Pfizer's own document describing the clinical protocols for its RNA vaccine candidates, from November 2020, indicated that the investigators of the study were at least aware of and attempting to keep track of the potential of vaccinated people affect those who are not. In section 8.3.5, it states:
While blood clotting continues to be a serious side effect, in the last several months there have also been hundreds, if not thousands or more by now, of women reporting miscarriages and out of character menstrual bleeding, pain, etc.; both men and women experiencing unexplained bruising and splitting headache. These personal accounts are from people who have not received the experimental injection but were in contact (not even necessarily close or sexual contact) with those who have (for example, an elder family member, friend, or co-worker). There are currently no studies investigating these claims or, if the claims are valid, describing the mechanisms through which this takes place. Some doctors and researchers postulate that this could be the result of the synthetic spike protein produced in vaccinated individuals unwittingly spread it through saliva, sweat glands, seminal fluids, breath, among other pathways. If synthetic spike proteins are airborne, both masks and physical distancing would be completely useless in this regard. These postulates also seem to be supported by Pfizer's own information (i.e., by inhalation or skin contact).
If we apply the above to the perb community, we could construct a few possible scenarios:
Thoughts?
The study (which as of now is still recruiting, with an estimated date of completion in April 2023, per data posted on clinicaltrials.gov). Essentially, what is considered an "exposure" by the study investigator includes:
- A female participant is found to be pregnant or breastfeeding while receiving or after discontinuing study intervention (=RNA vaccine candidates)
- A male participant who is receiving or has discontinued study intervention exposes a female partner before or around the time of conception.
- A female is found to be pregnant or breastfeeding while being (or having been) exposed to study intervention due to environmental exposure.
- Examples of environmental exposure:
- A female reports that she is pregnant or breastfeeding after having been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact.
- A male who has been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact then exposes his female partner before or around the time of conception.
- Examples of environmental exposure:
- The document lists some adverse effects related to pregnancy such as spontaneous abortion, neonatal deaths, etc. with regard to exposure to the study intervention.
- When a person receives unplanned direct contact with the study intervention is also reportable to the investigator. Such persons may include healthcare providers, family members, and other roles involved in the trial participant's care.
While blood clotting continues to be a serious side effect, in the last several months there have also been hundreds, if not thousands or more by now, of women reporting miscarriages and out of character menstrual bleeding, pain, etc.; both men and women experiencing unexplained bruising and splitting headache. These personal accounts are from people who have not received the experimental injection but were in contact (not even necessarily close or sexual contact) with those who have (for example, an elder family member, friend, or co-worker). There are currently no studies investigating these claims or, if the claims are valid, describing the mechanisms through which this takes place. Some doctors and researchers postulate that this could be the result of the synthetic spike protein produced in vaccinated individuals unwittingly spread it through saliva, sweat glands, seminal fluids, breath, among other pathways. If synthetic spike proteins are airborne, both masks and physical distancing would be completely useless in this regard. These postulates also seem to be supported by Pfizer's own information (i.e., by inhalation or skin contact).
If we apply the above to the perb community, we could construct a few possible scenarios:
- A vaccinated client visits an unvaccinated SP. Adverse effects to the SP are at least in theory possible per Pfizer and numerous personal accounts.
- An unvaccinated client visits a vaccinated SP. The client then visits or otherwise has contact with other unvaccinated individuals. Additional concerns apply to females in their reproductive years. Adverse effects to the client and client's afterward contact(s) are also in theory possible per Pfizer and numerous personal accounts.
- A vaccinated client visits an unvaccinated SP, who then sees an unvaccinated client a few hours or even days later. Would the unvaccinated client be affected indirectly this way? I don't know if there are studies done on how many degrees of separation through which the effects can be passed on.
Thoughts?
