Study: Vaccinated Blood Products Require Testing

A Japanese pre-print study by J. Ueda et al titled “Transfusions of Blood Products Derived from Genetic Vaccine Recipients: Safety Concerns and Proposals for Specific Measures” posted on 29 May 2024 discusses the concerns of blood donated by those who have received the mRNA “vaccines”.

The paper is 23 pages long. The main text is about 13 pages, the remaining are references.

Firstly, the paper makes it clear that these vaccines are “genetic vaccines” and therefore different from the traditional vaccines. In essence, the paper reviews the problems observed so far for the vaccinated—and there is nothing new if one has been following these things—and then it makes recommendations on how to handle potential problems.

There are six “major concerns”. These are listed in Table 1 which includes a short description.

1. Spike protein contamination.

2. Contamination with amyloid aggregates and microthrombi formed by spike proteins.

3. Events attributable to decreased donor immune system and immune abnormalities due to immune imprinting or class switch to IgG4, etc., resulting from multiple doses of genetic vaccines.

4. Presence of lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) and pseudouridinated mRNA (mRNA vaccines only).

5. Contamination with aggregated red blood cells or platelets.

6. Memory B cells producing IgG4 as well as IgG4 produced from them.

One of the observations is that LNPs and spike protein mRNA can remain in the recipient’s blood beyond the claimed “couple of days”.

The current rules of the Japanese Red Cross Society state that blood can be collected from genetic vaccine recipients after a deferral period (48 hours for mRNA vaccine recipients and 6 weeks for AstraZeneca DNA vaccine recipients); however, the data and rationale for such rules have not been specified.

In other words, there is no science behind that kind of claim and we don’t know how long. The authors mention multiple times that there are unknowns regarding the effects and implications of these genetic vaccines for the vaccinated and any recipient of blood donated by the vaccinated.

Nevertheless, given that there are problems for the vaccinated, tests are needed to determine what is in the blood and how much. Table 2 lists eleven areas of testing. Three are reproduced below as examples.

1. Spike protein content in blood: Immunochemical techniques include enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, immunophenotyping, mass spectrometry, liquid biopsy, and a combination of liquid biopsy and proteomics. We propose initially conducting mass spectrometry because it can directly measure the protein itself.

3. Spike protein DNA in blood: PCR and liquid biopsy are the options. This test is necessary because AstraZeneca's viral vector is a DNA vaccine. For mRNA vaccines, it is believed that pseudouridinated mRNA is not reverse transcribed, but this test is required if the spike protein remains in the body for a prolonged period.

9. Immunosuppression: It may be necessary to analyze immunoglobulin subclasses (such as the amount of IgG4) if immunosuppression from multiple doses of the genetic vaccine is a concern.

The other problem is dealing with existing blood products.

Although it is essential to remove the spike protein or a modified gene derived from the genetic vaccine if found in a blood product, currently, there is no reliable way to do so.

Well, that is a problem…

Regardless of the type of tests for new donations and existing products, the authors recommend tests as part of regular check-ups for genetic vaccine recipients and those with so-called long COVID. In short, record more medical history to improve traceability.

In addition, the authors recommend legislative changes since “it will be essential to formulate regulations to reduce and prevent risks and contamination”.

In conclusion, and this is hardly news, there are many unknowns, a lot of testing is required and the whole thing is a total flipping mess.

---

Be sure to subscribe to our mailing list so you get each new Opinyun that comes out!

---