Vaccines that are transmitted as a disease, no vaccination needed

In October 2019, the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security co-sponsored the “pandemic exercise,” Event 201 . A little over a year later, when the Event 201 scenario was transformed from “hypothetical” to concrete, it became clear that the event sponsors intended to see the majority of the world vaccinated against COVID-19.

However, achieving this goal is a “monumental challenge”. In the U.S., more than one-third ( 38% to 45% ) of adults continue to refuse unlicensed emergency use authorization injections, despite a marketing blitz that has included everything from the chance to win cash payments to an order of french fries.

A solid minority remain committed to never injecting. The same pattern appears to be true globally: about one-third of adults worldwide said they will not inject the KO BIT (we use this term so we don’t get censored by the “Goo…” search engine).

While social and behavioral science researchers apply “soft science” techniques in an attempt to maneuver confidence in vaccines into more compliant territory, bench scientists have a different option potentially waiting in the wings: genetically modified vaccines that “move through populations in the same way as diseases,” spreading themselves “from one host to another.”

Transmissible or Transferable
In theory, self-spreading vaccines (also called self-disseminating or self-sustaining) can be designed to be transferable (“restricted to a single round of transmission”) or transmissible (“capable of indefinite transmission”). Vaccine scientists admit that transmissible vaccines “are not yet conventional, but the revolution in genome engineering is preparing them to become so.”

Manufacturers of self-disseminating vaccines use recombinant vector technology to build genetic material from a target pathogen into the “chassis” of a viral vector deemed “benign,” “harmless” or “avirulent.” This is similar to the viral vector approach used to produce Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccines.

For Johns Hopkins, the appeal of vaccines that are intentionally designed to be self-disseminating seems obvious. The university’s Center for Health Security made its case explicit in a 2018 report , “Technologies to Address Global Catastrophic Biohazards.” The report stated, “These vaccines could dramatically increase vaccine coverage in human populations … without the need to inoculate every individual.”

Further detailing the utilitarian implications of self-disseminated vaccines, the report’s authors stated that “only a small number of vaccinated individuals would be needed to confer protection to a larger susceptible population, thus eliminating the need for mass vaccination operations.”

From a programmatic standpoint, for these individuals this strategy would supposedly have the advantage of being “cheaper than vaccinating everyone by hand.” However, perhaps even more significantly, it would negate one of the “thorny ethical issues” with which mass vaccination programs routinely struggle: informed consent.

As the university’s Center for Health Security briefly acknowledged in its report, self-disseminating vaccines would essentially make it impossible for “those to whom the vaccine subsequently infects” to give informed consent.

Blaming the animals
In 2020 in Nature Ecology & Evolution, the researchers observed that viral zoonoses (diseases theorized to jump from animals to humans ) have become an ingrained part of the “global mindset” and a central element of the pandemic-obsessed global health zeitgeist .

Despite the unproven zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2 (called into question by figures such as Robert Redfield , former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), last year’s coronavirus hype has helped reinforce the popular perception that wildlife populations represent a menacing cauldron of latent viral threats, requiring only the right set of circumstances to trigger action that endangers humanity.

Seizing the KO BID moment at a convenient scientific opportunity, researchers suggest that the alleged “failure to contain the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic” provides a justification for accelerating the launch of self-disseminated vaccines. As some journalists have asked the question of the day, “Wouldn’t it be great if wild animals could be inoculated against the various diseases they harbor so that those microbes never have a chance to spread to humans?”

Transmissible vaccine research has also moved up the list of funding priorities for government agencies such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and, reportedly, donors such as the Gates Foundation .

You subscribed, it’s free

At least officially, the primary focus of self-propagating vaccine research so far has been on wildlife populations. Although the practice of direct vaccination of wildlife (e.g., against rabies) has been around since the 1960s, it is the long-standing efforts to develop sterilizing vaccines in wildlife (euphemistically called “immunocontraception”), as well as recent advances in genetic engineering, that “have provided a basis for transmissible vaccine research.”

The researchers explain how wildlife reservoir selection is intended to work:

“The idea, essentially, is to vaccinate a small proportion of a [wildlife] population by direct inoculation. These would-be founders will passively spread the vaccine to other animals they encounter either by contact, sex, suckling, or breathing the same air. Gradually, these interactions could increase immunity at the population level.”

