Excellent points. Thank you for sharing. I'll read in a bit, but I just wanted to add a few other points: It would be good if someone actually tested the shedding dynamics because currently we are assuming based on the exosomal finding that this must happen.

I do agree that there is no reason to think some spike isn't making it out of our systems given what we know about it's expression and circulation basically everywhere. I'm much more worried by the relaxed nature of investigators who show little to no curiosity about urgent questions like the amount of spike being shed. The form in which it's shed, the route etc.

I was flabbergasted when the author of a recent paper on anti-spike antibodies found in saliva expressed "surprise" that they found Anti-S protein antibodies aplenty in the mouth. Why on earth would they assume that these antibodies would be restricted, unless they believe that SARS-COV-2 infection doesn't happen through the oral route or they believe that the spike protein couldn't possibly have travelled into someone's mouth or worse, actually been produced locally.

Wouldn't someone who is paid to learn about Immunology at least have some semblance of what we should be looking for and why it could be important? Instead of marveling at their surprise that anti spike antibodies were found in the saliva, shouldn't they have immediately tried to test different hypothesis for it's presence there? Is it gene expression, is it spike endogenous spike, is it spike being shed by someone else that the person might have made out with? Fecal oral route. Was it because the spike protein was able to thwart an infection of the virus that was floating around?

Absolutely zero curiosity about the mechanisms, so of course, we have no idea about the hazards either.

I'd add one possibility of benefit though. It's possible that if spike is being shed orally or nasally and that if it's in a large amount, the NK cells might not be able clear it and it might lead to some kind of adaptive immune response that is superior from a epidemiological standpoint of getting some kind of mucosal immunity in exactly the way the virus is likely to enter (ignoring OAS, ADE risks). Repeated exposures might train the upper respiratory tract over periods of months to spot and neutralize it within seconds.

This second hand exposure scenario is certainly dreamy and positive as it would stop the most important thing these vaccines are creating: onward transmission. Systemic administration of vaccine means no mucosal immunity exists and the virus exploits this delay in antibodies arriving to find an unsuspecting unvaccinated host who now has only the innate immunity to fight off the viral load and no mucosal immunity or t-cell immunity. If infection happens, it's pretty bad unless the virus is slowed down. This is why I think doing this research might give us clues about what benefit or hazards might be floating around.

If what I am thinking can happen or is happening, then it will mean that rogue spike proteins being ejected into the environment might train the immune system of babies, spouses other vaccinated, just enough so that they can block infection through mucosal immunity. This is so important to stop the evolution of the virus as without onward transmission, it's last hope is trying some immune escape trick or ADE to trick the s-protein antibodies. it might actually have done that to achieve it's Delta form which is not just high transmissibility due to the excessive spike protein antibodies it has to deal with, but also immune escape to prevent detection.

Sounds like Hopium. but why aren't people testing what's happening with spike shedding? What if it's a feature for the unvaccinated, you get your disease protection, I get sterilizing immunity protection. You pick up the spike toxicity tab, I pick up the Covid infection without t-cell immunity tab. All Even, until the vaccinees start boosting and create 100x viral load unvaccinated cannot possibly block with innate immunity or extinct wuhan spike trained mucosal immunity.