The article \”‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA\”, by Parry et al, is filled with mistakes, logical errors, and outright falsehoods. It’s like a compilation of all the pandemic antivax talking points rolled into one.
Take homes:
1. You may not invent your own logic to prove a point in science; scientific logic/ the scientific method is standardized to produce reproducible results.
2. A chain of evidence is required to bring a thought into an emergent scientific truth – there are oodles of reasons why lab bench science doesn’t directly translate into human science.
For interested readers, I bring you the play-by-play rebuttals. Beware, this one’s really long. My responses in bold.
____
“Sadly, unprecedented high rates of adverse events have overshadowed the benefits”
This requires a complete ignorance of the rates of hospitalization in areas that are well vaccinated versus poorly vaccinated, the decrease in severe disease, and the decrease in mortality in the hospital (citation Australian TGA, NZ Te Whatu Ora, US CDC, British NHS, and Health Canada). It also requires analysis of antivaxxer databases such as OpenVAERS in the absence of data verification and all the statistical controls necessary to analyze vaccine related adverse events professionally.
“Spike protein pathogenicity, termed ‘spikeopathy’, whether from the SARS-CoV-2 virus or produced by vaccine gene codes, akin to a ‘synthetic virus’, is increasingly understood in terms of molecular biology and pathophysiology. Pharmacokinetic transfection through body tissues distant from the injection site by lipid-nanoparticles or viral-vector carriers means that ‘spikeopathy’ can affect many organs”
To believe this statement requires passing off nearly pure speculation as fact. The major antivaxxer strategies used in this article are:
-overloading the reader with nice sounding jargon to look smart, but to the experienced reader, this is an attempt to try and put expired cabbage leaves together with moldy bread and serve it as a sandwich
-switching the burden of proof onto the reader rather than the author (it is a simple principle of science that the hypothesis must be demonstrated by the person putting forth the hypothesis)
-putting together a large string of antivax declarations, mixing it with at time legitimate case studies, to make a debunk exceptionally time consuming and tedious (Brandolini principle)
“It is apparent that the original Wuhan strain and early variants of SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 were more pathogenic than later variants…Fortunately, the virus mutated, and these modelling predictions did not materialise as the pandemic unfolded over the next three years ”
To make a statement like this requires complete ignorance of the multiple countries and multiple hospitals who have specifically researched how many lives were saved when their populations were vaccinated (or better shielded from severe disease). Modeling predictions may not have been 100% spot on, which is to be expected for modeling, but the authors really have to be living in a shipping container to have totally missed this entire body of research (much of which is detailed by Twitter user @jsm2334).
“Pfizer admitted that its phase 3 clinical trial [12] did not test for viral transmission [13].”
This is a deception intended to trick the reader into believing the distortions that are subsequently set up. The logical mistake (or quite frankly, the outright lie) is to expect that clinical trials look for everything under the sun, and retrospectively complain that a trial didn’t test for every last thing an antivaxxer wanted to see. I don’t use this word willy nilly – Children’s Health Defense, the organization that collaborated on this article, is a group of antivaxxers, by their own admissions and public actions. By 2023, there are now large amounts of research specifically looking at viral transmission such as this one
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10073587/
. Also, its an English reading comprehension mistake to think that “Pfizer admitted they didn’t look for transmission” – the original NEJM phase 3 trial explicitly said what it was and was not testing for. This is a common trick used by antivaxxers, to invent meanings for English words that do not exist.
“presumptions of efficacy have been sustained by COVID-19 modellers…whereas real-world infection fatality rate (IFR) data speak against the need for vaccination in the non-elderly”
I would not expect the lead author, a psychiatrist, to be exceptionally up to date on the latest biostatistics of Infection Fatality Rate, COVID disease modeling, or case fatality rate. However, I would expect a graduate of a medical school to live up to the standard of basic academic honesty and read even a little bit of literature on this topic – which reveals that death is not the only bad outcome of COVID. The other logical mistake here is to completely ignore people with chronic illnesses and immunosuppressive conditions, who can get very sick or die from COVID (and indeed have). Ableism is a solidly ingrained feature of the antivaxxer ecosystem, as anyone who has followed their ecosystem even for a few months will realize.
