I started this journey based on concerns happening with my health. I had been out of clinic for a month and strange things started happening with my health. When I got back into clinic, I found that many individuals were experiencing similar strange health events. The deeper I sank into the research, the more complicated the problem became. When I find myself inside a complicated problem, I turn to Taoism to help guide my path. I find I’ve been reading Sun Tzu and the Art of War alot. In the Welcome video in the members area I talk in more depth on these quotes and why they may be important navigating through the issues in the world right now. As I continue on this journey, the one thing I am sure of is we need to think in a different way. We need to be able to step out of the binary thinking that has gotten us this far because I don’t think it can get us any further. Good-luck with your own personal journey to health and wellness.
There is one other quote that has a deep resonance with me right now:
If one fights with all one’s might, one may live;
if one protects one’s corner, one will die.
-Sun Tzu
Here is some of the ground breaking research that has been published.
Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency is the organization who originally requested the FDA to release the documents Pfizer used in their Biological License Application (BLA). The Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency requested the documents under the Freedom of Information Act. Since 1967, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has provided the public the right to request access to records from any federal agency. The request was ignored and the organization sued the federal government for access. The court approved their request and required the FDA to release the documents used in Pfizer’s BLA.
Recently, 5/20/2023, the website has been updated to include the Moderna documents used for the Biological License Application (BLA).
You will find references on my webpage to specific documents you can find under this release. They will be identified as, “the documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.”
For some of these documents, I have downloaded them and attached them to my website to ensure easy access. For others, I’ve listed the document title that you can use when searching the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency website.
Pfizer Documents – Adverse Events This document changed the discussion of the vaccines, and over the next year, more and more scientists would come out and talk about their concerns with the science. This is part of the documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Court Order Granting the Release of Pfizer information The documents Pfizer used in their Biological License Application (BLA) were originally requested in August 2021. This is the court order that granted the documents released under the Freedom of Information Act in January 2022. After the FDA was ordered by the courts to release documents and the release schedule was agreed upon, additional attempts were made to delay the release of documents. Part of the reason for the request to delay was listed as:
“FDA has also reached out to Comirnaty4 sponsors Pfizer-BioNTech to seek its assistance, initially, in identifying sections of the biologics license application (“BLA”) that do not contain any trade secret or confidential commercial information subject to FOIA Exemption 4. Once Pfizer-BioNTech has identified those sections (which FDA has requested that it do by February 1, 2022), FDA will be able to streamline its disclosure review with respect to this subset of records…”
To find these documents, go to the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency website listed above and search these titles:
- 037 – Brief Memorandum in Support filed by FDA re [36] MOTION To Partially Modify Scheduling Order.pdf
- 2. 041 – Memorandum in Support filed by Pfizer, Inc. re [40] MOTION to Intervene for a Limited Purpose.pdf
- 3. 044 – PL PHPMT’S MOL IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO MODIFY THE SCHEDULING ORDER OF THE COURT.pdf
- 4. 047 – PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO PFIZER INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE.pdf
- 5. 056 – ORDER GRANTING IN PART THE MOTION TO MODIFY THE PRODUCTION SCHEDULE AND ADDOPTS THE JOINT STATUS REPORT MODIFIED AGREED PRODUCTION SCHEDULE.pdf
- Order February 7, 2022.pdf
Pfizer media release January 27, 2023; Pfizer is not doing Gain of Function Research.
The Muddy Waters Group Investigation Report. This is 300 page Senate report which was released April 17, 2023. The information contained in this Source Reference Document reflects 18 months of extensive
research and accompanying analyses. This document was the product of a multi-disciplinary effort by medical, scientific, legal, political and general policy analysts to catalog relevant open source (unclassified) information. This report confirms what was stated at the start of the outbreak in January 2020 – the scientific evidence supports a conclusion of a man-made virus. Based on all the evidence, the Wuhan Institute of Virology is identified as the most likely source through an accidental leak. At the beginning of the pandemic, the scientific published research papers that indicated the virus was manmade were required to retract their studies and statements. They were not allowed to state the virus was manufactured or suggest the source of the Wuhan facility. It appears they were right, and it appears NIH was not only funding research on the Coronavirus, but also on Gain of Function.
