What Covid vaccine manufacturers did not check

Informed consent for unknown risks

The critical importance of informed consent for vaccines was addressed by attorney Aaron Siri during a presentation to members of the Novel Coronavirus Southwestern Intergovernmental Committee of the Arizona State Senate. The committee members were intent on learning how to respond to future pandemic countermeasures. Siri explained that informed consent doesn’t mean just knowing the potential benefits of a medicine, “vaccine” or procedure, but also means knowing and understanding all the risks involved, including the risk of unknown adverse events which may only be revealed years after testing began and/or when administered on a large scale.

Not tested, not known

The potential unknown risks of vaccines were the subject of a December 2023 paper by independent researchers K. Acevedo-Whitehouse and R. Bruno.[fn] Acevedo-Whitehouse, K., and R. Bruno. “Potential Health Risks of mrna-based vaccine therapy: A hypothesis.” Medical Hypotheses, vol. 171, 25 Jan. 2023, p. 111015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2023.111015  [/fn]

The findings rang alarm bells for the two researchers who were specifically disturbed by the many important aspects of mRNA vaccine actions that had not been investigated by the manufacturers. As they explained:

The safety profile of nucleoside-modified synthetic mRNA (hereafter, nms-mRNA) is far from completely understood. (Emphases dded.)

Trials, they said, were not conducted to evaluate many of the ways that mRNA injections: act once in the body. This means that some very basic antigen actions are never examined before the manufacturers (and the FDA) determine that the vaccine is “safe and effective.” Here are some of the antigen actions that the authors highlighted as “overlooked” in the trials:

1. biodistribution – “where compounds of interest travel in an experimental animal or human subject”,[fn]Although not demanded by the FDA or published in medical journals, Dr. Byram Bridle had obtained the biodistribution study from the Japanese regulatory agency, which did require it of Pfizer. The study demonstrated that the vaccine material traveled through the body and lodged in many different organs and it, especially, accumulated in the ovaries. (“Pfizer Report_japanese Government.Pdf.” DocDroid, www.docdroid.net/xq0Z8B0/pfizer-report-japanese-government-pdf#page=16)[/fn]
2. cellular uptake – “the uptake of a molecule into a cell through its plasma membrane,”
3. endosomal escape – “the process that enables lipid-nanoparticles to get to the proper place in the cell,”
4. translation rates – the rate at which “the process in living cells in which proteins are produced using RNA molecules as templates” occurs,
5. functional half-life – “the time required for a quantity (of substance) to reduce to half of its initial value,”
6. inactivation kinetics of synthetic mRNA – the rate at which the synthetic mRNA is inactivated 
7. rates and duration of vaccine-induced antigen expression – referring to “the role of a particular antigen in the life-cycle of a cell”, and
8. potential interactions with the host genome – how the antigen interacts with the individual receiving the injection.

No genetic or oncogenic studies have ever been done!

One of the major safety concerns that the researchers shared was the possibility that the nms-mRNA, the modifications made to the vaccine mRNA “will ultimately lead to epigenetic and/or genomic modifications . . .” 

They went on to state that, to their knowledge, no studies of possible epigenetic, genotoxic (damage to the genes), or oncogenic (cancer-causing) effects had been conducted before the rollout of the synthetic mRNA vaccines.

Studies to determine the possibility that a vaccine may cause cancer, genetic mutations, or harm to fertility aren’t done for traditional vaccines either (in rare cases, fertility impact may be partially assessed in mice). Section 13 of all vaccine package inserts clarifies this point for those who read the inserts. The following image of Section 13 is from the MMR vaccine package insert. 

Conclusory safety statements

Acevedo-Whitehouse and Bruno stated that the studies they reviewed asserting the safety of the vaccines did not include the scientific evidence needed to back up their claims:

A thorough review of the peer-reviewed literature on synthetic mRNA vaccine safety shows that all papers mention high levels of safety without providing any citation, or that they provide a citation for a recent review study [22], which states that . . .  there is “no potential risk of [..] or insertional mutagenesis”, without providing any scientific evidence to back this claim. In fact, not one of the 38 studies cited in that review paper to show a list of the mRNA vaccines available for in vivo preclinical use, had investigated genotoxicity or potential oncogenesis. Similarly, for all of the eight mRNA vaccines that were undergoing or had completed human clinical trials cited [22], no such studies had been conducted. (Emphasis added.)

