Page 5 - Dr Stephanie Seneff - Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID - 19

Two other vaccines that are now being administered under emergency use are the Johnson &
Johnson vaccine and the AstraZeneca vaccine. Both are based on a vector DNA technology that is
very different from the technology used in the mRNA vaccines. While these vaccines were also
rushed to market with insufficient evaluation, they are not the subject of this paper so we will just
describe briefly how they are developed. These vaccines are based on a defective version of an
adenovirus, a double-stranded DNA virus that causes the common cold. The adenovirus has been
genetically modified in two ways, such that it cannot replicate due to critical missing genes, and its
genome has been augmented with the DNA code for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. AstraZeneca’s
production involves an immortalized human cell line called Human Embryonic Kidney (HEK) 293,
which is grown in culture along with the defective viruses (Dicks et al., 2012). The HEK cell line
was genetically modified back in the 1970s by augmenting its DNA with segments from an
adenovirus that supply the missing genes needed for replication of the defective virus (Louis et al.,
1997). Johnson & Johnson uses a similar technique based on a fetal retinal cell line. Because the
manufacture of these vaccines requires genetically modified human tumor cell lines, there is the
potential for human DNA contamination as well as many other potential contaminants.

The media has generated a great deal of excitement about this revolutionary technology, but there
are also concerns that we may not be realizing the complexity of the body’s potential for reactions to
foreign mRNA and other ingredients in these vaccines that go far beyond the simple goal of tricking
the body into producing antibodies to the spike protein.

In the remainder of this paper, we will first describe in more detail the technology behind mRNA
vaccines. We devote several sections to specific aspects of the mRNA vaccines that concern us with
regard to potential for both predictable and unpredictable negative consequences. We conclude with
a plea to governments and the pharmaceutical industry to consider exercising greater caution in the
current undertaking to vaccinate as many people as possible against SARS-CoV-2.

Technology of mRNA Vaccines

In the early phase of nucleotide-based gene therapy development, there was considerably more
effort invested in gene delivery through DNA plasmids rather than through mRNA technology.
Two major obstacles for mRNA are its transient nature due to its susceptibility to breakdown by
RNAses, as well as its known power to invoke a strong immune response, which interferes with its
transcription into protein. Plasmid DNA has been shown to persist in muscle up to six months,
whereas mRNA almost certainly disappears much sooner. For vaccine applications, it was originally
thought that the immunogenic nature of RNA could work to an advantage, as the mRNA could
double as an adjuvant for the vaccine, eliminating the arguments in favor of a toxic additive like
aluminum. However, the immune response results not only in an inflammatory response but also
the rapid clearance of the RNA and suppression of transcription. So this idea turned out not to be
practical.

There was an extensive period of time over which various ideas were explored to try to keep the
mRNA from breaking down before it could produce protein. A major advance was the realization
that substituting methyl-pseudouridine for all the uridine nucleotides would stabilize RNA against
degradation, allowing it to survive long enough to produce adequate amounts of protein antigen

International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(1), May 10, 2021 Page | 393