My Environmental Sciences Europe article has triggered some attention – both good and ugly

Shall I be glad people are citing my work or is it a deliberate misrepresentation of my published work?

My article, “Existing and emerging mRNA vaccines and their environmental impact: a transdisciplinary assessment,” was published in Environmental Sciences Europe on August 12, 2024. What happened as a result? Here, I quickly want to summarize the importance of the issue and some of the – to me – surprising effects the publication so far has had. I expected some serious pushback. But that was not the case.

Why we must consider the potential of unwanted environmental risks

My article paints a very sobering picture. It highlights the numerous potential risks mRNA platforms may pose to directly and indirectly exposed humans, animals, and the larger environment. These concerns are based on a rigorous literature review, supported by several plausible biological pathways. Some of the latter are not new and have previously raised substantial concern but have not been considered in this particular context.

The article also highlights numerous sources and insights regarding their nature as gene therapy processes. It has long been known that such products, in addition to short- and mid-term adverse effects, can also lead to delayed long-term sequelae that may only manifest after years. Per clear regulations, such genetic injections would normally have required up to 12-15 years of long-term follow-up. This happened neither for their first “warp speed” mass rollout (as COVID-19 “vaccines”) nor is it being pursued now that SARS-CoV-2 no longer evokes a “state of emergency.” Much less is known for their emerging applications on livestock, pets, and wild animals. When the E.U. initially exempted COVID-19 “vaccines” from environmental risk assessment, this was done under the guise of quickly tackling the emerging pandemic. Apparently, in practice, even emerging mRNA technologies and applications remain exempted.

The problem is not only that of careful destruction of chemicals. We are facing a scaling issue, first of the products themselves and their successors. For example, in one of his recent videos, Dr Philip McMillan revealed that Health Canada is ordering existing COVID-19 “vaccines” to be destroyed before new ones can be distributed. With millions of doses of human and veterinary "vaccines" being pumped out from numerous new “vaccine” plants globally, how much care will be devoted to the mass destruction of these products, promoted as “just vaccines.”

I am surprised governments still get by, even from a financial perspective. Isn’t this a waste? But perhaps I should not write about this, as it might instill some ideas... With all the hype about wastewater surveillance for the “early detection” of pathogens, I would not be surprised if someone came up with the novel idea that it may be a good thing to disseminate the products themselves rather than destroy them. So, instead of wasting the material, the hope may be developed they could be picked up by some open-air lifeforms to evoke some form of “immunity.” I am not saying this to support the feasibility or sanity of such a possible entertainment. These days, nothing could surprise me anymore. After all, we have seen suggestions for “climate vaccines” and others!

Admittedly, I cannot guarantee what will happen in terms of the environmental risk. In addition to the products themselves, we are facing too many unknowns relative to pathways and interactions in the environment, facilitated by synthetically stabilized materials, more or less known carriers, and other under-appreciated processes to disseminate biological activity. 

Overall, it’s an immense scaling of factors and interactions. As Jack Heinemann and colleagues carefully detail in their seminal work, “scaling” is more than just a notion of length or weight, etc., but biological risk assessment ought to involve various interactions and processes between humanity and nature and more – most of which are neither assessed nor understood even for “more traditional” genetic products than the mRNA genetics.

What exactly may unfold, we don’t know. We cannot rely on previous experiments of such enormous mass-scaling of products, agents, and influences. It would be next to impossible to predict a certain likelihood of harm.

Nature does not function according to “maximum likelihood” principles which are much easier to model. All we need is that something is just good enough to survive. Survival is not of the fittest but of what is good enough (this is why we call it niche formation, etc.!).

All we need is that it can happen. This ought to be the real focus when dealing with products that could affect the entire ecosystem! Heinemann et al. emphasize this largely overlooked important maxim, first noted in 1974 by Nobel laureate Sydney Brenner when he first stressed the notion of “scale” in this context.

“For the first time, there is now available a method which allows us to cross very large evolutionary barriers and to move genes between organisms which have never before had genetic contact and the essence is that we now have the tools to speed up biological change and if this is carried out on a large enough scale then we can say that if anything can happen it certainly will. In this field, unlike motor car driving, accidents are self-replicating and could also be contagious.” (emphasis added)

In theory, specific risks could be demonstrated via detailed and lengthy studies that adequately mimic open-air characteristics. But how do you really model the sheer infinite number of processes and interactions in nature when exposed to a degradation-resistant entity that previously never existed? In this situation, we may indeed learn that “if anything can happen it certainly will.”

Intentional silencing/misrepresentation of published unwanted considerations?

In recent years, we have seen an explosion of various genetic products in agriculture and elsewhere. I suggest that the mass injections have de-sensitized people to genetic manipulation. But that is because they were not truly informed, and now they are facing the reality of potential massive-scale genetic contamination. To what degree this is the case, we do not know, and many seem too afraid to care.

