Lipid Nanoparticles (LNP)
The microscopic weapons delivery system
Source: Brownstone Institute
Questioning Lipid Nanoparticles
By David Gortler
November 5, 2023
audio version:
Despite over 13.5 billion Covid-19 doses administered worldwide, there remains a lot of fundamental information lacking. Since there isn’t a good article which 1) scientifically, 2) clinically and 3) regulatorily address Lipid Nanoparticles (LNPs) and the FDA’s role in assuring and regulating novel technologies and ingredients, I am writing one.
Covid shots are new, complex, cutting-edge biotechnology in several ways but there could be a lot more to them than people realize. Although ubiquitously labeled “vaccines,” it should be noted that the definition of “vaccine” had to be substantively altered, (and more than once) to accommodate the inclusion of mRNA injections. Prior to the definition change of vaccines, Covid-19 mRNA injections would have fallen under the definition of gene therapy by the FDA as recently as 7/25/2018.
These mRNA shots differ completely from all other previously available “vaccine” products, not only because of their mRNA component, but also because of LNP components. LNPs are the engineered additive used to attach and deliver mRNA genetic coding for Covid-19 spike into the cells of a patient for the purpose of making mRNA stable and permit cellular absorption and transcription. Without LNPs, any RNA product would rapidly degrade. Having worked with RNA in the laboratory, I can also personally attest to RNA’s extreme fragility.
What was Different About This Authorization / Approval?
New vaccine development has historically involved a meticulous, slow, decade-long discovery, testing, review, and approval process. In contrast to that, those established epidemiological and time-honored standards seemingly evaporated under the justification of a Public Health Emergency (PHE). That scuttling was not for a “classic” type vaccine – but instead for brand-new, mRNA “vaccines” and their LNP components.
Next, the entire expedited approval/review process was condensed to less than one year. The former head of infectious diseases at one manufacturer described the LNP development process as “It is kind of like a small-molecule drug discovery engine, but on steroids.” A statement like that describing a rush to make a complex product available does not instill confidence.
In the end, important globally harmonized and previously established sacrosanct investigational medicine standards, carefully developed over half a century must have been dismissed when it came to the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for proceeding with mRNA-based therapy administration.
An Erstwhile FDA Medical Reviewer and Yale University Pharmacology Professor has Unanswered Questions About mRNA LNPs
There are many unanswered questions about Covid-19 injections. Preliminary questions have even arisen about possible inconsistencies of the mRNA sequence itself. Other researchers have concerns on toxic effects of mRNA-injection produced spike proteins as a possible cause for adverse events. However, the LNP injection component has thus far received much less focus.
In addition to often discussed spike proteins, there is a published history describing LNPs by themselves as having independent toxicity and studies showing that nanoparticles have the potential to independently activate the complement (inflammatory) system. Relatedly, many of the FDA VAERS-reported adverse events such as myocarditis and pericarditis are inherently inflammatory conditions.
With these concepts in mind, the following specific questions are brought forth here:
Because novel nano-biotechnology is being used, and has been shown in studies to have independent clinical effects, should the LNPs combined with mRNA have been reviewed or received scrutiny as an FDA combination product? If those discussions took place, what data led to the final decision?
Are LNP configurations contained in mRNA shots considered inactive components of mRNA shots? What discrete studies were conducted with the LNP component alone to establish them as inactive components?
Are LNPs an un-regulated biotechnology? There appears to be a “regulatory void” in FDA guidance when it comes to LNPs, excluding them from guidance oversight and specific FDA safety testing recommendations. Official “FDA Guidance Documents” on both Liposomes -and- Nanotechnology exclude any mention of LNPs.
Should LNPs as a novel mRNA nanotechnology additive have had more vigilant scrutiny by regulators in general?
Who (manufacturers? regulators?) is assuring the quality and consistency of mRNA shots (both the nucleotide sequence and LNP consistency) and why are those quality and consistency data not accessible by the public? Is it even possible for LNPs and their ligand attachments to be produced consistently on a large and “warp speed” basis? Where is the analytical proof of consistency?
Were LNPs used in mRNA shots determined to be clinically safe? Were stand-alone safety tests conducted on LNPs without mRNA sequences? If not, why not? If yes, what are the results?
Why isn’t there more ingredient specificity in package inserts about quantity and LNP configurations when other package inserts openly detail specific ingredient information and provide structures?
Are potential variabilities in LNPs configurations responsible for the inconsistent adverse events reported in VAERS or V-safe databases? Is it related to variabilities in precursor/raw ingredients, manufacturing, or storage?
How were LNP’s and other nanoparticles’ past history of toxicity reconciled by manufacturers and regulators prior to regulatory authorization/approval?
Do LNPs have special human tissue- or cell-targeting abilities via ionic charge, substrate attachments or other mechanisms?
Which pharmacokinetic Absorption, Distribution Metabolism, and Excretion (ADME) or radiolabeling/tracing studies have been conducted on LNPs in humans to detect potential clinical accumulation in tissues/organs? Do LNPs accumulate in cardiac tissues (due to a high amount of electrical activity there) leading to myocarditis, pericarditis, et cetera?
Now, I’ll attempt to address these questions more specifically and explain my general understanding of what could be scientific/clinical/regulatory/manufacturing shortcomings.
Definitions and Basics
LNPs are a type of nanotechnology. Nanotechnology generally refers to the branch of science and engineering devoted to designing, producing, and using structures, devices, and systems, by manipulating atoms and molecules at nanoscale. Nanoscale means having dimensions of the order of 100 nanometers (100 millionth of a millimeter) or less. In other words super tiny technology and able to permeate everywhere in the body.
