When the Vaccinated Body Becomes the Broadcast Tower: The Shedding Paradox

Posted on: 

Friday, December 12th 2025 at 11:45 am

Written By: 

Sayer Ji, Founder

Originally published on www.sayerji.substack.com

Part III in our "Poisoned Not Infected" series.

SHARE AND COMMENT ON THIS POST ON X.

Story at a Glance

• The paradigm shift: What we call "contagion" may not require pathogens at all. Cells under stress naturally broadcast molecular signals via extracellular vesicles--biological packets that can transfer information between organisms and create the illusion of infectious transmission.
• The mRNA revolution: COVID-19 vaccines have transformed human cells into producers of spike-bearing exosomes that circulate for months, appear in all body fluids, and carry pharmacologically-induced signals throughout the population. This is biological broadcasting at an unprecedented scale.
• The amplification crisis: Self-amplifying RNA vaccines now multiply this process exponentially, creating replicating genetic instructions that generate vast quantities of synthetic biological signals--potentially turning each injection into a self-perpetuating broadcast system.
• The regulatory void: No authority has investigated whether these vesicles influence unvaccinated individuals, despite widespread reports of symptoms following intimate exposure. We have deployed a global biotechnology without understanding its most basic consequence: whether it alters biological communication between humans.
• The central revelation: Billions of people may now be involuntary broadcasters of pharmaceutical signals, fundamentally changing the biological information environment of our species.

What happens when billions of people are turned--unintentionally--into broadcasters of pharmaceutical signals?

In Part I: Poisoned, Not Infected, we explored a paradigm-shifting reality: that chemical exposures trigger cells to release nano-sized extracellular vesicles (EVs)--particles virtually indistinguishable from viruses--that carry molecular distress signals throughout the body. A striking example appears in the acetaminophen (Tylenol) toxicity research I examined in my article Reframing Viral Mechanisms: Exosomes, Toxicity, and the Xenogen Hypothesis, where exosomes released from poisoned liver cells were shown to transmit injury patterns to entirely healthy mice--without any pathogen present. When large groups share the same toxic exposure, these EV-driven cascades can mimic infectious disease with uncanny precision. This is what might be called pseudocontagion--an illusion of infection arising from toxic injury rather than any transmissible pathogen.

In Part II: Unmasking the "Long COVID" Cover Story for Vaccine Injury we expanded this framework to examine Long COVID and uncovered a striking overlap: the very same biological signatures attributed to "persistent viral infection" were also present in the vaccine-injured--lingering spike protein, microclots, immune dysregulation, latent virus reactivation. This convergence challenged the assumption that Long COVID is uniquely viral and raised an urgent possibility: that a significant fraction of what has been labeled "post-COVID syndrome" may actually be unrecognized vaccine injury.

Now, in Part III, we must confront the most unsettling implication of this entire framework: What happens when the "toxic exposure" is not environmental or incidental--but deliberately injected into billions of people worldwide?

The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines instruct human cells to produce a foreign protein--the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein--in quantities and for durations that were never fully characterized in pre-authorization trials. And if stressed or modified cells naturally package molecular signals into exosomes--and if those exosomes can transfer biologically active cargo to distant tissues--then what, exactly, might the cells of vaccinated individuals be broadcasting?

This question has been aggressively dismissed as "misinformation." Yet the peer-reviewed literature tells a more complex, more biologically plausible, and far more consequential story--one that public health authorities have been remarkably unwilling to address. And in light of this biophysical framework, it is nothing short of astonishing that we were told the crisis was "a pandemic of the unvaccinated," when the emerging evidence suggests the opposite may, in fact, be true.

The Mechanism: From mRNA Injection to Exosomal Broadcast

When mRNA vaccines were first authorized, the public was assured that the lipid nanoparticles remained at the injection site and that spike protein production was localized and transient. This narrative began unraveling almost immediately; yet those who questioned it, labeled as dangerous spreaders of misinformation, and summarily censored and/or deplatformed.

