More Shedding Propaganda

There is an article, Vaccine Shedding Finally Proven!, claiming that shedding has been proven.  The article refers to the study Evidence for Aerosol Transfer of SARS-CoV2-specific Humoral Immunity to support its claim.

Let me try to explain it. First, these scientists from the University of Colorado looked at face masks, worn by vaccinated health care workers. They found that those workers shed antibodies generated by vaccination, and some antibodies got trapped in the masks and could be detected. This means that vaccinated people are literally “shedding” vaccine-caused antibodies.

Antibodies being secreted does not indicate that the antibodies were induced by the vaccine.  Antibodies crossreact and could be from the flu.

First things to note about the study is that it isn't peer reviewed, but its likely done by students under academic funding, so certain scientific requirements may have been overlooked.

Still, let's look at a couple examples.
Right off the bat, the study puts out an unproven claim:

Despite the obvious knowledge that infectious particles can be shared through respiration

There are no scientific studies that have ever proven respiratory transfer of infectious particles.  This video, The Truth About Viruses, explains past attempts to prove transmission beginning at the 11:30 mark.
The study also states:

Respiratory transmission of viral infection is proof that oral/nasal cavity constituents can be communicated through aerosols and/or respiratory droplets.

Again, there is no proof of transmission.  The authors simply make a blanket statement with no supporting evidence of any kind.  Making claims without supporting scientific research is one reason that the study would never pass peer review.

The vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have maintained remarkable efficacy against severe disease and death in those vaccinated regardless of variant emergence, Omicron included.

There are no tests to identify Omicron.  If anyone knows of any, please direct me to it.
As far as the vaccines being effective goes, I'll remind everyone that the WHO had to reduce safety and effectiveness requirements from "preventing" illness to "reducing symptoms" just to get the covid vaccines to pass.  On top of that, the vaccines are only required to be 50% effective to be used.  So, saying that they have "remarkable" effectiveness is more in line with advertising than science.

Initial comparison of nasal swabs acquired from children living in vaccinated households revealed readily detectable SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG (Fig 1E), especially when compared to the complete deficit of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody detected in the few nasal swabs we obtained from children in non-vaccinated households.

It is remarkable that "unvaccinated" people had no cov2 antibodies. 
Second, the authors make no effort to explain how they differentiate cov2 antibodies.  It is well known that cov2 antibodies crossreact with other coronaviruses, and also influenza A & B.  In fact, testing using antibodies for cov2 is routinely done simultaneously with Influenza A/B, as can be seen here (link to FDA pdf):

Results are for the simultaneous identification of nucleocapsid antigens of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and influenza B, but does not differentiate between SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 viruses and is not intended to detect influenza C antigens.

It would be crucial, in a world where science mattered, that the authors differentiate viruses in order to make their claims.  This study does nothing to address the possibility that family members may have had influenza infections independent of each other.  Critical if you're going to claim "shedding antibodies" between individuals.

The study will never pass peer review, because the science is replaced by assumptions.  That is no fault of the students, if they are the ones conducting the study.  They're probably just getting their feet wet with writing research papers.  Who is at fault, is the author of the article, Igor Chudov.

Just look at the article title he chose, "Vaccine Shedding Finally Proven!".  Exclamation point and all.  Not a damn thing was proven.  But, he knows that people won't look. 
His propaganda is just as bad in-article:

Even I believed that there was no plausible mechanism for vaccine shedding. I thought that it was a baseless conspiracy theory. Stupid me. It turned out that I WAS WRONG and vaccine shedding is real and can be measured.

Bold font and capital letters are his.  Lots of flash, drama and emphasis, but zero scientific support. 

We live in unprecedented times.  More bullsh%t is being slung at the people than ever.  I guess the plan is that people will assume that something out there must be true.  Well, no it doesn't.  They could actually just be slinging record amounts of bullsh%t at the public.  Just look at the past 2 years of it.

This article is sensationalist and baseless.  My opinion is that it is very misleading and likely just more garbage to get people afraid of each other and, of course, phony covid.

As always, readers can decide for themselves.  This is simply my opinion.

This EXOSOME theory is aligning with what you describe.

Plus, a bioweapon does not come and go with the seasons!

Look, every October and April. For 3 years now..

I thought that the shedding issue was about the spike proteins created by the mRNA vaccinations shedding off. They are talking about antibodies aren't they? Not a big deal if true IMO.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

You're right. I thought the same thing. The author is making a leap from antibodies found and the presence of infectious agents.
Antibodies crossreact, so they aren't indicative of anything.

Antibodies being secreted is normal also. We used to use nasopharyngeal swabs with Wright stain to test for allergies. We would look for eosinophils, which come around with IgA antibodies. We used the same procedure to test working dogs, who would be ineffective with allergies and retired from service.