Science, Art and Religion
Volume 1 | Issue 2-4 | Year 2022

Open Questions over the COVID-19 Pandemic

Sandra Kraljević Pavelić1, Krešimir Pavelić2

1Faculty of Health Studies, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

2Faculty of Medicine, Juraj Dobrila University of Pula, Pula, Croatia

Corresponding Author: Krešimir Pavelić, Faculty of Medicine, Juraj Dobrila University of Pula, Pula, Croatia, e-mail:


Chosen controversial themes that arose upon declared COVID-19 pandemic are briefly discussed and reviewed herein. Given the relatively one-sided reporting on the origin and course of COVID-19 and the constant pressure for the “vaccination” against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), scientific information and research results that show problematic aspects of the COVID-19 counteracting measures put in place are presented. These aspects are often neglected in mainstream communication channels and are underrepresented in the scientific literature. As science is not a dogma but comprises all available objective facts and angles of view, sometimes opposing each other and sometimes not fitting in one unique picture, the presented portion of information may be important for a wider discussion within the scientific community. Scientific facts may be accordingly confronted and openly discussed taking in mind that any discussion should be driven primarily by humanistic goals. The closest truth should be consequently drawn from the confrontations of arguments and facts in light of a humanistic context.


U ovome radu se ukratko raspravlja se o odabranim kontroverznim temama koje su se pojavile nakon proglašenja pandemije COVID-19. S obzirom na relativno jednostrano izvještavanje o nastanku i tijeku COVID-19 te stalni pritisak za ‘cijepljenjem’ protiv SARS-CoV-2, znanstvene informacije i rezultati istraživanja koji pokazuju problematične aspekte mjera suzbijanja COVID-19 postavljaju se brojna pitanja. Ti su aspekti često zanemareni u glavnim komunikacijskim kanalima i nedovoljno su zastupljeni u znanstvenoj literaturi. Kako znanost nije dogma već obuhvaća sve dostupne objektivne činjenice i kutove gledanja, koji su ponekad suprotstavljeni, a ponekad ne ulaze u jedinstvenu sliku, izneseni dio informacija može biti važan za širu raspravu unutar znanstvene zajednice. Znanstvene činjenice se mogu sukladno tome suočiti, otvoreno raspravljati imajući na umu da svaka rasprava treba biti vođena prvenstveno humanističkim ciljevima. Najbližu istinu stoga treba izvući iz sučeljavanja argumenata i činjenica u svjetlu humanističkog konteksta.

How to cite this article: Pavelić SK, Pavelić K. Open Questions over the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sci Arts Relig 2022;1(2-4):210-220.

Source of support: Nil

Conflict of interest: None

Keywords: Community, COVID-19, Pandemic, SARS-CoV-2, Scientific facts, Vaccination.

In December 2019, the world public was globally and systemically being informed through the mainstream media about a potentially new strain of SARS-type coronavirus discovered in Wuhan. Very soon, in March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced a pandemic associated to a newly acknowledged RNA virus from the Coronaviridae family, named SARS-CoV-2, that in their words posed a challenge to almost every country worldwide in terms of potential lack of health system capacities and as an economic burden. Almost immediately, some questions arose within a part of the scientific community that remained inadequately addressed or almost not answered to date. Some of these questions were those questioning the (a) origin and the exact cause of the disease, (b) the actual infection rate among the population, (c) the diagnostic procedure of the disease, particularly the reliability of the reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) test for the detection of COVID-19, (d) exact differential diagnostics procedure of COVID-19, especially in relation to other pathologies with similar symptoms, (e) updated and precise mortality data, (f) variability in response to the “new infection” by the population, (g) the nature and duration of acquired immunity, (h) the usefulness of the genetic products used for vaccination against this disease, and (i) management and relevance (including the cause) of the coronavirus mutations. Some even more important questions arose later on which only adds to the quota of a largely unanswered basic questions list on this particular matter.

The disease named COVID-19 has been, indeed, the subject of several controversies that may be called as “unknowns” due to a lack of scientific consensus. We cover below some of these questions and do not deal with the socio-humanistic aspects of the pandemics. Much of the existing controversies are indeed related to political and socioeconomic issues but have a root in unanswered medical and scientific matters related to the “pandemics” (Table 1). Our goal is to emphasize the rational scientific aspects from the biomedical field available so far that might shed more light on the “pandemics” controversies. One-sided reporting from some scientists, politicians, and above all, the central media may have probably contributed to the creation of such “controversies.” Such one-sided approach or often purposely emphasized dramatic reporting on complex medical and scientific matters toward the public may have contributed to raising fear and anxiety of the population. This is being growingly acknowledged as a public health issue.1-5 In addition, the so-called pandemic-counteracting measures were often only unilaterally justified and the imposed measures had a more psychological impact than being objectively and medically justified or showing some measurable outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to consider these issues, present them to the scientific public, and contribute in overcoming this truly huge human crisis, which seems partly unjustified by evaluating or raising scientific and professional arguments.

Table 1: Some of the controversies over COVID-19 situation management that should be openly questioned and analyzed by the scientific community
  • RT-qPCR method design and usage for confirmation of COVID-19 cases

  • Natural and vaccine-induced immunity—differences and efficacy

  • Public health application of face masking

  • COVID-19 genetic recombinant products for vaccination

  • Lockdown measures and innate immunity status of population

  • Early COVID-19 treatment

  • Number of conformed COVID-19 deaths and absence of autopsies

  • One-sided media and/or professional reporting on the medical aspects of the disease

  • The SARS-CoV-2 isolation and characterization

  • Clinical picture defining for a COVID-19 viral disease

  • Why autopsies for COVID-19 cases confirmation are not performed

  • Safety issues of the COVID-19 genetic recombinant products used for vaccination

