1535 replies to this topic

[Hip]

The fact that IgG4 antibodies are generated as a result of repeated mRNA shots is highly undesirable

 

Can you provide a reference for that statement? Why do you say it is highly undesirable?

 

From what I could make out, nobody is quite sure about the significance of IgG4 appearing after repeated COVID vaccinations. So I don't think anyone knows whether it might be a good or a bad thing.

 

 

Edited by Hip, 10 January 2024 - 04:28 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

 

zen, in post #1438 provided a quote from a reference he links to. 

 

Part of the  quote is:

 

"Increased IgG4 synthesis due to repeated mRNA vaccination with high antigen concentrations may also cause autoimmune diseases, and promote cancer growth and autoimmune myocarditis in susceptible individuals."

 

My bolding.

 

In post 1440 zen writes:

 

"The fact that IgG4 antibodies are generated as a result of repeated mRNA shots is highly undesirable and proves that the strategy of periodic boosting ad infinitum makes no sense."

 

Hip writes in post #1441:

 

"Can you provide a reference for that statement? Why do you say it is highly undesirable?"

 

You appear to be unable to connect the dots, Hip. Unless you don't consider the conditions I bolded in the quote as being "highly undesireable" Look at Zen's post #1438 reference. Or are you captious enough to want an explicit declaration of that exact phrase in a study?

[Hip]

You appear to be unable to connect the dots, Hip

 

Perhaps you can provide an argument for why you think increased levels of IgG4 antibodies that target SARS-CoV-2 would be a risk for cancer and autoimmunity.

 

Yes I know the paper Zen quoted said that, but the paper is not a MEDLINE journal, and it does not seem right to me, even though admittedly I know next to nothing about IgG4.

 

Cancer is known to be promoted by increased IgG4 antibodies, but that is IgG4 antibodies which target the tumour. The increased IgG4 induced by the COVID vaccine has a completely different target, namely the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So these IgG4 antibodies the vaccine induces will presumably not have any effects on tumours, as they are not designed to bind to tumours.

 

Remember that antibodies are created to have a specific target, and they only bind to their designated target, not to different targets. 

Edited by Hip, 10 January 2024 - 06:34 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Hip writes:

 

"Perhaps you can provide an argument for why you think increased levels of IgG4 antibodies that target SARS-CoV-2 would be a risk for cancer and autoimmunity."

 

Um, read my post, Hip. I made no claims concerning IgG4. You've got the wrong straw man here. If you have a concern, I suggest you contact the authors of the study--you know, the people who actually made claims. Or, conversely, cite studies which contradict those findings and claims for which you take issue.

 

Hip continues:

 

"Yes I know the paper Zen quoted said that, but the paper is not a MEDLINE journal, and it does not seem right to me, even though admittedly I know next to nothing about IgG4."

 

But, being the opsimath that you are, you can avail yourself of those resources which will allow you to explore avenues of research that could help you to resolve your doubts as to whether the study's claims have merit, or not.

 

"So these IgG4 antibodies the vaccine induces will presumably not have any effects on tumours, as they are not designed to bind to tumours."

 

Again, a matter to be taken up with the study authors, who claim a connection. And/or, you can provide citations to substantiate your presumption.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hip]

Um, read my post, Hip. I made no claims concerning IgG4. You've got the wrong straw man here. If you have a concern, I suggest you contact the authors of the study--you know, the people who actually made claims.

Translating Advocatus Diaboli's comment into ordinary English:
 
"Sorry Hip, I am too lazy to actually read the studies. I know nothing about medical science, and am not willing to learn". 
 
 
 
If you don't want to get involved in learning about the medical science, Advocatus Diaboli, and thinking about the science for yourself, what is the point of entering these discussions? As I've said before, all your comments are about the pedantry of language, not about science.

 

Discussing science is hard work, as it is all about examining the details in a diligent manner. 

 

Whereas posting links to clickbait sensationalist articles is easy. This is part is why most of the scientists on this forum have abandoned these COVID threads, as they have to do all the work, and nobody else helps out.

 

I used to do a lot of in depth reading of medical topics under discussion; but since developing long COVID around 20 months ago on top of my existing ME/CFS, I have much more brain fog and much more mental tiredness, so I am more limited in terms of doing research. It would be good if others here were more interested at looking into scientific topics with greater depth.  

Edited by Hip, 10 January 2024 - 05:25 PM.

[DanCG]

Perhaps you can provide an argument for why you think increased levels of IgG4 antibodies that target SARS-CoV-2 would be a risk for cancer and autoimmunity.

 

Yes I know the paper Zen quoted said that, but the paper is not a MEDLINE journal, and it does not seem right to me, even though admittedly I know next to nothing about IgG4.

 

Cancer is known to be promoted by increased IgG4 antibodies, but that is IgG4 antibodies which target the tumour. The increased IgG4 induced by the COVID vaccine has a completely different target, namely the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So these IgG4 antibodies the vaccine induces will presumably not have any effects on tumours, as they are not designed to bind to tumours.

 

Remember that antibodies are created to have a specific target, and they only bind to their designated target, not to different targets. 

So, you understand that IgG4 specific for a tumor antigen can promote cancer growth, but you have difficulty accepting the idea that IgG4 specific for Sars-Cov-2 could promote virus growth (or a least fail to inhibit the virus).

 

 

Since you admit to not knowing much about IgG4, let me fill you in on some textbook immunology.

 

 

You are correct (post #1439) that IgM is produced initially after infection, followed by class switching to IgG. Continued or repeated exposure to antigen can cause switching through the IgG subclasses, IgG1, IgG2 etc, eventually leading to IgG4. During class switching, the specificity of the antibodies stays the same. The portion of the antibody that actually binds antigen gets sequentially connected to different constant regions, which define the different classes and subclasses. The constant regions control “effector functions” i.e. what happens after the antibody binds antigen. IgG4 is different from the other subtypes because it cannot mediate antibody-dependent cell killing by NK cells and macrophages, it does not activate complement, and it is slightly less effective at opsonization. That is why IgG4 promotes cancer and why the switch to IgG4 is expected to be undesirable in virus infection.

[Hip]

So, you understand that IgG4 specific for a tumor antigen can promote cancer growth, but you have difficulty accepting the idea that IgG4 specific for Sars-Cov-2 could promote virus growth (or a least fail to inhibit the virus).

 

 

Since you admit to not knowing much about IgG4, let me fill you in on some textbook immunology.

 

 

You are correct (post #1439) that IgM is produced initially after infection, followed by class switching to IgG. Continued or repeated exposure to antigen can cause switching through the IgG subclasses, IgG1, IgG2 etc, eventually leading to IgG4. During class switching, the specificity of the antibodies stays the same. The portion of the antibody that actually binds antigen gets sequentially connected to different constant regions, which define the different classes and subclasses. The constant regions control “effector functions” i.e. what happens after the antibody binds antigen. IgG4 is different from the other subtypes because it cannot mediate antibody-dependent cell killing by NK cells and macrophages, it does not activate complement, and it is slightly less effective at opsonization. That is why IgG4 promotes cancer and why the switch to IgG4 is expected to be undesirable in virus infection.

 

Yes, from what I have read so far, I've learnt that IgG4 is unusual in that it has anti-inflammatory rather than pro-inflammatory effects, and puts the brakes on the immune response. 

 

So IgG4 might be considered analogous to regulatory T-cells, which put the brakes on the T-cell response, to try to prevent things like autoimmunity. 

 

 

 

If you see my posts above, I quoted an excerpt from a study which said IgG4 is not involved in antiviral or antibacterial immunity. The only micro-organism it tackles is helminths. Let me quote that paper again:

IgG4 is not commonly part of the antibody response to bacterial or viral infection. The range of situations in which specific IgG4 is or can be a dominant factor is wide and includes responses to allergens, therapeutically administered proteins, autoantigens and helminth infections.

 

 

So from what I have learnt so far, it would seem that elevated IgG4 which targets SARS-CoV-2 may not be a concern.

 

I also learnt here that it is not just the COVID mRNA vaccine which stimulates IgG4, but also HIV, malaria, and pertussis vaccines.

[DanCG]

Yes, from what I have read so far, I've learnt that IgG4 is unusual in that it has anti-inflammatory rather than pro-inflammatory effects, and puts the brakes on the immune response. 

 

So IgG4 might be considered analogous to regulatory T-cells, which put the brakes on the T-cell response, to try to prevent things like autoimmunity. 

 

 

 

If you see my posts above, I quoted an excerpt from a study which said IgG4 is not involved in antiviral or antibacterial immunity. The only micro-organism it tackles is helminths. Let me quote that paper again:

 

 

 

 

So from what I have learnt so far, it would seem that elevated IgG4 which targets SARS-CoV-2 may not be a concern.

 

I also learnt here that it is not just the COVID mRNA vaccine which stimulates IgG4, but also HIV, malaria, and pertussis vaccines.

Once again, the antigen to which an antibody binds is not determined by the subclass. IgG4 may not USUALLY be observed in virus infections, but if IgG4 specific for virus is present, it will hinder the protective response against the virus. IgG4 is not supposed to be produced in response to virus. If you promote IgG4 by repeated vaccination, you have a problem. Virus-infected cells are eliminated by antibody-dependent cell killing by NK cells and macrophages; this does not happen with IgG4.

 

As for IgG4 in response to other vaccines, this would indicate that repeated dosing of those vaccines could lead to problems too. Of course, trade-offs have to be made. Even with the Covid vaccines, if they had worked as advertised, significant benefit could be had in the initial phases before class switching was driven all the way to IgG4.

 

Edited by DanCG, 10 January 2024 - 09:02 PM.

[Hip]

Once again, the antigen to which an antibody binds is not determined by the subclass. IgG4 may not USUALLY be observed in virus infections, but if IgG4 specific for virus is present, it will hinder the protective response against the virus. Virus-infected cells are eliminated by antibody-dependent cell killing by NK cells and macrophages; this does not happen with IgG4.

 

As for IgG4 in response to other vaccines, this would indicate that repeated dosing of those vaccines could lead to problems too. Of course, trade-offs have to be made. Even with the Covid vaccines, if they had worked as advertised, significant benefit could be had in the initial phases before class switching was driven all the way to IgG4.

 

I appreciate that for IgG antibodies which target a particular antigen, all four classes of IgG target the same antigen.

 

From what I can make out, IgG4 can be induced during a viral infection, but its role in the immune response to that infection is minimal. For example, I saw studies where HHV-6 and measles virus induced IgG4. 

 

So it's the fact that its role is minimal in viral infection that suggests it may not be a concern when IgG4 is stimulated by a COVID mRNA vaccine. 

 

Apparently the adenovirus vector-based COVID vaccines like the AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson do not induce IgG4, it's only the mRNA COVID vaccines which do this. So if IgG4 were causing weakened immunity, then we would have noticed that the adenovirus vector vaccines worked better (before they were discontinued due to the rare blood clots they caused). As far as I am aware, there was not much difference in efficacy between these two types of COVID vaccine, 

[DanCG]

 

From what I can make out, IgG4 can be induced during a viral infection, but its role in the immune response to that infection is minimal. For example, I saw studies where HHV-6 and measles virus induced IgG4. 

 

So it's the fact that its role is minimal in viral infection that suggests it may not be a concern when IgG4 is stimulated by a COVID mRNA vaccine. 

 

Apparently the adenovirus vector-based COVID vaccines like the AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson do not induce IgG4, it's only the mRNA COVID vaccines which do this. So if IgG4 were causing weakened immunity, then we would have noticed that the adenovirus vector vaccines worked better (before they were discontinued due to the rare blood clots they caused). As far as I am aware, there was not much difference in efficacy between these two types of COVID vaccine, 

The effect of IgG4 would be minimal in a natural infection if the IgG4 titer remains low and the other subclasses are still present. The effect of driving up the IgG4 to artificially high levels is another matter.

 

The initial trials for the vaccines would not show this problem. With the mRNA vaccines, IgG4 rose after repeated boosting.

[Hip]

As an aside, I am very interested in the question how vaccination sometimes triggers ME/CFS. Whereas ME/CFS is nearly always triggered by certain viral infections (such as by coxsackievirus B or EBV), and ME/CFS patients are normally found to have chronically high IgG antibody levels to their triggering virus, in a small percentage of cases, ME/CFS can be triggered by a vaccination.

 

Most infectious disease doctors view chronically high IgG as just evidence of a past viral infection which is now dormant; but ME/CFS doctors view these persistent elevations in IgG as evidence for an ongoing intracellular viral infection in the tissues of ME/CFS patients. And many researchers believe that it is these ongoing intracellular tissue infections which may be the cause of ME/CFS.

 

 

Now intriguingly, even in cases of vaccination-triggered ME/CFS, these patients are still found to have persistently high IgG antibody levels to the usual ME/CFS viruses. Which suggests perhaps the vaccination has weakened some aspect of immunity, allowing a dormant virus to reactivate as an intracellular infection, thereby causing ME/CFS.

 

So this is one possible theory of why vaccination can sometimes trigger ME/CFS: because it weakens some aspect of immunity, that allows intracellular infections to appear.

 

But the question is, what aspect of immunity might that be? 

 

This is what I would like to know, because it might explain a lot about ME/CFS. ME/CFS seems to appear when the body cannot control intracellular viral infections (which are different to regular viral infection which produce viral particles).

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 10 January 2024 - 09:27 PM.

[DanCG]

 

So this is one possible theory of why vaccination can sometimes trigger ME/CFS: because it weakens some aspect of immunity, that allows intracellular infections to appear.

 

But the question is, what aspect of immunity might that be? 

 

This is what I would like to know, because it might explain a lot about ME/CFS. ME/CFS seems to appear when the body cannot control intracellular viral infections (which are different to regular viral infection which produce viral particles).

With the mRNA vaccines, it was proposed that the initial response reduced the amount of interferon available for immune surveillance. This was the proposed reason why shingles ( a latent intracellular virus) is a known side effect of the vaccines. I believe this has been observed for other vaccines too, but I can’t cite a reference.

[Hip]

With the mRNA vaccines, it was proposed that the initial response reduced the amount of interferon available for immune surveillance. This was the proposed reason why shingles ( a latent intracellular virus) is a known side effect of the vaccines. I believe this has been observed for other vaccines too, but I can’t cite a reference.

 

The interferon response would certainly be relevant, because interferons are part of the intracellular immune response (the immune system that operates within cells), and so a weakening of that aspect of immunity could allow intracellular infections to proliferate. 

 

However, if it is to explain vaccine-triggered ME/CFS, it would probably need to be a permanent reduction in intracellular immunity, which then allows intracellular viral infection to emerge on a long-term basis. I am not sure if this reduction in the interferon response after vaccination is long-term.

 

 

Many different vaccines have been linked to triggering ME/CFS: Dr Charles Shepherd of the ME Association found that the vaccine most commonly linked to triggering ME/CFS is hepatitis B virus vaccine; but influenza, BCG, tetanus, meningitis, MMR, polio, hepatitis A and typhoid vaccines are also reported to have triggered ME/CFS.

 

And we now know that the COVID vaccines are also sometimes able to trigger ME/CFS.

 

 

So something which is common to all these vaccines is causing ME/CFS to be triggered. 

Edited by Hip, 10 January 2024 - 10:14 PM.

[joesixpack]

The interferon response would certainly be relevant, because interferons are part of the intracellular immune response (the immune system that operates within cells), and so a weakening of that aspect of immunity could allow intracellular infections to proliferate. 

 

However, if it is to explain vaccine-triggered ME/CFS, it would probably need to be a permanent reduction in intracellular immunity, which then allows intracellular viral infection to emerge on a long-term basis. I am not sure if this reduction in the interferon response after vaccination is long-term.

 

 

Many different vaccines have been linked to triggering ME/CFS: Dr Charles Shepherd of the ME Association found that the vaccine most commonly linked to triggering ME/CFS is hepatitis B virus vaccine; but influenza, BCG, tetanus, meningitis, MMR, polio, hepatitis A and typhoid vaccines are also reported to have triggered ME/CFS.

 

And we now know that the COVID vaccines are also sometimes able to trigger ME/CFS, shouldn't you be avoiding boosters? 

 

 

So something which is common to all these vaccines is causing ME/CFS to be triggered. 

 

With your medical history, and the fact that the covid 19 vaccine is a possible trigger for ME/CFS, could the booster contribute to long Covid for you?

[Hip]

With your medical history, and the fact that the covid 19 vaccine is a possible trigger for ME/CFS, could the booster contribute to long Covid for you?

 

All the ME/CFS and long COVID ME/CFS patients I have spoken to who developed their condition after a vaccination told me that their ME/CFS illness came down on them like a ton of bricks right after their vaccine: they were all thrown into full-blown ME/CFS within 3 days of the vaccination. So vaccination-triggered ME/CFS appears extremely quickly and with full fury after a vaccination, and this is why you know it has to be the vaccine that caused it. 

 

I've had no such ill effects from COVID vaccines, so I don't think any of the vaccines have adversely affected my health. Whereas the COVID infection I caught substantially and permanently worsened my health.

 

Here are the COVID vaccines and COVID infections I have had:

• 1 December 2022 — Pfizer bivalent mRNA COVID booster vaccine — I had no ill effects
• 19 April 2022 — Caught COVID — very mild infection, but felt extremely tired for two weeks, sleeping 16 hours a day; then my ME/CFS got permanently worse
• 1 December 2021 — Moderna mRNA COVID booster vaccine — I had no ill effects
• 14 May 2021 — AstraZeneca COVID vaccine — I had no ill effects
• 5 March 2021 — AstraZeneca COVID vaccine — I had two nights of hot feverishness after this vaccine, but no other ill effects

Edited by Hip, 11 January 2024 - 05:24 AM.

[albedo]

Post-COVID cognitive deficits at one year are global and associated with elevated brain injury markers and grey matter volume reduction: national prospective study.

 

The spectrum, pathophysiology, and recovery trajectory of persistent post-COVID-19 cognitive deficits are unknown, limiting our ability to develop prevention and treatment strategies. We report the one-year cognitive, serum biomarker, and neuroimaging findings from a prospective, national longitudinal study of cognition in 351 COVID-19 patients who had required hospitalisation, compared to 2,927 normative matched controls. Cognitive deficits were global and associated with elevated brain injury markers and reduced anterior cingulate cortex volume one year after admission. The severity of the initial infective insult, post-acute psychiatric symptoms, and a history of encephalopathy were associated with greatest deficits. There was strong concordance between subjective and objective cognitive deficits. Treatment with corticosteroids during the acute phase appeared protective against cognitive deficits. Together, these findings support the hypothesis that brain injury in moderate to severe COVID-19 is immune-mediated, and should guide the development of therapeutic strategies.

https://www.research...e/rs-3818580/v1

[Hip]

Post-COVID cognitive deficits at one year are global and associated with elevated brain injury markers and grey matter volume reduction: national prospective study.

 

I can vouch for the way COVID screws up your brain. Ever since I caught COVID in April 2022, I've not been myself anymore. I have become mentally vague and confused, much less mentally focused, less drive, less motivation, and a lot more tired mentally, often too tired to hold a face-to-face conversation. 

[zen]

I can vouch for the way COVID screws up your brain. Ever since I caught COVID in April 2022, I've not been myself anymore. I have become mentally vague and confused, much less mentally focused, less drive, less motivation, and a lot more tired mentally, often too tired to hold a face-to-face conversation. 

Here is what Dr. Deborah Birx just said:
https://twitter.com/...568361537216766

 

The covid-19 spike protein is cytotoxic.
What so-called mRNA vaccines are doing is that they make billions of cells all around the body to mass-produce spike protein for an unspecified amount of time.
This includes cells in human brain since LNPs are able to cross blood brain barrier.
https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/32979453/

 

Edited by zen, 12 January 2024 - 10:36 PM.

[Hip]

The covid-19 spike protein is cytotoxic.

 

This is just copying and pasting antivax misinformation.

 

There is no evidence to suggest that SARS-CoV-2 spike protein by itself has any pernicious effects in the body. This idea that it does comes from antivaxers, who are people that would not know a proton from a crouton. 

 

Certain viral proteins can have pernicious effects, yes, but COVID spike protein does not appear to cause any harm. 

 

So the pernicious effects of having SARS-CoV-2 residing in your body on a long-term basis likely comes from some other aspect of this infection. 

 

Just the fact that you have a virus living inside your cells can cause problems: if there is a virus present, it will trigger the immune response, and this can make you feel tired, foggy, depressed, etc. All the horrible symptoms of a bad cold or flu do not come directly from the virus, but from the immune response to the virus. 

 

One of the major immune responses to viral infection is the interferon response, and if you inject healthy people with interferon, even though they have not got any infections, the interferon on its own can cause fatigue, brain fog and depression.

Edited by Hip, 12 January 2024 - 10:50 PM.

[zen]

This is just copying and pasting antivax misinformation.

 

There is no evidence to suggest that SARS-CoV-2 spike protein by itself has any pernicious effects in the body. This idea that it does comes from antivaxers, who are people that would not know a proton from a crouton. 

 

Certain viral proteins can have pernicious effects, yes, but COVID spike protein does not appear to cause any harm. 

 

So the pernicious effects of having SARS-CoV-2 residing in your body on a long-term basis likely comes from some other aspect of this infection. 

At this time there is plethora of information available regarding the "dark side" of the covid-19 spike protein.
I am surprised you are still considering it to be an antivax propaganda.

 

Here are just few examples:
 

https://www.nature.c...375-021-01332-z
https://www.ncbi.nlm...es/PMC10452662/
https://www.salk.edu...ole-in-illness/

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC7827936/
https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/32966582/

 

Edited by zen, 12 January 2024 - 10:56 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

This is just copying and pasting antivax misinformation.

 

There is no evidence to suggest that SARS-CoV-2 spike protein by itself has any pernicious effects in the body. This idea that it does comes from antivaxers, who are people that would not know a proton from a crouton. 

 

Certain viral proteins can have pernicious effects, yes, but COVID spike protein does not appear to cause any harm. 

 

So the pernicious effects of having SARS-CoV-2 residing in your body on a long-term basis likely comes from some other aspect of this infection. 

 

Just the fact that you have a virus living inside your cells can cause problems: if there is a virus present, it will trigger the immune response, and this can make you feel tired, foggy, depressed, etc. All the horrible symptoms of a bad cold or flu do not come directly from the virus, but from the immune response to the virus. 

 

One of the major immune responses to viral infection is the interferon response, and if you inject healthy people with interferon, even though they have not got any infections, the interferon on its own can cause fatigue, brain fog and depression.

 

The occurrence of myocarditis post vaccination which is documented and I have personally seen in three people that had this occur immediately (1-2 days) after receiving the vaccine is at least suggestive that the spike protein itself may be causing damage or inflammation in certain tissues.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 12 January 2024 - 11:06 PM.

[zen]

The occurrence of myocarditis post vaccination which is documented and I have personally seen in three people that had this occur immediately (1-2 days) after receiving the vaccine is at least suggestive that the spike protein itself may be causing damage or inflammation in certain tissues.

About that:

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC8965847/
https://www.bhf.org....ls-in-the-heart

https://www.nature.c...161-023-00222-0

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC8674568/
https://newsroom.hea...rt-muscle-cells

https://www.ahajourn...eflstandard.com

https://www.nature.c...023-00222-0.pdf

and more.

[Daniel Cooper]

I think the officially reported incidence of myocarditis is lower than reality.

 

When it came to the CFR (case fatality rate, not infection fatality rate) my personal experience of how many people I knew that got covid that subsequently died and the reported CFR more or less agreed.

 

When it came to the reported incidence of vaccine induced myocarditis versus what I saw in the people that I knew personally - the numbers were wildly divergent, with my experience being much higher than reported.

 

Someone is sure to pop up and say "Well, your anecdotal information has no bearing on large scale statistics". That's not as true as you'd think. I know many hundreds of people well enough to hear if they die or get hospitalized after getting vaccinated. And most random processes will converge to their ultimate large scale statistics pretty quickly. A sample of several hundred people is normally going to get you pretty close to the real numbers.

 

At the end of the day - I knew almost as many people that got myocarditis from the vaccine (3) as I knew people that died from covid (4), telling me that those incidences are pretty close. But the reported numbers would suggest something very different.

 

Of course, none of the people that I knew that got myocarditis died, so there's that.

[Hip]

At this time there is plethora of information available regarding the "dark side" of the covid-19 spike protein.
I am surprised you are still considering it to be an antivax propaganda.

 

Here are just few examples:
 

https://www.nature.c...375-021-01332-z
https://www.ncbi.nlm...es/PMC10452662/
https://www.salk.edu...ole-in-illness/

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC7827936/
https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/32966582/

 

I stand corrected! Always ready to admit when I got it wrong. 

 

Originally the idea that spike protein from mRNA vaccines was toxic was unsubstantiated suggestions from the antivax people. But as your links demonstrate, it seems there are now studies showing this protein has adverse effects.

 

 

This 2022 paper says that the spike protein binds to the CD147 receptor, and this is one mechanism of harm. It suggests CD147 blockers might help. And it says that by an unknown mechanism, the spike protein has detrimental effects on human cardiac pericytes. 

 

This 2022 article says "SARS-CoV-2 spike protein activated the natural immune response in heart muscle cells and damaged the heart". It says that spike activates the immune system's TLR4 receptor, thereby activating the immune response and inflaming the heart muscle cells. 

 

This 2023 paper using a mouse model suggests TLR4 activation by spike protein may explain the cognitive dysfunction (brain fog) found in long COVID. 

 

I have saved on my computer a number of TLR4 inhibitors. I will have to check if any might be suitable for use with COVID. 

 

This 2023 paper says spike protein can cause cells to fuse together. 

Edited by Hip, 13 January 2024 - 02:31 AM.

[gamesguru]

I think the officially reported incidence of myocarditis is lower than reality.

 

When it came to the CFR (case fatality rate, not infection fatality rate) my personal experience of how many people I knew...

 

Interesting how personal experiences sometimes conflict with one another.  Almost as if it's not the most reliable indicator of truth?  What's to prevent me from proclaiming that I think the reported incidence of COVID virus infection related adverse events is under-reported?  Just as there are arguments as to why COVID deaths may have been exaggerated, there are certainly arguments as to why deaths or serious side effects were underestimated (& would not be accurately linked in a timely manner to an active or recent COVID infection).  But for vaccine skeptics, any increase in excess death is likely explained by vaccines (not COVID or any related socioeconomic factors).  At a certain stage, this position resolves itself into an anti-scientific stance however.

