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 always like being shown new links! but... test negative studies I never use. It simply means more of one group of people showed up or referred for a given test wrongly (they had the symptoms but not the virus). It's never possible to infer anything about real-life infection rates from this.
I don't deny that the injections mess with innate immunity. Just that this shouldn't lead us to expect to observe more infections per se. We have a poor understanding of the relationship between innate immunity and testing positive for this virus. Of course I have seen Worry Window claims that people have different "variant-specific Innate Immunity" which is upset by the injection. Ok, fine for a theory. But still not enough to make me jump to "we should expect more cases." So I only care about whether more cases have been observed.
Innate immune disruption could certainly also be involved in post-vax health downturns. Though, this is also true about the virus. I don't think the evidence is clear either way which is why I haven't finished my "vax and kids' immunity Pt 2" post, the evidence is a big big mess.
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.
Several comments have reverted to theory. To quote myself below, "I'm sure innate immune disfunction / suppression is real, but it probably has been for every vaccine ever. So we shouldn't expect different observations afterward, regardless of these (relatively) brand new theories of what should happen. Observations guide knowledge."
UKHSA data has long supported negative infection efficacy (likely because of bad denominators for the unvaccinated, differences in testing behaviors, etc.), but that isn't the worry window. Worry window is a specific claim that certain people have made ad infinitum and has widespread purchase on what people think is happening, despite not being real.
Not sure which Netherlands research you are referring to. But the thing about healthy user bias is that it will vary from place to place. UK has a weird bias where people about to die don't get injections, but that doesn't mean they have a true "healthy user bias." The thing about dying is that on a day to day basis it is "weird" to do it, so it isn't necessarily a marker of "un/healthy."
Jan 19, 2023·edited Jan 19, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
Yes, for many vaccines that likely applies. One known factor for instance is that certain immunologic mechanisms (and hence for instance medicine) that increases protection against viruses make you weaker for fungus and visa versa. Many vaccines contain stimulants that likely trigger one area at the expense of others. But I'm suggesting there may be unique things here.
For instance a massive drop in white blood cells that has been observed in several places now. I also read once the mRNA encoding has an IL-6 suppressor in it, but I must admit I found no good reference to it in literature, so it may be untrue.
The Netherlands research I'm referring to, is their government investigation ordered by their Parliament into their excess deaths. They decided to add covid-deaths to that research, because 'why not'. Overall their document was done quite well, but it suffers from a few weaknesses. One of them is poor graph scales and not publishing the raw data in a table, and a second one from investigation bias as in they define vaccine death as direct-death only. They did find evidence for a healthy user bias, even though they only briefly mention it. Overall they conclude there is excess death and it is not covid caused and not (direct) vaccine either, but they have no idea why. As said, I want to get their raw data, but I need to find some time.
Hello Brian, I think Peter has it right that there is a period of immune suppression unique to the mRNA injections that potentiates Covid-19 infections. This would be during the initial induction period for IgG formation. It seemed to me that this was settled science, between the waves of Covid-19 that would ravage nursing and care homes in the weeks following the first mass jab, to the famous series of Texas Lindsay animations showing how covid cases grew correspondingly as jabs started in country after country. While the mechanism may be unclear and you may be right to exonerate certain mechanisms, I doth think you protest too much in this regard. I want to argue with you, but I don't even want to waste the time looking up references. I clearly recall one doctor doing a video on his blood results for patients before and after first jab, showing the nature of the immune suppression in data.
I appreciate minding the fence line of truth.. I have done it myself many times when discussion turns to microscopic crystallites being identified as 5G nanorouters. At some point though, IMO, it's a waste of energy.
In response to the arising question of making Covid-19 vaccination compulsory for NHS staff, Dr Polyakova said –
“Mandatory vaccination in this instance is stupid, unethical and irresponsible when it comes to protecting our staff and public health. We are in the voluntary phase of vaccination, and staff are being encouraged to take an unlicensed product that is impacting on their immediate health.
“I have direct experience of staff contracting Covid after vaccination and probably transmitting it. It is clearly stated that these vaccine products do not offer immunity or stop transmission.
“So why are we doing it? There is no longitudinal safety data available and these products are only under emergency licensing. What is to say that there are no longitudinal adverse effects that we may face that may put the entire health sector at risk?”
That's why I'm making a post. The "settled science" is wrong and has been forever. I don't see how "we all agreed to believe a wrong idea a long time ago" is a counter-argument before I've even addressed the supposed studies (and when a lot of people never were in that agreement, it's more like a cultural signifier to believe in the Worry Window as I see it).
