The growing fear of living

I’ve had some growing thoughts- or really concerns- the past few months on the direction that all of this COVID discourse is heading.

Even with all of the troubling issues related to the vaccines, I have found that even COVID skeptics may be inundated with fear mongering and hysteria, all of which may override critical thinking.

a constant bombardment of fear porn

Part of this came about when the idea of “vaccine shedding” began to circulate, mostly based off of a rather poor study.

And yet in recent days I’ve seen several people recirculate this study once again, as if to confirm that vaccine shedding is actually happening. All of this relies on strange anecdotes of people having heart problems or of pets having cancer when near vaccinated individuals. These types of accounts should warrant scrutiny, but because they accentuate the model of “vaccines bad” they are welcomed with open arms.

To be clear, I am not saying “vaccines good”, but rather people are willing to accept any ideas that fit their worldview even if such ideas have serious flaws if examined closer.

Consider this study which came out in 2022¹ and received widespread attention. It’s gaining traction again for some reason which I find rather curious. Slow news week with everything slowing down, or an attempt to continuously induce fear into the vaccine critical masses? I’m not sure, but in any case the study is a rather poor one.

Researchers sampled the surgical masks of vaccinated healthcare workers to check for anti-spike IgA and IgG antibodies which appeared to be evident.

They then checked with children in households with vaccinated parents and compared their intranasal IgG levels to those in children from unvaccinated households, noting that there appeared to be elevated levels of IgG within the nose of these children. When referring to “households”, note that intranasal samples from parents and children occurred in a clinic setting.

This was really all the study entailed, and it’s interesting to see how these results have led to disparate interpretations. On one hand, the researchers are arguing that this is a previously unknown benefit of vaccination, and therefore many people should be vaccinated so that there will be plenty of IgG and IgA to go around. On the other hand, vaccine skeptics have taken this to infer that it’s not the antibodies that are being spread, but the causative agent i.e. the spike, and therefore vaccinated people are just shedding spike all over the place leading to people mounting an immune response.

The problem is, once again, that this study is very poor. It’s a study done with the intent of validating its hypothesis with a mere assessment of antibodies and nothing else.

Note that the study never uses COVID positive individuals as a frame of reference aside from noting that people previously infected mount antibodies (Figure 1B) even though they make a quick comment about it in their Results section:

Given these observations, we hypothesized that droplet/aerosolized antibody transfer might occur between individuals, much like droplet/aerosolized virus particles can be exchanged by the same route. To evaluate this hypothesis, we obtained nasal swabs from children living in households in which parents or family members had varying degrees of SARS-CoV2-specifc immunity, including those unvaccinated, vaccinated and COVID-19+.

We’re also never told whether these people were infected to begin with, so we don’t even know if the antibodies being found are derived from people who were previously infected and then vaccinated, or just purely from the vaccine. Keep in mind one of the criticisms of the vaccines was whether they elicited strong mucosal immunity to begin with.

Consider that the Methods section provides scant details about these individuals, their vaccinations, and even their infections (and the timeframes of each):

A Multiplex Microsphere Immunoassay (MMIA) was constructed and performed as previously described ⁴. Under IRB # 20-1279, serum samples were obtained from first-responder adults in Arapahoe County, CO ⁵. Antibody was eluted ⁴ from punches taken from the center of surgical masks anonymously donated by laboratory workers. Nasal swabs were obtained by convenience sampling both parents and their children at the Colorado Tricountry vaccine center in Aurora, CO who were attending vaccine appointments, not limited to SARS-CoV2. Antibody from swab tips was eluted as described for DBS ⁴.

But that adds to the growing issue I have of vaccine skeptics. Suppose that the antibodies that are found really are due to spike shedding. If so, you have to answer the following questions:

• How is spike shedding any different than viral shedding from an infected individual?

• Even if this study is used to argue that spike shedding is occurring, it would also suggest that antibodies are being made to bind to the spike. Again, what issue is spike if its binding capacity is being blocked by antibodies? Why pick one part of the study to validate your position and overlook the other part of the study?

• If you are naturally infected, shouldn’t your immune system quickly respond to the spike being shed by people anyways? Shouldn’t most people be protected from spike shedding?

More questions can be asked, but I grow frustrated because vaccine shedder hypothesizers don’t appear to answer these questions, and instead insist upon ambiguous comments of “feeling weird” when around vaccinated people as validation that vaccine shedding is occurring, as if such remarks themselves don’t appear hysterical in nature.

