Medika Life has covered the halls of JPMorgan in San Francisco, ViVE in Nashville, and the Digital Health Summit in Boston. But the outreach received before BIO—from stakeholders in Austin, Belfast, Milan, Riyadh, and Tulsa—suggested something seismic was shifting. At BIO 2025, that story came into focus: a world where health innovation is no longer limited by geography but defined by vision, investment and intention.

The Biotechnology Innovation Organization isn’t just where technologies are launched and global biotech identities are shaped. What we witnessed in Boston this year wasn’t just presence, but purpose. From Riyadh to Milan, leaders arrived not merely to exhibit, but to engage. They came to say, ‘We are here. We are investing. We are innovating.’ BIO 2025 stood out for its sheer scale and energy—a mosaic of emerging voices ready to help steer the next wave of life science breakthroughs.

Global Trends: Infrastructure, Incentives and Inclusion Drive Expansion

A common thread across these rising biotech regions is the power of public-sector catalysts. Investment in R&D tax credits, translational research centers, and workforce training has de-risked innovation for early-stage companies. Regions like Oklahoma and Northern Ireland exemplify how government partnerships with academia and industry can create a vibrant life sciences pipeline.

In parallel, digital innovation is enabling smaller regions to leapfrog traditional limitations. AI-led discovery, digital twins, and virtual trial platforms are reducing costs and increasing speed-to-data. This convergence of science and software is helping new hubs like Austin and Riyadh accelerate globally competitive capabilities in diagnostics, personalized medicine, and regulatory science.

“We’re not competing with Boston—we’re complementing it,” said a delegate from Invest Northern Ireland. “In a connected world, biotech ecosystems aren’t isolated—they’re collaborative nodes on a global grid.”

Meanwhile, leaders from Italy’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Saudi Arabia’s SFDA emphasized the importance of regulatory agility. Their message was clear: modern biotech requires modern policy. Whether through centralized ethics boards, digital review platforms, or alignment with international standards, regulatory transformation is essential to scale innovation.

These developments signal a broader inflection point—biotech is no longer about place. It’s about purpose, policy, and partnerships.

Austin: Where Tech Meets Translational Medicine

Austin is no longer just the city of live music and digital startups. With more than 300 life science companies and a 74% employment boom in biotech over the past five years, it’s transforming into a powerhouse of translational medicine.

Heavyweights like Thermo Fisher, Natera, and Luminex now call Austin home, joined by trailblazers such as Paradromics, Elligo Health Research, and Prophase Biostudios. These companies blend biotech, medtech, and AI in ways that are shaping the next frontier in diagnostics, therapeutics, and digital health.

“As one of the country’s fastest-growing emerging life sciences hubs, the Austin region is responsible for a significant portion of the biotechnology sector’s growth in Texas,” said Ed Latson, CEO of Opportunity Austin. “Our tech talent, VC ecosystem, and institutions like UT Austin are driving an uptick in innovations, with over 350 life science patents issued to Austin companies in the past five years.”

Austin’s 4.4 million square feet of science innovation space—plus another 1.1 million square feet under construction—signals that this rise is more than momentum. It’s movement.

Italy: From Scientific Legacy to Global Scale

Italy’s BIO 2025 pavilion was both a showcase and a statement: this country is stepping into biotech leadership. Long known for its academic excellence, Italy is now connecting its research infrastructure to industrial manufacturing and global markets.

With 770 production sites and the largest Contract Development and Manufacturing Organization output in Europe (€3.6B), Italy is scaling up innovation across oncology, AI diagnostics, and organ-on-chip development. Companies like BiomimX, Math Biology, Genenta Science, and InSilicoTrials are bridging cutting-edge science with clinical utility.

“Italy’s presence at BIO Boston reflects years of work by the Italian Trade Agency to promote an integrated system of scientific expertise, high-tech supply chains, and a talent-rich ecosystem,” shared Erica Di Giovancarlo, Director of the ITA New York Office.

Initiatives like the Montalcini Global Biotech Tour and policy instruments from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs support this ambition.

“Pharma is one of Italy’s top global exports,” noted Mauro Battocchi, Director General. “That would be unthinkable without a strong base in R&D, regulation, and manufacturing.”

Northern Ireland: Precision Science with Global Reach

With 250+ companies and $2.5 billion in revenue, Northern Ireland’s life sciences sector has grown 75% in just three years. The delegation to BIO was led by Invest Northern Ireland and featured companies from drug discovery (AMPLY), CRO services (Almac, Celerion), and diagnostics (Randox).

Queen’s University Belfast and Ulster University deeply anchored the region’s ecosystem. Global companies are noting that Celerion recently relocated its UK Phase I operations to Belfast’s new iREACH facility, betting on local talent and translational research capacity.

From scientific rigor to export capability—145+ countries and counting—Northern Ireland proves that locale doesn’t limit global vision.

Oklahoma: Equity-Focused Innovation with Local Roots

Oklahoma’s biotech renaissance is rooted in intentionality—it is focused on equity, local workforce development, and community-based innovation. Biosciences now contributes more than $16 billion to the state’s economic impact, with more than 750 companies and 42,000 jobs.

The Oklahoma delegation at BIO emphasized sustainability, manufacturing, and health equity, with standout organizations including Wheeler Bio, BioTC, ParaNano, and Utopia Plastix.

“We’re not here to be a branch office,” one delegate told me. “We’re here to bring Oklahoma’s soul to the bioscience table.”

With significant support from the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science & Technology (OCAST), OKBioStart, and the University of Oklahoma, this state is redefining what it means to be an innovation hub.

Saudi Arabia: A New Powerhouse for Biotech Partnerships

Saudi Arabia came to BIO with a clear strategy and global ambitions. Led by His Excellency Prof. Dr. Hisham Saad Aljadhey, CEO of the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA), the Kingdom made its voice heard across two key sessions.

At “Global Biotechnology at a Crossroads,” Dr. Aljadhey discussed Saudi Arabia’s modernization of clinical trials and regulatory frameworks, aligning with international standards. At “Partnering for Progress,” he showcased the Kingdom’s integrated biotech ecosystem, spanning R&D, data, manufacturing, and patient care.

Beyond BIO, the SFDA delegation engaged with Harvard University and global pharmaceutical leaders and joined a private sector roundtable hosted by BIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These engagements reflect Saudi Arabia’s commitment to cross-border collaboration, secure supply chains, and sustainable innovation infrastructure.

With leaders from the Saudi Ministry of Health, King Faisal Specialist Hospital, and the National Institute of Health also in attendance, the message was clear: Saudi Arabia is ready to be a regional biotech hub with global reach.

The New Map of Global Innovation

This isn’t just a reshuffling of zip codes. It’s a redrawing of the innovation map—pushed forward by ecosystems committed to inclusion, science, sustainability, and scale.

These five rising regions aren’t simply showing up. They’re standing up—challenging legacy thinking, collapsing silos, and reminding the world that leadership in life sciences doesn’t require a familiar address. It requires ambition, alignment, and action.

At BIO 2025, the message was unmistakable: where you innovate matters less than why you innovate—and for whom.

From Austin’s AI-powered translational medicine to Saudi Arabia’s regulatory reinvention, the next wave of breakthroughs will be shaped not by old borders but bold commitments.

Expectations are high. Patients in Milan and Muskogee, Belfast and Boston, Riyadh and Rochester are not waiting for innovation to trickle down. They are looking globally—for the fastest path to solutions that sustain and save lives.

The future of biotech is already in motion. It’s inclusive. It’s intentional. And it’s unstoppable.

The post BIO – Biotech Without Borders  appeared first on Medika Life.

I always get my vaccinations in my left arm. Not because I anticipated the intriguing new study results.

Rather, I sleep on my right side and don’t want the discomfort associated with vaccination on my compressed arm.

Before we examine sidedness and vaccinations, I must share that winter has begun in Seattle. I define the season as dark and rainy.

