You have stumbled upon the hiddle middle of vaccine damage. Here is why I call it that.
The most common and easily acknowledged injuries from vaccines are the swelling around the injection site and sickness behavior. On the other end of the spectrum are the cases of paralysis and death. They are grudgingly acknowledged, too, but at least they are acknowledged.
But what of everything in between? In the non-covid vaccines, these cause life-threatening allergies, deadly autoimmune diseases and neurological damage by harming either the gut or the nervous system directly.
The cause of these is officially unknown—but it's definitely not the vaccines, we are told.
The cause is the vaccines, both the effects that show up early and those that show up years later. The collection of chronic diseases that are plaguing us is the "hidden middle" of vaccine damage.
And these covid vaccines are about to add a whole lot more to it.
That term resonates so much - hidden middle. This is true for companion animals also, so many dogs have recurring infections and allergies and take antibiotics and they recommend steroids, and they say it's environmental or food allergies. It's very common, some types of dogs are prone to immune problems and allergies, they say. And the vet wheel is constant for a young dog, and she's worth it all of course, but it feels so wrong. Yet I could have done much more research than I did. Some vaccines may have made sense, but there was no real discussion of likelihood of exposure, and nothing about the risks. And she's not very sick, and most of the time she looks fine, but it's a huge drain of time and very finite $$. The vaccine makers should pay for everyone damaged, everyone even likely to have been damaged. From the covid injections, from others, given to children, infants, everyone. And cats and dogs. With truly informed consent, some vaccines, one at a time, might be needed. (Parvovirus, probably, in dogs). But they put four antigens in one shot in that one. Another one is required, even for indoor cats or dogs who are always on leash or in a dog run. So, so wrong. The "hidden middle" .. yes ...
In some cases it is the 3'UTR which for Pfizer contains human mitochondrial RNA. It was a stupid idea to use this as a biological adjuvant and never ever tested in humans prior to the 2020 phase 1 study, for which nobody is allowed to see the clinical record forms
I have seen such claims regarding vaccines, but have not had time to study them. But given what I have witnessed of the pharmaceutical industry, I hope to take the time to do so after this battle is over.
Much as I hate and see the political weaponization of equating SARS-CoV-2 with "Covid 19," I am not sure I would agree that harms induced by the vaccines should be lumped in.
For one, the "toxicity" of the spike protein is possibly generic to all coronaviruses. The more I research, the more I realize that all vascular and neurological receptor proteins have a pathway that a corresponding genre of routine viruses could exploit. ACE-2 is an open door for any coronavirus for both entry and cross-cellular fusion, as far as I can tell.
For another, the inflammation / infection enhancement that leads up to Severe Covid 19 seems to be based something unrelated to the spike's "toxicity" - superfluous epitopes in the S2 portion? In other words, there's some kind of signal for priming / ADE that isn't being looked at enough, or really at all. Again, the "toxicity" needs to basically be discarded as noise and the question of why some individuals undergo enhancement / inflammation during infection, which makes widespread viremia that leads to the other harms, should be the focus.
Lastly, the Covid vaccines alter the etiology of harms from the spike protein because they take immediate cellular destruction out of the equation, and change the timing and scale of spike-exposure. The first implies different hazards for immunodeficiency and autoimmunity (tolerance to the spike? IgE sensitization because of lack of toll receptor engagement? etc etc - with an infection, the immune system realizes it's dealing with a virus), carcinogenicity (if it takes a long time for the cells that get turned into spike protein factories to be destroyed, they might be undergoing metaplasia into secreting phenotypes in order to expel the spike, and this is leading to later conversion to carcinogenic tissue, at least that is my pet theory). The second implies potentially higher knock-out of cellular immunity, again a possible route to increased cancer and generic viral infection.
Why do you believe that the vaccines take cellular destruction out of the equation? You are assuming effectiveness but the data is very clearly that they are not effective either for preventing infection or for preventing severe disease. Only the media is telling you otherwise, and misrepresentations of misallocated observational data.
