I haven’t seen an expert say that it’s only the lipids not the spike protein - the only place I’ve seen that is in fact-checks and ad-hom pieces in ‘science’ platforms.
Also worth bearing in mind the idea the vaccine spike protein might be safe is a very thin plank to stand on, given that they’ve only recently discovered the vaccine SP, the thing it’s modelled on, to be dangerous.
Incidentally, WHO is the HCQ denier David? (pun intended 
, but genuinely asking )
HI PP. There’s quite a lot from Bridle and Malone, especially the latter, and having dug around a bit/lot I don’t think it can be said that they are not joining the dots.
In the Alex Pierson interview Bridle did say the SP was toxic: " “We made a big mistake. We didn’t realize it until now,” said Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist and associate professor at University of Guelph, Ontario. “We thought the spike protein was a great target antigen, we never knew the spike protein itself was a toxin and was a pathogenic protein. So by vaccinating people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.”
Whether he has written that I’m not sure. There may be a reluctance among top experts to be the one that ends up as the first public slayer of the experimental vaccine project.
I’ll leave Bridle there and concentrate on Malone’s statements.
Malone is clear that he thinks the SP is dangerous. This emerged in the June 21, Dark Horse project video, which I’m sure I saw here first but can’t locate now.
We’ve only scratched the surface of this very long discussion. Here is a (poor) transcript:
(Link https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QrXpEJgIJMdEDbwGYeQxRkws2f1qQVcY/view)
Here are some parts relevant to the discussion:
…
Speaker 2 (Weinstein): The other problem, and this is your area of expertise, is that what the what these vaccines do is they encode spike protein alone so that the immune system will learn to recognize by protein and will catch it quickly when one is confronted with covid. But the spike protein itself, we now know, is very dangerous and cytotoxic. Is that a fair description?
Speaker3 (Malone): More than fair. And I alerted the FDA about this risk months and months and months ago.
About 6m.
Kersh: To be fair the FDA knew about the vaccine distribution but they didn’t know the SP was toxic
Malone: They did know. I did send them manuscripts. They didn’t think that was sufficient documentation of the risk that the spike was biologically active.
Weinstein: We now know SP is very dangerous. (Malone may accord, unfortunately drowned out by Kersh)
…
Malone: it’s not just the vaccine documentation there was also the prior literature that was put out by the people that developed it, these clones. They were aware there was a risk of spike being biologically active and having adverse events if it did not stay stuck to the cells that were transfected that got the RNA and made it - okay? and they used a genetic engineering method of putting a transmembrane domain on it to ensure that it stayed anchored and stayed put. And there they did limited non-clinical studies to say looks like it stays stuck, right? we engineered it to stay stuck and they published that.
Here’s the thing - “specially engineered, okay?”. Um, that’s generally not good enough in a non-clinical data package. So before we get a product released in humans, in the normal situation where we are not in a rush, we have some really rigorous tests that need to be done in animals. And revealing that spike gets cleaved off of expressed cells and becomes free is something that absolutely should have been known and understood well before this ever got known and put into humans, so I’ll just leave it at that-
OK back to ME rambling… 
So at the very least according to Malone, an absolutely pro-vaccine expert,
Soon afterwards he raises another risk:
Malone: "the whole reason to use an adenoviral vector or mRNA is not just to generate antibodies, and a lot of this data and a lot of us who are deep into this data think that the way that they’re really providing the protection is by cellular cytotoxicity. So you’re getting CTLs {Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte}against it and that the reason to use this gene-therapy-based technology is not just to generate neutralizing antibodies but to generate cytotoxicity lymphocytes. "
This may be the most pertinent comment. As I understand it, if the cells that get the mRNA are destroyed, you don’t want that to be happening in the wrong place.
The cytotoxicity is not an accident, it arises, if I’ve read it right, from the function of the vaccine spike - to attract the ire of the immune system to kill the infected cells.
This has been a point of discussion between experts and interested medics for some time. This is an excerpt of an article from the online publication Microbial Instincts (link at bottom).
It can be seen that it refers to a discussion in the online BMJ of March 2021:
"As a result, brain cells that express the spike protein might be marked as foreign by the immune system. For example, cytotoxic T-cells, which kill virus-infected and cancerous cells, might see the spike protein-expressing brain cells as a threat. Unlike muscle cells and many other cell types, neurons in the brain rarely regenerate.
