Hiding Data Accentuates Concerns About mRNA Vaccines

by | May 31, 2022

One of my favourite sayings is “the truth does not contradict itself”. Scientists are supposed to conduct research with objectivity and integrity. Results should be fully and transparently disclosed. Otherwise, it is not trustworthy. Evidence of failure to disclose important results draws into question all additional research on the given product.

I just finished reviewing one of the documents released by the United States Food and Drug Administration as part of their court-ordered data dump. The original timeline for release of the documents was 75 years.

Specifically, I reviewed pharmacokinetic testing of a surrogate ‘vaccine’ that is akin to Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 inoculation. In this case, the lipid nanoparticle (LNP) formulation was the same as the ‘vaccine’ being used in people. However, instead of carrying mRNA encoding the spike protein from the virus known as SARS-CoV-2, the LNPs carried the genetic blueprint for a protein called luciferase. [Remarkably, the biodistribution of mRNA ‘vaccines’ encoding the spike protein has never been evaluated despite their global use.]

Luciferase is the protein that allows fireflies to glow. When the mRNA gets into cells and those cells start manufacturing the luciferase, this can be externally imaged without harming the animal if the cells are relatively close to the skin and/or express lots of the protein. This is a way to see where one would expect the spike protein to be expressed in the body and for how long after injection into a muscle.

As I was going through the document, I was aghast at how much redaction had been done. Most of the relevant data were blotted out. It is the most redacted document that I have seen so far. Many months ago, I had been sent an earlier, leaked version of the document. Interestingly, I noticed that important data that had been redacted were for results that contradicted the key conclusions of the study. So, I pulled up both documents side-by-side and went through them very carefully. To my dismay, I found the following…

Figure 1A was supposed to show the expression of luciferase over time in mice that had been injected with the surrogate ‘vaccine’. Instead, this is what was published in the official report (the red text was my addition):


Note the single picture in the bottom left-hand corner. This shows the luciferase signal in two of three mice that had been injected. The ‘vaccine’ was injected into the calf muscle (the one at the back of your lower leg). It is standard practice to do intramuscular injections into the larger muscles of both hind limbs of mice. In people we usually do intramuscular injections into a single shoulder muscle. The problem here is that the leaked version of the earlier report had this figure…


I noticed that the image at the top of the right column of images (the luciferase group at six hours post-injection) appeared to be almost identical to the only image in the official report, but it was not cropped as much. This is very important because the only anatomical location that the ‘vaccine’ reportedly went to outside of the injection site was the liver. So, let’s do a head-to-head comparison between the two images…


It looks to me like the images are identical, but with the signal dialed down a bit in the version on the left (which was from the official report). These mice are on their bellies, so the imaging is of their backs. I can tell you from years of experience working with mice that this pattern is suggestive of readily detectable expression of the mRNA-encoded protein in the kidneys, with possible involvement of the adrenal glands. This would be consistent with the rat biodistribution study that I previously commented on.

Why were the images cropped to exclude evidence of biodistribution to the kidneys/adrenal glands ?!?

The rest of figure 1 from the official report looks like this…


Note the conclusion that “reporter expression dropped to background levels”. This suggests that the protein encoded by the mRNA ‘vaccine’ could no longer be detected in the mice after nine days. This official version only shows the amount of signal for the mice that got injected with the carrier solution only (i.e., it did not contain the ‘vaccine’; so, these mice were what we call ‘negative controls’).

Here is this graph placed alongside the one from the earlier leaked document…


Why was the fact that the signal did NOT reach baseline redacted ?!?

Finally, I want to comment on the only biodistribution data that were disclosed in the official report…


The official report only disclosed biodistribution to the liver. Note that for this imaging, the mice were belly up, since the liver is relatively close to the belly side of a mouse, and the signal spans the width of the belly, which aligns with the shape, size, and location of the liver (unlike the punctuated signals on the left and right of the back of the mice, which was suggestive of involvement of the kidneys).

One quick note: It would have been nice to have images of the upper bodies of the mice to determine whether or not there were any signals in that region, especially the head.

Many ‘experts’ seem to think that distribution of a mRNA vaccine to the liver is a good thing because it has been assumed that degradation and removal from the body occurs here. However, these data demonstrate substantial acute (short-term) expression throughout the liver of the protein encoded by the mRNA blueprint in the ‘vaccine’ (in this case, the blueprint encoded luciferase; the signal of which is shown as the blue/purple shaded areas in this image).

For a mRNA vaccine encoding the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, this would mean the liver cells would be covered with the spike protein. The first dose would induce antibody responses. This means that subsequent doses would force liver cells to express the spike protein in the presence of spike-specific antibodies. This would be expected to result in killing of self liver cells; a form of autoimmunity. This could potentially put some individuals at risk of developing autoimmune diseases such as autoimmune hepatitis.

Here are my two take-aways

  1. It is unacceptable to have mRNA ‘vaccine’-encoded proteins expressed on liver cells. This makes them a target for autoimmune-mediated destruction if protein-specific antibodies and/or T cells are present (like what would be expected with a second or ‘booster’ dose of a mRNA ‘vaccine’).
  2. It is VERY disturbing to see key data redacted from the official version of the report that was released to the public (and only after a court order to do so). The redacted data contradict the conclusions that were drawn. This brings the integrity of data disclosure into question.


  1. Properly designed and comprehensive pharmacokinetic/biodistribution studies need to be conducted with mRNA ‘vaccines’. The results of these studies need to be fully and transparently disclosed to the public if they are to be able to make properly informed decisions regarding these inoculations.
  2. An investigation needs to be launched into why contradictory data were not disclosed to the scientific community. Withholding important results is not OK. Also, there needs to be an investigation into who was responsible for redacting this particular document. Why were non-proprietary data redacted? This caused alarming data to be hidden from the public.

Subscribe to COVID Chronicles

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Contact Us

Privacy Policy


© 2023 FM Media Enterprises, Ltd.