Gene mutations reported to VAERS in COVID-19 shot context

More evidence of harms from the DNA-containing N1-modified mRNA COVID shots

I was prompted from a recent preprint submitted by Kevin McKernan and our recent publication in Autoimmunity - where we found DNA in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vials we tested - to look deeper into VAERS for signals related to epigenetic changes (DNA methylation, for example) and potential gene mutations. I honestly wasn’t expecting to find much, but once again, I was surprised by what I found.

There is something called a phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) gene mutation that I found reported as an AE in VAERS.

PTEN is a gene found in humans which encodes for the protein PTEN that acts as a tumor suppressor gene (like the infamous p53) via its protein product. Studies show that mutations of this gene are linked to many cancers including specifically glioblastoma, lung cancer, breast cancer, and prostate cancer.¹

This is particularly alarming to me because upon my initial query using the MedDRA code: “Gene mutation identification test positive” - for which I identified 33 reports - I found this associated MedDRA code “PTEN gene mutation” in a report filed by a 35-year-old woman (VAERS_ID: 1422388) for a fetus (“This is a fetus report.”). She had been exposed to the COVID-19 shot during her pregnancy (MedDRA code “Maternal exposure during pregnancy”) and subsequently, the baby was stillborn and was also reported to have macrocephaly. This was following her second dose of Pfizer and occurred on the same day (NUMDAYS = 0). The vax lot is unknown.

Down the rabbit gene hole I fell…

I also noticed the MedDRA codes “CALR gene mutation”, “EGFR gene mutation”, “Acquired gene mutation”, “RUNX1 gene mutation”, “NPM1 gene mutation”, “FLT3 gene mutation”, “BRCA1 gene mutation” and “BRAF gene mutation”, among others. As a matter of fact, I found 15 gene mutation types listed in VAERS, plus a MedDRA code for “Acquired gene mutation”, which might be the most interesting one of all. There are 4 reports with this MedDRA code.

The most pressing questions I asked myself when I discovered these AEs were:

1. Are these heritable gene mutations or somatic?

2. Are they de novo?

3. Are they listed in the history?

I want to start/continue with the PTEN gene mutation for the woman who lost her child following exposure.

PTEN gene mutations can be heritable. Mutations in the PTEN gene are associated with conditions like PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome (PHTS) which this woman also had listed as an AE in her report (“PTEN Hamartoma tumor syndrome”), among others. A mutation in just one copy of the PTEN gene inherited from one parent is sufficient to increase the risk of developing associated symptoms. But, some PTEN mutations are not inherited and can occur spontaneously (de novo) in an individual due to random errors during DNA replication or repair, increasing the risk of benign and malignant tumors and developmental delays.

Also, epigenetic modifications, such as altered DNA methylation or histone modifications, may influence PTEN gene expression, potentially contributing to disease severity or tumor development in individuals with PTEN mutations.

My new questions are:

1. Why did they perform this genetic test?

2. Did the mother know she had this mutation already, and if so, why is it not listed in the history or current illness data?

3. Was this mutation de novo?

4. Are epigenetic modifications influencing gene expression to make an existing mutation worse?

5. Was any of it egged on by the shots?

6. Did it result in the stillbirth of her baby?

I want now to move onto a deeper examination of the multiply-reported gene mutations and ask the same questions regarding the natures of the gene mutations and epigenetic modifications. I made a table to characterize them.

There are 9 reports of the EGFR gene mutation and 8 for the CALR.

An EGFR gene mutation refers to a change in the DNA of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene, which leads to the production of an overactive EGFR protein that promotes uncontrolled cell growth and division, contributing to [lung] cancer development. These mutations result in the EGFR protein being constantly “on,” leading to continuous signaling for cell survival and proliferation, even in the absence of external growth signals. These mutations are typically somatic (developing during a person’s lifetime rather than being inherited).

So, lung cancer due to a somatic mutation driven by an epigenetic modification presumably induced by smoking? Epigenetic factors can drive somatic mutations. The methylation of cytosine residues at CpG sites (a key epigenetic modification) increases the likelihood of somatic mutations due to the spontaneous hydrolytic deamination of 5-methylcytosine (5mC) to thymine, creating a T mismatch that is more difficult to repair than a C mismatch. For example.

