Lara was born in January of 2022, into a household infected with Covid. Both my wife and I had caught it only days before her birth and it was inevitable she would contract it. Omicron was circulating and I suspect that was what we had contracted. At a week old, I could see she was struggling and took her in to our A&E, suspecting the worst. A few hours later she was admitted to an isolation ward, where she would spend the next ten days.

I could see the doctors were at a loss in terms of treatment protocols for the young infants in the ward. The gold standard at that stage was to pump the infant full of antibiotics and hope for the best. I refused the treatment, arguing she was not febrile and that she should be monitored rather than medicated. Ignoring my request, they pressed ahead and she spent the next seven days on a drip.

She was discharged after a week, her little system somehow had managed to fend off the virus without any ill effects. My wife was overjoyed, but I harbored concerns and I still do. There is absolutely no research done on young infants and the long term impact of the virus on their systems. Babies are notoriously difficult to treat and even harder to enroll in any form of meaningful trial. This results is a wait and see scenario, which, if you’re the parent, is far from ideal.

She’s made it, almost uneventfully – aside from a few minor incidents, mostly involving the cat and her desire to separate it from it’s tail – to her first birthday and first steps and on the surface, all appears well. It’s the rest of her journey that concerns me, and it’s a concern all new parents should share, post Covid.

We cannot unsee the last three years

Particularly if you’ve been invested in the saga of Covid, and I have, writing copiously on the pandemic, the lockdowns, masks, mandates and then, the vaccines. We’ve seen both the best of healthcare (in terms of dedicated doctors and nurses tirelessly running the gauntlet) and the worst. We’ve been lied to, locked down, manipulated, terrified and then coerced, sometimes at gunpoint, into rushed vaccines and experimental medical technology.

Now, we have to witness the last act of the Covid saga, of a triumvirate not even Shakespeare could have envisaged. The lead players, science, politics and medicine, trying to extend their flawed narrative just that little bit longer, and to play out their final scene they’ve conscripted our children. We are living out the vaccines swan song and they’re singing it to our babies.

There is some benefit for some children, those for whom the risk of the vaccine is outweighed by their medical conditions or predisposition to developing serious Covid symptoms. For most other children, Covid is not life threatening. There is simply no logical reason to expose them to the risks of a growing number of serious adverse events linked to the mRNA vaccines, some of which prove fatal.

There is not one shred of serious, robust clinical evidence to support the CDC’s Covid vaccination campaign for children.

Given what I know and what I’ve witnessed over the last three years, I now face a conundrum as a parent. One that I am certain many other parents also face. How can we ever again trust public health, and the science that drives it. As the person responsible for ensuring my baby daughters wellbeing, I now have to weigh up the risks (often unquantifiable) of each medical intervention she is exposed to, before consenting to it. I know that in many instances I will now decline these interventions.

Is the reputation of the vaccine irreparably damaged?

It may very well be in the minds of many parents, as evidenced by diseases we had once eradicated, making a slow and determined return. Small outbreaks of measles, polio and other childhood ailments are telling signs of our distrust in a system that is supposed to protect us, and which, under ideal conditions, does.

mRNA has issues, perhaps not the actual idea, but the particles we use to deliver the enveloped instruction in, the production, which exposes the vaccines to impurities with E.coli present in a number of tested samples, and then of course, the fact that the products don’t perform as advertised. The body does not, in some individuals and for reasons unknown, stop producing the protein the vaccine instructs, as we’d been assured. There are numerous other issues, to complex for this article and therein lies the rub.

Much of what is currently under development in terms of cutting edge medicine blithely assumes we’ve got mRNA all figured out, when truth be told, we are still stumbling to understand all the subtle nuances of the technology. Vaccines, flu shots, cancer treatments and other rare diseases will, in the future, all be delivered with mRNA technology.

My young daughter now faces medical choices that didn’t exist, pre-Covid. Am I going to expose her to these new treatments. Absolutely not. I will wait, as should responsible science, to see what emerges from our global clinical trial involving nearly two thirds of the worlds population. I pray I am wrong, but emerging evidence suggests otherwise.

In the meanwhile, old fashioned polio drops and measles, mumps and rubella vaccines will have to suffice.

The post Born into the age of Covid 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.

