Scientists Recommend “Global Moratorium” for mRNA Injections

---

For the first time in a published and peer-reviewed paper, scientists are calling for a “global moratorium on modified mRNA products” after surveying data from Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID-19 “vaccine” trials. The scientists found that the trials were rushed, presented low efficacy, were contaminated with residual DNA impurities, and that the “vaccines” present many “biological mechanisms” that can cause serious adverse events. The authors also advised the COVID shots should be removed from the Childhood Adolescent Immunization Schedule until proper safety studies are conducted.

The authors wrote, “We urge governments to endorse and enforce a global moratorium on these modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.”

The group of independent researchers who authored the paper are biologist and nutritional epidemiologist M. Nathaniel Mead; research scientist Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D.; biostatistician and epidemiologist Russ Wolfinger, Ph.D.; immunologist and biochemist Dr. Jessica Rose; biostatistician and epidemiologist Kris Denhaerynck, Ph.D.; Vaccine Safety Research Foundation Executive Director Steve Kirsch; and cardiologist, internist, and epidemiologist Dr. Peter McCullough.

The paper titled, “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign,” was published last week in the web-based and peer-reviewed Cureus Journal of Medical Science. One of the authors, Dr. Rose, stated this paper is the first peer-reviewed paper to call for global suspension of the COVID-19 mRNA shots.

The authors analyzed published research from the COVID-19 “vaccine” trials, and data and studies on the shot’s manufacturing process, efficacy, and adverse events citing nearly 300 references, which according to Dr. McCullough, is nearly 10 times the average amount for any given study.

During the rollouts, federal officials touted initial scientific reports stating the COVID shots were “safe and effective” with a “95 percent efficacy” claim. However, the authors concluded the shots “never underwent adequate safety testing” according to “previously established scientific standards.” Several key findings from the paper involving the manufacture, testing, and reporting on the shots include:

• The COVID-19 “vaccine” trials were rushed and compromised by incentives.

The authors noted that many health departments have stated that a normal timeframe for evaluating the safety of a vaccine is 10-15 years, and that no vaccine has ever been released on the market without at least four years of safety testing. However, the paper stated that at the beginning of the pandemic, “$29.2 billion (92 percent of which came from U.S. public funds) was dedicated to the purchase of COVID-19 mRNA products.” After that, Pfizer completed its rapid authorization process in just “seven months.” To be “expeditious,” the authors stated that the pharmaceutical companies then prioritized reducing illness symptoms over whether determining the shots were in and of themselves harmful.

The authors wrote, “Perhaps the most important trial benchmark obviated by the rapid authorization process was the minimum 6-12-month observation period typically recommended for identifying possible longer-term vaccine-related adverse effects.”

In addition, the paper states mRNA products are classified as gene therapy products and have not been properly safety tested for use as vaccines. Yet, early in the trials, regulatory agencies “generalized” the definition of a “vaccine” so the mRNA COVID shots could then be reclassified as “vaccines” and an emergency use authorization (EAU) could be obtained for a quick solution to the pandemic.

“Political and financial incentives may have played a key role in undermining the scientific evaluation process leading up to the EUA,” stated the authors. “Using U.S. taxpayer money to purchase so many doses in advance would suggest that, prior to the EUA process, U.S. federal agencies were strongly biased toward successful outcomes…”

• COVID-19 presents a low-risk to children.

Examining several COVID-19 studies related to children, the authors showed that individuals aged 0-19 had a 0.0003 percent fatality rate from the COVID-19 virus. They noted children between the ages of five and 11 demonstrated “long-lasting” natural immunity after an infection while adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18 experienced only a slightly less rate of protection from reinfection.

Citing surveys that show parents are primarily concerned with potential adverse events over vaccine effectiveness, the authors “reject the policy of administering an experimental vaccine to these age groups.” Currently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends the COVID shot and annual boosters beginning at six months of age. With the addition of the COVID shot and its annual boosters, the CDC’s Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule now includes about 60 doses of vaccines between birth and age 18.

Support Canada Free Press

• Many mechanisms within the shot can cause serious adverse events.

The main safety concern of the authors regarding the COVID shot’s mRNA involves spike proteins. Dr. McCullough previously stated during congressional testimony that, “…these [mRNA] vaccines install the genetic code for the lethal part of the [COVID] virus, which is the spike protein” which could go anywhere in the body. He explained the danger of these shots is that they can produce “too much” of the spike proteins and produce an uncontrolled amount of them.

Without an “off-switch,” the authors stated the spike proteins can cause “chronic, systemic inflammation and immune dysfunction.”

Another “mechanism” that could cause problems is contamination in the shots. The authors noted both the Pfizer and Moderna shots were contaminated with residual DNA plasmids from the manufacturing process. Mass producing an mRNA vaccine requires a different process than producing a clinical trial version and involves using bacterial DNA plasmids. A purification process is supposed to completely remove the residual DNA. However, the authors cited recent findings from another study which cautioned that the purification did not remove all the residual DNA. They stated that the residual plasmids could “integrate” into the human genome potentially causing genes not to function properly. Possible outcomes could result in cancers, mutations, birth defects, or other adverse side effects.

• The shots present low efficacy and more harms than benefits.

While both Pfizer and Moderna claimed an efficacy rate near 95 percent of symptom reduction in their trials, the authors explained that in relation to the whole population the rates of people showing symptoms after injection were as low as “0.7 percent and 1.1 percent respectively.”

In all, the authors posited the harms from the shot were greater than the benefits. The authors stated, “that a substantial number of individuals would need to be injected in order to prevent a single mild-to-moderate case of COVID-19.” Furthermore, they stated that “52,000 vaccinations would be needed to prevent one COVID-19-related death.”

The authors gave a “generous estimate” that “two lives were saved” from the COVID-19 virus for every 100,000 shots. However, they calculated “a risk of 27 deaths” per those same 100,000 doses.

“…for every life saved, there were nearly 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections,” wrote the authors. “We are now beginning to recognize the folly of this narrow safety focus, as millions of severe and life-threatening events associated with the COVID-19 vaccines continue to be documented in the medical literature.”

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “In this exhaustive review paper, these scientists confirm what sound scientific research has been showing for years, that these shots have never been safe nor effective. The FDA and the CDC are supposed to protect the people, but they have become the lapdog of the pharmaceutical industry. This must change.”

VIEW Comments