The Spike Protein Deception

Stefano Scoglio and the Biological Impossibility of mRNA Vaccines

Preface

What you are about to read challenges everything we've been told about how COVID vaccines work. This is not another debate about whether spike proteins are safe or dangerous—it's the revelation that they were never produced at all.

Two independent scientific investigations have converged on a disturbing truth. Stefano Scoglio, a Nobel Prize nominee in medicine, proved through meticulous analysis that the claimed mechanism of mRNA vaccines is biologically impossible. Meanwhile, researchers using advanced spectrometry discovered 55 undeclared chemical elements in these injections—elements with no vaccine purpose but clear applications in nanotechnology and biological control systems.

The implications are staggering. If spike proteins were never produced, then every explanation for vaccine injuries has been wrong. Every test for spike proteins has been meaningless. Every fear about "shedding" has been based on fiction. The entire narrative—from both sides—has been arguing about ghosts while the real assault proceeded unnoticed.

This essay synthesizes suppressed science, forbidden questions, and documented evidence into a coherent picture of perhaps the greatest medical deception in history. It is not comfortable reading. But as Scoglio himself said, we have an obligation to read "the damned scientific literature"—especially when that literature reveals we've been poisoned while mesmerized by an elaborate theater about proteins that don't exist.

The truth, once seen, cannot be unseen.

The Suppressed Science of Stefano Scoglio: A Belated Discovery

I only discovered Stefano Scoglio's work recently—a revelation that speaks less to personal oversight than to the extraordinary suppression of dissenting scientific voices over the past five years. That one of Italy's most distinguished microbiologists could conduct such rigorous analysis of COVID vaccine mechanisms yet remain virtually unknown in English-speaking discourse until after his death demonstrates the ruthless efficiency of pandemic-era censorship.

Scoglio died in November 2024, at age 67, after battling ALS. His passing adds to a disturbing pattern of premature deaths among prominent critics of pandemic policies—a pattern that grows harder to dismiss as coincidence with each loss. The interview reproduced here, conducted with Torsten Engelbrecht—author of "Virus Mania"—stands as one of his final comprehensive testimonies.

In this interview, Scoglio methodically dismantles what he called the "fairy tale" of mRNA vaccine function. His work takes on new urgency in light of December 2024 research revealing 55 undeclared chemical elements in COVID vaccines. This timing feels less like coincidence than convergence—suppressed truth emerging simultaneously from multiple sources, each validating the other.

The Nobel Nominee's Impossible Discovery

Scoglio's credentials demand attention: a 2018 Nobel Prize in Medicine nominee for his pioneering work on microalgae and cyanobacteria, director of the Nutritherapy Research Center at the University of Urbino, and holder of six patents in nutraceutical research. With doctorates in both philosophy (University of Toronto) and advanced studies in microbiology (University of London), plus approximately 20 peer-reviewed publications, Scoglio brought extraordinary interdisciplinary expertise to his analysis. As Italy's most prestigious critic of Corona policy, he based his vaccine mechanism critique on peer-reviewed literature through 2021. His systematic deconstruction of mRNA vaccine mechanisms proceeded through five distinct barriers that prevent the claimed cellular entry and spike protein production. "Anybody who talks about spike proteins and embraces the story diffused by the pharmaceutical companies just accepts that as given," he stated. "But nobody is reading the damned scientific literature."

The scientific literature he did read revealed a fundamental impossibility. Beginning with researchers' own admissions that living cells constitute a "formidable barrier," Scoglio documented how extracellular ribonucleases degrade foreign genetic material immediately upon injection. Even with lipid nanoparticle protection, he calculated that enzymatic degradation, failed endocytosis, the endosome/lysosome system, and intracellular ribonucleases would prevent any meaningful mRNA from reaching ribosomes.

Scoglio illustrated this with a numerical example: starting with 30 micrograms of mRNA injected, even if half survives the extracellular ribonucleases (15 micrograms), then half of that enters cells (7.5 micrograms), then only 2% survives the endosome/lysosome system (0.15 micrograms), leaving an infinitesimal amount—which would then be destroyed by intracellular ribonucleases anyway.

