A new peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons has renewed calls for a moratorium on mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, particularly the Pfizer-BioNTech shot, citing serious safety concerns, incomplete data and long-term risks. This call aligns with a growing number of scientists and organizations that have criticized and questioned the widespread use of these so-called vaccines, as troubling evidence continues to surface.
Latest study calls for moratorium on COVID-19 gene therapy
The study, led by Philip R. Oldfield, Ph.D., and authored by renowned epidemiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, scrutinizes the safety and regulatory oversight of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. McCullough, who rightfully opposed the COVID-19 vaccine from the beginning, said the vaccine should never have been classified as a traditional vaccine, but rather as gene therapy — a category with far more stringent regulatory requirements.
The study emphasizes the failure of the scientific community to conduct essential testing, such as toxicology, carcinogenicity and long-term safety evaluations. Most alarmingly, it points to an unsettling lack of understanding regarding the long-term effects of the spike protein and lipid nanoparticles in the vaccine.
“The truth is becoming more obvious,” said Oldfield in a statement. “As more evidence is accumulating, we are seeing undeniable signs that the risks may far outweigh the benefits of these vaccines.”
The study's criticism extends beyond the vaccine's classification. It highlights several key concerns, including the absence of critical testing during clinical trials. Key factors such as the amount and variability of the spike protein produced in vaccine recipients were not measured adequately, and placebo groups were unblinded prematurely, undermining the integrity of long-term safety and efficacy data.
Gene therapy turned out to be genetic weaponry
The study also references a troubling report by the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which shows over 19,000 deaths associated with COVID-19 vaccines, a figure that far surpasses any other vaccine's adverse events in recent history. This is particularly concerning given the typical thresholds for removing vaccines from the market. For instance, the Rotashield vaccine, linked to just 15 deaths, was swiftly withdrawn. In contrast, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine remains widely available despite a far higher mortality rate in its initial months of use.
The authors argue that the regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), failed to address these concerns, pointing to a "widespread regulatory capture" that discouraged proper oversight. “Public health agencies could have acted responsibly and issued sound, scientifically-backed recommendations,” said Dr. McCullough. “But instead, they chose to ignore mounting safety signals.”
Recent research has also raised alarms about the neurological risks associated with this genetic weaponry. A study published in Cell Host & Microbe in late November found that the persistent presence of spike proteins in the brain could lead to lasting neurological damage. Experts like Dr. Angus Dalgleish, a professor of oncology, are particularly alarmed by the increasing number of individuals showing signs of severe neurological diseases and rapid dementia following injection.
Dr. McCullough’s study also notes that the spike protein produced by this gene therapy is widely distributed throughout the body and infiltrates vital organs, including the liver, spleen, ovaries and adrenal glands. He warns that no comprehensive studies have been conducted on how this protein interacts with the human body over the long term. This raises concerns about the vaccine’s potential to cause damage to multiple organ systems, especially since the body may continue to produce spike proteins long after injection.
Despite these mounting safety concerns, Pfizer and other manufacturers have been granted legal immunity from liability, making it difficult for injured individuals to seek justice. This liability shield has incentivized vaccine companies to downplay the risks.
How many more voices need to be raised, before this biological weapon system is shut down?
Many experts and organizations are now questioning why the mRNA vaccines are still in use despite these glaring issues. The World Council for Health, Doctors for COVID Ethics and even Florida’s Surgeon General have publicly supported halting the distribution of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines until more comprehensive safety studies are conducted.
“There is no justification for continuing this gene therapy experiment on a global scale,” said Christof Plothe, D.O., a member of the World Council for Health’s steering committee. “We still don’t know the long-term effects, and we need to stop this rollout immediately.”
As one of the study’s authors put it, “Given all the available evidence, there should be a moratorium on all mRNA injections until we have a clear understanding of their safety profile.”
How many more voices need to be raised, and how much more evidence needs to emerge before we pause the use of these “vaccines” in order to protect public health? When will they be properly classified as genetic weaponry?
Sources include:
JPAnds.org [PDF]
Please contact us for more information.