Over the last weeks Neville Hodgkinson, the former medical and science correspondent of several national newspapers, including the Sunday Times, Sunday Express and Daily Mail, has been researching and preparing a ’round-up’ for TCW detailing the scores of indications of harm from the Covid mRNA jabs, from myocarditis, menstrual irregularities and infertility to teen and under-30s deaths and increased rates of cancer. In a series of articles, he will focus on each of these adverse effects and more. His introduction today explains exactly why the novel technology mRNA jab has triggered such a wide range of alarming reactions.
GO to the UK’s National Health Service website and it will tell you Covid vaccines are ‘safe and effective’, and that booster jabs are the next stage in ‘the biggest and most successful vaccination programme in health service history’.
It is now widely accepted that the jab does not prevent infection or transmission, but regulators believe lives saved far outweigh the price paid through side-effects. Dr Robert Malone, who played a foundational role in developing the technology on which the mRNA vaccines are based, disagrees.
In this recent talk, he says that on paper, it looked as though the mRNA jabs should be safe. They deliver a gene sequence for producing the famous ‘spike’ protein, characteristic of the Covid virus, and it was hoped this would prime the immune system so as to lessen the impact of SARS-COV-2 itself. The protein is toxic, and is at the heart of what made the genetically engineered bat microbe a threat to human health.
Normally, when cells make RNA (ribonucleic acid), it lasts for only a few hours. Scientists believed the same would happen with the vaccine, so that if someone had a toxic reaction, it would soon be gone. That has turned out to be a big mistake.
The RNA used in the jabs was modified with an insert, called pseudouridine, aimed at making it last long enough to produce enough of the protein to ensure an immune response.
It turns out that this is super-effective, so much so that levels of spike protein post-jab are much higher than the levels found through natural infection. With the latter, the virus slowly starts to replicate, and the immune system gradually starts to neutralise the protein.
With the jab, as Malone puts it, ‘the body gets a truckload of spike antigen that’s basically dumped into the bloodstream on a very short time course – very different from natural infection.’
Regulators and manufacturers also thought that after injection in the shoulder muscle, both the RNA and the protein would travel to the lymph system, to be filtered safely from the body after activating the immune system.
It is now known, however, that the jab products enter the bloodstream and become distributed throughout the body, where in some vaccinated people they continue to be active for at least 60 days.
‘This is not theoretical,’ Malone says. ‘This is putting needles into patients’ axillary lymph nodes, taking a sample, and asking is the RNA there; and taking blood samples and asking how much protein is in those blood samples. So that explains a lot of what we’ve experienced.’
Another major problem, he says, is that immunity gained naturally is far superior to immunity gained from the jab. This is because when we are infected by the virus, the immune system mounts a defence based on recognising many of the virus proteins, such that when variants emerge there are still a range of ways of defeating the virus. By contrast, the jab induces only the production of antibodies to the spike protein, so protection is far less.
‘The data are in now,’ Malone says. ‘Natural immunity is more robust, longer-lasting, and more protective.’
A third related problem arises from receiving multiple jabs. These train the immune system to respond only to the spike protein produced by the original virus strain, in a phenomenon called immune imprinting. ‘This is why when you get multiply jabbed – and I think these boosters are going to make it even worse – you actually become more susceptible to the viral infection,’ Malone says.
He adds that when Pfizer, which produces one of the main jabs used, was forced by court order to release data accumulated from all over the world by its pharmacovigilance team, page after page of adverse events were reported.
These included general disorders, nervous system disorders, musculoskeletal disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, respiratory disorders, skin disorders, infections, heart and blood vessel disorders, psychiatric disorders, blood and lymph system disorders, eye disorders. ‘It goes on and on’, says Malone.
But are these side-effects ‘extremely rare’, as the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) – in common with most other regulatory bodies – insists?
That claim is hard to reconcile with the fact that many expert warnings about the dangers are now validated by actual experience, including unprecedented levels of deaths and injuries reported after the jabs.
Over the next few days, TCW will take a look at some of the warnings given, and the mounting evidence for their validity with regard to specific threats to health.
Tomorrow: Heart and blood vessels.
