COVID-19 / Malicious Medical Quackery
[Ed.: FEAR YOUR DOCTOR! Medicine is a disgraced profession. They cannot (and must not) be trusted any longer! Cultivate Nosocomephobia and iatrophobia. Spread ‘vaccine hesitancy’! How Bad is My Batch?
If you know someone injured by the jabs, direct them to humanitysuit.com to become a plaintiff. Another great legal recourse is: Freedom Council https://freedomcounsel.org
How Bad is My Batch? Enter your batch number(s) and find out. Then take action and purge yourself of this shit to the extent possible. It’s do-able!]
DIED SUDDENLY: Official Documentary Film [1:17:21]
The Miraculous Therapy That Could Save Millions of Lives The Vigilant Fox
Trump was mocked for saying light inside the body could help treat COVID—but he may have actually been right.
APR 30, 2025
The following information is based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details have been streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.
Remember when Trump suggested using light inside the body to treat COVID?
The media mocked him with bleach jokes.
But he may have unknowingly referenced a powerful light-based therapy with proven results.
It’s called UVBI—and its ability to treat COVID is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the extraordinary healing power it holds.
Sunlight isn’t the enemy.
And the campaign against it is a lie.
A Midwestern Doctor’s report uncovers the shocking truth: almost everything you’ve been told about sunlight is wrong—and it’s costing us our health.
The Forgotten Side of Medicine
The Century of Evidence Putting Light Inside the Body Is A Miraculous Therapy
ATTN DOGE: NIH Renews Massive Funding for Fauci’s Infamously Cruel Monkey Island
[Ed.: Where are the arrests?]
NEW STUDY — Pfizer Recipients Face 37% Higher Risk of Death Than Moderna Recipients NICOLAS HULSCHER, MPH
Study of 1.47 million Florida adults by MIT’s Retsef Levi and Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo finds significantly higher all-cause, cardiovascular, and COVID-19 mortality after Pfizer vaccination.
APR 29, 2025
Study Overview
- Population: 1,470,100 noninstitutionalized Florida adults (735,050 Pfizer recipients and 735,050 Moderna recipients).
- Intervention: Two doses of either:
- BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech)
- mRNA-1273 (Moderna)
- Follow-up Duration: 12 months after second dose.
- Comparison: Head-to-head between Pfizer vs. Moderna recipients.
- Main Outcomes:
- All-cause mortality
- Cardiovascular mortality
- COVID-19 mortality
- Non-COVID-19 mortality
All-Cause Mortality
Pfizer recipients had a significantly higher 12-month all-cause death rate than Moderna recipients — about 37% higher risk.
- Pfizer Risk: 847.2 deaths per 100,000 people
- Moderna Risk: 617.9 deaths per 100,000 people
- Risk Difference:
➔ +229.2 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess) - Risk Ratio (RR):
➔ 1.37 (i.e., 37% higher mortality risk with Pfizer) - Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
➔ 1.384 (95% CI: 1.331–1.439)
Cardiovascular Mortality
Pfizer recipients had a 53% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular causes compared to Moderna recipients.
- Pfizer Risk: 248.7 deaths per 100,000 people
- Moderna Risk: 162.4 deaths per 100,000 people
- Risk Difference:
➔ +86.3 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess) - Risk Ratio (RR):
➔ 1.53 (i.e., 53% higher cardiovascular mortality risk) - Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
➔ 1.540 (95% CI: 1.431–1.657)
COVID-19 Mortality
Pfizer recipients had nearly double the risk of COVID-19 death compared to Moderna recipients.
- Pfizer Risk: 55.5 deaths per 100,000 people
- Moderna Risk: 29.5 deaths per 100,000 people
- Risk Difference:
➔ +26.0 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess) - Risk Ratio (RR):
➔ 1.88 (i.e., 88% higher COVID-19 mortality risk) - Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
➔ 1.882 (95% CI: 1.596–2.220)
Non-COVID-19 Mortality
Pfizer recipients faced a 35% higher risk of dying from non-COVID causes compared to Moderna recipients.
