World Council for Health Raises Serious Concerns About 100-Day Self-Replicating ‘Vaccines’

A statement from the WCH Health & Science Team.

This statement was drafted by WCH Health & Science Team including Team Lead, Christof Plothe, DO, Prof. Karina Acevedo-Whitehouse, and Dr Tess Lawrie.

The World Council for Health has very serious concerns about the 100-day, self-replicating GMO technology being developed in the guise of ‘vaccines’.

With the endorsement of the World Health Organization of novel 100-day GMO ‘vaccine’ technology, the production of self-replicating ‘vaccine’ products has been enabled by Arcalis in Fukushima, Japan.  The company website proudly announces that it is manufacturing mRNA drugs in 100 days. See below:

An image from the Arcalis company website. Would you feel safe to be given a vaccine that took 100 days to design and manufacture?

What are self-replicating ‘vaccines’?

A self-replicating ‘vaccine’ is a pharmaceutical product that utilises gene therapy technology based on ribonucleic acid (RNA). The difference with the mRNA ‘vaccines’ that have been used during the COVID-19 pandemic is that the latter contain nanolipids that surround synthetic RNA molecules that encode an antigen (e.g. spike protein, in the case of the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’) that is intended to stimulate a specific immune response. Provided that the synthetic RNA is not reverse transcribed to DNA and is integrated in the cells’ genome (Alden et al., 2022, Doerfler et al., 2021), the foreign material should be degraded within the cell after some time[1].

However, self-replicating ‘vaccines’ contain synthetic mRNA that encodes a given antigen; it also contains mRNA that encodes an enzyme whose function is to copy the foreign mRNA. This means that the self-replicating ‘vaccines’ can continue to generate copies of the antigen-encoding mRNA for unlimited time. This allows the transfected cells to achieve a sustained production of the intended antigen, which has been hypothesised to enhance the immune response and increase the effectiveness of the ‘vaccine’ over time (Démoulins, 2024).

However, these alleged benefits have not been established experimentally. Furthermore, there is evidence that sustained antigen exposure can lead to a decreased immune response, as it can lead to unresponsiveness of lymphocyte subpopulations (Jelly-Gibbs et al., 2005; Jelly-Gibbs et al., 2000), as is known to occur during chronic viral infections (e.g. Barathan et al., 2018). In reality, optimal immune function is achieved with a short period of antigen exposure (Blair et al., 2011), while sustained antigen exposure can lead to antigenic tolerance, anergy or lymphocyte exhaustion (Anderson et al., 2006).

In addition, although the use of self-replicating mRNA for vaccine candidates was proposed thirty years ago (Zhou et al., 1994), the technology has never been used outside of pre-clinical and clinical trials as gene therapy against cancer and some infectious diseases, and even these trials started only a few years ago (Wagner & Mutschler 2023, Pollock et al., 2022). At the time of writing this article, no product based on self-amplifying mRNA has been authorized or approved by the FDA or the EMA.

However, it is likely that this may change soon: early in 2024, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare granted approval for ARCT-154, a self-amplifying mRNA (also known as sa-mRNA or sr-mRNA) COVID-19 vaccine[2]. It is therefore important to note that self-replicating mRNA ‘vaccines’ are still in the early stages of development and evaluation.

Why is this important?

Some may argue that given the technological advances of our time, scientists can quickly determine whether a new product is safe and effective or not. However, regardless of the available technology, the only way to ensure long term safety (such as effects after five or ten years, or transgenerational effects, or effects on foetal development) is to study the product over time. No technology, however modern, can accelerate the time frame needed to ensure safety.

The self-replicating mRNA ‘vaccines’ are being heralded as a game-changer given that they are intending to design and manufacture such products in 100 days[3].

Beyond the risk of quality control problems due to rapid production, as occurred for the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’, reflected as differences in vaccine lots (Fürst et al., 2024) and undeclared elements that could be industrial contaminants (McKernan et al., 2023, Krutzke et al., 2022, BMJ, 2021),in general, novel genetic drug products like these require 15 years of monitoring and assessment to meet the required safety standards. It is thus simply not possible for these new self-replicating GMO products that are manufactured within 100-days to be declared safe for use any time soon.