  • Premise “Primum non nocere” and The Hippocratic Oath in COVID-19 management

Brief Chronology of the First Year of COVID-19 Disease Onset

On 9th January 2020, the WHO suspected the possible roots of what should later become the COVID-19 pandemic, stressing that the flood of pneumonia-like cases that occurred in the Chinese city of Wuhan could stem from a new coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. There were 59 reported cases at the time, and travel precautions were taken immediately. On 20th January 2020, the American Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that three American airports would start screening for the new coronavirus. The day after, the CDC confirms the first positive case of a Washington state resident returning from Wuhan. The RT-qPCR test developed by the so-called Drosden group6 was chosen as the SARS-CoV-2 testing method and accordingly used to confirm these cases. On the same day, Chinese scientists confirm the transmission of the disease among humans. Later the same month, the city of Wuhan with 11 million inhabitants was put under quarantine (having at that time 300 diagnosed patients). At the end of January 2020, WHO declares a global threat and global flying restrictions came into force. On 11th March 2020, the WHO declares a pandemic. Starting from 24th March 2020, halting of clinical trials was also recommended. On 30th March 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorizes the use of hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19. Later on, two renowned medical journals provided confounding data on this treatment asking for caution in use of hydroxychloroquine. These were the Lancet7 and the New England Journal of Medicine.8 Both these papers added confusion in development of adequate successful protocols for early treatment of COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine, previously prescribed for coronavirus infections treatment, and were both withdrawn after the authors said they could not guarantee the data used for paper preparation. In both studies indeed, a private database of medical records from a relatively unknown company Surgisphere was used to draw conclusions on hydroxychloroquine safety. This is not the only example of the highly problematic publishing of scientific papers during “pandemics” and data accuracy related to clinical and public health management of COVID-19. This is a serious matter as scientific data should be openly and accurately published to allow the medical and scientific community in development of adequate treatments for the disease and eventual counteracting measures. Science can have difficulty performing its societal role if it does not rely on exact and confirmed data. Further, on 30th June 2020, Antony Fauci began to openly warn the population about this new disease, and on 9th July 2020, the WHO announced that this new respiratory disease could spread through the air. A number of epidemiologic measures that were imposed afterward to the general population, such as massive contact tracking of positive asymptomatic cases followed by isolation or quarantine were mainly based on RT-qPCR-positive cases. Clinical and symptomatic cases are exempted from this observation as these cases were clinically confirmed. It should be also noted that airborne diseases may be spread from an infected person via coughing, sneezing, laughing, and close personal contact or aerosolization of the microbe, which means that a patient infected or colonized with a certain infectious agent is required for spreading of a disease.9 Accordingly, a symptomatic person or a person with truly proven infectious potential is required for a respiratory disease spreading, requirements that were largely not met in the RT-qPCR testing of the global population where healthy people were involved as a majority of tested subject. Some major problems with usage of RT-qPCR test for confirmation of COVID-19 cases have indeed been seriously challenged by external independent expert scientists,10 after the original paper was published by the method developer group in 2020.6 Later on, the method was also questioned by WHO itself11 and CDC that announced on 19th July 2021, a recommendation for clinical laboratories and testing sites that have been using the CDC 2019-nCoV RT-qPCR assay, to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses.12

The treatment options by use of existing drugs, especially after the confusion done with erroneously published hydroxychloroquine data, were put almost completely aside from the media focus and governmental policies giving large media coverage to producers of the genetic recombinant products as “vaccines” for COVID-19. Publicly released news on the effectiveness of such new “Moderna vaccine” began on 14th July 2020 when data from phase 1/2 trials of Moderna Inc.’s COVID-19 vaccine on 15 volunteers was disclosed.13 This company was the first to enter large-scale human trials as well. On 20th July 2020, in the United States, it was announced that delays in diagnostic procedures due to COVID-19 could increase cancer incidence.14 Followed by Moderna Inc.’s news, on 21th July 2020, the optimistic results of vaccination trials were released by AstraZeneca and CanSino Biologics as well,15,16 and on 22nd July 2020, the contract for the distribution of Pfizer BioNTech vaccines was announced in the United States.17 It should be noted that these products aimed for COVID-19 vaccination were based on genetic constructs for the production of the coronavirus spike protein in the cells of human recipients. This technology, with the purpose of vaccination, was new to human applications and the sequences for spike proteins in these products were bioinformatically deduced and constructed, in some cases chemically modified, meaning that the final effects in a human body were mainly unknown. These effects include, for example, potential for integration in the human genome or other effects interfering with cellular biological pathways. At the end of August 2020, remdesivir, as one of the firstly pushed antiviral cure for COVID-19, was declared ineffective.18 It was announced, however, that steroids reduced mortality in severe cases of COVID-19,19 Europe also reported an increase in the number of cases, and on 23rd September 2020, a new variant emerged. On 29th September 2020, Regeneron reported on its website positive results from a monoclonal antibody treatment.20 It became obvious that a race to find a COVID-19 treatment was reaching a mature point. Indeed, many scientific and clinical groups reported on various possible treatments for COVID-19 patients.21 Despite criticism toward the heavily pushed use of remdesivir, the FDA at that time gives permission for remdesivir. This remains almost unexplainable from a scientific point of view, especially due to poor clinical utility in COVID-19 treatment and considering the serious adverse effects of this drug reported in the literature.22,23

