Evidence of mRNA-Based Vaccine Traveling from Injection Site (Paper Review)
A recent study contradicts a common establishment narrative about COVID vaccines.
One of my biggest gripes with the way this pandemic has been managed was with the lack of consistency with testing procedures. I have lamented the fact that PCR tests only examine the nasal environment while intramuscular (IM) vaccines only elicit systemic immunity and not mucosal immunity.
And there is good reason to assume so; previous vaccination procedures have argued that IM injections do not stimulate mucosal memory, the site of the initial infections, which explains why so many people who are vaccinated can still test positive with a nasal swab.
The only way that an IM injection could stimulate the mucosal immune system would be if the vaccines (or its contents) were to travel outside of the site of injection, and on this front the vaccine industry, as well as the FDA and NIH, have insisted such a thing should not occur.
Well, it seems now there may be evidence to the contrary.
A few days ago one of my Subscribers (chavoc) pointed out a study that indicated mucosal immune response after an intramuscular (IM) injection with Comirnaty, with another (UM Ross) indicating that this would mean the lipid nanoparticles can travel (which we were assured is not possible).
So let’s examine this study and see what it points to.
The study that chavoc provided was a study by Chan et. al. 2021 and it’s a very recent study (from mid-October). In this study the researchers examined whether 2 different vaccines (the mRNA-based Comirnaty and the inactivated virus CoronaVac) would be able to stimulate a mucosal immune response.
Note that the authors did not indicate the dosage (we’ll have to assume the approved dosage from the manufacturer-i.e. 30 ug for Comirnaty/dose) and that there were nearly 1/3 fewer participants in the CoronaVac arm of the study, so make sure to keep this in mind. Also, if the paper mentions a booster, it is referring to a 2nd dose not a 3rd dose as we have been describing them.
Surprisingly, the mRNA based vaccine was able to stimulate a mucosal immune response while the inactivated virus could not.
The researchers noted (emphasis mine):
None of the CoronaVac recipients developed detectable NELF S1-specific IgA and IgG (Figure 2A) by day 7 ± 2 after the booster. In comparison, most subjects who received Comirnaty developed NELF S1-specific antibodies. The increase in S1-specific IgA and IgG levels at the three time points was significant by Friedman test, followed by Dunn’s multiple-comparison test (Figure 2D). Moreover, S1-specific IgA appeared earlier than IgG in NELF. More subjects developed NELF S1-specific IgA (39/65, 40%) than IgG (5/65, 8%) (see Supplementary Figure E1B, blue dots, in the supplementary materials) by 14 ± 2 days after the first dose. These further increased to 82 and 68%, respectively, by 7 ± 2 days after the booster (see Supplementary Figure E1C, blue dots in the supplementary materials).
Those who were administered Comirnaty also showed strong neutralizing antibodies as detected by NELF samples, once again indicating strong mucosal immunity stimulation.
On the surface this seems great, and would exactly align with what I have stated; in order to prevent transmission and reduce viral load the vaccines need to induce mucosal immunity. So all is well right?
Well no, and actually this is extremely concerning.
Over the course of the vaccine rollout we were constantly told that there was no way that these vaccines (or spike protein) moved outside of the site of injection. In fact, those who questioned this possibility were made to seem hysterical.
So then how do we explain these results? Surely the vaccines, who supposedly remain within the intramuscular region of the injection site are also somehow able to stimulate the mucosal immune system as well?
Here are the authors’ proposal (emphasis mine):
It is commonly believed that intramuscular vaccines do not induce mucosal immunity effectively (19). The mucosal immunity of the upper respiratory tract is partly compartmentalized and usually initiated in the nasopharynx-associated lymphoid tissue (NALT) in all age groups and bronchus-associated lymphoid tissue (BALT) in children and adolescents or adults upon disease induction (20). These upper respiratory tract-associated lymphoid tissues generate IgA-producing mucosal B cells that express the homing receptor, e.g., a4ß1, CCR10, CD62L, and LFA-1 (21, 22). These homing receptors allow the B-cells to traffic efficiently to the mucosal effector site, the respiratory tract in this case, where their ligands, VCAM-1 and CCL28, are strongly expressed. The IgA-producing mucosal B cells differentiate into polymeric IgA-secretory plasma cells and contribute to the production of the polymeric IgA (in dimers or tetramers) in the lamina propria as opposed to serological IgA (predominantly monomers), which is produced within the bone marrow, spleen, and lymph nodes (23). The dimeric IgA is formed by linked two IgA molecules by a joining chain (J-chain), while the J-chain binds to the polymeric immunoglobulin receptor (pIgR), which transports the dimeric IgA from the basolateral to the apical surface of the epithelium by transcytosis. Therefore, the SIgA present in secretions is typically produced within mucosal tissues. This raises important questions about the route that mRNA lipid nanoparticles need to take from the intramuscular injection site to the NALT (and BALT) and the biological mechanisms that underlie this process.
