Autoimmune Disease, Blood Clots, Brain Inflammation, Cancers (Turbo), Infertility, Lipid Nanoparticles (Toxic), Microclots, Mitochondrial Damage, Myocarditis, Pericarditis, Spike Protein Clearance?
Professor Robyn Cosford, MBBS (Hons)
FACNEM FASLM (retired)
Sydney, NSW
reception@nbcc.net.au
Interview Summary
In this interview, Professor Robyn Cosford discusses the potential pathogenic effects of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein from both natural COVID-19 infection and COVID-19 mRNA injections, drawing on she and her colleagues 2023 peer-reviewed literature review, “Spikeopathy: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA.” Professor Cosford explains the differences between the two types of spike proteins, including the vaccine spike protein’s modified structure, its two proline substitutions, and the use of modified mRNA and lipid nanoparticles, which she believes may contribute to prolonged spike protein production and persistence throughout the body. Dr. Cosford describes potential mechanisms of harm involving ACE2 receptors, cardiovascular inflammation, blood clotting, mitochondrial dysfunction, neurological inflammation, gastrointestinal microbiome changes, autoimmune responses, and other health conditions. Professor Cosford believes the vaccine-produced spike protein is more pathogenic than the spike protein from natural infection and may persist for years, whereas infection-related spike protein generally clears within weeks to months. Professor Cosford also discusses potential approaches to supporting spike protein clearance, including fasting, saunas, nattokinase, bromelain, NAC, zinc, and quercetin. She concludes by calling for further investigation into reported adverse effects, effective treatments for those affected, greater transparency, and a pause in further mRNA injections until their safety and risks have been thoroughly evaluated.
Interview
Kirk Hamilton: Can you please share with me your educational background and current position?
Prof Robyn Cosford: I am a retired functional medicine practitioner and Professor of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine. I was a researcher with the University of Newcastle in New South Wales, Australia into the metabolic and gastrointestinal microbial patterns in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), ADHD and Autism, with ongoing research into gut microbial patterns; lecturer for 25 years with the Australasian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine; and clinician for nearly 40 years with a focus on children’s neurodevelopmental disorders, gastrointestinal dysfunction and CFS.
KH: What got you interested in looking at the pathogenicity of the spike protein from the Covid-19 mRNA Injection?
RC: I became interested in looking at the pathogenicity of the spike protein for several reasons. Firstly, the method of delivery was novel and untested: the lipids of the carrier were not natural lipids, the mRNA delivering the message was also not natural but modified to ensure longevity in the body unlike native mRNA, and the spike protein resulting was also different to the original Wuhan strain spike protein. There are risks associated with any and every medical intervention particularly if injected, so the benefit must outweigh the risk. This became a question for me as the injections were being promoted for all regardless of individual risk of Covid itself. As the key active component of the injections was the persistence of the spike protein and the responses elicited, this was an obvious subject of further investigation for me.
I was fortunate to collaborate with my co-authors who had similar questions and we cooperated on a narrative literature review, ‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA. It was rigorously peer-reviewed and published in the journal Biomedicines in August 2023. It is receiving a respectable number of citations. See: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287?s=35
KH: What makes the spike protein pathogenic?
RC: There are multiple reasons the spike protein is pathogenic. Via direct binding to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), the spike protein is able to activate many of the cellular components of the cardiovascular system, resulting in inflammation and dysfunction which can further result in microclots, larger clots, acute heart inflammation (myocarditis, pericarditis) and so on. ACE2 is a membrane-bound protein with the enzymatic ‘business end’ sitting on the outside of the cell membrane. This situation is exploited by the virus which can use it as a convenient site of cellular entry. Put another way, physiologically ACE2 is an enzyme, virologically it acts as a receptor. Moreover, research has shown that not only does the viral spike bind to the ACE-2 as expected, it also binds to numerous other proteins resulting in widespread effects in many metabolic pathways; indeed, other human proteins with plausible experimental evidence for spike protein binding include, but are not restricted to, KREMEN1 and ASGR1 (Hoffmann and Pohlmann 2022; Cell Res 32, 1-2). It is also able to cause direct damage to the mitochondria, resulting in mitochondrial damage, impaired energy production and downstream inflammation effects; it has also been demonstrated to cross the blood brain barrier via several routes and trigger inflammation in the brain; it has been demonstrated to be able to interact with gastrointestinal microbiotica to induce altered gastrointestinal flora patterns and thus affect the immune system and metabolism via that route also.