In fact *by design* the genomic vaccines will cause cellular damage because they are producing the very spike from the cells of the body that they must enter to use the DNA machinery of. They will also cause the same cellular damage that an injection of spike protein would cause, except this time it is being produced by your own cells with no off mechanism.
Finally the idea that having spike protein floating around will produce a balanced and neutralising antibody response without causing harm to the host is not proven, has never been proven and likely never will be.
Right, the cells that receive that mRNA script can initiate cellular destruction of other cells. But they themselves are not lysed, as would occur in natural infection. So, either they must *very reliably* self-trigger apoptosis or they must *near-instantaneously* be induced to apoptosis by neighbors. We have no reason to assume either, and in the absence of either, there is a window for all sorts of novel etiologies, including metaplasia into excretion phenotypes leading to carcinogenicity.
I wasn't trying to discount the harms that result from spike presentation which overlap with infection leading to viremia, I was carving out a space for *additional* harms, especially cancer.
I'm not sure what you mean. If a cell is producing a foreign protein it will be targeted for lysis by T-cells. It won't kill surrounding cells, cells (other than immune cells can't do that). Apoptosis can be induced in a cell and potentially can release enzymes (such as amylase) that can destroy other cells or tissues but can't be programmed to kill another cell. So I might have misunderstood
T-cells can't target the spike-presenting cell until they have been programmed by antigen presenting cells. Natural killer cells might of might not be up to the task of sniping every spike-presenting cell on the basis of its "foreign"-ness. Otherwise, what happens? Again, the default during viral infection is the viral replication induces lysis. This default does not obtain with the mRNA package. It doesn't matter if the spike "marks" the cell for "eventual" T Cell targeting after several days. Any gap in natural killer cell response is a window to metaplasia and that is a window into cancer. It's not the same as infection. It's a different risk.
I wouldn't be so dismissive given that the proportions of AEs are so strikingly similar. The cardiovascular problems, neurological long haul symptoms, etc. At the very least, where symptoms are the same, do we agree we are looking at the same disease, by definition?
Mattew you’ve mentioned myocarditis again. I’m confused. Is there such a thing as mild myocarditis? Is there a difference between vaccine induced myocarditis and the one that supposedly results from infection?
Also I see that Denmark has said they will
use Pfizer and not Moderna because the Moderna vaccine is causing some young people to have Myocarditis.
But I first learnt about this condition happening in the Israeli vaccinated who use exclusively Pfizer!
I have tried to figure out some of my questions on the Mayo clinic website but it seems to me to be sketchy.
There is subclinical myocarditis. But when the condition is enough that people recognize the issue and seek out a doctor, it is generally quite serious.
The vaccine cases were spotted because people felt the problem quickly. Troponin levels (heart protein tissue residue) have been extremely high among many of those patients.
The Malaysian MOH data set on deaths is comprehensive. I've taken your idea to un-lag deaths to find a correlation between infection rates and the date each deceased got their vaccine dose. Any tips would be greatly appreciated.
Note the novel(n) disappears. I do small govt reports at a state level, and I routinely write "positive cases of SARS-CoV-2" or "the novel coronavirus pandemic" just on principle.
This person, Tim Spectre, now jointly runs the ZOE COVID data app. Prior to his Zoe updates on YouTube and receiving a few million from the UK government, he questioned on another channel interview, why we weren’t talking about natural immunity. We had many studies that had already taken place, you could even go back to the initial primate studies from the beginning, but his app even recently stated they didn’t know about natural immunity, which I’m going to say was a lie. While I see some data shown looks better with prior covid and vaccine, better than just no covid and vaccination, which personally annoys me that this gets lumped in with vaccination as I guess it would inflate the data, I’m wondering what to make of this - basically I’m thinking it’s to avoid the I’ve got natural immunity thanks, so they are coming out with the no still get vaccinated to get even more protection….