Biodistribution studies from Pfizer, obtained through Freedom of Information requests, revealed that lipid nanoparticles rapidly dispersed from the injection site to multiple organs--including liver, spleen, adrenal glands, and ovaries. Japanese regulatory documents showed LNP accumulation in ovaries at concentrations 118 times higher than initial plasma levels by 48 hours post-injection.

Image description: Putative Biodistribution of mRNA after BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 Vaccine Administration. COVID-19 vaccines inject lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) containing mRNA that encodes for the Spike protein. (Source)

Growing evidence shows that vaccine-derived spike protein can enter--and in some cases persist in--the bloodstream far longer than originally assumed. In a 2022 study, Ogata and colleagues detected circulating spike antigen in the plasma of Moderna mRNA-1273 recipients, confirming systemic distribution following injection.
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/74/4/715/6279075

A Circulation study on vaccine-associated myocarditis later found measurable levels of full-length spike protein in affected adolescents and young adults, while asymptomatic vaccinated controls showed none--suggesting prolonged or dysregulated antigen presence in certain individuals.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.062679

More recently, researchers at Yale identified circulating spike protein months--and in some cases, more than 700 days--after vaccination in participants with persistent post-vaccination symptoms, indicating that antigen clearance may vary dramatically across the population.
https://news.yale.edu/2025/02/19/immune-markers-post-vaccination-syndrome-indicate-future-research-directions

But free-floating spike protein is only part of the story. The question we must now ask: Is spike protein being packaged into extracellular vesicles--and if so, what are those vesicles doing?

Spike Protein in Exosomes: The Evidence

In 2021, a landmark study published in the Journal of Immunology provided the first direct evidence that mRNA vaccination induces the release of spike-protein-bearing exosomes. Researchers found that circulating exosomes from vaccinated individuals contained spike protein on their surface--and these exosomes could be detected for at least four months after vaccination.

The implications are profound. These are not free-floating proteins passively circulating in blood. They are actively packaged into membrane-bound vesicles--the same vesicles that cells use to communicate information to distant tissues and, potentially, to other organisms.

If exosomes and related vesicles can transmit chemically induced injury patterns -- as demonstrated in the Tylenol hepatotoxicity model -- then the vesicles released by vaccine-stressed cells may similarly externalize their contents beyond the individual.

In this model, the vaccinated body becomes:

• a production site of foreign protein,
• a generator of stress-encoded vesicles, and
• a potential broadcaster of those vesicles into the surrounding environment.

This reframes the entire notion of "shedding" - which is why 'Poisoned, Not Infected' so accurately names the deeper biological truth at play.

Under the traditional model, shedding requires a replicating pathogen that multiplies inside a host and exits to infect another. But here, the mechanism is different -- and potentially more subtle. The broadcast signal is not a virus but the body's own communication architecture hijacked by a synthetic antigenic stimulus. The vesicles are not infectious in the classical sense; they are informational, carrying the biochemical imprint of vaccine-induced stress.

This allows for the possibility -- still scarcely explored in mainstream discourse -- that individuals in close proximity may be exposed not to a virus, but to stress-encoded biological messages originating from someone else's pharmacological intervention. This is not contagion as virology defines it. It is pseudocontagion: a network-level propagation of biological information that can evoke parallel physiological patterns across multiple bodies without any pathogen at all.

In other words:

• The vaccine does not stay in the arm.
• Its products do not remain confined to the individual.
• And the biological signals generated in response may behave in ways that resemble "spread," even though no infectious agent is present.

This is the broadcasting paradox -- and its implications for public health, chronic illness patterns, and the interpretation of "outbreaks" in highly vaccinated populations are enormous.

Self-Amplifying RNA: When the Signal Multiplies Itself

The next generation of mRNA vaccines intensifies these concerns exponentially. Self-amplifying RNA (saRNA) vaccines--already approved in Japan and advancing through regulatory pathways worldwide--contain not just the instructions for spike protein, but the instructions for the replication machinery itself.