Before we dive in it is worth taking cognizance of the following. mRNA technology offers massive promise for the treatment of cancers, rare genetic diseases and yes, once perfected, even vaccines that can actually prevent diseases. If we can perfect these medicines, we could well see cancers and conditions like cystic fibrosis defeated. The technology is relatively cheap and can be genetically modified to accommodate an individual patient’s specific DNA. mRNA is in many ways, the Holy Grail of modern medicine.

The Covid mRNA treatments were however rushed to market, are fraught with serious adverse effects (SAE’s) and controversy, and it is my fervent hope that these products will not taint the potential of this life-sustaining technology. For those who want an honest appraisal of the technology, pre-Covid vaccine,, here is an excellent summation.

Fact

The mRNA treatments marketed by Moderna and Pfizer as vaccines are, in point of fact, not vaccines at all! They do have a beneficial protective effect as immunizations. They do not prevent the patient from developing Covid, the disease that results from infection by the SARS-COV2 virus. Anyone who argues this fact, has a poor understanding of what actual vaccines are and how they operate. At best, these treatments should be considered therapeutics.

Take for instance the Polio or Measles vaccine. Once administered, the patient is protected against these diseases. In fact, these vaccines work so well that we had almost completely obliterated these diseases, until, thanks to misinformation, parents decided to stop vaccinating their children. Now these diseases have once again gained a foothold across the globe.

The mRNA treatments or therapeutics offered no protection against infection and only offered middling to poor protection against developing serious Covid symptoms. They did, however, offer a lifeline to the aged and those with co-morbidities most at risk of dying from Covid by reducing severity. So no, referring to these treatments as vaccines is both wrong and disingenuous to vaccines in general. The mRNA treatments have neither stopped nor reduce transmission of the SARS-COV2 virus.

Comments made by well respected figures in the medical community, like Dr. Robert Amler, dean of New York Medical College School of Health Sciences and Practice and a former CDC chief medical office to Healthline are typical of the manipulation of words used to enforce the “vaccine” effect. His statement, made to Healthline in June of 2021 is below.

“Through vaccination, smallpox has been eradicated worldwide. Through vaccination, polio has been eliminated from the Western Hemisphere, Europe, and Oceania, with only a few pockets left in a few countries. And through mass vaccination, COVID-19 rates have declined dramatically in the second quarter of 2021,”

Yes, it is possible to build functional vaccines utilizing mRNA technology that adhere to our understanding of a vaccine, however we have yet to achieve this. Multiple mRNA based vaccine products are currently in development, you can find out more about these further into the article.

Fiction

mRNA vaccines contain trackers that allow the governments and other agencies to track you. There are no trackers built into the Covid treatments or any other vaccines, no RFID chips or nano-particles designed to emit specific frequencies that allow Big Brother to track your movements. No one is really that interested in what you do and if this technology existed (which it doesn’t) they could simply bundle it with your cornflakes. This is Orwellian nonsense that is put to rest with simple logic.

You couldn’t be personally identified from technology like this and no one is interested in tracking a random bunch of dots. Why bother when you already have a cellphone grafted onto your hand? It is the de facto method of monitoring your behavior. Consider that the next time you are posting pandemic disinformation on Twitter and Facebook from your cell.

Fact

Prior to 2020, mRNA treatments were reserved for use in “end of life” patients or in groups who, because of the advanced state of their medical conditions, stood to benefit from the treatments, despite unquantified risk. People who were terminally ill with cancers, for instance, could use the new and experimental treatments in the hopes of delaying the inevitable. This restriction was put in place by none other than the FDA, who considered the mRNA treatments untested and unsafe for use on the general population. However, the potential applications for mRNA technology promised much, warranting trials that were restricted to the aforementioned groups for safety reasons..

Fiction

The Covid treatments were developed to control the global population by slowly killing off billions across the planet. Even more insane than the tracker theory, the people who have bought into this fiction believe that Bill Gates and others have conspired to reduce the worlds population through the Covid treatments. This is of course a complete nonsense that again, a little common sense can disprove.

Any treatment that were to induce death on a scale that would affect our global population would decimate our health care systems and destroy work forces, economies and global trade, effectively bringing our current civilization to a standstill. Individuals seeking power and wealth on large scale require a functional society to achieve their goals. No one is this stupid.

Deaths and reported serious adverse events (SAE’s) arising from the vaccine, although numbering well into the millions, are a drop in the global population ocean and are the result of poorly trialed medicines being released to the general public, rather than a nefarious attempt to destroy mankind.

