COVID ‘mRNA’ Vaccines Never Directly Shown to Do What They’re Claimed to Do
The claim is specific: material identified as “mRNA” is injected, and human cells allegedly produce a defined “spike” protein.
This article does not claim that nothing happens after vaccination, nor that the vial contains nothing dangerous. Biological changes, immune responses, symptoms, adverse events, and death have been reported after vaccination.
And the contents of the vial raise many serious safety questions.
The narrower question is whether the specific molecular identities claimed for the injected material and the alleged translation product have been directly established.
I found no published experiment that demonstrates either of the following:
- An intact physical molecule recovered from a finished vaccine vial, with a complete experimentally determined sequence matching the complete intended sequence.
- An intact physical product recovered from a vaccinated human, with a complete experimentally determined amino-acid sequence matching the complete intended “spike” sequence.
Which raises questions:
- Where is the complete physical sequence (not the “intended” one) of the material injected into people?
- Why is Pfizer’s “100% maximum sequence coverage” treated as proof of a complete molecule when only 55.6% was said to be uniquely assigned and the remainder depended on repeated-position assumptions?
- Where is the complete physical sequence of the product allegedly produced inside vaccinated people?
- How can one reported mass-spectrometry signal (“LDPPEAEVQIDR”) establish the identity of an entire alleged “spike” protein?
- Why is a mechanism being treated as directly demonstrated when neither the complete physical input nor the complete physical output has been directly identified?
To visualize what we’re talking about, red arrows in the electron microscopy image below point to elongated, helical-like structures that the authors said were “probably mRNA-containing fragments.”
Pfizer’s Own Account Does Not Establish the Complete Identity of the Material in the Finished Vial
Pfizer’s own 2023 BNT162b2 paper did not report a complete experimentally determined sequence of an intact physical molecule recovered from a finished vaccine vial.
The researchers said they examined drug substance they identified as vaccine “mRNA” after treating it with RNase T1.
They reported 388 detected signals from that material, then interpreted those signals by assigning them to locations in the intended reference construct.
The paper did not report a complete experimentally determined sequence of an intact physical molecule recovered from a finished vaccine vial.
It reported signal assignments made against a preselected reference.
The authors said 314 signals could be assigned to unique positions, representing 55.6% unique sequence coverage.
They claimed “100% maximum sequence coverage” only by also counting 74 signals that occurred at multiple predicted positions.
The paper called that result “possible maximum sequence coverage.”
That establishes the limit of what the Pfizer paper itself reports: the researchers did not provide a complete experimentally determined sequence of an intact physical molecule from the finished product.
They provided signal assignments against a reference construct and described the resulting 100% figure as only “possible” maximum coverage.
Which raises questions:
- Where is the experiment that recovers the alleged intact molecule from the finished vaccine, determines its complete physical sequence, and compares that measured sequence with the complete intended sequence?
- Where is that provenance audit?
A Reported Mass-Spectrometry Signal Does Not Establish the Identity of the Alleged Human-Produced Product
A 2023 Proteomics Clinical Applications study examined blood from vaccinated people and reported a mass-spectrometry signal that researchers identified as LDPPEAEVQIDR.
They attributed the signal to a fragment of what they called the vaccine-produced “spike” and reported it in about half of the vaccinated samples examined.
The paper therefore reports a signal and the researchers’ interpretation of that signal.
It does not report recovery of an intact physical product from a vaccinated human, determination of that product’s complete sequence, or comparison of that measured sequence with the complete intended “spike” sequence.
Antibody signals, immune responses, and cell-culture findings do not complete that missing identity determination.
- Where is the experiment that recovers the alleged product from a vaccinated human, determines its complete physical sequence, and compares that measurement with the complete intended “spike” sequence?
Bottom Line
The published record contains measured signals, fragment assignments, reference comparisons, and interpretations of what those signals represent.
- It does not contain a complete experimentally determined sequence of an intact physical molecule recovered from a finished vaccine vial.
- It does not contain a complete experimentally determined amino-acid sequence of an intact physical product recovered from a vaccinated human.
This does not prove that nothing happens after vaccination, that the vial contains nothing dangerous, that vaccinated people produce no biological material, or that the claimed material must have a different identity.
It establishes the narrower problem:
The complete input-to-output identity chain claimed for these products has not been directly demonstrated from end to end.
source jonfleetwood.substack.com