"While I see some data shown looks better with prior covid and vaccine, better than just no covid and vaccination"
How about some data that shows prior covid + vaccine = higher likelihood of adverse event?
Conclusions and Relevance Prior COVID-19 infection but not ongoing Long-COVID symptoms were associated with an increase in the risk of self-reported adverse events following BNT162b2/Pfizer vaccination. COVID-19 illness-vaccination interval did not significantly influence AEs. This data can support education around vaccine-associated AEs and, through improved understanding, help to combat vaccine hesitancy.
Natural immunity makes it "complicated" for them, so take the shot or lose your job. They aren't even trying to hide it:
"Frieden told The BMJ that the question of leveraging natural immunity is a “reasonable discussion,” one he had raised informally with the CDC at start of rollout. “I thought from a rational standpoint, with limited vaccine available, why don’t you have the option” for people with previous infection to defer until there was more supply, he says. “I think that would have been a rational policy. It would have also made rollout, which was already too complicated, even more complicated.”"
And
"“It’s a lot easier to put a shot in their arm,” says Sommer. “To do a PCR test or to do an antibody test and then to process it and then to get the information to them and then to let them think about it—it’s a lot easier to just give them the damn vaccine.” In public health, “the primary objective is to protect as many people as you can,” he says. “It’s called collective insurance, and I think it’s irresponsible from a public health perspective to let people pick and choose what they want to do.”"
Note, the opening line should be about the article series, not the single article. I had to break it into many pieces and went out of town prior to completion, but wanted to reveal the first illusion. It gets more data driven from here.
You have stumbled upon the hiddle middle of vaccine damage. Here is why I call it that.
The most common and easily acknowledged injuries from vaccines are the swelling around the injection site and sickness behavior. On the other end of the spectrum are the cases of paralysis and death. They are grudgingly acknowledged, too, but at least they are acknowledged.
But what of everything in between? In the non-covid vaccines, these cause life-threatening allergies, deadly autoimmune diseases and neurological damage by harming either the gut or the nervous system directly.
The cause of these is officially unknown—but it's definitely not the vaccines, we are told.
The cause is the vaccines, both the effects that show up early and those that show up years later. The collection of chronic diseases that are plaguing us is the "hidden middle" of vaccine damage.
And these covid vaccines are about to add a whole lot more to it.
André Angelantoni
Founder and Project Lead, The Vaccine Course
That term resonates so much - hidden middle. This is true for companion animals also, so many dogs have recurring infections and allergies and take antibiotics and they recommend steroids, and they say it's environmental or food allergies. It's very common, some types of dogs are prone to immune problems and allergies, they say. And the vet wheel is constant for a young dog, and she's worth it all of course, but it feels so wrong. Yet I could have done much more research than I did. Some vaccines may have made sense, but there was no real discussion of likelihood of exposure, and nothing about the risks. And she's not very sick, and most of the time she looks fine, but it's a huge drain of time and very finite $$. The vaccine makers should pay for everyone damaged, everyone even likely to have been damaged. From the covid injections, from others, given to children, infants, everyone. And cats and dogs. With truly informed consent, some vaccines, one at a time, might be needed. (Parvovirus, probably, in dogs). But they put four antigens in one shot in that one. Another one is required, even for indoor cats or dogs who are always on leash or in a dog run. So, so wrong. The "hidden middle" .. yes ...
In some cases it is the 3'UTR which for Pfizer contains human mitochondrial RNA. It was a stupid idea to use this as a biological adjuvant and never ever tested in humans prior to the 2020 phase 1 study, for which nobody is allowed to see the clinical record forms
Thanks for raising this issue. I didn't know that. Do you have any detailed science on that?
I have seen such claims regarding vaccines, but have not had time to study them. But given what I have witnessed of the pharmaceutical industry, I hope to take the time to do so after this battle is over.
I'll send you what you need but it will take me a few days to collect it.
Much as I hate and see the political weaponization of equating SARS-CoV-2 with "Covid 19," I am not sure I would agree that harms induced by the vaccines should be lumped in.
