What We’ve Learned From Hundreds of Vaccine Shedding Reports

Note: This article was originally published on my Substack where, due to the public’s issue on this topic, it attracted a significant amount of attention (e.g., a tweet about it received over 500,000 views). This article takes into account the hundreds of shedding injury stories have received and the original will continue to be revised as more shedding reports are received. If you could share yours as well (e.g., on the original article or on this tweet) that would be greatly appreciated.

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 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 Possible?

In the case of shedding, a few major points argue against it being possible.

Since I was nonetheless seeing numerous clearcut 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:

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:

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:

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..