In spite of Big Pharma's denials seems that shedding was observed even in trials

[admin]

Presentation and discussion by medical and legal professionals:
Shedding Is Real: FLCCC Weekly Update (Nov. 01, 2023)
(34 minute video with discussion by clinicians following)
https://rumble.com/v3tb41v-shedding-is-real-flccc-weekly-update-nov.-01-2023.html

Please read the article at the source as I can't capture it all here. I enlarge font and bold parts I find are most outrageous.
https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/shedding-of-covid-mrna-vaccine-components

Skip the preface and go directly to article at first bold and enlarged font.

Very few would not remember the immediate complaints by UNvaxxed women at the time of vaccine rollout, regarding the radical changes in their menstrual cycles and bleeding, that could pretty much only be explained by vaccine component shedding by their vaccinated husband and/or others around them - since that was the only change - while the rest of us were instructed by Big Pharma's-captured lying mainstream media, that we were simply not supposed to believe what those women observed, about their own bodies through their own eyes.

Even today there is no shortage of denials from Big Pharma's propagandists and fellow profiteers in government, media, academia, medical journals, self-proclaimed "fact checkers", etc. etc. with the same line.
So it's up to each individual to investigate and think for themselves and consider the evidence on all of the issues - some subjects of which are highlighted in this forum section - compared to other "news" sources and decide for oneself. If you log in I can help you find or explore a subject you're interested in. Also, the forum search function works very well to explore information that has been collected in this forum for over 3 years.

As has been suggested since even before vaxx rollout, the board members and employees of the corporations responsible for this global mass homicide, along with their facilitators in government and censors in digital and print media, need to make a decision as to whether they would prefer to come forward and as witnesses or wait until they are compelled to come forward as defendants. Stock market players are already sniffing out the securities fraud angle which will bring down Pharma's house of cards. Early birds will establish little need for those that come forward late.

On to the thread subject by imminently qualified ICU pulmonologist Dr. Pierre Kory:
https://twitter.com/PierreKory
(Folks with an interest in free speech should establish an account at X (formerly Twitter).)

https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/shedding-of-covid-mrna-vaccine-components

“Shedding” of Covid mRNA Vaccine Components and Products From The Vaccinated to the Unvaccinated - Part 1
It's happening. The manufacturers and regulators knew it was a risk, yet, like numerous aspects of the Covid vaccine mRNA technology, did not test for excretion potential of spike proteins or LNP's.
Pierre Kory, MD, MPA
Nov 1, 2023

Awareness of the Federal Regulators and Vaccine Manufacturers

The data showing the toxicity and lethality of the vaccines started within weeks of the roll-out with hundreds of thousands of adverse events and hundreds of deaths reported to VAERS in January of 2021, far exceeding previous stopping points of any new medical product or vaccine.

Although ignored (to this day), anyone paying unbiased attention could see a further mountain of evidence develop, including a skyrocketing number of newspaper and television reports of healthy athletes and young people arresting and dying while doing normal everyday activities or sports (countered by corporate/government controlled media with a plethora of fact checking articles using cherry picked data to inform the world that what they are seeing is not factually true).

Then life insurance industry data emerged showing historically unprecedented rises in death claims being paid out amongst the healthiest sectors of society temporally associated with the proliferation of Covid mRNA vaccine mandates within schools, corporations, universities, health care institutions, federal contractors etc. Most telling of the deathly impact of mandates was the fact that the largest increases among the sudden, rapid rises in excess deaths occurred among employed white collar workers.

The reality is that these data are still ignored by media and public health agencies across the world. Even more worrying are the more recent reports finding universal contamination of every studied vaccine vial with large magnitude, excess levels of DNA fragments and DNA plasmids. Then the discovery that the DNA plasmids used in the manufacturing process contained genetic sequences that both promote DNA integration into the human genome as well as promote the development of cancer.

