top of page

How Humans Were Used as ‘Lab Rats’ in the COVID Pandemic: Dr. Ryan Cole on Fragmented mRNA

“Here we are three years into this, with a virus that has evolved into something that for most people is a common cold, shots that are expired because the variants they cover are all extinct—I mean, it’s an absurdity that the shots are even on the market at all—and yet, we’re still seeing brilliant physicians and educators and scientists being attacked for simply calling out the truth.”

At the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) conference last month, I sat down with pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole to discuss autopsies and excess deaths rates allegedly related to the mRNA shot, and to dig into what has actually been found in the vials of these shots, as well as what studies are being done to differentiate between spike damage caused by the virus, versus the vaccine.

“There are two dangerous things in these vials—that’s a lipid nanoparticle, and a gene sequence that’s making your body make foreign proteins,” says Cole. “When a FOIA request was done of the European Medicines Agency, they found out that these vials were only about 50 percent pure mRNA, meaning they can potentially code for these other proteins for which we don’t even know what they’re going to do. And instead of saying, ‘Yeah, you need to purify your product and make it better,’ they said, ‘Okay, we’ll lower the standard to 50 percent.'”

We also discuss the curious emergence of what doctors are calling “turbo cancers,” and how they potentially relate to the COVID genetic vaccine.

“What’s happening is these cancers we are used to seeing, their growth patterns and their behavior are completely out of character … So ‘turbo cancer’ is something that wasn’t there and, all of a sudden, it’s everywhere,” says Cole.

He believes one of the biggest tragedies during the pandemic has been the loss of curiosity, and considers it tragic that so many people are afraid of having to pay a consequence for telling the truth.

“All doctors and scientists agree when you censor the ones who don’t. And so this construct in dialogue and free speech of not allowing a contrary voice to come into the conversation means science isn’t being done. If you can question it, it’s science. If you can’t question it, it’s propaganda,” says Cole.


Watch the full interview:



Jan Jekielek: Dr. Ryan Cole, such a pleasure to have you back on American thought leaders.

Dr. Ryan Cole: Great to be here with you, Jan. Thank you.

Mr. Jekielek: Let’s talk about spike damage. This is something that’s been a focus for you recently and a big focus actually at this conference. I see numerous people are talking about it. What do we know at this point?

Dr. Cole: There’s so much literature surrounding the bad effects of this protein. Certainly, the virus caused a lot of damage to a lot of individuals. But what we’re seeing with the spike protein induced by the injections is that it persists longer in the body.

With a normal infection, your body’s going to clear it in a couple of days or a couple of weeks depending on your immune competence. But what we’re finding with this synthetic mRNA is that it persists in the body longer. There are a lot of studies on that. In addition to that, it’s making spike protein at low levels for a longer period of time.

The spike protein inflames the blood vessels. The spike protein breaks some of the barriers in the blood vessels, allowing spike protein to leak into organs. It can leak into the brain tissues. It can show up in the heart tissues. It can show up in the adrenal glands.

The spike protein itself, wherever it lands, causes the body to become inflamed, and it also triggers alterations in the immune response. We’re seeing a lot of immune suppression in individuals. We’re also seeing a lot of autoimmune disease where the body attacks itself. That’s the tip of the iceberg, because there are so many things that spike protein does.

These are things, scientifically, we all wish the agencies and powers that be would have studied before using humans as the lab rats for this technology. Unfortunately, that spike protein is a known toxin, irritant, and poison, whatever you want to call it. We know it causes a lot of bad inflammatory patterns in the body, which can lead to organ failure.

Mr. Jekielek: There have also been reports of mRNA appearing in mother’s milk and being passed on to newborns. What do you make of this?

Dr. Cole: In the literature it is reported that for up to 48 hours after injection the mRNA itself was showing up in the mother’s breast milk. That means the mRNA can be transferred. Now, the gastric juices may break that mRNA down. Again, it’s a synthetic mRNA, so it may not.

