Immunoprofiling of vaccinated adolescents and young adults revealed that the mRNA vaccine–induced immune responses did not differ between individuals who developed myocarditis and individuals who did not. However, free spike antigen was detected in the blood of adolescents and young adults who developed post-mRNA vaccine myocarditis, advancing insight into its potential underlying cause.
Is this another example of Fuck around and find out?
Your snarkiness has appealed to my sinful nature. I do really appreciate that you dig deeper as others surely did not ... what does OAS look like and how would it be measured - because these tests that people are running DO NOT measure that! And I agree that several stackers are getting people to jump up and down over things they don't understand. Jump up and down in muddy puddles because it's fun .... don't jump up and down in a sh*tshow because you don't know any better. It's almost as bad as the "safe and effective" crowd - where are the details, where is the nuance?
I hate you. I really hate you. The humor is annoying. The logic...is...well...compelling. If you are controlled opposition, you are doing an incredible job at evasion. I don't really hate you...hmmm...
Is that a license to make up wild ideas? If not, then why is it a license to pass off a scary misunderstanding of an old bad idea when no evidence supports it? OAS is used as a misunderstanding of a claim that isn't supported by the evidence. What about "do not know enough" makes posing as some kind of secretly learned monk to tell people there's a "decisive, well-observed limitation" justified? The way OAS was scare-mongered was not based on some precautionary principle and it confused some people into believing boosters were a good idea. It was idiotic.
Being wrong =/= being stupid or being a bad person. The accounts you were referring to were likely not deliberately fear-mongering to build an audience. Rather, it just so happens that audiences tend to follow less nuanced and more extreme narratives because they're exciting, easy to digest and give us all someone to point the finger at. Maybe that's a distinction without a difference, but I think morally there is a difference in the sense of the difference between deliberate intent and negligence.
If the last 3 years have established anything it's how little we all know about how these systems work. The default approach should be epistemic humility, but that's not a winning approach when people "feel" there's something wrong with injections and how they were pushed and are looking for "facts" to justify/rationalize those feelings. Unfortunately, there are multiple issues that all get tied up together and should be unpacked separately:
(1) the immorality of coercing people into being injected with an experimental pharmaceutical intervention (even coercion re: a non-experimental injection with a proven risk-reward is highly dubious)
(2) the insanity of using potentially unstable/fragmented genetic material [what happens with a partial sequence or one that doesn't have a "stop" command] as a tool to trick human cells into synthesizing a non-human protein, the toxicity/reactogenicity of which and/or stability of which is still not well understood [what if there is more than one possible configuration for this protein, what does that look like?]
(3) the futility, in many cases, of trying to induce lasting protection against a respiratory virus that seems to have an aptitude for mutation [I know you have a different take on this, which is that it may not be aptitude] (see also, the flu)
(4) the stupidity of trying to induce immunity in people who are not at substantial risk from the pathogen (particularly when the "immunity" is non-sterilizing)
(5) the seemingly low quality control and instability of the injections themselves, which then feeds back into point (2)
(6) the risks of accidental intravenous injection and propagation of the spike protein into all tissues that can be accessed via the circulatory system (again, feeding from point (5) and into point (2))
(7) risk of class switching on B cells which are repeatedly stimulated at scheduled intervals by the same or similar antigen
(8) the crass greed of creating a mythology where the injection of a viral protein would somehow stimulate an individual's immune system where an infection with the virus would not [Schrodinger's immune system which is simultaneously capable of being trained and incapable of being trained]
(9) the potential evolutionary pressure that could be created via exposing the populace to a mutable viral protein rather than the entire virus [better hope you have an airtight vector of attack if you are just going to pick one vector]
There are many more moral issues associated with the impoverishment of the populace for the benefit of a few large pharmaceutical companies and the complete disregard for the harms that have accompanied the injections in some. "Shoot first, ask questions later."
I think you raise a lot of good points. All of your numbered points would be reasons against the argument of vaccination with these vaccines. However, those could all be true while also raising criticisms of how OAS has been discussed on Substack.
Towards deliberate fear-mongering, I am partially inclined to argue that some of this is not an accident- given some of the posts I've seen in recent months as people move on I'm actually concerned that information is being misconstrued in order to push narratives.
My main problem with how OAS has been discussed is that it became an infallible hypothesis. Those who presented did so in a manner in which this was the absolute truth to what was happening. Someone alerted me to Alex Berenson covering it on his Substack, which appears to be the first time it came about, and after looking at it a bit I raised a few questions (the nucleocapsid was absolutely NOT a good measure of OAS, and it's not even looking at the same antigen so you couldn't even leverage OAS with the argument he was making).
It's hard to argue if people ignored rebuttals or criticisms, but when it gets reported on quite frequently I have to be curious if they are aware of some of the criticisms. We're at a point where people are raising a ton of hypotheses and yet no one seems to be critiquing them, and those who do may be ignored. I've seen several people comment that they have seen posts that incorrectly interpret studies but nothing ever comes of it.
But even if we suppose that audiences go more for the clickbait, is it our intent to join along? The mainstream press does it so often and in a way that goes against actual analyses, so should we on Substack do the same? I'd rather people engage with their audience's intellect rather than their emotions.