- Pfizer Risk: 791.6 deaths per 100,000 people
- Moderna Risk: 588.4 deaths per 100,000 peopl
- Risk Difference:
➔ +203.3 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess - Risk Ratio (RR):
➔ 1.35 (i.e., 35% higher non-COVID mortality risk) - Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
➔ 1.356 (95% CI: 1.303–1.412)
Biological Explanations
The findings of this study are surprising, given that Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine contains approximately three times more mRNA (100 µg) than Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine (30 µg). This suggests that the higher mortality observed among Pfizer recipients could potentially be related to higher levels of DNA contamination — an issue that has been consistently reported worldwide:
The paper hypothesizes differences between Pfizer and Moderna may be due to:
- Different lipid nanoparticle compositions
- Differences in manufacturing, biodistribution, or storage conditions
Final Conclusion
Florida adults who received Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine had higher 12-month risks of all-cause, cardiovascular, COVID-19, and non-COVID-19 mortality compared to Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine recipients.
Unfortunately, without an unvaccinated group, the study cannot determine the absolute increase in mortality risk attributable to mRNA vaccination itself. However, based on the mountain of existing evidence, it is likely that an unvaccinated cohort would have experienced much lower mortality risks. It’s also important to remember that Moderna mRNA injections are still dangerous.
As the authors conclude:
These findings are suggestive of differential non-specific effects of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines, and potential concerning adverse effects on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. They underscore the need to evaluate vaccines using clinical endpoints that extend beyond their targeted diseases.
Nicolas Hulscher, MPH Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.
[Ed.:
Cellphone Radiation Causes Abnormal Blood Clumping in Just 5 Minutes, Study Finds by Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.
Ultrasound imaging revealed that cellphone exposure caused a healthy woman’s blood cells to abnormally clump up, even when the cellphone was an inch away from her skin, according to a new peer-reviewed study published in Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development.
APRIL 29, 2025 – A healthy woman’s blood cells formed abnormal clumps after just five minutes of having an idle cellphone placed on her leg. The same thing happened when researchers held the cellphone an inch away from the woman’s body, according to a peer-reviewed study published April 23 in Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development.
Using ultrasound, the researchers showed that the woman’s blood cells developed a rouleaux formation, an abnormal red blood cell pattern in which the cells stack together in long rows like piles of coins, according to MyHematology.com.
Dr. Robert Brown, the study’s author, said that although the impact of rouleaux formation on health is not well understood, it’s “not without potential health consequences.”
Brown is a diagnostic radiologist with more than 30 years of experience and the vice president of Scientific Research and Clinical Affairs for the Environmental Health Trust (EHT). He said:
“Because of the impact on gas exchange and increased blood viscosity due to clumping, it is possible rouleaux could account for the unusual uptick in once-uncommon disease processes and disorders increasing in our society over the past few decades, including hypertension, obesity, diabetes, strokes, particularly in the younger population, and others.”
According to Brown, the study is key to educating the medical community on how wireless radiation affects a person’s biological functioning.
“If we want to see a change in government regulations and a decrease in the indiscriminate usage of wireless technology, the allopathic medical community needs to become knowledgeable of the health effects of wireless communication radiation,” Brown said. “I believe this study has cracked the proverbial egg.”
Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH, a toxicologist and epidemiologist who is founder and president emerita of the EHT, said, “This finding of clumping in the blood after only five minutes of direct cellphone exposure should give pause to all who keep phones close to their bodies.”
The EHT is a nonprofit research and education group focused on the effects of wireless radiation.
Researchers repeated the experiment several times
For the data in this study, Brown and his colleague, Barbara Biebrich, an ultrasound technician, did an initial experiment including an ultrasound scan of the leg vein of a 62-year-old asymptomatic woman with no history of allergy, blood disorder or systemic disease.
Next, they placed an idle Apple iPhone XR cellphone on the back of her knee for five minutes. The phone was connected to AT&T’s mobile network with its Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and cellular antennas turned on. However, the phone didn’t make calls or send texts, or receive calls or texts, while placed on the back of her knee.
After five minutes, the researchers did another ultrasound. The second ultrasound showed that cellphone radiation caused the blood cells in the woman’s popliteal vein, located behind the knee, to clump in rouleaux formation.
Brown and Biebrich repeated their experiment with the same woman multiple times over three months. “Each time, we encountered the same results,” Brown wrote.
On one occasion, the woman’s blood cells were already in rouleaux formation before having the cellphone placed on her knee for five minutes.
“Although we were initially perplexed,” Brown wrote, “I asked the participant where she had kept her cellphone just before the scan, and she replied that it had been in her pocket.”
The researchers also altered the experiment by placing the cellphone an inch away from the woman’s skin, rather than placing it directly on her body. Again, they waited five minutes.
