A Specialist’s Account: mRNA Risks, the Covid-19 Vaccine and Ethical Responsibility

Dear Commissioners,

I have been a health professional for over 25 years and have degrees in science (biochemistry and cellular and molecular biology), dentistry, medicine and a clinical doctorate in my chosen specialist field of orthodontics. I have authored and/or co-authored five peer reviewed publications related to my doctoral thesis, all in the field of applied molecular biology. Fortuitously, molecular biology has held central significance to the pandemic on many levels, the infamous PCR test, the design of the vaccine, the concerns about SARS-CoV-2 and its emergence as the product of gain of function research; these are all tools and adaptations of the science of molecular biology.

If there has been one problem that has plagued the communications of the pandemic, it has been the inability of academics from distinct educational backgrounds to communicate plainly and directly with one another, and achieve meaningful dialogue. I’ll endeavour to render my comments accessible, in the hope that the persisting chasm of understanding, can be bridged.

When I first heard that mRNA technology would be deployed clinically as the basis for the Covid-19 vaccines, I was immediately concerned. Science is built through consilience, or the methodical assembly of streams of data emerging from a variety of disciplines, which converge to build a congruent picture, or at least it’s closest approximation. I was unaware of the existence of a body of work which had taken mRNA technology from the bench top, as an experimental modality, to the clinic. My review of the literature revealed only limited use of the technology, in small groups of patients and in situations which would be deemed otherwise hopeless. I could find nothing that would support the deployment of such a technology en masse, to an otherwise healthy population. When I heard Stephane Bancel, the CEO of Moderna, describing the re-writing of the baseline programming of cells, my concerns were only heightened, his statement revealed a naïve and simplistic hubris, which failed to recognise the immeasurable complexity of the systems to which he was referring.

In the lead-up to the 2020 election, I could see incoming vaccine being pushed as a political issue in the leadership debates, and had noticed the excessive brandishing of the term “safe and effective”. For those of us who have studied the more chequered aspects of medicines’ history, this has been a marketing slogan, which has seen recurrent use. Perhaps most famously, in the marketing of Distaval, a drug better known as thalidomide. Without dwelling on the point excessively, “Safe and Effective” meant as little then, as it does now.

In an attempt to characterise the potential risks associated with a vaccine of this design, I scoured the medical and scientific literature with the aim of characterising the spike protein, to determine whether the spike protein was itself a virulence factor, which had an active role in the disease process of Covid-19, or whether it was more of an “innocent bystander”, with the disease process being otherwise attributed. My findings were a source of considerable consternation, as early animal studies on the vascular effects of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the hamster model, showed that far from being non-toxic, the spike protein is a primary pathophysiological effector of the disease process in Covid-19. Researchers had created a “pseudo-virus” which was absent all viral antigens except for the spike protein. Experimental animals exposed to the “pseudo-virus” experienced lung and arterial injury, with cellular injury in the vascular endothelium extending to the mitochondrial level. Researchers concluded that spike protein alone was sufficient to cause disease.^1,2 Another study focused on the immunogenicity of the spike protein, and it’s potential to induce autoimmunity the through molecular mimicry. The analysis confirmed that all but one, of the epitopes present on the spike protein, were putative autoantigens, suggesting the presence of a heightened risk of unintended autoimmunity, in association with administration of these vaccines.³

There was little doubt in my mind that a vaccine based on the spike protein, harboured the potential to cause significant harm. When I revealed my findings to my then business partner, a man of similar training, he concluded that the government must have decided that it was prepared to sacrifice the lives of some, for the “greater good”. My response was specific to the context of our conversation; “if we’re going to play Russian roulette, then we should probably play it with the virus, at least then, any deaths are an accident of nature and not by the meddling of our own hand”. My point here is that the potential for harm was so obvious to those of us who have spent our lives immersed in the language of molecular science.

On the 15th of November 2021, I was mandated out of my own practice for declining to take the Covid-19 vaccine. I had started the practice in 2008, investing 13 years of my life, enduring the usual financial hardship, blood, sweat and tears, that comes with starting a business. I had acquired a business partner, and we had built the practice through word of mouth, relying on clinical outcomes and the service we provide to our patients, to build our reputation. I was forced to sell my share of the practice to my former business partner due to the time constraints dictated by the mandates.

