Why Was Moderna Allowed to Use A Toxic mRNA Dose?

The data that proves Moderna used a deadly dose and the psychopathy that led to the choice to use it

by A Midwestern Doctor

Story at a Glance:

•One of the major problems facing mRNA technology was finding a dose that was strong enough to elicit the desired effect but simultaneously not unbearably toxic. Moderna in turn chose a dose that was 3.3X greater than what even Pfizer felt was safe enough to use.

•Since the vaccines hit the market, numerous datasets have shown the Moderna vaccine is roughly 50% more likely to injure recipients (which includes deaths, miscarriages, and birth defects). Despite this, no regulator has done a basic comparison on the safety of the vaccines.

•Steve Kirsch recently got access to a country-wide dataset on deaths following vaccination. It showed clearly and unambiguously that the Moderna vaccine caused 30% more deaths than Pfizer’s. Additionally, it also showed that Pfizer’s vaccine raised the risk of death by 34% and that both vaccines had minimal efficacy in preventing COVID-19 deaths.

•Moderna’s decision to bring a toxic mRNA dose to market reflected the corrosive culture at this startup, which swindled billions from investors over false promises of the miracles of mRNA and fired any employee who did not repeat the mantra, “mRNA gene therapies are safe and effective.” Likewise, Moderna’s approval and protection once on the market go hand in hand with the government's heavy financial investment in Moderna.

One of the most common questions I received at the start of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout was if it was better to take Pfizer, Moderna or to wait for J&J’s to come out. Given all the potential risks of the mRNA technology (e.g., of it not breaking down, it potentially integrating into the genome, or it having a high theoretical risk for causing cancer, autoimmunity, and blood clots—all of which there was still no public data on), my typical advice was to wait for J&J’s likely safer one to come out as that would give them more information on the risks and benefits of each one and simultaneously to provide them with early treatment options for COVID-19 so they didn’t need to be as concerned about catching the infection.

Note: each of the sources I linked to above demonstrates why it was possible to know this risk existed prior to the vaccine rollout.

Based on their comparative designs and the reports I received, I suspected Moderna was the worst. For example, someone I knew who developed a common debilitating autoimmune condition after Moderna was told by their rheumatologist that they had seen the exact same thing happen in multiple patients after Moderna, while someone I know who had a sudden expected tendon rupture was likewise told the same thing by their orthopedic surgeon. Unfortunately, it wasn’t possible to come to a clear conclusion here as the majority of the people who shared their adverse reports with me (and I compiled here) knew it was Pfizer or Moderna but weren’t sure which, and since far more Pfizer vaccines were given in the United States that it became quite hard to know if proportionally I was receiving more reports of severe injuries from Moderna.

Note: I similarly saw the fewest injuries from J&J, but within samples I took of people I knew who took each, J&J seemed to have a comparable if not higher acute injury rate than the mRNA vaccines (whereas the mRNA seemed to be worse in the long term).

However, despite the potential issues with Moderna’s vaccine, I’ve largely focused on Pfizer’s malfeasance throughout the pandemic. This essentially was because:

•Pfizer’s vaccine was FDA approved, so it was possible to get significantly more information on it (e.g., through FOIA requests—whereas it is only been fairly recently that we’ve been able to get records of the severe injuries that occurred throughout Moderna’s clinical trials).

•Pfizer has a long track record of unscrupulous and criminal behavior (e.g., their behavior now is very similar to what these and these Pfizer employees blew the whistle about within Pfizer in the past).

Therapeutic Dosing

Since most pharmaceutical drugs, are to some extent toxic, a key challenge in making every drug is to figure out how much to give in order to achieve the desired effect without giving too much and creating unwanted toxicity.

Note: I wrote much more about how we determine the correct dose (one of the critically important Forgotten Arts of Medicine) here.