Chilled-looking people walking along the riverside, the snow beginning, faintly, to pile up on the roofs of cars, the bare trees shaking their heads left and right, dry leaves tossing in the wind. The silver of the metal window sash sparkled coldly. Soon after, I heard sensei call, “Mikage! Are you awake? It’s snowing, look! It’s snowing!” “I’m coming!” I called out, standing up. I got dressed to begin another day. Over and over, we begin again. — Banana Yoshimoto

Arm-Sidedness and COVID Vaccination

I read the title of a recent article and thought, “Really?” But as you will see, there is a logic to the finding. Here’s the title:

Differences in SARS-CoV-2 specific humoral and cellular immune responses after contralateral and ipsilateral COVID-19 vaccination.

In other words, individuals may get more protection against COVID-19 if they get their vaccinations and boosters in the same arm.

The Study

German researchers examined health data for 303 people who got the mRNA vaccine and a subsequent booster shot. None had a history of COVID-19 infection.

They measured the antibody levels of the subjects two weeks after the second shot.

Here are the surprising results:

The number of protective “killer T cells” was higher in the 147 study participants who got both shots in the same arm.

Scientists found killer T cells in 67 percent of cases when both shots entered the same arm. This number compares to 43 percent of cases with different arms.

My Take

Same-arm vaccinations may work better because the cells providing the immune response are in nearby (underarm) lymph nodes.

There may be a more vigorous immune response if the immune cells in the nearby nodes are restimulated in the same location.

Since this study does not represent high-level evidence, we need more studies to validate the results. Moreover, we don’t know if the findings apply to other vaccines, including the flu.

Still, I will continue to get my vaccinations in my left arm. I sleep on my right side, so it is for the best.

The post Is Getting COVID Shots in the Same Arm Better? appeared first on Medika Life.

In an effort to get ahead of a potential tripledemic this winter of COVID-19, flu, and RSV that could overwhelm hospitals, health officials have re-booted an important program: making COVID test kits free again. Those kits will be available by mail to households starting September 25.

Next comes the hard part: convincing enough people to get the kits and then persuading them to follow quarantine guidelines if they or their family members get sick.

This is not the time to roll out stale messaging delivered by a carousel of health officials trying to convince the public to get the test kits. Americans are weary of being told to keep their guard up against a disease that many view as more of an inconvenience than a threat. If the sales pitch to get the kits is off, health officials may find that the test kits no longer serve as an effective public health tool. Instead, they could become another partisan symbol of perceived government overreach, further impeding people’s freedom to live as they want.

In short, we have a messaging challenge ahead of us, and if we haven’t taken to heart the lessons learned during the worst early days of the pandemic, we’re doomed to repeat mistakes that cost lives.

How can we be more thoughtful about containing COVID and other dangerous diseases? To generate greater public compliance for fighting an endemic disease, communicators must provide a credible and compelling case of the risk of inaction and convince people that ignorance – of not knowing your infection status – is greater than the cost of knowing. These can be very high bars to clear since people have different thresholds for risk and for being informed.

It’s likely we won’t clear those hurdles with the roll-out of the free test kits. Because the perceived risk of COVID-19 infection and severity is low, many people have adopted a “no test, no stress” attitude, especially in light of the potential personal disruption that COVID infection causes. It’s a dangerous direction and one of the reasons why we will continue to see cases spike.

For communicators to overcome the twin challenges of infection risk perception and status aversion, they must use convert communicators – people who are credible to specific audiences and have changed their views to support disease intervention. There is mounting data showing that people who identified as Republicans were far likelier to get infected by COVID and die from the disease than those from left-leaning political parties. Messaging that taps into this research could point to breaking through to these audiences.

Successful public health interventions rely on a strong majority of the population participating in disease mitigation efforts, which means spotlighting conservative voters who see the value of COVID testing and can serve as credible messengers to similarly ideologically inclined individuals. This is where digital storytelling, data visualization and engagement of champions outside of the health sector can be potent measures to build the case for supporting new public health tools.   

It is also important to truly understand the pain points that different audience segments cite as reasons for not wanting to know their infection status and to provide targeted counterpoints. Most people can’t afford to miss work, even with a mild case, and families can be heavily impacted when a parent must choose between going to work or keeping their kids home. In these and other scenarios, the test result becomes the thing people may begin to dread more than the disease itself.

To ensure that people do not feel like they must choose between a host of the least bad options when COVID comes to their home, the government must consider new incentives for reporting positive test results and adhering to public health guidelines. These can range from reinstituting protected sick leave that was available as part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) during the pandemic to encouraging more employers to use the tax credits available through the American Recovery Plan Act (ARPA) to reimburse for employee sick leave. Without putting these and other options on the table, people will feel penalized even when they do the right thing.

The post It’s Time to Up Our Messaging Game Ahead of Another Winter with COVID appeared first on Medika Life.

We live in a very exciting time! Alzheimer’s medications that are more promising than past drugs are starting to hit the shelves, with others on the way. Eli Lilly’s new daratumumab medication has been suggested to slow the progression of early Alzheimer’s by up to 35%. So if it took someone five years to progress to more serious Alzheimer’s without medication, this could slow it, so it could instead take seven years, meaning more years being more present with one’s family. Lecanemab (Leqembi), from Eisei and Biogen, was also found to reduce cognitive decline, keeping our parents or ourselves fully present as we traverse life’s journey together!

In this article, I will talk about why these drugs offer society hope yet will also cause a big problem, at least in the short term (i.e., until generics become available when the drugs’ patents expire). As for my background, I earned my M.D. in the United States to soon earn my Ph.D. in Canada, focusing on Genetics. Today, I work as a postdoctoral scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital, studying the genetics of Alzheimer’s disease. In my medical training, I have seen the tragedy that can happen to people’s parents or themselves as they face newly diagnosed dementia and late-stage disease.

To be clear, these medications are a good thing. They could help many of those around us, whether a parent, sibling, or ourselves. Dementia is a horrible disease; until now, not much could be done about it. A family member is diagnosed with the disease in the office and told that they are showing signs of this illness and that very little can be done to help them. Over time, their personality changes, and they slowly become less like themselves daily, aware of what is happening.

This can cause significant distress for those with this illness and their family and friends. We spend years with these people. We are forced to watch, unable to make a difference, as they lose their ability to function and lose who they are. These medications could slow these changes, finally offering some semblance of hope for those with these diseases.

As with any medication, these drugs do not come without risks. One in four people who received Leqembi had a “transfusion reaction,” which in most people means that they may have had redness and swelling in the arm they received the medication. While such reactions can be severe, causing one’s airway to close up in an anaphylactic reaction, these responses are generally uncommon. Some individuals who received Leqembi or Donanemab experienced swelling in their brain, known as cerebral edema. While not necessarily a problem, in that it does not necessarily produce symptoms, one in four people who took Donanemab developed this swelling, one of four of which had symptoms. So if we considered a group of 1000 people who took this drug, using the study’s results, about 60 in 1000 could experience headaches or confusion. Some of these 60 individuals may develop bleeding in their brains. Around two could die from the swelling or bleeding. While concerning, 940 of these hypothetical 1000 people had no side effects. Even if you took this med and experienced side effects, you could be sure that your doctor would do everything they could to keep you safe, including discontinuing the medication that often resolves adverse effects.

So it sounds like my opinion is that these drugs sound promising. Why the doom and gloom article title? This is because these are or will be very expensive drugs. The price for a single person to receive enough Leqembi for a single year is forecasted to be $26,500. While Donanemab does not yet have an official cost, it is predicted to be over $26,000 annually. Think about that amount of money for a moment. The federal poverty line for a family of four, which could include a couple, a child, and a grandparent, is $30,000. More than one in 10 people in the United States are impoverished and struggling to make ends meet. This number is likely even higher, considering you do not have to be impoverished to have financial difficulty. What would happen if a couple’s loving grandmother or grandfather started showing signs of dementia?

While the elderly are entitled to Medicare, would Medicare cover such an expensive drug when it has to care for the entire country’s elderly population? Even if it pays for it, how much of it? After consulting physician colleagues of mine, we think it is unlikely that Medicare as is would pay this much. It would be great if they did, but there are likely not enough Medicare dollars to permit this.

Families could face impossible decisions or immense stress once these medications are more broadly available, and they have hope in front of them, yet this hope is financially inaccessible. While some private insurance may help pay for these cutting-edge treatments, perhaps with Medicare offering a small contribution, insurance is expensive, and we sadly do not all have health plans that enable us to not think about how we are going to make managing our health work, alongside taking care of supporting children, family, and parents.

