The suppressed science of the mRNA injection

Here's the data which must be ignored for the 'everything is fine' paradigm to remain intact.

History is the documented record of humans being wrong. If there’s any progress to be made at all, it’s in slowly and methodically becoming less wrong as each year goes by. There are so many instances of widely accepted beliefs being overturned that it would elude our ability to count. From the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe to the more recent realization that popular medicines like Vioxx and thalidomide had serious, undisclosed risks.

It's not easy to confront the possibility that something we've been told is safe and effective may have hidden dangers, especially when that something was given to perhaps 75% of the population.

The pandemic was a time of great uncertainty and fear, and the rapid development and rollout of the vaccines brought hope to millions. Trusting in the authorities and the medical community was a natural and understandable response. Most of us had no reason to believe that the overwhelming influence of the pharmaceutical industry could distort the response so drastically, but even before the pandemic, that evidence was under the government’s nose.

It's crucial that we remain open to new information and willing to ask difficult questions. In the case of Covid-19 vaccines, there is now a very solid body of evidence that suggests the risks may have been downplayed and the benefits oversold. While it may be uncomfortable to consider, we owe it to ourselves and to those who have been harmed to examine this evidence with an open mind. In identifying exactly where and how this botched response emerged, I believe we may also find solutions to the problem.

Well-intentioned people and institutions can make mistakes, and that the best way to move forward is by confronting uncomfortable truths and working together to find solutions.

In the spirit of informed consent and open debate, let's take a closer look at the evidence that raises concerns about the mRNA vaccine safety. In 2024 there’s so much that you would have to ignore so that this thorny issue never dislodges your current perspective. This article, I hope, will illuminate some of that data. As ever, if this is useful to you or others, please forward it, share it, or post it online.

I think it’s best to start with what’s happening now, rather than the the trickle of brave people who spoke out years ago, because in 2024 the taboo over this issue has really started to lift. However, to keep your perspective intact, you’d have to ignore a meticulous and peer-reviewed study from Japan that found a statistically significant excess mortality in cancers in 2021 and 2022. You’d have to ignore the researchers who made their case with 100 references to supporting literature and concluded “increases in mortality rates of these cancers may be attributable to several mechanisms of the mRNA-LNP vaccination”

You’d have to ignore the near identical trendline found by Edward Dowd in UK and USA data. Dowd is a quant for top tier investment firms, his life’s work is in collating and analysing data that gives investment firms an edge on the market. Perhaps you saw or heard his discoveries, but you’d have to ignore them, assume it’s wrong, or attribute the rise to some as yet unidentified thing. The z-scores on this trend are as high as 15.0, leading Dowd to conclude “from 2021 onwards, a novel phenomenon leading to increased neoplasm deaths appears to be present in individuals aged 15 to 44 in the US.”

Data presented by Edward Dowd on the rise in cancer in USA data

You’d also have to ignore a recent review paper which investigates how the modified mRNA vaccine’s specific chemical properties “inhibit essential immunological pathways” ultimately stimulating the growth of cancer. You’d have to ignore their strange warning that “mRNA vaccines do not cause cancer; but they could stimulate its development.”

You’d have to ignore that this chimes exactly with the warnings of a top oncologist in the UK: Professor Angus Dalgleish. At the top of his profession after a forty year career, he sounded the alarm on this exact issue of cancer relapse following mRNA vaccination. “I was seeing melanoma patients who had been stable for years relapse after their first booster. I was told it was merely a coincidence and to keep quiet about it, but it became impossible to do so. The number of my patients affected has been rising ever since.” It’s likely you never heard about this because journalists at the BBC and The Guardian, just entirely ignored everything Dalgliesh had to say, despite happily using him as a source before to the pandemic. Having never heard from Dalgliesh, you were certain to have missed his colleagues from around the world who reported seeing the exact same thing.

You would also have to pay no attention to the multiple case studies of this issue of relapsed or rapidly developing cancer in the medical literature. The 150 case studies attesting to this insight would have to remain buried in the literature, never to be discovered.

Reports of side effects of vaccines to the VAERS system

You may have heard of the unprecedented surge in side effects reported to the US VAERS system, but you’d be perhaps be unconcerned by it. As such, you didn’t notice that the same pattern is found in the UK side effect reporting system. You’d didn’t see the 2,500,000 VAERS reports, but when pressed on it, you might say that causation hasn’t been established so the reports aren’t relevant. In that spirit, that more deaths were reported about the mRNA vaccine than every other vaccine combined over the past 30 years, could be easily swept aside.