This list is not exhaustive, as very many different effects have been reported. We covered much of the basic pathophysiological mechanisms in section 6 of our literature review.
KH: Is there a difference between the physiology/biochemistry and pathogenicity of the spike protein from the Covid-19 virus versus that created by the mRNA vaccine technology?
RC: There is a difference between the spike protein effect in acute Covid infection to that of the injection. In an acute infection, there is a sudden load of the spike protein initially in the respiratory tract which will elicit a local mucosal cellular immune response before the more generalized whole system response of antibodies; in most cases the body is able to clear the spike protein and the acute illness subsides, although some will go on to develop ‘long Covid’ rather like the ‘post viral syndrome’ that some would get after other viral infections.
However, with the injection, the route is different, coming directly into the body via injection rather than by the respiratory tract: therefore, the initial responses will be predominantly via the humoral (antibody – mediated) immune system rather than the mucosal cellular immune system and a different whole body response is elicited; the spike protein rather than coming in a bolus, is released continually by our own manufacture in ribosomes in cells throughout the body.
The widespread biodistribution through the body is because the mRNA encoding for spike protein is in a lipid-nanoparticle (LNP) matrix that transports it through cell and tissue membranes. Therefore, cells in all organs can become transfected by the LNP-mRNA complex injected into the deltoid muscle. This can occur for prolonged periods after the injection, with studies (as we reported in table 1 section 6 of our literature review) suggesting it can continue for months, and is boosted with each booster. In many people, it would seem, the spike protein is not cleared for a much longer duration than with acute infection.
KH: Is there not a structural difference between the Spike protein the comes with the natural infection compared to the Spike protein created in the cells from the mRNA vaccine which make the vaccine spike protein more pathogenic and difficult to degrade or rid from the body?
RC: Yes, there is a key structural difference in the vaccine type spike protein as compared to the wild type.
1) There has been a deliberate substitution, inserting 2 proline residues at positions 986 and 987, which renders the resulting protein more stable in conformation. This was done because it was initially believed to make the spike protein less likely to bind to the ACE receptor and be incorporated into the cell, and more likely to remain on the exterior of the cell, essentially trapped on cell membranes and in local lymph nodes. The aim was to increase the immunogenicity of the vaccine-type spike protein to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) part of the spike protein and increase neutralizing antibodies. However as a result of the structurally distinct surface, it has been demonstrated that while the vaccine-type spike protein is highly immunogenic, it actually results in a lower level of neutralizing antibodies than native infection and high immunotolerant IgG4 antibodies, together with a new antibody repertoire as a result of the newly exposed epitopes in this changed conformational structure. This has been reflected in the high rates of immunological side effects noted, with reactivation of autoimmune disease, new-onset autoimmune diseases and production of antibodies to G-protein receptors particularly those related to the ACE receptor, the renin-angiotensin system and autonomic nervous system. The newly recognized Post-Acute Covid Vaccination Syndrome (PACVS) syndrome, with prominent chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) symptoms, demonstrates some of these antibodies.
2) The proline-proline bonds are extremely resistant to enzymatic degradation due to this conformational change, resulting in extended spike protein persistence. Most enzymatic degradation occurs at N-H bonds by serine, cysteine and aspartic proteases which are ineffective at the proline-proline site; there are no endogenous human enzymes capable of cleaving this bond. Degradation of Pro–Pro bonds in vivo occurs indirectly — via broad-spectrum metalloproteases (MMPs) and cysteine proteases (cathepsins) acting on denatured or structurally accessible substrates. Although it was assumed that the spike protein would be cleared in a few weeks, vaccine-type spike protein has been demonstrated persistent in some patients at up to 3 years in published cases, and in 5 years in one of my cases (unpublished data), although whether persistence is due to ongoing spike protein production, or limited degradation and excretion or a combination is as yet unclear. Further research is required.
