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.

New emerging research raises important questions and could also potentially affect our understanding of the coronaviruses. To really understand the content of this article, a little refresher course in basic biology is required for reference. I’ve tried to keep it as simple as possible and we are going to take a few side roads to arrive at the conclusion. Stay with us as we examine the most studied viruses in the world, discover how they’ve mastered the art of subterfuge, and examine our efforts to stay one step ahead.

A human cell

Although there are many different cells within our bodies, for simplicity we’ll look at a generalized cell structure. A cell consists of three parts: the cell membrane, the nucleus, and, between the two, the cytoplasm. Within the cytoplasm lie intricate arrangements of fine fibers and hundreds or even thousands of minuscule but distinct structures called organelles.

The vaccine manufacturers are at pains to point out that the mRNA they use in their vaccines bypasses our DNA (your DNA is encased within your cell in the nucleus, the purple and deep blue bit in the image below). Vaccine mRNA is delivered directly to the cytoplasm of a cell (the light blue section below), in effect, replicating our cell’s DNA-based processes of making(transcribing) RNA within the nucleus of the cell. Our DNA also releases any messenger RNA it creates into the cytoplasm. 

According to the manufacturers, their mRNA can not be reintegrated into the nucleus and DNA of our cells. in other words, their mRNA cannot cross the nuclear membrane. Everything is restricted to the cytoplasm, as with the coronaviruses, on which their vaccines are molded. Is their explanation consistent with emerging science? 

If you’re still having trouble visualizing cell layout, have a quick look at this article that breaks down cell structure to its basic levels.

The wonders of the viral world

To truly appreciate the complexity and subtle beauty of life and nature, and to appreciate the limitations of our understanding, examine the humble virus and its life cycle. We are toddlers in a new world, just learning to read and the limits of our knowledge are reflected by our vulnerability.

Certain viruses are capable of hijacking our DNA. In fact, it is such a common occurrence, that a small portion of every person’s DNA is comprised of bits of viral code. We carry with us a history book of our ancestor’s brushes with viruses. The human genome is replete with endogenous retroviruses (HERVs, also known as retrotransposons) that have entered the human germline at various times in the evolutionary past and now occupy 8.3% of our genome. 

The HIV virus is perhaps best known for exploiting this mechanism, commandeering our DNA, from where it then orchestrates its attacks. It’s one of the reasons HIV has been so difficult to combat. This is a typical trait of the family of viruses known as retroviruses.

What’s the main difference between these viruses and your standard-issue, run-of-the-mill virus? Two key processes that differentiate retroviruses from standard viruses are reverse transcription and genome integration. Remember we learned earlier that transcription is simply another name in cell biology for ‘making’, so reverse transcription simply means reverse or backward making. Genome integration refers to the ability of these viruses to invade and commander our bodies’ DNA via their RNA, incorporating their genetic material into ours. 

Without becoming too technical, retroviruses are a type of virus in the viral family called Retroviridae. They use RNA as their genetic material and are named after a special enzyme that’s a vital part of their life cycle, namely reverse transcriptase. Simply put, this enzyme allows retrovirus RNA access to the nucleus of our cells. 

You might wonder why we’re headed down this route, as coronaviruses arent classified as retroviruses, but rather RNA viruses. RNA viruses typically invade a cell and conduct their business in the cytoplasm, where they replicate without accessing our DNA. So why the retrovirus thing? Read on, all will be revealed.

Retroviruses are capable of insane amounts of cellular and genetic engineering, processes so intricate and delicate that you cannot but be left in awe at their complexity and ingenuity. Their ingenious design is not apparent until you understand the complex engineering they can undertake to hijack our cells and reprogram our DNA for their own use. For science, these viruses pose a massive headache and it can take decades to develop mechanisms to combat them.

An important part of the retroviral war is the virus’s ability to hide within our cells without being “active”. These stowaways are referred to as latent reservoirs. infected individuals appear completely healthy. You can even pass all the tests science can throw at you and the stowaways will remain undetected. Viruses can also employ another trick to evade the body’s defenses, hiding in plain sight where the body’s natural immune system doesn’t look, so-called “immunoprivileged sites”.