Jacob Wes Ulm, MD, Ph.D., a geneticist, explained this concern in detail in a letter to the British Medical Journal, as well as in a public comment to an article about mRNA vaccines on January 2021:
…it seems that they [mRNA vaccines] can enter a much broader tissue range compared to even attenuated virus vaccines…And since the mRNA vaccines would induce SARS-CoV-2 viral spike protein expression, that seems to mean that people who get the mRNA vaccines are going to have a much greater range of cells and tissues vulnerable to cytotoxic [T-cell] attack…with side effects that may not manifest for years (with cumulative damage and chronic inflammation).
“This is where the picture gets aggravatingly murky,” Dr. Ulm added, mentioning that there seems to be no comprehensive data on the cellular localization — i.e., which types of cells the biomaterial enters— of the LNPs used by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna.
Although there have been past studies(Link: Expression kinetics of nucleoside-modified mRNA delivered in lipid nanoparticles to mice by various routes - ScienceDirect) on the cellular localization of LNPs (more on this below), different LNP formulations would enter different cell types, Dr. Ulm stated, so “we don’t know where in the body they’re going,” adding that:
The nightmare scenario would be if e.g. the mRNA vaccines’ lipid nanoparticles are, indeed, crossing the BBB and getting endocytosed into critical glial cells, like oligodendrocytes, or even worse, into neurons themselves in the brain and spinal cord, putting a bullseye on these critical cells for cytotoxic [T-cells]."
The writer in Microbial Instincts is trying to strike a balance, and goes on to give reasons why it might not be a problem.
It’s worth noting that in the biodistribution study, the lipids reached the brain.
Going back to Dark Horse, the three speakers clearly discuss what sorts of diseases might follow from unwanted spike protein activity (which might just be getting cells killed!?).
"Weinstein: I think we need to look for leukemias, because of their creation in bone marrow. I know from other work that it also seems to show up preferentially in lymph nodes which raises the question of whether lymphomas might be created. These are possible long term effects, we have no way of knowing don’t arise because these things have not been injected into people for more than a year.
Malone: So we have two types of events, my friends at the FDA tell me that are relevant to what you say, you’re focussing on bone marrow. Typically aplastic, anemia, leukemia, lymphoma those kinds of things…we might see it if there’s a signal. Could be six months, three years, nine years as it’s a progression of cancer that often needs multiple mutations. "
They also noted somewhere that platelets are made in the bone marrow, and are obviously implicated in the blood clots and related outcomes now attributed to the vaccine.
Malone also says " Another one that is very hard to understand that’s starting to come up in the database is reactivation of latent viruses. Shingles is an example of that. But there are many others and there’s something in the literature about reactivation of human latent human retroviruses."
ED again. I think Judy Mikowiks mentioned this last possibility?
They also discuss immune system effects.
"Speaker 2 (Weinstein): We’ve got potential long term. We got short term implications in the bone marrow. We’ve got potential long term implications in the bone marrow. We have short term implications in the ovaries. We’ve got potential long term implications. I would add to the list what I’ve been worried about most from the beginning are auto immune disorders that might show up in the long term. Is that Plausible?
Speaker3 (Malone): I we talked about this earlier on in for me, it’s less the lipid component, although that certainly has merit for auto immune. It’s more the circulating free spike protein, which we didn’t expect. And in the literature and we were … the developers assured us this would not happen. The literature suggested we would not have three (free?) spike and then Harvard and Brigham did a study in nurses. And lo and behold, we clearly have three (free) spike after vaccination. Yeah. And that has a whole other set of implications. But auto immune development of autoimmune disease against complexes of foreign protein plus normal human proteins is certainly something that you’d have to monitor for as we were discussing the way that that’s that’s part of the reason why you typically want a two to three year follow up period on the initial group of Phase three patients to make sure that autoimmune consequences don’t develop because they typically take time."
All-in-all there is a wide range of knock-on effects discussed, that are all possible and some seem to have emerged already…
There is much more in the discussion which is very revealing as it shows pro-vaccine experts dealing with emerging realities. The least expert, Kersh, said none of them were even against mRNA vaccines, it’s just this one because the spike protein (as Malone said) gets cleaved off and roams free.
