What We've Learned from Hundreds of Vaccine Shedding Reports

Please share yours as well so we can unravel this mystery A MIDWESTERN DOCTOR JAN 20 Story at a Glance: •After the COVID-19 vaccines hit the market, stories began emerging of unvaccinated individuals becoming ill after being in proximity to recently vaccinated individuals. This confused many, as the mRNA technology in theory should not be able to “shed.” •At this point, we believe this is a real phenomenon as we have seen numerous patient cases which can only be explained by mRNA shedding. •Some of the most frequent questions about shedding include: “how much do I need to consider mRNA shedding when dating?” “is vaccinated blood safe?” “how do I protect myself from shedding?” and “what are the potential mechanisms that could explain how shedding is possible?” •In this article, we will present everything we currently know about shedding (e.g., the evidence for it, who tends to shed, who is affected by shedding, what symptoms are typically observed after shedding). Much of this has been made possible by the hundreds of individuals who have shared their shedding experiences—if you can, please share your story too. Note: after publishing the original article, it received a lot of feedback (e.g., a tweet about it received over 500,000 views). This is a significantly revised version of the previous article which takes into account what has been learned since then. When doctors in this movement speak at events about the vaccines, by far the most common question they receive is “is vaccine shedding real?” This is understandable as COVID vaccine shedding (becoming ill from vaccinated individuals) represents the one way the unvaccinated are also at risk from the vaccines and hence still need to be directly concerned about them. Simultaneously, this is a difficult question to answer for a few key reasons. First and foremost, we believe it is critical to not publicly espouse divisive ideas (e.g., “PureBloods” vs. those who were vaccinated) that prevent the public from coming together and helping everyone. The vaccines were marketed on the basis of division (e.g., by encouraging immense discrimination against the unvaccinated), and many unvaccinated individuals thus understandably hold a lot of resentment for how the vaccinated treated them. We do not want to perpetuate anything similar (e.g., discrimination in the other direction). Likewise, we don’t want to create any more unnecessary fear—which is an inevitable consequence of opening up a conversation about shedding. Finally, in theory, shedding with the mRNA vaccines should be “impossible.” Because of this, stating it’s real puts anyone who does so in a very awkward position. That being said, from having looked into this extensively, I am relatively sure of the following: 1. Shedding is very real. 2. People’s sensitivity to it greatly varies. 3. Most of the people who are highly sensitive to shedding have already figured it out, so if you do not already believe it is an issue for you, you probably don’t need to worry about it. 4. There is still no agreed upon mechanism to explain why it happens. For all of these reasons, we would greatly appreciated if you could share your shedding experiences (hundreds already have). Those stories are being collected in the comments section of this article. The Forgotten Side of Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. The Mechanistic Trap In the previous article (which provides important context for the ideas laid forth in this one) I discussed the habitual tendency of science to reject observations which have no mechanism that could explain how they are happening. In turn, I argued this was problematic as it results in many critically important observations being dismissed since their “mechanism” lies outside the existing scientific paradigm. One of the most common ways this happens is for logical arguments to be put together which assert the observation cannot be real. In some cases, the argument is quite compelling, while in others (provided you understand the subject) it’s actually ridiculous. For example, since the mRNA vaccines were an experimental gene therapy, one of the immediate fears people had about them (myself included) was that they would permanently alter your DNA. To address this, countless articles were written which ridiculed that notion. This was done by repeating a few logical arguments which sounded nice and were deemed to be “true” because the “experts” had espoused them (e.g. consider these frequently cited pronouncements by Paul Offit and Anthony Fauci). Those arguments were as follows: 1. The vaccines cannot enter the nucleus of the cell 2. mRNA from the vaccines breaks down rapidly in the cell, so it does not have time to enter the nucleus and change your DNA. 3. mRNA is not DNA, and hence believing mRNA can change DNA represents a fundamental lack of knowledge of biology. On the surface, that train of logic effectively “refutes” the DNA alteration hypothesis. However, in reality, each of the above premises was false or highly misleading (e.g., the mRNA was designed to resist being broken down so it could remain active for a prolonged period). Note: a more detailed explanation of why those premises were wrong can be found in my contribution to this article