Extensive antibody profiling and T-cell responses in the individuals who developed postvaccine myocarditis were essentially indistinguishable from those of vaccinated control subjects, despite a modest increase in cytokine production. A notable finding was that markedly elevated levels of full-length spike protein (33.9±22.4 pg/mL), unbound by antibodies, were detected in the plasma of individuals with postvaccine myocarditis, whereas no free spike was detected in asymptomatic vaccinated control subjects (unpaired t test; P<0.0001).
So since this paper uses "second dose within the last three weeks" for the control, the finding of no spike protein in controls is probably just an accident of timing. The myocarditis samples were more immediate.
I'm not sure whether this would validate Girardot's theory or not since the essential character of the same is that it just assumes an unfalsifiable fact.
*Edit. Oh wait that's interesting. The supplemental shows control levels by day from dose 1 and there isn't even a post-dose-2 bump. So that shows even better "masking" than Röltgen et al. Maybe a difference in the limit of detection though.
**Edit 2 Yeah the LOD would cut off most of the post-dose-2 bump observed by Röltgen et al. So even imagining that the bump in controls is still there, but under the LOD, it turns out to be meaningful that the myocarditis cases are well above the LOD.
Right..... the paper includes time series data that continues to show the distinction, not obscured by LOD, between vax'ed myocarditis vs not myocarditis patients. This to me is extraordinary evidence tying the shots not staying in the arm to this bad outcome. The free floating spike may be the symptom, but it still validates Girardot's now five cumulative posts building on the subject of inadvertent IV injection. He has shouted the loudest about this.... and for that I give him credit.
I still don't find the IM/IV distinction necessary for explaining divergent harms. There are layers and layers of inconsistency in the production and biological action. McKernan found that a whole vial didn't even have phosphorus in it. So that vial wouldn't very well generate flee-floating spike regardless of "bolus," in that case.
Girardot explicitly and naively assumes those inconstancies away to assert that pharmokinetics is the only variable. That's baseless. Note also that patient 4 in Fig S7 appears to only show up 2.5 weeks after injection with not much IgG or spike as if he is playing out the whole process in slow-mo.
I am aware of the "protein blank" vial finding, but that can't be the case in the majority of injections. I realize that Marc is one trick pony, and that he minimizes the role of the spike itself, which is likely wrong. Still, in the grand pareto of variables that determine risk of harm from a given injection, which may include such things as batch purity (see the recent chromatographs showing extra peaks going around now via Jikkyleaks and others), injection number (dose vs outcome), and degree of IV leakage... I believe that degree of IV leakage is a powerful factor.
Look down this post from naturopath Colleen Huber, about 2/3 down... the photograph of the poor soul experiencing VITT. Here's my question to readers: What shoulder do you think he was injected in?
I don't disagree with that way of framing it. But Girardot's thinking seems to be "random harm can't possibly happen without some explanation." Very un-Jurassic Park Jeff Goldblum view of things. The people trying to inject this stuff can't even remember to dilute it half the time, Pfizer made the vials all require different methods.
How do we know that there is anything to catch-up in the first place?
In my understanding, a catch-up effect like the one, you claim the Cleveland Clinic boosters study is showing, is only possible if for a limited period of time the vaccine has any positive efficacy against infection at all.
Is there a study, like the above one but done previously, that unequivocally shows it? I mean protocols like "get tested upon symptoms" are not conclusive, as the vaccine could suppress the symptoms without preventing the infection and transmission.
My anecdotal experience from my vaxxed friends shows exactly the opposite. A particularly telling example is this: a very close friend of mine worked for almost two years during the pandemic as a kindergarten teacher and never got covid. In December 2022 she finally caved in to the constant pressure and got vaccinated. Exactly one month later, lo and behold she got covid, even a nasty one. For her it is clearly causal, but that might be just an isolated case
As I have mentioned in my cleveland clinic post comments, my own second-hand anecdotal experience is that I caught Omi from a just-boosted person in Jan 21. So I didn't expect to see evidence that the boosted were still catching up. But now I have seen it, in the BA.5 summer survey (https://unglossed.substack.com/p/the-ba5-summer-survey-study), in the cleveland clinic study, and here again in the German study (which echoes the BA.5 summer survey in using self-reported infections but substantiates it with N-antibodies).
