As I tried to explain, "vaccine shedding" MEANS viral transmission of a vaccine that is made out of a real virus.
A real vaccine is made out of a real virus. It is a virus that is similar enough to the disease you are vaccinating against, but less virulent, or with its reproductive DNA taken out. Because they are real viruses they can potentially be transmitted, just like any other virus. This is called "shedding" just to distinguish it from in the wild viral transmission, but it is exactly the same thing otherwise.
The mRNA vaccines have nothing to do with a virus. They don't reproduce a viral coat, and make more of themselves, which can then go off into the air and be transmitted. They instead go directly into a cell and never come out again, because they are completely broken down. In fact, there is no part that can come out again.
The lipid nanoparticles can however get into ANY cell in the body because it can enter the bloodstream upon injection or soon after. (Some cells are much more likely than others.) Thus is the nature of these types of lipid nanoparticles. It is exactly this nonspecificity that I screamed about for months, long before they were even distributed. I knew it was going to cause some nasty reactions, which is exactly what happened.
These mRNA vaccines can even get into white blood cells. These white blood cells can then go just about anywhere and the S proteins they express on their membrane surface can go cause damage anywhere in the body. It's pretty nasty.
None of that is "shedding'. Any infected white blood cell isn't going to "shed". That would be ridiculous. Every human interaction would be a disease transmission if that were the case. HIV would be an airborne virus if that was the case.
The difference between the problems I have outlined above, and the S protein going off on its own are, one is a known biological thing, and one is a known not possible thing.
I think I understand now. The Pfizer papers are are the vaccine are protocols because new vaccines don't require new protocols and Dr. Warren, one of the vaccine inventors, explicitly stated that the vaccine sheds, but those two are not correlated. Dr. Warren apparently was wrong about everything and Pfizer included the very specific protocols because they were recycling science....
I have written countless protocols. They are mostly copy/paste. That is the way of academia (and documentation writing). In this case however, there are good reasons to keep it in, even if it is not directly applicable. Just because they are abusing the definition of the term "vaccine shedding" doesn't mean it isn't responsible science to keep an eye out for off target effects (which are not the same thing, but would have the same protocols).
I personally would have kept in the "vaccine shedding" protocols in a protocol I was writing on the mRNA immunotherapy technology even though its only indirectly applicable.
As for Dr. Warren there are three possibilities.
There is some completely different mechanism by which the spike protein is escaping the body. For example, an infected lung cell is exploding and blebs (mini cells walls (lipid membranes) without internal machinery) are escaping into the air. If this is what he meant, such an unlikely hypothetical would be so small of an effect as to be unmeasurable (and not even slightly harmful).
He said it because he is a DS operative and is purposefully spreading disinfo (as the inventor of the immunotherapy and BFF with the head of Moderna, my money is on this one).
He is insufficiently knowledgeable on membrane protein biophysics.
It seems to me you are trying to paint me as arrogant, and that that is my motivation for saying what I am saying.
From my perspective I am trying to help stop the spread of disinformation. If you keep asking questions in earnest, I will continue to answer in kind. I will try to present evidence when appropriate. If you see an instance where you think it should have been done and I have not done so, please let me know.
Previous vaccines shed proteins?
Yes. The ones that were made out of real viruses.
As I tried to explain, "vaccine shedding" MEANS viral transmission of a vaccine that is made out of a real virus.
A real vaccine is made out of a real virus. It is a virus that is similar enough to the disease you are vaccinating against, but less virulent, or with its reproductive DNA taken out. Because they are real viruses they can potentially be transmitted, just like any other virus. This is called "shedding" just to distinguish it from in the wild viral transmission, but it is exactly the same thing otherwise.
The mRNA vaccines have nothing to do with a virus. They don't reproduce a viral coat, and make more of themselves, which can then go off into the air and be transmitted. They instead go directly into a cell and never come out again, because they are completely broken down. In fact, there is no part that can come out again.
The lipid nanoparticles can however get into ANY cell in the body because it can enter the bloodstream upon injection or soon after. (Some cells are much more likely than others.) Thus is the nature of these types of lipid nanoparticles. It is exactly this nonspecificity that I screamed about for months, long before they were even distributed. I knew it was going to cause some nasty reactions, which is exactly what happened.
These mRNA vaccines can even get into white blood cells. These white blood cells can then go just about anywhere and the S proteins they express on their membrane surface can go cause damage anywhere in the body. It's pretty nasty.
None of that is "shedding'. Any infected white blood cell isn't going to "shed". That would be ridiculous. Every human interaction would be a disease transmission if that were the case. HIV would be an airborne virus if that was the case.
The difference between the problems I have outlined above, and the S protein going off on its own are, one is a known biological thing, and one is a known not possible thing.
I think I understand now. The Pfizer papers are are the vaccine are protocols because new vaccines don't require new protocols and Dr. Warren, one of the vaccine inventors, explicitly stated that the vaccine sheds, but those two are not correlated. Dr. Warren apparently was wrong about everything and Pfizer included the very specific protocols because they were recycling science....
I have written countless protocols. They are mostly copy/paste. That is the way of academia (and documentation writing). In this case however, there are good reasons to keep it in, even if it is not directly applicable. Just because they are abusing the definition of the term "vaccine shedding" doesn't mean it isn't responsible science to keep an eye out for off target effects (which are not the same thing, but would have the same protocols).
I personally would have kept in the "vaccine shedding" protocols in a protocol I was writing on the mRNA immunotherapy technology even though its only indirectly applicable.
As for Dr. Warren there are three possibilities.
It seems to me you are trying to paint me as arrogant, and that that is my motivation for saying what I am saying.
From my perspective I am trying to help stop the spread of disinformation. If you keep asking questions in earnest, I will continue to answer in kind. I will try to present evidence when appropriate. If you see an instance where you think it should have been done and I have not done so, please let me know.
Maybe. time will tell.