“Ioannidis et al. in 2022 in a paper titled “Forecasting for COVID-19 has failed” critiqued the models that ignored the low IFRs to emerge in the first half of 2020”
Thanks to Twitter user @gorskon , we have receipts on how exceptionally dishonest Ioannidis has been about COVID:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/tag/john-ioannidis/
“Accurate estimates of lives saved or lost as a result of the COVID-19 gene-based vaccines would have required long-term studies in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated individuals”
Again, the logical mistake here is to assume that just because the authors have not read an article, that the articles in question do not exist. A quick search of Pubmed reveals a large number of articles comparing the relative hospital admissions and deaths, assessed in multiple countries/ hospital systems, in vaccinated/ partially vaccinated/ unvaccinated groups (in regards to COVID vaccinations). They are not even trying to hide their academic dishonesty at this point. Only one of many sources is here
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status
. The authors then subsequently hold up New South Wales, one state in Australia, in an attempt to claim vaccines don’t help that much against transmission/ hospitalization/ morbidity/ mortality. They purposefully forget to try and control for the base rate fallacy, and don’t even try to do that comparison in another country or another state of another country. They don’t even try to control for the fact that Australia had very harsh lockdowns. If they did that, they would see how effective the COVID vaccines are against severe disease.
“Figure 3. Diagram of various proteins of SARS-CoV-2 virus. Reprinted from News-Medical.net (accessed on 26 April 2023) Cuffari (2021): What are spike proteins? “
OK, this is really simple fact checking – if you want to get a diagram of SARS-COV2, at least pick the right coronavirus. This is a diagram of another kind of coronavirus, related to SARS-COV2, but not exactly the same one. This is a failure of really bare bones basic fact checking.
“Given amassed data that suggest mRNA and adenovectorDNA-created spike proteins cause harm, these theoretical safeguards appear to have failed.”
This is a significant logical jump to go from “prefusion stabilization” to “these safeguards failed”. Authors who write about virology are expected to follow the normal standards of logic expected of virologists, which is to design or cite experiments that back up their claims.
“The spike protein is not only toxic through binding of ACE-2 receptors, but it also has cytotoxic effects inside cells through interaction with cancer suppressor genes BRCA and P53 and mitochondrial damage, coagulopathies through direct contact with cellular proteins, and is neurotoxic through accumulation, with spread and reconfiguration of prion proteins into their pathologic form. The accumulation of spike protein inside cells could have toxic and apoptotic effects”
They forget a really simple principle of vaccines here – the cells that express the spike protein are removed by the immune system (and thereby help train the immune system to recognize COVID spike). The authors fail to even make the simplest case to explain why cells that are removed, would be a threat to the rest of the body with the mechanisms that they cite. While it is true that the p53 proteins and BRCA have been found to interact with spike protein in lab experiments, it is a far cry from being “proof that these proteins cause cancer”.
“The spike protein has been shown to also contain a ‘toxin- like’ domain in the RBD on S1, with sequence homology to Rabies Virus (RBG) and HIV glycoproteins, and neurotoxin NL-1, all of which bind to the α7 Nicotinic Acid Acetylcholine Receptors (α7 nAChR) of the cholinergic system [30] … This binding model could provide logical explanations for the acute inflammatory disorder”
While it is legitimate to have creative thoughts about what other mechanisms may be responsible for the varied symptoms of COVID-19, and especially those ones less well studied, it is not legitimate to fail to either personally conduct the experiments or attempt to collect evidence in humans that supports their thinking. Specifically, simply stating that sequence homology exists between different proteins, is not sufficient to claim the protein being queried is toxic. Proteins have a few building blocks common across all species of life, and to make those common building blocks, amino acid sequences have to be somewhat similar. It is legitimate to claim evidence for the assertion that the cholinergic system is dysregulated in COVID disease (
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8775685/
)
however the hole in their logic is to then claim that this is a potential root cause of the vaccine related adverse events. You need the followup experiment to show this. The funding sources of Childrens Health Defense are considerable – and they have many followers. The logical thing to do would be to recruit volunteers, with informed consent, and conduct a few IRB approved experiments to test the hypothesis. That they don’t, makes me suspicious that their intentions aren’t really to help people with legitimate vaccine associated adverse events.
