Western Populations Continue to Be Vaccinated for Illnesses That No Longer Exist in Western Countries

The downside and liabilities of vaccines are well established. The purpose of this post is to examine the effectiveness of vaccination campaigns at the front end.

The main advances in combating disease over the last 200 years have been better food and clean drinking water. Improved sanitation, reductions in overcrowding and better living conditions also contribute. This is also borne out in published peer-reviewed research:

Diphtheria and Whooping Cough

Data from the U.K. shows that mortality from diphtheria was in steady decline up until the nationwide vaccination program got underway in 1940-1941. You will notice a great reduction in the affliction between 1941 and 1946. You should also notice that mortality among infants did not experience a similar decline.

Additionally, vaccinations were not universal and nowhere near the level of 80-85% necessary for herd immunization. By the end of 1941, 36% of school-age children had been immunized, but only about 19% of younger children [British Journal of Nursing October 1948 p. 121].

At least half the children under age 10 had not been vaccinated prior to 1946. Notice that in 1944, the U.K. instituted an active health program of free medical checkups, free school milk (vitamin A) and subsidized meals. In 1948, the U.K. also introduced widespread health reform, which would have been a factor in completely knocking out diphtheria.

By 1946, diphtheria had disappeared in the non-infant population, but the U.K. government launched in 1946-47 a “catch-up” diphtheria vaccination campaign. A total of 1.24 million previously unvaccinated children were vaccinated even though diphtheria was already effectively eradicated except for infants. And still, older children are being vaccinated for diphtheria to this very day.

Whooping cough was also subjected to vaccination campaigns. The campaigns started after the cough had trendlined downward for years. Like diphtheria, the vaccine was administered starting in 1940-41. Full “herd immunity” levels were not achieved until 1951. By 1955, whooping cough was effectively eradicated. Was it the vaccine, or was it simply the trend of better health conditions? Looks like the vaccine proponents were doing victory dances after the game was essentially already won. People continue to be vaccinated for whooping cough to this very day.

Incredibly, a vaccine was introduced for measles in 1964, after it was effectively eradicated. 

The current vaccine fad is rubella. A graph for rubella mortality is not included because death from rubella over the last century was so rare that the figures are insufficient to plot on a graph.

To conclude, let’s examine two afflictions that were not subjected to vaccination programs: scarlet fever and typhoid. Both fizzled out under their own steam about the same time as diphteria and whooping cough.

Seattle English students told it’s ‘white supremacy’ to love reading, writing

770 KTTH Radio | Feb. 14, 2024

Students in a Seattle English class were told that their love of reading and writing is a characteristic of “white supremacy,” in the latest Seattle Public Schools high school controversy. The lesson plan has one local father speaking out, calling it “educational malpractice.”

As part of the Black Lives Matter at School Week, World Literature and Composition students at Lincoln High School were given a handout with definitions of the “9 characteristics of white supremacy,” according to the father of a student. Given the subject matter of the class, the father found it odd this particular lesson was brought up.

(***)

The Story of the Decade

  • According to U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, author of “Deception: The Great COVID Cover-Up,” the COVID-19 pandemic, which killed millions of people, was the result of Anthony Fauci’s decision to fund dangerous gain-of-function research in China

  • New evidence obtained by U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) further strengthens the theory that SARS-CoV-2 was made in a lab

  • The novel features found in SARS-CoV-2 match the research parameters presented in a 2018 grant proposal by EcoHealth Alliance to conduct gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses

  • EcoHealth and the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) were well aware of the potential that this research could spark a human pandemic. A planning memo contains a note stating, “We MUST make it clear in proposal that our approach won’t drive evolution the wrong way, e.g. drive evolution of more virulent strain that then becomes pandemic”

  • At present, gain-of-function research is allowed provided it’s done with the intention of creating a vaccine, which is a logical fallacy. We’ve never been able to preemptively construct a pathogen that later shows up through natural evolution. We’re creating novel pathogens that don’t exist in nature and then developing vaccines against those. In other words, we’re creating bioweapons and antidotes to those bioweapons, and this needs to stop

Visit Mercola Market

Advertisement

According to U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, author of “Deception: The Great COVID Cover-Up,” the COVID-19 pandemic, which killed millions of people, was the result of Anthony Fauci’s decision to fund dangerous gain-of-function research in China — research that was officially banned in the U.S. at the time and at bare minimum should have been done with U.S. oversight but wasn’t.

Adding insult to injury, Fauci personally profited from the disaster to the tune of about $5 million. “Congress was misled by Anthony Fauci,” Paul told now-independent journalist Tucker Carlson. “In the end, he deserves to be in prison.”

In a January 25, 2024, article1 in the City Journal, science writer, editor and author Nicholas Wade details new evidence2 obtained by U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) that further strengthens the theory that SARS-CoV-2 was indeed made in a lab.3

As noted by Wade, that’s the key reason why no one, despite massive testing efforts, has been able to find SARS-CoV-2 in any wild animal, bats or otherwise. It never existed in the natural world, only in the lab.

The newly-obtained documents include what amounts to a recipe for “assembling SARS-type viruses from six synthetic pieces of DNA designed to be a consensus sequence — the genetically most infectious form — of viruses related to SARS1, the bat virus that caused the minor epidemic of 2002,” Wade writes. As it turns out, SARS-CoV-2 has this exact six-section structure.

The documents also show that “American scientists planned to work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology to engineer novel coronaviruses with the features of SARS-CoV-2 the year before the virus emerged from that city,” USRTK reporter Emily Kopp writes.4

In March 2018, the EcoHealth Alliance, led by Peter Daszak, applied for a $14.2 million grant to conduct gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses in research labs in California, North Carolina, New York, Wisconsin, Singapore and Wuhan. The proposal, dubbed “Project DEFUSE,” describes how scientists would:5

  • Insert furin cleavage sites at the S1/S2 junction of the spike protein

  • Assemble synthetic viruses in six segments

  • Identify coronaviruses that were no more than 25% different from SARS1

  • Select for receptor binding domains adept at infecting human ACE2 receptors

As explained by Kopp,6 SARS-CoV-2 matches these research parameters to the T. It has a furin cleavage site in the spike protein at the S1/S2 junction, and its genome can be divided into six evenly spaced strings of DNA using restriction enzymes called BsaI and BsmBI. This even spacing is unlikely to occur in the genomes of natural viruses.

The reason scientists splice viruses together using evenly spaced DNA pieces is because it’s easier to manipulate. It allows them to synthesize the individual pieces chemically and then string them together to create a complete genome.

This telltale synthetic “fingerprint,” found in the genome of SARS-CoV-2, was detailed in a 2022 preprint by Bruttel et. al.7 As noted by Wade,8 the bottom line is that “if your virus has evenly spaced recognition sites, it’s a pretty good bet that it was made in a lab.” As it turns out, the DEFUSE draft proposal even included an order form for BsmBI — a fact highlighted by Bruttel in a Twitter/X post.9

The genomic variations of SARS-CoV-2’s are also within the 25% range indicated in the proposal, and its receptor binding domains were optimized for human ACE2 receptors from the start, which is what allowed it to spread like wildfire. Wade writes:10

“Discovery of the new recipe certainly strengthens the possibility that the regular spacing of BsaI and BsmBI recognition sites in SARS2 is the signature of synthetic origin.

Indeed, Richard H. Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University who had called the 2022 paper ‘noteworthy … but not decisive,’ now says that the evidence in the new documents ‘elevates the evidence provided by the genome sequence from the level of noteworthy to the level of a smoking gun.’”

Matt Ridley, coauthor of “Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19” agrees, noting that all of the novel features of SARS-CoV-2 are explained by the proposed research methods detailed in the DEFUSE documents.

“Game over.” Ridley wrote.11 “The latest revelations provide precise confirmation that all the many suspicious features of SARS-CoV-2 which imply it was man made were set out in exhaustive detail in the DEFUSE proposal to which Wuhan Institute of Virology was a partner.”

According to the DEFUSE draft USRTK obtained, the plan was to synthesize anywhere from eight to 16 strains of SARS-type bat viruses with human spillover potential, in order to create a vaccine that would then be used on bats in regions where there is military activity.

