COVID-19 vaccine shedding is real, says Dr. @PierreKory, and it’s not just the unvaccinated who are at risk to adverse reactions from exposure.

"We embarked on a global vaccination campaign with a gene therapy, which is in a category of therapeutic which is known to shed."

COVID-19 vaccine shedding is real, says Dr. @PierreKory, and it’s not just the unvaccinated who are at risk to adverse reactions from exposure.

“I… pic.twitter.com/nhNHD82MDI

— Jan Jekielek (@JanJekielek) February 12, 2024

Kory was good early on, but after things got serious he seems to just be in the same business as Bret Weinstein--to corral people to a certain scary narrative that one's situation is intractable.  He's quite sloppy with his narrative.  

MyCycleStory.  

The FDA knows that shedding is a real thing.  So why don't they disclose that?  Because legally they're under no obligation to, nor is there any regulatory enforcement that might compel them to.

The vaccines are defined as "gene therapy products."  The document that Kory refers to is titled, "Design and Analysis of Shedding Studies for Virus or Bacteria-Based Gene Therapy and Oncolytic Products,"Guidance for Industry, August 2015.  Kory highlights this footnote, 

Gene therapy products are all products that mediate their effects by transcription and/or translation of transferred genetic material and/or by integrating into the host genome and that are administered as nucleic acids, viruses, or genetically engineered microorganisms.

Then he highlights the comments on shedding here.  VBGT stands for Virus or Bacteria-Based Gene Therapy. 

Shedding studies should be conducted for each VBGT or oncolytic product to provide information about the likelihood of transmission to untreated individuals because historical data alone may not be predictive of the shedding profile. 

Should be conducted?  You mean they weren't done?  How then did Pfizer know about the shedding? 

Kory states at the 6-minute mark, 

"There's no shedding studies that have been done on these gene therapies."  Lovely.  But if you look at the market of gene therapies, I have evidence of at least 4 products that are out there in the inserts of each one they note that it will shed.  So one is for an eye disease; they say it secretes in the tears or any of the drainage for up to a week.  There's another one where it's 30 days in the feces where the products of that gene therapy sheds, and another one says two weeks, so all of these other ones on the market [the fact of these vaccines shedding] it's clearly on the insert.  There was no insert on the COVID-19 therapies.  In fact, what's astonishing and scary is we've embarked on a global vaccination campaign with a gene therapy which is in a category of therapeutics that is known to shed.  All the other products on the market have shed, and yet never is there a discussion of shedding [with the COVID-19 therapies]. If you ever bring it up, if it ever shows up in a newspaper, again, fact-checked to death.  You'll see articles coming out on any claim of shedding and you'll get the usual quotes from the experts with all the letters behind their name that "shedding is impossible."  And then they do a sleight-of-hand trick, because shedding is actually . . . there are 2 definitions of shedding: The word shedding has been used in relation to vaccines for a long time.  It's usually from the deactivated vaccines, or inactivated vax, so they're live-virus vaccines, so those older class of vaccines, it's known that when you inject someone with a polio vaccine, some polio virus can then shed.  And that's something that they've studied.  But that's the virus that they're injecting and can then shed, not the product of the genetic material that then sheds.  Because the problem with this, right, this is a gene thearpy.  They told us it would stay in our arm for a few days, right, not go anywhere else, and that the anti-body spike protein production would shut off.  We're drowning in evidence that neither of those statements are true.  So now you have something that . . . you don't have an end point on the production of antibodies and so this is quite scary, and we're doing this repeatedly.  It's not like a gene therapy where you give it once, how many boosters are we up to now, how many rounds? 

Jekielek, 8:06.  Not only is it not staying in the arm, but through this incredible delivery device of the lipid nanoparticle, it goes absolutely, can go absolutely everywhere, blood-brain penetration, ovaries, testes, everything.  Now you're saying that it's actually exiting the body through . . . how, is it through the . . . ?

Kory, 8:09.  Yeah, you just brought up the second piece of the puzzle.  So the first piece is that we have to understand that gene therapies shed, that the FDA knows they shed, that they want studies to be done on shedding, but the other thing that we need to know about these vaccines is that they belong to a category of therapeutics.  So not only do they fit under the gene therapy category, but they also fit under what's called nanoparticle technology.  That's the key to your questions.  So the mRNA is delivered in lipid nanoparticles.  The lipid nanoparticles are synthetic, right, they're made in the lab but they're the natural counterpart to something in our bodies called exosomes.  Exosomes are part of how our body signals, and do cell-to-cell communication; they're almost like little hormones, and lots of communication is done with exosomes.  What happens is when you inject lipid nanoparticles, the thing about lipid nanoparticles is that they can traverse almost any physiological barrier.  

"The CDC Lied: The mRNA Wasn't Meant to Stay in the Arm," Robert Kogon, TheVaccineReaction.org, February 12, 2023.  

That's why that lie about staying in the arm, no nanoparticle's ever stayed where you put it because it naturally traverses all boundaries, so it spreads throughout the body.  We have knowledge of that from EMA documents, from FOIA documents, from studies, autopsy studies, you can see that it disseminates throughout. . . .