thepeoplesvoice.tv

A newly published peer-reviewed study has confirmed that Covid jabs ‘permanently damage the DNA of recipients’.

The study, coauthored by Dr. Peter McCullough, detailed the damaging genetic-modification mechanisms of the Covid shots and concluded that a moratorium on its administration must be enacted.

The research was conducted via analysis of data and reports reviewed by the FDA that were improperly used to license the Pfizer Covid shots.

You can unsubscribe any time. By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

Infowars.com reports: “For any other medicinal product, the regulatory submission would have been considered incomplete and most probably rejected. Therefore, a moratorium on the use of Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines and boosters should be enacted at minimum, but ideally, they should be removed from the market and their use in humans should be stopped,” the study said in the ‘Conclusion’ section. “It should be the responsibility of the pharmaceutical industry, not independent scientists, to determine whether a medical intervention is safe. Based upon Pfizer/BioNTech’s data, safety of their COVID-19 modRNA vaccine has not been proven.”

The researchers began by describing the pathologies of the mRNA vaccine (more accurately modified messenger RNA or modRNA), as well as the adenovirus vector vaccines. They effectively describe them as genetic manipulation technology. While the study focused on the Pfizer mRNA vaccine (as it analyzed the Pfizer documents), the genetic modification mechanisms would assumably apply to the Moderna mRNA vaccines as well as the Astra Zeneca and Johnson & Johnson adenovirus vector vaccines.

“Traditional vaccines contain a target antigen at known concentrations from the pathogen (which can be live attenuated, inactivated, or a subunit of the pathogen) in conjunction with an adjuvant. Together the antigen and adjuvant produce an immune response. This is not the case with the COVID-19 modRNA (e.g. Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna), and the adenovirus vector (e.g. Astra Zeneca) vaccines. These newer ‘vaccines’ are similar to a ‘prodrug’ as they use the body’s own cells to produce the viral spike protein in vivo at levels that vary greatly,” the study said in the ‘Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 Vaccine’ section. “Prodrugs have no intrinsic activity to elicit a pharmacological response (in this case formation of antibodies) on their own, but give instructions to the ribosomes on how to produce the ‘active drug’ (i.e., spike protein). Pfizer/BioNTech’s modRNA vaccines have a pronounced pharmacological phase that is then followed by an immunological phase to produce the immune response.”

The researchers also pointed out that due to regulators classifying this exotic technology as a vaccine and not a gene therapy, the shots skirted the regulatory guidelines for what they actually are.

“…the COVID-19 modRNA vaccines are not classified as gene therapy products, whereas an mRNA vaccine against a non-infectious disease such as cancer is not classified as a mRNA vaccine, but as a gene therapy product,” the study said in the ‘Regulatory Guidelines for RNA Therapeutics’ section. “Therefore, nucleic acid vaccines against infectious diseases were specifically excluded from regulatory guidelines for gene therapy products. This has caused the WHO 2005 guidelines to be used for the nonclinical assessment of the COVID-19 modRNA vaccines. It is a regulatory requirement for manufacturers of a gene therapy product to determine the structure, concentration, and biodistribution of the protein that has been coded for produced in-vivo. However, that was not the case for Pfizer/BioNTech’s BNT162b2, as it was misclassified as a traditional vaccine.”

Due to effectively making the bodies of the injected ‘vaccine factories’, the ‘efficiency’ of the various bodies in producing the desired material (in this case the Covid spike protein) is variable.

“Injected individuals may produce variable amounts of spike protein for variable durations of time based on their genetics, age, hormonal and nutritional state, athletic condition, and batch of vaccine they receive,” the study said in the ‘Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 Vaccine’ section.

Research into this fact has not been conducted, perhaps understandably, since research would likely need to be conducted on each and every person who received the gene therapy ‘vaccine’, as the effects are tailored to the individual’s own biological profile.

“Studies to investigate these factors were never performed in the preclinical and clinical phases of development. Therefore, BNT162b2 is not like any other vaccine that has ever been used successfully. The innate immune response is initially targeted against the spike protein, which is bound to the vaccinee’s own cells rather than to the invading pathogen,” the study said in the ‘Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 Vaccine’ section.

Safety studies on the spike proteins produced by the vaccinated individual’s bodies were not conducted.

“By not performing pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of the encoded spike protein produced from the modRNA, which was already known to be toxic via natural SARS-CoV-2 infection, the regulatory submission is incomplete,” the study said in the ‘A Review of Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 modRNA Vaccine Submission Data’ section. “Thus, the nonclinical safety studies were designed to provide data that was insufficient for such a new type of ‘vaccine’.”

Not only were the spike proteins (produced by the body following injection) not studied by Pfizer during the shot’s development, neither were where these spike proteins ended up (their biodistribution).

“Pfizer/BioNTech had no idea how much of the spike protein is generated in vivo, or where it subsequently distributes within the human body. Moreover, Pfizer/BioNTech assumed that the modRNA vaccine resides at the injection site, concluding there is no need to measure the spike protein in the blood. This conclusion is incorrect based upon Pfizer/BioNTech’s own biodistribution study data that appeared following the FDA emergency use authorization, in which it was demonstrated that LNPs were distributed to a variety of tissues likely mediated via LNPs entering the blood stream,” the study said in the ‘Toxicology Studies Extracted from Pfizer/BioNTech’s BNT162b2 Module 2.4. Nonclinical Overview’ section.

While Pfizer did not study the biodistribution of the spike protein, they did however study the biodistribution of a marker protein, luciferase, which the shots also encoded for. This was apparently not conclusive to determine spike protein biodistribution however.

“Although no traditional pharmacokinetic or biodistribution studies were performed with BNT162b2 specifically, or the final modRNA/LNP formulation used clinically, Pfizer/BioNTech did conduct a nonclinical study in which biodistribution was assessed using luciferase as a surrogate marker protein, since it was assumed that changing the coding sequence of the mRNA was unlikely to affect its biodistribution or physicochemical properties. However, differences between the luciferase reporter RNA and BNT162b2 nucleosides (i.e., modRNA) could potentially affect stability or persistence of the measured signal since spike protein has a longer half-life than luciferase,” the study said in the ‘Toxicology Studies Extracted from Pfizer/BioNTech’s BNT162b2 Module 2.4. Nonclinical Overview’ section.

Like a regular vaccine, genotoxic (damage to genetics) and carcinogenic (cancer causing potential) testing were not conducted on the Covid gene therapy either.

“Although BNT162b2 might not expected to have genotoxic or carcinogenic potential, the encoded spike protein that is produced does. Therefore, these studies should have been performed. They were not,” the study said in the ‘Toxicology Studies Extracted from Pfizer/BioNTech’s BNT162b2 Module 2.4. Nonclinical Overview’ section.

Interestingly, the researchers also found several holes in Pfizers testing as it regards to toxicological studies on the novel Covid shots.

“Also, Section 2.4.4.6. Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity shows that these studies were performed using Wistar Han™ rats, a rodent species that is totally inappropriate for toxicology studies. A more relevant species should have been chosen for the toxicity studies on the developing pups. In addition, the distribution of the spike protein in the tissues of both the mother and pups would have provided much needed information as to whether BNT162b2 is suitable to administer to pregnant women and mothers who are breast feeding. Furthermore, male rats were not studied, and data on male fertility is unknown. Moreover, it has recently been documented that the modRNA may predispose otherwise healthy individuals to cancer,” the study said in the ‘Toxicology Studies Extracted from Pfizer/BioNTech’s BNT162b2 Module 2.4. Nonclinical Overview’ section.