With some substances, there is a wide distance between the two (e.g., while people can get ill from drinking way too much water, this only happens in rare cases where someone is intentionally drinking way too much water). Conversely, some drugs have a very narrow therapeutic index, and hence need to be given under controlled circumstances (e.g., chemotherapy being given intravenously) that ensure the dose stays within its therapeutic index. Furthermore, many drugs have a low enough threshold for toxic effects that no “therapeutic window” exists (e.g., chemo), and instead a dose has to be chosen which accepts minor or moderate effects and simply keeps the dose low enough to avoid severe and fatal side effects or one that accepts a minority of patients with never be able to get a safe dose and that they will simply be collateral damage.
Note: in other cases, the toxicity is simply too high and the drug is abandoned or regulated to only be used in very special circumstances.

When I looked into the mRNA technology, I initially thought that despite it holding immense potential for profitability (as thousands if not millions of costly proprietary drugs could be made with the platform), it wouldn’t go anywhere because it had insurmountable dosing issues. Specifically:

•There was no way to reliably ensure the desired dose of the final gene product (whatever protein the mRNA made) could be made, as cells would break down the mRNA at different rates and different people would have different parts of the body uptake the mRNA (which in turn would produce the mRNA at different rates).

•The body rapidly breaks down mRNA, so a fairly high dose of mRNA had to be given to ensure that enough remained to produce the desired protein.
Note: to some extent, this problem was “solved” through pseudouridation (explained in further detail by Dr. Malone here), as pseudouridation blocks the body from breaking the mRNA being broken down. Unfortunately, that created a much larger issue by causing the mRNA (and hence its spike protein production) to persist in the body indefinitely, both significantly injuring many and preventing the immune system from being able to respond to new variants with spike proteins differing from the artificial one in the vaccine.

•Artificial mRNA (and the lipid nanoparticles that delivered it) had significant cellular toxicity to the body. Because of this, decades ago, early pioneers in the field (e.g., Robert Malone) eventually abandoned the technology because he’d concluded it was simply not possible to overcome its cellular toxicity. More recently, a 2016 article showed that this had Moderna had run into this roadblock as well to the point it was too dangerous to even conduct preliminary human trials. In turn, my suspicion was that, at least initially (e.g., the first decade of commercial use), the only viable use for mRNA technology, would be as an experimental technology for otherwise fatal diseases (e.g., certain genetic defects or cancers) where the severe toxicity of the mRNA was counterbalanced by the fact the patient was otherwise expected to die.

•Since it is a gene therapy with numerous steps in its production, this technology (which, due to its very narrow therapeutic index, requires precise manufacturing) would be nearly impossible to manufacture, especially when done at scale. This again was why I thought it would only be possible to use it in a very narrow context (e.g., a rigidly controlled therapy for a subset of cancer patients).
Note: as discussed in a recent article, major production issues in the mRNA vaccine process resulted in very different mRNA lots.

The “solution” eventually identified was to present the technology as an emergency vaccine, thereby allowing it to gain the advantages of “emergency” medical interventions (e.g., a lower bar for approval and complete immunity from injury lawsuits) and those afforded to vaccines where efficacy (or more specifically an antibody response) was prioritized over safety. For historical context:

When designing the HPV vaccine, Merck realized that it was difficult for the body to develop an immune response to the HPV antigen (which I suspect was due to the body being designed to resist developing autoimmunity and the vaccine’s antigen having similarities to human tissue). To solve this problem, Merck used a much stronger adjuvant.

This “worked” and ensured the vaccine reliably produced an immune response in its clinical trial subjects—but also caused the vaccine to have a very high rate of severe side effects in those who received it. However, since the FDA prioritized “efficacy” this trade-off was accepted and ever since then the FDA and CDC have worked hand-in-hand to cover up the immense number of injuries that have been caused by the HPV vaccine.

Note: one of the major questions everyone has had about the COVID vaccine is why a design was chosen that mass produced the most toxic and rapidly mutating part of the virus (its spike protein) within the body—thereby both guaranteeing that the vaccine would injure its recipients and rapidly stop being effective as a vaccine (since the virus would no longer have the same spike protein).

