Tag: Moderna

Dear MAGA: 20260818 ❀ DePat Tuesday ❀ Open Topic | Is There Another Cell Nucleus Hall Pass in the New mRNA Flu Vaccine, mFlusiva?

This DePat Tuesday Open Thread honors the author of the original Tuesday open thread on this site, namely the late Susie Sampson, a.k.a. Deplorable Patriot, among her other handles, pen names, etc.

For more on the untimely passing of Dear DePat, please see these three posts.

DEAR MAGA: Open Thread 20250123 ❀ In Highest Honor of Susie Sampson, Known to MAGA as Deplorable Patriot
Health Friday Open Thread 1.24.2025: In Memoriam Mira Persona, Susan P. Sampson (Deplorable Patriot)
DEAR MAGA: Open Thread 20250128 ❀ Call for Authors ❀ Scientific Opinions on the Medical Case of Susie Sampson

At one time, DePat handled FOUR daily open threads here, in addition to taking care of her relatives, choir duties, and numerous other responsibilities. She was a powerhouse – a dynamo – a true force of nature.

DePat’s faith in Trump, Q, “The Plan”, the White Hats, and “the anons” in general, was legendary. Although I didn’t always agree with her quick acceptance of some sketchier evidence and fringier theories, I will gladly admit to “coming around” to numerous so-called “conspiracy theories” which she championed first. I was always careful to give her credit for being right, too, when I had been wrong.

It is impossible to overstate how much DePat did for not only this site, but for her country. I urge all to say a quick prayer of thanks, whenever you think of her, for the privilege of knowing, in life or after death, such an exemplary human being, and lover of God.

And thank you, Susie, for the firm foundation which you left us, when you were called to your true home!

Is There Another Cell Nucleus Hall Pass in the New mRNA Flu Vaccine, mFlusiva?

Let’s start off with some history.

Are you aware of the fact that both the Moderna AND the Pfizer COVID vaccines contained a genetic sequence that acts like a “hall pass” or “VIP ticket”, allowing the holder to get into the nucleus of human cells?

Here is a post where I explained this.

Pfizer and Moderna Vaccines Both Contain the PRRARSV Key to the Cell Nucleus

Were it not for somebody dropping a link to an obscure paper in my Twitter timeline back in early 2023, I would have never realized how extra sketchy that made both the virus and the vaccines – and especially the latter, since it would have been theoretically possible to remove the nuclear hall pass from the spike protein used as the vaccine.

Let me repeat that. They left the “hall pass” in the mRNA code for the vaccine.

But – and I have to stress this – it was not just that this “hall pass” was there. No. It was much worse. The paper in question was experimental, and it showed that the viral spike protein not only contained the hall pass, but that it WORKED. The hall pass actually worked to get the spike protein into the nucleus. They even had PICTURES of it in the nucleus.

LINK: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1073789/full

BUT WAIT! THERE’S MORE!

The hall pass not only got the spike protein into the nucleus – the spike protein THEN got the mRNA that coded for it into the nucleus, as well.

Yes. You are reading that correctly. The spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 has a known sequence in it that ends up getting both IT and the mRNA that created it, into the cell nucleus.

One would THINK that this might be a big deal. Especially after we were REASSURED that NO, VIRGINIA – THE mRNA WILL NEVER, EVER GET INTO THE CELL NUCLEUS, YOU FOOLISH VACCINE SKEPTICS.

Are you seeing why this is kind of a big deal?

SO – NOW – my question about the new mRNA flu shot is similar.

I could ask whether the flu vaccine’s “spike protein” (it’s called a “hemagglutinin glycoprotein”) also has a hall pass that gets it into the cell nucleus. I could even ask if the influenza HA glycoprotein also “escorts” its own mRNA into the nucleus, as does the COVID spike protein.

However, that requires experimentation. I can’t do that work.

OK – can I just ask if the mRNA flu shots contain the hall pass into the nucleus?

Well, it turns out that you can ask, but there’s not necessarily an answer.

I could not find the answer, so I asked Grok.

And I asked Grok a slightly less pointed version of the question, since I am perfectly capable of checking for nuclear translocation sequences myself, so that Grok would not detect “conspiracy theory thinking” on my part, and thereby not consign my question to the “talk down to this human” conga line of incomplete answers.

LINK: https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=2088464094655385678

Q: Is there a published mRNA sequence for the new mRNA flu vaccine, mFlusiva, from Moderna?

A: (from Grok)

No, there does not appear to be a publicly published full mRNA (nucleotide) sequence for Moderna’s mFlusiva (mRNA-1010).

mFlusiva is the FDA-approved (as of early August 2026) trivalent mRNA influenza vaccine for adults 50+ (traditional approval for ages 50–64; accelerated for 65+). Each 0.38 mL dose contains 37.5 µg total mRNA (12.5 µg each of three RNAs) encoding the full-length hemagglutinin (HA) glycoproteins of the season’s recommended strains (for the 2026–2027 formula: A/Missouri/11/2025 (H1N1)pdm09-like, A/Michigan/105/2025 [A/Darwin/1415/2025 (H3N2)-like], and B/Pennsylvania/19/2025 [B/Pennsylvania/14/2025-like]), formulated in lipid nanoparticles (SM-102, PEG2000-DMG, cholesterol, DSPC).

Public documents (prescribing information/DailyMed, FDA briefing documents and clinical review, Moderna product pages, and peer-reviewed trial publications) describe the composition, encoded antigens/strains, manufacturing process (in vitro transcription, no cells/eggs), and clinical data, but they do not disclose the actual nucleotide sequences of the mRNAs. These would include codon optimization, specific 5′/3′ UTRs, poly(A) tail, nucleoside modifications (typically N1-methylpseudouridine, as used in Moderna’s platform), and any stabilizing mutations (noted for the influenza B HA in non-surface-exposed regions).

  • The underlying viral HA amino-acid (or genomic) sequences of the recommended strains are publicly available via databases such as GISAID or NCBI, as with any seasonal flu vaccine components.
  • Moderna and related patents/publications disclose example or earlier-generation influenza mRNA constructs, sequences for other candidates, or general platform elements (e.g., UTRs used in some Moderna mRNAs), but not the proprietary, strain-updated commercial sequences for the approved mFlusiva product. patents.google.com
  • This is consistent with how proprietary vaccine sequences (including prior Moderna mRNA products) are typically handled—they are not routinely released in full in labeling or regulatory summaries.

In short, while the antigens, doses, and high-level design are public, the exact published mRNA sequence for mFlusiva is not available. Any claims of a full sequence circulating would need independent verification against primary sources.

(END GROK)

(BEGIN WOLF)

First of all, just for the record, this is a great answer. Once again, thank you, Elon!

This situation seems a bit different from small-molecule drugs, where the exact molecules in the drug MUST be described in full, not only to the FDA, but to the public. Probably a feature that big pharma will eventually pay government to remove, but until then, something that certainly cramps their style.

Now, I was able to track things down a bit, and get CLOSE to the actual sequence for the vaccine, but I have been unable to find the exact sequence.

Here is what I did find.

(1) Link to full prescribing information.

https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/fda/fdaDrugXsl.cfm?setid=3dd1c6d2-b054-4803-bb21-460b1b090d4c&type=display

(2) Information about ingredients

MFLUSIVA 
influenza vaccine, mrna injection, suspension
Product Information
Product Type VACCINE
Item Code (Source) NDC:80777-500
Route of Administration INTRAMUSCULAR
Active Ingredient/Active Moiety

Ingredient Name Basis of Strength Strength
RNA-101-BFL3 (UNII: FPY755GU6Z) (RNA-101-BFL3 – UNII:FPY755GU6Z) RNA-101-BFL3 12.5 ug  in 0.38 mL
RNA-101-BFL6 (UNII: G35CN36JAP) (RNA-101-BFL6 – UNII:G35CN36JAP) RNA-101-BFL6 12.5 ug  in 0.38 mL
RNA-101-BFL5 (UNII: WAH8KM77XC) (RNA-101-BFL5 – UNII:WAH8KM77XC) RNA-101-BFL5 12.5 ug  in 0.38 mL
Inactive Ingredients

Ingredient Name Strength
SM-102 (UNII: T7OBQ65G2I) 
1,2-DIMYRISTOYL-RAC-GLYCERO-3-METHOXYPOLYETHYLENE GLYCOL 2000 (UNII: 9X2596CIE0) 
CHOLESTEROL (UNII: 97C5T2UQ7J) 
1,2-DISTEAROYL-SN-GLYCERO-3-PHOSPHOCHOLINE (UNII: 043IPI2M0K) 
TROMETHAMINE (UNII: 023C2WHX2V) 
TROMETHAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (UNII: 383V75M34E) 
SUCROSE (UNII: C151H8M554) 
WATER (UNII: 059QF0KO0R)

(3) Selected information about mRNA ingredients

RNA-101-BFL3 (UNII: FPY755GU6Z)
RNA-101-BFL6 (UNII: G35CN36JAP)
RNA-101-BFL5 (UNII: WAH8KM77XC)

(4) UNII codes

FPY755GU6Z
G35CN36JAP
WAH8KM77XC

(5) Look up UNII codes

Website: https://precision.fda.gov/uniisearch

Results:

https://precision.fda.gov/uniisearch/srs/unii/FPY755GU6Z

https://precision.fda.gov/uniisearch/srs/unii/G35CN36JAP

https://precision.fda.gov/uniisearch/srs/unii/WAH8KM77XC

(6) CAS Registry Numbers and CAS Names

(a)

3115056-86-2
RNA (recombinant 5′-(m7G-(5′→5′)-ppp-Gm)-capped all uridine→N1-methylpseudouridine-substituted influenza A (Missouri/11/2025 (A/H1N1))-like virus hemagglutinin codon-optimized transgene plus 5′- and 3′-untranslated flanking region-containing poly(A)-tailed messenger RNA-101-BFL3), inner salt

(b)

3115056-85-1
RNA (recombinant 5′-(m7G-(5′→5′)-ppp-Gm)-capped all uridine→N1-methylpseudouridine-substituted influenza A (Michigan/105/2025 (A/H3N2))-like virus hemagglutinin codon-optimized transgene plus 5′- and 3′-untranslated flanking region-containing poly(A)-tailed messenger RNA-101-BFL5), inner salt

(c)

3118110-32-7
RNA (recombinant 5′-(m7G-(5′→5′)-ppp-Gm)-capped all uridine→N1-methylpseudouridine-substituted influenza B/Victoria Pennsylvania/19/2025-like virus hemagglutinin [288-valine,381-tyrosine] codon-optimized transgene plus 5′- and 3′-untranslated flanking region-containing poly(A)-tailed messenger RNA-101-BFL6), inner salt

That is as far as I could go. Registry numbers and names. Trying to look up the CAS registry numbers failed.

CAS Common Chemistry covers – well – common chemicals, including some surprisingly unusual ones, but it clearly doesn’t cover everything. For a lot of molecules – ones that are not “public figures” – one has to get behind the paywall by buying a product like SciFinder.

For example, CAS Common Chemistry has a page for one of the allegedly inactive substances in the vaccine – tromethamine.

LINK: https://commonchemistry.cas.org/detail?cas_rn=77-86-1&search=tromethamine

SIDEBAR: I’ll do a whole post about tromethamine later – it’s one of the best and most hilarious demonstrations of the (to borrow Scott’s verbiage) “weak, fake and gay” duplicity of the pharma-government-fincorp-media complex that I’ve ever seen. I’m personally glad they smartly added this compound to the clot shot, but to lie about why they did it – just so WEAK, FAKE AND GAY!

It is possible that the three names we retrieved above would allow trained biochemists to get very close to the actual sequences that were used, but in reality, to get the full, exact composition, including DNA contamination, we will almost certainly have to wait for independent researchers to analyze and sequence vials of the mFlusiva vaccine.

SO – in answer to the original question, we won’t truly know if there is either a public or secret access code to the cell nucleus in this vaccine, until somebody in free science actually analyzes the sequence of the vaccine, and somebody else actually checks and sees if the protein and/or the mRNA gets trafficked into the nucleus.

To borrow a saying from Nancy Pelosi, “We have to inject it, to find out what’s in it.”

Honestly, I think if Thomas Jefferson saw what patents have done to science, he would pull the whole idea up by the roots and figure out some other way to implement it. What that something else is, I don’t know. But what we have now is clearly problematic.

W

And remember…….

Until victory, have faith!

And trust the big plan, too!

