Pfizer mRNA jab leaves 1 in 3 recipients with 'unintended immune response': Cambridge study



A peer-reviewed University of Cambridge study published Wednesday in the scientific journal Nature has revealed the Nobel Prize-winning technique that paved the way for synthetic messenger ribonucleic acid vaccines is far from flawless.

To trick the body into allowing cellular interventions by synthetic mRNA-based therapeutics, scientists discovered they first had to make chemical modifications to the building blocks of the mRNA. Researchers indicated this week that encounters with repeat base modifications often lead to cellular miscommunications, which ultimately trigger immune flare-ups in vaccine recipients.

Since the mRNA technology rushed to market during the pandemic is now being used to treat various cancers and diseases, the researchers stressed the urgency of addressing this issue.

Anne Willis, a co-author of the study and biochemist from the University of Cambridge's Medical Research Council Toxicology Unit, said it is "essential that [mRNA] therapeutics are designed to be free from unintended side effects."

What's the background?

Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman were awarded the 2023 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in October for their discoveries that enabled the development of "effective mRNA vaccines" against COVID-19.

The duo observed that the body treated synthetic mRNA — genetic material designed to tell cells in the body how to make specific proteins, such as the "spike" protein — as a foreign invader. Faced with this invader, the body would undergo an inflammatory response. This reaction proved troublesome for potential therapeutics as the body's natural response to the synthetic material hindered its efforts to enter cells and exert its effects, according to the University of Cambridge.

Karikó and Weissman discovered that by chemically modifying its uridine RNA base, the synthetic mRNA could steal past the body's defenses and issue its protein schematics.

The Telegraph reported that it was widely believed until now that the modification to uridine was unproblematic. However, it's now clear that these covert genetic operations leave an undesired mark on a significant portion of patients subjected to the gene therapy.

Cellular miscommunication

Researchers with the MRC Toxicology Unit set out to analyze whether there were any safety issues linked to mRNA-based therapeutics. They found that "the cellular machinery that 'reads' mRNAs 'slips' when confronted with repeats of a chemical modification commonly found in mRNA therapeutics," the university indicated in a release.

The aforementioned "cellular machinery" is called a ribosome. The ribosome reads and translates mRNA code, providing the body with instructions on how to make antibodies. When confronted with a chemical base modification of mRNA called "N1-methylpseudouridine," ribosomes apparently slip around 10% of the time, according to Anne Willis and immunologist James Thaventhiran.

These so-called slips result in the production of unintended proteins, which set off an "unintended immune response."

The Cambridge researchers, collaborating with scientists at other English universities, tested for evidence of the production of "off-target" proteins in vaccine recipients, specifically those who took the mRNA Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. Sure enough, they "found an unintended immune response occurred in one third of the 21 patients in the study who were vaccinated."

mRNA is also utilized in the Moderna vaccine, but the scientists did not report testing it for slips.

Despite the immune responses and the small sample size, the researchers claimed there were no "ill effects" as the unintended proteins produced were not viable in the body.

"The safety concern for future mRNA medicines is that misdirected immunity has huge potential to be harmful, so off-target immune responses should always be avoided," said Thaventhiran.

The Cambridge team determined that the mRNA sequences could be redesigned to ensure the production of the intended protein and thereby avoid such unintended immune responses.

Thaventhiran, senior author of the study, issued the necessary declaration that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, then added, "We need to ensure that mRNA vaccines of the future are as reliable. Our demonstration of 'slip-resistant' mRNAs is a vital contribution to future safety of this medicine platform."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Texas attorney general SUES Pfizer for COVID vax lies



Eight months ago, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced he was investigating Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson for potentially lying to the public concerning the success of their respective COVID-19 vaccines.

Now, he’s filed a lawsuit.

Paxton’s lawsuit alleges that Pfizer violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, claiming that Pfizer “engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading acts and practices by making unsupported claims.”

Three weeks after Paxton had initially announced the investigation, he was impeached.

“The first thing I did when I came back was I told my staff, ‘I want to get back on this,’ and we did,” Paxton tells Sara Gonzales.

