Though I was hardly the first person to discuss the potentiality of spike protein and shedding on Twitter, I did make the mistake of trying to discuss it with Ashish K. Jha, a leftist academic and head of Brown’s School of Public health. To my way of thinking, Dr Jha was actively promoting misinformation and using his credentials to advocate for gene transfer therapies that are causing many prominent scientists a lot of worry.

Wrote Dr Jha, as part of an extended thread in which he depicts himself as a vaccinated victim to a filthy unvaccinated fellow air traveler whose mask kept slipping below her nose (and let me note here that I find the anecdote itself dubious):

But vaccine mandates for air travel are

Canada has done it

We should too.

Mandate vaccine or negative test for air travel

I understand the person next to me had the freedom not to be vaccinated

The old man next to her has the right to fly without getting infected

End

In response to Dr Jha, I wrote two Tweets, the first of which was the one Twitter cited as the cause of my permanent ban:

I have durable immunity from having recovered. You’re more likely to harm me than I you. Your vaccine status does not prevent you from carrying the virus. And depending on when you were vaccinated, per p 67 of Pfizer EUA, you could be shedding spike protein. This can cause injury.

Doctors here on Twitter who aren’t acknowledging that their vaccination status doesn’t prevent them from acquiring or transmitting Covid — often w high viral loads (see Chau, et al, Oxford, via Ho Chi Min City) — are misinforming the public and are contradicting the CDC.

(Note: Links to the data and statements backing my assertion have been added; Twitter doesn’t allow for the embedding of hyperlinks, so had I not been immediately banned, I’d have followed my regular process of adding the links in a subsequent Tweet as part of a Twitter thread.)

What seems to draw the most ire from Twitter “fact checkers” is this notion that the spike protein can be expressed — not in only in viral form, but alone, as a side effect from being vaccinated, a process that (very narrowly) teaches your body to create the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, without accounting for individual differences in the production amount, or for escape of the mRNA from the injection site, after which it can drift throughout the body and wind up in various organs.

Any number of observational incidents, along with a look at the VAERS reporting system in the US, suggests that the vaccinated, within a framework of 4 weeks after taking the vaccine (per Dr. Peter McCullough), may be expressing, through the skin or even exhalation and flatulence, the spike protein alone. This is different than expressing the virus, but because the spike protein is itself pathogenic, exposure to it within the window when a vaccinated person is generating potentially trillions of spike proteins in their bodies, has led to concerns that the expression of the pathogenic spike can cause damage to those who are unvaccinated. Indeed, cases of Covid-19-like symptoms in those testing negative for the virus — along with cases in which an unvaccinated partner of a recently vaccinated partner has produced strange rashes, etc., suggests that the spike protein is shedding — a potentiality that none of the mRNA vaccine makers want known, and that social media companies working together with the government and, it seems, Big Pharma, are very adamant about keeping out of public view. In fact, they tend to purposely dilute the claim by changing it; I don’t think — at least not yet — that the vaccines are self-perpetuating, though interest in the technology certainly exists. Rather, I believe that the body, having been taught to make the spike protein by the foreign mRNA within several of the vaccines, incites an abundance of these spikes that break from the virus and can escape the body through several forms of expression.

As part of my first post to Dr Jha, I pointed out that Pfizer’s EUA documentation itself addressed the issue of shedding, though they did so in a way that is very slippery. I pointing specifically to page 67 of the EUA. It spills over a bit onto page 68, as well.

8.3.5.1.Exposure During Pregnancy

An EDP occurs if:

•A female participant is found to be pregnant while receiving or after discontinuing study intervention.

•A male participant who is receiving or has discontinued study intervention exposes a female partner prior to or around the time of conception.

•A female is found to be pregnant while being exposed or having been exposed to study intervention due to environmental exposure. Below are examples of environmental exposure during pregnancy:

•A female family member or healthcare provider reports that she is pregnant after having been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact.

•A male family member or healthcare provider who has been exposed to the study intervention by inhalation or skin contact then exposes his female partner prior to or around the time of conception.

Over on Twitter, those who go to any means to defend the vaccines, were quick to jump on my claim. One person, who first denied that a document with 67 pages existed, then — when presented with a photo of those pages of the document — changed tack and downplayed the language as conventional and not supportive of my claim (a claim, incidentally, that is shared by America’s Front Line Doctors, and such eminent scientists as Geert Vanden Bossche, Dr Michael Yeadon, and Luc Montagnier).

He wrote, in a series of Tweets, the following:

That means that if a pregnant person touches or inhales the physical product (in this case the liquid in the vial) it is considered an “exposure”. The “intervention” is the product. Some drugs in the market shouldn’t be touched by pregnant women. This is precautionary wording.

This is all typical stuff and guidance from the FDA to help catch problems with drugs and pregnancy early.

Tldr: at the time of their testing, pregnant women shouldn’t come in contact with this drug. If they do, by any of the means listed, they have to follow up on the condition of the child through birth to see if anything happened. I’m sure all drug companies do this with new drugs

To add to this, the male exposing his partner is also a precautionary due to the ability of male semen to cause birth defects with some drugs. Men taking thalomid were causing birth defects by impregnating women. This is likely wording on every product they test.

Were one to look to page 45 of the EUA, it is true that the “intervention” is the product, in this case, the vaccine. It is also likely true that what we’re seeing here is fairly typical in pharmaceutical literature.

But what this shrug-off to conventional warnings about the vaccine and pregnancy, or administering the vaccine to woman of child-bearing age, etc., fails to recognize, is 1) that the CDC is now telling pregnant women to take the vaccine; and 2) the language in the EUA is intentionally slippery, designed almost to elicit the kind of “fact check” this Twitter user — among a host of others — has seized upon.

In clinical trials, pregnant women or women who could not guarantee contraception were excluded (I’ve linked to the Pfizer paper here as an example). So, too, were children and the Covid-recovered. That the vaccine has been out 9 months and was contraindicated for pregnant women upon its release, there is no scientific reasoning behind this new CDC position on vaccinating pregnant women or women of child-bearing age. There is also very little safety data at all, and the safety data we do have concludes that follow-up longitudinal studies are necessary before the data can be adequately assessed.

But let’s return to page 67-68 of the Pfizer EUA. Pace the Twitter user who was quick to dismiss the exposure during pregnancy guidances in the document, the subject intervention — the actual physical vaccine as it exists in the vial — is not itself the sole cause for concern. And we know that because of this specific bullet point: “A male participant who is receiving or has discontinued study intervention exposes a female partner prior to or around the time of conception.” (emphasis added).

The idea that a male participant in the clinical trials who has discontinued his participation in the testing can expose his “female partner prior to or around the time of conception,” can mean one of two things: that the male who is no longer participating in the study is carrying around vials of mRNA vaccine and poses a threat should he sprinkle the mRNA-code carrying “intervention” like holy water near or onto a pregnant women or a someone who has the potential to get pregnant (though I suppose he can also wear it like a cologne); or else the real warning here is that a man who has stopped taking the “study intervention” can expose a female partner in a way that doesn’t involve direct contact with the “study intervention” itself.

So we must ask ourselves: what would that mechanism of concern be? The Twitter poster brings up male semen, but I haven’t seen that mentioned as the method of potential harm, and were this the case, the EDP would more clearly specify unprotected intimacy. So the answer — which I should think is obvious — is that the very fact that he has the vaccine inside him is cause for potential concern, or at least, is cause for an investigative follow up.

Now, this may be simply conventional. But when coupled with the observational and reported data of the vaccinated causing injury to unvaccinated partners, usually as a result of close intimate contact within a 4 week period after taking the vaccine, the idea that shedding of the spike protein can’t cause harm is entirely misleading. Partner this with other possible mechanisms noted in the warning — including inhalation (and no, inhalation of semen isn’t specified or even alluded to) — and it is clear that Pfizer is covering its bases.

As viral loads seem to be increasing — and the vaccinated carry at least if not more viral load than the unvaccinated — it is important to consider that those who have recently trained their bodies to make the very likely-lab designed SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in order to create antibodies, may in fact be making so many of these pathogenic spike proteins that they are being expressed and are transmissible, either through close physical contact or even inhalation.

It follows, then, that while Pfizer puts the emphasis on pregnant women — and here is where what is conventional potentially hides what is not — pregnancy itself, or even child-bearing years themselves, are not the mechanism of concern. Rather, the ability of the vaccinated to pass on spike proteins without transmitting the virus is the concern — and that concern should apply to the unvaccinated, children, the Covid-recovered, or anyone else in close proximity to vaccinated people within a particular time frame after the administration of the vaccine.

So. Nothing I said on Twitter was untrue. While everything Dr Jha said was untrue or misleading: he can still acquire and transmit the virus, rendering his “vaccine passport” useless, save as a marker of virtue and compliance, when he chooses actively to tout it; and depending on when he received his most recent shot, or latest booster, there are indications that close proximity of the kind he worried over from the unvaccinated woman on the plane — without inquiring whether she had or cleared the virus — put her in at equal risk from him, and potentially at greater risk, as the Covid-recovered aren’t catching and transmitting delta.

One of us got permanently banned. The other continues to advocate for a vaccine that, since it’s roll-out, has been accompanied in the most vaccinated countries by significant increases in Covid cases.

Muller’s ratchet would predict that Delta would be more contagious but less virulent. And yet, in the UK, we see that hospitalization rates — not just in absolute numbers but per capita — are disproportionately among the vaccinated. And it’s starting to look like deaths share that profile.