According to a study published in the Lancet, an extensive glolbal review of mRNA vaccines shows them to be safe and effective.

After billions of doses, we now have an extraordinary amount of scientific evidence,” said lead author Dr. Anna Blakney, assistant professor at UBC’s Michael Smith Laboratories and School of Biomedical Engineering. “This review affirms that mRNA vaccines are a safe and highly effective platform, supported by rigorous testing and real-world monitoring.

https://www.technologynetworks.com/tn/news/do-mrna-vaccines-change-our-dna-global-review-says-no-414233

The review addresses persistent misconceptions about how mRNA vaccines work, clarifying that they do not alter a person’s DNA. Instead, the mRNA—encapsulated in a lipid nanoparticle delivery system pioneered by UBC researchers—provides temporary instructions that allow human cells to produce a harmless piece of a virus, training the immune system to respond. Both the mRNA and lipid nanoparticles are quickly broken down and cleared from the body after use.

5 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

safe and effective.

5555 yeah right 🤣 sorry I just don't believe that for one millisecond.

18 minutes ago, johng said:

5555 yeah right 🤣 sorry I just don't believe that for one millisecond.

OK, if you've already read the study, what about it's findings is scientifically flawed or inaccurate? Please give examples of what they have got wrong in their methodology, analysis or conclusions.

1 minute ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

OK, if you've already read the study, what about its findings is scientifically flawed or inaccurate? Please give examples of what they have got wrong in their methodology, analysis or conclusions.

I don't have to read the study..what you have posted about the mRNA and lipid nano particles breaking down quickly has been proven false.

Lead Author just happens to work at the same place that developed the technology no conflict of interest there I'm sure.

There is also just the small inconvenience of all the ignored vaccine adverse reactions they are trying to sweep under the carpet.

4 minutes ago, johng said:

I don't have to read the study..what you have posted about the mRNA and lipid nano particles breaking down quickly has been proven false.

Lead Author just happens to work at the same place that developed the technology no conflict of interest there I'm sure.

There is also just the small inconvenience of all the ignored vaccine adverse reactions they are trying to sweep under the carpet.

Please provide links to reliable sources that support your factual statements.

Not only is it against forum rules not to do so, but also as Hitchen's Razor states, "What can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence."

50 minutes ago, johng said:

5555 yeah right 🤣 sorry I just don't believe that for one millisecond.

If food, water, environment, stress, pollution, and lifestyle can influence DNA, gene activity, repair systems, and biology over time and across generations, then it is fair to think vaccines could influence something too.

Vaccines can change immune response and immune memory, but that is not the same as rewriting your human DNA or changing your inherited genetic line. The main question is whether that influence is bad for you or us. mRNA vaccines do not attack DNA; they give temporary instructions that trigger an immune response.

7 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Please provide links to reliable sources that support your factual statements.

If you 'do your own research'

(AKA open your eyes )

you will find the sources, see the Senate hearings about the adverse events coverup..maybe listen to what the 'inventer' of the lipid nanoparticle tech has to say about it.

Clue, Dr. Robert Malone.

1 hour ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

study published in the Lancet

The Lancet s a highly recommended Medical Journal. They publish in general validated peer-reviewed double blind trials only.

Absolutely trustworthy.

13 minutes ago, D Peter said:

The Lancet s a highly recommended Medical Journal. They publish in general validated peer-reviewed double blind trials only.

Absolutely trustworthy.

Cool story bro - you can have my jabs as I still don't want them tho : )

A more accurate statement would be:

"The Lancet is one of the world's leading medical journals and has a rigorous peer-review process. However, it publishes many types of scientific articles—not just double-blind clinical trials—and publication does not guarantee that a study is ultimately correct. Scientific knowledge is continually tested, challenged, and sometimes revised through replication, criticism, and additional evidence."

The key point is that scientific credibility comes from the cumulative body of evidence, replication, and ongoing scrutiny—not from the prestige of a single journal or the fact that a paper passed peer review so the Medical Industrial Complax can make trillions in profits.

59 minutes ago, johng said:

If you 'do your own research'

(AKA open your eyes )

you will find the sources, see the Senate hearings about the adverse events coverup..maybe listen to what the 'inventer' of the lipid nanoparticle tech has to say about it.

