Global mRNA Shot Push Signals Start of Hostile Market Takeover

As the fraudulent and failed tide recedes from the pandemic response, one item made it to shore that shouldn’t have…mRNA vaccine technology. We now know that Fauci, Gates and others with conflicts aggressively drove behind-the-scenes to push mRNA Covid shots to the forefront against better scientific judgement.

Rather than look upon that time as a grand failed experiment, industry and science is sweeping the ugly truths under the rug to capitalize on an emerging market.

"To reiterate--getting the Moderna vaccine into Phase 2 trials is the highest priority for the vaccine effort (Quote from Tony Fauci to me this week: "I hope that you feel like my foot is on your neck right now to get this done.")"

The evidence was there that mRNA was not ready to go in arms on a mass scale. Dr. Malone “abandoned the tech in the late 90s due to toxicity.”

Robert W Malone, MD@RWMaloneMD

@z9rh9mnwxq I had nothing to do with developing the gene-therapy based covid vaccines. I was the original inventor of the concept and fundamental platform of using mRNA as a drug and the vaccine application of this, circa 1987. I abandoned the tech in the late 90s due to toxicity.

3:50 PM · Dec 29, 2024 · 26.5K Views

19 Replies · 169 Reposts · 867 Likes

Even Bill Gates said this in a September 2020 Der Spiegel interview:

“Even though we’re big believers in RNA-based vaccines … for this pandemic we haven’t emphasized those. They would be ready if we waited another five or 10 years. But we need 14 billion doses quickly.”

In April 2020 Gates expanded:

“…we don’t know for sure yet if RNA is a viable platform for vaccines. Since COVID would be the first RNA vaccine out of the gate, we have to prove both that the platform itself works and that it creates immunity. It’s a bit like building your computer system and your first piece of software at the same time.”

History shows it wasn’t proven to stop transmission or keep up with variants nevermind its ever-expanding safety issues and harms.

The rejection continued into RFK Jr’s HHS leadership.

In August 2025 Health and Human Services announced that it would be ending 22 mRNA vaccine projects valued at $500 million collectively.

At the time NIH leader Jay Bhattacharya, M.D., Ph.D. stated the platform is “no longer viable” due to public distrust adding “The technology is promising, but not yet ready for prime time for vaccines.”

Then, suddenly the pendulum swung back towards industry at the FDA as three top officials exited and then, like clockwork, the mRNA tech magically was approved.

The science was flimsy and far from any acceptable ‘gold standard.’ Independent researchers picked apart the clinical trial in droves as Focal Points writes:

The FDA’s own briefing document reveals that 75.3% of senior mRNA-vaccine recipients experienced at least one solicited adverse reaction within seven days, compared with 49.3% of those receiving Fluzone High-Dose.

Even more concerning, severe (Grade 3) systemic reactions occurred in 6.7% of mRNA recipients versus 1.7% with the traditional high-dose flu vaccine—nearly four times as frequently.

Shockingly, the mRNA flu shot push, like the Covid shot push, was an immediate global blitzkrieg in lockstep. Austrilaian Senator Alex Antic advanced a simple motion for the production of documents relating to the their drug regulator’s evaluation of a new mRNA based Flu vaccine only to have has motion voted down.

Moderna has now advanced a new mRNA skin cancer vaccines while the industry shifts to gene therapy ‘solutions’ to both public health and oncology.

Much like during Covid, The Science, trial results and data came not from rigorous researcher but from industry PR news rooms “The companies have not published the trial data but said in a news release that the experimental treatment…”

Below is the estimated pipeline of mRNA. The industry has made its choice. Will the public and what’s ever left of the hardline MAHA coalition within the vaccine regulatory space be able to properly filter out the dangerous products backed by flimsy science?