Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity studies were NOT done because... the WHO
Read on to find out why.
I refer the reader to the recently released Pfizer document entitled “2.4 NONCLINICAL OVERVIEW”.
Let’s get the definitions out of the way.
Carcinogenicity is descriptive of the ability to induce cancer and remember, a carcinogen does not necessarily have to be a toxin!
Let’s even do cancer. Cancer is any dis-ease in which normal cells are damaged and the balance of growth versus death/removal is skewed toward growth. It is, in my opinion a metabolic disorder, but that’s definitely for another Substack.
It is important to know that genetic mutations can result from DNA copying mistakes that occur during cell division, from exposure to ionizing radiation (like from medical X-rays - physical mutagen), exposure to chemicals (chemical mutagens) or even by infection by viruses like Human Papillomavirus (HPV)2 (biological mutagen). So they say. I am not entirely-convinced anymore.
We’ve already seen studies published that have shown disruption in double-stranded DNA repair via specific enzymes and indications of reverse transcription of modified spike RNA to DNA in in vivo systems and reverse transcription and integration of SARS-nCoV-2 RNA into human DNA.3 4 5
Mechanistically, we found that the spike protein localizes in the nucleus and inhibits DNA damage repair by impeding key DNA repair protein BRCA1 and 53BP1 recruitment to the damage site.
This is bad news for DNA repair. No DNA repair. No normal functionality of physiological processes. Dis-eases abound and don’t get me started on aging. Kind of like throwing a spike-shaped wrench made out of sand into a finely-tuned engine.
But I am not writing this Substack to talk too much about the implications or effects. That’s what the papers are for. I am writing this today to document the fact that there were NO genotoxicity or carcinogencinity studies done in the context of the COVID-19 modified RNA LNP-based products during pre-market testing. Why, you ask?
Because the genetic material and the fats were not expected to have genotoxic, carcinogenic or tumorigenic potential.
Oh ok, and cigarettes were not expected to promote lung cancer and thalidomide was not expected to deform babies and the rotavirus vaccine was not expected to cause intussusception and combined MMR vaccine was not expected to cause autism if given to babies before 18 months of life. Should I go on? Besides, the World Health Organization (WHO) establishment assures us (in 2005 - wasn’t that 17 years ago?) that “Carcinogenicity testing is generally not considered necessary to support the development and licensure of vaccine products for infectious diseases (WHO, 2005).”
Oh yeah? What about IM-injectable mRNA-LNP-based products? Maybe you should update your policy to include injectable products for infectious diseases based on mRNA-LNP platforms? Maybe?
One word. OUTDATED. That above quote may apply in the context of conventional vaccines but not in the context of genetic-material-based cytotoxic membrane-disrupting fat bubble delivery systems. These COVID-19 injectable products are NOT vaccines by the WHO’s own definition. These products not only should have been tested for both genotoxicity and carcinogenicity but they must be. These are gene-based experimental products that use fat bubbles whose components include known cytotoxic cationic6 lipids. Just to repeat myself. It is deplorable and inexplicable to me that this has gone so far.
People ask me all the time how to start a conversation with people defending this asininity. Tell them the products were not tested to determine if they cause cancer - not in animal models, and not in humans. The genetic components were not ruled out as mutagens and the lipids were not ruled out as toxic. And the reason they were not tested by our trusted ‘authorities’ was because they ‘aren’t meant to cause cancer’ because vaccines based on the conventional model of killed or attenuated pathogens don’t tend to be mutagenic. Outdated byes!
These products are called ‘vaccines’ but they are based on a completely different model - a completely different platform and delivery system, so they cannot be deemed non-mutagenic until proven otherwise with studies. And show your people this. You can quote me.
I am just almost without words at where we are. There is no excuse not to be questioning this from all angles at this point.
Just if you’re interested, phototoxicity, dependence, metabolite, impurity and ‘other’ studies were also not conducted in the context the BNT162b2 product.
Futhermore, no Safety Pharmacology, no Secondary Pharmacodynamic and no Pharmacodynamic Drug Interaction studies were done.
***Secondary pharmacodynamics involve studies on the mode of action and/or effects of a substance not related to its desired therapeutic target and safety pharmacology involves studies that investigate the potential undesirable pharmacodynamic effects of a substance on physiological functions in relation to exposure in the therapeutic range and above.
Germ line mutations occur in the eggs and sperm and can be passed on to offspring, while somatic mutations occur in body cells and are not passed on.