what they mean and what they don't
I think the concern following the results in the Harvard/Brigham paper is that they have shown that there is S1 in the plasma, i.e. not confined simply to expression on the surface of cells. When people have expressed concern about the vaccines in terms of "is spike by itself dangerous", the expert answer has been "the spike only appears partially extruded on a cell surface", i.e. it can't get to the lungs, the vascular epithelium, etc. The paper shows that is not correct, which in turn suggests we don't completely know all the downstream consequences.
The larger theoretical concern, in my view, with the mRNA vaccines is that the set of cells that can be "transfected" by the lipid nanoparticles (LPNs) is essentially all cells, in distinction to the SARS2 virus, which can only infect cells with ACE2 receptors. In other words, any cell that the LPNs reach can end up expressing spike on its surface, and thereby invite immune attack. So it matters very much that the belief is that this will be mainly local muscle, and next most-likely local lymph nodes. But we also know that with decreasing probability (per animal study) the LPNs reach essentially every organ including the brain and the bone marrow. The other thing I find interesting is that the kinds of adverse events that are beginning to emerge as related (I have more ideas about how to do that analysis better) are of the type and range you might expect if caused by comparatively uncommon but diverse instances of mRNA getting around: eg myocarditis (heart cells), thrombosis (vascular epithelium, platelets, perhaps bone marrow), various forms of neuritis (ocular, vestibular, peripheral) via nerve cells, and so on. To get a handle on the range of adverse effects you need to collate all of these, since they each present as a unique type of relatively rare event. But they do have in common the potential mechanism of targeted inflammation and/or cell damage that would be caused by spike expression in a particular cell type.
All of this jives with my casual exploration of the data. The vaccine seems quite safe for most in the short term. For those with significant risk factors for poor Covid outcomes, the vaccine seems a very reasonable option. The question of both long-term efficacy and long-term negative effects is still in question, particularly for those cohorts excluded from the initial trials, i.e. the young, pregnant women, those who have had Covid, etc.
It is truly remarkable that we were able to develop this vaccine so quickly and that it appears to have such a high level of efficacy. It is however unconscionable that governments, public health officials, businesses and schools would advise those with low risks or (and more disturbingly) compel *anyone,* regardless of their risk profile, to accept what is still a very new bit of technology.
Thanks for this, gato!
Are the vaccine-encoded spike proteins capable of causing injury? That's the question. Would that we had the answer before hundreds of millions were injected.
There are 4,201 deaths and thousands of reports of serious injury following Covid19 "vaccines" in the VAERS. That's more deaths reported than for all other vaccines combined going back fifteen years. Yes, some are unrelated. But all of them? There are fifteen and sixteen-year-olds who died of cardiac arrest. Other reports of teens with rare blood clots in the brain from both the viral vector vaccines and mRNA vaccines. The data in EudraVigilance is even worse.
Did the vaccine-encoded spike protein cause of these injuries and deaths? Who knows? They won't even admit there's a problem.
The public health "experts" have been pushing these experimental "vaccines" on pregnant women and those with prior infection, even though both groups were excluded from the trials. They are pushing the "vaccines" for children who have almost no risk of serious disease with infection. Over a hundred colleges and universities are now mandating a "vaccine" as a condition of attendance for a virus that poses very low risk to most students. None of this makes sense. The virus simply doesn't justify the risk of the vaccine for these people. So, why are they doing this?
Moreover, the EUAs for all of these "vaccines" do not claim to prevent infection or transmission of the virus. They only claim to mitigate symptoms with infection. There have been several thousand breakthrough infections recorded in "fully vaccinated" people. Over a thousand were hospitalized and about 225 have died. A couple weeks ago, the CDC lowered the PCR cycle threshold to 28 for the "fully vaccinated". Shortly thereafter, they announced they would only report hospitalizations and deaths for breakthrough infections. If the news was good, would they do this?
A week or so ago, Walensky told the talking heads on cable that "fully vaccinated" people with mild or asymptomatic infection have small amounts of virus in their systems and do not present a risk. Wait...isn't that the reason the world shut down? Didn't you tell us that people with asymptomatic infection are modern day Typhoid Marys? Even the sheep saw the flaw in the narrative, so she and Leana Wen tried to claim that mild or asymptomatic infection in the "fully vaccinated" was somehow different than it is in the unvaccinated. I'm sorry...wut? How? Because we said so isn't gonna cut it.
I've also heard stories of asymptomatic transmission from "fully vaccinated" people to others, but I haven't explored it yet. I'm not convinced these "vaccines" are as good as advertised. Some (Vanden Bossche and Montagnier) are concerned that mass vaccination with a leaky "vaccine" during a pandemic will create more dangerous variants. Others are concerned for antibody enhanced disease in the fall/winter, which they fear will be used to push boosters.
The Salk just determined that the wild spike protein is the likely cause of the cardiovascular injuries seen in some. Clearly, whatever changes pharma made to nerf the spike didn't factor this concern. If they weakened the ability of the spike to injure, it was an accident.
Someone needs to study the effect of vaccine-encoded spike protein on endothelial cells...soon.
I always wanted to commit the madness of talking about a phenomenon not documented in Immunology, but widely commented by popular people.
When the flu vaccine started, what I heard most from acquaintances (see, it wasn't third-hand stories, it was acquaintances) was: "3 days after I got the flu vaccine, I got the biggest flu of my life". Now I hear that in this new vascular disease.
There are no documents, there are no statistics, there is nothing, it is merely speculative. You can count a "case", you can put a link, that we will think about it. It could be people who would be sick without a vaccine and the vaccine just hadn't worked yet. It all depends on statistics, which we don't have in large quantities.
This phenomenon has, to my knowledge, no immunological explanation concensus yet. I'm still looking to see if I can find anything. I accept help.
I was able to find this Old document from 1932 regarding this issue "Negative Phase":
I also found this Large Scandinavian observational study -
In Sweden, 2 highlights of a Pfizer vaccination campaign:
- Take extra care within 2 weeks after the first injection
- The previous infection offers a solid defense
Also this one -
"The long-term modulation of innate immune responses has been an area of increased interest in the last years: multiple studies have shown that long-term innate immune responses can be either
increased (trained immunity) or down-regulated (innate immune tolerance) after certain
vaccines or infections (Netea et al., 2020)."(GECKIN et al 2021, p. 4)
"The induction of tolerance towards stimulation with TLR7/8 (R848) or TLR4 (LPS) ligands by BNT162b2 vaccination may indicate a more balanced inflammatory reaction during infection with SARS-CoV-2, and one could speculate whether such effect may be thus useful to regulate the potential over-inflammation in COVID-19, one of the main causes of death (Tang et al., 2020). On the other hand, inhibition of innate immune responses may diminish anti-viral responses. Type I interferons also play a central role in the pathogenesis and response against viral infections, including COVID-19 (Hadjadj et al., 2020). With this in mind, we also assessed the production of IFN-α by immune cells of the volunteers after vaccination. Although the concentrations of IFN-α were below the detection limit of the assay for most of the stimuli, we observed a significant reduction in the production if IFN-α secreted after stimulation with poly I:C and R848 after the administration of the second dose of the vaccine (Figure 1H, 1I). This may hamper the initial innate immune response against the virus, as defects in TLR7 have been shown to result in and increased susceptibility to COVID-19 in young males (Van Der Made et al., 2020)."(GECKIN et al 2021, p. 8-9)
And finally this one:
"New studies also suggest that changes in DNA methylation patterns discriminate between ‘responders’ (people who are able to undergo trained immunity) and ‘non- responders’ to stimuli that induce trained immunity, such as BCG. In this regard, individuals who exhibit an enhanced containment of M. tuberculosisreplication after BCG vaccination displayed a wide loss of DNA methylation among promoters of genes belonging to immune pathways compared with individuals characterized as non-responders. A follow-up study identified 43 genes
with differential methylation patterns in BCG- naive responders compared with non- responders that could potentially be used as predictors of responsiveness to stimuli that induce trained immunity"(NETEA et al 2020, p. 381)
"It is possible that the augmented immune functions arising from trained immunity could lead to pathological tissue damage in certain situations. Trained immunity could, in part, explain the epidemiological link between infections and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. In addition to microbial products, endogenous triggers of innate immunity, including oxidized low- density
lipoprotein particles, lipoprotein (a), vimentin and highmobility group box 1 (HMGB1), can induce trained immunity"(NETEA et al 2020, p. 383)
"Trained immunity could potentially be important to ameliorate the consequences of immunosenescence, which is associated with the loss of adaptive immune system function. For example, prior BCG vaccination has been shown to enhance antibody responses to many other vaccines that are subsequently administered. On the other hand, there could be negative consequences. Neurodegenerative diseases constitute a significant group of age- related diseases associated with chronic inflammation. Peripheral application of Inflammatory stimuli in a mouse model of Alzheimer disease leads to long- lasting training of microglia, the brain-resident macrophages, which exacerbates cerebral β- amyloidosis. The functional changes of microglia are accompanied by activating epigenetic changes at the HIF1Agene locus, consistent with the peripheral trained immunity response. As a consequence of epigenetic reprogramming, microglia also show changes in transcription and protein expression. Even infections of mice very early in life as a means of immunological training seem to be able to contribute to the impairment of microglial function followed by amyloid- β-induced synapse damage and cognitive impairment. Together, these studies suggest that systemic inflammation induces microglia reprogramming, resulting in potentially hyper-responsive ‘trained’ states of the brain
immune system."(NETEA et al 2020, p. 384)
Gabriel Demarchi Filler
assuming we have 2 man made interventions > 1 virus 2 vac.
which one has higher risk .. well 1 the virus is free, so you have some form of accountability (or at least an illusion) .. it basically can be 0 risk as you might never run into it, or be in a safe age/health status group that nears 0.. while the vac its a guaranteed risk. a decision clearly made to take that risk in order to prevent a much higher risk. there are contexts where both are justified , its not something to be resolved, but left to individual choice
NOW, of gathering information. VAERS is essential. our "biology" our "science" has been corrupted for way too long. i ran into this 7-10 years ago through low/carb keto / statins .
the only way people came out of that paradigm was through anecdotal evidence. sure vaers is a cold platform hard to validate (the competence or honesty or humanity of the actors).
but anecdotes are essential in a world of VAST UNKNOWN . people keep forgetting the side they dont know what they dont know
Call this an example of "anecdotitis". I take my lead from Graham Hutchinson and his remarks about how the spike proteins disrupt the angiotensin pathway. (I don't profess to understand biochemistry.) My partner, 62 yo male with no co-morbidities, took first dose of Moderna vax on May 3. (I advised him against it multiple times. He took it because he was told it was a requirement for him to travel to Brazil to see his family, and because his Brazilian passport had expired. On such trivial issues are tragedies made.) On May 19 he suffered a stroke, with carotid artery completely blocked. Doctors who operated on him suggested, based on no specific information, that he likely had pre-existing atherosclerosis. They admitted they had no baseline data with which to prove that. During the surgery, there was hemorrhagic conversion. He has retained some high level cognitive function, but seems to have lost emotional regulation, and has developed OCD. His brain seems to be running on a few repeated subroutines. He has almost no emotional affect, whereas he used to wear his heart on his sleeve. When I ask the nurses to report this case to VAERS, they act as if I am crazy. I don't know how you'd compute prior probabilities in a Bayesian calculation, but when someone in his early 60s who's never had a vascular event in his life, suddenly develops a life-threatening stroke 16 days after a Moderna vax... call it coincidence if you like.
What happens to the mRNA instructions? Do they get despatched/disposed by the body? Could they continue in perpuity causing S generation?
Thank you for that. I like the balance of your analysis.
"the HIGH EFFICACY of vaccines."
Vaccine efficacy is the percentage reduction of disease in a vaccinated group of people compared to an unvaccinated group, using the most favorable conditions.
How do they have high efficacy, let's say among children when the unvaccinated group is already at 99.997?
In Brazil they have the coronavac, which is the old technology "weakened virus", however I have more questions than answers. Why the "old technology"was not applied here or not even available? Why the vaccines in the US are all "spike based" with "new technologies" ? What's the difference between the J&J and the Pfizer Moderna (if anyone can share a good source i'd love to read).
el gato malo thanks for deep dive, i did not go past the link on twitter.
note pfizer, jnj and azn do the same thing, slight different protein output.
azn and jnj use a dna vector on a 'safe' virus unlike pfizer and moderna who just send in the mrna on a nanoparticle?.
all 4 work to get cells to make protein
there is some work on a deplete virus vaccine as well as other ways
one neat thing about mrna, once you identify the protein an mrna can be "cooked up".
Excellent summary. Thanks!
Thought people might be interested in this interview with Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., on the risks of neurological disease with the C19 "vaccines".
How do the findings of the study correlate with the concerns expressed by Professor Sucharit Bhakdi?
What about other potential adverse properties/effects of the vaccines ... such as blood clot or myocarditis?