The role that a key ingredient in the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine plays in cancer development has been analyzed in a comprehensive review newly published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The conclusion: The specific form of this ingredient, pseudouridine, that Pfizer and Moderna use to make their vaccines could aid cancer development by impacting immune responses.
N1-methyl-pseudouridine (I will call it pseudoU in this article) is a critical component of the mRNA vaccine. Pfizer and Moderna chemically introduce pseudoU into their vaccines to make the mRNA molecules last longer in the human body (escaping degradation by enzymes), and to avoid suppression by the innate immune system, the body’s first line of defense against foreign invaders.
Claims by Pfizer and Moderna
The review article concluded that Pfizer and Moderna emphasized only the positive aspects related to replacing “U” with pseudoU when launching their vaccines. The new design makes the mRNA more stable, leading to more S (spike) protein produced and a more desirable immune response against SARS-CoV-2. The vaccine makers did not, however, provide information on the potential harms of the S protein, which is a known toxin, or on the potential side effects of avoiding an innate immune response.I, for one, felt misled.
When I first learned that Pfizer was developing an mRNA-based vaccine, my reaction was “Oh, at least it’s not going to do much harm, as mRNA normally lasts only a few minutes in the body.” As a messenger, mRNA’s job is to deliver the message (of making a protein) and then quickly disappear.
Well, it turns out the mRNA is not what I thought.
By replacing every “U” with pseudoU, Pfizer and Moderna designed their vaccines to stay in the body longer to produce the S protein to trigger immune responses. The problem is that the modification made the molecules too stable, and thus they stay in the body for far too long.
S Protein
When we consider the possible harms from the COVID shot, we need to look at not only the components of the vaccine, i.e., the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-LNP molecules that are being injected into human bodies, but also the recombinant S protein that the mRNA encodes for. This is something that we should not fully consider irrelevant.Which Is Smarter, Science or Our Innate Immunity?
National Institutes of Health scientists Dr. Jordan Meier and Dr. Kellie Nance have praised the invention of the COVID-19 vaccine using pseudoU.I wonder if Drs. Meier and Nance would draw the same conclusion today, given that information is emerging on the potential harms of the mRNA vaccine, especially when it comes to replacing “U” with pseudoU in the mRNA molecules.
The human body is a near-perfect design with a comprehensive immune system that protects it from harm while keeping a balance of things within the body’s environment. Tricking the immune system for short-term gain could have long-term adverse effects.
Replacing “U” with pseudoU may successfully protect mRNA vaccines from the recipient’s own immune system like a trojan horse; however, this trojan horse may eventually release hostile forces.
The “undesired immune stimulation” (from the NIH scientists and the mRNA vaccine’s perspective) may be what the body needs to protect itself.
When treating a terminally ill patient, the doctor may endeavour to achieve the “desired” immune response to ensure survival at all costs, regardless of the side effects. However, that approach should not be used when healthy people are the subject.
Modern science is not yet advanced enough to fully understand the human immune system. For scientists to make “desired” versus “undesired” immune response decisions for hundreds of millions of healthy people via the jab is irresponsible and arrogant, to say the least.
I’d like to commend Elsevier, the Dutch academic publishing company that owns renowned journals like The Lancet and Cell, for allowing its journal, International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, to publish the review article on pseudoU and cancer.
I am hopeful that top journals such as The Lancet and Nature will soon follow their sister publications and accept research papers on the potential harms of the COVID shot.
