As if dating wasn't bad enough prior to the COVID charade, the talent pool has undergone a frightening reduction thanks to the number of people now walking around with a possible tank full of spike protein, lipid nanoparticles, mRNA, and whatever other toxic junk the criminals at Big Pharma loaded into their COVID 'vaccine' vials.
Now that the dangers of the COVID 'vaccines' have been confirmed with lethal clarity, there is a question a lot of 'unvaccinated' singles are wondering:
Is it safe to get intimate with a 'vaccinated' person?
Most of us who shunned the COVID gene therapies did so for health reasons. And we often paid a heavy price for it in other areas of our lives. So should the unvaxxxed now throw caution to the wind and jeopardize the health-preserving fruits of their fortitude by getting nekkid with people who took the dangerous gene concoctions? Concoctions so toxic they've produced excess mortality levels not seen since World War II?
Is it safe to have sex with such people, or are they literally contaminated with foreign substances that they can “shed” to others?
What Is Shedding? And Did Pfizer Really Admit their 'Vaccine' Causes Shedding?
If you've gone anywhere near a non-woke social media channel in the last couple of years, you've almost certainly heard the term "shedding." Social media channels like Telegram are alight with claims that harmful components of the COVID drugs can be transmitted, or "shed", via breathing, skin contact, or doing the wild thing.
You've probably also seen posts claiming that section 8.3.5.1. of a 2020 Pfizer document "admits" that Comirnaty causes shedding and poses a risk to 'unvaccinated' folks via inhalation or skin contact.
Shedding is a very real concern, but that section is not an admission by Pfizer that Comirnaty causes shedding. Like all wily criminals, Pfizer doesn't admit to diddly squat, and even if it did, you wouldn't find any admissions in that document because it's a study protocol. It doesn't report findings or results; to the contrary, it's a pre-clinical trial document that explains how the impending study will be conducted. The admonition to report instances of unintentional exposure of "the study intervention" in pregnant or conceiving women via inhalation or skin exposure is not an admission of anything other than the 'vaccine' may be one of the many types of chemical compounds yielding potential for unintentional exposure. These admonitions are a routine inclusion in the safety protocols of pharmaceutical studies. While it remains possible Pfizer had foreknowledge of shedding from their 'vaccine' (we are talking an inherently dishonest and fraudulent organization that holds the record for the biggest ever criminal fine in US history), section 8.3.5.1. is hardly the smoking gun some folks make it out to be.
But that doesn't mean the 'vaccines' don't cause shedding. To the contrary, numerous lines of evidence suggest shedding is a very real risk from the new gene therapies.
So What is "Shedding", Exactly?
Traditionally, “vaccine shedding” refers to the excretion of a virus by a person who has been freshly vaccinated against that virus. This occurs only with live attenuated virus vaccines (measles/mumps/rubella (MMR), chickenpox, rotavirus, nasal spray influenza).
According to their official ingredient lists, none of the COVID-19 drugs are live attenuated vaccines. In fact, they are not even vaccines, but gene therapies that have been relabeled as such by their manufacturers and authorities, in order to make them sound less nefarious. Calling these drugs 'vaccines' and rushing them into use via the fraudulent "emergency use authorization" ruse also allowed them to bypass the rigorous safety testing procedures normally required of gene therapies.
But a gene therapy by any other name is still a gene therapy.
The 2015 FDA guidelines on Gene Product Shedding Studies defines gene therapies as “all products that exert their effects by transcription and/or translation of transferred genetic material and/or by integration into the host genome and that are administered in the form of nucleic acids, viruses or genetically modified microorganisms”.
The 2018 European Medicines Agency guidelines for gene therapy medicinal products states:
"(GTMPs) generally consist of a vector or delivery formulation/system containing a genetic construct engineered to express a specific transgene (‘therapeutic sequence’) for the regulation, repair, replacement, addition or deletion of a genetic sequence. The active substance is the nucleic acid sequence(s), or genetically modified microorganism(s), virus(es) or cells."
By these definitions, the mRNA (e.g. Pfizer, Moderna) and viral vector (AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson) drugs are indeed gene therapy products. So while they can't theoretically shed live virus, they still hold the potential to shed other components.
As such, they should have been subjected to shedding studies. But they weren't.
The FDA guidelines state:
"Shedding studies should be conducted for each [Virus or Bacteria-Based Gene Therapy] or oncolytic product to provide information about the likelihood of transmission to untreated individuals because historical data alone may not be predictive of the shedding profile."