How Self-Amplifying RNA Works

Traditional mRNA vaccines deliver a finite quantity of messenger RNA that degrades after producing spike protein. Self-amplifying RNA is fundamentally different: it contains sequences encoding an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp)--an enzyme that copies RNA. Once inside a cell, saRNA replicates itself, potentially generating thousands of copies from a single initial template.

This self-amplification dramatically increases spike protein production while requiring far lower initial doses. Proponents argue this improves efficiency and reduces manufacturing costs. Critics point out that it introduces a replicating genetic element into human cells with far less predictable behavior than conventional mRNA.

The question becomes: If conventional mRNA vaccines generate spike-bearing exosomes detectable for months, what will self-amplifying RNA do?

The Amplification Problem

Now consider the exosome question. If cells transfected with self-amplifying RNA are producing vastly more spike protein over longer timeframes, the quantity of spike-bearing exosomes released into circulation--and potentially into body fluids like saliva, breath, sweat, and breast milk--could be correspondingly amplified.

Even more concerning: could the replicating RNA itself be packaged into exosomes? We know that cells routinely package messenger RNAs and microRNAs into extracellular vesicles. If saRNA or its replication products are incorporated into exosomes, the vesicles themselves could carry replication-competent genetic material - the equivalent of synthetically produced, classically defined infective viruses.

This is no longer theoretical shedding of a few residual proteins. This is the potential broadcast of self-amplifying genetic instructions.

The Clinical Reports: Unexplained Symptoms in the Unvaccinated

Since the COVID-19 vaccine rollout began, clinicians and patients have reported a puzzling pattern: unvaccinated individuals developing symptoms--menstrual irregularities, unusual bleeding, headaches, fatigue--after close contact with recently vaccinated people.

These reports were immediately dismissed as psychosomatic, coincidental, or conspiratorial. Yet the sheer volume of testimonials, coupled with the biological plausibility we've been examining, demands serious investigation rather than reflexive ridicule.

The Menstrual Disruption Signal

One of the earliest and most consistent reports involved menstrual irregularities. Vaccinated women reported dramatic changes in cycle timing, flow, and symptoms. But intriguingly, unvaccinated women reported similar disruptions after prolonged exposure to vaccinated individuals--particularly cohabitants, partners, and close colleagues.

A 2022 study in Obstetrics & Gynecology confirmed that COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a small but statistically significant change in menstrual cycle length. While the study focused on vaccinated individuals, it established that the vaccines do affect reproductive physiology--contrary to earlier assurances.

The mechanism? Spike protein receptors (ACE2) are expressed in ovarian tissue. If spike-bearing exosomes from vaccinated individuals can be transmitted through close contact--in breath, saliva, or other secretions--and taken up by recipient tissue, they could potentially affect reproductive organs.

This remains a hypothesis requiring rigorous investigation. But the biological pathway exists. The clinical reports are consistent. And the mainstream response--categorical denial without investigation--is not science.

Breast Milk: A Documented Transmission Route

Perhaps the most concrete evidence for vaccine component transmission comes from breast milk studies. A 2022 study published in JAMA Pediatrics detected vaccine mRNA in breast milk of lactating mothers for up to 48 hours post-vaccination.

This finding directly contradicted earlier claims that mRNA was too fragile to survive outside cells and couldn't be transmitted through bodily fluids. The authors recommended that lactating mothers wait 48 hours before breastfeeding post-vaccination--an acknowledgment that transmission to infants was possible.

If vaccine mRNA can be transmitted through breast milk, why is it inconceivable that spike-bearing exosomes could be transmitted through other routes--exhaled breath, skin contact, or intimate exposure?

The Pfizer Documents: What Industry Knew

Pfizer's own clinical trial protocol, released through court-ordered document disclosure, contains a remarkable section addressing what the company called "exposure during pregnancy or breastfeeding" and "occupational exposure."

