Recent study shows mRNA is spreading from vaccinated to unvaccinated.

This ridiculous and physically impossible. The mRNA needs to be delivered directly into your living cells, and that can't be through airborne contact.

This McCullough is another controlled opposition puppet, whose entire career depends on the Virus Theory lie. At the beginning of it all, he promoted masks and lockdowns, as a way to "control" the virus spread.

Beware of who you trust... check their resume.

yeah, sad reality is we unvaxxed are still getting MRNA shed from these compromised low IQ thinking primates

the Deep State always wins

Stay the fuck away from the non-people.

The variable in your equation is that you don’t really know what’s in the vaccine.

Bodily fluids you stupid Frenchman

He mentions sexual contact, kissing, and breast milk, not airborne.

You obviously have not checked Dr McCullough’s resume
Or you are disinfo

What the JABBED(not vaxxed, because this is not a vaccine) are shedding are dead cell debris, the "left overs" of the toxic spike proteins ravaging through their blood vessels. They are not shedding mRNA, that's impossible. For mRNA to enter your body, they necessarily need to be injected va mRNA technology, which is a nano vehicle made of lipids that hack into your living cells.

Plus, if mRNA could be transferred by shedding, they wouldn't have needed to implement the mandates.

how could people get AIDS then with bodily fluids then?! same goes for these MRNA vaccines, same patent, intentions

No. It's just a matter of logics, but for that you need to understand what mRNA is, what the technology is about, and how your cells are protected by the cell walls. By the way, if McCullough theory was true, children would be dropping like flies, because their small bodies would not resist the cytokine storm. Only jabbed children "die suddenly".

To the rest who are quoting my message, I won't respond to dumbfck ret4rds who never read a book in their life.

HAHAHAHA, you truly believe that AIDS is caused by the HIV Virus? You haven't made much research on it, have you been living under a rock? Look for what Kary Mullis said about this AIDS scam, and investigate from then on. Clearly you still have a lot to learn, kid. This AIDS scam was another of Fauci's frauds.

Guess more research is needed but he did said by sexual contact and with all the other studies that are showing the vaccine is going into all organs, may not be too far fetched. Just call it the vaxedstd.

It would be highly unlikely. The mRNA shots are design to hack into the cells and release their "package" as soon as they get into your body. It would be highly unlikely that these nano-vehicles that transport the mRNA messenger would remain closed and transfer from human to human. Even in that case, kissing and breast milk, it is practically impossible, because the mouth leads to the lungs or the stomach, not to the bloodstream. Sexual transmission, could be, but I doubt the amount of mRNA that could be delivered through there would have any impact.

What the jabbed are shedding are dead cell debris, which is what everyone who has a cold or the flu does. It's toxicity being expelled from your body. And yes, that cell debris is toxic and can make other people sick. But it fades away, just like a cold.

tomorrow news

OP got his and your Cat pregnant

enjoy

Sexual contact is a possibility, because it can lead to the bloodstream is there are internal injuries, but that could only happen in the case that some of the nano-vehicles transporting the mRNA didn't open when injected (which is highly unlikely having in consideration how the technology works). And, even in the case that could happen, the amount of mRNA messenger transporting would be minimal.

Call it shot, clot-shot, genetic experiment, deadly injection, but this is not a vaccine, so avoid calling it "vaxx", you normalize it by calling it that way. All the normies have a positive response to the word "vaccine". It doesn't help.

Umm no it's not, there is transmission of the spike proteins from vaxxed to the un-vaxxed. Ivermectin helps rid the body of the spike proteins.

The jabs don't contain spike proteins, they have mRNA messengers which hack into your cell and make your cells produce the spike proteins. They turn your body into a spike protein factory. When the spike protein exits a jabbed person body, it comes out as dead cell debris. But ok, let's say from a moment that the jabbed are shedding spike proteins and entering un-jabbed bodies, that NOT MRNA being transferred from body to body, only spike proteins.

And yes, Ivermectin helps to clean your body from dead cell debris. But it also kills your gut bacteria and all the beneficial microorganism that live in you if you consume it long term. Beware of the buffoons promoting pharma drugs, ivermectin is another drug produce by big pharma.

You will never win an argument with a narcissist.

But you're right about shedding. Scientists were even working on vaxx shedding as a way to help spread the vaccination among the population. This was a decide or so ago. There was even a thread here about it. Probably more.

Not possible.

Good try though.

Tree fiddy is deposited into your coin purse

Wowzers ... you mean just like any other antibiotic?

Like that?

Always a good idea to take probiotics after ANY course of antibiotics.

You're really shilling hard here!

I'm the one shilling, while you are the one defending big pharma drugs?... Well, sounds like you are suffering from psychological projection 101, mister. As said before, I don't like to interact with dmbfcks who have no arguments, so bye bye.