Many applications of nanotechnology (including LNPs) involve new materials that have discrete properties or effects as compared to those of larger sizes. For example, papers published over a decade ago have shown how nanoparticle contaminations containing either copper or zinc are highly toxic unlike non-nanoparticle formulations of copper or zinc, such as those forms found in many multivitamins.
Thus, injected nanomaterials (such as LNPs) could have unique clinical/safety implications. Nanotechnology, including LNPs, should not necessarily be considered just “tinier” versions of existing or naturally occurring lipids, with the same functionality as their larger counterparts; they have the potential to have discrete functionality, toxicities and effects.
Do LNPs + mRNA = FDA Combination Product?
Does the combination of engineered lipid nanotechnology particles plus novel mRNA technology qualify it as a combination product? If not, why not? Combination Products are specially regulated and defined by the FDA as “Therapeutic and diagnostic products that combine drugs, devices, and/or biological products.”
Could LNPs be considered biologically active via cell-targeting or other mechanisms related to the design/engineering of LNPs such as charge or ligand substrates (non-lipid attachments to the LNP)? Were the specific LNPs employed for mRNA injections ever separately evaluated by developers for clinical or safety effects based on literature reports detailing toxicities, dating back to decades? What about those LNPs with ligand substrates?
When was Standalone Safety/Toxicity/Pharmacology/Pharmacokinetics of Covid LNPs Examined?
Due to a lack of regulatory and manufacturer transparency, we don’t know if LNP-specific characterization (size, structure, charge, quality, consistency) was a required condition of mRNA injection design or approval. LNP Absorption, Distribution Metabolism, and Excretion (ADME) doesn’t appear to have been established (or if established, not publicly shared). We also do not have a complete characterization of what happens to these specific LNPs following injection; if there is accumulation in tissues, cells, or organs due to lack of pathology, animal modeling, tracing, or radiolabeling studies.
Americans also don’t have transparency on whether or not regulators or manufacturers conducted any “stand-alone” LNP clinical safety, stability, or toxicology studies prior to widespread implementation and mandates – or if it has – that information is not being publicly disclosed.
Prior to their release under EUA, regulators seemingly neglected to examine the potential safety issues of LNPs themselves, instead implying them to be an inactive “vehicle” or simple lipid “just along for the ride” for mRNA delivery. LNPs aren’t specified to be an active or inactive ingredient on package labeling.
However, data has shown that LNPs, depending on their size and other factors, are not necessarily inert ingredients. Purification, charge, substrate attachments, and size-based separation of nanoparticles varying by vial or lot are some of the things that may potentially affect LNP clinical or non-clinical activity.
There is a clear lack of conclusive data regarding the safety or specificity of LNPs in vivo and what ramifications could occur with their widespread use in humans due to the lack of independent testing (or if data exists, I can’t find it). What little data that exists in the literature appears to be derived via non-clinical (ie animal) studies, but animal studies are very often not translatable to humans. The study of these engineered, positively charged lipids are in their own right a sub-specialized, sub-category of pharmaceutical/chemistry/engineering technology. However, it is unknown exactly who made final recommendations for LNP use, and what specific personnel/experts on LNPs exist within the FDA.
LNP Variability Factors and Potential FDA Quality/Consistency Issues
When it comes to assessing clinical safety, product consistency is critically important. Even small differences in the carbon structures of medications that are normally therapeutic can alter a therapeutic medication into a dangerous poison.
This is a problem, because with LNPs, and unlike with small-molecule pharmaceutical manufacturing, it has been acknowledged that there are few options to control the spontaneous LNP manufacturing “self-assembly” process, which could lead to minor or major product inconsistencies in the particle itself or its pegylated ligand attachments.
On top of that, a potentially already non-specific LNP mixture may begin as a range of sizes and may change over time for various reasons, including but not limited to: storage time, storage conditions, manufacturing technique, sourced raw materials, freezer, or room temperature variabilities. Even product agitation that occurs during transportation or altitude has been shown to potentially affect a molecule’s stability. LNPs are already known to have a disreputable history, particularly when it comes to stability and manufacturing.
On top of existing issues with manufacturing and stability, due to their complexity and nucleotide length, lengthy mRNA strands twist, wind, and bend into complex configurations, and could alter the properties of LNPs following mRNA attachment in ways that are hard to predict, thereby leading to even more potential for alteration of the LNP and potential subsequent inconsistency, potentially leading to toxicity.
Provisions to control storage factors during highly-regimented clinical trials – where every aspect is strictly coordinated via an FDA-approved clinical protocol – is one thing; the unavoidable variation in storage/handling/administration/mass production/”warp speed” production in the real world, is another.
This is especially the case because very few companies supply these complex LNP components; they are newcomers to this type of manufacturing and mRNA manufacturers admitted that they “struggle[d]” to respond to demands and that LNP suppliers were “scrambling” to keep up with a manufacturing process that takes “months.” Statements like this are illustrative of the complexity of these molecules.
One lipid producer stated that it suddenly ramped up its production by 50 fold. LNP manufacturers stated that efforts to meet the LNP needs were “unprecedented.”
Were all of those newly minted employees hired to ramp up production trained properly? How could they find LNP experts so quickly? What was their educational background? Obviously, when newcomers to LNP production are being rushed to radically increase volume, quality and consistency are a few of the things that Americans rely on FDA to provide oversight as well as a “double check.” That double check is performed by FDA using a term-of-art instrumentational technique referred to as pharmaceutical “release testing.” In fact, the FDA has a whole Office/Director responsible just for that.