“She went into rouleaux, even with the cellphone exposure an inch away,” Brown wrote.
“By demonstrating rouleaux in a deep leg vein, the study confirms that the penetration and associated physiological effects of wireless radiation are not limited to the first few millimeters of skin, but do, in fact, occur deeper in the body,” Brown said.
This finding has “significant implications for safety,” he said.
The Federal Communications Commission’s safety exposure limits for wireless radiation are based on the assumption that the radiation can harm human health only at levels high enough to heat human tissue. Cellphones emit radiation at levels lower than that.
Many scientists, including Brown, say there’s evidence that non-thermal levels of wireless radiation may negatively affect human biology.
The study provides a “visible manifestation” that cellphone radiation at non-thermal levels has biological effects.
The study didn’t clarify what specific range of cellphone radiation frequencies, such as 4G or 5G, caused the blood to clump.
The cellphone was idle and not actively engaging a 4G or 5G network, beyond the usual “handshaking” communication that cellphones do with cell towers, Brown said.
In the experiment report, the researchers said they are planning a larger study to assess how prevalent cellphone radiation-induced rouleaux formation may be among the general population.
“Although the incidence of rouleaux formation following cellphone exposure is unknown, I am quite certain our subject is not a unicorn,” Brown said.
Ultrasound imaging is relatively inexpensive and popular, so it should be easy for other researchers to do follow-up studies, too, he added.
The researchers first published some of their results from using ultrasound to show that cellphone radiation induces abnormal blood clumping in a Feb. 10 peer-reviewed article in Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine.
The April study in the Environment journal restates much of the February report in Frontiers. However, the report in Frontiers did not include the results from holding the cellphone an inch away from the woman’s body because the researchers had not yet done that experiment.
Both reports are important because they target different audiences, according to Brown.
The Frontiers journal is a resource for the physician community, particularly cardiologists and cardiovascular surgeons, Brown explained. The Environment journal is geared for the “much broader environmental science community,” he said.
Related articles in The Defender
- ‘High Certainty’ Cellphone Radiation Linked to Cancer in Animals, WHO Study Finds
- Cellphone Radiation Causes Cheek Cells to Die, Study Finds
- New Report Contradicts Telecom Industry Claim That Wireless Radiation Is Safe
- FCC Knew Phones Exceeded Radiation Limits, Hid Info From Public and Courts
Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa.
EXPOSED: The Chilling SSRI Link to Mass Shootings The Vigilant Fox
What happened? And why did the media go silent?
APR 28, 2025
The following information is based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details have been streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.
In the early 1990s, major media outlets openly reported on the connection between Prozac, suicide, and murder.
The public was warned that SSRIs could trigger mass violence.
But then, in 1997, everything changed.
What happened? And why did the media go silent?
Big Pharma gaslit the world for decades.
They said SSRIs are the silver bullet. They said they didn’t cause psychotic violence. Mentally ill people were just already dangerous.
The Forgotten Side of Medicine
The Decades of Evidence SSRI Antidepressants Cause Mass Shootings
8 months ago · 826 likes · 391 comments · A Midwestern Doctor
But hidden clinical trial data, black-box warnings, and bone-chilling real-world cases tell a completely different story.
The truth is, SSRIs are not just correlated with violence—they cause it.
[Ed.: More and more we are witnessing unexplainable crazy behavior. SSRIs are clearly one of the many causes of people transforming into monsters. This one happened just yesterday: Firefighter-Paramedic Killed After Patient Attacks Him in Ambulance]
HUGE: Moderna facing SUSPENSION for breaching rules PETER IMANUELSEN
Moderna is in trouble for breaching regulatory code.
APR 29, 2025
This is happening many years too late, but now Moderna could be suspended from the British pharmaceutical trade body after having ignored the rules with ”unacceptable” practices.
Among the things that breached the regulatory code was how Moderna offered children £1500 and teddy bears to be part of the covid vaccine trials.
That is outrageous.
They literally bribed children into taking an experimental mRNA injection. This sounds extremely unethical.
Not only that, but it appears that Moderna even mislead regulators about doing this, making it even worse.
What Moderna did was not allowed. Giving incentives to children or their parents for clinical trials is prohibited.
And guess what? People from the government was involved.
The former British vaccines minister, Nadhim Zahawi had co-authored several articles with a senior employee at Moderna where they promoted the Moderna covid vaccine.
Is this part of the reason why we saw such a huge push for everyone to take these experimental injections? Did people in government have a financial incentive to do this? I think the answer might be yes.
