Since the pandemic made its way to our shores 18 months ago, I have been saying and many others that the cure for this virus would be worse than the illness itself. Sometimes I really hope that I am wrong but it appears that again the assumptions were correct to say this in the first place and now there is proof.
This may sound like something out of a science fiction novel, but as they always say the truth is stranger than fiction especially when you are dealing with big pharma.
A new tool that scientists have been experimenting with to vaccinate populations is self-spreading or “self-disseminating” vaccines.
Did that send chills up your spine?
Let’s break this down.
Think of a virus or bacteria that can be highly transmissible in a population and now imagine a vaccine that can do the same thing. That is what this genetically engineered vaccine is doing so that it can move through communities at lightning speed.
Proponents say self-disseminating vaccines could mean they don't have to run complex mass vaccination programs. Critics say vaccines pose many health risks + would also spell the end of informed consent.
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) June 3, 2021
Children’s Health Defense shed light on “self-spreading” vaccines:
Although some of the uninjected tell pollsters they plan to eventually get the vaccine, a solid minority remains committed to never doing so. The same pattern appears to hold true globally: Roughly one-third of adults worldwide said they will not take a COVID shot.
While social and behavioral science researchers apply “soft science” techniques in an attempt to maneuver vaccine confidence into more acquiescent territory, bench scientists have a different option potentially waiting in the wings — genetically engineered vaccines that “move through populations in the same way as communicable diseases,” spreading on their own “from host to host.”
Not mainstream (yet)
In theory, self-spreading vaccines (also referred to as self-disseminating or autonomous) can be designed to be either transferable (“restricted to a single round of transmission”) or transmissible (“capable of indefinite transmission).”
Vaccine scientists concede transmissible vaccines “are still not mainstream, but the revolution in genome engineering poises them to become so.”
The makers of self-disseminating vaccines use recombinant vector technology to build genetic material from a target pathogen onto the “chassis” of a viral vector deemed “benign,” “innocuous” or “avirulent.” This is similar to the viral vector approach used to produce the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca COVID vaccines.
For Johns Hopkins, the appeal of vaccines that are intentionally engineered to be self-disseminating seems obvious. The university’s Center for Health Security made its case explicit in a 2018 report, “Technologies to Address Global Catastrophic Biological Risks.” The report stated, “These vaccines could dramatically increase vaccine coverage in human … populations without requiring each individual to be inoculated.”
Further spelling out the utilitarian implications of self-disseminating vaccines, the report’s authors stated, “only a small number of vaccinated individuals would be required to confer protection to a larger susceptible population, thus eliminating the need for mass vaccination operations.”
From a programmatic standpoint, this strategy would have the advantage of being “cheaper than vaccinating everyone by hand.” Perhaps even more significantly, however, it would override one of the “thorny ethical questions” that mass vaccination programs routinely wrestle with: informed consent.
As the university’s Center for Health Security briefly acknowledged in its report, self-disseminating vaccines would essentially make it impossible for “those to whom the vaccine subsequently spreads” to provide informed consent at all.
Before the deniers begin their screams of “Fake News,” let’s hear from Johns Hopkins themselves.
Here’s a piece from their 2018 “Technologies to Address Global Catastrophic Biological Risks” report:
Self-Spreading Vaccines: Selfspreading vaccines are genetically engineered to move through populations like communicable diseases, but rather than causing disease, they confer protection. The vision is that a small number of individuals in a target population could be vaccinated, and the vaccine strain would then circulate in the population much like a pathogenic virus, resulting in rapid, widespread immunity.
Ingestible Bacteria for Vaccination: Bacteria can be genetically engineered to produce antigens in a human
host, acting as a vaccine, which triggers immunity to pathogens of concern. These bacteria can be placed inside capsules that are temperature stable, and they can be self-administered in the event of a pandemic.
Self-Amplifying mRNA Vaccines: SAM vaccines use the genome of a modified virus with positive sense
RNA, which is recognizable to our human translational machinery. Once delivered inside a human cell, the SAM is translated and creates 2 proteins: an antigen of interest to stimulate an immune response, and a viral replicase for intracellular amplification of the vaccine. The ability of SAM to self-replicate results in a stronger, broader, and more effective humoral and cellular immune response than some other vaccines.
Also from the report:
What is the technology?
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. Because most infectious diseases are zoonotic, 40 controlling disease in animal populations would also reduce the risk to humans. 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. Cytomegalovirus is one candidate vector for recombinant vaccines, because it is highly species-specific and moderately transmissible. Live viral vaccines are attenuated, meaning that the vaccine viruses are much less pathogenic than wild-type and would be similar to the oral polio vaccine or the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) in that those vaccines can sometimes transmit from person to person. Although there are substantial technical challenges in genetically engineering viruses, synthetic biology tools such as CRISPR/Cas9 are likely to aid researchers in overcoming these hurdles in the coming years. Self-spreading vaccines have already been used to protect wild rabbits from myxomatosis and to control Sin Nombre virus in rodent populations. Additional work is targeting Ebola virus in apes and bats, Lassa virus in rats, and bovine tuberculosis in badgers.
