New INTRANASAL COVID VAX most likely just as DEADLY as mRNA injections – Don’t get fooled again
By sdwells // 2025-07-14
Copy
 
A new intranasal COVID-19 vaccine candidate, CVXGA1, developed by CyanVac LLC, has drawn sharp criticism from experts despite showing promise in its Phase 1 clinical trial. The vaccine, which is sprayable and enters the body through the nasal passage, aims to offer an alternative to injected mRNA vaccines. However, scientists are raising significant safety concerns, particularly around the potential for viral shedding and the lack of rigorous clinical controls.
  • Safety and design concerns over nasal COVID vaccine trial: The Phase 1 trial of the CVXGA1 intranasal mRNA COVID-19 vaccine involved just 72 participants, lacked an unvaccinated control group, and used an open-label design, leading multiple experts to criticize it as scientifically inadequate for assessing safety and efficacy.
  • Potential for viral shedding raises alarm: Researchers warned that CVXGA1, which uses a live parainfluenza virus vector, may cause "persistent shedding" through nasal secretions, potentially exposing unvaccinated individuals — including vulnerable populations — to genetically modified viral particles.
  • Conflicts of interest and limited oversight flagged: The trial was fully funded by vaccine developer CyanVac, with several researchers employed by or financially linked to the company and other major pharmaceutical firms, raising questions about the independence of the findings.
  • Broader implications for gene-based vaccine delivery: Experts expressed concern that if deemed successful, CVXGA1 could pave the way for widespread use of inhalable gene-based vaccines, despite unresolved risks around spike protein exposure, long-term effects, and lack of proper informed consent in self-spreading platforms.

Sprayable COVID Vaccine Trial Sparks Safety Concerns Over Shedding, Trial Design, and Transparency"

The Phase 1 trial results were recently published in Science Advances and included 72 participants aged 12 to 53, divided into high- and low-dose groups. According to the study, the high-dose group experienced fewer symptomatic COVID-19 cases and no serious adverse events or fevers. Researchers concluded the vaccine was well tolerated and produced an immune response. Despite this, many scientists are questioning the integrity and safety of the trial. The absence of a control group and the small sample size weaken the reliability of the conclusions. Dr. Karina Acevedo Whitehouse, a microbiologist from the Autonomous University of Querétaro in Mexico, said the study's design fails to meet standard benchmarks for assessing safety and effectiveness. She argued that the lack of a control group “invalidates any interpretation of safety and effectiveness.” Another key concern is the potential for viral shedding. Investigative journalist Sonia Elijah and other experts warned that CVXGA1 could spread to unvaccinated individuals via intranasal secretions. The vaccine uses a live, communicable virus — parainfluenza virus type 5 — as its delivery vector, raising alarms about its ability to replicate and shed in real-world environments. Dr. Karl Jablonowski of Children’s Health Defense said this type of platform poses risks to vulnerable populations, such as infants and the immunocompromised, due to its self-spreading nature. Experts also criticized the trial's open-label design, which means both participants and researchers knew who received the vaccine. This could introduce bias in assessing adverse events or outcomes. Furthermore, the study monitored side effects for only a limited time, potentially missing serious health issues that could emerge later. The lack of specific data for adolescents, incomplete RNA detection assessments, and no infectivity testing of shed materials further undermine the trial’s scientific rigor, according to Elijah. She emphasized that without testing for whether the vaccine could be spread to others, it is impossible to know its full public health impact. Concerns about conflicts of interest also surfaced. CyanVac fully funded the trial, and many of the researchers involved have financial ties to CyanVac or other vaccine manufacturers like Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, which hosted the trial, also previously conducted Pfizer vaccine trials for adolescents, including one involving Maddie de Garay, a participant who suffered severe injuries. Critics argue that past incidents raise questions about transparency and accountability. As CVXGA1 moves into Phase 2 trials with plans to enroll 10,000 participants, scientists are calling for greater oversight, independent evaluation, and full disclosure of risks. The future of sprayable gene-based vaccines may depend on how safely and ethically this next stage unfolds. Bookmark Vaccines.news to your favorite independent websites for updates on experimental gene therapy injections, vaccine patches and even “sprays” that lead to early death, infertility, turbo cancer and Long-Vax-Syndrome. Sources for this article include: Pandemic.news NaturalNews.com ChildrensHealthDefense.org    
Copy