.jpg)
As discussed in a previous article,
“mRNA vaccines” are not made with messenger RNA but with modified RNA
(modRNA). These so-called vaccines are actually gene therapy products
(GTPs), as modRNA hijacks our cells’ software. We have no possibility at
all to gain influence on modRNA (or saRNA) after it has been injected.
What Distinguishes saRNA From modRNA?
The term “self-amplifying” is self-explanatory: saRNA replicates itself repeatedly, which is not natural, as natural mRNA is always (without exception) transcribed from DNA (this is called the “central dogma of molecular biology”).
Compared to modRNA, a small amount of saRNA results in an increased amount of produced antigen; one shot of saRNA-based injection may be enough to generate sufficient antibodies against a virus.
Both saRNA and modRNA represent the blueprint for a viral protein, which, after entering our cells, will be produced by our cell machinery (i.e., ribosomes).
Scientists created the genetically modified modRNA sequence by replacing natural uridines with synthetic methyl-pseudouridines to generate a maximum amount of viral antigen. This modification is the basis of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 shots.
Unlike modRNA, saRNA does not contain methyl-pseudouridines, but uridines. Why? Since saRNA self-replicates and synthetic methyl-pseudouridines are not available in our cells, saRNA must rely on natural uridines that exist in our cells. Our cells will produce foreign proteins using their own cell machinery and their own natural resources—the main reason these cells finally become exhausted.
However, this causes a significant problem: mRNA is highly unstable and, therefore, has only a short lifespan—too short for our immune system to produce sufficient antibodies. The solution to this problem is the second difference between modRNA and saRNA.
Unlike modRNA, saRNA contains an additional sequence for the replicase, as destroyed (by RNases) saRNA must be replaced by new saRNA.
As natural mRNA will never self-replicate, saRNA definitely represents a genetically modified RNA (modRNA).
Put simply, saRNA is just another type of modRNA.
Why the Change to saRNA?
saRNA is the political solution: the same amount (or even more) of antigen in only one shot! The public will likely be told that due to the regular mutations of the virus, yearly adapted boosters will continue to be necessary.
Numerous preclinical and clinical studies applying saRNA technology have already been undertaken. A 2023 review in the journal Pathogens touts saRNA vaccines as “improved mRNA vaccines.” The journal Vaccines published a summary of five years of saRNA study findings. Once the requisite clinical studies are finished, these new vaccines can be approved for use. It can be expected that this process will be as quick as it was for the COVID-19 vaccines. The approval process will become simpler, as it could be argued that the technique (modRNA in lipid nanoparticles) is already approved and that only the modRNA sequence is different. Hence, these new saRNA vaccines could be injected into an unsuspecting public at any time.
While BioNTech performed experiments with saRNA (BNT162c2) but finally focused on modRNA (BNT162b2), Arcturus Therapeutics was the first to announce (in 2022) that its COVID-19 saRNA vaccine candidate ARCT-154—now the most advanced saRNA vaccine in trials—meets the primary efficacy endpoint in a phase-3 study.
In the Arcturus Therapeutics study, participants received two doses, each containing 5 micrograms of saRNA. This is far less than the modRNA concentrations used by Pfizer-BioNTech (30 micrograms/shot) and Moderna (100 micrograms/shot).
saRNA Injections Will Not Solve the Problems With modRNA Injections
As we discovered with modRNA, the spike protein is poisonous to our bodies. We know that modRNA results in the production of more spike protein than would be available during a natural infection, and we know that repeated boosters cause immune tolerance.
Compared to modRNA, a small amount of saRNA results in an increased amount of produced antigen.
The “dose” of viral antigen that current and future RNA-based vaccines bring about will show large fluctuations from one individual to the next, depending on the cell type producing the desired antigen, genetic predisposition, medical history, and other factors. This fact alone should prohibit the use of RNA-based injections as vaccines for healthy people.
Another Dubious Step Forward: From Linear to Circular saRNA
As RNA-degrading enzymes (RNases) are known to act from both ends of linear RNA, scientists tried to prevent these enzymes from doing their natural duty—degrading mRNAs that are no longer needed—and created circular RNA. This resulted in increased stability and translation efficiency, followed by the production of an increased amount of the desired antigen.
But is this really another step forward? Consider the negative effect of long-lasting antigen presentation. Due to increased antigen levels, one injection of saRNA—whether linear or circular—may cause adverse events comparable with repeated (booster) injections of modRNA.
Long-Term Presentation of an Antigen Is Known to Cause Immune Tolerance
After getting vaccinated, our bodies generate antibodies, mostly immunoglobulin G (IgG), including IgG1 and IgG4.
Vaccinated individuals show an antibody class switch starting with the third COVID-19 injection (the first booster). This is from inflammatory IgG1 antibodies (that fight the spike protein) to non-inflammatory IgG4 antibodies (that tolerate the spike protein). Elevated levels of IgG4 antibodies, in the long run, will exhaust the immune system, causing immune tolerance. This may explain COVID-19 “breakthrough” infections, reduced immune response to other viral and bacterial infections, and reactivation of latent viral infections. It may also cause autoimmune diseases and uncontrolled growth of cancer.
Notably, long-term IgG4 responses have been significantly associated with RNA-based injections, while individuals with a COVID-19 infection prior to vaccination exhibited no increased IgG4 levels, even when they received a shot after the infection.