Importantly, EcoHealth and the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) were well aware of the potential that this research could spark a human pandemic. A planning memo contains a note stating, “We MUST make it clear in proposal that our approach won’t drive evolution the wrong way, e.g. drive evolution of more virulent strain that then becomes pandemic.”12

At present, it would appear that’s exactly what happened. A synthetic virus was concocted, and somehow escaped from the WIV. Whether it was intentional or not is another matter. Either way, the moral of the story is that gain-of-function research poses enormous risks to public health, and if pandemic risk exists, then the research probably shouldn’t be allowed.

Another thing these new documents reveal is how Daszak used misdirection in an effort to deceive the U.S. government about where this obviously risky research would be conducted. While he had every intention of having much of the work done at the WIV, he downplayed the role of the Chinese researchers and made it seem as though the research would be conducted in the U.S.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) ultimately rejected13 the proposal due to “significant weaknesses,” including the fact that the proposal lacked any kind of risk assessment and risk mitigation plan. Whether someone else provided the funding, and if so, who, remains an open question. As reported by Wade:14

“The DEFUSE proposal was authored by Peter Daszak, head of the EcoHealth Alliance in New York, with partners including Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina …

Some observers believe that when DARPA declined to fund the project, the Chinese members of the group may have decided to find their own financing and go ahead unilaterally. This is plausible, as Baric and Shi were collaborators but also rivals. With Baric blocked for lack of DARPA funds, Shi may have seen the chance to race ahead if she could acquire funds from Chinese sources.

Daszak, the project leader, had planned in any case to have much of the work undertaken by Shi’s team in Wuhan, even though it meant deceiving the Defense Department into thinking the bulk of the research would be done by Baric in the United States.

In a note found in the new documents, Daszak wrote, ‘If we win this contract, I do not propose that all of this work will necessarily be conducted by Ralph, but I do want to stress the US side of this proposal so that DARPA are comfortable with our team. Once we get the funds, we can then allocate who does what exact work, and I believe that a lot of these assays can be done in Wuhan.’

Daszak is a research manager, not a virologist, and perhaps did not fully understand the consequences of this decision. The DEFUSE project, if undertaken by Baric, would have gone forward in the second-highest level of safety conditions, known as BSL-3, because Baric believed that the manipulation of SARS-related viruses was dangerous work and did his research in a BSL-3 lab.

The Chinese were less impressed with the dangers. Shi worked on SARS-related viruses mostly in BSL-2 labs, which have minimal safety requirements, though she did test the viruses on humanized mice under BSL-3 conditions.

When SARS2 first appeared in the world, it had all the unique properties that would be expected of a virus made according to the DEFUSE recipe. Instead of slowly evolving the ability to attack human cells, as natural viruses must do when they jump from animals to humans, SARS2 was immediately infectious to people, possibly because it had already been adapted in humanized laboratory mice to the human cell receptors …

Despite intensive search, no precursors for SARS2 have been found in the natural world. Given the 2018 date of the DEFUSE proposal, the researchers in Wuhan could have synthesized the virus by 2019, accounting perfectly for the otherwise unexplained timing of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as its place of origin. It all fits.”

In a November 1, 2023, article, Sen. Paul reviewed what we have learned from “the great COVID cover-up”:15

“The COVID cover-up began in China. But in a way we make too big a deal of that. No one should be surprised that a totalitarian government run by the Chinese Communist Party would seek to cover up its responsibility for a worldwide pandemic. What was mind-jarring — and what we should focus our attention on — is the cover-up in our own country spearheaded by Dr. Anthony Fauci and his fellow public health bureaucrats.

And they might have gotten away with their deception if a federal judge hadn’t ordered their emails released. In brief, these emails reveal that at the same time Dr. Fauci and other public health ‘experts’ were publicly disavowing the idea that the COVID virus originated with a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, they were in general agreement among themselves that that was likely what had happened. So why hide the fact?”

According to Paul, Fauci and his collaborators chose to hide the truth because the truth would reveal their potentially criminal actions. As director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Fauci had been funding risky gain-of-function research at the WIV — a substandard lab in terms of safety.

Moreover, he allowed this research to move forward even though there was a moratorium on gain-of-function research in the U.S. The moratorium was put in place for the very reason that experts feared the risk of creating a human pandemic was too high.

In hindsight, they were correct, and if SARS-CoV-2 was admitted to be a manmade virus leaked from a lab, the only rational response would be to hold the responsible parties accountable and shut this kind of research down for good. No doubt, this prospect would have terrified Fauci and everyone else involved.

According to Paul, that Fauci’s conscience was keeping him awake can be seen in the fact that he was sending emails in the middle of the night in the early days of the pandemic instead of being snugly tucked in his bed. One 3 a.m. email was sent to Robert Kadlec, then-Secretary for Preparedness and Response at Health and Human Services.

“This just came out today. Gives a balanced view,” Fauci wrote. Attached was a Science article arguing for a zoonotic origin of the virus and discrediting the lab leak theory.

“When this email came to light, I was initially puzzled about its timing and urgency,” Paul writes. “But then I learned that one of Kadlec’s duties was to chair the committee responsible for screening gain-of-function proposals for safety purposes — and that the Wuhan coronavirus research proposal never came before his committee!”

In other words, Paul believes Fauci sent this email to Kadlec to hide the fact that he’d OK’d gain-of-function research that should have ended up on Kadlec’s desk for a safety review, but didn’t.

Other behaviors also suggest Fauci and collaborators were panicking over the possibility that COVID might be traced back to their own activities. Paul writes:

“Jeremy Farrar, the Anthony Fauci of the UK, told his brother that in the early stages of the pandemic, ‘a few scientists, including me, were beginning to suspect this might be a lab accident.’

Farrar writes in his book Spike: ‘During that period, I would do things I had never done before: acquire a burner phone, hold clandestine meetings, keep difficult secrets.’

Indeed, many Western bureaucrats, especially in the U.S., began using various forms of communication to shield their messages from future records requests. We have an email from one of Fauci’s assistants instructing other government employees to avoid using government email addresses. Which, by the way, is a crime.”

And then there are the papers published in scientific journals “debunking” — without presenting a shred of evidence — the idea that SARS-CoV-2 might be manmade, and condemning “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” Upon deeper investigation, they too have been linked to key culprits who have a strong incentive to hide the truth, including Fauci.

As noted by Paul, the number of scientists worrying about another lab leak with far more dire consequences is growing:16

“With COVID, the mortality rate was far less than one percent. Experiments are now being carried out with viruses that have the potential for mortality rates between 15 and 50 percent. In 2021, MIT biochemist Kevin Esvelt wrote:

‘Once we consider the possibility of misuse [of gain-of-function research], let alone creative misuse, such research looks like a gamble that civilization can’t afford to risk … I implore every scientist, funder, and nation working in this field: Please stop.

No more trying to discover or make pandemic-capable viruses, enhance their virulence, or assemble them more easily. No more attempting to learn which components allow viruses to efficiently infect or replicate within human cells, or to devise inheritable ways to evade immunity. No more experiments likely to disseminate blueprints for plagues.’

The potential for disaster cannot be overstated. Right now, people can order synthetic DNA on the internet, and if they know what they’re doing, they can make the polio virus, among many others …

The required information is publicly available due to taxpayer-funded initiatives to identify all the viruses in the world. With the support of people like Peter Daszak and Bill Gates, the U.S. has been the top international funder of pandemic virus identification for decades.

This should give us pause: these programs involve digging rare viruses out of caves where humans might never encounter them and transporting them to major metropolitan areas, manipulating viruses to make them more dangerous and transmissible, and publishing the resulting knowledge to the world.

Even if the goal is preventing future pandemics, the risk-benefit ratio doesn’t add up. While advocates for identifying the world’s viruses argue that the knowledge gained will aid in developing vaccines, decades of virus identification have been fruitless, as no human vaccine has been developed in advance of a human epidemic.

If we continue down this path, Esvelt believes that ‘deliberate pandemics’ will kill ‘many more people than identification could save.’ To think that we can prevent future pandemics, even as we continue to seek, catalog, and manipulate dangerous viruses, is the height of hubris.

Over the last few years, public health ‘experts’ were wrong about almost everything. If we are to avoid these kinds of catastrophes in the future, we must reform government and rein in out-of-control scientists and their enablers.”

I couldn’t agree more. We need to put an end to gain-of-function research for the safety of humanity, and not allow greed or sheer scientific curiosity lead to the creation of a pathogen that might wipe out humanity.