Public announcements on dilemmas about COVID-19 vaccine products on the utility to induce true immunity against coronavirus expectedly began already on 5th November 2020 before a mass vaccination campaign against COVID-19 started. A number of renewed scientists emphasized that immunity against a coronavirus was not achieved in previous studies on animals by this type of genetic product (i.e., mRNA-based products) and will accordingly not be easy to achieve in a human population with these new products as well. Previous studies might have been thus at least considered by regulatory agencies for cautious applications of recombinant medical products for “vaccination” purposes in massive public health decisions.24-26 These recombinant genetic products, aimed to be used as vaccines against COVID-19, have paved their way sequentially to the public during 2020 and got the emergency use authorization by FDA firstly for Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine27 and conditional marketing authorization by European Medicines Agency (EMA).28 The documentation supplied to regulatory agencies by the producers stated only a relative efficacy of the genetic recombinant products after a rather short period of observation of the subject “vaccine” products. This was shown later to be a crucial point as massive vaccination did not prove useful for control of COVID-19 spreading, particularly to emerging virus mutants, or for disease control.29-31 In parallel to emergency use clearance of these genetic recombinant products for COVID-19 “vaccination,” treatment options were continuously tested and developed. This was, however, not in the major spotlight of COVID-19 disease control decisions in spite of good results for some products obtained in clinical practice.21,32 It should also be noted that some sophisticated and successful treatment options such as monoclonal antibodies, that is, bamlanivimab later on showed to be subject to coronavirus mutations escape as well.33 In the chronology of the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and besides the pharmacological treatment options for COVID-19 patients, two additional important categories were seemingly intentionally omitted from publicly released information. These are (a) exact incidence and (b) confirmed mortality cases from the COVID-19 disease. The reason for this is in the objective lack of scientifically precise information on these two points. Incidence of the disease was counted indeed as RT-qPCR-positive cases, which cannot, in any case, be linearly assessed without other clinical data and exact diagnostics. Mortality data were also partially erroneously counted for all RT-qPCR test positive cases and death-confirmation autopsies were almost halted. Still, even with this highly overestimated number of COVID-19 death cases, the mortality may be comparable with previous years’ seasonal flu data. Unfortunately, realistic data for these two categories will accordingly never be obtained. As just one example for the highly controversial management of public health decisions related to either vaccination or other lockdown measures, the rather robust UK statistics data may be used through the publicly available online service.34 According to the last released document on COVID-19 deaths from 1st January 2021 to 31st October 2021, the number of deaths in unvaccinated persons was in total 35,578 and in vaccinated categories was in total 35,416. In addition, COVID-19 mass vaccination started in December 2020 with the expectation to decrease the excess death rates measured in 2020 since the pandemic’s start. Still, according to the public statistics (stated as statistics for England and Wales), cumulative excess deaths for the 5-year average was constantly increasing until 2nd July 2021, particularly for the age-group 65 years and higher, which raises some additional questions on the health status of the population following COVID-19 measures, including mass vaccinations.

RT-qPCR Test for COVID-19 Cases Identification

Mass testing of the population with the RT-qPCR test since the proclamation of the COVID-19 pandemic comprised a large portion of healthy people and was done by modified RT-qPCR method based on the bioinformatics premise of the newly published SARS-CoV-2 viral genetic sequence. Among other things, such massive testing contributed largely to the emergence of the so-called “test-pandemic.” Indeed, RT-qPCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA does not necessarily mean that a viable virus is present in the tested sample and a final diagnostic decision should be guided by the clinical signs and the patient’s epidemiologic history. Problematic aspects of the RT-qPCR method, including problems with contamination, false positive or negative results, are also described in the literature.30,35-40 Asymptomatic individuals should not be tested by this method and the CDC recently acknowledged that the spread of COVID-19 disease has not yet been proven for asymptomatic cases. This also seriously challenges any strict lockdown decision or testing measures for healthy people. For example, a study from 2020 was conducted on more than 10 million Wuhan inhabitants that were screened for asymptomatic positive cases in the post-lockdown period. The study showed no evidence that the identified asymptomatic COVID-19-positive cases were infectious.41 Similarly, a more recent study presents a case of an asymptomatic COVID-19 patient and the clinical characteristics of its 455 contacts, with the aim to evaluate the potential infectivity of asymptomatic carriers. The computed tomography images of the contacts showed no sign of COVID-19 infection and they all tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 by nucleic acid test.42 Moreover, a recent paper by Lee et al. pointed out flaws in both RT-qPCR assay design and handling of the “bulk” material in the first test lot of the 2019-nCoV real-time RT-qPCR diagnostic panel.43 RT-qPCR test is generally a highly specific molecular method. In other words, if someone does not have an infection, there is a high probability that the person in question will be negative. The test is also extremely sensitive. Despite the high specificity, there is a chance that someone who does not have the infection will be positive (false positive reaction). Some reasons for false positive results are laboratory errors and off-target reactions. The latter means that the test cross-reacting with something that is not SARS-CoV-2 may occur. Among the laboratory errors, the most common are handling errors, testing of the wrong sample, cross-contamination, and problems with chemicals, enzymes, and dyes. False positive can also include a recovered patient from the disease so that fragments of nucleic acid that cannot cause the disease remain present in the sample. Most importantly, RT-qPCR method used to count COVID-19 positive cases has been used without a validated and fixed number of PCR cycles (Ct) under 30 leading to an incredibly high number of positive cases. Moreover, the PCR products of this method have not been validated at a molecular level which means the method becomes useless as a highly-specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus. An open question also remains in the whole COVID-19 diagnostic procedure by molecular testing as majority of clinical centers and test centers did not perform a differential procedure of testing for other common respiratory viruses as well (i.e., influenza).

Face Masking as a Public Health Measure

Face masking mandates in community settings, often outdoors, during the COVID-19 pandemic management has been a matter of major controversy, especially in applications for children. We will not discuss herein the mask-wearing mandate in clinical environments and clinical institutions or in specific situations as this is a separate matter to be discussed within the medical community according to professional standards and facts. We will focus on in-community setting mandates as these have major health, psychological, and environmental consequences that seem to outweigh the envisioned benefits of such measures. Accordingly, we will start with the premise of “targeted masking” instead of mandating universal face masking to the public. Indeed, a case for mandating masks in community settings such as outdoor spaces and uncrowded environments where normal distancing and ventilation are possible does not exist rationally. Particularly, society should have enough information of true benefits as well as potential problems arising from mask-wearing before any measure related to mask-wearing is suggested widely to the population. Scientific studies dealing with the research on efficiency of mask-wearing in control of disease spreading or as part of work safety control were conducted in specific, limited conditions and for assessing types of risks other than COVID-19. Currently, there is no scientific basis to justify the community settings mandate as no clear benefits were assessed in previously published studies44-48 as well as during the COVID-19 pandemic course.49-53 The long mask-wearing may pose a number of other health risks and the precautionary principle that stays for preventing researchers and policymakers from neglecting potentially-harmful side effects of interventions has been completely neglected in the COVID-19 pandemic. The risks include, for example, a false sense of security of the mask wearer, exhalation of the air into the eyes, hampered breathing and oxygenation, contamination of masks with diverse microbes, etc.54 Continuous mask-wearing may be especially dangerous for children as they block the normal oxygen flow which may have serious consequences for brain injuries or brain development of children and adolescents. A recent German study, even if preliminary,55 found health consequences in 68% of masked children that were forced to wear a face covering for an average of 4.5 hours per day. The study comprised 17,854 health complaints that were submitted by parents as well. The health issues found in the study include increased headaches (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), drowsiness or fatigue (37%), malaise (42%), and sleep issues in a third of children. Moreover, 29.7% of children reported shortness of breath, 26.4% reported dizziness, and many children experienced accelerated respiration, tightness in chest, weakness, and short-term impairment of consciousness. The psychological effects of massive mask-wearing mandates are also serious.

