Whether you are for or against vaccines of any kind, it is hard to ignore the seismic changes that have affected how vaccines have been developed, licensed and regulated during the COVID-19 pandemic.1,2 Some researchers are taking the next step, hoping to develop a new type of vaccine that self-spreads through the environment.3
Since the pandemic was declared by the World Health Organization in early 2020, federal and state lawmakers have been persuaded to build a pandemic response around a single experimental biological product, which has generated billions of dollars in profit for liability-free drug companies.4,5,6
Yet, as soon as pharmaceutical companies announced they were developing the vaccine, doctors, scientists, researchers and other experts began raising warnings7,8 about the historical problems of creating a coronavirus vaccine and the propensity it has to produce antibody-dependent enhancement, which made vaccinated individuals more susceptible to infection by the virus or a variant.
Subsequently, one study9,10,11 found the South African variant of SARS-CoV-2, which accounted for 1% of all cases of COVID-19 in Israel in April 2021, caused greater illness in people vaccinated with Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine than in unvaccinated people. To ensure more are vaccinated, no matter the cost, vaccine passports are being rolled out across the world, including the U.S.
As reported by former U.S. Rep. and physician Ron Paul in his Liberty Report12,13 that streamed live March 29, 2021, the Biden Administration is “seriously looking into establishing some kind of federal vaccine passport system, where Americans who cannot (or will not) prove to the government they have been jabbed with the experimental vaccine will be legally treated as second-class citizens.”
Paul warns that this system “will quickly morph into a copy of China’s ‘social credit’ system, where undesirable behaviors are severely punished.” I’ve been saying the same thing for many months now, and there’s every reason to suspect that this is indeed where we’re headed.
The newest Frankenstein iterations of vaccine development are those that self-disseminate through humans and wildlife. Using this technology, which researchers say already exists,14 the government wants to strip away one more layer of your civil rights.
This Prevention May Be Far Worse Than the Illness or Cure
The headlines read: “Vaccines of the Future Could Be as Contagious as Viruses”15 and “COVID-19 cure: Scientists Plan to Develop ‘Self-Spreading’ Coronavirus Vaccine.”16 Scott Nuismer and James Bull, authors of a paper in Nature17 calling for “Self-Disseminating Vaccines to Suppress Zoonoses,” told a New Scientist reporter, “Prevention is better than cure, so we should start using genetic techniques to stop dangerous animal diseases jumping to humans.”18
Some scientists are publicly19 calling for self-disseminating vaccines to spread vaccinations for infectious diseases that start in wild animals and may make the leap to humans. They cite diseases like SARS, MERS and COVID-19.20 This vaccination program would ostensibly be a complementary approach to reduce or eliminate the prevalence of the infectious agent within the wildlife communities.
To make the case, they cite the example of rabies vaccine programs that have significantly reduced the transmission of rabies in the U.S. and Europe and compare them to how rabies continues to affect people living in Africa and Asia, where the cost of vaccinating wild carnivores prevents the countries from attaining a sufficient level of immunity.
Apparently, the solution is to create a self-disseminating vaccine that relies on a radical change in development and production. The idea is to insert a small piece of genetic material into another virus that already spreads within the animal community, thus immunizing the animals that acquire the new virus.
The technology to achieve this has been used in field trials in wild rabbits to protect them from a viral hemorrhagic fever. Researchers are now investigating prototypes for Ebola and Lassa virus.
The public relations approach is to call for an ounce of prevention,21 weighing it against the ongoing costs of finding a cure for COVID-19. However, cost effective treatment protocols for COVID-19 already exist. The problem is they are so cost-effective for pharmaceutical companies to generate enough revenue using them.
Opinion pieces22 begin by touting the effectiveness of the current vaccine programs against smallpox, rubella, tetanus and measles. What they fail to mention is that those vaccine programs are vastly different from the genetic experiments being proposed. The idea is to:23
“… tamp down the spread of HIV and other contagious diseases and immunize people who would not otherwise be protected. Plus, the strategy would be cheaper than vaccinating everyone by hand.”