We know that spike protein can be transferred in secretions and is being transferred in mother’s milk. The other concern, and I showed some images in my presentation today from my colleagues in Germany, is that they’ve identified spike protein in the uterine lining, in the testes, and in the sperm. But more concerningly, they have identified spike protein in the placenta. The Pfizer data that came out recently, forced by the judge that made the Pfizer data release happen, shows that Pfizer knew that it was going to cross into the placenta.

Again, we know this isn’t a benign protein. This protein has toxic effects. Have we seen birth rate changes and miscarriage rate changes? You bet we have. Are there statistical increases in birth defects in animal models? Yes, there are.

We never roll out a new modality on children and pregnant women. We know it’s crossing into the placenta. We know it’s going into the baby. We know it’s going into breast milk. We know it’s being consumed by the baby. These are things that should be reported on and transparent across the media. People should be able to say, “If I’m going to do something risky to my body with a new modality and risk the next generation, I should have informed consent and the ability to say yes or no.”

Mr. Jekielek: You mentioned there’s a distinction between the spike in SARS-CoV-2 and the spike in the mRNA vaccines. What studies are being done on this? You mentioned they weren’t done beforehand. What’s being done now?

Dr. Cole: In the laboratory, on a small scale, and I really wish I could do more and clone myself, I’m looking at the protein deposition and tissues. We have special stains we have used in pathology for years called immunohistochemistry stains.

In the tissues we look at a little lock and key pattern. If an antibody binds to that spike protein, we have another piece that makes the tail of the antibody light up. When we look through the microscope, we can see present or absent. In the laboratory, we look for that spike protein in different tissues and look for it in autopsy cases. In living patients, we’ve also seen it in several cancers as well.

My colleagues in Germany that first pioneered this, Dr. Burkhart, Dr. Moors and others, have also been looking at these same patterns. We’re comparing it to antibodies looking for viruses, where we look for spike nucleocapsid membranes and other proteins that would be present to determine if this is virally-caused or is it spike protein-caused.

The NIH [National Institutes of Health] had done some small studies looking at a handful of patients early on, looking at proteins, and then they suddenly stopped. There are some universities that have done some spike protein studies in a case report here and there. There are not a lot of entities doing this.

Unfortunately, the reagents are commercially available from multiple vendors. It’s not a new pathology technique. It’s a known technique. Yes, you have to do the validation and dialing of the process, but once you’ve done that, then you can proceed any time that a stain is requested. You can look and determine if this is present in the tissues or not.

Now at the university level, Stanford, Harvard, and others have looked for circulating spike protein in certain patients. Is there free spike protein that can continue to deposit in these organs? That’s a different type of testing. It’s not commercially available yet. Along with a couple of other laboratories, I am working on that, because that’s the one question a lot of clinicians have, “Do my patients still have circulating spike protein in their body that could be causing all these different inflammatory pathways and disease?”

Mr. Jekielek: How can you tell the difference between the two kinds of spike?

Dr. Cole: That’s why we use the other proteins to determine if this is viral or this is vaccinal. Because if it were spiked from the virus, then you would see other proteins from the virus present as well. It’s simple deductive reasoning. Additionally, we’re developing mRNA primers.

Pfizer and Moderna have subtle differences in their genetic sequence. We’re looking at hybridization primers where we can take a sequence and then bind that to the tissue and light it up and see if the mRNA or the complementary DNA is also still present in the tissues.

We’ve been working with a couple of laboratories developing that. That’s coming. There have been some case reports in the literature where patients have skin lesions that have both spike and the mRNA in those shingles lesions. Again, at the university level, it’s kind of funny. You wonder why they do this very important study that shows, “Here’s a technique, and here’s what we’re finding in the tissues.” Then, there is never a follow-up study. In basic science, that’s not very common.

With one study that showed the persistence of this synthetic mRNA in the human body and lymph nodes for up to 60 days, there was not a four month follow-up, or a six or nine month follow up on that study. It’s harder to do these basic science questions in the private setting because this costs money.

