Why the change to saRNA?

saRNA is the political solution: the same amount (or even more) of antigen in only one shot! The public will likely be told that due to the regular mutations of the virus, yearly adaptation boosters will continue to be necessary.

Numerous preclinical and clinical studies applying saRNA technology have already been undertaken. A 2023 review in the journal Pathogens touts saRNA vaccines as “improved mRNA vaccines.” The journal Vaccines published a summary of five years of saRNA study findings. Once the requisite clinical studies are finished, these new vaccines can be approved for use. It can be expected that this process will be as quick as it was for the COVID-19 vaccines. The approval process will become simpler, as it could be argued that the technique (modRNA in lipid nanoparticles) is already approved and that only the modRNA sequence is different. Hence, these new saRNA vaccines could be injected into an unsuspecting public at any time.

BioNTech did tests with saRNA (BNT162c2) but eventually focused on modRNA (BNT162b2). Arcturus Therapeutics was the first to say (in 2022) that its COVID-19 saRNA vaccine candidate ARCT-154 met the primary efficacy endpoint in a phase-3 study. It is now the most advanced saRNA vaccine in trials.

In the Arcturus Therapeutics study, participants received two doses, each containing 5 micrograms of saRNA. This is far less than the modRNA concentrations used by Pfizer-BioNTech (30 micrograms/shot) and Moderna (100 micrograms/shot).

saRNA injections will not solve the problems with modRNA injections.

As we discovered with modRNA, the spike protein is poisonous to our bodies. We know that modRNA results in the production of more spike protein than would be available during a natural infection, and we know that repeated boosters cause immune tolerance.

The “dose” of viral antigen that current and future RNA-based vaccines bring about will show large fluctuations from one individual to the next, depending on the cell type producing the desired antigen, genetic predisposition, medical history, and other factors. This fact alone should prohibit the use of RNA-based injections as vaccines for healthy people.

Another Dubious Step Forward: From Linear to Circular SaRNA

As RNA-degrading enzymes (RNases) are known to act from both ends of linear RNA, scientists tried to prevent these enzymes from doing their natural duty—degrading mRNAs that are no longer needed—and created circular RNA. Increased stability and translation effectiveness followed by increased production of the desired antigen were the results of this.

But is this really another step forward? Consider the negative effects of long-lasting antigen presentation. Because there are more antigens in the body after one injection of saRNA, whether it is linear or circular, may have the same bad effects as multiple (booster) injections of modRNA.

Long-Term Presentation of an Antigen Is Known to Cause Immune Tolerance

After getting vaccinated, our bodies generate antibodies, mostly immunoglobulin G (IgG), including IgG1 and IgG4.

Vaccinated individuals show an antibody class switch starting with the third COVID-19 injection (the first booster). This is from inflammatory IgG1 antibodies (that fight the spike protein) to non-inflammatory IgG4 antibodies (that tolerate the spike protein). Elevated levels of IgG4 antibodies, in the long run, will exhaust the immune system, causing immune tolerance. This may explain COVID-19 “breakthrough” infections, reduced immune response to other viral and bacterial infections, and reactivation of latent viral infections. It may also cause autoimmune diseases and the uncontrolled growth of cancer.

Notably, long-lasting IgG4 responses have been strongly linked to RNA-based injections. On the other hand, people who had a COVID-19 infection before getting vaccinated did not have higher IgG4 levels, even after getting a shot.

This observation clearly discredits the World Health Organization’s policy that—assuming people have no immunity against novel viruses (completely ignoring the reality of cross-immunity)—people should be vaccinated before they come into contact with the virus.

RNA-Based Injections Are Recognized as Gene Therapy Products

Incomprehensibly, RNA-based injections for protecting against infectious diseases were named “vaccines,” which allowed exclusion from the strict regulations for gene therapy products (GTPs). Again, this happened without providing the public with any scientific justification.

Details on the regulatory issues of RNA-based vaccines are reported in excellent and comprehensive reviews by Guerriaud & Kohli and Helene Banoun.

In 2014, Uğur Şahin, already CEO of BioNTech, co-wrote an article published in Nature about developing a new class of drugs, “mRNA-based therapeutics.” The authors wrote, “One would expect the classification of an mRNA drug to be a biologic, gene therapy, or somatic cell therapy.”

In 2021, the author of correspondence printed in Genes & Immunity described RNA-based vaccines created by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech as “a breakthrough in the field of gene therapy” and “a great opportunity for the FDA and EMA to revise the drug development pipeline to make it more flexible and less time-consuming.”

Two disturbing pieces of information have now come to light:

• The contaminating DNA results from Pfizer-BioNTech’s change in the manufacturing process after finishing the BNT162b2 (Comirnaty) Clinical Trial C4591001. In the beginning (Process 1), in-vitro transcription from synthetic DNA and PCR (polymerase chain reaction) amplified Pfizer-BioNTech modRNA. However, to scale up manufacturing (see rapid responses to this BMJ study), modRNA-encoding DNA was cloned into bacterial plasmids (Process 2). Put simply, the clinical trial was run on process-1 lots, but the world’s populations received process-2 lots.

This implies that those who consented to receive a vaccination received an injection of a substance other than the one that regulatory organizations had approved and to which they had given their consent.

• Detailed sequence analyses revealed that the plasmid DNA in the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 shots contains a 72-base pair sequence of the Simian Virus-40 (SV40) promoter, which is well-known to enhance transport of the plasmid DNA into the nucleus.

It is now irrefutable that the RNA-based COVID-19 injections contain DNA.

RNA-based technology—especially when applied as vaccines to healthy individuals—is unjustifiable and unethical. Independent from the tragic number of adverse events or excess mortality rates, it is the technique that is the issue, and the same problems will occur in all future RNA-based “vaccines.”

1. RNA-based “vaccine” technology goes against the central idea of evolution over the past millions of years. Although modRNA and saRNA produce antigens without stopping, natural messenger RNA (mRNA) needs to have a short lifespan in order for cells to work properly and in a healthy way. (The short lifespan of mRNA allows our cells to adapt as quickly as possible to changing circumstances and avoid the production of unnecessary proteins.)
2. A premise of RNA-based “vaccine” technology—that all of our body cells have to produce a foreign viral protein—goes against fundamental biological principles, like distinguishing between our own cells and foreign invaders, and will result in our immune system attacking our own cells.
3. RNA can be reverse-transcribed into DNA even without the presence of the enzyme reverse transcriptase (i.e., by LINE1 elements present in our genome or DNA). Contaminating DNA (in RNA-based vaccines) is the rule rather than the exception. As both RNA and DNA can be integrated into the human genome, the so-called “vaccines” based on RNA technology are actually gene therapy products.

It is in no way justifiable to subject RNA-based GTPs for medical use to strict controls but to exclude RNA-based GTPs, called vaccines, from these regulations even though they are intended for most of the human population. Even in an emergency, no one should be forced to be injected with any substance—least of all by politicians.

What Did COVID-19 Teach Us About Science, Politics, and Society?

For many years, scientists dreamed of manipulating human “software”—that is, DNA or RNA. Ethically, manipulating DNA has always been taboo. In retrospect, COVID-19 may represent the dawn of RNA-based “vaccines” and the end of the taboo against manipulating human DNA.

In a 2023 commentary in the Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, the authors wrote that from the earliest days of the pandemic, it was obvious that some influential scientists and their political allies demonized dissenting scientific views and evidence offering a second opinion. Despite contradictory evidence, national politicians “assured the public that they were adopting COVID-19 policies by ‘following the science.’” However, scientific consent was achieved only by suppressing scientific debate.