Since day one of COVID in March 2020, I’ve had an issue with referring to the COVID-19 jabs as “gene therapy,” which suggests they provide a benefit. Webster’s defines THERAPY as:

A medical treatment intended to relieve or heal a disorder, injury, or disease.

Consider the following:

Physical therapy, speech therapy, respiratory therapy, art therapy, family therapy, and occupational therapy. These are all ways to improve a health concern.

To the contrary, it has become more obvious every day that these shots were not designed to relieve or heal anything. They certainly didn’t make people healthier. In fact, they have only caused harm and led to increased disease and death.

Gene therapy is a medical treatment designed to intentionally alter a person’s genes to treat or cure disease. It involves delivering modified or corrected DNA (or sometimes RNA) into a patient’s cells to change how the cells work.

The goal is to either:

• Replace a faulty or missing gene with a healthy one,
• Inactivate (silence) a gene that is causing problems,
• Introduce a new or modified gene to help the body fight a disease.

How did the catchy phrase “gene therapy” become so widely accepted? Like most things within the current Medical-Industrial-Complex, it has a long and twisted history.

Where did this erroneous designation come from?

Genetic engineering was first used at the Sixth International Congress of Genetics held in 1932 in Ithaca, New York, and was taken to mean “the application of genetic principles to animal and plant breeding.” The term “gene therapy” was later coined to make the manipulation sound more acceptable than “human genetic engineering.”

Fast-forward to the 1960s, when the concept of gene therapy became the subject of an increasing number of articles and meetings. By the 1970s, an article in the prestigious journal Science discussed human gene therapy, the feasibility, and the ethics of cloning humans. Various researchers started to cautiously suggest the use of genetics for the predetermination of sex and selective reproduction (Davis B.D. Prospects for genetic intervention in man. Science, 170, 1279-1283. 1970.)

The development of retroviral vectors to insert genetic material into human cells was discovered in the early 1980s, which accelerated the acceptance of genetic manipulation as “gene therapy.” Once inside, the genetic material becomes part of the cell’s machinery, leading to long-term or even permanent changes in how the cell functions.

A paper published in 2019 conducted a worldwide electronic survey to identify the scope of cell and gene therapy products available on the market. The survey found 52 different cell tissue engineering techniques and gene therapy products with 69 market authorizations worldwide. Most products had been approved since 2010 and were conditionally authorized for use in rare cancers, genetic diseases, and other debilitating conditions. A single gene therapy treatment prices range from $5,501 in South Korea for tonogenchoncel-L, a type of treatment that stimulates knee cartilage regrowth, to more than $1,3M in Germany for alipogene tiparvovec, which treats a rare disease called lipoprotein lipase deficiency (LPLD).

A second survey, done in 2023, found that as of January 1, 2022, the FDA and EMA (European Medicines Agency) had authorized 8 and 10 gene therapies, respectively, for rare conditions. Most of the research used a surrogate endpoint, a target that does not measure the intended outcome, but is used to predict the result or real outcome of a therapy. Primary outcomes for these gene therapies have shown very little direct benefit to the patient. Nonetheless, the cost of the therapies ranged from $200k to more than $ 2.1 M.

The Mode of Action Defines Gene Therapy Products (GTP)

No specific regulations existed before 2020 for mRNA injections as this lack of oversight is found in my articles:

“The current guidelines either do not apply, do not mention RNA therapeutics, or do not have a widely accepted definition.”

The lack of rules raised several problems with the technology. Different RNA drugs have very different legal statuses, and there is a lack of international agreement on their risks and how they should be designated. This article shows the extensive level of genetic tinkering that is under development. The many tables, charts, and diagrams, while easy to understand, will make your head spin.

According to their mode of action, mRNA jabs really should be classified as pro-vaccines, a takeoff on the concept of a pro-drug, which is an inactive drug that is converted into its active form by the liver or the kidneys. The injected mRNA must be translated into protein by the recipient’s cells – the injected substance is not the substance designed to give active “protection.” However, the FDA and the EMA have ignored this property regarding the mRNA COVID-19 jabs. In fact, since 2000, the EMA has maintained that, “Gene therapy medicinal products shall not include vaccines against infectious diseases.” (Section 2.1 under “definitions”)

According to this paper, mRNA: Vaccine or Gene Therapy? The Safety Regulatory Issues, the legal definition of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines is still not well understood, even by the manufacturers themselves.

• 2014: BioNTech founder, Ugur Sahin, stated, “One would expect the classification of an mRNA drug to be a biologic, gene therapy, or somatic cell therapy.”
• 2020: Moderna, Inc. acknowledged in its Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing that “currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA.”
• 2021: Stefan Oelrich, head of Bayer’s Pharmaceuticals Division, made remarks about mRNA injectables during the opening ceremony of the World Health Summit. Oelrich went on to say:

“Ultimately, the mRNA vaccines are an example of cell and gene therapy. I always like to say, if we had surveyed two years ago in the public, ‘Would you be willing to take gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body?’ we would have probably had a 95% refusal rate. I think this pandemic has also opened many people’s eyes to innovation in a way that was maybe not possible before.”

This comment was intended to highlight how the acceptance of mRNA jabs during the COVID-19 pandemic might positively influence the public’s willingness to accept future biotechnological innovations. However, the disasters that continue to be exposed almost weekly may be just the opposite of what the Pharmaceutical masters were hoping for.

The Irreversibility of the synthetic mRNA jab

While natural mRNA in the human body degrades rapidly, the synthetic mRNA used in COVID-19 vaccines has been chemically modified with pseudouridine to resist degradation, persist almost indefinitely inside cells, and can be reverse-transcribed into the recipient’s DNA by cellular mechanisms like LINE-1 retrotransposons.

LINE-1, which stands for Long Interspersed Nuclear Element-1, acts like a built-in copying machine that can turn RNA into DNA inside your own cells. There is experimentally supported evidence that LINE-1can insert the jab’s mRNA into human DNA, especially under conditions of inflammation or cell stress.

A 2022 in vitro study demonstrated that Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine could be converted into DNA inside human liver cells. Therefore, claims that mRNA vaccines cannot alter DNA were based on assumptions that have been essentially scientifically disproven.

The Catastrophe of the COVID-19 jab: DNA contamination

Over the last year, the evidence for synthetic DNA contamination and other undisclosed constituents in COVID-19 injectable products has continued to mount. Research from the US, Canada, Germany, and Australia has combined to demonstrate that the findings are not flukes and point to yet more undisclosed health risks from the COVID jabs. DNA contamination is a serious concern for several reasons.

Concern #1: Contaminant DNA can enter human cells.

When vaccines are injected into muscle tissue — especially those using lipid nanoparticles like Pfizer and Moderna — both the intended mRNA and any contaminating DNA can be absorbed into cells. Lipid nanoparticles act like Trojan horses, efficiently delivering whatever is packaged inside, not just the designed mRNA but also any stray DNA fragments.

Concern #2: DNA is far more durable (stable, persistent) than mRNA.

While mRNA is designed to degrade quickly, DNA is inherently more stable and can persist much longer inside the body. Unlike mRNA, which cells are programmed to destroy, foreign DNA may linger and interact with the cell’s internal machinery over extended periods of time, increasing the potential for unintended consequences.

Concern #3: DNA can integrate into the host genome.

Human cells have natural mechanisms, such as LINE-1 retrotransposons (see above) and non-homologous end joining (NHEJ).

NHEJ is one of the body’s main ways to repair broken DNA. It’s called non-homologous because the repair does not require matching DNA ends to put the pieces back together accurately. Instead, the broken ends are simply glued back together, often in a very quick but sloppy way. NHEJ is error-prone and can grab some of the free-floating, contaminant DNA and stitch it into the sequence.

If this integration occurs in the wrong place, it could disrupt normal genes, leading to mutations or cancer. It could also insert oncogenes—genes that promote cancer growth—or trigger autoimmune reactions by causing the body to recognize newly made proteins as foreign.

Concern #4: Regulatory guidelines regarding DNA contamination were violated.

Gene-based products like mRNA jabs are supposed to contain extremely low levels of residual DNA, traditionally limited to about 10 nanograms per dose, a threshold that was already considered risky by CBER and the FDA. Nevertheless, the residual cells were allowed. However, independent lab testing, such as the work done by Kevin McKernan, discovered DNA levels in mRNA vaccine vials that far exceeded those limits, sometimes by hundreds of times.

Concern #5: The DNA fragments were not found in random debris but were engineered plasmid DNA with functional components.

These plasmids contained strong genetic elements like HIV promoters, designed to drive high gene expression, and antibiotic resistance genes such as those conferring kanamycin resistance. If these functional DNA pieces integrate into human cells, they could activate unwanted genes or create persistent and uncontrolled changes in cellular function.

The significance of the contamination story lies not just in the elevated risks for cancer and the possible fallout from modified genetic material and interaction with the human genome. Perhaps more importantly, it provides hard evidence for demonstrating both the horribly shoddy quality of the shots themselves and the equally horrendous ‘regulatory’ processes which enabled their use.

CONCLUSION

The abstract of this 2024 article by Helene Banoun says it best:

“Regulatory agencies adapted mRNA injections as a matter of urgency. Now that the emergency has passed, it is time to consider the safety issues associated with this rapid approval…

Post-marketing studies have shown that mRNA passes into breast milk and could have adverse effects on breast-fed babies. Long-term expression, integration into the genome, transmission to the germline, [in adults and infants] passage into sperm, embryo/fetal and perinatal toxicity, genotoxicity, and tumorigenicity should be studied in light of the adverse events reported in pharmacovigilance databases. The potential horizontal transmission (i.e., shedding) should also be assessed. In-depth vaccine vigilance should be carried out.”

An even better idea? This genetic manipulation of mRNA shots and the looming saRNA shot must stop. The best way to get them to stop is to continually just SAY NO.

from:    https://drtenpenny.substack.com/p/gene-therapy-is-genetic-modification?publication_id=931759&post_id=162267811&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email