 

Because in my experience, I know people who died of (or with) COVID (across multiple age groups).  But among those I personally know who were recently vaccinated, I didn't hear of any reports beyond injection site pain and mild fatigue.

 

It's worth noting some of the arguments in favor of over-counting COVID fatalities are fueled by social or political speculation, and are not supported by science or recorded data.  Moreover, many of these supporting claims are exaggerated or outright false.

 

Thankfully we can appeal in times of such discrepancy to a more universal, outside standard.  Such as that of science.  Right?  Well, sadly no; it too leaves ample room for interpretation.  We don't have enough data, and with vaccines falling out of fashion, acquired immunity on the rise, and the lessened virulence of circulating strains... we may never be able to explain just what did happen (or what could have happened) in those first months (first year and a half) of the pandemic.

 

I think a useful question in this dilemma is to ask if there are any age groups where the vaccine harms outweigh the benefits.  And this appears to be true in younger people (who have more active immune systems); the data suggests their hearts become inflamed more easily by the vaccine than by infection.  However in older people, the vaccine seems to be far safer than infection itself (causing less per capita complications).  As usual, blanket statements (generalizations) have their inaccuracies, with truths laying on either side; but to achieve a fully accurate picture, a more nuanced view is necessary.

[Dorian Grey]

Interesting how personal experiences sometimes conflict with one another.  Almost as if it's not the most reliable indicator of truth?  What's to prevent me from proclaiming that I think the reported incidence of COVID virus infection related adverse events is under-reported?  Just as there are arguments as to why COVID deaths may have been exaggerated, there are certainly arguments as to why deaths or serious side effects were underestimated (& would not be accurately linked in a timely manner to an active or recent COVID infection).  But for vaccine skeptics, any increase in excess death is likely explained by vaccines (not COVID or any related socioeconomic factors).  At a certain stage, this position resolves itself into an anti-scientific stance however.

 

Because in my experience, I know people who died of (or with) COVID (across multiple age groups).  But among those I personally know who were recently vaccinated, I didn't hear of any reports beyond injection site pain and mild fatigue.

 

It's worth noting some of the arguments in favor of over-counting COVID fatalities are fueled by social or political speculation, and are not supported by science or recorded data.  Moreover, many of these supporting claims are exaggerated or outright false.

 

Thankfully we can appeal in times of such discrepancy to a more universal, outside standard.  Such as that of science.  Right?  Well, sadly no; it too leaves ample room for interpretation.  We don't have enough data, and with vaccines falling out of fashion, acquired immunity on the rise, and the lessened virulence of circulating strains... we may never be able to explain just what did happen (or what could have happened) in those first months (first year and a half) of the pandemic.

 

I think a useful question in this dilemma is to ask if there are any age groups where the vaccine harms outweigh the benefits.  And this appears to be true in younger people (who have more active immune systems); the data suggests their hearts become inflamed more easily by the vaccine than by infection.  However in older people, the vaccine seems to be far safer than infection itself (causing less per capita complications).  As usual, blanket statements (generalizations) have their inaccuracies, with truths laying on either side; but to achieve a fully accurate picture, a more nuanced view is necessary.

 

Good to see you posting again gg.  One thing I hope we all keep in mind regarding COVID deaths and benefit from vaccine is the timeline.  

 

Personally, I got the J&J vax in April and November 2021..  Got omicron in January 22 & September of 23.  

 

Do I think my J&J might have saved my life back in pre-omicron 2021?  YEP, I do, & I have no regrets about getting jabbed.  

 

Do I think I need continual boosters every 4 to 6 months to keep me from dying of omicron?  Oh heck no!  When I treat early with quinine & zinc, omicron is a scratchy throat & mild 2 day fever, and the hardest part is resisting the urge to go out to eat for a full week to 10 days.  

 

Let's keep in mind the difference between then & now when we talk about people dropping like flies and vaccines saving the world from omicron doom in 2024. 

[zen]

I stand corrected! Always ready to admit when I got it wrong. 

 

Originally the idea that spike protein from mRNA vaccines was toxic was unsubstantiated suggestions from the antivax people. But as your links demonstrate, it seems there are now studies showing this protein has adverse effects.

 

 

This 2022 paper says that the spike protein binds to the CD147 receptor, and this is one mechanism of harm. It suggests CD147 blockers might help. And it says that by an unknown mechanism, the spike protein has detrimental effects on human cardiac pericytes. 

 

This 2022 article says "SARS-CoV-2 spike protein activated the natural immune response in heart muscle cells and damaged the heart". It says that spike activates the immune system's TLR4 receptor, thereby activating the immune response and inflaming the heart muscle cells. 