“The unprecedented number of adverse events appears to be associated with the spike proteins produced by the gene-based technologies employed by Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Johnson and Johnson”
There isn’t even an attempt, not even a little, to consider any of the statistical reasons why the number of reported events for the COVID vaccine could be different from prior vaccines. Not even a mention of even basic problems with this comparison, such as reporting bias and number of doses given
“The gene-based COVID-19 vaccines fall into a special class of therapeutic agents defined by the FDA as “gene therapy products” [36], such that recipient cells produce antigens for transmembrane expression, or to leave the cell, to secondarily invoke an immune response” .
These are code words to try and persuade the reader that COVID vaccines are gene therapy. The actual truth of the matter, from people who actually formulate and carry out gene therapy, is that there is no evidence of actual genes actually being changed in human beings by the COVID mRNA vaccines. This remains true in 2023. There is also no effort to explain why, even if their assertion is true, how genetic changes should be relevant, in cells that are removed from the immune system. In other words, I challenge Childrens Health Defense to show why gene therapy should be relevant in cells that are removed from the body via the immune system. They’ve had 3 years to do the experiments and still haven’t produced any peer reviewed evidence to this effect. Most worryingly, the authors seem to gloss over the fact that what they described is a NORMAL immune response to a vaccine. I think that was intentional, to use big scary words to fearmonger to people they think don’t know any better. It is exceptionally unethical to use medical school training to do this.
“Documents obtained under a Freedom of Information (FOI) request reveal the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were developed via the Trump Administration’s “Operation Warp Speed” program under the auspices of the US Department of Defense… As such, many of the FDA’s normal, protracted, and time-consuming safety testing and toxicology protocols were bypassed, in the rush to Emergency Use Authorisation status [39,40,41].
This statement is a complete hallucination; no steps were skipped; in the effort to release a vaccine faster, several steps were instead performed in parallel.
“Turni and Lefringhausen [42], in “COVID-19 vaccines—An Australian Review”, note that the lipid-nanoparticle, the carrier for synthetic mRNA, is potentially inflammatory in its own right, crosses membranes and distributes widely in the body. It crosses both the blood-brain barrier and the blood-placenta barrier. They cite the EMA report on the Moderna vaccine “that mRNA could be detected in the brain following intramuscular administration at about 2% of the level found in plasma” (p. 491). They also cite research [43,44,45] that describes how and why lipid-nanoparticles easily traverse the blood-brain barrier.”
The article cited by Lefringhausen involves an 86 year old whose cause of death was clearly stated in the citation to not be due to a COVID vaccine, yet they still proceed to misquote the article in their efforts to claim that the COVID vaccine distributes everywhere in the body. This is academic misconduct in normal circumstances, but an everyday antivaxxer trick. While it is logical to look at prior research seeing what the biodistribution of nanoparticles might be, it is academically dishonest to use that article to assert that nanoparticles of COVID vaccine efficiently cross placental tissue to secretly vaccinate the baby; in fact we have quite a significant body of research by Twitter user @VikilovesFACS (a professional researcher in reproductive endcrinology) and partners that show the fetus is not efficiently vaccinated when mum is vaccinated (rather the fetus picks up antibodies). Next, even the citation that they use (the EMA) states that the vaccine crosses into the brain in small amounts – it is dishonest to claim that pharmaceutical regulatory agencies were trying to hide this. Next, it is another level of dishonest to claim that mice studies, where they overdose mice on vaccines on purpose, correlate exactly to how humans would behave. Lastly, they fail to consider why a human brain should be affected by COVID vaccine, when the actual human equivalent dose is less than the dose given in the mice experiments (
), when the mice already have very low brain uptake of this vaccine.
“The Pfizer biodistribution study involved 63 Wistar Han rats of whom 42 (21 male, 21 female) were injected with the human equivalent of 50 µg mRNA per animal, and an additional 21 male rats were injected with the equivalent of a Moderna COVID-19 vaccine dose of 100 µg mRNA per animal.”
Here the authors fail basic primary school math – the figure they cite clearly labels the rats as getting 50 micrograms IM, but this alone doesn’t make the dose “human equivalent of 50 micrograms”. You have to scale up the equivalent dose given by the body weight. The article is literally getting so bad the authors can’t count.