Unfortunately, we don’t know about release testing results for consistency issues, and here’s why: The variation by lot in manufacturing is just one of the many things that should be monitored and shared with the American public by the FDA’s Office of Pharmaceutical Quality (OPQ) and its 1,300+ employees. While the OPQ could very well be evaluating and assuring all of that and more, there is zero transparency on any analytical variation findings with FDA’s OCP and the American public. Did the FDA perform live inspections on these ”struggling” and “scrambling” and rapidly expanding manufacturing facilities?
LNPs and Cell/Tissue/Organ-Specific Targeting and Toxicity
As biochemist Pieter Cullis explains, unless LNPs were positively charged, they might not attach to negatively charged phosphates on mRNA strands. And without LNP attachments, mRNA would be quickly torn apart in the body.
Naturally occurring lipids are usually neutral, and positively charged lipids don’t exist in nature. Positively charged lipids have been found to be potently cytotoxic by several global indicators. Still, LNPs combined with mRNA are synthetically engineered to be positively charged.
With external and intercalated LNP attachments, mRNA could potentially target negatively charged human cells, separate from any other LNP-substrate-targeting abilities which might exist. Could that ionic attraction lead to aggregation of LNPs to endothelial cells (which are negatively charged), be responsible for LNP tissue accumulation or potential occlusive/thrombotic stroke or heart attacks associated with these injections? (Of note, a monolayer of negatively-charged endothelial cells are what line the inside of all of one’s vasculature, appearing like a cobblestone road under a microscope.)
Could positively charged LNPs be attracted to negatively charged tissues/cells in the body? Could that lead to LNPs forming in one’s vasculature leading to occlusive stroke (also prominently reported in VAERS and V-safe)?
Unfortunately, there is abundance of data showing positively charged lipids to be inherently toxic. One area in the human body with a lot of electrical activity is the heart, and many adverse events reported to VAERS and V-safe (myocarditis, pericarditis, heart attack, arrhythmia, stroke) are heart-originated. Could positively charged LNPs electrically attaching themselves to cardiac tissue be a source of reported adverse events?
Are LNPs an Unregulated or Misregulated Biotechnology?
There appears to be a “regulatory void” in FDA guidance when it comes to LNPs, excluding them from specific FDA safety guidance document recommendations. It appears that available official “FDA Guidance Documents” on both liposomes -and- nanotechnology exclude any mention of LNPs.
Firstly, the FDA’s guidance document recommendations on Liposome Drug Products considers liposomes to be “…vesicles composed of a bilayer and/or a concentric series of multiple bilayers” (emphases added). However, LNPs are known to only have a lipid monolayer, thereby seemingly excluding LNPs from that guidance.
Additionally, on the FDA’s Guidance for Industry: “Considering Whether an FDA-Regulated Product Involves the Application of Nanotechnology” does not mention “lipids” anywhere within its text. While lipids are a long-time and common component in multiple pharmacological preparations, bioengineered lipid nanoparticles are not the same thing and would be expected to have different clinical properties. That guidance is ostensibly not a “catch-all” to include LNPs, as the FDA has multiple specific guidance on nanotechnology, based on their specific type.
It should have been obvious to mRNA manufacturers that LNPs ought to have been subject to special attention and testing for safety prior to their widespread implementation, especially with their dubious safety history. Yet, it remains unknown which (if any) safety tests occurred before, during, or after “warp speed” deployment.
Private Lawsuit Filed for mRNA and LNP Transparency
A privately filed lawsuit demanding transparency had to be filed to compel the release of manufacturers’ application, including mRNA sequence(s) and LNP quantities and configurations. One manufacturer’s mRNA application is said to be ~1.2 million pages long. In response to consumer queries, regulators initially very dubiously proposed redacting and releasing only 500 pages per month which would have taken ~200 years.
That is more than a little ironic seeing as how the entire “warp speed” development and EUA process took less than one year.
The judge ordered the release of 55,000 redacted pages every 30 days, which will instead take “only” two years. While that may seem like a relative bargain – it actually isn’t. Any FDA medical officer/senior medical analyst (present author included) can tell you that the vast majority of an application is nothing but raw tabled numbers (including: individual lab values, blood pressure measurements, temperatures weights, et cetera) that requires little/no redaction since no names or other PHI or HIPAA information are included in unredacted FDA new product applications.
Additionally, since the judge’s order didn’t specify that any particular pages would be given priority or should be released sequentially, the most critical parts of the application, such as LNP safety, LNP configurations, mRNA LNP binding sites, the actual mRNA strands, or milligram/LNP quantity and sequence per 0.3mL injection could be the last pages to be released. That could further prolong the release of the most fundamental information needed by outside drug safety analysts, clinicians, and other scientists for modeling potential mechanisms for reported safety signals.
Rushing mRNA shots through the regulatory process has raised important questions about both their reported safety findings and FDA’s regulation of nanotechnology. It has also raised questions about mRNA manufacturers claiming basic ingredient information about their products to be “trade secrets” despite the taxpayer funding development and the injections themselves. For those of you who aren’t as familiar with FDA regulation as I am, I can tell you: This is atypical.
FDA-approved products — even legacy drugs such as amoxicillin — prominently detail all of their ingredients (including the full ingredient list, plus active ingredient quantity, plus specification of whether ingredients are either active or inactive components) of their product within their official product labeling. The current labeling additionally doesn’t specify active versus inactive ingredients, despite the fact that LNPs may not be clinically/toxicologically inert according to some studies.