It truly is unimaginable that we now must consider the risks (and reality) of “shedding” of the vaccine products from the vaccinated to the unvaccinated. This now has implications for nearly every human being walking the earth, vaccinated or unvaccinated (including me).

This series will explore the regulatory, scientific, epidemiological, and clinical data indicating that shedding is occurring. The health of who knows how many is now being threatened, with the extent of the risks likely both highly variable and difficult to predict, both in the short term and long term. That is unless we start to seriously study the phenomenon further. So, let’s review what is known.

Within 3 months of the rollout of the global Covid mRNA vaccination campaign, I was consulted by two different unvaccinated women in their late 30’s and early 40’s respectively, who reported that they were suffering acute menstrual abnormalities in the days following close exposure to a recently vaccinated practitioner (one visited a massage therapist and another an acupuncturist). Both had a history of highly regular, uncomplicated menstrual cycles over decades.

Since that time, at least twenty other unvaccinated and vaccinated people, both men and women, have reported to me compelling histories of typical post-mRNA vaccine adverse effects subsequent to close exposure to vaccinated family members, contacts, or friends.

Further, my partner Scott Marsland at our Leading Edge Clinic, who also specializes in treating Long Covid/Long Vax syndromes, has a growing series of detailed case histories of similar “shedding” events occurring. I will revisit this in a later post in this series, but I will briefly say here that our clinical observations conclude that symptomatic shedding events do occur. However, we have little idea of exactly how common it is occurring among the general population.

This is further complicated by the fact that even if it were occurring frequently, the vast majority of people suddenly developing typical vaccine side effects symptoms after exposure to a vaccinated person would never think to relate it to exposure to shed vaccine products. It is my belief that very few people in the general public are aware of the possibility it could occur. You know, because the regulators have assured the country that mRNA technology is “safe and effective.”

However, my general sense is that it occurs largely in people who have increased physiologic sensitivity to environmental exposures, toxins, or pharmaceuticals and that it is generally transmitted by someone recently vaccinated or someone who is producing a lot of spike protein. Note that is my “general sense.” More studies are required to fully understand both the frequency of and physiologic impacts from such events.

My ignorance as to the frequency of symptomatic shedding events is due to the fact that the concept of transmitting spike proteins (or lipid nanoparticles) from a Covid mRNA vaccinated person to another is one of the least studied and published-on aspect of the mRNA vaccine technology.

What is so shocking about that lack of research (actually nothing is shocking anymore) is that shedding has major global implications. Apparently it is not just me who thinks this because, as an expert on several aspects of Covid, I have been lecturing across the U.S, Europe, and South America in conferences, Parliamentary hearings, or invited lectures. Questions about shedding appear everywhere (in the dozens of Q & A’s that I have participated in, it is nearly always the first question. It is also a very common topic in the chat of our FLCCC weekly webinar.

Know that in this tonight’s FLCCC webinar (Wednesday 7p.m EST), I will be presenting a 15-20 minute overview of this series along with my private practice partner Scott Marsland. We expect to be deluged with questions after.

As a physician committed to education, I (finally) decided to respond to the void of information around shedding with this series of deeply researched posts. If you appreciate the effort, please consider supporting my commitment to continuing this Substack with a paid subscription (I have been debating whether to give it up due to too many competing demands of my time - help me make that decision :).

Go to the link to this article to subscribe: https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/shedding-of-covid-mrna-vaccine-components

Anyway, I believe that by the end of this series on the science, epidemiology, and clinical observations of shedding, you will be convinced that it can and does occur.

What IS The Definition Of Shedding In Regards To The Covid mRNA Vaccines?

From our Federal government, in this FDA document, the term “shedding” is defined as:

“The release of viral or bacterial gene therapy products from the patient by any or all of the following routes: feces (feces); secretions (urine, saliva, nasopharyngeal fluids, etc.); or through the skin (pustules, lesions, sores).”