Apr 28, 2023·edited Apr 28, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
It seems likely there is an element of willful blindness because of fear of losing the audience that is now a source of income.
When people say "I'm fully subscriber supported", I think they view that as saying they are independent, but to me that's analogous to a clergyman saying he's "fully subscriber supported".
I'm not an important or interesting person who has a wide following, but I know the dangers of saying things that piss off people that I'm dependent upon... Due to the rage-inducing events of the last 3 years, there are many people on the anti-injection "side" who are baying for blood and will believe nothing but the worst - a position that's even remotely moderate, or which takes issue with an unfounded criticism of the injections, may simply garner a person the "controlled opposition" label, losing them many of their most active/fervent subscribers.
I won't deny that's part of the frustration. I can understand balancing writing what you like while also maintaining subscribers. However, I know that for myself I wouldn't be genuine if I began to write about things that I didn't believe. I'm not part of the "not a virus" crowd, and they certainly can have their own opinions, but if the number of subscribers I have is contingent upon me stating that I don't think viruses are pathogenic or exist then I'm not going to go along with it because I wouldn't be genuine.
I've raised this point in the past where it feels as if a lot of people may not be genuine and may be spouting ideas because it draws them a crowd and people to toss money their way. I've also commented that fear merchants exist on both sides and it's rather ignorant to think that people won't take advantage of your fear just because you "trust" them.
And I really have serious issues with how "controlled opposition" is levied. I argue that people conflate the phrases "I disagree" and "you are wrong" as being the same thing when they really aren't. Controlled opposition is just a method of shutting down those who disagree with a heavy reliance on group-like mentality to make it work.
Tend to think the same. The whole reason my OAS commentary consists of heckling from the sidelines is because the OAS promulgators *would not engage with criticism.* And then just ban me for pointing out obvious errors (granted, once someone hand-waves an explanation of an obvious error I bring out the vitriol, because at that point they've gone full 2+2=5). If it walks and quacks like intentional, it's probably intentional.
I wouldn't have paid it any mind if it happened once and maybe there were issues, but since many people covered it several times over you have to question why such shaky grounds are being used to prop up the hypothesis. I mean even after a while I didn't see many people mention the nucleocapsid protein anymore even though it was the basis for a lot of the OAS argument. Was it removed because it was inconvenient and they'd rather not mention how that antigen had no bearing on spike interpretation with OAS, or are they building off of the last thing they wrote about in which case the entire foundation is shaky?
1) Or of even allowing. Obviously there's complicated free will questions here but in the modern world, experts can just say "we know X new thing is safe" and millions will take it, and it's not super-clear what makes that different from forced experimentation except for the fact everyone is smiling the whole time. Ultimately societies must make their own laws either way, but the approval of these products in the first place remains chilling. It's clear nothing but a total disaster will lead to even a temporary culture of caution in medical experimentation.
I agree with all of your points, and they are very well said.
#8 is my favorite. Though with Brian's fury towards popular but lacking in analytical skill and fidelity today perhaps mentioning Schrodinger could have led to a feline joke? But 8 is a really good point.
I think there might be analogs to Schrodinger's immune system in HIV. It's a difficult research realm and it's not clear anyone knows anything. This follows from the fact that with other viruses, you can find end-points and draw inferences from then, i.e. sort out the polio serotypes, grow them and give them to kids on a sugar cube, observe that immunity happens. And everything else you are measuring is in relation to that, i.e. antibodies appear after exposure and so they correlate with immunity. HIV has few end-points to make anything rational. So I find the research very muddy.
A lot of confusion boils down to the fact that there are people dying of AIDS who are HIV- and people who are HIV+ who cleaned up their lifestyles and remain perfectly healthy without body destroying antivirals. The differences between diseases of concern in African HIV vs All other HIV are telling as well. I’m not really sure that Tony Fauci didn’t screw the pooch on the research concerning HIV. A lot was suppressed because it wasn’t part of the agenda. There is billions of dollars that were spent with regards to HIV. I think there needs to be some impartial research done on what REALLY happened. These people don’t seem to have a problem lying to people, suppressing true research, falsifying their own research etc etc. It seems like no one even cares about HIV any more doesn’t it? I mean covid is so much more DANGEROUS isn’t it?
I can imagine a scenario, very similar to the current one with our novel 'vaccines', where an "HIV vaccine" stimulates production of antibodies that confer short-term protection, soon waning to a point that the injectee is no better off than anybody else. But think of the revenue stream!
Apr 26, 2023·edited Apr 26, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
There are several decades of empirical evidence of - let's say "primary addiction," if the word "sin" is unpleasant. In this addiction, memory B cells to long departed microbes / antigens have lower activation thresholds than naive B cells. For example,
However, OAS is only a minor reason that the COVID vaccines had negative efficacy against Omicron. The more important reasons had to do with innate immune impairment. I have more than a half dozen articles on various aspects of this on my Substack.
I get what you’re saying but I can’t formulate it into a grand plan! If it’s not too much trouble can you summarise your definitions of each term that gets thrown about and what they actually mean. I think some confusion comes over people not knowing which phrase to use. For instance, what is the Hoskins effect ? Can you explain the Dengue thing where one form of the 4 infections at an early age leads to a bad outcome with another form later on? I need an overarching summary of all the different examples of effects so that I can then distinguish between them! Thanks.
Essentially, "OAS" has an originalist meaning i.e. how Francis and other Ann Arbor researchers used it in the 60s, which is a 2-part claim.
1 Antibodies to flu strains prevalent in childhood are observed to be highest later on in life.
2 All antibodies to new strains cross-react with old strains; not vice versa.
2 is a claim about "imprinting," i.e. it says "this thing happens always," where the thing is imprinting. But imprinting is not actually absolute / universal.
Then you have how "OAS" is used in the literature since the 1960s, and this can't be defined, because the people using it are misapprehending it, exactly as Koutsakos and Ellebedy are saying here. In accordance with these usages, Dengue is sometimes cited.* But nothing about the two claims above explains why Dengue variant infections lead to severe disease.
The Hoskins results, which are combined and reanalyzed in Beyer et al. 1999, do not support the interpretation called "Hoskins paradox." In paper one the multi-vaxxed do just as well as the first-vaxxed. In paper two the only bad performers are the previously vaxxed who didn't get a vax that year for no clear reason. In paper three there is no single vaccine group to compare with in order to infer impairment due to previous vaccination. And generally it doesn't matter whether there's mismatch between vaccine strain and that years' epidemic strain, so the results aren't even trying to say anything about whether the vaccines can make "new antibodies," so it's not about "OAS." Hoskins paradox is just a misread of poorly reported events.
*Lastly, Dengue is believed to be ADE. So if you get infected with a variant strain, your antibodies from the first strain aren't good at neutralizing but they are good at facilitating cellular entry, is the theory. But even then the rate of Dengue Fever in secondary infections doesn't seem to be that high, so most of the time there is no big problem. And even though enhancement has been demonstrated in vitro I'm not sure if it's corroborated IRL, i.e. maybe the problem is just immune response not more viral replication. Something I should look into more.
Curious about your take on Jacques Fantini's work on ADE, indicating that it may have swept Delta through Europe? BTW, ADE has not been studied in animals for any post WIV variants
, just two small studies by Pfizer and Moderna (with Pfizer removing an "outlier" from theres). There are no relevant empirical data on Fantini's molecular dynamics.
In vivo it might turn out that all coronaviruses leverage enhancing antibodies to stabilize spike protein, but since these are normally mixed in with a lot of neutralizing antibodies, it's just a "cost of doing business" thing that doesn't negate immunity. So when looking at enabling antibodies with SARS-CoV-2 I would want a baseline with other covs before worrying about anything. Certainly, SARS-CoV-2 could evolve to do this better since it's starting out as a new virus, but that just might take it to the normal co-evolved baseline.
With Delta, there wasn't any big problem with reinfections, and when you compared newly injected with less-recently injected, the latter were being infected the most, so it doesn't seem as if antibodies from either natural infection or the vaccines gave an advantage in causing infections. People with lower antibodies (no previous immunity or injection more than 3 months ago) were the ones being infected. As far as I know there was never a good study comparing vaccinated vs. natural infection serum for potential enhancement of Delta or other VOCs.
As always, Brian, I love that you back up your assertions with data and rationale. I am not an expert, so please clarify if I’m wrong as I try to glean the main points here. You aren’t a fan of the vax, but not because it trains the body to respond to the initial virus and impairs response to new mutated viruses, i.e., OAS. I thought OAS was being touted as a reason to justify why the vax wasn’t effective; I didn’t realize it was being cited as a critique of the human immune system. In the interest of accuracy, you say that OAS isn’t a valid concept. Is your main point just that using OAS to rationalize continued R&D, pushing, and defending the vax is baloney, not to mention criminal? Sorry if I miss the point; I confess that I get overwhelmed with all the info flying around, although I appreciate it. Also, can you direct me to more info on “imprinting”, so that I understand the distinction?
RE "Is your main point just that using OAS to rationalize continued R&D, pushing, and defending the vax is baloney, not to mention criminal?" My main point is that a lot of the time, science is wrong. So quoting science to scare people in any direction, without doing homework and seeing if the science looks rigorous, is irresponsible. When the Covid vaccine skeptic community started citing OAS to scaremonger, it was irresponsible, even if the Covid vaccines are literal poison for other reasons. When the mainstream media started to get in on the game, scientists associated with OAS started to clean up the messaging, first by saying "oh OAS is actually a very nuanced question, so nuanced, majorly nuanced" which is where we were in August with Carolyn Johnson’s Washington Post article; but now the associated scientists I think are just embarrassed and tired of defending the misleading phrase. At least Ellebedy seems to be.
The term "imprinting" isn't super-great, but at least it has a pretty specific and consistent use, so there is a thing that most people mean when they say it, and that thing is real. A better term for that thing might just be "B Cell remodeling." When your previously created B Cells encounter a "variant epitope," like a mutated version of flu, the ones that are a good match for it divide so that the overall pool of flu-reacting B Cells now has a different roster, and some B Cells go back into germinal centers (lymph nodes) and train on the new mutations even more, and the result is a lot of good antibodies against the variant - which are also strongly cross-reactive against the original version.
So because we have been able to capture different strains of flu with ferrets and eggs and they stay "preserved" in passage, so you have this sample for last year's flu and this one for this year's, for a long time we have been able to pretty-accurately see whether blood has antibodies to just one strain or more than one. In the 50s they found that when you get sequential flu exposure, example being to inject those two years of flu into a ferret, all the ferret's antibodies for the second strain cross-react with the first. If you simply expose a ferret to just the second strain, some of the ferret's antibodies for the second strain don't cross-react with the first, and so they are called "specific." In humans and with natural infection, it's not as strong, but it's still mostly cross-reacting; this is true with Omicron after natural or injected Wuhan exposure. So that's "imprinting." B-Cells remodel instead of starting from scratch. But there's nothing bad about it, usually, and nothing special or better about "specific" antibodies. Cross-reacting antibodies are great.
The problem for the vaccinated is that these cross-reacting antibodies might be promoting tolerance, because of hyper-exposure to the Wuhan spike in mRNA vaccination. So now you have this accidental reason where, actually, it would be nice if they could start from a clean slate. And maybe "imprinting" is a problem for them. These remodeling B Cells are all over-exposed and converting to IgG4 which isn't what you want for anti-virus antibodies. They still neutralize the virus in vitro, no matter how much it mutates, but in the body they might blunt T Cell and Natural Killer cell responses.
1 Scattershot mRNA transfection of viral spike proteins doesn't require human science, if it's such a great way to defeat pathogens. Evolution could have come up with mRNA transfection of viral spike proteins. It didn't, and this means there is no net positive.
2 QA is nonexistent. So this is a subsidized biological tech with no pressure driving it toward even performing as advertised. Everyone getting these shots is a lab rat mainlining the biomed equivalent of defective 70s appliances and hoping for the best.
3 If "the best" actually happens, there are myriad on-paper reasons to suspect harm, including tolerance, cellular metabolic disruption leading to dysplasia leading to cancer, and microclots. If reasons 1 and 2 didn't pertain, then for reason 3, these shots would be props in a sci-fi plot about hi-tech poisons.
Lol—well, thank you, and it is a bit clearer to me, although I have forgotten way too much about immunology, so I’ll be asking the “unglossed for dummies” questions. But I do appreciate the education and all that you do. The unfortunate truth for me is that the maelstrom of information and corruption makes it difficult to pinpoint exactly WHY I don’t trust conventional medicine anymore, only that I don’t.
'The problem for the vaccinated is that these cross-reacting antibodies might be promoting tolerance, because of hyper-exposure to the Wuhan spike in mRNA vaccination. So now you have this accidental reason where, actually, it would be nice if they could start from a clean slate. And maybe "imprinting" is a problem for them. These remodeling B Cells are all over-exposed and converting to IgG4 which isn't what you want for anti-virus antibodies. They still neutralize the virus in vitro, no matter how much it mutates, but in the body they might blunt T Cell and Natural Killer cell responses.'
So, the vax causes spike to be made in the body's own cells until those cells die or the vax RNA degrades to an uncopyable point. This leads to both a high concentration of exposure and a longer time of exposure due to the host cell not being identified as a target. The chronic exposure in particular, especially in areas that aren't used to being infection centers I would expect like shoulders, ovaries, and testes, triggers some rather unconventional immune responses, one of which seems to be tolerance. It would be interesting to know how rates of IGG4 conversion vary with different body location, but I think most of what we see are serum levels and the assumption that nothing interesting is dependent on what region of the body this is happening in.
There just isn't enough data or enough specificity in the data that there is, too many assumptions and not enough awareness of multi-variability. Virologists do not seem to be asking a lot of important/interesting questions. A big realisation for me is how much specialisation and insularity has turned science into one big incestuous orgy.
Once you are open to the incest of one scientific field, it is exciting to go into others to look at them and the compelling alternative hypotheses, which are suppressed by the gatekeepers in their fields.
"Specialisation and insularity" essentially ensures any (sub-sub-sub-) field can be a total sham and no one on the outside even realizes it. And in the amyloid field even the inside was duped by faked images for a decade, in the most cited paper. So "OAS" (as imagined by new researchers when they first hear of it) is definitely an example as well. And the mess is so all-pervading and self-renewing (killing bad ideas doesn't mean good ones will replace them) that basically human understanding is probably close to done advancing.
You're the man.
Appreciate your work!
It seems some people are simply out of luck. Too bad.
Circulating Spike Protein Detected in Post–COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Myocarditis
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.061025#d1e1289
Conclusions:
Immunoprofiling of vaccinated adolescents and young adults revealed that the mRNA vaccine–induced immune responses did not differ between individuals who developed myocarditis and individuals who did not. However, free spike antigen was detected in the blood of adolescents and young adults who developed post-mRNA vaccine myocarditis, advancing insight into its potential underlying cause.
Is this another example of Fuck around and find out?
Your snarkiness has appealed to my sinful nature. I do really appreciate that you dig deeper as others surely did not ... what does OAS look like and how would it be measured - because these tests that people are running DO NOT measure that! And I agree that several stackers are getting people to jump up and down over things they don't understand. Jump up and down in muddy puddles because it's fun .... don't jump up and down in a sh*tshow because you don't know any better. It's almost as bad as the "safe and effective" crowd - where are the details, where is the nuance?