It might be asked, why I would take such extreme measures. Aside from my general concerns about the safety of the vaccines, I have a family history of multiple sclerosis, and I already had seen documented cases of people developing multiple sclerosis in tight proximity to being vaccinated with the Covid-19 vaccines. So, for me, it simply wasn’t worth the risk. My training has equipped me with the capability of making decisions about my own health, while considering my unique susceptibilities, within the balance of risk and benefit. I took the additional measure of attending a consultation with my GP, however, she was incapable of providing me with sufficient information to meet the standards required for informed consent. She was simply unable to answer my most basic questions about the vaccine and could only refer me to a simplistic, self-referential and circular government website, that similarly, fell short of the requisite standard. The acceptance of a medical intervention, by imposition and without informed consent was completely antithetical to the standard of ethics and care, that has defined and guided my career. As clinicians, we are held to exacting standards, the same courtesy was not extended to us, or to the population of New Zealand when it came to the mandating of these vaccines. The vaccine mandates were accompanied by a number of irregularities that were simply irreconcilable.

Firstly, we had already successfully operated the practice without incident, whilst SARS-CoV-2 was actively circulating in the community using simple screening measures. We were never given the option of continuing to operate as we had, despite our unblemished record. Secondly, it rapidly became clear from the scientific literature and the international media, that the vaccines were having minimal impact on transmission beyond the short-term, negating any rational basis for the imposition of mandates. It was later determined that this resulted from the rapidly waning immunity produced through use of the mRNA platform, the high mutation rate of the virus and finally through the design of the vaccine itself. The SARS-CoV-2 virus, like other respiratory viruses enters the body through mucosal barrier of the nasopharynx, the vaccine was not specifically designed to enhance mucosal immunity, allowing the virus to infect the mucosa and proliferate, setting the stage for transmission in vaccinated individuals. Finally, in the short interval prior to exiting my practice, the vaccine roll out had begun. I had already started to observe the accumulating adverse events in my own patients and in the staff in our building.

I include examples of verified cases:

Male age ~40, had a history of bilateral keratoconus with resultant corneal transplants. He awakened one morning after receiving the vaccine with reduced visual acuity, he described his vision as “like looking through a film of Vaseline” when he attended the eye clinic they asked specifically if he had received the vaccine within the last two weeks. Naturally he responded that he had and was curious as to why they would ask. Evidently, they had seen several patients with failing corneal grafts, who had taken the vaccine within 2 weeks of the graft failure and even had a paper from the international peer reviewed literature which documented the phenomenon. As a member of a small well-known group of patients he was furious that it hadn’t been contacted and forewarned, he would not have taken the vaccine had he known that he was risking his vision.

Female age ~ 30 acute admissions to the local psychiatric unit, she had no prior psychiatric history but developed, post-vaccination psychosis. This was readily acknowledged by her consultants, who had seen other such cases.

Male age~ 21 vaccine induced myocarditis.

Male age ~ 7 Vaccination induced seizure, this occurred at the time of vaccination in a previously well child with no prior history of seizures of any kind. His paediatrician attempted to pressure his mother into a second dose, fortunately his GP had the good sense to intervene, helping his mother progress a complaint against the paediatrician.

Female ~ 57 Vaccine induced myocarditis; this poor woman was hospitalised for 2 weeks.

Female ~ 18 Under investigation for absence seizures at the time I left the practice, she had started experiencing the bizarre episodes the day after receiving her first dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

To clarify, this list includes 6 people from a clinical population of 600, which were identified over a 2-week period, I have only included events that were confirmed as vaccine related. My own observations are consistent with those of Fraiman et al, who re-analysed the data from the original Pfizer and Moderna trials, finding that the risk of serious adverse events of special interest, surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization, relative to the placebo groups.⁴ Fraiman also observed that many of the side-effects of the vaccine, are obscured, as they represent an exacerbation of events which are already common (stroke, myocardial infarction, thrombo-embolic events, malignancy). This raises the question as to how such events may be ascertained.