“Natural messenger RNA is highly unstable, so the synthetic mRNA that codes for spike protein in Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines has been stabilised by replacement of uridine with N1-methylpseudouridine [37]. This intervention is now known to make the synthetic mRNA excessively stable over a prolonged period [49]. Fertig et al. [50] found the lipid-nanoparticle and contained mRNA were still circulating in blood plasma 15 days post-vaccination. Recent research found the mRNA in blood plasma at 28 days post-vaccination [51]. Also, the S1 subunit was found recirculating in picomolar amounts along with full spike protein in a Brigham and Women’s Hospital study of 13 nurses vaccinated with the Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine to about 42–72 h [52].”
This represents a failure to understand simple high school biology. Pseudouridine is not a new molecule invented just for mRNA vaccines, many different organisms use pseudouridine to stabilize their own other types of RNA including humans (
). If these people had done any RNA experiments at all, then they would have realized that RNA requires multiple chemical measures to preserve it to stick around long enough for an experiment, and especially so when used as a vaccine. They then proceed to cite a breastfeeding study showing very tiny amounts (picomolars are a really tiny number) of residual mRNA related to COVID vaccine persisting – yet fail to show how broken pieces of vaccine RNA should have any relevance to biological processes. They don’t even stop to think why the experiments they cited could represent new discoveries in how mRNA vaccines are metabolized by the body, rather than a secret nefarious chemical reaction designed to hurt people behind their back. Lastly, they even complain about COVID vaccines being present to some degree in lymph nodes for a prolonged period of time – while forgetting the basic immunologic principle of maturation of germinal centers for the optimal production of antibodies (citation Janeways Immunology). Overall, an assertion that these biochemical processes are bad, requires an experiment showing they are bad. The studies cited show varying levels of persistence of either COVID vaccine or spike protein from vaccine. None of the citations presented are evidence for that claim.
“Reproductive toxicity effects beyond the scope of this review.”
Apart from being grammatically incorrect English coming from native Australian English speakers, this sentence is patently false as demonstrated by the research from people who actually work in reproductive endocrinology and obstetrics/ gynecology (citations by Twitter user @VikilovesFACS) .
“Of particular concern in mRNA-LNP complexes are the two propriet[a]ry functional excipients, ALC-0315 and ALC-0159 … Echelon, the manufacturer of these nanoparticles, specifies they are ‘for research only and not for human use … the presence of electrolytes in the preparation and manual dilution before inoculation raises serious questions about the stability of the resulting suspension and the polydispersity index”
First off, they clearly put this article together under some time pressure as they failed to spell proprietary correctly. Next, it is legitimate to claim the ionizable lipid they described is immunogenic. It is no longer legitimate however, to complain that ALC-0315, is a nanoparticle. Words have specific meanings in science! This is a failure to read the Oxford dictionary; ALC-0315 is a molecule, not a nanoparticle. Next, many molecules are labeled “not for human use” when sold in their industrial form; in fact the ionizable lipids in their bulk, wholesale form are commonly found mixed with solvents to preserve them. Biggest real life example – industrial ethanol is sold with methanol to make it poisonous to drink, but ethanol in wine is free of methanol. It is that combination, that is not for human use – it should be plainly obvious that humans should not be consuming solvents. It is a simple matter for a chemist to separate the two items for further chemical reactions such as producing a COVID vaccine. Lastly, all vaccines contain electrolytes; your Gatorade has electrolytes, and your food contains electrolytes. The authors have ran out of things to scare people about so they thought they would scare people about electrolytes instead.
“This can only lead to a drastic reduction in the Zeta potential, with predictable aggregation, agglomeration, and, finally, flocculation. One can postulate the damage caused by aggregation of nanoparticles in capillaries throughout the body. Should the colloidal suspension stay stable enough to disperse in lymph and blood, the nanoparticles as well as their toxic load will distribute across the body, cross blood-brain, blood-placental and other biological barriers and likely cause cell death and inflammation wherever they accumulate.”
The zeta potential is a reference to the net charge of an object in a biological system. This is typically used in material science and special types of mixtures called colloid. High zeta potentials incur more stability, and low zeta potentials mean the object being examined is more likely to stick to itself and make a blob. Here, these people contradict their own logic in two ways. One, the net charge of a human being is zero, meaning the zeta potential is only relevant in the small environment around a COVID vaccine nanoparticle. We aren’t walking into electrically charged environments as soon as we get vaccinated. Next, they claim that low zeta potentials incur aggregation, but they still worry about COVID vaccine distributing into multiple organ systems. You can’t have it both ways! You can’t complain about the COVID vaccine clumping together in the site where it was injected, but also complain about it affecting multiple organ systems.