The most benign answer I can give is that “Operation Warp Speed” was a race to capture the bonanza afforded to whoever could bring the first COVID-19 vaccine to the market (or alternatively bring a vaccine to market before natural immunity had eliminated COVID—something seen in African countries that never vaccinated), and that the design Pfizer and Moderna chose (using an existing gene therapy platform to quickly produce the most reactive part of the spike protein and then overproduce it within the body) was the fastest way to get a reactive one to market. Likewise, if you look at the history of the Moderna vaccine, the spike protein was chosen as the vaccine antigen in January 2020 at a time when the inherent toxicity of the spike protein was not yet known and it is my suspicion that by the time this was recognized, Moderna was not willing to abandon the antigen because it was too late in the race for a vaccine for them to chose a new design.

The more nefarious explanation was that the known issues with this vaccine would pave the way for a continuous line of new products (e.g., since the virus would continually evolve resistant to the existing vaccine antigen, that gave a justification for bringing mandatory boosters to the market, and likewise the wide range of injuries these vaccines created a large market for therapeutics to them—something companies like Pfizer, in turn have already invested in).

Dosing of the mRNA Vaccines

Given all the previous, I was immensely curious about how the vaccines would be dosed. In light of past precedent, I assumed a high dose would be chosen that guaranteed efficacy (specifically the desired antibody response—something which does not necessarily correlate with immunity) at the expense of safety.

Similarly, from the start, I was immensely curious about the lipid nanoparticle design for the vaccine (as it also had to surmount a variety of technical and safety challenges), so when leaked regulatory documents detailed what was in Pfizer’s vaccine, I dove into the details and saw that a specific formulation had been chosen as it appeared to be the only one that allowed the vaccine to work (by getting mRNA inside cells). As no mention of safety for the lipid nanoparticle was mentioned in the regulatory documents, I assumed safety had not been a consideration in choosing it, and that the lipid nanoparticle likewise would have a variety of issues (e.g., it contained PEG, something many are allergic to).

When the mRNA COVID vaccines (which were very similar) finally came to market, I then went and checked what dose each had used.

Each dose of Pfizer’s contains 30 micrograms of vaccine. Moderna went with a much larger dose of vaccine, 100 micrograms [and 50 micrograms for its boosters]. It means the company is using a little more than three times as much vaccine per person as Pfizer is. While Moderna’s initial results didn’t seem to justify the much larger dose, data suggest the protection the company’s vaccine generates is declining at a slower rate than Pfizer’s is; some experts believe the higher dose may be at least partially responsible.

Given that Pfizer is notorious for putting unsafe products onto the market that, for the sake of efficacy, are dosed too high, it immediately caught my eye that another (relatively unknown) company that had no existing products was using a much higher dose than what Pfizer was willing to gamble on. To me, this suggested that Moderna was willing to take a much larger risk to get an approved vaccine to market (as there was no existing business to lose if they got sued and they desperately needed a viable product), and that Moderna may have been a pump and dump operation.

This to some extent was confirmed by Pfizer’s initial phase 1/2 trial, where the 100 mcg dose (Moderna used) was terminated midway due to its side effects:

Based on the tolerability profile [ie. reactogenicity reported] of the first dose at the 100 µg dose level and the second dose of 30 µg, participants randomized to the 100 µg group did not receive a second vaccination.

Note: there is some evidence that suggests mRNA lots with different doses (and thus toxicity) were released onto the market in a manner which made it possible to track which doses created lots that were too hot (and hence needed to be avoided in future products).

Moderna’s Increased Toxicity

In turn, as time passed, more evidence accumulated suggesting that Moderna's higher dose was indeed more dangerous.

First, when the Fraiman paper analyzed the clinical trials for Moderna and Pfizer (which got the vaccines approved), its authors found Moderna had a 50% higher rate of serious adverse events of special interest (AESI) than Pfizer vs. their respective placebos (15.1x vs 10.1x).