For one, the "toxicity" of the spike protein is possibly generic to all coronaviruses. The more I research, the more I realize that all vascular and neurological receptor proteins have a pathway that a corresponding genre of routine viruses could exploit. ACE-2 is an open door for any coronavirus for both entry and cross-cellular fusion, as far as I can tell.
For another, the inflammation / infection enhancement that leads up to Severe Covid 19 seems to be based something unrelated to the spike's "toxicity" - superfluous epitopes in the S2 portion? In other words, there's some kind of signal for priming / ADE that isn't being looked at enough, or really at all. Again, the "toxicity" needs to basically be discarded as noise and the question of why some individuals undergo enhancement / inflammation during infection, which makes widespread viremia that leads to the other harms, should be the focus.
Lastly, the Covid vaccines alter the etiology of harms from the spike protein because they take immediate cellular destruction out of the equation, and change the timing and scale of spike-exposure. The first implies different hazards for immunodeficiency and autoimmunity (tolerance to the spike? IgE sensitization because of lack of toll receptor engagement? etc etc - with an infection, the immune system realizes it's dealing with a virus), carcinogenicity (if it takes a long time for the cells that get turned into spike protein factories to be destroyed, they might be undergoing metaplasia into secreting phenotypes in order to expel the spike, and this is leading to later conversion to carcinogenic tissue, at least that is my pet theory). The second implies potentially higher knock-out of cellular immunity, again a possible route to increased cancer and generic viral infection.
Why do you believe that the vaccines take cellular destruction out of the equation? You are assuming effectiveness but the data is very clearly that they are not effective either for preventing infection or for preventing severe disease. Only the media is telling you otherwise, and misrepresentations of misallocated observational data.
In fact *by design* the genomic vaccines will cause cellular damage because they are producing the very spike from the cells of the body that they must enter to use the DNA machinery of. They will also cause the same cellular damage that an injection of spike protein would cause, except this time it is being produced by your own cells with no off mechanism.
Finally the idea that having spike protein floating around will produce a balanced and neutralising antibody response without causing harm to the host is not proven, has never been proven and likely never will be.
Right, the cells that receive that mRNA script can initiate cellular destruction of other cells. But they themselves are not lysed, as would occur in natural infection. So, either they must *very reliably* self-trigger apoptosis or they must *near-instantaneously* be induced to apoptosis by neighbors. We have no reason to assume either, and in the absence of either, there is a window for all sorts of novel etiologies, including metaplasia into excretion phenotypes leading to carcinogenicity.
I wasn't trying to discount the harms that result from spike presentation which overlap with infection leading to viremia, I was carving out a space for *additional* harms, especially cancer.
I'm not sure what you mean. If a cell is producing a foreign protein it will be targeted for lysis by T-cells. It won't kill surrounding cells, cells (other than immune cells can't do that). Apoptosis can be induced in a cell and potentially can release enzymes (such as amylase) that can destroy other cells or tissues but can't be programmed to kill another cell. So I might have misunderstood
T-cells can't target the spike-presenting cell until they have been programmed by antigen presenting cells. Natural killer cells might of might not be up to the task of sniping every spike-presenting cell on the basis of its "foreign"-ness. Otherwise, what happens? Again, the default during viral infection is the viral replication induces lysis. This default does not obtain with the mRNA package. It doesn't matter if the spike "marks" the cell for "eventual" T Cell targeting after several days. Any gap in natural killer cell response is a window to metaplasia and that is a window into cancer. It's not the same as infection. It's a different risk.
For sure but both risks are present. We also don't know whether the mRNA package will induce apoptosis itself under some circumstances
*might or might not
I wouldn't be so dismissive given that the proportions of AEs are so strikingly similar. The cardiovascular problems, neurological long haul symptoms, etc. At the very least, where symptoms are the same, do we agree we are looking at the same disease, by definition?