Fact

India refused to purchase either of the Covid mRNA treatments. The reason? The Indian government, in a prescient moment of brilliance, decided that the indemnity required by both Pfizer and Moderna against any and all claims arising from the use of their ” Covid vaccines” was beyond the pale of acceptability. This ‘blanket immunity” sought by both Pfizer and Moderna from purchasing governments was a prerequisite for supply. India rightly declined.

As an interesting aside, in August of this year India’s drug regulator approved Gennova’s mRNA Covid vaccine (locally produced) for restricted use in emergency situations in adults.

Fiction

Covid Vaccines have proven mRNA treatments are safe and well tolerated. Absolutely not! Here’s why. There is no long term data yet on the effect of the mRNA treatments administered for Covid and varying results from different data collected from various clinical trials over the last year and a half further muddy the waters. Some seem to indicate substantial levels of SAE’s and little reduction in mortality rates from Covid, while others suggest the treatments were effective.

It will take another three to four years and far more intense scrutiny of data to ascertain how safe these treatments were. In addition, the Covid mRNA treatments utilized a very specific mechanism of action (MOA) to deliver the SARS-COV2 spike protein. Many of the other mRNA treatments in development rely on different MOA’s to deliver their payload, most untested in a clinical setting. In vitro and animal studies often do not translate in vivo with human subjects and initial success can be met with later failure.

An excellent example in point is the Cystic Fibrosis trial run by Translate Bio for their mRNA prospect MRT5005. Phase I results in 2019 indicated promising results from a single dosage and yet, increased dosages failed to show any improvement in lung function in a small trial concluded in 2021. An expensive fail and a return to the drawing board.

Fact

Lactating mothers were not included in the original Covid trials run for the mRNA treatments. Despite this, healthcare professionals still advised lactating mothers that there was no risk to either themselves or their child and healthcare bodies (Government or otherwise) underwrote the stance. This bears repeating. Advice relating to the safety of nursing babies and mRNA treatments was based on assumptions, not one shred of clinical evidence. This advice is still in place and can be described as nothing short of criminal.

You can argue lactating mothers had a choice, but sadly, in most instances this wasn’t true as they risked losing their jobs, access to government buildings and basic services without a valid vaccine card. Not even naturally acquired immunity was considered. Forced coercion to ensure compliance. We are still engaging in this reprehensible practice.

Doctors from the WHO publicly encouraged breastfeeding women to get vaccinated, despite any scientific evidence to suggest the mRNA vaccines were safe for the babies of lactating mothers. Some of this medically and scientifically unfounded advice still can be found on the WHO website. Here is an example in point from Dr Soumya Swaminathan.

Even UNICEF engages in the this reckless advice, claiming to base their advice on the SAGE working group. You can view the UNICEF page here.

This advice exists on the CDC webpage. “CDC recommends COVID-19 vaccines for everyone ages 6 months and older, including people who are pregnant, breastfeeding, trying to get pregnant now, or might become pregnant in the future and getting boosters, if eligible.”

More worrying, is that on the same page, the CDC confirms that it in fact has no data on which to make any assumptions relating to the safety of breastfed infants. Here is the exact text, lifted directly from the page. Bold text added by author.

“Clinical trials for the COVID-19 vaccines currently used in the United States did not include people who were breastfeeding. Therefore, there are limited data (actually a nice way of saying zero data) available on the

• Safety of COVID-19 vaccines in people who are breastfeeding
• Effects of vaccination on the breastfed baby
• Effects on milk production or excretion”

This raises two serious questions. What other Covid advice has the CDC decided to issue without supporting data and how, in a sane world, is anyone supposed to trust a healthcare institution that is so glib with human life?

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.

Fiction

Receiving the mRNA vaccines protects you against getting Covid. If you do contract Covid after you’ve been jabbed, even numerous times, it is a “breakthrough infection”. Horse twaddle. At no point have either company suggested the mRNA treatments would prevent infection. This false perception of the so called “vaccines” is in large part due to people’s understanding of how a vaccine works and may very well be why the terminology was used to describe these therapeutics. Words have power.

Even main stream media did little to dispel this falsehood, a falsehood still believed by many patients. The mRNA treatments and all other Covid “vaccines” will not prevent you contracting Covid. They merely reduce the risk of you developing serious symptoms.

Fact

We do not know yet what the long-term effects of mRNA treatments will be. In a real-world scenario, treatments classed as vaccines are required to undergo rigorous trials over the duration of five years or more to allow for the development of unforeseen side effects. We do know that expectant mothers who received the mRNA treatments while pregnant passed on the mRNA spike protein to their children in utero. There is also irrefutable evidence that children conceived of vaccinated parents will, in most instances, carry the mRNA instruction.

