Image 01 Image 03

Pfizer Executive Admits mRNA Vaccine Was Not Tested for Virus Transmissibility

Pfizer Executive Admits mRNA Vaccine Was Not Tested for Virus Transmissibility

“Millions of people worldwide felt forced to get vaccinated because of the myth ‘you do it for others’. Now, it has turned out to be a cheap lie.”

In an astonishing turn of events, a member of the EU Parliament from the Netherlands, Dutch PM Rob Roos, questioned the leading representative from Pfizer during an EU hearing.

Roos asked Janine Small, president of international developed markets at Pfizer if the mRNA vaccine was ever tested to see if it blocked transmission of the virus.

The highlights of the exchange [Emphasis mine].

Roos: A Question for you, Ms. Small. And I would like a clear answer please, so there are no misunderstandings. Was the Pfizer covid vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the marketplace.

If not, please say it clearly. If yes, are you willing to share the data with this committee? And I really want a straight answer: Yes or no. And I’m looking forward to it…

Small:In regards to your question about stopping immunization before it entered the market..No. We had to really move at the speed of science….to really understand what is taking place in the market.

And from that point of view, we had to do everything at risk. I think Dr. Boulra [Pfizer CEO]..would turn around and say to you himself, “If not us, then who?”

Dr. Boulra actually felt the importance of what was going on in the world and, therefore, as a result of that we actually spent 2 billion dollars of self-funded money at risk to research, develop, and manufacture to make sure we were in a position to help with the pandemic.

As a reminder, Bourla tested positive twice within two months for covid, despite receiving the complete vaccine series and the booster.

Fox News medical contributor Dr. Marc Siegel recently expanded upon the true nature of the Pfizer vaccine.

Siegel said the main problem is that only a small group of individuals were studied before the vaccine’s rollout.

“The vaccine itself was designed not to prevent transmission. It is not called a barrier vaccine. It doesn’t work here in the nostrils. It works inside the lungs, and it decreases severity,” Siegel explained.

Roos was disturbed by the answer, as were many others.  As he noted in his follow-up video, preventing transmission was clearly a lie.

“This is scandalous. Millions of people worldwide felt forced to get vaccinated because of the myth ‘you do it for others’.

“Now, it has turned out to be a cheap lie. This should be exposed.”

A good example of one of the “fact-checks” to dismiss concerns about the failure of the covid vaccines to prevent transmission comes from USA Today, almost exactly a year ago:

Fact check:COVID-19 vaccine protects both the person vaccinated and those around them.

“This is false information,” Akiko Iwasaki, a professor of immunobiology and molecular, cellular and developmental biology at Yale University, said in an email. “Vaccines provide significant protection from ‘getting it’ – infection – and ‘spreading it’ – transmission – even against the delta variant.”

This is a valuable lesson about the dangers of the triumvirate of Big Tech-Big Pharma-Big Government suppressing reasonable debate and rational concerns.

Yet, California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed a bill that will discipline doctors who give what the government views as “misinformation“.

…[C]ritics of the law, including many mainstream doctors who have advocated passionately for masks and vaccines, say it could end up curbing well-intentioned conversations between patients and physicians about a disease that’s still changing from one month to the next.

“There’s clear misinformation that’s happening that’s as black and white as you can get. But there’s a lot of gray out there too,” said Dr. Eric Widera, a professor of medicine at UC San Francisco who specializes in geriatrics.

With COVID-19, he said, “the standard of care has changed a lot in 2½ years.” Earlier in the pandemic, he recorded instructional videos for his children’s school on how to properly wear cloth face masks. Today such masks are largely dismissed as ineffective.

That’s a nonclinical example of a truth about the evolution of medical research, Widera said: “What was misinformation one day is the current scientific thinking another day.”

Will Newsom now punish doctors who asserted these vaccines did prevent transmission…which now must be classified as “misinformation”?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Makes one wonder why so many “respected” sources made the claim in the first place. Anybody who ever claimed these vaccines reduced transmission of covid should never be listened to again regarding anything of a scientific nature. You van’t trust people’s opinions if all they do is blindly repeat propaganda.

    mailman in reply to Dathurtz. | October 13, 2022 at 9:10 am

    Because they had a greater good to answer to! The truth didnt matter…what mattered was everyone just doing as they were told!!

    Idonttweet in reply to Dathurtz. | October 13, 2022 at 10:04 am

    It also calls into question the truthfulness and accuracy of the data and representations made to the FDA by Pfizer in their applications for EUA and approval for the preparations. If the applications were fraudulent, wouldn’t that negate any authorization and approval for use?

    ‘Never be listened to again’ is an understatement. Every one of these sociopaths who forced these vaccines on millions should be tried and executed for crimes against humanity.

    randian in reply to Dathurtz. | October 14, 2022 at 1:41 am

    Makes one wonder why so many “respected” sources made the claim in the first place.

    That had a political agenda to exploit, or they were running a large-scale experiment in compliance, or both. Given that Justin Trudeau, Jacinda Ardern, and several Australian premieres were exposed as tyrants leads me to both.

      Dathurtz in reply to randian. | October 14, 2022 at 12:28 pm

      It was a big eye-opener for me when blatantly nonsensical things were being pushed so hard. The mortality projection out of Britain caught my attention and I was absolutely dumbfounded that any serious scientist would dare to repeat it. That was the moment when I was absolutely convinced that the scientific “experts” were either ignorant propaganda mouthpieces or corrupt propaganda mouthpieces.

The Gentle Grizzly | October 13, 2022 at 7:26 am

Newsome is just another Trudeau. As for his threats to the doctors, I think a first Amendment case would break his eggs good and fast.

    See “professional speech”. A few appeals courts have tried creating such an exception to the first amendment, but in NIFLA v Becerra the Supreme Court pointed out that it has never recognized one. Still, it appears that at least some professional speech can be regulated, e.g. that of paid investment advisors. The distinction seems to be that the state can only impose on professionals speech that is completely uncontroversial in their profession. So just as an investment advisor can be punished for recommending you buy a stock that every professional who is aware of the market conditions knows is a “sell immediately”, a doctor can be punished for telling you that the MMR jab could make your child autistic. But when you get into controversial territory that stops being the case. So this proposed regulation will fail that test.

nordic prince | October 13, 2022 at 7:37 am

The whole thing has been a sham and a scam from Day One.

    The Gentle Grizzly in reply to nordic prince. | October 13, 2022 at 7:50 am

    The long term problem is: many will no longer trust ANY forms of vaccine introduced in the future.

    I sorely regret getting the two-shot Pfizer series; I wonder almost daily if all of the health problems plaguing me these past 12 months have anything to do with it.

      Probably not. Almost certainly not. It’s not something that should worry you too much.

      And the vaccine does still appear to reduce the severity of the disease if you happen to catch it, which at your age and in your state of health is a good and necessary thing, so on balance you probably made the right decision in getting them.

        SaltyDonnie in reply to Milhouse. | October 13, 2022 at 3:50 pm

        You have no idea how wrong you are, and sound like you’re writing to convince yourself.

        randian in reply to Milhouse. | October 14, 2022 at 1:43 am

        And the vaccine does still appear to reduce the severity of the disease if you happen to catch it.

        Does it? They admit lying about transmission, why should I believe what they say about severity reduction?

        Evil Otto in reply to Milhouse. | October 14, 2022 at 6:17 am

        “Probably not. Almost certainly not.”

        And what are you basing that on? Your immense medical knowledge and your understanding of Gentle Grizzly’s conditions? You claim “the vaccine does still appear to reduce the severity of the disease if you happen to catch it,” but we’ve already learned that the companies and their media stooges FLAT-OUT LIED, so why should that be believed either?

        I received the J&J shot… and within a month my blood pressure spiked to over 230 and I had a minor stroke. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence, right? Can’t possibly be related.

      Probably yes

      That’s exactly where I am. I will never allow another vaccine injection into my body for the rest of my life, nor will they inject any of that crap into my kids as long as I’m their legal guardian.. Thankfully we never bought into the hype around the mRNA garbage, so there will be no negative consequences in my family/household.

      This exchange simply confirms much of what I suspected when they rushed these things to market, I heavily suspected that they could not have thoroughly tested them in less than a year. Then, of course, they removed their control group by then injecting them so that there was no good method to determine effectiveness. Since their initial claims about it ‘s efficacy were a big fat lie, I’m choosing to believe the opposite of what they say about everything else until proven otherwise.

      The real problem is that those of us who refused the mRNA jabs were lied about. I’m not “anti-vax.” I was in the Navy. I had all sorts of vaccines to remain deployable. I was never convinced this jab was a vaccine at all. It turns out I’m right.

      Part of it has to do with definitions.

      “Vaccine: Listen media icon[MP3]
      A suspension of live (usually attenuated) or inactivated microorganisms (e.g. bacteria or viruses) or fractions thereof administered to induce immunity and prevent infectious diseases and their sequelae. Some vaccines contain highly defined antigens (e.g., the polysaccharide of Haemophilus influenzae type b or the surface antigen of hepatitis B); others have antigens that are complex or incompletely defined (e.g. Bordetella pertussis antigens or live attenuated viruses).”

      Around August 2021 the CDC began editing their pages to change the definition of vaccine. Now the definition of vaccine has been downgraded from “providing immunity” to “providing protection.” Not at all the same thing. If you want to convince me to put an injection in my arm don’t lie to me and tell me an anti-viral drug (correct term) is the same thing as a vaccine.

      The CDC is st8ill pretending that you can use the words “vaccination” and “immunization” interchangeably. Isn’t the root of Immunization “immunity?” Which means, it can’t happen. But it does happen. In fact, based on my observation it seems that the more mRNA jabs you have, the more likely you’re going to catch Covid. Not like I expect an official study on the matter, as too much money has been paid. But I suspect the Covid “vax” compromises the immune system. You’ll be needing those jabs for the rest of your life.

      I’ll pass.

      But if I have a kid he’ll get his measles and polio vax.

E Howard Hunt | October 13, 2022 at 7:55 am

All very interesting and obvious to anyone digging a little deeper at the time. But irrelevant. The bottom line is this disease had an extremely low infection mortality rate, one weighted heavily to the elderly and sick. There should have been no mass population measures taken on any front. The elderly should have been exhorted to isolate-period. This episode highlights the poor caliber of leadership we have in the world today.

    Evil Otto in reply to E Howard Hunt. | October 14, 2022 at 6:21 am

    “All very interesting and obvious to anyone digging a little deeper at the time. But irrelevant.”

    It’s not irrelevant. If we’re ever to avoid such mass panics and corporate manipulation of people’s terror then all of this needs to be dragged out into the open. The amount of damage the vaccine push did to our society will take years to undo… assuming it does get undone. There needs to be accountability. Lawsuits and jail time.

It was known from the beginning that the spike protein was unstable and pathogenic on its own. It was known from the beginning (i.e. cruise ship) that people were not at equal risk, not even in high risk cohorts. That said, Pfizer et al produced non-sterilizing, mutagenic, therapeutic treatments not vaccines. Also, how you are infected matters.

    MajorWood in reply to n.n. | October 13, 2022 at 10:53 am

    The data from that isolated cruise ship experiment is the reason that I basically ignored the WuFlu from the get go. Medical science as I knew it died mid-March 2020. The fact that people are still wearing masks, especially millenials with possibly the lowest risk of all, shows me that if you tell someone that the sky is green enough times, that is the only color that they will see from then on. I suspect that a lot of people are hanging onto it is because they lack the humility to admit that they were lied-to and that they believed it without question, even though Dr Bob kept telling them that the data doesn’t add up, at all. In fact, at one point here in Oregon, those who were reported as dying from WuFlu were doing it at an age of 1 year older than those who were dying of all other causes. WuFlu isn’t even in the top 30 things on the list of things that I need to worry about.

    MattMusson in reply to n.n. | October 13, 2022 at 11:51 am

    But, this knowledge was suppressed from the beginning. The fact that spike proteins traveled to the liver, the heart and accumulated in fetuses was suppressed.

      Bruce Hayden in reply to MattMusson. | October 13, 2022 at 4:21 pm

      Actually, probably more accurately, the spike protein generating mRNA migrated there. The mRNA doesn’t just sit at the. Injection site and pump out spike proteins for months after injections. For one thing, the spike proteins are imprinted as pathogens on the immune system on the first jab, and are unlikely to get that far before being neutralized. It’s the mRNA that can hide from the immune system, and sneak into cells.

    BierceAmbrose in reply to n.n. | October 13, 2022 at 3:42 pm

    This. +100

    If the cruise ship wasn’t enough, the break out on the US aircraft carrier was another directional example, with better data than we had at the time about exposure, course, and distribution of the disease.

    Observational data isn’t to be discarded; it provides directions to construct more robust studies. The right answer is not: “Not a double-blind, population-scale, prospective study, so !misinformation!” The right answer is: “That’s weird. Let’s find out what’s going on there; maybe we can build on what we find, and confirm something that works.”