Thank you! - and hear-hear for jumping in muddy puddles.
I hate you. I really hate you. The humor is annoying. The logic...is...well...compelling. If you are controlled opposition, you are doing an incredible job at evasion. I don't really hate you...hmmm...
Come on, tell us how you REALLY feel about it
Seriously, what we know about immunology is that we do not know enough.
Is that a license to make up wild ideas? If not, then why is it a license to pass off a scary misunderstanding of an old bad idea when no evidence supports it? OAS is used as a misunderstanding of a claim that isn't supported by the evidence. What about "do not know enough" makes posing as some kind of secretly learned monk to tell people there's a "decisive, well-observed limitation" justified? The way OAS was scare-mongered was not based on some precautionary principle and it confused some people into believing boosters were a good idea. It was idiotic.
Being wrong =/= being stupid or being a bad person. The accounts you were referring to were likely not deliberately fear-mongering to build an audience. Rather, it just so happens that audiences tend to follow less nuanced and more extreme narratives because they're exciting, easy to digest and give us all someone to point the finger at. Maybe that's a distinction without a difference, but I think morally there is a difference in the sense of the difference between deliberate intent and negligence.
If the last 3 years have established anything it's how little we all know about how these systems work. The default approach should be epistemic humility, but that's not a winning approach when people "feel" there's something wrong with injections and how they were pushed and are looking for "facts" to justify/rationalize those feelings. Unfortunately, there are multiple issues that all get tied up together and should be unpacked separately:
(1) the immorality of coercing people into being injected with an experimental pharmaceutical intervention (even coercion re: a non-experimental injection with a proven risk-reward is highly dubious)
(2) the insanity of using potentially unstable/fragmented genetic material [what happens with a partial sequence or one that doesn't have a "stop" command] as a tool to trick human cells into synthesizing a non-human protein, the toxicity/reactogenicity of which and/or stability of which is still not well understood [what if there is more than one possible configuration for this protein, what does that look like?]
(3) the futility, in many cases, of trying to induce lasting protection against a respiratory virus that seems to have an aptitude for mutation [I know you have a different take on this, which is that it may not be aptitude] (see also, the flu)
(4) the stupidity of trying to induce immunity in people who are not at substantial risk from the pathogen (particularly when the "immunity" is non-sterilizing)
(5) the seemingly low quality control and instability of the injections themselves, which then feeds back into point (2)
(6) the risks of accidental intravenous injection and propagation of the spike protein into all tissues that can be accessed via the circulatory system (again, feeding from point (5) and into point (2))
(7) risk of class switching on B cells which are repeatedly stimulated at scheduled intervals by the same or similar antigen
(8) the crass greed of creating a mythology where the injection of a viral protein would somehow stimulate an individual's immune system where an infection with the virus would not [Schrodinger's immune system which is simultaneously capable of being trained and incapable of being trained]
(9) the potential evolutionary pressure that could be created via exposing the populace to a mutable viral protein rather than the entire virus [better hope you have an airtight vector of attack if you are just going to pick one vector]
There are many more moral issues associated with the impoverishment of the populace for the benefit of a few large pharmaceutical companies and the complete disregard for the harms that have accompanied the injections in some. "Shoot first, ask questions later."
I think you raise a lot of good points. All of your numbered points would be reasons against the argument of vaccination with these vaccines. However, those could all be true while also raising criticisms of how OAS has been discussed on Substack.
Towards deliberate fear-mongering, I am partially inclined to argue that some of this is not an accident- given some of the posts I've seen in recent months as people move on I'm actually concerned that information is being misconstrued in order to push narratives.
My main problem with how OAS has been discussed is that it became an infallible hypothesis. Those who presented did so in a manner in which this was the absolute truth to what was happening. Someone alerted me to Alex Berenson covering it on his Substack, which appears to be the first time it came about, and after looking at it a bit I raised a few questions (the nucleocapsid was absolutely NOT a good measure of OAS, and it's not even looking at the same antigen so you couldn't even leverage OAS with the argument he was making).
It's hard to argue if people ignored rebuttals or criticisms, but when it gets reported on quite frequently I have to be curious if they are aware of some of the criticisms. We're at a point where people are raising a ton of hypotheses and yet no one seems to be critiquing them, and those who do may be ignored. I've seen several people comment that they have seen posts that incorrectly interpret studies but nothing ever comes of it.
But even if we suppose that audiences go more for the clickbait, is it our intent to join along? The mainstream press does it so often and in a way that goes against actual analyses, so should we on Substack do the same? I'd rather people engage with their audience's intellect rather than their emotions.
It seems likely there is an element of willful blindness because of fear of losing the audience that is now a source of income.
When people say "I'm fully subscriber supported", I think they view that as saying they are independent, but to me that's analogous to a clergyman saying he's "fully subscriber supported".
I'm not an important or interesting person who has a wide following, but I know the dangers of saying things that piss off people that I'm dependent upon... Due to the rage-inducing events of the last 3 years, there are many people on the anti-injection "side" who are baying for blood and will believe nothing but the worst - a position that's even remotely moderate, or which takes issue with an unfounded criticism of the injections, may simply garner a person the "controlled opposition" label, losing them many of their most active/fervent subscribers.