Dormancy can last weeks, months, or years, ensuring the virus survives. In some instances, as with the Ebola virus, and EVD, individuals who test negative for the virus or who are asymptomatic, are in fact contaminated with latent reservoirs of the Ebola virus and can act as vectors for new outbreaks. Coronaviruses are capable of this little trick as well. For instance, in a study, infected men were found to have traces of the SARS-CoV2 virus in their semen, two to three days after recovery. Semen is the perfect hiding place for a virus and it’s one of the places Ebola chooses.

The testes, along with the eyes, placenta, fetus, and central nervous system, are considered to be “immunoprivileged sites”, which means they are protected from severe inflammation associated with an immune response. This is probably an evolutionary adaptation that protects vital structures. Immune cells are prevented from interacting with cells in the testes and the brain by means of blood-tissue barriers(BTB). 

These “immunoprivileged sites” are, in effect, safe zones where viruses may be protected from the host’s immune response, if, and only if, the viruses are able to penetrate the BTB. We know SARS.CoV2 is capable of penetrating these barriers, but don’t as yet understand how it achieves this. This is evidenced by infected cells in the central nervous system. You can read a more detailed explanation of the impact of coronavirus on the brain here.

Let’s examine the mechanism viruses use to pull off their stowaway act, as this involves, amongst other tricks, reverse transcription and this, as we’ll discuss later, may have relevance to the mRNA vaccines. Then we can examine the real reason we’re here, data released in a preprint from Harvard and MIT, entitled SARS-CoV-2 RNA reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome.

The viral magic trick called reverse transcription

Sciencemag first published a reference to the study above in December of 2020 in an article entitled “The coronavirus may sometimes slip its genetic material into human chromosomes — but what does that mean?”. Perhaps the best way to understand how this process works is to examine HIV, one of the most studied and best understood retroviruses on the planet. I also chose HIV as it is not subject to the flurry of conflicting information that surrounds the coronavirus.

You can skip over this, but understanding the processes these viruses use is key to understanding emerging and existing questions relating to mRNA technology.

HIV is called a retrovirus because it works in a back-to-front way. Unlike other viruses, retroviruses store their genetic information using RNA instead of DNA, meaning they need to ‘find’ DNA when they enter a human cell in order to make new copies of themselves. To achieve this, they need to access the nucleus of the cell to get at the DNA it contains. To make this easier to understand we need to examine the structure of HIV to understand what happens. Here’s a graphic to help you visualize how this works.

• HIV specifically targets CD4 cells, the body’s principal defenders against infection, using them to make copies of the virus.

Inside the virus envelope is a layer called the matrix. The core of the virus, or nucleus, is held in the capsid, a cone-shaped structure in the center of the virion. The capsid contains two enzymes essential for HIV replication, the reverse transcriptase and integrase molecules. It also contains two strands of RNA — which hold HIV’s genetic material. HIV’s RNA is made up of nine genes that contain all the instructions to make new viruses.

I’m going to skip over the virus’s attachment and fusing to the cell and focus on what happens after attachment. You can find a more detailed explanation of the HIV life cycle here. 

Reverse transcription and Integration

When HIV RNA enters the cell it must be `reverse transcribed` into proviral DNA before it can be integrated into the DNA of the host cell. HIV uses its reverse transcriptase enzyme to convert RNA into proviral DNA inside the cell.

After HIV RNA is converted into DNA, HIV’s integrase enzyme attaches itself to the end of the proviral DNA strands and it is passed through the wall of the cell nucleus. Once the proviral DNA enters the cell nucleus, it binds to the host DNA and then the HIV DNA strand is inserted into the host cell DNA.

After the proviral DNA is integrated into the DNA of the host cell, HIV remains dormant within the cellular DNA. This stage is called latency and the cell is described as ‘latently infected’. It can be difficult to detect these latently infected cells even when using the most sensitive tests.

Transcription and Translation, the final phase

The cell will now produce HIV RNA (remember, DNA produces RNA) if it receives a signal to become active. Our CD4 cells become activated if they encounter an infectious agent. When the cell becomes active, HIV uses the host enzyme RNA polymerase to make messenger RNA. This messenger RNA provides the instructions for making new viral proteins in long chains. 