Clue, Dr. Robert Malone.

These guys are lost, bots or shilling.

Their Patron Saint is (possible jab victim) Talljonbkk.
Pointless to engage.

Let the dead bury their dead.

1 hour ago, johng said:

If you 'do your own research'

(AKA open your eyes )

you will find the sources, see the Senate hearings about the adverse events coverup..maybe listen to what the 'inventer' of the lipid nanoparticle tech has to say about it.

Clue, Dr. Robert Malone.

Why not just post the link to your research? I guess you don't have one because you've not researched.

2 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Why not just post the link to your research? I guess you don't have one because you've not researched.

I have not published any research on this..you can search yourself for what Dr.Robert Malone has said about the lipid nanoparticle technology..seeing as he was the 'inventor' of it I regard him as the

'eggspurt' have you researched what he has to say on the subject ?

Same for the senate hearings on adverse reactions

https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/2026/05/08/blockbuster-covid-19-vaccine-report/

come on people do your own research..wake up !!!!

4 minutes ago, johng said:

come on people do your own research..wake up !!!!

Dude, let them go. You've done your bit.
You've fulfulled your duty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-edjY5SWOs

@Hummin I agree with the first paragraph

But I think you are wrong on the second paragraph.

@Tourist2 I will now let them go and bury the dead before the thread is closed.

Moved to the COVID subforum.

All vaccines have potential side effects, mild in most cases, but rare serious effects do occur.

The issue with safety is simply an equation comparing the risk of serious illness or death if unvaccinated vs from the vaccine, bothg overall and for specific sub-populations.

The COVID vaccines clearly pass that criterion.

16 hours ago, Tourist2 said:

validated peer-reviewed double blind trials

that's what I said.

16 hours ago, johng said:

I have not published any research on this..you can search yourself for what Dr.Robert Malone has said about the lipid nanoparticle technology..seeing as he was the 'inventor' of it I regard him as the

'eggspurt' have you researched what he has to say on the subject ?

Same for the senate hearings on adverse reactions

https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/2026/05/08/blockbuster-covid-19-vaccine-report/

come on people do your own research..wake up !!!!

Got a valid source?

Dr. Robert Malone is widely not considered a reputable authority on COVID-19 vaccines or pandemic science. While he contributed to foundational early research on mRNA technology in the late 1980s, the mainstream medical and scientific community overwhelmingly rejects his claims and considers him a spreader of vaccine misinformation. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Major medical organizations, global health authorities, and leading vaccine scientists (like Penn Today) describe his work during the pandemic as misleading. Fact-checking organizations (such as NPR and Business Insider) have repeatedly debunked his claims—such as misrepresenting the safety of mRNA vaccines and the origins of the pandemic. [1, 2, 3]

You can read more about his career and the scientific consensus regarding his statements in this Wikipedia article. [1]

19 hours ago, johng said:

I don't have to read the study..what you have posted about the mRNA and lipid nano particles breaking down quickly has been proven false.

Lead Author just happens to work at the same place that developed the technology no conflict of interest there I'm sure.

There is also just the small inconvenience of all the ignored vaccine adverse reactions they are trying to sweep under the carpet.

Because facebook memes told you so...

19 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

OK, if you've already read the study, what about it's findings is scientifically flawed or inaccurate? Please give examples of what they have got wrong in their methodology, analysis or conclusions.

11 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Because facebook memes told you so...

1 hour ago, D Peter said:

that's what I said.

You guys need to get it through youer thick heads that, just because you buy something with LV or rayban or 'peer reviewed double blind trial' wrtitten on it doesn't mean it's legit.

Frauds gonna fraud. Liars gonna lie. There's a film about fraud & big tobacco you should probably watch.

As to the Medical Industrial Complex, there have been a number of cases where studies published in peer-reviewed journals - including those using double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) designs - were later found to involve fraud, fabricated data, or serious misconduct. Peer review and double blinding reduce certain types of bias, but they do not guarantee that the underlying data are genuine.