The 2022 spending bill contains a directive to the secretary of Health and Human Services on page 3,354 to “not fund research conducted by a foreign entity at a facility located in a country of concern … involving pathogens of pandemic potential or biological agents or toxins.”17

This is a step in the right direction, but as noted by Paul, “Americans and their representatives must watch carefully to see whether our public health agencies attempt to sidestep it.”

To that end, a Gain-of-Function Reform Group is now recommending that gain-of-function experiments that confer “efficient human transmissibility” on a pathogen ought to be regulated. Doing so would “explicitly stop bureaucrats like Fauci from dancing around the gain-of-function definition and looking the other way as researchers create viruses that spread more easily in humans,” Paul writes.

“We’re creating bioweapons and antidotes to those bioweapons, and this needs to stop.”

At present, gain-of-function research is allowed provided it’s done with the intention of creating a vaccine, which is a logical fallacy. We’ve never been able to preemptively construct a pathogen that later shows up through natural evolution.

No, we’re creating novel pathogens that don’t exist in nature and then develop vaccines against those. In other words, we’re creating bioweapons and antidotes to those bioweapons, and it needs to stop. For that to happen, the public needs to start “making noise” so that our elected representatives begin to realize that we will not allow this issue to be ignored.

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

What Is the Current Evidence for mRNA Vaccine Shedding?

By: A Midwestern Doctor

  • mRNA vaccine shedding is real, and people’s sensitivity to it greatly varies. Most 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

  • 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

  • We also we don’t want to create any more unnecessary fear — which is an inevitable consequence of opening up a conversation about shedding

  • Since there is still no agreed upon mechanism to explain why vaccine shedding happens, we would greatly appreciated if you could share your shedding experiences

Visit Mercola Market

Advertisement

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 this 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. Those stories are being collected here.

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.

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

  • •The design of the mRNA vaccines was that lipid nanoparticles containing mRNA were injected in the body, after which they made their way into cells and causes cells to begin producing vaccine spike protein for an unspecified amount of time.

  • Because of this, there were relatively few options of what could be shed. For instance, while it is unlikely the lipid nanoparticles or the mRNA it contained could be transmitted from the vaccinated individuals to their environment, if it could be, there was very little to transmit, so it was simply not possible a single injection could contain enough vaccine material to perpetually sicken those around the vaccinated individual.

  • The only other option was the spike protein being produced by the vaccine was the agent that “shed” (e.g., because the mRNA didn’t break down and hence produced spike indefinitely or because the mRNA had integrated into the cell genome and hence the body was producing spike indefinitely).

  • Spike “shedding” didn’t make sense either because the concentration of spike protein (which is rapidly broken down in the environment) would have to be orders of magnitude higher within the vaccinated individual than in the area around them. In turn, this argues against the shedding being able to affect others if an infinitely higher concentration did not affect the vaccinated individual.

Typically, shedding occurs (e.g., from a live viral vaccine like MMR or polio) because an individual “sheds” a self replicating form of the disease. This results in the low concentration of the pathogen which the shedder expels into their environment then amplifying within the recipient and eventually reaching a comparable concentration to what was found in the “shedder.”

Since I was nonetheless seeing numerous clear cut cases of shedding occurring, this suggested to me that I was missing a huge piece of the puzzle which once known invalidated much of the above logic. Conversely, I could not help but notice that Pfizer’s protocol for testing their vaccine:

  • Prohibited pregnant women or those breast feeding from receiving the vaccine (or future doses if they had already received one).

    
    

    Note: Due to the thalidomide disaster, a foundational rule in medical ethics is that you do not experiment on pregnant women due to the potential danger this exposes the fetus to.

  • Stated it needed to be reported if a pregnant women (e.g., a healthcare worker in the trials) was exposed to the intervention by inhalation or skin contact from someone who had been vaccinated.

  • Stated it needed to be reported if someone in the previous category (not vaccinated but exposed to someone who was) then was in close proximity to their wife and their wife was pregnant.

This suggested either that Pfizer knew shedding was a real problem, or that they were following the existing standards — the FDA stipulates that gene therapies need to be evaluated for shedding before being given to humans (and furthermore be subsequently tested 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).

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 has 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).

While I have seen many anecdotal cases suggesting “shedding is real,” in my eyes, the strongest proof for shedding comes from the observations by Pierre Kory and Scott Marsland at their clinical practice which is dedicated to treating vaccine injuries (which places them in a unique position to observe and evaluate this phenomenon). They have:

  • Seen more than twenty patients develop similar symptoms after a shedding exposure, particularly after a “strong” shedding exposure.

  • Found that those symptoms resemble what is seen in other spike protein pathologies (e.g., long COVID or a mRNA vaccine injury).

  • Found those symptoms often respond to the same treatments used for treating other spike protein pathologies (e.g., ivermectin which binds the spike protein).

  • Found many patients will repeatedly have shedding symptoms emerge after the same exposure (e.g., always feeling ill when a vaccinated husband returns from a long trip away).

  • Been able to determine that those they suspect are a shedder (e.g., the husband) test positive (through an antibody test) for a high spike protein levels.

  • Found that eliminating the shedder from the patient’s life or treating the (asymptomatic) shedder with a vaccine injury protocol significantly helps their patient get well.

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. This in turn demonstrates that something is indeed being transferred from the vaccinated to the unvaccinated.

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.

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., see this reader’s account of their experiences with shedding). I wrote a much longer article about this archetype, but briefly, these patients tend to:

  • Be highly sensitive to toxins in their environment (hence leading to them frequently being injured by pharmaceutical products).

  • Very empathetic and perceptive of subtle qualities others do not notice.

  • Have an ectomorph or Sattvic constitution.

  • Frequently have ligamentous laxity (e.g., Ehlers-Danlos has been correlated with being predisposed to HPV vaccine injuries and many are now reporting EDS predisposes one to a COVID vaccine injury).

Due to these susceptibilities, those patients frequently have chronic illnesses such as mast cell degranulation disorder, multiple chemical 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 patients effectively develop these sensitivities after a COVID-19 vaccine injury.

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).

Note: I consider myself to be a sensitive individual but I have not had any issue being in close proximity to people (e.g., patients) who were recently vaccinated. Conversely, many of my sensitive female friends (who are less sensitive than me) have experienced notable effects from shedding (e.g., menstrual abnormalities), which suggests to be there is more to this picture than just having a “sensitive” constitution.

The second are patients who have been sensitized to the spike protein due to a previous vaccine injury or having long COVID. These patients in turn frequently find their symptoms worsen when they are around individuals who were vaccinated and many have reported that their sensitivity to shedding increases with time.

Note: I believe the Cell Danger Response (discussed here) provides one of the best models to explain what happens to the patients in the first two categories (as treating the CDR often greatly helps these patients). Likewise, I also find a pre-existing impairment in zeta potential (discussed in the previous article) frequently predisposes patients to these issues, while restoring the physiologic zeta potential often greatly benefits them.

Finally, since the spike protein is an allergen that is highly effective at creating autoimmunity in the body, that also can explain why successive exposures to it increase one’s sensitivity to it.

The third are the people who cannot effectively produce antibodies to the spike protein. I was initially clued into this after I saw a study of vaccinated patients who developed myocarditis which discovered that (unlike controls) their ability to develop a neutralizing antibody for the spike protein was impaired, leading to a large amount of free spike protein circulating in their blood (whereas normally it would be bound to an antibody).

Because of this, the spike protein being produced in their body is thus able to create havoc throughout it and those patients become symptomatic after being exposed to a much lower concentration of the spike protein. It is important to note that while reactive to shedding, these patients are nowhere near as sensitive to shedding as the previously described “sensitive patients.”

Note: At the time of the disastrous smallpox campaign, many clinicians believed that those with a weakened immune system could not mount a response to the vaccine, and in turn were both more likely to be injured by it and to catch smallpox (both before and after vaccination).

This led them to argue the vaccine’s “efficacy” was an artifact of it being a proxy for a functioning immune system, and I believe the myocarditis study suggests something similar is occurring for the spike protein vaccines.

There are two forms of shedding: primary (where someone gets ill from being around a vaccinated person) and secondary (where someone gets ill from being around an unvaccinated person who was recently around vaccinated people). Primary shedding is much more common, but secondary is also sometimes reported (particularly for sensitive patients).

Secondary shedding can happen with both individuals who became ill from a shedder (more common) or from someone who was not affected by a shedder (e.g., children shedding and affecting parents after coming back home from school). Secondary shedding is one of the most confusing aspects of this phenomenon as I don’t feel many of the mechanisms I’ve proposed to explain why shedding is happening can account for secondary shedding.

Note: Pfizer’s trial protocol (mentioned above) also addressed the possibility of both primary and secondary shedding.

The most common observation with shedders is that they are dramatically more likely to shed soon after vaccination (depending on who you ask, this window ranges from three days to four weeks). However, more, sensitive patients find they are affected by a shedder indefinitely and strongly disagree with a 2-4 week cutoff.

I believe this essentially matches what has been found in numerous studies — that following vaccination, spike protein production in the blood spikes and then declines but never reaches zero and appears to continue for months afterwards (presently we don’t know how long the effect lasts for as it simply hasn’t been monitored long enough).

Additionally, quite a few people have noticed that shedding events (in the same location) are the most frequent and severe immediately following a new booster rollout, after which they gradually diminish until the next booster campaign.

It has also been observed that young and healthy people tend to shed more frequently (presumably since their body has a greater capacity to manufacture the spike), children shed the most, and that the elderly shed the least frequently. Repeatedly boosting appears to worsen shedding for three reasons:

  • It causes patients to resume having high spike protein levels in their body as typically after vaccination or boosting, there is a spike and then decline of spike protein which persists at a low level for months (again, no study has yet assessed if it lasts for years).

  • Successive boosting appears to increase the degree of shedding which occurs when compared to the previous injections the patient experienced.

  • Quite a few holistic healers have shared that they believe the most recent boosters are more potent and hence cause greater shedding than the earlier ones (which might be explained by the boosters now containing multiple strains of mRNA to cover the new variants).

One of the odd things quite a few people have reported is a distinct smell which emerged around them after the vaccines entered the market. For example, consider this comment from a reader:

“In terms of crowds … I too have experienced this many times. I feel unwell with flu like symptoms and can smell a unique odour around people. After feeling this way and smelling the same odour several times in company with family and friends, I confirmed the correlation with the covid vaccination.

As it transpired each has been vaccinated within the previous week. I am very sensitive to meds and in general and I swear I can smell something so now I ask and yep the link is there!”

Note: I have heard a variety of similar descriptions of the smell itself (e.g., see this comment, this comment and this comment). Since I can’t smell it, I don’t yet feel confident trying to provide a description of what the smell is. Later in this article, I will discuss a colleague’s much more detailed observations of that smell and what we think it may represent.

There appear to be three possible routes of exposure. General proximity to the vaccinated person — this is most likely respiratory in nature and the most common form of shedding exposure reported by patients. However, I have seen a few reports which suggest places which are separated by barriers (e.g., being inside a car near a crowded intersection) can also produce that exposure. Additionally, many have said they find shedding to be greatly mitigated when outdoors.

Note: Numerous people have reported long-term symptoms occurring after they received a treatment session (e.g., massage, acupuncture, or chiropractic) from a vaccinated individual (especially one who had been recently vaccinated). For this reason, I am curious to see when those businesses will stop declaring their vaccination status (similarly, some of my patients became my patients because they wanted an unvaccinated doctor who would not make them ill).

Through skin to skin contact. Often patients report that they have some difficulty around vaccinated individuals, but notice things become much worse once some physical contact occurs, especially prolonged physical contact. This is thought to be due to the spike protein being “shed” in the sweat.

Additionally, I have seen a few reports where the shedding effect appeared to be transferable (e.g., someone touched an object a vaccinated person touched like a phone and then became ill). Sadly, I have also come across multiple reports (e.g., this one, this one, and this one) of cleaners who notice that they get ill when they change sheets that were slept in by vaccinated individuals, one of whom noted sheets vaccinated individuals have slept in have a slightly yellowish tint.

Note: Individuals I trust have stated spike is excreted in the sweat. However when I tried to find that information, I could only locate research which suggested it was (as secretions occurred in analogous situations), but I could never find a study which directly measured the presence of vaccine spike protein in sweat.

There is also some evidence shedding occurs in other secretions. This has been most clearly shown with vaccine mRNA being packaged into exosomes found in breast milk (e.g., see this study in the Lancet) but there is some evidence suggesting it applies to other secretions (e.g., sweat or saliva) as well.

Additionally, there have been concerning infant reactions to breast milk from vaccinated mothers within VAERS and far more in Pfizer’s adverse event collection system (further discussed within this excellent article), which suggest some form of toxicity is being transmitted via the breast milk. Additionally, a study published a year ago in JAMA found that 3.5% of women reported a decrease in breast milk supply and 1-2% reported “issues with their breastmilk-fed infant after vaccination.”

Note: An excellent research paper (which, given its content, will likely never get published) discovered in multiple countries that when adults received the COVID vaccine but no one under 18 was being vaccinated, death rates significantly increased in children. While this is understandably difficult to believe (due to its troubling implications), the same pattern was also detected by another researcher in the Philippines.

Additionally, I have seen multiple reports where the region of the patient which experienced the shedding reaction (e.g., a bruise, a rash, or a cancer) was the part of the patient which was physically closest to the shedder.

There seem to be three common variants of exposures:

  • Immediate — Patients often notice this, and either feel as though some type of poison had been immediately injected into them, or that there is an oppressive presence in the area they are entering which makes them feel unwell.

    
    

    Note: I presently suspect this form occurs in the most sensitive patients as the symptoms experienced in concurrence with that “oppressive presence” are often quite similar to what mold sensitive patients experience in moldy rooms and EMF sensitive patients experience in high EMF areas.

  • A 6-24 hour delay — This seems to be the most common variant. In certain cases, patients have reported this occurring like clockwork (e.g., every Monday they or a relative gets ill after they had gone to church on Sunday).

  • A long-term delay — This is often seen in the patients who have the most severe complications from vaccine shedding.

In each of these cases, patients will typically recover after a few days, but there were also many patients who reported a permanent (partial or debilitating) illness after the shedding exposure.

Many of the symptoms of shedding appear to match what is seen in both long COVID and vaccine injuries, again suggesting this is a spike protein mediated disease (especially since the effects of a shedding exposure are often reduced once a spike protein treatment like ivermectin and to a lesser extent nattokinase are started for a patient). However, while the symptoms overlap, some are more common after vaccination while a few are more common after a shedding exposure.

All of this I believe is a testament to the fact that (as discussed in the previous article) the effects of the mRNA gene therapies are not all predictable or consistent and it was hence extremely premature to administer these highly variable injections to the general population.

By far the most commonly reported symptoms are gynecologic in nature. Of these, menstrual abnormalities are by far the most common (something also seen with the vaccine), and I have lost count of how many people have shared a story of a short or long-term menstrual abnormality which occurred immediately after what they in hindsight realized was a textbook shedding exposure.

Note: I suspect there is a hormonal component to this, but I have not been able to get enough data to have a clear position on what’s happening. The best case report I know of comes from this reader, who regularly measured her hormones and repeatedly found her estrogen spiked after a shedding exposure. Conversely, another (50 year old) woman (who is also a physician) shared that after her shedding exposure, her estrogen and progesterone dropped to 0 (while some testosterone remained).

In some cases, highly unusual menstrual abnormalities occur. For example, I now know of a few cases where a women in menopause (and in two cases a woman without a uterus) began having menstrual bleeding after a vaccine exposure. Worse still, in early 2021 I belonged to a large (and later banned) Facebook group where we actively discussed menstrual abnormalities created by the vaccine and from shedding exposures (a lot of women there observed this).

I, in turn, was astounded by how many people there reported experiencing a decidual cast shedding (the entire lining of the uterus coming off as one piece), and since that time I’ve met one woman in real life this happened to (along with learning of a case reported to Dr. Kory).

For context, this is a very rare condition (e.g., one paper which looked into this found prior to the vaccines, less than 40 cases of it had been reported in medical journals across the world — making the condition rare enough that it is impossible to estimate how frequent it is), yet in a survey which 6049 (vaccinated and unvaccinated) women responded to, 292 (4.83% of respondents) reported a decidual cast shedding event.

Most tragically, I have heard of a few cases where a shedding exposure appeared to end a pregnancy (e.g., see this reader comment, this reader comment and this reader comment), but it is still rare enough I have no idea if it’s something to be concerned about.

Note: While I am undecided on the miscarriage risk of shedding, I am relatively sure COVID vaccination can cause a miscarriage as I have seen numerous cases where this seemed to have happened. For example, in a small group I’m connected to, two of the employees had relatives who got pregnant.

They both also got vaccinated during their pregnancy and then lost their baby (e.g., one was vaccinated at 13 weeks after her OBGYN said COVID vaccination was essential and then miscarried at 16 weeks).

In parallel to menstrual abnormalities being the most common shedding symptom, we have all found women are more sensitive to shedding than men (which is particularly unfortunate as medicine has a longstanding practice of gaslighting women who present with systems the doctor can’t make sense of). In men, I find the closest equivalent is “groin pain” which while repeatedly reported, does not occur anywhere near as frequently as menstrual issues.

Note: A recent study of 140,000 women found 42% of them reported menstrual abnormalities after vaccination. Through my network, I know that a formal study was conducted with a decent sample size which was able to demonstrate the majority of unvaccinated women studied developed menstrual abnormalities when exposed to vaccinated individuals.

However, since that article is still working its way through the peer review process, I cannot disclose anything else in it (as I do not want to derail its publication).

I typically associate menstrual abnormalities (e.g., those described previously) with a Chinese medicine condition known as “blood stasis” which in many ways is analogous to “impaired zeta potential.” In turn, I’ve found that many of the other symptoms commonly associated with shedding (e.g., tinnitus or headaches) are also viewed as a consequence of blood stasis.

For example, this reader describes a classic blood stasis headache (and a variety of other symptoms associated with blood stasis):

“Shortly after he received the vaccine, I started getting severe headaches, like nothing I had ever experienced before. It felt like a nail had been driven through my temple or eye, and my blood pressure would also spike at the same time. I have orthostatic hypotension and chronically low Bp, so this was notably unusual for me.”

Bruising is also commonly associated with shedding, although two distinctly different types are observed. Sometimes many tiny bruises spontaneously emerge, which is often indicative of an immune process destroying the platelets (e.g., see this readers account), but more frequently large painless bruises (something also associated with blood stasis) are observed.

Note: Bruising is one of the only symptoms I know of that is more commonly seen after shedding than vaccination (the other is nosebleeds). The classic way vaccines cause bruising is with ITP (what caused the previously cited reader’s tiny bruises), and while ITP is officially acknowledged as a side effect of many vaccines, it is nonetheless fairly rare (e.g., 1 in 100,000 COVID vaccine recipients).

Dizziness (another symptom associated with blood stasis) is also repeatedly reported, although it does not appear to be quite as common as the bruising, tinnitus, or headaches. In addition to the symptoms representative of blood stasis, there are two commonly reported ones that are more immunological in nature.

The first is mental cloudiness and a general feeling of being unwell (e.g., how you feel before a flu). This can include feeling as though a fog has come over them, fatigue, difficulty concentrating, joint pain or quickly coming down with symptoms similar to those experienced when the individual had COVID.

Additionally, I now have multiple cases where someone (e.g., a friend) appeared to have caught COVID from someone who was recently vaccinated that they had frequently been around but never caught COVID from before (one of which provides a very compelling argument for this correlation).

Note: Some of the symptoms in this category can be associated with blood stasis, but the link is less clearcut.

The second is that in the same way that the COVID vaccines cause immune suppression and reactivate latent infections (e.g., lyme or EBV), lighter versions of latent reactivations have also been seen after shedding events (e.g., this is a compelling case history of it happening with herpes). By far, the most common reactivation associated with the COVID vaccines is shingles, and likewise, the most commonly reported reactivation after a shedding exposure is shingles.

Note: This immune suppression may also explain why individuals develop COVID or a COVID like illness after being exposed to a shedding event.

Some of the less frequent symptoms I see repeatedly reported (which are also frequently seen with the vaccines) include:

  • Atrial fibrillation (this is also a classic blood stasis condition which often responds well to restoring the physiologic zeta potential — e.g., see this reader’s comment)

  • Muscle pain (e.g., in the calves)

  • Seizures

  • Insomnia

  • Hair loss

  • Sinus pressure or a copious nasal discharge

  • Skin rashes (e.g., psoriasis or hives), something we also repeatedly saw in the vaccinated (e.g., at dermatology clinics — where sadly the dermatologists insisted again and again could not be linked to the vaccine)

    
    

    Note: There are a lot of nuances to correctly diagnosing skin conditions, which is why I am hesitant to be more specific (I have only seen the vaccinated skin rashes, and while the shedding ones sound similar, I am not sure if they are as I have not seen them with my own eyes)

Note: Most of the above symptoms are linked to blood stasis and thus poor zeta potential.

In most cases, I find the severe vaccine side effects (e.g., a heart attack) are dramatically less likely to occur following a shedding exposure than following vaccination (which to some extent makes sense from a toxicity standpoint as they are receiving a much lower dose of the spike).

Nonetheless, I have seen quite a few examples shared in the comments on Dr. Kory’s recent series about shedding such as:

  • Multiple signs of a stroke (e.g., drooping facial muscles and difficulty concentrating or driving).

  • Severe blood clots in the legs.

  • PMR (a debilitating autoimmune disease repeatedly seen after COVID vaccination) in an unvaccinated woman who worked in a lab with many vaccinated coworkers.

  • An individual with progressively worsening seizures (due to shedding) eventually experiencing a fatal seizure after a Thanksgiving dinner with vaccinated family members.

  • A cancer which appeared to be strongly linked to the vaccine shedding.

    
    

    Note: Linking a cancer to shedding is almost impossible to prove, but I believe this case represents the closest you can get (especially since the recipient received an unusually high shedding dose). Additionally, her rare cancer was identical to the aggressive one that a Moderna vaccine trial recipient developed (and Moderna never disclosed in their trial report despite the trial participant doing her best to get it recognized).

Given how controversial, concerning, and still relatively not understood the entire shedding phenomena is, we have been reluctant to write anything about it despite many requests to. However, since this is a clearly an issue of immense concern for many, we felt it needed to be done.

After we discussed it with Dr. Kory, we all felt that it was best if he wrote the initial series on this subject (the comments of which I have referenced throughout this article) and then have a follow up to it appear here.

Thus far, this article has presented the information that is on relatively solid ground (e.g., most of the claims have a source) — and which I believe will be helpful to many of the readers here.

However, I’ve also avoided answering many of the other questions we’ve received from readers (e.g., “what about shedding with a vaccinated sexual partner?”, “what about cancer?”, “what is actually causing the shedding?”, “what is behind the shedding odor?”, “what about vaccinated blood transfusions?”, “how do you protect yourself from the shedding?”) because those answers lie on much shakier ground.

In the final part of this article I will attempt to answer each of those questions (some of which I’ve spent over a year trying to figure out). Since much of that (due to having less evidence to support it) exposes this publication to a lot of risk, I will need to limit the audience for it.

Additionally, since Substack also restricts the audience which can access the comments on limited posts (there is no way to get around that), I created a second article where you can share your shedding experiences as I believe it is critically important each of you does. That article can be accessed here.

Note: I wrote to the previous article primarily to provide critical context for this section.

As I discussed earlier in this article, 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, the best explanations I’ve been able to come up with are as follows:

  1. The sensitivity to either the spike protein (or a yet unknown vaccine component) varies by orders of magnitude (due to the reasons described earlier in this article).

  2. 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 essentially allows for a relatively small difference in total spike protein concentration between the shedder and the individual affect by the shedder.

    
    

    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).

    
    

    During COVID, we noticed that the virus appeared to poison the exosome system and in turn that injecting healthy exosomes sourced from amniotic fluid 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 exosomes that traverse the body), and more importantly, 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).

    
    

    Because of all the signaling effects generated by exosomes (very small doses of healthy exosomes can created profound improvements in patients which are hard to believe unless you see it first hand), it in turns make sense why their exhalation could have a profound impact on those sensitive to shedding.

    
    

    Furthermore, many of the case histories I’ve seen indicate the route of exposure had to be respiratory in nature (e.g., the nose bleeds) supporting this hypothesis (and conversely, I’ve seen patients have excellent pulmonary and nasal responses to nebulized amniotic exosomes). 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 the vaccine antibody response.

    • 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 (see this 2013 paper, this 2020 paper and this 2021 paper — since this is a new field of research, each paper is more sophisticated than the preceding one).