I won't demand links. I'm aware of the video with the doctor (link is still in my macbook pro notes). But circulating immune cells are meant to be used. They are not supposed to spend every day in the "firehouse." So it isn't some game-changer for them to flock off to deal with the spike transfection. T
he emphasis on Polyakova's quote is on "after" - as in, he is saying 100% of injected HCWs did not get sterilizing immunity. He isn't saying they "immediately after" and it is pretty clear he would, if that was what he wanted to convey.
I don't think that this elderly care home in Spain is an isolated case. There have been multiple reports over the past weeks of people testing positive and even dying after the injection.
None of that accounts for background rate. Without accounting for background rate you haven't made an an argument that the vaccine increased infections. Of course there will be infections after the vaccine in nursing homes during a wave, just as there would be infections after you give people a Beef Stroganoff in nursing homes during a wave. It doesn't mean worry window.
I don't "settle" science in my mind without multiple layers of evidence all pointing in the same direction. There were many, many cases of outbreaks similar to what Polyakova described in the link I provided. It was much more pronounced in nursing and care homes. Just because you cannot explain it does not mean it didn't happen. It happened. Receipts below....
At another nursing home in the same southwestern Spanish province, in Novo Sancti Petri, in Chiclani, 22 elderly residents died and 103 were infected following a vaccination campaign.
Similar outbreaks and death clusters following vaccination have been reported across the globe, including:
29 elderly people died in Norway shortly after receiving Pfizer’s vaccination.
13 deaths among 40 residents following vaccination at one nursing home in Germany were dismissed as “tragic coincidence.”
10 deaths in a German palliative care patients within hours to four days of COVID-19 vaccination were deemed a “coincidence.”
22 of 72 residents of a nursing home in Basingstoke, England have died following vaccination.
24 seniors at a nursing home in Syracuse, NY were reported to have died from COVID-19 as of Jan. 9 despite having been vaccinated beginning Dec. 22.
10 cases of COVID-19 were reported on Jan. 28 among seniors who had received both doses of Pfizer’s vaccine at one care home in Stockholm Sweden. The residents were vaccinated on Dec. 27 and again on Jan.19.
The COVID-19 death toll in the small British enclave of Gibraltar numbered 16 before it launched its Pfizer vaccination campaign on Jan. 10 and then shot up to 53 deaths 10 days later and to 70 seven days after that. According to a Reuters report, the Gibraltar Health Authority declared there was “no evidence at all of any causal link” between 6 of the deaths that were investigated and Pfizer’s vaccine, despite the individuals having tested negative for COVID before vaccination, but positive “in the days immediately after.”
4,500 COVID-19 cases in Israel occurred in patients after they had received one dose of Pfizer’s vaccine and 375 of those vaccinated patients required hospitalization, Israeli news media reported on Jan.12.
Seven adults living in a care home in Saskatoon tested positive for coronavirus a week after residents were vaccinated at the Sherbrooke Community Centre, the CBC reported. There were no positive cases at the time of vaccination.
Seven residents at a Montreal long-term care facility tested positive for COVID- within 28 days of being vaccinated with Pfizer’s vaccine, prompting the province of Quebec to delay the second Pfizer dose.
Abercorn Care Home in Scotland, which began COVID-19 vaccinations on Dec. 14 was home to an outbreak of the virus by Jan. 10 and the National Health Service for the region refused to comment on whether vaccinated residents were ill. A care home staff group founder told the Scottish Daily Record: “We have had members of our group whose parents have had the vaccine and then two weeks later have tested positive for coronavirus.”
All of the residents at a home in Inverness, Scotland were vaccinated against COVID early in January, but 17 became infected with the virus after the first dose.
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!
Right. Though the original wording is ambiguous about the scale. Was medication assignment left in charts in all participants or just 1 or 2? Having things on checklists ensures they get done all the time, but they can still get done when not on checklists.
But I'm totally ok with the argument that this "pretend incompetence" was a feature, not bug, and trial sites directly censored vax infections and passed placebo tests. I have no problem with claiming outright fraud, but I don't think that's what gives the Worry Window Argument its "punch." It's always this implication that the infections were reclassified.
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.
I dunno. The "suspected Covid" theory (aka not-fraud technicality argument 1000) had just been floated again by el gato malo yesterday so I think it still has purchase as a Worry Window Argument. So I rebut it. It wouldn't work because it would have censored the placebo infections.
Jan 18, 2023·edited Jan 18, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
I tuned out mr el gato malo from the time he asserted that all the rest of the vaccines are safe unless someone can provide him with a dissertation on how they are not (someone literally did so in the comments but he ignored it.)
Still, I am not faulting what you are doing at all. It is good for everyone to have this sorted out to better whet the analytical razors that will protect us from -future- globally catastrophic shenanigans. That's why I stick around and try to muddle my dim way through these discussions.
Right, he believes the myth that life expectancy gains were beyond marginally to do with medicine. So there's no getting through on big picture bio questions.
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
1 Still falls because it would have hit the early placebo cases in cross-fire. Placebo infections were experiencing the same symptoms as vax side effects. So site staff would have incorrectly not tested those or put a secret symbol on it saying "likely vax." It would require outride fraud in-house at Pfizer to selectively pass those tests and censor the vax tests.
2 I actually don't know this one. The recent history of how vaccines were already being redefined in pharma / med-space, and the context of the DOD/HHS knowing more than everyone else, matters a lot as far as why there was no interest in asymptomatic cases. There could be loads of mundane and nefarious factors at play besides "gaming" the results.
3 That's the point of Pt 2. But the Worry Window is almost never mentioned without mentioning the trials (and implying there were actually high recorded infections even though there weren't).
4 Agree. But "watering down" on the QA front would be a double-edged sword as far as the worry window on theoretical grounds.
5 Said outbreaks out to be clearly traceable to deaths in the vaxxed. They aren't. You've got age groups that aren't even eligible yet showing up to the hospital, that's not because of what the vaccine did.
6 Agree.
IgG4 comment: IgG4 CATASTROPHISM LOYALTY OATHS ARE MANDATORY AT UNGLOSSED
That's tackled in the latest post. The winter 20/21 Alpha wave happened before anyone was actually eligible. There's no signal for age groups gaining eligibility having more infections. You could supplement this with the ONS data at the time, supplement it in other countries (to whatever extent they have stats), the signal for vax rollout age groups driving waves isn't there.
The trial protocol explicitly requires contacting the vendor to report a symptom first. And then we see that something over 90% of those got tested (the negative plus positive tests).
Like I said above, I can't guess at the overall meta on that. Lots of people claim to know what modern vax trial precedents are but I think few do, it's a boring arcane subject.
Is point #4 some sort of speculation, or known to be true?
Point #5 is what I had in mind while reading the above. There are established causes of the 'worry window' as well as umpteen examples of it playing out. We saw it time and again all over the world. I observed it within my community and it became easy to predict when a particular age group would start seeing cases as it would begin when that age group were being injected.
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.
I'm sure innate immune disfunction / suppression is real, but it probably has been for every vaccine ever. So we shouldn't expect different observations afterward, regardless of these (relatively) brand new theories of what should happen. Observations guide knowledge.
1 Is immune suppression due to adjuvants or due to the 'active ingredient' in this case spike protein?
2 If the suppression is due to active ingredient then this vaccine we could expect immune suppression to last longer due to continued in vivo production of the active ingredient, with both severity and duration of suppression dependant on your body's production of the spike
For the record, I am more concerned about long term unpredictable vascular damage and the insane affects of random incompletely
or incorrectly transcribed, often misfolded proteins. The Worry Window seems plausible based on this being the period of maximum spike protein production but I remain agnostic.
Spike is pro-inflammatory and pro-coagulation as well, so it likely augments this and leads to a feedback loop in predisposed individuals. As far as the overall effect on innate immunity I have previously compared it to diabetes - chronic inflammation leaves the cellular immune system stuck in the mud of exhaustion. But "VAIDS" hasn't really shown its face yet in terms of rampant fungal infections or anything like that.
I haven't been able to piece together a link between either maternal or childhood vaxxing on all these weird outbreaks in kids, for example. So the overall impact doesn't seem too great. Yet.
Apparently Strep A is on the decline, although still above typical seasonal levels. Apparently they remark that Strep A case fatality rates are on par with other seasons, which is interesting. A large portion of the deaths are appearing in those >65.
Heck, even infections as well. Plenty of viruses attempt to tip-toe around activating our immune system or by shutting down the immune system tangentially. As I've covered in my microbiome posts many respiratory viruses appear to alter the gut microbiome, which then removes immunoregulatory and anti-inflammatory mechanisms. This makes me wonder if this all is part of a broader evolutionary battle that we've never considered until just recently.
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.
That's an artifact of efficacy and a lower testing rate immediately after injection (those who are sick are unlikely to realize it due to thinking it's injection side effects). Essentially, what is obscured is the background rate - it will actually be right where the peak is. So it's not that you are being dropped into the frogger street when you get injected but that you were already in it to begin with.
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
Perhaps, and this might be why the only parts of Craig's other links that show higher infection are in enclosed settings. But for most recipients, side effects would keep people home-bound and this is probably why infection efficacy appears so early in the data. Can't get infected if you aren't exposed.
And the trial was peculiar because Asymptomatic positives would not have triggered testing because their diary entries or telephone "visits" would not have alerted the supervisors to more positive cases. I expect about 40% were Asymptomatic.
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?
That's Brooke Jackson - I incorporate that issue in the paragraph about "“First 7 days” did not fall on the same part of the calendar for everyone." I can totally buy that tests were short in the beginning. However, a lot of trail participants weren't injected in the beginning, so the worry window signal should still be visible in Pfizer's results *unless* an additional step of outright fraud.
I appreciate valuing an iron-tight case - that is my motivation as well, though more from the perspective of, "all vaccines are biologically unsound." Sure, they can show efficacy in a study - but that doesn't mean they are a net positive. If they were, evolution wouldn't have designed immunity the way it did.
Jan 18, 2023·edited Jan 18, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
I agree. As a neophyte who would look to present a possible case I would first try to demonstrate that the trials were very weak- the data wasn’t thoroughly collected and various participants were dropped for unknown causes (hopefully to show after discovery that there was malfeasance in this decision). But basically something strong enough to get a proper and rigorous discovery- because let’s face it, they aren’t giving us a lot of data on many levels. My second contention would be that it was known from the beginning that due to the fragile state of the mRNA, it was going to be logistically impossible to create enough vials in a safe way- a way that would ensure there were no corrupted batches. I would focus on what batches were reserved for in-house employees versus those fro the mass public, etc and temperature control issues, etc. Surely they were aware of that issue as well.
I guess you could say that this issue is a lot like the Twitter censorship. We knew people were being censored, we were convinced it was political although we weren’t sure which groups were doing it but we watched it happen in real time. But actual evidence was only forthcoming after Musk released the data. The 80 FBI agents, the back door entrance from the FBI building, the emails from the White House, the DHS- etc. It was much worse than many imagined.
Lol- if there’s one thing I’ve learned in all of this , I’m not going to discount anyone’s wild theories anymore! Heck I really like Arkmedic’s Somoa story- the covid trial run in the Pacific!
Right. It's just about creating the appearance of a value-add ("I have credentials, and can *detect* the fraud that a lay person has to assume based on knowing that everything the PMC class does is a comedy of errors") to drum up "engagement."
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 always like being shown new links! but... test negative studies I never use. It simply means more of one group of people showed up or referred for a given test wrongly (they had the symptoms but not the virus). It's never possible to infer anything about real-life infection rates from this.
I don't deny that the injections mess with innate immunity. Just that this shouldn't lead us to expect to observe more infections per se. We have a poor understanding of the relationship between innate immunity and testing positive for this virus. Of course I have seen Worry Window claims that people have different "variant-specific Innate Immunity" which is upset by the injection. Ok, fine for a theory. But still not enough to make me jump to "we should expect more cases." So I only care about whether more cases have been observed.
Innate immune disruption could certainly also be involved in post-vax health downturns. Though, this is also true about the virus. I don't think the evidence is clear either way which is why I haven't finished my "vax and kids' immunity Pt 2" post, the evidence is a big big mess.
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.
Several comments have reverted to theory. To quote myself below, "I'm sure innate immune disfunction / suppression is real, but it probably has been for every vaccine ever. So we shouldn't expect different observations afterward, regardless of these (relatively) brand new theories of what should happen. Observations guide knowledge."
UKHSA data has long supported negative infection efficacy (likely because of bad denominators for the unvaccinated, differences in testing behaviors, etc.), but that isn't the worry window. Worry window is a specific claim that certain people have made ad infinitum and has widespread purchase on what people think is happening, despite not being real.
Not sure which Netherlands research you are referring to. But the thing about healthy user bias is that it will vary from place to place. UK has a weird bias where people about to die don't get injections, but that doesn't mean they have a true "healthy user bias." The thing about dying is that on a day to day basis it is "weird" to do it, so it isn't necessarily a marker of "un/healthy."
Yes, for many vaccines that likely applies. One known factor for instance is that certain immunologic mechanisms (and hence for instance medicine) that increases protection against viruses make you weaker for fungus and visa versa. Many vaccines contain stimulants that likely trigger one area at the expense of others. But I'm suggesting there may be unique things here.
For instance a massive drop in white blood cells that has been observed in several places now. I also read once the mRNA encoding has an IL-6 suppressor in it, but I must admit I found no good reference to it in literature, so it may be untrue.
The Netherlands research I'm referring to, is their government investigation ordered by their Parliament into their excess deaths. They decided to add covid-deaths to that research, because 'why not'. Overall their document was done quite well, but it suffers from a few weaknesses. One of them is poor graph scales and not publishing the raw data in a table, and a second one from investigation bias as in they define vaccine death as direct-death only. They did find evidence for a healthy user bias, even though they only briefly mention it. Overall they conclude there is excess death and it is not covid caused and not (direct) vaccine either, but they have no idea why. As said, I want to get their raw data, but I need to find some time.
Hello Brian, I think Peter has it right that there is a period of immune suppression unique to the mRNA injections that potentiates Covid-19 infections. This would be during the initial induction period for IgG formation. It seemed to me that this was settled science, between the waves of Covid-19 that would ravage nursing and care homes in the weeks following the first mass jab, to the famous series of Texas Lindsay animations showing how covid cases grew correspondingly as jabs started in country after country. While the mechanism may be unclear and you may be right to exonerate certain mechanisms, I doth think you protest too much in this regard. I want to argue with you, but I don't even want to waste the time looking up references. I clearly recall one doctor doing a video on his blood results for patients before and after first jab, showing the nature of the immune suppression in data.
I appreciate minding the fence line of truth.. I have done it myself many times when discussion turns to microscopic crystallites being identified as 5G nanorouters. At some point though, IMO, it's a waste of energy.
This is from April 2021;
https://expose-news.com/2021/04/04/exclusive-hospital-medical-director-says-level-of-sickness-in-nhs-staff-after-covid-vaccination-is-unprecedented/
In response to the arising question of making Covid-19 vaccination compulsory for NHS staff, Dr Polyakova said –
“Mandatory vaccination in this instance is stupid, unethical and irresponsible when it comes to protecting our staff and public health. We are in the voluntary phase of vaccination, and staff are being encouraged to take an unlicensed product that is impacting on their immediate health.
“I have direct experience of staff contracting Covid after vaccination and probably transmitting it. It is clearly stated that these vaccine products do not offer immunity or stop transmission.
“So why are we doing it? There is no longitudinal safety data available and these products are only under emergency licensing. What is to say that there are no longitudinal adverse effects that we may face that may put the entire health sector at risk?”
That's why I'm making a post. The "settled science" is wrong and has been forever. I don't see how "we all agreed to believe a wrong idea a long time ago" is a counter-argument before I've even addressed the supposed studies (and when a lot of people never were in that agreement, it's more like a cultural signifier to believe in the Worry Window as I see it).
I won't demand links. I'm aware of the video with the doctor (link is still in my macbook pro notes). But circulating immune cells are meant to be used. They are not supposed to spend every day in the "firehouse." So it isn't some game-changer for them to flock off to deal with the spike transfection. T
he emphasis on Polyakova's quote is on "after" - as in, he is saying 100% of injected HCWs did not get sterilizing immunity. He isn't saying they "immediately after" and it is pretty clear he would, if that was what he wanted to convey.
More stories of similar effects, from the comments section of the Meryl Nass blog post I linked to elsewhere;
http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2021/02/how-can-this-be-all-residents-and-staff.html
John said...
I don't think that this elderly care home in Spain is an isolated case. There have been multiple reports over the past weeks of people testing positive and even dying after the injection.
In Israel, 6.6% of the injected who did a test during the first three weeks after the jab were found positive. That's a staggering 12.400 people who were positive out of 189.000 vaccinated and tested. At first, I thought that this simply proves that the jab is ineffective, since the infection rate of the vaccinated was similar to that of the general population. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/thousands-of-israelis-tested-positive-for-coronavirus-after-first-vaccine-shot-1.9462478
But then came reports from some of Italy's nursing homes where more than 90% of the residents and staff tested positive after the injection. https://www.secondopianonews.it/news/cronaca/2021/01/25/strage-di-anziani-in-rsa-a-como-21-morti-erano-stati-vaccinati-positivi-85-ospiti-e-54-sanitari.html (translated through DeepL).