Big Pharma has corrupted and destroyed their first mRNA “vaccine” trials by convincing those in the placebo group to be injected. Numerous other cover-ups and data manipulations are slowly coming to light. Beyond the chilling safety effects on humans, apparently, there was no interest in considering their ramifications, whether directly or indirectly, on the larger environment. Yet, wastage and inappropriate destruction of drugs are not a new problem. Sadly, however, previously, it would not have included potentially active biological material, mass-dissemination (“shedding”), “scaling” via several routes, and reaching microorganisms, the groundwater, and everywhere else.

With the technology being extended for consumable “vaccines” and those for animals, including those in the food/feed chain and the open environment, people should be concerned! Yet, whilst more traditional GMO concerns have been openly debated, those stemming from the mRNA technologies have been more widely ignored.

It was in this context that my article appeared. Will it have any effect?

When my book, published by Springer, after all, appeared in early 2023, it was after 2.5 years of intense day-and-night work. Then, I was, in many regards, still ahead of the curb. I had comprised numerous factors into one piece of work. For many months following the publication of my book, I would often hear people complain that there was no comprehensive work that compiled the most important concerns. I would yell out, via emails and on social media: “Do you know about my book?” I would contact COUNTLESS people throughout 2023, trying to make them aware of my book. What happened?

Crickets.

Except for one notable hero (Dr David Wiseman), there was not one person who had not known me before who responded. Those who had known me previously stopped communicating. Oh, there was one other exception. One very famous individual from the “freedom community” offered to write a review early on. They asked for a hard copy right when BOTH my parent’s health substantially deteriorated, leaving me scrambling to fight for the seemingly impossible. Ignoring basic needs such as eating and sleeping, I only sent a quick note that I was unable to drive to town and mail the book at this time due to serious issues with my parents. But that individual got ticked off. When I contacted them a few weeks later, I only received a stern response. “I am sorry. I cannot help you.”

Because my book was greeted with such silence and even opposition, I was not sure how my new article would do. This time, I actually expected more open opposition.

On September 7, I found out it was already cited in another publication.

What is astonishing is the context in which my paper was referenced.

Specifically, the context is the following:

“Humans cannot survive without either DNA or mRNA, two fundamental and important molecules in biology that are responsible for the activities of cells and immune system [14]. The human body depends on both DNA and mRNA to function and remain in balance, with each performing distinct yet separate functions. All genetic information found in the human body is stored in DNA. The mRNA, which functions like a blueprint…”

Here, [14] is my article mentioned above. What the heck does this have to do with DNA & RNA being the celebrated blueprint of life? 

The article where this appears is: “Messenger ribonucleic acids (mRNA) technology for future applications in cancer treatment,” published in 20 | Volume 3 Issue 1, 2024 Diagnostics and Therapeutics by Ugochukwu O Matthew and Kafayat Motomori Bakare. I did not find it on Google Scholar, but it is fully accessible on Researchgate:

This article promises the following and much more:

“The study demonstrated how mRNA can be a powerful tool for developing vaccines and diseases[sic] treatments, allowing human cells to put forth a lot of effort in generating proteins that trigger an immune response that defends against illnesses and preserves human organs, which marks a significant milestone in science and demonstrates the adaptability and versatility of mRNA technology or known and unknown diseases treatments.”

Was the above an oversight, or done intentionally? I don’t know. Upon learning of the above, I contacted the lead author using the email information provided in their article. I never heard back.

What I pointed out in my Environmental Sciences Europe publication is serious. If it is instead represented as merely describing something every child knows, it effectively waters down these new concerns. People often merely copy what others write, including their depiction of someone else’s insights. When distorted or whitewashed, it could lead to a chain reaction to radically undermine and silence unwanted facts or concerns.

I call on editors and reviewers to better check how references are used so that published scientific work is not gravely misrepresented.

The opposite is possible – great articles discussing my publication published in L'Indipendente and by Trial Site News

Some of us still remember the time before the mass censorship and the silencing of unwanted voices. I am thrilled to see there are still intelligent and honest journalists out there.

Last week, I was contacted by Roberto Demaio, who is writing for L'Indipendente. He asked for some clarifications to make sure he understood it all correctly. What a stark opposite to the above! Here we have a young journalist, by his description, someone with a degree in mathematics, who perfectly nailed the gist of my article. Even though his article, which appeared on September 6, is in Italian, I had no trouble reading it perfectly using DeepL Translate. To me, it’s an indicator of the clarity and accuracy of his writing. Not even AI had any problem putting it into understandable English! Roberto, thank you for being true to the calling of a real journalist and for daring to write about something that goes against mainstream expectations.

Thanks are also due to TSN who published a very clear and detailed article on my publication already on August 12. I only became aware of it now. But it’s definitely worth the read!

Conclusion

What I learned over years of skiing and mountain biking in the Rocky Mountains was the importance of what my friends called the “o shit factor.” It (intuitively) captured the bad, which was possible but which nobody asked for. Yes, we were taking risks. But there was a very clear line. When we were in terrain and in circumstances where the “o shit factor” could mean someone’s life or serious injuries, we did not proceed.

I was reminded of this simple life lesson when considering the impact that inappropriate destruction and mass deployment of existing and emerging mRNA technologies could have on the entire biosphere. While we currently have no clear proof, the “o shit factor” seems much too high! In this light, I find the whitewashing of my paper in another peer-reviewed paper unacceptable.