The Case Against the mRNA Vaccines: Two New Studies and the Silence of the Authorities

In the long dispute over the so-called COVID-19 “vaccines,” the arguments are no longer about their temporary efficacy against infection. That debate has passed. What remains is the question of safety, and whether these injections should ever have been authorised for human use. For some years, evidence has been trickling out—fragmentary, suppressed, contested. But in 2025, the trickle has become a torrent. A landmark review earlier in the year by Nicolas Hulscher and colleagues laid down the foundation: that the risks of the injections “far outweigh theoretical benefits” and that global campaigns had failed to meet even the most basic standards of safety and efficacy. Now, two further studies have been published which go beyond cautious hedging. Their conclusion is simple: these products must be withdrawn.

The first, COVID-19 Injections: Harms and Damages, a Non-Exhaustive Conclusion, comes from Andrew Zywiec, M.D., with co-authors including Peter McCullough and Nicolas Hulscher. It appears in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Fall 2025, Vol. 30, No. 3). This journal, affiliated with the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), is not part of the glossy ecosystem of corporate science. Its critics call it contrarian, even “anti-vax.” But it has one advantage that The Lancet or NEJM do not: freedom from pharmaceutical patronage. It has, for example, published uncomfortable truths about opioid marketing and about the failures of coercive vaccination policy. The Zywiec paper can be read here: ResearchGate link.

The second, Regulatory and Safety Assessment of COVID-19 mRNA-LNP Genetic Vaccines in Japan: Evidence for Revocation of Approval and Market Withdrawal, is by Jun Ueda and Masanori Fukushima among others. It is published in Science, Public Health Policy and the Law (v8.2019–2025), an IPAK journal edited by James Lyons-Weiler. Again, detractors call it a sceptics’ echo chamber. But it is open-access yet peer-reviewed, and it is unafraid to print data mainstream outlets prefer to ignore. The study is available here: SPHPL link.

Together, these papers deepen the case made by Hulscher and colleagues in their earlier review, which documented autopsy-confirmed vaccine deaths and concluded bluntly that withdrawal was necessary. What they present is not a neat academic exercise. It is a bill of indictment.

The Zywiec study does not waste time. It insists that SARS-CoV-2 and the mRNA injections were not freaks of nature, but products of gain-of-function research. The furin cleavage site and HIV-like inserts are cited as hallmarks of design. The authors refer to the 2018 DEFUSE proposal by EcoHealth Alliance, which sketched out precisely such manipulations. NATO analysts are quoted rating SARS-CoV-2 as a top-tier bioweapon candidate. The implication is obvious: if a weapon was built, the “countermeasure” is part of the same project.

Whether one accepts this or not, the catalogue of harms is harder to dispute. The authors bring forward data from the U.S. Defense Medical Epidemiology Database. In 2023, myocarditis was still 154% above baseline. Pulmonary embolism was 44% higher. Cancers of the digestive organs were up 46%. The signal is not a statistical quirk; it is confirmed in autopsies, where spike protein production in cardiomyocytes has been found alongside irreversible scarring of the heart. In 325 autopsied cases, death was linked causally to the injection.

The reproductive findings are no less disturbing. Pfizer’s own post-marketing data showed miscarriage rates above 80% in early pregnancy. Stillbirths ran at 31 per 1,000. Neonatal deaths and complications in breastfeeding rose sharply. The CDC’s defence—Shimabukuro et al. (2021)—collapsed once its methods were corrected, the true miscarriage rate emerging at 82%, comparable to abortifacient drugs. That such figures were buried tells us much about the integrity of regulators.

Then there is immune collapse. In Florida, among 817 vaccine-injured retirees, over 70% showed signs of autoimmunity: new lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Guillain-Barré syndrome. Molecular mimicry and IgG4 class-switching are proposed as mechanisms, with the result that viral tolerance is induced and cancers accelerate, while latent viruses reactivate in more than 90% of cases.

The point is not that one or two rare syndromes appear. It is that a broad swathe of the immune system is deranged. The conclusion of the authors is unambiguous: “nearly every system of the human body” is disrupted.

The Japanese study is narrower in focus but just as devastating. It observes that 103 million Japanese citizens—79.5% of the population—took these products under emergency approval. Yet no nationwide survey of health injuries was ever carried out. Over 1,325 deaths were reported by 2021, but only 10% were autopsied.

The core charge is misclassification. The injections were described as vaccines, when they are in fact gene therapies. That mislabelling allowed regulators to bypass mandatory studies on biodistribution, carcinogenicity, and long-term safety. But the PMDA (Japan’s Medicines Agency) had pharmacokinetic data showing lipid nanoparticles accumulating in ovaries, bone marrow, and foetuses. This data was not disclosed.

Legally, this breaches Japan’s Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Act. Yet approval was extended, even to the Omicron monovalent shots, without new trials. The authors describe package inserts that failed to list adverse events already known, such as myocarditis. They accuse the authorities of manipulating data through Simpson’s Paradox—claiming benefit for the elderly while overall case fatality worsened with more doses.

The contamination issue is perhaps most serious. Residual DNA, including SV40 promoter sequences, was found in nanogram quantities. The modification of nucleosides with N1-methylpseudouridine, meant to stabilise the product, risks frameshifting and aberrant protein synthesis. The comparison is made with earlier recalls—sorivudine, withdrawn after a few dozen deaths; the MMR vaccine, pulled for less. By that standard, withdrawal is long overdue.

