Bryam Bridle | 27 Sep 2022
Old ‘Misinformation’ is Cutting-Edge News And Deemed Acceptable When Properly Doctored
(Note: this article should be read with an understanding that I have injected a healthy dose of sarcasm.)
A New Study
Results of a small research study were published yesterday in the very high-impact medical journal called JAMA Pediatrics (JAMA stands for ‘Journal of the American Medical Association’). Unfortunately, the paper was not published as an ‘open access’ article, which means that most members of the public will not be able to easily obtain a copy of it. However, if you have a friend in academia, they might be able to get you a copy from this link. Here is the full citation: Detection of Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Human Breast Milk. Hanna N, et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2022. PMID: 36156636
COVID Chronicles is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
This was a frustrating paper to read because it essentially took alleged ‘misinformation’ that got scientists raked over the coals well over one year ago and doctored it into news worthy of a prestigious publication. Although I am glad these authors published the data, they did so in a fashion that is scientifically embarrassing. Specifically, they interjected subjective rhetoric, which has, unfortunately, become necessary to get past the censorship of editors of ‘upper tier’ medical journals for whom much of their income comes from big pharma.
At its core, this new peer-reviewed scientific publication provides clear proof-of-principle evidence that the mRNA from both Pfizer/BioNTech’s and Moderna’s COVID-19 inoculations gets into the breast milk of lactating mothers.
The Sordid History of COVID-19 Vaccine Biodistribution
This concern was raised by some scientists as something deserving of intensive investigation back in May and June 2021. Personally, my apprehension was based on understanding the troubling biodistribution patterns of the mRNA inoculations, which contradicted all public messaging. There was also a pre-print article that had been posted on April 29, 2021. It was entitled “BNT162b2 vaccination induces SARS-CoV-2 specific antibody secretion into human milk with minimal transfer of vaccine mRNA” and can be found here. A pre-print article is one that has not made it through the peer-review process and has not, therefore, been officially ‘accepted’ by the scientific community. Remarkably, this remains a pre-print article to this day and the authors will likely not receive public acknowledgement as the first to highlight this issue. Perhaps this is because the world was not ready to receive this information more than one year ago.
To help people understand the importance of the short research paper that came out yesterday, I will provide some commentary on it…
The authors begin with, “Vaccination is a cornerstone in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic”. This is a good start to a scientific article. It has nothing to do with the content of the paper but it is an absolute requirement to get past an editor for a top-tier medical journal these days. You must assure them that you fully support the ‘narrative’. The planet would be lifeless today if it were not for the mRNA inoculations. Rhetoric is a key part of the new ‘science’.
“…the initial messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine clinical trials excluded several vulnerable groups, including children and lactating individuals”.
This is horrid and never should have been allowed to happen prior to a public rollout into these demographics. But, hey, this is a hard fact, old news, and the new way of practicing experimental medicine. I like this kind of baiting. It leads me wonder if any scientific concerns will arise from having studied people in the global-scale experiment. Did these authors find something that is contrary to the ‘narrative’? Let’s find out…
“The US Food and Drug Administration deferred the decision to authorize COVID-19 mRNA vaccines for infants younger than 6 months until more data are available because of the potential priming of the children’s immune responses that may alter their immunity. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends offering the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines to breastfeeding individuals, although the possible passage of vaccine mRNAs in breast milk resulting in infants’ exposure at younger than 6 months was not investigated.”
Woops! We said that lactating women can safely take the vaccine despite them not being in the clinical trial. But now that we want to directly inoculate babies, we need to consider whether those quack scientists spewing misinformation >1 year ago might have been onto something. If babies were to be exposed to the inoculations via breastmilk and then get directly injected, there are well-established mechanisms of potential harm.
We told breastfeeding Moms that they could never pass the ‘vaccine’ on to their baby via breast milk. But, we also didn’t think that we were going to push the inoculations on babies that are at statistically zero risk of dying from COVID-19. So, we better grab some of these lactating Moms (eleven of them to be exact) to determine whether we lied or not (technically, it isn’t lying if we allowed ourselves to remain ignorant). Who cares that these kinds of important experiments have always preceded public rollouts before. Better late than never. The authors put it more succinctly: “This study investigated whether the COVID-19 vaccine mRNA can be detected in the expressed breast milk (EBM) of lactating individuals receiving the vaccination within 6 months after delivery” [of a baby].
“This cohort study was conducted from February to October 2020 and included 11 healthy lactating mothers who received either the BNT162b2 (Pfizer) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID vaccine within six months after delivery.”
The public rollout did not begin until December 2020, so I assume this was a simple transcription error. This has become commonplace with the COVID-19 era having dragged on for so long. The year was likely intended to be 2021, otherwise one must wonder why it took so long for such a small study to be published.
“Of 11 lactating individuals enrolled, trace amounts of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were detected in 7 samples from 5 different participants at various times up to 45 hours post-vaccination.”
So, 64% of the breastfeeding Moms had their COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ in their breasts and breast milk. I got in huge (and I mean ‘career-destroying huge’) trouble when I suggested that the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ get to organs and tissues in the body beyond the injection site. We were assured over and over again that these behaved like traditional technologies. Systemic biodistribution was not possible. So, I am confused. How, then, did the ‘vaccines’ get into the breasts of these women?
I would like to know how many lactating women were forewarned by their physicians that their suckling infants would be eating their mothers’ ‘vaccine’? Let me hazard a guess; it’s likely close to zero. Oh well, fully informed consent is a thing of the past.
Good job on the authors, though, to point out that it was only ‘trace amounts’ to help appease safety concerns. Of course, they did not address the issue of mothers in these studies being asked to store their milk samples in their fridge freezers, which are at no more than -20 degrees Celsius. Remember, Pfizer’s ‘vaccine’ degrades if it isn’t stored at -80oC. In other words, these authors likely underestimated the problem due to degradation of the mRNAs prior to them receiving the samples for analysis.
The authors also failed to point out that there is no established safe oral dose for these inoculations in children. This is because it has never been evaluated. So, are ‘trace amounts’ known to be safe or unsafe? For many people it implies ‘safe’, but has this been proven with direct experimental evidence?
They also failed to note that a little mRNA can potentially go a long way in terms of manufacturing spike proteins in the highly metabolically active cells of lactating breasts and babies. These kinds of cells can make many copies of proteins from a single strand of mRNA.
Interestingly, the authors also didn’t discuss the potential for oral tolerance. Our immune systems usually get trained to ignore what we eat so we won’t develop things like food allergies or chronic gastrointestinal inflammation. If babies were to become tolerized to the spike protein, this could be disastrous because it would impair their ability to fight off future infections with highly pathogenic coronaviruses.
Also, inadvertent vaccination of a baby could impact when other vaccines should be given and/or how effective they will be.
Finally, the spike protein, which the mRNA encodes, was not evaluated in this study. If the mRNA can get into mammary cells and get packaged into the tiny vesicles that bleb off from the cells, it can almost certainly get these same cells to manufacture the spike. After all, this is what the mRNA is designed to do. Importantly, more than one spike protein can be made from each copy of mRNA. So, it is possible that more spike proteins are being delivered in breast milk than mRNA. This is yet to be studied. But, again, this can be done at the convenience of the scientific regulators at some future point of the ongoing global rollout. There’s no need to concern ourselves with too many safety questions.
At least the United States and many other countries have been wise enough to hold off on giving COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ to their babies because these kinds of issues could lead to a public relations nightmare. Imagine if babies who are not at substantial risk from COVID-19 were to be harmed by the shots?
But, wait, we have gone full-steam ahead in Canada!?!
Canadians Moms, did you know that it will be your breastfeeding babies that will be used as the ‘guinea pigs’ for this aspect of the ongoing COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ research program. Again, don’t worry about informed consent; that, like our constitutional freedoms, is a thing of the past.
When concluding their study, the authors note, “The sporadic presence and trace quantities of COVID-19 vaccine mRNA detected in EBM suggest that breastfeeding after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is safe, particularly beyond 48 hours after vaccination.”
For all the aforementioned reasons, there is no way that the presence of ‘vaccine’-derived mRNA can be ruled safe. However, one must do their best to fit difficult-to-swallow data into the ‘safe and effective’ mantra. Please ignore the fact that obstetric, gynecology, and pediatric societies outright lied to you when they said that no components of the ‘vaccines’ get into breast milk.
During the interview, Bridle makes other claims without mentioning their scientific basis. Some of them have been previously examined by AFP Fact Check.
Bridle claims, without citing sources, that mRNA from vaccines would be transferred from breastfeeding mothers to infants via breast milk, causing bleeding in the gastrointestinal tract.
AFP Fact Check of Dr. Byram Bridle’s concerns after a truncated radio interview for a lay audience.
Medical experts have said it is unlikely that the vaccine-related mRNA that is in Pfizer and Moderna shots can pass through to breast milk
The authors continue with, “These data demonstrate for the first time to our knowledge the biodistribution of COVID-19 vaccine mRNA to mammary cells and the potential ability of tissue EVs to package the vaccine mRNA that can be transported to distant cells.”
There you have it. Here is the big admission. Almost two years after the public rollout of the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’, we finally have the results of a study that should have been done before a needle was ever used on a member of the public.
“Little has been reported on lipid nanoparticle biodistribution and localization in human tissues after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.”
“In rats, up to 3 days following intramuscular administration, low vaccine mRNA levels were detected in the heart, lung, testis, and brain tissues, indicating tissue biodistribution.”