The truth is beginning to come out.
And the truth is also beginning to come out about the side effects that were being covered up.
Independent testing of mRNA injection vials in Australia found that there was huge amounts of DNA contamination.
Moderna had DNA contamination up to 145 times the regulatory limit which is 10ng per dose. Moderna had up to 1460ng of DNA contamination per dose.
And among the DNA contamination they found something called a SV40 enhancer/promoter which can drag DNA fragments into the cell, possibly changing the DNA.
Paid subscribers can read my full article about it here, how the mRNA injections could be altering human DNA.
ALTERING DNA? – Something weird is going on with the covid vaccines PETER IMANUELSEN
DECEMBER 22, 2024
You didn’t want that mRNA vax tested only on 8 mice? Marty Makary, FDA, has a solution – no more mice! SASHA LATYPOVA
Makary plan is to revolutionize the FDA by abolishing ALL animal testing entirely, and abolishing all clinical trials for “rare diseases”.
APR 28, 2025
Newly-installed FDA Commissioner Marty Makary announced banning of dangerous food dyes that you might accidentally consume in a red sprinkle on a cupcake.
The MAHA crowd is having a massive collective orgasm from too much winning! Imagine, all of our chronic diseases are now solved because we got rid of the dangerous petroleum based cake frosting!! Yippeee!!
In the meantime, 9 million children got jabbed with poisonous petroleum based mRNA and 100s of other petroleum + rotting matter-n-shit poison cocktails, colloquially known as “vaccines”.
I am not going to belabor the food dyes, and my readers know that it’s a distraction. I already wrote about it here. I am eating a Red3 sprinkled cupcake as I type this.
This article is about something NOT trumpeted by the White House or by the media – mainstream and “alternative” alike. The heavily-promoted food dye story is covering up a much more important actions by the FDA that they don’t want you to pay attention to. Makary also announced (quietly) a plan to begin phasing out ALL animal testing in drug development! In addition, he wants to eliminate clinical trial requirements completely for something defined as “rare diseases” (discussed in this interview with Megyn Kelly).
Under the 11-page “roadmap” published in April, the goal is for animal testing to become “the exception rather than the norm” in the next three to five years. The plan aims to “improve drug safety” by using alternative ways to conduct toxicology studies in the preclinical phase, through the use of AI modeling and a technology called organoids, which are lab-grown cultures of human cells that can mimic and recreate organs. By now, all of us are aware that when the government does something to “improve safety” they mean to kill us. Makary’s proposal illustrates this point well.
As an executive summary of my reaction to this: it’s lunacy, with strong One Health agenda overtones. If Makary believes the nonsense outlined in the FDA strategy paper, he is an incompetent fool.
This particular derangement is not rare, and it typically afflicts those who have never produced anything real in their professional life. Sadly, most doctors and scientists today are at high risk of this condition. They operate in a reality almost entirely divorced from the real reality. Their many years of debt-laden “training” amounts to turning off any critical thinking accompanied by an intense schooling in blind obedience to the government-funded dogma. They are taught to ignore the patients in front of them and treat computer models – collect “tests” that are based on computer models and then prescribe what computer models tell them to prescribe. The scientists, on the other hand are only responsive to “data” and “models” no matter how dumb, fraudulent or irrelevant. Ok, enough with my little rant here, let’s look in detail at what genius MAHA-FDA plan we’ve got.
Makary’s plan to eliminate all animal testing:
Makary’s plan states that the animal testing is a poor predictor of human safety and efficacy and, therefore, it should be replaced with “new innovative things” that NOBODY understands at all! I should clarify, that Makary is certainly not the author of this strategy, since he has just assumed his role as the FDA Commissioner. The hype and promises of “human on a chip” replacing all preclinical testing has been on and off fad in the industry since I can remember. Here is one example from 10 years ago. I attended several meetings where Janet Woodcock, was making these promises years ago. This is one of the white papers every new administration routinely pulls off the shelf to pretend that they are “visionaries”. Nevertheless, here is what they are saying will replace the animal testing, specifically “new things”:
Due to the limitations of animal testing as well as ethical concerns about animals testing, there has been increased focus within the scientific community on New Approach Methodologies (NAMs). NAMs encompass in vitro human-based systems, in silico modeling, and other innovative platforms that can collectively evaluate immunogenicity, toxicity, and pharmacodynamics in humans and provide an opportunity to improve the predictive relevance of preclinical drug testing while reducing or replacing animal use. NAMs also have enormous cost saving potential (6).