It's spike protein being shed, not mrna

I'm as antivax as the next GLPer, but the idea of mRNA spreading from contact is bullshit. It needs intramuscular injection for it to have any sort of effect.

Just like hiv isn't airborne right, tard? Don't swap spit with vaxxed. Or someone who has.

DNA in saliva is derived from both buccal epithelial cells and white blood cells. It might surprise you to know that much confusion surrounds the real source of genomic DNA in saliva. Surprisingly, most people assume the source of DNA in saliva is strictly buccal epithelial cells.

so now connect this with the MRNA infringed DNA?!

Fact # 3: DNA from saliva is of high purity, despite low A260/A230 ratios.

Absorbance at 230 is used to measure various contaminants such as phenol and phenolic compounds, carbohydrates and other organics. Saliva samples contain a large amount of carbohydrates (from the heavily-glycosylated protein mucin). While protein is removed during extraction, small amounts of this carbohydrate is left behind. Carbohydrates absorb very strongly at 230nm so even small quantities of carbohydrate can greatly inflate the 230 reading leading to a poor ratio. The presence of these carbohydrates does not affect downstream application and therefore A260/A230 is not a useful method to assess the suitability for downstream use of DNA extracted from saliva samples. Phenolics can be of concern; however, these are not within Oragene and prepIT•L2P reagents, so this is not an issue for Oragene/saliva samples.

To accurately measure the purity of DNA extracted from saliva, A260/A280 should be calculated. The ratio of absorbance at 260 nm vs 280 nm is commonly used to assess DNA contamination of protein solutions, since proteins (in particular, the aromatic amino acids) absorb light at 280 nm. When extracting with prepIT•L2P the median A260/A280 ratio is between 1.6-1.9[3]. These ratios are typically indicative of a DNA sample that will perform well on your downstream application given that all your other QC metrics pass (high molecular weight on gel, acceptable concentrations by fluorescent based quantification method).
Fact # 4: Saliva yields high quantity high-molecular weight DNA.

When extracting DNA from Oragene/saliva samples RNA will co-purify with DNA. The RNA will not affect your downstream applications (including PCR, SNP Genotyping, WES, or WGS) and can be removed, however it will affect quantitation of the DNA if quantifying only by absorbance. When quantifying by absorbance (such as Nanodrop) you are measuring the total amount of nucleic acids in a sample (RNA and DNA). Therefore, the amount of DNA in a sample could be overestimated and could result in reduced performance due to the under-loading of DNA into your assay. Quantification based on fluorescence such as Picogreen or Qubit provides an accurate measurement of DNA within a saliva sample.

The median yield of DNA from a 2 ml saliva sample using Oragene is 110 µg[4] when purified according to the optimized Oragene protocol using prepIT•L2P and measured by the highly specific Fluorescence/DNase method. In terms of molecular weight, DNA from Oragene/saliva is >23 kbp[5] in size. Both DNA yield and molecular weight will remain of high integrity for years at room temperature when collected in the Oragene stabilization chemistry.

[link to blog.dnagenotek.com (secure)]

Fact # 4: Saliva yields high quantity high-molecular weight DNA.

When extracting DNA from Oragene/saliva samples RNA will co-purify with DNA. The RNA will not affect your downstream applications (including PCR, SNP Genotyping, WES, or WGS) and can be removed, however it will affect quantitation of the DNA if quantifying only by absorbance. When quantifying by absorbance (such as Nanodrop) you are measuring the total amount of nucleic acids in a sample (RNA and DNA). Therefore, the amount of DNA in a sample could be overestimated and could result in reduced performance due to the under-loading of DNA into your assay. Quantification based on fluorescence such as Picogreen or Qubit provides an accurate measurement of DNA within a saliva sample.

The median yield of DNA from a 2 ml saliva sample using Oragene is 110 µg[4] when purified according to the optimized Oragene protocol using prepIT•L2P and measured by the highly specific Fluorescence/DNase method. In terms of molecular weight, DNA from Oragene/saliva is >23 kbp[5] in size. Both DNA yield and molecular weight will remain of high integrity for years at room temperature when collected in the Oragene stabilization chemistry.
Fact # 5: Saliva can reliably replace blood for DNA analysis.

Blood collection is often considered the golden standard for DNA quality and it is an established practice across hospitals, clinics, and labs worldwide. However, many people don’t know that replacing blood with saliva is a proven option for genomic DNA analysis.

Saliva collection kits (Oragene) are designed to stabilize high molecular weight DNA by inhibiting degradation and preventing bacterial growth. The majority of DNA obtained with Oragene is > 23kb in fragment size and the amount of bacteria has minimal practical significance as the vast majority is of human origin (average only 11.8% bacteria)[3].

Multiple studies confirm DNA extracted from Oragene/saliva samples result in DNA of the highest integrity, performing equivalently to blood for the most demanding applications including microarrays and sequencing (targeted and whole genome).

Or you are just wrong.