    • The spike protein has a high (heparin dependent) affinity for binding to the surface of exosomes (assuming it was not already there when the exosome formed).

    • 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 studded 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 (at which point some entered other tissues known to be affected by shedding).

      
      

      Note: Many of the above papers showed (abnormal) exosomes (e.g., spike protein containing ones) activated the immune system and appeared to play a key role in developing an immune response to them.

    
    

    Exosomes may also be absorbed through skin contact (after being sweated out by a shedder) but it’s harder to know the effects there, as the existing data I’ve seen indicates it’s often difficult for exosomes 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 in the heart) but also that it potentially poisons the exosome system.

    
    

    This in turn can harm both the patient and individuals they are around (e.g., children have been found to become immunized against COVID-19 while being around vaccinated parents). Put differently, for more reasons than I can count, it was incredibly premature to put this technology on the market as there are so many different critical (but not well-understood) aspects of the body it can screw up.

    
    

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

  3. The vaccine is causing vaccinated individuals to develop chronic asymptomatic COVID infections (which say only become symptomatic once they are exposed to a new variant), and that is what’s making those around them ill. Some of the pieces of evidence I’ve seen that suggest this is happening are:

    • I have seen 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 suggest that the immunosuppressive effects of the vaccine can destroy the immune system’s ability to respond to an existing infection.

      
      

      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 preexisting infection of the disease they “protect” you against.

    • I had a friend who stayed inside his house 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.

    • The vaccine has been observed to create an immune tolerance to the COVID-19 spike protein, which results in the patients being less able to clear the infection but also less likely to develop symptoms from it.

    • There are some signs suggesting the vaccine spike protein can integrate into the host genome. If this happens, that means there will be cells in the body continually producing the entire COVID virus or at least certain parts of it (e.g., the spike protein) which they can chronically asymptomatically shed if the shedder has an tolerance to them.

      
      

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

  4. The vaccines are contaminated with DNA plasmids that were not removed during the manufacturing process. Those plasmids in turn are integrating into the recipients genome or their microbiome.

    
    

    If they are integrating into the microbiome (which I expect is happening since bacteria continually take up surrounding plasmids), that will cause those bacteria to both begin producing the plasmids and to reproduce (creating more plasmid producing bacteria).

    
    

    In turn, this makes it possible for the vaccine to “shed” in the classical fashion, as a small amount of a self reproducing agent can be released by the recipient, infect others and multiply within them (and might also for instance explain why individuals touching things vaccinated individuals touched are having such strong reactions to those surfaces.

    
    

    Note: Despite it being repeatedly claimed COVID-19 could be transmitted through contaminated surfaces, this actually wasn’t true, which argues that it is likely something else on those surfaces (e.g., the sheets the cleaners needed to clean).

    
    

    This hypothesis was strengthened by the following discoveries:

    
    

    
    

    Unfortunately, I have not yet found any concrete evidence the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is incorporated into the gut microbiome either after a COVID-19 infection or vaccination.

    
    

    Note: Much more on this subject was written here. For example, I believe one of the biggest issues with the vaccine is that it harmful to the microbiome that exists within the blood (which in turn requires the blood clots it creates to frequently be treated with a german homeopathic which antidotes that type of clotting).

  5. The vaccine is pathologically altering the mitogenic radiation of the body (an ultraviolet signal which guides cell growth and is discussed in much more detail here). I initially became drawn to this hypothesis after I realized mitogenic changes are strongly associated with menstrual changes, and since the mitogenic field is emitted from a shedder in each direction, the concentration someone is exposed to will be relatively similar to that the shedder experiences.

    
    

    Furthermore, I have sometimes noticed I can feel a characteristic difference in patients who were either vaccinated or had a severe case of COVID-19, and many people have told me they believe the shedding mechanism is primarily energetic.

    
    

    Note: I could see either the second, third, or fourth explanation account for why the mitogenic emissions of an individual are altered.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

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.

Likewise, I’ve seen 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 (besides possibly to vaccinated blood), so some individuals who are not sensitive to other forms of shedding may not be able to tolerate sexual exposures.

For example, a 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 issues being around them 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 menstrual abnormalities, the major effects of which lasted a year and a half, the minor of which have persisted to this day.

Likewise, in Pierre Kory’s series, he shared the story of two different women who were injured by swallowing vaccinated semen (they suffered significant abdominal pain). In one case, this came from a husband who received the J&J vaccine, in the other it came from an unvaccinated husband who became ill after a shedding exposure (which his wife tried to alleviate by performing oral sex).

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.

  • 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 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” 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 me and my spouse aren’t vaccinated).

  • 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 them, so this all may also work itself out on its own.

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 use is almost impossible. Instead, I know of a few options (which I learned of through Jehovah’s Witnesses as their faith rejects all blood transfusions).

First, if you expect to have an elective surgical procedure, hospitals will normally let you donate blood ahead of time which can then be transfused into to you if it’s needed during the surgery. Second, a variety of technologies (which the Jehovah’s Witnesses know about) have been created so that the blood lost during surgery can be collected and transfused back into you.

Third, low hemoglobin levels can often treated with iron infusions (a case can also be made that chlorophyll consumption helps here).

Unfortunately, none of that will apply to an emergency situation, and I presently know of two people (one of my patients and one of Dr. Kory’s patients) who developed what appeared to be analogous to a chronic vaccine injury after they had to receive an emergency transfusion at the hospital. At the same time however, I believe injuries from vaccinated blood are fairly rare and it is thus not a major things to be concerned about.

Note: This subject is discussed in more detail here (e.g., it includes an infamous case of a blood transfusion injury).

In the shedding case I shared earlier in this article, it fell into a fairly unique circumstance (which I’ve only seen in a few vaccine cancers) — it was very hard to argue that anything besides the vaccine caused the cancer given the chronology of what happened.

Note: In that case, the individual noted that she developed her cancer at the site of her body that contacted her husband’s vaccination site while they slept, which to some degree argues for the possibility of skin to skin shedding.

Conversely, for the majority of cancers that might be a result of the vaccines, knowing for certainty of the vaccines contributed to them is quite challenging (e.g., no one will take the political risk to honestly study this). Furthermore, while studying the link between vaccination and cancer is difficult, if you think about it, studying the link between shedding and cancer is almost impossible.

As a result, when patients present to me with cases they believe are due to shedding, I am really not sure what to tell them. For example, I have a good (unvaccinated) friend and massage therapist that frequently worked with vaccinated clients who developed a very rare cancer that never appears in her age range and a patient who had a stable (previously removed) breast cancer which came back after years of dormancy when the vaccines hit the market.

Likewise, I’ve talked to a few doctors who believe shedding is causing unusual cancers in the unvaccinated, but I feel that contention is on very shaky ground. Because of this, all I can really state is that it’s best not to have too much anxiety over things you can’t control and focus on keeping your body in the best health it can be.

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.

Many of the approaches for doing this should be evident at this point. For example, a key purpose of this article 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 is the most popular option currently (and some find it works quite well). However, I believe that Neprinol AFD is by far the best 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).

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).

Depending on the circumstances I think some are worth considering (e.g., ultraviolet blood irradiation, low dose naltrexone, restoring a healthy gut microbiome, taking exosomes to heal a severe shedding exposure), but at the same time, I don’t feel in most cases any of that is actually needed.

Additionally, it is also possible to “clean” rooms. UVC light seems to partially neutralizes the smell. Given that UVC can inactivate the spike protein and to varying degrees kill bacteria, I believe this is why UVC light works. Thus far, the most (but not always) effective way my colleagues have found to clear objects is with hypochlorous acid (a non-toxic but highly effective disinfecting agent now sold by many companies — and now my preferred way to clean my hands between patients).

Note: Chlorine dioxide diffused into the air (cheaper) or hypochlorous acid diffused into the air (more expensive) may also help clean the entire room.

The inexplicable odor many have reported to me has also been a longstanding area of curiosity for me. 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.

  • 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 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 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.

    
    

    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.”

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.

I hope you found this article helpful. When reading it, I really request you don’t get too disturbed by 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.

A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician in the Midwest and a longtime reader of Mercola.com. I appreciate his exceptional insight on a wide range of topics and I’m grateful to share them. I also respect his desire to remain anonymous as he is still on the front lines treating patients. To find more of AMD’s work, be sure to check out The Forgotten Side of Medicine on Substack.

