Tag Archives: vaccine shedding

And Now – The DEADLIEST Vaccines

Posted on by

Japan Warns ‘Self-Amplifying mRNA Vaccines’ Will ‘Trigger Worldwide Disaster’

Frank Bergman

Leading experts in Japan have just put out an emergency global warning as the nation is about to roll out dangerous new “self-amplifying” Covid mRNA “vaccines” for public use.

A group of scientists and a top Japanese lawmaker have just held a press conference to raise the alarm over the new “vaccines,” warning they will “trigger a worldwide disaster.”

The controversial new “self-amplifying” Covid mRNA “vaccine” was developed by an obscure San Diego-based biotech company called Arcturus Therapeutics Holdings Inc.

Arcturus Therapeutics, which is also an emerging pharmaceutical company, recently had its self-amplifying mRNA vaccine become accepted by Japanese regulators.

Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare (MHLW) granted approval for ARCT-154, a self-amplifying mRNA (sa-mRNA) COVID-19 vaccine.

The shot will be used for initial vaccination and booster for adults 18 years and older.

This new Covid sa-mRNA vaccine targeting was developed by Arcturus Therapeutics in partnership with Melbourne, Australia-based CSL.

In October the Japanese health authorities will roll the sa-mRNA Covid vaccine out to the population.

The approval is based on positive clinical data from several ARCT-154 studies, including an ongoing 16,000-subject efficacy study performed in Vietnam.

Initial study results have been published in MedRxiv and are expected to be published in a peer-reviewed journal by the end of the year.

However, the approval of the experimental vaccines has been met with a widespread backlash from Japanese scientists and medical experts, who have already been sounding the alarm about the “traditional” mRNA injections.

In response to the looming rollout of the new shots, Japanese Member of Parliament Ryuhei Kawada led an emergency press conference in Japan to warn the public.

At his event, he and colleagues expressed great concern about the country’s upcoming launch of the “mRNA replicon vaccines.”

During the press conference, Kawada argued that the October 1 deployment effort involving the COVID-19 vaccines “should be halted.”

Citing a study published in Cell, scientists looked at how something similar to the replicon mRNA vaccine worked when put into cells.

They found that the vaccine parts kept increasing inside the cells.

Experts are warning that these self-replicating mRNA vaccines continue to replicate in an out-of-control manner throughout the cells and more of the body.

The concern would be that particulas known as extracellular vesicles (including exosomes) could lead to shedding via bodily fluids and the like.

The Japanese regulators and Arcturus Therapeutics are refusing to discuss such risks, however.

“We are addressing this press conference from the standpoint that the replicon vaccine should be halted,” Kawada said during the presser.

“Therefore, we have decided to hold this emergency press conference.

“This self-replicating immune agent, scheduled to start regular vaccinations from October 1st, ought to be halted, and I strongly advocate for this action.

“Additionally, we must ensure thorough investigation and verification to provide relief to mRNA vaccine victims who have suffered significant harm.

“This must be systematically carried out.

“Instead of merely discarding unused vaccines, we should facilitate research by passing them on to researchers for analysis.

“I intend to make these demands to the Prime Minister and the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare.”

Professor Dr. Seiji Kojima of Nagoya University also raised concerns about the new injections.

“Compared to those who are unvaccinated, the mortality rate is five times higher if you get vaccinated twice,” Prof. Kojima warned.

“The purpose of receiving vaccination is indeed to reduce the mortality rate, but ironically, the rate was five times higher after receiving the vaccine.” 

Professor Murakami of Tokyo Science University also expressed similar concerns.

“Japan is planning a large-scale rollout of self-amplifying vaccines, which are considered hazardous materials…” Murakami told the Japanese people.

“…by the beginning of next month, Japan has the potential to trigger a worldwide disaster.”

“The vaccines do not seem to be effective,” he warned.

“They do not work. They lack efficacy.

“mRNA vaccines have resulted in many deaths, injuries, and victims.”

“Despite knowing they are ineffective, their use could possibly cause significant international damage,” Prof. Murakami added.

“There is also the possibility of person-to-person transmission.

“There is absolutely no need to administer it. There is no need at all.