Most damning was his citation of Pfizer's own Japanese biodistribution study: lipid nanoparticles were recovered unchanged from organs, proving they never entered cells to deliver their payload.

"If they had entered the cells, they would've been metabolized and you wouldn't have found them in the same way you have injected them," Scoglio explained. The implications are stark: no cellular entry means no spike protein production, rendering the entire mechanistic explanation fictitious.

As Scoglio emphasized, 'All the spike protein that is used in the experiments, all of it, all the studies that use spike proteins test spike protein for toxicity or for any other function always come from laboratories. It's called recombinant spike protein. He explained to Dr. Thomas Cowan in December 2022, "You vaccinated a billion people in the world... you have, like, you know, tons of spike protein you should have in the blood of these people. Why don't you go and recover it from them, from one of them? Because, you know, isolation of proteins is actually something that is done routinely." His challenge remains unanswered: not a single study has isolated spike proteins from vaccinated individuals—only synthetic, laboratory-created "recombinant spike proteins" are ever used in research.

This revelation gains profound significance when considered alongside the December 2024 findings. Researchers detected all 11 heavy metals and 12 of 15 lanthanides across vaccines from every major manufacturer—elements with documented applications in self-assembling nanotechnology and optogenetic research. The systematic presence of titanium, aluminum, barium, and rare earth elements suggests purposeful inclusion rather than contamination. These materials serve no traditional vaccine function yet align precisely with emerging biotechnologies for monitoring and control.

When Biology Meets Physics: The Transfection Paradox

This creates a profound scientific tension when considered alongside other analyses that assume some form of cellular delivery occurs. While the December 2024 research exposing 55 undeclared elements doesn't directly address transfection mechanics, it implicitly assumes these materials somehow interact with biological systems to form "sophisticated microscopic devices" and enable "biological monitoring and control systems." This presents a fundamental paradox: if Scoglio is correct that nothing enters cells—as proven by the Japanese biodistribution study showing unchanged lipid nanoparticles in organs—then how could any technological payload, whether mRNA or undeclared elements, achieve its intended function?

Three possibilities emerge from this contradiction. First, Scoglio may be entirely correct, and both the spike protein narrative and any claims of nanotechnology function are equally fictitious—the injections are simply toxic materials that poison without entering cells. Second, the undeclared elements might function extracellularly, forming technological structures outside cells that still enable monitoring or control. Third, and perhaps most disturbing, different injection batches might contain different formulations—some designed to fail (supporting Scoglio's findings) while others contain functional delivery systems.

This uncertainty itself may serve a purpose. The confusion surrounding basic mechanisms—whether anything enters cells, what it does if it does, and why different studies reach contradictory conclusions—creates a fog of war that prevents clear understanding of what billions received.

The Antibody Illusion: Detecting Nothing with Nothing

This fundamental challenge to the spike protein narrative gains even deeper significance when considered alongside recent exposés of the antibody myth itself. As

Mike Stone

and Amandha Dawn Vollmer have documented, despite over a century of research, no scientist has ever successfully isolated a natural antibody from human blood. The Y-shaped proteins that supposedly fight disease exist only as computer-generated models and laboratory artifacts created through hybridoma technology—fusing cancer cells with immune cells to produce synthetic proteins that bear no resemblance to anything in nature.

If antibodies themselves are theoretical constructs that have never been properly isolated or characterized, then the entire framework for detecting spike proteins collapses. Scoglio's observation that spike protein detection relies solely on antibody tests becomes even more damning: researchers are using non-existent entities to prove the existence of other non-existent entities. This represents circular reasoning at its most profound level—a scientific shell game where imaginary particles are used to validate other imaginary particles.

The antibody deception reveals why Scoglio found no direct isolation of spike proteins despite decades of advanced technology. The tools supposed to detect them—antibodies—are themselves unproven phantoms. Harvard's Clifford Saper, a leading authority on monoclonal antibodies, admits these laboratory creations "will bind to any protein having the same (or a very similar) sequence," destroying any pretense of specificity. When the detection method itself is fraudulent, what confidence can exist in any claimed findings?