The EMA guidelines mention the need for shedding studies numerous times. For example, in Section 6.2.1:
"Shedding studies to address the excretion of the GTMP should be performed. When shedding is observed, the potential for transmission to third parties needs to be investigated, if relevant (e.g. with replication competent vectors/oncolytic viruses) or a justification for not doing this should be provided "
"Shedding is defined as the dissemination of vector through secretions and/or excreta and should be addressed in animal models ... The aim of shedding studies is to determine the secretion/excretion profile of the virus/vector. Information collected from non-clinical shedding studies can then be used to estimate the likelihood and extent of shedding in humans and to guide the design of clinical shedding studies." (Section 5.4.2)
But again, shedding studies have not been done, and no valid justification has been provided (the desire to rush a drug into general use in order to enact a twisted depopulation agenda is not what most rational people would consider a valid justification).
So when you hear 'fact-checkers' (oligarch-funded liars) and health authorities (oligarch-controlled liars) insisting that the COVID 'vaccines' do not cause shedding, know that they are being their usual disingenuous, dishonest selves. No-one can honestly say these products don't cause shedding because the shedding research that should have been performed was not done.
What are the Components of the Gene Therapies that Could Shed?
The key components of concern are mRNA, the spike or "S" protein of what is allegedly the novel Sars-Cov-2 virus, and what are known as lipid nanoparticles, or LNPs.
It's worth noting at this point that independent researchers who've analysed vials of the gene therapies have reported the presence of substances not listed on the product ingredient lists, such as graphene oxide. For the purposes of this article, I'll limit the discussion to ingredients the manufacturers have thus far admitted to putting in the vials.
“mRNA” stands for messenger ribonucleic acid, but the term is a misnomer when referring to the COVID gene therapies. Messenger RNA is natural and has existed for squillions of years. The 'messenger' RNA produced in labs, in contrast, is a synthetic product and about as 'natural' as a Monsanto GMO seed.
A more appropriate name for such a product is modified RNA.
The modified RNA drugs and the adenoviral vector drugs supposedly contain instructions for your own cells to produce the spike protein of what is alleged to be the 'novel' Sars-Cov-2 coronavirus. Along with folks like Dr Sam Bailey and Dr Mike Yeadon (a former Pfizer research executive), I don't believe there is any such novel virus. I've examined the studies claiming to have 'isolated' Sars-Cov-2, and to describe them as voodoo nonsense would be exceedingly polite. I've been working on an article about this for some time, but am struggling to condense it down into something that won't take a week to read. Obviously, my stance is a hugely contrarian one, and when I advance a contentious viewpoint I like to make sure I've crossed all my "t"s and dotted my "i"s.
If those of us who maintain Sars-Cov-2 is a fabrication are correct, then just what genetic instructions are really being inserted in the modified RNA found in the gene therapies is anyone's guess. The well-documented rise in sudden cardiac death, even among healthy athletes and youngsters, and the widespread reports of turbo cancers (see here, here and here for examples) since the vaxxx rollout kicked off, suggest that whatever instructions are really being inserted are nefarious ones.
If us virus skeptics are wrong, we're still faced with a scenario where billions of people, for reasons I will never fully fathom, have allowed their bodies to be turned into spike protein factories. I know humans can be remarkably dumb and gullible, but ... seriously? Even if I believed this COVID virus charade, if someone approached me and said "hey mate, want to be injected with a drug that will cause your cells to produce the most pathogenic part of the most deadly virus ever known in the history of humankind?", my response would be a robust instruction for them to go engage in a very different kind of insertion.
Lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) are used to coat the active ingredients of therapeutic substances and assist their uptake in the body. In the case of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, this coating consists of liposomes and a chemical called polyethylene glycol (PEG). PEG has never been used before in an approved vaccine, but is found in many drugs that have triggered anaphylaxis — a potentially life-threatening reaction that can cause rashes, plummeting blood pressure, shortness of breath, and rapid heartbeat. So when severe allergy-like reactions occurred in people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech drug right after it was was released in December 2020, many scientists naturally suspected PEG.
Despite continued reports of severe reactions to PEG in the vaxxxines, the response of our loving friends in Big Pharma and the clown world of health authoritarianism has been to leave PEG right where it is in both the Pfizer and Moderna drugs!
Happy aniphylaxis, folks!
Meet Spike, mRNA and LNP, Your Endogenous Stalkers
When the pretend-vaccines were first released, authorities assured us the shots were "localized" and the drugs would not travel throughout the body. A particularly stupid claim, I should add, given that the shots are injected into blood-rich muscle. Blood, if the 'experts' remember from their elementary school science classes, circulates continually around the entire body.
Authorities were lying, of course. Because that's what authorities do. Even if they skipped their elementary science classes, they knew the contents of the COVID drugs circulated throughout the entire body because that's exactly what was reported in the confidential documents given to them by the drug companies.
Under the FOI Act, public advocacy group Judicial Watch obtained over 1,000 pages from the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) related to the biodistribution of the COVID mRNA and viral vector 'vaccines.'
A February 2021 Pfizer document received as part of the request states "No safety pharmacology studies were conducted with BNT162b2 as they are not considered necessary for the development of vaccines according to the WHO guideline."(p. 14)
Proven safe and effective, huh?
This same report, and a January 2021 report, noted that when LNPs “with a comparable composition” to that used in the Pfizer vaccine were injected into rats, they were distributed mainly to the liver, but significant amounts also found their way to the adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries. In fact, during the reported 48-hour period over which the rats were sequentially sacrificed, the LNP-mRNA could be detected in every organ and also muscle, fat and blood.
The Johnson & Johnson drug uses an adenoviral vector dubbed "Ad26". A 2007 study with New Zealand white rabbits showed Ad26 DNA could still be detected in 2 of the 10 treated rabbits a full 6 months after administration.
In human research, spike protein was detectable in plasma of 3 of 13 participants injected with the Moderna drug an average of 15 days after the first injection. For one individual, spike protein was detected at day 29, 1 day after the second injection but was undetectable 2 days later. This study only informs us of blood levels, and tells us nothing of spike protein accumulation in organs and tissues.
So we know that certain components of the gene therapies can linger inside of animals and humans, but the question still remains: Can these components be transmitted to the unvaxxxed?
The Evidence Thus Far
We've all read the anecdotes about people feeling unwell after being around 'vaccinated' people, or menstrual irregularities reported by unvaxxxed women after being around 'vaccinated' women.
Helene Banoun is a French pharmacist/biologist, former researcher at Inserm (a public scientific and technological institute which operates under the joint authority of the French Ministries of Health and Research) and a member of the Independent Scientific Council. She too heard the shedding stories, and at first was skeptical.
She went from skeptical to inquisitive when, in October 2021, she received testimony from a group of French caregivers who observed a stroke in a 7-year-old child with no risk factors but whose parents had been freshly vaccinated. 'Vaccine' defenders would of course write this off as a coincidence, as they do with every other piece of unflattering evidence. However, an analysis of European, Israeli and US data by Spiro Pantazatos, from Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and Hervé Seligmann, an Israeli Independent Research Scientist, suggests this youngster was by no means alone.
Pantazatos and Seligmann found that after the 'vaccine' rollout, all-cause mortality rose 0-5 weeks post-injection in almost all age groups - including youngsters.
If you recall, there was a considerable time lag before the 'vaccines' began to be administered to children. Indeed, in the time period covered by the Pantazatos/Seligmann analysis, the gene therapies had not yet been administered to those under 14 years of age. Yet the researchers found the 'unvaccinated' age group 0-14 also experienced increased mortality after the introduction of the 'vaccines' in their areas. This correlation between 'vaccination' and 0-14 mortality increased from the week of 'vaccination' until week 18 afterwards. As the researchers surmised, this disturbing trend "indicates indirect adverse effects of adult 'vaccination' on mortality of children of ages 0-14 during the first 18 weeks after vaccination."
Another disturbing finding was that the majority of deaths under 18 years of age occurred in infants <1 years, and a significant effect of 'vaccination' on infant mortality was detected when the US CDC data was restricted to that age group.
Two possible explanations immediately come to mind. One is that parents were shedding harmful components of the 'vaccine' to their children. The other possibility is that the 'vaccines' were making the parents sick, and the parents were then passing potentially lethal infectious diseases onto their children. The authors considered the latter possibility, writing that " may be due in part to increased COVID infectivity before vaccine protection takes effect."
However, that proposition doesn't satisfy. Even if you believe in the Woohoo virus, studies examining the infection fatality rate of people testing positive for Sars-Cov-2 on the shady Corman-Drosten PCR test show a median 99.73% survival rate, and 99.95% survival rate in under 70s. Right from the outset, even our sleazy authorities admitted the fatality rate among youngsters was next to non-existent.