3) A further point of difference between native infection and the vaccine lies in the modified mRNA (modRNA) used to trigger production of the vaccine-type spike protein. The incorporated pseudouracil (aka pseudouridine, that replaced uridine in the modRNA of the vaccine) causes prolonged stability of the modRNA not seen in natural mRNA and affects the translation efficiency of the modRNA with resultant frameshifting. This frameshifting produces truncated out of frame polypeptides with off-target immune consequences. It is also theorized that degradation or incomplete synthesis of the modRNA in the vaccine itself may further result in the production of abnormal peptides although this is as yet unconfirmed. The effects of these unintended polypeptides are largely unknown and again require further research.
4) My recent paper on PACVS illustrates both the high level of G protein functional autoantibody formation and the persistence of spike protein in 2 severe PACVS cases. (https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/7643).
KH: If so, which is more pathogenic, disease and sequelae causing? The viral infection spike protein or that from the mRNA vaccine?
RC: Acute Covid can have serious outcomes, but predominantly in the very elderly or those with multiple co morbidities; however, in those who are under 60-year-olds it usually has little effect. In comparison, the vaccines are documented as having serious side effects and mortality even in the fittest of all – young males and elite athletes. I personally believe, on the weight of the evidence, that the mRNA spike protein is inherently far more pathogenic than the wild virus type.
KH: Further, is there not a significant difference between the spike protein from the Covid-19 virus and vaccines and past Coronaviruses (i.e. Sars Cov-1 and MERS) or is the pathogenicity and structure the same?
RC: The spike protein in the SARS-COV-2 virus is inherently different to the spike protein on other coronaviruses, in multiple ways. The presence of the furin cleavage site, which directly enhances intracellular entry makes the Covid spike protein far more pathogenic than preceding coronaviruses; it also has enhanced ACE-2 receptor binding, and other structural features which enhance the ability to evade the immune system and promote inflammation. These features suggest a ‘gain of function’ to becoming more infective for humans than bats and is the reason a US Senate Committee is exploring the ‘lab origin’ hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2.
KH: Why do the four endemic (Common Cold) Coronaviruses not cause “spikeopathy”? What is the difference? Is it the spike protein being different in the common cold Coronaviruses?
RC: The converse situation applies to the common cold: in 3 of the 4 HCoV endemic Coronaviruses ACE2 is not the principal entry protein. Consequently, any effects specifically arising from spike-ACE2 interaction would not be expected to operate in the same way. In one of the 4 (HCoV-NL63) it is true that the same ACE2 protein is exploited for respiratory airway cell entry. However, NL63 and SARS-COV-2 exhibit different ACE2 binding geometry, spike activation and cell entry characteristics. One notable difference is NL63 does not possess the furin cleavage architecture. Consequently, although both it and SARS-COV-2 can use ACE2, their spike processing and entry pathways differ. In practice, ACE2 binding affinities for SARS-COV-2 spike are about 12 times higher than for NL63 spike, refer to (Lan et al 2022. Structure 30(10):1432-1442) for an ‘apples with apples’ comparison.
Built onto (over and above) these initial receptor binding differences, disease progression emerges from more than the site of cell entry. The SARS-COV-2 and NL63 genomes encode a similar set of proteins, but the details are different. The downstream biology largely relates to the sequence and composition of the viral genome, as this will then take over to drive the virus’s capacity for replication and host manipulation.
Additionally, while there is overlap in anatomical distribution within the airway, the common cold has a stronger tendency than SARS-COV-2 to infect the upper, not the lower, respiratory tract. Finally, the endemic common cold coronaviruses are operating against a background of immunologically exposed populations, many of us were exposed as children and have adaptive immunity in place. Collectively these arguments help explain why the common cold is generally unable to manipulate biological systems in the same manner as the novel SARS-COV2 that only emerged in 2019.
KH: With regards to a Covid-19 infection or a mRNA injection what kind of illnesses are the spike protein creating, increasing in frequency or speed of progression – Cardiovascular? Neurodegenerative? Cancers? Fertility? Autoimmune?
