Dr. Rose, McCullough, Steve Kirsch et al., I again implore you to rewrite the abstract of your paper in Cureus, as written it is wrong! Do not fall for the slight of hand by Malone et al. on ‘modified

mRNA’, these people knew their mRNA technology in any format is/was deadly & they never tested it for safety! They knew it reverse transcribed, left injection site, did not dissolve & said NOTHING!

Excellent paper in Cureus by McCullough & Seneff et al.; see below BUT I remind my colleagues that some language used in abstract is very troubling as it opens doors for EXCEPTIONS of mRNA vaccine use

Dr. Paul Alexander
·
Jan 28

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38274635/ ‘The risk-benefit imbalance substantiated by the evidence to date contraindicates further booster injections and suggests that, at a minimum, the mRNA injections should be removed from the childhood immunization program until proper safety and toxicological studies are conducted. Federal agency approval of the CO…

Read full story

Firstly, Dr. McCullough remains to me, the Freedom Fighter leader and I can say I have come across many low-level banal, bottom-dweller crooked COVID Freedom Fighters, but he has remained principled, honest, technically sound, someone I can call my brother. Real brother, someone I admire and take mentorship from.
I reply to that published paper for I am very troubled by the abstract as it is wrong.
I refer to several places but here in particular. Do not write that ‘The risk-benefit imbalance substantiated by the evidence to date contraindicates further booster injections and suggests that, at a minimum, the mRNA injections should be removed from the childhood immunization program until proper safety and toxicological studies are conducted. Federal agency approval of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines on a blanket-coverage population-wide basis had no support from an honest assessment of all relevant registrational data and commensurate consideration of risks versus benefits. Given the extensive, well-documented SAEs and unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse a global moratorium on the modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.’
Can you address this urgently and reword or take this paper down!

Alexander COVID News-Dr. Paul Elias Alexander’s substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

We know that the vaccines are unsafe, so how would performing the proper safety studies fix that? That cannot be fixed, it is already harmful and you know this. It just must be stopped, removed as you have said prior…there is no ‘UNTIL’ as you have written…this is very dangerous language and I suspect you did not read the final draft. This abstract is very confusing and wrong as written. It is misleading. It does not match the body of evidence accumulated across 3 years on the deadly Malone, Weissman, Kariko, Sahin et al. COVID mRNA vaccine.
May I ask the authors what is meant by the term ‘honest’ assessment?
Why did you use the term ‘modified mRNA’?
Why would you want a stop ‘until’ questions are answered? What questions? There are none. Why would you be confused at this time? What data has emerged to confuse you? I can find none! We already have the evidence, the mRNA technology (Malone, Kariko, Weissman et al.) and mRNA vaccine (Bourla, Bancel, Sahin et al.) is deadly. What else do you wish to know at this time? I find this paper ill-timed, poorly written in the abstract and confusing and actually misleads the reader.
Dr. Rose, why would you write in substack that you wrote the paper this way to get it published para? I find this an incredible statement and I ask you to retract it and rewrite the abstract again and in a manner showing how deadly the mRNA technology is and the vaccine, leaving no questions to the reader.
This statement in your substack:

You all in this paper are high intellects, I am talking about technical competence and have been soliders against this vaccine. This abstract is written in a wishy washy flip-flop manner, it is not clear. I am sure Dr. McCullough or Seneff etc. did not see the final draft, he/she would have not agreed to put this out in this manner. The paper raises too many questions.
Please address quickly. Read the comments to my substact and you will see that the reader is not misguided and are not happy with the abstract you wrote. This paper must be withdrawn or rewritten. The abstract is wrong and does not match the body of evidence on these COVID mRNA vaccines.
I am very troubled you would put this out.

Alexander COVID News-Dr. Paul Elias Alexander’s substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Go to Dr Alexancer on Substack
Author: Dr. Paul Alexander