As most readers will be aware, back in the 1980s Dr. Robert Malone was deeply involved in research that is behind the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA gene therapy injections. That has led some to question whether Malone is personally responsible for these injections—after all, he is regularly described as the “inventor” of the technology utilized for the injections. The truth is that the work Malone did in the 1980s never led to practical uses. Attempts at “gene therapy” were made, but they uniformly failed. This explains the recent statement by Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, when he expressed in an interview his surprise that mRNA was suggested as the technical platform for the proposed Pfizer injections. Bourla was aware of the technology but was also aware that it had never been used for such purposes, for “vaccinations”, in the past—it was untried and basically untested as far as Pfizer was concerned.
Within the past week Malone has written a new substack in which he attermpts to explain “the differences between what was originally envisioned and the current molecules that are being injected into our bodies.” In the process, he describes what may be causing the suppression of the immune system that is associated with the injections. The substack comes in two parts, one highly technical and one intended for the general public:
What is pseudouridine, why is it being injected into you, and why should you care.
I won’t attempt to summarize the entire substack, but I believe it’s possible to extract some informative and useful excerpts from the portions intended for the general public.
Malone begins by describing his own involvement and the subsequent failed attempts to use the synthetic mRNA technology for the purposes of “gene therapy”. As he describes the history of these attempts, he stresses that what came to light was the complexity of the issues involved. It’s a theme that he regularly returns to. In effect, while the idea of “gene therapy” to cure genetic defects was presented as a reachable goal, scientists soon realized that there was much that they didn’t know—a situation that continues to the present.
The idea of gene therapy, which quickly captured the public imagination, was fueled by its appealingly straightforward approach and what Friedmann has described as “obvious correctness”: Disarm a potentially pathogenic virus to make it benign. Stuff these viral particles with normal DNA. Then inject them into patients carrying abnormal genes, where they will deliver their therapeutic cargoes inside the defective target cells. In theory, the good DNA replaces or corrects the abnormal function of the defective genes, rendering previously impaired cells whole, normal and healthy. End of disease.”
Nice theory, what could possibly go wrong?
As Malone relates, a lot could—and did—go wrong.
After describing various failed attempts at “gene therapy,” Malone addresses the concept itself and asks, Is there a fundamental problem? There is. Basically, the human immune system is structured—in various and complex ways—to resist all efforts at genetic modification:
What is awry with the original “gene therapy” concept? There are multiple issues, and here are a few-
1) Can you efficiently get genetic material (“polynucleotides”) into the nucleus of the majority of cells in the human body so that any genetic defects (or transhuman genetic improvements) can be made? In short, no. Human cells (and the immune system) have evolved many, many different mechanisms to resist modification by external polynucleotides. Otherwise we would already be overrun by various forms of parasitic DNA and RNA- viral and otherwise. This remains a major technical barrier, one which the “transhumanists” continue to overlook in their enthusiastic but naïve rush to play god with the human species. ...
2) What about the immune system? Well, this was one of my breakthroughs way back in the late 1980s.
Here, Malone describes how the bodies of persons affected by genetic diseases or abnormalities had been “educated” or trained during their early development to accept the “bad proteins” causing the problems as “normal.” When “good genes” were introduced into their systems, their immune systems attacked and killed the “good genes.”
Malone then moves on to the idea of using this technology for the purpose of “vaccines”. Despite the different official description, the same problems continue because they rely on the same underlying technology:
3) What happens when things go wrong and the “good gene/protein” is toxic? Well, in the current vaccine situation this is essentially the “Spike protein” problem. I get asked all the time “what can I do to eliminate the RNA vaccines from my body”, to which I have to answer – nothing. There is no technology that I know of which can eliminate these synthetic “mRNA-like” molecules from your body. The same is true for any of the many “gene therapy” methods currently being used. You just have to hope that your immune system will attack the cells that have taken up the polynucleotides and degrade (chew up) the offending large molecule that causes your cells to manufacture the toxic protein. Since virtually all current “gene therapy” methods are inefficient, and essentially deliver the genetic material randomly to a small subset of cells, there is no practical way to surgically remove the scattered, relatively rare transgenic cells. Clearance of genetically modified cells by the cellular immune system (T cells) is the only currently viable method to remove cells that have taken up the foreign genetic information (“transfection” in the case of mRNA or DNA, or “transduction” in the case of a viral vectored gene).
As we’ll see, this leads to the problem with pseudouridine. While the injected mRNA is supposed to self destruct very rapidly—in a matter of hours, at most—in fact we now know that it persists in cells throughout the body for two months or longer. All that time it’s manufacturing toxic Spike Proteins. That’s the reason for the title. All that glitters is not gold. And all that looks like mRNA isn’t necesarily mRNA and doesn’t necessarily behave like the real thing.