Mattew you’ve mentioned myocarditis again. I’m confused. Is there such a thing as mild myocarditis? Is there a difference between vaccine induced myocarditis and the one that supposedly results from infection?
Also I see that Denmark has said they will
use Pfizer and not Moderna because the Moderna vaccine is causing some young people to have Myocarditis.
But I first learnt about this condition happening in the Israeli vaccinated who use exclusively Pfizer!
I have tried to figure out some of my questions on the Mayo clinic website but it seems to me to be sketchy.
There is subclinical myocarditis. But when the condition is enough that people recognize the issue and seek out a doctor, it is generally quite serious.
The vaccine cases were spotted because people felt the problem quickly. Troponin levels (heart protein tissue residue) have been extremely high among many of those patients.
The Malaysian MOH data set on deaths is comprehensive. I've taken your idea to un-lag deaths to find a correlation between infection rates and the date each deceased got their vaccine dose. Any tips would be greatly appreciated.
2019-nCoV -> SARS-CoV-2 -> COVID-19
Note the novel(n) disappears. I do small govt reports at a state level, and I routinely write "positive cases of SARS-CoV-2" or "the novel coronavirus pandemic" just on principle.
This seems to give some rationale for the naming: https://www.news-medical.net/health/The-Naming-System-Behind-SARS-CoV-2.aspx
This person, Tim Spectre, now jointly runs the ZOE COVID data app. Prior to his Zoe updates on YouTube and receiving a few million from the UK government, he questioned on another channel interview, why we weren’t talking about natural immunity. We had many studies that had already taken place, you could even go back to the initial primate studies from the beginning, but his app even recently stated they didn’t know about natural immunity, which I’m going to say was a lie. While I see some data shown looks better with prior covid and vaccine, better than just no covid and vaccination, which personally annoys me that this gets lumped in with vaccination as I guess it would inflate the data, I’m wondering what to make of this - basically I’m thinking it’s to avoid the I’ve got natural immunity thanks, so they are coming out with the no still get vaccinated to get even more protection….
https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/do-i-need-a-covid-vaccine-if-ive-had-covid
"While I see some data shown looks better with prior covid and vaccine, better than just no covid and vaccination"
How about some data that shows prior covid + vaccine = higher likelihood of adverse event?
Conclusions and Relevance Prior COVID-19 infection but not ongoing Long-COVID symptoms were associated with an increase in the risk of self-reported adverse events following BNT162b2/Pfizer vaccination. COVID-19 illness-vaccination interval did not significantly influence AEs. This data can support education around vaccine-associated AEs and, through improved understanding, help to combat vaccine hesitancy.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.15.21252192v1
Natural immunity makes it "complicated" for them, so take the shot or lose your job. They aren't even trying to hide it:
"Frieden told The BMJ that the question of leveraging natural immunity is a “reasonable discussion,” one he had raised informally with the CDC at start of rollout. “I thought from a rational standpoint, with limited vaccine available, why don’t you have the option” for people with previous infection to defer until there was more supply, he says. “I think that would have been a rational policy. It would have also made rollout, which was already too complicated, even more complicated.”"
And
"“It’s a lot easier to put a shot in their arm,” says Sommer. “To do a PCR test or to do an antibody test and then to process it and then to get the information to them and then to let them think about it—it’s a lot easier to just give them the damn vaccine.” In public health, “the primary objective is to protect as many people as you can,” he says. “It’s called collective insurance, and I think it’s irresponsible from a public health perspective to let people pick and choose what they want to do.”"
https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101
Actually it’s Tim Spector….must be a Freudian slip re James Bond baddie ;)
Zinger! https://t.me/arkmedic/1240
Mathew, have you seen this study? Is it as damning as people are claiming?
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2110475
Their technique is nonsense and I will be writing about it soon. Home from vacation in just a little while.
You had a vacation? Lucky you!
Awesome, thanks!
Note, the opening line should be about the article series, not the single article. I had to break it into many pieces and went out of town prior to completion, but wanted to reveal the first illusion. It gets more data driven from here.