There is also the concern that these medications may offer more benefit to those of certain ancestral groups, as reported by Reuters. This was not because the study’s designers or the company sought to exclude non-whites. For medical research to be approved, generally, one must communicate how the research will benefit a more diverse group. Describing how people are recruited into appropriately designed clinical trials and why medications may help people of European descent more than those of African descent is its own article, so I will not touch on this here. This is important because non-whites have higher rates of Alzheimer’s and have historically had less access to healthcare resources.

Such a financial predicament is not unique to these upcoming new medications (or healthcare in general in the United States). Research and development of new medications often cost over $2 billion when a new treatment is available for the general public. Companies need to give treatments a price that enables them to make up for what they spent and enable their other projects, which can also provide hope for better health management. While this approach is understandable (companies need to avoid going bankrupt. Even non-profits need to do that), it can still limit our access to treatments that could save or improve our lives.

The only fix that could address these issues is legislation, which the American Medical Association is consistently striving to improve people’s health in the United States, including driving healthcare reform and expanding (versus cutting) Medicare coverage. Your doctors are not just treating you in the office. They are going to Washington, D.C., and suffering the stresses of politics to improve your lives!

In conclusion, we have reasons to be optimistic about these new drugs. We are also facing the same problems that we have in the past, with promising treatments often being beyond the reach of those with less financial resources and those who have historically had limited access to treatments that could mitigate suffering.

The post New Alzheimer’s Drugs Will Worsen Inequality appeared first on Medika Life.

Satanic rituals, urban legends and abducted kids are all familiar topics to most of us and with the release of the Sound of Freedom, a Mel Gibson backed movie exposing child trafficking, the topics are on everyone’s lips. Adrenochrome, not so much, that is until Sound of Freedom, ably abetted by actor Jim Caviezel, breathed life into it again.

Depending on who you choose to believe, adrenochrome is either an important, yet not fully understood element of the disease, schizophrenia – that’s the medical version – or it’s the life prolonging, fountain of youth obtained from the terrified body of a young child sacrificed for this very purpose– the urban myth.

Here first, is what some of the villagers choose to believe about Adrenochrome and then we’ll check in on the real world.

Harvesting the “Elixir of Youth”

Adrenochrome is produced by our bodies when we are in a state of heightened fear or terror. According to the urban legend, this byproduct of adrenalin, when consumed, melts away wrinkles, takes years off your face and if the stories are to be believed, is nothing short of the fountain of youth. Hollywood, they claim, are the main consumers of adrenochrome.

Enter the children, abducted and taken to remote areas where they are, according to Caviezel, tortured and literally scared to death. At this point the adrenochrome the children have produced is harvested from their lifeless bodies and sold on the black market for huge profit. For people without scruples or the brain capacity to critically analyze the urban legend, you can see why the business model would be appealing.

For every idiot vendor there is, of course, an even stupider client. People with more money than sense, who will literally try anything to arrest or reverse the ageing process. Combine the two and voilà, you have a supply chin and customers, all thanks to crazy online, self-fulfilling horseshit, none of which happens to be true.

We have developed a love affair with conspiracy theories over the last few decades. Most are harmless. For instance the secret (obviously not so much anymore) Nazi base in the center of the earth, accessible through a hidden entrance in the Arctic, isn’t going to overrun the world tomorrow with an army of highly trained penguins. No harm there. Insanity in buckets, but no harm.

Some theories are however incredibly dangerous. They pose a real threat to the well-being of our communities, the safety of our person and our children. The adrenochrome urban legend is right up there in terms of risk. Extremely so, and Gibson, with his latest foray into supporting “cinematic story telling” may be unwittingly contributing to the market value of street urchins.

His support, however well intended, has allowed Caviezel a platform to conflate the movie with adrenochrome, imbuing it with powers it does not posses. In short, Sound of Freedom’s Jim Caviezel is trying to breathe life into an urban legend.

Let’s examine exactly what Adrenochrome is, what it does and where it comes from. This is essential in understanding how the urban legend evolved and as with all urban legends, there is a sliver of reality mixed in with the fairy tale.

The Discovery of Adrenochrome

In short, this compound was first isolated in a laboratory in the fifties and researchers initially believed its absence in Schizophrenia patients was important.

It is created naturally as a byproduct in our bodies by the oxidation of adrenaline. We release adrenaline when we experience fear or our body feels threatened in some way. That explains the need described above for terrifying innocent street waifs. Showing them Disney movies isn’t going to get the adrenaline pumping.

Scientists are currently studying a derivative of adrenochrome that offers promise in the field of surgery by increasing the bloods ability to clot, thus reducing bleeding.

The only clinical tests of adrenochrome were in the fifties, and they were both brief and inconclusive. We did however establish that the long term affects of ingesting the compound led to psychotic episodes and serious mental issues. Adrenochrome doesn’t appear to agree with our brains.

There is ZERO evidence in the scientific literature of anything to support the anti-aging and psychedelic affects ascribed to the compound, in fact, quite the opposite. Adrenochrome just doesn’t live up to all the hype, so where then does all the craziness come from?

Say Hello to Fear and Loathing

Hunter S. Thompson and Aldous Huxley most likely share the blame. Both referred to the compound in their writing. Both made fictitious claims about the compound, Huxley out of ignorance and Thompson, well he was just being Thompson. Gonzo, full steam ahead. He was creating his style of fiction.

In the movie Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas, based on Thompson’s book by the same title, Johnny Depp’s character is shown using an ampule of ‘adrenochrome’ in one of the drug fueled binges that permeate the movie. If you haven’t watched , you should. It’s a cult classic.

Gonzo journalism, the writing style Thompson invented, is based around the fictionalization and exaggeration of real-life events. In the DVD commentary of the 1998 movie adaptation, director Terry Gilliam said Thompson told him he made the whole adrenochrome thing up.

It could have been any compound, Thompson simply chose adrenochrome, possibly motivated by the fact little was known of it.

In Aldous Huxley’s 1954 essay “The Doors of Perception”, written about his experiences with mescaline, Huxley discusses the possibility that adrenochrome is a compound with similar effects to the psychedelic cactus.

He had not used it and had no idea how to obtain it, other than saying it was spontaneously produced by the human body. He described it as “a product of the decomposition of adrenaline”, which is, surprisingly, correct.

A little truth mixed in with a lot of fiction.

That seems to be the fate of adrenochrome. It is destined, along with 5G, Elvis, Nazi penguins and hollow moons to become the stuff of urban legend.

Which, as I suggested earlier, is all good and well, except that in this instance it poses a very real danger to children. Whilst you and I are able to comprehend the difference between fairy tales and fact, many cannot.

As long as we live in a world where people drink bleach, ban abortions, wear tinfoil hats and vote for Trump (again), we need to suppress dangerous lies.

Society needs to filter out the untruths we feed each other to avoid the loss of even one child’s life. Social media companies need to address these threads, remove them and warn their users. Spreading lies, even if you believe them to be true, can cost lives. By tweeting your fictitious fairy tales, you are simply providing the seeds for the harvesting of more children for profit. Stop it.

Lastly, a parting thought for supporters of the urban legend. The oxidation reaction that converts adrenaline into adrenochrome occurs both in vivo and in vitro. In other words, you can produce adrenochrome in a body or a test tube. I suspect the test tube may be cheaper, quicker and a lot less illegal than abducting children.

The post Adrenochrome, Satanic Masses, Abducted Children and Urban Legends appeared first on Medika Life.

That said, it is clear that vaccination against SARS CoV-2 also comes with risks. It is not completely benign. That is also indisputable. Specifically, vaccination against SARS CoV-2 has been associated with myocarditis/pericarditis, especially in adolescent and young adult males.

The mechanism of this very rare, albeit very real, complication (estimated to be between 0 to 35.9 cases per 100,000 across age groups and mRNA vaccine cohorts) has been thought to be either an allergic reaction, an autoimmune reaction from the vaccine, or a cross-reaction from the antibodies generated by the vaccine itself.