‘Health nightmare’_ Dr. Robert Malone spotlights study on mRNA spike protein – ClarkCountyToday.com This news article is what started me researching what was going on with the spike protein and the vaccines. Dr. Malone article.
A study by the Stanford University was published and indicated the immune response from vaccines lasted much longer and at levels significantly higher than a natural Covid-19 infection. This study was published before the Pfizer documents were released from the FDA and would have been the first evidence the vaccines were working differently than the expectations delivered to the public. Unknown to the study authors, this study would kick off a new focus of research into the Covid vaccine mRNA and Spike protein. Their ability to find the presence in of a Covid-19 antibody presence in the body 60 days after vaccination at levels that far exceeded the levels in the body after a natural Covid infection would raise eyebrows and start sounding an alarm. The vaccine-induced spike protein was supposed to disappear from the body within a few days of injection. Normal mRNA would disappear within hours of being released in the body. A question was starting to surface, “Had these vaccines been modified in ways that created abnormal immune behavior in the vaccine-induced immune response?”
This is an example of the typical narrative that has been splashed across media and government agencies over the last three years. This narrative set the foundation for the public believing the vaccines were safe, had been tested, and were based on existing technology. The release of the Pfizer documents would show the FDA and Pfizer had ample evidence suggesting an abnormal immune response with the vaccine.
Contribution of Psuedouriline This starts the conversation on Psuedouriline. Studies starting about 10 years ago found that replacing naturally occurring uriline with psuedouriline. Psuedouriline is not found naturally in mRNA. This would be a significant genetic modification to mRNA. The Psuedouriline appeared to stabilize the mRNA which meant the mRNA wasn’t broken down in the body within the first few hours of entry. It doesn’t appear these studies have progressed much pass cell lines. Instead of replacing mRNA uridine with psuedouriline, Pfizer and Moderna replaced it with N1-methylpsuedouridine – a substance that has significantly fewer research studies.
The mRNA vaccines replace the naturally occurring uridine in mRNA with a synthetic N1-methylpsuedouridine. N1-methylpsuedouridine is not found naturally in mRNA making this a significant genetic modification to enhance the effectiveness of the vaccines. These vaccines were not presented to the public as modifications to our mRNA. They were misrepresented as being similar to the Curevac rabies vaccine which incorporates natural mRNA.
The true danger of this substitution is found in the footnotes of this report. The N1-methylpsuedouridine substitution was never researched. The footnotes identify 63 studies, the majority of which happened since 2019. Of these 63 studies, only 2 studies are on the effects of N1-methylpsuedouridine. One study in 2015, tested N1-methylpsuedouridine on cell lines and mice. The second study in 2020 was only done on cell lines. There are no graduating studies from mice to rat to other primates. There is no evidence this substitution could have passed those studies.
I have an episode that talks about the 2019 flu pandemic and the dangers of injecting substances into the human body that the immune system can not identify.
Advances in RNA Vaccines for Preventive Indications_ A Case Study of a Vaccine against Rabies – PMC-Curavec This study is important to me because, at the beginning of the pandemic, the mRNA vaccines were identified as using existing technology and pointed to the rabies vaccine by Curavec. The Curavec vaccine is for use in animals. The key difference between the Curavec rabies vaccine and the Covid mRNA vaccines released for use in the human population is the Curavec rabies vaccine did NOT modify the mRNA. There has been zero vaccines released into any population that modified the mRNA. It wasn’t just a simple modification. The modification was to use a substance that is not found in mRNA. To allow the suggestion that the Covid mRNA vaccines were similar to Curavec rabies vaccine was, at least, misleading. At most, it was an intentional fabrication for material gain, which is criminal. And when we are talking about fake news and disinformation, Pfizer could have, at any time, come out and said comparing the Covid mRNA vaccines to the Curavec rabies vaccine is incorrect and misleading. Their CEO didn’t. And the question becomes, “Whose responsibility is it to come clean?”
Regulation of the Germinal Center Response – PMC
Prof_Burkhardt_Nov2022_en_final this is a transcript of an interview with Professor Burkhardt. Professor Burkhardt is in Germany where much of the research concerning the impact of the spike protein is being produced. In my Episode 4 of The Weird Health Symptoms, I talk about the 5 key parts of the spike protein. One part is the integrin receptor in subunit 1 of the spike protein. This receptor amplifies the clotting response in the body. Prof Burkhardt was the initial scientist to identify an abnormal clotting function in the deceased that has not been identified or experienced previously. He later identified a similar mucosal protein in the blood of people who were alive. He has not identified what is making up this mucousy protein. It’s current composition appears to be new in the human body. Current evidence appears to link it to the vaccines.