Again, according to information offered by the CDC

“A recent small study found that at 6 months old, the majority (57%) of infants born to pregnant people who were vaccinated during pregnancy had detectable antibodies against COVID-19, compared to 8% of infants born to pregnant people who had COVID-19 during pregnancy.”

Fiction

mRNA technology used in these vaccines is new and untested. This is patently untrue. Most people are not aware that interest and development in mRNA medicines stretches back three decades. In 1990, University of Pennsylvania scientist Katalin Karikó suggested using mRNA as an alternative to DNA-based gene therapy. Despite serious challenges in the field Karikó forged ahead anyway and, with her colleague Drew Weissman, made a game-changing discovery in 2005.

The researchers replaced one of mRNA’s four chemical building blocks, a nucleoside called uridine, with a slightly modified nucleoside called pseudo-uridine. Amazingly, the modified mRNA evaded immune sensors, one of the greatest hurdles faced by mRNA introduced into the human body. (Immunity 2005, DOI: 10.1016/j.immuni.2005.06.008).

“We submitted that for a patent, and that was the birth of therapeutic RNA,”

Drew Weissman

There is some truth in the fact that no mRNA products have been adequately trialed but the technology is well established and companies have invested billions into developing the technology. It is only a question of time until mRNA medicines abound in the industry.

Fact

By 2018, mRNA’s potential had spurred several major vaccine collaborations: The U.S. government and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation invested in Moderna’s mRNA vaccine programs for diseases caused by viruses like Zika and HIV; Sanofi partnered with Translate Bio to develop infectious disease mRNA vaccines; and Pfizer in August of 2018 teamed up with BioNTech to develop mRNA flu vaccines.

Fact or Fiction?

Its okay to mix and match vaccines for boosters and second shots. Again, I call fiction. From a risk perspective (SAE’s) this is horrendous advice. Each Covid vaccine, including the mRNA vaccines comes with a very long and specific list of Serious Adverse Effects, and some were only discovered after the products were approved for Emergency Use. Some of these SAE’s overlap, but many are specific to an individual manufacturer.

If, for arguments sake, you’ve received a shot of Moderna and not experienced any adverse reactions, then it is relatively safe to assume your system can tolerate that particular treatment. Why then, on God’s green earth, would you stretch your luck and try another manufacturers product, effectively doubling your risk of suffering an SAE? Try three and you’ve just trebled your risk.

There is no data on the correlation between the use of different vaccines and the increased risk of suffering adverse events. When no data exists, ALWAYS err on the side of caution, an established principal the medical industry left by the wayside when the pandemic hit.

Fact

In 2020, prior to COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the Brighton Collaboration created a priority list, endorsed by the World Health Organization, of potential adverse events relevant to COVID-19 vaccines. This list was then adapted by this study to evaluate serious adverse events of special interest observed in mRNA COVID-19 vaccine trials. The list was based upon the specific vaccine platform, adverse events associated with prior vaccines in general, theoretical associations based upon animal models and COVID-19-specific immunopathogenesis. The resultant stats are shown below and the SAE’s are listed in the image below.

Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95 % CI −0.4 to 20.6 and −3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 2.1 to 22.9); risk ratio 1.43 (95 % CI 1.07 to 1.92). The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group; risk difference 18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 1.2 to 34.9); risk ratio 1.36 (95 % CI 1.02 to 1.83). The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group: risk difference 7.1 per 10,000 (95 % CI –23.2 to 37.4); risk ratio 1.06 (95 % CI 0.84 to 1.33). Combined, there was a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients: risk difference 13.2 (95 % CI −3.2 to 29.6); risk ratio 1.16 (95 % CI 0.97 to 1.39).

Fiction

The mRNA treatments will make you sterile. If you believe this, it probably wouldn’t be the greatest loss to mankind if we were spared your prodigy. Here is a link to children currently being born globally. If you assume that as we require nine months to bake a baby, then it is fair to assume that by now more than 50% of these expectant mothers would have been inoculated prior to doing the deed. This would result in plummeting birth rates. Data suggests exactly the opposite, no doubt still as a result of extended lockdowns.

You only need to sit and watch the number of births climbing by the thousands every minute to appreciate that no, we probably haven’t all been sterilized. The UN estimates that around 385,000 babies are born each day around the world (140 million a year). Most of these children will carry some form of natural immunity to Covid. The mother may have had the disease and acquired natural immunity and/or have been vaccinated.