They forgot to mention “exhaled breath.” More on that later. The “products” they refer to that can be transmitted from a Covid vaccinated person to another include not only the genetically programmed spike protein product, but also the lipid nanoparticle (LNP) containing the mRNA that is in the injections as well as naked mRNA that can be released from the LNP. Even more worrying is the recent shocking discovery that every single Moderna and Pfizer vaccine vial is contaminated with high levels of DNA plasmids potentially capable of integrating into the human genome. Contemplating that last one is disturbing, the implications of which we will not know for some time.

Why Would The Modified mRNA Vaccine Technology Lead To The Possibility of Shedding?

First off, let’s be clear that the Covid mRNA and DNA vaccines are gene therapy medicinal products (GMTPs or GTP’s) as stated in the FDA’s 2015 document on Gene Product Shedding Studies.

    “Gene therapy products are all products that mediate their effects by transcription and/or translation of transferred genetic material and/or by integrating into the host genome and that are administered as nucleic acids, viruses, or genetically engineered microorganisms.

Also note that in this European Medicines Agency (EMA) document, the mRNA vaccines also meet their definition of gene therapy medicinal products (GMTP’s).

Ok, now that we know what a gene therapy product is and that the Covid mRNA injection is actually a form of gene therapy (marketed to the public as a “vaccine”), what does that have to do with “shedding?” Again from the FDA document regarding the evaluation of the safety of gene therapy products, they emphasize the importance of studying shedding:

    Shedding is distinct from biodistribution because the latter describes how a product is spread within the patient’s body from the site of administration while the former describes how it is excreted or released from the patient’s body. Shedding raises the possibility of transmission of virus or bacteria based gene therapy products (VBGT) from treated to untreated individuals (e.g., close contacts and health care professionals).

    This guidance represents FDA’s current thinking on how and when shedding data should be collected for VBGT and oncolytic products during preclinical and clinical development and how shedding data can be used to assess the potential for transmission to untreated individuals.

So, with these findings in mind, it may be no wonder why the FDA insists on shedding studies:



Further on in the document, the FDA again emphasizes the importance of shedding studies:

Note that the FDA emphasizes the importance of doing human shedding studies and not just relying on animal studies:

    To inform the design of human shedding studies, shedding data may be collected in animals following administration of the VBGT or oncolytic product. These data can help estimate the likelihood and potential shedding profile in humans, particularly when there is concern about transmission to untreated individuals. However, such data cannot substitute for human shedding studies for several reasons.

But again, no studies testing whether excretion of mRNA-containing LNPs, modified spike-encoding mRNA, or spike produced by vaccinated people have been done. Well, I shouldn’t say none, because in this paper the author cites a Pfizer document obtained by FOIA which apparently revealed that shedding was studied in the urine and feces of intra-muscular injected rats. Unfortunately, that document is no longer at the website referenced.

To summarize from the above, the FDA’s position is that:

    the mRNA vaccines are gene therapy products

    Gene therapy products require shedding studies in both animals and humans

    Gene therapy product shedding raises the possibility of transmission from treated to untreated individuals

Note that much of the rest of this series of posts on shedding is guided by a masterful comprehensive review of the topic of gene therapy product shedding by independent researcher (by definition) Helene Banoun in Infectious Diseases Research. Hers is one of the only papers I could find that attempted to meticulously explore what is known about shedding of the mRNA gene therapy vaccines.

As already stated, an important point Banoun makes is:

    There was no regulation of mRNA clinical trials prior to RNA vaccines, yet there is strict regulation of gene therapy products. It is difficult to justify that mRNA vaccines are not considered in the same way as gene therapies regarding this regulation; indeed the only difference is that they are (historically) supposed to protect against a disease and not cure it. Gene therapies are intended for a small number of people in poor health, whereas vaccines are used on a large scale on healthy people: it would therefore be wise to apply stricter rules to them.

