We know that T-cells cannot activate B-cells to produce antibodies when a person has low calcifediol levels (20ng/ml or lower it seems.)
What if that also prevents them from removing the shed S-protein from their blood stream (because macrophages etc cannot find them) and thus causes more blood clots and more attacks on important organs.
Has anyone measured the serum levels of calcifediol in those who died suddenly? Is there a negative correlation?
It's probably safe to guess that low D-25 wouldn't make anything better. But the Covid vaccinated may be insulated from circulating spike damage thanks to anti-spike antibodies. Hence severe efficacy on the one hand and possibly tempered direct toxicity of repeat injections on the other (the recent Nordic booster myocarditis study notwithstanding). Accordingly, Röltgen et al. found that circulating spike is transient after the second dose but that this is probably because it is being masked by previously generated antibodies https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)00076-9. So the biggest risk as far as circulating spike and clotting might be the first injection, afterward it isn't as big a deal during later injections or infection.
However, you still have the problem of direct cellular destruction from the virus and immune-mediated destruction from both (to whatever extent it isn't suppressed by IgG4).
Brian, I have recommended your stack, I find very interesting and informative. We may not agree all of the time but you are very smart, detailed, high quality. Thanks for your work. Excellent.
The myocarditis/pericarditis signals were there, clear as day, starting in mid-2021. I work in high tech manufacturing where control charts rule. Take a look at figures 1, and 2 in this paper... these control charts are SCREAMING that something changed, and the change DID NOT happen during the Covid wave of 2020. The mRNA trouble was apparent 16 months ago. We are still diddling about. Shame on all of us.
Oh yes - and I think July was already when the CDC literally acknowledged myocarditis in teen boys on their site. So really they’re just a scapegoat, as often the case, for the PMC / media’s fanatical refusal to question the shots.
I’ll say I have been a skeptic of the HIV>AIDS hypothesis for a long time. Certainly the play-book was reused for SARS-CoV-2 in terms of dropping the ball on straight forward treatment in the service of focusing on a vaccine (until Paxlovid, which was an unexpected (supposedly) home run). The Real Anthony Fauci is also very compelling on this point. But the case for SARS-CoV-2 being what makes people sick seems pretty strong imo.
Sure, I did not mean to imply that SARS-CoV-2 was not making people sick. I had a virus in January of this year, and although the fever went away very quickly (and I didn't have to take the horse paste I have) I had a persistent cough for about two weeks after that.
However, I take lots of Vitamin D and also get exercise and fresh air every day.
As a reader I want a “ block person” button for others who are basically spamming many people stacks with the same rants that I don’t want to see anymore.
Time and space are precious and all comments make it too long to participate and read. It takes away from others who are nice and are contributing properly.
Plus if I comment I don’t want certain people responding who are combative.
Not subjective at all - it’s a huge New Users Bias problem. Substack needs downvotes; but also, the problem is fed by a lot of churn in this particular ecosystem where people get exhausted by clickbait articles and tune out after a few weeks. Clickbait articles foster like-bait comments.
I think a "block person (commenter)" would be more useful and less likely to aggravate certain posters from piling on more defensive and thus less informative responses if they receive downvotes. So ATM I am not in favor of downvote but would welcome a "block person".
I at least appreciate how he seems to understand that the topic of vaccine safety is all just propaganda, politics and money. No histrionics like EFD. Anyway his feed is a good source of tips, like this study
Read you regularly, James. Keep up the great work.
Incidentally, for your reference, I have two graduate degrees from major institutions. Just to give you a sense of who is reading your work. And I try to pass on info from you as much as I can....
While mRNA does exist and it has been around ever since the Soviets invented it in 1981, but nobody dared to use it in public, because it would start an uncontrollable chain reaction.
mRNA seems to be a red herring, a cover-up for the graphene-oxide/5G combination:
BTW, I didn't circulate the weaponized anthrax spores ("Amerithrax") via the US Postal Service (nor any other way; at all), despite the Deseret News and ksl.com saying I did. I had to have an interview with an FBI contractor to show I didn't.
Graphene/Graphene oxide/5G is 100% the red herring. Thank you Brian!
