OUR old friend Global Health Now (GHN) of March 5 is peddling nonsense about the benefits of mRNA technology again, especially in relation to Covid-19 vaccines. With reference to an article on the website of the US Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP), another old friend, it reports that ‘cuts to RNA vaccine research threaten to stall three decades of high-stakes scientific research into infectious diseases, cancer, and vaccine development’ as if that was bad news.
The adverse effects of the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna have been regularly exposed in the pages of TCW. mRNA technology, which delivers genetic instructions to cells, may prove beneficial in cancer treatment where the potential for adverse effects may be less of a consideration, given the risk of not treating the cancer that other treatments don’t work for. Only long-term research trials and time will tell.
But, as we reiterate in these pages, the risks of covid were grossly exaggerated from the outset, the necessity for a vaccine was questionable and the tactic of using a vaccine to prevent a respiratory infection was flawed. Moreover, as shown by pathologist Dr Clare Craig in her book Spiked, the covid vaccines were not only useless, they were worse than useless, leading to greater susceptibility to covid rather than less.
Thus, claims such as those made in the CIDRAP article that ‘covid vaccination is estimated to have saved millions of lives globally, with one study estimating 18million lives saved in the first year of its rollout. Covid vaccination overall was also associated with a 60 per cent reduction in the pandemic’s financial burden’ are demonstrable nonsense, based more on the discredited Imperial College mathematical model that gaslit the UK into lockdown with its prediction of 500,000 deaths.
However, one claim made in CIDRAP is accurate. It claims that mRNA technology has the potential to ‘impact virtually every aspect of human health’. Clearly, the word ‘adversely’ has been omitted. The article on which it is based comes from JAMA Network Open and is titled ‘National Institutes of Health [NIH] Funding for RNA Vaccine Research’. The study reported in the article ‘assessed the state of NIH funding for research related to RNA vaccines’.
The JAMA article indicates that there has been ‘increased scrutiny on funding for RNA-based vaccine research, potentially threatening decades of progress’, and that ‘funding decisions for RNA vaccine research need scrutiny before potentially eliminating decades of progress’. While under the standard option to declare any conflicts of interest the authors say ‘none’, it is not perhaps unreasonable to assume that their field of work is not a million miles from the development of mRNA vaccines.
The authors of the JAMA article do make one novel and incredible claim which is that ‘the approximately $510million [£382million] funding in these grants was much less than the tens of billions estimated to have been spent on Covid-19 hospitalisations’. This is a non sequitur if ever there was one.
If tens of billions was ‘estimated’ to have been spent on keeping people in hospital during the covid ‘pandemic’, it suggests that the vaccines were either not very good at keeping people out of hospital or, as Dr Clare Craig clearly demonstrates, they played a significant role in putting them there in the first place. Moreover, hospitalisation was largely unnecessary for many covid patients but was driven by the mad rush to ventilate them unnecessarily. The number of covid patients in hospital was also vastly exaggerated because of the propensity for the covid tests to produce false positives.
The claims made for mRNA vaccines grow increasingly extravagant but those claims rarely survive serious scrutiny. Vast sums of public money have been poured into research, the benefits of which are proclaimed while the risks are downplayed or ignored. If funding is now being questioned, it may not represent a threat to scientific progress. It might be the first sign that someone, somewhere, has finally started asking the right questions.
