Is Unestablished Nanotechnology The Real Reason people are having ‘Allergic Reactions’ ?

In this article referenced from The Hill (https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/530966-fda-investigating-allergic-reactions-to-pfizer-vaccine-reported-in-multiple ) they are reporting that they are looking into the potential role of polyethylene glycol (PEG) as the ingredient that may be causing the multiple ‘allergic’ reactions in the roll out of the vaccine for the virus. Polyethylene Glycol is an ingredient that can be manufactured to different lengths and geometries for different metabolic purposes (https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/technical-documents/articles/materials-science/polyethylene-glycol-selection-guide.html). The beginning of the first sentence in this article (https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/6/eaay9937) states that ‘ Polyethylene glycols (PEGs) can improve the diffusivity of nanoparticles (NPs) in biological hydrogels (italic emphasis added).

Is it possible that it is not the Polyethylene Glycol that people are reacting to, but the possible (again, I say -possible- as I do not know all of the potential reactions to the ingredients in the vaccine nor their potential reason for inclusion in the vaccine nor the potential benefits or side effects) effects of nanoparticles as part of a hydrogel injected into human beings for the first time ‘en masse’? Apparently, this is not the first time that Polyethylene Glycol has been injected into human beings and previous claims have been made as to its ‘safety’ (https://www.kdheks.gov/immunize/download/Facts_about_Childhood_Vaccine_Ingredients.pdf).

The vaccines contain nanotechnology. In the following article ‘ COVID-19 Vaccine Frontrunners and Their Nanotechnology Design‘ (2/3/21 link addendum: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acsnano.0c07197 Why did I have to add a new link to the supporting article? Because the original one (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7553041/) is now ‘Page Unavailable’ at the US National Library of Medicine. Gee, I wonder why?) it states: ‘Moderna reached clinical trials 63 days after their sequence selection.8 It is striking that an unestablished nanotechnology formulation reached clinical testing almost a full month before established approaches (i.e., inactivated and live-attenuated vaccines) entered clinical trials.9,10This highlights the opportunity for less developed technology platforms in vaccine development and, if proven successful, may enable a more rapid response to future emergent infectious diseases’.

Did you catch the …’It is striking that an unestablished nanotechnology formulation reached clinical testing almost a full month before established approaches (i.e., inactivated and live-attenuated vaccines) entered clinical trials.’… Unestablished nanotechnology??? If something is ‘unestablished’ then who knows what the potential benefits and more importantly, the risks are to a human being??? We have relayed reports of people passing out soon after taking the jab. If you don’t know why nanotechnology is a concern please take a look at https://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-possible-dangers-of-nanotechnology.htm The above supports asking the question: ‘Is unestablished nanotechnology going to save you or hurt you?’ In my humble estimation, I do not know and apparently neither to the manufactures. Caveat Emptor people-please.

©️2020
———-

Stan Szymanski (nor Encouraging Angels) is not a medical doctor. This is not medical advice. In all matters pertaining to the health and care of a human being consult a medical doctor.