Here’s a key component that I want to emphasize:
While self-spreading vaccines could help reduce illness and death in a severe pandemic, this approach comes with several big challenges. One important component of the current vaccination approach for humans is the informed consent process. In order to receive a vaccine, individuals (or their legal guardians) must be informed about the risks of vaccination by a healthcare provider and provide their consent before being vaccinated. Those who decline are not forced to receive a vaccine. In the case of self-spreading vaccines, the individuals directly vaccinated would have this option, but those to whom the vaccine subsequently spreads would not. Additionally, self-spreading vaccines would potentially infect individuals with contraindications, such as allergies, that could be life-threatening. The ethical and regulatory challenges surrounding informed consent and prevention and monitoring of adverse events would be critical challenges to implementing this approach even in an extreme event. Finally, there is a not insignificant risk of the vaccine virus reverting to wild-type virulence, as has sometimes occurred with the oral polio vaccine—which is not intended to be fully virulent or transmissible, but which has reverted to become both neurovirulent and transmissible in rare instances. This is both a medical risk and a public perception risk; the possibility of vaccine-induced disease would be a major concern to the public. Modeling efforts suggest that making self-spreading vaccines weakly transmissible might reduce the risk of reversion to wild-type virulence by limiting
the number of opportunities for the virus to evolve. However, weakly transmissible vaccines would have
to be introduced to more people to obtain sufficient immunity in the target population.
Self-spreading vaccines eliminate your ability to receive informed consent and say no to a vaccine.
This now brings me to my next question or point to make about this particular jab.
They knew that many people would be against this vaccine but they also need to test out their new technology toy on the population, right?
What better way than to drum up absolute terror and have people in hysterics than to introduce a new virus from somewhere far away, like China.
I feel pretty confident in saying that this is exactly what we are seeing considering how we have seen doctors and scientists being shut down from social media platforms for even saying this is a dangerous vaccine.
Case in point, Dr. Naomi Wolf who was suspended from Twitter:
Dr. Naomi Wolf is the latest in a countless string of doctors, scientists, and researchers that have been suspended from Twitter for stating their professional opinions or questioning government policies.
Lawmakers must act NOW to protect free speech online. We must demand this. pic.twitter.com/0o5dGYzSbF
— Dr. Simone Gold (@drsimonegold) June 5, 2021
Dr. Wolf was one of the vocal doctors who was raising the alarm bells over this particular vaccine and raising alarm bells that it could be shedding or transmitting to others.
This was beginning to gain traction once reports began to circulate that those who did not receive the jab were experiencing health issues after long-term exposure to vaccinated individuals.
A common trend has been women developing irregular menstrual cycles:
Spent all week with a freshly vaccinated client and started my period 4 days early. I am in my mid twenties, I don’t have irregular cycles… this is insanity.
— omni (@omnivoyance) April 18, 2021
— Britt | Check Out My Immune System Book! (@brittsliladvice) April 15, 2021
— Britt | Check Out My Immune System Book! (@brittsliladvice) April 15, 2021
So many women were coming forward with their stories that the mainstream media needed to obviously get involved and shut down those who were questioning and quick.
So these shills peddled out a piece casting doubt on these reports and labeling anyone who said it as another “conspiracy theorist”.
— NFID (@NFIDvaccines) June 2, 2021
Great debunking of a common anti-vaxx myth that has been circulating: That vaccinated individuals are “shedding” spike proteins and therefore pose danger to unvaccinated. “Why There’s Absolutely Zero Chance of Viral Shedding From the COVID-19 Vaccine” https://t.co/ShGKU7Dbsi
— Alicia Smith (@Alicia_Smith19) May 31, 2021
COVID vaccines aren't live. They don't shed virus.
The fact that some antivaxers blame their own medical issues on another's vaccines should really make people think about how they'll blame any correlation on vaccines regardless of scientific merit.https://t.co/Tn2fj6AEDW
— Nathan Boonstra, MD (@PedsGeekMD) June 3, 2021
Ok, but if viral shedding is such a conspiracy theory, why does the FDA have an entire document to study shedding from virus or bacteria-based gene therapies:
I have read lots of statements from scientists that the vaccines DON'T 'shed' and yet here is an entire document, published by the FDA, which talks of 'shedding' when giving mRNA products to humans, So I guess it is not a myth after all? https://t.co/BEEzKpy065 pic.twitter.com/jHr4Gf91EF
— Lynn Brittney (@LynnBrittney2) May 20, 2021
Here’s a link to the FDA document
What also stands out is Pfizer quietly mentioning that environmental exposure to the experimental jab can occur through inhalation or skin contact:
The document also discusses the potential of an adverse event following occupational exposure to the experimental jab via unplanned direct contact:
By looking at the first page of the document, it’s clear that the study intervention is either the RNA-based COVID-19 vaccines or a placebo.
Don’t worry about authenticity, here’s the Pfizer document.
Scroll to Pages 67-69.
Contradictory much? Pfizer trials warned men to stay away from pregnant women… but now the CDC is pushing pregnant women to take an experimental biological agent without a second thought. pic.twitter.com/rJkeDNFRvE
— Dr. Simone Gold (@drsimonegold) April 29, 2021
Pfizer docs prove they KNEW about “shedding”. They didn’t tell the public. Leaked docs from the trial 👇🏼 pic.twitter.com/FV0G3Kt7W4
— Stew Peters (@realstewpeters) May 3, 2021
So what do you think?