She further points out another omission of the regulatory process:

    Any experiment involving the deliberate transfer of a nucleic acid to a human must be preceded by Institutional Biosafety Committee approval (document on the regulatory standards is here), but approval was not given because of the emergency clearance given to mRNA vaccines.

Therefore, according to both the American and European agencies, mRNA vaccines are gene therapy products and should have been subjected to excretion studies of all secreted fluids (urine, exhaled droplets, saliva, sputum, nasopharyngeal fluids, semen, breast milk, feces, and sweat). Again, these studies were not done for mRNA vaccines nor for the DNA adenovirus vaccine (J&J).

So, where are the clinical human shedding studies? Well, I just learned of one that is about to be published (next ten days?) where the research team exposed a population of unvaccinated women to vaccinated individuals and their assessment outcome was the development of menstrual abnormalities. I know the results but want to respect the research teams right to present their original work. They have promised to share their manuscript with me and Paul Marik as soon as the peer-review and acceptance process is complete. I have no idea what journal they submitted to but I can be highly confident it is not the New England Journal of Medicine.

The entire reason why I did a “deep dive” into shedding science is because shedding was not studied when it absolutely should have been and I believe with near certainty that it occurs. Note my use of “near certain” is only to seem objective but it really is too late for that - both my partner Scott and I have diagnosed and successfully treated a number of shedding “victims.”

The lack of shedding studies prior to the mRNA rollout was, in my opinion, an insanely reckless and irresponsible omission (or willfully criminal, take your pick). As an evolving expert in the evaluation and treatment of Covid mRNA vaccine injury syndromes, I and others have identified the spike protein as the main component responsible for not only the pathogenicity of Covid but also of the vaccines, with this review paper proposing a new field named “spikeopathy” (study of the disease processes triggered by the spike protein).

If vaccine transcribed spike protein can be transmitted in sufficient quantity from vaccinated folks to unvaccinated ones, it stands to reason that adverse effects of the vaccine can develop in some unvaccinated people who came into contact (or close proximity) with vaccinated people. How did they get away with not studying this possibility?

An easy answer is they were doing science at “warp speed.” The more uncomfortable answer is that the “vaccines”, although meeting the definition of a gene therapy product, were actually not even legally considered a medical product at all and thus did not require a diverse range of safety studies (like on genotoxicity, reproductive risks, excretion potential etc). What? Why? How?

The reality is that the Covid vaccines, as a result of successive federal legislative actions which evolved over decades, was legally categorized as a “countermeasure” under a “public health emergency.” Such “countermeasures” require no specific regulatory approval process prior to dissemination. All a countermeasure needs is the recommendation of the Secretary of Health and Human Services that “it may be effective.”

This is the conclusion derived from the legal investigatory work of various independent and legal experts and researchers like Catherine Watts, Todd Callender, and Sasha Latypova. If interested in learning more, I would watch this lecture by Sasha Latypova (scroll down the page to find her lecture). As they have uncovered, “countermeasures” (even gene therapy ones) do not legally require studies of excretion potential, bio-distribution, pharmacokinetics, genotoxicity, insertional mutagenesis etc.

They don’t even require FDA regulated clinical trials of efficacy or safety.

So why did Pfizer and Moderna even do the efficacy trials? Latypova maintains that they did this not only to satisfy the public’s confidence to increase vaccine uptake, but also to “fool” the public into thinking these vaccines were medical products subject to standard (albeit accelerated) pharmaceutical product regulatory processes.

This obscured the reality that they were instead classified as military “countermeasures” against a perceived (if not actual) bioweapon. To wit, the COO of Operation Warp Speed was a General from the Department of Defense (DOD) and the vaccine manufacturers were under contract with the DOD to produce the countermeasure, sometimes referred to as a “demonstration (demo)” and/or a “prototype” in numerous legal documents they uncovered.

Anyway, as a result of this lack of a legal requirement to fully study these products in a public health emergency, the list and types of studies that should have been conducted (but were not) is long. Researchers and clinicians have been screaming about this since they were rolled out. These cries were met with a deafening silence by governmental health agencies across the world.