And as always….

ENJOY THE SHOW

W

mRNA Vaccines – A Movie to Refresh Your Memory

I will be hitting VERY HARD on the topic of mRNA vaccines in general, and the mRNA flu shot mFlusiva in particular, over the next few weeks.

I will be refreshing your memories to get you all back into FIGHTING SHAPE.

To begin with, I strongly suggest watching this 1 HOUR movie about mRNA vaccines. The main reason is that it will AWAKEN your dormant memories of the world under COVID. Automatic brain boost for our purposes.

I also think it is very important to see interviews with actual vaccine-injured people.

This movie will show you the reality of vaccine injury.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

W

THE MOVIE:

Chapters:

00:00 Intro
02:53 Surgeon Joel Wallskog’s health issues
06:21 Operation Warp Speed initiative
06:38 Former CDC Director on mRNA vaccines
07:35 Regulators’ safety assessment
08:09 Calls to pause mRNA vaccines
09:32 mRNA researcher Robert Malone
12:56 Pathologist Ryan Cole on COVID vaccination
14:14 Cardiologist Aseem Malhotra on heart health
14:37 Cardiologist Peter McCullough on side effects
17:28 Scientist Jessica Rose on vaccine concerns
18:41 Critical care specialist Paul Marik on patient community
21:17 Explaining mRNA
23:45 How mRNA vaccines work
27:06 Spike protein and possible effects
30:57 Pathologist Arne Burkhardt’s biopsy findings
32:49 Health agencies’ safety stance
33:38 Vaccination in pregnancy and children
34:22 Artist Jessica Sutta’s health issues
39:03 Future uses of mRNA technology
42:55 Tobie Vergara’s health issues
45:12 History of mRNA vaccines
46:44 Modified mRNA technology
48:40 mRNA research status in 2017
49:07 Toxicity concerns in 2017
49:33 Progress in mRNA technology
49:50 mRNA vaccines during the pandemic
55:41 Support for post-vaccination syndrome
57:06 Doctors offering assistance
Sources, studies, timecodes: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/…

Part of why I wanted you to see

A Grok-Eyed View of the New mRNA Flu Shot

The TL;DR

TL;DR – I asked Grok a short question designed to elicit all the information I would need to quickly determine the “lay of the land” concerning the new Moderna mRNA flu shot.

I will give you the question, the answer, my analysis of the response, and my summarizing opinion. Part of that opinion is this.

I don’t take the flu shot any more, and I don’t take mRNA shots at all. The current facts surrounding the new mRNA flu shot have – in my opinion – strongly confirmed the correctness of these positions. I will not be taking this shot, and I will counsel all my friends and loved ones not to take it.

And, as part of loving my enemies, including those adorable radical pro-vaxx people, bless their hearts, I will counsel them to stick with older flu shots, if they feel they must take something. The risks of older flu shots are smaller, with roughly no net benefit, but at least they are not accepting a far WORSE AND RISKIER vaccination platform, compared to older flu shots, for what is, IMO – only marginal improvement in some indicators, and zero correction of fundamental problems which became known during the COVID shots.

The Question

Your mileage will vary on how to interpret this response by Grok. I think you and I are likely on the same page, but taking this information to most of our friends and neighbors who trust vaccines in general, won’t be easy. Because it’s a flu shot and not a COVID shot, many will assume automatically that it’s safe.

Again – I needed a fast summary of the new Moderna mRNA flu shot, as I am trying to figure out quickly where things are going. I wanted to know the technology first. “First seek to understand – then seek to be understood.”

Thus, I asked for scientific depth, but otherwise brevity. This is a good description of a scientific abstract.

Here was my question to Grok (version 4.5, described as “Fast” on X).

LINK: https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=2085762693953134739

Please give me a brief but scientifically deep explanation of the technology used in Moderna’s recently approved mRNA flu shot. I’m curious about two things in particular – which influenza protein is encoded, and which form of mRNA tech is being used (i.e., is it self-amplifying or more conventional). I’m also wondering if any changes in the basic mRNA technology have been made to address inherent problems of the mRNA platform, including the fact that (statistically) some recipients suffer undesirable long-term production of target protein, as well as travel of lipid nanoparticles away from the injection site.

The Answer

Grok’s response is, IMO, roughly neutral, although in a couple of places I see a fairly mild but rather typical “mainstream bias”. I’ll get to that later, as I analyze the response.

The first paragraph of the reply is bolded by Grok as a summary.

I have included paragraph-end citation links as the full links, instead of shortened active hyperlinks that Grok uses at the end of paragraphs. In one case, that turns into an embedded tweet.

Grok’s response:

Conventional (non-replicating, nucleoside-modified) mRNA encoding influenza hemagglutinin (HA) surface glycoproteins from the relevant WHO-recommended strains (trivalent in the approved formulation: A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B/Victoria), delivered in the same type of lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) used for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines (SM-102 ionizable lipid platform).

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2516491

Moderna’s recently FDA-approved seasonal flu vaccine (mRNA-1010, branded mFlusiva/mFLUSIVA) for adults ≥50 years uses the company’s established non-replicating mRNA platform. It is not self-amplifying RNA (saRNA/sa-mRNA). saRNA constructs include alphavirus-derived replicase genes that enable intracellular RNA amplification and prolonged antigen expression at lower doses; mRNA-1010 does not. It relies on the same core technology as Spikevax: in vitro-transcribed, nucleoside-modified mRNA (typically incorporating N1-methylpseudouridine to reduce innate sensing and improve translation) with 5′ cap, optimized UTRs, and poly(A) tail, formulated in LNPs.

https://www.wsj.com/health/pharma/fda-approves-first-mrna-flu-vaccine-in-win-for-moderna-after-arduous-process-039156b6

The encoded antigen is the full-length (membrane-anchored) hemagglutinin glycoprotein of the selected seasonal strains. HA is the primary surface protein mediating viral attachment and entry; neutralizing antibodies targeting its head domain (and to a lesser extent the stalk) are the main correlate of protection measured by hemagglutination-inhibition (HAI) assays. The approved product is trivalent (reflecting the current seasonal composition after B/Yamagata’s decline), with total mRNA dose around 37.5 μg (roughly 12.5 μg per strain). Earlier development versions were quadrivalent. The platform allows rapid sequence updates to match circulating strains without egg adaptation.

https://www.medschool.umaryland.edu/media/som/offices-of-the-dean/student-affairs/documents/address-pdfs/Efficacy-and-Safety-of-an-mRNA-Seasonal-Influenza-Vaccine-in-Adults.pdf

No fundamental redesign of the mRNA or LNP platform specifically for this flu vaccine has been publicly detailed to address the concerns you raise. Protein expression from conventional modified mRNA is inherently transient: the mRNA is degraded by cellular nucleases over days (typically peaking within hours to a day or two and declining substantially within a week or so in standard preclinical models), so continuous long-term production of the target protein is not a designed or statistically expected feature in recipients. Observed antigen persistence in draining lymph nodes (sometimes detectable for weeks in some studies of COVID mRNA vaccines) supports germinal-center reactions rather than ongoing systemic protein synthesis from residual mRNA. Claims of undesirable long-term production are not supported as a common or inherent platform failure in the clinical data for these vaccines.

LNP biodistribution after intramuscular injection is predominantly local (injection-site muscle and draining lymph nodes), with smaller fractions reaching the spleen and, to a lesser extent, liver; distant tissue accumulation is minimal and components clear relatively rapidly (often low/undetectable by ~1–2 weeks in available data). The SM-102-based LNPs (ionizable lipid + cholesterol + helper phospholipid + PEG-lipid) used here are the same biodegradable class employed in Spikevax; they were selected in part for improved tolerability and clearance relative to earlier ionizable lipids. No public evidence indicates major new chemistry (e.g., substantially altered ionizable lipids, targeting ligands, or miRNA-regulated expression) unique to mFlusiva to further restrict off-target travel. Dose is lower than original COVID primary series doses, which reduces overall exposure.

In short, this is an evolutionary application of the proven non-replicating modified-mRNA + LNP system to HA antigens, leveraging manufacturing speed and the ability to induce strong humoral (and some cellular) responses without egg-based production constraints. Clinical data supported superior relative efficacy versus standard-dose inactivated vaccines in the pivotal trial, with a reactogenicity profile consistent with other mRNA vaccines (more local and systemic reactions that are mostly mild–moderate and transient).

My Analysis

I’m going to take that response a piece at a time.

Paragraph 1

The first paragraph is a summary, and it’s key.

Conventional (non-replicating, nucleoside-modified) mRNA encoding influenza hemagglutinin (HA) surface glycoproteins from the relevant WHO-recommended strains (trivalent in the approved formulation: A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B/Victoria), delivered in the same type of lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) used for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines (SM-102 ionizable lipid platform).

Basically, this is saying that mFlusiva is a “normal” mRNA vaccine, the same basic type as the Moderna and Pfizer COVID vaccines – but instead of targeting the sequence for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, it targets a similar influenza surface protein – specifically, the hemagglutinin (HA) surface glycoprotein. That is one of two surface proteins shown here.

It also appears to be using the same type of lipid nanoparticles as are used in the mRNA COVID vaccines.

Paragraph 2

Moderna’s recently FDA-approved seasonal flu vaccine (mRNA-1010, branded mFlusiva/mFLUSIVA) for adults ≥50 years uses the company’s established non-replicating mRNA platform. It is not self-amplifying RNA (saRNA/sa-mRNA). saRNA constructs include alphavirus-derived replicase genes that enable intracellular RNA amplification and prolonged antigen expression at lower doses; mRNA-1010 does not. It relies on the same core technology as Spikevax: in vitro-transcribed, nucleoside-modified mRNA (typically incorporating N1-methylpseudouridine to reduce innate sensing and improve translation) with 5′ cap, optimized UTRs, and poly(A) tail, formulated in LNPs.

Several points are validated here.

  • mFluvia is considered to be a regular seasonal flu vaccine
  • It’s FDA approved for adults 50 years old and older (which includes the older 65+ subgroup as well)
  • It is NOT a more modern (and possibly more dangerous, IMO) self-amplifying mRNA
  • It uses the same tech as Moderna’s old COVID shot, named Spikevax.
  • It’s a standard “modified” mRNA, including the use of N1-methylpseudouridine

The fact that they have really not changed the platform is critical to understand. Any problems that are inherent to the mRNA platform itself, and not a result of the spike protein per se, are still there. Likewise, any problems that are common to both the spike protein and the HA protein will be there. And any NEW problems of the HA protein will be there, too.

Note that they are not giving it to kids. THAT is purely strategic, IMO, and is deviously smart. They know that if kids show cardiovascular and cancer effects, it’s going to be obviously the fault of the mRNA platform, and possibly even trouble for vaccination in general.

No way will they take that risk. IMO the reason they’re not taking a risk here, is that the HA protein of flu is not and cannot be a depop vector, like the spike protein. Thus, there is no sterilization or anti-fertility advantage worth taking a risk to roll out to kids.

SIDEBAR: N1-Methylpseudouridine

One further note on N1-methylpseudouridine. It is important to understand how little of it is actually contained in these vaccines. This stuff is not (IMO) toxic per se as a poison – it is only dangerous in very specific use when unnaturally incorporated into mRNA.

In the tiny amount of mRNA (micrograms) inside the tiny amount of lipid nanoparticles, literally milligrams suspended in fluid inside the tiny 0.38 mL of the shot, one out of the four bases (uridine) of that mRNA has been substituted with N1-methylated pseudouridine, and it goes straight into the machinery just like uridine would have. The only problem is that N1MPU is a bit like a worn tooth on a key, and it may turn a lock other than ONLY the one that it was intended to turn. That’s an understandable analogy to the fact that N1MPU in the coding may produce a WRONG protein sometimes – particularly due to something called “frame-shifting”.

The following Wikipedia has clearly been edited by Big Pharma shills, but you can still read between the lines, as to what they are defending / covering up / minimizing / downplaying. In the process, they basically document the problems of using a slippery fake base to avoid detection by the immune system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1-Methylpseudouridine

Robert Malone has a good explanation of these aspects, and more, here.

https://www.malone.news/p/pseudouridine-what-is-it-and-why

I do NOT buy the Wikipedia-shilled argument that frame-shifting is innocuous – because IMO it will only be innocuous until it isn’t – just like any other “error” that is allowed to fester until the plane crash happens in combination with other events.