Fully Taxpayer-Funded, but Basic LNP and mRNA Information Still Considered “Trade Secret”
There is no good reason why pharmacologists and other scientists do not have full disclosure on mRNA sequence, LNP configurations, and toxicity studies. Manufacturers have liability immunity under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act). Taxpayers already paid tens of billions each to multiple manufacturers, yet those same taxpayers weren’t entitled to know everything about it, including an analysis of what was in it. Indeed, one manufacturer alone acquired an unprecedented $100 billion profit in just one year – $38 billion of which was directly from mRNA shots.
Are LNPs or mRNA Spike Proteins Responsible for Life-Threatening Inflammatory-Related Adverse Events?
Several studies have shown that spike proteins from either the mRNA shots or community acquired infection are toxic in a dose-dependent manner. Incorrectly manufactured or excessive doses of mRNA injections can turn one’s own cells into “bio-zombies” compulsively replicating just the reported toxic Covid spike protein at a potentially much higher rate than what would occur via a community-acquired Covid infection, if regulated by a healthy immune system.
While a healthy immune system will build antibodies and fight Covid viral particle replication, thereby attenuating replication, an mRNA injection (depending on the dose) has the potential to overproduce an excess of Covid spike proteins – and potentially at an unnaturally rapid rate relative to normal viral replication – depending on the number/load of mRNA strands in a vaccine injection. It is unknown how many LNP particles are in each dose according to the official FDA label.
Was Historical Toxicity of Lipid and Other Nanoparticles Predictive of Recently Reported Adverse Events in VAERS and V-Safe?
In addition to the independent toxicity of spike proteins from the mRNA component, there is a well-established history of safety concerns with LNPs dating back to the 1990s. Those safety and cellular toxicity concerns continue on to this very day. Numerous published studies describe how LNPs independently cause toxicity and are known to activate the complement (inflammatory) system causing immune responses, induce liver injuries, lung injuries, stimulating free radicals, and have potential fetal adverse events by easily passing the placental barrier due to their ultra-tiny size.
In 2018, patisiran (Onpattro®) became the first gene therapy-based drug and the first approved therapy delivered via LNPs. But that drug was given to a limited population for individuals with an extremely rare genetic disease called hereditary ATTR (hATTR) amyloidosis. ATTR is a multisystem, rapidly progressive, otherwise fatal illness that only affects around 50,000 people worldwide, caused by a misfolded endogenous protein. That gene therapy product was permitted for use in adults only (not children, plus not all adults are eligible) and is used to silence a specific gene – not transcribe a complex spike protein.
Those eligible who received patisiran (Onpattro®) had significant adverse events requiring pretreatment with multiple anti-inflammatory drugs to minimize reactions. Those inflammatory–based adverse reactions were specifically attributed to its nanoparticles. Adverse effects from Covid mRNA shots are also inherently inflammatory in nature. The difference is: patisiran (Onpattro®) is a short nucleotide chain – about 20 sequences long.
In contrast to that, Covid-19 mRNA sequences to transcribe the spike protein (allegedly, that is; official FDA package insert doesn’t say) span thousands of nucleotides in length, meaning that Covid mRNA injections would need substantially greater quantity of LNPs to achieve stability, exposing those patients to significantly greater numbers of LNPs.
Along with patisiran (Onpattro®) causing an inflammatory response, there are clinical peer-reviewed studies showing similar inflammatory-centric adverse events reported with Covid mRNA injections including: ischemic stroke, pericarditis and/or myocarditis, inline with what is being reported to the FDA’s VAERS and CDC’s V-Safe reporting systems.
Is it the spike protein responsible or is the LNP component? Is it a combination of both? Neither? Is it dose-related? Is it due to manufacturing inconsistencies of the LNP or mRNA? Storage? Handling? Alteration of the LNP upon attachment mRNA? Is it something else?
Generally speaking, mRNA injections have been reported to FDA’s VAERS as the primary adverse event suspect in >9,000 heart attacks, >17,000 cases of permanent disability and >5,000 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis reported in the US alone. The extrapolated worldwide incidence could be hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of times greater. Even worse: according to over a dozen published studies, (including a recent FDA-funded study out of Harvard) the adverse event numbers reported in FDA’s VAERS represent fewer than 1 percent of vaccine adverse events that may occur in actuality.
Summary
In sum, mRNA shots are complex and novel technology, and may have unrealized clinical, pharmacological, and toxicological effects. Jamming them through an abbreviated/expedited authorization/approval process that has been untransparent has raised lingering questions about LNP safety, consistency, and the FDA’s overall regulatory policy on nanotechnology.
LNP/mRNA injections have also led to a high numbers of patient-reported treatment-associated serious adverse events including hospitalizations, permanent disabilities, and deaths, as detailed in both VAERS, and the CDC’s previously shuttered V-safe reporting system (V-safe appears to be back up, but had been shut down for months). The abbreviated and rushed timeline used to approve a complex and novel mRNA/LNP product should have led to a substantially greater scientific introspection by America’s federal public health officials, well prior to authorizations and government mandates.
Neither manufacturers nor government agencies are saying much about the clinical findings of mRNA/LNP injections as related to database reporting other than affirming their safety and regurgitating some variation of correlation is not causation. Does that mean Americans are expected to ignore hundreds of thousands of Covid-19 injection adverse event reports? If yes, then what is the point of collecting them in the first place?
Still, if Americans have the temerity to ask questions about the “safe and effective” narrative, it seems to be treated as sacrilege by hospital administrators, major employers, government officials – even the U.S. military.