The age spread of the 9 reporters of the EGFR gene mutation was from 12-85 - 6 got Pfizer; 3 got Moderna. Among them, was a 61 year-old male (VAERS_ID: 2766766) who got 1 dose of Moderna lot 046A21A who wrote the following in the free text column of his report:

Now we don’t know if he was a smoker, but it is not indicated in the history or current illness columns of the report. This man claims that nothing changed except for the injections. Sounds like induced somatic mutation to me. As listed in his LAB_DATA, he is “currently still going cancer treatment following a lobectomy. Cancer is now stage 4 having metastasis”.

The 12-year-old was also a male on his second dose of Pfizer and immediately upon administration of the second dose he experienced chest pain and had to go to the ER. They looked for an EGFR exon 19 deletion in one of his lab tests. Well, ok then. Why did they do that?

It’s interesting that he’s listed as having regulatory number TW-TFDA-TVS-1100016130 (Center for Disease Control) as written in the free text of his report. When the CDC receives and processes a spontaneous report of a potential vaccine-related AE it generates this number as part of its internal tracking and pharmacovigilance workflow. It serves as an official case ID for monitoring, analysis, and follow-up.²

For VAERS reports originating from or processed through CDC channels, this number confirms the report’s official status within the U.S. public health surveillance system. Sounds like the CDC were mighty interested in this particular case, no? Worried about ‘disease prevention’, are we?

You’ll be interested to know that only 0.2% of all VAERS reports in the context of the COVID-19 shots have this particular regulator number attached (ie: were processed through CDC channels) so this is not about ‘normal’ pharmacovigilance. If it was, then all of the IDs would have one of these numbers following vetting and assignment of a permanent VAERS_ID. It does seem like these are of ‘special interest’ to the CDC.

Why did they think to do this EGFR test on a 12-year-old? Seems odd. He’s 12. No history. Of anything.

Sorry, that CDC thing is bugging me. Something else weird I noticed when looking into the number of ‘CDC-interesting’ reports is that the VAX_LOT column has its own code in lieu of a vaccine lot number, where there is a character string followed by -CDC (eg: 1G042A-CDC AND 939676-CDC). Why? What is this code? Is it a ‘special’ vax lot? Were they all a part of a clinical trial?

ALL of these reports are of foreign origin (STATE = “FR”) so I doubt it. In fact, they all came from Taiwan (except 1 from French Polynesia), as identified by the SPLTTYPE variable. Is that why the CDC were so interested in these reports? Is something different about these people in Taiwan? Do they represent a cohort of test subjects? Sorry, human history demands that I ask.

I also find it really odd that roughly a third (29%) of these ‘CDC-interesting’ reports were filed for 12-17-year-olds. 51.5% reported AEs on the same day as their injection (NUMDAYS = 1), and a frightening 33.5% reported AEs immediately following injection (NUMDAYS = 0).

“Chest pain” as an AE was reported in 43% of this age group, whereby 47.8% reported it on the same day as their injection (NUMDAYS = 1), and a frightening 30% reported it immediately following injection (NUMDAYS = 0).

Back to the gene mutations. Are CDC looking for these? Are they expecting to find these as part of the AEs of special interest?³

As mentioned above, there are 8 reports for the CALR gene mutation. Hold onto your hat people.

The CALR gene encodes calreticulin, a multifunctional protein involved in protein folding, calcium regulation, and other cellular functions, with a C-terminus rich in acidic amino acids and a KDEL endoplasmic reticulum (ER)-retention motif. Somatic mutations in the CALR gene⁴ are primarily associated with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), specifically essential thrombocythemia (ET) and primary myelofibrosis (PMF), and are mutually exclusive with JAK2 and MPL mutations.⁵⁶⁷

These mutations are acquired after birth and not inherited.⁸

What is the likelihood that 8 people would report this rare mutation in VAERS in the context of the N1-modmRNA-LNP COVID-19 injectable products? Do they represent the baseline of people who’d report anyway? No, really. I’d really like to know.

I know that there hasn’t been a single report filed to VAERS domestic data prior to 2021.

Circumstantial, but nonetheless. It doesn’t negate the following hypothesis:

HYPOTHESIS: The DNA impurities (to include the SV40 promoter/enhancers) in the nucleoside modified mRNA based LNP-encased COVID-19 injectable products could be driving somatic gene mutations (DNA sequence altered) or epigenetic modifications (gene expression patterns altered).

By the way, a somatic gene mutation refers to a permanent change in the DNA sequence that occurs in non-reproductive cells after conception, such as a base substitution, insertion, or deletion. These mutations accumulate over time due to factors like aging, environmental exposures, or errors in DNA replication.

An epigenetic modification involves chemical changes to DNA or associated proteins that alter gene expression without changing the underlying DNA sequence; common examples include DNA methylation and histone modification. I wrote about this before because I suspected as much.