I know, it is a lot to take in.

But the latest “word on the street” is that the finance and insurance industries may finally be waking up to this fraud and its devastating impacts on U.S disability and death rates. Knowledge of these society-wide impacts largely results from the work of two different research teams led by former Blackrock portfolio manager Ed Dowd and insurance industry consultant Josh Stirling).

This article describes the reasons why Pfizer and Moderna stock are crashing of late. Put more succinctly, from what I hear it is due to the hedge fund guys shorting their stock. I believe Pfizer is in even deeper trouble now that this “forensic” paper just got published finding that they hid vaccine trial deaths which obscured a 3.7 fold increased risk of cardiac death in the vaccinated arm of their trial.
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2022/02/bankruptcy-for-moderna-definitely-pfizer.html

 
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1d79/a14307e35646b8fd9209fc8a17e12d2d6ca9.pdf

Links to all the other (already active) posts in this series is after the subscribe button below.

P.S. I just want to say thanks to all my subscribers, especially the paid ones! Your financial support is greatly appreciated as it allows me to devote what is often large amount of time I spend researching and writing my posts, so again, thanks. - Pierre

“Shedding” Part 1- Shedding of Covid mRNA Vaccine Components and Products From The Vaccinated to the Unvaccinated - Part 1

“Shedding” Part 2 - The Bio-Distribution and Excretion Potential of Covid mRNA Vaccine Products

“Shedding” Part 3 - Can You Absorb Lipid Nanoparticles From Being Exposed To a Vaccinated Person?

“Shedding” Part 4 - Evidence of Placental and Breast Milk Transmission of Covid mRNA Vaccine Components

"Shedding" Part 5 - Evidence of Shedding Causing Illness In Others

“Shedding Part 6- Clinical Case Notes Describing Shedding Phenomena Among Leading Edge Clinic Patients

“Shedding” Part 7 - Shedding Via Sexual Intercourse - Clinical Reports

“Shedding” Part 8 - A Deluge of Clinic Reports Pour In

[admin]

https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/shedding-part-2-the-bio-distribution

"Shedding Part 2- The Bio-Distribution and Excretion of Covid mRNA Vaccine Components and Products
In order to transmit or "shed" the Covid mRNA encapsulated lipid nanoparticle and/or the transcribed spike protein product, dissemination to organs and body fluids must occur. Does it? Answer: Yes.
Pierre Kory, MD, MPA
Nov 1, 2023

OK, so in Part 1 of this series on Covid mRNA vaccine shedding, I provided evidence that:

    The FDA and the EMA define the mRNA vaccines as gene therapies.

    The FDA requires that gene therapy products undergo human shedding studies given the known risks of shedding

    Shedding studies were not done because, even though the vaccines are gene-therapies, they legally fell under the legal definition of a “countermeasure” in a public health emergency. Countermeasures do not require shedding or other types of safety studies before mass use. 

    All we know is that from a FOIA obtained document, Pfizer did a shedding study on rats but we don’t know what they found.

HOW DOES SHEDDING OCCUR AND IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF IT OCCURRING WITH THE COVID mRNA VACCINES?

In order for the vaccine or spike to be shed, it would first require distribution of the vaccine components or spike protein product to the lungs (to then be exhaled) and other body fluids (to then be excreted)

To explore this possibility, it is important that we define what a lipid nanoparticle LNP) is, along with their natural, biological counterparts which are called exosomes or extracellular vesicles (EVs).

The papers I reviewed used the terms exosomes, LNP’s, EV’s, and even nanoparticles somewhat interchangeably although there are some differences. For instance, exosomes are a subset of extracellular vesicles (EV’s). From this paper in Molecular Therapy, they state:

    Exosome-like nanovesicles (ELNVs) are biological nanostructures of 40–150 nm, are secreted by most types of cells and relay information between cells and organisms across all three kingdoms of life.1,2 Although earlier perceived to be cellular debris and hence undervalued, ELNVs are now acknowledged as crucial entities to regulate physiological functions of multicellular organisms in an intercellular transmission manner.