This question is addressed in a report by German pathologist Dr Arne Burkhardt, who set-out with the intention of allaying fears about the safety of Covid-19 vaccines. He assembled an interdisciplinary team including nine international pathologists. They analysed and presented autopsy findings from a cohort of 15 subjects, autopsy findings for fourteen of the fifteen subjects implicated the vaccine as being significant to their passing. The cohort included subjects of various ages, all of which had passed unexpectedly outside of the hospital setting within 7 days to 6 months of receiving one of the Covid-19 vaccines available in Germany. The analysis of tissue specimens confirmed the presence of wide spread vascular and para-vascular inflammation (vasculitis and para-vasculitis). Inflammation was present in the aortic specimens of 10 subjects with 6 specimens showing evidence of aortic dissection. Inflammatory lesions were associated with the presence of the spike protein which was detected through specific immuno-histochemical staining. The role of direct Covid-19 infection was excluded through the use of a specific SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid immuno-histochemical staining. All specimens in the series had negative nucleocapsid immuno-histochemistry, indicating that the observed changes were associated with the vaccine and not Covid-19. The observed vascular injuries are lamentably reminiscent of those documented in the early animal studies discussed, supra vide.⁵

These findings were corroborated in a separate case study, which reported on the autopsy findings for a 76-year-old man with known Parkinson’s disease, who passed within 3 weeks of receiving a third dose of a Covid-19 vaccine. The man had been vaccinated with a mixed vaccination protocol using two different Covid-19 vaccines. His third and final dose, was a second dose the Pfizer BNT162b mRNA vaccine. The man was referred for autopsy by his family after he had exhibited remarkable behavioural and psychological changes and a rapid deterioration in his motor capabilities, leading to wheel chair confinement. Autopsy specimens confirmed the presence of both multi-focal encephalitis and myocarditis, with inflammation being particularly apparent in the small blood vessels. Immuno-histochemical staining confirmed that spike protein could be detected in association within the inflammatory lesions in the brain and heart, while immuno-histochemistry for the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein was absent. These findings once again support the attribution of these changes to the vaccine and not to direct Covid-19 infection.⁶ My attempts to confirm the use of specific and determinative immune-histochemical staining methods in New Zealand, has been met with the usual level of evasion that has come to characterise communication, on matters related to the pandemic. My direct discussions with pathologists, would indicate that such methods are not being employed at autopsy.

Since leaving the practice in 2021, I have met numerous people suffering from the disabling side-effects of the Covid-19 vaccines. As my social circle consists of consultant medical practitioners and dental practitioners, I hear many stories behind closed doors. It seems that the vast majority of adverse events remain unreported, due to perceived threat to the livelihoods of medical practitioners who fall afoul of the sanctioned narratives of the Medical Council.

Perhaps most concerning, is the immense loss of trust in our institutions resulting from the policies of the Covid era, a significant proportion of the New Zealand population, no longer trust our government, the medical establishment or the judiciary. I fear the pandemic era has left irreparable scars, scars that remain strangely invisible to the occupants of our ivory towers.

Prior to the pandemic, I myself had mistakenly believed that as New Zealand citizens we enjoyed something approximating unalienable rights, I hadn’t considered that our basic rights could be set-aside so readily under the banner of justifiable limitation, or that a public health intervention which was, and still is experimental, could be deemed otherwise by our institutions, with such rights limiting effect. It was almost as if the institutions, and they alone, were availed of some omniscient sentient capacity, somehow now unavailable to those of us who have spent our lives training specifically in these disciplines. If there is anything that has diminished the credibility of the institutions in the eyes of a sceptical New Zealand public, it is this.

I have kept my submission brief and have attempted to capture a composite of personal experience and science. There are many scientific issues that I have omitted in an attempt to provide something that is readable to non-scientists. In concluding, I will make one final comment. The troubling truth about mRNA technology is that basic understanding of essentials such as biodistribution and dose remain obscure. While the quantity of the mRNA in an injection may be determined within limits, this is not the end product, in this sense mRNA technology operates more like a pro-drug. The end product is the antigen (spike protein) encoded within the transcript, and we have no idea of the effective dose of this antigen in any given individual, or the range of tissues in which it will be expressed. An intervention for which we have failed to characterise the most basic pharmacokinetic parameters, such as dose and distribution, is by its very definition experimental. Science has never been about mass deployment, and at its foundation, science is an observational discipline. The real science occurs in the observational period after an intervention has been given, but when the sentinels responsible for making the critical observations have been silenced, I ask you to consider, deeply, the impact of this on the quality of the observations being made?

Thank you for considering my submission.

Kindest Regards,

Dr Mark Pinkerton
BSc, BHB, BDS, DClinDent(Orth), MOrthRCSEd, MRACDS(Orth),