The long chains of HIV proteins are cut into smaller chains by HIV’s protease enzyme and are assembled into a new copy of the virus inside the cytoplasm of the infected cell. The new copy of the virus then exits its host and sets off in search of another CD4 cell to infect.

Is the SARS-CoV2 virus capable of accessing the nucleus of an infected cell?

To answer this, let’s start by examining existing literature for older coronaviruses, notably SARS and MERS. What does the scientific literature say about the ability of these viruses to access our DNA? 

The problem we immediately encounter here is the scarcity of research. A lot of the outbreaks for these viruses were small, affecting sample sizes, geographical locations posed challenges in terms of collecting reliable data, and the duration of often isolated and contained outbreaks was brief. Unlike Covid, there was no widespread testing of populations, so even something as simple as suggested mortality rates are skewed for these viruses, as scientists were unable to account for asymptomatic and mild infections in the broader populations.

Now would be the perfect time to underscore the rationale for widespread testing. We can not truly assess the impact of a virus on a population unless we can develop a cohesive data set for a large majority of the group. Say you‘ve’ an island of a hundred thousand people, 1000 are hospitalized and 100 die. Can you claim a ten percent mortality rate for the virus? Absolutely not. Can you ascertain if asymptomatic carriers are transmitting the virus or how long they act as reservoirs? Absolutely not. 

While you can argue that a percentage of this data may be compromised as a result of human error, it remains essential. Testing, as widespread as possible, is critical to forming a proper understanding of any virus and highlighting areas of concern. It’s how investigative research has arrived at the report below. Discrepancies are showing up in PCR tests that cannot be explained away with historical research.

The Preprint

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s fictitious crime solver, Sherlock Holmes would have felt very much at home in a modern virology setting but may have frowned on the profession’s proclivity for forcing data to conform to accepted models, rather than examining alternate solutions, however improbable. Researchers at MIT and Harvard have uncovered evidence of segments of SARS-CoV2’s genetic material mixed in with ours. They’ve come up with a hypothesis to explain these bits of viral code, backed by in vitro experiments. 

You can access the preprint in the NIH National Library of Medicine, and I have referenced large portions of it below. The paper, “SARS-CoV-2 RNA reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome” is already contentious, simply by its title alone. It’s the scientific version of covid research clickbait and the question we need to ask is does it hold up under scrutiny? Below is the paper’s abstract and I have highlighted portions in bold.

Prolonged SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding and recurrence of PCR-positive tests have been widely reported in patients after recovery, yet these patients most commonly are non-infectious. Here we investigated the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 RNAs can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome and that transcription of the integrated sequences might account for PCR-positive tests. In support of this hypothesis, we found chimeric transcripts consisting of viral fused to cellular sequences in published data sets of SARS-CoV-2 infected cultured cells and primary cells of patients, consistent with the transcription of viral sequences integrated into the genome. To experimentally corroborate the possibility of viral retro-integration, we describe evidence that SARS-CoV-2 RNAs can be reverse transcribed in human cells by reverse transcriptase (RT) from LINE-1 elements or by HIV-1 RT, and that these DNA sequences can be integrated into the cell genome and subsequently be transcribed. Human endogenous LINE-1 expression was induced upon SARS-CoV-2 infection or by cytokine exposure in cultured cells, suggesting a molecular mechanism for SARS-CoV-2 retro-integration in patients. This novel feature of SARS-CoV-2 infection may explain why patients can continue to produce viral RNA after recovery and suggests a new aspect of RNA virus replication.

To test whether SARS-CoV-2’s RNA genome could integrate into the DNA of our chromosomes, the researchers added the gene for reverse transcriptase (RT), an enzyme that converts RNA into DNA, to human cells and cultured the engineered cells with SARS-CoV-2. In one experiment, the researchers used an RT gene from HIV. They also provided RT using human DNA sequences known as LINE-1 elements, which are remnants of ancient retroviral infections and make up about 17% of the human genome. Cells making either form of the enzyme led to some chunks of SARS-CoV-2 RNA being converted to DNA and integrated into human chromosomes.

