Fact #2: The Pfizer mRNA vaccine clinical trial study design warns against proximity (shared air inhalation or skin contact) between vaccine participants and the unvaccinated as a possible vectors of harm

Titled, “A Phase 1/2/3 Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of RNA Vaccine Candidates Against COVID-19 in Healthy Individuals,” the Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccine study protocol document explicitly identifies in section 8.3.5. the need for monitoring what it calls “Exposure During Pregnancy or Breastfeeding, and Occupational Exposure.” A concern they take seriously enough that they require any incident to be reported within 24 hours to the Pfizer Safety system.

According to the document an EDP [environmental exposure during pregnancy] occurs if, for example: “a male vaccine recipient exposes a female partner prior to or around the time of conception.”

Exposure to the study intervention is defined as “inhalation or skin contact,” indicating that physical proximity between the vaccinated and unvaccinated is recognized by the Pfizer study protocol to be a cause for concern for transmission of potential side effects of the vaccine.

The document also gives the following example of an EDP scenario: “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.” Clearly, in this case Pfizer is acknowledging that something as simple as a healthcare provider or family member who has been exposed to an mRNA vaccine recipient through “inhalation or skin contact” (i.e., physical proximity) could generate an adverse event and/or affect the study outcomes.

Another example provided in section titled, “Exposure During Breastfeeding,” gives the following example of what constitutes such an exposure:

“An example of environmental exposure during breastfeeding is a female family member or healthcare provider who reports that she is breastfeeding after having been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact.”

Finally, in section, 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.”

Clearly, the Pfizer mRNA vaccine protocol design reveals that concerns for how the vaccinated may adversely affect the health, and even reproductive outcomes, of the unvaccinated simply by being within physical proximity, are being taken extremely seriously by the manufacturer of the vaccine itself. In light of this, Leila Centner’s expressed concerns quoted at the beginning of this article are, in fact, backed by the most authoritative document we have on the experimental vaccine, and the nature of the human experiments being conducted on their behalf.

So far, there has been no acknowledgment or reporting on this fact by the global mainstream media, the vaccine manufacturers nor government health authorities. It will be up to the reader to share this article, and get the word out.

Fact #3: There is a plausible epigenetic molecular mechanism in biology whereby the vaccinated may affect the health status of the unvaccinated 

The third major substantiating factor behind identifying the potential harm the vaccinated may have on the unvaccinated concerns the discovery of so-called horizontal information transfer within biological systems mediated by extracellular vesicles, which include a virus-like phenomenon known as microvesicle shedding and/or exosome-mediated transfer of nucleic acids. This falls within the category of epigenetics, which the apologists and shills for the mRNA vaccines’ purported safety and efficacy conveniently ignore in order to make their claim that was debunked in 1970 with the discovery of the enzyme reverse transcriptase.

Reverse transcriptase is able to transcribe RNA to DNA, essentially destroying the fundamental dogma of molecular biology, namely, the undirectional flow of information from the cell nucleus to mRNA to protein can not be reversed. This dogma is still being used half-a-century later to make the false claim that the only health risk a genetically modified vaccine has worth discussing is the possibility that it may affect the structure or function of nuclear, protein-coding genes.

We’ve even seen, through the discovery of exosomes, that the Weismann barrier has been penetrated, and somatic cells can communicate heritable information to the germline cells in what amounts to real-time, essentially devalidating the risk models presently used by vaccine manufacturers and regulators which do not account for the power epigenetic processes have to amplify the unintended adverse effects of genetically modified technologies and interventions.

While mRNA vaccines are designed using genetically modified processes not dependent on live cell substrates, thereby precluding conventional problems with shedding associated with first generation vaccines like the MMR, it is possible that they do, in fact, contribute to microvesicle shedding, which represents an even greater, more persistent threat than live-cell vaccine shedding when it comes to the persistent biological impact the vaccinated can have on the un-vaccinated.