Indeed, if people could only understand the unnatural implications of playing God with our cellular machinery, using codon-optimized mRNA representing a pathogenic, antigenic protein, and then applying pseudouridine in place of uridine to make it nearly fucking immortal... well.. THAT'S terrifying if you ask me.
People will inject whatever the TV and their doctor tells them to. If these shots had graphene in them, they could just list it on the ingredients. That is how I feel about graphene.
Graphene is the world's strongest material, and can be used to enhance the strength of other materials. Dozens of researchers have demonstrated that adding even a trace amount of graphene to plastics, metals or other materials can make these materials much stronger - or lighter (as you can use a smaller amount of material to achieve the same strength).
Surely injecting this stuff into a human body would be a good thing?
I think we should run some trials on NFL players -- we replace the steroids with graphene injections ... and we compare their sprint times before and after...
Good, bad, my point is just that the idea they would need to hide it like some big secret, invent RNA red herrings for it, isn’t valid. No one would care if it was listed (in whatever amount the graphenos crew claim to think it’s in there).
did i miss something in this study? they're comparing post vaccine myocarditis with the post infection variety. but it seems they need 3 groups: 1) post vaccine 2) post infection in previously vaccinated people and 3) post infection in unvaccinated people. if the vaccines actually prevented infection and transmission as they were first advertised, then group 2 would be vanishingly small. however, since they didn't work at all i would think that group 2 subjects would be easy to find. it is entirely possible that a few doses of mRNA weaken the heart to a degree that makes post infection myocarditis more likely even in those who didn't suffer outright myocarditis within the time frame being studied
i lost all respect for Eric Topol with his appearance on Sam Harris' podcast (i never had any respect for Harris. he seems like a full of himself blowhard). this just puts more nails in the coffin. hard to imagine that this is the same guy who took fire as a whistle blower on VIOXX and knows a thing or two about pharma sponsored death threats. i guess they only count when they're directed at him and his family. his hypocrisy is astounding!
The infection group is historical, from 2000 - 2019. And the 3 vaccine cases with a history of infection were removed. So there shouldn’t be any or much SARS-CoV-2 myocarditis.
I've probably mentioned this on Brian's Substack before, but I'll drop it here so the word-of-mouth reach is farther since it can't go through official channels.
At a small conference for cardiologists in Austria, 2021, these experienced experts had been keeping their own tally of suspected myocarditis post-vax. (You can't just jab a needle in and grab biopsies of young, healthy people.) They had a rate of one in six for boys. Girls they weren't sure because the tests they were using didn't show positives, so they didn't know how to interpret that yet. They said it was likely that all of us who got the vaccine had heart injury, and simply didn't run to the doctor when it got harder climbing up stairs, and din't realize what the symptoms mean.
Another point to keep in mind for future data: Dr. Brown put this post out a couple days ago talking about what Ethical Skeptic has been doing: https://docbrown77.substack.com/p/ethical-skeptic-with-more-interesting. It basically shows that they have tried to disguise the data signals for heart injury etc. for Cov Vaccines by adding on a lot of new ICD codes -- therefore instead of 10,000 'myocarditis' cases (which is what we'd search for in the database), these injuries may be labeled under 20 different name-codes, thus erasing the signal and hiding them.
I’ll say I’m intrinsically “skeptical” of the “data will win” approach to this medical holocaust in general, and extra since ES started assuming hidden cancer deaths this year. I’m intrigued by the idea that heart stuff has been camouflaged though.
Delightfully at a time in which they are criticizing people for 'not trusting science' they make the data deplorably unusable. Leaving us with what? Case reports, gut feeling, gossip. Back to the knowledge-generation tools that humans relied on for centuries, as 'best evidence' data undergoes controlled demolition.
Here's another serious problem with this study. It fails to adjust for Venn overlap between the jabbed and those with viral infection-related myocarditis when comparing the two groups.
"We observed very low incidence rates (<1 per 10,000 person-days) of mortality, heart failure, and dilated cardiomyopathy following myocarditis after mRNA vaccination, in contrast with incidence rates of 7, 8, and 2 per 10,000 person-days, respectively, among the viral infection–related myocarditis patients."