RC: The range of illnesses which can be triggered or increased in severity are many and largely depend on underlying genetics and predisposing illness patterns. According to the USA Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and numerous published reports, the commonest are cardiovascular which are often relatively acute; acute neurological effects and neurodegenerative disorders which tends to take longer to present; autoimmune diseases with new onset or exacerbation, and cancers, with reactivation of cancers which had been in remission, or rapidly progressing new cancers, atypical cancers, or cancers in younger age groups. As many of these are diseases that occur over time the association is not easy to prove but are inferred from epidemiology which is clearly demonstrating increases in these categories of illness correlating with timing of the injection rollout. Similarly, period abnormalities have been reported as common following the injections and fertility rates are falling across much of the Western world in a temporally associated pattern, although there are many other contributing factors to the drop in fertility rates.
In our literature review we reported on peer-reviewed publications that pointed towards the spike protein’s role in the pathophysiology of this wide range of diseases (see section 7 of our paper). Hence the term ‘Spikeopathy’ which as we noted was originally coined by Prof Alexandra Henrion-Caude, geneticist and formerly Director of Research at the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm).
KH: What role does the mRNA being packaged in lipid nanoparticles do to the pathogenicity and distribution of the spike protein within the body?
RC: The lipid nanoparticle (LNP) packaging increases the pathogenicity for a number of reasons. As the lipids are foreign to the body, they induce an inflammatory and toxic response in their own right; they are also resistant to degradation and result in a wide distribution throughout the body and a more gradual and ongoing release of the mRNA and hence more widespread and gradual production of spike protein.
We addressed these issues in section 6 of our literature review.
KH: Why was the insertion of N1-methylpseudouridine into the mRNA vaccine done? Does it make the mRNA spike protein more pathogenic? Adverse effects?
RC: The insertion of N1-methylpseudouridine in place of natural uridine was done to enable the mRNA to resist degradation by the RNase enzymes. Normally degradation is very rapid. This resistance prolongs the duration of the modified mRNA in the body and hence the time of exposure to the produced spike protein. Table 1 in section 6.3 listed the published studies to early 2023 of the prolonged exposure. There have been more recent studies and case reports suggesting prolonged spike protein production beyond a year. This contrasts with public health messaging in 2021 that the injected mRNA-LNP would be ‘staying in the arm’ and degrading within hours to a couple of days.
KH: Is the biodistribution of the mRNA within the body different than other vaccines?
RC: All other vaccines prior to this used different technology: either attenuated virus that had minimal inherent pathogenicity, or a killed virus, or a toxin. In none of these scenarios could the injected pathogen distribute through the entire body, attach to innumerable receptors and cause widespread disruption to biological pathways. The only ingredients in standard vaccines that could do that are the adjuvants and preservatives (e.g. aluminium and mercury).
As we described in our literature review, the mRNA-LNP (Pfizer, Moderna) and adenovectorDNA Covid-19 (Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, Sputnik-V) vaccines use a ‘synthetic virus’ technology. The LNP acts as a virus capsule for the mRNA that creates the spike protein inside human cells, and the adenovectorDNA uses an adenovirus capsule around the DNA coding for the spike protein. Both the LNP and the adenovirus shell allow for widespread biodistribution through the body. This is not the case for traditional vaccines. We commented on the value and better safety of traditional vaccine technologies for Covid in section 6.8 and in the conclusion section of our literature review.
KH: Were there any surprises or unexpected findings regarding the spike proteins’ physiological effects that you found in your review of the “Spikeopathy” of the Covid-19 infection or Covid mRNA injection?
RC: Researching the literature for the effects of the spike protein uncovered a much wider range of effects than was first thought, increasing as more research was being done and its effects more widely investigated. There has been far more peer-reviewed research published since our literature review in August 2023. The websites of two organisations helping vaccine-injured from the Covid mRNA and adenovectorDNA vaccines, React19 in the USA and Coverse in Australia, list thousands of published studies and case reports. See https://react19.org/published-research-science ; https://coverse.org.au/science/
KH: What concerns you most about the spikeopathy created from a Covid-19 infection? From the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine?
