mRNA Vaccines: A Fantastic Fairy Tale
The literature described it (mRNA, messenger ribonucleic acid) as a chemical compound (a shorter version of nucleic acid or RNA), like a peptide molecule, compared to protein, the larger(chain or necklace) molecule.
It may be impressive and overwhelming for medical professionals because of limited learning and understanding of science/chemistry; otherwise, nothing is unique or novel about its nature and characteristics as a chemical molecule/compound.
The promoted novelty aspect of “mRNA technology” is based on the chemistry narrative as it would occur in the body, as described in the literature, such as in a report from Pfizer to FDA for vaccine approval (link).
The description is that once mRNA is administered, it will then supposedly get involved with the body’s chemistry (or chemical processes/synthesis) to produce a specific protein (called spike or s-protein) associated with the virus (SARS-COV-2).
Once that protein is produced in the body, the body’s immune system will be triggered to produce defense (antibodies/immunity) against the protein (considered as a foreign body) capable of killing the future attack from the virus, which is supposed to have the specific spike protein.
It is the chemistry aspects at both levels, i.e., in (synthesizing of spike protein and developing immunity) and outside (synthesis of mRNA in the lab) of the body. In short, the narrative is based on chemistry (science) and its reaction/processes at its core.
The process described above could be divided into five steps (with their respective missing scientific basis):
1. The mRNA has been synthesized and characterized in a laboratory or manufacturing facility. Unfortunately, the literature does not provide relevant and essential details about this part, such as mRNA’s identity, purity, and stability. So, it is an unknown item to anyone outside the pharmaceutical company which makes it.
Therefore, any claim made about the mRNA technology, its benefit, and its relevance by anyone, including medical professionals (supporters or non-supporters) not associated with the company, has to be speculative (fictional) – not factual or scientific.
2. Once administered (shot or jab) into the body, the mRNA is claimed to produce spike protein, the same, or similar, to what the SARS-COV-2 virus is believed to have. There is no evidence provided or available to show that, indeed, the mRNA produces the specific spike protein.
The existence or production of the spike protein can only be detected or monitored by a test. Furthermore, the test can only be developed by having a physically purified spike proteinsample (reference), unavailable from anywhere. Spike protein is unavailable because the virusspecimens are unavailable from which the spike protein is to be extracted.
Therefore, detecting or making valid claims of its existence is impossible. Hence, any claim that spile protein is produced and its presence is detected or monitored should be considered invalid and fictional.
3. It is claimed that the spike-protein triggers the body’s immune response, i.e., the body produces specific antibodies. How has this been established? It cannot be because showing spike-protein and antibodies interaction require a pure isolated specimen of the spike protein, which is not available, as noted above. Hence, one cannot establish the production of specific antibodies.
Moreover, detecting and monitoring antibodies requires a test for the specific antibodies. The test cannot be developed without the pure isolated sample of antibodies, which is not available either. Therefore, the claim that antibodies are produced or will be produced by spike protein cannot be true. Hence, such a claim has to be false and fictional, not scientific.
4. The next claim in the novel mRNA technology narrative is that the produced antibodies will have and provide a protective shield against the virus attack. This claim has to be false because it requires the specimen of the virus to test the claim, which is now very well established that the virus specimen is not available anywhere in the world.Hence the immunity/efficacy of antibodies through mRNA cannot be verified. It is as simple as that. So all claims about mRNA have to be imaginary and presumptuous – not factual or scientific.
5. Concerning the safety claim of the mRNA vaccine, this is probably the most straightforward step which could be conducted experimentally. All one requires is to dose cells, tissue, animals, or humans and observe any potential adverse effects. Such studies are lacking.
This creates a valid concern about the mRNA, i.e., why such studies have not been conducted or reported. Hence, the claim that the safety of the mRNA has been tested remains weak or false. The steps mentioned above are not only a scientific requirement but logical; they are missing.
Therefore, if one sees it from the chemistry (science) aspect, the mRNA scenario is without facts and scientific support, more like a fantastic fairy tale.
The only reason reality is hidden is because the claims and assessments about mRNA have been reported by medical professionals, not by scientific experts, in particular chemistry related.
Therefore, an urgent evaluation by an independent third party is needed to address the current situation; otherwise so-called pandemic will continue with recommendations of an ever-increasing number of fictional and irrelevant vaccines or mRNA vaccines or their repeats (aka boosters).
See more here bioanalyticx.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Tom
| #
100% correct and amazing. This is the basis for many big pharma products…little testing, fake trials and false claims. To think that any vaccine or mRNA gene altering injection is going to be better for the immune system or improve its functions is one of big pharma’s and the medical mafia’s greatest lies.
Reply
Alan
| #
Fairy Tale? More like a Horror Story.