(Link to Microbial Instincts article, FWIW: Concerns of Lipid Nanoparticle Carrying mRNA Vaccine into the Brain: What to Make of It? | by Shin Jie Yong | Microbial Instincts | Medium)
Cheers
Hi @Dimac
Yes. The question remains, however, once they have delivered their mRNA payload where do the remnants of the lipid nanoparticles go, and how are they removed from the body - that, in essence, is the question that the biodistribution study set out to study and send seems to be a primary source for all the brouhaha about ovaries.
Of course there’s a difference if the lipid particles deliver mRNA to the ovaries (which then produce spikes) or if pieces of the broken up particles eventually end up in the ovaries after they’ve delivered the mRNA into someone’s shoulder (no spikes). Those two points get conflated quite often, but have very different significance.
I’ve not seen any evidence of actual spikes appearing in the ovaries, but I guess data is still being gathered.
Cheers
PP
Thanks ED
A quick response now and a more full one when I’ve a bit more time.
Yes, it’s very possible that Malone and/or Bridle are making the explicit connection between discovering pieces of the lipid particles somewhere in the body and drawing the conclusion that therefore there must be spikes in that part of the body. I’ve not seen that strong a statement from them, but I could easily have missed it
The question of toxicity always misses the crucial point of spikes bring in two different configurations - “pre-fusion” and “post-fusion”. As far as I’m aware (and I’m happy to be corrected) that the toxicity is connected to the spike protein being able to bind to cells or damage them in the post-fusion configuration. The vaccine can only produce spikes in the pre-fusion state, so I’m not sure the toxicity arguments carry over. But in any case, that’s a totally separate argument from whether finding a piece of the LNP in a position in the body means that there must now be spikes in the cells at that point.
I’ll read your post in a bit more detail as soon as I can. Lots of info there!
Cheers
PP
Think about it lads: I come up and hand you an empty paper bag. You look in and say: “What’s this?” And I say: “Well it had chocolate in it; but that’s gone now. I just thought you might like to dispose of the bag.” Naturally enough, any normal person - and any normal liver for that matter - would say: “WTF! Do you think I’m simple? There’s still chocolate in the corners, isn’t there?” And sure enough…
Not just for PP…
I’m not sure of the relevance of this but interesting: from the EMA assessment of the submitted Moderna vaccine protocol.
“No dedicated studies on absorption, metabolism, and excretion for mRNA-1273 have been submitted. This is generally acceptable with regards to the nature of the vaccine product.”
The nature of the vaccine product being…
A totally new experiment according to Malone, in an area where previous attempts failed?
To be given to millions of people, as well as being rolled back outwith the trial population to children?
And by a company that has never had a vaccine of any kind on the market before!
They don’t seem to know what happens to the proteins.
There’s a Biodistribution section:
“Concentrations of mRNA-1647 were quantifiable in the majority of tissues examined at the first time point collected (2 hours post-dose) and peak concentrations were reached between 2- and 24-hours post-dose in tissues with exposures above that of plasma. Besides injection site [muscle] and lymph nodes [proximal and distal], increased mRNA concentrations (compared to plasma levels) were found in the spleen and eye. Both tissues were examined in the frame of the toxicological studies conducted with mRNA-1273 final vaccine formulation. Low levels of mRNA could be detected in all examined tissues except the kidney. This included heart, lung, testis and also brain tissues, indicating that the mRNA/LNP platform crossed the blood/brain barrier, although to very low levels (2-4% of the plasma level). Liver distribution of mRNA-1647 is also evident in this study, consistent with the literature reports that liver is a common target organ of LNPs.”
Is this similar to the Pfizer biodistribution study that Bridle was so excited about?
Except - that it’s about the mRNA itself, not the lipid nanoparticles. And going everywhere. But what about those spike proteins?
What do others think
Cheers
This is a highly significant piece of data from the horse’s mouth, confirming exactly what Robert Malone was saying and endorsing the Japanese research. as you say, most notably it is about mRNA distribution in plasma, including across the blood brain barrier. That this is only 2-4% of the amount in plasma is hardly the point - the mRNA is surely like a seed, where its presence in minute quantities can’t be overlooked.
There are two things further though - no mention of the Ovaries - which given they were the most affected is an odd omission. Mention of them might have rung an alarm bell, but the failure to mention them also rings alarm bells!