We come also to the question: What’s in a name? Why refer to the Pfizer and Moderna injections as “gene therapy” rather than “vaccines,” like we’re supposed to do? By calling these products “vaccines” the Big Pharma companies evaded standard safeguards, and saved time. That’s why:
4) What happens if the “good gene” lands in a “bad place” in your genome? It turns out that the structure of our genome is highly evolved, and we are still relative neophytes in our current level of understanding. Despite having sequenced the human genome. ... When new DNA is inserted into chromosomes it can cause many unexpected things to happen. Like development of cancers, for example. This is why there is so much concern about the possibility that the mRNA-like polynucleotides used in the “RNA vaccines” may travel into the nucleus (where the DNA chromosomes reside) ... Normally, with DNA-based gene therapy technologies, the FDA requires genotoxicity studies for this reason, but the FDA did not treat the “mRNA vaccine” technology as a gene therapy product.
Based on these risk considerations, the original idea behind using mRNA as a drug (for genetic therapeutic or vaccine purposes) was that mRNA is typically degraded quite rapidly once manufactured or released into a cell. mRNA stability is regulated by a number of genetic elements including the length of the “poly A tail”, but typically ranges from ½ to a couple of hours. ...
Enter synthetic nucleotide pseudouridine:
But now we know that the “mRNA” from the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines which incorporates the synthetic nucleotide pseudouridine can persist in lymph nodes for at least 60 days after injection. This is not natural, and this is not really mRNA. These molecules have genetic elements similar to those of natural mRNA, but they are clearly far more resistant to the enzymes which normally degrade natural mRNA, seem to be capable of producing high levels of protein for extended periods, and seem to evade normal immunologic mechanisms for eliminating cells which produce foreign proteins which are not normally observed in the body.
In non-technical language: Oh, sh*t! Recall above where Malone stated that, once injected, it’s irreversible? You can only hope that your body is able to cope with the affected cells—no promises, no guarantees.
This is the point where Malone goes all technical on us. I won’t attempt to summarize this section, but I will quote the concluding paragraphs:
Regarding the consequences for the use of mRNA as a drug for therapeutic or vaccine purposes, Borchardt et al conclude that
“Pseudouridine likely affects multiple facets of mRNA function, including reduced immune stimulation by several mechanisms, prolonged half-life of pseudouridine-containing RNA, as well as potentially deleterious effects of Ψ on translation fidelity and efficiency.”
Malone concludes that it’s the use of pseudouridine that causes the failure of mRNA to degrade as expected—the rest sounds bad, too, but I don’t understand it.
So, Malone gets back to the general public with his overall conclusions. Malone believes that:
the extensive random incorporation of pseudouridine into the synthetic mRNA-like molecules used for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may well account for much or all of the observed immunosuppression, DNA virus reactivation, and remarkable persistence of the synthetic “mRNA” molecules observed in lymph node biopsy tissues
And that leads back to the failure to run genotoxicity studies—presumably because these products were “vaccines” rather than “gene therapy” drugs. The reality, of course, is that that’s just a semantic game. The “vaccines” are, indeed, gene therapy. Malone concludes—based on the technical section of the substack—that these problems were foreseeable and the failure to act to circumvent them was probably due to “willfull ignorance.” Which sounds like something you could get sued for—”willful ignorance” doesn’t sound like a very good defense in a personal injury case.
Here’s Malone’s summary:
In conclusion, based on these data it is my opinion that the random and uncontrolled insertion of pseudouridine into the manufactured “mRNA”-like molecules administered to so many of us creates a population of polymers which may resemble natural mRNA, but which have a variety of properties which distinguish them in a variety of aspects which are clinically relevant. These characteristics and activities may account for many of the unusual effects, unusual stability, and striking adverse events associated with this new class of vaccines. These molecules are not natural mRNA, and they do not behave like natural mRNA.
This clarifies the matter very well. Even before I knew anything about the mRNA gene therapies, I suspected there was something wrong with them and so I had - and still have - reasons to distrust them. You’re exactly right when you say that Klaus Schwab and his cronies are trying to play God and that naive belief will be their downfall. It is not possible.
Every time I read an article or your blog on the mRNA hoax, I thank god I discovered it (Meaning in History) before the widespread pressure to get vaxxed really mounted. My initial thoughts were I’m not messing with my RNA and this thinking was confirmed by the many valuable postings here. My wife and I thank you.