From another paper in Science:

    Exosomes are EVs with a size range of ~40 to 160 nm (average ~100 nm) in diameter with an endosomal origin. For instance, the LNP’s in the Covid MRNA vaccines are approximately 100 - 400 nm in size.

The most important fact to remember is that the smaller the size, the more widely they distribute and the more easily they can enter the body (more on the latter later).

For context, the length of the SARS-Cov2 virus is about 9-12 nm in size. Further, as Banoun points out in her masterful review of the topic of shedding:

    “Huge amounts of mRNA are injected compared to the circulation of a virus during a natural infection: up to 10 to 7 times more, according to Professor Jean-Michel Claverie [27].”

Further, there are different biologic materials that can be used to make the outer membrane enclosing the contents of a nanoparticle. Lipids (i.e. liposomes or LNP’s) are one of the most commonly used for drug delivery. Early conventional “liposomes” (yet another term) had limitations such as short half-life and rapid systemic clearance following their clearance by the reticuloendothelial system (RES). However, the conjugation of polymers such as polyethylene glycol (PEG) resulted in the generation of sterically stabilized liposomes with prolonged half-life and increased stability.

To wit, the Covid mRNA vaccines used PEG to stabilize the LNP carrying the modified mRNA.

So what are nanoparticles/LNPs/exosomes, what is inside them, and what do they do?

Basically, they are tiny sacs enclosed by a lipid membrane which can contain any of the following: proteins, metabolites, enzymes, growth factors, and nucleic acids. You can also package drugs (and synthetic mRNA) into them in order to deliver their contents into recipient cells to effectively alter their biological response.

Natural, endogenous exosomes are associated with immune responses, viral pathogenicity, pregnancy, cardiovascular diseases, central nervous system–related diseases, and cancer progression. Such exosome-mediated responses can be disease promoting or restraining. Exosomes can be engineered to deliver diverse therapeutic payloads, including short interfering RNAs, antisense oligonucleotides, chemotherapeutic agents, and immune modulators, with an ability to direct their delivery to a desired target.

Importantly, synthetic mRNA vaccine LNPs have the same structure as the natural exosomes they seek to mimic.

So what do we know about human biodistribution of synthetic LNP’s??

From this article by Sonia Elijah, regulators knew LNP’s distribute widely in the human body:

    In the recent leaked letter by the EMA, Executive Director, Emer Cooke, to the Chair of COVID-19 Special Committee, MEP Kathleen Van Brempt, Cooke begrudgingly admitted, “that the lipid nanoparticles can distribute rather non-specifically to several organs such as liver, spleen, heart, kidney, lung and brain, with the liver appearing to be the organ where the lipid nanoparticles distribute most.”

Her admission was made on the heels of the Therapeutics Goods Administrations (TGA) of Australia’s evaluation report on Pfizer’s nonclinical biodistribution study, which alarmingly revealed that the lipid nanoparticles which encase the mRNA, travel to the liver, spleen, brain, eyes, bone marrow, adrenal glands, ovaries and testes– nearly every organ tissue.

Further, beyond the mRNA encased in synthetic LNP’s, “naked” mRNA as well as mRNA encased in natural LNP’s (called exosomes) and spike protein in free form or encapsulated in exosomes can be found in the bloodstream and breast milk.

More worryingly, LNP’s or their natural equivalent, exosomes (a.k.a. extracellular vesicles (EVs)) are able to be excreted through body fluids (sweat, sputum, breast milk) and to pass the transplacental barrier. These exosomes are also able to penetrate by inhalation and through healthy or injured skin as well as orally through breast milk.

This figure from a review paper on nanoparticle therapies is illuminating:



If that isn’t concerning enough, it gets worse.