The precautionary analysis of unwanted side effects in everyday use of face masks and potential dangers remains vital and has not been performed so far. This is at a best odd and merits further evaluation. Many countries have indeed mandated mask-wearing in public places to combat SARS-CoV-2 without proper risk analysis or follow-up risk-benefit evaluation. In a recent paper, for example,56 the authors tested, evaluated, and compiled scientifically proven related side effects of wearing masks. Forty-four mostly experimental studies were referenced for quantitative assessment, and 65 publications were found for content assessment. The literature revealed the relevant detrimental effects of masks including mental and physical deterioration, as well as several symptoms described due to their consistent, repetitive, and uniform presentation from different disciplines such as mask exhaustion syndrome. The authors objectified the findings with evidence of changes in respiratory physiology of mask wearers with a significant correlation of O2 decline and fatigue, group co-occurrence of respiratory damage and O2 decline (67%) and CO2 increase, headache, respiratory damage and fever, but also temperature and humidity masks. Prolonged wearing of masks by the general population could accordingly lead to a variety of unwanted health problems.

Recombinant Genetic Products Used for COVID-19 Vaccination

Recombinant genetic products used for COVID-19 “vaccination” have been heavily pushed on the global population and are accompanied from one side by excitement, and on the other side by numerous controversies and resistance. The relevant question in this matter is how much do the media, the Internet, and social networks contributed to information or misinformation circulating about these products and the so-called COVID-19 “vaccination” mass campaigns. One of the reasons for confusion and hesitancy may be in a more relaxed procedure of “vaccines” approval for marketing in comparison with drugs. The FDA or EMA approval for the recombinant genetic products used for COVID-19 “vaccination” was primarily based on supplied manufacturer’s data which was explained in more detail in a recent article in the British Medical Journal.57 The emergency use in the USA or conditional marketing authorization in the EU has been granted accordingly. The central media, that played a central role in shaping public opinion on this group of products, played a somewhat negative role from a scientific point of view as facts were neglected from the public communication and propaganda was installed instead of a critical approach toward the “unknown.” The enforcing of this “vaccination” measure with an experimental product by use of methods of psychological pressure was witnessed in the public communication and political space. Regulatory agencies that granted permission for these products are often co-owners of patents or have disclosed or undisclosed conflicts of interest with producers. For example, private fees and payments, including those from pharmaceutical industry, support around 86% of the budget of the EMA agency while public financing accounts for only 15% of the total funding.58 How can these agencies’ decisions on any product, especially a new recombinant genetic product aimed for COVID-19 “vaccination,” be mandated to the population or used for restrictions on human rights? Many media covered this topic but were not allowed to reach a wide audience (just an example is given in Ref.59). The warnings and criticism of independent scientists and/or experts without conflict of interests were not respected and were heavily censored or put in shameful spotlight by media. Who decides on which scientist is right and which is not? Science operates through confrontation of facts and opinions. These cannot especially be done by mass media or social media as the consequences for science and the whole society may be detrimental.60 Some physicians and medical doctors promoted “vaccination” due to lack of molecular knowledge or simply ignored the problem of using an experimental medical product due to fear or pressure. At the same time, a high number of physicians and medical doctors oppose this procedure pointing that a medical justification to use an experimental, potentially harmful product for a disease whose mortality rate is almost equal to the flu does not merit such attention (a careful statistic is done, for example, in the UK61). Some doctors have recently refused to vaccinate patients possibly due to the increase in so-called sudden deaths or severe reactions. The papers bringing criticisms on this matter do not make it through the peer review process or are retracted (e.g., Ref.62). Many scientific papers report on severe cardiovascular and neurological effects and here it should be noted that this is not anyhow a “normal outcome” of vaccination. Adverse events of special interest for COVID-19 vaccines—background incidences vary by sex, age, and time period and are affected by the pandemic.63-65 One of the main explanations for pushing the mass “vaccination” with recombinant genetic products used as “vaccines” against COVID-19 toward the public is the alleged pressure to the health system due to the spread of the COVID-19 infection. This is often publicly communicated as one of the main justifications for unprecedented restrictions of human rights and freedoms. This is witnessed through introduction of the so-called COVID-19 certificates and in its true essence almost mandatory vaccinations. For those who are faced with losing jobs, education rights, freedom of movement, etc. this is indeed a mandatory request. For example, Croatian experts and physicians clearly stated that the health system overload has not been reached in any period from the proclamation of the COVID-19 pandemics because most COVID-19 patients do not need hospital treatment at all. A similar picture may be seen in other EU countries. Then, what the restrictions are about? Why such strong unilateral support of the main media is necessary to push such impositions in the medical field? If a medical product works fine and has a medical justification, no propaganda is necessary to spread the good information. The case is obviously different. When it comes to mRNA or adenoviral vectors-based recombinant genetic products containing genetically engineered and/or chemically modified nucleic acid sequences for production of the spike protein within the host human cell, consequences may be grave and have been described so far in the scientific and medical literature (Table 2). Some consequences include the following side effects of such medical procedure: Guillain–Barré syndrome, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, encephalitis/myelitis/encephalomyelitis/meningoencephalitis/meningitis/encephalopathy, convulsions/seizures, stroke, anaplasia, narcolepsy and narcolepsy, myocarditis/pericarditis, autoimmune disease, impact on pregnancy outcome and childbirth, non-anaphylactic allergic reactions, thrombocytopenia, disseminated intravascular coagulation, venous thromboembolism, arthritis and arthralgia/joint pain, Kawasaki disease, so-called multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, exacerbation of the disease caused by this so-called vaccine, and death. Quite enough for serious concern. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, such list of unwanted effects for any tested medical product would immediately lead to halting of the clinical testing and further product development. Now, this is not the case. Why is this list so large and why are the reports in pharmacovigilance bases so high? After injection of the recombinant genetic products aimed for COVID-19 “vaccination,” in an ideal scenario, human cells use the instructions either in the form of DNA or mRNA to make copies of the viral spike protein. This protein is afterward presented to immunological system on the cell surface and is recognized as a foreign antigen that triggers an immune response in the form of antibody production. This process allows a fragment of the particular viral strain spike protein to form. Accordingly, these products can only trigger a rather specific but in a long-term weak or ineffective protective immune response that will not be efficient toward mutated forms, which is highly relevant for the mutating coronaviruses. Moreover, these genetic constructs may enter the nucleus and be either integrated in the human genome or impair other vital biological processes such as V(D)J recombination and DNA repair (Table 2). These risks are so high for the future health of the recipients that a massive application may lead to a massive increase in malignant diseases and other public health conditions. This is why the coronavirus-directed vaccines in general have not been developed successfully so far. A number of biological and health problems were observed with similar products in the preclinical stages of development, especially in terms of effectiveness and safety.25,66,67 Rushing into massive programs of injecting recombinant genetic products used for COVID-19 vaccination without a clear safety frame and especially in light of failure in protecting the population in the spreading of COVID-19 and hospitalizations, is at best irresponsible, and at worst dangerous for the whole population. So far, the majority of people successfully acquired the most valuable natural immunity against the virus. Particularly, each person should decide alone whether to receive or not an experimental medical product for an experimental medical procedure as it is done for any other product or procedure. At last, we conclude this section with the list of recorded adverse events after injection of the recombinant genetic products used for COVID-19 “vaccination” publicly disclosed in many pharmacovigilance databases such as VAERS and EudraVigilance. These bases are known to report for only a few percent of really occurring adverse effects. For example, it has been found that serious adverse events post-vaccination are underreported in the VAERS system by a factor of 8.3,68 the reported number of unwanted effects for recombinant genetic products used for COVID-19 vaccination are already so high that mass injection of these products should be immediately halted and reevaluated by the scientific and medical community. These numbers include 20,622 deaths, 108,572 hospitalized, 107,860 urgent care, 153,971 doctor office visits, 8590 anaphylaxis, 12,317 Bell’s palsy, 3365 miscarriages, 10,429 heart attacks, 201,560 myocarditis/pericarditis, 34,615 permanently disabled, 4907 thrombocytopenia and low platelet, 23,405 life-threatening reactions, 35,997 severe allergic reactions, and 11,292 shingles.69