“Therefore, knowing this and still administering the vaccine, I believe, is a crime. ”

WATCH:

VIDEO LINK:  https://rumble.com/v5fsecl-japan-warns-self-amplifying-mrna-vaccines-will-trigger-worldwide-disaster.html

FROM:    https://slaynews.com/news/japan-warns-self-amplifying-mrna-vaccines-trigger-worldwide-disaster/

Shedding a Light on Covid Vaccine Shedding

Posted on by

COVID Vaccine Shedding Is ‘Real’, FDA & Pfizer Documents Are Proof: Clinicians

BY TYLER DURDEN
MONDAY, FEB 19, 2024 – 10:05 AM

Authored by Marina Zhang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The topic of COVID-19 vaccine shedding has long been controversial, but now, some doctors say it is real.

(myboys.me, Naeblys/Shutterstock)

“Shedding is unfortunately real,” said Dr. Pierre Kory at the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) conference in Phoenix, Arizona, in early February. “The FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) knows that.”

Dr. Kory is a co-founder of the FLCCC, a non-profit advocacy group founded by physicians for the treatment of COVID-19, long COVID, and postvaccine syndromes. He is also the co-founder of the Leading Edge Clinic and has treated over a thousand long-COVID and postvaccine patients.

Fact-checkers have largely denied shedding on the basis of definition. The commonly cited definition comes from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website, which defines shedding as the release of viruses, bacteria, and their components from live vaccines.

While mRNA and adenovirus vaccines are not live vaccines, they function similarly to gene therapy products.

All gene therapy products pose a risk of shedding, according to the FDA.

FDA Documents

In a 2015 document titled Design and Analysis of Shedding Studies for Virus or Bacteria-Based Gene Therapy and Oncolytic Products, the FDA defines shedding as “the release of [viral or bacterial gene therapy products] … from the patient through one or all of the following ways: excreta (feces); secreta (urine, saliva, nasopharyngeal fluids etc.); or through the skin (pustules, sores, wounds).”

In the same document, the FDA also explains what gene therapy products are: “All products that mediate their effects by transcription and/or translation of transferred genetic material.”

The COVID-19 mRNA and adenovirus vaccines fall into this category. They mediate their effects by inducing the body to translate mRNA genetic information into spike proteins.

Some gene therapy products known to shed include an eye treatment branded as Luxturna. Luxturna uses an adenovirus carrier to deliver eye protein DNA to retina cells in patients.

The Luxturna adenovirus and its DNA have been found in patients’ tears, according to the product’s package insert.

Similarly, mRNA and adenovirus COVID-19 vaccines may cause vaccinated patients to release spike proteins or other vaccine components, Dr. Kory explained.

For example, COVID-19 mRNA has been found in the breast milk of vaccinated mothers, indicating possible exposure of the vaccine to infants. Another study showed that spike protein, the product of COVID-19 vaccination, can last for at least half a year in the blood of vaccinated individuals, indicating prolonged spike protein persistence.

The FDA, however, denied that the 2015 document applies to COVID mRNA vaccines.

“COVID-19 vaccines are not regulated as gene therapy products by the FDA; therefore, the guidance document cited is not applicable to the COVID-19 vaccines,” an FDA spokeswoman told The Epoch Times.

Pfizer Investigators Told to Report ‘Environmental’ Vaccine Exposures

Another piece of evidence resides in Pfizer documents, Dr. Kory added.

In Pfizer’s COVID mRNA vaccine protocol, the company instructs investigators to report “environmental exposures” if trial participants expose people around them to the vaccine through inhalation or skin contact.

Examples of such environmental exposures are noted as follows:

  • “A male participant who is receiving or has discontinued [vaccine] intervention exposes a female partner prior to or around the time of conception.”
  • “A female family member or healthcare provider reports that she is pregnant after having been exposed to the [vaccine] intervention through inhalation or skin contact.”

The protocol also goes into what Dr. Kory and his clinic co-founder, Scott Marsland, call “secondary shedding.” This occurs when a person who has had environmental exposure to the vaccine then exposes another person.

“An example of environmental exposure during breastfeeding,” Pfizer writes, “is a female family member or healthcare provider who reports that she is breastfeeding after having been exposed to the study intervention (the vaccine) by inhalation or skin contact.”

