Update on potential long-term risks of vaccines

nerd

Senior Member
Messages
863
Likes
2,451

They mention that there is a signal for viral reactivations from the vaccines, retrovirus in particular. I'm not sure if this also refers to mRNA vaccines only or to the Adenovirus vaccines as well.

The only case I found after a quick literature search is this one:

Herpes zoster emergence following mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (2021) [10.1002/jmv.27036]

There's some speculation that this might just have been coincidence, but I don't see any reason to believe so. The immune system is complex enough that any immunological regulation can cause this in a patient with an overall weak immune system.

We also have to consider that HZV is quite difficult to completely reactivate among all the herpes viruses. Other viruses like EBV might be reactivated more easily but not detected because nobody cares about other herpes viruses. The basic reativation mechanisms are always the same.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,206
Likes
7,094

They mention that there is a signal for viral reactivations from the vaccines, retrovirus in particular. I'm not sure if this also refers to mRNA vaccines only or to the Adenovirus vaccines as well.

The only case I found after a quick literature search is this one:

Herpes zoster emergence following mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (2021) [10.1002/jmv.27036]

There's some speculation that this might just have been coincidence, but I don't see any reason to believe so. The immune system is complex enough that any immunological regulation can cause this in a patient with an overall weak immune system.

We also have to consider that VZV is quite difficult to completely reactivate among all the herpes viruses. Other viruses like EBV might be reactivated more easily but not detected because nobody cares about other herpes viruses. The basic reativation mechanisms are always the same.
Tested for all Herpes Viruses (1-8) after first Biontech. No reactivation.
 

Zebra

Senior Member
Messages
491
Likes
1,975
Location
Northern California
This is certainly a thought-provoking video, but it's unclear to me if these three men -- only one of which is a licensed MD -- are actually presenting real data or if they are perhaps collating vaccine-related information in a manner that sounds a lot like fear mongering.

I think each viewer of the video will have to decide for themselves.
 
Messages
8,146
Likes
20,396
This is certainly a thought-provoking video, but it's unclear to me if these three men -- only one of which is a licensed MD -- are actually presenting real data or if they are perhaps collating vaccine-related information in a manner that sounds a lot like fear mongering
I have dipped into some of Brett Weinstein and generally I respect him and his wife Heather, both phD Evolutionary Biologists. No they are not human physiologists. I think they stay in their lane pretty well- but are qualified more than many are, to discuss things like how does good science get done.

So I agree with them on : the type of viral research going on in Wuhan should not be going on in a populous city, due to the very risks of escape that in fact may have occurred.

Dismissing the lab theory last year under the category "conspiracy theory" wasn't appropriate at all. It was not scientifically supported. Its a major hypothesis. You don' t take hypotheses off the table.

So they've discussed that issue alot, and they discuss ivermectin.

I was leaning towards J and J because of- some issues they have raised. Now the strains are worsening, so I"m back unsure what route to take (so I stay home).
 
Messages
5,324
Likes
12,669
Location
South east England
Dismissing the lab theory last year under the category "conspiracy theory" wasn't appropriate at all. It was not scientifically supported. Its a major hypothesis. You don' t take hypotheses off the table.
I am expecting a very, very large amount of brown stuff to hit a very,very big fan soon regarding the "It cant have been a lab leak" position.
 
Messages
8,146
Likes
20,396
I am expecting a very, very large amount of brown stuff to hit a very,very big fan soon regarding the "It cant have been a lab leak" position.
yes, and already is here in the US. Another report is being prepared, as the prior report had "shortcomings".

Facebook banned discussions of "lab leak" and has now had to walk that back.
 

jump44

Senior Member
Messages
122
Likes
164
Last year at this time it was “racist” to suggest maybe the virus came from a lab.. it’d be totally hilarious if it wasn’t so “1984” . Things are “conspiracy theories “ and “unscientific” until the unspeakable things that go against the agenda have been kept quiet long enough for said agendas to play out , then the unspeakable things are allowed to be considered, and those doing the. censoring and gaslighting pretend like it never happened that way.
 

Zebra

Senior Member
Messages
491
Likes
1,975
Location
Northern California
Hey, Everyone!

Did we watch separate videos?

Maybe I made an error, but I thought @nerd posted an 11 minute video about potential long-term effects of the COVID vaccine.

I'm not sure how this turned into a discussion about the origins of the pandemic, rather than potential effects of the vaccine. ???

I'll ask @nerd to weigh on here so he/she can clarify the topic.
 

jump44

Senior Member
Messages
122
Likes
164
Hey, Everyone!

Did we watch separate videos?

Maybe I made an error, but I thought @nerd posted an 11 minute video about potential long-term effects of the COVID vaccine.

I'm not sure how this turned into a discussion about the origins of the pandemic, rather than potential effects of the vaccine. ???

I'll ask @nerd to weigh on here so he/she can clarify the topic.
I mean in a way it is sorta relevant. Seeing as the vaccines weee rollled out at “95 percent “ effective and “barely any side effects” - similar to the lab leak hypothesis- any contradictory opinions or information has been mostly shut down. And seeing as they are pushing these vacicines hard on even children(where the risk/benefit ratio is completely unacceptable but people just seem to be blindly going along with it) I think it’s perfectly fine to connect the two issues so that people are at least aware the same game is being played all over again.
 

nerd

Senior Member
Messages
863
Likes
2,451
I'll ask @nerd to weigh on here so he/she can clarify the topic.
It's remotely relevant in that the information is from a third-party and the press code, as YouTube and other media try to apply it, has degenerated into censoring of the normal scientific consensus-finding process. Thereby, early dominant opinions have been pushed to become majority opinions even when there wasn't any solid evidence behind it, but simply because a prominent person made a claim. Valid alternative opinions are filtered, thereby legitimating any flawed initial dominant opinion. As scientists, we can not accept this kind of flawed consensus-finding process.

Unfortunately, criticism of the experimental approval process of the vaccines has been partially censored as well, not necessarily by filtering, but also by helping the spread of straw man arguments algorithmically. Press codes require a high level of trust in the information whenever something is published. Due to the lack of resources, the relevant press organs simply rely on official bodies and prominent "experts" to tell them what information is valid and what isn't. The pandemic has shown us that these parties aren't reliable in determining this. Therefore, this particular press code has become something contrary to the freedom of speech, how paradox.

This means that I have lost trust in the approval process, and not only of the vaccines. The FDA has approved Biogen against the majority vote of their own expert panel. When it comes to the repurposing of drugs, however, they reject anything and don't even ask any expert panels. They ignore any evidence that isn't based on a large multi-centered RCT. This shows how much official bodies really care when it comes to a scientific consensus as opposed to the interests of big pharma. Who knows how long these government bodies would hold back information on potential long-term risks when they can't even properly give out information on the early risks and side effects, and when they don't care what real reputable scientists have to say?

I hope for a change in how the press approaches medical and scientific questions. Filtering isn't a solution and doesn't educate people. Pre-opinionated pieces don't help either because they don't reflect the opinion of journalists, because they don't consider themselves trustful sources on medical and scientific questions, but they reflect the opinions of whoever they ask or are told to ask. Why not educate people to understand statistics themselves and show them the data? Why not educate them on how to verify potential bias of studies themselves? Instead, they tell us that this study is good and another is bad because someone prominent told them so, and simply objectify this while discrediting valid alternative views. This just leads to a loss of trust by the recipients.

There is a difference between a scientific discussion and simple lies and claims that are neither backed up by reputation nor by evidence. Somehow, we have arrived at a situation where both of these things are seen as conspiracy theories as soon as it contradicts the initial dominant opinion. I hope that YouTube and Twitter completely revise their guidelines after this whole mess or that some new social media come up that find a good balance of what to filter. At least algorithmically, you have to filter. Otherwise, you'll end up boosting the propaganda of political parties and governments that just try to spread more disinformation of their own human rights violations. Isn't it odd that YouTube doesn't care about Chinese propaganda? They don't filter it. They don't even classify it as information from the Chinese government to at least establish transparency. I guess someone told them this would be racist as well. This is really getting off-topic now, sorry.
 