Reference 6 above goes to a commercial lab provider news website which says that monoclonal antibodies are expensive to develop. Ok then! The urgency for the FDA is to make them cheaper so that more profit can be made faster. This is probably because Janet Woodcock and Peter Marks (or their affiliates) hold stock or sit on boards of monoclonal antibody companies, and they urgently need Makary to relax the rules. What do you think the public health agencies are for – public health? LMAO. Clearly, the FDA’s job is to make pharma shareholder returns juicer…
Are “in-vitro human-based systems”, “in-silico modeling” and “other innovative platforms” better than existing animal models in predicting safety/efficacy of new drugs in development?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Zero, zilch, nada data exists that would indicate that these “new things” have a better predictive value than animal testing. In fact, they are much worse than animal testing at predicting anything (briefly discussed below).
Given that nobody has the slightest clue about the predictive value of these “new things”, why are they so attractive to Makary that, mere 2 weeks on the job, the first thing he is proposing is to replace the centuries-old area of drug development where vast knowledge of toxicology has been accumulated on various classes of chemicals?
It is true that animal testing does not predict 100% the safety and efficacy of the new drugs, however, it does provide crucial insights and is very very useful in characterizing safe dosages and studying reproductive toxicity, as well as a battery of toxicological screenings without which human clinical trial volunteers would be at an excessive risk. For all their limitations, the animal studies are quite predictive – do you remember the now scrubbed form the internet ferret studies of mRNA vaxxes where all ferrets died on “viral challenge”? They were quite predictive of the covid-shot induced VAIDS! Do you recall the Moderna and Pfizer reproductive tox studies in rats which produced numerous congenital abnormalities, ~300%+ increase in embryo loss, skeletal malformations, toxicity to mothers, transfer of mRNA to fetus and into milk? Do you remember that the FDA lied to the public and covered it up?
Even fraudulent animal studies of mRNA vax showed great predictive value for all the damage that they were going to produce in people:
Did Pfizer Perform Safety Testing for its Covid-19 mRNA Vaccine in Preclinical Studies? SASHA LATYPOVA
JANUARY 1, 2023
Therein is the answer to the unusual haste and desire to shut down the animal research. Makary needs to urgently eliminate the regulatory knowledge which is now a liability to the FDA and to pharmas. No studies on well-understood animal systems = no possibility of anyone pointing at the previously obtained animal data (like several of us, ex-pharma people did for covid shots) saying – hey FDA, you knew thousands of people will be hurt before you authorized this shit. Hey Makary, you knew this and you still pushed the mRNA shots on pregnant women!
BREAKING — Emergency Room Visits Surge 20% Among mRNA Vaccinated Teens, Study Finds NICOLAS HULSCHER, MPH
Higher rates of emergency room and doctor visits were observed among 105,726 Pfizer mRNA vaccinated 12–18-year-olds compared to unvaccinated controls — lasting for at least 6 months after injection.
APR 26, 2025
The study titled “Healthcare use in 12–18-year-old adolescents vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 versus unvaccinated in a national register-based Danish cohort” was recently published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour.
Population: 105,726 vaccinated adolescents (age 12-18) vs 23,132 unvaccinated matched controls.
Vaccine Studied: Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 (COVID-19 mRNA injection).
Design: Real-world national registry study; healthcare use compared before and after vaccination.
Method: Prior Event Rate Ratio (PERR) analysis adjusting for prior healthcare use.