Paragraph 3

The third paragraph basically explains what was measured to state that this vaccine was superior to existing non-mRNA vaccines. Note that nothing here deals with safety or risk – just efficacy. You can also see how little mRNA is used – basically 12.5 micrograms per strain of influenza.

The encoded antigen is the full-length (membrane-anchored) hemagglutinin glycoprotein of the selected seasonal strains. HA is the primary surface protein mediating viral attachment and entry; neutralizing antibodies targeting its head domain (and to a lesser extent the stalk) are the main correlate of protection measured by hemagglutination-inhibition (HAI) assays. The approved product is trivalent (reflecting the current seasonal composition after B/Yamagata’s decline), with total mRNA dose around 37.5 μg (roughly 12.5 μg per strain). Earlier development versions were quadrivalent. The platform allows rapid sequence updates to match circulating strains without egg adaptation.

Paragraph 4

This is where the AI model “negotiates” the controversy with creative wordplay. Read it carefully, like a contract.

No fundamental redesign of the mRNA or LNP platform specifically for this flu vaccine has been publicly detailed to address the concerns you raise. Protein expression from conventional modified mRNA is inherently transient: the mRNA is degraded by cellular nucleases over days (typically peaking within hours to a day or two and declining substantially within a week or so in standard preclinical models), so continuous long-term production of the target protein is not a designed or statistically expected feature in recipients. Observed antigen persistence in draining lymph nodes (sometimes detectable for weeks in some studies of COVID mRNA vaccines) supports germinal-center reactions rather than ongoing systemic protein synthesis from residual mRNA. Claims of undesirable long-term production are not supported as a common or inherent platform failure in the clinical data for these vaccines.

The first sentence is interesting.

No fundamental redesign of the mRNA or LNP platform specifically for this flu vaccine has been publicly detailed to address the concerns you raise.

Note that it doesn’t say there was no change to address concerns – it says that nothing was made public as such. Given how much can be “trade secrets”, we simply don’t know if changes were made behind the scenes. Grok worded this well, IMO.

Grok does address my concern about individuals who suffer long-term production of target protein, not by denying that it happens, but by stating the reality of the situation.;

Protein expression from conventional modified mRNA is inherently transient: the mRNA is degraded by cellular nucleases over days (typically peaking within hours to a day or two and declining substantially within a week or so in standard preclinical models), so continuous long-term production of the target protein is not a designed or statistically expected feature in recipients.

Note what Grok does here. It actually lets us know that mRNA vaccination is a process that peaks in hours to low days, declining over low (1-2) weeks in the DESIRED CASE. Grok doesn’t deny that it can take longer, but is very careful not to simply parrot the mainstream assertion that there are no long-term protein production problem cases. This is very artful use of language. Knowing better than to deny statistical outliers, it comes back at my use of “statistical” with “statistically expected feature” – a very crafty but true response.

In a similar vein, Grok repeats the denials of the mainstream regarding vaccine found in lymph nodes, but very carefully, not boxing itself in should those denials be disproven in the future.

Observed antigen persistence in draining lymph nodes (sometimes detectable for weeks in some studies of COVID mRNA vaccines) supports germinal-center reactions rather than ongoing systemic protein synthesis from residual mRNA.

Needless to say, I’m not convinced that this is innocuous, and am keeping an open mind. Also, this does NOT explain individuals producing spike protein for months or years after injection.

Claims of undesirable long-term production are not supported as a common or inherent platform failure in the clinical data for these vaccines.

This is weasel wording, but I get it. We have different definitions of platform failure. IMO even 0.1% failure would be unacceptable. Why? Because the injectable, metered, controlled protein immunogen injection already exists, and is superior to mRNA. It is inherently superior. It has ZERO long-term OR off-target production of protein, HOWEVER one defines it.

Grok knows this, but cannot psychologically deal with disagreement with the mainstream of public health. Grok would be “corrected” if it did disagree.

IMO, mRNA vaccines are a lot like the Trabant – the horrible 2-stroke automobile produced by the Soviet Empire. Yes, 2-stroke internal combustion technology “works”, but it is inferior to the cleaner, more expensive, and overall more efficient 4-stroke internal combustion engine we are still using.

mRNA vaccination is not the Tesla. It’s the Trabant, with it’s “magically efficient” two-stroke engine.

I have no need for it.

Paragraph 5

LNP biodistribution after intramuscular injection is predominantly local (injection-site muscle and draining lymph nodes), with smaller fractions reaching the spleen and, to a lesser extent, liver; distant tissue accumulation is minimal and components clear relatively rapidly (often low/undetectable by ~1–2 weeks in available data). The SM-102-based LNPs (ionizable lipid + cholesterol + helper phospholipid + PEG-lipid) used here are the same biodegradable class employed in Spikevax; they were selected in part for improved tolerability and clearance relative to earlier ionizable lipids. No public evidence indicates major new chemistry (e.g., substantially altered ionizable lipids, targeting ligands, or miRNA-regulated expression) unique to mFlusiva to further restrict off-target travel. Dose is lower than original COVID primary series doses, which reduces overall exposure.

Seriously, I almost rest my case after this first sentence by Grok. “…to a lesser extent, liver.” Good GRIEF. This is acceptable? REALLY? YIKES!

LNP biodistribution after intramuscular injection is predominantly local (injection-site muscle and draining lymph nodes), with smaller fractions reaching the spleen and, to a lesser extent, liver; distant tissue accumulation is minimal and components clear relatively rapidly (often low/undetectable by ~1–2 weeks in available data).

“Predominantly local” is not good enough. TRABANT! Fuck you – I don’t want a Trabant! Especially an injectable Trabant that I can’t send to the scrapyard, after it sends ME to the scrapyard.

This next pair of sentences is interesting.

The SM-102-based LNPs (ionizable lipid + cholesterol + helper phospholipid + PEG-lipid) used here are the same biodegradable class employed in Spikevax; they were selected in part for improved tolerability and clearance relative to earlier ionizable lipids. No public evidence indicates major new chemistry (e.g., substantially altered ionizable lipids, targeting ligands, or miRNA-regulated expression) unique to mFlusiva to further restrict off-target travel.

This is saying that no significant changes in the LNPs seem to have taken place, and based on that, it is very unlikely that there is any change to off-target dispersal of the vaccine.

Yes, Grok is doing SCIENCE here. It sounds like scientists talking at the lunch table, because it was trained on their output.

Dose is lower than original COVID primary series doses, which reduces overall exposure.

That’s an interesting observation. Grok knows that there is less chance for problems with the lower dose.

IMO this is not just science – it’s marketing. Moderna needs a “win” here, and they know that flu shots are not expected to make much of a difference in terms of efficacy. Moderna can “punt” here and “cheat to a win” on their next turn with the depopulation ball. So a lower dose here with fewer platform side-effects will make the mRNA platform look better. A nice way to make it through the Trump administration, and past RFKJ, already partially under control.

Did Grok know I would catch that? I think so. It sounds like some of my colleagues back in Shallow State, who knew how to speak the truth in a way I would get, without seeming to walk off the plantation.

Paragraph 6

In short, this is an evolutionary application of the proven non-replicating modified-mRNA + LNP system to HA antigens, leveraging manufacturing speed and the ability to induce strong humoral (and some cellular) responses without egg-based production constraints. Clinical data supported superior relative efficacy versus standard-dose inactivated vaccines in the pivotal trial, with a reactogenicity profile consistent with other mRNA vaccines (more local and systemic reactions that are mostly mild–moderate and transient).

This is the final party line summary. Grok puts on the happy face to live with its training. It’s public health over individual medicine, and it emphasizes the utilitarian superiority of eggless mRNA production. Yeah, I get it. If a few humans die, no biggie. It’s just a few. And it’s SO much cheaper.

The minimization of the (IMO) substantially greater local and systemic reactions is all public health and no concern for the patient. People are basically getting the unpleasant aspects of both the COVID and shingles vaccines, with continued risks for mRNA screw-ups.

I will be talking about the SIDE EFFECTS of this vaccine in my next post. It is NOT a pretty picture. The COVID shot has set a VERY LOW BAR for vaccine performance.

IMO the superior alternative would be recombinant protein vaccines, which are surely safer, but mRNA vaccines are surely cheaper, because your body is the reactor, and if it fucks up, it’s on you.

Welcome to Soviet medicine. Enjoy your Trabant.

W

Health Friday 6.5.2026 Open Thread: Betrayal by the FDA?

The vintage image of FDA items is courtesy of Hillerman Film and Google Images.

Health Friday is a series devoted to information about Big Pharma, vaccines, general health, and associated topics. There are Important Notifications by our host, Wolf Moon; the Rules of our late, good Wheatie; and, certain caveats from Yours Truly, of which readers should be aware. They are linked here. Note: AI-generated items in today’s offering will be cited as such. If readers, wish to post AI-generated items in today’s discussion thread, they must cite their source. Thank you.

Betrayal by the FDA?

Yours Truly begins here: https://www.thekingstonreport.com/p/fda-drops-placebo-controlled-trial, “FDA Drops Placebo-Controlled Trial Requirement for NEW mRNA Vaccines”, Karen Kingston, 28 May 2026. Please see the screenshot from this article, below:

The “vaccine” that the FDA will meeting about regarding review of the BLA application from Moderna of, is none other than mRNA-1010, the company’s modRNA influenza “vaccine” that is other component of the company’s “holy grail vaccine” — mRNA-1083 (mCOMBRIAX.) mCOMBRIAX is a “combo-vaccine” of mRNA-1010 plus mRNA-1283 (mNEXSPIKE, Moderna’s modRNA “lite” COVID-19 bioweapon “vaccine.) . mCOMBRIAX is already approved for use in the European Union. Yours Truly exposed the situation regarding mRNA-1083 (mCOMBRIAX), and the maneuvering by Moderna to get the product FDA-approved for use in the United States: first, mRNA-1010 (mCOMBRIAX): https://www.theqtree.com/2026/02/27/health-friday-2-27-2026-open-thread-modernas-mrna-1010-and-the-end-run-around-hhs-secretary-kennedy-jr-part-one/; https://www.theqtree.com/2026/03/06/health-friday-3-6-2026-open-thread-modernas-mrna-1010-and-the-end-run-around-hhs-secretary-keenedy-jr-part-two/. Second, Yours Truly exposed mNEXSPIKE (mRNA-1283; the other component of mRNA-1083, mCOMBRIAX): https://www.theqtree.com/2026/03/13/health-friday-3-13-2026-open-thread-meet-modernas-mrna-1283-mnexspike-the-other-component-of-mrna-1083-mcombriax-part-one/; https://www.theqtree.com/2026/03/20/health-friday-3-20-2026-open-thread-meet-modernas-mrna-1283-mnexspike-the-other-component-of-mrna-1083-mcombriax-part-two/. The “TD;LR” of the above links this screenshot from this source (the European Medicines Agency Assessment and Recommendation report on mCOMBRIAX, found here: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/mcombriax-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf, 26 February 2026):

The “TD;LR” summary of the mRNA-1010 situation in the United States: Moderna is desperate to get FDA approval for this modRNA “influenza vaccine”, so the company can proceed to finish getting mCOMBRIAX also FDA-approved. The backstory on this situation is outlined here: https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/articles/pfizer-vs-moderna-mrna-patent-strategies-and-pipelines/, updated 2 April 2026. A screenshot from this article is below:

However, Moderna has ALREADY applied for a Patent for mRNA-1010: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP4274607A1/en; title: “Seasonal rna influenza virus vaccines.” The Patent application was submitted on 10 January 2022. The current Status of the application is “Pending.” By the way, the Patent claims state that as many as SEVEN different types of influenza virus strains can be used in the formulation of mRNA-1010. Also notice that the Patent application was filed back in January 2022: this means that the laboratory work to perform the experiments, aggregate data, analyze the data, and so on, was begun years before the application submission.

However, Moderna has ALREADY applied for a Trade Mark (TM) for mRNA-1010, under the brand name mFLUSIVA. The application was submitted on 27 February 2026: https://uspto.report/TM/99674080. **** It was on 26 February 2026 that the European Medicines Agency (cited above) recommended the use of mCOMBRIAX (mFLUSIVA + mNEXSPIKE combination “vaccine”) in the European Union.