You go to the NIH and say, “We want to do this. Where’s a grant for this type of study that should be done on humans, and that should have been done on animals?” There’s not a penny to be had. These big universities, if they do a study that shows a finding that may not be convenient to the narrative, even though what they’re publishing is very relevant scientifically, you don’t see the follow-up study. It begs the question as to why science the way it used to be done isn’t being followed today the way it should be.

Mr. Jekielek: I understand there are a lot of studies that are being done looking at long Covid and symptoms.

Dr. Cole: There are a lot of long Covid studies, and there are patients with long Covid, no doubt. But something needs to be teased out, and I find this overtly disingenuous in the literature. When you look at these patients with myocarditis or chronic brain fog or the long Covid symptoms, when you go to the end of the study they don’t break down the cohort and say, “X patients that had these symptoms in this study had Covid, and these X patients that had Covid were, or were not vaccinated.” They never mention the vaccinal status of these patients.

One might have had Covid and then was urged to get a shot on top of their Covid recovery. Again, historically we have never done that. We used to recognize that recovery from a disease was better than a vaccine itself. These patients have hyperimmune responses and a lot of these hyperimmune responses are what are leading to a lot of these chronic symptoms. It’s very frustrating.

I would love to see somebody give me 10 studies, five studies, or even three studies where they say, “Here are the long Covid symptoms. By the way, this number and this cohort were vaccinated, and this number wasn’t.” It’s being ignored. That’s not good science. But I never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by ignorance.

But this is just scientifically ignorant to not be doing good control groups. With a novel modality, a new gene-based biologic product like these injections, they’re not doing good science that should be clear and concise. They should have a control group, and tell the truth about who has these chronic symptoms, whether they’ve had one, two, three, four, five shots. It’s incredibly relevant in terms of understanding what we need to know for the future.

Mr. Jekielek: You read a lot of literature. This might be a thing where you’re not sleeping in the middle of the night. Are you telling me there aren’t any studies?

Dr. Cole: There may be a handful of obscure ones where there’s a small cohort. But if you look at these larger ones from a lot of the academic settings and highly funded institutions, they are all a homage to the shot. By the way, no matter what the study shows, you should get your shot anyway.

It’s very frustrating to see that they’re not breaking out those who got a shot. Sure, these patients had Covid, but a lot of them had shots too. It completely muddles the science.

Mr. Jekielek: It feels preposterous to me that someone wouldn’t look at this very, very obvious factor—that you would need to separate these two groups. You mentioned that you never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by ignorance. Do you think that some of these researchers are just somehow blind to this, or is it malice?

Dr. Cole: It’s willful ignorance. Nobody wants to be wrong. Part of it is because of ego. You’ve heard me joke before that a lot of doctors think MD means minor deity. A lot of us think it means we make a difference. I always say, “I’m willing to be wrong, because if you maintain an open curiosity, you have a better ability to learn.” One of the biggest tragedies and deaths during the pandemic has been the loss of curiosity.

I understand that in the medical profession people are very busy, they’re overwhelmed, they’re overregulated, there’s too much paperwork, and there’s too many excess things to do within the practice of medicine that have nothing to do with medicine. At the end of the day, my colleagues may not be on the same page as me. I might say, “Hey, did you read this or did you read that?” They reply, “No, I saw my patients. I’m done for the day.”

That healthy curiosity opens all these rabbit holes to say, “Wait a minute, is this true or is that true?” You’ve seen some of my talks where I love to open with the Mark Twain quote, “The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.” What I can comfortably say is a lot of my colleagues don’t read.

There used to be a joke in medical school, “How do you hide a $100 bill from a surgeon? You put it in a textbook.” Because they’re not going to crack open that book. They’re not reading. They will during medical school and during the first parts of their training. After that, the science is always 10 years or more ahead of the practice of medicine.