Researchers from Yale University have elucidated the actual cause of myocarditis. They studied 23 patients with vaccine-associated myocarditis and/or pericarditis. They did extensive and exquisite studies on these patients, and here their conclusions:

our results demonstrate up-regulation in inflammatory cytokines and corresponding lymphocytes with tissue-damaging capabilities, suggesting a cytokine-dependent pathology, which may further be accompanied by myeloid cell–associated cardiac fibrosis. These findings likely rule out some previously proposed mechanisms of mRNA vaccine–-associated myopericarditis and point to new ones with relevance to vaccine development and clinical care.

Thus, it is the actual immune system itself – revved up by the vaccine – that directly damage the heart muscle itself. Now, this raises a number of questions: why more often in young males? Why the heart and not other organs? If there could be scarring in the heart, then what are the long-term effects? What does this mean for future mRNA vaccines? Hopefully, these and even more questions will be answered with further research.

Yes, the cohort is quite small, and it may be difficult to extrapolate these findings to all patients with vaccine-induced myocarditis. Nonetheless, the findings are an important contributor to the literature. It emphasizes the great importance to follow these patients long-term to make sure they don’t have any long-term complications. In addition, it is quite important to highlight what the researchers themselves pointed out about their findings:

It is also critical to contextualize the rare risk of adverse events and potential clinical sequelae after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in comparison with the greater risks of sequelae (including myocarditis), hospitalization, and/or death resulting from infection with SARS-CoV-2.

Indeed, according to the CDC, the risk of cardiac complications of the infection itself far far outweighs the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine:

Hopefully, further research will add to this study’s important body of knowledge and help us develop even safer vaccines for the next pandemic.

Study Reference: Anis Barmada, et al. Cytokinopathy with aberrant cytotoxic lymphocytes and profibrotic myeloid response in SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine–associated myocarditis. Sci.Immunol.8,eadh3455(2023). DOI:10.1126/sciimmunol.adh3455

The post New Research Clarifies Cause of Myocarditis After mRNA Vaccine appeared first on Medika Life.

If you want to proffer an armchair opinion (and almost everybody does) on the efficacy and safety of the mRNA Covid shots, you cannot offer a considered opinion without understanding what we currently know about genomics. Consider this article to be a ready reference guide, Genomics 101, made simple and you need to read it in its entirety before you utter another word on mRNA.

I’d recommend most medical professionals do the same, as clearly, most do not understand what science understands about genomics, so, without further ado, a brief refresher course. Some of it may appear a little hairy to the uninitiated, but trust me, stay with it.

Technology Breeches the Genome Bottleneck

Nearly 100,000 highly diverse whole genome sequences are now available through the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us Research Program. In a decade, our sequencing bandwidth or capability has gone ballistic, enabling us to evaluate all RNA/DNA at a single cell level and in thousands of cells, all in parallel.

As we became more adept and effective at sequencing, the associated costs of investigating our individual genetic codes went from prohibitive to ridiculously cheap, illustrated very effectively by the graph below.

You can clearly see the first inflection point in 2007 with the first generation of NGS (454, SOLiD, Illumina). Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is a massively parallel sequencing technology that offers ultra-high throughput, scalability, and speed. The technology is used to determine the order of nucleotides in entire genomes or targeted regions of DNA or RNA.

Fast forward to the second inflection point in 2016, less dramatic, but of equal importance, with the maturation of the long read sequencers at PacBio and Oxford Nanopore Technology (ONT). These platforms are able phase genomes (untangle mother and father genomes when sequencing diploid cells) and treat every human genome like it’s a de novo (new) assembly problem. They can find novel content unrelated to the original reference sequence.

Let’s unpack some of the technical stuff here.

Diploid is a term that refers to the presence of two complete sets of chromosomes in an organism’s cells, with each parent contributing a chromosome to each pair. Humans are diploid, and most of the body’s cells contain 23 chromosomes pairs. Human gametes (egg and sperm cells), however, contain a single set of chromosomes and are said to be haploid.

Flip this graphic upside down, and that shows you what long read sequencers are capable of. They can take your diploid cell and unravel it into its original components, basically mum’s contribution and dad’s contribution. Unravel the diploid cells of your parents and grandparents, and you have all the required chromosomes to build your family line from scratch.

You can also identify all sorts of genetic issues you may have been gifted with, so its a really useful tool, both to identify existing and potential conditions and predict genetic outcomes.

Technological Iterations

The first generations of NGS sequencers were short read sequencers. They operate by looking for differences between your sample and a genome provided as reference. If your sample has novel genes that are not in the reference genome, then those are typically overlooked. How did we arrive at a reference genome?

The original human reference genome comprised a pool of 20 volunteers but resulted in 70% of the genome being derived from one African American donor. Those 100,000 genomes were sequenced on short read sequencers (50bp-500bp) and mapped back to this reference genome.

Newer longer read sequencers (10,000- 1Mb reads) do not need to rely on a reference genome, but can instead build a hypothesis-free genome from each individual. This allows the discovery of novel(new) content. If you have the time and the desire, this article in science chronicles the history of our genetic journey to this point. The quote below is taken from the same article, entitled “The complete sequence of a human genome”

Since its initial release in 2000, the human reference genome has covered only the euchromatic fraction of the genome, leaving important heterochromatic regions unfinished. Addressing the remaining 8% of the genome, the Telomere-to-Telomere (T2T) Consortium presents a complete 3.055 billion–base pair sequence of a human genome, T2T-CHM13, that includes gapless assemblies for all chromosomes except Y, corrects errors in the prior references, and introduces nearly 200 million base pairs of sequence containing 1956 gene predictions, 99 of which are predicted to be protein coding. The completed regions include all centromeric satellite arrays, recent segmental duplications, and the short arms of all five acrocentric chromosomes, unlocking these complex regions of the genome to variational and functional studies.

Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.abj6987

You’ll note the use of the terms predicted, functional studies, errors and other language confirming what we seemed to have glossed over in our haste to rebuild the human. While we now have a complete parts list (we think so) and we have a map to assemble the parts, we still don’t know how the different parts interact, which bits are dependent on others bits, and how, introducing novel laboratory synthesized parts will impact the whole.

To illustrate this more clearly, lets look to some of the most recent genetic discoveries (post mRNA Covid jabs) to understand just how clueless we actually are. You understand of course that by using the term discovery, we are indicating that we are still exploring and by it’s nature, that term indicates risk.

Microscopes and Genetics

In 1665 Micrographia was published by Robert Hooke. Microgaphia was filled with drawings of objects Hooke had observed with his compound microscope. He was the first person to use the word “cell” when describing living organisms.

Fast forward to 2008 and the debut of the TEAM 0.5. It is the world’s most powerful transmission electron microscope and is capable of producing images half a ten-billionth of a meter.

As our tools and technology improved, we were gradually able to peel back layer upon layer of interdependent worlds hidden within each human on a cellular level. With each new discovery, came the realization that we are actually far more complex than we had ever imagined. Then, in the last few decades, wonder was replaced with hubris, humility a blood soaked victim left to die on the battlefields of commercialized science.

No longer do we wonder at the complexities unravelling before our eyes, our thoughts now focused entirely on the field of genetics as they key to untold wealth. Master the human genome and you can combat aging, perhaps even arrest it completely. You can, at the cellular level, target any disease and, in theory, irradicate it. The potential to engineer children’s physical traits as they grow in the womb isn’t a reach, it is without doubt being explored by scientists.

We are not searching for the Holy Grail anymore. We have decided it is easier to simply build it ourselves, and it this hubris that led to mRNA treatments for Covid being released on the general public, but I digress. Back to proteins, novel human RNA ligase and other exciting discoveries.

In the last few days the National Human Genome Research Institute has announced the completion of a 47 human ‘pangenome’ project. This is 47 diverse genomes sequenced Telomere to Telomere and properly phased with the new longer read sequencers. These are sequenced to a far higher standard than the initial Human Genome project, which used Sanger and BAC end sequencing.

This amazing achievement represents phased perfect hypothesis free genomes, all cross compared to each other from diverse genetics around the world. A true and representative map of all humanity. Wonderful, I hear you say, inspiring. So where is the rub?

Even with the amazing sequencing developments, we are still discovering the functionality of some of the esoteric genes discovered 2 decades ago. Our process of reading DNA far outstrips our capacity to understand what it means and many genes in the human genome are homeless. In other words, we can guess at their roles, but we do not understand their function.