Which means the culprit is either shedding, or an infectious disease aside from 'COVID' emanating from the seriously compromised immune systems of their recently-injected elders.
On the possibility of shedding, Banoun notes it could include the transmission of circulating spike protein from the 'vaccinated' (in free form or as part of cellular products known as exosomes or extracellular vesicles), circulating modified RNA or LNPs.
As Banoun notes, shedding of these components should have been studied before these drugs were released, but wasn't - despite the otherwise strict regulation of gene therapy products. However, we do know from the Pfizer documents mentioned above that excretion of some components of the LNPs was detected in the urine and feces of injected rats.
So now we have a possible avenue of transmission via vaginal and anal intercourse or digital penetration. Penetration may not even be necessary in the case of oral sex or if you're one of these depraved characters into "golden" and "brown showers" (please don't ask me to define). In fact, the presence of vaxxxine components in urine and feces also raises questions about the potential risk from contact with a vaxxxinated person who doesn't wash his/her hands after visiting la casa de crappo.
New Studies Confirm mRNA Shedding via Breast Milk and Blood
Pregnant women were excluded from the 'vaccine' clinical trials, but were wholeheartedly encouraged to get the new gene therapies any old how. The terribly sleazy and corrupt CDC actively recommended offering the mRNA drugs to breastfeeding women, even though the possible passage of mRNAs in breast milk to infants was not investigated.
In 2021, however, researchers from NYU Long Island School of Medicine did just that: They investigated whether the COVID-19 vaccine mRNA could be detected in the expressed breast milk of lactating mums receiving the vaccination within 6 months after giving birth.
The study included eleven healthy, lactating mothers who received either the Moderna mRNA-1273 or Pfizer BNT162b2 drugs. They were asked to collect and immediately freeze expressed breast milk samples at home until transported to the lab. Samples were collected before 'vaccination' and for 5 days post-vaxxx. A total of 131 samples were collected 1 hour to 5 days after vaxxx administration. The presence of 'vaccine' mRNA in different milk fractions (whole milk, fat, cells, and extracellular vesicles) was analyzed.
Not surprisingly, no 'vaccine' mRNA was detected in pre-injection samples. Of the 11 subjects, trace amounts of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 were detected in 7 samples from 5 different participants at various times up to 45 hours post-vaxxx. mRNA concentration was highest in extracellular vesicles.
The study, of course, was not equipped to tell us what happened once the 'vaccines' were passed from mother to infant. However, the findings raise the possibility that infant exposure to these drugs via breast milk could possibly explain at least some of the increased mortality seen in unvaccinated children after the vaxxx rollout.
Blood In, mRNA Out
The detection of 'vaccine' components in the blood of animals and humans post-injection raised the possibility that exposure to 'vaccinated' blood could also be a potential route of "shedding". That possibility was confirmed earlier this year when Danish researchers published the results of blood work from hepatitis C patients, which is conducted routinely in Denmark. As in the US, the 2 predominant COVID gene therapies in Denmark are the mRNA drugs from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna.
Their "unexpected" finding was that, of the 108 patient samples, 10 samples (9.3%) had partial or full sequences of the drugs' mRNA sequences, identified from one to 28 days post-vaxxx. There was ~100% identity between the detected mRNA nucleotide sequences found in plasma and the specific mRNA vaccine given.
This raises very real concerns about the potential adverse effects of receiving blood transfusions using 'vaccinated' blood. The good news is that 'vaccine' mRNA was detected in only 9.3% of the samples. The bad news is that researchers only tested for mRNA and not LNPs or other drug ingredients.
The further bad news is that, whatever the risk of exposure, those who do receive tainted blood face potentially deadly outcomes. This was the terribly sad fate of Baby Alex, who received a transfusion from a gene therapy-tainted blood pool, against his parents' expressed wishes.
As for other potential modes of transmission, such as skin contact, inhalation, sweat and saliva, it's early days. These drugs were rushed to market with a disgraceful lack of the safety research normally required of gene therapies, so the reality is we don't yet know the true risks.
So ... Should You Do the Jiggy Jiggy With Someone Who's Had the Jabby Jabby?
Science hasn't yet given us an answer, but a number of brave souls have risked their health and boldly ventured where many of us 'unvaccinated' folks refuse to go: To bed with a 'vaccinated' person.