RC: The spike protein from the injections is not the same molecule as that from the native infections and the mechanisms of entry and clearance are different; with native infections, there is naturally a greater respiratory component than from the injections. While the spike protein from natural infections is well documented to produce spikeopathy, this is less an issue in the previously fit and well younger population, the average age of death from Covid in Australia was 85-years-old; however, the ‘spikeopathy’ from the injections has the capacity to produce severe side effects not only in the previously unwell or elderly, but also in the young and previously fit and well population. This is perhaps the most concerning difference.
KH: Do you believe the vaccine was created intentionally to be more pathogenic via the spike protein?
RC: I am unable to comment on whether the virus was created to be more pathogenic via the spike protein as I cannot speak to the creation of the virus. I can only speak of the fact that the spike protein encoded for is not the same as the wild spike protein and is capable of creating greater pathogenicity.
I have heard that mRNA technology allows for rapid development of vaccines, and this might’ve been the reason an experimental technology was chosen to make billions of doses in a pandemic. But that is just speculation.
KH: Do you believe the spike protein should be taken off the market or people should be encouraged to take more of them?
RC: As we noted in section 6.8 of our literature review, traditional and much safer vaccine technology Covid vaccines existed during the height of the pandemic. Those vaccines include the Indian and Chinese inactivated virus vaccines Covaxin and CoronaVac, as well as an Australian recombinant protein vaccine, Spikogen, whose researcher won the Asia-Pacific Vaccinology prize for its efficacy and safety, but he could only get it distributed in Iran. It raises the question of the marketing power of various large companies, a longtime contentious issue in the field of medicine.
I believe the mRNA technology has not been sufficiently tested to be released on a population wide level and should be withdrawn. There are many other drugs in the history of medicine where the magnitude of side effects did not become apparent for years post marketing, and they needed to eventually be withdrawn, thalidomide and Vioxx being 2 notable examples. The precautionary principle should be applied here.
KH: Do you have any idea how long the spike protein stays in the body from the Covid-19 infection? The Covid-19 mRNA vaccines?
RC: There is mounting evidence that the spike protein from the injections can persist for years. Our literature review could only compile studies up to early 2023. I have a patient whose case is documented in a peer reviewed publication who has persistent spike protein in his immune cells 3 1/2 years after one injection, and other publications report similar results. Conversely the infection-related spike protein appears to clear in weeks to months.
KH: Do you know of any pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals or lifestyle practices that can help the body get rid of the spike protein?
RC: There are many documented therapeutic options to aid clearance of the spike protein, and some of these I have detailed in my paper on the Cholinergic Anti-inflammatory Pathway. This can be done by the induction of autophagy (e.g. fasting, saunas), by promoting spike degradation (nattokinase, bromelain, NAC), by reducing spike attachment to ACE receptors (zinc, quercetin). Numerous other therapeutic options can help settle immune responses, restore abnormal gut flora patterns, support damaged and dysfunctional mitochondria, reduce inflammatory responses and so on. However, there is no single magic ‘quick fix’. There is good evidence supporting the actions of ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine in particular; also, famotidine. Chlorine dioxide has been widely used and promoted internationally particularly in South America; nicotine has been promoted in social media but is highly addictive and problematic, as detailed in my paper on the subject (https://esmed.org/cholinergic-anti-inflammatory-pathway-and-covid-19-insights/).
KH: Are there any other comments you would like to make on this important subject?
RC: It is clear that there is far more to the issue of the spike protein in the natural infection and then the Covid mRNA injections than first meets the eye. Regrettably the approach of the medical system and governmental bodies, having enthusiastically supported an experimental technology amidst the fear at the height of the pandemic, has been largely to ignore the issue: however, ignoring an issue neither solves it nor makes it disappear.
There is an urgent need for the side effects of the injections to be fully investigated and acknowledged, and effective treatments sought. For example, there is growing support for the use of ivermectin and a good deal of anecdotal evidence to support its use.
This is a medical ethical imperative, both in terms of the moral impetus to assist those who were vaccine injured and to provide informed consent if not market withdrawal for ongoing provision of booster doses. All further mRNA injections should at least be paused to allow full and thorough investigation of the side effects and the categories of risk so that individual risk-to-benefit ratios can be assessed. An inquiry into why traditional vaccine technologies used in Covid vaccines have not been used in Western nations is needed as well.