This was consistent with the findings of fragmented viral material from the PCQR tests in the general population.

You can begin to see why this paper and research could be viewed as contentious and why it’s been met with resistance. It not only challenges our current understanding of RNA viruses, suggesting the viruses may possess a broader skillset than previously imagined, it also potentially raises new questions relating to the use of mRNA vaccines. If the vaccine mRNA is modeled on a portion of the virus, and the virus is capable, under certain circumstances of reverse transcription, what then of claims by mRNA vaccines that their products cannot contaminate our DNA?

It’s important at this point, to explain that mRNA vaccines don’t reproduce the entire virus in your cytoplasm, they merely create a copy of the spike protein attached to the virus which helps it bind with our own cells. Reproducing a portion of the virus minimizes risk and allows our body the opportunity to mount an early defense against the spike protein when we encounter the SARS-CoV2 virus in the wild. Of equal importance is the length of time for which the vaccine RNA stays viable in the cytoplasm, and we’ll examine this issue towards the end of the article.

What prompted this research?

What prompted these researchers to investigate whether viral RNA could become hardwired into our genomic DNA? Their motive had nothing to do with mRNA vaccines. They were simply puzzled by the growing number of people who were testing positive for COVID-19 by PCR long after the infection was gone. It was known that these people were not reinfected, so where was the viral genetic material the PCQR tests were identifying coming from?

The authors sought to answer how a PCR test is able to detect segments of viral RNA when the virus is presumably no longer present in a person’s body. They hypothesized that somehow segments of the viral RNA were being copied into DNA and then integrated permanently into the DNA of somatic cells. This would allow these cells to continuously churn out pieces of viral RNA that would be detected in a PCR test, even though no active infection existed. 

Through their experiments, they did not find full-length viral RNA integrated into genomic DNA; rather, they found smaller segments of the viral DNA, mostly representing the nucleocapsid (N) protein of the virus, although other viral segments were found integrated into human DNA at a lower frequency. It is important to note that the authors emphasize their results don’t imply that SARS-CoV-2 establishes permanent genetic residence in human cells to keep pumping out new copies, as HIV does.

How has the scientific community reacted?

“This is a very interesting molecular analysis and speculation with supportive data provided. I do not think it is a complete story to be certain … but as is, I like it and my guess is it will be right.” — Robert Galeo, Head of the Institute of Human Virology

“Impressive and unexpected. Because it is all pieces of the coronaviral genome, it can’t lead to infectious RNA or DNA and therefore it is probably biologically a dead end. It is also not clear if, in people, the cells that harbor the reverse transcripts stay around for a long time or they die. The work raises a lot of interesting questions.” — David Baltimore, a virologist at the California Institute of Technology who won the Nobel Prize for his role in discovering RT

“LINE-1 elements in the human genome rarely are active. It is not clear what the activity would be in different primary cell types that are infected by SARS-CoV-2.” — Zandrea Ambrose, a retrovirologist at the University of Pittsburgh

“I’m not yet convinced but it’s believable, solid evidence shows that LINE-1 RT can allow viral material to integrate in people. The evidence of SARS-CoV-2 sequences in people should be more solid, and the in vitro experiments conducted by Jaenisch’s team lack controls I would have liked to have seen. All in all, I doubt that the phenomenon has much biological relevance, despite the authors’ speculation.” — John Coffin, Retrovirologist at Tufts University

What has the paper established

1) Segments of SARS-CoV-2 Viral RNA can become integrated into human genomic DNA.

2) This newly acquired viral sequence is not silent, meaning that these genetically modified regions of genomic DNA may be transcriptionally active (DNA is being converted back into RNA). Note the paper does not confirm this, merely indicates it, their FISH data is not conclusive and more study is required.

3) Segments of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA retro-integrated into human genomic DNA in cell culture. This retro-integration into genomic DNA of COVID-19 patients is also implied indirectly from the detection of chimeric RNA transcripts in cells derived from COVID-19 patients. Although their RNAseq data suggest that genomic alteration is taking place in COVID-19 patients, the point needs to be proven conclusively. This is a gap that needs to be closed in the research. The in vitro data in human cell lines, however, is air-tight.