Table 2: Recombinant genetic products used for COVID-19 vaccination, biological consequences, adverse or unwanted effects reports from the scientific literature
Explanation Source
Potential integration of the genetic construct into human genome Domazet-Lošo78
Potential integration of the genetic construct into human genome Cohen79
Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) Yahi et al.30
Vaccine risk reduction manipulations Olliaro et al.80
Side effects Merrill et al.81
COVID–19 vaccine did not fulfill its main purpose—to prevent disease Subramanian and Kumar82
Consequences of mRNA vaccine against COVID-19 worse than the disease Seneff and Nigh83
Hospital epidemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in double vaccinated population Shitrit et al.84
Reactivation of hepatitis C virus and death after vaccination against COVID-19—a case report Lensen et al.85
Transmission of COVID-19 by vaccinated people Singanayagam et al.86
Questionable vaccination of previously infected Goldberg et al.87
Questionable second dose of vaccination in persons previously infected with SARS-CoV 2 Lazano-Ojalvo et al.88
Waning immunity after the BNT162b2 vaccine in Israel Goldberg et al.87
Extensive research has revealed consistent pathophysiological changes following vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines. Liu et al.89
Pathophysiological alterations after vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines Liu et al.89
Scientists point to major data integrity issues in Pfizer vaccine testing BMJ Investigation Covid-1957
SARS-CoV-2 spike interferes with DNA damage repair and inhibits in vitro recombination Jiang and Mei90
Multisystem inflammation and organ dysfunction after BNT162b2 Messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccination Kahn et al.91
Vaccinated patients die from COVID due to weakened immunity Roberts92
Acute allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines Blumenthal et al.93
A study on the durability of an mRNA-1273 vaccine designed against SARS-CoV-2 variants indicates the need for new revaccination Pegu et al.94
COVID-19 vaccination: a red flag for vaccine-induced cerebral venous thrombosis Garcia-Azorin et al.95
Psychiatric disorders reported after vaccination against COVID-19 Yesilkaya et al.96
World Health Organization’s global drug database of adverse drug events, VigiBase (VigiAccess) 202197
Genital necrosis with cutaneous thrombosis after mRNA vaccination against COVID-19 Kuzumi et al.98
COVID-19 vaccines increase heart attack risk Gundry99
Vaccine mandates are unethical, unscientific, and extremely expensive. Great Barrington Declaration100
SARS-CoV-2 spike impairs DNA damage repair and inhibits V(D)J recombination in vitro Jiang and Mei90
COVID-19 RNA–based vaccines and the risk of prion disease Classen101
Acute pancreatitis as a possible side effect of COVID-19 vaccine Parkash et al.102
Neurological side effects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines Finsterer and Scorza103


In light of the scientific literature and facts showing poor effects for undertaken measures aimed to counteract COVID-19 spreading and infections, it seems that the major controversy stays in acquired immunity from disease as data speak in favor of natural immunity as superior to vaccine-induced immunity. Given that the field of immunology is extremely extensive and requires extensive elaboration, we will close this paper by pointing to a number of scientific papers on the topic of natural immunity in COVID-19 published since the beginning of the pandemic. The immunity of vaccinated persons has also been closely monitored. These studies generally show a significantly better state of immunity in unvaccinated individuals with a wide range of immune functions and parameters being investigated (a compilation of scientific studies is given on the Brownstone website70). Indeed, a number of study show persistence of SARS-CoV-2 immunity in majority of COVID-19 convalescents and show that vaccination status does not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections in the long-term.71-73 Consequently, a growing body of literature provides evidence on natural immunity after SARS-CoV-2 infection that not only confers robust, durable, and high-level protection against COVID-19, but is also superior to vaccine-induced immunity.73-77