The Gentle Grizzly | October 13, 2022 at 7:59 am

And, the chances of Pfizer suffering any consequences is likely nil.

I think Pfizer had to choose between “admitting” that they didn’t do the research or having to release the research findings that revealed big problems. I think the latter is more likely. They completely understand how stupid their position sounds.

They already released abut 500 pages of research findings from the first FOIA request then begged for 55 more years to release the rest. Could we now get them to release the remaining 30,000+ pages? Clearly, they are hiding something and it must be incriminating. These aren’t new drugs. They are drugs that have been in development for over a decade but haven’t been able to pass muster with the FDA. But “without research”, they are suddenly released and made mandatory globally?


Non-sterilizing and with a safety record well short of a decade traditionally considered for novel vaccines. Pfizer et al offered a therapeutic treatment suitable for emergency use, but not for general distribution to the general population. The government(s) and corporations by force of cancellation and media, search outlets brayed and spread disinformation, misinformation, and social contagion. Planned parenthood for the young. Planned parent/hood for the old.

amatuerwrangler | October 13, 2022 at 8:48 am

Someone please clarify. In neither the summary of the exchange in the post nor in the video embedded did the Pfizer representative address “transmission”. She said “stopping immunization” which makes no sense in the context of the question. Stopping immunization would mean not using the vaccine. She said nothing about transmission.

Dr. Siegal said it was not designed to stop transmission, but we still have not seen here about whether or not it actually did stop transmission, as an unplanned benefit, of the virus.

I am making no claim here either way… only saying that the material in the post does not support the headline….

    JackinSilverSpring in reply to amatuerwrangler. | October 13, 2022 at 9:43 am

    Did she mis-speak and mean transmission? That’s how I understood it. Alternatively, she purposely distorted the question to make it gibberish.

    amatuerwrangler in reply to amatuerwrangler. | October 13, 2022 at 10:12 am

    I would have expected the questioner to seek clarification on the spot were it “mis-speak”, so I default to your second choice.

    Why our poster here did not question it is unknown. This is a big issue and should not hinge on what someone thinks a witness meant, vs. what they actually said.

    I don’t know if this answers your question but keep in mind that the CDC modified the definition of “vaccine” soon after this controversy began.

No punishment for big pharma for lying, of course. Their misinformation is less incorrect because reasons

It certainly sheds new light on the vaccine mandate and the Supreme Court arguments in that case. Not only does it not stop the spread but they had never even tested for that. It was lies from top to bottom and they very nearly forced it into every arm with the power of the State.

    jakebizlaw in reply to Matt Apple. | October 13, 2022 at 3:07 pm

    I’ve been disappointed that the constitutionality of the vax mandates in the face of religious and privacy rights has not been challenged successfully on the lowest standard that they fail to have a rational basis – I.e., failure to prevent contraction and transmission of disease.

Sounds like a huge fraud was perpetrated to me. There should be a serious investigation and maybe real criminal sanctions after the election.

My impression is that it did prevent transmission, but only on the virus it was designed for. Around June 2021 the cases were almost gone, so it apparently worked there. If it didn’t prevent transmission of that initial variant, cases would have kept growing instead of dying out.

    gonzotx in reply to rhhardin. | October 13, 2022 at 11:22 am

    Where’s your data, I believe it did not, it just ran it’s course and mutated, as viruses are k ow to do

    Ironclaw in reply to rhhardin. | October 13, 2022 at 11:56 am

    It could be that it died down because it simply burned through the population and ran out of new victims. Since they never tested whether or not it blocked transmission, I’m going to guess there was no happy accident. Personally I’d like to see them all tried for defrauding the people of the world and then executed after they are found guilty. I’d be happy to personally kick the chairs out from under them.

    Ironclaw in reply to rhhardin. | October 13, 2022 at 11:06 pm

    Not according to the person they’re talking about here. They never tested to see if it stopped transmission.

All vaccine manufacturers are protected against lawsuits because every vaccine kills some people, and nobody would make vaccines without protection. They could handle actual damages but not punitive damages.

    Ironclaw in reply to rhhardin. | October 13, 2022 at 11:37 am

    The real question is, if they defrauded us to get that EUA status because they didn’t even test, do they still warrant that protection?

      SaltyDonnie in reply to Ironclaw. | October 13, 2022 at 3:59 pm

      Right, willful misconduct and fraud should pierce the liability shield. Which doctors want to serve as experts if they can be sued, deprived of licensing or criminal charged for “wrongthink” professional opinions?

