Why doesn't nature just make our whole bodies out of antibodies?! What's all this other stuff even good for? We need more antibodies! Antibodies, antibodies, antibodies!
Exactly. Studies whose endpoint is antibody titers, rather than whether subjects get sick or not, are just misleading or, at best, not reflecting reality very well.
The trouble is, the average person understands immunity only at the bumper sticker level, and propagandists and industry scientists take advantage of that.
I wonder at that. I thought the hygiene hypothesis, and a general awareness that TV news science is just trash if not a specific awareness of the replication crisis, had permeated the consciousness after two decades. All thrown out the window overnight. Masking kids, sure let’s have Polio 2.0 in a few years. So is it that people really “believe” the experts or they are just in if for the fun/comfort of letting an authority make all their decisions for them?
So I just tried looking at his post. It may sound a bit hypocritical, but the post just seemed really splotched altogether with many different points. I clicked on the amyloidosis part thinking I could click on the links...only to find out it was an image. I guess I don't appreciate when someone uses figures from studies without explaining what I'm supposed to see from the studies, but I guess that can be explained away with my simpleton brain.
In short, Chestnut doesn’t use a “compared to what?” baseline in his work. This is fine, in so far as there’s never a perfect answer to these questions because research neglects the question all the time. So the spike protein is amyloid-genic. Is it moreso than normal fusion glycoproteins, like those on other coronaviruses or flu, HIV, etc.? Is it moreso than bacterial LPS, which is everywhere around us in household dust?
Pretorius’s prior research has demonstrated that HIV (https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-0038-1676374) and common bacterial LPS (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC5046953/) have the same pro-amyloid clotting effects, even in small amounts. It might be the case that nature rewards this effect in microbes in general, as it’s essentially a pro-biofilm trait. So it could be everywhere, if we went and looked. We don’t know. Like with HIV in the 80s, we don’t have a baseline (it turned out lots of other viruses can infect immune cells, like Measles, etc.).
That doesn’t mean this isn’t a valid explanation for post- virus/vaccine pathologies, but it puts things into context. The first “natural” dose (infection) of spike might be extra-hazardous for adults because of lack of childhood-gained immunity, but the young seem to be ok (or maybe its a game of russian roulette after puberty), but I think repeated natural doses are probably just akin to the normal “cost of doing business.” It could be that what we think of as aging is just lifetime microbe-blood-amyloidosis events adding up slowly.
On the other hand, if someone keeps making new versions like Omicron every year, that would not let us get to “normal” as far as that.
Thank you man, I have the impression that WC always has this 'sky is falling' vibe in every post he is making which clearly cannot be true. Most likely he likes to think that what he finds is more important than it is, for several reasons, but that ain't so..
I like his work, but yeah... he literally posts his titles in all caps...
You could probably put any microbe in the hot seat and start experimentally demonstrating all sorts of apparent pathological effects. So to experimentally demonstrate pathological effects for SARS-CoV-2, even ones that match real-world clinical outcomes, doesn't answer the bigger question of whether those clinical outcomes are more about "immune system failure" than "positive effect of virus." The same way we thought cancer was just a story of mutations until we learned that mutations happen all the time.
This is exactly what I thought when seeing those claims flying around so nice to read a supporting analysis from someone who understands the biology. I think that what I call the canonical counter-narrative has become as much a religion for many people as Covidism. The problem with that is that it is a major distraction from the issues we should be concerned with (so much so, that it wouldn't surprise me if major elements of this counter-narrative were in fact deliberately seeded from the same Covidist sources; even if I prefer to the extent possible to see these things as emergent social phenomena)
It's selling a weak, easy argument (magic super-secret negative benefit) to the side that has a strong, but difficult argument (cost higher than benefit), so that that side fails in the end. Could be emergent. I think it's an op.
> At best, you could say that “When the Covid vaccine response is enough to keep infections mild, non-spike antibodies seem to appear less often; whereas for natural infections that are kept mild by innate immunity, non-spike antibodies appear more often.” But even to say this is to use early breakthrough infections as a window into what most post-Covid vaccine infections are like for only this one thing, when we know it doesn’t serve well as a window for any other aspect.
So for natural unvaxed mild infections, people make N antibodies. But for vaxed mild infections the vaxed do not make them? That IS OAS.
This is the beauty of natural immunity: have a mild illness, get long term immunity. The unvaxed do not need to have a severe illness to become immune. Thank You to wisdom of God who created us with immune systems (or Nature, for atheists). F U to the vaccine which prevents true immunity from forming.
