Unsafe and defective
A recent peer-reviewed paper on the Pfizer jab; other major issues with mRNA injections; the bigger picture; pushing back against the new religion of mRNA
Dear Church Leaders (and everyone else)
A recent peer-reviewed paper on the Pfizer jab
Further to previous posts, and following the recent withdrawal of the AstraZeneca covid injections due to “rare events”, I thought it worth drawing attention to this recent paper relating to the so-called Pfizer jabs.1 I’ll try and keep the post readable for those less familiar with the relevant scientific background.
The findings are important and — for various reasons, not least conflicts of interest — they are unlikely to appear in the mainstream media any time soon.
The findings are also consistent with the observations of other scientists. And these days I see little evidence of anyone, scientist or not, even attempting to defend the covid mRNA injections, let alone making a convincing argument for them.
The summary below is mainly drawn from the abstract and conclusions of the paper with [occasional comments added] along with a translation of sorts. Merely reading those translation parts (which I will keep brief) should be enough to get the gist.
I should perhaps add that:
It is good to see here that the abstract and the conclusion of the paper appear consistent with the rest of the material — something which has not always been the case in scientific papers over the past few years, especially in the context of the safety of covid vaccines.
The paper has been peer-reviewed — for what that is worth. It has been known for many years that there is no shortage of dubious peer-reviewed papers out there. And as Prof Carl Heneghan and Dr Tom Jefferson of the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine in Oxford point out, editorial peer review as a mark of quality has never actually been properly tested.
While the journal Methods and Protocols is hardly a household name, it is the content that matters. And in any case, there are serious issues in relation to the so-called prestigious medical journals2:
Here goes…
Like many academic papers, this one has a long title with some long words:
Methodological Considerations Regarding the Quantification of DNA Impurities in the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Comirnaty®
A discussion of different methods used to measure the amount of DNA contamination in the Pfizer jab
From the abstract:
DNA impurities can impact the safety of genetically engineered pharmaceuticals; thus, a specific limit value must be set for them during marketing authorisation. This particularly applies to mRNA vaccines [which were known in 2020 to be genetically engineered pharmaceuticals], as large quantities of DNA templates are used for their production.
There are potential issues with DNA contamination in the Pfizer jabs
Furthermore, when quantifying the total DNA content in the final product [in which there should be little or no DNA present], we must observe that, in addition to the mRNA active ingredient, DNA impurities are also encased in lipid nanoparticles [to deliver the “vaccine” intact into cells] and are therefore difficult to quantify. In fact, the manufacturer of the mRNA vaccine Comirnaty (BioNTech/Pfizer) [NB the “Pfizer vaccine” is actually manufactured by German company BioNTech] only measures DNA impurities in the active substance by means of a quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) [a particular type of test], whose DNA target sequence is less than just 1% of the originally added DNA template…
The process used by the manufacturer for testing contamination levels is inadequate
This means that no direct DNA quantification takes place, and compliance with the limit value for DNA contamination is only estimated from the qPCR data using mathematical extrapolation methods.
The manufacturer’s figures for DNA contamination are essentially guesswork at best
However, it is also possible to dissolve the lipid nanoparticles with a detergent to directly measure DNA contamination in the final product by using fluorescence spectroscopic methods [another type of test]. Experimental testing of this approach confirms that reliable values can be obtained in this way.
There is a better type of test — which is known to work — that could be used instead
From the conclusion:
The available information and data indicate that the ready-to-use mRNA vaccine Comirnaty contains DNA impurities that exceed the permitted limit value by several hundred times and, in some cases, even more than 500 times, and that this went unnoticed because the DNA quantification carried out as part of batch testing only at the active substance level appears to be methodologically inadequate when using qPCR
The DNA contamination in the Pfizer jab was very high, but it wasn’t found at the time because those who should have been checking — manufacturer and regulators — didn’t look for it properly
Because of the conditions during the production of the mRNA active substance of Comirnaty, the applied qPCR is designed so that a massive under-detection of DNA impurities appears to be the result… qPCR is matchless if specific DNA sequences are being quantified, but this is not the case if the aim is the quantification of the total DNA content.
The inadequate testing was not an accident
Against this background, [adequate] experimental testing of the total DNA contained in the ready-to-use diluted vaccine… which is to be carried out by the authorities as part of the legal mandate for official batch testing, appears to be essential. Why this was systematically omitted by the European control laboratories… should therefore be the subject of extensive expert discussions and reconsiderations.
We now need to do adequate testing, and investigate why it wasn’t done before
Further, it should also be taken into account that DNA impurities in [the Pfizer jab] are apparently integrated into the lipid nanoparticles and are thus transported directly into the cells of a vaccinated person, just like the mRNA active ingredient. What this means for the safety risks, particularly the possible integration of this DNA into the human genome, i.e., the risk of insertional mutagenesis, should be a secondary focus of the discussion required, which must go far beyond what could have been considered years before the so unexpected introduction of mRNA pharmaceuticals into the global market.