You’d be content for anyone using the CDC’s early warning system to issue early warnings about the mRNA product being labelled an anti-vaxxer, even when the graph, which you can see above, screams ‘warning’.

Because VAERS data was successfully dodged, it’s possible you didn’t actively look for scientific literature that might illuminate the tidal wave of VAERS reports. As such, you wouldn’t have seen that there’s in excess of 3,500 case studies published in the medical literature that attest to the side effects reported in VAERS, so you wouldn’t know that there is evidence of causation. Across all those case reports, the sample size is now around 17,000 people.

All of those papers needed authors, and most of those papers had multiple authors. All of them are medical professionals. It would be absurd to label upwards of 8,000 medical professionals as anti-vaxxers, so if you engaged with this medical literature you might have to accept that there could be a legitimate scientific discussion and that it’s not just a torrent of ‘misinformation’. As such, perhaps you adopted a strategy of avoiding the medical literature entirely, then labelling any questions people had as ‘misinformation and spin’

In that spirit, you’d have missed a recent editorial published in the Australian Journal of General Practice that said “COVID-19 vaccination might contribute to long COVID”. If you did somehow hear it, you might be quite shocked because it’s likely you weren’t aware that many doctors have been exploring this for a long time. You’d wouldn’t have read that a “possible association between COVID-19 vaccination and the incidence of POTS has been demonstrated in a cohort of 284,592 COVID-19-vaccinated individuals.” You’d have missed the very strong evidence for immune dysregulation post mRNA vaccination, in which “recipients of two or more injections of the mRNA vaccines display a class switch to IgG4 antibodies. Abnormally high levels of IgG4 might cause autoimmune diseases, promote cancer growth, autoimmune myocarditis and other IgG 4-related diseases”

You’d have to ignore that the people publishing this literature were not just anti-vaxxers full of misinformation and spin, but Nobel Prize winning scientists like the discoverer of HIV, Luc Montagnier. Before he died, he published a paper arguing that “11.38 days after a Pfizer, Moderna,or AstraZeneca COVID-19 injection….we believe it is correct to infer that the injections caused the disease in these 26 cases." You’d have to ignore his perspective that the vaccination campaign was an “enormous mistake”.

You’d have to ignore the prospective study from Thailand looking at adolescents (n=301) where, following mRNA vaccination, “cardiovascular manifestations were found in 29.24% of patients, ranging from tachycardia or palpitation to myopericarditis. Myopericarditis was confirmed in one patient after vaccination. Two patients had suspected pericarditis and four patients had suspected subclinical myocarditis.”

To keep the perspective that there’s no problem, you’d have to discard the entire prospective study. The study, which included MRI scans confirming these diagnosis, must be a fluke because it just couldn’t be that post vaccine induced myocarditis could be confirmed inside a cohort of only 301 teenagers. That 54 of the 301 patients had symptoms consistent with heart issues, including seven patients with “elevated biomarkers or positive lab assessments”, would therefore be thrown out with the rest of the study.

But this is real, because the Thai government have already started paying out on the damage. As such, you’d have to ignore that as of September 2021, the Thai Government had already paid out in more than 4,600 vaccine injury claims, and by March of the following year, that number had grown to more than 12,000 people. This alone would ordinarily be enough to conclusively demonstrate there’s a problem, but it’s almost certain that if you aren’t actively supporting independent journalists, you’d never have heard about it until just now.

MRI scans from the Thailand study which confirmed a myocarditis case in a cohort of 300

You’d have to ignore that these results were replicated in a very similar study from Switzerland published in the European Journal of Heart Failure.

“Among 777 participants who received a COVID-19 mRNA-1273 booster vaccination, 40 (5.1%) had an elevated high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) concentration on day 3, of whom 22 (2.8%) were adjudicated as mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated myocardial injury.”

You would, again, have to assume this finding was wrong, that the investigators incompetent, and that the replication didn’t matter. The rate of injury simply couldn’t be that high. You’d have to put your fingers in your ears when the lead author, Prof. Dr. Christian Müller states “there is slight heart muscle cell damage at just under three percent, which should not be overestimated, but should not be ignored either.”

3% with slight heart muscle cell damage. It’s worth deeply considering that finding.

You’d have to ignore a third replication of this data, this time from Taipei City and published in The European Journal of Pediatrics. It found that among 4928 school children studied, “763 students (17.1%) had at least one cardiac symptom after the second (Pfizer) vaccine dose, mostly chest pain and palpitations… Abnormal ECGs were obtained in 51 (1.0%) of the students, of which 1 was diagnosed with mild myocarditis and another 4 were judged to have significant arrhythmia.”

