Fact check of new Lancet paper authored by mRNA tech developer Anna Blakney et al.
Persistence, integration, and the gene therapy questions
I met Anna Blakney - Assistant Professor (with tenure) in the Michael Smith Laboratories and School of Biomedical Engineering at UBC - during a podcast 4 years ago where we congenially disagreed on the so-called transformative magic of nucleoside-modified mRNA-LNP therapeutics and self-amplifying RNA technology.
Our disagreement stemmed primarily from their safety profiles, or rather, lack there of.
Anna is deeply “motivated by the potential of RNA technology and biomedical engineering”. While I respect her passion and expertise, I believe - having followed the roll-out and subsequent fallout of the mRNA products closely - that she might be missing the bigger picture, including the potential for misuse and lack of long-term safety data.
Anna is first author on a new Lancet article entitled: Safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines: a mechanistic and public health perspective. It was published on June 30, 2026.
N.B. Maryanne Demasi covers this new Lancet paper very well here.
My coverage (and fact check) will focus on one key sentence in the abstract that defines the “biological basis of mRNA vaccines” and and how they are “different” from other gene therapies.
We outline the biological basis of mRNA vaccines, including their transient cytoplasmic expression, lack of genomic integration, and rapid clearance, distinguishing them clearly from other gene therapies.1
This sentence is central to the paper’s thesis.
Let’s fact check it.
“Transient cytoplasmic expression”
False.
Nucleoside-modified mRNA is deliberately engineered (and codon-optimized) for increased stability to enable innate immune response evasion. It is thus durable and long-lasting. The spike protein is also durable and stable due to its double proline modification that ensures the locked-in pre-fusion conformation. Multiple studies now show prolonged detection of “vaccine” mRNA and spike protein in blood, exosomes, heart tissue, monocytes and other sites for weeks to years.
This well documented and well known.
“Lack of genomic integration”
Unproven.
Residual plasmid DNA, including SV40 promoter-enhancer2 sequences, has been detected in vaccine vials.34 The potential for integration - whether via LINE-15 reverse transcription or direct DNA integration - has not been ruled out in human tissues, particularly in dividing or germline cells.
It is important to note that regulatory DNA limits6 were established for naked DNA, not LNP-encapsulated foreign DNA. Even Moderna’s patent warned of the dangers associated with the introduction of foreign DNA to cells. And in fact, there are accounts of spike protein in metastatic skin lesions in multiply-injected individuals.7
As Wafik El-Deiry and Charlotte Kuperwasser present as part of the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel on September 19, 2025, there are gaps in knowledge pertaining to genomic integration in tissues or tumors in “vaccinated” patients.
In any case, the claim of “Lack of genomic integration” is implicitly false because it is explicitly unproven, not disproven.
“Rapid clearance”
False.
As mentioned above, there is a growing list of published studies that demonstrate spike (and ionizable lipid) persistence.
Yonker LM, Swank Z, Bartsch YC, et al. Circulating Spike Protein Detected in Post–COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Myocarditis. Circulation. 2023;147(11):867-876.
→ Free spike protein detected in plasma of adolescents/young adults with post-vaccine myocarditis, up to ~3 weeks post-vaccination; unbound by antibodies
Krauson AJ, Casimero FVC, Siddiquee Z, et al. Duration of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine persistence and factors associated with cardiac involvement in recently vaccinated patients. NPJ Vaccines. 2023;8(1):141.
→ mRNA and spike detected in heart tissue and other sites; mRNA persistence up to ~30 days
Patterson BK, Yogendra S, Kaplin A, et al. Detection of S1 spike protein in CD16+ monocytes up to 245 days in SARS-CoV-2-negative post-COVID-19 vaccine syndrome (PCVS) individuals. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2025;21(1):2494934.
→ S1 spike in monocytes up to ~8 months in individuals with post-vaccination symptoms
Ota N, et al. Expression of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in cerebral arteries: Implications for hemorrhagic stroke post-mRNA vaccination. J Clin Neurosci. 2025.
→ Prolonged spike protein in cerebral arteries post-vaccination
Rong Z, et al. Persistence of spike protein at the skull-meninges-brain axis following SARS-CoV-2 infection or mRNA vaccination. Cell Rep Med. 2024.
→ Spike persistence at brain borders, linked to potential neurological effects
Boros LG, et al. Long-lasting, biochemically modified mRNA, and its frameshifted recombinant spike proteins in human tissues and circulation after COVID-19 vaccination. Pharmacol Res Perspect. 2024;12(3):e1218.
→ Reviews and discusses mRNA persistence up to ~1 month and spike up to ~6+ months
Hulscher N, et al. Unprecedented Persistence of Vaccine mRNA, Plasmid DNA, Spike Protein, and Genomic Dysregulation Over 3.5 Years Post-COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination. Medical Research Archives. 2026
→ Case report; spike protein, mRNA in exosomes, and spike in skin biopsies/nerves detected up to 3.5+ years
Kent SJ, et al. Blood Distribution of SARS-CoV-2 Lipid Nanoparticle mRNA Vaccine Components After Intramuscular Injection in Humans. ACS Nano. 2024.