We have already seen with the COVID-19 mRNA products that it is not a good idea to give people’s bodies a genetic recipe to make a foreign protein as it can lead to a variety of serious, debilitating diseases and, even, sudden death (Hülscher et al., 2024, Fraiman et al., 2022). However, the safety concerns go beyond the foreign protein that transfected cells produce; the synthetic mRNA is toxic to the cells and can lead to autoinflammatory and autoimmune conditions (Acevedo-Whitehouse & Bruno, 2023; Valdes Angues & Perea Bustos, 2023, Seneff et al., 2022). This can help explain the unprecedented number of adverse reactions that have been reported to official monitoring systems such as VAERS, Eudravigilance and Vigiaccess.

Another image from the Arcalis website. Are you comfortable being injected with a 'vaccine' that was created in less than a month?

What are the potential dangers of self-amplifying mRNA technology?

Self-replicating pharmaceutical GMO products are a very new and untested technology, with serious potential risks and concerns. Some of the dangers identified include:

Unintended genetic consequences: Self-replicating ‘vaccines’ involve the introduction of foreign genetic material into the body. There is therefore a possibility that the self-replicating RNA could interact with other genetic material in the body, including human chromosomes, with unexpected consequences, including altering the genetic make-up of the individual and their offspring.

Unintended protein production: Intracellular translation of synthetic mRNA molecules can lead to a process known as ribosomal frame-shifting, in which truncated or modified proteins can be produced (Mulroney et al., 2023). This can have serious health consequences, including autoimmune reactions. Furthermore, the alphavirus RNA polymerase, which is the element that is included in the self-replicating ‘vaccines’ (Low et al., 2022) has low fidelity (Poirier et al., 2016), meaning that in every replication cycle, there are likely to be errors (mutations) in the copied sequences, leading to aberrant proteins being produced.

Safety concerns: The mRNA ‘vaccine’ platforms are inherently unsafe and have not been subjected to long term safety studies (Halma et al., 2023) or to experimental studies on genotoxicity, mutagenicity, genomic integration or genomic instability (Acevedo-Whitehouse & Bruno, 2023). Self-replicating ‘vaccines’ are likely to pose the same dangers but have the added problem that they include viral RNA polymerase (Tews, 2017) which perpetuates the production of the antigen-encoding mRNA.

Ethical considerations: With self-replicating ‘vaccine’ products, people could in effect become mobile ‘vaccine’ factories with the very real possibility of transmitting or shedding the ‘vaccine’ product to others through their bodily fluids, gases and contact. Thus, the use of self-replicating GMO products as vaccines raises ethical questions, particularly regarding the potential for unintended transmission of the GMO product to individuals who have not consented to receive it. Of great concern, is that such transmissible self-replicating GMO technology lends itself to the production of bioweapons.

Conclusion

The World Council for Health has very serious concerns about the 100-day, self-replicating GMO technology being developed in the guise of ‘vaccines’. We believe an independent fact-finding mission should be undertaken to determine how the development and testing of these products in Japan has been authorised and fast-tracked given the huge risk posed by this technology to the world’s people.

References

Acevedo-Whitehouse K, & Bruno R. Potential health risks of mRNA-based vaccine therapy: A hypothesis. Med Hypotheses, 2023. 171, 111015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2023.111015

Aldén M, Olofsson Falla F, Yang D, Barghouth M, Luan C, Rasmussen M, & De Marinis, Y. Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line. Cur Issues Mol Biol, 2022. 44(3), 1115–1126. https://doi.org/10.3390/cimb44030073.

Anderson PO, Manzo BA, Sundstedt A, Minaee S, Symonds A, Khalid S, Rodriguez-Cabezas ME, Nicolson K, Li S, Wraith DC, Wang P. Persistent antigenic stimulation alters the transcription program in T cells, resulting in antigen-specific tolerance. Eur J Immunol, 2006. 36(6):1374-85. doi: 10.1002/eji.200635883.  