    CommoChief in reply to rhhardin. | October 13, 2022 at 12:00 pm

    The issue here is a lack of informed consent. Did anyone in the first six months have the same bottom line picture of the actual risks v rewards? Did their physician? Or did the pharmaceutical companies hide some data that would allow the individual to make a risk v reward analysis tailored to their situation in consultation with their physician?

    Recall the line of questioning from Justice Sotamayor and the utterly wrong base for her questioning. Even that far along we had SCOTUS ruling on a policy question with severe impacts for the Nation operating with incorrect facts.

    It’s one thing to approach the vax question from informed consent where the normal penalty for not getting a vax is basically nil as an adult worker and rely upon the normal protections. It’s another to refuse to be transparent and proactively release all the available information to the public so that informed consent could be made.

    IMO, information which was known to the pharmaceutical companies but not released means no informed consent could be made precisely because the set of data available to individuals and their physician was purposely incomplete due to the actions of the pharmaceutical companies.

      SaltyDonnie in reply to CommoChief. | October 13, 2022 at 3:58 pm

      Exactly right. “Choices” were coerced, and informed consent was never given. I’ve argued this personally and professionally since jump street.

    ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to rhhardin. | October 13, 2022 at 12:56 pm

    These newfangled mRNA drugs are not vaccines.

    SaltyDonnie in reply to rhhardin. | October 13, 2022 at 4:03 pm

    Traditional vaccines enjoy a liability protection of sorts by sending adverse event claims to a particular comp fund (which COVID jabs are not covered by). Because int he past, vaccines were loss-leaders – a lot of time (10-15 years) spent developing them, outside of pandemic and for little financial reward, but they were beneficial to overall public health, so you don’t want a manufacturer sued to oblivion and discouraged from making them. That all changed with danger mRNA methods and boo-koo profits from COVID vaccines rushed to production in a year.

    JoAnne in reply to rhhardin. | October 14, 2022 at 6:59 pm

    You have understand one really important fact – it isn’t a vaccine.

20220928-AUSSIE DOCTOR, DR PHILLIP ALTMANN, Australian Medical Professionals Society

Scathing critique of Australian response to COVID

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | October 13, 2022 at 12:54 pm

Roos was disturbed by the answer, as were many others.

This was never a secret. The initial FDA application was only for reducing severity – for all of the faux-vaccines. There were countless threads on many sites arguing over this. After Biden cheated his way into office the dems just started claiming that the shots guarded against infection – but that was never the case and the drug companies had never had that as part of their EUA applications. But … dems do this all the time; they make stuff up and keep repeating it over and over and the MSM back them up all the way.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | October 13, 2022 at 1:17 pm

I would add that the FDA and drug companies intentionally muddied the waters as to this issue of preventing viral transmission by terming the faux-vaccines as “prevention of coronavirus disease (COVID-19)” which many people misinterpreted as preventing infection with the Wuhan virus. The prevention of COVID-19 – the disease – is distinct from the prevention of infection with the Wuhan virus. Prevention of COVID-19 is all about reducing symptoms.

    The FDA and manufacturers muddied the waters further by claiming the “vaxes” “prevent COVID-19.” The EUA Fact Sheets specifically state that.

      SaltyDonnie in reply to SaltyDonnie. | October 13, 2022 at 3:54 pm

      There was no “misinterpretation”. Don’t blame the victim. It’s the duty and obligation of the FDA and the manufacturers to make da@mn clear what their medical treatment does, and doesn’t. They did not do that. If it only “reduces symptoms’, f*cking SAY THAT.

Otto Kringelein | October 13, 2022 at 1:53 pm

. I think Dr. Boulra [Pfizer CEO]..would turn around and say to you himself, “If not us, then who?”

And let’s not forget people, that like fake Dr. Jill they are not being truthful about “Dr.” Boulra’s qualifications for running a pharmaceutical company the size of Pfizer Inc. He merely has a DVM, Yes, you read that right. The CEO of the largest pharmaceutical company on the planet has a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degree and is apparently not qualified in any medical branch concerning humans or human health that I can ascertain.

    henrybowman in reply to Otto Kringelein. | October 13, 2022 at 3:49 pm

    This is irrelevant. I worked for Honeywell Information Systems for years. Long after it collapsed, I got a service call from its (retired) CEO to come out to his home to unbox and install a white flat-panel iMac, which he was entirely incapable of doing for himself.
    CEOs don’t do the work. They do the workers.