This fraudulent specificity has become so evident that, as Dr. Cowan noted in his discussion with Scoglio, the editor of a major neurology journal announced he would no longer accept papers based on antibody specificity, recognizing the entire premise as scientifically invalid.

A Coordinated Deception

The convergence of these three revelations—Scoglio's proof of biological impossibility, physical evidence of undeclared technological elements, and the fraudulent nature of detection methods themselves—exposes a deception of breathtaking scope.

The parallel suppression of both discoveries illuminates a coordinated information management strategy. While public discourse fixated on spike protein safety—whether they caused myocarditis, how long they persisted, whether they crossed the blood-brain barrier—Scoglio was documenting that they likely never existed at all. As he noted, "99 percent of the scientists today talk bullshit essentially because they adopt a methodology that is bullshit methodology that has been there for a long time. Only nobody questions it."

The methodology Scoglio questioned was the indirect detection of spike proteins through antibody tests rather than direct protein isolation. "When they say that there's spike protein, the only way they do it is through antibody tests. And the way the antibody test is being applied is a fraud." He explained that antibodies respond to any toxin, not specifically to spike proteins, yet researchers never perform the proper controls to establish specificity. "If you wanna be a proper scientist using the antibody test and if you wanna show that it's specific for this spike protein, then test it together with other toxins."

The Perfect Misdirection: How the Spike Protein Theater Conceals the True Crime

The spike protein narrative represents perhaps the most elegant scientific deception ever conceived—a masterpiece of misdirection that would make any stage magician envious. While the world debates the toxicity of imaginary proteins, the actual crime proceeds unnoticed: the injection of 55 undeclared elements designed for purposes that have nothing to do with immunization.

Consider the genius of this misdirection. The spike protein story captures everyone—supporters and critics alike—in an endless debate about something that doesn't exist. Vaccine advocates proclaim spike proteins create immunity. Vaccine critics warn spike proteins cause myocarditis, cross the blood-brain barrier, and persist indefinitely. Both sides accept the fundamental premise that these proteins are being produced. Neither questions whether the entire mechanism is fictional.

This narrative works brilliantly for several reasons. First, it maintains scientific complexity sufficient to exclude most people from meaningful evaluation. Doctors repeat what they learned about mRNA translation, feeling competent in their understanding. The public grasps just enough—"genetic instructions make proteins"—to feel informed. Few possess the expertise to recognize what Scoglio saw: the biological impossibility of the claimed mechanism.

Second, it provides cover for every injury. Blood clots? Spike protein. Myocarditis? Spike protein. Neurological damage? Spike protein crossed the blood-brain barrier. Sudden deaths? Spike protein overwhelming the system. The beauty lies in blaming an imaginary culprit that can never be isolated, proven, or disproven. As Scoglio noted, they never isolate spike proteins from vaccinated people—they only use laboratory-created versions, keeping the illusion intact.

Third, and most perniciously, it weaponizes fear against both vaccinated and unvaccinated. The vaccinated worry about persistent spike production. The unvaccinated fear "shedding" from those who received injections. Everyone remains terrified of invisible proteins that don't exist, while the actual toxins—heavy metals, lanthanides, and synthetic lipids—perform their function unexamined.

Meanwhile, the real payload hides in plain sight: materials for self-assembling nanotechnology, elements for optogenetic control, substances with no legitimate medical purpose. These aren't random contaminants but purposefully included components that align with documented military and transhumanist research objectives. The spike protein story ensures no one looks for, questions, or investigates these elements.

Most crucially, this misdirection maintains the broader virus narrative. If spike proteins from viruses are dangerous, then spike proteins from vaccines make logical sense—whether for protection or harm. The entire framework reinforces itself: viruses exist, they have spike proteins, vaccines make spike proteins, therefore both the disease and cure operate through the same mechanism. Challenge any part, and the whole edifice crumbles.

Scoglio saw through this theater. He recognized that Pfizer and Moderna knew their products couldn't produce spike proteins—the biological barriers were insurmountable. The Japanese biodistribution study confirmed it. These companies proceeded anyway, not despite this knowledge but because of it. The spike protein story was never about science. It was about providing plausible cover for what Scoglio correctly identified as "toxic bombs"—weapons disguised as medicine, hiding behind the most sophisticated lie ever told.