When the Spanish researchers tested in a limited field trial in rabbits, approximately 50% of the unvaccinated rabbits developed antibodies after being housed with vaccinated rabbits that had received a transmissible vaccine, either by injection or orally. When the researchers evaluated second-generation transmission (i.e., the development of antibodies in another batch of rabbits that were moved with the first batch of unvaccinated rabbits), the transmission rate was much lower (two out of 24 rabbits).

What could go wrong?
As the 2018 Johns Hopkins report made clear, there is no technical reason why the self-propagation approach cannot be applied to humans. However, the authors admitted to ” several major challenges, ” including the fact that stand-alone vaccines (as mentioned above) would make informed consent a moot point and make it impossible to screen for contraindications such as allergies in humans.

According to Johns Hopkins et al, another major challenge is the “not insignificant risk of the vaccine virus reverting to wild-type virulence,” which creates an opportunity for vaccines to spread disease rather than prevent it.

In fact, the world is already familiar with this phenomenon in the form of oral polio vaccines. Although not “intentionally designed that way,” oral polio vaccines are considered “somewhat transmissible” and are recognized as causing polio.

The Hopkins researchers deliberately characterized the reversal challenge as “both a medical risk and a public perception risk.” Another Catch-22 articulated in the university’s report is that while reversal risks could perhaps be reduced by modifying vaccines to be more “weakly transmissible,” this could defeat the purpose of making vaccines “work” on their own.

On the other hand, the two scientists who are most strongly promoting transmissible vaccines argue that “even … where reversion is prevalent, [their] performance will often substantially exceed that of directly administered conventional vaccines.”

These same authors have also developed models suggesting that starting the transmissible ball rolling with direct vaccination of newborns could be particularly impactful.

In September 2020, two researchers writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists agreed that self-expanding vaccines may have significant drawbacks and could “carry serious risks,” especially given that scientists lose control of their creation once they are released. They noted, “While it may be technically feasible to combat emerging infectious diseases … with self-spreading viruses, and while the benefits may be significant, how can those benefits be weighed against what may be even greater risks?” They summarized several additional questions :

Who makes the decisions about the “where and when” of vaccine release?
What happens when there are “unexpected outcomes” and “unintended consequences” such as mutation, species jumping or border crossing? On unintended consequences, the two authors added, “There always are.”
What about bioweapons and the risks of “dual use,” i.e., using technology to “deliberately cause harm” rather than prevent disease? Advances in pharmacogenomics , drug development and personalized medicine, the two noted, could enable “ultra-targeted biological warfare.”
On this last point, the Bulletin authors drew readers’ attention to immunocontraception efforts in animals, as well as to an infamous example of “weaponized biology” against humans in apartheid-era South Africa , called Project Costa , which sought, apparently unsuccessfully, to develop an “Infertility Vaccine for use in African women without their knowledge.”

Other scientists have made an even more direct case against communicable vaccines, arguing that the risks of autonomous spread of vaccines, in fact, “far outweigh the potential benefits.” The risks, in their view, include “the unpredictability of virus mutations, the inability to test safely on a large scale, and the serious potential threat to biosecurity.”

Vaccine science: many unknowns
When measles, rather than K0 BIT, dominated the headlines a couple of years ago, the unvaccinated were the main scapegoat for apparent outbreaks. This non-evidence-based finger-pointing (used to usher in new draconian vaccine mandates) ignored the well-documented “phenomenon of measles infection spread by MMR (live measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, MMR), which has been known for decades “AND has resulted in detectable measles infection in the vast majority of those who receive it”.

The experimental Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines use new messenger RNA (mRNA) technology rather than the traditional live virus technology featured in vaccines such as MMR or MMR and therefore, we are told, cannot produce the same type of “shedding”.

However, many unvaccinated people report unusual symptoms or illness after spending time around people vaccinated with KO BID. Pointing to Pfizer’s protocol that acknowledges the possibility of exposure by inhalation or skin contact with vaccinated persons, concerned health care professionals have raised the question of whether some new form of transmission is occurring .

Some of the people raising these questions have pointed to the September 2020 article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, subtitled, “What Could Go Wrong?” By May 2021 , the Bulletin’s editors, apparently uncomfortable with the attention the September article had attracted, were trying to distance themselves by claiming that the Bulletin’s content was being misused to promote conspiracy theories about ” highly effective and safe COVID-19 vaccines.”

Whether COVID injections are “self-propagating” in any sense of the word is a question on which there is currently no publicly available information.