What Paxton and his staff found was more than enough information to bring Pfizer down.

“Pfizer’s widespread representation that its vaccine possessed 95% efficacy against infection was highly misleading from day one,” the petition created by Paxton and his staff reads.

That 95% number “was only ever legitimate in a solitary, highly technical, and artificial way. It represented a calculation of the so-called relative risk reduction for vaccinated individuals in their clinical trial.”

Sara Gonzales is impressed.

“What you do here is that you’re using ... the FDA’s own publications against them by saying, ‘Actually, the FDA is the one who says that all of these relative risk reductions are a bunch of baloney,’” Gonzales says.

“It’s the truth,” Paxton says, continuing, “and the reality is, Pfizer didn’t even follow what they said, and it’s not even close to 95%.”

“If they used the numbers that the FDA said they should use, it was more like the vaccine was effective 1% or less of the time. That’s not an effective vaccine,” he adds.


Want more from 'The News & Why It Matters?'

To enjoy more rundowns of the top stories of the day, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Difference Between the Vaccine and a Cucumber | #Shorts

The Difference Between the Vaccine and a Cucumber | #Shorts

Why Did We Hide & Ignore This Vaccine Data? | Dr. Robert Malone | POLITICS | Rubin Report

Why Did We Hide & Ignore This Vaccine Data? | Dr. Robert Malone | POLITICS | Rubin Report

Alex Berenson says leaked emails show Pfizer board member and top Biden adviser secretly conspired to get him banned from Twitter



Former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson claimed that a prominent Pfizer board member and a former top Biden administration adviser secretly pressured Twitter to censor him on the social media platform over his questions about the COVID-19 vaccine.

Berenson believes that he was banned from Twitter because of the influence of a senior board member of Pfizer. Citing emails obtained through discovery in his lawsuit against Twitter, Berenson accused Scott Gottlieb of pressuring Twitter leadership to permanently suspend his account.

Gottlieb was the commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from 2017 to 2019; he resigned and was named to Pfizer's board of directors three months later.

Berenson wrote in his "Unreported Truths" Substack on Thursday, "Gottlieb — whom Pfizer pays almost $400,000 a year to serve on its board, including its highest-level 'executive committee' — began the final act in a secret months-long conspiracy to suppress my basic American right to free speech."

Berenson claimed that corporate, private, and federal conspirators "wanted to block my reporting about the failure of the mRNA COVID vaccines," adding, "They wanted to suppress debate about the necessity for vaccine boosters or mandates."

"They wanted Twitter, the most important global platform for journalism, to ban me, even though Twitter had repeatedly found my posts did not violate its rules," Berenson alleged. "They wanted to soil my reputation as a reporter and damage me and my family financially."

In August 2021, Berenson wrote a Substack piece titled: "Quite frankly: The arrogance of Anthony Fauci, and what it means for the rest of us." Within hours of the article being published, Gottlieb shared the piece with a Twitter employee via email, according to Berenson. The Substack article includes an alleged screenshot of the leaked email.

Gottlieb purportedly said in the email, "This is what's promoted on Twitter. This is why Tony needs a security detail."

Despite Gottlieb's insinuation that Berenson was putting Fauci in danger, the journalist insisted, "My Substack piece about 'Tony' did not threaten or harass him in any way. It merely called him 'arrogant' and a 'skilled courtier' and mocked his infamous comment that criticizing him was 'attacking science.'"

Berenson wrote, "Four days after Gottlieb sent that email – and just 24 hours after he had a secret conference call with Twitter employees about me – Twitter permanently banned me, claiming I had violated its rules on COVID misinformation."

A Twitter spokesperson said Berenson's account was "permanently suspended for repeated violations of our COVID-19 misinformation rules."

Berenson argued that the tweet was "entirely accurate" and added, "I can't wait to hear what a jury will make of this."

Berenson filed a federal lawsuit against Twitter in December that alleged the big tech corporation "acted on behalf of the federal government in censoring and barring him [from] its platform."

Twitter settled the lawsuit in July, and Berenson's official account was restored.

Berenson noted, "Twitter has acknowledged that my tweets should have not led to my suspension at that time."