which discussed how mRNA spike protein vaccines alters DNA. Additionally, Robert Malone recently wrote a more detailed critique of Offit doubling down on a related claim (that DNA contaminants in the vaccines cannot affect our DNA). Conversely, I felt that since assessing genetic toxicity was both a pivotal requirement for new pharmaceutical products and it was easy to predict genetic toxicity would be one of the top concerns with the mRNA vaccines, there was no possible way it wasn’t tested for by Pfizer and Moderna at the very start. Yet, in all the articles refuting the DNA alternation hypothesis, none of that data was ever shared and instead we simply received logical arguments with no data behind them. Note: leaked EMA documents likewise revealed that for some reason, the drug regulators were not provided with any genotoxicity data by Pfizer. In my eyes, this suggested DNA alteration had been found, and that Pfizer decided its best option was to simply avoid mentioning that data while simultaneously claiming there was “no evidence of DNA alteration” (which is a common tactic industry uses to bury science which threatens its bottom line). In turn, I can’t say I was particularly surprised when independent research conducted long after the vaccine hit the market discovered the vaccine indeed can change the DNA of a cell. Note: in a recent article, I discussed how no one has been willing to make the raw data of the health outcomes in those who were vaccinated become available. While a lot of excuses have been made for why this hasn’t happened, like many, I believe the actual reason is because that data shows the vaccines are very dangerous and were it to be made available, it would make it clear the vaccines were very dangerous and create a lot of problems for the officials who pushed the vaccine. Likewise, it is a longstanding practice in the pharmaceutical industry to not disclose clinical trial data that makes their product look bad but simultaneously to parade anything which makes it looks good. After the original shedding article went viral, one of the most ardent defenders of the scientific orthodoxy (a cancer doctor named David Gorski) was compelled to write a blog post debunking it. Gorski’s post in turn “debunked” the shedding article by asserting Gorski’s belief that the “mechanistic trap” was a good thing, and that my theory had no validity since there was not a credible mechanism to support it (even though the proposed mechanisms were listed later in the article). I share this to illustrate how committed people are to the mechanistic trap, as even when you clearly point it out to them, they often still can’t stop themselves from falling into it. Note: I think it’s good practice to review critiques of your positions from hostile parties, as while not necessarily nice, they are often extremely helpful for quickly cluing you into mistakes or oversights you made that need to be corrected. Is Shedding Impossible? In the case of shedding, a few major points argued against it being possible. •The design of the mRNA vaccines was that lipid nanoparticles containing mRNA were injected in the body, after which they made their way into cells and causes cells to begin producing vaccine spike protein for an unspecified amount of time. •Because of this, there were relatively few options of what could be shed. For instance, while it is unlikely the lipid nanoparticles or the mRNA it contained could be transmitted from the vaccinated individuals to their environment, if it could be, there was very little to transmit, so it was simply not possible a single injection could contain enough vaccine material to perpetually sicken those around the vaccinated individual. Note: some people in the movement believe consequential unlisted contaminants may also be present in the vaccines. •The only remaining option was that the spike protein being produced by the vaccine was the agent that “shed” (e.g., because the mRNA didn’t break down and hence produced spike indefinitely or because the mRNA had integrated into the cell genome and hence the body was producing spike indefinitely). •Spike “shedding” didn’t make sense either because the concentration of spike protein (which is rapidly broken down in the environment) would have to be orders of magnitude higher within the vaccinated individual than in the area around them. In turn, this argues against the shedding being able to affect others if an infinitely higher concentration did not affect the vaccinated individual. Typically, shedding occurs (e.g., from a live viral vaccine like MMR or polio) because an individual “sheds” a self replicating form of the disease. This results in the low concentration of the pathogen which the shedder expels into their environment then amplifying within the recipient and eventually reaching a comparable concentration to what was found in the “shedder.” Since I was nonetheless seeing numerous clear cut cases of shedding occurring, this suggested to me that I was missing a huge piece of the puzzle which once known invalidated much of the above logic. Conversely, I could not help but notice that Pfizer’s protocol for testing their vaccine: Prohibited pregnant women or those breast feeding from receiving the vaccine (or future doses if they had already received