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

The Greatest Public Health Mistake of the 20th Century

  • The recommendation to avoid sun exposure and always use sunblock when outdoors may be the greatest public health mistake of the 20th century

  • Previous research has found vitamin D may prevent 30 deaths for each death caused by skin cancer

  • For every skin cancer death in northern Europe, 60 to 100 people die from stroke or heart disease related to hypertension — a health problem associated with vitamin D deficiency, and lack of sun exposure in particular

Visit Mercola Market

Advertisement

Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published May 16, 2017.

Vitamin D received its name because scientists initially assumed it was a vitamin, but further research showed it had been incorrectly categorized. It’s actually a prohormone, produced by your body from cholesterol in response to sunlight striking your bare skin.

As a prohormone, vitamin D has enormous influence on your health, and it’s the only known substrate for a powerful repair-and-maintenance steroid hormone.1 Receptors that respond to vitamin D have been found in almost every type of human cell.

So, far from being a mere aid in bone formation, vitamin D is involved in a wide range of repair and maintenance functions, influences genetic expression, helps regulate immune function and more. Unfortunately, dermatologists have spent decades promoting sun avoidance2 3 and urging people to wear sunblock before venturing outside. As a result of this misguided advice, the field of dermatology has done tremendous harm to public health.

It was long thought that sun exposure was the primary cause of melanoma, the most lethal form of skin cancer. However, mounting evidence now tells us sun avoidance actually raises your risk of skin cancer while higher vitamin D levels from UVB exposure are protective.4

Vitamin D also improves survival outcomes for melanoma patients.5 6 It’s the burning as a result of intermittent overexposure that primarily impacts your skin cancer risk.7

While reports show that rates of melanoma have been rising for at least the last three decades, and that the increases are due to ultraviolet exposure from the sun, research8 published in the British Journal of Dermatology in 2009 suggests the sun is likely nothing more than a scapegoat. According to this study, the rise in melanoma appears to be “an artifact caused by diagnostic drift.”

Diagnostic drift, according to the study, refers to a hefty increase in disease diagnoses fueled by detection and misclassification of benign lesions as stage 1 melanoma.

Sun avoidance also increases your risk of a number of other health problems stemming from vitamin D deficiency, including internal cancers9 10 that claim far more lives than skin cancer, as well as heart disease,11 multiple sclerosis,12 infertility13 and all-cause mortality.14 15 16

One 2005 study17 found that vitamin D may prevent 30 deaths for each death caused by skin cancer. According to lead author Dr. Edward Giovannucci, a Harvard professor of nutrition and epidemiology:

“I would challenge anyone to find an area or nutrient or any factor that has such consistent anticancer benefits as vitamin D. The data are really quite remarkable.”

Another 2013 study18 found that for every skin cancer death in northern Europe, between 60 and 100 people die from stroke or heart disease related to hypertension — a health problem associated with vitamin D deficiency, and lack of sun exposure in particular.

Research19 published in 2012 also concluded that, “The overall health benefit of an improved vitamin D status may be more important than the possibly increased cutaneous malignant melanoma risk resulting from carefully increasing UV exposure.”

Indeed, a two-decades-long Swedish study published in 201620 found that while women who got regular sun exposure had a higher risk for melanoma compared to sun avoiders, they also had a lower all-cause mortality. The authors concluded that sun avoidance is “a risk factor for death of a similar magnitude as smoking.” Aside from vitamin D, ultraviolet (UV) light from the sun also has a long list of other health benefits, including:21 22

  • Enhancing mood through the release of endorphins and reducing your risk of depression23

  • Lowering blood pressure through nitric oxide release24

  • Synchronizing important biorhythms

  • Treating many skin diseases

  • Preventing and curing tuberculosis (TB)25 26 27 — a disease that alone kills more people than melanoma each year28 — including antibiotic-resistant TB29

According to a 2017 study,30 vitamin D deficiency now affects nearly 1 billion people worldwide. The reason for such widespread deficiency? Lack of sun exposure caused by overuse of sunscreen.31 As reported by Daily News:32

“The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association says people are staying inside too much and putting on too much sunscreen for fear of skin cancer. ‘SPF 15 or greater decreases vitamin D3 production by 99 percent,’ the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) says.

The study, led by Dr. Kim Pfotenhauer, a doctor of osteopathic medicine and assistant professor at Touro University, says that recommended levels of vitamin D should be about 6,000 international units (IU) per day … [which] equals about ‘5 [to] 30 minutes in midday sun twice per week. However, it is important to forgo sunscreen during these sessions.'”

Darker-skinned individuals need far more time in the sun to optimize their vitamin D levels. Pfotenhauer notes African-Americans likely need about 30 minutes of sun exposure, depending on their location, whereas a light-skinned person might only need five minutes. This is a crucial piece of information that dermatologists completely ignore.

The American Academy of Dermatology issues the same recommendations for everyone, without regard for skin type. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they view all sun exposure as all risk and no gain, regardless of who or where you are.

According to their advice, even if you have the deepest black skin and find it impossible to sunburn, you should always seek shade and wear protective clothing and/or sunscreen when outdoors. This stance is both nonsensical and unscientific.

The Skin Cancer Foundation issues the same advice. When asked why the recommendations fail to take skin type and color into account, Dr. Henry Lim, who sits on the Skin Cancer Foundation’s photobiology committee, replied that such information is irrelevant because vitamin D supplements can address deficiency.

Lim has also stated that adding recommendations based on skin tone would make the public health message “too complicated.” But by oversimplifying the matter, dermatologists place many at grave risk for vitamin D deficiency. Adding to the problem is that once vitamin D-related health problems become apparent, doctors will typically fail to link it back to a deficiency problem, instead resorting to drug treatment.

There is no question in my mind that the best way to obtain vitamin D is from the sun, and that supplements are an inferior — necessary but far less than ideal — choice for a number of reasons. Most fail to appreciate that vitamin D is a biomarker for UVB exposure. When you take artificial vitamin D supplements your body believes it has received UVB exposure when it actually hasn’t, which confuses many vital biologic processes.

Additionally, sunlight is not just UVB but has all visible and important non-visible wavelengths like infrared, which may be every bit as important as UVB. Red and near-infrared energize cytochrome c oxidase in your mitochondria to facilitate cellular energy production.

So, aside from ignorance, why are dermatologists so reluctant to admit sun exposure is a vital component of optimal health? Sure, many are probably blinded by specialization — their focus is on skin, not internal health or all-cause mortality.

Yet the resistance to finding a reasonable middle ground, where a limited amount of sun exposure can be promoted to ensure overall health and disease prevention raises suspicions. Surely they don’t actually want their patients to become ill and die from problems unrelated to skin cancer?

Could part of the problem be rooted in conflicts of interest? A paper33 in JAMA Dermatology found that dermatologists “received substantial payments form the pharmaceutical industry,” but that the impact on patient care was still unclear.

Whatever the reason for the resistance, what seems clear is that most dermatologists have abandoned reading the medical literature on vitamin D over the past two decades. Bizarre statements made by Dr. Barbara A. Gilchrest, acting president and vice chair of the American Skin Association, and Dr. Susan Roper, at the American Academy of Dermatology’s annual meeting offer a case in point.

To quote Dr. Marc Micozzi, who has degrees in both medical anthropology and epidemiology, dermatologists “have spotty, ‘skin deep’ understanding of vitamin D”34 — a comment referring to Gilchrest’s comments35 specifically, which include the following:

“This preoccupation with vitamin D status has led to an enormous amount of testing, which is expensive and not as reliable or consistent as we might like … [I]f you have a level of 20 ng/mL, you have a 97.5 percent chance that you’re getting all the vitamin D you need …

[F]or many people, 16 or 12 ng/mL is adequate. Half the population is believed to have totally adequate vitamin D at a level of 16 ng/mL … [A] supplement of 1,000 IU/ day for adults is safe and sufficient.”

You might be aware that this deluded statement is in conflict with virtually every knowledgeable vitamin D researcher in the world, as levels below 20 ng/mL are a sign of severe deficiency leading to enormous pathology.

Roper, a dermatologist with Countryside Dermatology and Laser Center in Clearwater, Florida, expressed similar concerns with overtesting, saying many elderly patients are “put on toxic levels of vitamin D, sometimes 4,000 to 10,000 IU a day. A lot of my patients already have arthritis, and that high level of vitamin D makes it worse.”