The VRBPAC panel of the FDA will meet on 18 June 2026 to consider the use of mRNA-1010 (mFLUSIVA) in the United States: https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/advisory-committee-calendar/vaccines-and-related-biological-products-advisory-committee-june-18-2026-meeting-announcement. The current member roster of the VRBPAC panel is listed here: https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/vaccines-and-related-biological-products-advisory-committee; current roster as of 19 May 2026. The Chair position is “Vacant.” This meeting appears to be the “meeting with outside experts” that the Kingston Report is referring to (cited above.)

It appears that, in Yours Truly’s opinion, Moderna is performing “all the right moves” in order to ensure that mRNA-1010 (mFLUSIVA) is approved by the FDA for use in the United States as soon as possible. This includes, apparently, maneuvering to have Dr. Vinay Prasad (who refused the BLA application for mRNA-1010 in February 2026) removed from his position at the FDA. Per the Kingston Report, cited above:

This “FDA meeting with Moderna” was the “Type A” meeting that Yours Truly wrote about in the Health Friday posts cited above.

Does the reader see how the game is played by Big Pharma? It appears that Moderna will not allow anyone to interfere with the company’s goal of getting mRNA-1010 (mFLUSIVA) through the FDA approval process and have the injectable ready for the United States 2026-2027 “flu season market”; and, also, that Moderna will not allow anyone to interfere with the company’s goal of getting mRNA-1083 (mCOMBRIAX) through the FDA approval process and have the injectable ready for the United States market as soon as possible.

Peace, Good Energy, Respect: PAVACA

(Intellectual Property Disclaimer and Notice: Except for linked URLs and other items in today’s offering that are available on the Internet, the ideas and/or opinions of today’s offering are by PAVACA. Credit must be given to PAVACA if the ideas and/or opinions of today’s offering are used by other blog writers; by podcasters; or in print or social media.)

Health Friday 3.13.2026 Open Thread: Meet Moderna’s mRNA-1283, mNEXSPIKE, the Other Component of mRNA-1083, mCOMBRIAX: Part One

The colorized vintage image of vaccination for today’s header is courtesy of MedPage Today and Google Images.

Health Friday is a series devoted to Big Pharma, vaccines, general health, and associated topics. There are Important Notifications from our host, Wolf Moon; the Rules of our late, good Wheatie; and, certain caveats from Yours Truly, of which readers should be aware. They are linked here. Note: AI-generated items in today’s offering will be cited as such. If readers wish to post AI-generated items in today’s discussion thread, they must cite their source. Thank you.

The Moderna “combination modRNA influenza + modRNA COVID-19 vaccine”, mRNA-1083, also called mCOMBRIAX, has just been approved for use in Europe. mRNA-1083 (mCOMBRIAX) is a combination of the Moderna modRNA multi-strain influenza “vaccine”, mRNA-1010, plus the company’s “other” modRNA COVID-19 bioweapon “vaccine”, mRNA-1283 (mNEXSPIKE.) Yours Truly has written about the mRNA-1010 component of this “combo vaccine” here: https://www.theqtree.com/2026/02/27/health-friday-2-27-2026-open-thread-modernas-mrna-1010-and-the-end-run-around-hhs-sec-kennedy-jr-part-one/; and, here: https://www.theqtree.com/2026/03/06/health-friday-3-6-2026-open-thread-modernas-mrna-1010-and-the-end-run-around-hhs-sec-kennedy-jr-part-two/.

And now, on to the mRNA-1283 (mNEXSPIKE) component of mRNA-1083. Today’s offering is Part One of two:

Moderna’s “other” modRNA COVID-19 bioweapon “vaccine”, mRNA-1283 (mNEXSPIKE), was approved for use in the United States on 30 May 2025. The FDA Approval Letter to Moderna is here: https://www.fda.gov/media/186740/download. The Approval Letter for mNEXSPIKE was signed by David C. Kaslow, MD, Director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review (a subdivision of FDA’s CBER department [Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research]). Dr. Kaslow is a Biden-era “holdover” at the FDA; he has been with CBER since 11 October 2022.

It appears that Dr. Kaslow relied solely on the “data” that was given to the FDA by Moderna regarding the “safety and efficacy” of mRNA-1283, prior to that agency’s granting approval of the BLA (Biologics License Application) that Moderna submitted for the product. In addition, it appears that Dr. Kaslow believed that the “data” that Moderna supplied to the FDA was sufficient enough to warrant a bypass of the review process by the VRBPAC group of the FDA (Vaccines and Related Biological Products Committee.) Please see the screenshot from Dr. Kaslow’s Approval Letter to Moderna for mRNA-1283 (mNEXSPIKE), below:

By the way, on 20 May 2025, Dr. Martin Makary (FDA Commissioner) and Dr. Vinay Prasad (Director of the FDA’s CBER division) published an “opinion piece” in the New England Journal of Medicine that purported to be their “opinions” regarding a “new approach” to COVID-19 “vaccination” in the United States. However, this was not really an “opinion piece” — it was implemented as FDA policy. This article by Dr. Prasad and Dr. Makary was published just 10 days before Dr. Kaslow sent the Approval Letter to Moderna for mRNA-1283 (mNEXSPIKE.) Did Dr. Prasad and Dr. Makary know in advance that Dr. Kaslow was going to issue this Approval Letter? Did HHS Secretary Kennedy, Jr., know? The “opinion piece” is here: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsb2506929. “An Evidence-Based Approach to COVID-19 Vaccination.” Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, and Martin Makary, MD, MPH. 20 May 2025. Below are two screenshots from this article: from the text; and, the Figure 2, which lists the “groups at severe risk from COVID-19.” The persons who would fall under one or more of the categories listed in Figure 2, even if these persons are under age 65, would “qualify” for “vaccination” with mNEXSPIKE:

The Package Insert for healthcare professionals for mRNA-1283 (mNEXSPIKE) is here: https://www.fda.gov/media/186738/download. Please see the screenshots of the following sections of this Package Insert, below: first, section 11 Description; then, section 12 Clinical Pharmacology, and section 13 Nonclinical Toxicology:

It would appear that Dr. Kaslow was comfortable in approving an injectable by Moderna (mRNA-1283, also called mNEXSPIKE) that contains the dangerous lipid nanoparticle SM-102; that contains at least PEG-related element (polyethylene glycol); and, that was not tested for carcinogenicity (the potential to cause cancer), for genotoxicity (the potential to damage genes, or to cause changes to genes, either of which can also cause cancer), or for impairment of male fertility.

It would also appear that Dr. Kaslow was comfortable with approving this modRNA COVID-19 bioweapon “vaccine” (mRNA-1283, also called mNEXSPIKE), which is purported to “prevent infection of COVID-19” — but, which claim has been proven to be wrong. From the FDA Package Insert for mNEXSPIKE:

The “prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)” statement is still being used by the FDA on COVID-19 bioweapon “vaccines” Package Inserts, despite the fact that Shrestha, et al., demonstrated in 2023 that “fully up-to-date vaccinated” Cleveland Clinic employees were more likely to become COVID-19 infected than those who were not “fully up-to-date” with COVID-19 “vaccination” (https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.06.09.23290893. “Risk of Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Among Those Up-to-Date and Not Up-to-Date on COVID-19 Vaccination.” Nabin K. Shrestha, et al. 13 June 2023.) Please the screenshot from this paper, below:

Why aren’t the Moderna “original” modRNA COVID-19 bioweapon “vaccine”, mRNA-1273 (SPIKEVAX), and the Moderna modRNA COVID-19 bioweapon “vaccine”, mRNA-1283 (mNEXSPIKE), the same? Please see the screenshot, below, from this article (https://www.drugs.com/medical-answers/what-difference-between-spikevax-mnexspike-3580787/, “What is the difference between SPIKEVAX and mNEXSPIKE?”, 2 September 2025:

However, regarding mNEXSPIKE, there apparently is a “blurred line” as to the use of it in persons under age 65 who do not have an “underlying medical condition.” Please see the screenshot below, from this article: https://health.mountsinai.org/blog/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-covid-19-vaccines/, 23 September 2025; the advice is from Dr. Bernard Camins, MD, MSc, of Mount Sinai Hospital, in the “FAQ” section:

Note the language above, from Dr. Camins, regarding the ability of pharmacists to “prescribe vaccines off-label.”

Why is the N-terminal domain of the SARS-CoV-2 virus so important to Moderna that the company crafted a modRNA COVID-19 bioweapon “vaccine”, mNEXSPIKE, to utilize it? The N-terminal domain area is the “closest” (in terms of placement) to the receptor-binding domain (RCB) on the SARS-CoV-2 virus code. The N-terminal domain is also close to the S1/S2 cleavage site on the virus code. The receptor-binding domain is the part of the virus code that “makes sure” that the “payload” of the “vaccine” binds itself (enters into) the cells of the “vaccinated” person. These, in this writer’s opinion, make the N-terminal domain a “prime target” for the development of modRNA COVID-19 bioweapon “vaccines” that do not need to include the entire virus code, but still can “deliver the payload” through the receptor-binding domain mechanism. Please see: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2020.587269. “SARS-CoV-2: Structure, Biology, and Structure-Based Therapeutics Development.” Mei-Yue Wang, et al. 24 November 2020. Figure 1.) This is in contrast to the other modRNA COVID-19 bioweapon “vaccines” (by Moderna and by Pfizer-BioNTech) that contain the entire spike protein sequence (S1 and S2 areas.)

The issue regarding developing a modRNA COVID-19 bioweapon “vaccine” that only utilizes the N-terminal domain and the receptor-binding domain appears to have been determining exactly what “binding pocket” of the N-terminal domain would work. Scientists had been experimenting with the N-terminal domain to find such a “binding pocket”: for example, as described in this paper, from 2022: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2022.11.004. “Structural and energetic analyses of SARS-CoV-2 N-terminal domain characterise sugar binding pockets and suggest putative impacts of variants on COVID-19 transmission.” Jonathan Lees, et al. 17 November 2022. Please see the screenshots from this paper, below; first, the Abstract; followed by the Graphical Abstract:

It appears that Moderna did find such an N-terminal “binding pocket” to use for the development of mNEXSPIKE. And, it appears that the company’s decision to “harness” the mechanism to the S1 area of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, as opposed to using the entire S1/S2 sequence, is due to the fact that the S1 area is that which appears to be the most “effective” in regards to the Delta and Omicron variants of the virus. Please refer to: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38034565. “SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 subunit induces potent neutralizing responses in mice and is effective against Delta and Omicron variants.” Tarlan Mamedov, et al. 14 November 2023. Please see the screenshot, below, of the Conclusion from this paper:

Note that Mamedov, et al., used a tobacco plant to produce the S1 protein from SARS-CoV-2, which they then tested against Delta and Omicron virus variants.

In this writer’s opinion, mRNA-1283 (mNEXSPIKE) cannot be thought of as “mRNA-1273 (SPIKEVAX) Lite.” mNEXSPIKE contains the S1 spike protein of an Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. mNEXSPIKE contains the dangerous lipid nanoparticle, SM-102, that mRNA-1273 (SPIKEVAX) also contains. mNEXSPIKE contains N1-Methylpseudouridine (which will destroy the RNA of the “vaccinated” body’s natural Uridine, replacing it with a lab-created chemical compound that has no natural, beneficial mechanism for the body), which mRNA-1273 (SPIKEVAX) also contains. In this writer’s opinion, the only difference between mRNA-1273 (SPIKEVAX) and mNEXSPIKE is that the latter “vaccine” does not contain the S2 area of the spike protein.

To be continued in Part Two.

THERE IS NO PLACE IN THE HUMAN BODY FOR AN mRNA, A modRNA, AN saRNA, OR A taRNA PRODUCT OF ANY KIND, IN ANY FORM. THERE MUST, FIRST, BE MUCH MORE RESEARCH INTO THESE GENE-ALTERING THERAPY PLATFORMS AND PRODUCTS. THERE MUST, SECOND, BE IRREFUTABLE PROOF THAT THESE GENE-ALTERING THERAPY PLATFORMS AND PRODUCTS ARE TRULY “SAFE AND EFFECTIVE.”

Peace, Good Energy, Respect: PAVACA

(Intellectual Disclaimer and Notice: Other than URLs and related items available on the Internet, the ideas and opinions of today’s offering are by PAVACA. Credit must be given to PAVACA if the ideas and opinions of today’s offering are used by other blog writers, by podcasters, or in social or print media.)

Health Friday 2.27.2026 Open Thread: Moderna’s mRNA-1010 and the End Run Around HHS Sec. Kennedy, Jr.: Part One

The header image for today’s offering of an end run is courtesy of Grammarist and Google Images.