4) This viral retro-integration of RNA into DNA can be induced by endogenous LINE-1 retrotransposons, which produce an active reverse transcriptase (RT) that converts RNA into DNA. (All humans have multiple copies of LINE-1 retrotransposons residing in their genome.). The frequency of retro-integration of viral RNA into DNA is positively correlated with LINE-1 expression levels in the cell.

5) These LINE-1 retrotransposons can be activated by viral infection with SARS-CoV-2, or cytokine exposure to cells, and this increases the probability of retro-integration.

What questions can we now ask?

The author of this paper is well respected and considered brilliant by his peers. There can be no doubt about the authenticity of the research and although the paper has not yet been subjected to peer review, another consequence of the pandemic, it certainly will be. It is our hope that the results from the research act to spur on further research to eliminate or conclusively show the validity of the suggested mechanisms, both in -vivo and in-vitro. 

It’s well known that in-vivo results don’t always translate when the experiment is transferred to a living host, therefore it’s essential we continue the research to its logical conclusion. The paper raises a number of issues, possibilities that we don’t as yet have conclusive answers to. The mere fact we now have to ask these questions would suggest caution moving forward until we have conclusively addressed potential concerns.

1. Can RNA from an RNA virus, SARS-CoV2, reach our DNA?

It would almost certainly seem so. Whether in one piece or in genetics bits, the virus appears to be finding its way into our DNA. PCR tests are finding the viral genetic material when they shouldn’t. If the mechanism the paper describes is responsible, that is cause for concern. There may prove to be other mechanisms involved we don’t as yet understand, perhaps involving immunoprivileged sites. More research is required.

2. If viral RNA can find its way into our DNA, can the same hold true for synthetic RNA?

It is a possibility that we cannot conclusively rule out, particularly given the fact that synthetic RNA has been engineered to be more resilient and produce more proteins than its less chemically stable natural version. This makes the cell more alert to the presence of synthetic RNA and offers the cell more time to address the foreign body chemically. In other words, the likelihood of whatever processes the natural RNA is subjected to being expressed on the synthetic version, increases exponentially. 

3. Can I infect anyone with this genetic material?

The obvious answer to this is no. This is not the same way in which the HIV virus we learned about earlier operates. These are fragments of RNA, so think of it like a computer program. If you cut the program into sections, those individual pieces may or may not be able to run on their own, but they cannot perform the original function of the program. The paper does not suggest you would become infectious to others.

The statement above does not mean that you would be unable to transmit these segments to other people, simply that the recipient won’t be able to develop covid from the fragments. 

4. Do I need to be worried about this?

Absolutely not. This paper simply explores and deepens our understanding of viruses and reminds us that we are still learning about many aspects of a virus’s life cycle. Viruses are as unique and gifted as we are and each possesses its own toolbox of tricks to ensure its survival. Remember as you sit and read this, an 8th of your body is made of bits of viral genetic code. We’ve done just fine up to now as a species co-existing with viruses and there may very well be a selective advantage to us as a species to incorporate bits of viral genetic material into our own genome. We are still learning and as technology advances, so does our understanding of this infinitely complex system.

5. So where does this leave mRNA vaccines?

mRNA covid vaccines are proving in the short term to be safer and less likely to elicit allergic responses than the more traditional covid vaccines. They also appear efficacious against new strains and can be reverse engineered to address emerging strains far more rapidly than conventional vaccines. The technology is fantastic and holds huge promise for the future of medicine. Do we know what the long-term consequences, if any, will be to us from the use of the mRNA vaccine? No. That’s the honest answer.

It’s too early into the life cycle of this technology to know for sure and we lack detailed long-term evaluations of the impacts on our bodies. The urgency of the pandemic has robbed us of the opportunity to subject these vaccines to rigorous long-term scrutiny (all the covid vaccines, not merely the mRNA vaccines) but let’s not forget, that without the pandemic, we would not have made this leap in technology, perhaps not for another five or six years, perhaps longer. 

So in answer to the question, is there any chance these vaccines could have their RNA incorporated into our DNA, the answer, for now, would have to be this.

