Sunday, May 19, 2024
HomeNewsSo gene therapy is ‘safe’? What drivel!

So gene therapy is ‘safe’? What drivel!


RECENTLY a doctor addressed the student body and the staff at our local school about Covid-19 inoculation. Reassuringly, the doctor explained that mRNA vaccination technology has a 30-year history of testing and safety: ‘the best vaccine ever’.  

It’s true that gene technology has been under development and testing for 30 years, but why is it only now being used? A quick glance through the published papers should be enough to convince you.  

A 2003 paper in the journal Gene Therapy was entitled ‘Adverse effects of gene therapy: Gene therapy can cause leukaemia: no shock, mild horror, but a probe.’   

A paper in Frontiers in Oncology published in 2019 just before the pandemic was prophetic. 

It said that ‘gene therapy has been caught in a vicious cycle for nearly two decades owing to immune response, insertional mutagenesis, viral tropism, off-target activity, unwanted clinical outcomes (ranging from illness to death of participants in clinical trials), and inadequate regulation . . . the resurgent interest in offering gene therapy-based treatments is one of the most defining developments in the pharmaceutical industry and is expected to have far-reaching implications. With an estimated US $11billion market in the next ten years, both clinical trials and pharmaceutical industry are anticipated to benefit immensely from gene therapy.’  

The paper’s authors were way below (by a factor of 200) in their estimation of profit per year that the pharmaceutical industry would be able to squeeze out of it, but spot-on in their estimation of adverse effects.  

A paper published in Nature Medicine in April 2021, with the experience of the pandemic to add to hindsight, says: ‘Gene therapy trials are on the rise, but more needs to be done to understand the long-term risks associated with this type of treatment.’  

An August 2021 study in Toxicology Reports reviewing the mRNA vaccination trials says: ‘Clinical trials for these inoculations were very short-term (a few months), had samples not representative of the total population, and for adolescents/children, had poor predictive power because of their small size.  

‘Further, the clinical trials did not address changes in biomarkers that could serve as early warning indicators of elevated predisposition to serious diseases. Most importantly, the clinical trials did not address long-term effects that, if serious, would be borne by children/adolescents for potentially decades.’  

So if you read in the mainstream media about the problem-free trials and the long history of gene technology safety, you might look for scientific papers and always add the term ‘scholarly articles’ to your Google or DuckDuckGo search, which will enable you to avoid the drivel of paid public relations being printed.

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Guy Hatchard
Guy Hatchard
Guy Hatchard PhD is a former senior manager at Genetic ID, a global food testing and certification company. He lives in New Zealand.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.