Here are some examples of the pEEr rEViEwEd dOubLE bLinD tRiaL frauds (tip of the iceberg):

1. Yo<deleted>aka Fujii (Anesthesiology)

   • Published more than 180 clinical trials, many described as randomized, double-blind studies.

   • Investigations found extensive data fabrication and statistical impossibilities.

   • More than 180 papers have been retracted, making it one of the largest scientific fraud cases ever.

   • His fabricated trials influenced anesthesia and postoperative nausea treatment recommendations before being uncovered.

2. Joachim Boldt

   • Published numerous randomized, double-blind trials on intravenous fluids.

   • Investigations found lack of ethics approval, questionable consent procedures, and unreliable or fabricated data.

   • Over 90 papers have been retracted.

   • His work affected clinical practice regarding colloid solutions.

3. Scott Reuben

   • Fabricated data in at least 21 published clinical trials.

   • Many were randomized and double-blind studies evaluating pain medications such as COX-2 inhibitors.

   • His work influenced postoperative pain management until the fraud was exposed in 2009.

4. Andrew Wakefield

   • Although not a randomized or double-blind trial, this case is often cited because it demonstrates that peer review alone cannot prevent publication of fraudulent or misleading research.

   • His 1998 paper in The Lancet falsely linked the Autism diagnosis with the Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine.

   • The paper was eventually fully retracted after evidence of ethical violations and data misrepresentation.

5. Paolo Macchiarini

   • Several clinical publications reported successful tracheal transplants.

   • Investigations later found major discrepancies between reported outcomes and patients' actual clinical courses.

   • While not classic double-blind RCTs, these peer-reviewed clinical studies contained serious scientific misconduct.

Why peer review didn't catch these

Peer reviewers generally evaluate:

• whether the methods are scientifically appropriate,

• whether the analyses appear reasonable,

• whether the conclusions follow from the reported results.

They usually cannot:

• inspect raw patient records,

• independently verify randomization,

• confirm that participants actually existed,

• detect sophisticated data fabrication without access to underlying data.

Conclusion

In short, a study can be peer-reviewed, randomized, and double-blind, yet still be fraudulent if the underlying data are fabricated or misrepresented.

TLDR: Corporations generally get the 'science' / soyence they pay for.

On 7/2/2026 at 6:50 PM, Tourist2 said:

Dr. Robert Malone.

COVID-19 Pandemics and Controversies

Beginning in 2021, Dr. Malone gained global prominence by publicly criticizing SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines.

He appeared on high-profile platforms, including a highly publicized interview on The Joe Rogan Experience.

He promoted scientifically refuted claims, including assertions that vaccine-induced spike proteins are cytotoxic and that mRNA vaccines alter human DNA or contain dangerous contaminants.

Leading public health agencies, medical organizations, and independent fact-checkers have repeatedly classified his vaccine claims as misinformation. AI

Fact-checkers ! 🤣

@D Peter have you listened to or read what Robert Malone actually said not what the 'fact checker's' claim he said ?

2 hours ago, johng said:

Fact-checkers ! 🤣

@D Peter have you listened to or read what Robert Malone actually said not what the 'fact checker's' claim he said ?

Well, that's the difference between believe and knowing. In this case Malone is not reliable anymore. But you might believe. Many people believe in Santa as well. Good luck

4 minutes ago, D Peter said:

In this case Malone is not reliable anymore.

Have you listened to what HE himself has said on the subject or are you just repeating/believing what 'fact checker's' and Wikipedia say ?

On 7/2/2026 at 8:25 PM, Sheryl said:

The issue with safety is simply an equation comparing the risk of serious illness or death if unvaccinated vs from the vaccine, bothg overall and for specific sub-populations.

Humans are notoriously bad at accurately assessing risk, unfortunately. Training and experience are the best methods of improving one's understanding and estimation of risk.

16 hours ago, D Peter said:

COVID-19 Pandemics and Controversies

Beginning in 2021, Dr. Malone gained global prominence by publicly criticizing SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines.

He appeared on high-profile platforms, including a highly publicized interview on The Joe Rogan Experience.

He promoted scientifically refuted claims, including assertions that vaccine-induced spike proteins are cytotoxic and that mRNA vaccines alter human DNA or contain dangerous contaminants.

