covid: revelations about corona, long term symptoms and corona vaccines

[Osaca]

another study surfaced "

‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA​

"
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287

basically confirming my initial thread post.
so basically the corona virus infection as well the mrna vaccine are pathogenic due to the spike protein.
they even have a name for this, "spikeopathy".
the spike protein is inflamatory and potentially autoimmune causing... or people suffering already from those illness might get worse. that includes potentially us cfs folks.

but its not per-se every corona vaccine which is problematic, only the new mrna vaccines. the old-school corona vaccines which are used mainly in the non-western world which are based on dead or partly dead oldschool vaccines are fine.
so if you need to vax, get one of those.. no chance in germany though.

This study is just a review published in MDPI. If you are referring to your inital thread post, I thought you acknowledged that, that was debunked, you even said "therefore i suggest moderator deletes this thread.
apologies for inconvience, i will check remote content in the future better."

It is still not know what the cause of Long Covid and Post-Vac are. However, for patients it is always nice to have an oversimplicfication of a complex situation and as such "spikeopathy" fits this framework nicely, but as Iwasaki says “We need to think beyond the spike!”.

 

[linusbert]

This study is just a review published in MDPI. If you are referring to your inital thread post, I thought you acknowledged that, that was debunked, you even said "therefore i suggest moderator deletes this thread.
apologies for inconvience, i will check remote content in the future better."

no nothing was ever debunked here.
the only thing which i acknowledged as problematic was the original video posted which seamed to have been dubbed. i didnt notice the dubbing because i wasnt watching the video, but just listen to it. when i checked later i noticed its dubbed. therefore i acknowledge it as bad source
because a expert was shown with a different voice speaking.

and for that reason i requested a deletion of the thread.
the original video was bad for making a argument, but this doesnt invalidate anything. only that it was bad quality source, but there are tons of sources who claim the same.
but i can make a new thread, copy the old text with the other source and its fine.

This study is just a review published in MDPI.

so what? you hear the same stuff from a lot of scientists. the only studys who claim anything else are those directly financed by pfizer and friends.

Iwasaki says “We need to think beyond the spike!”.

no we dont. why would we?
there is a problem with it, needs to be addressed, until this didnt happen we focus on it until it is fixed.

its really beyond me, how people spread "marketing" material by the maker of the product and claim this to be proof of safety. this is so ridicolous.


so if you want a real debate, feel free to respond to:
1) why would all mrna vaccines use the problematic spike protein of the virus to induce immune reaction and not the virus envelope/hull (which is what the immune system uses when it gets through a real infection).

2) why arent there any traditional-based corona vaccines in the west despite them existing? in germany you can only get mrna vax.
why is there no choice.

3) why do people think a complete new type of vaccine, injecting genetic material like a virus would do into the body, which makes the body cells produce a certain material (spike protein) which is basically a gene therapy which was developed in month and not 10+ years like traditional vaccines - could be potentially safe.
this is beyond me. i know people working in university clinics doing research themselves and are just shaking the head about this.
i read the mechanism how this mrna vaccine works and i knew i will not take it.

4) how long will the body cells which got infected by the mrna vaccine produce the spike protein. when will it stop producing it? how do you control it?


i am no anti vaxxer, i got plenty of vaccinations against a lot of stuff. i am also not against a corona vaccine when its produced traditionally. i am only critical of the new hot thing... which mysteriously no public source ever questions or ask any safety questions at all...

 

[Osaca]

so what? you hear the same stuff from a lot of scientists. the only studys who claim anything else are those directly financed by pfizer and friends.

No not at all. There are many different studies looking at safety data, prevention of a severe acute infection and even the effects on Long Covid. Hundreds of these have no connection to Pfizer, see for example this very recent and interesting study for Long Covid https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-023-00739-2 discussed here https://forums.phoenixrising.me/thr...s-in-patients-with-long-covid-syndrome.90856/.

the original video was bad for making a argument, but this doesnt invalidate anything. only that it was bad quality source, but there are tons of sources who claim the same.

"bad for making a argument" sounds to me that you have some beliefs you want to express, but you can't find any evidence to back up these beliefs so you just use horrible sources. That is not how an evidence based or even scientific argument works.

The problem is your first source for your argument, as you admit, was utter pseudoscientific nonsense and now you try to back up the claims of the first source by using a "paper" which is just a rehash of horrible research and antivax memes spread by a pseudoscientific organisation.

• Predatory journal with a reputation for shoddy peer review? Check!
• Authors associated with "Children's Health Defence (RFK-related antivax org, known for spreading pseudoscientific garbage and misinformation)?” Check! (and that after talking about independent research?)

Let’s have a look at how the arguments of these authors work so that you can see how low-quality this “research” is:

“The proportion of unvaccinated in NSW was low at 3.2%; however, the proportion of unvaccinated with severe COVID-19 is lower than this in late 2022 at 2.9%. Even accounting for more COVID-19 vaccine boosters in the elderly and vulnerable, the data do not suggest significant efficacy against hospitalisation, ICU admission and death, at least after the emergence of the Omicron strain.”

This is the perfect example of horrible “research” (far worse than anything you’ll ever see from the CBT/GET crowd). Taking one data set and then just saying “accounting for blah blah” without actually doing any math whatsoever. Accounting is not handwaving, it’s actual accounting. Where’s the breakdown of vaccination status as well as hospitalisation rates by age group or vulnerability?

It would only take a small bias in unvaccinated being younger to result in these stats, since Covid hospitalisation skews so strongly with age. Their argument here boils down to “3.2% are unvaccinated and only 2.9% of the unvaccinated get hospitalized when they catch covid and 2.9 is less than 3.2,” so vaccination is bad. That isn't even handwavey, that’s not even an argument.

Paraphrasing their ideas, "The spike protein is bad, so we'd want you be exposed to a million times more of it via a completely unprotected infection than via a vaccine."

Iwasaki says “We need to think beyond the spike!”.

I cited Iwasaki, as she is one of the only scientists that is open to properly investigating Post-Vac on a scientific basis, all others are usually just antivax non-sense low quality “researchers” as is the case for both the sources in this thread.


Post-Vac should be investigated, but when the arguments are just garbage research and antivax beliefs it leaves no room for discussion. As such I will end this discussion here as I don’t see any scientific or evidence based logic to it.

 

[linusbert]

@Osaca you dodged my questions completely. you cannot get to the truth in a political charged and corrupt environment with scientism.

1) why would all mrna vaccines use the problematic spike protein of the virus to induce immune reaction and not the virus envelope/hull (which is what the immune system uses when it gets through a real infection).

2) why arent there any traditional-based corona vaccines in the west despite them existing? in germany you can only get mrna vax.
why is there no choice.

3) why do people think a complete new type of vaccine, injecting genetic material like a virus would do into the body, which makes the body cells produce a certain material (spike protein) which is basically a gene therapy which was developed in month and not 10+ years like traditional vaccines - could be potentially safe.
this is beyond me. i know people working in university clinics doing research themselves and are just shaking the head about this.
i read the mechanism how this mrna vaccine works and i knew i will not take it.

4) how long will the body cells which got infected by the mrna vaccine produce the spike protein. when will it stop producing it? how do you control it?

 

[cfs since 1998]

you are talking about the h1n1 vaccine? you express wish to have taken the h1n1 vaccine?


how do you know it was h1n1 infection and not a long covid type of problem?

Yes, I wish I would have gotten a flu vaccine with the h1n1 component.

Not long COVID because I had it almost two years ago and have had various colds and upper respiratory infections since then.

 

[linusbert]

and another study which suggests that spike protein wreaks havoc in endothelial cells as well mitochondria, its not about the vaccine though, its general virus physiology.

SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE 2​

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318902

they suggest that n-acetyl-cystein at least in vitro can counteract the negative effects somewhat.
the spike protein can cause or worsen vascular disease.