The Left has been using the nation’s population as guinea pigs in their ‘social engineering’ experiments based on questionably valid ‘social science’ for decades.

Now they are subjecting the nation’s population and their economic well being to economic experiments based on questionable economic theories and ‘climate science’ predictions (which you are not allowed to question).

Most recently they started using the nation’s population, including children, for medical experiments based on questionable ‘medical science’ (that you are not allowed to question) — experimental ‘vaccine’ mandates, gender mutilation of children, and whatever we don’t know about and/or comes next.

There are no limits to the harm, pain, and suffering the arrogant narcissistic self-righteous elitist Leftists will inflict on the peasants if they think it advances The Cause. Their ends justifies their means. As long as their family, friends, and business associates are protected.

Subotai Bahadur | October 13, 2022 at 3:22 pm

There are deeper problems that must be addressed. Pfizer admits that their “vaccine” was not tested to, well, vaccinate. And this was done with the full knowledge and approval of the Federal government.


1) I have not heard from the other two vaccine manufacturers, but given they operated on the same time frame, it is not unreasonable to assume that neither of them tested for transmissibility unless proven otherwise. And that they had the same cooperation in the fraud by the the US government.

2) The medical establishment and the government at all levels did everything they could to mandate vaccination with these fraudulent vaccines. Lives have been ruined, careers have been ended, etc. in that effort.

3) Which leaves the question of “why?”. Granting that there is the ever present specter of corruption, bribery, and profiteering; but this seems too much for even that. WHY were they so eager to get everybody injected with the shots? One common factor of all the “vaccines” is the mRNA tech involved. And while opposition to that gets one labeled as a Luddite, still their own actions point in that direction. What have they imposed on us and why?

4) Then it leaves the question of why any individual can and should trust either the medical establishment or the government again when they openly, blatantly, massively, and deliberately lie to the American [and foreigners too] people for unknown purposes with no consequences and no revealed reason?

5) I am an old bugger and not likely to last long anyway. The only vaccinations I might have theoretically considered were the annual flu shot and a shingles shot. Given that everybody involved in the production and safety procedures for them has lied as per 4) above; why should I or anyone get such shots? Or believe any reasons they may give for getting those shots.

6) I have children and grandchildren. Given the above, the medical establishment and government may have done grievous harm to them deliberately. Think about how YOU would feel about that.

7) There is a whole list of shots that normally are part of growing up in this country. Childhood vaccinations. Given the above, why should they be trusted anymore?

Subotai Bahadur

    Bruce Hayden in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | October 13, 2022 at 4:26 pm

    It’s a seasonal virus, most active in the winter – just like the flu.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | October 13, 2022 at 5:53 pm

    Something else that was never tested, but should have been, was how long until the mRNA in the “vaccines” broke down or was otherwise destroyed. This is completely new technology, and should have been tested. It was apparently assumed that the mRNA would break down quickly at the injection site – probably on the order of the 10-15 minutes that they tell you to sit down after the injection, and is consistent with the normal life of mRNA.

    It makes sense – except that the mRNA utilized is artificial. It isn’t the 3’ cap and UTR, and 5’ UTR and tail they added to the spike generating sequence in the virus’ genome that is the problem. More importantly, they used artificial RNA, for the first time in human subjects. RNA is constructed of 4 nucleotides as is DNA (but with Thymine (T) in DNA replacing Uridine(U) in RNA). What they did was to substitute N1-Methylpseudouridine (m1Ψ) for the normal Uridine (U) when building the vaccine’ mRNA. On one level, N1-Methylpseudouridine (m1Ψ) bonds with cytosine (C), as do Uridine (U) in natural RNA and thymine(T) in DNA. Why did they make the substitution (of m1Ψ for U)? Because Uridine (U) is the weak link in mRNA. It is one big reason why DNA substitutes T for U (and that substitution allowed double helix DNA to be stable long term). m1Ψ RNA replacing Uridine (U) works the same (bonding with Cytosine (C)), except that it does not appear to break down nearly as quickly as U mRNA. It has been detected as late as 4 months (so far) from the date of the lasted mRNA injection, and has consistently been found 30-60 days out from injection. Moreover, one of the jobs of certain types of white blood cells is to destroy mRNA found outside a cell. m1Ψ mRNA helps hide it from the immune system (my theory is that the white blood cells may at least be targeting the missing Uridine(U)). It also seems to have made crossing the blood/brain barrier easier.

