Nevertheless, banging away at the Google search typewriter 🙉 turns up the following study, showing how some innate immunity markers are reduced after dose 1 in older vaccinees (See linked Supplementary Figure 1) :
OK it's for Astrazeneca vaxx but the same problem could exist with mRNA of course. And it does show the markers are restored after dose 2 (though on a second look, not all of them! - see below) so no permanent impairment there it would seem.
Anyway, keep the ideas coming, healthy debate is one way how science advances. 😌👍
Edited to add: I wonder if disruption of innate immune markers could be a factor in post vaccine syndrome?
I think you are in part missing the point. I've made this point before, but we should not be looking at statistics outside the context of biology. The Worry Window is not so much the theory that injection with the experimental Covid vaccines has a magical property of increasing infections immediately after the first dose, but it is the theory that injection with the experimental Covid vaccines reduces the immune system capabilities, temporarily making you more vulnerable to a wide range of afflictions.
It is also one of the possible explanations for increased cancer rates as well as more frequent rare cancer-type occurrences after vaccination.
There is ample evidence this is true, from herpes outbreaks in VAERS to various measurements of white blood cells that drop up to 80% plus some reference to reduced IL-6 functioning. What we don't know is the extend of this, and very important whom it affects. Is this a 'everybody', 'most', 'many' or only some people. Age, sex, etc. Almost no research has been done. One Malone paper, but even that touches only briefly on causes.
Also when looking at statistics, sometimes this signal shows up as a very bright star, and sometimes it seems utterly absent. Sometimes this can be explained by vaccinating efforts being concentrated right in (Alberta) or right after a peak (Netherlands) covid wave. Sometimes it cannot.
The 'getting COVID more frequent' as an example of this larger theory is hence also a double problem as it includes both vulnerability and opportunity. Since I'm of the opinion vaccines do virtually nothing to prevent 'getting it', I'm more inclined to look at "more severe outcomes" as measurement. Pfizer's own trial data seems to suggest there is no such thing indeed. But that is just one data-example and I don't trust them. The Netherlands in their research noted that just-vaccinated people die of non-COVID issues less frequent likely due to bias towards more healthy people. That can hide the issue. Their graphs for younger people are unfortunately unreadable due to a poorly chosen scale and they don't publish the raw data. (I intend to request their data one I have some time to write a proper request.) UK data however seems to suggest it is real. So the jury is still out IMHO ...
But I'd always start with biology. The reduced white blood cells is the reason why I'm suggesting taking this serious despite not proven due to unclear data.
But it may turn out not real indeed. That would be good news.
I’m sure when I heard Brooke Jackson interviewed that she said the people in charge of testing patients could see from the forms whether someone had had placebo or real thing, so there could easily have been some human bias of not testing or downplaying those who they knew had taken the real shot.
On a personal level I know two 18 yr olds and two late forties adults who all tested positive during omicron, and were symptomatic, between 2-4 weeks after their first booster!
Are we talking about the clinical trials where the US gov. when confronted in court with allegations of fraudulent behavior by a whistleblower such as --not maintaining blinding,-- the US gov. argued that the complainant could not show evidence that the fraudulent behavior thus described would have altered the decision by the FDA to approve the substance?
If the government tells you in court that it was okay that the trials were fraudulent and that is immaterial to EUA approval, why would we assume they weren't fraudulent? There were tens of billions riding on this.
Your point that people arguing from the trial data are making a mistake is well taken but I think the actual problem is arguing from the trial data at all.
1. They only tested those with COVID symptoms and the trial was technically unblinded because placebo was actually saline for the first time in vaccine history (or 2nd). Participants and trial staff could reasonably guess which they got based on severity adverse events . Those suspecting they did not got the real thing would be more likely to report COVID symptoms. Also those getting the real stuff probably needed pain relief for the AE which may have masked COVID symptoms.
2. Why do you think they didn't just give everyone a weekly PCR test. They couldn't afford it?
3. There are other studies showing an increase in infections after the first dose.
4. The vaccine in the trial was not the same as in the real world. They switched from circular DNA in the process for the trial to linear DNA in mass production and the final product had more truncated mRNA (which might be a good thing for safety but probably not efficacy)
5. Pfizer and Moderna both reported transient reduction in lymphocytes after any dose, and studies have shown that the early IgG antibodies after infection are afucosylated IgG which causes more serious COVID. This is why in almost every country that rolled out vaccines experienced a serious COVID outbreak with increased mortality right afterwards
6. We now know Pfizer covered up at least 2 serious AE, Maddie and that lady who came down with T-Cell Lymphoma after reporting a sore arm and swollen lymph node that required surgery. Both AE If reported might have put a halt on further authorizations but went down as stomach ache and sore arm and clear sailing ahead. Pfizer is a serial criminal offender and if it was a person it would be in prison. Instead it just pays fines that come out of shareholders dividends
I don't really think we need to worry about the Worry Window anymore since probably everyone has already been infected or vaccinated with 1 dose by now.
As to what effect IgG4 has on the chronically boosted, I am agnostic. Not really sure this is going to be a problem for most people although we need to see more data, especially for those boosting every 4-6 months
This is a very interesting retrospective. It seems like a good bit of this may be from technicality and a few misreads if true. I will have to reread it again another time to properly parse the information.
I think your last point is apt. It appears that nearly every malady our race has ever faced is somehow now attributable to the vaccines, and it certainly makes the reading of information difficult at times. I think many people are dealing with information overload, hear terms, and may throw them out without properly piecing them together. It all just sounds fancy even if not understood.
I suppose this raises some curiosities to innate immune dysfunction then, since that was one of those talking points that were brought up so often for a better part of a year.
Heh, it’s this sort of sloppiness that drove me to scale down my reading of the skeptic community. Not actually sure sloppiness is even the right word… although I sort of suspect that’s how tales like this one start. Someone noting that the definition of vaccinated isn’t met until weeks after the jab, finding a study that uses the same definition, and eventually that just becomes the convention that has to apply to all the numbers, regardless of whether that’s true or not. And once the concept has been birthed, you’re not putting that cat back in the bag (to mix metaphors for NO reason at all).
It’d be amusing if it wasn’t so tragic. Accuracy is distant second to narrative strength and basically all sides of every argument operate in a similar fashion. I hate being so cynical, but it’s sort of my default setting and there’s rarely little reason to move me off of “if a sizable group of people believe it to be true, then it’s probably wrong.”
This was observed in Canada (after dose 1) but it could also be from people going outside for the first time in a while after getting vaxxed and being exposed to people. Obviously if you stay locked inside until you get a shot, then go out and party, you'll get a positive test after that.
In the BioNTech Pfizer Phase 1 trial, Germany arm using BNT162b1 secreted mRNA jab, it was observed that Lymphocytes collapsed way below normal range, thus making all who got the jab at greater risk of infection. See Extended Data Fig. 3: Pharmacodynamic markers
I value your analysis because if this goes to court, we need irrefutable evidence, and it has to be iron tight. That’s not always easy to demonstrate to folks on the jury (or a judge who’s friendly to large corporations who fund their re-election campaigns).
But what about that whistleblower- didn’t she give some damning evidence of clearly corrupted data and then promptly got fired for it? Who was following that- Jikkyleaks or Sage Hana?
Figure 5 of this paper suggests some -ve post dose 1 immunity, though of course it could be an issue with the way they adjusted the numbers:
https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1943
Nevertheless, banging away at the Google search typewriter 🙉 turns up the following study, showing how some innate immunity markers are reduced after dose 1 in older vaccinees (See linked Supplementary Figure 1) :
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8822242/#SF1
OK it's for Astrazeneca vaxx but the same problem could exist with mRNA of course. And it does show the markers are restored after dose 2 (though on a second look, not all of them! - see below) so no permanent impairment there it would seem.
Anyway, keep the ideas coming, healthy debate is one way how science advances. 😌👍
Edited to add: I wonder if disruption of innate immune markers could be a factor in post vaccine syndrome?
I think you are in part missing the point. I've made this point before, but we should not be looking at statistics outside the context of biology. The Worry Window is not so much the theory that injection with the experimental Covid vaccines has a magical property of increasing infections immediately after the first dose, but it is the theory that injection with the experimental Covid vaccines reduces the immune system capabilities, temporarily making you more vulnerable to a wide range of afflictions.
It is also one of the possible explanations for increased cancer rates as well as more frequent rare cancer-type occurrences after vaccination.
There is ample evidence this is true, from herpes outbreaks in VAERS to various measurements of white blood cells that drop up to 80% plus some reference to reduced IL-6 functioning. What we don't know is the extend of this, and very important whom it affects. Is this a 'everybody', 'most', 'many' or only some people. Age, sex, etc. Almost no research has been done. One Malone paper, but even that touches only briefly on causes.
Also when looking at statistics, sometimes this signal shows up as a very bright star, and sometimes it seems utterly absent. Sometimes this can be explained by vaccinating efforts being concentrated right in (Alberta) or right after a peak (Netherlands) covid wave. Sometimes it cannot.
The 'getting COVID more frequent' as an example of this larger theory is hence also a double problem as it includes both vulnerability and opportunity. Since I'm of the opinion vaccines do virtually nothing to prevent 'getting it', I'm more inclined to look at "more severe outcomes" as measurement. Pfizer's own trial data seems to suggest there is no such thing indeed. But that is just one data-example and I don't trust them. The Netherlands in their research noted that just-vaccinated people die of non-COVID issues less frequent likely due to bias towards more healthy people. That can hide the issue. Their graphs for younger people are unfortunately unreadable due to a poorly chosen scale and they don't publish the raw data. (I intend to request their data one I have some time to write a proper request.) UK data however seems to suggest it is real. So the jury is still out IMHO ...
But I'd always start with biology. The reduced white blood cells is the reason why I'm suggesting taking this serious despite not proven due to unclear data.
But it may turn out not real indeed. That would be good news.