→ mRNA and ionizable lipids from LNPs detectable in blood up to 14–15 days post-booster
“Distinguishing them clearly from other gene therapies”
It wasn’t so long ago that the world’s population was mocked for even suggesting the nucleoside-modified mRNA-LNP COVID-19 injectable products were gene-based therapies. Based on the above phrasing and the use of the word “other”, Blakney et al. appear to be admitting that the nucleoside-modified mRNA-LNP COVID-19 injectable products are gene therapies.
In any case, “mRNA vaccines” are not clearly distinguished from “other gene therapies” in that they utilize LNPs as transfection vectors to deliver genetic material to cells. If plasmid-sourced foreign DNA is introduced to the cells and persists (or integrates) then the outcome looks a lot like gene therapy, regardless of the original intent.
For additional clarity, the basis for classifying “mRNA vaccines” as “vaccines” and not gene therapy is the following:
The mRNA is supposed to be transient (temporary). It’s not.
It is not supposed to enter the nucleus or alter DNA. It might.
The intent is to produce a temporary antigen (spike protein), not to change the genome. Biology usually wins out over intent.
If it looks like gene therapy, and quacks like gene therapy, then it’s not a duck.
It bears repeating that the 10 ng/dose DNA limit established by the FDA is a guideline for naked DNA [6] - not LNP-encapsulated DNA. Any amount of DNA delivered directly to cells via LNPs - especially if this DNA comprises strong mammalian promoters and/or NLSs - is too high. The risk of hyper-inflammation, cGAS-STING pathway activation8, cancer and genomic instability is too high.
If DNA (as residual plasmid DNA from manufacturing) is part of the LNP payload, and gets dumped into the cytosol of a cell in the presence of a nuclear targeting sequence, then the “not supposed to enter the nucleus or alter DNA” qualifier becomes more than questionable.
I have written an email to the Editor of the Lancet and submitted a letter of concern based on this article.
Let’s see if I receive a reply.
Overall fact check verdict provided by Grok
Mostly Misleading / Overstated
(Grade: D - Significant qualification needed)The authors present an overly optimistic and incomplete picture. While “mRNA vaccines” were designed with certain theoretical advantages, real-world data on persistence, residual DNA, and possible genomic interactions challenge the clean narrative presented.
The one sentence that I fact checked is technically defensible only if one ignores or downplays a substantial and growing body of contrary evidence.
Bottom line: The claim is not accurate as written. It requires major caveats to be truthful.
Blakney A, Top K, Cowling B et al. Safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines: a mechanistic and public health perspective. The Lancet, 2026; 0, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(26)00512-X/abstract
Young JL, Benoit JN, Dean DA. Effect of a DNA nuclear targeting sequence on gene transfer and expression of plasmids in the intact vasculature. Gene Ther. 2003 Aug;10(17):1465-70. doi: 10.1038/sj.gt.3302021. PMID: 12900761; PMCID: PMC4150867, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12900761/
Speicher, D. J., Rose, J., & McKernan, K. (2025). Quantification of residual plasmid DNA and SV40 promoter-enhancer sequences in Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna modRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Ontario, Canada. Autoimmunity, 58(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/08916934.2025.2551517
McKernan K, Rixey C, Rose J. RNA:DNA hybrids survive digestion in mRNA vaccine manufacturing. J Indep Med. 2026;2(1). doi:10.71189/JIM/2026/V02N01A04, https://journalofindependentmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/ima-jim-v02-n01-a04-rna-dna-hybrids-survive-digestion-in-mrna-vaccine-manufacturing.pdf
Aldén M, Olofsson Falla F, Yang D, Barghouth M, Luan C, Rasmussen M, De Marinis Y. Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line. Current Issues in Molecular Biology. 2022; 44(3):1115-1126. https://doi.org/10.3390/cimb44030073
Yang H. Establishing acceptable limits of residual DNA. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol. 2013 Mar-Apr;67(2):155-63. doi: 10.5731/pdajpst.2013.00910. PMID: 23569076. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23569076/
Kuperwasser C., El-Deiry W. S. COVID vaccination and post-infection cancer signals: Evaluating patterns and potential biological mechanisms. Oncotarget. 2026; 17: 1-29. Retrieved from https://www.oncotarget.com/article/28824/
Pan J, Fei CJ, Hu Y, Wu XY, Nie L, Chen J. Current understanding of the cGAS-STING signaling pathway: Structure, regulatory mechanisms, and related diseases. Zool Res. 2023 Jan 18;44(1):183-218. doi: 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2022.464. PMID: 36579404; PMCID: PMC9841179, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9841179/
Your ethics and integrity are qualities rarely appriceated in the current research milieu.I respect both of these qualities highly since I recognize how critical truthful research publications are . Sadly, even such publications as Lancet, appear to have been tainted by the pressure to advance mRNA in a positive light ignoring potential , unknown long term outcomes .
YOU ARE AN INCREDIBLE BRILLIANT WOMAN. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Since 2020 you have been my go to - I read all your substacks - even attempting the supergeeky ones - to help me understand and 'follow the science.' Because I knew I did not and could not understand it on my own. You play a straight bat, are always learning and have the most incredible tenacity, integrity and diligence. Not to mention a beating human heart and beautiful soul. One day the world will recognise your incredible grace under pressure, profound wisdom and intellectual rigour. For now though - let it be me that does. Love you girl.