Unfortunately, and this is another kind of joke in medicine, “It takes a generation to die for medicine and science to advance.” Because you get entrenched thinking, and there’s a block in the ability to say that the way I was trained may not be the most current way.”

We do have to keep our continuing education going, but a lot of these doctors don’t want to be wrong. They get into groupthink and an unwillingness to engage in dialogue and have a reasonable conversation, even though one doesn’t agree on an issue. That’s another death we’ve obviously seen in many fields, but especially in medicine. It’s the unwillingness of many in the profession to dialogue.

Again, so many of my colleagues here are brilliant and some of the most published academicians prior to this whole Covid issue. All of a sudden, they’re not smart anymore? It’s astounding. Bringing dialogue and uncomfortable conversation back into our day-to-day life is so critical.

Mr. Jekielek: I’ll just hypothesize here, because most of them have seen the cost of going against the “correct view.” I wonder if a lot of people are subconsciously avoiding discovering the uncomfortable realities.

Dr. Cole: That’s a great point. So many of my colleagues have seen what they’ve done to me and others. If you’re a tall blade of grass, you get cut down first. That’s a great observation, and that’s how you control a population and a profession by putting people into fear.

I was personally attacked by insurance companies of all things. They’re not regulators. That put the squeeze on my practice. But you’re correct, so many people are afraid of having to pay the consequences for telling the truth, and that’s a tragedy.

Mr. Jekielek: We talked about some of the challenges you faced in your career because of the pathology that you were doing and the positions you took publicly. How has that developed since?

Dr. Cole: I’ve essentially had to shut my lab down. I sold it to my associate at a fire sale price because the insurance companies were canceling my contracts for my unprofessional behavior. With the Boards of Medicine, thankfully I’ve resolved four of those with the complaints that had no merit. There’s one still pending and open, and again, these are third-party complaints. These are political complaints from people that don’t like somebody speaking out against their narrative. They are baseless claims, and no patient has claimed any harm.

Again, I’m at the receiving end of these absurdities. We don’t seem to have the political will to stop these agencies from running amuck from being kangaroo courts and overstepping their legal bounds. They’re using CARES Act funding that went to push a vaccine-only agenda. They don’t counter any of the claims I made. I have defended myself in front of these boards successfully. I allude to science and say, “Show me where I’m wrong.” They don’t because they know they can’t.

Mr. Jekielek: But it wastes your time?

Dr. Cole: It’s an absolute waste of money and time. It has been tens and tens and tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees because I’ve exceeded what my malpractice insurance will cover just to protect my professional life for telling the truth. Every time I do these interviews or podcasts, I say, “Look, if I’m wrong, show me where. Bring better data.” Crickets. Nobody wants to have that difficult conversation. Again, going back to the egos in medicine, they don’t want to say, “I could have done something that maybe harmed my patient.”

Certainly I’m viewed as a heretic. But even worse are these colleagues who were completely in the narrative of shot only. Now, they have looked at the science, done that necessary reading, and now they’re the apostates, not the heretics. The apostate is stronger in terms of evangelizing truths, but they’re also the bigger target now.

Getting philosophical about all of this stuff, it’s fascinating to see that here we are three years into this with a virus that has evolved into something that for most people is a common cold, and with shots that have expired because the variants they cover are all extinct. It’s absurd that these shots are even on the market at all. Yet, three years later, we’re still seeing brilliant physicians and educators and scientists being attacked for simply calling out the truth.

Mr. Jekielek: How much do you think society has shifted in its view?

Dr. Cole: I like what Chris Martenson talks about. In conversations like this we have the private knowledge where you know something’s wrong, and I know something’s wrong, and we whisper together about what we’ve discovered and found out. But what’s trickling out now is that common knowledge that Chris Martenson talks about.

It is becoming common knowledge that vaccine injury is real. Now, it’s becoming common knowledge that these shots never prevented disease and never prevented transmission. Actually, if you look at the Cleveland Clinic study, the more shots you got, the more you got the disease.