We cannot emphatically rule out the possibility and nature says ‘never say never’. It’s one of the reasons we need to proceed with as much caution as possible and Medika strongly supports an individual’s right to choice in the matter of vaccination. Educate yourself and then choose, but understand that in terms of risk, if you are in an at-risk category for covid, the mRNA and other vaccines are a no-brainer. Get vaccinated. 

Compare the risk of death with an almost negligible, unquantified possibility of genetic absorption that may, or may not be deleterious to your health. Then roll up that sleeve and thank your nurse.

The post mRNA Technology, Human DNA and The Traffic Flow of Genetic Material appeared first on Medika Life.

The question, two actually, which immediately came to mind on seeing this, was the following.

• What is the clinical justification for these trials? In other words, does the SARS-CoV2 virus pose a significant and proven threat to this demographic that would justify the risk?
• What is the ethical justification for using an unproven EUA vaccine — remember no Covid vaccines have been granted a full license as they have been unable to comply with the rigorous trials required — on children and babies?

How does Moderna describe this trial?

Let’s establish first of all exactly what the trials entail and the demographic of the participants? In a press statement released on the 16th of March, Moderna announced the following.

Moderna Inc. (Nasdaq: MRNA), a biotechnology company pioneering messenger RNA (mRNA) therapeutics and vaccines, today announced that the first participants have been dosed in the Phase 2/3 study, called the KidCOVE study, of mRNA-1273, the Company’s vaccine candidate against COVID-19, in children ages 6 months to less than 12 years. The study is being conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

As to specifics of the participants and the trial endpoints, Moderna goes on to say;

This Phase 2/3 two-part, open label, dose-escalation, age de-escalation (Part 1) and randomized, observer-blind, placebo-controlled expansion study (Part 2) will evaluate the safety, tolerability, reactogenicity and effectiveness of two doses of mRNA-1273 given 28 days apart. The Company intends to enroll approximately 6,750 pediatric participants in the U.S. and Canada ages 6 months to less than 12 years.

In Part 1, each participant ages two years to less than 12 years may receive one of two dose levels (50 μg or 100 μg). Also in Part 1, each participant ages six months to less than 2 years may receive one of three dose levels (25 μg, 50 μg and 100 μg). An interim analysis will be conducted to determine which dose will be used in Part 2, the placebo-controlled expansion portion of the study. Participants will be followed through 12 months after the second vaccination. Vaccine effectiveness will either be inferred through achieving a correlate of protection, if established, or through immunobridging to the young adult (ages 18–25) population. Evaluation of vaccine safety and reactogenicity is also a primary endpoint of the study.

You can read the full contents of the Moderna release by following this link.

Establishing Risk. Is there any?

My initial response is based on being a parent. It is quite simply this and has nothing to with science, but rather logic and a desire to protect my children. Would I, if I were in possession of a six-month-old, knowingly expose that infant to unnecessary risk.

It’s important to establish facts here first before we go any further. Despite the turmoil surrounding Covid, the vaccine, and all the misinformation floating around on the internet, we still have a relatively good idea of what is fact and what is fiction. Figures don’t lie.

What percentage of Covid-19 deaths comprise children?

Surprisingly, or perhaps unsurprisingly, this data isn’t easy to come by. To assess risk from the SARS-CoV2 virus in children aged 12 years and under we’ve looked for data for this age demographic. One article quotes the following official figure of 172 children who had died as of Dec. 17.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) provides some useful US-based data that would on the surface appear to be reliable, taking into consideration how deaths are recorded and state-by-state data fragmentation which seriously hampers the collection of reliable health data across the US.

These state-level data are the most recent available, 3/11/21. The age limits that apply to the definition of a child vary from state to state. The link above will allow you to download the reports.

Hospitalizations (24 states and NYC reported)

• Children were 1.3%-3.0% of total reported hospitalizations, and between 0.1%-2.1% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in hospitalization

Mortality (43 states, NYC, PR and Guam reported)

• Children were 0.00%-0.19% of all COVID-19 deaths, and 10 states reported zero child deaths
• In states reporting, 0.00%-0.03% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in death

By comparison, a total of 186 pediatric deaths from influenza had been reported to CDC during the 2017–2018 influenza season. In 2018, over 21,000 infants died in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the leading causes were birth defects, low birth weight and preterm birth, maternal pregnancy complications, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), and unintentional injuries.