So the evidence that an infection / natural immunity gap in the boosted still existed by late summer / autumn keeps piling up.
Lots of studies have shown temporary infection efficacy from boosters. Bar-On et al. found lower infections in the booster vs the booster-1 groups during both the 3rd and 4th dose rollout even though they happened right in the middle of the Delta (https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.27.21262679) and BA.1 waves (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2201570) in Israel so you wouldn't expect instant efficacy against infection. They also show that test rates aren't lower in the boosted.
That still might or might not reflect survivorship bias - people who get infected during waves don't get boosters. It's a complicated question. But you are left with this group of boosted people who still don't have infections / natural immunity at the end either way, so it hardly matters whether the efficacy is a product of weird statistical illusions. The boosted make it to the end of the wave with fewer infections (whereas contemporary infection rates in the non-boosted, as shown in the Israel dashboard at the time, were the same as the unvaccinated).
As I have said elsewhere the best evidence that infection efficacy is real to begin with is that it goes away. So you track the injected and the unvaccinated, and suddenly, 3 to 4 months after injection, the injected group is getting infected (in a real-time view) as much as the unvaccinated when it wasn't before. So the post-infection-efficacy era injected are their own control group to validate the effect of the injection in the infection efficacy era.
but because the german government decides what does count as vaccinated and the "researchers"followed these rules they concluded that only 67.6 % where vaccinated.
participants were asked how often they had been in contact with s antigen.
as if participants would be able to provide an accurate number...
but that number was necessary to determine whether the participants were to be counted as vaccinated or not according to german rules...
and this is even before the "study"starts...
"We concluded that SARS-CoV-2 immune response is complex and determined by
several factors. However, previous S-antigen contacts, that is, vaccinations and/or
infections, substantially contribute to SARS-CoV-2 humoral immunity. "
really?
what a surprise!
"Furthermore, previous S-antigen contacts are most predictive for serum neutralizing
activity against BQ.1.1, as observed for Wu01 and BA.4/5."
unbelievable, what an earth shattering conclusion!
the next nobel prize surely will be theirs!
the government paid for it, so the government decided what would be the outcome.
those "researchers" are nothing but whores.
it is as simple as that.
and to write : "Over half of volunteers in Germany's largest state appear to... still not have been infected yet."just shows that the writer does not have a clue...
Eh. You probably wouldn't have a problem with the "study" if I had misread it to imply that the vaccinated can't form an immune response after infection.
"94.4 % of participants were vaccinated.
but because the german government decides what does count as vaccinated and the "researchers"followed these rules they concluded that only 67.6 % where vaccinated." They literally count all dosed as vaccinated. Then they provide rates of compliance to recommendations. That's all.
The point of this post is to narrow the amount of time the reader needs to spend assessing the study, which I openly state is not very interesting. In so doing, I offered a fact about the results - "donors" "appear" X - that distresses you. Too bad.
Infected with SARS-CoV-2 isn't the same as "had Covid-19" right? Personally, I don't think I ever had Covid-19. I'm late 20s and every time I was around someone sick that tested positive I took a lot of vitamins and hoped for the best. Aren't most infections asymptomatic? In which case, these people are [at least someone] immune already, or developed it without getting sick?
Or are these high infection estimates inaccurately inflated?
Yeah, that's probably an overestimate. Or it certainly wouldn't apply to the parts of the country where loads of people were still trying to avoid the virus into this year. Either way there's lots of anecdotes for first-time infections as of this summer, so if Germany is only "a wave behind" the highly-boosted parts of the US then this study would still show a lot of uninfected.
Is it an underestimate due to asymptomatic infections? Maybe. It would be easier to tell if they had included some BA.1 binding / neutralization results since that would be a more fixed record of BA.1 infections than N antibodies, which fade out.
Jan 4, 2023·edited Jan 4, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
I have good reasons to believe that this nucleocapside not being found, has no significance on whether previous infection happened. Either there can be multiple pre infections as reported by people, and still no nucleocapside to be seen - unreliably detectable maybe?! Say no to that only if you are 100 certain.