Leading public health agencies, medical organizations, and independent fact-checkers have repeatedly classified his vaccine claims as misinformation. AI

Many of his colleagues hold the opinion that he overstates his contribution to the body of knowledge that lead to the use of mRNA as an avenue of vaccination. He sounds like he is disgruntled that his exaggerations have been exposed.

15 minutes ago, Tourist2 said:

You guys need to get it through youer thick heads that, just because you buy something with LV or rayban or 'peer reviewed double blind trial' wrtitten on it doesn't mean it's legit.

Frauds gonna fraud. Liars gonna lie. There's a film about fraud & big tobacco you should probably watch.

As to the Medical Industrial Complex, there have been a number of cases where studies published in peer-reviewed journals - including those using double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) designs - were later found to involve fraud, fabricated data, or serious misconduct. Peer review and double blinding reduce certain types of bias, but they do not guarantee that the underlying data are genuine.

Here are some examples of the pEEr rEViEwEd dOubLE bLinD tRiaL frauds (tip of the iceberg):

1. Yo<deleted>aka Fujii (Anesthesiology)

   • Published more than 180 clinical trials, many described as randomized, double-blind studies.

   • Investigations found extensive data fabrication and statistical impossibilities.

   • More than 180 papers have been retracted, making it one of the largest scientific fraud cases ever.

   • His fabricated trials influenced anesthesia and postoperative nausea treatment recommendations before being uncovered.

2. Joachim Boldt

   • Published numerous randomized, double-blind trials on intravenous fluids.

   • Investigations found lack of ethics approval, questionable consent procedures, and unreliable or fabricated data.

   • Over 90 papers have been retracted.

   • His work affected clinical practice regarding colloid solutions.

3. Scott Reuben

   • Fabricated data in at least 21 published clinical trials.

   • Many were randomized and double-blind studies evaluating pain medications such as COX-2 inhibitors.

   • His work influenced postoperative pain management until the fraud was exposed in 2009.

4. Andrew Wakefield

   • Although not a randomized or double-blind trial, this case is often cited because it demonstrates that peer review alone cannot prevent publication of fraudulent or misleading research.

   • His 1998 paper in The Lancet falsely linked the Autism diagnosis with the Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine.

   • The paper was eventually fully retracted after evidence of ethical violations and data misrepresentation.

5. Paolo Macchiarini

   • Several clinical publications reported successful tracheal transplants.

   • Investigations later found major discrepancies between reported outcomes and patients' actual clinical courses.

   • While not classic double-blind RCTs, these peer-reviewed clinical studies contained serious scientific misconduct.

Why peer review didn't catch these

Peer reviewers generally evaluate:

• whether the methods are scientifically appropriate,

• whether the analyses appear reasonable,

• whether the conclusions follow from the reported results.

They usually cannot:

• inspect raw patient records,

• independently verify randomization,

• confirm that participants actually existed,

• detect sophisticated data fabrication without access to underlying data.

Conclusion

In short, a study can be peer-reviewed, randomized, and double-blind, yet still be fraudulent if the underlying data are fabricated or misrepresented.

TLDR: Corporations generally get the 'science' / soyence they pay for.

Nice list. Shame its all rubbish.

You spent six paragraphs building a case against vaccines and cited zero vaccine trials. Fujii: anesthesia. Boldt: IV fluids. Reuben: pain meds. Macchiarini: tracheal transplants. Four frauds, four completely different fields, and not one of them touched a vaccine. You copy-pasted a Wikipedia tour of research fraud and hoped nobody would check what the papers were actually about.

Your one vaccine example is Wakefield, and you torpedoed it yourself in your own post by admitting it wasn't even a double-blind RCT. Twelve kids. No control group. A guy taking £435,000 from lawyers suing vaccine makers while filing a patent on his own competing vaccine, and not disclosing either. That's not "the peer review process failed." That's a fraud who got caught, stripped of his license, and retracted. Cite it again and you're just advertising that you didn't read your own source.

...And here's the part that actually wrecks your whole post: every single case on your list was caught, exposed, and retracted by the same scientific process you're trying to discredit. You're holding up a list of "science catching liars and throwing them out" as proof that science can't be trusted. That's not an argument, that's simply you tripping over your own evidence.

