The terrifying scientific groupthink around the mRNA jabs

Guest Post by Alex Berenson

A glimpse from the inside of a top medical institution

One pleasure of writing Unreported Truths: the scientists and doctors who point me to questions on mRNA jabs (or other medical issues) I wouldn’t even think to ask — like Monday’s piece on the chromosomal changes the mRNAs cause and their possible link to cancer. That came from a tip by an anonymous oncologist. Thanks.

I’m glad to get these tips. I’m also conscious they show the depth of the rot. Researchers and physicians fear scientific groupthink is so bad no one will listen to their honest concerns, giving them no choice but to go public.

Still, what’s bad for The Science (TM) is good for me, and you. So I share this letter, from a researcher at a major medical center who wrote after yesterday’s piece on the resignation of FDA vaccine regulator Dr. Peter Marks.

As you’ll see, this person is hardly a flamethrower. “Depopulation” doesn’t come up. He’s focused on two somewhat technical issues that he fears limits the effectiveness and safety of the jabs. But he paints a frightening picture, of top scientists who gloss off any questions about the mRNAs. Science isn’t supposed to be a cult.

A note: I have verified the writer’s identity and edited the letter only to remove any potentially identifiable information. Words in [brackets] are my adds – those in (parentheses) are in the original.

Enjoy – and make sure to read the PS!

Hi Alex,

Thanks again for your continued work. You’ve been a beacon of light over the last five years, and I’m truly grateful I found you and your writing. Your wit, clarity, and persistence helped me cope during the dystopian times we were thrown into after 2020.

You’re right—there’s still a deep level of denial in much of the scientific community around what really happened with the Covid mRNA vaccines. The risks, the rushed approvals, the long-term unknowns—none of it gets real airtime. There’s too much at stake for too many people. Careers, funding, reputations. It’s easier to dismiss critics than to engage honestly.

At XXX [a well-known medical center], where I work, they recently launched XXXX [a new unit that will include research on mRNA vaccines].

They held an open house on XXXX [recently].

Before the event, I submitted a question about the elephant in the room for any RNA therapeutic: delivery and targeting. I wrote:

“RNA delivery and targeting are critical for the success of RNA-based cancer vaccines. How do you ensure that the RNA reaches the desired target cells in patients? Specifically, what delivery systems or targeting strategies are being used to avoid off-target effects and maximize efficacy?”

[An XXX senior official] responded at the end of the conference. While his response touched on relevant points, it ultimately glossed over the targeting challenge, defaulting to the same narrative used for Covid vaccines (“safe and effective”).

There’s no acknowledgment of the limitations of LNPs [lipid nanoparticles, which encase the mRNA and deliver it to cells] (e.g., poor tissue specificity, inflammatory responses, or variability between patients), nor a clear explanation of how they plan to overcome these for cancer therapies.

The statement that “this works well” feels premature, especially for a technology still in its “first generation” for oncology. Overall, the response was polite but vague—classic hand-waving.

A couple weeks later, Dr. Drew Weissman—the 2023 Nobel Prize winner and one of the architects of mRNA vaccine tech—gave a talk at XXX. The auditorium was overflowing—some people couldn’t even get in. He was introduced by [a senior XXX official], who echoed the usual line that the Covid vaccines were “safe and effective.”

The talk itself was full of blink-blink moments, signaling that anyone skeptical of the mRNA platform must be either uninformed or anti-science. No mention, of course, of myocarditis, rapidly waning efficacy, or failed follow-up applications of the tech.

For what it’s worth, I still believe mRNA technology is very promising—it has real potential. But there are two core issues that need to be addressed:

1. Targeting – We need better ways to ensure the mRNA actually reaches the right cell types, and more importantly don’t end up in the wrong ones, even for vaccines. During his talk, Dr. Weissman seemed to downplay this issue, but it’s absolutely critical for safety and efficacy. Right now, we’re injecting hope and seeing where it lands.
2. Manufacturing – We need rigorous quality control to ensure these products contain only the intended mRNA and nothing else. The Covid vaccines were rushed, and the quality of the final product was reportedly variable in many batches. That kind of sloppiness should never be acceptable, especially when you’re injecting millions (or billions) of people.

It’s wild how even in top-tier institutions, there’s such little room for honest, open scientific discourse. It’s all curated messaging and self-congratulation. That kind of scientific culture doesn’t inspire confidence—it just raises more questions.

Obviously, these views are my own and don’t represent those of XXX. And in case you want to share any of this, I’d appreciate staying anonymous. I have [kids] to feed, and I simply can’t afford to lose my job for being a wrong-thinker. Maybe I’m being overly cautious, but I’d rather not take any chances.

Best,
X

P.S. Full disclosure: I used ChatGPT to help me write the above, since writing is definitely not my forte. As a scientist, writing has always been excruciatingly difficult for me. So thank God for ChatGPT.