"Just Toxic Bombs"

This methodological critique extends beyond academic dispute when combined with the undeclared elements discovery. If the vaccines cannot produce spike proteins but contain materials associated with self-assembling nanotechnology, the entire narrative framework collapses. The elements detected—particularly the lanthanides with their electromagnetic and luminescent properties—suggest capabilities far removed from traditional immunization.

Scoglio's conclusion was unequivocal: "These injections cannot even be called 'vaccines.' They're just toxic bombs. Because if they're not able to produce any viral antigen, that means they don't perform as vaccines. So they're not vaccines, they're, again, just toxic bombs." He went further, stating that "when Pfizer and Moderna released the 'vaccines' they knew very well that no spike protein would be produced and they would only intoxicate people."

Scoglio's assessment gains additional weight from his analysis with Dr. Cowan: "These are, this is declared, as I said, they're highly inflammatory, highly immunogenic. They generate edema in all the membranes of the body. They generate blood clots... PEG, it's the main component of the anti-freezing liquid that you put in your engine. So how can it be good for you?"

The presence of heavy metals and lanthanides—materials with no legitimate vaccine function—validates his assessment: these are indeed toxic bombs, not vaccines.

Notably, Scoglio maintained scientific rigor even when examining popular alternative theories. He was skeptical of graphene oxide claims circulating in vaccine criticism circles, demanding chemical proof rather than visual similarity: 'You cannot come up by saying "Oh, it looks like graphene oxide," and then everybody is saying, "Oh, there's graphene oxide in the vaccine." This is not the way it should work.' This insistence on proper scientific methodology, regardless of which narrative it challenged, exemplified his commitment to evidence over speculation.

The suppression of such analysis becomes comprehensible only within a framework of deliberate deception. Journal editors reject papers, fact-checkers deflect rather than address evidence, and prominent critics die prematurely. Meanwhile, the convergence of Scoglio's biological impossibility argument with hard evidence of undeclared technological elements suggests the spike protein narrative served as sophisticated misdirection—a scientific shell game drawing attention away from the injections' true contents and purposes.

The Weaponization of Fear

Perhaps most insidiously, the spike protein narrative has been weaponized to create terror even among those who avoided injection. As Scoglio warned Cowan, claims of "passive vaccination" through spike protein shedding represent "a way of generating terror, fear... that actually feeds into the system that actually lives on fear." The imagery itself—as Cowan observed—resembles "a rape scene" where the spike "attaches to your receptor and then injects its business inside you and subdues you and then goes on to claim its next victim." This psychological operation depends entirely on accepting the unproven premise that spike proteins are being produced at all.

The Price of Truth

Historical precedent exists for such medical deception, from the Tuskegee experiments to the WHO's tetanus vaccine scandal in Kenya. Yet the scale here surpasses all precedent: billions injected with substances whose claimed mechanism of action appears fictitious, while their actual contents remain undeclared and their purposes obscured.

Scoglio's work, finally reaching broader audiences posthumously, demands the maximum scrutiny he advocated. Not because his conclusions are comfortable—they are profoundly disturbing—but because the convergence of theoretical analysis and empirical evidence has reached a threshold that responsible science cannot ignore. His interview with Engelbrecht, reproduced below, represents testimony from a scientist who chose truth over comfort, evidence over consensus, and paid an unknown price for that choice.

The suppression that kept Scoglio's work hidden for five years has failed. What remains is our obligation to examine what he discovered, integrate it with emerging evidence, and confront the implications regardless of their magnitude. As he reminded us, the scientific literature contains the evidence—"if only someone would read the damned scientific literature."

What remains is our obligation to share this suppressed science, to demand direct protein isolation rather than fraudulent antibody tests, and to ask why 55 undeclared elements were hidden in injections given to billions. As Scoglio showed, the truth lies in the scientific literature—for those willing to read it.

I appreciate you being here.

If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While 99% of everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.

Please make full use of the Free Libraries.

Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.

Stories

I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com

Baseline Human Health

Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.