, Pfizer, Novavax, Novavax. And none of those caused as uncomfortable reaction for me as the darned shingles vaccine. Thst hurt. Plus I’m definitely old, and am weekly told by science news articles that my bad “lifestyle choices” will lead to an early demise any day now.
The pertinent research I think you’re looking for can be found from those places which fully or almost fully contained covid while the mRNA vaccines were deployed – in practice, that’s basically just New Zealand and some jurisdictions in Australia. It’s germane because the purported vaccine harms were not confounded with the simultaneous mass infection of the obviously more harmful and risky pathogen that the vaccine in question was targeting.
I’ve shared some research to this effect occasionally on NC from NZ in the past couple of years. I had a specific twitter thread from a researcher in mind but I can’t find it at the minute. That’s okay though, here’s some actual research: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10442303/
The main risk detailed therein is the well documented, slightly elevated risk of myocarditis/pericarditis after vaccination, which tends to be self limiting. It’s certainly a much less serious issue than the extensively documented cardiovascular sequelae caused by the viral infection itself*. All the other major vaccine harm bogeymen were epidemiologically normal in the population during the vaccination period.
(*And yes, I am fully aware the vaccines were oversold, were an inexcusably inappropriate strategy for combating this threat, are woefully behind viral evolution, and do not absolutely negate the risk of these sequelae of infection, which is what we were promised in effect when we were told they would stop infection/end the pandemic. This is, in fact, a hugely important issue – the only issue, really – and it is not being adequately reckoned with because so much intellectual energy is being expended on the “the vaccines are literal poison”/“no they’re not” false dialectic which, by the way, if one wishes to orient all their thinking around what is favourable and disfavourable to ~the establishment~, is absolutely favourable to the establishment.)
I was primed in 2020 and ‘21 (by this very blog!) for the possibility that the mRNA vaccines could have excessive risk of undue harm at scale. The type of evidence that I’ve presented here, more than any other, convinced me that it simply and straightforwardly didn’t play out that way. And certainly not to the extent that has been peddled by a gaggle of obviously fearmongering charlatans and attention whores on the internet (not this blog, obviously, although many of said cranks have been cited approvingly in the comments here!).
“Why luciferase? Because light is very easy to measure.”
I thought the answer was going to address the involvement of the Bringer of Light.
All hail :)
The issue is not the mRNA vaccine, except for the part where it got monetized and extorted the public for billions of dollars in the US and abroad. What the Trump regime did was throw out epidemiological science with all the expenses and technical expertise it required in favor of a ‘silver bullet’. There are public health medical professionals who know what to do, but they and their procedures were sidelined while three remedies were allowed: 1) the silver bullet vaccine; 2) lockdowns; 3) masks. Nevertheless, testing and tracing were eventually allowed to do their work, but too little too late.
China managed to have about 122,304 COVID deaths, while America had about 1,193,165 COVID deaths (2023 statistics), and China’s population is almost five times larger. China did produce some vaccines and I don’t know if they used mRNA technology, but mainly, China managed the pandemic.
The conversation should not be whether mRNA is good or bad, but whether a neoliberal society should be allowed to live.
There were two main vaccines from China. Both were “whole inactivated virus”, not mRNA. I live in Asia, and elected to take the one from China called Sinovac, as the statistical data provided by Pfizer and Moderna for their Emergency Use Authorisation” with the US FDA just wasn’t compelling enough for numerous reasons. I think this was the Phase 3 trial data. The government of the country where I live was pushing the mRNA vaccines, claiming the Chinese was less effective. If I remember correctly, the mRNA efficacy was 94%, whereas the Chinese one was supposedly 90% or less. Knowing how the 94% number was derived, based on my review of the trial data submitted to the FDA, it didn’t bother me the Chinese vac was “less effective”. I took it because I “had” to.
My wife is Mongolian and her cousin is a GP in Ulaanbaatar. In Mongolia the Chinese vax was for free but the supposedly superior Western vax cost money. So only the wealthy got the “good” stuff. Among them another cousin, the brother of the GP. He had no choice as he was a business man and had to travel to South-Korea but they wouldn´t let him in with only the chinese shot. So he got the Western miracle drug. He died after one month. His sister is convinced it was the vaxx but on his death cert there’s pulmonary disease.
It might be anecdotal but fact of the matter is that my wife’s cousin the GP has a huge chart in her premises that shows the vax status of all the apartments she’s responsible for. As the plague is endemic in Mongolia infectious diseases are taken very seriously. She also recorded who got which vax. She’s agnostic about whether the Chinese vax worked. Same for the Western vax. But one thing she is absolutely sure about: the Western vax’s are incredibly dangerous. No matter whether it is MRNA based or virus vector based.
Everybody knew that this mRNA vaccine had never been used before. It caused the body itself to make the spike protein which is itself pathological. It was developed at ‘warp speed’. I know I don’t do great work when I try to work at ‘warp speed’. It had no long term testing. I would think think that rigorous observation should have been used to monitor side effects. Even the miserly monitoring of the side effects showed that there were large differences in the number of side effects of different batches. The large scale manufacturing of the ‘vaccine’ was different than the one used to make the ‘vaccine’ for the initial trials. The process actually used was not tested. I have read that trillions of nanoparticles were in each shot. How is rigorous quality control even possible? The lipid nanoparticles themselves had numerous side effects. I am in my 70s and had smoked for 35 years but quit in 2000. I never got the vaccine or wore a mask. I was fine. Most eveybody gets different upper respiratory infections every winter. Why wasn’t a program of rigorous monitoring of this experimental ‘vaccine’ created before it was given to billions of people? Instead the money was spent on creating fear and overcoming justified ‘vaccine hesitancy’?
That is an interesting study but I did not see anything about the languages analyzed. Should I assume all the twitter messages are in English?
If so, we have an unrepresentative sample of world opinion.
re: Gaza Microsoft
that’s soooo awesome…
sickos
Microsoft Bans the Word “Palestine” in Internal Emails
After days of disruption by pro-Palestine activists at its Build developer conference, No Azure for Apartheid said, Microsoft made it impossible to send emails containing “Palestine” or “Gaza.”
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/microsoft-word-palestine-banned-internal-email-gaza
Oh I am sorry! This is obviously the wrong thread/post. “Gaza-Microsoft” was intended for links from 5/22/25. Dammit.
Speaking as a scientist (but not biopharmaceutical), I will not have faith or trust in the mRNA or any other big pharma product until the conflicts of interest and money are removed from the system. Conflicts of interest that are gross and in my field would have me lose grants.
I am sorry I cannot find the link (travelling in China), but somewhere around 4200 safe and effective drugs and medical devices are withdrawn from the market for being so unsafe and ineffective every year as to pose a sufficient litigation loss threat to the company – the FDA cannot pull a product, it can only recommend.
I know how to read peer-reviewed papers and look for where authors hide bad data / implications/ and ways of skewing the data set (especially supplemental). I perform due diligence for my families’ health and do not “trust” my GP, but most cannot, and yet the papers on the promise are often written by those with the most money to gain from hiding negative indications (First I always look at who funded the research – in part as I am always looking for new funding streams, but sometimes it sets off alarm bells when reading the paper).
The biggest problem with “trust” is something the original article never mentioned.
No vaccine should ever be developed under a profit motive. Ever. That means that money grubbing evil people like Pfizer shouldn’t be permitted to guide the development of vaccines. This should all be government work and any scientist wishing to have a career in vaccine development should be a government worker with full transparency and reproducibility in every aspect of development. A television ad advertising a vaccine is an obscenity.
Does anyone trust Pfizer or Moderna except the officers and shareholders? Should they?