How do you mean? It's unlikely any post-virus (either pre-SARS-CoV-2 or post) myocarditis patients were in the post-vaccine group both because of the excluded heart conditions and because they would have probably ticked up more study outcomes on the vaccine side.
Covid jabs don't sterilize, so adjustments have to be made for overlap. Assume 75% jabbed rate and equal % in both jabbed and unjabbed groups get covid within a certain time frame, say 50%.
If there was no benefit and no harm from jabs causing myocarditis, we should expect to see a 3:1 RR ratio for jabbed:unjabbed getting myocarditis. <3:1 would show benefit and >3:1 would show harm. But the study doesn't compare the jabbed v unjabbed getting myocarditis following covid, so we have to dig deeper.
If comparison were made between jabbed getting myocarditis and those with covid getting myocarditis, the jabbed would _always_ show benefit v covid if benefit is stipulated as less risk from jabs v covid. But, because of overlap, adjustment has to be made. To show benefit when comparing the above rate of jab, the jabbed would have to show RR of less than 0.75 v covid.
If I am unclear, please let me know. If I have made an error, please let me know.
I think I am just having trouble understanding what observational model you are proposing. This study just follows individuals after myocarditis diagnosis, so no effect of the injection on rates of post-virus myocarditis can be measured since there is no denominator or distinction between [not-health-system-recorded] infected or not.
That echoes Igor's take on the VA paper on the time. Both are actually a bit mistaken in understanding the (incredibly crazy) study design. What I found after hacking at the design with different models is it is probably showing that the vaccine is causing myocarditis in those that were not prone to getting it from the virus. https://unglossed.substack.com/p/technical-difficulties
But better than having to model the effects that would account for the weird rates reported, would be if Al-Aly and Xie would show their raw data instead of perpetually manipulating it in their black box.
Demand autopsies and that medical systems work with health departments to disclose manufacturer and batch/lot number for those that have died. Require manufacturers provide complete disclosure of the exact chemical make-up (including amounts) for each manufacturer and batch/lot number
Another substack article about this:
"The Virus" 11 Times More Dangerous than Pfizer Jab, The Atlantic Quotes New "Study"
https://live2fightanotherday.substack.com/p/the-virus-9-times-more-dangerous
We know that T-cells cannot activate B-cells to produce antibodies when a person has low calcifediol levels (20ng/ml or lower it seems.)
What if that also prevents them from removing the shed S-protein from their blood stream (because macrophages etc cannot find them) and thus causes more blood clots and more attacks on important organs.
Has anyone measured the serum levels of calcifediol in those who died suddenly? Is there a negative correlation?
It's probably safe to guess that low D-25 wouldn't make anything better. But the Covid vaccinated may be insulated from circulating spike damage thanks to anti-spike antibodies. Hence severe efficacy on the one hand and possibly tempered direct toxicity of repeat injections on the other (the recent Nordic booster myocarditis study notwithstanding). Accordingly, Röltgen et al. found that circulating spike is transient after the second dose but that this is probably because it is being masked by previously generated antibodies https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)00076-9. So the biggest risk as far as circulating spike and clotting might be the first injection, afterward it isn't as big a deal during later injections or infection.
However, you still have the problem of direct cellular destruction from the virus and immune-mediated destruction from both (to whatever extent it isn't suppressed by IgG4).
Indeed, have there been any studies of antibody levels of any type looking at serum calcifediol levels except for the one I posted a while ago?
"But the Covid vaccinated may be insulated from circulating spike damage thanks to anti-spike antibodies."
Sure, but if your B-cells are not producing any antibodies because your serum calcifediol levels are too low ...
Have there been any studies that measure SARS-CoV-2 spike levels vs serum calcifediol levels?
I'm not aware of any, but I don't follow the treatment and nutrition stuff that closely.
Brian, I have recommended your stack, I find very interesting and informative. We may not agree all of the time but you are very smart, detailed, high quality. Thanks for your work. Excellent.
