World Council for Health: The Dangers of Self-Amplifying mRNA
A new wave of gene-based injections threatens health, autonomy, and biological integrity worldwide.
What began as an emergency medical response has now evolved into an unchecked technological experiment. The escalation from traditional vaccines to genetic platforms—first mRNA and now self-amplifying mRNA (saRNA)—marks an extremely concerning trend. These new products override the body’s natural systems, replicating foreign proteins with no clear limits, and doing so without long-term safety data, informed consent, or regulatory accountability.
This video is part of the World Council for Health’s Better Way Today show from May 12, 2025. You can join the WCH Better Way Today every second Monday at 2 PM EST (7 PM UK) here: WCH Newsroom
Please support our mission:
Follow: World Council for Health
Donate: Support WCH
The Rise of Self-Replicating Genetic Injections
A new biotechnology is being deployed globally under the label of “vaccination,” but its function and risks are entirely different from traditional vaccines, which themselves have dubious efficacy. Self-amplifying mRNA (saRNA) injections are a synthetic gene therapy platform that instructs the body’s cells not only to manufacture a foreign protein, but also to produce the genetic machinery to replicate that instruction continuously.
These injections are already approved in some regions and are being rolled out in veterinary clinics and livestock agriculture. Unlike conventional vaccines, which introduce inert viral fragments to the patient, saRNA injections hijack cellular machinery to create both the antigen (e.g., the spike protein) and the polymerase enzyme that enables ongoing RNA replication. Once introduced into the body, this replication cycle may persist indefinitely, without an off switch.
Endless Replication, Unknown Outcomes
At the core of this technology is a synthetic enzyme encoded into the RNA—an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase—typically derived from alphaviruses. Once a cell translates this code, it can begin replicating both the antigen RNA and the polymerase RNA, creating a self-reinforcing loop of protein and gene expression.
There is no current method for determining how long this replication continues in human tissues. Regulatory bodies have not required long-term biodistribution or toxicity studies. There is also no clarity on whether or how the body eventually clears this synthetic material. The injection effectively becomes a molecular machine inside the host, copying itself and its target protein with no established endpoint.
This raises severe safety questions, especially considering the persistent production of the spike protein seen in recipients of earlier mRNA products. The cumulative immune stress and inflammatory potential of prolonged antigen exposure has not been studied—yet the injections are being used in animals and approved for human trials.
An Uncontrollable Dosage
One of the central flaws in mRNA and saRNA platforms is the inability to control dosage. Classic immunology aims at a carefully balanced dose of antigen. Too little, and the patient merely tolerates it; too much, and the immune system can become paralyzed or malfunction.
With synthetic mRNA, and especially self-replicating RNA, there is no fixed dose. The injection provides a blueprint, and the cell builds an unknown quantity of protein based on that code. Factors such as age, metabolism, and immune status all affect how many proteins are produced—and for how long.
In the case of saRNA, this unpredictability is compounded. The polymerase itself is subject to uncontrolled production, which leads to even more copies of RNA and even more protein. Each recipient becomes a biological reactor, with no guarantee of safety or consistency.
Uninformed Use in Medicine and Agriculture
Despite the complexity and risks, saRNA injections are already being administered in clinical and veterinary settings. In some veterinary clinics, staff are unaware that they are administering gene therapy products instead of traditional inactivated virus vaccines. Marketing materials omit key details, and health professionals may rely solely on pharmaceutical sales representatives for information.
In agriculture, saRNA vaccines are being tested or used in livestock, raising new concerns. There are no peer-reviewed studies on the long-term effects in food-producing animals, nor any data on the impact of consuming animal products from treated livestock. Whether genetic materials or spike proteins remain in milk, meat, or fat is unknown. Shedding from animals to humans has not been ruled out.
The regulatory and ethical implications are staggering. These products are entering food chains, clinical settings, and possibly the environment without adequate oversight or consent.
Shedding and Unconsented Exposure
One of the gravest concerns surrounding self-amplifying RNA technology is the risk of shedding. Shedding refers to the release of genetic material or expressed proteins from an injected individual to others through breath, skin, fluids, or other contact.
With first-generation mRNA injections, shedding of spike protein fragments and modified RNA into breast milk has been confirmed. SaRNA intensifies this concern. Because so few molecules are needed to initiate replication, even minimal exposure could potentially lead to internal replication in a non-consenting individual. While no comprehensive studies have been conducted, the risk cannot be dismissed—and no safety margin has been established.
Individuals could effectively be exposed to genetic modification without their consent, simply by being in proximity to a recently injected person or animal. Without defined shedding data or transmission studies, informed consent becomes impossible—both for recipients and those around them.
The Collapse of Oversight
The deployment of this technology reveals a systemic failure of regulation. National health agencies, international bodies, and medical boards have bypassed traditional safety protocols. Studies on carcinogenicity, fertility, long-term biodistribution, or genome integration are either nonexistent or not publicly disclosed.
Professionals who raise concerns are often censored or punished. Meanwhile, governments continue to purchase and promote the injections using public funds. Medical ethics, including the right to informed consent, have been subordinated to political expediency and pharmaceutical marketing.
SaRNA platforms are now being applied to diseases beyond COVID-19—rabies, RSV, influenza—without public awareness or debate. The goal is clear: normalize gene therapy as a replacement for all forms of vaccination, and extend it into food supply and environmental management.
What Can Be Done in Response
Until the full risks of saRNA technology are understood, there is a clear and urgent case for a global moratorium. Long-term safety studies, shedding research, transgenerational risk analysis, ingredients and manufacturing methods must be disclosed to the public.
For individuals, rejecting gene-based injections—whether for personal use or for pets—remains the most immediate defense. People must stop assuming medical professionals or regulators are fully informed and practice their own discernment.
Where damage has already occurred, protocols that support immune function and cellular detoxification may provide relief. Approaches such as autophagy-inducing fasting, antioxidant therapy, and avoiding further exposures are promising avenues. However, the biggest priority is prevention.
A Line That Must Not Be Crossed
Self-amplifying RNA is more than just a new tool—it reinvents our relationship with biology itself. It doesn't treat illness; it rewrites cellular function, turning the body into a factory for unknown and potentially endless protein production. The line between healing and programming has been crossed.
This isn’t progress, but submission to a system that no longer asks for consent. With no long-term studies, no off-switch, and no transparency, the world is being pushed into an irreversible experiment. If we fail to draw the line now, we may never again have the power to refuse.
Stay Informed and Support the Movement
For those looking to learn more and support independent health advocacy:
Visit World Council for Health for resources on health sovereignty.
Follow the WCH members and guests featured in the video for expert insights and advocacy efforts:
Members:
Guest Specialists:
Prof. Byram Bridle (ResearchGate, SciProfiles, Substack)
Karina Acevedo-Whitehouse (ResearchGate, SciProfiles, Books)
It's beyond stupid, beyond ignorance. What right do these regulators have to allow a threat of this magnitude? How can they justify possible irreversible genetic consequences? There's no excuse for this and never will be.
Administering a safe, effective dose is very challenging, and it's easy to overdose - with no off switch or antidote.
Side effect risks range from the promotion of cancer to encephalitis.
Deaths have already been logged in Japan.
Kostaive should never have been licensed. It doesn't even use the latest COVID variants.
A 5 Substack deep dive:
Self-amplifying mRNA (saRNA) Part 1: The Japanese registration documents
https://doorlesscarp953.substack.com/p/self-amplifying-mrna-sarna-part-1