It's nice that you've finally decided to somewhat respond to what I said days ago, though you do seem to have skipped many of the specifics points I went over. In particular the way in which 9 of the 17 citations you provided are about risks from
the virus itself, and that therefore any concerns you have about the spike protein ending up in your body, are risks you face if you get infected with COVID. Risks that will be far worse if your immune system doesn't already have protective antibodies and t/b cells to respond to it more quickly.
To me that's the core issue with your arguments here, you make a very big deal about the damage that COVID itself can do to you, citing a myriad of studies about things that being infected with the real virus cause/may cause, but act as if somehow the only risks that matter are (mostly theoretical) ones from getting vaccinated.
To me the benefit/risk ratio here is just overwhelmingly on the side of getting vaccinated, both theoretically, because even if some spike proteins
might possibly get into sensitive places
and actually cause harm, we know that the real virus getting into those places is definitely bad, it does so at
much higher levels than with the vaccines, we already see that harm, and it's significant and relatively widespread. Like the worrying cognitive impacts of being infected with COVID that
the study in The Lancet that I linked to, goes over.
So you say, "there is no evidence that the spike protein produced via the vaccines is crossing the blood-brain-barrier" but then goes on to quote a guy who says that 0.02% of the vax ends up in the brain.
No, what I actually said was "There is no evidence that the spike protein
produced via the vaccines is crossing the blood-brain-barrier
and causing harm". Please show me the proof for the latter.
Well, there's 40 trillion lipid nanoparticles, so 40,000,000,000,000 x 0.02 = 800,000,000,000 lipid nanoparticles end up in your brain. So, let's say your right, that the spike itself doesn't cross into the blood brain barrier, even though it does, you're potentially putting 800 billion nanoparticles in your brain.
Just to be clear, what's your source for all of these numbers?
That ain't good. That's 800 billion potential transfections into your brain's blood vessels and other tissues. No wonder we're seeing neurological issues.
What neurological issues proven to be caused by the vaccines, are you talking about? How do they compare to the much more widespread and proven neurological problems caused by the virus itself, even aside from all the other issues cased by it?
The other thing you say is something that I address in my explanation. All of these people assume that the spike is only harmful when it is open. That's why you say here: "The spike protein in the Moderna, Pfizer and J&J vaccines (and the upcoming Novavax one) also had some proline mutations introduced into it which works to keep it in its prefusion form rather than the one it adopts to bind to ACE2 and do Bad Things."
But this assumption is false. The spike does its damage by the S1 protein connecting to the ACE2. That is in its closed prefusion form.
Go read my explanation on the original post I go into more depth there.
I, as did Dr. Dereke Lowe
in the article I linked to, noted this as a potentially extra nice protective thing with those vaccines, but my arguments never rested on it, it was like the argument equivalent of a free tote bag with purchase. Especially as someone who has a 1/3 chance of having actually had AZ themselves, which doesn't have those proline mutations, in a country where 55% of people vaccinated have have also had AZ. Also if free circulating spike protein with these mutations did cause all kinds of terrible terrible issues, why didn't
the P3 results for Novavax, which is just pure spike protein, show incredibly high rates of adverse events?
Then you just says these things are rare, well that's a buzzword. Dying of covid is rare too but everyone takes that seriously. I have driven for 14 years, never had an accident because they are rare but millions of people die from them every year. Rare is a relative term and it get's thrown around a lot. It's not exactly a lot of comfort for the person who takes the vaccine and can't stop shaking anymore if you tell them their condition is rare. Their quality of life has been destroyed whereas they probably would have been fine from covid itself because covid doesn't transfect 800 billion nanoparticles into your brain.
No, rare is not a buzzword, probabilities are quantifiable, that's the whole point. COVID has killed at least 4.51 million people around the world to date, 639,000 in the US, 1,725 more
just yesterday. Many times that number are dealing with lasting effects, including friends of mine in their 30s who were perfectly healthy before, but who now, many months after having COVID, are still really ill.
You're right though, the lack of comfort I can provide to hypothetical people experiencing unproven side effects is indeed limited, but the "probably would have been fine from COVID itself" is literally the opposite of how probabilities work. You are
much more likely to become seriously ill and/or die as a result of being infected with COVID, than experiencing anything like that as a result of any of the vaccines.
The you say this study says things are just potential. You treat it like its all theoretical and only on paper, even though it's done on tissue which gives us a good indication that it will work the same way in the body.
You didn't quote my post so it's hard to know which study you're referring to here, though if it's the one about cell signalling, I said that because from the words of the study, it is just theoretical and on paper, it doesn't appear from the full text of the study that they tested it even in vitro, here's the quote again:
"A nonreplicable form of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is used in the vaccines for immunization. Therefore, viral spike protein expression and duration of antigenic stimulation to the immune system in the injected tissue (although expected for a brief period)
may not be sufficient to exhibit significant senescence or deleterious effect to adjacent endothelial cells."
Otherwise I note that some of the studies you're talking about just speculate about things, because is literally what many of them do. Even aside from how things often do work very differently in a petri dish than in a real human being, that actually wasn't my key point. Again, my key point is that we have no reason to think these things are happening and causing harm, because we don't see that harm even at this stage.
You say it only looks like it will do the damage but in real humans it hasn't been proven and we need to watch and wait. Great. Let's do that then and stop jabbing people until we can rule this out. Remember, drugs are guilty until proven innocent, not innocent until proven guilty.
Where did I say "we need to watch and wait"? That certainly isn't my view.
We've done extensive studies with hundreds of thousands of people around the world, and then rolled out these vaccines at utterly unprecedented scale, delivering billions of doses and doing close post-authorisation monitoring that was able to quickly find even incredibly rare side effects like TTS with AZ and J&J.
Considering how these vaccines work, as well as
the history of them, there really doesn't seem to be any plausible mechanism that could even cause an issue to occur later on.
Here's a great thread from an immunologist on this.
Then you talk about the biodistribution stuff is not a concern because we're different from rats.
Again, just as before with the proline mutations, this was just one single point I made out of 6.
Sure but we never got any better data because they chose to rush, so we go by what we have. Remember, guilty, not innocent. They need to prove to us that it is innocent. Show us the data that it does not spread in the human body.
What exactly should they have done on this front, that normally would happen in a vaccine study, but didn't here?
You also say that on paper the spikes were designed to stay anchored. And dismisses the study that shows they don't stay anchored. You see also the double standard? The other study was just theoretical and on paper so we can't take it seriously. But this completely unproven design must be working flawlessly. No. It too must be proven. Prove that the spikes don't get loose because in the study of the nurses 11 out of 13 had free floating spike. Guilty until proven innocent.
I didn't dismiss that study, instead I linked you to an article that goes over it and how it shows the amount that might not be staying anchored is
100,000x lower than the amount we know can cause harm, so there's no double standard here.
Also for me, this is one of the fundamental things that takes down the spike protein via the vaccine arguments you've made, because even
if it is bad, even
if it is able to get to places where it could cause harm, if there's just nowhere near enough of it to cause harm, then well,
no harm.
On the other hand? We
know the real virus itself causes harm via the spike protein, we
know it circulates, we
know it does so at
much higher levels than with the vaccines, we
know the harms infection causes don't stop there, and we
know that getting vaccinated significantly reduces the chance of you getting a symptomatic infection, and
massively reduces the chance of getting seriously ill. Considering how infectious Delta is, it's arguably a matter of when, not if, you're going to have some SARS-CoV-2 try to make itself at home inside your body, and if you're as concerned by the idea of the spike protein causing you harm as you say you are, why wouldn't you want a provably super-low risk way of preparing your immune system to promptly kick its arse when it does?
Unfortunately while I responded to every single citation you provided, I'm not aware of you having done that with very many of mine, especially not either Edward Nirenberg's article linked above, or
Dr. David Gorski's super-detailed one.
And you may be right about the targeting ligands but if they were targeting just the muscle, and we pump the vax into the muscle, then we would likely get a decent amount of transfection. It all depends on how fast the immune system picks up the lipid nanoparticles. And I unfortunately don't know that. I imagine it would take a few days to clear up 40 trillion of them. They could also have increased the amount of nanoparticles in each shot so that this wouldn't be a problem.
My understanding is that with previous attempts to make mRNA-based vaccines, this was explicitly the problem that was hit a lot of times, and the combination of tweaking the mRNA and encapsulating it in the LNPs they did, was what helped to solve it with these.
citizenfreepress.com