So, we have our map, we have all the working parts (that we can see given our current technology – remember the microscope) but we still don’t fully understand the workings of the functional machine.

Which, some people may feel, is sufficient to justify us tinkering with the bits and pieces, all the while adding in novel “laboratory engineered” extras. The problem is we’re dealing with life, and mistakes at a genetic level can potentially have species wide impact. Forget asteroids and solar flares, science has now acquired the ability to end us all on an macromolecular level.

As melodramatic as that may sound, it is a very real risk and the custodians of this technology have over the last three years proved themselves to be less than completely trustworthy.

Discovering a Human RNA Ligase

Meet C12orf29, a Human RNA Ligase. A what? Let’s explain first what an RNA Ligase is. Without getting to technical, RNA ligases participate in repair, splicing, and editing pathways that either reseal broken RNAs or alter their primary structure. They play an important role and can have dramatic impact on how RNA interacts in a cell. Scientists have just identified a new one, or rather figured out what one we discovered a while ago, actually does.

Remember all the genes we discovered, the purposes of which we are still investigating? Genomics use the acronym Open Reading Frame (ORF) in their name and a chromosome name (C12 = chromosome 12) to refer to these. This particular one, C12orf29 was discovered in 2003 in a large full length cDNA cataloging project in Japan. Two decades passed with this gene remaining in the realm of mystery. We had no idea as to its purpose, until now.

At first glance, C12orf29 looks like just another enzyme that modifies nucleic acids, but it turns out it is far more important than that. Enzymes like this had never been identified in vertebrates prior to this discovery. This paper, post mRNA global distribution, underscores how little we truly understand about RNA processing in the cell.

What does C12orf29 actually do then? Cells are able to survive without it, but once you raise ROS in the cell (Reactive Oxygen Species) as occurs with an immune response, your RNA breaks down more readily. C12orf29 comes in to repair some of that damage. So people with LoF mutations – gene loss that occurs through natural loss-of-function (LoF) – in this gene might be very susceptible to transcriptomic dysregulation during infection.

Immediately the questions begin to pile up. We just injected billions of people with modified RNA and only afterwards discovered a major human RNA ligase that we were blind to before injection. We don’t know how the RNA modification in the mRNA vaccines will interact with this newly discovered RNA Ligase. Will it concatenate (link together) them? Will the cell turn the modRNA into miRNAs and then RNA Ligases join miRNAs into longer pieces with different RNAi footprints?

To put this into proper context, Moderna and Pfizer developed a product that uses mRNA without being aware of many processes that unfold in the cell, the various genes that can and do interact on the RNA, and the potential consequences of the myriad unknowns in their model. It is the engineering equivalent of equipping a racing car with faulty brakes and releasing it at the top of a steep cliff with dodgy brakes.

The odds of it arriving unscathed at the base are so small as to be negligible. You and I are that car and we’re all headed hell for leather down the hill, with no brakes, to the painful conclusion of an experiment that may take generations to unravel.

What you need to takeaway from this

C12orf29 is not an outlier, it is one of many unknown quantities impacting interactions at a cellular level. Will we ever understand the full processes at work in our bodies and simply because we don’t yet have the full picture should we avoid intervening in these processes?

In answer to the first question, there can be no doubt that, given enough time, we will in fact completely demystify the human body and the interdependent processes that drive it. It isn’t going to be in the next decade though. Discoveries take time, scientific evaluation and proper investigation and even with the help of iterative AI, we may well be another 50 years away from fully grasping the complexities of our physiology.

The answer to the second part of the question may surprise you. It is also a resounding yes, but in the same breath, a very qualified yes. Where cutting edge medicine is able to utilize delivery vehicles like mRNA to attack diseases like serious, life-ending cancers, the risks are far outweighed by the potential benefits to the patient, namely life and the extension thereof.

Getting offered that car with the iffy brakes when you’re dying, as your only means to get to your family at the foot of the steep cliff, makes sense. Insisting to perfectly healthy patients who’ve already been down the hill on foot, that they must climb in or risk loosing their livelihoods, is ethically and morally reprehensible. Lying about the condition of the cars brakes, simply confounds the sin.

So are all those who’ve been injected with mRNA going to spawn a second head or watch their offspring grow tails? Have we actually damaged our reproductive capacity as a species? Questions abound with no answers, other than the painful reality of having to wait it out. That is the price we now pay as a society for toying with science we don’t as yet fully comprehend.

There is no debate, in my opinion, to be held on the widespread use of mRNA technology or the LNPs utilized to deliver the treatments. If it were a weapon, it would be outlawed by the Geneva Convention as having the potential to end our species. If, after reading this, you’re still comfortable climbing in the car, good luck on the way down. Just please understand that others have elected to walk until a model comes out with reliable brakes.

The post Unravelling the Dangers of mRNA With Genomics appeared first on Medika Life.

Perhaps all we heard from the title and the take away is “I want it now.” When it comes to science and public health, that’s a mega problem. When do I want it? Now!

Clinical Trials Usually Take Years.  Enter Operation Warp Speed

How long do or should clinical trials take – well, it depends – but often years. Science takes time. It demands rigor and objectivity. It’s not a “now” pursuit. It’s why so many potential medicines fail to advance through clinical stages to our medicine chests as physicians and patients work diligently to evaluate their safety, effectiveness and long-term risks in observational studies. 

For example, the research into drugs to reduce life-threatening high cholesterol spans decades.  Many think of the incredible drugs now available as generic, which fueled continued research. Few think of the game-changing Framingham Heart Study or the groundbreaking and Nobel Prize-level work of scientists Drs. Michael Brown and Joseph Goldstein. There is beauty to science.  In the famed Academy Award-winning movie The Agony and the Ecstasy with Charlton Heston, as Michelangelo and Rex Harrison playing Pope Julius II, Heston’s character is constantly asked by Harrison, when will the Sistine Chapel ceiling be completed.  The artist replies: “When it’s done.”  That’s science!

It’s possible that COVID threw science – the purity of the art of discovery to improve humanity’s lot – out with the peer-review bathwater.  Everyone is at fault in some way. Government agencies, elected officials, public health champions, media, and, yes, the public are all part of the now movement.  We all wanted a biomedical elixir to ward off the virus NOW! We have been conditioned to get what we want quickly.  We order online at Grub Hub or Amazon, and within hours – a day tops – a vehicle pulls up to our doorstep.  NOW!

Now, how about COVID? We expected salvation at warp speed.  Companies no longer wait to share data at peer-review forums or in top-notch journals.  When the public cries out, we send out a press release. We expect answers from pharma, the White House and CDC immediately. We moved to evaluate, approve and move to rally people to access the COVID vaccines a mere 13 months after trial initiation. The mRNA vaccine became the first FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine on August 23, 2021.  That’s the equivalent of now when it comes to drug development.

It Takes Years to Develop a Vaccine – NOW?

In comparison, the usual vaccine development timeline is five to 10 years and sometimes longer to determine if a product is safe and efficacious in clinical trials, completes the required regulatory approval processes, and a manufacturer has a sufficient quantity of vaccine doses for public access.  COVID broke the previous record of four years set by the development of a mumps vaccine in the 1960s.

But there are reasons we were able to go fast. The infectious disease community is collaborative. There are previous models of engagement, We have technologies that enable us to screen options that didn’t exist in the 1960s. It’s impossible to compare apples to apples or oranges. The times have changed. Science can move faster; however, objectivity and peer review remain musts.

Don’t point the finger of blame at any one institution or segment of the process.  Everyone created and bought into this urge for now!  We were frightened for our survival, mental health and economies.  The White House was responding to public pressure.  Events changed rapidly, and so did the news flow.  Media leaped into the fray to bring out their wagons of consulting experts aboard, with varied opinions to keep eyes glued to screens. Researchers slept at lab benches to sustain the world – to ward off the – then-deadly pandemic. 

We cannot forget that while we criticize the scientific process and unknown long-term effects of these vaccines, the “power of now” drives decisions and actions.  We cannot forget that the ERs were filling up, and people were dying at the start of the pandemic.  We were scared, and fear ignited non-reflective action. Countless public health challenges were pressing – addiction, poverty, isolation and more. We needed a response. Sometimes the process is imperfect. Let’s not forget to evaluate how all this impacted science and apply the learnings in the future.