I won't deny that's part of the frustration. I can understand balancing writing what you like while also maintaining subscribers. However, I know that for myself I wouldn't be genuine if I began to write about things that I didn't believe. I'm not part of the "not a virus" crowd, and they certainly can have their own opinions, but if the number of subscribers I have is contingent upon me stating that I don't think viruses are pathogenic or exist then I'm not going to go along with it because I wouldn't be genuine.
I've raised this point in the past where it feels as if a lot of people may not be genuine and may be spouting ideas because it draws them a crowd and people to toss money their way. I've also commented that fear merchants exist on both sides and it's rather ignorant to think that people won't take advantage of your fear just because you "trust" them.
And I really have serious issues with how "controlled opposition" is levied. I argue that people conflate the phrases "I disagree" and "you are wrong" as being the same thing when they really aren't. Controlled opposition is just a method of shutting down those who disagree with a heavy reliance on group-like mentality to make it work.
Tend to think the same. The whole reason my OAS commentary consists of heckling from the sidelines is because the OAS promulgators *would not engage with criticism.* And then just ban me for pointing out obvious errors (granted, once someone hand-waves an explanation of an obvious error I bring out the vitriol, because at that point they've gone full 2+2=5). If it walks and quacks like intentional, it's probably intentional.
I wouldn't have paid it any mind if it happened once and maybe there were issues, but since many people covered it several times over you have to question why such shaky grounds are being used to prop up the hypothesis. I mean even after a while I didn't see many people mention the nucleocapsid protein anymore even though it was the basis for a lot of the OAS argument. Was it removed because it was inconvenient and they'd rather not mention how that antigen had no bearing on spike interpretation with OAS, or are they building off of the last thing they wrote about in which case the entire foundation is shaky?
Truly a magnum opus of a comment summarizing what we have been through... Thank you JS
You are too kind :)
1) Or of even allowing. Obviously there's complicated free will questions here but in the modern world, experts can just say "we know X new thing is safe" and millions will take it, and it's not super-clear what makes that different from forced experimentation except for the fact everyone is smiling the whole time. Ultimately societies must make their own laws either way, but the approval of these products in the first place remains chilling. It's clear nothing but a total disaster will lead to even a temporary culture of caution in medical experimentation.
I agree with all of your points, and they are very well said.
Your comment illustrates what a fuzzy concept coercion in fact is. Goes far beyond threats to life, limb or livelihood.
#8 is my favorite. Though with Brian's fury towards popular but lacking in analytical skill and fidelity today perhaps mentioning Schrodinger could have led to a feline joke? But 8 is a really good point.
I'm wondering if there are circumstances where point #8 may not be much of a point at all. Has anyone done any digging on HIV vaccine research?
I think there might be analogs to Schrodinger's immune system in HIV. It's a difficult research realm and it's not clear anyone knows anything. This follows from the fact that with other viruses, you can find end-points and draw inferences from then, i.e. sort out the polio serotypes, grow them and give them to kids on a sugar cube, observe that immunity happens. And everything else you are measuring is in relation to that, i.e. antibodies appear after exposure and so they correlate with immunity. HIV has few end-points to make anything rational. So I find the research very muddy.
A lot of confusion boils down to the fact that there are people dying of AIDS who are HIV- and people who are HIV+ who cleaned up their lifestyles and remain perfectly healthy without body destroying antivirals. The differences between diseases of concern in African HIV vs All other HIV are telling as well. I’m not really sure that Tony Fauci didn’t screw the pooch on the research concerning HIV. A lot was suppressed because it wasn’t part of the agenda. There is billions of dollars that were spent with regards to HIV. I think there needs to be some impartial research done on what REALLY happened. These people don’t seem to have a problem lying to people, suppressing true research, falsifying their own research etc etc. It seems like no one even cares about HIV any more doesn’t it? I mean covid is so much more DANGEROUS isn’t it?
I can imagine a scenario, very similar to the current one with our novel 'vaccines', where an "HIV vaccine" stimulates production of antibodies that confer short-term protection, soon waning to a point that the injectee is no better off than anybody else. But think of the revenue stream!
"..too are the anonymous monks and cats bombarding you with rabid illusions based on an obscure, stupid scientific myth"
Gosh, Brian, it's almost like they're here to stir up fear on purpose. 🤔
There are several decades of empirical evidence of - let's say "primary addiction," if the word "sin" is unpleasant. In this addiction, memory B cells to long departed microbes / antigens have lower activation thresholds than naive B cells. For example,
A Schiepers, M van’t Wout, et al. Molecular fate-mapping of serum antibody responses to repeat immunization. Jan 16 2023. Nature. 615. 482-489. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05715-3
D Burnett, R Bull. Total recall? Understanding the effect of antigenic distance on original antigenic sin. Mar 7 2023. Immunol and Cell Biol. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/imcb.12638
However, OAS is only a minor reason that the COVID vaccines had negative efficacy against Omicron. The more important reasons had to do with innate immune impairment. I have more than a half dozen articles on various aspects of this on my Substack.