Was the entire truncated development, testing, review, authorization, and subsequent safety findings of mRNA/LNP injections a holy ritual beyond objective questioning or altruistic critique?
Many scientists and clinicians still have unanswered, fundamental questions. Unfortunately, they will simply have to wait another year (or more) for FDA’s compliance with the court’s disclosure order. Americans can only hope that when the court deadline finally arrives, regulators don’t absurdly over-redact it to the point of being comically incoherent, as they have done in the past (see sample redactions in immediately preceding link).
In the meantime, these legitimate regulatory, clinical, and regulatory safety questions have not led to a contemplative regulatory, scientific, or epidemiological pause in proceeding full speed ahead with Fall 2023 EUAs, and CDC’s recommendations of “everyone over 6 months and older” needing new, updated mRNA injections.
Author
David Gortler, a 2023 Brownstone Fellow, is a pharmacologist, pharmacist, research scientist and a former member of the FDA Senior Executive Leadership Team who served as senior advisor to the FDA Commissioner on matters of: FDA regulatory affairs, drug safety and FDA science policy. He is a former Yale University and Georgetown University didactic professor of pharmacology and biotechnology, with over a decade of academic pedagogy and bench research, as part of his nearly two decades of experience in drug development. He also serves as a scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
Source: Global Research
Gene-based Vaccination — Quo Vadis?
By Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, Dr. Karina Reiss, and Dr. Michael Palmer
November 29, 2022
Rationale for development of vaccines
The concept underlying vaccine development is straightforward: application of a harmless derivative of an infectious agent should stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies that protect against that agent.
Introduction of any foreign substance into the body can never be entirely devoid of risks, however, so the prime question to be addressed is whether the benefit can be expected to outweigh the risks. Therefore,
the pathogen must be dangerous—an infection with it is associated with a high morbidity and mortality rate, and
vaccination will generate robust immunological protection against severe disease.
These requisites were fulfilled in the historic successes of vaccine development against smallpox, tetanus, diphtheria and poliomyelitis. The euphoria created by these scientific milestones caused one decisive fact to be overlooked, however. In all four cases, the agents were transported to their destination in the bloodstream, where they could be captured by the antibodies.
It is essential to realize that this is the exception and not the rule. Most viral pathogens cause self-limiting infections of the respiratory or the gastrointestinal tract. Severe damage to internal organs caused by their spread via the bloodstream occurs infrequently, and infections are generally not associated with high death rates. Because of their ubiquity, a high level of background immunity to such viruses is already present in the general population. For these simple reasons, a genuine need for development of vaccines against most viral pathogens does not exist.
Immunity to respiratory viruses: systemic versus mucosal immunity
We now turn to an important fact regarding the protection of the respiratory tract against infections: it is mediated by cells of the immune system which reside within and beneath our respiratory mucous membranes; and these cells function quite independently from those immune cells which protect our internal organs.
A key aspect of this functional separation between mucosal and systemic immunity concerns the nature of antibodies produced by plasma cells located directly beneath the mucous membranes. These antibodies—secretory immunoglobulin A (sIgA)—are secreted across the mucous membranes to their surface. They are thus on site to meet airborne viruses, and they may be able to prevent them from binding and infecting the cells within those mucous membranes. The same mode of protection pertains to the digestive tract as well.
In contrast, IgG and circulating IgA are the main antibodies found in the bloodstream. They cannot prevent the entry of viruses into the cells that line the airways or the gut, and they may at best counteract their spread if they gain entry to the circulation. Crucially, vaccines that are injected into the muscle—i.e., the interior of the body—will only induce IgG and circulating IgA, but not secretory IgA. The antibodies induced by such vaccines therefore cannot and will not effectively protect the cells of the respiratory tract against infection by airborne viruses [1,2]. This realization is neither contentious nor new. As long as 30 years ago, McGhee et al. [2] concluded:
It is surprising that despite our current level of understanding of the common mucosal immune system, almost all current vaccines are given to humans by the parenteral route [i.e. by injection]. Systemic immunization is essentially ineffective for induction of mucosal immune responses. Since the majority of infectious microorganisms are encountered through mucosal surface areas, it is logical to consider the induction of protective antibodies and T cell responses in mucosal tissues.
The failure of intramuscular injection to induce secretory IgA has been confirmed in a study on Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) [3]. Like COVID-19, this disease is caused by a coronavirus, and the experimental vaccine used in the study was gene-based, like all of the major vaccines currently deployed against COVID-19. More recently, another study has shown that the mRNA COVID-vaccines also do not stimulate substantive production of secretory IgA [4]. For this simple reason, one cannot expect that vaccination will inhibit airway infection. Indeed, the utter failure of the vaccines to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection is today solidly documented [5,6].
It is general knowledge that secretory IgA antibodies (sIgA) are produced in response to naturally occurring airway infections. The mucous membranes of healthy individuals are consequently coated with antibodies directed against common respiratory viruses. However, the capacity of these antibodies to prevent infections is limited. The outcome of an encounter with a virus is not “black or white”—numbers are all-important. A wall of protective antibodies may ward off a small-scale attack, but it will be overridden at higher viral loads. This is why infections with airborne viruses occur repeatedly throughout life, a fact that will not even be altered by the use of intranasal vaccines in order to stimulate sIgA-production, even though intranasal vaccine application does induce stronger mucosal immune responses than does intramuscular injection [3,7].