Here is the link to him presenting his findings at conference.
Document 125742_S1_M4_4.2.1-r-20-0112 is part of the documents released under the Freedom of Information Act. Because of the size, I had to break it into five parts. You can find the complete document on the website. You can download the document as one pdf, making it much more convenient to review.
This documents identifies the 3 candidates in Pfizer’s trials. The candidates were described as:
- unmodified mRNA – Non-modified uridine-containing mRNA
- modified mRNA – Nucleoside modified mRNA
- Self-amplifying RNA
This document identifies the FDA was aware of the modification to the mRNA. In the order to release these documents, Pfizer was allowed to remove any “trade secret” references to the production process and the exact modification is not identified in the documents released. This was important for me because I was wondering how much the FDA was aware of the significant modification Pfizer was proposing to the mRNA. This document clarifies that the FDA was completely aware of this modification. Option 2 is the option which went into production. The test data reflects that option 2 significantly increased (over the other two) the amount of Covid-19 antibodies and IgG response in the body and that these levels were higher than the normal levels found in post-infections humans.
What is a good immune response? This link takes you to the AstraZeneca article. If that link is no longer active, you can click here to get a copy from my database. This article was published in November 2020, a month before the Pfizer vaccines are released into the public. The FDA approvals for the vaccines are based on documents submitted by Pfizer (the Pfizer documents). These documents show that Pfizer selected the genetic vaccine which had the highest immune response, the most spike protein. Yet, AstraZeneca, another large pharmaceutical company competing to get a vaccine to market indicated the month prior to release of the vaccines to the public,
“Measuring immunogenicity is, however, a complex process and poses challenges for scientists. In the case of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which is a new infection, these challenges are amplified. The first of these challenges comes in defining what ‘good’ looks like with regards to a vaccine-induced immune response. “
-AstraZeneca, November 2020
As late as a month before releasing the vaccine to the public, pharmaceutical companies do not have the information necessary to determine a good immune response to the new vaccines and new virus. Pfizer assumed a strong immune response was a good thing based on years of vaccine research using our traditional killed virus vaccines. The genetic vaccines were going to work in new ways. Instead of presenting a killed virus to our immune system, the vaccine would turn a pathway on in our body that would tell the body to make the most toxic piece of the virus. An interesting note is that most pharmaceuticals are based on the effort to turn off or block something. We don’t have experience turning things on.
In the Pfizer documents, document 125742_S1_M4_4.2.2.1 vr vtr 10671.pdf is a study with Rhesus Macaques. On page 17, Pfizer reviews the results of the immune response to the vaccine Spike protein. They documented that the vaccine produces a strong pro-inflammatory response and an increase in the immune response to inflammation inside the cells.
“ICS analysis confirmed that BNT162b2 elicited strong S-specific IFN? producing
T cell responses, including a high frequency of CD4+ T cells that produced IFN, IL-2, or
TNF- but a low frequency of CD4+cells that produced IL-4, indicating a Th1-biased
response (Figure 4A to Figure 4B). BNT162b2 also elicited S-specific IFN+producing
CD8+ T cells (Figure 4E)”-Pfizer documents
Th1-type cytokines tend to produce the proinflammatory responses responsible for killing intracellular parasites and for perpetuating autoimmune responses… Excessive proinflammatory responses can lead to uncontrolled tissue damage, so there needs to be a mechanism to counteract this. The Th2-type cytokines ….has more of an anti-inflammatory response. (When Th1 is) in excess, Th2 responses will counteract the Th1… The optimal scenario would therefore seem to be that humans should produce a well-balanced Th1 and Th2 response, suited to the immune challenge.
The study also noted the Macaques had an increase in white blood cells called CD8. These levels increased when exposed to the vaccine Spike Protein. The CD8 white blood cells target things that have gotten inside the cells of your body.
“CD8 cells are also called cytotoxic T-lymphocytes. They help fight cancer and germs that live inside your cells (intracellular pathogens). “
Two things happened in this study:
1. the Covid-19 antibody response is much higher than the normal human response to a natural Covid-19 infection. (Antibodies are part of the B-cells and are found in the blood and lymph).
