Are any of the Covid-19 Vaccines Self-Spreading, Self-Propagating, Transmissible Vaccines?

In 2018, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Health Security, published Technologies to Address Global Catastrophic Biological Risks.

Among the technologies discussed in the paper, are “Self-Spreading Vaccines.” Vaccines that only need be given to a portion of the population, and are then become communicable between individuals, like a virus. Page 47 of the document reads in part:

“Self-spreading vaccines—also known as transmissible or self-propagating vaccines—are genetically engineered to move through populations in the same way as communicable diseases, but rather than causing disease, they confer protection. The vision is that a small number of individuals in the target population could be vaccinated, and the vaccine strain would then circulate in the population much like a pathogenic virus. These vaccines could dramatically increase vaccine coverage in human or animal populations without requiring each individual to be inoculated. This technology is currently aimed primarily at animal populations.”

“There are 2 main types of self-spreading vaccines: recombinant vector vaccines and live viral vaccines. recombinant vector vaccines combine the elements of a pathogenic virus that induce immunity (removing the portion that causes disease) with a transmissible viral vector.”

“Self-spreading vaccines have already been used to protect wild rabbits from myxomatosis and to control Sin Nombre virus in rodent populations.”

“In the event of a grave public health threat, self-spreading vaccines could potentially be used to broadly inoculate human populations. Like the approach in animals, only a small number of vaccinated individuals would be required in order to confer protection to a larger susceptible population, thus eliminating the need for mass vaccination operations, including PODs.”

Covid-19 vaccines approved in the US and Europe included the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, as well as the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) and AstraZenica. The mechanism of these products is inject mRNA or DNA to force the cells of the individual to produce the spike protein, in the belief that the spike protein itself was not harmful in itself.

As the public roll out of the Covid-19 vaccines based on the spike protein began, we began to see widespread reports of blood clots and other vascular symptoms in those who received the vaccine, including complications in menstrual cycles, and even miscarriages.

Research is currently underway at the The University of Illinois Urbana Champaign on the reproductive health outcomes of women who have received the vaccine. The survey became available to the public on April 7th, and by April 19th the researchers reported that they had received more than 25k survey responses.

In the US the Janssen vaccine, and in Europe the AstraZenica vaccine were suspended in many areas and put under review for these side effects. Although Pfizer and Moderna had more reports of blood clots and strokes than Janssen, no such suspension or review was undertaken of the mRNA vaccines.

In early May 2021, the Salk Institute published an article on a study in Circulation Research confirming that Covid-19 was primarily a vascular disease, not a respiratory disease as had initially been assumed.

“A lot of people think of it as a respiratory disease, but it’s really a vascular disease,” says Assistant Research Professor Uri Manor, who is co-senior author of the study. “That could explain why some people have strokes, and why some people have issues in other parts of the body. The commonality between them is that they all have vascular underpinnings.”

Further, it implicated the spike protein itself in causing damage to the vascular system.

“In the new study, the researchers created a “pseudovirus” that was surrounded by SARS-CoV-2 classic crown of spike proteins, but did not contain any actual virus. Exposure to this pseudovirus resulted in damage to the lungs and arteries of an animal model—proving that the spike protein alone was enough to cause disease. Tissue samples showed inflammation in endothelial cells lining the pulmonary artery walls.

The team then replicated this process in the lab, exposing healthy endothelial cells (which line arteries) to the spike protein. They showed that the spike protein damaged the cells by binding ACE2. This binding disrupted ACE2’s molecular signaling to mitochondria (organelles that generate energy for cells), causing the mitochondria to become damaged and fragmented.

Previous studies have shown a similar effect when cells were exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but this is the first study to show that the damage occurs when cells are exposed to the spike protein on its own.

“If you remove the replicating capabilities of the virus, it still has a major damaging effect on the vascular cells, simply by virtue of its ability to bind to this ACE2 receptor, the S protein receptor, now famous thanks to COVID,” Manor explains. “Further studies with mutant spike proteins will also provide new insight towards the infectivity and severity of mutant SARS CoV-2 viruses.”

This gave us an explanation of how the vascular symptoms in vaccine recipients may be happening.

But the strange part of the story is that reports on social media have begun circulating that these same vascular symptoms, nose bleeds, bruising, headaches, menstrual disruption and even miscarriages, were being experienced by the unvaccinated who had recently spent time with one or more vaccinated individuals, or even in large crowds.

Such reports are now widespread on social media, but as the individuals reporting this bizarre phenomenon are not vaccine recipients, there is no where to report these potential second hand adverse events, as VAERS is a reporting system for only for vaccinated individuals.

This week, members of the public started taking a harder look at the vaccine manufacturers public disclosures about the vaccine and found that in their clinical trials, Pfizer included questions on outcomes in pregnant and breastfeeding women who had NOT received the vaccine, but had been exposed to those who had. This query about outcomes of “environmental” exposure to their product shows that Pfizer at least suspected that transmission via “inhalation” or “skin contact” was possible, as were adverse outcomes to the unvaccinated in contact with the vaccinated.

From Page 67 of Pfizer’s document on their vaccine trials:

“ During Pregnancy

An EDP occurs if: …

• A female is found to be pregnant while being exposed or having been exposed to study intervention due to environmental exposure. Below are examples of environmental exposure during pregnancy:

• 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.

• 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.”

Study investigators are then instructed to follow and report on the pregnancy until it’s termination, and report serious adverse events.

“Abnormal pregnancy outcomes are considered SAEs. If the outcome of the pregnancy meets the criteria for an SAE (ie, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, intrauterine fetal demise, neonatal death, or congenital anomaly),the investigator should follow the procedures for reporting SAEs. Additional information about pregnancy outcomes that are reported to Pfizer Safety as SAEs follows:

•Spontaneous abortion including miscarriage and missed abortion;

•Neonatal deaths that occur within 1month of birth should be reported, without regard to causality, as SAEs. In addition, infant deaths after 1month should be reported as SAEs when the investigator assesses the infant death as related or possibly related to exposure to the study intervention.“

Similar instructions are given on tracking on breast feeding women.

“ During Breastfeeding

An exposure during breastfeeding occurs if: …

•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.”

Because these individuals are not enrolled in the study, those with adverse reactions to “environmental exposure” to Pfizer’s BNT162 RNA-Based COVID-19 Vaccine are not included in the study outcomes. Investigators are given instructions to simply keep the SAE reports “in the investigator site file.” Where is that information?

The questions that the public are asking are becoming widespread, and seem currently unanswerable. Are the vaccinated “shedding” something? If so, what are they “shedding?” The spike protein? Instructions for it’s cellular manufacture via viral vector? If so, how? Until seeing the Hopkins biotech paper, this seemed impossible to me. Are there real risks to the unvaccinated? Is anyone looking into this yet?

Are any the Covid-19 Vaccines Self-Spreading, Self-Propagating, Transmissible Vaccines?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.