The subordinate role of secretory IgA in combating systemic viral infections is highlighted by the fact that individuals with a very common genetic defect—selective sIgA deficiency—who are unable to produce sIgA do not suffer from dramatically increased susceptibility toward severe respiratory infections. This observation can be understood from the following two principles: firstly, immunological protection against respiratory viruses rests mainly on T-cells; and secondly, in those with preexisting immunity, levels of bloodstream antibodies (circulating IgG and IgA) are generally sufficient to prevent severe disease through viral spread within the body.
Key players in antiviral immunity: the T-lymphocytes
T-lymphocytes are crucial for controlling respiratory infections and indeed, this extends to viral infections in general. Attention is now turned to these cells, whereby the discussion can initially be focused on the function of cytotoxic T-lymphocytes (CTL).
What do these cells recognize, and what is the cardinal consequence of this immune recognition?
Whenever a cell produces a specific protein, it will generate multiple copies of it. A few of these copies will be broken down, on purpose, into small fragments; these are then transported to the surface of the cell, together with a specific carrier molecule named MHC 1. There, the fragments become amenable for interaction with and recognition by CTL. Different fragments will be recognized by lymphocytes belonging to different “clones”; all cells of a given T-cell clone will carry the same T-cell receptors and recognize the same protein fragments, but cells belonging to different clones will differ in their antigen specificity (Figure 1). A T-cell which does manage to find and bind its cognate protein fragment will thereby be activated to eject deadly toxic substances onto and into the targeted cells.
Figure 1: Lock and key interaction between protein fragments on the surface of a cell and T-cell receptors of cytotoxic T-cells. The fragments are presented to the T-cells by a specific carrier molecule, MHC 1 (not shown). The T-cell receptors on our body’s T-lymphocytes can recognize, collectively, a very large spectrum of protein fragments, but all the receptor molecules on a given T-cell are identical and will bind to the same fragments. T-cells which bind to one of the protein fragments presented by a MHC 1 molecule on a cell surface will thereby be activated.
If the protein whose fragments had attracted and activated those CTL was encoded by a virus, then the result will be the destruction of the virus-infected cell, which is useful and necessary for eradicating a viral infection. However, note that the process of protein fragmentation and presentation is completely general—it is not limited to viral or other “non-self” proteins, but rather applies to the body’s own “self” proteins as well. It is therefore vital to prevent the activation of CTL that recognize the fragments of these “self” protein-derived fragments. How is this accomplished?
Envisage the interaction between presented protein fragment and its “receptor” on the T-cell as one between lock and key. There are myriad different keys (fragments) fitting into myriad different locks (T-cell receptors). It is known that the truly incredible diversity of locks arises already during fetal development. How does this happen? Are locks molded in response to the fragments (keys) as these appear during development? Then, since the fetus is not usually exposed to any viral infections, CTL would be equipped with receptors exclusively recognizing “self” protein fragments; but these self-reactive CTL clones could hardly serve a useful purpose. If, on the other hand, the diversity of locks should arise haphazardly and by chance, without requirement for any instructing template (key), then billions of lymphocytes that recognize “non-self”—extraneous agents, including virus proteins—should be generated alongside those that recognize “self.”
Intriguingly, the latter is today known to be the case [8]. Wondrously, lymphocytes recognizing “self” are silenced or held in check throughout life, preventing them from wantonly attacking healthy body cells. Mishaps occasionally occur that can lead to autoimmune disease. Come cells out of cover that are reactive against liver proteins, come autoimmune hepatitis. Come T-cells out of cover that are reactive against the pancreatic islets, come autoimmune diabetes.
But on the other hand, immune cells reactive against essentially all non-self proteins and present at birth are ready to spring into action whenever a challenge is issued. It is for this very reason that conventional vaccinations can successfully be performed already in early infancy. And when a Coronavirus comes around, up rises the anti-Corona CTL team. When flu comes around, up rises the anti-flu team, etc. Each bout of training strengthens the team, enabling the opponent to be more rapidly constrained and infections terminated with increasing effectiveness.
Figure 2: Clonal selection of T-lymphocytes. The diversity of T-cell receptors is initially generated at random, which means that many T-cells will carry receptors that bind to self antigens. In the thymus, such T-cells are “baited” by cells that express those antigens and then destroyed or suppressed. T-cells which do not bind self antigens will persist and may at a later time be activated and induced to multiply in response to a virus infection.
But is such acquired immunity not voided and evaded by ever new virus “variants of concern”? Not so. Here, one must note that a protein will generate many fragments that are recognized by many different CTL clones. The proteins encoded by a virus mutant may generate one or a few differing fragments, but the majority of other fragments will remain the same. For this reason, CTL-based cross-reactivity and cross-protection exists between all members of a given virus family. In connection with COVID-19 specifically, it has been noted that previously infected persons may indeed sometimes contract another infection with a new variant, but such reinfections are almost never of a serious nature [9,10]. This is just as we should have expected; the narrative that emergence of virus mutations must be countered by development of customized vaccines has thus been fundamentally flawed right from the start.
Activation of T-lymphocytes—but in this case, T-helper cells rather than CTL—is also coupled to B-lymphocyte activation, and this leads to antibody production (Figure 3). While CTL recognize fragments of proteins presented on the cell surface, antibodies bind to the intact proteins themselves. Bound antibodies then trigger activation of another major arm of immune defense, the complement system, with far-reaching consequences. A plethora of inflammatory events are triggered by complement activation. Furthermore, the complement system itself will attack and destroy the cell on whose surface activation occurs.
Every gene-based vaccine encoding non-self is direly dangerous
It follows from the above that production of “non-self” antigens by our own body cells will invariably provoke inflammatory and cell-destructive processes. In viral infections, this is to the purpose, because it leads to elimination of befallen cells. Most viruses target a limited spectrum of tissues, and most tissues can regenerate, so wounds can heal thereafter.