2. The immune response with the cells -CD4 and CD8 – is much higher than the levels in human serum after a COVID-19 infection at 56 days. (CD4 and CD8 are part of the T-cell immune response).
A higher immune response is usually sought after in normal “killed virus” vaccines. This assumption was transferred to the Covid-19 shots. So, when the researchers saw a higher than normal immune response, they considered this good.
The Covid-19 shots work by a completely different mechanism. They inject a program (modified mRNA) to tell your body to produce part of a virus. Exactly what the immune system is responding to has not been determined in these studies. It has just been assumed to be the “spike protein” even though real life Covid-19 infections show a decrease in T-cell response.
In the Pfizer documents, document 125742_S7_M5_5351_bnt162-01-interim3 from the documents released under the Freedom of Information Act indicates a significantly higher immune response in the vaccinated individuals versus the blood work from individuals who have recovered from a natural Covid-19 infection.
What I didn’t know was the blood work from people who had recovered from a natural Covid-19 infection used in these studies was from 38 people taken 14 days after infection. Due to the short time from a natural Covid-19 infection, the immune response in the blood would have been high. At 85 days after infection, these individuals may have shown zero immune response. The blood work is referred to as Human Convalescent Serum (HCS) in the documents.
“In a subset of 24 participants … samples collected at Day 85 and Day 184 (63 and 162 days post-Dose 2, respectively) were analyzed in order to determine the durability of T-cell responses induced by BNT162b2. On Day 184 and after an initial contraction, both CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses were detectable in the majority of participants…BNT162b2 induced
CD4+ and CD8+ responses were either higher than or in the range of recall antigen
memory responses”“At 21 days after the second BNT162b1 dose (Day 43), S1- and RBD-binding IgG GMCs were clearly above those of a COVID-19 HCS panel for all doses tested”
“Across all dose-level… antibody (response was ) …well above that observed in a COVID-19 HCS panel at Day 85 (63 days after the second dose).”
T-cell response is not an anti-body response. T-cells respond to something going on in the cell. In natural Covid-19 response, t-cell response is lower. That the T-cell levels were so much higher than the HCS seems like this should have been highlighted as a potential abnormal result and further studied. C8 T-cell responses are found in cancers.
That the antibody response was significantly higher 85 days after vaccination when compared to human blood from a natural infection taken 14 days after natural infection (HCS) would seem to indicate that maybe the vaccine wasn’t degrading as thought or maybe something else was going on.
In the Pfizer documents, document 125742_S1_M4_4.2.1-r-20-0112 from the documents released under the Freedom of Information Act tests vaccine effectiveness against colon cancer. I don’t know why they did this test. The type of test performed happens for specific reasons in research which I don’t think apply in this case, but someone smarter than me can give better information.
The only thing I can think of is the studies had shown a consistent increase in the t-cell, CD8. CD8 t-cells fight cancers or infections inside of cells. So, instead of asking why CD8 is increasing, they decided to see if the vaccine could fight cancer. I can see the hopes and dreams of the scientists. It would have been at the epic level of the movie “I am Legend.”
“In the present study…the ability of CD8+ T cells to kill viral antigen-presenting cells induced by four clinical SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates were characterized.”
I guess the mice used were special mice that were breed for colon cancer which made them natural carriers of the “viral antigen” being hunted in this study. The actual viral antigen is called CT26 colon carcinoma cells.
“CD8+ T cells were challenged on the next day for killing of S RNA-electroporated CT26 colon carcinoma cells”
What this test did was help quantify the increase in CD8 production after vaccination.
“Blood was analyzed 7 days after vaccination. The CD8+ T cell percentage among CD3+ T cells in the blood was significantly increased around 45% ….for BNT162b2 treated mice with a corresponding decrease in CD4+ T cells”
This next statement concerns me because it indicates the scientists saw the percentage of t-cells activated was unusually high. In our immune systems, the t-cells start out as CD3. CD3 floats around waiting to be called to action. When it floats into something dangerous, it goes into action (activated) and decides if it needs to get out a knife or a gun. Let’s say CD4 is a knife and CD8 is a gun. These mice, who are genetically prone to CT26 colon cancer, activated a lot of CD8.