OAS is specific to the antigen. It makes no comment to unrelated antigens belonging to the same microbe. So the N antibody controversy is not even in OAS’s ballpark.
The Moderna paper demonstrates
1) The just-vaxxed “needing” less severe illness to get N antibodies. The authors just didn’t Jedi-mind-trick the data to show this, but it’s right there in 2A (HALF of seropositive placebo are above 7; HALF of seropositive vax are above 6. So the would-be high viral load half the world would get N antibodies with less viral load while the would-be low half would still have a low viral load but maybe not get N antibodies as often, IF just ignoring the other flaws that follow my “at best” statement. AND, none of this actually applies because infection efficacy is temporary and this is a distraction per 2). If all you can see is what the authors want you to see (B), you are buying into their attempt to blind you.
2) Nothing that applies to most breakthrough infections. Spring 2021 is ancient history. Footnote 6 for actual real world immune response to infection. N antibodies and non-spike T Cells are more robust for vax+infected than infected. When you teach the immune system how to say bonjour in advance, it has more capacity to learn j’ai un cheval dans ma voiture! more quickly. OAS is essentially an attempt to prove a positive (immunity smart) by assigning a negative (immunity STUPID!). It’s a fake, psy-op-y, frat bro immunity idea, and distracts from vax harm.
This is also NOT a story about viral load explaining lack of N antibodies:
And yet, viral copies at the illness visit did not fully explain the large difference in PDV seropositivity between arms: ***for any given viral copy number, the odds of anti-N
eropositivity were 13.67 times higher for the placebo arm than the vaccine arm (95% CI 5.17, 36.16). ***
That's just statistical fabrication. Odds of N-positivity are patently, demonstrably 100% between copy numbers 5-7.5. You're letting the authors do your argument, and authors lie about their own results. This is in all science.
Okay, why would a Bill Gates funded NIAID acolyte lie to promote basically antivax ideas?
I actually see your point to some extent, but the article plainly states an antivax OAS conclusion, somewhat supported by data (maybe not to the 13.6 extent claimed but supported qualitatively).
-Reinforces the myths that older vaccines were "not leaky" or otherwise "good," depriving the overall antivax movement of new energy. Look how egm salivates over capitalism, old school vaccines, or pharma, all the time. OAS is psychic insulation for all these libertarian shibboleths. So it's intrinsically pro-pharma.
-Infects the anti-Covid-vax argument with predictions that already are or will go on to be refuted. See the rise in N antibodies in the UKHSA donor sample, refuting eug's promises in October; see footnote 6.
-Promotes boosters, as the only way to "escape" the OAS trap. See the comments section in any egm or eug OAS post. Note that this might be redundant if innate immune suppression / VAIDS are real things, and so this isn't a binary. Maybe "Hot Spot" can be taken as an argument for boosters, though I think it is more an argument for promoting innate immune health. Anyway OAS just has "aligned interests" with the (potential) truth here.
-Weakens our argument. Essentially leaves us training for a boxing match by playing with a jump rope five minutes a week. We need to be focused on vax harms, long term immune suppression, bioethics, the arenas where we will win in the end - everything but "leaky vaccine disasters."
Hmmm. There is a LOT for me to unpack in your analyses. I am going to come read this again tomorrow, see what hits me more then. Thank you for your work.
SUPPRESSED IDEA: Laboratory Mice Have Radically Elongated Telomeres, Meaning We Have Radically Undervalued The Toxicity Of The Drugs We Test On Them.
--
I know the CovidEra illuminated a lot of logical fallacies within “the science”, this suppressed idea that dates back 20 years... but possibly still affects every drug trial to this day...
--
Please note that I know nothing about this topic, however I trust the source, and it seems to make sense to a simpleton like me. I share this in the hopes that it might unlock a clue to the not so “safe and effective” world that we find ourselves in.
It's also mentioned in quite a few Dark Horse podcasts episodes, including the one with his brother, in which Eric sort of hypnotizes the memory of this stolen discovery out of him to a charming effect.
Drugs are biological agents. Thus, all our efforts to screen drugs for toxicity act as "selection pressure" for the biological property of evading the screen, not for not being toxic. Vaccines are particularly great at this.
"an era when antibodies were thought to be the be-all-and-end-all of immunity"
You mean the current era? Because according to most officialdom that seems to be the current thinking.
Why doesn't nature just make our whole bodies out of antibodies?! What's all this other stuff even good for? We need more antibodies! Antibodies, antibodies, antibodies!
Exactly. Studies whose endpoint is antibody titers, rather than whether subjects get sick or not, are just misleading or, at best, not reflecting reality very well.