Tech as a Scientific Accelerator

Technology has become the gas pedal for science.  AI, AR, machine learning, and big data are all variations of the same concept, but technology does enable scientists to move rapidly. The urgency to offer hope tips the hat to companies being permitted to update the public via news releases and later share detailed information in a peer-review setting. Industry scientists yearn to help sustain lives. Everyone had good intentions. However, we need to find better balance and return to a culture that encourages objective reflection and third-party (even uncensored) pushback,

The Power of Now was geared to get us to think beyond the moment.  To consider who we are and our purpose in the world.  However, like most things, we commercialize good ideas. COVID left too many casualties – most important among them precious people and, yes – scientific exchange.  Now is a competitive advantage – often a first-to-market must.  However, science is a reflective task accelerated by technology. 

Let’s Open the Door to the Power of Options

The Power of Now has given way to the Power of Options, a concept shared by David Noble and Carol Kauffman in the recent issue of HBR. Scientists remain societal leaders.  Scientists are curious and explorers.  We must encourage scientists to create their life-saving magic in coordination with the checks and balances of their peer-review culture.

The post How COVID and the Power of Now Killed Scientific Peer Review appeared first on Medika Life.

To clarify upfront, there is no world in which the Covid shots can be compared to a vaccine. They are simply a more complex version of the flu jab you get every year if influenza poses a risk to you. Will you still catch the seasonal variety doing the rounds despite being jabbed? Absolutely, flu shots reduce the risk of flu illness between 40% and 60%, and the ensuing symptoms should be far less severe. The influenza jabs are also referred to as vaccines in literature, but they are not a vaccine either, and take advantage of the term vaccine in much the same way the Covid treatments do.

The influenza shot is also not without risk of serious adverse events (SAEs). Doctors see these SAEs frequently, but the benefits to frail and elderly community members susceptible to secondary infections from the flu virus far outweigh these risks, which are rendered negligible in an elderly or immune-compromised patient population.

Interestingly, the highest levels of protection from flu shots are enjoyed by healthy individuals, not the frail, elderly or immune compromised. Why? Well, their immune response to the jab is more robust, producing more antibodies. Ironic when you consider it is the latter patient population most in need of protection. It would be interesting to see if this response is echoed in the Covid inoculations.

Why were the Covid treatments mislabeled as “vaccines”?

This million-dollar question and one I will examine in depth in this article. Rather than looking to a single factor to explain why these treatments hijacked the term vaccine, the motivations and justifications are far more complex and additional factors combined to create what history may very well view as our greatest medical failure.

Firstly, the term mislabeled is indicative of an error, committed unintentionally. There was both intent and purpose in labelling these Covid therapies as vaccines. It was an intentional, and as I will show you in the article, calculated appropriation of the term to benefit from the trust medicine had established over generations in the word, vaccine. There were also important legal ramifications and the influenza shots had paved the way for further exploitation.

The Promise

Struck with what appeared to be the worst pandemic we had faced in a century, we existed for months in a state of fear, a fear that was carefully nurtured and managed by mainstream media, as we were later to discover, at the behest of groups like SAGE. Our Presidents and Prime Ministers, aware of their tenuous positions, offered salvation. They required a salve to soothe the populace and it took the form of a promised “vaccine” to protect you against a disease that led to a really nasty end.

Pharma was instructed to produce this miracle cure in record time. As early as February and March of 2020, three months after the initial outbreak in Wuhan, we had already been primed for the vaccine. Our expectations were set and anything other than a vaccine would have represented failure. Why? Well, because we all knew and accepted the fact that vaccines, traditionally offered complete protection against the targeted virus. It was what vaccines did, prior to the pandemic. The promised vaccine became a lifeline to many, including overtaxed and exhausted medical staff.

The Legality

Consider the fact that the original SARS virus had been with us for nearly two decades. Despite this, we had failed to produce a vaccine against it, a virus that had the potential to infect on a global scale. We understood the genetic make up of SARS intimately, even using it in illicit Gain of Function (GOF) research funded by the NIH, and performed in the very laboratory in Wuhan in China that came to represent Ground Zero for the pandemic. Yet, despite this, we still had no vaccine. At least, not officially.

In less than a month after sequencing the SARS-COV2 virus (early January of 2020), Moderna had a working mRNA vaccine. In late January of 2020, 28 days after receiving the sequencing (yes, that early), they approached the Whitehouse and CDC to begin Phase 1 trials for their so called vaccine candidate. If you’re thinking to yourself, this all seems highly suspect, then you’re not alone. Forget Warp Speed, this was interdimensional travel.

Not only was a huge headache which had plagued the mRNA industry for a decade involving a stable delivery mechanism for the the Messenger RNA solved, but Moderna had also unpicked the SARS-COV2 virus’s genetic structure and figured out how best to “stop” it by exploiting the spike protein and how it bonded with our ACE2 receptors. All in all, 28 days later, science had created a novel medicine. Either fantastically impressive or highly dubious, we may never know for certain.

To ensure maximum uptake of the new Covid treatment, whatever the motivation may have been for mass vaccination (the public narrative falsely suggested that the shot was ostensibly to reduce infection and transmission), it was essential to adopt a delivery strategy that would allow for the enforcement of the public’s use of the treatment. Vaccines are the only treatments we legally enforce on our populations. Take childhood vaccines. No vaccines, no schooling. Take travel. Visas are often dependent on certain vaccines. Some employers require you to receive certain vaccines.

Most of this legislation had been indirect, so in effect, you were not left feeling you were being coerced to vaccinate. Prior to 2021, the legal manipulations to ensure we abided by vaccine regimens were far more subtle. Post 2021, that rapidly went right out the window as governments engaged in and encouraged mandating the Covid treatments by any and every means. That despite the fact that even the FDA and the Federal government had published legal advice prior to the pandemic stating that Emergency Use Authorization medicines could not be mandated.

Back on 2021, Dr. Amanda Cohn, the executive secretary of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, was asked if Covid-19 vaccination could be required, Her answer was emphatic.

“ under an EUA, “vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won’t be able to be mandatory.” Cohn later affirmed that this prohibition on requiring the vaccines applies to organizations, including hospitals.”

Releasing an inadequately tested and trialed medical treatment to the public is a desperate and unethical (many will argue illegal) act fraught with potential legal ramifications, the health ones aside. Particularly if said treatments are essentially genetic therapies employing a novel mechanism of action capable of producing unknown long-term effects. Pharma (in particular Moderna and Pfizer/BionTech) sought legal immunity from any government that purchased their treatments to avoid this legal minefield sought legal immunity from any government that purchased their treatments. If you took their treatment (one the very same governments insisted you use) and suffered any adverse events, you were essentially on your own.

These indemnities issued to Moderna and Pfizer spoke volumes to the potential risk they were exposing patients to. Interestingly, even after these treatments were issued full licenses by the FDA, that immunity persisted. Again, there is established precedent in the vaccine industry to issue this type of blanket immunity to pharma companies. Only in the vaccine industry. Sell your experimental treatment as anything other than a vaccine and you’re on shaky ground if the wheels come off.

For this reason, and none other, all the new mRNA based influenza jabs you will receive in the future will be labelled as vaccines. While this hasn’t yet transpired, please bookmark this and revisit the article in a years time.

Coercing the flock

It soon became apparent, by mid-2021, that the willing participation of the public to meet the required levels of immunity (remember, we were still being sold the no transmission and almost complete immunity playbook) wasn’t going as smoothly as planned. People had begun questioning the efficacy of the treatments and the side effects of mRNA treatments and traditional vaccines. Conspiracy theories abounded, some founded in science and others originating in the minds of grifters, intent on their moment of fame. Others were simply concerned about the safety and ethical motives for vaccinating the healthy segments of our populations.

Mandates were imposed, almost unanimously, by governments across the globe. Some, like the Australians, took it to the extremes, while in the U.S. you risked your work, access to basic retail services, your apartment and the very roof over your head if you chose not to “vaccinate”. Air and other public travel was restricted to the vaccinated. With hindsight, the ridiculousness of the travel restrictions, given the inefficacy of the Covid shots at preventing transmission, becomes almost laughable. Almost.