During the Pfizer vaccine tests, 23 women volunteers involved in the study became pregnant, and the only one who suffered a pregnancy loss had not received the actual vaccine, but a placebo. That is conclusive proof that the spike protein used does not affect fertility in women.

Fact

Aside from the Covid treatments, no other mRNA treatments have been approved or fully licensed by the FDA or other regulatory bodies. The AZD8601 EPICCURE Clinical trials run jointly by Moderna and AstraZeneca serve as an excellent example of the caution with which regulators views these treatments and just how long properly conducted clinical trials take. In 2012/13 Moderna injected mRNA encoding a protein called vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) directly into the hearts of mice.

Scientists had long suspected that VEGF could repair heart tissue damaged during a heart attack, but VEGF proteins don’t stick around long enough, so simply injecting the proteins doesn’t work. The VEGF-encoding mRNA, however, hung about in cells, making enough of the protein to improve the animals’ survival and health after a heart attack (Nat. Biotechnol. 2013, DOI: 10.1038/nbt.2682).

A collaboration with AstraZeneca followed on these results in 2013 that included a $240 million investment. After replicating the VEGF experiment in mice and pigs, AstraZeneca launched a study to test the therapy in people who recently had heart attacks. How far has the treatment come since then? Nearly ten years later you can view the results from Phase II of the EPICURE trials run in 2021 here and learn more about AZD8601’s journey in an excellent summary from Nature.

Fiction

The COVID-19 vaccine enters your cells and changes your DNA. Biologically this is impossible. Cells enjoy very specific traffic flow and you can read more about this in an article I wrote months ago explaining exactly how the flow of traffic works in cells and why RNA cannot influence DNA. The messenger RNA from the two Covid vaccines does enter cells, but not the nucleus of the cells where DNA resides. The mRNA instructs the cell to make protein to stimulate the immune system and do not affect your DNA.

Fact

The mRNA genie is truly “out of the bottle” now, with Moderna boasting more than 24 new vaccines and treatments in the pipeline for targeting genetic diseases, influenza, HIV, heart disease, and cancer. BioNTech is even more ambitious with 32 products in their pipeline. You can view the full range and scope of their development by following the link.

Fiction

Covid vaccines, including mRNA vaccines, provide better protection against Covid than natural infection. This is a highly controversial statement and one that even CDC’s Dr. Anthony Fauci cannot in good conscience repeat as he is on record, prior to the pandemic, stating that no medical vaccines can offer better protection than naturally acquired immunity. I call this out as fiction and believe that most in the medical community support this opinion.

As to claims that you are safer getting the vaccine than risking contracting Covid, I would also question the statistics backing up this statement. Very few healthy people who did not exhibit comorbidities actually died from Covid. In fact, the number was so low it almost statistically insignificant. Again, risk matters in health and for a healthy individual to risk the far higher odds of SAE’s from a vaccine, mRNA or other, makes no sense. Elderly populations and those patients exhibiting co-morbidities could easily justify this risk equation.

Fact

Reported efficacy of the mRNA vaccines was misrepresented, most probably to intentionally encourage people to be vaccinated. Why do I say this? For the following simple reason.

The original trials revealed that a person was 95% ‘less likely’ to catch the autumn 2020 variant of COVID-19. This is known in medical speak as “relative risk reduction”, but to know the true value of any treatment one needs to understand for that person, by how much is their individual risk reduced by the intervention – that is, the “absolute individual risk reduction”. This is where the medical industry (pharma in particular) took absolute advantage of a trusting public and even pulled the wool over the eyes of doctors who probably should have known better, but chose to trust their regulatory bodies and the general media.

That was a huge mistake. The concept is complicated to explain and this pre-print article by Dr. Aseem Malhotra does the job admirably. For those of you who prefer to read on here, he explains it as follows.

It turns out that the trial results suggest that the vaccine was only preventing a person from having a symptomatic positive test, and the absolute risk reduction for this was 0.84% (0.88% reduced to 0.04%). In other words, if 10 000 people had been vaccinated and 10 000 had not, for every 10 000 people vaccinated in trial 4 would have tested positive with symptoms compared to 88 who were unvaccinated. Even in the unvaccinated group, 9912 of the 10 000 (over 99%) would not have tested positive during the trial period.

