The mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were brought to market in response to the public health crises of Covid-19. The utilization of mRNA vaccines in the context of infectious disease has no precedent. The many alterations in the vaccine mRNA hide the mRNA from cellular defenses and promote a longer biological half-life and high production of spike protein. However, the immune response to the vaccine is very different from that to a SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this paper, we present evidence that vaccination induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to human health. Immune cells that have taken up the vaccine nanoparticles release into circulation large numbers of exosomes containing spike protein along with critical microRNAs that induce a signaling response in recipient cells at distant sites. We also identify potential profound disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance. These disturbances potentially have a causal link to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell's palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, impaired DNA damage response and tumorigenesis. We show evidence from the VAERS database supporting our hypothesis. We believe a comprehensive risk/benefit assessment of the mRNA vaccines questions them as positive contributors to public health.
The inefficacy of the vaccines is well and truly undeniable out there in the mainstream interwebs, I woke up to the article you cited being the top story on Yahoo today. Yet another in seemingly an endless series of recontextualizing what the vaccines do/do not do. Can we really be that far from “well, the jabs don’t actually reduce severe illness or death but it’s a more noble death”?
Your musings on the psychology of all of this rings true to me. As for three potential explanations on how the vaccine efficacy has waned, I would posit that it’s potentially a combination of the three. As you know, when we’re examining these issues at a societal level with millions of people, we’re only ever seeing a generalization (which is modern medicine’s greatest strength and biggest flaw). On that level, perhaps one “hypothesis” has more explanatory power (and I use the h-word loosely because we’re far outside the realm of classical science here, with its rigid experimentation to elucidate cause and effect relationships, these are all correlation studies) , but when looking at unique individuals, there’s little doubt that everyone’s immune system and response to the jabs operates a little differently. So it is with traditional vaccines, I would argue that the variance could be even higher with the mRNA, likening it to Jeff Goldblum’s chaos theory demonstration in Jurassic Park, with the water rolling down Admiral Holdo’s hand (sorry Laura Dern, it’s more amusing to me this way). The sharp (though still relatively minor) increase of cardiac and other adverse effects illustrates this. Though it should go without saying that human beings are not a fixed variable that you can just plug into an equation, I think in the age of macroanalysis and big data it bears constant repeating.
Almost seems like we should have people studying how consistent these novel treatments are… OR we can just continue repeat “safe and effective” loudly while having “your results may vary” spoken quickly and quietly and listed in the fine print of the commercial of our lives.
The Washington Post article is, deliberately or not, pointing up the logical inconsistencies in popular thinking, and for which the popular thinking has a total blind spot.
A friend of mine recently had a serious bout with Covid – she's in her 30s – and yesterday said she's having some serious heart problems as a result. I asked if she'd been vaccinated and she said yes. I pointed out that vaccinated people who have not been infected are also having heart problems, so there may be no way of knowing if hers are a result of the infection or the vaccination; she didn't argue back, at least.
I suppose that the we should take a big, strong look at something called...individual differences? I find it fascinating that they are shocked that the elderly are dying, even when vaccinated. They already have poor immune function, likely to have may comorbidities, and many are likely to be living in care facilities where they are close to other elderly. If it's not COVID it's something else like the flu, and so I find it hard to look at this and see how this is such a huge shocker to these people.
I mean let's face it; in the US many of us are fat, lazy, and all of this was exacerbated by the lockdowns, and yet we are still curious as to why the US may not have done well with Delta. People should have used this time to take their own health into their hands rather than sit around and continuously jab themselves.
In the UK, 92% of the Covid deaths are among the vaccinated. And the CDC wants me to believe that only 40% of the deaths in the US are among the vaccinated? Give me a break
I have a bridge to sell also, sale restricted only to vaccinated and boosted people
We have a lot of reasons to disbelieve their stats. We need to fix that.
How many of the fatalities received early treatment? How many would have recovered if they had? Denying them proper care was criminal, on many levels. We need to fix that.
The loss of a few old and sick people is unfortunate, but the damage done to society by the failures of so many institutions might be insurmountable. As more people learn the extent of the deception, and the corruption that drove it, the reactions will be harsh. Many of the survivors of the virus won't survive the repercussions. Hard times ahead.
Of all the tragedies of this 'pandemic', there may be nothing more disheartening than the people who believed the lie that these products would protect them and died or fell seriously ill anyway- particularly if they might have not reacted that way in an unjabbed state. 'They' are still telling lies. I wonder how long they'll keep at it. I am closely watching the FDA and the under age 5 authorization. Surely, not... right?
Hey, Brian check out this one -> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9012513/
Abstract: Abstract
The mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were brought to market in response to the public health crises of Covid-19. The utilization of mRNA vaccines in the context of infectious disease has no precedent. The many alterations in the vaccine mRNA hide the mRNA from cellular defenses and promote a longer biological half-life and high production of spike protein. However, the immune response to the vaccine is very different from that to a SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this paper, we present evidence that vaccination induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to human health. Immune cells that have taken up the vaccine nanoparticles release into circulation large numbers of exosomes containing spike protein along with critical microRNAs that induce a signaling response in recipient cells at distant sites. We also identify potential profound disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance. These disturbances potentially have a causal link to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell's palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, impaired DNA damage response and tumorigenesis. We show evidence from the VAERS database supporting our hypothesis. We believe a comprehensive risk/benefit assessment of the mRNA vaccines questions them as positive contributors to public health.
The inefficacy of the vaccines is well and truly undeniable out there in the mainstream interwebs, I woke up to the article you cited being the top story on Yahoo today. Yet another in seemingly an endless series of recontextualizing what the vaccines do/do not do. Can we really be that far from “well, the jabs don’t actually reduce severe illness or death but it’s a more noble death”?
Your musings on the psychology of all of this rings true to me. As for three potential explanations on how the vaccine efficacy has waned, I would posit that it’s potentially a combination of the three. As you know, when we’re examining these issues at a societal level with millions of people, we’re only ever seeing a generalization (which is modern medicine’s greatest strength and biggest flaw). On that level, perhaps one “hypothesis” has more explanatory power (and I use the h-word loosely because we’re far outside the realm of classical science here, with its rigid experimentation to elucidate cause and effect relationships, these are all correlation studies) , but when looking at unique individuals, there’s little doubt that everyone’s immune system and response to the jabs operates a little differently. So it is with traditional vaccines, I would argue that the variance could be even higher with the mRNA, likening it to Jeff Goldblum’s chaos theory demonstration in Jurassic Park, with the water rolling down Admiral Holdo’s hand (sorry Laura Dern, it’s more amusing to me this way). The sharp (though still relatively minor) increase of cardiac and other adverse effects illustrates this. Though it should go without saying that human beings are not a fixed variable that you can just plug into an equation, I think in the age of macroanalysis and big data it bears constant repeating.
Almost seems like we should have people studying how consistent these novel treatments are… OR we can just continue repeat “safe and effective” loudly while having “your results may vary” spoken quickly and quietly and listed in the fine print of the commercial of our lives.
The Washington Post article is, deliberately or not, pointing up the logical inconsistencies in popular thinking, and for which the popular thinking has a total blind spot.
A friend of mine recently had a serious bout with Covid – she's in her 30s – and yesterday said she's having some serious heart problems as a result. I asked if she'd been vaccinated and she said yes. I pointed out that vaccinated people who have not been infected are also having heart problems, so there may be no way of knowing if hers are a result of the infection or the vaccination; she didn't argue back, at least.
I suppose that the we should take a big, strong look at something called...individual differences? I find it fascinating that they are shocked that the elderly are dying, even when vaccinated. They already have poor immune function, likely to have may comorbidities, and many are likely to be living in care facilities where they are close to other elderly. If it's not COVID it's something else like the flu, and so I find it hard to look at this and see how this is such a huge shocker to these people.
I mean let's face it; in the US many of us are fat, lazy, and all of this was exacerbated by the lockdowns, and yet we are still curious as to why the US may not have done well with Delta. People should have used this time to take their own health into their hands rather than sit around and continuously jab themselves.
In the UK, 92% of the Covid deaths are among the vaccinated. And the CDC wants me to believe that only 40% of the deaths in the US are among the vaccinated? Give me a break
I have a bridge to sell also, sale restricted only to vaccinated and boosted people
Next time, come up with a vaccine that halts the aging process.
We have a lot of reasons to disbelieve their stats. We need to fix that.
How many of the fatalities received early treatment? How many would have recovered if they had? Denying them proper care was criminal, on many levels. We need to fix that.
The loss of a few old and sick people is unfortunate, but the damage done to society by the failures of so many institutions might be insurmountable. As more people learn the extent of the deception, and the corruption that drove it, the reactions will be harsh. Many of the survivors of the virus won't survive the repercussions. Hard times ahead.
Of all the tragedies of this 'pandemic', there may be nothing more disheartening than the people who believed the lie that these products would protect them and died or fell seriously ill anyway- particularly if they might have not reacted that way in an unjabbed state. 'They' are still telling lies. I wonder how long they'll keep at it. I am closely watching the FDA and the under age 5 authorization. Surely, not... right?
Footnote 1: but I trusted you...