Back Test: "Gene Therapy"
One label still carries profound implications
Very Slow Thinking launched with the article, One Label To Rule Them All, which demonstrated how Moderna (and also Pfizer) in concert with the FDA, considered their Covid products as “gene therapies” up until they all made an opaque decision to classify the products as “vaccines”, in order to subject them to regulation applicable to vaccines, instead of creating an appropriate, new gene therapy regulatory pathway.
The practical implications of this deliberate (mis)classification include absolutely minimal short term safety testing and zero long term safety testing on human health, zero testing on human fertility, mutagenicity and carcinogenicity, amongst other issues. It was clear to VST back then that the vaccine regulatory pathway was wholly inappropriate and inadequate for these novel and complex products. Since then, VST’s assessment has been borne out as accurate by primary research and observed negative health outcomes across the globe.
Further, VST stressed and still maintains that the wilful use of the term “vaccine” when referring to these products has undesirable consequences across every level of society because people in general have been led to believe that these products are synonymous in nature, risk and effect to any other vaccine that they may have encountered. Thus, individual informed consent has been utterly corrupted.
Unfortunately, all the groups VST lobbied in the hope that they would abandon their use of the term “vaccine” in order to challenge misplaced mass perception effectively failed to adopt changes to their language. The vast majority of people - expert or otherwise - persisted in using the vaccine label and compounding the misperception, even when there was industry proof from manufacturers and regulators themselves. Even the CEO of Bayer publicly and explicitly stated that the use of the “vaccine” label for mRNA/DNA based gene therapies was instrumental in convincing the human race to unquestioningly submit to being injected with experimental medical treatments that they would have otherwise resisted had the products been described as “gene therapies”.
Slowly, a few outspoken people did shift their language, but it took more than 18 months after VST’s article to see this change begin to emerge, and it is still a marginal linguistic phenomenon.
However, it should be acknowledged that there are rational views on why it is potentially legitimate to apply the vaccine label to these products. The best case for this is laid out by none other than Aaron Siri, who successfully sued Pfizer and FDA to release Pfizer’s clinical trial data under FOIA.
It is ESSENTIAL to truly understand Siri’s frame of reference, which is both rational and highly specific, while appearing superficially to be in direct contradiction to VST’s opening and maintained position. One must understand the context of Siri’s position and get to his conclusion.
The main difference may be the number of people who simply refuse to admit that mRNA vaccines, like DNA vaccines, viral vector vaccines, etc., are all vaccines that fall into the same economic and regulatory model that permits pharma to harm people with impunity with these products.
What truly makes mRNA vaccines the same as all vaccines, including the ones mandated for school children, is their economic and regulatory framework. They were developed and trialed by pharma companies that knew beforehand that they would not be liable for injuries and that HHS, FDA, CDC, and NIH would promote their products, push for mandates of their products, and literally defend (in the VICP or CICP) against any claim they cause injury.
VST and Siri arrived at the same conclusion and were arguing the same, fundamental point. The “economic and regulatory framework” was deliberately constructed to provide sufficient latitude to industry and regulators - who work in concert - so that they can pursue a primary objective of marketing these products with minimum regulatory resistance for maximum profit and minimum liability. There was sufficient latitude to categorise the product’s actions and anticipated outcomes as satisfying the regulatory framework’s vaccine classification. This set up has been deliberately constructed in business and legal fields over a long period of time.
From VST’s perspective, this explains why there was an opaque decision point at which manufacturers and FDA colluded to finally classify what the FDA considered a gene therapy, as a vaccine. Siri’s article outlines the combinations of reasons why manufacturers and regulators can justify, legally and mechanistically, this classification.
This is another demonstration of longstanding, strategic regulatory capture of the FDA by the pharma industry. Put another way, this is evidence of the scale of vertical and horizontal integration that has been achieved within the medical and scientific industry and it is fundamental to why, medically speaking, society is where it is today in terms of pandemic management and wider health management.
Compound effects are still being discovered
The implications of this regulatory capture are still being unearthed. Right now, primary research is being conducted into the ingredients of the products and the integrity and effects of those ingredients.
No, this is not a reference to the supposed presence of graphene oxide, which has recently been discounted by Ryan Cole et al as an artefact of the misuse of raman laser spectroscopy, wherein, according to Cole, the product samples were exposed to grossly excessive laser light (orders of magnitude too much exposure) that results in the cooking of the samples and the generation of carbon deposits that have been erroneously described as the presence of graphene oxide as a pre-existing ingredient. Such work was put forward by Quinta Columna, UK Citizen 2021 and others. If Cole et al are correct, this entire set of claims about graphene oxide could be false and nothing more than a red herring.
This remains an on going argument and has not been conclusively proven and agreed to VST’s limited knowledge. An on-stage disagreement between Ryan Cole and Astrid Stuckelberger has been captured here, for what it’s worth.
VST continues to exercise extreme caution in the GO field. The web is riddled with obviously ignorant misinterpretations that do the viral rounds amongst undiscerning audiences. Here is just one example, which follows a standard format of selective (probably deliberate) idiocy:
Even within the context of that single page of Pfizer material, it is clear that the “graphene oxide” highlighted is a component in an in vitro experimental analysis process (flow cytometry), and not evidence of the addition of graphene oxide as an ingredient in Covid gene therapies. With reference to the full document, it is even more clear that an in vitro experiment into the “Flow Cytometry Analysis of Binding to Cell Surface-Expressed P2 S” which is an analysis method totally divorced from the production process of Pfizer’s Covid gene therapy products. In short, this tweet and attendant claim is literal, selective idiocy. Ignore.
VST has been extremely wary of the GO claims put forth by several sources. GO was only ever mentioned once in VST’s output as a hypothetical factor within a larger hypothesis, published as the five part series, “Covid: The End of Hope Hypothesis”:
Combine this concept with the circa five different pieces of research into the vial content of Covid gene therapies, all of which claim to have detected the undisclosed presence of graphene oxide and other ingredients using raman spectroscopy. Some of those studies have also shown, through high power microscopy that there appears to be self-assembling, inorganic structures of unknown purpose.
VST sets continues to set the GO debate aside.
Of far, far greater concern is the work of Kevin McKernan. It is his recent, ongoing research into the genetic content of the products that is of concern, specifically:
the integrity and specification of any mRNA active ingredient;
the presence, integrity, specification and potential effects of any other genetic material in the product.
Kevin McKernan has so far published 9 pieces of primary research into this aspect of the Pfizer and Moderna monovalent and bivalent Covid gene therapies. The work may be considered pre-print because McKernan is publishing straight to substack for review outside of the known corrupt gateway of journal-based peer review. This is part of a movement to abandon and circumvent this widespread corruption of the peer review process and the suppressive gateway effect on the dissemination of knowledge that goes against the establishment narrative.
McKernan states that his research and publications are, by design, easily replicable in a wet lab. McKernan has deep expertise in Genomics. Find his current company bio here. This is a snippet of McKernan’s commentary on aspects of the implications of his research:
VST is preparing a lay overview of McKernan’s findings that, when considered in a wider context, makes for extremely disturbing reading that compounds what VST and Siri have been driving at regarding classification, regulation and perception. It highlights again the scale of the problem of vertical and horizontal capture of science and reinforces most if not all of the systemic problems of the pandemic, which VST and many others have been flagging.
Sleight of hand trickery up their sleeve.Par for the course!