Another way of expressing this is that you would need to vaccinate 119 people to prevent one such symptomatic positive test. Hardly protection. This absolute risk reduction figure (0.84%) is extremely important for doctors and patients to know but how many of them were told this when they received the shot?

Contrary to popular belief, what the trial did not show was any statistically significant reduction in serious illness or COVID-19 mortality from the vaccine over the 6-month period of the trial, but the actual numbers of deaths (attributed to COVID-19) are still important to note. There were only two deaths from COVID-19 in the placebo group and one death from COVID-19 in the vaccine group. Looking at all-cause mortality over a longer period, there were actually slightly more deaths in the vaccine group (19 deaths) than in the placebo group (17 deaths).

Also of note was the extremely low rate of COVID-19 illness classed as severe in the placebo group (nine severe cases out of 21 686 subjects, 0.04%), reflecting a very low risk of severe illness even in regions chosen for the trial because of perceived high prevalence of infection.

Fiction

We’ll end on an absolute favorite of mine, simply for the brazenness of the claim. The mRNA vaccines make you magnetic, and thus more susceptible to the influence of 5G cell towers. Speaking from personal experience, I live in an area with terrible cell coverage and was looking forward to the boost in my phone’s reception. Sadly, post vaccine, I still get a terrible connection. Must be my tinfoil hat blocking the signal!

.

The post Ten mRNA Facts You Probably Didn’t Know About and Ten Nonsenses appeared first on Medika Life.

1. A 100 Billion Dollar Plus Blue Sky Market Valuation

In June of 2020, Moderna was valued at $25 billion despite having no federally approved drugs on the market. Fast forward to April of 2021 and you get an idea of just how much Moderna’s fortunes have changed. Still with no federal approval but now boasting a EUA for its mRNA vaccine, the future looks incredibly bright for this company. In February of 2021 Hartaj Singh, managing director and senior analyst of biotechnology at Oppenheimer said that similar companies’ sales trajectories showed what Moderna could experience in the future.

“What we do is point people to other companies in the biotech sector that have peaked or hit a valuation when they launched their first set of products. Companies as diverse as Alexion, Regeneron, and Vertex, currently, and they essentially peaked at about ten times future sales, future sales being three to five years out.”

“I think with Moderna’s coronavirus vaccine franchise, and they’re also starting to develop flu vaccines which should hit the market in the next couple of years … you know, we could see a $10 billion franchise five to seven years from now. If you put a ten times sales multiple on that then, you can do the math, then it’s a $100 billion-plus market cap company.

In December of 2020, Moderna was valued at $60 billion.

2. The NIH Jointly owns the Moderna mRNA Intelectual Property

NIH and Moderna have researched coronaviruses, like MERS, for several years, and signed a contract this past December that stated “mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates [are] developed and jointly owned” by the two parties. The contract was not specific to the novel coronavirus, and it was signed before the new virus had been sequenced. Separately, four NIH scientists have filed for a provisional patent application entitled “2019-nCoV vaccine,” according to disclosures in a pending scientific paper. Moderna scientists co-authored that paper, but none are listed as vaccine co-inventors.

3. Modified and DNA combined

Originally known as ModeRNA Therapeutics, the companywas formed in 2010 to commercialize the research of stem cell biologist Derrick Rossi. Rossi had developed a method of modifying mRNA. He approached fellow Harvard University faculty member Tim Springer, who solicited co-investment from Kenneth R. Chien, Bob Langer, and venture capital firm Flagship Ventures. The group formed ModeRNA, the result of the combined terms “modified” and “DNA”.

4. A record-breaking IPO in 2018

In 2018, the company rebranded as “Moderna Inc.” with the ticker symbol MRNA. In December of the same year, Moderna became the largest biotech initial public offering (IPO) in history, raising $621 million (27 million shares at $23 per share) on NASDAQ, and implying an overall valuation of $7.5 billion for the entire company. Not too dusty, considering Moderna had not as yet brought a product to market in their 8-year lifespan.

5. Board Members and Star Trek

In March of 2020, the FDA approved clinical trials for the Moderna vaccine candidate, with Moderna later receiving an investment of $483 million from Operation Warp Speed. Moderna board member, Moncef Slaoui, a Moroccan-born Belgian-American researcher was appointed head scientist for the Operation Warp Speed project.

