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.
It's a great work, though I'm not sure if they're being as rigorous with the evidence for altered innate immune response as I'd like. The innate immune response shouldn't be expected to be the same, since... the vaccines are not viruses. So just showing a difference here doesn't prove relevance to same. But otherwise looks great, I'm still working my way through it (some of it overlaps with the previously posted https://osf.io/bcsa6/) .
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 scale of study on the actual biological response to these injections is mind-boggling in its tininess. Phase I for BioNTech, which was just a handful of participants, and then some other independent handfuls, and that's it. There are probably more billionaires on Earth than blood samples of Covid vaccine recipients collected in controlled conditions.
Most of epidemiology is, in practice, the art of "generalizing inappropriately." The end is to create incoherent "facts" that can be given to the media and government, akin to oracle-consulting.
I agree, the small sample size issue is glaring (and as more real world data comes in, essentially impossible to genuinely defend). As with so many topics now, the average, “uneducated” person if presented with the numbers would likely lack confidence that anyone could draw firm conclusions from them… and yet much of the “educated, expert” class who should definitely know better (especially anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of statistics) are forced to defend studies that are quite literally just noise or bury their head in the sand and avoid looking at the actual data, deferring to others’ simply because it’s not their exact field (“I must be missing something because I have already been told the authoritative conclusion!”) I’m not sure what is more abhorrent, the folks in pharma/government who are paid to remark on how beautiful the Emperor’s clothes are or the ones who go along with any direct payoff. The latter certainly make me more depressed, anyway.
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.
At the least it's clear that the vaxx failed to prevent the issue and aside from the Israel survey study the evidence that the vaxx's reduce incidence of long-term effects / Long Covid is basically not there. Though for cardiac I would be inclined to guess a combination of priming + diminishing that ends up being a net negative or a wash.
There's also a possible treatment confounder (Rem. or Mon.), as far as heart issues, esp. if rhythm related, but that's a wild wild speculation on my part, and obviously doesn't apply if neither was given.
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.
Indeed. Though I also think that in a lot of the health networks used in the CDC tracker, the Covid cult didn't embrace sloth to any great degree. Here in CA most of the vaxxed seem to be keeping up with their exercise routines, bearing in mind survivorship bias (go to the park or the beach or the gym and you are only seeing the ones who *didn't* have a health downturn) and that outside of SF it's not easy to tell who is or isn't vaxxed. So my hunch is that the infection outcomes in CA are heavily influenced by health user bias, and if there are enough pockets of this in the CDC set (I think King County would also count here), it could explain some of the numbers. But there's plenty of states in the set that shouldn't have the same effect. So I still lean to "these numbers are cooked." I just wouldn't bet the farm on it.
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
All these state health departments are probably incompetent or lying. The Post analysis claims to restrict to "known" vaccination status, which should actually skew unfavorably for the vaxxed (because how do you "register" to be unvaccinated in your state?). So it should look much worse for all sorts of reasons.
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.
Institutions are disposable. Or perhaps recyclable, compostable... anyway. Society is more resilient than these corrupted and used-up loci of power. Truth and reconciliation: large numbers of people being fired and forced into new career paths, smaller but significant numbers going to jail, probably a few really should face the death penalty. But then we can rebuild. Hard times come around every so often. It's life.
Societies are the sum of individuals and institutions that compose them. They're recycled all the time, but society itself changes more slowly. The Biden recession that began this quarter might accelerate it a bit.
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?
All vaccines are a lottery, with the "winning" prize being both that you were ever fated to get sick / die and that the vaccine prevents it. It's cruel luck to only hit the mark on the first one; and there's no way to know if it was actually the vax that placed you in the "get sick / die" group. For the Covid vaccines this is true even among the groups where severe outcomes are "more likely." They are still not "likely" for any given individual. It is only in a collectivist logic that vaccines make any sense. For the groups where severe outcomes are rare, there was never any argument.
But I know from a first-hand conversation that there is no such thing as "rare" in the mindset of the believers. No matter how small the rate, they believe they need "some" protection (as if the immune system isn't already protection).
Right, and why I'm at least half a foot out of my camp these days. It's not the erosion of apparent efficacy in the post-Wuhan-strain that is surprising, but the inconsistency of that erosion. It should be easy enough to say "well, it worked with the old spike, now it stopped - and since we can see it stopped, that proves the previous effect wasn't bias." The UK data actually looks this way, but not many other spots.
Delta didn't so much hone in on the middle aged as appear to add them to the bag. If the 40% running "baseline" of the 50-74 group in the Post-CDC by-age graph is mostly 65+, then what Delta seems to have done is grab a lot of 40-64 year olds and thrown them in. They're still only probably dying something like 25% as much as the 65+, which would match the all-cause excess spread in usmortality.com, and would put them at 20% of the overall. So the choice of age-groups is just weird in that graph.
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.
It's a great work, though I'm not sure if they're being as rigorous with the evidence for altered innate immune response as I'd like. The innate immune response shouldn't be expected to be the same, since... the vaccines are not viruses. So just showing a difference here doesn't prove relevance to same. But otherwise looks great, I'm still working my way through it (some of it overlaps with the previously posted https://osf.io/bcsa6/) .
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 scale of study on the actual biological response to these injections is mind-boggling in its tininess. Phase I for BioNTech, which was just a handful of participants, and then some other independent handfuls, and that's it. There are probably more billionaires on Earth than blood samples of Covid vaccine recipients collected in controlled conditions.
Most of epidemiology is, in practice, the art of "generalizing inappropriately." The end is to create incoherent "facts" that can be given to the media and government, akin to oracle-consulting.
I agree, the small sample size issue is glaring (and as more real world data comes in, essentially impossible to genuinely defend). As with so many topics now, the average, “uneducated” person if presented with the numbers would likely lack confidence that anyone could draw firm conclusions from them… and yet much of the “educated, expert” class who should definitely know better (especially anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of statistics) are forced to defend studies that are quite literally just noise or bury their head in the sand and avoid looking at the actual data, deferring to others’ simply because it’s not their exact field (“I must be missing something because I have already been told the authoritative conclusion!”) I’m not sure what is more abhorrent, the folks in pharma/government who are paid to remark on how beautiful the Emperor’s clothes are or the ones who go along with any direct payoff. The latter certainly make me more depressed, anyway.
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.
At the least it's clear that the vaxx failed to prevent the issue and aside from the Israel survey study the evidence that the vaxx's reduce incidence of long-term effects / Long Covid is basically not there. Though for cardiac I would be inclined to guess a combination of priming + diminishing that ends up being a net negative or a wash.
There's also a possible treatment confounder (Rem. or Mon.), as far as heart issues, esp. if rhythm related, but that's a wild wild speculation on my part, and obviously doesn't apply if neither was given.
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.
Indeed. Though I also think that in a lot of the health networks used in the CDC tracker, the Covid cult didn't embrace sloth to any great degree. Here in CA most of the vaxxed seem to be keeping up with their exercise routines, bearing in mind survivorship bias (go to the park or the beach or the gym and you are only seeing the ones who *didn't* have a health downturn) and that outside of SF it's not easy to tell who is or isn't vaxxed. So my hunch is that the infection outcomes in CA are heavily influenced by health user bias, and if there are enough pockets of this in the CDC set (I think King County would also count here), it could explain some of the numbers. But there's plenty of states in the set that shouldn't have the same effect. So I still lean to "these numbers are cooked." I just wouldn't bet the farm on it.
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
All these state health departments are probably incompetent or lying. The Post analysis claims to restrict to "known" vaccination status, which should actually skew unfavorably for the vaxxed (because how do you "register" to be unvaccinated in your state?). So it should look much worse for all sorts of reasons.
Next time, come up with a vaccine that halts the aging process.
It prevents death in 100% of patient who are pure of heart. Too bad about the others, but they had it coming.
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.
Institutions are disposable. Or perhaps recyclable, compostable... anyway. Society is more resilient than these corrupted and used-up loci of power. Truth and reconciliation: large numbers of people being fired and forced into new career paths, smaller but significant numbers going to jail, probably a few really should face the death penalty. But then we can rebuild. Hard times come around every so often. It's life.
Societies are the sum of individuals and institutions that compose them. They're recycled all the time, but society itself changes more slowly. The Biden recession that began this quarter might accelerate it a bit.
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?
All vaccines are a lottery, with the "winning" prize being both that you were ever fated to get sick / die and that the vaccine prevents it. It's cruel luck to only hit the mark on the first one; and there's no way to know if it was actually the vax that placed you in the "get sick / die" group. For the Covid vaccines this is true even among the groups where severe outcomes are "more likely." They are still not "likely" for any given individual. It is only in a collectivist logic that vaccines make any sense. For the groups where severe outcomes are rare, there was never any argument.
But I know from a first-hand conversation that there is no such thing as "rare" in the mindset of the believers. No matter how small the rate, they believe they need "some" protection (as if the immune system isn't already protection).
Footnote 1: but I trusted you...
Sometimes it takes a few tries. I honest, SUPER-duper-swear.
Is she mourning her husband or the faith in the vaccine, is the question.
Right, and why I'm at least half a foot out of my camp these days. It's not the erosion of apparent efficacy in the post-Wuhan-strain that is surprising, but the inconsistency of that erosion. It should be easy enough to say "well, it worked with the old spike, now it stopped - and since we can see it stopped, that proves the previous effect wasn't bias." The UK data actually looks this way, but not many other spots.
Delta didn't so much hone in on the middle aged as appear to add them to the bag. If the 40% running "baseline" of the 50-74 group in the Post-CDC by-age graph is mostly 65+, then what Delta seems to have done is grab a lot of 40-64 year olds and thrown them in. They're still only probably dying something like 25% as much as the 65+, which would match the all-cause excess spread in usmortality.com, and would put them at 20% of the overall. So the choice of age-groups is just weird in that graph.