“Hence, even if one were to change the antigen expressed there would likely still be adverse events. Halma et al. [66] point to the changes made to the mRNA and the ingredients of the lipid-nanoparticles, especially the addition of polyethylene glycol (PEG), that made it both more resistant to degradation and helped it to evade the immune system with lipid-nanoparticles helping biodistribution and bioaccumulation. Bioaccumulation can lead to blockage of small blood and lymphatic vessels.”
The first part of this paragraph is an accurate description of the general rationale of why PEG is included, however it falls apart when they try to talk about bioaccumulation. It is a straightforward experiment to demonstrate that COVID vaccine is literally clogging up blood vessels. That they are unable to produce an image of a single blood vessel clogged up by COVID vaccine particles, is a serious deficiency in this argument.
“Mechanisms involved in autoimmune damage to cells producing an endogenous protein include the development of cross-reactivity to the endogenous protein [68], immune-mediated toxicity [69], and immune tolerance due to switching to IgG4 [70]. Switching to an IgG4 immune response has consequences for cancer susceptibility [71], pregnancy [72] and IgG4-related diseases, which are chronic inflammatory conditions [73].”
In reality, none of these mechanisms are even remotely supported by the data
https://twitter.com/ENirenberg/status/1607539359556714496?s=20
. See also
https://deplatformdisease.substack.com/p/igg4-covid-and-mrna-vaccines-a-complex
.
“Another risk, and problematic with prior vaccines against coronaviruses both in the human and veterinary field, is the risk of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE)”
The teams responsible for coming up with COVID vaccines spent a lot of time thinking about antibody dependent enhancement, and how their choice of protein would influence the likelihood of ADE. After producing the vaccine, they still looked for ADE evidence in humans, and never found any. When a mechanism is shown to be false, it is no longer rational to pretend people haven’t looked for it.
“Traditional COVID-19 vaccines have not produced the high rates of adverse event reports that characterise the gene-based COVID-19 vaccines.”
Its nice that they aren’t totally against all vaccines period, antivaxxers rarely make those kinds of admissions. However, they fail to realize that in their support of the Iranian Spikogen vaccine, they claim the primary adjuvant, an oligosense nucleotide attached to a protein called inulin, is hardly a classical vaccine platform. They should try to name a “traditional” vaccine in the CDC schedule that contains an oligosense nucleotide as part of their adjuvant. Next, they fail to even gently consider that in order to compare apples to apples in looking at volume of vaccine adverse event reporting, you must also compare relative numbers of doses given.
“The lipid-nanoparticle matrix permits widespread biodistribution of mRNA gene codes to cells in most or all organs. The subsequent expression of the spike protein on cell surfaces, and as a soluble protein within the organs and blood stream, induces T-cell destruction of cells and tissues and B-cell antibodies. The latter may also cause immune complex deposition further damaging tissues via type III hypersensitivity…mRNA gene therapy via lipid-nanoparticles that traverse biological membranes—is a core problem”
mRNA vaccination would be no good if it couldn’t penetrate cells! The whole point of the mRNA vaccination platform is for the packaged mRNA to get inside cells. The second sentence describes a normal immune response; even this far into the article, they fail to come up with a logical reason as to why the T cell mediated removal of spike protein presenting cells and B cell mediated antibody production (the normal way of doing things) is substantively different. Lastly, they did a pretty good job of scouring the literature for literature that supports their views (and excluding the ones that don’t), but they didn’t even pick up a case study of actual immune complex vasculitis, seen in an older patient after COVID vaccination
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8443965/
. Again, a case study doesn’t on its own, warrant labeling this particular reaction as a widespread problem with this particular vaccination. Lastly, there is no evidence of consistent gene changes due to the COVID vaccine. The study they like to cite is the single study from Sweden with liver cancer cells – it shouldn’t be hard to realize that liver cancer cells have very, very different behavior from normal body cells and that study cannot be simply generalized into the general population.
“The natural course of new pandemic/epidemic viruses is to become more infectious and less pathogenic with time”
Fundamentally bad epidemiology here – viruses and virulence have a bit of a tradeoff.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10066022/
“the various omicron subvariants have been highly infectious but even less pathogenic in illness severity”
No, this is an oversimplification
Omicron severity: Milder but not mild .
“Cosentino and Marino noted that these “potential toxicological issues” were not “taken into consideration in the studies that led to the marketing authorisation, precisely because … these products were treated as conventional vaccines”, when in fact they are gene insertions acting as prodrugs…Binding to ACE-2 receptors as a “potential trigger for platelet aggregation, thrombosis and inflammation, as well as for hypertension and other cardiovascular disease”.
This group believes that mRNA vaccines constitute gene insertion – this should end their credibility, as there really is no evidence for COVID vaccines producing genetic change, nor is there any plausible molecular mechanism for this. A complete chain of scientific evidence holds steady from the molecular lab bench studies, to the clinical studies – and there are actual clinical studies showing no link between mRNA COVID vaccines and thrombosis/ cardiovascular disease. To have those mechanistic thoughts on its own, is legitimate, but to willfully ignore the clinical studies that form the complete chain of evidence, is irresponsible.
“this will be for reasons of individual genetics and physiology, the tissues exposed to the code, batch and vial variability of the product and manner of transportation, refrigeration, and administration”
Standardization of vial transportation and refrigeration is done for a reason. The German institute that administers vaccine safety did a good faith investigation into the issue, and found no problems along these lines with the Pfizer vaccine.
“Figure 6 shows the FDA was aware of this potential before the public release of the gene-based COVID-19 vaccines. It is the 16th slide from a PowerPoint presentation of the “Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) 22 October 2020, Meeting” [99]. What is striking is the predictive accuracy of these mostly neurological, cardiovascular, and autoimmune “possible adverse events”
This is willful misrepresentation of the slide indicated. The FDA indicated that it was going to survey for every possible plausible side effect on the slide shown, but this is not evidence of “oh they knew, and wanted to hide it”. It is a fault of basic English comprehension to suggest otherwise.
“While this methodologically excellent Thai study appears not to have been replicated in terms of a full manuscript, a conference abstract suggested comparable results, with a simpler methodology [114]. Of 777 healthcare workers from University Hospital Basel who received a COVID-19 booster vaccination in late 2021 to early 2022, evidence of cardiomyonecrosis (troponinemia) was detected in 22 (2.8%), with no cause other than a Moderna COVID-19 mRNA-1273 booster injection [114]. Although in a different population, receiving the second mRNA vaccine dose, the Thai study reported a rate of 2.3% for myocarditis or pericarditis.”
I have written extensively on myocarditis previously on my Twitter and on The Conversation.
The points shown above are the most egregiously wrong; I could write an entire article on how wrong the rest of the section is, but this article has to end at some point. They cite Ed Dowd – someone who has no experience in medicine who declared a set of news articles announcing people’s deaths, as all vaccine myocarditis. I have news for Ed – just because you announce the cause of death on social media, does not make it so. Think – what would be the point of pathologists if Ed Dowd magically knew all causes of death? Next, the Thai study actually only diagnosed one person with myocarditis. This is a malicious misrepresentation of the study results to say that there was a significant rate of subclinical myocarditis. The criteria for myocarditis are well established – the authors just choose to ignore them. Next, the Swiss study detected troponin – again, troponin alone, is not adequate to diagnose myocarditis. This is not my opinion, the CDC and American Heart Association have clear myocarditis diagnostic criteria. There is a good study on COVID subclinical myocarditis – and it is shown here.
https://x.com/han_francis/status/1733479465122984152?s=20
“Subclinical myocarditis inducing cardiac fibrosis as foci for later arrhythmia under stress is a possible explanation for the epidemic of sudden deaths in youths and young to middle-aged adults since the advent of the COVID-19 vaccines”
There are many causes of sudden cardiac arrest that require a cardiologist to sort out. Autopsies are there to sort this out after death, and cardiologists do it before death. Ed Dowd literally collated some deaths together, sold a book about it, and called them all vaccine myocarditis in the complete absence of evidence. To diagnose subclinical myocarditis as a cause of death in people, requires the evidence of myocarditis. In addition, the claims that myocarditis deaths are increasing are entirely not supported by the epidemiological evidence (see Twitter user @tylerblack32).