The other point to make is that it wasn’t actually the spike protein which caused the damage but the specific antibodies produced in reaction to this protein, which were the same or similar to those triggered by Coronavirus infection itself. Because of the specific characteristics of the GE virus, the ability of the S1 protein to separate and drift around the body makes it also a hazard - and reason to suppress the infection early with vitamins and anti-virals - where appropriate.
Morning @Dimac
So does this mean that people who recovered naturally from the coronavirus infection could have the same problems of infertility, accumulation of spikes in the ovaries etc that cause people to be concerned about the vaccines? A natural infection will result in many orders of magnitude more spike protein being created in the body ( the virus replicates exponentially).
Do we have reports of women becoming infertile after recovering from a covid infection? That would be an important data point in evaluating how likely the vaccine is to cause similar dangers. If the spikes from the virus itself doesn’t cause infertility, then it’s hardly possible that the far fewer spikes produced by the vaccine, will. On the other hand if there are reports of healthy young women becoming infertile as a result of a covid infection, then this could be a big problem for the vaccine too.
Cheers
Very interesting find, ED. Definitely a good counterpart to the biodistribution study for Pfizer. Now we have Moderna and Pfizer. I’d be interested to see if we could add AZ to the list too.
Why do these documents have to be so damn long?? 
At first glance it seems to be saying that the majority of the vaccine ends up in the tissue around the vaccination site, but small amounts are found in many parts of the body. It does look like they are trying to measure actual distribution of mRNA rather than just pieces of the LNP.
I’ll have to add it to the exponentially growing list of things in trying to read… Would be interested in any more thoughts you have of the working through it.
No, I think there’s a difference here PP, as in a coronavirus infection, the antibody reaction is only part of the response. T cells are mostly what mediates the early response in the URT, and mostly beats it before it gets further. But the danger of a reaction to the antibodies made specifically against the Virus’ spike protein 1 was noted by Robert Malone, and given as his reason for getting vaccinated but also for taking Ivermectin. Accepting it is a GE virus means we can expect unpredictable behaviour from it. But it’s important not to give in to the propaganda and start to become afraid of being infected; just need to arm oneself with a few pills and potions to keep it mild.
Thanks @Dimac
I would have thought that orders of magnitude more spike proteins would also cause the body to make similar antibodies to the vaccine, although I do take your point that there is more for the body to train and defend against with the full virus. Was it not the case, though, that several antibody tests were developed to see if people had antibodies against SC2? Were these antibodies different to those that come from being vaccinated?
If you have any papers discussing the fact that a spike protein on a virus is less dangerous than a spike protein from the vaccine, if be interested to read them.
Cheers
The study linked by @Evvy_dense has the following under :
2.3.3. Pharmacokinetics
“ No dedicated ADME studies with mRNA-1273 were conducted, which is acceptable as generally nonclinical PK studies are not relevant to support the development and licensure of vaccine for infectious diseases. However, distribution studies should be conducted in the case of new formulations or novel excipients used.
Accordingly, the biodistribution of the vaccine platform was evaluated with mRNA-1647 in a non-GLP, single-dose, intramuscular injection study in Sprague Dawley rats. The objectives of this study were to determine the tissue distribution and pharmacokinetic characteristics of mRNA-1647 constructs following IM administration.
So the nlpds tested for adme* did not contain the moderna mrna-1273 but mrna-1647 in a non-glb (good lab practice)study on rats. Are these rats non-glp for such studies- the studies obviously can’t have control placebo groups so how do we understand the value of these studies when looking at mrna-1273 vaccine movement in the body?
(* ADME is an abbreviation in pharmacokinetics and pharmacology for “absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion”, and describes the disposition of a pharmaceutical compound within an organism.)
Finally, I seem to recall that the vaccine induced large volumes of spikes which may or may not be less than those from the virus, the impression I gained was that the vaccine sps far exceeded those from the virus. It was a video statement, I think
cheers
ps The EMA like the FDA and MHRA seems to suffer from regulatory capture by Big Pharma, imo.
pps - if CMV is the target of the mrna-1647 vaccine then it probable doesn’t have spike proteins so even if they looked for spikes as well as nlpds packaging they wouldn’t find any?