It is not the purview of science to validate one’s worldview. If you’re looking to studies to validate your preconceived notion of what’s going on then you’re not going to be inclined to look at other opinions or ideas.

And why is it that we now look to only one study as proof when it has always been necessary to look at multiple studies in order to see where agreements like and where disagreements may appear?

Again, I’m not sure why this poor study is making a resurgence again. A cynical part of me thinks that this is intended to induce more fear mongering as everything goes back to normal. An even more cynical part of me believes that there are people on both sides willing to market fear to people if it means making money off of it. I’ve mentioned several times that there are fear merchants all over- it’s just that we tend to overlook the actions of those fear merchants if they tend to align with our own values, but that just makes us even bigger suckers for these sorts of behaviors.

For more elaborations on the problems with “vaccine shedding” and the merchandising of spike detoxifiers here’s a recent article written by Stephanie Brail that’s worth reading:

The Dangers of Assuming Spike Protein "Contamination"

---

A big “so what?”

But more important than this concept of “vaccine shedding” are the ramifications that this model would infer.

In essence, the argument proposed by vaccine shedder hypothesizers is that those of us who are unvaccinated should stay clear of vaccinated people or else we will get harmed.

Again, no clear evidence this is occurring, but the bigger issue is that such a model emphasizes this push for a more divided society to the point that I don’t distinguish this argument from the vaccine zealots who wanted to push those of us who are unvaccinated to the fringes of society.

Because if we argue that vaccine shedding is occurring what solution is there? Should we just steer clear of anyone who is vaccinated? That’s a tall order since the unvaccinated are in the minority.

Should we ask for people to show their vaccine cards so we know who to avoid, or should we wear the tightest masks possible so that we don’t breathe in any vaccines? Or should we tell the vaccinated that they should avoid seeing anyone else for months until they stop shedding, forcing them into isolation away from the rest of society?

No matter which way I look at it I can’t help but see any vaccine shedding argument as being any different than the people who said that everyone should stay at home, wear masks forever, or only be allowed back into civil society unless they show proof of vaccination. It’s almost like the vaccine shedding hypothesizers are looking for retribution more than anything.

But even after looking at all of these factors, I end up coming to the same conclusion- so what?

So what if those who are vaccinated are shedding? Should I and other unvaccinated people live life in isolation away from loved ones because we should be scared that they would shed all over us? Should we not go out and live our lives?

The biggest problem I think many of us are dealing with is the fact that we have become so focused on our own mortality and staying alive that in some sense we have forgotten what it means to live. We have lost connections with people, we have been barred from seeing others for well over 2 years, and now that we have a chance to venture out, interact, and see loved ones again do we just not do it because we’re worried about “vaccine shedding?”

In another one of Stephanie’s posts she talked about shedding in regards to Diamond’s passing and Silk suggesting that vaccine shedding was to blame.

We really have no evidence of this being true, but I made the following comment about why I have become frustrated with this idea of vaccine shedding (removed some bits to make it more focused but look back at her post for the full context. Also, apologies for the poor grammar- if you think the grammar in my article is bad just see how I respond in comments!):

When it comes to shedding, we end up dealing with such a window of variability that we have no way of measuring any of these things. How do we know how just recently had a vaccine when we go to the store, or if the person at the doctor's office did, or maybe we should stay away from the pharmacy section since that may be where a ton of this stuff is happening? The biggest problem is that the arguments over shedding, in my mind, relies too much on anecdotal evidence that we can't validate these claims in any meaningful manner. And even if we did, what would be the solution, isolate ourselves from those who are vaccinated, or do we force those who are vaccinated to quarantine or lose their jobs the same way us unvaccinated have?

Part of me sees that much of what's going on may be partially driven by vindictiveness and reciprocity, and if that leads people to argue the latter (isolating the vaccinated) I will state that I would absolutely be against that position in the same way that it was abhorrent to treat the unvaccinated as lepers[…]

I am growing more concerned that there may be an incentive to up the hyperbole if it means grabbing people's attentions. I actually titled that article to infer a growing number of fear porn because it's so easy to have one's faculties taken hostage of by fear and emotion.

But let's again say that shedding is occurring and we are all doomed, do we again segregate our society between the purebloods and the shedders? Again, that wouldn't be a world I would like to live in.