The protocol specified that study investigators should report cases where an unvaccinated person was exposed to a vaccinated study participant--through inhalation or skin contact--and subsequently experienced adverse events.

Section 8.3.5.3 explicitly describes a scenario where "a male participant who is receiving or has discontinued study intervention exposes a female partner prior to or around the time of conception." The protocol treats this as a reportable event requiring documentation and follow-up.

Why would Pfizer establish protocols for tracking secondary exposure if secondary exposure were impossible? The very existence of these provisions suggests that industry scientists recognized transmission as a real possibility--even as public health officials dismissed the concept as fantasy.

Reframing "Shedding": Exosomal Transfer as the Mechanism

Traditional viral shedding refers to the release of intact, replication-competent virus from an infected individual. Critics correctly point out that mRNA vaccines don't contain live virus and can't cause traditional viral shedding.

But this framing misses the point entirely. The question is not whether vaccinated people shed virus. The question is whether they shed biologically active vaccine components--spike protein, spike-bearing exosomes, or potentially mRNA itself--that can be taken up by others and produce physiological effects.

This is not traditional shedding. It is exosomal broadcast. And this vaccination-induced broadcast could masquerade as wild-type viral infection - not unlike MMR vaccine can generate symptoms clinically identical to wild-type measle

The Routes of Transmission

Exosomes are remarkably stable and are present in virtually all body fluids:

• Breath: Exhaled breath contains exosomes. Studies have demonstrated that respiratory exosomes can carry pathogen-associated molecules and inflammatory signals.
• Saliva: Salivary exosomes are well-characterized and used clinically as diagnostic biomarkers. They could serve as transmission vehicles during kissing, shared food or drinks, or dental procedures.
• Sweat: Exosomes are present in sweat and could theoretically be transmitted through skin-to-skin contact.
• Seminal and vaginal fluids: These fluids are rich in exosomes, making intimate contact a particularly efficient transmission route.
• Breast milk: Already documented as a route for mRNA transmission, breast milk contains abundant exosomes that are actively absorbed by infant intestinal cells.

If spike-bearing exosomes are present in these fluids--and the peer-reviewed evidence indicates they are present in blood for months--then close contact between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals creates opportunities for transfer.

The Pseudo-Infection Paradigm

In Part 1, we introduced the concept of "pseudo-contagion"--the appearance of infectious disease transmission created by shared toxic exposure rather than person-to-person spread of pathogens. The EVALI outbreak and medieval ergotism were examples: groups of people fell ill together not because they infected each other, but because they shared the same environmental exposure.

Vaccine-induced exosomal transmission suggests a related but distinct phenomenon: pseudo-infection.

In pseudo-infection, unvaccinated individuals are not "catching" COVID-19 from vaccinated contacts. They are receiving biologically active exosomes carrying spike protein or other vaccine-induced signals that trigger inflammatory or physiological responses in their own bodies. The symptoms may resemble viral infection--because the immune system is responding to foreign protein--but no virus is involved.

This framework explains several puzzling observations:

1. Why symptoms in contacts often don't match typical COVID-19 presentation--because this isn't COVID-19 infection but rather spike-protein-induced effects
2. Why symptoms correlate with intimacy of contact--because exosomal transmission efficiency depends on exposure route and duration
3. Why symptoms cluster temporally with vaccination events--because exosome production peaks in the days to weeks following injection
4. Why conventional COVID-19 tests are negative--because there is no SARS-CoV-2 infection, only spike protein exposure

The Implications: A Population-Level Experiment

If the framework we've outlined is even partially correct, the mass vaccination campaigns of 2021-2023 represent something unprecedented: the conversion of billions of human beings into biological broadcasters of a pharmaceutically-generated antigen.

This was never studied. The trials never examined exosomal transmission. Regulatory agencies never required investigation of secondary exposure effects. The population-level implications of transforming billions of people into spike-protein-producing entities--and the potential downstream effects on unvaccinated individuals, children, and fetuses--were never characterized.