Consider how many at-risk vaccinated people contracted the virus and developed Covid, in some instances fatally, simply for the fact they believed they were protected.

Again, none of the tragedies above would have had a legal leg to stand on without the involvement of the term vaccine, coupled with a public narrative of protecting your fellow man. Shame those who wouldn’t comply and you turn society against them. It is the ultimate shameless form of coercion and manipulation and it was globally adopted. Creating a “vaccine” was key to the success of the narrative sold to the public. It was, in point of fact, the only option.

So mRNA based Covid treatments are not vaccines?

Absolutely not. If you still have trouble wrapping your head around this, allow me to summarize.

• The mRNA shots do not prevent transmission. You are still able to spread the virus once you’ve been infected.
• The mRNA shots do not prevent infection. You will still develop Covid, unlike those vaccinated against polio.
• The mRNA shots do not prevent death, they only reduce the chances of developing serious symptoms and we are uncertain of the exact percentage of their efficacy.
• The mRNA treatments require repeated doses every few months to ensure “protection” against new variants. Sounds suspiciously reminiscent of another jab, the influenza shot – also not a vaccine.

Don’t expect pharma, medicine, science and politicians to acknowledge publicly they have made mistakes. There is no walking this back and that in part, is why the narrative still continues, seemingly in its own “information vacuum”, one that appears impervious to emerging data on safety. While this article isn’t about discussing virus origins, intent and other plausible alternatives to the publicly offered narrative, these exist and cannot be discounted.

Perhaps the most important thing we can take away from this is that as of January 2023, there are zero human beings on the planet vaccinated against Covid. It is time to recognize this and to stop referring to ourselves as two camps, the #vaxxed and #unvaxxed.

Missed Part 3 of the Covid Files on mRNA? Catch up here or read Part 5, On the Origin of Covid. With apologies to Darwin here

The post When is a Vaccine not a Vaccine? appeared first on Medika Life.

There are more than one hundred ways an RNA molecule can be chemically modified after it is synthesized. The functions of many of these modifications, collectively referred to as the epitranscriptome, are largely unknown.

Here’s the problem with medicine and our genome. We are toddlers, tinkering with a system we barely understand. In much the same way as anyone capable of reading can consume a book on calculus, comprehending what actually stands in the book is another endeavor entirely. We’ve opened the book on the human genome and with our basic comprehension and reading skills we now feel we are qualified to fiddle around with the building blocks of life.

Nothing could be more irresponsible.

Our limited knowledge, coupled with a voracious appetite for exploration and profit, has opened Pandora’s box, and there is no putting the genie back. The pandemic, origins aside, was the key to propelling mRNA technology into the world. Tech that companies like Moderna and others had invested billions of dollars in developing. In point of fact, Moderna’s entire business structure, worth billions, was built on the hopes of mRNA succeeding.

Until the pandemic struck, things looked bleak for both Moderna and mRNA. the treatment had encountered numerous hurdles, no the least of which was the CDC, who restricted the use of untested mRNA technology in trials to end of life patients. If you’re at deaths door, risk becomes irrelevant. Delivery mechanisms (a substance to carry the mRNA into the cell) were another aspect no one in the industry had been able to resolve. Yet, suddenly in 2020, miraculously, a working mRNA Covid treatment was developed in record time.

Not just one, but two, a product from Moderna and another from Pfizer/Biontech. Now call me skeptical, but I have a really hard time believing in miracles, no matter how much money you throw at something. It turns out the miracles came at a heavy price, and unfortunately there does not seem to be a ceiling to this price, as more and more patients report an ever increasing number of side effects from the mRNA vaccines.

As icing on the cake, late last year Moderna conveniently announced an mRNA treatment for heart conditions, the irony of which cannot have been lost on hundreds of thousands of people who’ve suffered heart damage from the first round of mRNA “approved” treatments. You cannot make this up and watching the narrative unfold over the last three years has been nothing short of jaw dropping.

mRNA, in this authors opinion, holds massive promise, possibly 20 years down the line, as a tool to effectively combat diseases like cancer on a genetic level. Why 20 years? Well it is going to take us that long to truly grasp the far reaching implications of tampering with our bodies internal clock. Twenty years of cautious science, uncovering dependencies between systems and how all the dots connect. Right now, we can barely crawl, and yet we are attempting to run. It is costing people their lives.

Altering the human genetic code

Strictly speaking, mRNA vaccines, if they adhere to their licensing protocols, cannot interact with human DNA. DNA based Covid vaccines can, so if you’re worried about having your DNA changed, vaccines from Janssen and others are of far more concern. mRNA cannot alter DNA as far as we know and based on our current understanding of cellular traffic. If you have time and the inclination, an article I wrote in 2021 explains the flow of traffic inside a human cell and like any traffic system, there are rules. RNA affecting DNA is a no-no.

That being said, there are very few hard and fast rules in nature that aren’t, on occasion, broken. Spillage occurs, much like a drunk driver who accidentally ends-up driving against oncoming traffic. So can mRNA do this? It is possible. However unlikely, the contamination of DNA cannot be ruled out. If your goal was to alter our DNA, you would rather opt for a DNA-based vaccine.

mRNA can however effect changes within our bodies on a cellular level, and in many ways, this poses far more risk than DNA manipulation. How? Well, take for instance the Covid vaccines, designed to interact with our ACE2 receptors, receptors that the SARS-COV2 virus targets. It turns out that certain organs within our bodies are more susceptible to having these receptors activated. The testes are a perfect example and reduced semen motility after inoculation with Pfizer BNT162b2 has now been clinically proven as a side effect.

What we don’t know about mRNA therapy

Rather than espousing the risks carried by an unproven medical technology at a cellular and genetic level, I’ve opted for listing a few of the unknowns. Possible effects and interactions with mRNA, other medicines and more. It’s possibly worth mentioning at this point that I believe the technology has huge potential, both for medical advances against disease and for exploitation.

Lets start with mRNA and HIV therapies. This group was not represented in the mRNA Covid clinical trials and we have no idea of the potential interactions between the two therapies or how mRNA will impact HIV in the host. There is prior knowledge of the flu vaccine, for example, waking up HIV and exposing it to the immune system; but it has been unclear whether that was only happening in flu-specific T cells, a known place where HIV hides. Now new evidence suggests mRNA has the ability to wake latent HIV.

mRNA and it’s effects on nursing mothers and infants was completely ignored in the original trials, despite this group being an established part of a vaccine cohort in trials. We know now that mothers can pass the spike protein through their breast milk to the nursing infant.

A growing body of evidence now suggests that there is in fact a large degree of risk to nursing infants from the mRNA vaccine, risk that in some instances results in cardiac related damage or death and new research just published in Jama now recommends mothers do not breastfeed for two days after receiving the mRNA vaccines. This is what they discovered.

Of 11 lactating individuals enrolled, trace amounts of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were detected in 7 breast milk samples from 5 different participants at various times up to 45 hours postvaccination.

Sadly, too late for most mothers, many coerced into the vaccine. We have no idea what the long term medical implications are for the infant, and yet, President Biden and the CDC website still suggests vaccinating 6 month old children, effectively doubling their exposure.

The impact of mRNA on a fetus is also largely unknown, yet we still recommend pregnant mothers be vaccinated, showing no regard for the safety of the fetus. Some emerging data suggests a dramatic increase in stillbirths and miscarriages, where causality is ascribed to lockdowns and lack of access to proper medical care, while an overwhelming spate of recently published research suggest no short term dangers exist to the fetus.

Again, none of this research was done prior to the mRNA being administered in 2020, it is all post 2021. Did we simply get lucky, telling pregnant women there was no risk, when in point of fact, we had no idea? Time will tell.

The untested impact of mRNA on Cancers. Cancer patients were underrepresented in the original Covid trials. While some may argue that as most of Moderna’s work done on mRNA leading up to the so called Covid “vaccine” was based around developing cancer treatments, mRNA poses no risk to this group, the opposite may in fact be true. Cancer cells are responsive to mRNA therapy. What we don’t know is if mRNA therapy intended for a different target, say Covid, will awaken dormant cancel cells.