1. Trnka R, Lorencova R. Fear, anger, and media-induced trauma during the outbreak of COVID-19 in the Czech Republic. Psychol Trauma 2020;12(5):546–549. DOI: 10.1037/tra0000675

2. Dubey S, Biswas P, Ghosh R, et al. Psychosocial impact of COVID-19. Diabetes Metab Syndr 2020;14(5):779–788. DOI: 10.1016/j.dsx.2020.05.035

3. Pimenta IDSF, de Sousa Mata ÁN, Braga LP, et al. Media and scientific communication about the COVID-19 pandemic and the repercussions on the population’s mental health: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020;99(50):e23298. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000023298

4. Liu C, Liu Y. Media exposure and anxiety during COVID-19: the mediation effect of media vicarious traumatization. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17(13):4720. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17134720

5. Giri SP, Maurya AK. A neglected reality of mass media during COVID-19: effect of pandemic news on individual’s positive and negative emotion and psychological resilience. Pers Individ Dif 2021;180:110962. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.110962

6. Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M, et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-QPCR [published correction appears in Euro Surveill 2020;25(14):20200409c] [published correction appears in Euro Surveill 2020;25(30):2007303] [published correction appears in Euro Surveill 2021;26(5):210204e]. Euro Surveill 2020;25(3):2000045. DOI: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045

7. Mehra MR, Desai SS, Ruschitzka F, et al. RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis. Lancet 2020. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31180-6

8. Mehra MR, Desai SS, Kuy SR, Retraction: Cardiovascular disease, drug therapy, and mortality in Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2020;382(26):2582. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc2021225

9. Centre for Disease Control. [accessed 2021 Dec 26]. Available from:

10. Review Report by an International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences (ICSLS)—Corman-Drosten et al., Eurosurveillance 2020 (Updated: 2.12.2020). [accessed 2021 Dec 26]. Available from:

11. [accessed 2021 Dec 26].

12. [accessed 2021 Dec 21].

13. Jackson LA, Anderson EJ, Rouphael, NG, et al. An mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2—preliminary report. N Engl J Med 2020;383(20):1920–1931. DOI: 10.1056/nejmoa2022483

14. Maringe C, Spicer J, Morris M, et al. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer deaths due to delays in diagnosis in England, UK: a national, population-based, modelling study. Lancet Oncol 2020;21(8):1023–1034. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30388-0

15. Folegatti PM, Ewer KJ, Aley PK, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: a preliminary report of a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2020;396(10249):467–478. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31604-4

16. Zhu F-C, Guan X-H, Li Y-H, et al. Immunogenicity and safety of a recombinant adenovirus type-5-vectored COVID-19 vaccine in healthy adults aged 18 years or older: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet 2020;396(10249):479–488. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31605-6

17. [accessed 2021 Dec 26].

18. Spinner CD, Gottlieb RL, Criner GJ, et al. Effect of remdesivir vs standard care on clinical status at 11 days in patients with moderate COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2020;324(11):1048–1057. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.16349

19. The WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group, Sterne JAC, Murthy S, et al. Association between administration of systemic corticosteroids and mortality among critically ill patients with COVID-19: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2020;324(13):1330–1341. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.17023

20. [accessed 2021 Dec].

21. Pavelić K, Kraljević Pavelić S, Brix B, et al. A perspective on COVID-19 management. J Clin Med 2021;10(8):1586. DOI: 10.3390/jcm10081586

22. Gérard AO, Laurain A, Fresse A, et al. Remdesivir and acute renal failure: a potential safety signal from disproportionality analysis of the WHO safety database. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2021;109(4):1021–1024. DOI: 10.1002/cpt.2145

23. Fan Q, Zhang B, Ma J, et al. Safety profile of the antiviral drug remdesivir: an update. Biomed Pharmacother 2020;130:110532. DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2020.110532

24. See RH, Petric M, Lawrence DJ, et al. Severe acute respiratory syndrome vaccine efficacy in ferrets: whole killed virus and adenovirus-vectored vaccines. J Gen Virol 2008;89(Pt 9):2136–2146. 10.1099/vir.0.2008/001891-0

25. Tseng CT, Sbrana E, Iwata-Yoshikawa N, et al. Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus. Erratum in: Tseng C-T, Sbrana E, Iwata-Yoshikawa N, et al. Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus. PLoS One 7(8). DOI: 10.1371/annotation/2965cfae-b77d-4014-8b7b-236e01a35492. PLoS One 2012;7(4):e35421. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035421

26. Weingartl H, Czub M, Czub S, et al. Immunization with modified vaccinia virus Ankara-based recombinant vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome is associated with enhanced hepatitis in ferrets. J Virol 2004;78(22):12672–12676. DOI: 10.1128/JVI.78.22.12672-12676.2004

27. [accessed 2021 Dec 26].

28. [accessed 2021 Dec 26].

29. Brown RB. Outcome reporting bias in COVID-19 mRNA vaccine clinical trials. Medicina (Kaunas) 2021;57(3):199. DOI: 10.3390/medicina57030199

30. Yahi N, Chahinian H, Fantini J. Infection-enhancing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies recognize both the original Wuhan/D614G strain and Delta variants. A potential risk for mass vaccination? J Infect 2021;83(5):607–635. DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2021.08.010

31. Israel A, Shenhar Y, Green I, et al. Large-scale study of antibody titer decay following BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine or SARS-CoV-2 infection. medRxiv 2021. DOI: 10.1101/2021.08.19.21262111

32. Shahbaznejad L, Davoudi A, Eslami G, et al. Effects of ivermectin in patients with COVID-19: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Clin Ther 2021;43(6):1007–1019. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2021.04.007

33. Laurini E, Marson D, Aulic S, et al. Molecular rationale for SARS-CoV-2 spike circulating mutations able to escape bamlanivimab and etesevimab monoclonal antibodies. Sci Rep 2021;11(1):20274. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-99827-3

34. [accessed 2021 Dec 26].