The trouble is, the average person understands immunity only at the bumper sticker level, and propagandists and industry scientists take advantage of that.
I wonder at that. I thought the hygiene hypothesis, and a general awareness that TV news science is just trash if not a specific awareness of the replication crisis, had permeated the consciousness after two decades. All thrown out the window overnight. Masking kids, sure let’s have Polio 2.0 in a few years. So is it that people really “believe” the experts or they are just in if for the fun/comfort of letting an authority make all their decisions for them?
Brian, we need again your Brain for some calm logic. What do you have to say for https://wmcresearch.substack.com/p/asp-spike-protein-amyloidosis?s=r Walter Chestnut's theory of 'amyloidosis' ?
So I just tried looking at his post. It may sound a bit hypocritical, but the post just seemed really splotched altogether with many different points. I clicked on the amyloidosis part thinking I could click on the links...only to find out it was an image. I guess I don't appreciate when someone uses figures from studies without explaining what I'm supposed to see from the studies, but I guess that can be explained away with my simpleton brain.
In short, Chestnut doesn’t use a “compared to what?” baseline in his work. This is fine, in so far as there’s never a perfect answer to these questions because research neglects the question all the time. So the spike protein is amyloid-genic. Is it moreso than normal fusion glycoproteins, like those on other coronaviruses or flu, HIV, etc.? Is it moreso than bacterial LPS, which is everywhere around us in household dust?
Pretorius’s prior research has demonstrated that HIV (https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-0038-1676374) and common bacterial LPS (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC5046953/) have the same pro-amyloid clotting effects, even in small amounts. It might be the case that nature rewards this effect in microbes in general, as it’s essentially a pro-biofilm trait. So it could be everywhere, if we went and looked. We don’t know. Like with HIV in the 80s, we don’t have a baseline (it turned out lots of other viruses can infect immune cells, like Measles, etc.).
That doesn’t mean this isn’t a valid explanation for post- virus/vaccine pathologies, but it puts things into context. The first “natural” dose (infection) of spike might be extra-hazardous for adults because of lack of childhood-gained immunity, but the young seem to be ok (or maybe its a game of russian roulette after puberty), but I think repeated natural doses are probably just akin to the normal “cost of doing business.” It could be that what we think of as aging is just lifetime microbe-blood-amyloidosis events adding up slowly.
On the other hand, if someone keeps making new versions like Omicron every year, that would not let us get to “normal” as far as that.
Thank you man, I have the impression that WC always has this 'sky is falling' vibe in every post he is making which clearly cannot be true. Most likely he likes to think that what he finds is more important than it is, for several reasons, but that ain't so..
I like his work, but yeah... he literally posts his titles in all caps...
You could probably put any microbe in the hot seat and start experimentally demonstrating all sorts of apparent pathological effects. So to experimentally demonstrate pathological effects for SARS-CoV-2, even ones that match real-world clinical outcomes, doesn't answer the bigger question of whether those clinical outcomes are more about "immune system failure" than "positive effect of virus." The same way we thought cancer was just a story of mutations until we learned that mutations happen all the time.
This is exactly what I thought when seeing those claims flying around so nice to read a supporting analysis from someone who understands the biology. I think that what I call the canonical counter-narrative has become as much a religion for many people as Covidism. The problem with that is that it is a major distraction from the issues we should be concerned with (so much so, that it wouldn't surprise me if major elements of this counter-narrative were in fact deliberately seeded from the same Covidist sources; even if I prefer to the extent possible to see these things as emergent social phenomena)
It's selling a weak, easy argument (magic super-secret negative benefit) to the side that has a strong, but difficult argument (cost higher than benefit), so that that side fails in the end. Could be emergent. I think it's an op.
> At best, you could say that “When the Covid vaccine response is enough to keep infections mild, non-spike antibodies seem to appear less often; whereas for natural infections that are kept mild by innate immunity, non-spike antibodies appear more often.” But even to say this is to use early breakthrough infections as a window into what most post-Covid vaccine infections are like for only this one thing, when we know it doesn’t serve well as a window for any other aspect.
So for natural unvaxed mild infections, people make N antibodies. But for vaxed mild infections the vaxed do not make them? That IS OAS.
This is the beauty of natural immunity: have a mild illness, get long term immunity. The unvaxed do not need to have a severe illness to become immune. Thank You to wisdom of God who created us with immune systems (or Nature, for atheists). F U to the vaccine which prevents true immunity from forming.
Thanks for this comment thread which help me understand the arguments in the main article so much better.