In the Japanese legal framework, Articles 74-2 and 75-3 of the PMD Act allow revocation where concealed harms and failure of post-market surveillance are proven. The study argues that these thresholds have already been crossed.

What both studies emphasise is precedent. No one pretends that medicines are free of risk. But the normal rule is that a product is withdrawn once clear harm emerges. With sorivudine, it was withdrawn after 15 confirmed deaths. With the rotavirus vaccine Rotashield, it was recalled after about 100 cases of intussusception. With Vioxx, after evidence of elevated heart attack risk.

Here we are talking about hundreds of thousands of adverse event reports, tens of thousands of deaths, excess mortality curves that mirror rollout schedules, autopsies confirming mechanism, and laboratory evidence of contamination. Yet withdrawal is not even debated within mainstream circles. Instead, anyone raising the subject is ridiculed or deplatformed.

This is not medicine. It is politics.

Critics will object that the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons and Science, Public Health Policy and the Law are not Nature or The Lancet. That is true. They operate on the fringes, and their authors—McCullough, Fukushima, Lyons-Weiler—are already branded “dissidents.”

But the obvious rejoinder is: why must such findings be published there? Because mainstream journals refuse them. The incentive structures are plain. Funding and careers—these are bound up with compliance to government and corporate narratives. When The Lancet can publish fraudulent studies, as with Surgisphere in 2020, but refuses autopsy series of vaccine deaths, one sees the pattern.

Independence does not guarantee truth, but dependence guarantees silence.

Even if one accepted the claim that the injections still offer marginal benefits, the ethical case against them is overwhelming. Military personnel were coerced into taking them, under threat of dishonourable discharge. Children and young adults, at no serious risk from COVID-19 itself, were pressured into compliance for the sake of “protecting others.” Pregnant women were assured of safety on the basis of manipulated data.

The U.S. Code on informed consent, international conventions, and Japan’s own constitutional rights to health and self-determination were ignored. The Zywiec paper points explicitly to breaches of the Biological Weapons Convention, given the gain-of-function origins. The Ueda paper points to breaches of the PMD Act.

The conclusion is not simply that mistakes were made. It is that laws were broken.

What Japan’s experience shows is that the problem is not national incompetence but a global pattern of suppression. High uptake was followed by rising excess mortality. Dose-dependent spikes in cancer have been documented. IgG4 shifts were ignored. Contamination was dismissed.

Everywhere, the same excuses are given: correlation is not causation; surveillance systems overreport; benefits outweigh risks. But the burden of proof should lie with those mandating the product, not those questioning it. As Hulscher’s earlier review noted, these injections are “experimental gene therapies with bioweapon-like traits.” If that is true, withdrawal is not a radical demand. It is the bare minimum.

Two further studies now add their voices to what should already have been obvious. The Zywiec team shows the breadth of harm—cardiac, reproductive, immunological, oncological. The Ueda team shows the regulatory abdication—misclassification, concealment, contamination. Neither study is exhaustive. Both insist more evidence remains to be uncovered. But enough is already known.

The vaccines are not vaccines. They are experimental gene therapies, rushed to market and defended with propaganda. Worse, they were often imposed without the ghost of consent. Their harms exceed their benefits. Their approval violates law. Their continued distribution is indefensible.

That governments refuse to admit this tells us more about politics than about science. Just as in Southport the authorities punished men for speaking truth about immigration, and just as the Home Office now calls “two-tier policing” an extremist narrative, so here: it is not the harm that matters to them, but the preservation of their system.

Eighty-one thousand physicians and scientists, 240 officials, 17 professional organisations, and countless ordinary citizens have signed the Hope Accord demanding withdrawal. That number will grow.

The question is not whether these injections will be withdrawn. It is whether the withdrawal will come in time to prevent still more damage—or whether our rulers will cling to lies until the society on which they are parasites collapses beneath them.

Bibliography

Zywiec, A., Mavrakakis, I., McCullough, P., Hulscher, N., Kheriaty, A., Marik, P., Thorp, J., Villa, M., Rixey, C., Macie, E., & Hudson, A. (2025). COVID-19 Injections: Harms and Damages, a Non-Exhaustive Conclusion. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 30(3), 80-83. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395021810_COVID-19_Injections_Harms_and_Damages_a_Non-Exhaustive_Conclusion
Ueda, J., Gibo, M., Kikuchi, T., Hirai, Y., Miyokawa, M., Shima, I., Kodama, S., & Fukushima, M. (2025). Regulatory and Safety Assessment of COVID-19 mRNA-LNP Genetic Vaccines in Japan: Evidence for Revocation of Approval and Market Withdrawal. Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, v8.2019-2025. Available at: https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/regulatory-and-safety-assessment-of-covid-19-mrna-lnp-genetic-vaccines-in-japan-evidence-for-revocation-of-approval-and-market-withdrawal/
Hulscher, N., Bowden, M. T., & McCullough, P. A. (2025). Review: Calls for Market Removal of COVID-19 Vaccines Intensify as Risks Far Outweigh Theoretical Benefits. Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, v6.2019-2025.

Additional references: