Are patents nearing expiration the reason why Big Pharma chose to use mRNA technology for covid?

For covid vaccines, they could have chosen to use relatively well-known existing technology, but they didn’t.  Instead, they used mRNA, an unknown technology with zero safety profile.  Why?

To find an answer, Jonathan Engler finds following the money usually gets closer to the truth. “In this regard … before 2020 pharma / biotech was struggling with a dearth of new ideas and many blockbuster products under pressure from pending patent expirations,” he notes.

Design Choices Made for the Injections aka “Covid Vaccines” Point Towards An Agenda Unrelated To Health

By Jonathan Engler

I am here reproducing (with some changes) a point I made last year in THIS tweet.

I need to make it clear from the outset that – as stated elsewhere – I don’t believe there was a novel virus causing a pandemic of a novel disease, and thus there was never any justification for any novel treatments or vaccines.

But let’s pretend both these things (neither of which I believe) are true:

• there was a pandemic of a novel virus with a spike protein expressed on its surface¹
• getting the body to generate antibodies to that protein is both necessary and desirable for health²

The stated purpose of the mRNA platform is to generate a small bit of that viral protein so that the body’s immune system can develop antibodies against it and fight off infection once the virus is encountered.³

This leads to a serious question which needs to be asked.

The mRNA platform transfects cells throughout the body (since the lipid nanoparticles, LNPs, go everywhere) and generates foreign protein⁴ in uncontrolled and uncontrollable quantities for an unknown and uncontrollable duration.

Since transfected cells then get destroyed by the body’s immune system, this is inherently dangerous.⁵

However, there was always a much safer means of priming the body against specific viral proteins.

Protein subunit vaccines – e.g. the recombinant hepatitis B vaccine – have been around for decades. They use yeast cells to make the antigen. Their use involves the injection of a fixed and controlled quantity of the antigen. Much is known about their safety and the “known unknowns” are much less likely to be consequential to safety.

So: why was the mRNA platform selected instead?

They could have made the chosen viral protein using the existing subunit manufacturing technology.

When there was a choice between a relatively well-known technology with a good safety profile and an unknown, complex technology with zero safety profile, they chose the latter.

Everyone will have their pet theories as to the answer to this. For myself, I generally think that following the money usually gets you close to the truth, and in this regard, it is to be noted that before 2020 pharma / biotech was struggling with a dearth of new ideas and many blockbuster products under pressure from pending patent expirations.

But … they had this shiny new platform technology, adaptable (in their eyes) to so many use cases ….

Notes:

• ¹ See HERE and HERE.
• ² Antibodies are not the whole story with respect to immunity, and especially for a respiratory virus they aren’t even more than a tiny fraction of it.
• ³ Once it was clear that whatever “covid” was, these injections didn’t stop the illness, the storyline flipped to “but at least they prevent serious illness.”
• ⁴ As a result of the frameshift issue, it looks like in fact an admixture of many proteins might be being made, not just “spike.”
• ⁵ Not to mention the toxicity of the LNPs themselves.

About the Author

Jonathan Engler, MB ChB DipPharmMed LLB, is a British healthcare entrepreneur who is medically and legally qualified.  He initially trained in medicine, moving into the pharmaceutical sector where he worked on an international programme for a heart failure drug, designing and analysing clinical trials.  He then established a business which became a world leader in using IT to co-ordinate and automate several clinical trial processes. Having sold that business, Jonathan then retrained as a barrister where he worked for a few years before moving back into business.

He is a member of the Health Advisory & Recovery Team (“HART Group”) and publishes articles on a Substack page ‘Jonathan’s Substack’ which you can subscribe to and follow HERE.