Ending Polarization

A Grossly Overlooked, but Necessary First Step in Addressing the Issue of Shedding

About a week ago, I came across a new study titled “Menstrual Abnormalities Strongly Associated with Proximity to COVID-19 Vaccinated Individuals” by Christiane Northrup, M.D. et al., published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory Practice and Research (a peer-reviewed journal). The results of this study provide evidence of spike protein shedding, an issue that has been “debunked” and “fact-checked” as “impossible” by the mainstream narrative, but which I have known to be true for a long time, both from personal experience and that of my clients in my energy healing practice. [For those of you who are unfamiliar with the spike protein, you can find a very brief summary here.]

My first impulse was to create a reel about this study to post on Instagram, hoping people would start to realize the immensity of something I have been saying for a long time: Spike protein shedding is REAL, and it is affecting ALL of us, regardless of vaccination status. [For those of you who remain unconvinced, below is a link to one of the best articles I have read so far on the subject, written by A Midwestern Doctor, who I have been following from the start, and whose work I deeply admire and respect.]

What We've Learned from a Year of Vaccine Shedding Data

From what I have gathered over these past couple of years, the vast majority of people who are aware of this issue either: a) Have direct, experiential confirmation of being sensitive to shedding, or b) Do not have direct, experiential confirmation (or perhaps haven’t started connecting the dots yet), so they believe they are unaffected by shedding and therefore, “in the clear”. However, I would dare to argue that none of us can really say that we are completely “in the clear”.

With 75% of the world population having received at least one dose and at least 50% of them continuing to produce spike protein for at least six months (link to reference here) —and as per a more recent pre-print study conducted by Yale University (link to reference here), which “found elevated levels of spike (S1 and full-length S) in circulation up to 709 days after vaccination among a subset with PVS, even in those with no evidence of detectable SARS-CoV-2 infection”— I believe it is safe to say that every single person has been and/or continues to be exposed to shedding. Evidently, not all people will be affected to the same degree, as there is a quasi-infinite number of variables at play. However, chances are that exposure to any toxic substance on an ongoing basis will eventually affect your body to some extent or other, and therefore, no one can really say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are (and will always continue to be) unaffected by shedding, even if they do not show signs and symptoms shortly (or not so shortly) after exposure. My argument is based on the following:

1. To quote Paracelsus, “The poison is in the dose.” This refers to cumulative toxicity and is self-explanatory.

2. Not everyone knows that the spike protein is toxic, and even fewer people know about spike protein shedding, so a considerable number of people may be experiencing signs and symptoms as a result of shedding that they are not recognizing as possibly related to shedding or the “vaccines,” or both.

After reading the above-mentioned article, I spent a couple of hours trying to figure out how I could summarize it to get the message across in a minute-and-a-half IG reel… but then I started thinking about other reels I have posted around this subject, and how little of an impact they have had.

You see, on the one hand, besides having a small following, the people who do follow me or even non-followers to whom the algorithm would most likely recommend my reels, already know about this or will probably receive this information from other IG accounts with much larger followings (not to mention that I am currently suspended from showing up on “Suggested for you” because I reposted a picture of the moon that was “fact-checked” and determined by some person in Russia to be false). On the other hand, the people who do give my reels a like (all of whom evidently agree with the information I am posting), more often than not, never share them within their own circles. So that begged the question that has been running on an endless loop in my head for quite a while: Is this really worth my time? The answer is absolutely yes, and here’s why.

Throughout history, humankind has always been polarized, but in the recent past, this polarization has gotten to a point that I believe is no longer sustainable. This applies to all aspects of societal life (politics, religion, race, etc., etc., etc.), but let’s leave the broader issues aside for now (although they are all interconnected), and focus specifically on our polarization around the new gene therapies rolled out in 2021.

The way I see it, there are four main groups of people:

1. Group 1: Those who believe that the COVID shots have an extremely positive risk/benefit ratio (i.e., they save lives, so whether or not they are causing serious and fatal side effects seems to be of no consequence to them).

2. Group 2: Those who believe the COVID shots have an extremely negative risk/benefit ratio (i.e., the risk of serious or fatal side effects by far outweighs any potential positive effects).

3. Group 3: Previous Group 1 members who have gradually veered towards Group 2, and are deciding not to get any more of these shots.

4. Group 4: Those who have never given any of this much thought and/or have given it some thought, but still prefer to look the other way and pretend that nothing is happening.

Over the past few years, by reading the comments under related posts, I have come to realize that many Group 2 “garden-variety” people (i.e., people without mile-long lists of medical credentials) who had been trying to inform others about the unsafety and inefficacy of the new gene therapies have all but given up, as these discussions normally lead to heated arguments, seriously negative backlash on social media, or very difficult conversations with close friends and family that end up being fruitless, at best. But it is thanks to Group 2 people (medical and non-medical professionals) that we can now talk about a previously non-existent Group 3.

Having a background in science myself, I personally agree with most of what Group 2 experts are saying, but I can’t help but notice that a considerable number of non-expert Group 2 members seem to be extremely polarized as well, and what used to be a direct, frontal attack by the “vaxxed” (i.e., Group 1 members) against the “unvaxxed” (i.e., Group 2 members) is now turning into a direct, frontal attack by the “unvaxxed” against the “vaxxed” (just take note of how many of them are now using terms such as “purebloods” and “covidiots”).

This extreme polarization leads to the following issues: First, by being –and almost permanently staying– at only one extreme of the entire spectrum of possibilities, we miss out on the good things that the other side may (and possibly does) have to offer. Second, in Western culture, there is a strong tendency to vilify all those who are not on “your” side of the fence, and a lot of the content they post has this energy of fighting back, holding people accountable, filing lawsuits, demanding justice, proving they are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong, never forgiving and never forgetting, etc., etc., etc. (*whew*... I felt my stomach tying into a knot as I wrote this).

Case in point #1:

The first time that I ever saw somebody speaking up about the “vaccines” on Instagram, my first reaction was, “Yay! People are finally starting to speak up!” But almost immediately, I thought to myself, “This is NOT the way to go.” This man was screaming at the top of his lungs, saying that he didn’t care if Instagram shut down his account, that we had to hold people accountable, sue their pants off, demand justice, etc. It was pure, undistilled, super-aggressive, fighting-back energy. And while I totally get all the reasons why he (and the rest of the world, for that matter) was/is angry, as I myself went into a fit a rage when I found out my two sons were being required to get the shots to be able to stay in college, I really do believe we need to use that anger in a constructive way that doesn’t lead to even more divisiveness.

Just ask yourselves, when have lawsuits really solved any problem? And by that I mean really solved it, from its root cause. How many times have pharmaceutical companies been sued over injuries and been made to pay huge settlements, and when has that ever stopped them from continuing to develop and market their products? Do you think any amount of money a plaintiff receives from a settlement could ever take away the grief and pain of losing a loved one? These lawsuits are just part of an extremely well orchestrated show that will most definitely go on until we all —or, at the very least, most of us— stop feeding and buying into it.

Although I wholeheartedly agree that silence is complicity, and that we do need to speak up about any sort of injustice we see in the world, there are two distinctly different ways of going about it: We can speak up against injustice or we can speak up in favor of justice. They sound like exactly the same thing, but there is a huge difference between the two.

As an example, I have always said that being anti-war or being pro-peace are not the same thing. Even though at first glance they might sound quite similar, when you are anti-war you are giving your energy to war, and when you are pro-peace, you are giving your energy to peace. This difference that is almost indiscernible for the analytical mind has a massive impact at the more subtle, energetic level.

So ask yourselves, how much more of your energy do you want to keep spending (or wasting) on fighting against institutions and corporations who flagrantly lied to the entire world population (and will most likely continue to do so, unless the entire establishment crumbles to the ground… more on that at a later date), and how much of that energy would be better spent on trying to find solutions that do not perpetuate divisiveness?

Case in point #2:

Back in September of 2023, I had the audacity of posting a reel (that you can watch here) where I suggested forgiving all the celebrities who had said absolutely horrible things about those who were choosing not to get the shots. My reasoning was that, on the off chance that any of these celebrities had come to realize they may have been wrong, they might have been more willing to retract their statements and publicly apologize IF they knew their apology had even the slightest chance of being accepted. Given their celebrity status, an apology from them would have had a much stronger impact on public opinion than doctors who were being censored left and right, let alone us “garden-variety” people who were trying to get others to at least consider looking at the other side of the mainstream narrative coin.

Although it did get almost 300 likes and 215 shares (which is A LOT for me), I cannot even begin to describe the amount of negative backlash I got from that reel. I have never had so many comments on any of my reels, most of which were beyond aggressive, to the point where I had to turn them off because my body simply couldn’t handle it anymore… and all because I asked Group 2 people to find it in their hearts to forgive these celebrities, simply because that would make it much more likely for them to change their mind and apologize for what they had said, and if they did, they would have a much greater chance of getting “we the people” to start questioning our choices.

My main takeaway from this experience is that, if we really want to help effect any sort of change, we have to stop vilifying everybody who does not agree with us or who chose differently, and we all need to start coming at this from a place of compassion, empathy, neutrality, and an understanding that (almost) every single person on this planet does the best they can with what they have at any given time, and that’s what they had at that moment.

Let’s talk about nurses and doctors, for example. I would bet that the vast majority of them are really good people who actually believed these “vaccines” would save millions of lives, because that’s what they were taught in medical school and what was being reinforced by the entire healthcare system. Can you even begin to imagine what it must be like for healthcare professionals who are now starting to realize that these injections are not only ineffective, but actually very unsafe? How big of a pill do you think they will need to swallow to be able to admit to themselves, let alone to other people, that they might have actually helped kill or injure one or several of their patients?

If you were able to walk even a few steps in their shoes, you would immediately understand why there is so much cognitive dissonance, and why they seem so adamant about not wanting to even consider the possibility of there being another side to the Covid vaccines story. The same thing happens with the rest of us non-medical mortals: How hard do you think it would be to admit to yourself that you might have been wrong about the vaccines after you vilified and shunned your loved ones for not taking them, or worse yet, after you convinced them of taking the shots and they didn’t fare well with them? Just sit with that for a moment.

If we come at them with our swords drawn, there is little to zero chance anyone will listen to anything we have to say, even if we have “THE science” (and mountains upon mountains of experiential and anecdotal evidence) to back our assertions. But if we approach them from a place of love, compassion, empathy, neutrality, and understanding, instead of harsh judgment and criticism, if we quit taking everything they have said (or are still saying) personally, and we start giving them little, digestible tidbits of information in a way that lets them know that we understand that it is human to make mistakes, and we just leave those little tidbits out there on the table, as food for thought, they just might start questioning their beliefs and start stepping out of their fear and turning their cognitive dissonance into cognitive resonance. In Spanish we have a saying that reads, “En el modo de pedir, está el dar”, which roughly translates into “How you ask for things determines how the other person responds,” or as my aunt always says, “You get more bees with honey than you do with vinegar.”

We have to approach them from a place of neutrality, and in my experience, the only way to arrive at any semblance of neutrality is to have empathy and compassion for those who made a different choice than ours, for whatever reason. Just to be clear, this includes everyone: vaxxed, unvaxxed, on-the-fencers, and look-awayers, and any and all shades of gray in between. And empathy and compassion will not be readily available to anyone until we are able to forgive others for vilifying us, forgive ourselves for vilifying them, and last but most definitely not least, forgive the-powers-that-be that we “think” are the only ones responsible for getting us into this mess, because we need to understand that they are not the sole “perpetrators” and we are not the sole “victims” of their misdeeds. Most, if not ALL of us, have played and are still playing a part in this to some extent or another, whether by giving into fear, by relinquishing our power and our sovereignty out of fear, or even by simply taking sides and feeding into the energy of divisiveness and separateness, whether justified or not, regardless of which side of the fence we chose or continue to choose. Many people who gave their uninformed consent or even willingly lined up to get the shots did so either because they were forced or faced with an impossible “choice”, out of fear of getting sick or dying from Covid or of getting someone else sick with Covid and possibly causing their death, out of fear of being shunned by their family, community or society as a whole, or simply out of an understandable human desire to “return to normal”, and be able to travel, visit their family, or even go grocery shopping again.

In short, for me it’s not about fighting back, it’s about loving forward. If we stop engaging from a place of anger and resentment, and instead start speaking up from a place of love, compassion, and understanding, they might just start listening to what we have to say.

And why do I think it is so important for them to start listening? In one word: Shedding. The first time I heard about shedding, the first thought that immediately came into my mind was, “Crap. We’re all screwed.” But shortly after, I realized we’re not.

A little bit of context: Since late January 2021, I have been developing an energy healing technology that I named Holographic Bioalchemy^TM. Very long story short, it is a light frequency healing tool that came to me during a meditation, where I was shown a very specific way to use light to create a hologram of the spike protein that fills up the ACE-2 receptors and helps stop the virus from binding to them, so it helps prevent COVID in case of exposure, or helps stop the virus from replicating and reduces the viral load, therefore reducing severity. I started sending this hologram to many people with good results, the common denominator being that they generally recovered much quicker than their doctors expected. I also imprinted this hologram on a waterfall (and the sun and the moon and anywhere else I could think of) so it would reach anybody who was open to receiving it, and later posted a video of the waterfall on YouTube as a way to factor in their intention and participation into their own healing process.

Then the “vaccines” were rolled out, and in June 2021, I learned that my two boys were being required to get them if they wanted to continue to attend college, so I sat down and wrote an 18-page long document based purely on information I found on the websites of the CDC, the FDA, the WHO, Johns Hopkins University, and scientific articles to request an exemption from the mandate. Of course, both colleges denied my request. I also sent it to the State Governor’s Office… crickets. For those of you who are interested in knowing what these websites were communicating back then, I’ve posted this document on my Substack (you can access it here). It is uncanny to see how a lot of information was already out there, right from the start —but was mysteriously tagged as misinformation or disinformation if you had the guts to share it on social media—, and yet, to this day, not a single peep on mainstream media.

Rewinding to when I first heard about shedding, I wondered if there might be a way to use this tool to create a hologram that would clear the spike protein produced by the injections and/or acquired through shedding… and the answer was yes.

In my world, the clearer the intention, the better the results, so after a lot of research to understand the differences between the viral and vaccine-induced spike protein, I developed a hologram that clears the vaccine-induced spike protein as a way to address the issue of shedding, and I also imprinted it on the waterfall so it would reach anyone who was open and willing to receive it.

Soon after, however, I came across studies indicating that: a) Spike protein production may continue for an indefinite period of time in some people; b) Shedding is not limited to the spike protein, as mRNA, nanolipids, and more recently, DNA plasmids, may also be excreted; and c) The mRNA or DNA encoding the spike protein may integrate into the human and/or microbiome genomes.

This made me realize that simply getting rid of the spike protein in your body, while certainly beneficial, does not solve the actual problem. It only takes care of the “symptom”, or rather, the “by-product” of what’s really causing the issue, that being that many people (and most likely pets and plants) now have the “instructions” (aka, genetic material) in their bodies to produce a foreign protein, and are transmitting these instructions or the foreign protein, or both, to other people (and pets and plants), irrespective of their vaccination status. Limiting our efforts to detoxing from the spike protein only is the equivalent of taking ibuprofen to get rid of a headache, without addressing what caused the headache in the first place (so you can actually stop getting headaches). Simply put, I realized we had to find a way to clear these “instructions” from the body, whether acquired through the shots or through shedding, so we could all stop producing and shedding the spike protein in what seems to be a never-ending loop.

After extensive research, I later developed holograms to clear all genetic material (mRNA and DNA) encoding the vaccine-induced spike protein, which I imprint on clear quartz crystals and send out to people as a gift in exchange for a voluntary donation, since they cannot be imprinted on the waterfall for a variety of reasons that are outside of the scope of this article.

There are also a number of supplements, repurposed drugs, and other protocols being recommended for spike protein detoxing, but I have yet to find any other alternatives being recommended for clearing the genetic material encoding the spike protein.

At the short-term individual level, all of the alternatives that are coming out for spike protein detox are all great news for vaxxed and unvaxxed alike, but the sad truth is that these solutions only cover a fraction (albeit a very important one) of the problem, as not only have these injections been shown to contain a number of other toxic components, but especially because many more products using mRNA technology are currently under development (and don’t even get me started on the recently announced mRNA + AI cancer “vaccines”).

At the collective level, however, the way I see it, this problem is here to stay unless people stop taking any existing or future gene therapy products. And the only way I see that happening is if Groups 1 and 4 people (i.e., those who believe the injections are the next best thing since sliced bread and those who prefer to keep their heads buried in the sand, respectively) start to realize that, unfortunately, the “My Body, My Choice” premise does not apply in this specific case. And why doesn’t it apply? Again, in one word: Shedding.