6. Dictatorships and domination

CEO Stéphane Bancel, a French businessman with a pharmaceutical sales and operations background has led Moderna since 2011. His leadership style has been described as egotistical, authoritarian and secretive, with a zero-tolerance policy for employees that do not fully embrace the company ethos. Interestingly Bancel is listed as a co-inventor on more than 100 of Moderna’s early patent applications, unusual considering Bancel is not a Ph.D. scientist. Bancel is the third-largest individual shareholder in the company after Noubar Afeyan (Flagship Ventures) and Robert Langer. His current net worth is $5.6 billion according to Forbes. Bancel, when questioned about his abrasive management style, had the following comment.

“You want to be the guy who’s going to fail [patients]? I don’t. So was it an intense place? It was. And do I feel sorry about it? No.”

STÉPHANE BANCEL, MODERNA CEO

7. Get your cancer cure here

Where other CEOs are cautious about raising unrealistic expectations of their companies and products, Bancel suffers from no such restraint, often touting the mRNA technology as a potential cure for cancer, right down to having it engineered for each patient. In 2018, in an article published in Wired, Moderna president Steven Hoge made the following statement;

“We’re going to be able to make medicines that address diseases in different people in very different ways as a result of mostly removing humans from the process, It’s not something that is like ‘oh, this is the right color for you,’ it’s actually, “no, we invented this color for you.’”

8. AstraZeneca bets big

In 2013 Moderna, who had up to that point been subsisting on the financial smell of an oil rag, signed a staggering $240 million partnership with UK pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca. It was the most money pharma had ever spent on drugs that had not yet been tested in humans. The NYT article published in the wake of the deal sums it up aptly in its headline: “AstraZeneca Makes a Bet On an Untested Technique.”

9. Regenerating your heart

It’s not just vaccines and cancer that interest Moderna. An excellent example of the widespread applicability of mRNA to treat disease is their therapeutic, AZD8601, developed in conjunction with AstraZeneca, for restoring blood vessels and oxygenation to the heart muscle. Currently, in Phase 1 Clinical trials, the vice-president of AstraZeneca’s IMED Biotech Unit Dr. Regina Fritsche-Danielson made the following comment in a blog post.

“In preclinical studies [for AZD8601], we have seen new blood vessels appear at the borders of damaged heart muscle. This was in response to injections of VEGF-A mRNA, carefully targeted at areas where oxygen levels were low. More than that, we have also seen improved cardiac function in these preclinical models as a result of the improved blood and oxygen supply being delivered to the heart.”

10. 2021 Shkreli Award winners for blatant overpricing

Every year The Lown Institute issues its top ten list of the worst examples of profiteering and dysfunction in health care. This year they highlighted bad actors from the Covid-19 pandemic. In February, CEO of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Dr. Elizabeth Nabel wrote an op-ed defending high drug prices as a necessity for innovation. In the piece, she did not disclose her role as a member of the board of biotech Moderna, which was developing a Covid-19 vaccine at the time. As a Moderna board member, Nabel received $487,500 in stock options and other payments in 2019.

Nabel sold $8.5 million worth of Moderna stock in 2020, after the company’s stock nearly quadrupled this year on news of early success with its COVID-19 vaccine. In response to criticism, Nabel resigned from the Moderna board.

In August, biotech company Moderna set an estimated price for its Covid-19 vaccine at $32-$37 per dose for “some customers” (the vaccine requires 2 doses). This price is higher than any other Covid-19 vaccine so far, even though 100% of Moderna’s development costs were covered by US government funding. Since Moderna was nominated, their lower bound for vaccine price has declined, in part due to public scrutiny.

Moderna’s CEO clarified in November that they will charge governments $25 — $37 per dose, depending on the amount ordered. Although the US has placed an order for $1.5 billion in doses of the vaccine at a discounted $15 per dose, given the upfront investment by the US government, we are essentially paying for the vaccine twice.

An insane achievement

As a final thought, it may be worthwhile to mention that this company produced a working and administrable version of the vaccine within 25 days of receiving the DNA sequencing for the coronavirus. This is an unprecedented achievement in vaccine development. To place it onto context, it is akin to Edmund Hillary running up to Everest’s summit in a few hours, rather than his arduous trek over weeks.

On March 16, 2020, Jennifer Haller was the very first recipient of the Moderna vaccine for Covid to be administered in America and globally. This signaled the beginning of phase 1 trials in the US. The rest, as they say, is history. The article below describes in detail Bancel and Moderna’s journey through the development of the vaccine and makes for insightful reading. It’s from the Boston Magazine and we highly recommend it.

