I skimmed that paper after it was shared on Greer's Ecosophia forum. My impression was in line with your correction.
I thought that LNP injection leading to lower response to future LNP-mRNA injection could be simple drug tolerance: less of a response to a second exposure to the same stimulus.
To me the only big takeaway was the innate immune reprogramming, which was documented in humans more than a year ago:
One thing that I would add as a caveat is that innate immune training appears to be a new phenomenon only discovered within the past couple of years. To the extent that innate immunity is "trainable" is highly speculative. I believe some articles mentioned a few days up to a few months, and the extent of such a trainable innate immunity is still up in the air.
I'm making this comment mostly because it appears that, even though many of us are critical of science via consensus, we still have this strange fallback notion that novel ideas are indicative of novelty with these mRNA vaccines. As such, some people have been led to believe that trainable innate immunity is a bug not a feature of the innate immune system only brought on by the novelty that is the mRNA vaccines.
This is taken from the article:
"Besides their effects on specific (adaptive) immune memory, certain vaccines such as Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) and the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine also induce long-term functional reprogramming of cells of the innate immune system. (Netea et al., 2020). This biological process is also termed trained immunity when it involves increased responsiveness, or innate immune tolerance when it is characterized by decreased cytokine production (Ifrim et al., 2014). "
It appears that the notion that the innate immunity may be trainable comes from evidence of plants and invertebrates who lack an adaptive immune system appearing to be able to fight off reinfections from pathogens.
Not to say that this is your thinking Markael, but I've seen quite a few other people use that argument as a form of dogma for the innate immune system rather than an idea that is being challenged by more recent findings.
Now granted, training certainly does infer either a beneficial or deleterious effect so that certainly is something of concern!
I didn't mean to suggest that mRNA vaccines are the *only* interventions that reprogram innate immunity, just that it is one among many effects of these shots that were not fully understood or investigated before they were injected into billions of people.
I think we can ALL agree that the mRNA injections have granted the virus the ability to time-travel, which it will soon use to kill the worm that originally invented immunity in the first place, destroying all life on Earth forever.
Probably tolerance is just as plausible. I’ll have to re-check whether inflammatory markers were measured for repeat-injection. One thing I would note is that tolerance might predict increased effect after week 2, rather than the observed decrease!
If it's any consolation, my posts have turned out to be wrong almost 100% of the time. But I leave them up so nobody can take the Earth's Wrongest Blog title away from me!
Well, John I would argue that having more people willing to admit their wrongness is greatly needed! I think we need more people to either admit or understand how they're wrong rather than obfuscating bad science by waving it away!
And I wouldn't take that title just yet because I may be in the running some day!
👍🏽 I love the collaboration.
How can we trust ANYTHING they post? I don't.
Hey, maybe, just maybe they did not have any mice studies.
I heard that some critter studies were stopped because all
the animals died. ??? WE HAVE BEEN SO LIED TO!
STAY WELL NATURALLY! I post publicly and freely on MeWe.
ETERNAL LIFE BLESSINGS FOR YAHWEH'S SAINTS!
I skimmed that paper after it was shared on Greer's Ecosophia forum. My impression was in line with your correction.
I thought that LNP injection leading to lower response to future LNP-mRNA injection could be simple drug tolerance: less of a response to a second exposure to the same stimulus.
To me the only big takeaway was the innate immune reprogramming, which was documented in humans more than a year ago:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.03.21256520v1
We await results of what this actually means in terms of immune health and susceptibility to common infections.
One thing that I would add as a caveat is that innate immune training appears to be a new phenomenon only discovered within the past couple of years. To the extent that innate immunity is "trainable" is highly speculative. I believe some articles mentioned a few days up to a few months, and the extent of such a trainable innate immunity is still up in the air.
I'm making this comment mostly because it appears that, even though many of us are critical of science via consensus, we still have this strange fallback notion that novel ideas are indicative of novelty with these mRNA vaccines. As such, some people have been led to believe that trainable innate immunity is a bug not a feature of the innate immune system only brought on by the novelty that is the mRNA vaccines.
This is taken from the article:
"Besides their effects on specific (adaptive) immune memory, certain vaccines such as Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) and the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine also induce long-term functional reprogramming of cells of the innate immune system. (Netea et al., 2020). This biological process is also termed trained immunity when it involves increased responsiveness, or innate immune tolerance when it is characterized by decreased cytokine production (Ifrim et al., 2014). "
It appears that the notion that the innate immunity may be trainable comes from evidence of plants and invertebrates who lack an adaptive immune system appearing to be able to fight off reinfections from pathogens.
Not to say that this is your thinking Markael, but I've seen quite a few other people use that argument as a form of dogma for the innate immune system rather than an idea that is being challenged by more recent findings.
Now granted, training certainly does infer either a beneficial or deleterious effect so that certainly is something of concern!
I didn't mean to suggest that mRNA vaccines are the *only* interventions that reprogram innate immunity, just that it is one among many effects of these shots that were not fully understood or investigated before they were injected into billions of people.
I think we can ALL agree that the mRNA injections have granted the virus the ability to time-travel, which it will soon use to kill the worm that originally invented immunity in the first place, destroying all life on Earth forever.
Probably tolerance is just as plausible. I’ll have to re-check whether inflammatory markers were measured for repeat-injection. One thing I would note is that tolerance might predict increased effect after week 2, rather than the observed decrease!
If it's any consolation, my posts have turned out to be wrong almost 100% of the time. But I leave them up so nobody can take the Earth's Wrongest Blog title away from me!
Well, John I would argue that having more people willing to admit their wrongness is greatly needed! I think we need more people to either admit or understand how they're wrong rather than obfuscating bad science by waving it away!
And I wouldn't take that title just yet because I may be in the running some day!
It would be consolation, if consolation were permitted by my sentence (it is strictly forbidden).