An increasing number of concerning papers about Covid-19 mRNA vaccine safety are being published this year giving us some perspective on the long term sequelae.
Two papers published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research entitled COVID-19 Modified mRNA “Vaccines”: Lessons Learned from Clinical Trials, Mass Vaccination, and the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, Part 1 and Part 2 examine the evidence of long term harm, deficiencies in the original trial data, and the unethical practices used to promote their use. Part 1 of the paper reports:
“Rigorous re-analyses of trial data and post-marketing surveillance studies indicate a more substantial degree of modmRNA-related harms than was initially reported. Confidential Pfizer documents had revealed 1.6 million adverse events by August 2022. A third were serious injuries to cardiovascular, neurological, thrombotic, immunological, and reproductive systems, along with an alarming increase in cancers. Moreover, well-designed studies have shown that repeated modmRNA injections cause immune dysfunction, thereby potentially contributing to heightened susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infections and increased risks of COVID-19.”
Part 2 of the paper examines the main structural and functional aspects of modified mRNA injectables which it explains are not classical antigen-based vaccines, but instead prodrugs informed by gene therapy technology. It reports:
“The COVID-19 modmRNA injectable products introduce a unique set of biological challenges to the human body with the potential to induce an extensive range of adverse, crippling, and life-threatening effects…This is in part due to differences in spike protein production output, which depends on variability in cell metabolism and transfection efficiency….Valid concerns are raised regarding injection of infants and younger age groups for whom COVID-19 poses only minimal risks….We then categorize the principal adverse events associated with the modmRNA products with a brief systems-based synopsis of each of the six domains of potential harms: (1) cardiovascular, (2) neurological, (3) hematologic; (4) immunological, (5) oncological, and (6) reproductive.”
The paper also addresses the process-related genetic impurities inherent in mass production of these products, and the potential risks posed by these contaminants. It concludes by reiterating the urgency of imposing a global moratorium on the modmRNA-LNP-based platform.
Particular findings that contradict the accepted Covid narrative include the discovery that the increased incidence of myocarditis events is associated with Covid vaccination but not with Covid infection. Further to this, a paper published in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal on July 30 entitled “Delayed Induction of Noninflammatory SARS-CoV-2 Spike-Specific IgG4 Antibodies Detected 1 Year After BNT162b2 Vaccination in Children” found similar effects to those already noted among adults. It reports:
“S1-specific and receptor-binding domain–specific IgG4 levels increase significantly 1 year after the second BNT162b2 vaccination in children 5-11 years of age. Understanding mRNA vaccine–specific IgG4 responses in all age groups is crucial as more mRNA vaccines will reach licensure in the coming years.”
To translate the significance of this: the exact long term effects of increased IgG4 switching are unknown but suspected by many authorities to be associated with vaccine induced immune deficiency. The increased concentrations may pose risks of long term organ damage. In other words, there are long term unquantified risks of mRNA vaccination for children who face only very minor risks from Covid infection. If you are a parent, you will be fully aware that no parent would want to expose their child to such unnecessary long term health risks.
The papers we cite above are representative, we have reported on many others over the last few months. They are raising increased concerns about the long term effects of mRNA vaccine programs. There are a large number of mRNA vaccine types under development around the world, more than 100 at last count. Should we be concerned and if so what action should be taken?
The concerns centre around the introduction of novel medical biotechnologies in the absence of long term safety testing. These had been presumed safe on the basis of largely theoretical considerations of immune functioning and very limited flawed and rushed testing lasting no more than a few months. In the light of new research and safety concerns, we need to review what we know about immune functions.
The immune system encompasses a sprawling range of chemistry distributed throughout the body—antibodies, lymphocytes, cytokines, chemokines, histamine, neutrophils, B-cells, T-cells, NK cells, macrophages, phagocytes, granulocytes, basophils, interferons, stem cells and many more. It is understood that we have more than 300 different types of immune cells at work within us. The complication is so baffling that an overview of the whole immune system is well nigh impossible. Some researchers spend a lifetime specialising in just one single aspect of our immune response.
There is however one very important overarching principle. The immune system is looking to eliminate material and/or functions that shouldn’t be present in the human body and it does so automatically. We do not directly control our immune system, it controls us. Moreover everyone’s immune system has features that are unique to that individual.
The immune system not only has to respond to germs like viruses, it also has to deal with toxins, drugs, cancers, bacteria, foreign objects, foreign DNA, inflammation, strains, wounds, genetic damage from cosmic rays for example and other mutative sources, and even mental imbalance. To maintain health, the immune system coordinates trillions upon trillions of actions every day distributed throughout every part of the body, but it does so with one intent—to preserve the specific cellular genetic integrity and identity of the individual.