Also, another factor. There are things that need to be found. And things that must not be found. And especially the large labs that are used for finding the nucleocapside, are labs with stakes in the matter (on mass testing and what not, one is Charité but the other big ones no less, but I am not giving too specific background here but they profit significantly of "looking for PCR positivity" still being and remaining a thing). Consider: They look with too many, over 40 cycles for PCR material because they want to find positive test outcomes. (In unvaccinated. Lower cutoff in vaccinated. Although the cycles will be the same only cutoff considered by authority changes ; still, you get the general method of fishing for positivity that is practiced). They might look with ever so slightly, plausibly deniably, inadequate methods for the nucleocapside, because "immunity through anything but transfection-generated antibodies" is politically undesired. Btw, IF nucleocapside is not easily found YET there. Then, the autopsy brain findings of only spike damage in absence of nucleocapside= vax damage might not be so clear.
You would still need to explain why self-reporting 0 infections lowers rate of N ab detection (ie, if it isn't explained by 0-infection-reporters being infected less, then what? and why does any chosen "then what" cause these people to report less infections? the obvious solution is that there is no "then what," they are just actually less-often-infected).
So with that, you can consider the issue of a whether the authors are using low-sensitivity test, or in other words their cut-off for N-positivity is too high. Which, probably they are. What would follow is that in a group which actually does have N antibodies, the authors have given us a lot of false negatives, but in a group which doesn't have N antibodies, the authors have saved us from a lot of false positives. So there's no win-win solution here. That's just baked into base rate fallacies in any system where selectivity isn't high, which antibody assays fall into by default.
I don't agree that it applies strongly for PCR. The proof is in the pudding as far as that goes. People who PCR+ don't get PCR+ later at the same rate as the rest of the population. Impossible if PCR+ doesnt selectively indicate infection. (So even if you have false positives they are such a low proportion of negatives that they don't matter; they can never dilute the true positives unless the virus stops creating waves.) This has been true at whatever thresholds are used IRL. There's no study where PCR+ didn't lead to immunity from later PCR+.
I find this study to be difficult to believe. The only people I know who did not have Covid yet are my parents who are Covid conscious and stay home a lot.
Literally everyone else I know had Covid.
And they are telling me that half of a German region did not have Covid?
I don't think I ever had it. Very early on I got sick but I believe it was strep throat because of the symptoms: mainly, extremely painful pressure in my sinus area, then it moved to my throat. It was over within 2-3 days (basically I just slept)... but 3 weeks later I got sick AGAIN but this time I went to the doctor, it was strep throat and I actually got antibiotics for it
Data:
- 29 year old, male
- hot climate (Florida; hot sun might reduce spread?)
- tobacco smoker (pipe; smokers have lower rates)
- take vitamins whenever I'm around someone sick
- never wore mask or took any shots
- never took any test, so I can't say if I ever would have tested positive or negative
- was in the presence of people that were sick and claimed to have tested positive multiple times
I do not live in a big city though; population 50,000. I suspect basically everyone in a big city has had it
It's pretty similar to the scene in S Korea, Japan - very little spread before Omicron. But Germany has always been extra confusing in this regard since it was never isolated geographically.
Let's not just skim around on the peripherals - let's call it what it is - we are under siege. The ghoulish cabal wants to exterminate "the unwashed masses" and they have told us many times in documents like Agenda 21 and 2030 and the Rockefeller document "Scenarios for the Future in Technology and International Development document as well as many others. And don't forget the Georgia Guidestones which were recently demolished - I guess people were cottoning on too easily from that clue. Don't expect the exterminators to make it easy for its prey.
Bombshell newly printed paper alert - Marc Girardot gets a trophy :
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.061025
RESULTS:
Extensive antibody profiling and T-cell responses in the individuals who developed postvaccine myocarditis were essentially indistinguishable from those of vaccinated control subjects, despite a modest increase in cytokine production. A notable finding was that markedly elevated levels of full-length spike protein (33.9±22.4 pg/mL), unbound by antibodies, were detected in the plasma of individuals with postvaccine myocarditis, whereas no free spike was detected in asymptomatic vaccinated control subjects (unpaired t test; P<0.0001).