The myocarditis/pericarditis signals were there, clear as day, starting in mid-2021. I work in high tech manufacturing where control charts rule. Take a look at figures 1, and 2 in this paper... these control charts are SCREAMING that something changed, and the change DID NOT happen during the Covid wave of 2020. The mRNA trouble was apparent 16 months ago. We are still diddling about. Shame on all of us.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2782900
Oh yes - and I think July was already when the CDC literally acknowledged myocarditis in teen boys on their site. So really they’re just a scapegoat, as often the case, for the PMC / media’s fanatical refusal to question the shots.
I just noticed that Ch 6 of Peter Duesberg's book on AIDS is titled: "A Fabricated Epidemic"
https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Duesberg-1996-Chapter-Six.pdf
That seems to apply to Covid-19. What do you think?
I’ll say I have been a skeptic of the HIV>AIDS hypothesis for a long time. Certainly the play-book was reused for SARS-CoV-2 in terms of dropping the ball on straight forward treatment in the service of focusing on a vaccine (until Paxlovid, which was an unexpected (supposedly) home run). The Real Anthony Fauci is also very compelling on this point. But the case for SARS-CoV-2 being what makes people sick seems pretty strong imo.
Sure, I did not mean to imply that SARS-CoV-2 was not making people sick. I had a virus in January of this year, and although the fever went away very quickly (and I didn't have to take the horse paste I have) I had a persistent cough for about two weeks after that.
However, I take lots of Vitamin D and also get exercise and fresh air every day.
That is a good point.
I get a lot of value from your posts so I subscribed and threw in some money.
Thanks! Value is what I try to provide.
As a reader I want a “ block person” button for others who are basically spamming many people stacks with the same rants that I don’t want to see anymore.
Time and space are precious and all comments make it too long to participate and read. It takes away from others who are nice and are contributing properly.
Plus if I comment I don’t want certain people responding who are combative.
It’s subjective but I don’t like it.
Not subjective at all - it’s a huge New Users Bias problem. Substack needs downvotes; but also, the problem is fed by a lot of churn in this particular ecosystem where people get exhausted by clickbait articles and tune out after a few weeks. Clickbait articles foster like-bait comments.
I think a "block person (commenter)" would be more useful and less likely to aggravate certain posters from piling on more defensive and thus less informative responses if they receive downvotes. So ATM I am not in favor of downvote but would welcome a "block person".
Yes. “Down votes” function button sounds like a good idea too. Lol.
Thanks.
1 of 100?
I can hear the CovIDIOTS now --- oh that's not so bad --- without the vax 50 out of 100 who caught Covid would die.
It's a price worth paying.
And come on man - 99 out of 100 don't die --- that's an amazing result. These vaccines are safe. Don't be stupid
1 death in a 100 every .5 years is totally normal assuming a totally normal life expectancy of 50, which is normal.
Grrrrrreat post!
Thanks!
That number (to date) is more plausible that what one hears and sees elsewhere. But why pay Eric Topolotron any mind?
Was this for the post or for another comment?
I didn't even see the comments mentioning Eric Topol until after I wrote that. I wrote him off about the time I was blind with cataracts pre-covid-19.
I at least appreciate how he seems to understand that the topic of vaccine safety is all just propaganda, politics and money. No histrionics like EFD. Anyway his feed is a good source of tips, like this study
Read you regularly, James. Keep up the great work.
Incidentally, for your reference, I have two graduate degrees from major institutions. Just to give you a sense of who is reading your work. And I try to pass on info from you as much as I can....
While mRNA does exist and it has been around ever since the Soviets invented it in 1981, but nobody dared to use it in public, because it would start an uncontrollable chain reaction.
mRNA seems to be a red herring, a cover-up for the graphene-oxide/5G combination:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/mrna
Through the evil giants:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/the-invasion-of-the-infernal-towers
Wouldn't it be time to reconsider the criminal/fraudulent "medical" paradigm?
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/an-alternative-theory-of-diseases
Nature, specifically ribosomes, "invented" mRNA several billion years ago.
See also https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/confronting-a-naked-emperor
BTW, I didn't circulate the weaponized anthrax spores ("Amerithrax") via the US Postal Service (nor any other way; at all), despite the Deseret News and ksl.com saying I did. I had to have an interview with an FBI contractor to show I didn't.
But not the way the monsters would like to use it...
Disagree. Graphene is the red herring. It’s even an anagram for it if you turn the p upside down and add extra letters.
Graphene/Graphene oxide/5G is 100% the red herring. Thank you Brian!
Indeed, if people could only understand the unnatural implications of playing God with our cellular machinery, using codon-optimized mRNA representing a pathogenic, antigenic protein, and then applying pseudouridine in place of uridine to make it nearly fucking immortal... well.. THAT'S terrifying if you ask me.
I'm sure there are similar word games available for mRNA and for "spike protein." :)
You have the right to your opinion and thank you for allowing me to voice mine.
How do you feel about graphene oxide that 5G can turn into graphene hydroxide?
People will inject whatever the TV and their doctor tells them to. If these shots had graphene in them, they could just list it on the ingredients. That is how I feel about graphene.
Graphene is the world's strongest material, and can be used to enhance the strength of other materials. Dozens of researchers have demonstrated that adding even a trace amount of graphene to plastics, metals or other materials can make these materials much stronger - or lighter (as you can use a smaller amount of material to achieve the same strength).
Surely injecting this stuff into a human body would be a good thing?
I think we should run some trials on NFL players -- we replace the steroids with graphene injections ... and we compare their sprint times before and after...
Good, bad, my point is just that the idea they would need to hide it like some big secret, invent RNA red herrings for it, isn’t valid. No one would care if it was listed (in whatever amount the graphenos crew claim to think it’s in there).
I meant that as a sarc :)
Finally,someone who knows what he is talking about. Not necessarily mattering anymore:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/is-substack-now-turning-completely
And here is my good-bye:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/planned-electric-blackout-arriving
Can that be called a cruel form of natural selection?
Mothers, for sure, seem to have more pragmatic readons every once in a while:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/die-baby-die-you-or-mummy-will-be
Please, read the history of mass poisoning before you "feel" anything about graphene:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/a-summary-of-general-poisoning
did i miss something in this study? they're comparing post vaccine myocarditis with the post infection variety. but it seems they need 3 groups: 1) post vaccine 2) post infection in previously vaccinated people and 3) post infection in unvaccinated people. if the vaccines actually prevented infection and transmission as they were first advertised, then group 2 would be vanishingly small. however, since they didn't work at all i would think that group 2 subjects would be easy to find. it is entirely possible that a few doses of mRNA weaken the heart to a degree that makes post infection myocarditis more likely even in those who didn't suffer outright myocarditis within the time frame being studied
i lost all respect for Eric Topol with his appearance on Sam Harris' podcast (i never had any respect for Harris. he seems like a full of himself blowhard). this just puts more nails in the coffin. hard to imagine that this is the same guy who took fire as a whistle blower on VIOXX and knows a thing or two about pharma sponsored death threats. i guess they only count when they're directed at him and his family. his hypocrisy is astounding!
The infection group is historical, from 2000 - 2019. And the 3 vaccine cases with a history of infection were removed. So there shouldn’t be any or much SARS-CoV-2 myocarditis.
Added clarification to opening sentence of the post. I was more focused on the visuals on this one.
I've probably mentioned this on Brian's Substack before, but I'll drop it here so the word-of-mouth reach is farther since it can't go through official channels.
At a small conference for cardiologists in Austria, 2021, these experienced experts had been keeping their own tally of suspected myocarditis post-vax. (You can't just jab a needle in and grab biopsies of young, healthy people.) They had a rate of one in six for boys. Girls they weren't sure because the tests they were using didn't show positives, so they didn't know how to interpret that yet. They said it was likely that all of us who got the vaccine had heart injury, and simply didn't run to the doctor when it got harder climbing up stairs, and din't realize what the symptoms mean.
Another point to keep in mind for future data: Dr. Brown put this post out a couple days ago talking about what Ethical Skeptic has been doing: https://docbrown77.substack.com/p/ethical-skeptic-with-more-interesting. It basically shows that they have tried to disguise the data signals for heart injury etc. for Cov Vaccines by adding on a lot of new ICD codes -- therefore instead of 10,000 'myocarditis' cases (which is what we'd search for in the database), these injuries may be labeled under 20 different name-codes, thus erasing the signal and hiding them.