Those quiet mumblings are now becoming common mumblings. I would say from when we last talked many months ago, instead of 10 percent, now maybe 30 percent of the people have been woken up. It’s the same thing in the profession of medicine. It was about 10 percent a year ago, and now it’s maybe 30 to 40 percent.

Mr. Jekielek: Please qualify for me that the shots never prevented disease. For people that were older with comorbidities, there was a significant effect. But you’re saying something different?

Dr. Cole: Show me the gold standard double blinded placebo controlled study making that claim—it doesn’t exist. Even in the trials for the shots themselves, the placebo group was quickly crossed over, so you don’t have good science. Now, you’re back to observational science.

Let’s look at the claim that it prevented hospitalization, severity, and death. Maybe for a hot minute at the very beginning of the pandemic when they first rolled out, it had an effect for a couple of weeks. However, by then the virus was already mutating away from the shots that had been formulated. By the time Comirnaty and Moderna spike vacs got their technical approval, all that data was pre-Delta variant.

Number one, the data sets are corrupted because the control group is gone. Number two, it became a religious mantra. It was a mantra that kept repeating, “Safe and effective, safe and effective. It decreases hospitalization and death, it decreases hospitalization and death.” If you say something long enough, you can convince yourself it is true. But the data sets aren’t there. There’s some observational data that suggests it. But what they negate is there was a good percentage of the population that got Covid and never knew they had Covid.

Now, they have some gene mutations. A good study recently came out and showed why that happened. But some claim, “I’m glad I got my shot. My Covid would’ve been so much worse.” Ask all those people who got Covid and they will say, “Oh, really, I had Covid?” Well, how about that?” You don’t have that comparator group. These claims that have been made are false claims.

Mr. Jekielek: One more thing in the vein of free speech, which we were talking about. It’s just obvious that good science depends on it.

Dr. Cole: Absolutely. Science is not done by consensus, contrary to what Neil deGrasse Tyson said on a big show recently, “Well, there was scientific consensus.”

Neil deGrasse Tyson: I’m not interested in medical pedigree. I’m interested in medical consensus, in scientific consensus. You need someone who represents a medical consensus producing a consensus and whatever is that consensus…

Dr. Cole: I’m like, “It was the heretics that were correct.” Galileo was correct about where the sun is in the center of our solar system and not the Earth. Yet, he was thrown in the tower for being a heretic. It’s that contrary voice that has to be present in science. You cannot lose this construct that scientists have to have competing hypotheses. Absolutely. You need to do the test. You need to do the experiment, and you need to be able to have open questioning.

I joke that all doctors and scientists agree when you censor the ones who don’t. This construct in dialogue and free speech of not allowing a contrary voice to come into the conversation means science isn’t being done. If you can question, it’s science. If you can’t question, it’s propaganda.

Mr. Jekielek: You’ve been looking at the realities of the spike protein, but you’ve also been looking at the ingredients in the vials.

Dr. Cole: There’s a lot of contamination in the vials. What’s in the vials now? I’ve been privileged to work with a doctor in Austria bringing together some physicists who have remained quiet so they can keep doing the research. We’ve looked at hundreds of vials together. I’ve looked at many in my lab, and they looked at many. They did mass spectroscopy and Raman spectroscopy, and a lot of analytical clinical chemistry.

There are sugars, salts, lipid nanoparticles, and mRNA in the vials. We also know that there’s contaminating DNA in these vials. This is the work of Kevin McKernan, and it’s been replicated in one lab. My lab’s looking at it, along with another lab I know of. Again, this relies on replicability of science and replicability of findings. We know that these were poorly manufactured.

Where does that DNA come from? You grow these sequences in bacterial cultures, e-coli. They produce mRNA, and then, you’re supposed to be able to separate it out. We’re finding that little circle of complementary DNA that makes the synthetic mRNA, these vials are contaminated with a percentage of that, up to 25 to 30 percent.