This observation clearly discredits the World Health Organization’s policy that—assuming people have no immunity against novel viruses (completely ignoring the reality of cross-immunity)—people should be vaccinated before they come into contact with the virus.
RNA-Based Injections Are Recognized as Gene Therapy Products
Incomprehensibly, RNA-based injections for protecting against infectious diseases were named “vaccines,” which allowed exclusion from the strict regulations for gene therapy products (GTPs). Again, this happened without providing the public with any scientific justification.
Details on the regulatory issues of RNA-based vaccines are reported in excellent and comprehensive reviews by Guerriaud & Kohli and Helene Banoun.
In 2014, Uğur Şahin, already CEO of BioNTech, co-wrote an article published in Nature about developing a new class of drugs, “mRNA-based therapeutics.” The authors wrote, “One would expect the classification of an mRNA drug to be a biologic, gene therapy or somatic cell therapy.”
In 2021, the author of correspondence printed in Genes & Immunity described RNA-based vaccines created by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech as “a breakthrough in the field of gene therapy” and “a great opportunity for the FDA and EMA to revise the drug development pipeline to make it more flexible and less time-consuming.”
Two disturbing pieces of information have now come to light:
- The contaminating DNA results from Pfizer-BioNTech’s change in the manufacturing process after finishing the BNT162b2 (Comirnaty) Clinical Trial C4591001. Initially (Process 1), Pfizer-BioNTech modRNA was produced by in-vitro transcription from synthetic DNA and amplified by PCR (polymerase chain reaction). However, to scale up manufacturing (see rapid responses to this BMJ study), modRNA encoding DNA was cloned into bacterial plasmids (Process 2). Put simply, the clinical trial was run on process-1 lots, but the world’s populations received process-2 lots.
This means that individuals who gave consent to be vaccinated were injected with a substance different from the one approved by regulatory agencies and to which they had consented.
- Detailed sequence analyses revealed that the plasmid-DNA in the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 shots contain a 72-base pair sequence of the Simian Virus-40 (SV40) promoter, which is well-known to enhance transport of the plasmid DNA into the nucleus.
It is now irrefutable that the RNA-based COVID-19 injections contain DNA.
RNA-based technology—especially when applied as vaccines to healthy individuals—is unjustifiable and unethical. Independent from the tragic number of adverse events or excess mortality rates, it is the technique that is the issue, and the same problems will occur in all future RNA-based “vaccines.”
- RNA-based “vaccine” technology goes against the central idea of evolution over the past millions of years. While injected modRNA and saRNA produce antigens without stopping, in fact, the short lifespan of natural messenger RNA (mRNA) is a prerequisite for healthy and specific cell functions. (The short lifespan of mRNA allows our cells to adapt as quickly as possible to changing circumstances and avoid the production of unnecessary proteins.)
- A premise of RNA-based “vaccine” technology—that all of our body cells have to produce a foreign viral protein—goes against fundamental biological principles, like distinguishing between our own cells and foreign invaders, and will result in our immune system attacking our own cells.
- RNA can be reverse-transcribed into DNA even without the presence of (the enzyme) reverse transcriptase (i.e., by LINE1 elements present in our genome/DNA). Contaminating DNA (in RNA-based vaccines) is the rule rather than the exception. As both RNA and DNA can be integrated into the human genome, the so-called “vaccines” based on RNA technology are actually gene therapy products.
It is in no way justifiable to subject RNA-based GTPs for medical use to strict controls but to exclude RNA-based GTPs, called vaccines, from these regulations even though they are intended for most of the human population. Even in an emergency, no one should be forced to be injected with any substance—least of all by politicians.
What Did COVID-19 Teach Us About Science, Politics, and Society?
For many years, scientists dreamed of manipulating human “software”—that is, DNA or RNA. Ethically, manipulating DNA has always been taboo. In retrospect, COVID-19 may represent the dawn of RNA-based “vaccines” and the end of the taboo against manipulating human DNA.
In a 2023 commentary in the Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, the authors wrote that from the earliest days of the pandemic, it was obvious that some influential scientists and their political allies demonized dissenting scientific views and evidence offering a second opinion. Despite contradictory evidence, national politicians “assured the public that they were adopting COVID-19 policies by ‘following the science.’” However, scientific consent was achieved only by suppressing scientific debate.
Remember: When questions are allowed, it is science; when they are not, it is propaganda.
So-called “experts” selected by politicians told us that we must be vaccinated to be able to fight a new respiratory virus. This contradicts the science of the human immune system. Our immune systems are dynamic and can clear a virus they have never encountered; they can also develop cross-immunity to identify variants even if the virus mutates. However, since RNA-based vaccines will produce a single antigen, our immune system is deprived of the possibility of developing cross-immunity against virus variants. This applies, in particular, to respiratory viruses exhibiting a high mutation rate. In the long run, this will lead to an increase in both the frequency and the severity of infectious diseases. Thus, politicians interested in protecting the population against future infections would be well-advised to offer health programs that strengthen the immune system before seasonal infections.
Scientists haven’t the faintest idea of how to direct modRNA or saRNA to a specific cell type or how to stop the translation of administered RNA. However, they continue to study how the stability of injected RNA and the amount of generated antigen can be further increased. The current development of RNA-based vaccine technology reminds one of the poem “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice,” which German poet Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote over 200 years ago:
“The spirits, whom I’ve careless raised, are spellbound to my power not.”
No comments:
Post a Comment