Berenson claimed that his lawsuit revealed internal Slack messages between Twitter employees discussing a meeting they had with members of President Joe Biden's administration in August 2021.

One Twitter employee told another, "They had one really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn't been kicked off the platform."

"They really wanted to know about Alex Berenson," read another screen capture of a conversation between Twitter employees. "Andy Slavitt suggested they had seen data viz [visualization] that had showed he was the epicenter of disinfo that radiated outwards to the persuadable public."

A Twitter employee allegedly informed a colleague that Slavitt described Berenson's reporting on the pandemic as an obstacle to convincing the "persuadable public" to take COVID-19 vaccines.

At the time of the meeting, Andy Slavitt served as a senior White House COVID-19 adviser until he left the Biden administration in June 2021.

"Slavitt and Gottlieb know each other well," Berenson asserted. "In April 2020, they co-authored a letter to Congress demanding expanded COVID contact tracing efforts. They also appeared together on interviews, including on Slavitt’s own 'In The Bubble' podcast, which Pfizer sponsors."

Speaking about social media platforms with CNBC in July 2021, Gottlieb said, “If they’re giving someone a very big platform to distribute information, they have an obligation to look at the information that’s being distributed. I do think that they have an affirmative responsibility here, and in some cases they’re not doing it."

In July 2021, the White House admitted that senior staff members were working with Facebook to flag "problematic posts" regarding COVID.

"This is a big issue of misinformation, specifically on the pandemic," White House press secretary Jen Psaki said.

"In terms of actions ... that we have taken, or we're working to take, I should say, from the federal government, we've increased disinformation research and tracking within the surgeon general's office," Psaki proclaimed. "We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation."

Also in mid-July 2021, President Biden accused social media companies of "killing people" for not taking action against COVID misinformation. He added, "The only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated."

Berenson wrote, "A few hours after Biden’s comment, Twitter locked me out of my account for the first time. On July 27, it gave me a third 'strike,' and on July 30, a fourth – this time for a tweet that did nothing but accurately reflect the results of a Pfizer clinical trial."

On July 31, 2021, Slavitt allegedly wrote an email to a Twitter employee that read: "If he doesn't go permanently after this, the outcry will be justified."

Berenson was permanently banned from Twitter on Aug. 28, 2021.

On Thursday night, Berenson appeared on "Tucker Carlson Tonight" to discuss his accusations of censorship by Twitter that he blames on Gottlieb and Slavitt.

Berenson told host Tucker Carlson that Slavitt – Biden's White House senior advisdr for the COVID response – was in communication with Twitter about Berenson as early as April 2021. Berenson said Slavitt told Twitter he was a problem for the White House and asked the social network why it hadn't banned him.

Berenson then accused Gottlieb of getting him banned from Twitter.

"And then Scott Gottlieb – who is a director of Pfizer on the executive committee of Pfizer, which has made tens of billions of dollars from selling these vaccines – went to Twitter and said, 'This guy is a problem,' and then they banned me," Berenson told Carlson.

Berenson announced on Thursday that he plans to file a new lawsuit and has sent “demand letters” to Gottlieb, Pfizer, and Slavitt.

He said, "We have several grounds, likely including a conspiracy to interfere with my civil rights – in this case, my First Amendment right to free speech."

\u201cWow. Alex Berenson says former FDA Commissioner and current Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb colluded with Twitter to ban him for daring to be skeptical about the vaccine.\u201d
— The Post Millennial (@The Post Millennial) 1665709495
Pfizer Tells Whites & Asians Don't Apply

Pfizer Tells Whites & Asians Don't Apply

Pfizer delays its FDA vaccine application for kids under 5



Pfizer and German pharmaceutical company BioNTech on Friday announced they were postponing an application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that sought an emergency use authorization for its vaccine in children under 5 years of age.

What are the details?

In a press release, the two companies said they were extending their rolling application with the FDA until more data on the efficacy of a third dose of the vaccine is returned and peer-reviewed.

The current application before the drug agency sought authorization on only two doses for children between the ages of 6 months and under 5 years.