"Corporations get the soyence they pay for" is the laziest line in the post. Nordic national health registries, VAERS, the UK Yellow Card scheme: publicly funded, no product to sell, nothing to gain from faking numbers, and they land on the same conclusions as the "corporate" trials. If it's all just fraud for money, walk us through the business model behind government agencies with no product doing the fraud for free.

Subprime mortgages were fraud, dressed up and sold as safe. By your reasoning that means your savings account is also a scam, because hey, same industry, same buildings, same word "bank" on the door. Nobody with a functioning brain makes that leap. A rotten product in one corner of an industry doesn't rot every product next to it. Same logic you're refusing to apply to your own list.

You want a real weak point in vaccine science? find one. This post isn't it. It's five fraud cases, four of which are irrelevant and one of which you disqualified yourself, dressed up as a takedown of an entire field of medicine - you've simply provided a yet another solid example of Brandolini's Law (aka Bullsh!t Asymmetry Principle) - the amount of energy and effort required to refute misinformation is an order of magnitude larger than the effort needed to produce it, and you're producing more of it than a cattle farm.

Here's the part that should bother you more than it seems to: every name on your list was caught, investigated, and retracted through the peer review and replication process you're using them to discredit. That's not a system failing. That's a system working, at a normal human pace.

Fraud exists, everyone understands that, no system is imperfect, everyone understand that - but they gets caught out by the very process you argue fails when other labs try to replicate the result and can't.

That mechanism is exactly what would catch large-scale vaccine data fraud too, and in decades of Nordic national registries, VAERS, UK Yellow Card data, and independent replications across dozens of countries with no shared funding, it hasn't.

So, all you've really managed to do is recycle five cases from other specialties and have not proved any evidence against vaccines or mRNA vaccines - you've just added copied and pasted the usual noise.

On 7/2/2026 at 7:23 PM, johng said:

I have not published any research on this..you can search yourself for what Dr.Robert Malone has said about the lipid nanoparticle technology..seeing as he was the 'inventor' of it I regard him as the

'eggspurt' have you researched what he has to say on the subject ?

Same for the senate hearings on adverse reactions

https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/2026/05/08/blockbuster-covid-19-vaccine-report/

come on people do your own research..wake up !!!!

I want to address this because you mentioned "come on people do your own research..wake up !!!"... while presenting a one sided argument that omits facts.

So here is what has been 'stated' / said by Dr.Robert Maole about the LNP tech, but firstly a quick but important caveat: the "inventor" title is contested. Malone did early foundational work in 1989 showing mRNA mixed with lipid droplets could get cells to produce protein, but the first lipid nanoparticle itself was actually developed by his collaborator Phil Felgner, and mainstream science writers note it took decades of further innovation from other labs to get to the actual COVID vaccines - So whole Maole did real early work in 1989, calling him "the inventor" is like crediting the Wright brothers with inventing the A380 - they got something off the ground first, but what actually flies today is a different machine built by generations of engineers after them.

Firstly I'll address what was 'said / claimed' by Maole:

Biodistribution claims: Malone has said LNPs leave the injection site and circulate through the body rather than staying at the deltoid muscle, based on a Japanese biodistribution study, accumulating in the spleen, bone marrow, liver, adrenal glands, and in particularly high concentrations in the ovaries. He's called for monitoring vaccine recipients for leukemia and lymphoma given the concentrations found in bone marrow and lymphatic tissue.

Regulatory/manufacturing concerns: More recently he's argued that residual DNA plasmid fragments delivered via the LNP formulations in Comirnaty and Spikevax present real and uncharacterised risk, and has said the products should be pulled from market until adequately tested, and has criticised FDA official Peter Marks's responses on this as unsupported, misleading, and not scientifically rigorous.

LNP toxicity generally: He and Jill Malone have written that LNPs and the positively charged lipids used in them don't occur naturally and their self-assembly and breakdown aren't well-controlled processes, and he's stated he could never overcome toxicity issues with lipid-based mRNA/DNA delivery in his own earlier work in the 1990s, which is part of why he shelved that approach.