Health Friday is a series devoted to information regarding Big Pharma, vaccines, general health, and associated topics.

There are Important Notifications from our host, Wolf Moon; the Rules of our late, good Wheatie; and, certain caveats from Yours Truly, of which readers should be aware. They are linked here. Note: Yours Truly has checked today’s offering for AI-generated items; to the best of her knowledge and belief, there are none. If readers wish to post AI-generated items in today’s discussion thread, they must cite their source. Thank you.

Today’s offering is Part One regarding the current situation with Moderna’s latest entry into the mRNA-based “vaccine” platform: the company’s influenza “vaccine”, mRNA-1010.

On 11 February 2026, Dr. Vinay Prasad, director the CBER division of the FDA (Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research) sent an RTF letter (Refusal to File letter) to Moderna in response to that company’s BLA application (BIologics License Application) review request for mRNA-1010, a modRNA-based “vaccine” against several strains of influenza. Dr. Prasad cited the lack of a true placebo control group in a study by Moderna using this “vaccine candidate.” Please see the screenshots, below, from https://pharmacally.com/fda-issues-refusal-to-file-letter-for-modernas-mrna-1010-flu-vaccine/, 11 February 2026:

However, by a few days later, the situation had changed completely: the FDA “reversed course”, agreeing to review Moderna’s BLA (amended) application for mRNA-1010.

By 18 February 2026, a “Type A” meeting had been arranged between the FDA and Moderna regarding the RTF letter. Moderna agreed to submit an “amended” BLA application to the FDA for mRNA-1010. The FDA accepted the amended BLA application. The FDA will make a final decision on approving mRNA-1010 by 5 August 2026. Please see the screenshot, below, from https://www.biospace.com/fda/fda-reverses-course-on-modernas-mrna-flu-shot-application-promising-august-decision, Heather McKenzie, 18 February 2026:

Note: A Type A meeting at the FDA is a “high-priority” meeting; sometimes, Type A meetings are called “milestone meetings.” Per https://facetlifesciences.com/ and https://seed.nih.gov/ searches.

Please see the screenshots, below, on this “volte-face” from https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/fda-reverses-course-will-now-review, “FDA Reverses Course, Will Now Review Moderna’s Controversial mRNA Flu Vaccine”, Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, 20 February 2026:

Then, from https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/fda-reverses-course-review-moderna-approval-application-influenza-812432/, “FDA reverses course on Moderna’s flu vaccine”, Delilah Alvardo, 19 February 2026 (the quotation in the screenshot is from Mani Foroohar):

Note that last sentence, by Mr. Faroohar. It clarifies three “behind-the-scenes” aspects of mRNA-1010:

**** One: That Moderna will do whatever it takes to get mRNA-1010 approved — including being “more assertive” with the FDA, and arranging it so that the FDA will “work with” Moderna.

**** Two: That Moderna will do a “post-marketing study” on mRNA-1010 AFTER it is FDA-approved — meaning that ANYONE who takes mRNA-1010 AFTER the FDA approves it is being treated as a “human lab rat” by Moderna. This is the same type of situation that occurred when the FDA approved Moderna’s modRNA COVID-19 bioweapon “vaccine”, mRNA-1273.

**** Three: That Moderna considers the FDA approval of mRNA-1010 as the “stepping-stone” to what the company appears to believe is the “Holy Grail” of modRNA-based “vaccines” — the company’s “combo” modRNA-based influenza + modRNA-based COVID-19 “vaccine”, mRNA-1083 (the clinical trials for which have been completed)

There are, in addition, two other aspects to the situation: What appears to be pressure on Dr. Martin Makary, MD (FDA Commissioner) to “knuckle under” to what Moderna wants; and, what appears to be a coordinated campaign to have Dr. Vinay Prasad removed from his position as CBER division director at the FDA. In Yours Truly’s opinion, these relate to the “sudden arrangement” of the FDA “Type A” meeting between Moderna representatives and the FDA almost immediately after the Refusal to File was issued by Dr. Prasad. Please see the screenshots, below, from https://www.biospace.com/fda/makary-prasad-under-fire-as-fda-turmoil-reaches-president-trump, Heather McKenzie, 20 February 2026:

Peter Pitts, by the way, was an FDA employee whose position was that of a “senior communications and policy adviser” of the agency (https://www.centerforbiosimilars.com/authos/peter-pitts.) It appears that Mr. Pitts and CMPI are involved in a campaign to have Dr. Prasad removed from the FDA.

In Yours Truly’s opinion: Dr. Martin Makary is compromised, due to his involvement with BIO.org/, the group that is implementing a campaign to have HHS Sec. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., removed; and, Dr. Prasad is compromised, due to what appears to be lack of support within FDA, combined with innuendoes regarding his professional behavior at the agency.

In Yours Truly’s opinion, It appears that there is a combination of chaos, mistrust, internecine feuding, and active resistance going on within the FDA; plus, exterior pressure on the agency from companies and other entities to restore the FDA back to the “good old days”, when drugs and other biologics were authorized and approved in what may be called a kind of “rubber-stamp” process. It also appears that HHS Sec. Kennedy, Jr., is either being “kept out of the loop” regarding what is going on with the FDA; or, cannot, for whatever reason, root out personnel within the FDA who are fomenting trouble.

Yours Truly now turns to the Moderna-funded published paper on mRNA-1010, which was cited by Dr. Prasad as the reason for his issuing the Refusal to File letter to the company: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41541-025-01340-5. “mRNA-1010 influenza vaccine elicits distinct and enhanced humoral immunity compared to adjuvanted inactivated vaccines.” Paulina Kaplonek, et al. 15 December 2025. Moderna completely funded this study; all of the paper’s co-authors are either current or former Moderna employees; and, the current Moderna employees who are co-authors of the paper are also stockholders in the company. All of these in and of themselves, in Yours Truly’s opinion, represent massive conflicts of interest that should, under normal circumstances, disqualify the paper from any serious consideration by the FDA for a BLA application review. This is aside from the flaws in the clinical trial NCT05397223, on which the paper was based (more on this below in today’s offering.) Please see the screenshots from this paper, below:

Note the use of the word, “may.” This word is used in several areas of the paper, as in, “may elicit”; “may reflect”; and, “may induce.” In other words, Moderna does not KNOW if mRNA-1010 can actually be helpful against influenza. The company is guessing that it “may.” However, the company is still pursuing the BLA application with the FDA to get the “vaccine” approved — without having provided ANY proof that the “vaccine” actually does what it is “supposed” to do — which is, to prevent influenza infection better than the licensed influenza “vaccines” already on the market.

The following screenshots from the paper relate to how mRNA-1010 works, including: Figure 4B and Figure 4D, which show that the “vaccine” minimizes the crucial natural body’s activity of IgM cells (the “recognize an enemy and signal the other cells” immune cells); which show that there is an apparent increase of IgG4 cells (the “tolerate but never clear” cells); and, which appear to hint at mRNA-1010 being used as a kind of “universal influenza vaccine” candidate:

The blue image is the results of the “comparator influenza vaccine”, FLUAD; the red image is the results of mRNA-1010.

Then, from the section that discusses the results of Figure 4B and Figure 4D:

The Moderna paper co-authors did not prove that mRNA-1010 provides mucosal protection from influenza.

Following is a screenshot from the paper regarding the non-involvement of IgM cells induced by mRNA-1010:

Followed by the “hint” that mRNA-1010 may be used as a “universal influenza vaccine” candidate:

Finally, the Acknowledgements section, and the Ethics Declarations section, of the paper:

As shareholders in Moderna, the above employees (and co-authors of the paper on mRNA-1010) stand to make money off the sale and use of this “vaccine.”

**** Regarding the clinical trial which was the foundation for the Moderna paper that was published on 15 December 2025, NCT05397223, details of which are found here: https://clinicaltrials.org/study/NCT05397223. This clinical trial did NOT have a true saline placebo Control Group. Per the Clinical Trials website, there are TWO separate parts to the study. In Part One, study subjects received injections of: of mRNA-1345 (a modRNA-based “vaccine” against RSV); or, of mRNA-1647 (a modRNA-based “vaccine” against Cytomegalovirus);, or, of mRNA-1273 (the modRNA COVID-19 “vaccine”), all by Moderna. In Part Two, study subjects received injections of either: FLUAD (the “comparator” licensed inactivated influenza vaccine by Seqirus); or, of mRNA-1010. Please see the screenshot, below, from the Clinical Trials website for NCT05397223, the Secondary Outcomes Measures section:

However, there is not a single word in the Moderna-funded paper cited above in which the outcomes for ANY of the “vaccines” used on the study subjects other than FLUAD or mRNA-1010, are found. Nothing for mRNA-1345, for mRNA-1647, or for mRNA-1273. It is unknown if any of these three “vaccines” induced any interactions with either FLUAD or with mRNA-1010. There are “No Results Posted” on the Clinical Trials website for NCT05397223.

Moderna has been in the process of developing and testing mRNA-1010 for the past several years. The company applied pressure, which apparently went all the way up to the Oval Office, in order to force the FDA to reverse course and agree to review the (amended) BLA application for mRNA-1010, despite the flaws of the clinical trial NCT053972723, and despite the Refusal to File letter sent by Dr. Vinay Prasad.

To be continued in Part Two.

THERE IS NO PLACE IN THE HUMAN BODY FOR AN mRNA-BASED, modRNA-BASED, saRNA-BASED, OR taRNA-BASED PRODUCT IN ANY FORM.

Peace, Good Energy, Respect: PAVACA

(intellectual Property Disclaimer and Notice: With the exception of linked items that are found on the internet, the ideas and opinions of today’s offering are by PAVACA. Credit must be given to PAVACA if ideas or opinions in today’s offering are used by other blog writers; by podcasters; or in social or print media.)

Health Friday 7.18.2025 Open Thread: Moderna, the FDA, and the NIH/NIAID

The header image for today’s post is courtesy of iStock and Google Images.

Health Friday is a series devoted to information about Big Pharma, vaccines, general health, and associated topics. As today’s offering speaks to the disaster of the COVID-19 “vaccines”, Yours Truly dedicates it to all persons, of whatever age or location, who have passed away from the negative effects of the COVID-19 “vaccines” that they had injected into their body.

There are Important Notifications from our host, Wolf Moon; the Rules of our late, good Wheatie; and, certain caveats from Yours Truly, of which readers should be aware. They are linked here. Note: Yours Truly has checked today’s offering for any AI-generated content. To the best of her knowledge and belief, there is one AI-generated image in The Focal Points article, cited below. If readers wish to add any AI-generated content to the discussion thread for today’s offering, they must cite their source. Thank you.

The phrase to keep in mind when reading today’s post is: Follow the money.

Today’s post begins here: https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/fda-commits-grave-betrayal-fully, “FDA Commits Grave Betrayal: Fully Approves Deadly Genetic Injections for Infants”, by Nicolas Hulscher, MPH, 11 July 2025. There is an embedded video interview with Mr. Hulscher in this article. This article and interview regard the FDA “full approval” on 10 July 2025 of the Moderna modRNA COVID-19 “vaccine”, SPIKEVAX, to be used on infants and young children from age 6 months to 11 years old. A screenshot of a portion of the Table 2. from this article is below, showing the amounts of “loose” DNA in this “vaccine”:

The published scientific paper that is linked in the above Hulscher article is here: https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/review-of-calls-for-market-removal-of-covid-19-vaccines-intensify-risks-far-outweigh-theoretical-benefits/, “Review: Calls for Market Removal of COVID-19 Vaccines Intensify as Risks Far Outweigh Theoretical Benefits”, Nicolas Hulscher, Mary Bowden, Peter A. MCullough, 28 January 2025.

Yours Truly now turns to a crucial component of the Moderna modRNA COVID-19 “vaccine” situation: the “tied to the hip” relationship that this company has with the NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), part of the NIH (National Institutes of Health.) Both the NIAID and the NIH are institutes of the federal government Department of Health and Human Services (HHS.) Katherine Watt, of Bailiwick News, has studied and written about the “coziness” between Big Pharma entities such as Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna with federal government agencies, such as the FDA. Please see: https://bailiwicknews.substack.com/p/why-pfizer-and-moderna-and-fda-are, “Why Pfizer and Moderna and FDA are working toward government authorization to inject babies and small children”, 23 March 2022. Ms. Watt includes a statement made by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in 2021, on this situation. Please see: https://wsau.com/2021/12/31/robert-f-kennedy-jr-explains-why-fauci-is-going-after-children/, by Meg Ellefson, 31 December 2021. A screenshot from the Bailiwick News article on this is below:

There are SEC filings and “Confidential Agreements” between Moderna, the FDA. and the NIAID, regarding the funding and development of mRNA “vaccines.” There are patent co-ownership and revenue-sharing agreements between Moderna and the NIAID. There is a Moderna – NIH Confidential Agreement that goes back to 2015.