Likewise, when I looked at the more common side effects (e.g., headaches, joint pain, and fatigue) in the Pfizer trial and the Moderna trial, I found that they were roughly 30% more common in Moderna’s trial.

Second, when death rates were analyzed from the vaccine adverse event reporting databases, they found Moderna caused 1.3 to 1.5 as many injuries. For example, when the Moderna vaccine was compared to the Pfizer vaccine:

•Dennis Rancourt’s VAERS analysis found a 1.3X increase in death.
•Steve Kirsch’s VAERS Analysis found a 1.3X increase in death.
•Norman Fenton showed that the UK Yellow card system had a 1.5X increase in adverse events that were reported.
•The V-Safe Data showed a 1.8X increase in adverse events.

Third, Igor Chudov discovered some concerning pregnancy data. Specifically:

•At the CDC’s October 2022 ACIP meeting, (ACIP is the outside committee of “experts” who are responsible for “independently” giving evidence-based recommendations for which vaccines should be administered throughout America), ACIP shared some of the V-safe data to assure the public the vaccine was safe for pregnant mothers. However, as Igor noticed, it also showed that for mothers who took the vaccine, 3.3% of the 12,751 women who took Pfizer miscarried before 20 weeks, whereas 4.8% of the 8,365 women who took Moderna miscarried—a result Igor then demonstrated was scientifically significant.

Given the size of this sample, this demonstrates that the higher Moderna dose increased one’s risk of a miscarriage by 42%, and assuming Pfizer was 100% safe for pregnancy (which it’s not) it caused 1.5% of the women who received the Moderna vaccine while pregnant to have a miscarriage. Given that FOIAs showed the V-safe data that was given to the public was cherry picked and highly misleading, and that the Moderna vaccine was given to over 100 million Americans, this quickly adds up. Further, data also shows that global fertility rates have dropped since the mRNA vaccines hit the market and many of us know vaccinated women who are struggling to have a pregnancy.

Note: to illustrate why this is a low estimate, one study found that between weeks 6-11 of pregnancy, less than 1.6% of women suffer miscarriage (while after 11 weeks, the rate becomes far smaller), whereas a 3.3% - 4.8% miscarriage rate was seen in those who received these vaccines.

•Igor also found that of the 12,253 live births in those who received a Pfizer vaccine, 12 infants died (0.09793%), whereas of the 7,916 live births in Moderna recipients, 15 of the infants died (0.18948%), indicating that the Moderna vaccine was 93.48% more likely to cause infant death than Pfizer (a result that again was statistically significant).

•Final Igor found a study that showed that women who took the Moderna vaccine during pregnancy compared to those who took the Pfizer vaccine had a 260% increase in birth defects (many of which were quite severe), a 48% increase in NICU admissions, and a large increase in preterm births (0/42 vs. 4/34).

This data in turn suggests that a dose response relationship exists and that the “longer duration of protection” from Moderna’s vaccine was counterbalanced by a myriad of consequences including aborting a lot of American women (2-3% of pregnancies quickly adds up). What makes this particularly remarkable is that ACIP did not recognize this red flag, despite it being on the slides they publicly presented…

---

Go paid at the $5 a month level, and we will send you both the PDF and e-Pub versions of “Government” - The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed! and a coupon code for 10% off anything in the Government-Scam.com/Store.

Go paid at the $50 a year level, and we will send you a free paperback edition of Etienne’s book “Government” - The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed! OR a 64GB Liberator flash drive if you live in the US. If you are international, we will give you a $10 credit towards shipping if you agree to pay the remainder.

Support us at the $250 Founding Member Level and get a signed high-resolution hardcover of “Government” + Liberator flash drive + Larken Rose’s The Most Dangerous Superstition + Art of Liberty Foundation Stickers delivered anywhere in the world. Our only option for signed copies besides catching Etienne @ an event.