“The fraction of activated T cells was particularly elevated when mice were treated with
BNT162b1 or BNT162b2.”
And the result? It didn’t work.
“Overall, the detected effects were rather weak and warrant further optimization of the assay. No quantitative and statistical analysis of this dataset was performed.”
“mice were euthanized on day 12.”
The overall results indicated a heightened inflammatory response. One of the mice had a surge of immune cells in the spleen after vaccination. The study indicated some cell death of normal spleen tissue that was considered insignificant. The thing is, this study lasted for 12 days. Not very long. It would be naive to write off any results as insignificant.
I’m still trying to figure out the surge in CD8. What has gotten into the cells to cause such a sudden uptick in CD8? Is the response in immune-compromised mice different from mice that are not bred for colon cancer? Was the inflammation response triggered because of the genetic coding for cancer? What is going on with this test and is it unique because these mice have cancer?
This is a talk by Kjetil Elvevold is a Norwegian cell biologist who has worked on lipid nanoparticles envelop for Moderna. The lipid nanoparticle is an envelop that wraps the vaccine mRNA in both Pfizer and Moderna to prolong shelf life. He was the founder of a company that worked on the special “lipid nano-particle” envelope that wrapped around the mRNA vaccine to protect the mRNA from breaking down in the body. This would be the second part of blocking the breaking down of the mRNA in the body. The first is the N1-methylpsuedouridine substitution making it difficult for the body’s natural immune system to find the mRNA. The second is wrapping the mRNA in a lipid-nano particle envelope to put a wall between the mRNA and the body’s natural immune system. As Kjetil Elvevold mentions, this is new technology that has not gone through rigorous testing. It’s exact impact on the human body is unknown.
He also highlights one of the concerns on the testing that was done and represented in the Pfizer documents. Pfizer just made assumptions. They didn’t test any of their assumptions. They made assumptions that the immune response was a good thing even though the immune response on all tests was excessive and suggested some anomalies if someone was willing to look at it.
- This paper goes into more detail on the different types of lipid-nanoparticles (LNP) and the uses of LNP’s.
- This paper discusses the lipid-nanoparticles used in both the Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 vaccines.
- This paper discusses the use of a similar lipid nanoparticle to cross the blood brain barrier.
- This paper discusses the effects of ethanol on fat.
Human MetaPneumonia Virus – Memorial Weekend 2023 there was a sudden flurry of information from the media and the CDC identifying this virus as the culprit of chronic infections circulating. I was curious and went back to earlier studies to identify it’s distribution and virulence. In the last decade, the information coming from industry has been challenged as directing the narrative. So, let’s start when there may have been less direction on the narrative and move forward.
human metapneumonia virus This study happened in 2010. There has been much discussion across the globe on the current bizarre bronchial virus. It is aggressive and is life threatening in many and permanently debilitating in many. The conversation on the bronchial virus has picked up on social media. It’s amazing that the press, the CDC, and the media in general is suddenly talking about this virus as if this current bronchial infection is the benign hMPV that originally appeared in 2001.
I went back to research studies from 2010 and earlier to understand what this virus was and how it differed from the current bronchial infection which is causing longterm disability, sepsis and death in many individuals. These reports indicate a virus that was rather benign with most children acquiring within the first couple years. This virus didn’t cause concerns in healthy adults, teenagers and those under 60. If this current bronchial infection is this same virus, it has really changed and social distancing can not address it’s sudden virulence.
Distribution and Virulence This study examined the distribution in the population. The majority of infections happen in children under 3 months. It has a tendency to show up with RSV. Individuals can be reinfected throughout life. The smallest percentage of infections happen in the 25-60 year old. Of the study group, the % positive was 20%. Most hospitalizations were for mild respiratory infection. They also found “No severe complications or deaths were related to hMPV.”
CDC Statistics on Human MetaPneumonia Virus This page has the data for this season. I haven’t been able to find prior season data. It’s important to highlight that something which is causing so much distress doesn’t show prior season data. I can find all the prior season data for flu, covid, etc. Without prior season data, it makes it difficult to make comparisons or analysis. The CDC indicated “The estimated incubation period is 3 to 6 days, and the median duration of illness can vary depending upon severity but is similar to other respiratory infections caused by viruses.”