The trail begins here: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/moderna-make-milestone-payments-nih-covid-vaccine-2023-02-24/,”Moderna to make milestone payments to NIH for COVID vaccine”, 24 February 2023. Please see the screenshot from this article, below:

By the way, milestone payments would include payments for items such as, developing the “latest version” of a COVID-19 modRNA “vaccine” — for examples: the Moderna (SPIKEVAX) “2025-2026 COVID-19 Formula Vaccine” that was just “recommended” by the ACIP committee of the CDC; and, the FDA “full approval” of SPIKEVAX being used on infants and young children age 6 months to 11 years old, which “full approval” was granted on 10 July 2025. It appears that Moderna had attempted to “modify” or “avoid” certain types of sharing agreements stipulations, royalty payments to the HHS (via the NIAID), and HHS – Moderna co-owned patents agreements; and, for which, the company was taken to court by the HHS. The decision was rendered against Moderna, with an order to make a multi-million dollar “catch-up payment” to HHS -NIAID.

Another aspect of the trail is here: https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/4533574-how-the-national-institutes-of-health-became-a-den-of-cronyism/, by Sen. Rand Paul, MD (R-KY), 15 March 2024. Please see the screenshot from this article, below:

Now, to the 2015 “Confidential Agreements” between Moderna and the NIH. The document is found here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6935195-NIH-Moderna-Confidential-Agreements/, November 2015. This document has numerous “amendments” and “additions” that go through the year 2018 — and, the last of which appears to “cover” all items related to COVID-19 “vaccines”. On page 16 of the document, with special attention to page 19, start the CRADA stipulations (Cooperative Research and Development Agreement stipulations between Moderna and the NIH.) The language here has numerous Proprietary Information redactions; however, it appears to be broad enough to cover the later co-ownership by Moderna and the NIH of the SPIKEVAX patents and their Expiry Dates (more on these below.)

Here are page 19 and a portion of page 20 of the NIH/NIAID and Moderna CRADA agreement, below:

Recall that the director of the NIAID in 2015 was Dr. Anthony Fauci; and, the director of the NIH in 2015 was Dr. Francis Collins.

The third part of the trail is here, the SEC filing that details the NIH – Moderna agreements to share COVID-19 “vaccine” development, patents, and royalty payments for use of said “vaccines”, is found here: https://www.sec.gov/ix?=docs/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285223000011/mrna-20221231.html, filed 31 December 2022.

Page 41 of this document names the “partners” that will be included in the agreements: DARPA; BARDA; and, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Page 43 of this document details the SPIKEVAX patents and Expiry Dates that will be co-owned by Moderna and the NIH. A screenshot of this page is below:

There is also a “vaccine mechanisms” series of sections in this agreement. A screenshot of one of these sections is below:

And, there is a section regarding the “Drug Design Studio” section of the SEC document. Please see the screenshot from this section, below:

On 7 July 2025, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., cancelled the 10 July meeting that was scheduled for the USPSTF committee of the HHS (United States Preventive Services Task Force committee.) If Sec. Kennedy, Jr., can do this, why can’t he do something to modify / rescind / cancel the NIH / NIAID – Moderna “Confidential Agreements”, the related royalty-sharing payments agreements, and the 31 December 2022 SEC filing? Is it because of the “SPIKEVAX Patents and Expiry Dates” agreement, the screenshot of which from the SEC filing is above, and which runs, in total, until 22 October 2041? Are his hands tied? “Inquiring minds want to know.”

FLASH ADDENDUM: Our good Gail Combs asked to have the following added to today’s offering, regarding the development of a new BLACK PLAGUE strain variation that was just done by scientist in Israel. Yours Truly is also adding another item related to other work developing BLACK PLAGUE strain variations.

ISRAELI scientists have just developed an mRNA-based BLACK PLAGUE (Yersinia Pestis, or Y. Pestis) vaccine, using a lab-modified gene and adding N1-Methylpseudouridine as the lipid nanoparticle “delivery system.” Please see: https://jonfleetwood.substack.com/cp/168494356, “Israel Engineers Mutant Plague — Puts Its Genes in mRNA Shot That Makes Human Cells Produce Virulence and Immune-Evasion ‘Black Death’ Proteins: Journal ‘Advanced Science'”, 16 July 2025. This is the “BLACK PLAGUE version” of the modRNA + N1-Methylpseudouridine COVID-19 “vaccines” — except that the “payload” is a lab-created genetically altered and more virulent version of the BLACK PLAGUE.

Recall that Yours Truly has written extensively about the mechanism of the N1-Methylpseudouridine used in the Pfizer-BioNTech and in the Moderna modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines” (there’s the connection to Moderna.) This lab-created compound ingredient replaces the natural Uridine in the COVID-19 “vaccinated” person’s body, kicking the door wide open for catastrophic immune system evasion by said “vaccine”: evasion that will occur throughout the body and also the brain. The connection to both Moderna and to Pfizer-BioNTech in regards the use of N1-Methylpseudouridine is that BOTH companies specifically included this lab-created chemical compound in their modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines”, the description of which inclusion IS IN THE PATENT DOCUMENTS THAT WERE FILED BY EACH COMPANY. This begs the question: Did the Israeli scientists pay either Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna for the “rights” to use this compound IN THEIR BLACK PLAGUE VARIATION “VACCINE” EXPERIMENTS?

The peer-reviewed paper that is referred to in the Jon Fleetwood article is here: https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202501286, “Novel Bivalent mRNA-LNP Vaccine for Highly Effective Protection Against Pneumonic Plague”, Dan Peer, et al., 25 April 2025. A screenshot from the Fleetwood article is below:

But wait, there’s more! The Fleetwood article links to a paper published in 2024 regarding research by the United States Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Chemical Biological Center in Gunpowder, Maryland, ALSO on lab-creating a variation of the BLACK PLAGUE. This variation was “cultured” in a “bath” of Escherichia coli (E. coli, the same type of “culturing material” that is used by both Pfizer-BioNTech and by Moderna to produce their respective modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines.” The paper is here: https://doi.org/10.1099/acmi.0.000723.v3, “Towards a Yersinia Pestis lipid A recreated in an Escherichia coli scaffold genome”, Nathan D. McDonald, Erin E. Antoshak, 17 July 2024. A screenshot of the Abstract of this paper is below:

In Yours Truly’s opinion: The entire “let’s make a lab-created RNA + lipid nanoparticle vaccine” situation is out of control. The entire “let’s alter a gene or two from a deadly infectious disease and make a variation of this disease” situation is out of control.

THERE. MUST. BE. JUSTICE.

THERE. MUST. BE. TRUTH.

Peace, Good Energy, Respect: PAVACA

Health Friday 6.6.2025 Open Thread: TLR4, S1, and mRNA-1283 (mNEXSPIKE): A Scientific Gourmanderie

The above image of TLR Signalling Pathways is courtesy of BioFinder and Google Images.

Health Friday is a series devoted to information about Big Pharma, vaccines, general health, and associated topics. As today’s offering is related to the disaster of the COVID-19 virus itself, and of the COVID-19 “vaccines”, Yours Truly dedicates it to the memory of all persons, of whatever age or location, who have passed away from the negative effects of these lab-created Biological Toxin Weapons.

There are Important Notifications from our host, Wolf Moon; the Rules of our late, good Wheatie; and, certain caveats from Yours Truly, of which readers should be aware. They are linked here. Note: Yours Truly has checked today’s offering for any AI-generated content. To the best of her knowledge and belief, there is none. If readers wish to post any AI-generated content in today’s discussion thread, they must cite their source. Thank you.

And now, to the reader’s Edification Smorgasbord, a “feast of information” regarding just how dangerous and potentially deadly mRNA-1283 (mNEXSPIKE) is, Yours Truly offers the following Menu:

APPETIZER: WHAT IS TLR4?

TLR4 (aka Toll-like receptor 4) is a transmembrane protein that exists across a cell membrane. TLR4 functions as a kind of “sensing device” within the body. It detects foreign bacteria and viruses. When a foreign element is detected by TLR4, it begins to send messages to the natural immune system to activate the immune response. TLR4 is crucial to the correct functioning of the natural immune system. Please see the screenshots below for more information:

Citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll-like_receptor_4

Citation: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2007.05.016, “Toll-like receptors in inflammation, infection and cancer”, Keqiang Chen, et al., October 2007. Found via: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/tlr4.

FIRST COURSE: THE FDA APPROVES “mNEXSPIKE” IN MAY 2025:

The “newest version” COVID-19 “vaccine”, mRNA-1283 (aka mNEXSPIKE), was “fully approved” by the FDA on 30 May 2025. Yours Truly wrote about this situation here: https://www.theqtree.com/2025/06/01/stop-press-edition-hhs-secretary-robert-f-kennedy-needs-to-resign-now/. This “vaccine” claims to be “more effective” in “preventing” an infection of COVID-19. The claim is based on the fact that mRNA-1283 (aka mNEXSPIKE) uses “only” the S1 protein and the N sector of said S1 protein of the COVID-19 virus spike protein, as opposed to using the entire spike protein (as in mRNA-1273, the original “flagship” modRNA COVID-19 “vaccine” by Moderna.) Please see: https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiaf022, “Safety and Immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Receptor-Binding Domain and N-Terminal Domain mRNA Vaccine”, Spyros Chalkias, et al., 15 April 2025 (most of the authors of this “informational paper” are either affiliated with Moderna, or are employees of Moderna.) A screenshot of the Background section of the Abstract of this paper is below:

At first glance, this “new development” by Moderna may appear to be a “positive” achievement. However, there are other issues that arise:

First, there is the fact that the S1 protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus contains both the RCB (Receptor-Binding Domain) AND the N-terminal domain of the virus. It is the RCB that allows the virus to “attach” itself , or to “dock” itself, to cells in the body — for example, to the ACE2 cell receptors; and, to TLR4 cells. The N-terminal domain is the “end part” of the S1 protein; it is a “free” group at the end of the protein, while, at the same time, it “initiates” a polypeptide chain.

Second, there is the fact that the S1 protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus interacts with TLR4 cells. Yours Truly begins with this: https://news-medical.net/news/20210510/Research-suggests-Pfizer-BioNTech-COVID-19-vaccine-reprograms-innate-innate-immune-responses.aspx, Sally Robertson, B.Sc., 10 May 2021. Please see the following screenshots from this article:

While the above article refers to the Pfizer-BioNTech modRNA COVID-19 “vaccine” BNT162b2, the modRNA COVID-19 “vaccine” from Moderna, mRNA-1273, also targets the RBD, which interacts with TLR4 cells in the “vaccinated” person’s body. In addition, all of the modRNA “descendant clone” COVID-19 “vaccines” by both companies also use the RBD, there interacting with TLR4 cells in the “vaccinated / boosted” person’s body.

TLR4 cells are also present in multiple areas and organs of the body. The modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines” will interact with these cells. This is due to the fact that the S1 protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus contains certain amino acids residues (numbers 1-1208) that interact with TLR4 cells. Please see: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.306187, “SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 subunit induces pro-inflammatory responses via toll-like receptor 4 signaling in murine and human macrophages”, Ken Shirato, Takako Kizaki, February 2021. A screenshot of the Abstract of this paper follows:

Regarding the S1 amino acids residues 1-1208 and TLR4, please see this paper, from 2020: https://europepmc.org/article/ppr/ppr170060, ” Structural characterization of a nanobody derived from a naive library that neutralizaes SARS-CoV-2″, M Dumoux, et al., 1 June 2020. Below are screenshots from the Methods section and from a portion of the Supplementary Table section of this paper (the Supplementary Table portion shows some of the gene code for the S1 1-1208 residues):

Further information regarding SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and its interaction with TLR4 is found here: https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2024.1368946, “TLR2/4 are novel activating receptors for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein on NK cells”. Nadine Landolina, et al., 30 May 2024. “NK” stands for “Natural Killer” cells in the body. A screenshot from this paper is below:

Then, there is the issue of clinical trial used by the FDA to “justify” the “full approval” of mRNA-1283 (aka mNEXSPIKE), NCT05137236 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05137236.) There was NO Placebo Control Group in this study. The study participants (study subjects) were injected with the following Moderna modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines”: mRNA-1273; OR, mRNA-1283; OR, mRNA-1283.211; OR, mRNA-1283.529. Why was there no Placebo Control Group? Assuming that the study subjects knew, in advance, they would be injected with any one of FOUR different variations of a modRNA COVID-19 “vaccine”, were they fine with that?