That’s not good, because these are little antibiotic resistant plasmids that can actually conceptually get into the bacteria of your gut and cause antibiotic resistance in your body. That little circle of DNA can go into the nucleus and camp out there and keep producing little spike messages chronically over time. There are things in the vials that don’t belong there.

Some of the studies of the vials showed metal contaminants. Some of them showed the metal contaminants were actually coming from rapid needle manufacture as well. We know Japan rejected 2 million vials of Moderna because there was visible debris in the vials. This was poor manufacturing. I don’t know if you want to get into the graphene oxide controversy. I can tell you a two minute story on that.

Mr. Jekielek: Let’s talk about that. Most of the doctors I speak to look at me and say, “Why are you asking me about this?” Basically, you hear a lot of people talking about it.

Dr. Cole: There was one small group in Spain that got some vials. There’s a technique called Raman spectroscopy where you put some of the vial content on a slide, and then you pick your target and you shine a laser and it’ll break down the basic elements of what you’re pointing at. When you do that, you’re supposed to do it for a millisecond or less because the laser is powerful. Then, it will fractionate the basic particles of what is there. Pablo Campra, the guy that did the Raman study, fired his laser at a handful of targets for 30 seconds each, not a millisecond, but 30 seconds. He fried them.

If I take a little dish of creme brûlée, put some sugar on top of it, and we know there’s a lot of sugar in Moderna and Pfizer, and I take my little chef’s torch, what happens to that sugar? It browns and it crisps, and if I run it too long, I will scorch it. I turn it into charcoal. What is charcoal? Charcoal is carbon, and can be graphene with a little oxygen. If I fry sugar molecules, I am going to make a carbon byproduct. He burnt the toast. He burnt the creme brûlée by using bad technique.

Thankfully, he published what he did. Any good physicist will say, “Wait a minute. You don’t do this for 30 seconds. You do it for a fraction of a second.” Then, if you look at it under electron microscopy, graphene is this regular sheet of 200 nanometer spaced, little hexagons, thin flat sheets. What the Spanish studies showed were 500 nanometer sheets. I said, “That’s not graphene oxide.”

Basic science and good scientific practice negate this argument about graphene oxide being in the vials. There’s a Pfizer document that says, “Graphene oxide and gold.” They said, “See, it’s in the Pfizer documents.” I said, “No, that’s a different lab doing a technique for protein isolation.” They mention their technique, which is a gold and a graphene layering, but it has nothing to do with the manufacturing line. There are all these red herrings.

There are two dangerous things in these vials; a lipid nanoparticle, and a gene sequence that’s making your body make foreign proteins. Your cells are meant to make human proteins. We are going down these rabbit holes and distracting pathways, when we should be stopping this platform of lipid nanoparticle shots altogether. That’s where the focus should be, and that’s what frustrates me.

Do all the science you want, hypothesize and experiment. Great, that’s cool. With all these little hydras that people see, they’re non-microscopists that have an old med school microscope sitting in a dusty room. They are looking at their dog’s hair, looking at pollen particles, looking at these hydra that are actually little pieces from the bottom of a leaf.

I get frustrated that people are making claims that scare people that people do not need to be scared about. It’s scary enough that we’re using a new gene-based modality with a lipid nanoparticle that goes to every organ in the body. Let’s stop doing that. Don’t worry about all this other stuff. Have your fantasy life with your fictional, hypothetical exploration, whatever it is that you want to do. Cool, but don’t make claims based on bad science.

Mr. Jekielek: It creates a situation where people that are actively interested in detracting from this work will conflate the two.

Dr. Cole: Absolutely, that is harmful to the cause. I absolutely agree with that assertion because they do look a little out there and tinfoil-ish, and it detracts from the actual solid good science that is happening.

I spoke out on this at a conference and I literally got death threats for saying graphene oxide isn’t any of these vials. To get death threats from the Freedom Movement is really concerning. I stick to science, but when you get into some of these philosophical battles in life, it’s really fascinating to see where people cling to their concepts and constructs and ideas to the detriment of their ability to critically and broadly think.