Girardot must never get a trophy.
Röltgen et al. found that spike is only detectable a few days after the 2nd dose, after which it is probably masked by all the jacked up antibodies https://unglossed.substack.com/i/94252993/iv-tolerance-kills-vs-a-straw-breaking-the-camels-back-model
So since this paper uses "second dose within the last three weeks" for the control, the finding of no spike protein in controls is probably just an accident of timing. The myocarditis samples were more immediate.
I'm not sure whether this would validate Girardot's theory or not since the essential character of the same is that it just assumes an unfalsifiable fact.
*Edit. Oh wait that's interesting. The supplemental shows control levels by day from dose 1 and there isn't even a post-dose-2 bump. So that shows even better "masking" than Röltgen et al. Maybe a difference in the limit of detection though.
**Edit 2 Yeah the LOD would cut off most of the post-dose-2 bump observed by Röltgen et al. So even imagining that the bump in controls is still there, but under the LOD, it turns out to be meaningful that the myocarditis cases are well above the LOD.
Right..... the paper includes time series data that continues to show the distinction, not obscured by LOD, between vax'ed myocarditis vs not myocarditis patients. This to me is extraordinary evidence tying the shots not staying in the arm to this bad outcome. The free floating spike may be the symptom, but it still validates Girardot's now five cumulative posts building on the subject of inadvertent IV injection. He has shouted the loudest about this.... and for that I give him credit.
I still don't find the IM/IV distinction necessary for explaining divergent harms. There are layers and layers of inconsistency in the production and biological action. McKernan found that a whole vial didn't even have phosphorus in it. So that vial wouldn't very well generate flee-floating spike regardless of "bolus," in that case.
Girardot explicitly and naively assumes those inconstancies away to assert that pharmokinetics is the only variable. That's baseless. Note also that patient 4 in Fig S7 appears to only show up 2.5 weeks after injection with not much IgG or spike as if he is playing out the whole process in slow-mo.
Gutschi gives another guide to all the QA problems here https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/maria-gutschi-pharmd-on-lack-of-manufacturing
So people probably have different exposure levels, I have said so since my Liquid Cancer post, but there could be lots of reasons why.
I am aware of the "protein blank" vial finding, but that can't be the case in the majority of injections. I realize that Marc is one trick pony, and that he minimizes the role of the spike itself, which is likely wrong. Still, in the grand pareto of variables that determine risk of harm from a given injection, which may include such things as batch purity (see the recent chromatographs showing extra peaks going around now via Jikkyleaks and others), injection number (dose vs outcome), and degree of IV leakage... I believe that degree of IV leakage is a powerful factor.
Look down this post from naturopath Colleen Huber, about 2/3 down... the photograph of the poor soul experiencing VITT. Here's my question to readers: What shoulder do you think he was injected in?
https://colleenhuber.substack.com/p/forensic-evidence-from-the-clotshot
I don't disagree with that way of framing it. But Girardot's thinking seems to be "random harm can't possibly happen without some explanation." Very un-Jurassic Park Jeff Goldblum view of things. The people trying to inject this stuff can't even remember to dilute it half the time, Pfizer made the vials all require different methods.
How do we know that there is anything to catch-up in the first place?
In my understanding, a catch-up effect like the one, you claim the Cleveland Clinic boosters study is showing, is only possible if for a limited period of time the vaccine has any positive efficacy against infection at all.
Is there a study, like the above one but done previously, that unequivocally shows it? I mean protocols like "get tested upon symptoms" are not conclusive, as the vaccine could suppress the symptoms without preventing the infection and transmission.
My anecdotal experience from my vaxxed friends shows exactly the opposite. A particularly telling example is this: a very close friend of mine worked for almost two years during the pandemic as a kindergarten teacher and never got covid. In December 2022 she finally caved in to the constant pressure and got vaccinated. Exactly one month later, lo and behold she got covid, even a nasty one. For her it is clearly causal, but that might be just an isolated case
As I have mentioned in my cleveland clinic post comments, my own second-hand anecdotal experience is that I caught Omi from a just-boosted person in Jan 21. So I didn't expect to see evidence that the boosted were still catching up. But now I have seen it, in the BA.5 summer survey (https://unglossed.substack.com/p/the-ba5-summer-survey-study), in the cleveland clinic study, and here again in the German study (which echoes the BA.5 summer survey in using self-reported infections but substantiates it with N-antibodies).
