Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola<\/p>\n
A 14-minute video (above) that has been overlooked for nearly two years has now resurfaced, exposing stunning information about the COVID-19 jabs and why health officials don\u2019t want individual vaccine vials examined by independent scientists.<\/p>\n
The reason, it turns out, is because the vials are all different \u2014 and the mRNA in the shots \u201cis not intact.\u201d Both of these pose potentially serious problems. In an August 31, 2022, Substack article, Steve Kirsch explains:1<\/span><\/sup><\/p>\n \u201cEven if you are getting 100% intact mRNA which would be really rare, you\u2019re still not getting anything that resembles the virus. So the efficacy as far as PROTECTING you will be next to nothing.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n However, what it will do very effectively, if you got reasonably intact mRNA, is to cause you significant harm. You are playing a game of chance with your immune system and what is in the bottle.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The video notes that members of the European Parliament were only allowed to read the contracts with the drug makers after they\u2019d been heavily redacted. Why the heavy-handed secrecy, even toward legislators?<\/p>\n The finding that the mRNA in the shots was of questionable quality was revealed in a BMJ feature investigation article2<\/span><\/sup>\u00a0published in March 2021. As explained by the author, journalist Serena Tinari, cyber attackers retrieved more than 40 megabytes of Pfizer COVID jab data from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in December 2020.<\/p>\n The hacked data was subsequently sent to journalists and academics worldwide. It was also published on the dark web. Some of the documents show European regulators had significant concerns over the lack of intact mRNA in the commercial batches sampled.<\/p>\n Compared to the clinical batches, i.e., the shots used in the clinical trial, 55% to 78% of the commercial shots had \u201ca significant difference in % RNA integrity\/truncated species.\u201d<\/p>\n In one email, dated November 23, 2020, a high-ranking EMA official noted that the commercial batches failed to meet expected specifications, and that the implications of this RNA integrity loss were unclear. In response to the findings, the EMA sent a list of questions and concerns to Pfizer.<\/p>\n While we do not know if and how the EMA\u2019s concerns were actually addressed and corrected, the EMA authorized Pfizer\u2019s COVID jab December 21, 2020. According to its public assessment report, \u201cthe quality of this medicinal product, submitted in the emergency context of the current (COVID-19) pandemic, is considered to be sufficiently consistent and acceptable.\u201d<\/p>\n Similarly, Health Canada told The BMJ that \u201cchanges were made in their processes to ensure that the integrity was improved and brought in line with what was seen for clinical trial batches.\u201d The EMA further tried to deflect concern by claiming some of the leaked documents had been doctored. As reported by The BMJ:3<\/span><\/sup><\/p>\n \u201cEMA says the leaked information was partially doctored, explaining in a statement that \u2018whilst individual emails are authentic, data from different users were selected and aggregated, screenshots from multiple folders and mailboxes have been created, and additional titles were added by the perpetrators.\u2019\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Curiously, when The BMJ asked Pfizer, Moderna, CureVac and several regulators to specify the percentage of mRNA integrity considered acceptable, none replied with specifics.<\/p>\nLeaked Documents Reveal Serious Quality Issues<\/h2>\n
Intact mRNA Is Essential to Its Effectiveness<\/h2>\n