Why Weren’t These mRNA Vaccines Put Through the Proper Safety Trials For Gene Technology. By John Flack, retired Pharmaceutical Research and Development Scientist, previous Director of Safety Evaluation at Beecham Pharmaceuticals.
You need to understand this:
Previous attempts to discover effective and safe vaccines against earlier strains of this type of virus, namely SARS-1 and MERS, had failed. Furthermore, historically, coronaviruses in general had not proven to be amenable to conventional vaccine technology.
What then was the explanation for this amazing breakthrough at just the very time it was needed? …
The answer to their prayers was gene technology. Mention gene technology in former times in connection with growing crops more efficiently and eating the food derived from these crops you would have received a bloody nose from the natural food activists. …
Just let’s call it a vaccine — everyone knows how safe they are. Conflating brand new and untried technology with safe and reliable traditional concepts — no problem!
But there is a problem. The old concepts of dead or attenuated viruses as vaccines — classical vaccine technology — we have had decades of experience both in their biology and manufacture. Annually the general population are offered ‘flu vaccines — few are concerned about their safety, and rightly. Not too much concern either as to their efficacy, but who cares if they are safe. …
These new gene-based ‘vaccines’ are working in a completely novel way — nothing remotely resembling that of traditional vaccines. Given that pharmaceutical companies work competitively it was also somewhat of a surprise they took the same approach of targeting what has been termed the ‘spike protein’ of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This protein is nasty — sometimes being referred to as a ‘pathogenic protein’ — and is recognised as causing many of the awful pathologies associated with the disease of COVID-19.
The spike protein itself is the problem:
Logically you would inactivate or at least attenuate this nasty spike protein and develop a vaccine around the attenuated virus. But that’s not what was done. These ‘vaccines’ do not contain any of the offending virus at all but rather the gene sequence that causes the nasty spike protein to be made in the body.
We have little idea how much of this nasty protein is produced or for how long it lasts after an injection of the gene sequence. Furthermore, stimulating the body’s own complex biological systems to produce the spike protein will mean that the amount of protein produced will vary from person to person.
The idea is that the spike protein produced by the gene encoding it elicits a response by our immune system to produce antibodies directed against the spike. When the wild virus comes along and infects us the antibodies recognise the spike protein and attack it thus preventing its nasty effects. And it does, though as we have since learnt this approach isn’t very good at preventing infection or stopping its transmission….
It is now known the beneficial effects on antibody production wane after a few weeks and months and there is a need for booster injections …
Based on the strategy outlined above you would predict that the spike protein being produced by the gene-based ‘vaccine’ as having a toxicology profile not dissimilar to what is seen when infected by the virus. And indeed, that’s just what the data tell us. The side-effect reporting systems in the USA and U.K. show unequivocally that these “vaccines” are an order of magnitude greater of adverse effects than conventional vaccines.
Qualitatively, the side effect profile is consistent with what we might expect from our knowledge of the biological (pharmacology and toxicology) properties of the spike protein. To claim that the side effects are rare and mild is highly misleading. They are indeed what one might expect to see in sensitive patients.
Then there is the crucial question of what we cannot possibly know at this point — that is of their long-term safety. Again, there are good scientific reasons why these injections might interfere with other vital body systems. It is not good enough to dismiss them as theoretical scaremongering. It is down to the manufacturer and regulatory authorities to address these issues experimentally and to demonstrate there are no reasons to be concerned. In my view, all the regulatory authorities around the world, including our own MHRA, have failed the general public who would expect that they question every aspect of the safety of medicines, especially when it comes down to the assessment of medicines designed not to treat disease but to prevent disease in otherwise healthy people. When it comes to safety it is surely unacceptable to hide behind ’emergency powers’ of Government and indemnifying the manufacturer from causing harm. To all intents and purposes, it looks like a collusion of the Government regulators and the pharmaceutical industry …
No testing, just more shots:
They are not vaccines in the conventional sense. They are injections of a laboratory synthesised gene sequence — what in previous decades we would have called a new chemical entity (NCE). Furthermore, they are being given, not as a single dose, but because of their limited efficacy as repeated injections – called boosters. On the hoof, it seems, it is decided that extra doses must be given. How can this possibly be unless supported by the appropriate safety studies? …
The dose is all over the place, which is bound to cause problems:
The recognised father of toxicology is the 16th century Swiss physician Paracelsus who famously said: “Solely the dose determines that a thing is not a poison.” He was of course referring to medicines.
No one can yet tell me what the dose is of the active moiety generated in the body by these gene-based ‘vaccines’. If we don’t know the dose, how can we possibly judge the efficacy and importantly the safety of these ‘vaccines’? …
In my view, technocracy has trumped the sound principles, established over decades and centuries, of basic medical practice, immunology, virology, pharmaceutical sciences and public health generally.
In the process, political democracy, personal freedoms, free speech and choice have been dangerously sidelined and even censored.