The above paper from 2017 states:

    Due to their unique characteristics, nanoparticles are widely used in biomedical and industrial applications (Lee et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2008; Das et al., 2009; Vance et al., 2015). Currently, there are 1,814 marketed consumer products containing nanoparticles, including antibiotics, food items, textiles, sports tools, and electronic materials, and the number is increasing steadily.

Good to know (and unsurprising) that as of 2017, the human race has 1,814 consumer products out there relying on the use of nanoparticles and we have no comprehensive understanding of what the short or long term risks of both the absorption into our bodies and or the risk of secondarily shedding the nanoparticles onto other humans, in particular our families, friends, and others.

It is shocking that in a number of review papers on nanoparticle technology, in each one, statements like this appear: “it is clear that more studies are needed to determine the mechanisms by which NPs affect particular organ systems.”

Equally prevalent are statements such as the below from this review paper:

    Despite the potential for clinical application, some studies have suggested that NPs can be toxic. These studies have demonstrated the ability of NPs to accumulate in cells and induce organ-specific toxicity. These studies, combined with the ever-increasing human exposure, demonstrate an urgent need for the design of safe NPs and the development of strict guidelines for their development with regards to toxicity testing.

Urgent need to design safe nanoparticles? Strict guidelines needed for development in regards to testing for toxicity? Bit late for that now given “we” injected transmissable nanoparticles into the bodies of billions of people of all ages across the world.

The reason for so many papers on nanoparticle technology constantly calling out for safety and shedding studies is that the researchers all are fully aware that there is a distinct paucity of studies confirming safety and/or risks of nanoparticles/LNP’s - the red bars in the chart below refers to the number of studies on nanoparticles found with titles containing the words “risks, safety or toxicity”



I find it highly troubling that the nanoparticle technology industry is expanding so rapidly yet the potential for biologic toxicity to others has been so little studied. Almost all the studies have been in animals and they are not reassuring. At all.

    Ed: Sorry to interrupt but if you like (and enjoy learning from) this Substack, please consider supporting with a paid subscription (my time is under increasing strain and I need to prioritize - support will help me do that!) Thanks.

Before we get into the studies demonstrating the passing of spike protein and/or mRNA from vaccinated to the unvaccinated via various routes, know that Pfizer knew that shedding was a possibility given that they specifically excluded people “exposed” to the vaccine via inhalation (not subtle) or skin contact:

Starting on p. 67 of the protocol the investigator is instructed to report various "environmental exposures."

    1)A male participant who is receiving or has discontinued study intervention exposes a female partner prior to or around the time of conception."

    2) "A female family member or healthcare provider reports that she is pregnant after having been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact."

    3) "A male family member or healthcare provider who has been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact then exposes his female partner prior to or around the time of conception."

    4) "A female is found to be breastfeeding while being exposed or having been exposed to study intervention (ie, environmental exposure). An example of environmental exposure during breastfeeding is a female family member or healthcare provider who reports that she is breastfeeding after having been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact."trial who had close contact to a vaccinated person:

From Banoun:

    The protocol for the Pfizer Phase I/II/III trial of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (which began in May 2020) mentions the possibility of passage of the study product through inhalation or skin contact and passage through semen from a man exposed through inhalation or skin contact and passage through breast milk; the possibility of an adverse vaccine reaction from these exposures is also mentioned [15]. Pfizer's data clearly indicate that a pregnant woman may be exposed to “the intervention studied due to environmental exposure.”

    Environmental exposure can occur through “inhalation or skin contact.” Examples of environmental exposure during pregnancy include: A female family member or health care provider reports that she is pregnant after being exposed to the study intervention through inhalation or skin contact. A male family member or health care provider who was exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact subsequently exposes his female partner before or around the time of conception.