Microvesicle, which range in size between 0.1–1.0 μm are a type of extracellular vesicle, that are secreted by many different cell types within the body, both in times of health and disease, and are known to reflect the antigenic content of the cell of origin. They have stunningly similar characteristics to viruses. For instance, like SARS-COV-2, microvesicles have a lipid bilayer formed from the budding off from host cell membranes, and they can incorporate and reproduce aspects of a vaccinated or infected cells’ immunogenicity, such as including functional mRNA, viral proteins and other nucleic acids capable of profoundly altering the structure and function of the cells to which they are transmitted.

For instance, it is theoretically feasible that a vaccine recipient’s cells expressing COVID-19 spike protein as a result of transfection with mRNA from a COVID-19 vaccine may secrete microvesicles containing components “originally alien to the cell, such as proteins and nucleic acids that are transiently or constitutively expressed via plasmid or viral vector.” These microvesicles, like viruses, and other extracellular vesicles known as exosomes, can be transmitted to other individuals (inter-individual transmission) through both normal or diseased physiological processes.

Extracellular exosomes have even been found to transfer nucleic acids cross kingdoms (plant > animal, fungal > bacterial), affecting the phenotypic expression of the target species. Therefore, it is plausible that microvesicles can transmit mRNA from a recently vaccinated individual to those within close proximity, and therefore could, in fact, “shed” mRNA and related biomolecules induced from the mRNA vaccination process to non-vaccinated individuals, inducing symptoms similar to those experienced by the vaccinated.

Indeed, microvesicles may have a profound affect on the immune status of those who both produce them, and are exposed to them. A recent study concluded that research “strongly suggests that MVs may function as strong regulators of both innate and adaptive immune systems.” Microvesicles and exosomes have also been researched and developed as vaccine candidates, further indicating that they are already being looked at by the scientific community as potential vectors of immunogenicity and carriers of viral-like and disease-modulating if not also disease-promoting bio-information.

Given the plausible mechanism through which a COVID-19 vaccine recipient’s body produces vaccine antigen (e.g., spike protein), and can package and transmit these antigens through viral-like microvesicles (and perhaps also exosomes) to others, Leila Centner’s statement “it appears that those who have received the injections may be transmitting something from their bodies to those with whom they come in contact,” has a plausible mechanism of action. Especially considering the aforementioned fact that Pfizer’s study protocol itself acknowledges that an unknown factor or mechanism may cause the unvaccinated to be adversely affected by the vaccinated.

Either way, Leila Centner’s decision was made in the spirit of the precautionary principle, and her call for further investigation and information on the vaccines before proceeding with what amounts to a reckless human medical experimentation should not be identified as “fringe,” “irrational” nor “crazy.” To the contrary, the medical establishment and would-be government regulators should themselves be raising the red flag over the tens of thousands of adverse effects that have already been reported to the government VAERS database.

We live in a time and age where protecting our children from coerced and increasingly mandatory medical interventions that carry the risk of death and disability, is perhaps the most important advocacy of our lives. It takes great courage, conviction and love to stand up and make a decision that is in the best interest of your community, and not your bottom line or public relations image. The Centner Academy’s prioritization of the precautionary principle, and Leila Center’s call for more research into the exploding number of adverse events that the mainstream media either ignores or actively covers up, is extremely honorable and worth everyone who follows our work and advocacy getting behind in support.

Please support the Centner Academy through the following actions:

  1. Share this article with friends and family, in order to support our health freedom advocate, Leila Center, who is undergoing unprecedented media attack.
  2. Support Instagram Leila Centner (send her some love). Comment here at Leila’s instagram account.
  3. Learn more about the incredibly positive philosophy of the Centner Academy, focusing on happiness as the centerpiece of a child’s success and cultivating leaders with HEART.

Also, please join us at www.StandforHealthFreedom.com, as we build a grassroots army of millions who believe in informed consent, parental rights, human and medical rights for everyone.

This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC.