Story at a Glance:

•Over the last two years, we have collected a significant amount of data that suggests a sizable number of unvaccinated people will become ill around individuals who were vaccinated in a fairly consistent and repeatable manner.

•Since shedding of mRNA vaccines in theory should not be possible, whenever those individuals (who are often suffering immensely) share their stories, they are immediately ridiculed and dismissed.

•We have identified a few plausible mechanisms (and the evidence to support them) to explain why this transmission occurs. These include exosome mediated shedding (most likely), asymptomatic COVID-19 shedding and transfected bacterial shedding.

•In this article, we will explore some of the greatest concerns surrounding shedding, such as what’s currently known about sexual shedding, the odor some notice shedders emit, receiving vaccinated blood transfusions, cancer and shedding, and the existing methods which can be used to mitigate the harmful effects of shedding.

After the COVID vaccines came out, we began to encounter more and more patients who had a compelling case history that suggested that were being repeatedly injured from being around recently vaccinated individuals. For example, near the start of the vaccine rollout, a compelling (but hard to believe) story circulated online and as the year went by, we saw more and more patients who provided similar accounts to the one within this video:

All of this perplexed us as in theory, the mRNA vaccines (as they are not alive and hence do not replicate) should not be able to shed, but as time went forward, we kept on seeing more shedding cases which symptomatically improved once the patient’s shedding exposures were addressed. As a result, we’ve spent the last three years struggling to try to figure out what’s going on.

To help unravel this mystery, we recently put out a call for individuals to share their own shedding injuries and see if those accounts matched what we had observed. These is understandably a lot of interest in this subject (e.g., a Tweet about it received 555k views) and we’ve now collected hundreds of stories (which can be viewed here).

To briefly summarize what we have learned (which is discussed in much more detail in the previous article):

• Although it is required by the FDA (and has been done for the other gene therapy products on the market), none of the COVID vaccines were ever tested for shedding.

• It has since been demonstrated that vaccine sheds in the breast milk and semen. There is also evidence suggesting but not proving the vaccine sheds in both the sweat and breath. It’s much less clear if it sheds in the stools.

• Individuals appear to be affected by being in proximity to a vaccinated person (particularly if they are quite close to them), by touching something a vaccinated person contacted (particularly bed sheets), and for particularly sensitive individuals, being in an area which had previously been densely occupied by shedders (conversely being outdoors, presumably due to airflow, reduces how much a shedder affects someone nearby).

• In most (but not all) cases, the effects of shedding will resolve once the affected individual simply stops being in contact with shedders.

• The susceptibility to shedding greatly varies person to person (with the majority not being affected by it). Those most sensitive to shedding are the “sensitive patients” (who often also have other conditions like fibromyalgia, Lyme or chemical sensitivities), those who have already been “sensitized” to the spike protein (demonstrated by them having either a vaccine injury or long COVID) and those who have a yet unknown susceptibility to the spike protein (which I believe is due to them being unable to effectively produce antibodies which neutralize the spike protein).
  Note: there were also a few cases of pets being affect by shedding which suggests the effects are not necessarily dependent upon a human receptor.

• Individuals are the most likely to shed immediately after vaccination or boosting (which leads to many sensitive individuals dreading the next boosting campaign). This tendency to shed appears to match the observed blood levels of spike protein which quickly rise following vaccination then drop, but never hit zero. In turn, the most sensitive individuals always notice if someone was vaccinated, while less sensitive individuals only get ill from people who had been recently vaccinated.

• Many individuals affected by shedding are able to identify clear reproducible patterns of when they get ill from shedding (e.g., each time they go to church on Sunday they get the same illness on Monday).

• Some people shed much more than others (e.g., individuals can frequently identify who at their church always makes them ill). Typically, younger people shed more than older people. Furthermore, sensitive individuals repeatedly notice certain characteristics of shedders (e.g., they have a distinct odor).

• The most common effect of shedding is abnormal menstrual bleeding (which can sometimes be very severe and frequently affects post menopausal women). Other common symptoms include nosebleeds, spontaneous bruising, tinnitus, rashes, headaches, reactivation of latent viruses (e.g., shingles), briefly coming down with a covid like illness, sinus issues and muscle pain. Some people experience a cluster of these symptoms while others only experience one or two of them.

• Individuals tend to notice an increasing duration of exposure to a shedder will make them feel worse. In turn, numerous readers have noticed that if they ignore their lighter symptoms (which often onset within minutes of a shedding exposure) and do not exit the situation, they will become severely ill for a prolonged period.

• Most of the shedding injuries appear to be a consequence of circulatory impairments (e.g., microclotting). I personally believe this is due their adverse effects on the physiologic zeta potential (which once treated appears to fix spike protein injuries) and to a lesser extent activating the cell danger response.

• Most of the vaccine shedding symptoms resemble what is seen in other spike protein injuries. However, there are two key differences. First, spontaneous bruising and nosebleeds are unique to shedding (they are not typically seen after long COVID or a vaccine injury). Secondly, the symptoms which emerge from shedding exposures tend to be less severe than the traditional spike protein injuries (e.g., heart issues or strokes are rarer and less severe) and when the severe effects occur (e.g., death), they are typically proceeded by less severe reactions to shedding (but unfortunately the victim continued to expose themselves to shedders).

  
  This suggests that the shedding reactions are being caused by reactions to a lower dose of spike protein—which is congruent with the fact a vaccinated individual will have more spike protein inside them than what is shed into their environment.

• Shedding effects are typically either immediate (e.g., nosebleeds, headaches and dizziness), onset in 6-24 hours (e.g., menstrual issues) or gradually show up over time.
  Note: none of these are absolutes (e.g., sometimes the nosebleeds take a day to manifest, whereas I found one case where someone had severe menstrual bleeding immediately after a shedding exposure).

• Two studies have validated the shedding effect is real.

• The majority of people do not appear to be affected by shedding.

Mysteries of the Shedding Phenomenon

The previous facts understandably raise a lot of uncomfortable questions many want answers to (hence why we received so many replies). I personally believe they necessitate a federal law being passed which will prohibit any gene therapies from entering the market unless their shedding is properly evaluated, that data is made public and it can be proven it is feasible to prevent the general public from being shed on.

Given the gravity of this situation, we believe it critical to provide the most accurate and balanced assessment of the COVID vaccine “shedding” phenomenon. This in turn was why we put out a public call for as much information on it as possible and why we’ve been as transparent as possible in how we reached our conclusions and provided all the data we used that helped us reach this conclusion.

Since mRNA “shedding” is such an inexplicable phenomenon, attempts to explain or predict it inevitably result in a large number of highly speculative hypotheses being raised. In turn, it was my hope that consistent patterns would be seen in the shedding reports which could narrow down which of those hypotheses could fit the observed patterns and hence were more likely to answer many of the questions which have been repeatedly raised on this subject.

For the rest of the article as we attempt to untangle this mystery, I will share our current perspectives on what might be going on and the answers to the most commonly received questions on it.

The Vaccine Smell

One of the most surprising things I learned from exploring the shedding issue is how many people have reported observing a distinct smell from individuals who appear to shed [e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32]. Additionally, many also notice this smell is present in areas where many vaccinated individuals have been (e.g., after a booster rollout, in crowded public spaces, or inside cars they drove).

Overall, it appears that a higher spike protein load appears to be “easier” to smell (e.g., in someone recently vaccinated—as spike protein levels spike in the blood after vaccination, when in close proximity to a shedder particularly if some type of intimate contact occurred, or when around someone who for some reason has a greater degree of shedding). Similarly, more sensitive people (who are typically more likely to be injured by the vaccines) are more likely to detect this smell (e.g., they can still smell it once the shedders are are no longer physically present).
Note: numerous readers reported being able to consistently tell if someone was recently vaccinated.

Additionally, I’ve found a few cases where:
•Secondary shedding could be smelled.
•A sexual partner lost their distinctive odor.
•At least one individual with a vaccine injury could smell the shedding on themselves. [e.g., 1, 2, 3]. I would like to quote what one of those individuals shared since I believe it may offer some vital clues for unravelling this mystery:

The smell was one of the first symptoms of my vax injury (albeit a benign one, compared to what it eventually turned into). It was like my entire smell changed. I was living in Florida at the time - needless to say I’d sweat a lot. And every time, post-vax, my underarm sweat would have this strange metallic smell.

I would complain to my girlfriend about it. Always telling her “there’s just something off. I can sense it”… at the time, she wasn’t picking up on it. Or she disagreed as to the nature of the smell, while begrudgingly agreeing there was a slight change (she thought I was overreacting; also, she is unvaccinated)….But then a friend pointed it out at a workout class when I was sweating heavily.

I’ve been on a number of therapies for over a year now. The smell comes and goes. When it comes, I know I’m in for a flare up. It seems the flare ups tend to come from shedding (both viral and synthetic shedding). I haven’t noticed the smell on others. Just myself. It makes me feel like I’m not me anymore, and that I’ve been hijacked.

The labels I’ve seen used to describe the smell are as follows: “mild sickly sweet,” “rotting [or dying] flesh,” “magnetic onion,” “unpleasant,” “distinctive,” “the smell of death,” “medicines plus latrines” “musty plus rancid” “dead animal,” a “decomposing body,” “road kill,” “like ammonia but not as strong,” “sweet,” “sour stomach” “elderly person as their flesh breaks down with age,” “a chemical flu smell” “of seaweed,” “putrid,” “sweet meat” “strange and metallic” “sharp, pungent and toxic” “horrible” “unique odor” “chemical,” “vinegar,” “subtle like a pheromone.”
Note: bolded items were reported by multiple people.

From looking at this list of smells, a few things jump out at me:

•While it’s quite difficult to put into words something which has never been described before, the descriptions are fairly consistent with each other.

•One of the most well recognized consequences of the vaccination is accelerated aging, which appears to be reflected in this list.

•There may be two separate things people are smelling (the decomposing flesh vs. the metallic chemical). One theory which was proposed to me to explain the second smell is that its a result of micro-organisms in the environment that have been metabolizing all the chemicals that were used to (pointlessly) sterilize every surface through COVID-19 as one reader said it was first noticed in 2020 but dramatically increased in 2021.

•Individuals who can smell this will likely lose their attraction to shedders (as appealing smells are often the most important thing for sexual compatibility).
Note: one sensitive person who can perceive the shedding has shared that they’ve completely lost their attraction to vaccinated women for this reason.

•The one friend I have who can smell this (and a very perceptive colleague) reports that it appears to be being emitted through the pores. This is consistent with what some of the individuals (e.g., the one quote above) observed and the evidence suggesting the shedding occurs through the sweat since it contaminates sheets.

Since individuals often perceive the same environmental quality through different senses (depending on their primary sensory orientation is) I was also curious to see other ways the “quality” shedders had was described.

Since smell is intimately linked to taste, I expected those reports to resemble the smells. The three I received [1, 2, 3] did just that, describing it as: “you can taste the jabs…it’s metallic and unpleasant” “can taste a metallic sensation” “a dry acid feeling on my tongue.”

Quite a few people also reported feeling sensations from vaccinated individual [e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] and described them as follows:

“noxious,” “recently vaccinated people have a slime on their skin” “it was a feeling of repellent that made me want to get away as quickly as possible,” “the bioelectric field around the person disappears,” “their energy changes to a stainless steel sink sponge feel which is metallic and raggedy (which that reader believed represented neurologic damage)” “illness and excitable energy” “a heavy air pressure and spatial fog weighing on my brain (which if not exited from will then create vertigo for that reader),” “it makes our noses prickle,” “half of my tongue went numb the next day” “their energy field has a physical sensation of 'metallic' of physical repulsion, or a greyness, black goo, and even a dullness of mind that I could see”

Note: the last commenter also noted they verified they could accurately predict who was vaccinated and that they noticed food prepared from vaccinated individuals was different.

As you might notice, these are somewhat congruent with the previously described smells and tastes.

One sensitive physician I know who smells the odor (and seems to know more about it than anyone else I know) has shared the following with me:

•They had previously had environmental sensitivities, which with work they were able to eliminate.

•Until those sensitivities were resolved, they would smell chemical residues on them when they got home which they then needed to clean off.

•In December 2020 (right after the rollouts began), they began to notice a new smell they’d never smelled before which lingered on them once they got home and they needed to clean off (e.g., with a shower) in order to be able to be comfortable at home (previously, while sensitive, they’d also needed to do this for everyday chemical exposures).

•Before long, this smell started emerging in public places (e.g., a store), but was by far the strongest in the hospital. Because this smell had not existed throughout the first year of the pandemic, they assumed it was linked to the vaccine. Presently, they believe the smell is the spike protein and something else in the vaccine.

•The smell gets stronger each time a new series of boosters is rolled out (as most of coworkers at the hospital likely receive it).

•This smell was much weaker in Southern Europe, suggesting either their vaccines were different, or the health of the average American caused them to shed differently.

•When the shedding smell is particularly strong, they experience temporary symptoms while around those individuals (e.g., pain in a part of the body). This for instance occurred after the most recent round of boosters.

•Many people who were vaccinated do not have this smell, which suggests many (as discussed in the previous article) received placebos. Unfortunately for my colleague, it is much higher in hospitalized patients (which suggests those who received the more potent vaccines were also more likely to be injured and hence hospitalized). Likewise, the more “real” doses someone received, the harder it is for my colleague to be around them.
Note: presently my colleague estimates around 50% of the population is truly jabbed, but in certain cases (e.g., in clinics for the elderly who are more likely to have been repeatedly boosted, this figure rises to 80%). Sadly, those with the most unusual or severe illnesses, they invariably muscle test (or smell) as having been “truly” vaccinated. The subject of “hot lots” has been a longstanding controversy

•The mold biotoxin community has also noticed a new toxin (and odor) they need to be wary of which entered the environment during 2020 and worsened in 2021 after the vaccines hit the market. Likewise, my colleague has had patients who believed they’d had a mold exposure (which is often debilitating for patients with chronic mold issues) but when it was looked into, my colleague assessed it was actually from vaccine shedding that had contaminated their environment.

•Like the cleaners mentioned earlier, my colleague notices a significant difference in environments that have vs. have not had a significant presence of vaccinated individuals in them.

•Whatever is creating this smell is gradually seeping into the environment (e.g., a colleague through muscle testing recently found the same toxin in seawater foam from the ocean a patient reacted to).

•Not every vaccinated person has an overt shedding smell, but with almost all of them, it can be detected once the air next to them is breathed in.
Note: I believe this could be explained by the fact only some people received vaccines with positively charged lipid nanoparticles that hence concentrated in the lungs.

•My colleague believes that whatever is causing this smell behaves a lot like a pheromone. Likewise, Ryan Cole has shared that he believes the pheromonal process is a likely mechanism to account for much of what is being seen with shedding as female menstruation is highly sensitive to pheromones (this reader and this reader also associate shedding with pheromones).

Note: my colleague (and their mentor) have also found that it is more difficult to treat or evaluated truly vaccinated individuals, as a haze is present around them which makes muscle testing more difficult to perform and their simple presence in the office can interfere with treating other patients who are also there. Initially this forced them to not see vaccinated patients, but in time they found workarounds for this issue. Presently, this colleague and their mentor (who has a good track record in working with complex illness) believes the primary mechanism of toxicity from the shedding is energetic rather than physical in nature (which may for instance explain the experiences of this reader).

I suspect in the years to come, this smell will become much more clearly worked out. Additionally (assuming it is a physical smell rather than “energetic” smell), I am almost certain it will be possible to train dogs to smell it. For instance, consider (to quote UCLA) what they were able to do with COVID-19:

When the COVID-19 pandemic struck, the diagnostic abilities of dogs were put to the test. Professional trainers claimed high success rates of dogs sniffing out COVID-19 infections, and a few small studies backed them up. In one, specially trained dogs were 97% accurate in sniffing out COVID-19 from sweat samples taken from 335 people. This included finding infection in 31 individuals with no symptoms. When testing moved from isolated biological materials in a lab to actual humans in real-world settings, accuracy dropped a bit.

When it comes to the widespread use of specially trained dogs to diagnose COVID-19, more study is needed. However, researchers and clinicians agree it's a promising avenue. Dogs detected infection up to 48 hours earlier than a PCR test. And while a rapid test requires a swab, chemical reagents and 10 minutes or so to produce results, the dog's response is immediate. There is also interest in harnessing the canine sense of smell to learn more about long COVID.

Shedding Mechanisms

Note: I recently wrote an article titled “How Do We Navigate Uncertainty In These Perilous Times?” primarily to provide critical context for this section.

As I discussed above (and in more detail in the first half of this series), the major issue I’ve had with this subject is that in theory, mRNA vaccines should not be able to shed, but for some reason they are.

At this point, I’ve come up with a few potentially viable explanation to explain why this is happening. The ones I feel have enough evidence to substantiate them are as follows:

Variable Sensitivity

From all the previously received case reports, it has been established that the sensitivity to either the spike protein (or a yet unknown vaccine component) varies by orders of magnitude (discussed further in the first half of this series). While this does not explain how the vaccine is able to “shed” it explains why some people can be relatively unaffected by high concentrations of it (e.g., the asymptomatic shedders) whereas others get very ill from the tiny amount of the shedding agent which exits the body and can be absorbed from the environment.

This in turn is consistent with the hypotheses that the spike protein’s toxicity is partly a result of it being an allergen (some people are extraordinarily sensitive to an allergen) and it being an agent which collapses the physiologic zeta potential (as everyone has a differing critical threshold below which impaired zeta potential will trigger microclotting throughout the body).

Exosome Mediated Shedding

While not perfect, exosome shedding is the hypothesis that best fits the existing data on shedding. Briefly, this hypothesis argues that the vaccine is concentrating in the lungs (due its previously described affinity for the pulmonary arteries when the vaccine is incorrectly manufactured), which results in some (but not all vaccinated) individuals exhaling a significant amount of spike protein containing exosomes which then affect those in their surrounding. This mode of “shedding transmission” essentially allows for a relatively small difference in total spike protein concentration between the shedder and the individual affected by the shedder.
Note: Before I learned why the vaccine manufacturing process can cause the vaccine to accumulate in the lungs, I came to suspect something caused the vaccine to concentrate in the arteries that travel from the heart to the lungs because clinicians kept on reporting to me that it seemed to be a primary site of injury in their vaccine injured patients. Likewise, I now suspect the “strongest” shedders were those who received lipid nanoparticles that were manufactured in a way which caused them to concentrate in the lungs.

Exosomes for reference are small vesicles (which the lipid nanoparticles sought to mimic) that cells continually release and take in, hence forming a critical communication network the entire body relies upon (e.g., mothers have exosomes in their breastmilk which make it through the digestive tract and deliver [micro]RNA to their developing babies which plays a critical epigenetic role in guiding their healthy development). In the same way that mRNA is a relatively new and unexplored technology, the science of exosomes is still in its infancy. Nonetheless, many clinicians are actively using “healthy” exosomes in practice (e.g., those derived from stem cells or amniotic fluid) and having remarkable improvements occur for a variety of degenerative conditions.

During COVID, we noticed that the virus appeared to poison the exosome system and in turn that injecting healthy exosomes into the blood stream often produced remarkable results for those patients (as well as for long COVID and to a lesser extent vaccine injuries). In the case of the vaccine, this makes a lot of sense, as the vaccine works by causing cells to mass produce spike proteins (which get pushed to the cell surface at which point they can bud off into toxic exosomes that traverse the body). In turn, it has been shown this does indeed occur after vaccination (and I suspect, due to the vaccine design, much more frequently than is seen in COVID—which may account for why “vaccine” shedding differs from COVID-19 shedding).

Note: the negative controls in this experiment did have spike protein on their exosomes.

Because of all the signaling effects generated by exosomes (very small doses of healthy exosomes can create profound improvements in patients which are hard to believe unless you see it first hand), it in turns seems plausible that inhaling toxic exosomes could have a profound impact on those sensitive to shedding. Furthermore, many of the vaccine injury case histories I’ve seen indicate the route of exposure had to be respiratory in nature (e.g., the rapid nose bleeds), further supporting this hypothesis. Conversely, I’ve seen spike protein injured patients have excellent pulmonary and nasal responses to nebulized amniotic exosomes, which again indicates that toxic exosomes could also be active there.

Presently, the following has been shown:

•Spike protein containing exosomes (which circulate in the bloodstream) spike after vaccination (and then decline) and appear to be one of the primary things responsible for triggering the immune response that creates antibodies to the vaccine, as once spike protein coated exosomes are transferred to mice, the mice develop antibodies to the spike protein (along with increasing levels of various inflammatory cytokines).

•A 2023 peer-reviewed study found that unvaccinated children who were around COVID-19 vaccinated parents developed an immune response to the spike protein that was not seen in children with unvaccinated parents. Additionally, they were also able to find spike protein antibodies in surgical masks worn by the physicians. This led the authors to hypothesize that antibodies being directly transferred through the parent’s breath to their children.

I however would argue the results suggest spike coated exosomes (which produce spike antibodies once they arrive in the childen) are being transferred. This is because, to the best of my knowledge, it has not otherwise been shown antibodies can be directly transferred to someone else through breath (this would change a lot of the fundamental principles of how herd immunity works in the population) and if the transference were to occur, the concentration in the child would be dramatically lower than the parent (which as best as I can tell was not what the study found).

•Significant amounts of (RNA containing) exosomes can be found in your breath, and those exosomes (which derive from the lungs) vary depending upon on the disease state someone has (“sicker” people have “worse” exosomes). To illustrate, see this 2013 paper, this 2020 paper and this 2021 paper
Note: since this is a relatively new field of research, each paper is more sophisticated than the preceeding one.

•The spike protein has a high (heparin dependent) affinity for binding to the surface of exosomes. So if was not already there when the exosome initially formed it can also attach to exosomes traveling in the blood stream.

•Long COVID (and more severe acute COVID) is characterized by the presence of more spike protein studded exosomes (see this paper and this paper). Additionally, they also showed exosomes from COVID patients are highly inflammatory (and potentially clot forming) and are taken up by the lung cells. The most detailed study (and imaging) of spike protein containing exosomes can be found in this paper (which also found that spike protein containing exosomes can circulate a year after COVID infection).
Note: this study also found COVID triggers the production of spike protein coated exosomes, and when lung cells was exposed to those exosomes, an immune response to the spike protein was triggered.

•An inhaled vaccine was made from lung derived exosomes coated with spike proteins (they were lung derived so the lung cells would be more likely to absorb them). These spike protein exosomes both generated an immune response and were absorbed into the body. Once absorbed, those exosomes then traveled to other tissues and organs in the body which (based on all the reports we’ve received and the patients we’ve seen) are known to be affected by shedding.

Note: the key point from the above studies is that many of the above papers showed (abnormal) exosomes (e.g., spike protein coated ones) activated the immune system and appeared to play a key role in developing an immune response to them.

Lastly, exosomes may also be absorbed through skin contact (after being sweated out by a shedder) but it’s harder to know if this does occur, as the existing data I’ve seen indicates it’s often difficult for (generic) exosomes to penetrate the skin. As there are many cases suggesting skin to skin shedding transmission occurs, that either means something else is at work or spike coated exosomes indeed can penetrate the skin (e.g., because the skin becomes more porous at certain times or because containing spike protein increases the ability of an exosome to penetrate the skin).

In short, I think the theory behind mRNA vaccines (having cells produce exosomes on their surface which are then recognized by the immune system), was a terrible idea since it not only causes the body to attack those potentially essential cells (e.g., a good case can be made this happens to the heart) but also that it poisons the exosome system. This again illustrates why it was a terrible decision to abandon the existing regulatory principles and allow a completely brand new technology with a huge number of unknowns to be given to a large number of people. While the regulators might have wanted to hope those unknowns would all be “fine” as time goes forward, we discover reason after reason they are actually a huge problem.

Note: The clinical uses of exosomes and their rationale for being used is discussed in much more detail here.

The SARS-CoV-2 Virus

I believe some of the shedding people attribute to the vaccine is in fact due to the virus itself. In turn, there are a few reasons why could happen and it is likely one or more of the following is occurring:

1. The SARS-CoV-2 virus is pervasive throughout our environment now and since the shedding symptoms resemble other spike protein injuries, it is likely some of the cases that are being labeled as “shedding” are actually just exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, I must note I do not believe this can account for many of the stories I’ve come across.

2. The COVID vaccine transforms the immune response of an injected individual from one that eliminates the infection to one that reduces the symptoms of an existing infection. This in turn may lead to vaccinated individuals becoming chronic “silent” carries of COVID-19 and unawarely shed the virus into their environment.

This effect is traditionally observed with vaccines directed at a toxin an infectious agent produces rather than the organism itself (e.g., the pertussis vaccine prevents its toxin from causing whooping cough which can lead to vaccinated individuals becoming chronic carries of pertussis and silently shedding it into their environment—something demonstrated by pertussis outbreaks occurring in vaccinated institutions). In the case of COVID-19 vaccination, it has been discovered that repeated exposure to the (highly allergenic) spike protein triggers the body to begin switching to producing of IgG4 antibodies, antibodies which are reduce the immune response to an allergen—something which is helpful for say pollens you are always exposed to, but not helpful for a harmful agent reproducing within the body.

Note: I suspect many of the vaccinated individuals predominantly become symptomatic when they are exposed to new variants they do not yet have an IgG4 response to.

In turn, it appears that repeated vaccination reduces the symptoms from a COVID-19 infection as you no longer have the (often dangerous) allergic response to the spike protein, but it also prolongs the duration of the infection and can turn you into a silent carries of the infection. This again illustrates why it was unwise to deploy a poorly understood technology upon the world and that had a more thorough risk analysis of been performed, people would have realized that it was unwise to perpetually produce the infectious component of SARS-CoV-2 in the body.

Note: As further proof of this point, Novavax was able to demonstrate that their vaccine (which provides threee injections of the antigen alongside an adjuvant rather than forcing the body to continually produce the spike protein) does not trigger the IgG4 response seen from the mRNA vaccines.

3. Vaccinating someone currently infected with COVID-19 causes the existing infection to spiral out of control, which in turn leads to the infected individual suddenly transmitting large amounts of the pathogen into the environment. Some of the things that have made me suspect this are:

•I personally know of numerous cases (which I logged) where someone got a COVID-19 vaccine, shortly after came down with a severe case of COVID-19 and then died in the hospital. Likewise, analyses of VAERS reports have found after 1-2 weeks, the most common causes of death reported following vaccination was a COVID-19 infection.

Note: I could see this either being due to the immune suppressive effects of the vaccine (e.g., the immune system becoming hyper-primed to respond to the spike protein rather than the existing viral strain, the vaccine being demonstrated to destroy the bone marrow stem cells which produce the immune system’s cells or the IgG4 class switch) or due to it provoking a severe inflammatory response (as much of the damage of from a COVID-19 infection is a result of the immunological response to it).

•I have seen a few reports (e.g., in a survey Steve Kirsch asked me to review) of someone who had a mild (PCR confirmed) lingering COVID infection then get a COVID vaccine and immediately crash (e.g., they needed to be hospitalized). These examples again suggest that the immunosuppressive effects of the vaccine can destroy the immune system’s ability to properly respond to an existing infection.

Note: This was also something that was seen with the HPV vaccine (if you have the HPV strain known to cause cancer at the time you got the vaccine, the HPV trials showed you actually became more likely to get cervical cancer). Since the HPV vaccine and the COVID-19 vaccines are the most immunologically agitating vaccines on the market (e.g., they have a very high rate of causing autoimmune disorders), I suspect they are much more likely to worsen the response to a prexisting infection of the disease they “protect” you against.

•I know a hermit who I can verify stayed inside his house for the last two years except to see his parents once a week. Throughout the pandemic he never had an issue with COVID, but after his parents were vaccinated, he immediately developed a significant COVID infection. Likewise, I have read numerous reports of people who either came down with COVID or a COVID like illness after being around a vaccinated individual. For example, this was one reader’s shedding story:

In December of 2021 we attended a family wedding in another state . We drove there in our RV, not stopping often in restaurants. My husband and I were one of the few at this wedding unvaccinated , which the rest of the family disapproved of , so I was careful in my exposure . We took a home covid test two days before seeing everyone and again on the day we arrived . Negative. At the wedding I was dancing with my nephew , a police officer , who had recently been boosted . He wasn’t feeling well - and two days later he tested positive . Three days later , feeling achy and unwell , I tested positive and two days later my husband tested positive. I am sure my nephew was shedding . The only people at the wedding who got sick were relatives or friends of my nephew.

Likewise, another reader shared this story:

My husband and I had the same hair stylist. She said she had just gotten boosted in Feb 2023 (after initial 2 shots). That week, we both got our hair done by her. We both are unvaccinated and had never had Covid. We both came down with Covid that week.

Note: if you consider the first point, the vaccine could also be causing a chronic COVID infection which causes the vaccinated to continually expel spike protein coated exosomes and those are what actually create the problem for those around them.

Bacterial DNA Plasmid Contamination

It has now been demonstrated that the vaccines are contaminated with DNA plasmids that were not removed during the (improper) manufacturing process.

In turn, I believe it is quite possible those plasmids are in turn integrating into the recipient’s genome or their microbiome. Assuming they are in fact integrating into the microbiome, the transfected bacteria will reproduce the spike protein plasmid and can hence transfect other bacteria in the microbiome (which in turn can produce the spike protein). In turn, since we are always spreading our microbiome (including through the air) to those around us, spike transfected bacteria provide a way that the vaccine could allow a replication competent organism to be transmitted to those around us—something which on the surface appears impossible with the mRNA technology (and is hence frequently used to argue against the possibility of shedding).

Presently, the following data points exist to support this hypothesis:

1. It is now known that the most dangerous vaccine lots also had higher amounts of the plasmid contaminants.

2. One system of medicine (based on terrain theory) believes the microbiome transforming into a pathologic state is the root cause of many illnesses. In turn, this system “treats” a variety of diseases by providing plasmids extracted from healthy states of the common organisms found within the body under the theory that unhealthy ones will take up those plasmids, transform into the healthy ones that live with the body and then produce more of the “healthy” plasmids. In essence, this approach seeks to restore health is exactly the opposite of what the (spike protein plasmid containing) COVID vaccines are doing.

While I do not follow the fairly complex protocols adherents of this school of medicine ask patients to follow, I have found that some of their remedies are extremely helpful for specific diseases that are otherwise quite difficult to treat. With spike protein injuries, we’ve found one remedy this system believes “treats” the microorganism which causes blood clotting is quite helpful for both vaccine injuries and long-haul COVID. This in turn suggests to us that something about the spike protein pathologically alters the microbiome until it is reversed with a healthy plasmid.

Note: much more was written about this school of medicine here.

3. A 2022 study was able to prove that the SARS-CoV-2 virus will infect the gut microbiome, reproduce its components within those bacteria and alter the gut microbiome (due to the bacteria it infected dying). Since bacteriophages typically require specialized proteins to infect bacteria, the fact that SARS-CoV-2 acted as a bacteriophage was a bit of a mystery, which led the study’s authors to propose a few guesses on why it happened, all of which understandably lacked evidence to support them.

4. Sabine Hazan MD, who is a gastroenterologist and a world expert on the microbiome likewise discovered that:

•SARS-CoV-2 could be found in the stools of individuals with a COVID-19 infection.

•That a SARS-CoV-2 infection pathologically altered the gut microbiome.

•That the severity of a COVID-19 infection correlates to the degree of pathologic alteration of the gut microbiome, although it was indeterminate if the alterations in the gut microbiome preceded the infection (and hence predisposed one to a severe infection) or if it was a result of the infection itself.

Note: this study and this case report suggested that restoring the gut microbiome shortened COVID-19 hospitalization time and significantly improved one’s likelihood of survival. Dr. Hazan has also put forth the hypothesis that some of the benefit of ivermectin may be a result of it increasing the beneficial gut bacteria which are harmed by a COVID-19 infection.

•That mRNA vaccination pathologically altered the gut microbiome (and reduced the same beneficial bacteria observed to be lost in COVID-19 infections, particularly bifidobacteria) both one month after vaccination and at 6-9 months post vaccination.

All of this suggests but does not prove that microbiome transfection plays a key role in the shedding phenomenon. One thing that makes me more open to this hypothesis are the numerous cases (e.g., the cleaners discussed in the previous article) I’ve come across of individuals becoming ill from touching surfaces that were touched by shedders (and hence could contain those spike protein transfected bacteria).
Note: While it was widely believed to do so throughout the pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 is not transmitted by contaminated surfaces, which means something else is “shedding” onto them. While it’s possible it is the spike protein exosomes, it’s unclear to me if they could persist in the environment (we always are instructed to store therapeutic exosomes at very low temperatures but in contrast, one study I found suggests serum exosomes can persist at room temperature for a few days) and as mentioned above, it’s unclear if they can be absorbed through the skin.

Additionally, Dr. Hazan’s work makes me wonder if the pre-existing microbiome of an individual may influence their susceptibility to shedding.

Note: I asked Dr. Hazan if she was ever able to assess if vaccination caused the gut microbiome to produce the spike protein. She told me she never had the funding to do the research (as given it’s controversial nature, no one wanted to fund it so she had to use up a lot of her savings to self-fund the COVID-19 vaccination studies [that type of research costs a lot]) and she is thus presently trying to raise the funds for the research to determine if the vaccine integrates into the human genome or microbiome (which can be donated to here). While talking to her, she emphasized that the mRNA vaccine damaging the gut microbiome could potentially be creating some of the shedding symptoms being observed since a healthy microbiome both produces essential nutrients and reduces inflammation throughout the body.

Pheromones

As mentioned above, some believe the vaccine shedding pathology is largely mediated through pheromones (hence why some can smell their distinct odor). Ryan Cole endorses this hypothesis, partly because it is known that pheromones can have a significant impact on menstruation. Likewise, a few readers [1,2] have shared that they believe shedders emit a toxic “pheromone.” While this possibility is intriguing, I do not believe it can explain everything that has been observed with shedding.
Note: as far as I know, there is no research on the connection between exosomes and pheromones.

Lipid Nanoparticle Breakdown Products

The shedding is an allergic reaction to the broken down components of the lipid nanoparticles (e.g., PEG) being excreted from patients. Overall, I feel this explanation is unlikely account for much of what has been observed.

Remaining Questions

Given how controversial the idea an injection being given to billions of people could actually be actively harming unvaccinated people is, we’ve put a lot of thought into if we wanted to broach this topic. For this reason, we’ve spent a long time researching the topic and tried to stick to claims we could provide the evidence to substantiate.

At this point, I feel we have been able to answer many of the questions numerous people have asked us to explore. Nonetheless, there are a few topics that have not yet been covered I know many of you still want some guidance on. The dilemma we face is that most of those answers rely more speculative evidence and our fear is that if they are associate with these points, they will be focused on and hence used to dismiss the rest of the critically important points raised throughout this article.

For example, many people want to know how to protect themselves from shedding. In my eyes, the best answer to this question is the same message everyone in this movement has been giving for the last year: “stop boosting people.” However, since we are still not at that point (however we are close as most of the public appears to have realized the boosters are either unsafe or ineffective), I am not sure if that constitutes useful advice. Likewise, I think making people conscious of how shedding may be harming them is helpful since it provides guidance on how to significantly reduce that harm by avoiding shedding exposures, but at the same time it’s not really helpful because no one wants to be stuck being isolated from society (which many readers here have shared is the situation they’ve now found themselves in).

Note: I am hopeful the shedding issue, provided it’s presented in a reasonable and measured manner, may finally be the thing that tips the scales against continuing the COVID-19 booster campaign as the incentives to keep them on the market is rapidly dwindling (since almost no one is buying them).

The current solution I’ve found for this dilemma is to limit the audience that can see it. In the final part of this article, I will attempt to answer the more challenging questions that still lie on much shakier ground. Specifically:

•What can be done to mitigate the effects of shedding that cannot be avoided?
•What do we currently know about shedding and sexual relationships?
•What do we currently know about shedding and cancer?
•What do we currently know about shedding and blood transfusions from vaccinated individuals?
•What are the more controversial mechanisms for shedding that are currently being considered?

Sexual Shedding

One of the sleaziest things I saw throughout the COVID-19 vaccine campaign were all the online dating sites trying to encourage their users to vaccinate.

Note: the above image was made to highlight how one site’s push to encourage vaccination was contained within a satirical song about the 2009 swine flu scam that perfectly matched what later happened with COVID-19.

In turn, I saw numerous couples break up throughout COVID-19 because one partner was unwilling to vaccinate while the other insisted on it.

Note: this is similar to many tragic custody battles I’ve seen over the years where one (more frequently the mother) does not want to vaccinate their children but the other does, and since the courts always side with the vaccinator, this periodically results in the parent who does not want to vaccinate having to go into hiding. This is why I often counsel patients who feel strongly about not vaccinating their kids that this conversation (“I will not under any circumstances vaccinate my children”) must be had early in the relationship before things get too serious.

As people began becoming aware of the shedding issue, this led to partners (typically women) imploring their sexual partner not to vaccinate. In many cases, the partner (like what was seen in those custody battles) did not listen to them and vaccinated (sometimes without telling their partner). In turn, I’ve seen multiple instances of the unvaccinated partner then becoming severely ill (e.g., consider this case Dr. Kory shared) at which point, the unvaccinated partner had to end their relationship.

For example, a good friend and somewhat sensitive colleague who spends most of their time in very close proximity to her patients (and regularly has skin to skin contact with them) never had any issue throughout the vaccine rollout. Additionally, she had multiple sexual partners throughout the pandemic, and never had any issues there either. Midway through the vaccine rollout, her partner (who she had explicitly asked not to vaccinate) got vaccinated without telling her. They had unprotected intercourse later in the day (although to her knowledge he did not ejaculate in her), which caused my colleague to develop significant menstrual abnormalities, the major effects of which lasted a year and a half, the minor of which have persisted to this day.

In turn, I’ve heard of many numerous cases where, with much regret, an unvaccinated partner preemptively ended their relationship once they found out their partner had vaccinated, in essence leading to a complete reversal of what had been seen at the start of the vaccination campaign.

Presently, I believe that for sensitive individuals (those who any of the three criteria I listed above apply to), shedding needs to be a real consideration in dating. At this point, I think that sexual intimacy represents the strongest exposure one can have, so some individuals who are not sensitive to other forms of shedding may not be able to tolerate sexual exposures (e.g., they might not notice an odor or feel ill in proximity to their partner but they do after intercourse). In turn, I have seen a lot of cases of people reporting concerning sexual shedding exposures: [e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30]. Additionally, I have also seen numerous cases where other forms of close contact (e.g., platonic hugging) triggered significant complications for an individual [e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26].

Some of the above cases are quite compelling. For example, consider this one:

I'm unvaccinated. My (former) partner in early 2021 got vaxxed multiple times. We had unprotected sex and as soon as he started getting vaxxed I started bleeding uncontrollably. (I was at the tail end of perimenopause so would occasionally bleed but not often.) After he got his first vax we had sex, then I immediately started bleeding heavily, for 3 straight weeks. After every consecutive vax he got the same thing happened. I broke up with him when I realized what was happening.

Note: there are numerous cases of individuals getting

Some are also understandably quite traumatizing. For example:

I’m unjabbed and my boyfriend is Pfizer double jabbed + one moderna booster.

When he first got jabbed, I got a soft hiss in my ear. It’s not too bad and comes and goes. Usually some quercetin or msm will improve it. Sugar and carbs makes it worse.

Then after the booster, I waited 2 weeks to see him. Every time we had sex for a couple of weeks, I got incredibly sick. Like had to stay in bed sick. I said no sex for 6 months. Now it doesn’t seem to have much impact that I notice but I don’t find myself that attracted. Not sure if it’s a smell thing or just my own perception about him being not physically safe.

A few were quite severe:

I personally know two people that were unvaccinated when their spouses got the covid vaccine and both unvaccinated people, a man and a woman, ended up in the hospital. The man ended up on a ventilator and the woman was able to stay on high flow O2 through a mask. Both recovered thankfully but I can't help but think they were both shed upon by their spouses.

Note: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] are some of the other more severe sexual shedding cases that have been reported to.

Likewise, some are quite sad, such as the partner specifically getting vaccinated to protect their partner:

My husband is a truck driver and didn't want to risk my health by whatever he might bring home. He'd stayed out on the road most of the first year of covid because we were both very concerned that it would likely kill me. So when the vax came out he couldn't wait to get it…Well it's been a nightmare since his 2nd Moderna that I won't go into now for sake of time but was wondering if anyone has experienced bruising after being in close proximity to a vax'd person.

From all the cases I’ve looked at, I’ve noticed a few general patterns. The first is that like general shedding issues, menstrual abnormalities are the most common side effect (and as a result women are more likely to be harmed by sexual shedding).
Note: the much rarer male equivalent of this may be groin pain (e.g., see this man’s example).

However, outside of menstrual abnormalities, the rates of injuries appear to be relatively similar, and many men reported a variety of other symptoms (e.g., this man and this man developed minor heart issues). I was able to find one instance of secondary sexual shedding (with a man who slept with an unvaccinated women who had multiple vaccinated sexual partners).

Typically speaking, the most likely way sexual shedding harmed someone was through vaginal intercourse, but there were also individuals who became quite ill from oral contact [e.g., 1, 2, 3]. Additionally, there were two cases [1, 2] of someone (both who were Pierre Kory’s patients) developing rapid and severe abdominal pain following the ingestion of their partner’s semen. Additionally, one person reported a similar rapid pain to me after vaginal intercourse (which I believe included their partner ejaculating in them).

Note: Arne Burkhardt, a remarkable German pathologist discovered that the sperm in a vaccinated man’s semen had been largely replaced with the spike protein and understandably urged caution in procreating with vaccinated males. Additionally, it should be noted that some research has found that exosomes can survive the stomach and travel into the gut.

Since the unvaccinated dating pool is very small, this situation creates a significant dilemma for those entering the dating market. Presently my thoughts are as follows:

•Unvaccinated individuals are more likely to be in alignment with your views, so that is a plus.

•As many know, the website unjected.com is specifically designed for unvaccinated singles to meet each other. I have mixed thoughts on this website as I think it’s a good idea in principle, but all of my patients who are familiar with it make a point to complain about the cost to me. Forgetting everything else however, I think rather than using it for dating, it might be a great place to meet politically aligned friends (which is something quite a few people I know use dating apps for and something many unvaccinated people are desperately searching for now as the media has made us feel so isolated).

•Both the degree of shedding and the susceptibility to shedding vary greatly, so this will probably be the deciding factor in if you want to pursue a relationship with a vaccinated individual (e.g., if you know you are fairly sensitive you have no choice, whereas if you are less sensitive you can first test if you react to the individual).

•It is important go slow with new partners, both so they can understand you are serious about the vaccine thing (so they won’t boost behind your back and hence expose you to a high vaccine dose) and so you can see how you react to them (e.g., can you tolerate having you mouth be close to theirs and do you notice the “shedding odor” when immediately next to them).

•It may be necessary to avoid direct contact with their semen (I really don’t know about this one as both my spouse and I aren’t vaccinated).

•Based on its design (and having received far fewer reports of this) I believe the J&J vaccine is less likely to create shedding issues. However, this may partly be an artifact of less people having received it, so I can’t state that with certainty.

•It is highly likely as time goes forward, more and more people will lie and claim they were never vaccinated, so it will be important to be able to recognize if someone has a body you react to.

•Many who can tell who is “shedding” have told me they’ve lost their attraction to potential vaccinated partners, so this all may also work itself out on its own. Likewise, I have heard instances of individuals stating their partner’s odor appeared to have changed to an unattractive smell following vaccination [1, 2].

Blood Transfusions

Another common concern I’ve repeatedly seen raised is if the blood supply is “safe,” and in turn I have seen more calls than I can count to create an unvaccinated blood bank for those who were not vaccinated.

To be completely blunt, I think this is a lost cause. Given how tightly regulated the blood supply is, the idea that you could create a separate blood bank hospitals would then be willing use is almost impossible (e.g., consider how far New Zealand’s government went to prevent it from being done on a one-off basis).

Fortunately, I believe vaccinated blood injuries are quite rare, to the point many of them may have been by chance and not related to the actual transfusion. To be more specific:

•I presently know of two people (one of my patients and one of my colleague’s patients) who developed what appeared to be complications analogous to a chronic vaccine injury after they had to receive an emergency transfusion at the hospital. Furthermore, my colleague’s case was so distinct it’s hard to come up with another interpretation as to what happened.

•I know of two cases where characteristic spike protein injuries (major blood clots) followed the administration of vaccinated blood (one is detailed here, the other happened to a colleague during their hospitalization)—however in both cases, I feel the existing illness they had could have potentially accounted for those unusual blood clots.

•At this point in time, I’ve only had a two readers share a story of a transfusion injury. One case (which was very compelling) was left on an earlier article about the potential dangers of transfused blood, while the other (which was harder to link an injury to the transfusion) was left on the more recent article that requested a large pool of people to share their shedding stories.
Note: I only had 24,000 subscribers at the time that earlier article was written and in the more recent article I did not specifically request stories of transfusion injuries, so I may have been pulling from a more “limited” sample in that instance.

•Pierre Kory broached this subject four months (at a time when I would guess he had around 70,000 subscribers) by mentioning that a nurse he knew at a major hospital said the hospital was struggling to get enough blood donations from the staff there (as they there had seen so many vaccine injuries in their patients they allegedly felt their blood was tainted and hence weren’t comfortable giving it). While this topic effectively solicited the topic to a much larger group of people he only received one comment corroborating the issue. This came from a hematologist who stated:

I have seen some unusually severe reactions to RBC transfusions in the past couple years, including a couple that led to pressors/ventilator support. I have wondered if these patients received spike protein containing blood from jabbed donors.

Note: when Steve Kirsch broached the transfusion subject to approximately 200,000 readers and received 568 comments, I do not believe (although I may have search the wrong terms) anyone shared a transfusion injury story.

When you contrast this to how many people are being affected by shedding (e.g., I know at least 10 people and I received hundreds of shedding injury stories) I feel the relative risk of a blood transfusion injury is quite low, and were it to happen, it will probably be temporary in nature (e.g., the acute reactions described by the hematologist which most likely were from spike protein present in the blood) rather than chronic (transfused blood turning you into a spike protein factory).

I suspect this is because red blood cells (RBCs) don’t produce protein from mRNA (hence why they only last 120 days and your body continually produces more of them) whereas the only cells in the blood that can (white blood cells) are typically removed from the blood prior to a transfusion.

Note: while RBCs are classically thought to not produce protein from mRNA, it was recently discovered that they do indeed have a limited ability to do it.

Since only the RBCs are present, I would thus argue it is unlikely you will be injected with a spike protein production factory as:

•The vaccine lipid nanoparticles (LNP) are unlikely to still be in the blood at the time the blood was drawn as the LNPs rapidly disappear from the blood stream (instead what is persistently found are the spike proteins they produce from cells within the body which then leaks into the blood stream).

•The LMPs that are still there (and their mRNA) may degraded or removed during the preparation process (e.g., when WBCs are removed from the blood), degraded during the storage process or be absorbed into the RBCs during the storage process.

•If RBCs with vaccine lipid nanoparticles are absorbed into the body, it is unlikely that once they are broken down by the spleen (which happens at the end of those 120 days) whatever remains will be able to transfect another cell in the body. Likewise, if the RBCs are somehow able to produce limited amounts of spike protein, it is reasonable to assume they will rapidly be digested by the spleen and not persist in the blood for a prolonged period.

Because of this, if people (acutely) react to the blood, it’s most likely due to them receiving a transfusion from someone who had recently been vaccinated (which can be prevented by telling people not to donate for a few weeks after vaccination—something the Red Cross already does for the J&J vaccine or if you do not know what COVID vaccine you received), and that individual being highly sensitive to being injured by the spike protein (e.g., because a brief exposure tips them over into a perpetual Cell Danger Response).

Note: there are a variety of providers for exosomes and stem cells (which in part work by treating the cell danger response). Depending on the brand, these products perform quite differently. With each one that we use (due to them performing better) I’ve asked the company and they’ve stated they only source their products from unvaccinated mothers.

That all being said, while I do not believe you should be particularly concerned about a vaccinated blood supply, I have had a longstanding policy (which predated the vaccines) to avoid transfusions if at all possible because many other contaminants exist in the blood supply and there is quite a bit of data showing repeated transfusions can cause a variety of health issues (which amongst other things is why I think the approach quite a few older rich individuals used for longevity—receiving transfusions of blood from younger donors, is a very bad idea).

Note: younger blood emits more mitogenic radiation and there was some research done [see pages 151-152 the PDF I included in this article] which showed transfusions from younger people to older people reversed some of the effects of aging.

Fortunately, there are a variety of ways to avoid foreign blood transfusions at the hospital (many of which I learned of through Jehovah’s Witnesses as their faith rejects all blood transfusions). These include:

•Hospitals will normally let you donate your own blood ahead of time which can then be transfused into to you if it’s needed during an elective (non-emergency) surgery.

•Certain drugs allow you to increase your red blood cell concentration. In turn, there is quite a bit of evidence that taking them prior to a surgery with a high amount of expected blood loss reduces the need for the patient to receive blood transfusions.

•To some extent, blood loss can be compensated for by receiving saline (which dilutes your blood but preserves the total blood volume), followed by either iron infusions (typically done) or chlorophyl consumption (much less known about) to raise your hemoglobin count (e.g., see this trial).

•The amount of blood loss which occurs during surgeries varies depending on the skill (and finesse) of a surgeon. Because of this, you can likely reduce your need for blood transfusions if you pick the right surgeon to work with. Unfortunately since the surgeon gets the final say on the estimated blood loss after a surgery (and is understandably biased to underestimate it—which has been proven in previously conducted studies), there is not a good outside metric to track this, and you must instead depend upon the perspectives of people who have been in the OR with the surgeon (which is understandably not accessible to many).

•Technologies exist which recycle blood that is lost during a surgery so it can be transfused back into the patient (e.g., the Cell Saver) and when studied, appear to each work. Since your own blood is recycled this can bypass the need for a transfusion. In turn, certain surgical facilities offer this option to their patients.

Unfortunately, if you have an emergency situation (e.g., a severe accident) it is unlikely any of these will be viable to do. Fortunately, those situations are rare, and likewise, I believe vaccine injuries from blood transfusions are also very rare.

Cancer

In the first half of this article, I shared a story from a reader that fell into a fairly unique circumstance—it was very hard to argue that anything besides vaccine shedding caused the cancer given the chronology of what happened.

In my own personal journey, I first started getting massive nose bleeds. Then a rash developed where my husband’s L jabbed arm lay on me each night. It was within maybe a week or 2 after his 2nd injection. It snaked counterclockwise around from my L flank down the sacrum, up my spine to cranium, then bloomed over the entire back. This turned into 2 heinous disorders. I now have MCAS and CTCL. Mast cell activation syndrome and cutaneous T cell lymphoma…Though I believe in epigenetics, it is interesting, as a health nut/care practitioner I came down with these disorders when there is 0 cancer or skin/histamine issues in my family.

Note: this rare cancer was identical to the aggressive one that a Moderna vaccine trial recipient also developed (and Moderna never disclosed in their trial report despite the trial participant doing everything she could to get it recognized).

Currently, the most talented integrative cancer doctor I know (who I fully trust the judgement of) has had two cancer cases they are relatively certain came from vaccine shedding. Likewise, I know one young adult who was a massage therapist who regularly complained to me that they could “feel the shedding” of many of the people they worked on who suddenly developed a very unusual and highly aggressive cancer (to the point it took a while for the doctors at the hospital to get the correct diagnosis).

Additionally, I’ve seen a few other cases which I think could be linked to cancer, but it’s much harder to say. For instance, one of my patients is a mid 60s woman who had a breast cancer which was removed with a mastectomy and had disappeared for years which re-emerged once the vaccines hit the market. She is convinced this was a result of shedding (and ended up talking to a doctor at a holistic cancer clinic who shared his belief shedding is causing numerous cancers to emerge), and likewise other holistic cancer doctors have echoed this viewpoint. Unfortunately, I really feel there is no way to know on this (e.g., in my patient’s case, breast cancers do also just re-emerge after being dormant for years), and outside of a few very unusual cases (the three mentioned in the preceding paragraph), I really can’t take a position on this issue.

Additionally, a few other readers have shared compelling histories of cancers following [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] and a few that might be linked [1, 2]. Finally, two people have shared cases [1, 2] of pets developing turbo cancers after shedding exposures, which dovetails with the other cases [1, 2, 3] I shared in the previous article where shedding appeared to affect cats or dogs.

In short, I feel there is no way to know what’s going on here (and likewise the research that could assess it will most likely never be done), and as best as I can tell, the cancer issue is rare enough that you should not be overly worried about it. That said, there is a lot of data showing cancer rates have spiked since the vaccine roll-out and I’ve often wondered if part of this is due to shedding (as I have not yet found a dataset which compared cancer rates in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated).

Note: I believe that pathologic alternations of the microbiome (especially within the blood stream) is a key cause of cancers, and this may be the mechanism through which shedding triggers cancers—if it indeed does. Likewise, a strong link has been demonstrated between MGR [discussed below] and cancer, so that may also play a role here.

Alternative Mechanisms for Shedding

Energetic Shedding

When evaluating a complex question, I try to consider a lot of different perspectives. Because of this, I’ve found over and over that all of the sensitive people I’ve talked to (including some of the more unusual doctors I know) insist the shedding mechanism is energetic and that (like the commenter's mentioned above), they can feel something is “different” about the energetic field in those individuals and that this difference is “toxic.”

Note: one doctor also shared that it’s quite challenging to treat vaccinated patients as their presence disrupts treating other patients in the clinic and until they were able to find workarounds (e.g., only see the vaccinated patients on a specific day of the week) they had to prohibit them from coming to their practice.

This is understandably a challenging question to explore as most people cannot perceive the same qualities those individuals do, which leads to it being both unprovable and easy to ascribe to some type of delusion. Conversely however, if the shedding mechanism is indeed “energetic,” this could potentially explain the diffusion issue, as energy fields (unlike physical substances) emanate from the emitter and are hence likely to be at a comparable strength inside the user and immediately adjacent to them.

In a recent article, I discussed the concept of mitogenic radiation (a faint ultraviolet light emission seen throughout the body which guides cells growth and is discussed in much more detail here). I did this largely because I realized this concept (which has some science to substantiate it) matched many of the characteristics of whatever the vector was which was causing “shedding.” Specifically:

•Mitogenic radiation dramatically changes during menstruation (it switches to a from a growth inducing form to one which inhibits the growth of bacteria, something I suspect evolved to protect women from becoming infected during their cycles).

•Many of the treatments for the Cell Danger Response (something commonly harmed by the COVID vaccines) essentially use energy frequencies which appear to give healthy mitogenic radiation (e.g., I consistently see remarkable results when ultraviolet blood irradiation is used for this purpose). Similarly, given how rapidly certain treatments like exosomes affect the body (e.g., I’ve seen cases where someone with long COVID who had been on oxygen for months in less than 2 minutes returned to their normal function after a correctly administered exosome infusion), I’ve suspect part of the mechanism for many other regenerative therapies has to be energetic in nature (additionally, cells are known to emit flashes of MGR when they die and likewise they emit exosomes). Likewise, if shedders are indeed emitting a “bad” energy field, I think it’s possible that the source of that field are either their toxic exosomes, transfected bacteria or chronic illness.

Additionally, I’ve heard of periodic reports of individuals using a light therapy which resets the healthy regulation of their body dramatically help with a condition I associate with the cell danger response. For example, this comment was left on the previous article:

I am a chiropractor. All my symptoms started after the vaccine roll out….During all that time I took many things: pine needle tea all day long, homeopathic to heal my organs, something to get graphene out, nicorette, efa, adrenals, bromelain, nac, things to detox etc., sound frequencies But not much difference

I bought a Firefly pro ( photobiomodulation) and it literally saved my life and resolved all my issues. My periods are normal, no more clots, no pain anywhere, no headache, I have energy.

Note: while this light does not have UV, we have found devices with the other frequencies it uses frequently assist in awakening cells that were stuck in a dormant cycle.

Lastly, if you remember from earlier in the article, you’ll notice that many of the people who described what “shedding” felt like were specifically noting that something had changed in the “bioenergetic field” of the shedders in a harmful way.

The Second Toxin

When I reviewed the descriptions of the smells individuals are observing, two major things jumped out at me. The first was that it really seemed as though two different smells were being described and the second was that what they were smelling had not been present from just a natural COVID-19 infection.

At this point, I feel it is fairly safe to assume one of the things people are sensing is the vaccine spike protein. When I thought about what that second component could be, ideas which came to mind included:

•The pseudouridine that was added to the mRNA and then somehow ended up being excreted by the shedders.
•The spike protein plasmids.
•The SV40 promoter region that was added to those plasmids.
•A breakdown product of the lipid nanoparticles (e.g., polyethelene glycol—although PEG is considered to be odorless).
•The body decaying in response to the spike protein’s toxicity.
•A pheromone the body emits in response to the vaccine’s toxicity.

However, two doctors have told me each time they muscle test it, they come up with graphene oxide being the second toxin, and I know a lot of people in the integrative field who believe this is the issue (although as the above chiropractor showed, for her “treating” graphene oxide didn’t do anything). Furthermore, one of the most respected doctors in the integrative field (Dietrich Klinghardt), who earned that reputation by pioneering a large number of therapies which worked and were hence adopted by many other doctors around the world has stated he strongly believes graphene oxide is in the shots and that following injection, it appears to assemble into a lattice which coats the blood vessels and functions as an antennae.

Additionally, one sensitive doctor I’ve talked to has shared that they’ve found the most effective way to clear a room or object which has been adverse affected by shedding (and hence make it tolerable to be in or touch) is to use hypochlorous acid (e.g., danolyte), they had one patient who had success using chlorine dioxide (another disinfectant) and they found UV light partially helps but does not fully clear the room.

From a chemistry standpoint, I know that UV light inactivates the spike protein (e.g., see this study) whereas it only partially affects graphene oxide (e.g., the cytotoxicity is lowered a bit) and I believe this effect can be reversed by oxidizing the graphene (as UV light acts as a photo-reducing agent). Both of these would support the idea UV light “partially” clears room.

Conversely, hypochlorous acid (which is a commonly used disinfectent) does fully degrade graphene oxide (see this study).

Note: Klinghardt also stated that N-Acetyl-Cystine and Ozone break down graphene oxide. In the case of NAC (which is commonly used to treat vaccine injuries due to it binding of the toxic spike protein—especially when more potent forms of NAC are used), like UV light, rather than breaking down graphene oxide, it temporarily reduces it to graphene (e.g., see this study).

At the however, while I really like to consider both sides of an argument, I do not believe graphene oxide is a major issue with the shots (and I upset a lot of people by writing an article in May explaining why I did not think it was there).

Briefly, my reasons are as follows:

•To my knowledge, no living enzyme (e.g., something created through mRNA) can produce graphene oxide. Hence, the only graphene oxide that could enter the body through vaccination would be what was created through an industrial manufacturing process and then put into the vaccine.

•I do not think the technology is advanced enough for us to be able to reliably ensure the correct amount of graphene oxide was present in each injection (remember the injections varied immensely) is then able to diffuse throughout the body and coat the blood vessels lining. Furthermore, if this was somehow possible, I am doubtful enough is there and I suspect it would kill the individual long before the process had completed.
Note: also keep in mind that due to the boosters, people have received widely differing amounts of the vaccine.

Finally, I am really doubtful this incredibly variable process could create a workable antenna as antenna depend upon having very specific sizes which match the wavelength they are trying to receive. Rather, if something is coating the blood vessels, I think it’s something akin to the fibrous clots embalmers have repeatedly observed which (as I previously explained) have a plausible mechanism for how the spike protein could cause already existing enzymes within the body to continuously assemble them.

•Even if graphene oxide is in the shots, there is no way enough could been in the initial vaccine that it can also be indefinitely shed into the environment.

•The one test that “found” graphene oxide (and which everyone refers to) was incorrectly performed (the sample was overheated from the laser being on too long) and most likely had the graphene signal show up as an artifact of that overheating.

•When the vaccines were tested for graphene oxide using mass spectrometry (which is the most definitive way to detect it), as Ryan Cole reported, none was found. As many pointed out, it’s possible that the lots with graphene oxide were never tested, but at the same time, it seems unlikely many people have this inside them despite many of the existing lots not having it in the first place.

Presently, we believe the best “explanation” for this (assuming the muscle testing is not just a product of confirmation bias) is that whatever is there has a similar energetic frequency to graphene oxide and hence is being mistaken for it.

Note: part of why I put this part of the article behind a paywall is because there is no “good” way to bring up this subject without offending people on both sides of the issue and weakening your credibility. Simultaneously however, I know a lot of people want to know about this, so I felt I should find some way to share my current through process on it.

Protecting Yourself From Shedding

Many of the approaches for doing this should be evident at this point. For example, a key purpose of this series was to help you identify if you were at an increased risk for being harmed by shedding, and if so (which I do not believe applies to the majority of readers), to encourage you to avoid situations with a high degree of shedding.

In addition to that, I believe the following options have a lot of merit:

Take zeta aid (or do a more complex zeta potential restoration protocol).

Take an effective proteolytic enzyme. Nattokinase (along with Bromelain) is the most popular option currently (and some find it works quite well). However, I believe that Neprinol AFD is by far the best proteolytic product on the market (we’ve seen it make spike protein blood clotting stop in patients and likewise prior to COVID we saw it consistently prevent heart attacks). I am not sure if these benefits are a result of the spike protein or microclots being broken down by the enyzme.
Note: some patients have difficulty tolerating Neprinol because it breaks down clots too quickly and creates a histamine reaction from the breakdown products. For this reason, I advise patients (especially sensitive ones) to start Neprinol slowly rather than beginning with a full dose and sometimes also use a histamine mitigating approach in parallel to doing this.

Take something to neutralize the spike protein. When treating vaccine injuries, Dr. Kory has found some patients have a remarkable response to ivermectin, something I believe is due to it reversing the microclotting the spike protein causes (which was demonstrated in this article that discussed the effects of the spike protein on zeta potential and ivermectin reversing its microclots). Unfortunately, there are many spike protein injured patients who do not have a dramatic response to ivermectin, and likewise with shedding, some individuals who are exposed to shedding notice ivermectin is life changing for them, while others aren’t sure if it does anything.

In addition to ivermectin and neprinol (or nattokinase) the other most commonly utilized spike protein binding agent is NAC, especially this form of it. In addition to these agents, there are a few others I’ve tried (which seem to work but since the data is preliminary I am not confident sharing it), and many others people have reported trying with much more mixed success.

If it seems like you need it (e.g., you know you are sensitive to shedding), consider taking ivermectin.

In addition, to these choices, there are a variety of other options. For example, many are now using the nicotine patch protocol (which I do not like as I’ve seen numerous patients have bad reactions to it and nicotine is addictive but nonetheless does help some patients). Others have had success with chlorine dioxide, curcumin (unfortunately there is immense variability in the quality of curcumin supplements), Vitamin D, quercetin and hydroxycholorquine (while others have tried these approaches without success).

Depending on the circumstances I think it also are worth considering more complex approaches (e.g., ultraviolet blood irradiation, low dose naltrexone, restoring a healthy gut microbiome, exosome therapy) to heal a severe shedding exposure, but at the same time, I don’t feel in most cases any of that is actually needed because typically “shedding sickness” seems to recover on its own once you are no longer around the shedder.

Lastly, as discussed above, you can clean the areas you are in. Generally speaking, I would suggest just using a UV light system for this purpose (as the other options are much more of a hassle), particularly since UV light also safely eliminates COVID-19 from enclosed spaces.

Legal Considerations

The ability of dogs to smell spike likewise raises a lot of serious ethical issues. For example, if someone were to want to test a prospective partner (e.g., one who claimed to be unvaccinated) for shedding, would it be ethical to force the partner to a canine (dog) evaluation before beginning the relationship? I can only begin to imagine how our society would handle this (my best guess is that dog trainers would eventually be prohibited from doing it).

This in turn touches upon a bigger issue—when you consider the liability from both the vaccines themselves, but also the harm they have created to those who were unvaccinated, there is an absolutely massive degree of legal liability here (essentially we have a “too big to fail” type situation). In those situations, governments almost always default to protecting the criminals (e.g., consider the trillions both Bush and Obama gave the banks) rather than punishing them to ensure this does not happen again.

One of the best analogies for this is the mold toxicity crisis. Many people are highly sensitive to mold in buildings (and it causes a wide range of health issues for people). Ultimately, it results from the fact we use cheap building materials for dry wall that is a perfect food for mold once there is a bit of water present. Yet, this has never been rectified (or even publicly admitted—instead we have constructs like “sick building syndrome”), which all of my colleagues feel is due to the fact the government simply cannot afford to take on the cost of fixing all those buildings or opening the door to lawsuits for health related damages from them.

Conversely, the one bright side I see to all of this is that this may open up a new avenue of legal attack (for those injured by shedding to sue Pfizer) since this is an unusual situation the blanket liability shield the vaccine manufactures got might not apply to. Additionally, if it can be proven that a significant number of people are sensitive to shedding, the American Disabilities Act (or OSHA’s requirement to create a safe work environment for workers) may require facilities to protect those sensitive to shedding (e.g., by instructing recently boosted individuals to avoid the facility—which will essentially kill any remaining willingness to take the boosters).

Note: this was done by a Miami school in July 2021. Furthermore, David Gorski (whose blog strongly supports vaccine mandates) has understandably gotten quite upset that businesses might do the opposite and instead discriminate against the vaccinated. In turn, Gorski kindly created a compilation of many other businesses which followed in the Miami school’s footsteps and “banned” recently vaccinated individuals. This in turn indicates there is a precedence for private businesses protecting their employees and customers from shedding.

Conclusion:

I hope you found this series helpful—it’s been a long journey to complete this (especially since it will need to be periodically updated as we receive more feedback). When reading it, I really request you don’t get too disturbed by what is inside it. We are presently working with a lot of unknowns, so I have tried my best to provide the most critical information in the most responsible fashion possible.

Lastly, I want to sincerely thank each of you for your support of this newsletter and making everything I do here possible. This series was a lot of work to put together!

Give a gift subscription