I get what you’re saying but I can’t formulate it into a grand plan! If it’s not too much trouble can you summarise your definitions of each term that gets thrown about and what they actually mean. I think some confusion comes over people not knowing which phrase to use. For instance, what is the Hoskins effect ? Can you explain the Dengue thing where one form of the 4 infections at an early age leads to a bad outcome with another form later on? I need an overarching summary of all the different examples of effects so that I can then distinguish between them! Thanks.
My definitions for "OAS" and "imprinting" are in https://unglossed.substack.com/p/oas-review-timeline-2
Essentially, "OAS" has an originalist meaning i.e. how Francis and other Ann Arbor researchers used it in the 60s, which is a 2-part claim.
1 Antibodies to flu strains prevalent in childhood are observed to be highest later on in life.
2 All antibodies to new strains cross-react with old strains; not vice versa.
2 is a claim about "imprinting," i.e. it says "this thing happens always," where the thing is imprinting. But imprinting is not actually absolute / universal.
Then you have how "OAS" is used in the literature since the 1960s, and this can't be defined, because the people using it are misapprehending it, exactly as Koutsakos and Ellebedy are saying here. In accordance with these usages, Dengue is sometimes cited.* But nothing about the two claims above explains why Dengue variant infections lead to severe disease.
The Hoskins results, which are combined and reanalyzed in Beyer et al. 1999, do not support the interpretation called "Hoskins paradox." In paper one the multi-vaxxed do just as well as the first-vaxxed. In paper two the only bad performers are the previously vaxxed who didn't get a vax that year for no clear reason. In paper three there is no single vaccine group to compare with in order to infer impairment due to previous vaccination. And generally it doesn't matter whether there's mismatch between vaccine strain and that years' epidemic strain, so the results aren't even trying to say anything about whether the vaccines can make "new antibodies," so it's not about "OAS." Hoskins paradox is just a misread of poorly reported events.
*Lastly, Dengue is believed to be ADE. So if you get infected with a variant strain, your antibodies from the first strain aren't good at neutralizing but they are good at facilitating cellular entry, is the theory. But even then the rate of Dengue Fever in secondary infections doesn't seem to be that high, so most of the time there is no big problem. And even though enhancement has been demonstrated in vitro I'm not sure if it's corroborated IRL, i.e. maybe the problem is just immune response not more viral replication. Something I should look into more.
Curious about your take on Jacques Fantini's work on ADE, indicating that it may have swept Delta through Europe? BTW, ADE has not been studied in animals for any post WIV variants
, just two small studies by Pfizer and Moderna (with Pfizer removing an "outlier" from theres). There are no relevant empirical data on Fantini's molecular dynamics.
https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/study-suggests-that-moderna-and-pfizer
In vivo it might turn out that all coronaviruses leverage enhancing antibodies to stabilize spike protein, but since these are normally mixed in with a lot of neutralizing antibodies, it's just a "cost of doing business" thing that doesn't negate immunity. So when looking at enabling antibodies with SARS-CoV-2 I would want a baseline with other covs before worrying about anything. Certainly, SARS-CoV-2 could evolve to do this better since it's starting out as a new virus, but that just might take it to the normal co-evolved baseline.
With Delta, there wasn't any big problem with reinfections, and when you compared newly injected with less-recently injected, the latter were being infected the most, so it doesn't seem as if antibodies from either natural infection or the vaccines gave an advantage in causing infections. People with lower antibodies (no previous immunity or injection more than 3 months ago) were the ones being infected. As far as I know there was never a good study comparing vaccinated vs. natural infection serum for potential enhancement of Delta or other VOCs.
As always, Brian, I love that you back up your assertions with data and rationale. I am not an expert, so please clarify if I’m wrong as I try to glean the main points here. You aren’t a fan of the vax, but not because it trains the body to respond to the initial virus and impairs response to new mutated viruses, i.e., OAS. I thought OAS was being touted as a reason to justify why the vax wasn’t effective; I didn’t realize it was being cited as a critique of the human immune system. In the interest of accuracy, you say that OAS isn’t a valid concept. Is your main point just that using OAS to rationalize continued R&D, pushing, and defending the vax is baloney, not to mention criminal? Sorry if I miss the point; I confess that I get overwhelmed with all the info flying around, although I appreciate it. Also, can you direct me to more info on “imprinting”, so that I understand the distinction?
RE "Is your main point just that using OAS to rationalize continued R&D, pushing, and defending the vax is baloney, not to mention criminal?" My main point is that a lot of the time, science is wrong. So quoting science to scare people in any direction, without doing homework and seeing if the science looks rigorous, is irresponsible. When the Covid vaccine skeptic community started citing OAS to scaremonger, it was irresponsible, even if the Covid vaccines are literal poison for other reasons. When the mainstream media started to get in on the game, scientists associated with OAS started to clean up the messaging, first by saying "oh OAS is actually a very nuanced question, so nuanced, majorly nuanced" which is where we were in August with Carolyn Johnson’s Washington Post article; but now the associated scientists I think are just embarrassed and tired of defending the misleading phrase. At least Ellebedy seems to be.