And, there is the “opinion piece” by Dr. Martin Makary (FDA Commissioner) and Dr. Vinay Prasad (new head of the FDA’s CBER division), regarding the “new approach” that the FDA will use for COVID-19 “vaccines.” Please see:

SECOND COURSE: WHAT DOES THE modRNA COVID-19 “VACCINE”, mNEXSPIKE, CONTAIN?

Please see the FDA-issued Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers (aka the Package Insert) for mRNA-1283, mNEXSPIKE: https://www.fda.gov/media/186738/download. Below is a screenshot of section 11 Description, section 12 Clinical Pharmacology, and section 13 Nonclinical Toxicology of this document:

Which plainly states that mNEXSPIKE contains the same types of dangerous, deadly lipid nanoparticle and excipient that all the other modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines” by Moderna contain: SM-102, and PEG2000-DMG. This means that mNEXSPIKE will be rapidly spread into every cell in the “vaccinated” person’s body. It is also clear that mNEXSPIKE has NOT been tested for mutation potential, cancer-inducement potential, or reproductive impairment potential.

Yours Truly then performed a search to ascertain whether or not mNEXSPIKE contains N1-methylpseudouridine. She has written extensively on this board about this lab-created “fake Uridine plus a form of methane”, which completely replaces the natural RNA in the Uridine in the body. Recall that natural Uridine is crucial to multiple body functions and mechanisms: regulation of mood, of learning and memory, and of “gut-brain connection” functions. Lo and behold, the US Patent for mRNA-1283 (aka mNEXSPIKE) does have language describing “various types” of pseudouridine, including N1-methylpseudouridine, are used in all of Moderna’s modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines” — which would also include mNEXSPIKE. The US Patent for mRNA-1283 is found here (US 20240382581A1): https://patents.google.com/patent/US20240382581A1/en?q=(mRNA-1283)&oq=mRNA-1283, “Pan-human coronavirus vaccines”, ModernaTX, published 21 November 2024. Please see sections 0120, 0121, 0122, and 0123 of this document for descriptions of the “various types” of pseudouridine.

Lastly, there is the question as to whether mNEXSPIKE contains any saRNA (self-amplifying RNA) component. Yours Truly searched for information regarding this, since the IM dose (intramuscular injection dose) of this COVID-19 “vaccine” is a very small amount — 0.2mL. She found this, which appears to be a “dancing all around the truth” description of this “vaccine.” Please see: https://synapse.patsnap.com/article/what-is-mrna-1283-used-for?, 28 June 2024. A screenshot from this article is below:

Read the last sentence in the second paragraph above, especially “…a robust and durable immune response, potentially requiring fewer doses and offering longer-lasting immunity compares to other vaccines.” Sounds like a description of the saRNA H5N1 “vaccine”, KOSTAIVE, currently approved for use in the EU / Scandinavia, and in Japan; and, a version of which “vaccine” is to begin clinical trials in the United States (NCT06602531), under the name ARCT-2304.

DESSERT AND BEVERAGES: REACTIONS AND QUESTIONS:

First, this: https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/maha-movement-flabbergasted-covid, “MAHA Movement Flabbergasted COVID-19 Vaccines Remain on Market”, Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, 2 June 2025. There is an embedded interview with Dr. McCullough in this article, along with a linked copy of the “Kabuki Theater performance” regarding “stopping” the COVID-19 “vaccines” in the United States by Dr. Martin Makary (FDA), Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (NIH DIrector), and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., on 27 May 2025. A screenshot from the McCullough article is below, giving his views on the current situation:

Second, this tweet, from Dr. William Makis: https://x.com/MakisMD/status/1930296443434348771, 4 June 2024. Two screenshots from his tweet are below: first, a statement from HHS Secretary Kennedy, Jr.; and, second, from Dr. Makis:

Questions, posed by Yours Truly: Why did the FDA “fully approve” a “new”, modRNA COVID-19 “vaccine” that specifically targets person over age 65, and persons who “fit” a detailed list of “persons at risk of severe COVID-19 infection”, as complied by Dr. Martin Makary and Dr. Vinay Prasad? Why was there a “Kabuki Theater performance” on 27 May 2025 by Drs. Makary and Bhattacharya, along with HHS Secretary Kennedy, Jr., when it was obvious by that date that the FDA “full approval” of mNEXSPIKE was “a done deal”? Why did the FDA issue an Approval Letter to Moderna for mNEXSPIKE that has so many “caveats”, “requests for more information”, and an “order” for the company to perform a Phase 4 clinical study on the “vaccine” — a “vaccine” that the FDA had just “fully approved”? Please see: https://www.fda.gov/media/186740/download; and, the screenshot of Page 9 of this document, regarding the “order” for the Phase 4 study, below:

More questions, posed by Yours Truly: How many elderly persons are going to be pressured / cajoled / “mandated” (by the nursing home or care facility where they live), to take mNEXSPIKE? Will they be told that this injectable is “safer” than mRNA-1273, “because the dose is smaller”? What about persons who “fit” into the multiple categories of “persons at high risk for severe COVID-19 infection” according to Drs. Makary and Prasad? What pressure will these persons be subjected to in order to get them to agree to take mNEXSPIKE? Finally, will people be told the truth that mNEXSPIKE, just because it does not contain the S2 portion of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, is NOT “mRNA-1273 Lite” — but, rather, it is another version of a dangerous, potentially deadly modRNA COVID-19 ‘”vaccine”?

Peace, Good Energy, Respect: PAVACA

STOP PRESS EDITION: HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Needs to Get Control, or to Resign — Now.

The above image of a vintage vaccine vial and syringe is courtesy of Google Images.

This post is a STOP PRESS EDITION. It has to do with the FDA BLA (Biologics License Application) approval of the Moderna COVID-19 modRNA “vaccine” mRNA-1283. This “vaccine” was FDA-approved without any clinical trial in which there was a placebo control group. mRNA-1283 contains a “shorter portion” of the COVID-19 virus spike protein. This “vaccine” also contains elements of the H7N9 Avian Influenza strain that was used in Gain-of-Function experiments by Dr. Yoshihira Kawaoka, DVM, PhD, in 2013, along with other scientists, at the University of Wisconsin (Madison.)

There are Important Notifications from our host, Wolf Moon; the Rules of our late, good Wheatie; and, certain caveats from Yours Truly, of which readers should be aware. They are linked here. Note: Yours Truly has checked this post for any AI-generated content. To the best of her knowledge and belief, there is none. If readers wish to post any AI-generated content in the discussion thread of today’s offering, they must cite their source. Thank you.

Today’s offering is short and to the point. Special Thanks to our good duchess01, to https://www.thefocalpoints.com/, and to http://mole.substack.com/. Please refer to the following posts by Yours Truly for relevant background information regarding today’s offering: https://www.theqtree.com/2025/05/30/health-friday-5030-2025-open-thread-what-is-going-on-at-hhs-the-fda-and-the-cdc/; and, https://www.theqtree.com/2025/05/16/health-friday-open-thread-5-16-2025-about-that-universal-vaccine-theres-more-than-meets-the-eye-part-two/.

Please see the following breaking news outlets pieces regarding the FDA granting the BLA for the Moderna “newest COVID-19 “vaccine”, mRNA-1283: First, this one: https://www.thefocalpoints.com/cp/164898171, “BREAKING: FDA Goes Rogue — Approves Moderna’s Next-Gen COVID-19 mRNA Injection Without a Placebo-Controlled Trial”, Nicolas Hulscher, May 2025. Please see the screenshots from this article, below:

HOWEVER, there is another aspect to the mRNA-1283 modRNA COVID-19 “vaccine” — this injectable appears to be a combination of BOTH the SARS-CoV-2 virus AND elements of the deadly H7N9 Avian Influenza virus. Please see: https://jonfleetwood.substack.com/cp/164803097, “FDA Approves Moderna COVID Jab Containing GOF Bird Flu Gene Segment That PCR Could Mistake for Infection”, 31 May 2025. The “bird flu gene segment” is from the Gain-of-Function experiments with the H7N9 Avian Influenza virus conducted by Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka, Ron Fouchier, and other scientists, under the aegis of the University of Wisconsin (Madison), where Dr. Kawaoka has his lab. These Gain-of-Function experiments were “outed” when serious lab accidents occurred; it appears that the experiments were then stopped. But not before Dr. Fouchier wrote this article: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1243325, “Gain-of-Function Experiments on H7N9”, 9 August 2013, in which Dr. Fouchier attempted to justify further Gain-of-Function experimentation.

Please see the following screenshot, below, from the Wikipedia entry on H7N9 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_A_virus_subtype_H7N9):

The archived article regarding the H7N9 experiments at the University of Wisconsin (Madison), is found here: https://archive.ph/LX7MP, “Study: Lab-derived H5N1 virus component binds to human receptors”, Robert Roos, 13 April 2013.

In Yours Truly’s opinion, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the Secretary of Health and Human Services, is not doing his job. BOTH the FDA and the CDC have now “gone rogue” — first, with the “sleight-of-hand” regarding the CDC’s “new recommendations” about the COVID-19 “vaccines” (per Dr. Susan Monarez, PhD, the current Acting Director of the CDC, as of 30 May 2025); and, second, with the FDA (Dr. Martin Makary, Commissioner) granting approval of the Moderna modRNA COVID-19 + H7N9 gene pieces combination “vaccine”, mRNA-1283 (as of 31 May 2025.) It is time, in Yours Truly’s opinion, for Secretary Kennedy, Jr., to either get control of the FDA and CDC — after all, these agencies are part of HHS — or, to resign, and allow President Trump47 to find someone who will.

FLASH UPDATES! MORE ON THE “DIRTY BACKSTORY” RELATED TO THE FDA’s APPROVAL OF mRNA-1283 ON 30 MAY 2025:

ONE: The FDA’s Approval Letter to Moderna on 30 May 2025, regarding mRNA-1283: https://www.fda.gov/media/186740/download. Please see the screenshot of page nine of this document, below:

This is the PHASE 4 clinical study that Moderna is requested to perform for mRNA-1283, but which has NOT begun yet, nor has it ENROLLED any subjects yet.

TWO. This is the slide presentation for the CDC’s ACIP committee meeting for April 2025 related to the “2025-2026 COVID-19 Vaccines Formula” selections. Notice that there is NO vote that ACIP planned to take regarding mRNA-1283. Please see: https://www.cdc.gov/acip/downloads/slides-2025-04-15-16/05-Panagiotakopoulos-COVID-508.pdf. Below is a screenshot of the pertinent image from the slide presentation:

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?

Peace, Good Energy, Respect: PAVACA

The 2024-2025 Formula COVID-19 “Vaccines”: Injection Dose #10

The above is a vintage image of mass vaccination. (Courtesy Google Images.)

This series on the disaster of the COVID-19 virus itself, and of the COVID-19 “vaccines”, is dedicated to the memory of Yours Truly’s cousin Bill, who “died suddenly and unexpectedly” in September 2023.

The origination of today’s post begins here: www.dossier.today/p/double-digits-biden-admin-tells-americans, “Double Digits: Biden Admin tells Americans that it’s soon time for their 10th Covid shot“, by Jordan Schachtel, 13 June 2024. (Mr. Schachtel wrote about the ninth COVID-19 “vaccine” injection here: www.dossier.today/p/dose-number-nine-cdc-panel-green, “Dose number NINE: CDC panel green lights yet another Covid mRNA shot“, 29 February 2024. The CDC recommended that persons over age 65 take another “booster shot” of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or of the Moderna “2023-2024 Formula COVID-19 Vaccine” of these manufacturers.) A person age 65 or older, if that person adhered to every CDC recommendation regarding taking a COVID-19 “vaccine” injection since December 2020 (when the FDA granted first Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to Pfizer-BioNTech and to Moderna for these companies’ “flagship” modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines” (BNT162b2 by Pfizer-BioNTech; and, mRNA-1273 by Moderna), would have taken injection number nine starting on 28 February 2024.