A similar thing happened in neighboring Greece where 40 out of 80 residents and staff in an elderly care home were found positive, just a few days after their injection. https://crashonline.gr/epikairotita/1480703/mystiria-pragmata-40-krousmata-koronaiou-se-oiko-evgirias-sto-marousi-itan-emvoliasmenoi/
Five out of seven injected doctors in Chamarajanagar district, India, tested positive days after the jab. https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/five-vaccinated-doctors-test-positive-for-covid-19/article33710589.ece
None of that accounts for background rate. Without accounting for background rate you haven't made an an argument that the vaccine increased infections. Of course there will be infections after the vaccine in nursing homes during a wave, just as there would be infections after you give people a Beef Stroganoff in nursing homes during a wave. It doesn't mean worry window.
I don't "settle" science in my mind without multiple layers of evidence all pointing in the same direction. There were many, many cases of outbreaks similar to what Polyakova described in the link I provided. It was much more pronounced in nursing and care homes. Just because you cannot explain it does not mean it didn't happen. It happened. Receipts below....
Here now is another;
http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2021/02/how-can-this-be-all-residents-and-staff.html
We know this was true because it was fact checked as untrue by Reuters;
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-spain-carehome-idUSKCN2AU2DV
Here is a defender article covering the post vax infection syndrome in more depth;
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/nursing-home-residents-spain-die-pfizer-covid-vaccine/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=7669d08c-efe7-4459-b6c6-06e4f4efc065
At another nursing home in the same southwestern Spanish province, in Novo Sancti Petri, in Chiclani, 22 elderly residents died and 103 were infected following a vaccination campaign.
Similar outbreaks and death clusters following vaccination have been reported across the globe, including:
29 elderly people died in Norway shortly after receiving Pfizer’s vaccination.
13 deaths among 40 residents following vaccination at one nursing home in Germany were dismissed as “tragic coincidence.”
10 deaths in a German palliative care patients within hours to four days of COVID-19 vaccination were deemed a “coincidence.”
22 of 72 residents of a nursing home in Basingstoke, England have died following vaccination.
24 seniors at a nursing home in Syracuse, NY were reported to have died from COVID-19 as of Jan. 9 despite having been vaccinated beginning Dec. 22.
10 cases of COVID-19 were reported on Jan. 28 among seniors who had received both doses of Pfizer’s vaccine at one care home in Stockholm Sweden. The residents were vaccinated on Dec. 27 and again on Jan.19.
The COVID-19 death toll in the small British enclave of Gibraltar numbered 16 before it launched its Pfizer vaccination campaign on Jan. 10 and then shot up to 53 deaths 10 days later and to 70 seven days after that. According to a Reuters report, the Gibraltar Health Authority declared there was “no evidence at all of any causal link” between 6 of the deaths that were investigated and Pfizer’s vaccine, despite the individuals having tested negative for COVID before vaccination, but positive “in the days immediately after.”
4,500 COVID-19 cases in Israel occurred in patients after they had received one dose of Pfizer’s vaccine and 375 of those vaccinated patients required hospitalization, Israeli news media reported on Jan.12.
Seven adults living in a care home in Saskatoon tested positive for coronavirus a week after residents were vaccinated at the Sherbrooke Community Centre, the CBC reported. There were no positive cases at the time of vaccination.
Seven residents at a Montreal long-term care facility tested positive for COVID- within 28 days of being vaccinated with Pfizer’s vaccine, prompting the province of Quebec to delay the second Pfizer dose.
Abercorn Care Home in Scotland, which began COVID-19 vaccinations on Dec. 14 was home to an outbreak of the virus by Jan. 10 and the National Health Service for the region refused to comment on whether vaccinated residents were ill. A care home staff group founder told the Scottish Daily Record: “We have had members of our group whose parents have had the vaccine and then two weeks later have tested positive for coronavirus.”
All of the residents at a home in Inverness, Scotland were vaccinated against COVID early in January, but 17 became infected with the virus after the first dose.
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!
Right. Though the original wording is ambiguous about the scale. Was medication assignment left in charts in all participants or just 1 or 2? Having things on checklists ensures they get done all the time, but they can still get done when not on checklists.
But I'm totally ok with the argument that this "pretend incompetence" was a feature, not bug, and trial sites directly censored vax infections and passed placebo tests. I have no problem with claiming outright fraud, but I don't think that's what gives the Worry Window Argument its "punch." It's always this implication that the infections were reclassified.
