A world-renowned toxicologist has warned that millions of people who received Covid mRNA “vaccines” have been impacted by a devastating injury, including himself.

The chilling warning was issued by the associate professor of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Western Australia, Dr. Phil Burcham.

In a blistering critique published in the May 2025 edition of the journal Quadrant, Burcham raises urgent questions about the chemical design and safety testing of Covid mRNA “vaccines.”

Drawing upon firsthand injury experience, insider pharmaceutical literature, and decades of toxicological science, Burcham alleges that the deployment of mRNA-LNP technologies ignored well-known formulation risks.

The Covid mRNA injections also exposed patients to unvalidated toxic excipients and sidestepped rigorous preclinical evaluation, he argues.

Burcham’s article, titled “An Injured Toxicologist Reflects on COVID mRNA Vaccines (Part II),” interrogates the molecular architecture of mRNA-lipid nanoparticle (LNP) platforms.

He contends that serious and rapid-onset toxicities experienced by thousands of Australians stem not solely from immune responses to spike protein but from the synthetic materials used to construct LNP delivery systems.

The top professor notes that his own debilitating trigeminal nerve injury was caused by a Covid mRNA “vaccine.”

These synthetic materials used to construct LNP delivery systems include:

• Ionizable lipids (e.g., SM-102, ALC-0315)
• PEGylated lipids
• Unnatural modified nucleotides (e.g., pseudouridine)

Burcham’s central thesis is that mRNA vaccines were built upon unstable, “pharmacologically obese” molecules with seven well-known liabilities.

He explains that chemists tried to patch these liabilities using risky excipients rather than structural redesign.

While not an empirical study in itself, the essay draws heavily on:

• Burcham’s personal toxicological training and vaccine injury
• Published toxicology and pharmacology literature (e.g., Liu, Vaccines, 2019)
• A 2021 exposé by Ryan Cross in Chemical & Engineering News
• Unpublished biodistribution concerns from Pfizer’s own regulatory filings

This makes the piece a hybrid: expert commentary, post-market pharmacovigilance hypothesis, and forensic review of neglected preclinical science.

In his searing analysis, Burcham exposes deep flaws in the pharmacological vetting of LNP components used in Covid mRNA “vaccines.”

Neither Pfizer’s nor Moderna’s mRNA lipids were supported by robust toxicological data before their mass public rollout.

Despite their pivotal role in delivering mRNA payloads, these ionizable lipids lacked transparent preclinical safety disclosures.

According to science journalist Ryan Cross’s 2021 reporting, insiders acknowledged that most LNP candidates failed in animal models after promising in vitro performance.

However, this data has never reached the public domain.

Both vaccine makers declined interviews on their lipid selection processes, adding opacity to already-opaque safety assumptions.

Burcham’s case for acute chemical toxicity is rooted in disturbing patterns of rapid-onset neurological symptoms.

These symptoms include his own experience of immediate trigeminal nerve pain post-injection.

He argues that the onset of he symptoms is far too fast to be immune-mediated.

The implication: LNPs may provoke pharmacological injury distinct from the widely discussed spike-protein-driven mechanisms.

Supporting this, Burcham references a general practitioner who reportedly summoned more ambulances for mRNA vaccine reactions in a single year than in a decade of standard vaccinations.

He suggests that such cases are not isolated flukes but indicative of a broader signal.

Beyond acute reactions, Burcham contends that the very architecture of mRNA-LNP vaccines defied long-established medicinal chemistry norms.

He critiques the decision to compensate for mRNA’s size, charge, and immunogenicity with exotic formulations.

These formulations rely on PEGylated lipids and synthetic nucleotides that introduce independent toxicity risks.

PEG allergies are known to cause hypersensitivity, and modified bases like pseudouridine, while improving mRNA stability, have toxicological parallels with older antiviral drugs linked to liver steatosis, pancreatitis, and muscle damage.

LNP developers failed to provide radiolabeled (hot) biodistribution studies or worst-case toxicology in large animals, bypassing safeguards that once would have precluded such products from mass use in healthy populations.

Burcham concludes that systemic biodistribution of LNPs—now well documented—violates foundational safety criteria and would have disqualified these products under pre-pandemic regulatory norms.

Burcham’s critique exposes a troubling pattern of regulatory shortcuts and opaque corporate practices:

• No published safety studies on ionizable lipid clearance, organ accumulation, or metabolic byproducts.
• No transparent peer-reviewed justification for choosing SM-102 or ALC-0315 over safer alternatives.
• No systematic screening of LNP components for long-term safety in populations with known allergic, neurological, or mitochondrial susceptibility.

Even more concerning is Burcham’s assertion that companies and regulators failed to anticipate a worst-case “internal dose ≈ 100%” scenario.

This scenario is where all injected material enters the bloodstream, potentially targeting sensitive tissues like the heart and brain.

Phil Burcham’s Quadrant essay is a rare example of toxicological introspection from within the biomedical establishment.

It raises hard questions about the safety-by-design of mRNA vaccines, the opacity of lipid nanoparticle development, and the failure to heed long-established medicinal chemistry wisdom.

If Burcham’s account is correct, then millions of people, especially those reporting rapid-onset or persistent neurological symptoms, may have been injured not solely by the spike protein but by the very materials used to deliver it.

The implications for regulatory reform, vaccine injury compensation, and pharmaceutical transparency are profound.

However, these concerns remain underexplored by global regulatory agencies.

Until they are directly addressed in open-access, peer-reviewed research, the public will be left wondering whether safety was sacrificed in the rush to deploy novel mRNA technologies.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

Featured image source

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

You may also access the online version of the e-Book by clicking here.

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.