EDIT: Jessica Rose just put this post out talking about them erasing text from the myocarditis entries and thus making the signal disappear: https://jessicar.substack.com/p/a-new-development-in-the-foreign
Unreal but not surprising anymore
Thanks for sharing this info
I’ll say I’m intrinsically “skeptical” of the “data will win” approach to this medical holocaust in general, and extra since ES started assuming hidden cancer deaths this year. I’m intrigued by the idea that heart stuff has been camouflaged though.
Wow. Thanks for posting this!
The very fact that they created the new codes is nefarious and a bad indication that there is some bad data there they are hiding.
Delightfully at a time in which they are criticizing people for 'not trusting science' they make the data deplorably unusable. Leaving us with what? Case reports, gut feeling, gossip. Back to the knowledge-generation tools that humans relied on for centuries, as 'best evidence' data undergoes controlled demolition.
Everyone knows that releasing a swan and seeing which way it flies is the gold standard in evidence based medicine.
My manual is out of date - I thought we were still using entrails. 🥸
No no no no no - That’s for deciding what Elon Musk says next.
Why does that make more sense? 🤔
Yep.
Here's another serious problem with this study. It fails to adjust for Venn overlap between the jabbed and those with viral infection-related myocarditis when comparing the two groups.
"We observed very low incidence rates (<1 per 10,000 person-days) of mortality, heart failure, and dilated cardiomyopathy following myocarditis after mRNA vaccination, in contrast with incidence rates of 7, 8, and 2 per 10,000 person-days, respectively, among the viral infection–related myocarditis patients."
How do you mean? It's unlikely any post-virus (either pre-SARS-CoV-2 or post) myocarditis patients were in the post-vaccine group both because of the excluded heart conditions and because they would have probably ticked up more study outcomes on the vaccine side.
Covid jabs don't sterilize, so adjustments have to be made for overlap. Assume 75% jabbed rate and equal % in both jabbed and unjabbed groups get covid within a certain time frame, say 50%.
If there was no benefit and no harm from jabs causing myocarditis, we should expect to see a 3:1 RR ratio for jabbed:unjabbed getting myocarditis. <3:1 would show benefit and >3:1 would show harm. But the study doesn't compare the jabbed v unjabbed getting myocarditis following covid, so we have to dig deeper.
If comparison were made between jabbed getting myocarditis and those with covid getting myocarditis, the jabbed would _always_ show benefit v covid if benefit is stipulated as less risk from jabs v covid. But, because of overlap, adjustment has to be made. To show benefit when comparing the above rate of jab, the jabbed would have to show RR of less than 0.75 v covid.
If I am unclear, please let me know. If I have made an error, please let me know.
I think I am just having trouble understanding what observational model you are proposing. This study just follows individuals after myocarditis diagnosis, so no effect of the injection on rates of post-virus myocarditis can be measured since there is no denominator or distinction between [not-health-system-recorded] infected or not.
I was using more of an apples-to-apples comparison. Adding in other viruses just muddies the water.
See Claire Craig's analysis for something much closer to what is needed.
https://dailysceptic.org/archive/heart-problems-after-covid-are-much-worse-for-the-vaccinated-nature-study-shows-but-its-hidden-in-the-appendix/
We need a followup on that article, where we look at data for each type of jab. That would require corresponding with authors.
That echoes Igor's take on the VA paper on the time. Both are actually a bit mistaken in understanding the (incredibly crazy) study design. What I found after hacking at the design with different models is it is probably showing that the vaccine is causing myocarditis in those that were not prone to getting it from the virus. https://unglossed.substack.com/p/technical-difficulties
But better than having to model the effects that would account for the weird rates reported, would be if Al-Aly and Xie would show their raw data instead of perpetually manipulating it in their black box.
Some breaking news from Germany:
https://leemuller.substack.com/p/breaking-demand-autopsies-and-that
Demand autopsies and that medical systems work with health departments to disclose manufacturer and batch/lot number for those that have died. Require manufacturers provide complete disclosure of the exact chemical make-up (including amounts) for each manufacturer and batch/lot number
https://leemuller.substack.com/p/breaking-news-the-us-government-affirms
I don't think they can disclose the exact chemical make-up between precipitation, sludging from inadequate cold chain, etc.