Name a government agency - in the West - that HASN’T been captured into the covid scam. Not one can be trusted.
But when quoting the thousands - sic! - of deaths close after the time of stabbing, that are actually admitted by the ‘official’ stats from the captured agencies, it helps to be able to point out, when speaking to troo-bleevers in the ‘deadly pandemic’ tosh, that these are “official government figures, currently published; check for yourself. AND they admit that these are large underestimates!”
The killer fact which sends troo-ies reliably into cognitive dissonance is the blunt observation that the ‘deadly virus’ is only killing a few more than any average seasonal flu, whereas the poison-stabs, in just a few months, have killed many thousands, with millions of lesser, but often still serious, adverse effects also admitted.
This is the point where the trusting souls become quite unable to believe that this could possibly be true. Pure, blank, glazed-eye denial. Poor abused sods… (I keep advising them that they can restore their comfort by saying to each other: “Poor old Rh! He’s obviously gone ga-ga! Got this big paranoid bee in his bonnet. Just humour him.” But somehow they don’t seem too keen to accept that proffered escape route from having to face the appalling reality. Odd.)
BTW, anyone hear much about Sweden lately, in the PBB? Both the troo-ies and the whores seem to have gone quiet about it; rather as the Indian ‘catastrophe’, currently vanishing under the onslaught of ivermectin, has disappeared from the daily OMG!!!-shriekfest.
“Lord what fools these mortals be!” 
Totally agree, in fact didn’t either Robert Malone or Pierre Cory actually come out with the statement that the FDA suffered from regulatory capture! Can’t recall the video now - I’m watching too much of this stuff!
cheers
Morning my brother
I wonder if I’m a trooie or a whore? Secretly I’m hoping I’m a whore - that sounds more fun
Neither bro. You don’t really believe all the super-pandemic propaganda, do you? Nor are you currying a fat career by pretending to believe it, as the goalongtogetalong pocket-pols and mediawhores are.
Sure, there really is something nasty in the air. It may be killing a few more of the unlucky minority on the chairs beside the exit; or maybe not even that. And yes indeed there’s a lot about this particular pathogen, and about the operation of the poison-stabs, which is more than a bit odd; still to be teased out in detail. You’re quite right about that.
But a huge, mass-killing, global plague? Nah…
Hi folks,
just thinking about regulatory capture - Gates and his tentacles are influencing so much of the drug aspects of life that they basically control the WHO and FDA. The FDA is the Food and Drug Agency so Gates was just operating in the Drug sphere, but of course he realised that as he had joint control with Big Pharma of the Drug side it was maybe an easy decision to also take over massive areas of US Food production without having to pay out twice to capture 2 agencies!
If we think our food poisons us at the moment to an extent that requires Pharma to come to our aid , think what Gate-farms will do to us and and for big Pharma!
cheers
Evening @CJ1
I’ve had a look through the section too, and have a few thoughts.
Yes, I think you’re absolutely right. They swapped out the mRNA component, and replaced with a different one. I’m not sure why they swapped out the mRNA component (maybe it was easier to detect the effect of the mRNA-1647, rather than trying to look for S1 or spike proteins?) but to answer your question:
the study has this to say:
It is biologically plausible that the distribution of the mRNA vaccine is determined by the lipid nanoparticle content, whereas the influence of the mRNA itself is considered very limited. Therefore, it is acceptable that the biodistribution study was performed with the same lipid nanoparticles containing another mRNA (i.e. mRNA-1647).
i.e. that the “vehicle” distributing the mRNA around the body is the same, so we should get a good idea of where this vehicle will transport the mRNA, regardless of who the exact passenger is.
Then follows the piece that ED quoted above, showing that they detected some amount in many areas of the body.
Incidentally, the reason why there was no mention of the ovaries is that they only used male rats in the biodistribution study. On the subject of fertility and effects on female rats, the study has the following to say:
IM administrations of mRNA-1273 to female SD 1 rats at the human clinical dose, twice before mating and twice during gestation, was associated with non-adverse effects including thin fur cover, swollen hindlimbs and limited usage of the hindlimb. However, there were no mRNA-1273-related effects on female fertility, embryo-foetal or post-natal survival, growth or development in the F1 offspring.
Sounds horrible for the rats, but no direct link to fertility issues were found. And this was using the real mRNA that produces the spike protein etc.