So are we dealing with somatic mutations or epigenetic modifications? Is there a change in the DNA sequence or not? Or both? I think both.

The gene mutation reports in VAERS surprise me. I wouldn’t expect to see them; not even with the high number of shots doled out. It’s also compelling that the CALR gene mutation is associated with thrombocythemia (ET) and primary myelofibrosis (PMF).

A 52-year-old female reported “Essential thrombocythaemia” (ET) (VAERS_ID: 2825964) following her second Pfizer shot. She notes high platelet count subsequent to second injection and a diagnosis of ET and CALR gene mutation in 2023. She claims in her report that there is a causal link due to no history of previous issues of this nature.

There are 44 reports of ET in VAERS as of October, 2025.

There are 5 reports of “Primary myelofibrosis” in VAERS. One died.

So what about these Acquired gene mutations? What’s that all about?

Of the 4 reported to VAERS, 1 has this “CDC-interesting” number (VAERS_ID: 2661935). It appears as though this 52-year-old female succumbed to the CALR gene mutation since her free text reports a JAK2 V617F mutation. It is a hallmark of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), this group of rare blood cancers characterized by the overproduction of one or more types of blood cells.⁹

There is another one that is kind of funny (VAERS_ID: 2405530). The reporter wrote the following:

“Changed my DNA. I am suing you if you do not pay me”. I think this just might be one of those reports that wasn’t vetted properly. Or, maybe, it was. Wink, wink. Think about it.

This investigation into VAERS reported gene mutations in the context of the DNA-packed Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 injectable products needs to be followed up.

We need to truly test the hypothesis above:

The DNA impurities (to include the SV40 promoter/enhancers) in the nucleoside modified mRNA based LNP-encased COVID-19 injectable products could be driving somatic gene mutations (DNA sequence altered) or epigenetic modifications (gene expression patterns altered).

We need to do this by first:

1. Stopping administration and development of COVID-19 shots and N1-modmRNA-LNP platform-based products

2. Sequencing tumors in individuals who received these products and looking for specific gene mutations listed in this investigation

3. Doing a correlative/dose response analysis to determine whether or not the amount of DNA in the vials is potentially inducing [these] mutations.

My hypothesis suggests that the found DNA impurities, including the SV40 promoter/enhancer, in the N1-modified mRNA-based LNP-encased COVID-19 vaccines may contribute to somatic gene mutations and/or epigenetic modifications that may drive mutations. The SV40 promoter is known for its strong transcriptional activity and could potentially integrate into host DNA to drive aberrant gene expression or, in rare cases, insertional mutagenesis, potentially leading to somatic mutations.

Also, DNA methylation patterns, which regulate gene expression epigenetically, could be disrupted by these impurities, altering gene expression profiles. While I realize this is theoretical, it warrants further research for validation of these mechanisms.

I am going to leave this as is. I am a little shaken by this one, to be honest. I didn’t expect this, and it reminds me how we really are messing up gene expression via epigenetic modifications and inducing mutations in our genes themselves with all of our toxic bullshit that does nothing for us but poison us, and mess us up. And in some cases, generationally.

1. Chu EC, Tarnawski AS (October 2004). “PTEN regulatory functions in tumor suppression and cell biology”. Medical Science Monitor. 10 (10): RA235 – RA241

2. https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERSDataUseGuide_en_September2021.pdf

3. Fraiman J, Erviti J, Jones M, Greenland S, Whelan P, Kaplan RM, Doshi P. Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults. Vaccine. 2022 Sep 22;40(40):5798-5805. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.08.036. Epub 2022 Aug 31. PMID: 36055877; PMCID: PMC9428332

4. Luo W, Yu Z. Calreticulin (CALR) mutation in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs). Stem Cell Investig. 2015 Aug 31;2:16. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2306-9759.2015.08.01. PMID: 27358884; PMCID: PMC4923638

5. https://www.mayocliniclabs.com/test-catalog/overview/62912

6. https://hematology.testcatalog.org/show/CALR

7. https://mpnresearchfoundation.org/calr-discovery/

8. Rumi E, et al.; Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro Gruppo Italiano Malattie Mieloproliferative Investigators. CALR exon 9 mutations are somatically acquired events in familial cases of essential thrombocythemia or primary myelofibrosis. Blood. 2014 Apr 10;123(15):2416-9. doi: 10.1182/blood-2014-01-550434. Epub 2014 Feb 19. PMID: 24553179

9. https://massivebio.com/jak2-faqs/