Outcomes Measured:
- Emergency Room (ER) visits
- General Practitioner (GP) visits
- Specialist Practitioner (SP) visits
- Hospitalizations
0–21 Days After First Dose
In the first 0–21 days after the first vaccine dose, the study found higher, non-statistically significant rates of the following among the vaccinated:
- Emergency Room (ER) visits:
- Boys: +4% (PERR 1.04, 95% CI: 0.91–1.19)
- Hospitalizations:
- Boys: +18% (PERR 1.18, 95% CI: 0.78–1.72)
0–56 Days After Second Dose
In the first 0–56 days after the second vaccine dose, the study found higher, non-statistically significant rates of the following among the vaccinated:
- Emergency Room (ER) visits:
- Girls: +10% (PERR 1.10, 95% CI: 0.97–1.28)
- Boys: +8% (PERR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.98–1.20)
- Hospitalizations:
- Girls: +26% (PERR 1.26, 95% CI: 0.96–1.67)
- General Practitioner (GP) visits:
- Girls: +2% (PERR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.98–1.07)
- Boys: +3% (PERR 1.03, 95% CI: 0.98–1.08)
LONG TERM: 57–182 Days After Second Dose
In the 57–182 days after the second vaccine dose, the study found higher, statistically significant rates of the following among the vaccinated:
- Emergency Room (ER) visits:
- Girls: +22% (PERR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.08–1.39)
- Boys: +17% (PERR 1.17, 95% CI: 1.07–1.31)
- General Practitioner (GP) visits:
- Girls: +17% (PERR 1.17, 95% CI: 1.12–1.21)
- Boys: +17% (PERR 1.17, 95% CI: 1.13–1.22)
- Specialist Practitioner (SP) visits:
- Boys: +23% (PERR 1.23, 95% CI: 1.08–1.39)
- (Girls: non-significant increase, PERR 1.10, 95% CI: 0.98–1.21)
Unfortunately, specific diagnoses for the healthcare visits were not identified in the study. Although some early increases were not statistically significant, the long-term increases among the vaccinated were consistent and significant for emergency room and general practitioner visits.
The rise in healthcare visits likely reflect persistent symptoms, adverse reactions, or health concerns following vaccination. These results are not surprising given that COVID-19 mRNA injections induce chronic disease: After intramuscular injection, lipid nanoparticles distribute throughout the ENTIRE body and install Pfizer/Moderna modified genetic code into vital organ systems — turning them into toxic Spike protein production factories for years:
The Reckless Gamble of Self-Amplifying RNA DR. SHERRI TENPENNY
A Runaway Experiment with No Off Switch
APR 26, 2025
Just when we thought the murderous mRNA shots were being taken down due to the blowback by physicians, scientists, and the people around the world, a worse genetically modifying experiment is about to be released by the mad scientists of the world.
Self-amplifying RNA (saRNA), the next-generation experimental genetic modification technology, is derived from traditional messenger RNA (mRNA) platforms. Similar to mRNA, which delivers instructions to the ribosomes to make a protein, saRNA also includes extra genetic material that allows it to replicate itself inside the body, massively amplifying the amount of protein produced.
This self-replication dramatically increases the amount of protein generated and duration of exposure without needing additional doses. However, this uncontrolled amplification raises serious safety concerns: it can provoke prolonged, excessive immune reactions, unpredictable tissue damage, unknown proteins, and a far greater risk of inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. Because saRNA can keep making copies long after the initial injection, the body’s ability to shut down or regulate the process is essentially impossible, making it a potentially far more dangerous and less predictable technology.
Best Explanation
I found Dr. John Catanzaro’s (@Docjohnc) explanation of saRNA one of the best and clearest explanations I have seen. I have his permission to repost his Substack on this topic in full. It’s not just about Saying No to this technology or more shots; it’s about keeping the genie in the bottle and then destroying the bottle. Highlights/bold markings are mine.
God help us…
Self-Amplifying RNA
In the ever-growing arms race of genetic engineering, a new and deeply concerning player has emerged: self-amplifying RNA (saRNA). Unlike conventional mRNA shots, which carry the pretense of controlled dosing, saRNA introduces a self-replicating genetic mechanism into human cells—a mechanism that has no inherent safeguards, no patient-specific oversight, and no clear understanding of the long-term ramifications.
This is not just another chapter in the reckless rush toward biotech dominance; it is a blatant, high-stakes experiment on the human genome, masquerading as innovation. As we have already observed in the mRNA COVID vaccines, the risks are far from hypothetical.
The premise of saRNA is deceptively simple: instead of merely injecting a blueprint for protein production (as in traditional mRNA shots), which mounting evidence points toward rogue transcription, saRNA also carries the molecular machinery to make copies of itself intentionally. It does this by encoding a replicase enzyme, which hijacks cellular processes to continuously produce more saRNA molecules, ensuring that the body keeps generating foreign proteins long after the initial injection.
Think about that for a moment. This is not a controlled, single-shot therapy. This is a biological machine set loose inside your cells with no definitive stop signal. Imagine handing someone a single-page instruction sheet versus handing them a self-replicating printing press that churns out endless copies of that sheet, whether they need it or not.
