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

it inserts term 'modified' & this is code word to soften it for Malone & Weissman & Kariko et al.; let me be clear, modified mRNA or non-modified, both are unsafe, unstudied, causes death

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 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.’

IMO, there must be none of these vaccines in any form to anyone, and using the term ‘modified’ is dangerous and waffling. Not ‘until’, no, all of these shots must be stopped for everyone. What questions do you wish answered, that is already not clear? How would you make these mRNA vaccines safe or safer? The evidence landscape is clear.

Please do not write with this type of wishy washy slack language. You confuse the reader and public and you raise questions. Do not waffle or vacillate from your prior positions that gave you prominense and fame as to the deadliness of the mRNA technology and the vaccine. The public is very smart on this.

Great work. Be careful with the words used when you write. I do not support the way you wrote the abstract. You cannot be wishy washy just to get published. You are not like the ‘others’ Please correct. I have issues with how this abstract was written. You open doors to criminals who killed people with this deadly shot, from mRNA technology inventors to the vaccine makers. Please reword it. You have kind of done what you accuse others who write and publish about the COVID vaccine harms yet claim that the vaccine is safe and effective. Did you do this here to get the journal to publish?

Your own words used in the past on how people play with double speak to get published:

para text ‘inserted to gain institutional approval for submission or by design are used to get past biased editorial boards and reviewers who want to keep the false “safe and effective” narrative flowing in the medical literature.’

So please address this paragraph I inserted above, correct the language to make it more stronger and bullet-proof….it is vacillating IMO. You are flip-flopping and I admire your work, respect your work but this is not good enough. Soft on people like Malone and Weissman and Sahin and Bourla et al. and their death work and seems to suggests that there is a place for the mRNA vaccines…at some point….there is none. You were clear on this prior so please do not vacillate now. Nothing about mRNA technology and LNP complex and the mRNA vaccine is safe, nothing, and you know it. You have all the evidence so why write like this now??? What has changed? What data are you seeing I have not seen? There is none.

Please explain.

Huge hugs and love for your continued scholarship that educates us all. But this paper is problematic and cannot be left so, you must fix the language. You will be pilloried for it smacks of flip-flopping.