I’m sure when I heard Brooke Jackson interviewed that she said the people in charge of testing patients could see from the forms whether someone had had placebo or real thing, so there could easily have been some human bias of not testing or downplaying those who they knew had taken the real shot.
On a personal level I know two 18 yr olds and two late forties adults who all tested positive during omicron, and were symptomatic, between 2-4 weeks after their first booster!
Are we talking about the clinical trials where the US gov. when confronted in court with allegations of fraudulent behavior by a whistleblower such as --not maintaining blinding,-- the US gov. argued that the complainant could not show evidence that the fraudulent behavior thus described would have altered the decision by the FDA to approve the substance?
If the government tells you in court that it was okay that the trials were fraudulent and that is immaterial to EUA approval, why would we assume they weren't fraudulent? There were tens of billions riding on this.
Your point that people arguing from the trial data are making a mistake is well taken but I think the actual problem is arguing from the trial data at all.
A few issues
1. They only tested those with COVID symptoms and the trial was technically unblinded because placebo was actually saline for the first time in vaccine history (or 2nd). Participants and trial staff could reasonably guess which they got based on severity adverse events . Those suspecting they did not got the real thing would be more likely to report COVID symptoms. Also those getting the real stuff probably needed pain relief for the AE which may have masked COVID symptoms.
2. Why do you think they didn't just give everyone a weekly PCR test. They couldn't afford it?
3. There are other studies showing an increase in infections after the first dose.
4. The vaccine in the trial was not the same as in the real world. They switched from circular DNA in the process for the trial to linear DNA in mass production and the final product had more truncated mRNA (which might be a good thing for safety but probably not efficacy)
5. Pfizer and Moderna both reported transient reduction in lymphocytes after any dose, and studies have shown that the early IgG antibodies after infection are afucosylated IgG which causes more serious COVID. This is why in almost every country that rolled out vaccines experienced a serious COVID outbreak with increased mortality right afterwards
6. We now know Pfizer covered up at least 2 serious AE, Maddie and that lady who came down with T-Cell Lymphoma after reporting a sore arm and swollen lymph node that required surgery. Both AE If reported might have put a halt on further authorizations but went down as stomach ache and sore arm and clear sailing ahead. Pfizer is a serial criminal offender and if it was a person it would be in prison. Instead it just pays fines that come out of shareholders dividends
I don't really think we need to worry about the Worry Window anymore since probably everyone has already been infected or vaccinated with 1 dose by now.
As to what effect IgG4 has on the chronically boosted, I am agnostic. Not really sure this is going to be a problem for most people although we need to see more data, especially for those boosting every 4-6 months
This is a very interesting retrospective. It seems like a good bit of this may be from technicality and a few misreads if true. I will have to reread it again another time to properly parse the information.
I think your last point is apt. It appears that nearly every malady our race has ever faced is somehow now attributable to the vaccines, and it certainly makes the reading of information difficult at times. I think many people are dealing with information overload, hear terms, and may throw them out without properly piecing them together. It all just sounds fancy even if not understood.
I suppose this raises some curiosities to innate immune dysfunction then, since that was one of those talking points that were brought up so often for a better part of a year.
Heh, it’s this sort of sloppiness that drove me to scale down my reading of the skeptic community. Not actually sure sloppiness is even the right word… although I sort of suspect that’s how tales like this one start. Someone noting that the definition of vaccinated isn’t met until weeks after the jab, finding a study that uses the same definition, and eventually that just becomes the convention that has to apply to all the numbers, regardless of whether that’s true or not. And once the concept has been birthed, you’re not putting that cat back in the bag (to mix metaphors for NO reason at all).
It’d be amusing if it wasn’t so tragic. Accuracy is distant second to narrative strength and basically all sides of every argument operate in a similar fashion. I hate being so cynical, but it’s sort of my default setting and there’s rarely little reason to move me off of “if a sizable group of people believe it to be true, then it’s probably wrong.”
This was observed in Canada (after dose 1) but it could also be from people going outside for the first time in a while after getting vaxxed and being exposed to people. Obviously if you stay locked inside until you get a shot, then go out and party, you'll get a positive test after that.
https://i.imgur.com/sdfZVLJ.png
In the BioNTech Pfizer Phase 1 trial, Germany arm using BNT162b1 secreted mRNA jab, it was observed that Lymphocytes collapsed way below normal range, thus making all who got the jab at greater risk of infection. See Extended Data Fig. 3: Pharmacodynamic markers
I value your analysis because if this goes to court, we need irrefutable evidence, and it has to be iron tight. That’s not always easy to demonstrate to folks on the jury (or a judge who’s friendly to large corporations who fund their re-election campaigns).
But what about that whistleblower- didn’t she give some damning evidence of clearly corrupted data and then promptly got fired for it? Who was following that- Jikkyleaks or Sage Hana?
Oh idk. I think they knew everything ahead of time cuz..... how come we don’t hear about the China Uighers anymore???!!
I swear they were the test rabbits. Lol
Maybe that’s how covid really escaped? Lol. Just throwing ideas out there.