It should also be worth noting his biodistribution/ovary claims are largely drawn from a single Japanese Pfizer biodistribution study in rats, not human data, and the leukemia/lymphoma link is Malone's own inference from tissue concentration, not an established finding in human epidemiological data.

Now I'll address what actually undercuts each of Malone's claims:

On "the LNPs go everywhere and pile up in the ovaries": This traces back to one Japanese biodistribution study, which was done in rats, not humans, using a radiolabeled tracer to track where the lipid component goes. The finding was real: highest concentrations at the injection site and draining lymph nodes, but detectable amounts in the liver, spleen, adrenal glands, and ovaries too. What Malone and others left out is scale and duration. The ovarian concentration was small relative to the injection site and liver, and follow-up studies designed to look at persistence found that LNP components and spike protein were transient, with no evidence of persistence beyond 1-2 weeks after injection.

The "manufacturing plant in the ovaries" framing that circulated from this data has been directly fact-checked as false by reviewers who note there's no evidence of increased adverse pregnancy outcomes or fertility effects in the real-world data collected since.

On human blood pharmacokinetics: A 2024 human study tracking actual vaccine mRNA and lipid levels in blood after a Moderna booster found peak levels at 1-2 days post-vaccination, with mRNA still detectable in only 37% of subjects by day 14-15. That's consistent with clearance, not persistent accumulation. It's a different picture from "circulates indefinitely and builds up in organs."

On the leukemia/lymphoma monitoring call: This is Malone's own inference from tissue concentration data, not a finding in actual surveillance data. Years of pharmacovigilance across VAERS, the UK Yellow Card scheme, and European databases haven't shown an elevated signal for leukemia or lymphoma tied to vaccination. If LNP accumulation in bone marrow were driving malignancy, you'd expect that to show up in population-level cancer registries by now, and it hasn't.

On the DNA plasmid fragment concern: The FDA and EMA have both addressed residual plasmid DNA levels as being within long-established regulatory limits for biologics, and regulatory reviewers have pushed back specifically on Malone's framing that this represents an unaddressed genotoxicity risk, saying existing genotoxicity and biodistribution data doesn't support that conclusion. Malone's position here is a minority one within the field, not something that mainstream reviewers have accepted as an open regulatory gap.

Also of key importance in this debate: in the interest of balance and fiarness: A recent scientific review of biodistribution studies makes the point that this remains a genuinely under-studied area overall, so "nothing to see here" isn't quite the right framing either.

The honest position is: some LNP does circulate beyond the injection site, that's established, but the claims about persistence, organ accumulation being dangerous, and cancer risk go well beyond what the data actually shows.

So.. Biodistribution happens, that part's true. Malone isn't wrong that LNPs reach the ovaries in tiny amounts. He's wrong about what that means, and that's the half of the story you left out. Follow-up studies show no persistence past 1-2 weeks, and years of surveillance data show no leukemia or lymphoma signal. Citing the data point while skipping the data that contradicts the conclusion isn't a rebuttal, it's cherry-picking.

And again - this is why these threads are exhausting - it take a lot longer to respond to missinformation, incomplete infirmation, cherry picked misrepresentative data than it does to make the initial misinformation claim in the first place.

I didn't want to reply with a simple 'one liner' - "your data is incomplete, dated and cherry picked" - but ultimately thats exactly what it is, and thats whats outlined above.

Edited July 5Jul 5 by richard_smith237

On 7/2/2026 at 1:23 PM, johng said:

I have not published any research on this..you can search yourself for what Dr.Robert Malone has said about the lipid nanoparticle technology..seeing as he was the 'inventor' of it I regard him as the

'eggspurt' have you researched what he has to say on the subject ?

Same for the senate hearings on adverse reactions

https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/2026/05/08/blockbuster-covid-19-vaccine-report/

come on people do your own research..wake up !!!!

I didn't say you had published research. I asked you to link to your research, as in where you got the information on which you based your comment. I guess you have done some. Or are you just talking rubbish?

Edited July 5Jul 5 by youreavinalaff

This thread has drawn a very good cross section of the scientifically illiterate, clickbait channeling clowns that have somehow coalesced on AN. A sad state of affairs for what started as such a useful expat forum.