Thus there are two sides to the immune system. On the one hand, a single holistic intent which guides the whole process to protect physiological design and functionality and on the other a myriad of specific actions to eliminate pathogens and correct imbalance. Whole and parts.
It should be clear that there is a paramount need to protect the holistic intent of the immune system. This is centred in the cell. We have more or less 37 trillion cells in the body which contain identical DNA, with the sole exception of red blood cells which have no DNA component. Cells form the managing and manufacturing hub of the immune system producing all the components used in the countless specific immune responses whilst also participating in a coordinated approach to their application. It is apparent that cells are connected together into a single command and control system.
From this we can see that the immune system operates at the interface between us—a sentient being with choices—and the automatic functioning of the laws of physiology. The immune system ensures that we retain our own individual design and it does so by connecting us with the automatic operation of the laws of nature and physiology which are largely beyond our control. We comprise a whole uni-verse. We have a single identity and associated control system, itself automatically protected by the functional diversity of the immune system.
This brings us to mRNA vaccines, each injection crosses the cell membrane of billions of cells and repurposes their activity to produce pathogenic spike proteins, thereby disrupting the intent and continuity of the automated system of immune responses. In simple terms, you can imagine the immune confusion this causes. It goes to the heart of the cellular control of immune responses. Does the immune system start to regard the product of the injected cells as foreign foe or helpful friend?
The switch to IgG4 antibodies which occurs over a period of months subsequent to Covid mRNA vaccination suggests that in many cases with repeated injections the immune system decides to tolerate the spike protein as friend, initiating the observed potentially disastrous increased rates of short and long term consequences—neurological damage, cancers, heart disease, etc reported in the studies cited above
It would be a mistake to assume that the culprit here is solely the Covid spike protein, in actuality it is also a matter of approach. There are good grounds to suspect mRNA technology will inherently subvert immune processes, whatever disease it seeks to mitigate.
You will no doubt be aware that these concerns are not isolated. They have been publicly voiced by a small but significant number of eminent scientists and medical professionals. You will also be aware that many of these people have suffered setbacks in their professional standing and position as a result of speaking out their concerns.
Thousands of medical professionals in New Zealand were granted Covid vaccine exemptions by the government, presumably because they believed the vaccines posed unquantified risks or because they thought the risks of Covid infection were exaggerated. However, very very few of these spoke up publicly. Was this ethical? Did their silence embolden the government to introduce universal Covid vaccine mandates which exposed the public to serious health risks?
Clearly from the beginning there were medical imperatives to vaccinate. Media reports of high Covid death rates and reassurances of vaccine safety and efficacy bombarded the eyes and ears of everyone. We now know many of these were exaggerated or incorrect. There was a lack of specialist knowledge about the known risks of biotechnology within the medical profession. But today the position has changed. There is more than enough evidence to support a questioning perspective and a precautionary approach. Speaking out no longer entails professional suicide. In contrast, keeping silent has become an untenable unethical position
Very early in 2021, I corresponded with a number of top molecular biologists including some advising G7 governments. At the time, although aware of risks, they framed Covid vaccination as a matter of personal choice despite not wishing to participate themselves. Whatever the reasons for taking this ambiguous position early on in the pandemic, recently published research indicates that such a position is no longer in any way morally defensible. It is time to speak out freely and correct public misperceptions about mRNA vaccine safety and efficacy.
As a medical professional or life sciences researcher you will be fully aware that the concerns we have raised above are very serious indeed, they involve human health and life. In 2021 Covid vaccine mandates virtually excluded any right of choice about vaccine safety and overrode the legal protections afforded by the NZ Bill of Rights concerning medical experimentation. The growth of biotechnology experimentation and the risks it poses suggest our Bill of Rights is in need of both updating and stronger clauses to ensure it is enforceable. These concerns speak to a compelling need for the International Genetic Charter. Its simple terms spell out in a few sentences the safeguards necessary to protect human life from genetic degradation driven by government ignorance, corporate greed and academic hubris. Please take a couple of minutes to sign up to The International Genetic Charter here.
Image credit: Unsplash+
Guy Hatchard PhD was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID a global food testing and safety company (now known as FoodChain ID). You can subscribe to his websites HatchardReport.com and GLOBE.GLOBAL for regular updates by email.
He is the author of ‘Your DNA Diet: Leveraging the Power of Consciousness To Heal Ourselves and Our World. An Ayurvedic Blueprint For Health and Wellness’.
