Have you heard the Dr. Robert Malone invented the mRNA vaccine? Of course you have! He has been saying that since it first came out. When it was pointed out that he was one of many who played a part in its development, he backed away from that claim of being “the” vaccine inventor and now says he invented the technology the serves as the basis of the vaccine. But did he really?
Because it is such a technical paper, the jargon in which is gibberish to a lay person, no one to my knowledge has actually dissected the seminal article itself.
That is, until now. I have an MS in Physiology and Biochemistry and I can actually read the paper and make sense of it. I have dissected the paper and believe it proves conclusively, Malone was not the inventor of the technology.
Cationic Liposome-Mediated RNA Transfection. Robert W. Malone, Philip L. Felgner and Inder M. Verma. PNAS 86:6077-6081, August 1989
6077.full.pdf (pnas.org)
At the time this paper was written, Dr. Verma was a well established researcher with his own lab and a 20 year track record of publications many having to do with RNA. Felgner was an established researcher with a track record of having worked with DNA transfection. Malone had just gotten his MS degree and was a medical student. He only had two prior publications neither of which had anything to do with mRNA.
The research techniques described in the paper are extremely complex. It would be highly unlikely that a medical student would be proficient in these advanced techniques.
Throughout the paper, it states “We have developed” and “we report” clearly indicating this paper was the work of three individuals, not Dr. Malone in isolation.
But here’s where it gets really interesting. In the DISCUSSION on page 6081 it reads…”We have developed a high-efficiency RNA transfection system using DOTMA-containing liposomes (lipofectin), which was previously used to transfect DNA into cells.” (10)
That reference, (10) was to a paper written by Felgner et al two years earlier in 1987. That sentence proves the technology used in the Malone paper was the same technology Felgner had used two years earlier with DNA. Malone, Felgner and Verma simply borrowed that technique and applied it to mRNA.
In the last paragraph of the DISCUSSION it states “The technology developed here may eventually be extended to introduce antisense RNA into cells, including modified oligonucleotides containing methyl phosphonate or thiolated nucleotides, particularly to study the role of proto oncogenes such as fos or myc whose transcripts have a short half life of 30-60 minutes.” (17)
That reference (17) was to a paper written by Verma alone in 1986, three years earlier and reflects the type of research Verma was involved with for nearly twenty years before the Malone paper.
The next sentence is very important. “The RNA / lipofectin method can be used to directly introduce RNA into whole tissues and embryos (R.W.M., C. Holt, and I.M.V., unpublished results), raising the possibility that liposome mediated mRNA transfection might offer yet another option in the growing technology of eukaryotic gene delivery , one based on the concept of using RNA as a drug.”
In the acknowledgments it states “This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Cancer Society to I.M.V. In the footnotes it states reprint request should be addressed to Dr. Verma.
Placing all this evidence into contemporaneous context it is clear, Malone is seriously overstating his role in this seminal paper.
Far from inventing the technology upon which a later vaccine was developed, this paper clearly states they took a pre-existing method for introducing DNA into cells described by Felgner two years earlier and applied it to mRNA.
This research was supported by grant money given to Dr. Verma. It was his lab. He had been working in area as a genetic researcher for 20 years and had a long track record.
The final paragraph in the DISCUSSION puts the nail in Malone’s coffin though with the sentence that reads “The technology developed here may eventually be extended to introduce antisense RNA into cells…” (17).
I believe what happened is clear. Malone, who was only a medical student at the time was fortunate to get a research rotation with a veteran researcher, Dr. Verma who was working in this area. Using a technique previously developed by Dr. Felgner, Malone under the direction of Verma, performed the experiment described in the paper.
I believe this paper actually supports the argument that Verma had the idea of using lipofectin to introduce mRNA into cells. Malone was the lucky medical student who got to do the pipetting.
Malone later had a falling out with Verma, Felgner and his PhD advisor at Northwestern. He never completed that program. One can can only speculate why Malone had these fallings out. Malone wanted to be on the patent for this technology but was denied because his role was not felt to be significant enough.
So it sure seems clear, Malone was neither the inventor of the mRNA vaccine nor the inventor of the technology it relies on. Lipofectin transfection of nucleic acids predated this paper by two years.
Well at least I did a residency program and got board certified.