Pfizer’s Documents Showing Indirect Exposures

Pfizer has documented hundreds of adverse events that occurred as a result of indirect exposures or exposure to babies during pregnancy or breastfeeding.

In its Periodic Safety Report submitted to the European Union, Pfizer listed several adverse events it deemed not attributable to the vaccine and that should be excluded from discussion.

The document listed 22 cases of adverse events in babies who had received “indirect exposure” to COVID mRNA boosters, suggesting exposure other than a direct vaccination.

The investigators also monitored several special adverse event cases. Two blood-related adverse events involved babies being exposed through breastfeeding. Ten cases of liver-related adverse events and one adverse event of the vasculature system were reported for the same reason.

Two cases of acute kidney or renal failure and eight respiratory cases also involved babies being exposed during pregnancy or breastfeeding.

Testimonies From Patients

Patients who may be affected by vaccine exposure tend to be those with a history of sensitivities and chronic diseases, said Dr. Kory and Mr. Marsland. They also tend to have bad experiences with pharmaceuticals and are more likely to be chronically debilitated by COVID-19 or the vaccine.

Dr. Kory said that after compiling over 800 anecdotal reports, they observed a clear pattern in symptoms that they determined to be shedding.

Typically, the manifestation of symptoms is repeatable and predictable, such as when a person repeatedly becomes symptomatic when going into supermarkets or crowded places.

Dr. Kory gave the example of a patient who noticed he could not handle going into grocery stores.

The patient told Dr. Kory that he just couldn’t “go into grocery stores anymore.” Within five minutes of entering a Trader Joe’s grocery store, he “feels so terrible” that he has to leave. He experienced the same aversion upon going to a crowded farmers market.

At the FLCCC event, Mr. Marsland also shared several cases where he believed shedding was involved.

One case involved a 54-year-old male, who previously suffered from symptoms after the COVID-19 vaccine, meeting up with a friend who received a COVID-19 booster.

They sat close to each other, talking and laughing. “Within hours of spending their time together, [the man] had a headache, myalgia, and joint pain, increased fatigue,” Mr. Marsland relayed.

When the patient went to a busy airport, he felt worse.

He returned home and had sexual contact with his spouse, exchanging bodily fluids. Within minutes, the spouse developed severe “nine out of 10” abdominal pain.

The two believed the pain was from shedding, so both took ivermectin, known to bind to and block spike proteins. Within about half an hour, the spouse’s abdominal pain receded.

“It’s the temporal association and the accumulation of symptoms,” Mr. Marsland reasoned.

Other doctors treating long COVID and postvaccine syndromes, such as Dr. Syed Haider and Dr. Ana Mihalcea, have also reported suspected cases of shedding.

Some Vaccinologists Disagree

Professors in vaccinology, however, do not acknowledge that mRNA vaccines may induce shedding.

“mRNA leads to the expression of proteins in cells, and this expression is different from shedding, as you would have if you are infected by certain viruses,” associate professor Paulo Verardi of the University of Connecticut told The Epoch Times.

“While SARS-CoV-2 infection leads to virus shedding, and, therefore, transmission of the virus from person to person, shedding of the spike protein does not occur in individuals receiving the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine,” he continued.

While another definition of shedding refers to the release of live viruses in people infected or vaccinated with live vaccines, Dr. Kory reiterated that the shedding discussed in the case of COVID-19 vaccines is different from the shedding of live viruses.

Professor Florian Krammer at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai also told The Epoch Times that shedding does not exist.

He did not reply when The Epoch Times presented him with information regarding the FDA’s documents on gene therapy and shedding.

from:    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/covid-vaccine-shedding-real-fda-and-pfizer-documents-are-proof-clinicians?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2287

On Vaccine Shedding

Posted on by

Pfizer document describes vaccine “shedding” from person to person

by Jon Rappoport

August 6, 2021

(To join our email list, click here.)

Pop quiz: During their clinical trial…

If Pfizer insists that certain unvaccinated persons who come into contact with a vaccinated person creates a…

SAFETY SITUATION that must be reported to Pfizer within 24 hours…

Would you say that implies…

The transfer of vaccine components from person to person can occur?

If you answered YES, you win four tickets to Oobladee, a little-known island nation where vaccines are forbidden and the people naturally remain healthy and live to a ripe old age.