“Thrombotic complications of COVID-19 vaccination involve many potential mechanisms, …Inhibition of platelet nAChR by SARS-CoV-2 thus promotes platelet hyperreactivity and thrombosis which are hallmarks of COVID-19 and vaccine injury”
Several studies have looked at the connections between COVID vaccines and thromboembolism; a very specific type of clot has been linked to the viral vector vaccines and these vaccines have been pushed aside rightfully. For mRNA vaccines though, studies such as these have shown no link.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9091073/
.
“Repeated antigenic stimulation of immunity, as occurs with the gene-based COVID-19 vaccines’ prolonged production of spike proteins, repeated booster doses and recurrent SARS-CoV-2 infections, has seen a rise in IgG4 levels over 480-fold above normal levels [149,150]. This IgG class shift can be associated with serious disease pathology relating to sudden cardiac death [151,152].”
Here they try to pass off an elevated IgG4 as the same thing as IgG4 related disease… this is academic dishonesty. To hear about IgG4 related disease properly, see the posts from @enirenberg .
https://twitter.com/ENirenberg/status/1607539831298482178
“Most recently, a group from Saudi Arabia has found clear clinical emergence of autoimmune disease after COVID-19 vaccination. A series of exclusively new-onset autoimmune diseases are described after COVID-19 vaccination. The average time between vaccination and new onset disease was 7 days. “
The authors need to explain why no autoimmune diseases perhaps with the exception of vaccine myocarditis, have showed up on the epidemiological level. They further need to explain why they think, that in the Saudi paper cited, why autoimmune diseases that occurred many months after the occurrence of the vaccine, occurred due to the vaccine.
“In 2020, prior to the launch of the vaccines, Lyons-Weiler suggested that more than one-third of COVID-19 proteins, the spike protein included, show problematic homology with key proteins in the human immune system.”
The issue with the argument is pretty much the same as the previous one. Lyons-Weiler went to great lengths to scare people about the possible issues with human fertility after taking the COVID vaccine, even as more and more evidence accumulated that pregnant women are a high risk group and especially need COVID vaccination. Reference @VikiLovesFACS for the data on this issue, and you’ll see the actual data showing how Lyons-Weiler’s predictions literally didn’t pan out. This is why you don’t generalize lab theoretical predictions to humans without the proper chain of evidence. For the rest of the section on autoimmune diseases, the authors make the same mistake over and over again, which is to assert that COVID vaccines cause a significant contribution to the onset of new autoimmune diseases, while ignoring all epidemiological evidence to the contrary (Autoimmune and Autoinflammatory Connective Tissue Disorders Following COVID-19). Furthermore, they ignore the much higher risk of autoimmune diseases from actually catching COVID, and how vaccines mitigate that risk (
Risk of autoimmune diseases following COVID-19 and the potential protective effect from vaccination: a population-based cohort study ). If the authors of this article actually sincerely wanted to help, they would follow in the much more methodical footsteps of Guo et al (Insights into new-onset autoimmune diseases after COVID-19 vaccination) whose much more systematic and scientific work might actually help those legitimately experiencing adverse events.
“Another key feature of COVID-19 infection or vaccination is dysautonomia (DSN), a neurological disorder of autonomic nervous system (ANS) function, with widespread effects on the heart, bladder, sweat glands, pupils, intestines, and other autonomic systems”
Again, the authors ignore epidemiological evidence that the risk of a famous dysautonomia, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, is considerably greater after COVID disease than COVID vaccination Large Cohort Study Finds Possible Association Between Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome and COVID-19 Vaccination but Far Stronger Link With SARS-CoV-2 Infection.
“These have been termed so-called ‘turbo-cancers’, rapidly progressive to advanced stages or death. An eminent oncologist who has researched the anti-cancer potential of vaccines [230], Prof Angus Dalgleish, has drawn severe criticism for claims that this occurs post-COVID-19 vaccines. Dalgleish wrote a letter to the chief editor of the BMJ which he has made an open letter [231]”.
An oncologist should know as a matter of basic medical knowledge, to consult the epidemiological data before asserting that there is a massive increase in the rates of cancer. We have actual data from the entire United States, across several years, to show that this is not the case
https://x.com/tylerblack32/status/1679191050861318144?s=20.
Lastly, the authors make egregious misinterpretations of various autopsy studies which I have wrote about previously:
https://x.com/han_francis/status/1655251441563361281?s=20
https://twitter.com/han_francis/status/1599772901464412165?s=20
Frank Han's Cardiology Corner 
Leave a comment