The potential of this method of delivering instructions to the body to produce its own chemicals and drugs is almost limitless. The technology is being explored as a treatment for almost every disease and condition we can think of including cancers, HIV, heart conditions, atrophied blood vessels, the list never ends and we’re as excited and hopeful as Bancel.

The post Ten Facts You Didn’t Know About Moderna and Their mRNA Vaccine 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.

How does mRNA work and what is it?

mRNA medicines are sets of instructions and these instructions direct cells in the body to make proteins to prevent or fight disease. The m stands for messenger and RNA is ribonucleic acid, a part of our DNA. mRNA is a single-stranded molecule that carries genetic code from DNA in a cell’s nucleus to ribosomes, the cell’s protein-making machinery.

Without mRNA, your genetic code would never get used by your body. Proteins would never get made and your body wouldn’t (actually couldn’t) perform its functions. mRNA plays a vital role in human biology, specifically in a process known as protein synthesis. Rather than subjecting you to a long-winded explanation of exactly how mRNA functions, this video provides an excellent overview. 

What really matters is what these mechanisms have to do with medicine and how our mastery of nanoparticles has enabled science to manipulate processes at a level hitherto unachievable. The following is an overly simplified explanation to enable you to appreciate the potential of these new medicines. We don’t know how our cellphones work, but we appreciate the benefits they offer.

mRNA, DNA, and your body

Our DNA is ground zero for our bodies. Everything that happens inside us arguably originates in our DNA. It is the machine that powers our bodies and like all machines, is subject to breakages and manufacturing flaws. These can exhibit as diseases later in life, cancer, etc, or conditions that are genetic and affect a person at birth.

mRNA medicines provide us a mechanism to access the actual DNA machinery that regulates our health. Targetted solutions that can repair and address problems right at the source, at ground zero. 

mRNA medicines depend on really small nanoparticles to deliver the medicine’s payload or instructions. Solid lipid nanoparticles provide transport and measure anywhere from 1 to 1000 nanometres. To give you an idea of their scale, imagine this. 

In the International System of Units, the prefix “nano” means one-billionth; so one nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. It’s difficult to imagine just how small that is, so here are some examples: 

•  A sheet of paper is about 100,000 nanometers thick. 
• A strand of hair is 80,000 –100,000 nanometers in diameter. 
• There are 25,400,000 nanometers per inch. 
• Your fingernails grow about one nanometer per second!

It turns out these solid lipid nanoparticles (SLNP’s) are hugely important to the development of mRNA medicines and we’ve been tinkering with them since the early ’90s. The body easily accepts them without risk of rejection as companies now focus on the use of physiological lipids. They offer the perfect carrier.

The first drug using SLNP’s as a delivery mechanism, Onpattro was approved in 2018. You can read more about their delivery system for this drug here and as we all now know, in late 2020, several life-saving mRNA vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 were released. Moderna’s mRNA-1273 and Pfizer/BioNTech’s BNT162b2, also use lipid nanoparticles for their drug delivery system.

mRNA medicines have finally truly “arrived”. Their development over nearly three decades is a testament to open scientific collaboration, innovation, and sheer perseverance. The question now is what else can we use this novel technology for, and how can we use it to address disease?

Looking to tomorrow

Imagine the potential for being able to address diseases and genetic “glitches” at their root. Unborn children with identified genetic abnormalities could be born as healthy infants, thanks to early interventions made possible with these medicines.

Cancers and other diseases are currently being explored, to see how we can apply these drugs. High on the list are autoimmune disorders, a natural starting point after the success of the vaccine, and the technology’s established ability to impact the immune system. Recently, a team led by Ugur Sahin has designed an mRNA vaccine that can restore tolerance to myelin proteins in mice, reducing the severity of multiple sclerosis-like symptoms, while maintaining the immune response towards other antigens.

On the subject of mRNA Cancer Vaccines, a recent article in PubMed suggests another novel application for mRNA. Apart from being used directly to vaccinate patients, mRNAs can also be used in cellular therapies to transfect patient-derived cells in vitro and infuse the manipulated cells back into the patient. The technology is so rapid and cost-effective that it can be tailored to individual patients and their particular genetic code.

mRNA may be on course to do for modern medicine what Flemming’s penicillin did for healthcare in the early twentieth century. It holds out huge promise that may, for now, only be limited by existing technology and our ability to innovate. Watch this space.

The post Is mRNA Technology the New Penicillin? appeared first on Medika Life.