Proponents of gene-based vaccines commonly argue that these agents do nothing more than mimic what happens in actual virus infections. Expression of the alien protein is thereby claimed to be short-lived and confined mainly to the site of intramuscular injection. Any cell damage should likewise be limited, and serious adverse reactions are therefore not to be expected.
Nothing could be more misleading and further from the truth.
Figure 3: Cooperation of T-cells and antibodies in antiviral defense. T-helper cells are activated by the fragments of a viral “non-self” antigen in much the same way as are CTL. However, their role is not to go on the attack themselves; instead, they activate B-cells in turn, which will then start producing antibodies to the intact non-self protein. If these antibodies find their target on the surface of an infected cell, they will activate complement, a cascade of serum proteins which can destroy that cell and also promote inflammation generally.
The assertion that LNP-packaged mRNA remains at the site of injection is by now widely known to be a blatant untruth. These “vaccines” rapidly spread from the site of injection to lymph nodes and the blood circulation [11]; and long-lived expression in organs and tissues at distance from the injection site has been documented repeatedly and with range of analytical techniques [12–15]. And because the vaccine particles can enter all nucleated cells, their uptake is bound to rapidly occur in cells of the lymph nodes, in endothelial cells that line the walls of blood vessels, and in cells of every tissue they reach.
This fact immediately sets apart “mRNA-vaccination” from naturally occurring infections. Very few infectious agents systemically target lymphocytes or endothelial cells. Amongst the latter are dangerous viruses that cause hemorrhagic fevers, and bacteria that also cause life-threatening infections, e.g. typhus and Rocky Mountain spotted fever.
In striking contrast, each and every mRNA-“vaccine” will incite self-destructive processes in lymphatic organs and in blood vessels throughout the body. The immense dangers of self-attack events occurring within the immunological control network have been outlined [16]. They include the reactivation of dormant infections (e.g. Herpes simples, shingles, EBV, CMV, tuberculosis, parasites), reduced capacity to control new infections, and activation or reactivation of neoplasms [17].
Concomitantly, concerted immune attack will be mounted against the walls of vessels, whenever and wherever the endothelial cells become transfected (Figure 4). In the case of SARS-CoV-2, it is known that spike protein-specific cytotoxic T-cells are widely present in the blood of healthy individuals. This may be due to previous infection with this virus, but alternatively also to immunological cross-reactivity with other, related Coronaviruses [18,19]. With the appearance of specific antibodies, attack on cells carrying the alien proteins will be multiplied and intensified manifold through the action of complement and phagocytic cells. Blood clots forming in the wake of endothelial injury will result in circulatory disturbances. Ischemic cell death will have irreversible consequences in the central nervous system and the heart. Damage to vessel walls will predictably cause leakage of the vaccines to and uptake by cells of the respective organs, planting the seeds for myriad autodestructive events.
Figure 4: How COVID-19 mRNA vaccines damage blood vessels and cause clotting. After the vaccine lipid nanoparticles have entered the circulation, they are taken up by the endothelial cells, and the mRNA is released. The spike protein is then expressed; some molecules are fragmented and presented on the cell surface by a special carrier protein (MHC1). This causes the endothelial cells to be attacked by cytotoxic T-cells. Destroyed endothelial cells slough off, facilitating leakage of vaccine particles into the adjacent tissues. This also exposes the deeper layers of the vessel wall to the blood, which triggers thrombocyte aggregation and blood clotting.
Accumulating data are confirming these premonitions, and an emerging finding may prove to be distinctive and diagnostic for vaccine-mediated pathologies: vaccine-induced expression of spike protein within endothelial cells and resulting vasculitis will go hand in hand. The first illustration of this principle has been presented in a case report of a 76-year old man who died three weeks after receiving his third COVID-19 vaccination [20]. Histopathological analyses of the brain led to detection of multifocal vasculitis and necrotizing encephalitis. Small vessel vasculitis and lymphocytic myocarditis were found in the heart. Spike protein was detected within the foci of inflammation in both the brain and the heart, particularly in the endothelial cells of small blood vessels (Figure 5). Appropriate control experiments confirmed that the observed spike protein expression was indeed caused by the vaccine injections the patient had received rather than by an undiagnosed infection with the virus itself.
Multiorgan vasculitis, with notable involvement of small vessels, is now emerging as a common theme underlying adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination. Affliction of capillaries with thrombus formation in brain and heart are repeatedly being observed (Mörz [20]; Mörz and Burkhardt, unpublished). The observed pattern of disease in small and smallest vessels is novel and deemed by the authors to be characteristic for the action of gene-based vaccines.
Fulminant reactions may be expected to occur in patients who are vaccinated after recovery from genuine SARS-CoV-2 infections. Such patients will have high levels of circulating IgG antibodies against the spike protein [21], and complement attack on vaccine-transfected cells may then be immediate and massive. A case report of myocarditis-induced sudden death after first vaccination with direct evidence of complement activation in the heart has been published [22].
Figure 5: Expression of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the brain of a triple-vaccinated patient (immunohistochemistry). The brown pigment pinpoints spike protein within a small blood vessel (red arrow) as well as in glia cells of the surrounding brain tissue (blue arrow). Photograph taken from Mörz [20].