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.
I dunno. The "suspected Covid" theory (aka not-fraud technicality argument 1000) had just been floated again by el gato malo yesterday so I think it still has purchase as a Worry Window Argument. So I rebut it. It wouldn't work because it would have censored the placebo infections.
I tuned out mr el gato malo from the time he asserted that all the rest of the vaccines are safe unless someone can provide him with a dissertation on how they are not (someone literally did so in the comments but he ignored it.)
Still, I am not faulting what you are doing at all. It is good for everyone to have this sorted out to better whet the analytical razors that will protect us from -future- globally catastrophic shenanigans. That's why I stick around and try to muddle my dim way through these discussions.
Right, he believes the myth that life expectancy gains were beyond marginally to do with medicine. So there's no getting through on big picture bio questions.
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
1 Still falls because it would have hit the early placebo cases in cross-fire. Placebo infections were experiencing the same symptoms as vax side effects. So site staff would have incorrectly not tested those or put a secret symbol on it saying "likely vax." It would require outride fraud in-house at Pfizer to selectively pass those tests and censor the vax tests.
2 I actually don't know this one. The recent history of how vaccines were already being redefined in pharma / med-space, and the context of the DOD/HHS knowing more than everyone else, matters a lot as far as why there was no interest in asymptomatic cases. There could be loads of mundane and nefarious factors at play besides "gaming" the results.
3 That's the point of Pt 2. But the Worry Window is almost never mentioned without mentioning the trials (and implying there were actually high recorded infections even though there weren't).
4 Agree. But "watering down" on the QA front would be a double-edged sword as far as the worry window on theoretical grounds.
5 Said outbreaks out to be clearly traceable to deaths in the vaxxed. They aren't. You've got age groups that aren't even eligible yet showing up to the hospital, that's not because of what the vaccine did.
6 Agree.
IgG4 comment: IgG4 CATASTROPHISM LOYALTY OATHS ARE MANDATORY AT UNGLOSSED
Can you elaborate on pt 5?
That's tackled in the latest post. The winter 20/21 Alpha wave happened before anyone was actually eligible. There's no signal for age groups gaining eligibility having more infections. You could supplement this with the ONS data at the time, supplement it in other countries (to whatever extent they have stats), the signal for vax rollout age groups driving waves isn't there.
#2 Has Pfizer or any "pFactChecker" ever tried to justify this?
To me it seems like a no brainer to systematically test all participants.
The trial protocol explicitly requires contacting the vendor to report a symptom first. And then we see that something over 90% of those got tested (the negative plus positive tests).
But why was the trial protocol approved?. Thats BS especially since everyone outside the trial was pushed to test frequently
Like I said above, I can't guess at the overall meta on that. Lots of people claim to know what modern vax trial precedents are but I think few do, it's a boring arcane subject.
Is point #4 some sort of speculation, or known to be true?
Point #5 is what I had in mind while reading the above. There are established causes of the 'worry window' as well as umpteen examples of it playing out. We saw it time and again all over the world. I observed it within my community and it became easy to predict when a particular age group would start seeing cases as it would begin when that age group were being injected.
The phenomenon returns with boosters.
Pt 4 was confirmed in EMA reports (thats the EU equivalent of FDA)
I did not observe post-injection-infections until the boosters, and have never encountered a lot of anecdotes up until last year.
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.
I'm sure innate immune disfunction / suppression is real, but it probably has been for every vaccine ever. So we shouldn't expect different observations afterward, regardless of these (relatively) brand new theories of what should happen. Observations guide knowledge.
My questions as someone way over his head:
1 Is immune suppression due to adjuvants or due to the 'active ingredient' in this case spike protein?
2 If the suppression is due to active ingredient then this vaccine we could expect immune suppression to last longer due to continued in vivo production of the active ingredient, with both severity and duration of suppression dependant on your body's production of the spike
For the record, I am more concerned about long term unpredictable vascular damage and the insane affects of random incompletely
or incorrectly transcribed, often misfolded proteins. The Worry Window seems plausible based on this being the period of maximum spike protein production but I remain agnostic.
