We live in a corrupted system. The way to tackle corruption is to first acknowledge it exists. Only then is it possible to come up with ways of dealing with it, but don't make the mistake of believing the system can or will uncorrupt itself.

Pfizer Monitoring “Occupational Exposure” AKA Shedding

5 May 2021

In a document on Pfizer’s website (mirror) snappily titled “A PHASE 1/2/3, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, RANDOMIZED, OBSERVER-BLIND, DOSE-FINDING STUDY TO EVALUATE THE SAFETY, TOLERABILITY, IMMUNOGENICITY, AND EFFICACY OF SARS-COV-2 RNA VACCINE CANDIDATES AGAINST COVID-19 IN HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS”, a title that should immediately tell you how much fun this document is to read, weighing in at a mere 146 pages, the topic of “Occupational Exposure” related to “Adverse Events” and “Serious Adverse Events” is discussed.

Now the phrase “Occupational Exposure”, like many others in this document, might not be all that familiar to you which is understandable unless your job or hobby involves studies of this nature. The more familiar word for this is “shedding”, or in other words the effect that a vaccinated person can have on an unvaccinated person by being in close proximity, specifically related to the vaccine.

The Pfizer/BioNTech “vaccine” is of the mRNA variety, so it’s one of those new types that’s never successfully made it to market before. That means this study is quite an important one, albeit one that should have perhaps been completed before it was granted authorisation for use on an unsuspecting public. Of course it would be even better if the study was being conducted a tad more transparently but opaque, self-interested and conflicted protocols and implementations appear to be standard procedure for the pharmaceutical industry.

So section 8.3. titled “Adverse Events and Serious Adverse Events” is the part dealing with aspects of this study pertaining to the main concerns any rational person has over an experimental gene therapy that has never been approved for use on humans before, and is still only granted emergency use.

An interesting side-note is that this “emergency use only” approval – because there has been no long-term studies, and many of the usual trials and checks haven’t been done – is the reason the propaganda is so intent on scaring people into taking the “vaccine” with the perceived threat being as high as possible and the notion that if you don’t have the “jab” you’re “passing it on”, even asymptomatically, i.e. not ill. The moment this is not considered a massive threat to humanity they have no excuse for the emergency use of the “vaccine”. So we continue to see manufactured fear, statistical manipulation and so on to keep the notion of the existential threat alive.

Back to the document… the “Adverse Events” and “Serious Adverse Events” are defined in the document in Appendix 3 on page 125. It should be noted that these events (in the views presented in this document) need only be “temporally associated”, i.e. happen at the same time or close enough to be considered connected, to be reported as an AE to then warrant proper investigation. This is reasonable, and all anyone has ever asked for when temporally associated adverse events happen in the public who’ve dutifully taken their jabs as recommended by the Government and media after being told it’s safe and it’s been thoroughly tested, which it hasn’t. Whether Pfizer will actually investigate these AEs and SAEs or simply exclude them from the study results is another matter seeing as they have a history of not being very honest.

See here for a report on Pfizer getting fined $2.3 billion for fraud and paying “kickbacks”, and here regarding a fine for defrauding the NHS for just two instances where the rulings didn’t go in their favour and/or they got caught. The point here is Pfizer (and they are not alone) are not exactly the fine, upstanding company where scientific rigour and honesty are traits likely to dominate the company culture. They should not be trusted as the single arbiter of the safety and efficacy of their own products, as history has clearly shown.

So in the Pfizer document where it’s defining AEs and SAEs it defines the main criteria for an Event to be considered Serious which are sub-headed as follows:

• Results in death
• Is life-threatening
• Requires inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization
• Results in persistent disability/incapacity
• Is a congenital anomaly/birth defect
• Other situations

Page 126 – https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/2020-11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020.pdf

“Other Situations” is explained in part to include:

“invasive or malignant cancers, intensive treatment in an emergency room or at home for allergic bronchospasm, blood dyscrasias or convulsions that do not result in hospitalization, or development of drug dependency or drug abuse”

Page 127 – https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/2020-11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020.pdf

These must all be considered a possibility for not just this product necessarily, but certainly this one as they would not even acknowledge the possibility or require monitoring, reporting and investigation if not. There’s no mention of monitoring for spontaneous leprosy for example, because presumably for scientific reasons that’s not possible, and therefore no effort needs to go into investigating possible occurrences of it. They also state in the same section:

“Suspected transmission via a Pfizer product of an infectious agent, pathogenic or nonpathogenic, is considered serious.”

…and that

“The terms “suspected transmission” and “transmission” are considered synonymous.”

All those things ranging from death to cancers and congenital birth defects are clearly considered by Pfizer to be possible connected events to this trial and taking the mRNA based “vaccine”. As previously mentioned, how honest they will be with reporting and investigating is up for debate, and their previous criminal activities would indicate the chances being virtually nil.

But the “shedding” aspect is of even greater concern, if one can imagine something more concerning than the above list of implicitly acknowledged possible effects. In section 8.3.5. titled “Exposure During Pregnancy or Breastfeeding, and Occupational Exposure” it says:

“Exposure to the study intervention under study during pregnancy or breastfeeding and occupational exposure are reportable to Pfizer Safety within 24 hours of investigator awareness.”

Page 67 – https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/2020-11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020.pdf

The “study intervention” in this case is the mRNA based “vaccine”. It goes on to explain that an EDP (Exposure During Pregnancy) occurs if:

• A female participant is found to be pregnant while receiving or after discontinuing study intervention.
• A male participant who is receiving or has discontinued study intervention exposes a female partner prior to or around the time of conception.
• A female is found to be pregnant while being exposed or having been exposed to study intervention due to environmental exposure.

It goes on to give some examples of environmental exposure during pregnancy:

• A female family member or healthcare provider reports that she is pregnant after having been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact.
• 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.

It is clear that skin contact with someone who has taken this particular “vaccine”, and probably the others although I’ve yet to find it documented like this one is, should be considered “exposure” to the Pfizer product, in this case their RNA based gene therapy. But not just skin contact. It mentions “inhalation” as well.

If Pfizer are monitoring the female partners of male study participants, and even female partners of males who are exposed via skin contact and/or inhalation to study participants, for possible AEs and SAEs regarding their pregnancies and subsequent births, then the idea of “shedding” must be considered very real and due to the experimental nature of this product the consequences are unknown at this point.

The idea of this article is to inform, and looking at this in some detail is not intended to cause more panic, fear and division. The media and Governments are doing a fine job of that already. Long time friends of 40 years or more are falling out over personal decisions to have this “vaccine” or not because the Government has made many people so irrational and fearful that it’s being claimed by some that to not have it and then go out of your house should be criminalised and is “tantamount to drink driving”. This division is a completely intentional outcome of the Government’s campaign to make everyone fearful of human contact and see everyone else as a “contaminant”, a bio-security threat to be neutralised by State-backed pharmacological interventions. Isolating everyone from their friends and families is the intent. It’s gaslighting, psychological warfare and pure manipulation.

This article is sourced, quotes from Pfizer’s own documentation and hopefully just illustrates what the mainstream media and the Government’s won’t tell you. There are concerns over this new technology, the testing and safety has not been established, and even though it is theoretically being evaluated right now, all the while people are having it thrust upon them in the name of Science and Public Health, we cannot guarantee that Pfizer (in this case) will be honest about it’s findings because it has a history of being massively corrupt, bribing doctors and defrauding the public.