Reply
Robert
| #
I have been wondering about this for quite some time . Who proved the spike protein exists in the vax? If it does not exist than the primary treatment would be to remove the graphene and heavy metals from the body. And to help the body to detoxify. The Salk institute created a spike protein. and did animal trials. does no one remember that . Has there work been independently verified? I certainly appreciate Saheed Qureshi, and love his logic.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
As per the literature, the mRNA vaccine should not have the spike protein. Instead, it should have mRNA, which should produce the protein in the body, not in the vial.
Robert, you are not alone; many assume that the mRNA vaccine contains the spike protein, which is incorrect.
As I noted in my article (above), the protein cannot exist because the virus must first exist, be isolated, purified, and identified, and then the spike protein be extracted from it. Therefore, it is not possible at this time because the isolated virus is not available.
Regarding the Salk institute study you mentioned, I was not aware of it. So, I searched for it and found a reference to it (https://www.salk.edu/news-release/the-novel-coronavirus-spike-protein-plays-additional-key-role-in-illness/ ) which led to the original article (https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318902 ).
It is a short (about three pages long) research letter/note. There is no Material and Methods Section in it, only the discussion (opinions), mostly pictures and their description.
The publication does not indicate that anything is real, such as the virus, pseudovirus, spike protein, pseudo-spike protein, etc
From the (actual) science perspective, it is another fictional story or a “last night” dream narrative. So, there is neither an independent third-party assessment of claims about the virus/pandemic nor the spike protein.
Reply
Rosco
| #
https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/novavax-covid-19-vaccine-adjuvanted
“Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine, Adjuvanted contains the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and Matrix-M adjuvant. Adjuvants are incorporated into some vaccines to enhance the immune response of the vaccinated individual. The spike protein in this vaccine is produced in insect cells; the Matrix M-adjuvant contains saponin extracts from the bark of the Soapbark tree that is native to Chile.”
It is not an mRNA “vaccine”.
Is this not a real traditional protein based antigen vaccine ?
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Thanks. Rosco, for your response and input.
As you stated, Novavax, is not an mRNA-based vaccine.
Reading the description on the FDA site and listening to the presentation at the FDA VRBPAC meeting, this vaccine is an antigen (i.e., recombinant protein) based, laced with “Adjuvanted contains the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein”.
This does not make sense because if they can have SARS-COV-2 spike protein, then there is no need to do anything else. They can inject the spike protein into the body to create antibodies – end of the story.
The story of mRNA technology is based on the premise that spike protein is unavailable and the mRNA (vaccine) will produce the protein in the body.
The issue in both cases is how it is established that they have or are working with the SARS-COV-2 spike protein. It is not possible to know because the spike protein has to come from the SARS-COV-2 virus. However, no one has or has seen the virus. Therefore, spike protein cannot exist either!
All claims in this respect (claims related to spike protein) have to be invalid.
In conclusion, there is no isolated SARS-COV-2 virus available. Therefore, there cannot be any associated spike-protein available, so no relevant and valid vaccine can be made.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed,
A historical fact is that Louis Elzevir, the publisher of Galileo’s “Two New Sciences”, wrote a Preface to the readers of Galileo’s book. In this preface he state a common saying of that time (1638) was”Intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.”; as translated by Crew and de Salvio (1914).
“Penicillin heralded the dawn of the antibiotic age. Before its introduction there was no effective treatment for infections such as pneumonia, gonorrhea or rheumatic fever. … Antibiotics are compounds produced by bacteria and fungi which are capable of killing, or inhibiting, competing microbial species. … Returning from holiday on September 3, 1928, Fleming began to sort through petri dishes containing colonies of Staphylococcus, bacteria that cause boils, sore throats and abscesses. He noticed something unusual on one dish. It was dotted with colonies, save for one area where a blob of mold was growing. The zone immediately around the mold—later identified as a rare strain of Penicillium notatum—was clear, as if the mold had secreted something that inhibited bacterial growth.” (https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/flemingpenicillin.html)
Here we see that penicillin is effect ‘against’ pneumonia but is it an effective treatment for the common cold? Some might consider pneumonia is closely related to the common cold. But are they?
Caution: notice that the discovery of penicillin was in no way related to the human body (pneumonia, gonorrhea or rheumatic fever).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Hi Jerry:
I think you are confusing antibiotics with antibodies. They are very different. This article is about antibodies related, i.e., vaccines (mRNA).
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed,
Thank you very much for your comment. I can to my computer this morning with an idea of what I wanted to compose and you just provided a basis for what I was planning.
antibiotics: “a medicine (such as penicillin or its derivatives) that inhibits the growth of or destroys microorganisms:”
antibodies: “An antibody (Ab), also known as an immunoglobulin (Ig),[1] is a large, Y-shaped protein used by the immune system to identify and neutralize foreign objects such as pathogenic bacteria and viruses.”
