Last week I got some of my work accepted at OSF Preprints which I regard as some of the most important insights I have ever had. I developed a strong theory of why I suggest that the mRNA vaccines cannot engender antigen-specific immune responses.
This was first based on antigen processing and presentation mechanisms known for the DNA vaccines but widely ignored for mRNA vaccines.
At the same time, this study by Kim and collaborators demonstrated the under-appreciated role of inherent adjuvants driving the immune responses of mRNA injections.
I also argued that these considerations could explain some of the “paradoxes” surrounding the mRNA injections, including their effects on heterologous infections, excessive immune reactions, and tolerance development.
The main concern is that the immune response would be mounted not (only) to the targeted antigen(s) but potentially to others.
“Siguna’s Substack” is a reader supported publication. Please consider subscribing to support my work.
Well, considering alternative pathways/processes combined with under-appreciated adjuvants seems to have opened up a whole can of worms...
Unexpectedly, another recent Nature Communication article gave strong evidence for my concerns. Ironically, the authors start out “proving” the expected fate of the mRNA components, notably their cellular localization responsible for immune activation. When I looked into it further, it did not seem as clear as they say!
Rather, I argue that their findings support my previous concerns.
Manuscript Rejected from 2 Preprint Platforms
What I had not expected is that my new manuscript, where I summarized and exposed these issues, based on the second Nature Communications article and my prior work, was rejected even as a preprint! Perhaps I had said too much already in the title!
“Evidence for non-specificity of immune responses via the inherent adjuvanticity of the mRNA injections.”
I first submitted the manuscript to OSF Preprints on June 8. Ironically, my earlier preprint on this, where I had developed the main hypothesis (the long preprint published last week), had immediately been accepted at OSF Preprints. However, when I submitted the follow-up work, it was rejected within 2 days!
The explanation for the rejection was the following:
Granted, my first (last week’s) preprint at OSF Preprints on this same topic, ``Paradoxes of cellular immune responses evoked by mRNA injections - fostered by cross-priming and cross-tolerance but at a high price,’ did not have a telling title. As just noted, it was accepted, as with all my other preprints, without any issue:
“OSF uses pre-moderation. This preprint has been accepted by a moderator and is publicly available and searchable.”
According to their own policy, “Our mission is to increase the openness, integrity, and reproducibility of scientific research and scholarly communication by creating and operating an open source infrastructure (referred to as "OSF") to support the entire research lifecycle from planning, collaborating, conducting, reporting, publishing, archiving and discovery.”
They are a preprint server and not supposed to be engaged in censorship!!!
As “recommended” by the “moderator,” I then sent the manuscript to BIORXIV. Truly, they should have known better. BIORXIV does not accept hypothetical analyses. Here is their rejection letter:
Manuscript accepted as a preprint at AUTHOREA
In all my writing, I try to be fair and professional. I think, I still write in the same way as I did as a professional mathematician. It’s been almost 30 years that I have been doing research and publishing my work. I have never been accused of foul or impolite language, false claims, etc. In all these years, I have just aimed to do my work as a devout academic, the best I can.
When I submitted the manuscript to Authorea, it was finally accepted. The pdf is freely available here.
Loaded content?
What is it that the “moderator” did not like that should remain hidden? In the new preprint, I extend my prior work:
Non-Specific and Unpredictable Immune Responses: I argue that mRNA vaccines may evoke absent, non-specific, or unpredictable immune responses, including cross-immunity or cross-tolerance towards unintended targets, such as lingering antigens from prior vaccinations, infections, or self-antigens.
Challenges to Specificity: The inherent adjuvanticity of mRNA vaccines, combined with underappreciated antigen processing pathways, challenges the specificity of mRNA-based immune responses.
Potential for Off-Target Effects: The adjuvanticity of mRNA vaccines may target off-target (self) antigens, leading to unintended immune activation or tolerance.
Inconsistencies in Immune Responses: Variability in immune responses, antigen expression, and cellular localization suggests that mRNA vaccines do not uniformly engender immunity to the targeted antigen.
To date, all the studies that purport to demonstrate the “appropriate” cellular localization and fate of the jab-encoded protein/peptide, have problems. We do not have solid proof of the full extent of the pathways triggered and we do not know the fate of these products. (I began to highlight this issue in my February 2025 prior OSF preprint on exosomes).
Biological Activity of Vaccine-Derived Proteins: Vaccine-derived proteins, such as the spike protein or other jab-produced proteins/peptides, rather than acting as “antigens” may exert unaccounted biological activities, potentially impacting human cells and microbiota.
These conclusions highlight significant concerns about the reliability, specificity, and safety of mRNA vaccine technologies. They add to the many others that undermine their most foundational nature as vaccines.
In sum, the most recent Nature Communication article by Blizard et al. gave strong evidence for the opposite of what is expected and reported. Their findings support the potential for major issues related to the platform as I had envisioned in my last week’s preprint. My new preprint concludes with the following:
Figure 2: This article discusses the complexities and challenges of mRNA vaccines, particularly focusing on their immune responses and the implications of recent findings that have remained underexplored. Some key insights about the antigen-processing and presentation pathways (“PATHWAYS” - right circle) have previously been envisioned. The recent study by Blizard and colleagues [6] (“BLIZARD et al. STUDY” - left circle), while on the one hand, raising substantial concerns about their methods and interpretation, on the other hand, provided experimental validation of these previous considerations, apparently without the authors being aware of it. Combined with the poorly known and appreciated adjuvanticity of the mRNA platforms (“ADJUVANTICITY” - lower circle), these factors underscore significant concerns regarding the unpredictability and unintended effects of immune responses to mRNA vaccines.
These troubling concerns undermine the very basis of these products acting as vaccines and may be responsible for many of the adverse events associated with these injections. The overall ignorance of these foundational and grave issues mandates rigorous investigations, in a laboratory context, congruent with the termination of mRNA vaccination efforts.
Why did the a preprint servers - not a journal - reject it? Did I hit a nerve?
“Siguna’s Substack” is a reader supported publication. Please consider subscribing to support my work.
Congrats on getting this preprint posted!