    Why would these companies (Pfizer, Moderna) make this substitution? My theory is that the rapid breakdown of mRNA posed substantial barriers to manufacture, transportation, and storage, of the mRNA vaccines. So, they stabilized the mRNA sequences with this m1Ψ for U substitution. But it is exactly this stabilization that appears to cause many, if not most, of the direct side effects of the vaccine. Instead of breaking down at the injection site (assumed for safety of the vaccines), the mRNA survives for sometimes months, continuing to generate spike proteins the whole time. They are swept up by the lymphatic system, and then distributed throughout the body by the circulatory system. When they enter cells, the mRNA generates spike proteins, that often get expressed on the exterior of the cell. At that point, the immune system eliminates the cell, having been taught by the first jab that the spike proteins are pathogens. If a number of these mRNA collect somewhere, such as in heart muscles, the destruction of the spike presenting cells can have fatal results (myocarditis for heart muscles).

    So, why wasn’t this brand new artificial mRNA ever tested in human subjects for longevity? The manufacturers stabilized their brand new artificial mRNA for their vaccines for a reason. Migration of the mRNA from the injection site should have set alarm bells ringing. Safety of the vaccines was assumed from the mRNA breaking down or being destroyed by the immune system at the injection site. They never seem to have tested for it.

      Dathurtz in reply to Bruce Hayden. | October 13, 2022 at 6:49 pm

      Maybe I have been miseducated. I have made a lot of primers and done a decent amount of dna/rna labwork. Can you direct me to a source on U pairing with C? That isn’t even in the wobble pairing rules I have learned and used.

    CommoChief in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | October 14, 2022 at 11:16 am

    The Rona was used as the opportunity to bring mRNA into widespread public usage. Now, that doesn’t automatically make it bad. It could have been the better way to get a vax into development, testing, production and distribution in time to make a difference.

    Unfortunately, by applying the simple doctrine of follow the money we can observe many incentives for folks throughout the process to desperately want the mRNA tech to be successful.

    IMO, the temptations of financial incentives and an ideology of ‘elite rule’ combined to leverage the opportunity. Now the backlash v mRNA will continue which is a problem as it may be used for the seasonal flu shot.

    There’s widespread public distrust of mRNA, the pharmaceutical companies, the public health officials and the medical profession as a result of this foolish course. The constant over promising of the virtues of the vax and under play of potential harm has frankly poisoned the publics willingness to trust these groups on policy questions.

It wasn’t tested for a lot of things. Are multiple “boosters:” safe? Multiple “boosters” sounds a lot like “not working.”

I haven’t had one mRNA jab. I’ll pass. And that doesn’t make me “anti-Vaxx.” I’ve had plenty of vaccines. I just don’t know what this s&&& is. I won’t be bullied into placing it into my arm.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to Arminius. | October 13, 2022 at 6:02 pm

    Actually, it isn’t the 3rd jab that fires off side effects – it is the 2nd jab. The difference between the 2nd jab and the boosters is that there has been a 100% mismatch between the Omicron variants, that pushed out Delta by the 1st of this year, and the spike proteins generated by the mRNA vaccines, at least up until last month. What this means is that the entire immune system response is attacking cells containing spike proteins from the 2nd-Nth jabs.

    Ironclaw in reply to Arminius. | October 13, 2022 at 11:17 pm

    It’s more like. “You know that stuff that didn’t work last time we tried it? Yeah, let’s try more of that stuff.”

As a trial attorney I immediately realized that she didn’t actually say that the vax wasn’t tested for deterrence against transmission.

Notice that when Roos asked Janine Small, “Was the Pfizer COVID vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market?” and literally begged for a clear yes or no, she STILL didn’t answer the question.

She was asked, was the vax TESTED to determine if it would stop transmission. She hemmed and hawed and then answered that “did we know about stopping immunization (???)”….um, you know. No.”

What does “stopping immunization” even mean? A lot of word salad whereby she managed to elide the exact question: Was it tested? She didn’t want to answer that and groped to find words around it. Yet everyone is now on the internet saying that she testified that they never tested for that.

That’s still an important question. Did they test, and cover up the results? Did they NOT test, and if so, why not? If they didn’t have any data at all regarding transmissibility, then why did they stand behind the incessant international campaign dictating that people must vax in order to stop the spread?