"Given that the study is advancing at a rapid pace, the companies will wait for the three-dose data as Pfizer and BioNTech continue to believe it may provide a higher level of protection in this age group," the press release stated.

It added that the companies were seeking more data "because rates of infection and illness remain high in children of this age" due to the Omicron variant's recent surge.

"The extension allows the FDA time to receive updated data on the two and three-dose regimen, conduct a thorough evaluation of it and facilitate a robust, public discussion," the companies explained.

What else?

NBC News noted the move is "a setback for parents eager to vaccinate their young children" since it means vaccines for the young age group will not be available for at least several more weeks.

That news, however, is likely a relief for parents who oppose vaccinating their young children. Without FDA emergency approval or children under five, vaccine requirements for that age group are unenforceable.

Though the delay, in this case, does not mean the companies are experiencing negative reactions to the vaccine in testing. Rather, they have reportedly found that two small doses of the vaccine may not offer enough protection.

Dr. Peter Marks, who heads the FDA division responsible for vaccine safety, said Friday's announcement should reassure parents that authorities are doing their due diligence to make sure the vaccine is both safe and effective.

"Rather than having any issue of causing anyone to question the process, I hope this reassures people that the process has a standard, that the process is one that we follow, and we follow the science in making sure that anything that we authorize has the safety and efficacy that people have come to expect from our regulatory review of medical products," Marks told reporters during a press call Friday, according to CNBC.

Pfizer previously said in December that two doses didn’t generate a strong enough immune response in children ages 2 to 4. For that age group, each dose is three micrograms. But for children ages 5 to 11, the dosage is 10 micrograms.

Fauci’s PATHETIC Dodging: No Wonder So Many Want Him Fired | The News & Why It Matters | Ep 934

Fauci’s PATHETIC Dodging: No Wonder So Many Want Him Fired | The News & Why It Matters | Ep 934

US expands Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine booster eligibility to include 16- and 17-year-olds



The U.S. has given the green light for 16- and 17-year-olds to get a booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration expanded the emergency use authorization for the vaccine to allow a booster shot for 16- and 17-year-olds at least six months after they finish their primary vaccination series.

"The FDA has determined that the benefits of a single booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine or Comirnaty outweigh the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis in individuals 16 and 17 years of age to provide continued protection against COVID-19 and the associated serious consequences that can occur including hospitalization and death," the agency noted in its news release.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky is urging individuals in that age range to get a booster dose.

"Today, CDC is strengthening its booster recommendations and encouraging everyone 16 and older to receive a booster shot," Walensky said in a statement.

"Although we don’t have all the answers on the Omicron variant, initial data suggests that COVID-19 boosters help broaden and strengthen the protection against Omicron and other variants. We know that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, and I strongly encourage adolescents ages 16 and 17 to get their booster if they are at least 6 months post their initial Pfizer vaccination series," Walensky said.

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Dr. Anthony Fauci recently said that he expects the definition of full vaccination to eventually be expanded to include a booster.

"It's gonna be a matter of when, not if," the definition changes, Fauci said during an interview on CNN.

Full vaccination currently involves receiving two doses of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, or one dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

While 71.8% of the U.S. population consisting of individuals ages 18 and above has been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, only 26.9% has received a booster, according to the CDC.

Horowitz: Pfizer vaccine injury data ordered released by judge shows shocking risk level



Any time one even mentions a story, data, or even VAERS numbers showing serious injury or death resulting from the vaccine, the bio-medical state lobby close their ears and shout while their censors in Big Tech label it as misinformation. But now we have it from the horse’s mouth – Pfizer’s own vaccine injury data – a shocking amount of death and injury that is likely under-reported. This means that the FDA knew from day one these vaccines were unsafe to the point that they would typically be denied authorization, and certainly not funded, mandated, and marketed with a budget and energy that have never been placed behind a product since the dawn of time.