So the evidence that an infection / natural immunity gap in the boosted still existed by late summer / autumn keeps piling up.
Lots of studies have shown temporary infection efficacy from boosters. Bar-On et al. found lower infections in the booster vs the booster-1 groups during both the 3rd and 4th dose rollout even though they happened right in the middle of the Delta (https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.27.21262679) and BA.1 waves (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2201570) in Israel so you wouldn't expect instant efficacy against infection. They also show that test rates aren't lower in the boosted.
That still might or might not reflect survivorship bias - people who get infected during waves don't get boosters. It's a complicated question. But you are left with this group of boosted people who still don't have infections / natural immunity at the end either way, so it hardly matters whether the efficacy is a product of weird statistical illusions. The boosted make it to the end of the wave with fewer infections (whereas contemporary infection rates in the non-boosted, as shown in the Israel dashboard at the time, were the same as the unvaccinated).
As I have said elsewhere the best evidence that infection efficacy is real to begin with is that it goes away. So you track the injected and the unvaccinated, and suddenly, 3 to 4 months after injection, the injected group is getting infected (in a real-time view) as much as the unvaccinated when it wasn't before. So the post-infection-efficacy era injected are their own control group to validate the effect of the injection in the infection efficacy era.
this "study"is a worthless piece of bullshit.
94.4 % of participants were vaccinated.
but because the german government decides what does count as vaccinated and the "researchers"followed these rules they concluded that only 67.6 % where vaccinated.
participants were asked how often they had been in contact with s antigen.
as if participants would be able to provide an accurate number...
but that number was necessary to determine whether the participants were to be counted as vaccinated or not according to german rules...
and this is even before the "study"starts...
"We concluded that SARS-CoV-2 immune response is complex and determined by
several factors. However, previous S-antigen contacts, that is, vaccinations and/or
infections, substantially contribute to SARS-CoV-2 humoral immunity. "
really?
what a surprise!
"Furthermore, previous S-antigen contacts are most predictive for serum neutralizing
activity against BQ.1.1, as observed for Wu01 and BA.4/5."
unbelievable, what an earth shattering conclusion!
the next nobel prize surely will be theirs!
the government paid for it, so the government decided what would be the outcome.
those "researchers" are nothing but whores.
it is as simple as that.
and to write : "Over half of volunteers in Germany's largest state appear to... still not have been infected yet."just shows that the writer does not have a clue...
Eh. You probably wouldn't have a problem with the "study" if I had misread it to imply that the vaccinated can't form an immune response after infection.
"94.4 % of participants were vaccinated.
but because the german government decides what does count as vaccinated and the "researchers"followed these rules they concluded that only 67.6 % where vaccinated." They literally count all dosed as vaccinated. Then they provide rates of compliance to recommendations. That's all.
The point of this post is to narrow the amount of time the reader needs to spend assessing the study, which I openly state is not very interesting. In so doing, I offered a fact about the results - "donors" "appear" X - that distresses you. Too bad.
Thank you for covering this paper!
"Never infected"
Are these numbers accurate? By Nov 2022, 94% of Americans were infected by SARS-CoV-2: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.19.22282525
Infected with SARS-CoV-2 isn't the same as "had Covid-19" right? Personally, I don't think I ever had Covid-19. I'm late 20s and every time I was around someone sick that tested positive I took a lot of vitamins and hoped for the best. Aren't most infections asymptomatic? In which case, these people are [at least someone] immune already, or developed it without getting sick?
Or are these high infection estimates inaccurately inflated?
Yeah, that's probably an overestimate. Or it certainly wouldn't apply to the parts of the country where loads of people were still trying to avoid the virus into this year. Either way there's lots of anecdotes for first-time infections as of this summer, so if Germany is only "a wave behind" the highly-boosted parts of the US then this study would still show a lot of uninfected.