With self-amplifying RNA vaccines now entering markets, the stakes escalate further. An injection that produces replicating genetic material inside human cells, generating unknown quantities of antigen for unknown durations, with unknown exosomal broadcast effects--this is not a minor technical adjustment. It is a fundamental change in the relationship between pharmaceutical intervention and human biology, and it represents an egregious violation of informed medical choice and consent - a human rights violation that can not be ignored or minimized.

Questions That Demand Answers

Before any further deployment of self-amplifying RNA vaccines, rigorous investigation must address:

• What is the complete exosomal profile of vaccinated individuals at various time points post-injection?
• Do spike-bearing exosomes appear in all body fluids, and at what concentrations?
• Can these exosomes be taken up by unvaccinated individuals through various exposure routes?
• What physiological effects do spike-bearing exosomes produce in recipient organisms?
• For self-amplifying RNA vaccines specifically: is replicating RNA packaged into exosomes?
• What are the effects of chronic, low-level spike protein exposure on unvaccinated populations?

These are not fringe questions. They are fundamental to informed consent--not just for those receiving vaccines, but for everyone who might be exposed to vaccinated individuals. If you cannot choose whether to be exposed to vaccine-induced antigens, you cannot give meaningful consent.

Conclusion: The Broadcast We Cannot Ignore

The peer-reviewed evidence is clear: mRNA vaccination transforms human cells into producers of spike-bearing exosomes that persist for months and are present in all body fluids. Self-amplifying RNA vaccines will amplify this process exponentially.

Yet no regulatory agency has required investigation of exosomal transmission to unvaccinated individuals. No studies have characterized the population-level effects of converting billions of people into biological broadcasters of pharmaceutical antigens. The clinical reports of symptoms in unvaccinated contacts following intimate exposure to vaccinated individuals have been dismissed without investigation.

This represents a fundamental violation of informed consent--not just for vaccine recipients, but for everyone exposed to them. Before any further deployment of these technologies, rigorous studies must determine: What is being broadcast? For how long? With what effects on recipients?

The questions are answerable. The technology exists. What's missing is the will to look.

Your cells are broadcasting. The only question is whether we'll finally investigate what message they're sending.

---

References

1. Ogata AF, et al. "Circulating Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Vaccine Antigen Detected in the Plasma of mRNA-1273 Vaccine Recipients." Clinical Infectious Diseases 74, no. 4 (2022): 715-718.

2. Röltgen K, et al. "Immune imprinting, breadth of variant recognition, and germinal center response in human SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination." Cell 185, no. 6 (2022): 1025-1040.

3. Bansal S, et al. "Cutting Edge: Circulating Exosomes with COVID Spike Protein Are Induced by BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) Vaccination prior to Development of Antibodies." The Journal of Immunology 207, no. 10 (2021): 2405-2410.

4. Hanna N, et al. "Detection of Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Human Breast Milk." JAMA Pediatrics 176, no. 12 (2022): 1268-1270.

5. Edelman A, et al. "Association Between Menstrual Cycle Length and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination." Obstetrics & Gynecology 139, no. 4 (2022): 481-489.

6. Pfizer BioNTech. "A Phase 1/2/3, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized, Observer-Blind, Dose-Finding Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 RNA Vaccine Candidates Against COVID-19 in Healthy Individuals." Clinical Trial Protocol C4591001 (2020).

7. Kon E, et al. "Principles for designing an optimal mRNA lipid nanoparticle vaccine." Current Opinion in Biotechnology 73 (2022): 330-339.

8. Blakney AK, et al. "An Update on Self-Amplifying mRNA Vaccine Development." Vaccines 9, no. 2 (2021): 97.

9. Théry C, et al. "Minimal information for studies of extracellular vesicles 2018 (MISEV2018)." Journal of Extracellular Vesicles 7, no. 1 (2018): 1535750.

10. Yáñez-Mó M, et al. "Biological properties of extracellular vesicles and their physiological functions." Journal of Extracellular Vesicles 4 (2015): 27066.