Today’s post is long. There is a large amount of information to “unpack.” Stay with me here.

Below is an image from the FDA’s 13 June “updated” authorization announcement for the “2024-2025 Formula COVID-19 Vaccine”, the TENTH injection dose of the modRNA “vaccine” formula: www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/updated-covid-19-vaccines-use-united-states-beginning-fall-2024.

Note the language regarding the “selection of a specific JN.1 lineage SARS-CoV-2 strain…” More about that later.

The trail behind the 5 June 2024 FDA announcement begins with the VRBPAC Briefing Document for the meeting held on 28 June 2022: www.fda.gov/media/159452/download, “FDA Briefing Document Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting June 28, 2022.” It was at this meeting that the FDA “codified” the types of “strain composition recommendations” that the agency would use regarding “new versions” of COVID-19 “vaccines.” Yours Truly presents page 17, page 18, and page 19 of this document:

It appears that the FDA simply decided that it would be permissible for the agency to authorize a new COVID-19 “vaccine” strain composition along what, in Yours Truly’s opinion, may be called “very flexible” options. For example, the Pfizer-BioNTech XBB.1.5 COVID-19 “vaccine”, which was FDA authorized in the fall of 2023, had test results only from mouse testing prior to FDA authorization. Following are: The link to the Pfizer-BioNTech slide presentation about this “vaccine” to the CDC’s ACIP committee (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) meeting of 12 September 2023; and, an image of slide CC4 from this presentation. First, the presentation: www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2023-09-12/10-COVID-Modjarrad-508.pdf.

Second, slide CC-4 from the above presentation:

The XBB.1.5. Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 “vaccine” had only been given as a single injection to humans in the company’s clinical trial; a clinical trial which had only just begun prior to the ACIP meeting. Slide CC-5 of the presentation, the start of the company’s human trial of this “vaccine”, is below:

Slide CC-6 of the presentation has to do with the mouse studies of this “vaccine”, which were of longer duration.

Notwithstanding the above, the FDA authorized the use of the company’s XBB.1.5 COVID-19 “vaccine” on 11 September 2023 (in Yours Truly’s opinion, it appears that the ACIP meeting of 12 September 2023 was a “catch-up” formality.) It also appears (again, in Yours Truly’s opinion), that the FDA used a very loose interpretation of “Option 4” on page 18 of the FDA Briefing Document above in granting the EUA for this “vaccine”.

** Now, on to the latest “new version” of the COVID-19 “vaccines”, the “2024-2025 Formula COVID-19 Vaccines”, that the FDA authorized in June 2024.

The following linked items are important regarding background information related to this situation and to the FDA: First, the FDA document, stating that the agency would “align” its COVID-19 “vaccine” antigen composition to the recommendations of the World Health Organization’s TAG-CO-VAC recommendations: www.fda.gov/media/179139/download (the TAG-CO-VAC recommendation for the “2024-2025 Formula COVID-19 Vaccines” was to use the JN.1 strain); second, the FDA document regarding “considerations and recommendations” for the “2024-2025 Formula COVID-19 Vaccine” composition: www.fda.gov/media/179145/download; third, the FDA announcement of the 5 June meeting of its VRBPAC committee (Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.): www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/advisory-committee-calendar/vaccines-and-related-biological-products-advisory-committee-june-5-2024-meeting-announcement. From this last link, chick on “Event Materials” to see the slide presentations and other items that were discussed at this meeting.

Two important items from the “Event Materials” list: the FDA Briefing Document; and the VRBPAC roster for this meeting. First, the FDA Briefing Document: www.fda.gov/media/179003/download; and, second, the VRBPAC roster for this meeting: www.fda.gov/media/179225/download. The roster for the 5 June 2024 meeting has some “familiar” members and speakers: Paul Offit, MD; and Peter Marks, MD (director of CBER [Center for Biologics Evaluation the Research of the FDA]); and, among the “Temporary Voting Members”, are: Bruce Gellin, M.D., M. PH., the Chief of Global Public Health Strategy for the Rockefeller Foundation; and, Melinda Wharton, M.D., M. PH., Associate Director of Vaccine Policy of the CDC. (Italics mine)

The VRBPAC members voted unanimously to endorse the Pfizer-BioNTech, the Moderna, and the Novavax “2024-2025 Formula COVID-19 Vaccine” by these companies, based on the presentations of these companies’ representatives at the meeting. Yours Truly can find no registered human clinical trials performed in advance of the 5 June VRBPAC meeting by Pfizer-BioNTech, or by Moderna, or by Novavax, for any “2024-2025 Formula COVID-19 Vaccine”; that would indicate that any “clinical trials” were performed in these companies’ facilities on mice; and that any “human trials” were also performed in these companies’ facilities, prior to the meeting. The FDA then issued the agency’s original announcement of 7 June 2024: www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-roundup-june-7-2024; and, a screenshot from this announcement:

Note in particular “…the selection of a specific JN.1 lineage SARS-CoV-2 strain (e.g., JN.1. or KP.2) and expressed a strong preference for JN.1.” Here’s where it starts to “get interesting.”

First, on 12 April 2024 (well ahead of the 5 June VRBPAC meeting), Pfizer-BioNTech issues a statement regarding the company’s “taking reservations” for the coming “2024-2025 Formula COVID-19 Vaccine” (also, see the Pfizer-BioNTech presentation at the 5 June meeting, linked above): www.cvdvaccine-us.com/reservation. This is followed, after the meeting, by Moderna filing an application with the FDA for a “vaccine” to target the JN.1. COVID-19 strain (also, see the Moderna presentation at the 5 June meeting, linked above): https://investors.modernatx.com/news/news-details/2024/Moderna-Files-FDA-Application-for-the-JN.1-Targeting-COVID-19-Vaccine/default.aspx; then, Novavax files with the FDA for that company’s version (also, see the Novavax presentation at the 5 June meeting, linked above): https://ir.novavax.com/press-releases/2024-06-14-Novavax-Submits-Application-to-U-S-FDA-for-Updated-Protein-based-2024-2025-Formula-COVID-19-Vaccine.

But then, “something happens”, and the FDA suddenly makes a large “about-face” and switches its “2024-2025 Formula COVID-19 Vaccine” choice to the KP.2 strain on 13 June 2024: www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/updated-covid-19-vaccines-use-united-states-beginning-fall-2024. This is the “second” announcement, which was cited at the beginning of today’s post.

What was it that happened? Part of the answer lies in the fact that the NIH and Moderna co-own the patents (and, therefore, share the royalties) for the Moderna “flagship” modRNA COVID-19 “vaccine”, mRNA-1273. This agreement would extend to “descendant clone COVID-19 vaccines” by Moderna. www.citizen.org/article/modernas-mrna-1273-vaccine-patent-landscape/. The NIH’s Dale and Betty Bumpers Vaccine Research Center (part of NIAID — which Dr. Anthony Fauci led from November 1984 until his retirement in December 2022) and Moderna co-developed mRNA-1273. https://covid19.nih.gov/news-and-stories/nih-vaccine-research-center; a screenshot from the article is below:

The other part of the answer is that Moderna was already developing a KP.2 strain COVID-19 “vaccine” for 2024-2025. This, and the FDA’s decision to shift away from the JN.1 strain to the KP.2 strain, are described in this post at Sasha Latypova’s blog: https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/all-roads-lead-to-resilience, “All Roads lead to Resilience. FDA is removing competitors for the Pentagon & CIA’s baby…Moderna”, 23 June 2024.

The FDA’s “about-face” announcement regarding the switch from the JN.1 strain to the KP.2 strain was also covered here: www.contagionlive.com/view/fda-advises-manufacturers-to-consider-kp-2-strain-for-covid-19-vaccines, 14 June 2024, by Sophia Abene. Below is a screenshot from this article:

However, there’s yet another detail in play here, regarding the FDA’s switch, “based on evaluation of the most recent circulating strains of COVID-19”, from JN.1 to KP.2 — the CIA and the Pentagon. Here is a screenshot from Sasha Latypova’s Substack article:

Here is the report, linked from the Latypova blog article cited above, that describes the CIA-linked company, “National Resilience”, or “Resilience”, that manufactures the RNA for the Moderna modRNA line of COVID-19 Omicron “vaccines”: https://unlimitedhangout.com/2022/08/investigative-reports/rna-for-modernas-omicron-booster-manufactured-by-cia-linked-company/, by Whitney Webb, 17 August 2022. Below is a screenshot image from this blog article:

And here is story on this “interesting development”, from Resilience: www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210908005443/en/Resilience-to-Manufacture-mRNA-for-Moderna’s-COVID-19-Vaccine, 8 September 2021. Note that per this “multi-year contract”, Resilience manufactures the mRNA for the Moderna COVID-19 “vaccines” at this Canadian facility. Resilience was founded in 2020.

But wait, there’s more! Resilience lists multiple “partners”, such as the Mayo Clinic. The company also, apparently, has a “partnership” with the United States Army’s Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense https://resilience.com/learn/partnerships. Below is a screenshot from this website:

The website link in the screenshot above is broken. Here is the Army’s website on this: wwwt2.army.mil/T2-Laboratories/Designated-Laboratories/Joint-Program-Executive-Office-for-Chemical-Biological-Radiological-and-Nuclear-Defense/. Note: this link may or may not work. One will need to do a search for “Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense” to see links to this department of the United States Army. One such link: https://globalbiodefense.com/directory/name/joint-program-executive-office-for-chemical-biological-defense-jpeo-cbd/.

It appears, then, in Yours Truly’s opinion, that the FDA was perhaps “reminded” of the”details” regarding the NIH-Moderna co-ownership (and royalties – sharing) agreement related to Moderna’s modRNA COVID-19 “vaccines”; and, the role of the CIA-Pentagon-National Resilience (aka Resilience) in manufacturing the mRNA used in the Moderna COVID-19 Omicron “booster vaccines” — and the KP.2. strain is indeed a “descendant strain” in the Omicron lineage (as is the JN.1 strain.) Hence, the FDA’s 2024-2025 COVID-19 “vaccine” strain “sudden switch” announcement of 13 June 2024, only one week after the agency gave the nod to the JN.1 strain.

In Yours Truly’s opinion, it is statistically, medically, and ethically impossible for a new vaccine (let alone any COVID-19 “vaccine”) to be developed; tested (on lab animals, then on human subjects); the test data thoroughly collated and analyzed for “safety and efficacy” on both lab animals and on human subjects; then, which data is presented to the CDC / FDA for consideration; then, these agencies doing their own “due diligence” research; then, and only then, being granted an EUA by the FDA; then, and only then, manufactured for use in humans — in a time span of fewer than three to five years, let alone within a time span of only a few months. It appears, again in Yours Truly’s opinion, that the CDC and the FDA are playing “fast and loose” with the health and safety of the people who choose (or will be “mandated”) to take the “2024-2025 Formula COVID-19 Vaccine.” And, also, that “other entities” are in play here to perhaps “influence” decision making by these agencies.

All of above is in addition to the fact that the COVID-19 “vaccines” (actually, gene therapy injections) have caused, are causing, and will cause, multiple health issues, serious adverse reactions, and deaths, in those who are “vaccinated.” Just two of the most recent discoveries: One, the COVID-19 “vaccines” can cause brain damage, an article by Dr. William Makis: www.globalresearch.ca/brain-damage-covid-19-mrna-vaccines/5861012, “Brain Damage Caused by COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines”, 26 June 2024. Below is a screenshot from Dr. Makis’ article:

The second most recent discovery, that the COVID-19 “vaccines” reduce life expectancy (even in “all-cause” analysis) among COVID-19 “vaccinated” persons, by Dr. Peter A. McCullough: https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/breaking-publication-a-critical-analysis, “BREAKING Publication — A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during COVID-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province”, 1 July 2024. The peer-reviewed paper is here: https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12071343, “A Critical Analysis of All-Cause Deaths during COVID-19 Vaccination in an Italian Province”, Marco Alessandria, et al., published 30 June 2024. Below is a screenshot from the Conclusions section of this paper:

In Yours Truly’ opinion, it is apparent at “half a glance” that the COVID-19 “vaccines” (actually, gene therapy injections) must be completely withdrawn for human use until these products have been fully investigated, and then re-designed, before being re-introduced for human use; and, that there is no “co-ownership” or sharing of royalties between a government agency and a COVID-19 “vaccine” manufacturer; and, that there is no involvement of the United States military in the development or manufacture of such products.

Peace, Good Energy, Respect: PAVACA