Yep, I reported these facts sixteen months ago and my life was made a misery. I’m glad some human-focused biodistribution work is coming out more than one year later. It’s also good to see that the scientific community is finally willing to hear this message. The authors of the current study get a leg up on their career for saying the same thing that destroyed the careers of scientists who had too much foresight. Regardless, I’m glad to see that these authors didn’t get their scientific curiosity completely shut-down by these historical ‘fact’ checks.
“We speculate that, following the vaccine administration, lipid nanoparticles containing the vaccine mRNA are carried to mammary glands via hematogenous and/or lymphatic routes. Furthermore, we speculate that vaccine mRNA released into mammary cell cytosol can be recruited into developing EVs that are later secreted in EBM.”
So, the mRNA ‘vaccine’ that gets injected into the shoulder gets to the breasts via the blood or lymphatic system (lymphatic vessels constantly siphon fluid from our tissues and deposit it into the bloodstream; without this, our tissues would swell, as is the case with elephantiasis). It then gets taken up by cells in the breasts, packaged into tiny bubbles that bleb from the cells into the milk where it can be ingested by a baby.
The text at the end of the published paper would be humorous if it wasn’t intended to be taken verbatim. Here it is…
“We believe it is safe to breastfeed after maternal COVID-19 vaccination. However, caution is warranted about breastfeeding children younger than 6 months in the first 48 hours after maternal vaccination until more safety studies are conducted. In addition, the potential interference of COVID-19 vaccine mRNA with the immune response to multiple routine vaccines given to infants during the first 6 months of age needs to be considered. It is critical that lactating individuals be included in future vaccination trials to better evaluate the effect of mRNA vaccines on lactation outcomes.”
Belief doesn’t actually play a role in scientific conclusions. Reviewers should never allow such language in documents where messaging is to be objective and supported by the data that are being discussed. I am glad that these authors apparently have some kind of faith-based belief system that allows them to perpetuate a narrative that increasingly deviates from science. However, their results directly contradict public health messaging. As such, their data package provides a cautionary tale. Pure and simple.
Let me better translate the final conclusions of the authors as I read between the lines…
‘We have found some disturbing information that counters the official narrative. However, it shouldn’t concern you too much that we have revealed one aspect of COVID-19 doctrine to be untrue. Subjectively, we can guarantee that the vaccines are still completely safe and completely effective and unending dosing is completely necessary for every human being on the planet. The shots are definitely safe for all breastfeeding women. However, they might not be safe for the babies of women who want to breastfeed within the first 48 hours after each dose of a COVID-19 ‘vaccine’. Ignore the fact that there is the potential for spike-producing mammary cells to keep pumping spike-expressing vesicles into the breast milk for more than 48 hours. We didn’t look for this, so we can safely suggest that it is likely not an issue. Also, we are admitting that subjecting a nursing infant to a COVID-19 inoculation might interfere with all the other vaccines that we give to infants. We also strongly suggest that breastfeeding women be included in all future clinical trials of novel vaccines, just like we did for all historical ones. This is because it is kind of embarrassing to find alarming issues after the world has been inoculated when we would have found these same things beforehand had we not over-ridden so many of the historical quality control and safety research checkpoints. By the way, now that we know that women’s breasts are likely expressing the spike protein, have you considered the implications of getting your immune system to target and kill your own mammary cells (which would happen every time you get boosted)? Oops, sorry. We are getting ahead of ourselves here. Despite there being sound scientific reasoning behind this concern, it remains purely speculative. As such, it should not be treated as a valid concern and is nothing to worry about unless somebody generates worrisome data related to this in the future. Most importantly, forget everything I just said and remember the only take-home message that ever matters: these vaccines are definitely safe and effective.’
Note to editors for legacy media sources still toeing the line:
The authors of this article did you the requisite service. These are the only two quotations from the article that you need to highlight:
“Vaccination is a cornerstone in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic”
“We believe it is safe to breastfeed after maternal COVID-19 vaccination”
…please do not concern yourself with the title of the article, nor the scientific facts that inconveniently fall between these quotations.
Isn’t it heartening to know that the obstetric, gynecology, and pediatric societies the world over were able to assure Moms that there was absolutely no risk of them transferring their shoulder-injected ‘vaccines’ to their babies? Ignorance is bliss. Gone are the days of the precautionary principle when one would assume that new medical treatments are dangerous until proven otherwise. Moms, don’t blame the medical community. They have simply been following the new norm of assuming that novel medical interventions are ‘very safe and effective’ until proven otherwise; and you need to understand your new role as their involuntary test subjects.
On-deck for the next public observatory experiment:
The Long-Term Effects of Spiky Breasts: Will repeatedly making breasts express the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein cause any long-term harm?
Hypothesis: no, and the risk will decrease further as the number of COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ doses increases.
Rationale: repeated killing of spike-expressing breast cells has never been proven to be harmful in the past.
Methodology: wait and see (the official medical term is ‘watchful waiting’). If problems arise sufficiently far into the future in an improperly controlled experiment, people will struggle to link them to the inoculations.