While Covid does pose a very small, but undeniable risk to some children, it is most certainly not their health that it impacts the most, but rather their levels of poverty. Unicef has this to say on the matter in a statement issued in 2020.

The global socio-economic crisis caused by the pandemic could push 142 million more children into monetary poor households in developing countries by the end of the year, according to projections as of November 2020. The total number of children living in poor households globally could reach just over 725 million in the absence of any mitigating policies. Nearly two-thirds of these children live in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

So in terms of actual deaths, it is really difficult to form an accurate picture from pandemic data in the US. Data is hugely fragmented and methods of collection vary from state to state, so much so, that one year and a month into the pandemic, we still can’t say conclusively which blood groups are most at risk from serious covid. We also cannot ascertain beyond doubt, the age breakdowns for mortality, comorbidities, and other conditions that could have contributed to these children’s deaths,

The CDC tries to quantify the risk of hospitalization and death by age group in this chart, published in Feb 2021.

So there would appear to be no exact way of determining specific and accurate numbers for the risk children face from Covid. We never expected to find any, given the data shambles, but what is clear, even if not precise, is that the risk is minuscule in terms of actual numbers.

And what about the safety of the vaccines?

We have to go there, don’t we, as the safety of the Covid vaccines is key to the whole debate. There are issues, or we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Some of the issues are based on ignorance, conspiracy nonsense, and a general mistrust of pharma and governments. Others are justified and an indictment of our desperate societies.

mRNA Technology

Much is written about this medical revolution that has the potential to change the efficacy of many drugs and the way we treat disease. The most important term in all these documents is the word “novel”. It refers to the fact that we are dealing with a new and as yet, unproven (long term) method for delivering, in this case, an instruction to our body’s cells to produce a programmed response. Both Pfizer/BionTech and Moderna have opted for this route for their “vaccines”.

Johnson and Johnson have opted for a more traditional approach for their vaccine and while I would still question the need to extend trials at this point to children using their vaccine, I would be far less concerned. My reasons are again, not based on science, but rather in simple logic and known facts.

The novel mRNA method of delivering instructions to our cells has not been thoroughly tested to its logical conclusion. Emergency Use Authorization or EUA, which is the status currently awarded to all Covid vaccines indicates the following.

The FDA appreciates the fact that these products have not been tested properly, but given the interests of public health and the weighted risk, have decided to allow the public early access to them.

We are all now part of a large global trial revolving around the long-term impact of mRNA as a delivery mechanism for medication. Hopefully, for the sake of the participants and the long-term future of this promising technology, things don’t go wrong between now and the next two to three years. You see, it can potentially take that long for side effects to become apparent, and that’s when dealing with conventional vaccines. It’s the reason vaccines take so long to achieve FDA approval. Time. There is no shortcut.

When it comes to mRNA-based medicines, we haven’t a clue what a safe safety window might be. That’s a fact not even the most brilliant virologist can argue. We are in largely unchartered waters, dealing with cutting-edge technology that impacts us on a genetic level. We are fiddling with biological systems we have barely begun to understand properly and hell yes, there is risk.

There always is, for anything new, and these are risks worth taking.

The future benefits of mRNA delivery to medicine are enormous. The potential applications of the technology are almost limitless. It is an exciting and daunting time to be alive, especially if your interests lie in the sciences. This does not however mean to say we can lose sight of the risks and simply throw caution to the wind.

It does not mean we unnecessarily endanger patient populations simply for the sake of testing new technology, which is suspiciously what the new Moderna trials look like.

Based on the available evidence, it makes no logical sense to expose a young child’s developing physiology to this kind of trial, where we are not merely testing the efficacy of a vaccine, but the tolerance of young systems to a novel medical intervention. The ethics of these trials are highly questionable as are the motivations of the supporting bodies that have actively requested the trials.

The post The New Covid Vaccine Trials. Has Moderna Just Crossed an Ethical Line? appeared first on Medika Life.