The one peer-reviewed study they did find that was conducted during the 14 months following vaccine authorization showed that vaccine nms-mRNA can initiate a process that allows the vaccine material to enter the cell nucleus through a process called revere transcription, turning RNA into DNA. They hypothesize that this could lead to autoinflammatory and autoimmune conditions, mutations in tumor suppressor genes, and sustained DNA damage.

Consequently, they were unequivocal in asserting (in their introduction) their contention that individuals must be provided such information to be able to give full informed consent for vaccines. 

They concluded:

If our hypothesis were to be confirmed, the implications for public health would be staggering and appalling in the context of the mass-scale COVID-19 vaccination already taking place, particularly if the nms-mRNA enters brain [82], bone marrow [84], and – if already present in the vaccinee – cancerous or pre-cancerous cells [143], or if the vaccine is administered to females early in their pregnancy and the nms-mRNA transfects embryonic cells . . . Knowledge gained from these studies will be crucial for understanding, beyond unproven assumptions, the safety of mRNA vaccines and mRNA-based therapies on human health. (Emphasis added.).

Synthetic mRNA vaccines produce unintended proteins - but don't worry unless you're a cancer patient

Another study was published in early December 2023 on the unintended effects of synthetic mRNA vaccines. As reported by Science writer Gretchen Vogel,[fn] Vogel, Gretchen. “MRNA Vaccines May Make Unintended Proteins, but There’s No ... - Science.” Science, 6 Dec. 2023, www.science.org/content/article/mrna-vaccines-may-make-unintended-proteins-there-s-no-evidence-harm [/fn] the injections “may unexpectedly prompt cells to produce small amounts of unintended proteins,” which they say hasn’t harmed anyone.  

This occurs, Vogel explained, when the ribosomes, which form actual proteins from the mRNA code, slip in a process called “frameshifting” and do not read the code properly. When this happens naturally, inactive proteins are produced which are broken down by the cell. Researchers wanted to know if this was more common with the modified mRNA used in the vaccines. 

In this case, researchers found that blood samples of 30% of study volunteers who received the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine showed an immunologic response to the protein while none of the blood samples from the AstraZeneca volunteers did. While volunteers hadn’t noticed any effects from the shifted proteins, researchers are concerned that frameshifting could negatively affect cancer patients receiving targeted mRNA therapy and believe they have a solution to the problem.

Never actually tested for stopping transmission

The most well-known example, perhaps, of things not studied was one of the most basic aspects of a vaccine - its ability to stop transmission. That the Pfizer vaccine was never tested for its ability to stop transmission was eventually admitted to by Pfizer executive Janine Small, during an interrogation by the COVID Committee of the European Parliament in October 2022 investigating the vaccines:[fn] Chung, Frank. “Pfizer Did Not Know Whether Covid Vaccine Stopped Transmission before Rollout, Executive Admits.” News.Com.Au, 13 Oct. 2022, www.news.com.au/technology/science/human-body/pfizer-did-not-know-whether-covid-vaccine-stopped-transmission-before-rollout-executive-admits/news-story/f307f28f794e173ac017a62784fec414  [/fn]

“Regarding the question around, um, did we know about stopping the immunisation before it entered the market? No, heh,” she said.

“Uh, these, um, you know, we had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market, and from that point of view we had to do everything at risk. I think Dr Bourla, even though he’s not here, would turn around and say to you himself, ‘If not us then who?’”

Hear her as she testifies before the committee:

It should be YOUR choice

Aaron Siri, in his presentation to the senators, proposed six questions to ask before deciding whether to consent to a vaccine or not and explained in detail his reasoning. It should be your choice, he said. Two of the questions he suggested asking are: 

Does the manufacturer stand behind the product? 

Did its clinical trial prove it was safe?

Watch Siri’s presentation to the senators, below, to find out more about being informed before giving your consent to any vaccine for you or your child.