Please re-read that last sentence again as I think it is critically important to understand what they are describing, i.e. “secondary shedding,” meaning someone can be “exposed” via inhalation or skin contact and then secondarily “expose” someone else. This will be important to remember in later posts where I provide clinical case examples of such “secondary shedding” events causing symptoms.

Banoun further interprets the section as follows:

    This clearly means that any contact, including sexual contact with someone who has received the vaccines, exposes those who have not received the vaccines to the “intervention”, i.e. mRNA. Exposure during breastfeeding had also to be immediately notified during the trial: it is assumed that the investigator is concerned that a breastfeeding mother could transmit the experimental mRNA to her baby if she received the vaccines directly or if she is “exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact.”

Also remember the mention of sexual contact. Part 7 of this series describes two clinical reports of symptoms occurring immediately after a particular type of sexual intercourse (although a short post, for sensitive reasons I put it behind a paywall however numerous other clinical examples are provided in other posts in this series).

Unsurprisingly, numerous fact check articles were published to refute the above interpretations of the trial protocol language. This Chicago Tribune article argues that the language does not mean that Pfizer is suggesting that shedding can occur. To make this argument, they found this completely random, unknown professor who explained it away as follows: 

    Dr. Shobha Swaminathan, an associate professor of medicine at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, referred to the document’s language as “generic” meant to cover cases of “any potential exposures, including possible accidental ones.”

    Swaminathan said that “exposure” through inhalation or skin contact could refer to incidents where a pregnant woman was near a syringe of the product that accidentally broke. But in the case of COVID-19 vaccines, the degree of absorption from spilling the vaccine on your skin is “probably going to be negligible to non-existent,” Swaminathan said.

“Absorption will probably be negligible.” I am not reassured by Professor Swaminathan’s confidence. “In case a syringe accidentally broke.” I didn’t know that glass syringes were still in widespread use. The fact checkers are having a tough time here.

Sasha Latypova recently sent me another piece of evidence that Pharma knows that gene therapy product shedding occurs. The following is from an insert of a drug called Luxterna, an adenovirus vector gene therapy injected into the retina (IMO a terrible drug given that serious injuries impacting vision occurred in over 5% of subjects). Read on:



Links to all the other already active posts in this series is after the subscribe button below.

P.S. I just want to say thanks to all my subscribers, especially the paid ones! Your financial support is greatly appreciated as it allows me to devote what is often large amount of time I spend researching and writing my posts, so again, thanks. - Pierre"

[admin]

“Shedding” Part 3 - Can You Absorb Lipid Nanoparticles From Being Exposed To a Vaccinated Person?

[admin]

“Shedding” Part 4 - Evidence of Placental and Breast Milk Transmission of Covid mRNA Vaccine Components

[admin]

"Shedding" Part 5 - Evidence of Shedding Causing Illness In Others

[admin]

“Shedding Part 6- Clinical Case Notes Describing Shedding Phenomena Among Leading Edge Clinic Patients

[admin]

“Shedding” Part 7 - Shedding Via Sexual Intercourse - Clinical Reports

[admin]

“Shedding” Part 8 - A Deluge of Clinic Reports Pour In

[admin]

reserved

[admin]

reserved

[admin]

As this forum included in June of 2021:
Breastfeeding Baby Dies After Mother Receives Pfizer Vaccine
https://www.covid-19forum.org/index.php?topic=850.0

VITT
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20231030/Scientists-identify-mechanism-causing-deadly-blood-clots-after-some-COVID-19-vaccines.aspx

"Meanwhile, the funeral company stocks have outperformed the S&P. “Funeral Home companies are growth stocks. They had a great year in 2021 compared to 2020, and they outperformed the S&P 500. The peer group of Funeral Home stocks was up 40 plus percent while the S&P was up 26 percent – and they started accelerating price-wise in 2021 during the roll-out of the vaccines – You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to connect the dots here.”"
https://www.theautomaticearth.com/2022/02/bankruptcy-for-moderna-definitely-pfizer/