35. Sharfstein JM, Becker SJ, Mello MM. Diagnostic testing for the novel coronavirus. JAMA 2020;323(15):1437–1438. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.3864

36. Surkova E, Nikolayevskyy V, Drobniewski F. False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs. Lancet Respir Med 2020;8(12):1167–1168. DOI: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30453-7

37. Kucirka LM, Lauer SA, Laeyendecker O, et al. Variation in false-negative rate of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction-based SARS-CoV-2 tests by time since exposure. Ann Intern Med 2020;173(4):262–267. DOI: 10.7326/M20-1495

38. Healy B, Khan A, Metezai H, et al. The impact of false positive COVID-19 results in an area of low prevalence. Clin Med (Lond) 2021;21(1):e54–e56. DOI: 10.7861/clinmed.2020-0839

39. Kortela E, Kirjavainen V, Ahava MJ, et al. Real-life clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-QPCR test in symptomatic patients. PLoS One 2021;16(5):e0251661. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251661

40. Braunstein GD, Schwartz L, Hymel P, et al. False Positive results with SARS-CoV-2 RT-QPCR tests and how to evaluate a RT-PCR-positive test for the possibility of a false positive result. J Occup Environ Med 2021;63(3):e159–e162. DOI: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000002138

41. Cao S, Gan Y, Wang C, et al. Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China. Nat Commun 2020;11(1):5917. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-19802-w

42. Gao M, Yang L, Chen X, et al. A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers. Respir Med 2020;169:106026. DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2020.106026

43. Lee JS, Goldstein JM, Moon JL, et al. Analysis of the initial lot of the CDC 2019-novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) real-time RT-qPCR diagnostic panel. PLoS One 2021;68(12):e0260487. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260487

44. Xiao J, Shiu E, Gao H, et al. Nonpharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in nonhealthcare settings—personal protective and environmental measures. Emerg. Infect Dis 2021;26(5):967–975. DOI: 10.3201/eid2605.190994

45. Mitchell NJ, Hunt S. Surgical face masks in modern operating rooms—a costly and unnecessary ritual? J Hosp Infect 1991;18(3):239–242. DOI: 10.1016/0195-6701(91)90148-2

46. Lipp A, Edwards P. Disposable surgical face masks for preventing surgical wound infection in clean surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;2016(4):CD002929. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002929.pub2

47. Radonovich LJ Jr, Simberkoff MS, Bessesen MT, et al. N95 respirators vs medical masks for preventing influenza among health care personnel: a randomized clinic trial. JAMA 2019;322(9):824–833. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2019.11645

48. bin-Reza F, Chavarrias LV, Nicoll A, et al. The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence. Influenza Other Respir Viruses 2012;6(4):257–267. DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x

49. Cheng Y, Ma N, Witt C, et al. Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Science 2021;372(6549):1439–1443. DOI: 10.1126/science.abg6296

50. Jefferson T, Del Mar CB, Dooley L, et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020;11(11):CD006207. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5

51. Jefferson T, Jones MA, Al-Ansary L, et al. medRxiv 2020;2020.03.30.20047217. DOI: 10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217

52. Bae TS, Kim M-C, Kim JY, et al. Effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in blocking SARS-CoV-2: a controlled comparison in 4 patients. Ann Intern Med 2020;M20-1342. DOI: 10.7326/M20-1342

53. Klompas M, Morris MC, Sinclair J, et al. Universal masking in hospitals in the Covid-19 era. N Engl J Med 2020;382:e63. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2006372

54. Lazzarino A. Face masks for the public during the covid-19 crisis. BMJ 2020;369:m1435. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m1435

55. Schwarz S, Jenetzky E, Krafft H, et al. Corona children studies “Co-Ki”: first results of a Germany-wide registry on mouth and nose covering (mask) in children. Monatsschr Kinderheilkd 2021;169(4):353–365. DOI: 10.21203/

56. Kisielinski K, Giboni P, Prescher A, et al. Is a mask that covers the mouth and nose free from undesirable side effects in everyday use and free of potential hazards? Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021;18(8):4344. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18084344

57. Thacker PD. Covid-19: researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial. BMJ 2021;375:n2635. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n26355

58. [accessed 2021 Dec 29 2021].

59. [accessed 2021 Dec 29].

60. Clarke L. Covid-19: who fact checks health and science on Facebook? BMJ 2021;373:n1170. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n1170

61. [accessed 2021 Dec 29].

62. Walach H, Klement RJ, Aukema W. Retracted: The safety of COVID-19 vaccinations—we should rethink the policy. Retraction in: Vaccines (Basel) 2021;9(7):729. Vaccines (Basel) 2021;9(7):693. DOI: 10.3390/vaccines9070693

63. Nyberg F, Lindh M, Vanfleteren LEGW, et al. Adverse events of special interest for COVID-19 vaccines—background incidences vary by sex, age and time period and are affected by the pandemic. medRxiv 2021. DOI: 10.1101/2021.10.04.21263507v1

64. Menni C, Klaser K, May A, et al. Vaccine side-effects and SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination in users of the COVID Symptom Study app in the UK: a prospective observational study. Lancet Infect Dis 2021;21(7):939–949. DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00224-3

65. An QJ, Qin DA, Pei JX. Reactive arthritis after COVID-19 vaccination. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2021;17(9):2954–2956. DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2021.1920274

66. Mommaerts J-L. COVID-vaccinations: why it matters to know the real effectiveness. BMJ 2020;371:m4924. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m4924

67. Su S, Du L, Jiang S. Learning from the past: development of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines. Nat Rev Microbiol 2021;19:211–219. DOI: 10.1038/s41579-020-00462-y

68. Miller ER, McNeil MM, Moro PL, et al. The reporting sensitivity of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for anaphylaxis and for Guillain-Barré syndrome. Vaccine 2020;38(47):7458–7463. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.09.072

69., [accessed 2021 Dec 17].

70. [accessed 2021 Dec 30].