Is it an underestimate due to asymptomatic infections? Maybe. It would be easier to tell if they had included some BA.1 binding / neutralization results since that would be a more fixed record of BA.1 infections than N antibodies, which fade out.
I have good reasons to believe that this nucleocapside not being found, has no significance on whether previous infection happened. Either there can be multiple pre infections as reported by people, and still no nucleocapside to be seen - unreliably detectable maybe?! Say no to that only if you are 100 certain.
Also, another factor. There are things that need to be found. And things that must not be found. And especially the large labs that are used for finding the nucleocapside, are labs with stakes in the matter (on mass testing and what not, one is Charité but the other big ones no less, but I am not giving too specific background here but they profit significantly of "looking for PCR positivity" still being and remaining a thing). Consider: They look with too many, over 40 cycles for PCR material because they want to find positive test outcomes. (In unvaccinated. Lower cutoff in vaccinated. Although the cycles will be the same only cutoff considered by authority changes ; still, you get the general method of fishing for positivity that is practiced). They might look with ever so slightly, plausibly deniably, inadequate methods for the nucleocapside, because "immunity through anything but transfection-generated antibodies" is politically undesired. Btw, IF nucleocapside is not easily found YET there. Then, the autopsy brain findings of only spike damage in absence of nucleocapside= vax damage might not be so clear.
You would still need to explain why self-reporting 0 infections lowers rate of N ab detection (ie, if it isn't explained by 0-infection-reporters being infected less, then what? and why does any chosen "then what" cause these people to report less infections? the obvious solution is that there is no "then what," they are just actually less-often-infected).
So with that, you can consider the issue of a whether the authors are using low-sensitivity test, or in other words their cut-off for N-positivity is too high. Which, probably they are. What would follow is that in a group which actually does have N antibodies, the authors have given us a lot of false negatives, but in a group which doesn't have N antibodies, the authors have saved us from a lot of false positives. So there's no win-win solution here. That's just baked into base rate fallacies in any system where selectivity isn't high, which antibody assays fall into by default.
I don't agree that it applies strongly for PCR. The proof is in the pudding as far as that goes. People who PCR+ don't get PCR+ later at the same rate as the rest of the population. Impossible if PCR+ doesnt selectively indicate infection. (So even if you have false positives they are such a low proportion of negatives that they don't matter; they can never dilute the true positives unless the virus stops creating waves.) This has been true at whatever thresholds are used IRL. There's no study where PCR+ didn't lead to immunity from later PCR+.
I find this study to be difficult to believe. The only people I know who did not have Covid yet are my parents who are Covid conscious and stay home a lot.
Literally everyone else I know had Covid.
And they are telling me that half of a German region did not have Covid?
I don't think I ever had it. Very early on I got sick but I believe it was strep throat because of the symptoms: mainly, extremely painful pressure in my sinus area, then it moved to my throat. It was over within 2-3 days (basically I just slept)... but 3 weeks later I got sick AGAIN but this time I went to the doctor, it was strep throat and I actually got antibiotics for it
Data:
- 29 year old, male
- hot climate (Florida; hot sun might reduce spread?)
- tobacco smoker (pipe; smokers have lower rates)
- take vitamins whenever I'm around someone sick
- never wore mask or took any shots
- never took any test, so I can't say if I ever would have tested positive or negative
- was in the presence of people that were sick and claimed to have tested positive multiple times
I do not live in a big city though; population 50,000. I suspect basically everyone in a big city has had it
It's pretty similar to the scene in S Korea, Japan - very little spread before Omicron. But Germany has always been extra confusing in this regard since it was never isolated geographically.
Let's not just skim around on the peripherals - let's call it what it is - we are under siege. The ghoulish cabal wants to exterminate "the unwashed masses" and they have told us many times in documents like Agenda 21 and 2030 and the Rockefeller document "Scenarios for the Future in Technology and International Development document as well as many others. And don't forget the Georgia Guidestones which were recently demolished - I guess people were cottoning on too easily from that clue. Don't expect the exterminators to make it easy for its prey.