An in vivo investigation in the biodistribution of the lipid nanoparticles carrying influenza virus mRNA found that, after intramuscular administration, the concentration of mRNA lipid nanoparticles decreases along the disseminating route from the injection site. The expression of mRNA can be detected in distal tissues, including the lung, though the concentration was 1,000-fold lower (24). We postulate that the number of mRNA lipid nanoparticles that reach the nasal mucosa after Comirnaty injection might be sufficient for NALT stimulation. However, the mechanisms underlying this process and the factors that affect the consistency of this effect require further investigation.
As indicated, there is some evidence that the lipid nanoparticles are able to travel to other sites, albeit in very low amounts. This would explain the high variability in antibody levels (as indicated by the graphs).
So there is evidence that goes against the narrative that we have been fed; yes, the vaccine is able to travel!
But remember, in order to produce anti-spike antibodies the mRNA must travel as well.
In this case we are left with 2 possibilities: either the lipid nanoparticle itself is able to travel to other sites where it may be picked up by cells and produce spike proteins, or the spike proteins are produced locally and spread throughout the body.
Remember that this is not occurring with the inactivated virus vaccine (as indicated by the data), which may support the idea that the lipid nanoparticle is the compound that is moving around (this same issue may not be occurring with the Adenovirus vaccines, and similar studies should be conducted with those vaccines as well).
Unfortunately, the low sample size in the CoronaVac cohort may be masking any mucosal immune response that would contradict this position, although you would expect at least some evidence that the mucosal immune system is stimulated in those groups (if at all possible), and yet that clearly does not seem to be the case.
The differences also can’t be explained by differences between the vaccine delivery systems (as of now) as indicated in this Hasset et. al. 2021 paper, the optimal LNP size is similar to that of SARS-COV2 (~100 nm) and that the cationic nature of the LNPs are intended to direct cellular uptake.
As of now, it’s hard to indicate why this would be occurring, but the idea that it is occurring is alarming in general.
Similar to molnupiravir, we are being misled about the possible adverse events with respect to many of these COVID treatments, and yet any dissenting voice is being silenced.
We need more evidence and more science, not validation by bureaucrats and pharmaceutical giants that what they are doing is working, and, more frustratingly, that what they are doing is “following the science”.
The researchers note as much as well:
The unexpected mucosal response in mRNA vaccine recipients raises the concern about which other organs/tissues may be affected and whether such reactions may cause unintended side effects with adverse outcomes. Our study, therefore, highlights the necessity of further studies to determine the distribution of mRNA lipid nanoparticles in humans.
Without transparency and rigorous scientific evidence, we are absolutely doing ourselves no favors. Now that there are talks of boosters and vaccinating children as young as 5, there’s not doubt that we may bear witness to the consequences of not following actual science, and many people may end up paying the price because of it.
The media and federal regulatory bodies have not afforded us any reason to trust them, and here we should hold steadfast with the notion that we were told that either the spike or the lipid nanoparticle should not be distributed within the body.
So not only do we need to be concerned that we may be deceived, we also need to be concerned that this will once again become a position that health officials could possibly flip-flop on.
So I’ll leave you with 2 possible news titles, and I would like you to guess which one is likely to be used:
“There’s evidence the mRNA vaccine may be distributed within the body-and why that’s a good thing!”
Contrary to previous statements, concerning evidence indicates the mRNA vaccines may be distributed within the body.”
I know which one I want, but unfortunately we all know which one we’re likely to get.
Thanks once again to chavoc for pointing me to this study! And if any of you notice anything that you would like me to take a look at please let me know! I’d love to get feedback from Subscribers on that front!
Thank you for reading my newsletter. If you enjoy my articles please consider becoming a free subscriber in order to receive notifications.
And share with others who may find these newsletters interesting.
Also, please consider becoming a paid member. The research and work put into these articles takes many hours and being a paid subscriber allows me to continue to do this full time.
In-Text Citations:
Shakya et. al. 2016. Mucosal Vaccine Delivery: Current State and a Pediatric Perspective. Taken from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5381653/
Chan et. al. 2021. The Mucosal and Serological Immune Responses to the Novel Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) Vaccines. Taken from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2021.744887/full
Hasset et. al. 2021. Impact of lipid nanoparticle size on mRNA vaccine immunogenicity. Taken from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168365921002376?via%3Dihub
Thanks for the shout-out. I'm pretty sure I put a ';)' on my comment you're referencing, and here's why:
The fact that the lipid nanoparticles and/or the spike protein they cause cells to produce doesn't stay put at or near the injection site has been known since early this past summer, when Dr. Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist from the University of Guelph in Canada revealed documentation that Pfizer had submitted to Japanese regulators. Obviously Pfizer was aware of it considerably earlier. Of course Dr. Bridle was quickly branded as an anti-vax conspiracy theorist.
Unfortunately much of the document is in Japanese, and I've yet to find a good translation, but scroll through it anyway. It seems that Japanese for "lipid nano particles" is "LNP".
https://www.docdroid.net/xq0Z8B0/pfizer-report-japanese-government-pdf
Very interesting! This may also be of interest in case you haven't seen it: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34136730/