The term "imprinting" isn't super-great, but at least it has a pretty specific and consistent use, so there is a thing that most people mean when they say it, and that thing is real. A better term for that thing might just be "B Cell remodeling." When your previously created B Cells encounter a "variant epitope," like a mutated version of flu, the ones that are a good match for it divide so that the overall pool of flu-reacting B Cells now has a different roster, and some B Cells go back into germinal centers (lymph nodes) and train on the new mutations even more, and the result is a lot of good antibodies against the variant - which are also strongly cross-reactive against the original version.
So because we have been able to capture different strains of flu with ferrets and eggs and they stay "preserved" in passage, so you have this sample for last year's flu and this one for this year's, for a long time we have been able to pretty-accurately see whether blood has antibodies to just one strain or more than one. In the 50s they found that when you get sequential flu exposure, example being to inject those two years of flu into a ferret, all the ferret's antibodies for the second strain cross-react with the first. If you simply expose a ferret to just the second strain, some of the ferret's antibodies for the second strain don't cross-react with the first, and so they are called "specific." In humans and with natural infection, it's not as strong, but it's still mostly cross-reacting; this is true with Omicron after natural or injected Wuhan exposure. So that's "imprinting." B-Cells remodel instead of starting from scratch. But there's nothing bad about it, usually, and nothing special or better about "specific" antibodies. Cross-reacting antibodies are great.
The problem for the vaccinated is that these cross-reacting antibodies might be promoting tolerance, because of hyper-exposure to the Wuhan spike in mRNA vaccination. So now you have this accidental reason where, actually, it would be nice if they could start from a clean slate. And maybe "imprinting" is a problem for them. These remodeling B Cells are all over-exposed and converting to IgG4 which isn't what you want for anti-virus antibodies. They still neutralize the virus in vitro, no matter how much it mutates, but in the body they might blunt T Cell and Natural Killer cell responses.
==> "even if the Covid vaccines are literal poison for other reasons"
Brian, could you elaborate, what are the top three most important reasons, that you see, that make Covid vaccine a poison?
Interested in your opinion
1 Scattershot mRNA transfection of viral spike proteins doesn't require human science, if it's such a great way to defeat pathogens. Evolution could have come up with mRNA transfection of viral spike proteins. It didn't, and this means there is no net positive.
2 QA is nonexistent. So this is a subsidized biological tech with no pressure driving it toward even performing as advertised. Everyone getting these shots is a lab rat mainlining the biomed equivalent of defective 70s appliances and hoping for the best.
3 If "the best" actually happens, there are myriad on-paper reasons to suspect harm, including tolerance, cellular metabolic disruption leading to dysplasia leading to cancer, and microclots. If reasons 1 and 2 didn't pertain, then for reason 3, these shots would be props in a sci-fi plot about hi-tech poisons.
Thanks!
Lol—well, thank you, and it is a bit clearer to me, although I have forgotten way too much about immunology, so I’ll be asking the “unglossed for dummies” questions. But I do appreciate the education and all that you do. The unfortunate truth for me is that the maelstrom of information and corruption makes it difficult to pinpoint exactly WHY I don’t trust conventional medicine anymore, only that I don’t.
'The problem for the vaccinated is that these cross-reacting antibodies might be promoting tolerance, because of hyper-exposure to the Wuhan spike in mRNA vaccination. So now you have this accidental reason where, actually, it would be nice if they could start from a clean slate. And maybe "imprinting" is a problem for them. These remodeling B Cells are all over-exposed and converting to IgG4 which isn't what you want for anti-virus antibodies. They still neutralize the virus in vitro, no matter how much it mutates, but in the body they might blunt T Cell and Natural Killer cell responses.'
So, the vax causes spike to be made in the body's own cells until those cells die or the vax RNA degrades to an uncopyable point. This leads to both a high concentration of exposure and a longer time of exposure due to the host cell not being identified as a target. The chronic exposure in particular, especially in areas that aren't used to being infection centers I would expect like shoulders, ovaries, and testes, triggers some rather unconventional immune responses, one of which seems to be tolerance. It would be interesting to know how rates of IGG4 conversion vary with different body location, but I think most of what we see are serum levels and the assumption that nothing interesting is dependent on what region of the body this is happening in.
There just isn't enough data or enough specificity in the data that there is, too many assumptions and not enough awareness of multi-variability. Virologists do not seem to be asking a lot of important/interesting questions. A big realisation for me is how much specialisation and insularity has turned science into one big incestuous orgy.
Once you are open to the incest of one scientific field, it is exciting to go into others to look at them and the compelling alternative hypotheses, which are suppressed by the gatekeepers in their fields.
A small (but big!) one is the structured atom model, a good video series on it here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLeeyNowkGd8NYCzqEJDGXsAaZdiKCBC1g
Basically: Atom structure = element. Unstable structure = unstable element. It predicts radioactivity, decay products etc.
"Specialisation and insularity" essentially ensures any (sub-sub-sub-) field can be a total sham and no one on the outside even realizes it. And in the amyloid field even the inside was duped by faked images for a decade, in the most cited paper. So "OAS" (as imagined by new researchers when they first hear of it) is definitely an example as well. And the mess is so all-pervading and self-renewing (killing bad ideas doesn't mean good ones will replace them) that basically human understanding is probably close to done advancing.
As you say, the biodistribution is all guesswork.