one). Note: due to the thalidomide disaster, a foundational rule in medical ethics is that you do not experiment on pregnant women due to the potential danger this exposes the fetus to. Stated it needed to be reported if a pregnant women (e.g., a healthcare worker in the trials) was exposed to the intervention by inhalation or skin contact from someone who had been vaccinated. •Stated it needed to be reported if someone in the previous category (not vaccinated but exposed to someone who was) then was in close proximity to their wife and their wife was pregnant. This suggested either that Pfizer knew shedding was a real problem, or that they were following the existing standards—the FDA stipulates that gene therapies need to be evaluated for shedding before being given to humans (and furthermore be subsequently tested for shedding in humans). For context, both the FDA and the EMA classify the mRNA vaccines as a gene therapy. Note: the first approved gene therapy, Luxturna, (which works like the J&J vaccine by using a modified virus to produce a target protein in the patient), is an eye medication which treats a rare form of genetic vision loss. Its prescribing information specifies that Luxturna can be found in a patient’s tears after injection and it hence for the first seven days after injection, care must be taken to avoid anyone else coming in contact with those tears to prevent unintended shedding of the product. Another similar gene therapy, Roctavian also was found to shed (e.g., into semen), and the FDA advises those who receive it to not donate semen or impregnate someone for at least 6 months after administration. Finally, Zolgensma, a gene therapy, utilizing a different virus was also found to shed for a month, and its package insert advises that during this time, to be careful of how feces from the patients are disposed of (so no one else is exposed to it). Additionally, there is one other gene therapy on the market, but due to its design, shedding was unlikely (and hence undetected) so the FDA does not advise special precautions for its recipients. Curiously, the package insert for Pfizer’s vaccine does not mention shedding at all (despite the fact it has long since been proven), and likewise J&J’s vaccine (which is very similar to the currently approved viral gene therapies) does not have shedding mentioned in its inserts either. In short, like the cancer issue, I suspect Pfizer had concerning data on the shedding issue but opted not to disclose it so it could be claimed there was “no evidence” of shedding. Note: in my eyes, the most unacceptable side effect of a pharmaceutical is if it harms individuals beyond those who received it. This for instance is why the federal government eventually cracked down on opioid prescriptions, as the opioid epidemic has been devastating for the communities affected by it. Similarly, this is why I recently focused on the decades of evidence linking SSRI antidepressants to triggering psychotic violence (e.g., mass shootings). What is Known About Shedding? While I have seen many anecdotal cases suggesting "shedding is real, in my eyes, the strongest proof for shedding comes from the observations by Pierre Kory and Scott Marsland at their clinical practice which is dedicated to treating vaccine injuries (which places them in a unique position to observe and evaluate this phenomenon). They have: •Seen more than twenty patients develop similar symptoms after a shedding exposure, particularly after a “strong” shedding exposure. •Found that those symptoms resemble what is seen in other spike protein pathologies (e.g., long COVID or a mRNA vaccine injury). •Found those symptoms often respond to the same treatments used for treating other spike protein pathologies (e.g., ivermectin which binds the spike protein). •Found many patients will repeatedly have shedding symptoms emerge after the same exposure (e.g., always feeling ill when a vaccinated husband returns from a long trip away, when going to church each week, when singing with their choir, or when taking a crowded route to work). •Been able to determine that those they suspect are a shedder (e.g., the husband) test positive (through an antibody test) for a high spike protein levels. •Found that eliminating the shedder from the patient’s life or treating the (asymptomatic) shedder with a vaccine injury protocol significantly helps their patient get well. Note: much of the above has also been repeatedly noted within the hundreds of comments I received. Since mRNA shedding is such a mysterious phenomenon, a good place to start with unlocking this mystery is to see what’s currently known about it and try to discern what underlying principles could account for those observations. Lastly, I want to note that a 2023 peer-reviewed study found that unvaccinated individuals who were around COVID-19 vaccinated individuals developed an immune response to the spike protein (which the authors hypothesized was due to antibodies being directly transferred through the breath). This in turn demonstrates that something is indeed being transferred from the vaccinated to the unvaccinated (e.g., the spike protein). Note: henceforth, I will not discuss the J&J (or Astrazeneca, Sputnik or Sinovac) COVID vaccines, as these are viruses vector vaccines and hence operate under different principles than the mRNA vaccines. I believe this is appropriate to do here as the majority of those vaccinated received an mRNA vaccine and I want to keep this article as short as possible. Susceptibility to Exposure Note: since I will reference a lot of reader reports throughout this series to corroborate the patterns I am referencing, to save space, they will simply be designated with numbers which link to each comment (e.g., [1, 2, 3] ). Sensitivity to shedding varies immensely. At this point, I believe the majority of people who are being affected by shedding either already know it and if they don’t, they will by the time they complete this article. This is important because one of the major fears everyone who is unvaccinated has if they are “at risk” from shedders. In general, there seem to be three categories of people who are susceptible to shedding. Note: often they belong to more than one of these categories. The first are the sensitive patients [e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. I wrote a much longer article about this archetype, but briefly, these patients tend to: •Be highly sensitive to toxins in their environment (hence leading to them frequently being injured by pharmaceutical products). •Very empathetic and perceptive of subtle qualities others do not notice. •Have an ectomorph or Sattvic constitution. •Frequently have ligamentous laxity (e.g., Ehlers-Danlos has been correlated with being predisposed to HPV vaccine injuries and many are now reporting EDS predisposes one to a COVID vaccine injury). Note: I recently published an article explaining why EDS patients (and other hypermobile individuals) why this happens and our approaches to treating these patients. Many readers here (after reading either that article or the earlier version of this one on shedding) remarked that the articles perfectly described their situation (e.g., they had EDS, were very sensitive and had had either a vaccine injury or mRNA shedding injury). Due to these susceptibilities, those patients frequently have chronic illnesses such as mast cell degranulation disorder, multiple chemical sensitivities, EMF sensitivities, Lyme disease, mold toxicity and fibromyalgia. These patients were more likely to avoid the COVID vaccine (due to their previous bad experiences with pharmaceuticals) and more likely to be chronically debilitated by the COVID vaccine (or a COVID-19 infection). Tragically, we’ve also seen many people develop these sensitivities after a COVID-19 vaccine injury, and a few people have shared spike shedding caused them to develop environmental sensitivities (e.g., this reader lost the ability to eat meat unless they addressed their shedding—something I had previously only seen after tick borne diseases). Additionally, and received a report from someone who noticed environmental EMFs worsened their sensitivities to shedding. Note: I believe that many of these sensitivities result from the Cell Danger Response (CDR) being activated and then failing to turn off (while conversely, treating the CDR is often very beneficial to these patients). The sensitive patients tend to be the most susceptible to shedding, and I’ve seen numerous reports of individuals (e.g., consider this report from one of Pierre Kory’s patients) who can immediately tell if they are around individuals who have been vaccinated (e.g., because they immediately feel a “toxic” presence or feel a shedder injure them). Likewise, these patients tend to become ill from “weaker” shedding exposures. Note: I consider myself to be a sensitive individual but I have not had any issue being in close proximity to people (e.g., patients) who were recently vaccinated. Conversely, many of my sensitive female friends (who are less sensitive than me) have experienced notable effects from shedding (e.g., menstrual abnormalities), which suggests to be there is more to this picture than just having a “sensitive” constitution. The second are patients who have been sensitized to the spike protein due to a previous vaccine injury or having long COVID. These patients in turn frequently find their symptoms worsen when they are around individuals who were vaccinated and many have reported that their sensitivity to shedding increases with time. Note: I believe the Cell Danger Response (discussed here) provides one of the best models to explain what happens to the patients in the first two categories (as treating the CDR often greatly helps these patients). Likewise, I also find a pre-existing impairment in zeta potential (discussed in the previous article) frequently predisposes patients to these issues, while restoring the physiologic zeta potential often greatly benefits them. Finally, since the spike protein is an allergen that is highly effective at creating autoimmunity in the body, that also can explain why successive exposures to it increase one’s sensitivity to it. The third are the people who cannot effectively produce antibodies to the spike protein. I was initially clued into this after I saw a study of vaccinated patients who developed myocarditis which discovered that (unlike controls) their ability to develop a neutralizing antibody for the spike protein was impaired, leading to a large amount of free spike protein circulating in their blood (whereas normally it would be bound to an antibody). Because of this, the spike protein being produced in their body is thus able to create havoc throughout it and those patients become symptomatic after being exposed to a much lower concentration of the spike protein. It is important to note that while reactive to shedding, these patients are nowhere near as sensitive to shedding as the previously described “sensitive patients.” Note: at the time of the disastrous smallpox campaign, many clinicians believed that those with a weakened immune system could not mount a response to the vaccine, and in turn were both more likely to be injured by it and to catch smallpox (both before and after vaccination). This led them to argue the vaccine’s “efficacy” was an artifact of it being a proxy for a functioning immune system, and I believe the myocarditis study suggests something similar is occurring for the spike protein vaccines. Additionally, while very rare, I have received a few compelling cases which suggest pets (cats or dogs) can also be susceptible to shedding events [e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4]. If shedding did indeed happen there, it suggests (as a few readers have shared) that certain human beings are much greater shedders than others, and that the shedding agent has a mechanism of harm which is not dependent upon a human receptor (e.g., it adversely affects the physiologic zeta potential). Characteristics of Shedders There are two forms of shedding: primary (where someone gets ill from being around a vaccinated person—e.g., vaccinated parents making their unvaccinated children ill) and secondary (where someone gets ill from being around an unvaccinated person who was recently around vaccinated people). Primary shedding is much more common, but secondary is also sometimes reported (particularly for sensitive patients). Secondary shedding can happen with both individuals who became ill from a shedder (more common) or from someone who was not affected by a shedder (e.g., children shedding and affecting parents after coming back home from school). Secondary shedding is one of the most confusing aspects of this phenomenon as I don’t feel many of the mechanisms I’ve proposed to explain why shedding is happening can account for secondary shedding. Note: Pfizer’s trial protocol (mentioned above) also addressed the possibility of both primary and secondary shedding. The most common observation with shedders is that they are dramatically more likely to shed soon after vaccination (depending on who you ask, this window ranges from three days to four weeks). However, more, sensitive patients find they are affected by a shedder indefinitely and strongly disagree with a 2-4 week cutoff. I believe this essentially matches what has been found in numerous studies—that following vaccination, spike protein production in the blood spikes and then declines but never reaches zero and appears to continue for months afterwards (presently we don’t know how long the effect lasts for as it simply hasn’t been monitored long enough). Additionally, quite a few people have noticed that shedding events (in the same location) are the most frequent and severe immediately following a new booster rollout, after which they gradually diminish until the next booster campaign. It has also been observed that young and healthy people tend to shed more frequently (presumably since their body has a greater capacity to manufacture the spike), children shed the most, and that the elderly shed the least frequently. Additionally, quite a few people have observed that shedding greatly varies by the individual (e.g., “I react to specific people I see at church”). Repeatedly boosting appears to worsen shedding for three reasons: •It causes patients to resume having high spike protein levels in their body as typically after vaccination or boosting, there is a spike and then decline of spike protein which persists at a low level for months (again, no study has yet assessed if it lasts for years). •Successive boosting appears to increase the degree of shedding which occurs when compared to the previous injections the patient experienced. •Quite a few holistic healers have shared that they believe the most recent boosters are more potent and hence cause greater shedding than the earlier ones (which might be explained by the boosters now containing multiple strains of mRNA to cover the new variants). The Shedding Odor One of the odd things quite a few people have reported is a distinct smell which emerged around them after the vaccines entered the market. For example, consider this comment from a reader: In terms of crowds... I too have experienced this many times. I feel unwell with flu like symptoms and can smell a unique ordour around people. After feeling this way and smelling the same ordour several times in company with family and friends, I confirmed the correlation with the covid vaccination. As it transpired each has been vaccinated within the previous week. I am very sensitive to meds and in general and I swear I can smell something so now I ask and yep the link is there! Note: I have received a variety of similar descriptions of the smell itself [e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, ... [Message clipped] View entire message