We also need to have discussions about the serious safety risks with this technology that we should have had before billions of people were injected
Other major issues with mRNA injections
The DNA contamination — sometimes called “plasmidgate” — described above is just one of several major issues with mRNA injections summarised in this article…
…which concludes: “Questions must surely now be asked about whether it is a stretch too far to ascribe what we are seeing to carelessness or incompetence.”
More broadly, as HART’s co-chair Jonathan Engler puts it, echoing the views of plenty of other independent scientists:
[It’s hard to see] how a platform which:
instructs the body’s cells to express a foreign protein
for an indeterminate duration
in unpredictable and highly variable quanitities
throughout potentially every organ system
...could ever be deemed safe, let alone effective
In any case, The Blue Guide, the MHRA’s own guidance for the Advertising and Promotion of Medicines in the UK…
…states (p34), in its chapter on “Advertising to Persons Qualified to Prescribe or Supply Medicines,” that:
And the notion that the covid injections were effective in saving “millions of lives” — or even the rather vague “many lives” — is not supported by real-world data (as distinct from dubious modelling). It is the latest instalment of the medical misinformation that has plagued the world for a long time:
Some dubious claims for supposed vaccine effectiveness were based on the miscategorisation of deaths shortly after vaccination as “unvaccinated deaths”, something that the UK Office for National Statistics has at last recently admitted:
Moreover, unpalatable though it may be, there are good reasons to believe that the mRNA injections are intentionally toxic.
Maybe it is not a coincidence that the UK government shut down its ethics committee after it tried to intervene on the vaccination of children:
The bigger picture
One part of the bigger picture here is that it appears that Pfizer’s clinical trials were fraudulent.
[Update: the most comprehensive summary that I have seen re the fraud is here. Examples of those from the UK speaking out about this include David White — a retired UK GP — in this video; and Carl Heneghan, Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, e.g. here.]
Pfizer’s defence in court against whistleblower Brook Jackson was essentially to admit that there was fraud, but to argue that it isn’t fraud because the US government was in on it.
And even Pfizer’s own documents (from the fraudulent clinical trial) show that the mRNA injections brought little or no benefit.
Moreover, a whistleblower has recently claimed that Pfizer employees received batches of mRNA that were “separate and distinct” from those rolled out to the wider population. This consistent with the testimony of witnesses at an Australian Senate hearing.
A study from Denmark (recent discussion here) shows that some mRNA batches resulted in much higher rates of adverse events than others.
More broadly, we still have little idea of the long-term effects on health. And while it is well-established that the lipid nanoparticles used in the mRNA injections accumulate in the ovaries, no long-term studies on fertility were conducted before the so-called covid vaccines were pushed on young women and girls.
Another part of the bigger picture is that during the covid era the authorities ran a scare campaign aimed at getting mRNA injected into as many people as possible. Including children. And they’re still at it, with injections for babies and toddlers approved earlier this year. And more planned:
This is despite the rise in excess deaths, particularly during 2021 and 2022, which Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts has — not unreasonably — described as a crime scene.
And despite the substantial increase in sickness and disease levels which began at the time of the vaccine rollout.
In this context — plus increasing awareness re vaccines generally — it is hardly surprising that people who once took every vaccine they were offered are now “going natural”:
Pushing back against the new religion of mRNA
At the very least, in the name of “the religion of mRNA” the authorities are playing fast and loose with the health of billions of people in order to maximise their profits.3
This only ends when enough people know more about what is actually happening, and:
recognise that the authorities — at least some of whom have financial conflicts of interest — unashamedly deceive us about the safety and effectiveness of medical products
recognise that doctors and nurses often parrot the deception, not least because they are:
trained to trust the authorities
often too busy to check out the claims
under pressure to toe the party line
decline invitations to take keep taking unnecessary injections, especially those that are mRNA-based
insist on proper regulatory scrutiny of new pharmaceutical products
Dear Church Leaders homepage (or search Substack for “Dear Church Leaders”)
The Big Reveal — Christianity carefully considered (click “No thanks” unless you want to subscribe for occasional updates)
The developer and owner of the “Pfizer jabs” is actually the German company BioNTech which earns far more from global sales of the vaccine than Pfizer
The author of the article above is Prof Peter Gøtzsche, a co-founder of Cochrane — a UK charitable organisation “providing high-quality information to make health decisions.” According to its website, Cochrane “[does] not accept commercial or conflicted funding.” But Gøtzsche contends that Cochrane has changed “from a grass roots scientific organisation, where centres worked autonomously and embraced diversity, into a highly centralised business, focused on ‘brand’ and ‘logos,’ with ‘one voice, one position.’” In 2018 he said that, at Cochrane, “Academic freedom has gone, scientific debates are unwelcome, and transparency is a thing of the past. Cochrane’s public statements deny this, but I am a witness on the inside…”
It is hard to believe that it is a coincidence that the non-mRNA injections (such as AstraZeneca’s) have been withdrawn, while the mRNA injections, whose safety profile is comparably dreadful, continue to be promoted. Maybe the withdrawal of the AstraZeneca product is intended to give the impression that the regulatory process is working, despite the fact that the evidence very much points the other way.