Having ignored three independent studies, to keep your perspective as it was, you would need to point to a Pfizer study released years after it was promised. You’d have to take its findings at face value, that “no clinically significant differences in percentages of participants with elevated troponin levels before and after BNT162b2 or placebo were observed” despite this finding directly contradicting the three independent studies released before it. You couldn’t investigate what “clinically significant differences” actually means. You’d have to remain untroubled by the study being entirely paid for by Pfizer, and you’d have to be comfortable with all of the authors having major conflicts of interest.

The absurd conflict of interest statement from a Pfizer study

To remain confident in Pfizer’s data, you would have to actively avoid any conversation about Brook Jackson. You couldn’t come to know about this pivotal whistleblower case, reported in the British Medical Journal, which showed that Pfizer botched the mRNA trial. If you were forced to listen to Brook Jackson, you could adopt a tactic of seeing it as a single bad apple, despite her raising the alarm at 153 of the trial sites. You’d have to remain untroubled by evidence that Pfizer’s investigators changed the diagnosis on trial participant’s records. In light of all the things you’ve read about so far, you would have to avoid recognising that this botched trial is a very solid hypothesis for how these safety issues weren’t picked up at trial or by the regulators.

You’d have to forget that Pfizer have a well documented history of dodging regulations and mis-marketing their products. As such, you’d have missed the forensic analysis of the original Pfizer mRNA vaccine study which found no all cause mortality benefit between the two very large cohorts. You wouldn’t have seen that on closer examination, independent analysts found “there was a 3.7-fold increase in cardiac deaths in the vaccinated group compared to placebo.” If someone told you about that study, you might dismiss it out of hand, because it’s not possible that regulators could have missed that.

As such, you might need to throw these researchers under the bus and claim they don’t know what they’re talking about. To do this, you’d have to defend Pfizer who hold the record for the largest criminal healthcare fraud in history, in a remarkably similar case where they deliberately misled the regulators over their product. That this might have happened again, when hundreds of billions of dollars were the goal, is too scary to consider. Feeling a little conflicted, perhaps a little horrified, it’s possible you’d maintain that the independent researchers are unqualified and the regulators would have seen it. You wouldn’t be concerned that during the pandemic, the UK drug regulator proudly announced they were changing strategy; ‘from watchdog to enabler’.

With the lesser known researchers cast aside, what happens if top tier medical professionals start making the same case? Peter Doshi, an associate editor at the British Medical Journal, tried to point out that none of the mRNA vaccine trials were “designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospitalisations, intensive care use, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.” Since you hadn’t heard Doshi explain this in October 2020, you may have been surprised to learn about it two years later, when an EU politician forced Pfizer to admit it on the record: the vaccines weren’t designed to stop transmission.

By this time, the vast majority of the developed world had received their mRNA vaccine. Having heard it from Pfizer themselves, perhaps you remodelled your understanding of the vaccine proposition, you had always known that the vaccines weren’t designed to stop transmission. How this new model fits with the relentless propaganda campaign that endlessly claimed the exact opposite would have to remain unresolved. Perhaps you could excuse it by believing the ends justifies the means.

Taken from an official NHS tweet archived here

Having missed Peter Doshi the first time around, you almost certainly didn’t hear him the second time round when he published a re-analysis of Pfizer’s trial data. It turned out that even in the original data there was “a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the [Pfizer] vaccine group.” Even with all the conflicts of interest and diagnosis swapping, Pfizer still couldn’t hide how poorly their product performed on safety. Doshi and his team found that the you were more likely to get a serious side effect from the vaccine than you were to benefit from a reduced risk to Covid-19.

That this truth had existed in plain sight all along is indeed a lot to absorb.

Here we are, years later, with overwhelming evidence that we have a serious problem, and the cultural backstop just won’t budge. Believing that any of what I just told you holds any significance whatsoever is still broadly considered as a tin-foil hat conspiracy. Without any honest exploration of the data at all, this is still proudly called ‘misinformation and spin’ by health professors.

Most of us played a role in constructing this behemoth, so most of us have some responsibility in taking it apart. Whatever happened, we’ll be in a much stronger position once we acknowledge that it happened, and that people were unnecessarily injured and killed. Only then can we can reduce the risk of it happening again, and we may even find solutions in things we used to discard. Many of the people harmed by these products might not be aware that the mRNA vaccine may have played a role.

Comments are open, if you liked this article please consider a paid subscription. Shares are most welcome.