Questions Pfizer and Moderna must answer
Last week's paper showing their Covid shots cause our cells to create vast numbers of random misshapen proteins raises the question of what they knew and when they knew it. I've asked.
Imagine you were about to take the Novavax Covid jab, which consists of purified coronavirus spike protein. (I know, you’re not, but work with me.)
Now imagine that as the nurse was about to put the needle in your arm, she said, Look, the purification process wasn’t perfect, you’re getting 92 percent spike protein, but there’s 8 percent other proteins too. We don’t know exactly what they are, but we don’t think they’re a problem, so I’m just gonna go ahead, you’ll feel a little prick -
How fast are you walking away?
(And how fast are you subscribing?)
The above is not a exact analogy for what British scientists reported about the mRNA Covid jabs last week in Nature, but it’s close. (For a fuller explanation, please see the Stack I wrote earlier today.)
And I am not sure the mRNA companies will be able to ignore this issue.
For three years, Pfizer (and its partner BioNTech) and Moderna have largely stonewalled any questions about their jabs. Why wouldn’t they? They have protection from lawsuits, and the media and regulators have not just given up their responsibility as watchdogs but become close to co-promoters of the shots.
But Nature is perhaps the world’s most prestigious scientific journal. And the paper’s authors did not stint from the implications of what they’d found: these aberrant proteins may produce aberrant immune responses, perhaps causing our immune systems to attack our own tissues.
Do they? We don’t know yet. But physicians have reported many cases of post-vaccination autoimmune disease - from hepatitis to psoriatic arthritis and even Type 1 diabetes. The jabs have also been shown to cause an unexpected and rare immune response usually seen after repeated stimulation with allergens like bee venom - not vaccines.
Pfizer and Moderna must now answer questions about the mRNA’s present, future, and past:
PRESENT: Does this finding change the risk-benefit analysis of the mRNA jabs? Should regulators consider pulling them?
FUTURE: Going forward, if the Nature paper is correct, must future mRNA jabs be redesigned, as the paper’s authors suggest?
PAST: Were the companies aware of this issue before the publication of the Nature paper? That is, what did they know and when did they know it?
The last question is particularly important because mRNA companies are hyper-focused on how well their mRNA causes human cells to make target proteins. (They want to use as little mRNA as possible.)
The Nature paper suggests that nearly 10 percent of the proteins the Covid shots made were not the coronavirus spike protein - the intended target.
Could Pfizer and Moderna really have been unaware of that fact? If not, when did they discover it? And when did they disclose it to regulators?
I don’t know, so I’ve asked.
(Seven questions for Moderna. I sent almost identical batch to Pfizer. Full disclosure: I am suing two Pfizer directors, including Pfizer chairman Dr. Albert Bourla, for their role in censoring me and forcing Twitter to ban me in 2021.)
Both companies have, umm, maintained a dignified silence in response to earlier questions from me.
If that changes, you’ll be the first to know.