Pursuant to an agreement based on a FOIA lawsuit, the FDA has agreed to release 500 pages of vaccine data documents per month. There is a total of 329,000 pages of documents containing the information the agency relied upon to approve the shots, but they have asked a court to give them 55 years to release them. Last week, the FDA released the first five documents to a group of scientists suing for the information, and one of them reveals Pfizer’s data on adverse events through Feb. 28. The 38-page document details the cumulative post-authorization safety data reported to Pfizer’s system during the early days of the mass vaccination campaign.

In total, Pfizer discloses the existence of 42,086 adverse event case reports containing 158,893 total events, including 1,227 deaths. 25,957 of the events were classified as “Nervous system disorders.” So for those who think that somehow VAERS is not accurate or is overreporting deaths, these are numbers straight from the horse’s mouth just through February. Remember, it is extremely hard to trace many serious events back to the vaccine, including death, especially if there is a few weeks’ lag time, and most especially with people already in advanced age. So these are just the ones that were “submitted voluntarily, and the magnitude of underreporting is unknown.”

Full stop right there. Under any other circumstance, such a vaccine would have been removed from the market right away, certainly not fully endorsed, marketed, funded, and mandated by government. It was so bad that Pfizer reveals, “Due to the large numbers of spontaneous adverse event reports received for the product, the MAH has prioritized the processing of serious cases” and also had to hire more full-time employees to handle the reporting. How was it ethical for the FDA to withhold this information from the public, and how can it ever be ethical to mandate such a shot, even if one believes that, in general, a government could wield such authority? This is especially true now that we know its efficacy is minimal at best and downright enhances the virus at worst.

Imagine if there were a third-party audit of vaccine adverse events by someone other than the manufacturer. Let’s not forget that according to the lawyer for the de Garay family, whose 12-year-old daughter suffered a debilitating injury from the shot during the actual clinical trial, Pfizer and the feds tried to do everything possible to deny that the vaccine caused the injury. This is for someone in the supposedly carefully monitored trial and this is for a 12-year-old. You can imagine how many seniors got the shots and were injured or died, yet the families never reported it because they chalked it up to end-of-life health decline or morbidity.

The time has come for Republican governors to stop denying the problems with these shots and pick up the slack of regulatory oversight where the feds have engaged in criminal negligence. It is impossible to deny the safety signals and refrain from taking investigative and regulatory actions to provide state residents with informed consent. The safety signals for blood disorders and cardiac issues alone are enormous. Consider the fact that researchers from the University of Hong Kong bluntly concluded, “There is a significant increase in the risk of acute myocarditis/pericarditis following Comirnaty vaccination among Chinese male adolescents, especially after the second dose.” Now remember that this is the only shot even approved for teenagers, while Moderna, which has a stronger dose, is banned in many European and Asian countries for those under 30.

At some point the concerning safety signals have to matter. One of the most troubling signals is the inordinate number of professional athletes around the world collapsing suddenly shortly after having gotten the shots. Israeli researchers found a list of 183 professional athletes or coaches who died suddenly this year, well beyond the normal baseline over the past 20 years. Most were very young, and 80 of them collapsed on the field. Most of the reported causes were heart-related, including myocarditis, pericarditis, heart attacks, or cardiac arrest, as well as blood clotting.

Again, if we are seeing this magnitude of disturbing safety signals and this degree of short-term deaths and injuries, what does that portend for long-term safety for millions of people? It’s one thing to not study long-term effects of a vaccine because of the imminence of a pandemic, and then we see no short-term safety problems. But now that we are experiencing an unprecedented number of short-term injuries, how can we assume this is safe long-term?

Republican leaders are happy that the courts are enjoining Biden’s federal mandate. This way they can wash their hands of having to fight against it politically in a way that will actually endure. The reality is that most large corporations will still impose the mandates because the government has removed the ultimate market-based check and balance against dangerous products by exempting the manufacturers from any liability, including for willful misconduct. This is why every Republican governor and legislature has an obligation to impose workplace injury liability on any employer that mandates the shots. They can’t have it both ways. If it’s truly safe and effective, they should have no problem applying the same standard of workplace injury liability we apply to all other workplace requirements imposed by employers.

When state legislatures convene in January, they have an obligation to pick up the slack on oversight of these shots. If they fail to do so, our Constitution will be replaced with the balance sheets of Pfizer.