Barathan M, Mohamed R, Yong YK, Kannan M, Vadivelu J, Saeidi A, Larsson M, Shankar EM. Viral Persistence and Chronicity in Hepatitis C Virus Infection: Role of T-Cell Apoptosis, Senescence and Exhaustion. Cells. 2018 Oct 12;7(10):165. doi: 10.3390/cells7100165.  

Blair DA, Turner DL, Bose TO, Pham QM, Bouchard KR, Williams KJ, McAleer JP, Cauley LS, Vella AT, Lefrançois L. Duration of antigen availability influences the expansion and memory differentiation of T cells. J Immunol. 2011. 187(5):2310-21. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1100363.  

BMJ (2021). The EMA covid-19 data leak, and what it tells us about mRNA instability BMJ 372 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n627

Démoulins T, Englezou PC, Milona P, Ruggli N, Tirelli N, Pichon C, Sapet C, Ebensen T, Guzmán CA, McCullough KC. Self-Replicating RNA Vaccine Delivery to Dendritic Cells. Methods Mol Biol. 2017;1499:37-75. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-6481-9_3.

Doerfler W. Adenoviral Vector DNA- and SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-Based Covid-19 Vaccines: Possible Integration into the Human Genome - Are Adenoviral Genes Expressed in Vector-based Vaccines? Virus Res. 2021. 302:198466. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2021.198466.  

Fraiman, J., Erviti, J., Jones, M., Greenland, S., Whelan, P., Kaplan, R. M., & Doshi, P. (2022). Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults. Vaccine. 2022. 40(40), 5798–5805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.08.036

Fürst T, Šourek P, Krátká Z, Janošek J. Batch-dependent safety of COVID-19 vaccines in the Czech Republic and comparison with data from Denmark. Eur J Clin Invest. 2024. e14271. doi: 10.1111/eci.14271.  

Halma M, Rose, J, Lawrie, T. The Novelty of mRNA Viral Vaccines and Potential Harms: A Scoping Review. MDPI 2023, 6, 220–235. https://doi.org/10.3390/j6020017

Hulscher N, Hodkinson R, Makis W, McCullough PA. Autopsy findings in cases of fatal COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis. ESC Heart Fail. 2024. doi: 10.1002/ehf2.14680.

Jelley-Gibbs DM, Dibble JP, Filipson S, Haynes L, Kemp RA, Swain SL. Repeated stimulation of CD4 effector T cells can limit their protective function. J Exp Med. 2005. 201(7):1101-12. doi: 10.1084/jem.20041852. 

Jelley-Gibbs DM, Lepak NM, Yen M, Swain SL. Two distinct stages in the transition from naive CD4 T cells to effectors, early antigen-dependent and late cytokine-driven expansion and differentiation. J Immunol. 2000 165(9):5017-26. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.165.9.5017. 

Krauson AJ, Casimero FVC, Siddiquee Z, & Stone JR. Duration of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine persistence and factors associated with cardiac involvement in recently vaccinated patients. NPJ Vaccines, 2023. 8(1), 141. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41541-023-00742-7

Krutzke L, Rösler R, Allmendinger E, Engler T, Wiese S, & Kochanek S. Process- and product-related impurities in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine. ELife, 2022. 11. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78513

Low JG, de Alwis R, Chen S, Kalimuddin S, Leong YS, Mah TKL, Yuen N, Tan HC, Zhang SL, Sim JXY, Chan YFZ, Syenina A, Yee JX, Ong EZ, Sekulovich R, Sullivan BB, Lindert K, Sullivan SM, Chivukula P, Hughes SG, Ooi EE. A phase I/II randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of a self-amplifying Covid-19 mRNA vaccine. NPJ Vaccines.  2022.7(1):161. doi: 10.1038/s41541-022-00590-x. 

