Shunned Scientists Mock Nobel Committee After They Award mRNA Scientists With Prize For Medicine

Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman share £823,000 prize thanks to Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm

Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman wearing masks...

The 2023 Nobel prize in physiology or medicine has been awarded to two scientists for their work in RNA biology, which significantly accelerated vaccine development during the Covid pandemic.

Professors Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman received the award, along with the accompanying 11m Swedish kronor (£823,000) prize, as announced by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm earlier today.

The Nobel committee recognised their "innovative discoveries regarding “nucleoside base modifications," which paved the way for the creation of the clot-shots, sorry I mean, “vaccines” for BioNTech and Moderna.

Post-rollout, investigative journalist Whitney Webb exposed how companies such as Moderna struggled significantly with mRNA technology prior to Covid. In fact, persistent safety concerns involving detrimental inflammatory responses threatened its entire product pipeline.

In 2020, however, when Karikó and Weissman made small tweaks to the mRNA molecules, Pfizer and Moderna’s products suddenly entered Phase 1 and 2 trials.

Dr Richard Urso was quick to highlight that the academy has effectively rewarded Karikó and Weissman for their role in creating the most deadly vaccine in history according to VAERS data. The same story is told across various adverse event databases around the world.

Co-founder of the World Council of Health, Dr Tess Lawrie, stated:

“Amidst the #plasmidgate scandal that has unthinkable implications for humanity (it seems that mRNA vaccines are contaminated with foreign DNA that can be integrated into the human genome) the mRNA creators have been awarded a Nobel prize...”

Earlier this year, genomics scientist Kevin McKernan accidentally discovered vials of mRNA Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccine were contaminated with tiny fragments of plasmid DNA. The levels of contamination exceeded the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) legal limit 18 to 70 times. Present in the vials was an SV40 promoter, a sequence “…used to drive DNA into the nucleus, especially in gene therapies,”.

Other censored experts cited the controversial history of Nobel, particularly of past prize recipients.

Indeed, as retired Brown University internist Andrew Bostom outlined, prior Nobel winners haven’t been all that “noble” or “scientific”.

In 1949, Portuguese neurologist Antóno Egas Moniz, won the Nobel Prize For Medicine for his performance of lobotomies. A now highly discredited procedure that involved hammering a needle into the brains of patients and severing brain connections. Critics later discovered Moniz understated complications, provided inadequate documentation, and failed to follow up with patients. The academy still has not rescinded the award.

In 2009, Barack Obama won the Nobel Prize for Peace. This was despite a Bureau of Investigative Journalism report later revealing that Obama sanctioned a total of 563 drone strikes, targeting Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen during his two terms, compared to 57 strikes under Bush. Again, the award stands.

Little over a month ago, The Royal Society jointly awarded Sir Patrick Vallance and Sir Christopher Witty (recently also knighted), with the Royal Medal for 2023 for “their pivotal role in ensuring that the UK’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic has benefitted from the very best science and evidence”.

The announcement followed the publication of a plethora of high-quality studies documenting that guidance both Vallance and Whitty endorsed, including lockdowns and masks mandates, inflicted untold harm on children and the wider British public.

Just last week, the U.K. Health Security Agency quietly released a review, finding the evidence base for non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) on Covid transmission was weak. The government report concluded that “there is a lack of strong evidence on the effectiveness of NPIs to reduce COVID-19 transmission”. In short, Whitty and Valance did not possess the evidence to justify their policies.

As far as these awards go, they’re proving to serve more as tributes for overt failure rather than success. It serves as a painful reminder of just how far our institutions have gone past the point of no return.