• New research shows patients with hematologic (cancers of the blood) malignancies appear less likely than those with solid tumors to have detectable immune responses and this extends to patients undergoing chemo.
• This paper in Nature on Cytokine release syndrome in a patient with colorectal cancer after vaccination with BNT162b2

Children as young as six months are the latest guinea pigs in the global clinical trial underway for mRNA technology. Ethically and morally inexcusable and sanctioned by the FDA, CDC and President Biden, you are told it is safe to inject your children with the Covid “vaccines” when in point of fact, we have absolutely no idea about the long term impacts and the trials used to justify the treatments in children are nothing short of laughable and will serve as an embarrassment to science and medicine for generations to come.

Adverse events, and the unknown. With a list of Serious Adverse Events (SAE’s) as long as your arm, all the Covid vaccines, including and especially those utilizing mRNA, came with risks, most of which were down played. Damage to your heart, Myocarditis and Pericarditis (for which Moderna conveniently had another mRNA therapy in the pipeline, released recently), blood clotting, Bells Palsy, the list goes on and on. While we are rapidly discovering the many unknown short term side effects for some of mRNA therapy, we still have no idea of the long term SAE’s. Two questions arise.

Are these effects, both immediate and long term, the result of the mRNA based delivery or the actual spike protein generated by the treatment. Only time and honest research will answer this question satisfactorily and it is one that must be put to bed as new flu shots, cancer treatments and more are rolled out on the back of mRNA technology. All regard for long term, established safety protocols have been thrown out the window.

Unintended consequences and the complex interactions of cellular based medicines on an organism as complex as the human body cannot be calculated, accounted for or anticipated, at least not yet. We have gaps in our knowledge on a biological level and only a minimal understanding of the toys we are tinkering with. if we have no qualms enforcing this on pregnant women, that in itself should give us pause for thought.

The risks for cancer patients in remission is another topic of debate, after recent reports that mRNA has triggered latent cancer cells to resume growth.

What we are discovering about mRNA Covid Therapies, post treatment

A recent study from Cleveland Clinic highlighted a fear that has been raised by a few medical outliers who chose to speak out against the “vaccination regimen” at risk of professional ridicule. Focusing on the bivalent vaccine, it reported a worrying trend. With every successive booster, the patients risk of contracting Covid actually increased.

The risk of COVID-19 varied by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received. The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting COVID-19 (graph below)

You can view the full results of the Cleveland Clinic study by following this link. Now while there may be certain problems with this study pertaining to their cohort, their findings are substantiated by findings from two other studies.

Breasts Cancers seem to be on the upswing. Evidence continues to emerge about axillary lymphadenopathy following COVID-19 vaccination and it is now a recommendation that women undergo a breast screening, post vaccination. It is known that the Pfizer vaccine can cause swelling of lymph nodes, often suggestive of breast cancer. However, any enlargement of lymph nodes can potentially indicate cancer, so this symptom should not be ignored.

This creates an ideal environment for misdiagnosis. Ensure your doctors and health providers know you’ve been recently vaccinated, but make sure you a properly screened and that the swellings are not merely dismissed out of hand because of your recent vaccination.

People with gastrointestinal conditions (GI) should be carefully monitored after vaccination for Covid 19, according to a paper published on PubMed entitled Gastrointestinal Complications of COVID-19 Vaccines. Their patient experienced post-vaccination acute diverticulitis and colon micro-perforation following a Moderna booster dose.

Sperm motility in men should be monitored in patients who have received multiple boosters and want to start a family. There appears to be a direct correlation in the reduction of sperm motility and the number of mRNA vaccines administered to a patient. Whilst recovery takes between 10 and 14 days after a second does, research does not exist for third, fourth or fifth doses. You can read the paper, entitled Covid-19 vaccination BNT162b2 temporarily impairs semen concentration and total motile count among semen donors here.

Of course, this above mentioned list of issues is in no way comprehensive, that would require nothing short of a book, but rather is provided to highlight certain ongoing issues.

Getting to the heart of mRNA’s problems

Sudden Death and the hashtag #DiedSuddenly follow you wherever you go on Twitter and other social media platforms. Cardiac related issues experienced by healthy teenagers and young adults are on the increase and many prove fatal. These incidents are matched by the number of videos of people of all ages dropping from an apparent stroke, most performing the same macabre contortions before collapsing to a mostly unknown fate.

To exacerbate mRNA’s headaches, it is being forcibly administered to patients without their consent in hospitals where the patient undergoes surgery. Some hospitals still refuse life saving medical interventions like organ transplants if the patient is not “vaccinated”. A global spike in excess deaths, up by hundreds of percentage points in some countries over the last two years also demands an explanation and vaccines are seen as the most likely culprit.

It would seem that even if mRNA survives it’s rocky introduction to humanity with no further serious long term adverse events, its reputation will have been seriously damaged, perhaps even irreparably. A little ironic justice metered out for the damage it has inflicted on the reputation of actual vaccines.

A spate of Happy Coincidences

If you believe in them. Personally, I don’t, but actually separating fact from fiction around mRNA’s sudden meteoric rise to fame is rapidly becoming an improbable task, as the tangled web surrounding it continues to become more complex. Rather than trying to unpick it, I’ve opted for listing a few interesting, and often overlooked, facts surrounding mRNA in the last three years and earlier.

1. The National Institute for Health (NIH) and Moderna developed the Moderna vaccine in partnership, with patent rights, US Patent Application No. 62/972,886 entitled 2019-nCoV Vaccine filed in June of 2020, residing with the NIH.
2. NIH, alongside the National Institute for Allergies and Infectious disease (NAIAD) and Moderna have researched coronaviruses, like MERS and SARS, for several years, and signed a contract in December of 2019 that stated “mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates [are] developed and jointly owned” by the two parties.
3. Since 2015, the National Institute for Health (NIH) and the National Institute for Allergies and Infectious disease (NIAID), knowingly provided funding to a specific group of American scientists and their institutions and businesses to perform Gain of Function (GOF) research, despite a moratorium.
4. The publicly stated intent of these scientists, working under the auspices of Peter Daszak, Ph.D and EcoHealth Alliance, Inc was to develop a more infectious version of the coronavirus and to achieve their ends they chose a Chinese scientist working out of a laboratory in Wuhan, China.
5. EcoHealth Alliance is a non-profit group that has received millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer funding to genetically manipulate coronaviruses with scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
6. During this period, Dr Anthony Fauci was director of NAIAD and Dr. Francis Collins director of the NIH. Jointly they controlled about 10 billion dollars of funding annually, placing them in a position to control and distort the public Covid narrative.
7. The same Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance interfered on numerous occasions with investigations into the origin of the SARS-COV2 virus, creating a narrative contrary to a manufactured laboratory origin for the virus. For those with time and intent, the full list of EcoHealth Alliance emails released under Freedom of Information, can be found here.
8. Dr Fauci, in September of 2022 and only days away from retirement, as a parting gift to EcoHealth Alliance from the NAIAD, awarded a $653,392 grant to the company to analyze “the potential for future bat coronavirus emergence in Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam.” This despite the company’s failure to produce records pertaining to Wuhan and their involvement in the GOF research undertaken there on their behalf.

In closing, I have no compunctions about leaving you with my impressions of the duplicity of pharma, governments and regulatory bodies foisting unproven medical technology down our throats and sadly, there is no defense that can be raised by any of the parties involved that would excuse their actions.

Hindsight is offered in part to offer comfort to the those who are now being held accountable. It’s easy, they claim, to criticize now, after the facts. That, of course, is complete and utter nonsense. Anyone with a grain of common sense able to follow something to its logical conclusion knew months into the pandemic that we were being manipulated, cajoled, coerced and prepared for amass vaccination campaign. Everyone with an inkling of medical training knew that mRNA was a potential horror story waiting to unfold, and yet, here we are, two years later, recommending we now “get the kids”.

It is the betrayal by science, the community in general and the professionals who undertook oaths to protect their patients that is perhaps the most saddening part of the pandemic shambles. It is this betrayal that will impact medicine for generations to come. “Trust me, I’m a doctor,” the punchline to a pandemic joke coming soon to a stand-up venue near you.

Part 4 of the Covid Files. When is a vaccine not a vaccine?

The post The Covid Global Clinical Trials for mRNA. Thank You for Participating appeared first on Medika Life.