 

This 2023 paper using a mouse model suggests TLR4 activation by spike protein may explain the cognitive dysfunction (brain fog) found in long COVID. 

 

I have saved on my computer a number of TLR4 inhibitors. I will have to check if any might be suitable for use with COVID. 

 

This 2023 paper says spike protein can cause cells to fuse together. 

Here is a great summary of the dangers related to covid-19 and mRNA generated spike protein by Dr. McCullough who, as always, references the relevant studies to back his claims.

https://twitter.com/...880424029573414

[pamojja]

Just as there are arguments as to why COVID deaths may have been exaggerated, there are certainly arguments as to why deaths or serious side effects were underestimated (& would not be accurately linked in a timely manner to an active or recent COVID infection).  But for vaccine skeptics, any increase in excess death is likely explained by vaccines (not COVID or any related socioeconomic factors)...

 

 

It's worth noting some of the arguments in favor of over-counting COVID fatalities are fueled by social or political speculation, and are not supported by science or recorded data.  Moreover, many of these supporting claims are exaggerated or outright false.

 

... science.  Right?  Well, sadly no; it too leaves ample room for interpretation.  We don't have enough data, and with vaccines falling out of fashion, acquired immunity on the rise, and the lessened virulence of circulating strains... we may never be able to explain just what did happen (or what could have happened) in those first months (first year and a half) of the pandemic.

 

Just read an article quoting a WHO official stating the 7 million reported deaths are assumed trice as high. How much politicized speculations can get?

 

Beside science, also common sense can countercheck the probability of such speculations. From another post:

 

 Which also includes population growth. From Wikipedia:

 

Year Population Yearly growth Density pop/km2

2018     7,683,789,828     1.10%     83,967,424     52
2019     7,764,951,032     1.06%     81,161,204     52
2020     7,840,952,880     0.98%     76,001,848     53
2021     7,909,295,151     0.87%     68,342,271     53
2022     7,975,105,156     0.83%     65,810,005     54
2023     8,045,311,447     0.88%     70,206,291     54

 

Yearly change of growth compared to the preceding year:

 

2017-2018: -0,05%

2018-2019: -0,04%

2019-2020: -0,08%

2020-2021: -0,11%

2021-2022: -0,04%

2022-2023: +0,05%

 

All other factors assumed a given - which it wasn't with unprecedented economic downturn, increasing opioid fatalities and sex during quarantine - a 2.8 million decrease in growth went to a 5.2 million decrease in 2020. To 7,7 million with vaccines in 2021. And back to a more common 2.5 million decrease of growth in 2023 again.

 

So, including all known and unknown factors, by infection itself or due to vaccines, a very most likely loss in population growth by 7.5 million people in total.

 

And an interesting rebounding effect, so common in the natural world, of even an increase of population growth by 2.4 million in the last year!

 

The last time only a +0,27% jump happened was in 1962, and the last -0.31% jump in 1963 (with data going back to 1951). Interesting times.
 

 

Edited by pamojja, 13 January 2024 - 07:03 PM.

[Hip]

Here is a great summary of the dangers related to covid-19 and mRNA generated spike protein by Dr. McCullough who, as always, references the relevant studies to back his claims.

https://twitter.com/...880424029573414

 

For me, I would be more interested in whether spike protein from the SARS-CoV-2 virus may be having ongoing deleterious effects in patients with possible chronic SARS-CoV-2 infections, such as long COVID patients like myself.

 

The spike protein from the COVID vaccine would be a transient issue. 

 

 

Quite a few long COVID patients have reported benefits from low-dose naltrexone (LDN), and this is known to inhibit the activation of TLR4 receptor which spike protein apparently agonises. 

 

LDN is also used by regular ME/CFS patients (whose illness is linked to enteroviruses or herpesviruses), and a small percentage of patients report benefits. 

 

I've tried LDN in the past, but it seems to worsen my anhedonia slightly, and I saw no benefit for my ME/CFS. But now that I have LC on top of ME/CFS, it might be worth me revisiting LDN. 

 

 

And vitamin D down-regulates TLR4 expression on monocytes. 

[Hip]

By the way, there are now studies showing that in the body, SARS-CoV-2 can form what are called defective viruses. 

 

Self-replicating defective viruses have been found in several chronic fatiguing diseases, including ME/CFS and chronic dengue infection. 

 

A defective virus is one which has lost a portion of its viral genome, and so in effect becomes a different virus, with different properties and a different viral lifecycle.