mRNA Injections Turn Bodies of Covid-Vaxxed into ‘Vaccine Factories,’ Study Warns
A disturbing new study has revealed that the bodies of people who received Covid mRNA injections have become “vaccine factories.”
The researchers behind the study determined that “Injected individuals may produce variable amounts of spike protein for variable durations of time.”
The chilling peer-reviewed study was co-authored by world-renowned American cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough.
The study’s paper was published in the prestigious Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
The researchers detail the genetic-modification mechanisms of the Covid mRNA “vaccines.”
They conclude by calling for a global ban on administering the injections.
The research was conducted via analysis of data and reports reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The data and reports were previously used to license the Pfizer Covid shots for public use.
The data was attained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
However, the study uncovered alarmingly incomplete testing during the injection’s development.
In the “Conclusion” section of the study’s paper, the researchers write:
“For any other medicinal product, the regulatory submission would have been considered incomplete and most probably rejected.
“Therefore, a moratorium on the use of Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines and boosters should be enacted at minimum, but ideally, they should be removed from the market and their use in humans should be stopped.
“It should be the responsibility of the pharmaceutical industry, not independent scientists, to determine whether a medical intervention is safe.
“Based upon Pfizer/BioNTech’s data, safety of their COVID-19 modRNA vaccine has not been proven.”
The researchers began by describing the pathologies of the mRNA “vaccine.”
They note that mRNA (messenger RNA) would be more accurately referred to as modified messenger RNA or modRNA.
The researchers also discuss the alternative adenovirus vector vaccines.
They effectively describe the mRNA shots as genetic manipulation technology.
The study focused on the Pfizer mRNA vaccine (as it analyzed the Pfizer documents).
However, the researchers note that the genetic modification mechanisms would assumably apply to the Moderna mRNA vaccines as well as the Astra Zeneca and Johnson & Johnson adenovirus vector vaccines.
In the “Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 Vaccine” section of the paper, the researchers explain:
“Traditional vaccines contain a target antigen at known concentrations from the pathogen (which can be live attenuated, inactivated, or a subunit of the pathogen) in conjunction with an adjuvant.
“Together the antigen and adjuvant produce an immune response.
“This is not the case with the COVID-19 modRNA (e.g. Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna), and the adenovirus vector (e.g. Astra Zeneca) vaccines.
“These newer ‘vaccines’ are similar to a ‘prodrug’ as they use the body’s own cells to produce the viral spike protein in vivo at levels that vary greatly.
“Prodrugs have no intrinsic activity to elicit a pharmacological response (in this case formation of antibodies) on their own, but give instructions to the ribosomes on how to produce the ‘active drug’ (i.e., spike protein).
“Pfizer/BioNTech’s modRNA vaccines have a pronounced pharmacological phase that is then followed by an immunological phase to produce the immune response.”
The researchers also highlight that regulators misleadingly classify this exotic technology as a “vaccine” and not a gene therapy.
Because of this misclassification, the injections skirted the regulatory guidelines for gene therapy products.
In the “Regulatory Guidelines for RNA Therapeutics” section, they write:
“…the COVID-19 modRNA vaccines are not classified as gene therapy products, whereas an mRNA vaccine against a non-infectious disease such as cancer is not classified as a mRNA vaccine, but as a gene therapy product.
“Therefore, nucleic acid vaccines against infectious diseases were specifically excluded from regulatory guidelines for gene therapy products.
“This has caused the WHO 2005 guidelines to be used for the nonclinical assessment of the COVID-19 modRNA vaccines.
“It is a regulatory requirement for manufacturers of a gene therapy product to determine the structure, concentration, and biodistribution of the protein that has been coded for produced in-vivo.
“However, that was not the case for Pfizer/BioNTech’s BNT162b2, as it was misclassified as a traditional vaccine.”
The researchers explain that the injections effectively make the bodies of the injected “vaccine factories.”
As a result, the “efficiency” of the various bodies in producing the Covid spike protein is variable.