Finally, a few more pages along, we have the summary of their biodistribution experiment:
As expected, mRNA-1647 were distributed throughout the body (including brain, heart, lung, eye, testis), and were rapidly cleared from plasma during the first 24 hours, with the T1/2 estimated in a range from 2.7 to 3.8 hours. The highest mRNA-1647 concentrations were at the injection site. Following plasma clearance, proximal and distal lymph nodes and spleen are the major distant organs to which mRNA-1647 distributes. For these highly exposed tissues, Cmax was between 2 and 24 hours post-dose, and T1/2 was 14.9 hours for muscle of site of injection, 34.8 hours for proximal lymph nodes, 31.1 hours for distal lymph nodes, and 63.0 hours for spleen. Liver distribution of mRNA-1647 was also evident, consistent with the recognised LNP distribution pattern.
In summary, the data are useful for understanding the tissue distribution pattern of mRNA-1273. Only a relatively small fraction of the administered mRNA-1647 dose distributed to distant tissues, and the mRNA constructs did not persist past 1 to 3 days in tissues other than the injection site, lymph nodes, and spleen.
So, it seems my initial reading was more or less correct. The majority of the vaccine stays around the injection site and the near vicinity. The next most common ares were lymph nodes and spleen. Smaller amounts get into the bloodstream and turn up in other parts of the body where it seems to be broken down and cleared out within a few days.
I’d be interested to see the reference for that. As far as I understand it, the virus multiplies in your body exponentially, making more and more copies of itself, attacking and entering more and more of the cells in your body, to the point that simple breathing on someone else can pass enough new virus to the next person to continue the spread. The vaccine mRNA doesn’t multiply, and sits there slowly being killed off… it seems counterintuitive to me that the vaccine would end up producing more spikes than an uncontrolled viral infection, but then, what the hell do I know about anything? As I said, I’d be interested in the source for this.
Cheers
PP
Hi @PontiusPrimate , sorry for the delay in reply to your post - still trying to get my head round some of this stuff - I did notice this commentary:
https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n958/rr-1
for some vaccines it seems there is a “very high viral load” :
"Although, the modern viral vectors that are used in CoViD vaccines are silenced (replication-deficient), each dose of the vaccine contains a very high viral load (e.g., 50 billion viral particles per dose in Ox/AZ or J&J/Janssen CoViD-19 vaccines whereas 100 billion viral particles per dose in the Sputnik-V). The viral particles are unlikely to be confined to the muscles at the injection site; they are free to distribute across the body and drain through the lymphatic system; their apparent volume of distribution is likely to be very high. The biodistribution of ChaAdOx1 containing HBV in BALB/c mice (study 0841MV38.001) indicated the highest viral levels at the injection site, but low levels of virus were still detected after 24 hours of injection in all other tissues (including blood, brain, heart, inguinal lymph node, kidney, liver, lung, gonads, and spleen). The proportional tissue distribution of viral vectors in the body tissues away from the injection site was likely to increase with time, however, biodistribution beyond 24h post-dose was not studied. "
The commentary goes on to be critical of the distribution studies of all the vaccines - on moderna e.g. :
“For COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (Pfizer or Moderna), the biodistribution studies in animals were not conducted. The surrogate studies with luciferase and solid-lipid nanoparticles (Pfizer) confirm a biodistribution to the liver and other body tissues beyond the administration site [5]. For Moderna, the biodistribution of mRNA-1647 (encoding CMV genes) formulated in a similar lipid nanoparticulate delivery system confirms a biodistribution beyond the injection site, in particular, the distribution to the lymph nodes, spleen and the eye was noted [6]. However, the detailed tissue-specific distribution of mRNA vaccines encoding SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins (Pfizer or Moderna) is not fully known that can offer invaluable insights into the potential safety of these vaccines in peoples with pre-existing conditions or those on certain medications.”
I read this as saying the data is not in as to the levels of concentration at any one site - the proportions are stated in broad terms “highest concentrations” but with such a high volume of viral particles what is needed is “the detailed tissue-specific distribution of mRNA vaccines encoding SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins (Pfizer or Moderna)”.
out of 100 bn there could be 90 billion at the injection site but this still leaves 10 billion going elsewhere per injection!
cheers