The LNPs turn out to be extremely pro-inflammatory, with resultant innate reprogramming in mice https://unglossed.substack.com/p/the-new-innate-immune-reprogramming
Spike is pro-inflammatory and pro-coagulation as well, so it likely augments this and leads to a feedback loop in predisposed individuals. As far as the overall effect on innate immunity I have previously compared it to diabetes - chronic inflammation leaves the cellular immune system stuck in the mud of exhaustion. But "VAIDS" hasn't really shown its face yet in terms of rampant fungal infections or anything like that.
I haven't been able to piece together a link between either maternal or childhood vaxxing on all these weird outbreaks in kids, for example. So the overall impact doesn't seem too great. Yet.
Apparently Strep A is on the decline, although still above typical seasonal levels. Apparently they remark that Strep A case fatality rates are on par with other seasons, which is interesting. A large portion of the deaths are appearing in those >65.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/group-a-streptococcal-infections-activity-during-the-2022-to-2023-season/group-a-streptococcal-infections-seventh-update-on-seasonal-activity-in-england
Heck, even infections as well. Plenty of viruses attempt to tip-toe around activating our immune system or by shutting down the immune system tangentially. As I've covered in my microbiome posts many respiratory viruses appear to alter the gut microbiome, which then removes immunoregulatory and anti-inflammatory mechanisms. This makes me wonder if this all is part of a broader evolutionary battle that we've never considered until just recently.
Absurd. Inflammation was invented by the spike protein. As were autoimmunity and Alzheimers. We were all there, we remember how it went.
How can I remember if I'm filled with spike?!! Wait, who are you? What is this place?
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.”
“if a sizable group of people believe it to be true, then it’s probably wrong.”
That is exactly how I consider everything! 😄
The classic Kierkegaardian position. 'The Crowd is Untruth', is per my understanding much nastier in Danish.
Always a good rubric
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
That's an artifact of efficacy and a lower testing rate immediately after injection (those who are sick are unlikely to realize it due to thinking it's injection side effects). Essentially, what is obscured is the background rate - it will actually be right where the peak is. So it's not that you are being dropped into the frogger street when you get injected but that you were already in it to begin with.
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
Perhaps, and this might be why the only parts of Craig's other links that show higher infection are in enclosed settings. But for most recipients, side effects would keep people home-bound and this is probably why infection efficacy appears so early in the data. Can't get infected if you aren't exposed.
And the trial was peculiar because Asymptomatic positives would not have triggered testing because their diary entries or telephone "visits" would not have alerted the supervisors to more positive cases. I expect about 40% were Asymptomatic.
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?
That's Brooke Jackson - I incorporate that issue in the paragraph about "“First 7 days” did not fall on the same part of the calendar for everyone." I can totally buy that tests were short in the beginning. However, a lot of trail participants weren't injected in the beginning, so the worry window signal should still be visible in Pfizer's results *unless* an additional step of outright fraud.
I appreciate valuing an iron-tight case - that is my motivation as well, though more from the perspective of, "all vaccines are biologically unsound." Sure, they can show efficacy in a study - but that doesn't mean they are a net positive. If they were, evolution wouldn't have designed immunity the way it did.
I agree. As a neophyte who would look to present a possible case I would first try to demonstrate that the trials were very weak- the data wasn’t thoroughly collected and various participants were dropped for unknown causes (hopefully to show after discovery that there was malfeasance in this decision). But basically something strong enough to get a proper and rigorous discovery- because let’s face it, they aren’t giving us a lot of data on many levels. My second contention would be that it was known from the beginning that due to the fragile state of the mRNA, it was going to be logistically impossible to create enough vials in a safe way- a way that would ensure there were no corrupted batches. I would focus on what batches were reserved for in-house employees versus those fro the mass public, etc and temperature control issues, etc. Surely they were aware of that issue as well.
I guess you could say that this issue is a lot like the Twitter censorship. We knew people were being censored, we were convinced it was political although we weren’t sure which groups were doing it but we watched it happen in real time. But actual evidence was only forthcoming after Musk released the data. The 80 FBI agents, the back door entrance from the FBI building, the emails from the White House, the DHS- etc. It was much worse than many imagined.
I’m guessing you saw Jessica Rose’s substack. https://jessicar.substack.com/p/characterization-of-bnt162b2-mrna
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.
Lol- if there’s one thing I’ve learned in all of this , I’m not going to discount anyone’s wild theories anymore! Heck I really like Arkmedic’s Somoa story- the covid trial run in the Pacific!
Right. It's just about creating the appearance of a value-add ("I have credentials, and can *detect* the fraud that a lay person has to assume based on knowing that everything the PMC class does is a comedy of errors") to drum up "engagement."