In the “Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 Vaccine” section, they note:
“Injected individuals may produce variable amounts of spike protein for variable durations of time based on their genetics, age, hormonal and nutritional state, athletic condition, and batch of vaccine they receive.”
Research into this fact has not been conducted.
This type of research would likely need to be conducted on every single person who received the gene therapy “vaccine” because the effects are tailored to the individual’s own biological profile.
In the “Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 Vaccine” section, the researchers add:
“Studies to investigate these factors were never performed in the preclinical and clinical phases of development.
“Therefore, BNT162b2 is not like any other vaccine that has ever been used successfully.
“The innate immune response is initially targeted against the spike protein, which is bound to the vaccinee’s own cells rather than to the invading pathogen.”
Vaccine makers did not conduct safety studies on the spike proteins produced by the vaccinated individual’s bodies.
In the “A Review of Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 modRNA Vaccine Submission Data” section, the researchers note:
“By not performing pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of the encoded spike protein produced from the modRNA, which was already known to be toxic via natural SARS-CoV-2 infection, the regulatory submission is incomplete.
“Thus, the nonclinical safety studies were designed to provide data that was insufficient for such a new type of ‘vaccine’.”
In addition, Pfizer did not study where these spike proteins ended up in the bodies of recipients.
In the “Toxicology Studies Extracted from Pfizer/BioNTech’s BNT162b2 Module 2.4. Nonclinical Overview” section, they write:
“Pfizer/BioNTech had no idea how much of the spike protein is generated in vivo, or where it subsequently distributes within the human body.
“Moreover, Pfizer/BioNTech assumed that the modRNA vaccine resides at the injection site, concluding there is no need to measure the spike protein in the blood.
“This conclusion is incorrect based upon Pfizer/BioNTech’s own biodistribution study data that appeared following the FDA emergency use authorization, in which it was demonstrated that LNPs were distributed to a variety of tissues likely mediated via LNPs entering the bloodstream.
However, Pfizer did study the biodistribution of a marker protein, luciferase, which the shots also encoded for.
Yet, this was apparently not conclusive to determine spike protein biodistribution.
In the “Toxicology Studies Extracted from Pfizer/BioNTech’s BNT162b2 Module 2.4. Nonclinical Overview” section, they add:
“Although no traditional pharmacokinetic or biodistribution studies were performed with BNT162b2 specifically, or the final modRNA/LNP formulation used clinically, Pfizer/BioNTech did conduct a nonclinical study in which biodistribution was assessed using luciferase as a surrogate marker protein since it was assumed that changing the coding sequence of the mRNA was unlikely to affect its biodistribution or physicochemical properties.
“However, differences between the luciferase reporter RNA and BNT162b2 nucleosides (i.e., modRNA) could potentially affect stability or persistence of the measured signal since spike protein has a longer half-life than luciferase.”
During regular vaccine trials, testing for genotoxic (damage to genetics) and carcinogenic (cancer-causing potential) is conducted.
However, genotoxic and carcinogenic testing were carried out for the Covid mMA injections.
In the “Toxicology Studies Extracted from Pfizer/BioNTech’s BNT162b2 Module 2.4. Nonclinical Overview” section, the researchers state:
“Although BNT162b2 might not expected to have genotoxic or carcinogenic potential, the encoded spike protein that is produced does.
“Therefore, these studies should have been performed. They were not.”
Interestingly, the researchers also found several holes in Pfizer’s testing.
Specifically, information was missing regarding toxicological studies on the Covid injections.
The researchers add:
“Also, Section 2.4.4.6. Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity shows that these studies were performed using Wistar Han™ rats, a rodent species that is totally inappropriate for toxicology studies.
“A more relevant species should have been chosen for the toxicity studies on the developing pups.
“In addition, the distribution of the spike protein in the tissues of both the mother and pups would have provided much-needed information as to whether BNT162b2 is suitable to administer to pregnant women and mothers who are breastfeeding.
“Furthermore, male rats were not studied, and data on male fertility is unknown. Moreover, it has recently been documented that the modRNA may predispose otherwise healthy individuals to cancer.”