I believe that one of the main reasons why many people “chose” to get the shots was because they actually believed they were “doing the right thing, for the greater good.” If I am correct, then it would be safe to assume that it should be fairly easy to appeal to the compassionate side of most people (without guilt-tripping them, pleeeaaassseee) by providing them with evidence of shedding. And yet, many who know that shedding is real, not only from scientific evidence, but even from personal experience, are still inexplicably hesitant to broach the subject of vaccines with the people closest to them.

Why are we still so afraid of telling them that their choices may actually be harming not only them, but also everyone around them? My best guess is that we are fearful of getting into a heated argument, or being shunned or ridiculed yet again… but now we have scientific and experiential evidence, and now we are not only advocating for our own health (i.e., “My Body, My Choice”), but also for theirs, as they are also being affected by shedding, regardless of whether or not they are still producing spike protein themselves.

It is my contention that if they were actually AWARE of this whole shedding situation, and how it may be affecting them and those around them, they might open up to finding out more and doing something about it. The real problem is that THEY DO NOT KNOW, so there is an obvious need to inform them of this. But they are not going to open up to anything we or anyone else has to say if they feel attacked right off the bat. And that’s why “fighting back”, “never forgiving and never forgetting,” or slapping them with an “I told you so” will never work.

So here are a few suggestions as to how to start bridging the huge gap that still exists between the two ends of the spectrum:

1. Start sharing small, digestible tidbits of information within your closer circles. People are more likely to trust someone they already know (or to at least give some thought to what they have to say), because they already know you are a reasonably well-intentioned person who is not in a position of power (which instantly rules out hidden agendas), and therefore you have nothing to gain from sharing this information with them. Be sure to also ask them to help you share this information within their own close circles, as this is the only way this information will eventually start spreading and reaching a wider audience. We all know the algorithms will never present it to people who aren’t already following this line of thinking.

2. When sharing directly with family and friends (especially those who still think the vaccines are safe and effective), make sure to use kind, emotionally uncharged words. For example, you could say, “I came across this post on Substack and I thought you might find it interesting” (as opposed to, “See? Here’s proof of what I have been saying all along!!!”).

3. Don’t push them to respond or entice an argument. Just casually put a little seed of information on the table and leave it there. Let them choose whether or not to pick it up, plant it in a pot, and start watering it.

4. Avoid sharing information that is worded in a way that will most likely instill even more fear in them. Both mainstream and alternative media channels make extensive use of scandalous headlines to get people’s attention, so please do your best to rephrase any information that uses this marketing ploy (even if the information in and of itself is true). This will only make them withdraw even more and bury their head deeper in the sand.

5. When you share information, also do your best to include any available SOLUTIONS. Something along the lines of, “Hey, did you know that the spike protein […]? Here are several different things you can do to detox from it.” Otherwise, we are just perpetuating the cycle of fear and provoking even greater cognitive dissonance in them. This is not the outcome we want.

6. Try to avoid referring them to experts who are clearly politicizing this situation. For example, many people stopped following Dr. Malone the minute he started singing Donald Trump’s praises (this was way back when), as he seemed to have forgotten who put Operation Warp Speed in motion (among other things). I don’t believe in politics, so in my case, I was personally disenchanted by him when he started filing lawsuits for millions of dollars against I don’t even remember who or for what.

7. Try to avoid referring them to experts who are clearly trying to make truckloads of money out of this. Everybody needs to make a living, I know, but let’s take Dr. McCullough, for example. The minute he started promoting his allopathic Preparedness Kit and his spike detox product left and right, people started to lose trust in him. If his only purpose were to increase awareness (which I do believe was his purpose for quite a long time), his Substack page wouldn’t be paywalled up the kazoo. This is in no way meant to demean what he has done and accomplished. Just another point to consider, in my view.

In short, try, just try to help people understand that shedding is something that is not only affecting them, but also everyone else around them. Don’t wait for them to magically wake up one day and realize this, and especially don’t wait for them to have their eyes forcibly pried open by something that may have been prevented, had they only had access to the necessary information. And please, don’t wait for Big Pharma or the mainstream media to start putting this information out there. I am pretty sure you would agree that that is not happening anytime soon, if ever.

In the words of Shane Claiborne,

“Peacemaking doesn't mean passivity. It is the act of interrupting injustice without mirroring injustice, the act of disarming evil without destroying the evildoer, the act of finding a third way that is neither fight nor flight, but the careful, arduous pursuit of reconciliation and justice. It is about a revolution of love that is big enough to set both the oppressed and the oppressors free.”