McKernan K, Helbert Y, Kane LT, & McLaughlin S. Sequencing of bivalent Moderna and Pfizer mRNA vaccines reveals nanogram to microgram quantities of expression vector dsDNA per dose . Medicinal Genomics. 2023. https://cdn-ceo-ca.s3.amazonaws.com/1i4tp3q-Sequencing%20of%20bivalent_4-11-23.pdf

Mörz M. A Case Report: Multifocal Necrotizing Encephalitis and Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination against COVID-19. Vaccines, 2022. 10(10), 1651. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10101651

Mulroney TE, Pöyry T, Yam-Puc JC, Rust M, Harvey RF, Kalmar L, Horner E, Booth L, Ferreira AP, Stoneley M, Sawarkar R, Mentzer AJ, Lilley KS, Smales CM, von der Haar T, Turtle L, Dunachie S, Klenerman P, Thaventhiran JED, Willis AE. N1-methylpseudouridylation of mRNA causes +1 ribosomal frameshifting. Nature, 2024. 625(7993):189-194. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06800-3.  

Poirier EZ, Mounce BC, Rozen-Gagnon K, Hooikaas PJ, Stapleford KA, Moratorio G, Vignuzzi M. Low-Fidelity Polymerases of Alphaviruses Recombine at Higher Rates To Overproduce Defective Interfering Particles. J Virol. 2015. 90(5):2446-54. doi: 10.1128/JVI.02921-15.  

Pollock KM, Cheeseman HM, Szubert AJ, Libri V, Boffito M, Owen D, Bern H, O'Hara J, McFarlane LR, Lemm NM, McKay PF, Rampling T, Yim YTN, Milinkovic A, Kingsley C, Cole T, Fagerbrink S, Aban M, Tanaka M, Mehdipour S, Robbins A, Budd W, Faust SN, Hassanin H, Cosgrove CA, Winston A, Fidler S, Dunn DT, McCormack S, Shattock RJ, COVAC1 study Group. Safety and immunogenicity of a self-amplifying RNA vaccine against COVID-19: COVAC1, a phase I, dose-ranging trial. EClinicalMedicine. 2022. 44:101262. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101262.  

Samaniego-Castruita JA, Schneider UV, Mollerup S, Leineweber TD, Weis N, Bukh J, Pedersen, MS, & Westh H. SARS‐CoV‐2 spike mRNA vaccine sequences circulate in blood up to 28 days after COVID ‐19 vaccination. APMIS, 2023. 131(3), 128–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/apm.13294

Seneff S, Nigh G, Kyriakopoulos AM, & McCullough PA. Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 2022. 164, 113008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2022.113008

Tews BA, Meyers G. Self-Replicating RNA. Methods Mol Biol. 2017;1499:15-35. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-6481-9_2.

Valdes Angues R, Perea Bustos Y.  SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and the Multi-Hit Hypothesis of Oncogenesis. Cureus. 2023. 15(12):e50703. doi: 10.7759/cureus.50703.

Wagner A, Mutschler H. Design principles and applications of synthetic self-replicating RNAs. Wiley Interdiscip Rev RNA. 2023.14(6):e1803. doi: 10.1002/wrna.1803.

Zhou X, Berglund P, Rhodes G, Parker SE, Jondal M, Liljeström P.  Self-replicating Semliki Forest virus RNA as recombinant vaccine. Vaccine 1994.12(16):1510-4. doi: 10.1016/0264-410x(94)90074-4.

---

FOOTNOTES

[1] There were no studies on pharmacokinetics done before authorizing the mRNA ‘vaccines’ and there is no experimental data on synthetic nucleoside-modified mRNA intracellular degradation times and rates in human cells. However, a series of independent studies suggest that the ‘vaccine’ mRNA could take at least 180 days to degrade (Krauson et al. 2023, Mörz et al. 2023, Samaniego-Castruita et al. 2023).

[2] https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/csl-s-arct-154-world-s-first-self-amplifying-mrna-vaccine-approved-covid-19-in-adults

[3] https://cepi.net/new-research-investigate-next-generation-trans-amplifying-mrna-vaccines