71. Zhang J, Lin H, Ye B, et al. One-year sustained cellular and humoral immunities of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescents. Clin Infect Dis 2020;75(1):e1072–e1081. DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciab884

72. Riemersma KK, Grogan BE, Kita-Yarbro A, et al. Shedding of infectious SARS-CoV-2 despite vaccination. medRxiv 2021. DOI: 10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387

73. Turner JS, Kim W, Kalaidina E, et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans. Nature 2021;595(7867):421–425. DOI: 10.21203/

74. Gazit S, Shlezinger R, Perez G, et al. Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections. MedRxiv 2021. DOI: 10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415

75. Hall VJ, Foulkes S, Charlett A, et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of antibody-positive compared with antibody-negative health-care workers in England: large, multicentre, prospective cohort study (SIREN). Lancet 2021;397(10283):1459–1469. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00675-9

76. Harvey RA, Rassen JA, Kabelac CA, et al. Association of SARS-CoV-2 seropositive antibody test with risk of future infection. JAMA Intern Med 2021;181(5):672–679. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.0366

77. Wang Z, Yang X, Zhong J, et al. Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 generates T-cell memory in the absence of a detectable viral infection. Nat Commun 2021;12(1):1724. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-22036-z

78. Domazet-Lošo T. mRNA vaccines: why is the biology of retroposition ignored? Genes (Basel) 2022;13(5):719. DOI: 10.3390/genes13050719

79. Cohen. Do coronavirus genes slip into human chromosomes? Science 2021;372(6543):674–675. DOI: 10.1126/science.372.6543.674

80. Olliaro P, Torreele E, Vaillant M. COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room. Lancet 2021;2(7):e279–e280. DOI: 10.1016/S2666-5247(21)00069-0

81. Merrill ED, Kashem SW, Amerson EH, et al. Association of facial pustular neutrophilic eruption with messenger RNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. JAMA Dermatol 2021;157(9):1128–1130. DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.2474

82. Subramanian SV, Kumar A. Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States. Eur J Epidemiol 2021;36(12):1237–1240. DOI: 10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7

83. Seneff S, Nigh G. Worse than the disease? Reviewing some possible unintended consequences of the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19. Int J Vaccine Theory Pract Res 2021;2(1):38. DOI: 10.56098/ijvtpr.v2i1.23

84. Shitrit P, Zuckerman NS, Mor O, et al. Nosocomial outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in a highly vaccinated population, Israel. Euro Surveill 2021;26(39):2100822. DOI: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.39.2100822

85. Lensen R, Netea MG, Rosendall FR. Hepatitis C virus reactivation following COVID-19 vaccination—a case report, Int Med Case Rep J 2021;14:573–576. DOI: 10.2147/IMCRJ.S328482

86. Singanayagam A, Hakki S, Dunning J, et al. Community transmission and viral load kinetics of the SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) variant in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in the UK: an observational, longitudinal, cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis 2022;22(2):183–195. DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00648-4

87. Goldberg Y, Mandel M, Bar-On YM, et al. Waning immunity after the BNT162b2 vaccine in Israel. N Engl J Med 2021;385(24):e85. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2114228

88. Lazano-Ojalvo D, Camara C, Lopez-Granados E, et al. Differential effects of the second SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose on T cell immunity in naive and COVID-19 recovered individuals. Cell Rep 2021:36(8):109570. DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109570

89. Liu J, Wang J, Xu J, et al. Comprehensive investigations revealed consistent pathophysiological alterations after vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines. Cell Discov 2021;7(1):99. DOI: 10.1038/s41421-021-00329-3

90. Jiang H, Mei YF. SARS-CoV-2 spike impairs DNA damage repair and inhibits V(D)J recombination in vitro. Viruses 2021;13(10):2056. DOI: 10.3390/v13102056

91. Kahn B, Apostolidis SA, Bhatt V, et al. Multisystem inflammation and organ dysfunction after BNT162b2 messenger RNA coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination. Crit Care Explor 2021;3(11):e0578. DOI: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000578

92. Roberts M. Covid Infection Protection Waning in Double Jabbed. BBC News Online; 2021. [accessed 2021 Dec 30]. Available from:

93. Blumenthal KG, Robinson LB, Camargo CA, et al. Acute allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. JAMA 2021;325(15):1562–1565. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.3976

94. Pegu A, O’Connell SE, Schmidt SD, et al. Durability of mRNA-1273 vaccine-induced antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 variants. Science 2021;373(6561):1372–1377. DOI: 10.1126/science.abj4176

95. Garcia-Azorin D, Do TP, Gantenbein AR, et al. Delayed headache after COVID-19 vaccination: a red flag for vaccine induced cerebral venous thrombosis. Headache 2021;22(1):108. DOI: 10.1186/s10194-021-01324-5

96. Yesilkaya UH, Sen M, Tasdemir BG. A novel adverse effect of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine: first episode of acute mania with psychotic features. Brain Behav Immun Health 2021;18:100363. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbih.2021.100363

97. World Health Organization’s Global Drug Database of Adverse Drug Events. VigiBase (VigiAccess). [accessed 2021 Jan 3] Available from:

98. Kuzumi A, Yoshizaki A, Chiba K, et al. Genital necrosis with cutaneous thrombosis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2021;36(3):e185–e186. DOI: 10.1111/jdv.17837

99. Gundry SR. Abstract 10712: observational findings of PULS cardiac test findings for inflammatory markers in patients receiving mRNA vaccines. Circulation 2021;144:A10712. DOI: 10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712

100. Great Barrington Declaration. [accessed 2021 Dec 30]. Available from:

101. Classen JB. COVID-19 RNA based vaccines and the risk of prion disease. Microbiol Infect Dis 2021;5(1):1–3. DOI: 10.33425/2639-9458.1109

102. Parkash O, Sharko A, farooqi a, et al. acute pancreatitis: a possible side effect of COVID-19 vaccine. Cureus 2021;13(4):e14741. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.14741

103. Finsterer J, Scorza FA. SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are not free of neurological side effects. Acta Neurol Scand 2021;144(1):109–110. DOI: 10.1111/ane.13451

© The Author(s). 2022 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and non-commercial reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.