____________________
As an overview of the issues surrounding mRNA vaccination, a recent video by Dr Mikolaj Raszek, founder and CEO of Canadian genetic consulting company Merogenomics and previous strong advocate of mRNA technology, is very illustrative. While initially enthusiastic about the technology and its potential, Dr Raszek has now openly stated that he is in total agreement with the position that this technology should be banned from clinical use. He cites six serious problems, confirming with multiple research papers:
1. The production of IgG4 antibodies,
2. Contamination with bacterial DNA,
3. The incidence of ‘turbocancers’ associated with mRNA vaccination,
4. The use of lipid nanoparticles which create cellular toxicity and inflammation,
5. Genetic frameshifting creating incorrect foreign proteins,
6. Nonnatural nucleotides can also create incorrect immunological responses to cancer development.
He expressed that: “Every time we discover a problem with this technology, we make sure we don’t investigate any further. That in itself is a concern.”
Why I’ve changed my mind about mRNA technology
KH: Thank you Dr. Cosford and your colleagues for the monumental effort to answer these questions in such an in-depth manner and with such intense scientific acumen. You and your colleagues have done a great service. Thank you!
____________________
10 Key Takeaways from the Interview
1. Spike protein pathogenicity: Professor Cosford explains that spike protein can interact with ACE2 receptors and other human proteins, potentially triggering inflammation and dysfunction in multiple biological systems.
2. Cardiovascular effects: She describes potential cardiovascular consequences, including inflammation, microclots, larger blood clots, myocarditis, and pericarditis.
3. Mitochondrial and neurological effects: She discusses how spike protein may damage mitochondria, impair cellular energy production, and cross the blood-brain barrier, potentially triggering brain inflammation.
4. Differences between infection and vaccination: She explains that natural infection initially enters through the respiratory tract, while mRNA injections introduce the genetic instructions through injection and can result in spike protein production in cells throughout the body.
5. Structural differences in vaccine spike protein: She identifies the insertion of two proline residues at positions 986 and 987 as an important structural modification intended to stabilize the spike protein. She states that this modification may also make the protein more resistant to enzymatic degradation.
6. Modified mRNA and prolonged spike production: She explains that N1-methylpseudouridine replaces natural uridine in the modified mRNA, helping it resist degradation and potentially prolonging spike protein production. She also discusses possible frameshifting and the production of unintended proteins.
7. Lipid nanoparticles and biodistribution: She describes how lipid nanoparticles transport mRNA through cell and tissue membranes, potentially distributing it throughout the body and contributing to inflammation and prolonged spike protein production.
8. Health conditions associated with spikeopathy: She discusses reported cardiovascular, neurological, autoimmune, and cancer-related conditions, as well as menstrual abnormalities and fertility concerns. She emphasizes that further research is needed to establish the relationships.
9. Potential approaches to spike protein clearance: She identifies several approaches, including fasting and saunas to promote autophagy; nattokinase, bromelain, and NAC to promote spike degradation; and zinc and quercetin to reduce spike attachment to ACE receptors. She emphasizes that there is no single quick fix.
10. Need for further research and investigation: Cosford believes the safety of mRNA technology requires more thorough investigation. She calls for recognition of potential vaccine injuries, development of effective treatments, informed consent, and a pause in further mRNA injections while risks are evaluated.
Recommended Complementary Reading: The Spike Protein Effect. Truth, Risks, and Recovery TWC.Health
Recommended Complementary Podcast: Nov 4, 2026 The Joe Rogan Experience. 2:36:08 hr:min:sec. Joe Rogan interviews Peter A. McCullough, MD on the Covid-19 Pandemic from the manmade virus’s creation, the “lab leak”, to early treatments, simultaneous worldwide messaging, the mRNA Covid injections ineffectiveness and harm; to the present moment and current medical and societal dangers that still persist, and concludes with hope and what positive actions have come from this global tragedy.
Kirk Hamilton PA-C
1416 57th Street
Sacramento, CA 95819
(916) 716-2295
krhammer@surewest.net
www.StayingHealthyToday.com
www.StayingHealthyToday.Substack.com
($5.00/month or $50/year would be appreciated to help keep this publication going)