Dating Just Leveled Up With Unvaccinated-Dating Apps

People are joining dating apps to find partners who share not only interests, but health priorities.

“Unjected” is a dating app for unvaccinated individuals that describes its platform as a place for “like-minded individuals seeking authentic connections with awakened voices …” It features smart matching, speed dating, date requests, live video calls, and social feeds. It was originally launched as a safe place for “unvaccinated to come together uncensored through business, friendship or love,” according to the app’s founders, Shelby Thomson and Heather Pyle.

Unjected hosted a “Summer Love” tour, traveling across the U.S. and holding mixers for unvaccinated singles. 

“We’ve been banned, hacked, betrayed, and written off, and we’re still here,” the post said. “So this summer, we’re going on tour. 🌎Denver. Nashville. Boise. Portland.”

The app has had success with users finding spouses who value their health as much as they do. Genna Betros, 27, discovered the app and related to its mission, distrustful of how quickly the vaccine was developed and undertested, according to The Washington Post. She said that the app attracts others who stay strong for their family and not submit to whatever the TV says.”   

Betros matched with Corey Deemer, who was also skeptical about the “aggressive” push toward vaccinations. Only an hour’s drive apart at the outset, they met, fell in love, and eventually married. 

Launched in 2021, the app initially endured setbacks: Apple removed Unjected from its App Store because its social feed allowed for “buzz phrases” like “experimental mRNA gene modifiers,” “bioweapons,” and “nano-technology microchips.” Thomson and Pyle pushed back, saying that Apple had violated their First Amendment rights. 

“Obviously, these tech giants do what they want,” Thomson said in an Inside Edition interview. “But, it doesn’t make it any less a violation of the 1st amendment.” 

The app was eventually returned to Apple’s App Store in 2024. 

There is still pushback from a number of sources when questions are raised regarding the overall safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines in particular. Pharmaceutical companies often tout the life-saving capabilities of traditional vaccines, lumping the COVID-19 vaccine in with the others as they argue it saved “millions of lives.” 

There are a growing number of studies, however, showing that the questions are worth raising. A Senate subcommittee hearing in 2025 titled “How the Corruption of Science has Impacted Public Perception and Policies Regarding Vaccines,” presented the results of a study that was supposed to prove vaccines were safe. It did the opposite. 

Toby Rogers, a Brownstone Institute fellow with a doctorate in political economy, testified that he watched every meeting of the Advisory Committee on immunization practices, and the vaccines and related biological products advisory committee, and he found that from 2021 to 2023 “after a while the CDC’s own research showed that protection from the vaccine, if any, was between months two and six, and by six months it showed negative efficacy” — meaning that data suggested the vaccine actually increased the risk of conditions it was supposed to prevent or did nothing at all. It also had the “worst side-effect profile of any vaccine in human history,” according to Rogers. 

At the hearing, attorney Aaron Siri cited an unpublished Henry Ford Health study that drew on medical records of 18,468 children enrolled in the system from 2000 to 2016, comparing those who received one or more vaccines with those who received none. Siri said the study found that vaccinated children had “4.29 times the rate of asthma, 3.03 times the rate of atopic disease, 5.96 times the rate of autoimmune disease, and 5.53 times the rate of neuro-developmental disorders.” 

The study was never published or peer-reviewed, and Henry Ford Health disputes that it was “suppressed” — arguing that it went unpublished because it was poorly designed. Stanford infectious-disease physician Jake Scott, who also testified, said the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups differed too much at the outset to support the study’s conclusions.

Siri said the findings were “statistically significant” even after adjusting cohorts for factors like gender, race, and birthweight, and noted that researchers who set out to ‘reduce vaccine hesitancy’ had instead produced findings that cut against their own premise.

While the COVID-19 vaccines have garnered a lot of suspicion, more traditional vaccines have been more broadly accepted by both the medical community and the general public. Measles vaccinations are recorded to have the “most significant impact on reducing infant mortality, accounting for 60% of the lives saved due to immunization,” and are considered likely to prevent future deaths as well. The report also says that over the past 50 years, vaccination against 14 different diseases has contributed to “reducing infant deaths by 40% globally, and by more than 50% in the African Region.”