Given that the social media sites are furiously removing anecdotal observations about "shedding" in the name of 'preventing misinformation' (a.k.a suppressing dissent and free speech), and that "I boinked a vaccinated girl and it made me sick" isn't the kind of thing people rush to brag about online, empirical observations on this topic are hard to come by.
I did recently come across this on Reddit, however:
"Oh, that's unverified anecdote by anonymous Internet users," the vaxxxinated will no doubt retort.
I might've conceded on that point until a few weeks ago, at which time I visited a friend and began one of our lengthy chats where we set about solving the world’s problems. Like me, my friend has never had the 'novel' Wuhan virus formerly known as influenza. Like me, he takes his training and nutrition seriously. He's a solid, muscular lad who is conscientious about his workouts, diet and supplements. So naturally, he's unvaxxxed, and staunchly so. His wife, however, is vaxxxed, as a result of succumbing to mandates in her workplace.
As we chatted, he shared with me that whenever he and his missus get intimate, he feels like "shit" the next day. Swollen lymph glands, sore throat, runny nose - it feels like he is coming down with something. For the record, he'd never experienced this reaction until after she was injected with the COVID gene therapy.
The science might still be out, but basic biochemistry, commonsense and anecdotal observation from someone I trust is enough for me to err on the side of caution. Until science can provide absolute clarity, injection with the gene therapies is a massive deal-breaker for yours truly, right up there with farting, missing teeth, employment that involves vertical poles or policing, and illicit drug use.
It turns out I'm not alone.
Sorry, I Don't Date Genetically Modified Organisms
In October last year, author Laura J. Wellington posted an article titled "Unvaccinated Single Women Say 'No' To Vaccinated Single Men." Wellington is the founder of THREAD MB, author, award-winning children’s television creator, TEDx Speaker, and the founder of ZNEEX, a friendship app which allows you to sort matches according to 'vaccination' status.
Wellington reports that unvaxxxed women are now weighing up the risk of getting intimate with vaxxxed men, with many deciding it's an unacceptable one.
"As these women chose to remain unvaccinated for a reason," she writes, "mitigating any risk by eliminating candidates based upon vaccine-status has become their new norm."
Doing so isn’t without its issues, she notes. Qualifying single men by their vaxxx status makes the pool of eligible suitors additionally small, especially if one is living in a blue (Democrat) state.
On top of that, people don't take well to rejection at the best of times, and being knocked back for doing what they believed was "the right thing" is proving to be an especially sore point. Those who felt cajoled into getting the clot shots are proving to be even more resentful.
"The most disgruntled, hostile men", Wellington notes, "tend to be those who succumbed to the vaccine by force. Feeling penalized twice over for a vaccine they never wanted to begin with, many of these men don’t handle these women’s rejection well."
“I have been called names for stating that the vaccine is a dealbreaker for me,” said Anika Janis.
(My note: This runs both ways. I read a post by a male member of an Australian Telegram group who reported a barrage of hostility after he stipulated in his internet dating profile that he would only date non-vaxxxed women).
"For these women," explains Wellington, "there is simply not enough information about the vaccine or its effects to warrant consideration. No one knows the ramifications or what is to come for those who took the vaccine."
My sentiments exactly. For those who disagree, my pronouns are Too.Freaking.Bad. We, the 'unvaccinated', withstood the most pervasive, intense and slanderous psychological warfare campaign ever unleashed upon humanity. We stood our ground, but often at great personal cost. We were refused jobs we were more than qualified for, and lost jobs that we already held. We were refused flights, even refused entry to countries, as if we were terrorists or notorious criminals.
I think we've now earned the right to be a little picky when it comes to choosing a mate. Aside from the obvious health concerns, there's now a universal bond between the unvaxxxed. We showed some spine and critical thinking, two exceedingly rare qualities in the modern world. You can't help but feel some sense of kinship when meeting someone who traveled the same path and arrived intact at the same place you did. As people who stood their ground, many of us understandably want a partner who did the same.
The Mandatory “I Ain’t Your Mama, So Think For Yourself and Take Responsibility for Your Own Actions” Disclaimer: All content is provided for information and education purposes only. Individuals wishing to make changes to their dietary, lifestyle, exercise or medication regimens should do so in conjunction with a competent, knowledgeable and empathetic medical professional. Anyone who chooses to apply the information on this substack does so of their own volition and their own risk. The author/s accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm, real or imagined, from the use or dissemination of information contained on this substack. If these conditions are not agreeable to the reader, he/she is advised to leave this substack immediately.