Proponents of saRNA tout it as a way to “improve vaccine efficiency,” claiming it allows for lower doses and longer-lasting effects. But let’s cut through the marketing fluff and acknowledge the harsh reality: this is an uncontrolled genetic intervention with profound risks.
1. Loss of Dose Control
Unlike traditional mRNA, which degrades over time, saRNA amplifies itself (makes copies of itself) indefinitely. The amount of foreign protein produced is not dictated by the initial dose but by the unpredictable replication rate within the body. How much is too much? At what point does the immune system become overwhelmed? No one can answer these questions because no one is monitoring patient-specific responses in real-time.
2. Cellular Hijacking Without an “Off” Switch
Self-amplifying RNA turns cells into perpetual protein factories—but what happens when those cells should be performing other vital functions? What happens when this genetic machinery infiltrates delicate tissues like the brain, heart, or reproductive organs? The assumption that saRNA will behave in a predictable, localized manner is wildly naive.
3. Unchecked Inflammation and Autoimmunity
Continuous foreign protein production means constant aberrant signaling and immune system activation. Chronic inflammation is not a minor side effect—it is a gateway to autoimmune disorders, immune exhaustion, and long-term damage to the body’s regulatory systems. By forcing the body to engage in perpetual battle, saRNA risks dismantling the natural balance of immune function.
We have already seen this happen with mRNA COVID vaccines, which have been linked to myocarditis, pericarditis, blood clotting disorders, neurological complications, and immune dysregulation. Many individuals who received these shots have suffered long-term health consequences, even resulting in many deaths. Now, with saRNA, we are looking at a more aggressive, less controllable version of the same technology.
4. Potential for Genetic Disruption
The claim that saRNA “does not alter DNA” is a convenient half-truth. While saRNA itself is not directly inserted into the genome, human cells contain endogenous reverse transcriptases—enzymes capable of integrating foreign RNA sequences into DNA. The long-term consequences of this interaction remain completely unstudied.
The Utter Lack of Patient-Specific Surveillance
The most glaring flaw in the push for saRNA technology is the absence of real-time molecular surveillance. If you were introducing a self-replicating genetic program into human cells, wouldn’t you want precise, patient-specific monitoring to track its behavior? Wouldn’t you demand a way to shut it off if something goes wrong?
Instead, we see the same one-size-fits-all approach that characterized the disastrous rollout of COVID-19 mRNA shots. There is no mechanism for tracking where saRNA spreads, no way to measure its long-term persistence, and no contingency plan for unintended consequences.
Even now, mRNA COVID vaccine injuries are being dismissed, ignored, or downplayed. Those suffering from heart damage, neurological disorders, [kidney damage], and immune collapse are left without answers. And now, biotech firms are steamrolling forward with an even more dangerous, self-replicating version of the same flawed concept.
A Reckless Experiment Disguised as Innovation
This is not a well-controlled, precision-engineered therapy. It is a biological gamble, played out on the most complex system known to man—the human body—without adequate safety nets.
The same voices that dismissed concerns about mRNA safety are now doubling down, pushing an even less predictable, more dangerous technology. They assure us that “preliminary results look good” while conveniently ignoring the gaping holes in long-term safety data.
The Bottom Line
Self-amplifying RNA is not a medical breakthrough; it is an uncontrolled genetic intrusion. It represents the next phase in a reckless biotech experiment that prioritizes market expansion over patient safety. Until we see rigorous, long-term, patient-specific safety studies—not just industry-funded propaganda—this technology must be viewed for what it is: a high-risk, open-ended biological intervention with no clear exit strategy.
The mRNA COVID vaccine rollout has already shown us what happens when genetic technology is rushed to market without adequate oversight: millions of people around the world now suffer from chronic health complications [or have died]. These events were initially dismissed as “rare” or “coincidental.”
Now, with saRNA, the stakes are even higher. This is not science. It is an intentional disregard for biological integrity, and the consequences could be catastrophic.
Further Reading:
- Next generation self-replicating RNA vectors for vaccines and immunotherapies | Cancer Gene Therapy
- RNA life on the edge of catastrophe | PNAS
- Safety and immunogenicity of a self-amplifying RNA vaccine against COVID-19: COVAC1, a phase I, dose-ranging trial – ScienceDirect
- Safety concern of recombination between self-amplifying mRNA vaccines and viruses is mitigated in vivo – PMC
- Rise of the RNA machines – self-amplification in mRNA vaccine design: Trends in Biotechnology
- The First Self-Amplifying mRNA Vaccine | Science | AAAS
