select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
Fiona fox's blog
Scientists comment on claims made about mRNA vaccines by Dr Aseem Malhotra at the Reform Party Conference.
Prof Anne Willis, Director of the MRC Toxicology Unit, University of Cambridge, said:
“As far as a I am aware, there are no data which show how many molecules of mRNA are taken up into human cells following vaccinations. Moreover, it is not number of molecules of RNA that are injected that is important but – how much the RNAs are taken up by the cell at a given concentration, and exposure time relative to rate of mRNA degradation. The data show that mRNAs following vaccination are distributed into different tissue types including muscle, immune cells, liver; the cell uptake between cells of different types is generally rather poor and variable. The mRNA vaccines are rapidly turned over and degraded. The RNAs are only in the cells for ~4 days maximum.
“Given that an average cell only contains around 500,000 mRNA molecules and the cytoplasm is already very crowded in molecular terms there is simply not room for an individual cell to take up “millions” of RNA molecules.
“There are no credible data for the cancer claims or to show that vaccine mRNAs bind to tumour suppressor proteins and compete for their normal function.
“It is true that vaccination gives around 4.3 x 10^13 molecules of RNA but this is not so different from other more standard drugs e.g paracetamol 500mg is ~2 x 10^21 molecules.”
Prof Brian Ferguson, Professor of Viral Immunology, University of Cambridge, said:
“The speech by Aseem Malhotra presents many incorrect claims and narratives about mRNA vaccines and medical research, along with sweeping claims about the pharmaceutical industry. There are repetitions of often used anti-vaxx tropes that have been extensively disproven. This sentence, for example is not true: “Over the last few years, it is very clear with the evidence that the drug industry are responsible for probably killing millions of people and the covid vaccine”. There are numerous high quality studies that prove the covid vaccines, including mRNA vaccines, saved millions of lives. Evidence that mRNA vaccines have done more harm than good just does not exist and claims that they did do not stand up to scrutiny. The paper by Peter Doshi, for example, that he quotes from the journal Vaccine was so poor and used such extensively flawed methodology that multiple further papers were published disproving its conclusions. Sadly, that paper was not retracted, allowing Malhotra and others to quote the incorrect conclusions about vaccine harms whilst ignoring the wealth of high-quality research that demonstrates the exact opposite.
“Equally, evidence that mRNA vaccines cause cancer is simply untrue. This sentence, for example “The millions of molecules of mRNA entering the cell is creating biochemical havoc, is disrupting protein metabolism, is interfering with tumour suppressor genes” is meaningless pseudoscience. There is no credible evidence that these vaccines disrupt tumour suppressors or drive any kind of process (biochemical or otherwise) that results in cancer. It is particularly crass to try to link this pseudoscience to the unfortunate incidents of cancer in the royal family and is reminiscent of the ‘died suddenly’ trope which attempted (and ultimately failed) to link the death of any young person to their vaccination status. This kind of outlandish conspiracy theory only serves to undermine the credibility of those spreading it.”
Prof Penny Ward, Visiting Professor in Pharmaceutical Medicine, Kings College London, said:
“Regrettably those of us that are current (or past) employees of the pharmaceutical industry have to become accustomed to the unwarranted accusations and criticisms of our work in inventing, developing and bringing to the market many new medicines, diagnostics and devices which have transformed the practice of medicine over the past century. To reach the market these products have to be shown to have benefits which outweigh their risks when used to manage the disease of interest. The regulatory bodies responsible for licensing these products charge the company a fee for assessing the scientific information provided which defrays the cost to the taxpayer of the cost of these organisations. In addition, regulators verify that the information is correct by undertaking company inspections to ensure that the information submitted is accurate and truthful. Regulators report to their country’s governments, not to the industry. Hence there is no conflict of interest in their work. While medicines must provide benefits in alleviating disease, this does not mean that they are without risk. Regrettably, rare, occasionally serious, side effects can occasionally harm patients taking them. This is why both prescribers and patients must read the information on their benefits and risks and take an informed decision on whether using the medicine is appropriate in their own specific circumstances. This is also the reason that the benefits and risks of medicines available in the market are constantly reviewed during use so that information provided is always up to date. Dr Malhotra has provided his own interpretation of scientific evidence on covid vaccines, but his view is not shared by the majority of medical practitioners. The evidence provided by independent review of the emerging outcomes among vaccinated and unvaccinated patients during the pandemic confirmed that the benefit risk profile of the vaccines remains appropriate for widespread use, particularly by patients at risk of complications – which might be fatal – from covid infection. The WHO is financially supported by governments of participating countries as well as by grants and donations from scientific foundations including the Gates Foundation. The WHO is the major provider of health care services in many resource poor countries in the global south, without which some populations would have no access to any form of healthcare. The WHO decision making committees are populated by clinical and scientific experts nominated by their own healthcare services and funded by their government. These individuals take very seriously their responsibilities to ensure the quality of information reviewed and advice given meets the highest ethical and scientific standards. It is profoundly to be hoped that the Reform Party will do the same should they in future become responsible for the management of the nation’s health.”
Declared interests
Prof Anne Willis: I have no direct funding for any vaccine work from companies. Our work was funded by UKRI-MRC and the Wellcome Trust.
We do have a grant with AZ to work on the safety of nucleic acid therapies, but these are not vaccine RNAs, and this is to examine and improve the safety aspects of these new therapies and not efficacy.
Dr Brian Ferguson: No declarations of interest
Prof Penny Ward: I am a past employee of several pharmaceutical companies and am owner and director of a private consulting company advising clients on the development of novel medicines, devices and diagnostics for the treatment of infectious diseases cancer and autoimmune disorders. I am also Visiting Professor in Pharmaceutical Medicine at Kings College London and a Fellow of the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine of the Royal Colleges of Physicians.