In our considered opinion, the outcome with future mRNA vaccines against other pathogens will be much the same as we have witnessed with the COVID-19 vaccines. It is true that the spike protein itself can promote blood clotting and inflammation without any help from the immune system [23]. Nevertheless, the already available evidence indicates that the grave, widespread and sustained injury to tissues and to blood vessels is mostly caused by the immune attack on spike protein-producing cells. This attack occurs simply because the spike protein is a non-self antigen; and since every other mRNA vaccine will encode its own non-self antigen, derived from whichever particular microbe it targets, we must expect that it will cause harm by the same mechanism and to a similar extent. These nightmarish scenarios will only get worse with every booster injection. The catastrophic events will be neither avoidable nor suppressible due to their very nature.
The disaster unfolding before our eyes could be, and was [24], predicted from first principles of immunology. The ability to distinguish between self and non-self is fundamental to life. It is already present at birth and ends only at death. It cannot be manipulated or controlled. Any attempt to do so with mRNA or other gene-based vaccines is doomed to failure.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Notes
Kurono, Y. (2021) The mucosal immune system of the upper respiratory tract and recent progress in mucosal vaccines. Auris nasus larynx (preprint)
McGhee, J.R. et al. (1992) The mucosal immune system: from fundamental concepts to vaccine development. Vaccine 10:75-88
Kim, M.H. et al. (2019) Superior immune responses induced by intranasal immunization with recombinant adenovirus-based vaccine expressing full-length Spike protein of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. PLoS One 14:e0220196
Meyer-Arndt, L. et al. (2022) Cutting Edge: Serum but Not Mucosal Antibody Responses Are Associated with Pre-Existing SARS-CoV-2 Spike Cross-Reactive CD4+T Cells following BNT162b2 Vaccination in the Elderly. Immunol. 208:1001-1005
Chau, N.V.V. et al. (2021) Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Among Vaccinated Healthcare Workers, Vietnam.
Singanayagam, A. et al. (2021) Community transmission and viral load kinetics of the SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) variant in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in the UK: a prospective, longitudinal, cohort study. Lancet Infect. Dis. (preprint)
Du, L. et al. (2008) Intranasal vaccination of recombinant adeno-associated virus encoding receptor-binding domain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) spike protein induces strong mucosal immune responses and provides long-term protection against SARS-CoV infection. Immunol. 180:948-56
Rechavi, E. and Somech, R. (2017) Survival of the fetus: fetal B and T cell receptor repertoire development. Immunopathol. 39:577-583
Dhar, M.S. et al. (2021) Genomic characterization and epidemiology of an emerging SARS-CoV-2 variant in Delhi, India. Science 374:995-999
Altarawneh, H. et al. (2022) Protection afforded by prior infection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection with the Omicron variant. medRxiv (preprint)
Anonymous, (2020) SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine (BNT162, PF-07302048) 2.6.4 Summary statement of the pharmacokinetic study [English translation].
Bansal, S. et al. (2021) Cutting Edge: Circulating Exosomes with COVID Spike Protein Are Induced by BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) Vaccination prior to Development of Antibodies: A Novel Mechanism for Immune Activation by mRNA Vaccines. Immunol. 207:2405-2410
Magen, E. et al. (2022) Clinical and Molecular Characterization of a Rare Case of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine-Associated Myositis. Vaccines 10 (preprint)
Röltgen, K. et al. (2022) Immune imprinting, breadth of variant recognition and germinal center response in human SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination. Cell (preprint)
Yamamoto, M. et al. (2022) Persistent varicella zoster virus infection following mRNA COVID‐19 vaccination was associated with the presence of encoded spike protein in the lesion. Cutan. Immunol. Allergy (preprint)
Anonymous, (2021) Shots and Shingles: What Do They Tell Us?.
Krüger, U. (2022) COVID vaccination and turbo cancer: pathological evidence.
Grifoni, A. et al. (2020) Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals. Cell 181:1489-1501.e15
Nelde, A. et al. (2020) SARS-CoV-2-derived peptides define heterologous and COVID-19-induced T cell recognition. Nature immunology (preprint)
Mörz, M. (2022) A Case Report: Multifocal Necrotizing Encephalitis and Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination against Covid-19. Vaccines 10:2022060308
Killingley, B. et al. (2022) Safety, tolerability and viral kinetics during SARS-CoV-2 human challenge in young adults. Med. (preprint)
Choi, S. et al. (2021) Myocarditis-induced Sudden Death after BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination in Korea: Case Report Focusing on Histopathological Findings. Korean Med. Sci. 36:e286
Letarov, A.V. et al. (2021) Free SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein S1 Particles May Play a Role in the Pathogenesis of COVID-19 Infection. Biochemistry Mosc 86:257-261
Bhakdi, S. et al. (2021) Urgent Open Letter from Doctors and Scientists to the European Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Concerns.
Ways to connect
Telegram: @JoelWalbert
Email: thetruthaddict@tutanota.com
The Truth Addict Telegram channel
Hard Truth Soldier chat on Telegram
Mastodon: @thetruthaddict@noagendasocial.com
Session: 05e7fa1d9e7dcae8512eed0702531272de14a7f1e392591432551a336feb48357c
Odysee: TruthAddict
Donations (#Value4Value)
Buy Me a Coffee (One time donations as low as $1)
Bitcoin:
bc1qc9ynhlmgxcdd2mjufqr8fxhf248gqee05unmpg (on chain)
nemesis@getalby.com (lightning)
joelw@fountain.fm (lightning)
+wildviolet72C (PayNym)
Monero:
43E8i7Pzv1APDJJPEuNnQAV914RqzbNae15UKKurntVhbeTznmXr1P3GYzK9mMDnVR8C1fd8VRbzEf1iYuL3La3q7pcNmeN
Love your questions and how you think. Let me know if you get answers please!