Epidemiology of Human Metapneumovirus – This study is from 2006 and describes the distribution of hMPV. It appears rare in adults with only 2.2% of adults testing positive of the virus.
Spike protein and brain damage.
This is the CDC report confirming an increase in brain abcesses in children for the 2022-2023 winter season.
Here is the original research study identifying spike protein crossing into the brain and causing damage.
Want an indepth discussion on the research study, check out Dr. Been’s youtube episode.
Here was one of the first studies on the impact of Covid on the brain indicating a shrinking of grey matter in the brain.
Myocarditis and Vaccine Injury
Here is a nationwide review completed in Korea tracking the rates of myocarditis after vaccine.
“Vaccination-related myocarditis incidence was highest in males between the ages of 12 and 17 years (5.29 cases per 100 000 persons)”
One of the concerns today is all research on potential vaccine injury is happening outside of the United States. It is not happening here. Sweden, Norway, Germany and now, Korea lead the push to understand the impact of vaccines on the population. Germany’s health minister came out on public T.V. during prime time acknowledging there has been vaccine injury.
The science that supports what I’m seeing in clinic. Patients will test negative for infection but continue to progress with the disease.
Patients, who apparently clear the virus but nevertheless progress into their disease and eventually die. This study also highlights that these individuals are not testing positive for any infection (pneumonia, flu, rsv…). Yet, upon autopsy show the damage of acute, severe Covid infection.
This information talks to work by Dr. Marc Johnson tracking the virus in waste water. His believes an individual may still be shedding the virus after two years and no longer testing for the virus. Even after testing all potential individuals Dr. Johnson thought were the source, he was unable to identify the person who was shedding so much virus. If you review the research on patients who apparently clear the virus right above this, you can see why this may not be unusual.
If you’re wondering if this shedding of virus in waste water could come from a non-human source, here is the research that has narrowed down the waste water shedding and clarified it is only from a human source. This study narrowed a waste water source to one line that serviced six households with no other inputs. This individual was also shedding for multiple years. The actual individual was not identified.
Effectiveness of the bivalent vaccines approved by the CDC to replace the monovalent vaccine. The vaccine was approved to replace the original monovalent vaccine on April 18, 2023. This study by Cleveland Clinic is interesting because is shows the effectiveness of the bivalent vaccine is less than what was targeted for the flu vaccines. The flu vaccines were targeted to around 40%. The study also showed the vaccine effectiveness significantly decreased with each new variant supporting what scientist around the globe have been saying about this virus. It changes too quickly for a vaccine. Even if they can get a vaccine out in a year, the variants it was targeted to address would be gone. With the flu vaccines, anything under 10% effectiveness is considered ineffective and should be taken off the market. There is an interesting story with that statistic and the 2019 flu season. The bivalent vaccine had a 4% effectiveness on the latest variant and is still recommended as of June 11, 2023. The study had one surprising statistic:
“The risk of COVID-19 also varied by the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses previously received. The higher the number of vaccines previously received, the higher the risk of contracting”
-Cleveland Clinic Study of Bivalent Booster
Adverse effects of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: the spike hypothesis – This was an opinion piece by a number of scientist. It is a bit clinical, but it effectively identifies the concerns that need to be researched with the vaccines and why.
“, adverse effects (AEs) following vaccination have been noted which may relate to a proinflammatory action of the lipid nanoparticles used or the delivered mRNA (i.e., the vaccine formulation), as well as to the unique nature, expression pattern, binding profile, and proinflammatory effects of the produced antigens – spike (S) protein and/or its subunits/peptide fragments – in human tissues or organs”
What they are saying is the vaccine wraps the mRNA in an envelop called a lipid nanoparticle. The current information on these envelopes is they are very inflammatory. If you go up on this page, you’ll see a talk by Kjetil Elvevold whose company was instrumental in developing the lipid nanoparticle for Moderna and his thoughts on delivering that into humans. The mRNA (messenger RNA) was modified so that our immune system could not easily find it and that could be causing the adverse events. Lastly, the unique abilities of the spike protein hasn’t been researched.
The appropriate way to obtain these studies would be requests of the manufacturers through the FDA.
If you want to find a way to stay abreast of if levels of Covid are increasing, probably the best way to do that would be the CDC wastewater tracking system. You can drilldown to your local area. Here is the link.