COVID-19 Vaccination - Shedding and Self-Spreading Vaccinations
Contribution from one of our Truth Warriors, Francis, who has ventured to explore vaccine shedding. We hope this will serve as a springboard for your own research. Let's dive in as he attempts to walk us through his findings here.
As the vaccination campaign continues on, there have been numerous cases internationally and locally that document viral/spike protein shedding from the vaccinated onto the non-vaccinated. The following articles and documents will verify this.
This is a document from Pfizer that states the clinical protocol in which its mRna vaccination follows.
Before going through the document, it will be good to understand the terminology and abbreviations that are being used.
- Study Intervention - Subject in which is going through the study a.k.a vaccinated subject.
- AE - Adverse Event
- SAE - Serious Adverse Event
- SUSAR - Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse Reaction
- SoA - Schedule of Activities
- EDP - Exposure During Pregnancy
- CRF - Case Report Form
- WOCBP - Woman of Child Bearing Potential
One of the first few things to note is this. On page 9, under the protocol summary, it is stated clearly that "there currently no licensed vaccines to prevent infection with SARS-COV-2 or COVID19.
All COVID-19 vaccinations are issued under Emergency Use Authorization.
What this means is that with the appropriate scenario that creates an emergency, the excuse to use an untested product in the market, despite the lack of tests and studies, would therefore be a reason to be authorized.
The idea of self-spreading vaccines has also been floating around for some time. In 2018, report by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for Health Security floated the idea of using this type of vaccine to intentionally spread to others for "protection" against disease.
"Self-spreading vaccines - also known as transmissible or self-propagating 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" (p45)
The report also acknowledges self-spreading vaccines being implemented would come with challenges, such as the lack of informed consent - which violates the Nuremberg Code and potentially life-threatening contraindications.
As stated on p46, "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." (p47).
The Pfizer clinical protocol also similarly describes the potential for the shot to cause adverse effects in people in close contact with recently vaccinated individuals, though it is discussed that self-spreading is an unintentional possibility that could cause harm.
Under the section 220.127.116.11
"Occupational Exposure," the Pfizer study explains, "An occupational exposure
occurs when a person receives unplanned direct contact with the study
intervention, which may or may not lead to the occurrence of an AE. Such
persons may include healthcare providers, family members, and other roles that
are involved in the trial participant's care."
The document also warns under section 18.104.22.168 "Exposure During Pregnancy" that if "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," the exposure should be reported within 24 hours.
Another way someone could be exposed is if "A male participant who is receiving or has discontinued study intervention exposes a female partner prior to or around the time of conception."
Pfizer even described a scenario where "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."
Now with regards to sex with a vaccinated person, this is highlighted in the section 10.4, where Pfizer advises the use of contraceptives for male and female, post vaccination.
According to my understanding of Sacred Energy Xchange (S.E.X), DNA is being exchanged through our bodily fluids during sexual activities. Hence, it would make most logical sense to my theoretical understanding that a person would then be receiving whatever synthetic DNA/RNA that was injected into the vaccinated individual when having sex with the person.
"Male participants are eligible to participate if they agree to the following requirements during the intervention period for at least 28 days after the last dose of study intervention, which corresponds to the time needed to eliminate reproductive safety risk of the study intervention." After which, listing a list of contraceptive methods.
Like wise for females,
Post vaccination shedding has been further verified by Luigi Warren. He is the current President and CEO of Cellular Reprogramming, Inc, a biotechnology firm based in California. More importantly, Luigi is renowned for his work with Derrick Rossi, the co-founder of the famous biotechnology company Moderna.
The point of this article is to highlight to you, dear readers, that shedding is real. Whether it is spike protein, or viral shedding, I have more to find out. What I do know is that my gut instinct tells me that this surely crosses the line of informed consent. With that being said, though there is much to know, much to unlearn and relearn, there is also much that we can do.
A simple search on DuckDuckGo, "heavy metal detox" would help us begin this journey. To me, it is okay to be "pro-vax" but "antic-COVID vax". However, I would rather view that as being informed. After all, we are in clinical trials till 2023.
Divide and conquer will always be the tactic of the power pushing this agenda. Sooner than later, we will see a "vaccinated vs unvaccinated" paradigm. This divide will be clear, deep, and strong. As for me, I would like to stand on the side of coming together because we are called to live in love and not in fear.
I choose to be, an instrument of peace,
where there is injury, pardon.
where there is despair, hope.
where there is darkness, light.
Knowledge of truth is the first step into this brave new world. Wisdom of when to apply this knowledge is another. Bringing the truth into the light will free us from the chains of fear. It is all too common now to see, people so afraid to die that they are afraid to live.
With that I wish to you,
love, peace and power
2. Technologies to Address Global Catastrophic Biological Risks, Center for Health Security, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health