On one hand it seems you are correct that Antibiotics and antibodies are not the same but on the other the other hand; it seems if an “ill” person had these antibodies within the natural body with a properly functioning ‘immune system” there would be no need for the administration of penicillin. Hence, I conclude an antibiotic does the ‘job’ of inhibiting the growth, or destroying, the microorganism which the natural immune system is not “inhibiting the growth, nor destroying, of the foreign microorganism which is creating the illness.
Ill: “not in full health; sick”
Words which I have not recently read are diagnosis and symptom.
Diagnosis: “the identification of the nature of an illness or other problem by examination of the symptoms”
Symptom: “a physical or mental feature which is regarded as indicating a condition of disease, particularly such a feature that is apparent to the patient”
Saeed, I ask you: Why have I not recently read these fundamental words: “Symptom” and “Diagnosis” of medicine?
Jerry Krause
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Hi Jerry:
The question you are asking is not related to the article’s topic. So, it will certainly confuse the readers and divert their attention from the article’s message, i.e., the mRNA vaccine has no scientific basis to be effective and safe.
We should have a separate discussion on it, not here.
However, I would briefly provide my view on your query and would like to stop the discussion here.
You suggest that antibiotics could be effective (against infection) for people with weak immunity, presumably caused by viruses. You are assuming that there is a virus that might cause the infection. There is no scientific evidence to support this assumption.
You are referring to diagnosis and symptoms. Yes, there are symptoms, but they cannot be because of the virus or COVID, as these things do not exist. I have written extensively on the topic. You may like to consider reading my articles on my blog (www.bioanalyticx.com) or PSI.
In this regard, I believe there might be a “regular” infection in people who should be provided with “common treatment” such as antibiotics, anti-parasitic, etc.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed,
You began: “The question you are asking is not related to the article’s topic. So, it will certainly confuse the readers and divert their attention from the article’s message,”
To divert the readers attention from the article’s message was the purpose of my question. Hence, you are trying to censure my effort here at PSI, which was founded to eliminate the censuring of ALTERNATIVE IDEAS.
I believe the words symptom and diagnosis are words with which the general PSI reader is familiar. I do not believe the general PSI reader is near as familiar with the words antibiotics: and antibodies, as you have pointed out that I was not.
Do you consider that when you wrote, that which I quoted, you might be confusing a general PSI reader? I am trying to initiate a discussion in which a general PSI reader might become involved; not an argument
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Jerry:
I suggest you submit an article to PSI for publication, describing your ideas and/or concerns for discussion and inviting readers to engage. I think that would be a better and more productive approach.
Best regards
Saeed
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Saeed,
Two reasons I will not submit an article for publication. The first is technical. I find I no longer have the ability to use my computer to do this. The second is that John O’Sullivan, PSI founder and editor, has taught me the importance of being brief. Which was endorsed by Einstein, who stated somewhere: “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”
Have a good day, Jerry
(Correction: John O’Sullivan, PSI founder and Administrator) SUNMOD PSI Administrator
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
First, I admit that this comment might seem to have nothing to do with Saeed’s article and comments. So, be warned.
https://youtu.be/8BP5krnVDyQ. At this link you can view Carl Sagan’s testimony (about 15 minute) to the US Senate about the Greenhouse Effect—Global Warming—Climate Change. It is an excellent, easily understood, review of this still controversial topic for which PSI was founded.. Near the end of this review he clearly stated his review was the scientific consensus of the general scientific community of that time and still that of the present time.
What does consensual in nature mean?
Scientific consensus is the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the majority or the supermajority of scientists in a particular field of study at any particular time. Which was the problem that Galileo Galilei faced in his time.
Carl Sagan was not attempting to deceive anyone. He actually “believed” this CONSENSUAL SCIENCE. However, many PSI authors accuse scientists such as Sagan of trying to deceive the Senators and the public. Which lead to argumentation instead of open discussion.
I call attention to the historical fact that Galileo, who taught us about the importance of observation and accurate definition, would not believe the validity of Tycho Brahe’s quantitative astronomical measurements and Johannes Kepler’s mathematical analysis of the Tycho’s data which indicated, that the planetary orbits of the observed planets of that time, were elliptical instead of perfectly circular as Galileo’s BELIEVED. Galileo was not trying to deceive anyone; he was just WRONG as he allowed his, clearly stated, religious belief “trump” the scientific measurements with their unavoidable experimental error and accurate mathematical analysis.
Please ponder these historical facts.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Howdy
| #
Nobody can be brought to task for stating a consensus because of the description of the word you provided. It is a belief based on odds, not fact. Similarly, If I state something is ‘apparent’, I cannot be questioned over it either, since it could be the truth, but not necessarily so.
To the best of one’s knowledge is usually sufficient on forms requesting critical information, so why any different for other subjects?
Reply