---

The World Council for Health (“WCH”) Health and Science Committee recently published a paper on the potential harms of the mRNA platform used in covid “vaccines.”  The authors of the paper found that the mRNA platform is fundamentally inappropriate for use and was never proven to be safe for any “vaccine.”

The paper was authored by three researchers, one of whom was Dr. Tess Lawrie, and was published in Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal on 17 April 2023.

“We did this review,” Dr. Lawrie explained, “because we wanted to see what research had been done to demonstrate the safety of this very unusual ‘vaccine’ platform prior to its utility and mass administration aimed at preventing covid infection and transmission.”

Before giving or taking a brand-new drug that uses an unusual technology it’s reasonable to ask: “What is the evidence base to support the use of this unusual technology and what potential harms may be associated with it?” To answer this question, the researchers looked at what had been published in the scientific literature.  The paper gathered and evaluated the foundational research that led to the launch of this new technology. To the researchers’ knowledge, it is the first review of its kind.

The review focuses on the mRNA platform and does not consider the potential harms caused by the other components of the covid “vaccines.”

“We found that there was no evidence prior to global deployment to suggest that the covid ‘vaccines’ developed, using an mRNA platform, would be safe,” Dr. Lawrie said.

What is wrong with the covid jabs that they are hurting so many people?

By Dr. Tess Lawrie

The WCH Health and Science Committee aims to keep at the forefront of emerging science. You will be pleased to know that your support has facilitated our recently published peer-reviewed scientific article called “The novelty of the mRNA viral vaccines and the potential harms: A scoping review”.

I have since received several emails and messages from members of the public asking for a simple explanation of the findings of this scientific paper, so, in this article, I will endeavour to provide just that.

The rationale for conducting the scoping review was two-fold; firstly, international pharmacovigilance databases (the databases that record drug adverse reactions and drug side effects) have been setting off alarm bells with respect to the sheer numbers of people negatively affected by, and suffering a diversity of bad reactions to, the covid-19 shots. Secondly, scientific papers on vaccine harms tend to point to the spike protein as the mechanism for causing harm.

We did this review because we wanted to see what research had been done to demonstrate the safety of this very unusual “vaccine” platform prior to its utility and mass administration aimed at preventing covid infection and transmission.

In our search of the scientific literature, we identified several reasons why the mRNA platform may be unsafe – these are the main ones:

1)    It is already known that a proportion of people are allergic to Polyethylene Glycol (“PEG”). The mRNA platform relies on lipid nanoparticles (“LNPs”) that contain PEG to evade the body’s innate immune system. Not only is this a hazard to people who are allergic to PEG, but it can also cause an inflammatory or allergic response with repeated injections among others.

2)    mRNA uses host cell apparatus to produce proteins and this protein too can generate an antibody response, which may be associated with inflammation, clotting or autoimmunity. The latter occurs if the body recognises its own proteins as non-self, due to similarities with the mRNA-induced cell-made foreign proteins, and attacks them too.

3)    Vaccines against coronaviruses have never been proven safe enough to be used outside of clinical trials. We identified 10 very small human trials of assorted other coronavirus vaccines, but they were all in the early phases (Phase I or II) of testing. None had been proven to work, nor did they have safety data beyond a few weeks.

4)    Animal studies of coronavirus vaccines have shown high levels of serious side effects and often failed to provide immunity.

5)    RNA platforms that have been attempted for non-covid “vaccine” applications prior to covid, such as for rabies, influenza and zika viruses, have little published and verifiable safety data. Data that are available suggest very high rates of serious side effects. Notably, with regard to RNA “vaccines,” the totality of evidence on the use of the mRNA platform for the purpose of vaccination from human studies involved a mere 285 people prior to trials for covid-19 “vaccines.”

Before giving or taking a brand-new drug that uses an unusual technology it’s reasonable to ask: “What is the evidence base to support the use of this unusual technology and what potential harms may be associated with it?” To answer this question, we looked at what had been published in the scientific literature.

To our knowledge this is one of the first reviews of its sort to gather and evaluate the foundational research that led to the launch of this new style of genetic therapy injection, inappropriately referred to as a “vaccine.” We specifically focused on the mRNA platform itself and not the potential harms from the vaccine-induced proteins or other components of the “vaccines,” such as heavy metals or graphene.

In a nutshell, we found that there was no evidence prior to global deployment to suggest that the covid “vaccines” developed, using an mRNA platform, would be safe.

Despite assurances from manufacturers that mRNA vaccines are a mature technology, the oldest laboratory experiments on N1-methylpseudouridine modified RNA, the chemical modification used in both Pfizer and Moderna covid-19 “vaccines,” are as recent as 2015.  

If you are shocked by the findings of this review, you have every right to be. It is clear that the harms that people have incurred from the covid-19 injections were predictable based on previous studies. Indeed, they were predicted by many censored scientists, such as Dr Judy Mikovitz and Dr Lee Merritt, before the roll out of these injections.

As a scoping review, what our work reveals is the urgent need for independent scientists’ access and investigation into the covid-19 trial data, the pharmacovigilance data, and the irregular regulatory processes worldwide that led to the rushed emergency use authorisation of novel “vaccines” based on a highly experimental and unproven platform. That these dangerous injections need to be stopped goes without saying.

Our paper has been well-received by members of the scientific community, including by eminent Australian immunologist and Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy, who emailed to say:

This is one of the most important papers written in the context of the covid era.

It stands nearly alone demanding extensive safety analysis of the “platform” for the delivery of mRNA for the purpose of driving an immune response, rather than confining focus to the antigen produced. The bringing together of scanty knowledge confined to 285 subjects, within the frame of a long history of caution and care re novel therapy, the concerning >10% severe adverse events, the documented reversal of assumptions re safety made, makes compelling argument to review initiatives to establish multi-billion dollar mRNA programmes to change forever vaccine strategy by commercially and politically motivated groups (including I am embarrassed to note, my government).

On a final note, there is more being revealed about the mechanisms of harms of these dangerous injections daily. Our review is limited in that it looked at the appropriateness of the mRNA platform only and not harms from other possible covid “vaccine” contents, such as graphene, heavy metals and DNA (a newly identified contaminant).  Please see this publication from the WCH Health and Science committee referencing two new articles that suggest that there is a very real risk that genetic material from these novel “vaccines” could be integrated into our human DNA whether we took the injections or not. This was discussed in our live-streamed meeting yesterday, the recording of which can be found HERE.

For further reading, please also see the Perseus report on the failed regulatory process of the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) and Karen Kingston’s compelling article on the case for covid injections as a bioweapon.

About the Author

Dr. Tess Lawrie is the Director of EbMCsquared CIC, founder of the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development International initiative (BIRD Group) and a steering group member of the World Council for Health. Her range of research expertise, based on research experience in both developing and developed countries, uniquely positions her to evaluate and design research for a variety of healthcare settings. Dr. Lawrie is a frequent member of technical teams responsible for developing international guidelines.  Every week she hosts different guests to discuss a variety of topics on Tess Talks which she publishes on Sundays on her Substack HERE.