OAS is specific to the antigen. It makes no comment to unrelated antigens belonging to the same microbe. So the N antibody controversy is not even in OAS’s ballpark.
The Moderna paper demonstrates
1) The just-vaxxed “needing” less severe illness to get N antibodies. The authors just didn’t Jedi-mind-trick the data to show this, but it’s right there in 2A (HALF of seropositive placebo are above 7; HALF of seropositive vax are above 6. So the would-be high viral load half the world would get N antibodies with less viral load while the would-be low half would still have a low viral load but maybe not get N antibodies as often, IF just ignoring the other flaws that follow my “at best” statement. AND, none of this actually applies because infection efficacy is temporary and this is a distraction per 2). If all you can see is what the authors want you to see (B), you are buying into their attempt to blind you.
2) Nothing that applies to most breakthrough infections. Spring 2021 is ancient history. Footnote 6 for actual real world immune response to infection. N antibodies and non-spike T Cells are more robust for vax+infected than infected. When you teach the immune system how to say bonjour in advance, it has more capacity to learn j’ai un cheval dans ma voiture! more quickly. OAS is essentially an attempt to prove a positive (immunity smart) by assigning a negative (immunity STUPID!). It’s a fake, psy-op-y, frat bro immunity idea, and distracts from vax harm.
This is also NOT a story about viral load explaining lack of N antibodies:
And yet, viral copies at the illness visit did not fully explain the large difference in PDV seropositivity between arms: ***for any given viral copy number, the odds of anti-N
eropositivity were 13.67 times higher for the placebo arm than the vaccine arm (95% CI 5.17, 36.16). ***
That's just statistical fabrication. Odds of N-positivity are patently, demonstrably 100% between copy numbers 5-7.5. You're letting the authors do your argument, and authors lie about their own results. This is in all science.
Okay, why would a Bill Gates funded NIAID acolyte lie to promote basically antivax ideas?
I actually see your point to some extent, but the article plainly states an antivax OAS conclusion, somewhat supported by data (maybe not to the 13.6 extent claimed but supported qualitatively).
I summed up the reasons in December, after eug banned me literally for saying "flu vaccines are also leaky." https://unglossed.substack.com/p/funeral-for-a-fact
-Reinforces the myths that older vaccines were "not leaky" or otherwise "good," depriving the overall antivax movement of new energy. Look how egm salivates over capitalism, old school vaccines, or pharma, all the time. OAS is psychic insulation for all these libertarian shibboleths. So it's intrinsically pro-pharma.
-Infects the anti-Covid-vax argument with predictions that already are or will go on to be refuted. See the rise in N antibodies in the UKHSA donor sample, refuting eug's promises in October; see footnote 6.
-Promotes boosters, as the only way to "escape" the OAS trap. See the comments section in any egm or eug OAS post. Note that this might be redundant if innate immune suppression / VAIDS are real things, and so this isn't a binary. Maybe "Hot Spot" can be taken as an argument for boosters, though I think it is more an argument for promoting innate immune health. Anyway OAS just has "aligned interests" with the (potential) truth here.
-Weakens our argument. Essentially leaves us training for a boxing match by playing with a jump rope five minutes a week. We need to be focused on vax harms, long term immune suppression, bioethics, the arenas where we will win in the end - everything but "leaky vaccine disasters."
Thanks for the hat-tip on Footnote #6. :-)
I'm out.
Hello. I’m Brian.
Hmmm. There is a LOT for me to unpack in your analyses. I am going to come read this again tomorrow, see what hits me more then. Thank you for your work.
https://uncancelclub.com/bret-weinstein-1/
--
SUPPRESSED IDEA: Laboratory Mice Have Radically Elongated Telomeres, Meaning We Have Radically Undervalued The Toxicity Of The Drugs We Test On Them.
--
I know the CovidEra illuminated a lot of logical fallacies within “the science”, this suppressed idea that dates back 20 years... but possibly still affects every drug trial to this day...
--
Please note that I know nothing about this topic, however I trust the source, and it seems to make sense to a simpleton like me. I share this in the hopes that it might unlock a clue to the not so “safe and effective” world that we find ourselves in.
Thoughts?
It's also mentioned in quite a few Dark Horse podcasts episodes, including the one with his brother, in which Eric sort of hypnotizes the memory of this stolen discovery out of him to a charming effect.
Drugs are biological agents. Thus, all our efforts to screen drugs for toxicity act as "selection pressure" for the biological property of evading the screen, not for not being toxic. Vaccines are particularly great at this.