Instead, I am just reminded of the elderly people in the nursing homes with signs saying they would rather die of COVID than die of loneliness. I think we are all far too disconnected with one another and are in need of repairing relationships. A few weeks ago I met with friends who I would say can be very bought into everything going on, to the extent that we kept trying to figure out eating arrangements (indoors/outdoors in the winter, nonetheless), and it was really frustrating to deal with all this. But as soon as we settled and started talking it was like we were taken back to our high school years, joking and making stupid remarks. At one point the waiter even commented that he could tell we were longtime friends, and that really did mean a lot.

So when I think about everything going on and which world I would live in given the world we have, I would much rather live with those who may be "killing me slowly" if it means actually living. Again, I think we've been so caught up on staying alive and being consumed by our own mortality that we've forgotten what it means to actually live.

I don't know if those around me are getting me sick, I don't know if they may be the reason I go in the future, but I'd rather go being able to live my life than be so afraid that I make life not worth living.

I generally stand by this principle. I couldn’t care less if the loved ones around me are shedding all over me and possibly harming me if it means spending time with them. A life lived in fear and isolation is not a life worth living. It’s one of the reasons why the lockdowns and the barring of people from seeing each other was one of the most devastating things to have happened to our well-being.

---

I am reminded of this movie I watched maybe last year called Spontaneous. The movie has the typical air of “Trump bad” and other stereotypes of obnoxious Gen Z-ers, but the premise is what got me thinking about everything going on.

The movie revolves around a class of high school seniors who, for whatever reason, begin to spontaneously explode. What happens with one girl suddenly exploding in class starts to occur with other students and in growing frequency, to the point that the entire class gets isolated and experimented on in order to figure out what’s happening.²

Now, I don’t bring this film up to make light of all of the people passing. Instead, it sort of got me thinking about what we do with our lives if we don’t think we have much time left, or if the threat of death is always looming over us.

Do we choose to live in fear or embrace death, or do we continue to live our lives knowing that our time in this world is limited, and therefore precious?

The climax of the film occurs during the senior prom where everyone left alive is allowed to graduate early. The main character Mara, who is distraught over her boyfriend dying suddenly, has begun to live her life recklessly due to her supposedly impending death, which includes her constantly getting drunk (and showing up drunk at the prom).

This culminates into her going to her boyfriend’s grave where she has a heartfelt moment with her deceased boyfriend’s mom.

We’re all bound to die some day. To live is to die, after all. However, if the fear of death stops you from living is life worth it?

Let’s even consider that many of our loved ones who were vaccinated may become a victim of dying suddenly, Should we stop ourselves from having cherished moments with these people because we’re scared of them shedding their vaccine, or do we see them regardless because it’s what makes life more meaningful.

Worse than the fear of death can sometimes be the fear of regret. If we believe that most of our time on this planet is limited why spend it in fear and wait until it becomes too late?

There’s so much that we can be afraid of, and to be fair I’m probably not one to talk being an introvert, but that doesn’t mean that we forego living our lives because some people have told us that we should be illogical.

Live your life whichever way you want to, but make sure it’s a life you will be proud of.

---

I think there’s more I can write about but I think I’ll leave it here. I find it concerning that there’s some growing state of paranoia or hysteria that is occurring among vaccine skeptics and I’m not sure why. In all honesty, a lot of it appears in some ways irrational, and it partly fuels the growing number of conspiracies that I see popping up on Substack. Be careful of letting people take hold of your ability to think rationally and critically, especially if it’s done with some sort of financial incentive.

---

Substack is my main source of income and all support helps to support me in my daily life. If you enjoyed this post and other works please consider supporting me through a paid Substack subscription or through my Ko-fi. Any bit helps, and it encourages independent creators and journalists such as myself to provide work outside of the mainstream narrative.

Click on the image above or visit the website at https://ko-fi.com/moderndiscontent

1. Evidence for Aerosol Transfer of SARS-CoV2-specific Humoral Immunity

Ross M. Kedl, Elena Hsieh, Thomas E. Morrison, Gabriela Samayoa-Reyes, Siobhan Flaherty, Conner L. Jackson, Rosemary Rochford

medRxiv 2022.04.28.22274443; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.04.28.22274443

2. The story never details why the students are spontaneously exploding, but some bits of the story allude to a possible “disease” which makes the entire local community scared of these students. The students are given different medications until they find one that “works”. Part of the ambiguity in the source of the spontaneous explosion and treatment may be due to the intent of the director to be ambiguous, but part of it may also be due to a bit of laziness in plot development and fleshing out details.