Here is a Pfizer document, admitting and warning of person-to-person transfer of dangerous vaccine components [1]: “A PHASE 1/2/3, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, RANDOMIZED, OBSERVER-BLIND, DOSE-FINDING STUDY TO EVALUATE THE SAFETY, TOLERABILITY, IMMUNOGENICITY, AND EFFICACY OF SARS-COV-2RNA VACCINE CANDIDATES AGAINST COVID-19 IN HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS,” (see page 67).

I’m going to take this in small chunks, and translate the fake-speak clinical language as we go along.

“Exposure to the study intervention under study during pregnancy or breastfeeding and occupational exposure are reportable to Pfizer Safety within 24 hours of investigator awareness.”

The “study intervention” means the RNA COVID shot. That’s what the study is FOR—intervening with a jab. “Hi, I’m your intervener, you’re a volunteer in the clinical trial, and I’m going to hit you in the arm with this needle and inject you.”

“Exposure” to the shot doesn’t mean injection. It means somebody who hasn’t been injected gets physically close to somebody who has been injected. Or it could mean an un-injected person touches vaccine-liquid from a vial.

And that un-injected somebody would be a woman who is pregnant or breastfeeding. For example, she could be a lab worker, or a person who is giving the shots.

If THIS exposure event happens, it’s a safety situation, and it has to be reported within 24 hours.

A lab worker who is pregnant or breastfeeding gets physically close to a person who has received the vaccine and BANG, it’s serious, and it has to be reported.

Why? Because, obviously, there is a potential danger to the unborn baby. Or the mother, who is already breastfeeding her baby, could pass this danger to the baby through her breast milk.

The woman just came physically close to a person who already received the vaccine. That’s all. That’s all that happened. But it’s enough. It means THERE CAN BE A TRANSFER OF VACCINE COMPONENTS FROM PERSON TO PERSON, AND THIS IS NOT GOOD, THIS IS DANGEROUS TO PREGNANT AND BREASTFEEDING MOTHERS AND THEIR BABIES.

Here is the next piece of the Pfizer document. It’s crucial:

“An EDP [exposure to the vaccine during pregnancy] occurs if a male participant who is receiving or has discontinued study intervention exposes a female partner prior to or around the time of conception.”

This is a dangerous situation, too. A man who did get the shot then gets physically close to his female partner, who didn’t get the shot. This doesn’t necessarily mean sex. It means close physical contact. But the warning is obviously all about danger to the woman who is going to conceive a child or has just conceived, and the warning is also about a danger to that child. Some kind of severe injury. Or a miscarriage. Again, the document is obviously referring to the transfer of vaccine components from a vaccinated to unvaccinated person.

And then, in the Pfizer document, we find an example of this dangerous, immediately reportable situation: “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….”

Here, as plain as day, we see two meanings of “come in close contact with.” Inhalation, and skin contact. Do not assume this has to mean physically rubbing up against or breathing in the liquid in the vaccine vial. Go back and read the other quotes I gave you from the Pfizer document. They are clearly talking about something much different. They’re talking about close contact between PEOPLE, one of whom has ALREADY had the shot, and one who hasn’t.

They’re talking about vaccine components passing from the inside of one person’s body to another person.

Call it shedding, call it transfer, call it transmission, call it whatever you want to. Pfizer was clearly worried about it, because they insisted that any such occurrence had to be reported to company safety personnel.

They were aware that damage could be the result. Damage to mothers conceiving, mothers pregnant, mothers who are breastfeeding, and damage to babies.

Through person to person passage of components in the vaccine.

A person might object, saying, “Well, maybe the pregnant woman had skin contact with someone who was just vaccinated, and the vaccinated person has a small amount of vaccine on his skin, because that tiny amount of liquid somehow escaped from the needle during injection.”

That’s highly doubtful. And if you go back and read the Pfizer statement about the man who received the vaccine and then had close contact with his female partner, there is no time line mentioned. A) He received the shot and then b) at some point later, he came into close contact with his female partner. It could be days later, weeks later. There would be no amount of vaccine left on his skin.

We ARE talking about the passage of vaccine components from the inside of one person’s body to another person.

SOURCES:

[1] https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/2020-11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020.pdf

from:    https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/08/06/pfizer-document-describes-vaccine-shedding-from-person-to-person/