Self-Spreading Vaccine Virus Is a Ticking Time Bomb
You should know there is a drawback to these types of vaccines. The live vaccine may mutate to revert to the virulent form, which increases the risk of the illness for which the vaccine was developed. This has happened with the oral polio vaccine.24
Although it was not intentionally designed to transmit vaccine-derived polio viruses, there is a version of the oral polio vaccine that briefly spreads to other people. The polio strain that had been eradicated in the wild may have mutated and reverted to its virulent form.
The World Health Organization subsequently switched the oral polio vaccine,25 but also played down the issues from circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus26 saying the strain could be rapidly stopped by immunizing “every child several times with the oral vaccine to stop polio transmission, regardless of the origin of the virus.”27
Since they are still using the oral polio vaccine in some countries, today vaccine-derived polio infection numbers far exceed natural case numbers. In 2020 by the end of October there had been 200 wild polio cases and 600 vaccine-derived cases, according to an NPR report.28
With self-spreading vaccines, the chance of an intentionally designed transmissible vaccine to revert to the more virulent form is higher than in regular vaccines since there is the chance to replicate more times before dying. Scientists think that altering the transmissible vaccine to make it weaker may not eradicate the disease, but could reduce the risk the virus would revert and would require less people to be directly vaccinated.29
Nuismer postulates that using benign viruses to carry the genetic material may prove effective. For example, cytomegalovirus (CMV), which is common in humans and mammals, often creates no symptoms. If genetic material were injected into CMV, the vaccine would only lose effectiveness if the CMV reverted.
However, since CMV spreads easily and up to 80% of adults in the U.S. have been infected by age 40, using it as a vector may not work. Researchers are also investigating a transmissible vaccine for HIV intended for people who are infected. The “vaccine” would act as a parasite to compete with resources inside an infected cell.
The hope is these therapeutic interfering particles (TIPs) would lower the level of circulating viruses, prevent the spread of HIV and slow the progression to full-blown AIDS. Yet even the researchers who are attempting to develop such a vaccine acknowledged there are possible monstrous aberrations.30
For example, since the TIP can replicate it can also evolve. This is another way of saying it can develop a mutant variant that could become uncontrollable. If the TIP should revert to HIV, the researchers think that it would simply infect the person who was already carrying the virus.
However, because the TIP is transmissible, it can spread to people without HIV. In the initial development, the TIP cannot replicate in the body without HIV. However, after several generations of replication and possible reversion, is that a risk worth taking?
Scientists Are Blatantly Ignoring Informed Consent
Setting aside the health risks, it’s important to note that scientists and experts who are proposing the use of transmissible vaccines are blatantly ignoring your right to informed consent. This is a federal law,31 which says you have a right to receive information about the treatment you’re undergoing so you can make a well-informed decision about your medical care.
Medical practitioners are bound by ethical and legal obligations to disclose the risks and benefits of medical treatments before you receive them. To meet the legal standard, every person in the U.S., and in fact the world, would have to provide informed consent before a transmissible vaccine is released into the wild.
This kind of blatant disregard for your civil rights reared its ugly head in human testing for the COVID vaccine. Considering the unprecedented speed32 in which the vaccines were developed and released, it is not possible to provide participants in studies, or those taking the vaccine, a full list of the potential risks.
One of those significant concerns that researchers and doctors are aware of is antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). Anyone receiving this experimental genetic procedure would want to be informed of the potential to worsen the very disease they’re trying to avoid.
Despite researchers’ strong recommendation in October 2020 that this risk should be “prominently and independently disclosed,”33 it was not part of the informed consent disclosure. The International Journal of Clinical Practice researchers wrote:34
“This risk [ADE] is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.”
We are on a slippery slope. Unless researchers, pharmaceutical companies and governmental agencies are held accountable and watched closely we will continue to lose more and more of our civil rights until they have completely eroded.