Roper’s profound ignorance in this area is beyond shocking as what she describes as a toxic dose is actually the recommended dose for the 80% of Americans or more that are vitamin D deficient and are unable to normalize their levels due to inability to obtain sensible sun exposure.

If you’ve been following the vitamin D research that has emerged over the past several years, in this newsletter or elsewhere, you will have no trouble spotting the fallacies in Gilchrest’s and Roper’s statements. Again, to suggest that a vitamin D level of 12 ng/mL is adequate is reprehensibly medically negligent.

Studies have very clearly determined 40 ng/mL is the cutoff point for sufficiency to prevent a wide range of diseases, including cancer. As just one example among many, once you reach a serum vitamin D level of 40 ng/mL, your risk for cancer diminishes by 67% compared to having a level of 20 ng/ml or less.36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Studies have also shown vitamin D deficiency is rampant in those with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other autoimmune diseases. From my perspective, it is inexcusably negligent to treat a person with RA and not aggressively monitor their vitamin D levels to confirm that they are in a therapeutic range of 40 to 65 ng/mL.

As for dosage when you’re taking a supplement, the National Academy of Medicine, formerly the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends 600 IUs of vitamin D per day for adults. However, the IOM underestimates the need by a factor of 10 due to a mathematical error43 that has never been corrected.

GrassrootsHealth has created a petition for the IOM and Health Canada to re-evaluate its vitamin D guidelines and correct this mathematical error.44 You can further this important cause by signing the petition on ipetitions.com. More recent research45 suggests 9,600 IUs of vitamin D per day would be required to get a majority (97.5%) of the population to reach 40 ng/mL.

Such levels, by the way, are not toxic. Studies have found no toxic effects up to 50,000 IUs.46 To be clear, such high amounts are typically only taken as a bolus (a large single dose) on a weekly, biweekly or monthly basis for a short amount of time, NOT daily.

The recommendation to address vitamin D deficiency with supplementation rather than sensible sun exposure really has no solid base in science. While there’s overwhelming evidence that your body knows how to process UV exposure to maximize health benefits, there’s no solid evidence supporting the notion that supplements are equivalent to sunshine.

In fact, there’s evidence suggesting the opposite: Supplements cannot provide the same benefits. For starters, while your body has built-in feedback systems that prevent sun exposure from causing unhealthy vitamin D levels, the same cannot be said for vitamin D supplements.

And, while vitamin D appears to be quite safe even at megadoses up to 50,000 IUs, vitamin D works in tandem with several other nutrients, including magnesium, calcium and vitamin K2; when using a supplement, you can easily force an imbalance between these nutrients.

The vitamin D produced by your body in response to UVB exposure also helps counteract the skin damage caused by UVA. There’s no evidence supplements have the same effect. Research47 even suggests the impact of vitamin D supplementation can be affected by gender, type of vitamin D (D2 versus D3, the former of which I do not recommend), dosing frequency and body mass index (BMI). In summary, the study found that:

  • Taking a biweekly bolus of vitamin D3 produced the greatest increase in 25-hydroxy levels, followed by the monthly bolus

  • Vitamin D3 was consistently more effective than D2 supplements when taken biweekly or monthly, whereas D2 was more effective when taken daily (I still would not recommend vitamin D2 supplements as they’re associated with other adverse effects)

  • Increases in vitamin D levels were inversely related to baseline levels, meaning those with the lowest levels saw greater increases compared to those with higher starting levels

  • Women also increased their vitamin D levels in response to supplementation to a greater degree than men

  • There appears to be a complex relationship between BMI, type of vitamin D used and the dosing schedule

What we know for sure is that your body was not designed to get its vitamin D from supplements, which are a modern invention. This alone suggests that sun exposure is the ideal way to raise your vitamin D level. For these and other reasons, vitamin D experts such as William Grant, Ph.D., and Dr. Michael F. Holick believe sensible sun exposure is far preferable to vitamin D supplementation.

The scientific basis for the dermatologists’ advice to use sunscreen is also lacking. For starters, an analysis48 by epidemiologist Marianne Berwick, Ph.D., shows there’s very little evidence to suggest that sunscreen use will prevent skin cancer. After analyzing a dozen studies on basal cell carcinoma (which is typically non-lethal) and melanoma, Berwick found that people who use sunscreen are more likely to develop both of these conditions.

Only two of 10 melanoma studies found that sunscreen was protective against this condition; three found no association either way. None found sunscreen use protected against basal cell carcinoma.

The safety of the ingredients used in sunscreens is also a significant concern. Clinical laboratory scientist Elizabeth Plourde, Ph.D., warns many chemical sunscreens, especially those containing vitamin A and/or its derivatives, have been linked to an increased risk of skin cancer.49

At least nine of the sunscreen ingredients the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved are also known endocrine disruptors.50 Oxybenzone, found in 70% of sunscreens, is one of them. This chemical has been linked to reduced sperm count in men and endometriosis in women.51

Safe exposure to sunshine is possible by understanding your skin type, the UV strength at the time of exposure and your duration of exposure. To determine the current strength of the sun’s rays, different calculators have been created. The late Dr. Robert Heaney, who studied vitamin D for more than 40 years and was one of the most prominent leaders in the field, helped develop the D Minder app.52

There’s a Goldilocks zone in which you reap maximum rewards with minimal risk. A key guideline is to always avoid sunburn. That said, discerning just how much vitamin D you’re actually getting when you are outside is a complex formula that requires taking multiple factors into account.

It’s impossible to say that a specific number of minutes will give you a certain amount of vitamin D. The variables are just too varied, and they change from day to day, season to season. This is why it’s so important to get your vitamin D level tested, ideally twice a year, in the peak of summer and winter. There’s no other way to determine the impact your sun exposure and/or supplementation is having.

According to Heaney, your body requires 4,000 IUs daily just to maintain its current vitamin D level.53 So to actually raise your level, you’d have to increase either your exposure to sunshine or supplement with oral vitamin D3.

If you opt for a supplement, GrassrootsHealth has a helpful chart showing the average adult dose required to reach healthy vitamin D levels based on your measured starting point. Many experts agree that 35 IUs of vitamin D per pound of body weight can be used as an estimate for your ideal dose.

As for how much vitamin D you might create from sun exposure, results from a Spanish study suggests Spaniards can normalize their vitamin D level without risk to their health by spending 10 to 20 minutes per day, around mid-day, in the sun during spring and summer. As reported by News Medical Life Sciences:54

“In July, an individual with skin type III (the most common one among the population of Spain) must not spend more than 29 minutes in the sun if they wish to avoid erythema. However, in January, the same individual can remain in the sun for 150 minutes.”

The results above would apply to people living in Spain, not necessarily people living in Alaska or New England. As a general rule, the best time to get sun exposure to optimize your vitamin D levels is between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m., on solar noon.

So, in the summer in most of the U.S. that is 1 p.m., not noon. You must be careful to arrange the timing to optimize your UVB exposure. If you live in Florida like I do, it is not necessary to go out at solar noon in the summer as you may overdose. Remember, the key is sensible sun exposure.

However, in the winter, when there is far less UVB, then going out around solar noon makes perfect sense. Again, the only way to determine how much vitamin D you need, either from sun exposure or supplements, is to get tested. The level you’re aiming for is 40 to 60 ng/mL. Following are more general guidelines that may still help you maximize benefits from sun exposure while mitigating the risks:

  • Know your skin type based on the Fitzpatrick skin type classification system.55 The lighter your skin, the less exposure to UV light is necessary. Lighter skin is also more vulnerable to damage from overexposure. For very fair skinned individuals and those with photodermatitis, any sun exposure may be unwanted and they should carefully measure vitamin D levels while ensuring they have an adequate intake of vitamin D, vitamin K2, magnesium and calcium

  • Always avoid sunburn. Be particularly careful if you have not been in the sun for some time. Your first exposures of the year are the most sensitive, so limit your initial time in the sun

  • Build up your tolerance by starting early in the spring and gradually increase the time you spend in the sun to avoid getting burned. Once your tolerance has been built up, aim for enough sun exposure to keep your vitamin D level around 40 to 60 ng/mL

  • Expose as much skin as you can, not just your arms and face. As soon as your skin starts to turn pink, discontinue exposure and cover up your skin to avoid burning

  • Boost your “internal sunscreen” by eating antioxidant-rich foods and healthy fats. Astaxanthin can be a helpful supplement

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.