Last edited:
Messages
13,146
Likes
30,144
Location
Second star to the right ...
Dismissing the lab theory last year under the category "conspiracy theory" wasn't appropriate at all. It was not scientifically supported. Its a major hypothesis. You don' t take hypotheses off the table.
Totally, totally agree. It seemed obvious to me that the prev admin was covering up or distracting from a critical issue at that time .....
I am expecting a very, very large amount of brown stuff to hit a very,very big fan soon regarding the "It cant have been a lab leak" position.
Yeah. Got my umbrella and drop-cloth at the ready. Cause it's really gonna fly ....
This shows how much official bodies really care when it comes to a scientific consensus as opposed to the interests of big pharma.
As if we needed further confirmation that our health and medical treatment issues aren't waaaaay down the list of interest and commitment from a system that doesn't seem to respond to anything other than personal advantage, of which the primary would seem to be $$$$ and 'prestige' ....
 
Messages
8,146
Likes
20,396
This shows how much official bodies really care when it comes to a scientific consensus as opposed to the interests of big pharma.
Appreciate your thoughtful remarks.

When it comes to the repurposing of drugs, however, they reject anything and don't even ask any expert panels. They ignore any evidence that isn't based on a large multi-centered RCT.
would'nt repurposing already approved drugs, make drug companies MORE money? they oppose it?
 

geraldt52

Senior Member
Messages
589
Likes
2,361
Due to the lack of resources, the relevant press organs simply rely on official bodies and prominent "experts" to tell them what information is valid and what isn't. The pandemic has shown us that these parties aren't reliable in determining this.
Indeed. Someone should sell decals that can be applied to our TVs and computer monitors to remind us of this sad fact...
 

hapl808

Senior Member
Messages
498
Likes
1,386
would'nt repurposing already approved drugs, make drug companies MORE money? they oppose it?
Repurposing patented drugs makes drug companies a lot more money - like Remdesevir. They can charge pretty much anything. Repurposing non-patented drugs is useless as they have unlimited international competitors and very limited financial gain. You would have to sell a lot of fluvoxamine or ivermectin to make up for one patient taking Remdesevir.
 

nerd

Senior Member
Messages
863
Likes
2,451
would'nt repurposing already approved drugs, make drug companies MORE money? they oppose it?
Repurposing non-patented drugs is useless as they have unlimited international competitors and very limited financial gain. You would have to sell a lot of fluvoxamine or ivermectin to make up for one patient taking Remdesevir.
Indeed. It's about the repurposing of non-patented drugs. I just generalized this because there are barely any new drugs on the market, except for monoclonal antibodies and mRNA-based ones. I mean really new drugs, not just slightly modified and repatented ones that can be sold 1000x for slightly fewer side effects. They waste funds on huge RCTs for such things. Unsurprisingly, it's only a monoclonal antibody for that they ran a large RCT (speaking of ME). Even public research wastes its funds on treatments that barely a majority of patients could afford. I'm afraid they might even try to run trials for the mRNA vaccines now because they seem to help some CFS/ME patients for a certain period of time. We just ignore that this worked with the influenza vaccine as well, which is a safer vaccine.

Sometimes, what they also do is take old drugs, just apply a different delivery system to it, like a special microfluid encapsulation, run an RCT for this, patent it, and they can ask any price they wish again, with the excuse that the research was so expensive and the RCTs are as well. The system will not change as long as repurposed drugs need the same amount of evidence, like it was a completely new drug without any safety data, and as long as there are completely insufficient funds for the repurposing of drugs.
 
Last edited:
Messages
13,146
Likes
30,144
Location
Second star to the right ...
would'nt repurposing already approved drugs, make drug companies MORE money? they oppose it?
Many if not most repurposed drugs are either very close to falling out of patent protection or already out, and often are already available as generics, usually offered by their parent company in order to get a drop on that market, so the gains to the drug company that patented them are limited. It's one of the reasons (absent COVID-19) they get repurposed, since drug companies want to extend their earning years as long as possible ....


One example is Klonopin, which prior to patent expiration got quietly touted as a major anti-anxiety, anti-depressant, sleep aid, which boosted its sales considerably from those of the modest epileptic seizure medication it had been created as ....
 
Last edited:

Marylib

Senior Member
Messages
852
Likes
887
Thanks for all the links. I'm just catching up with this thread and it's very kind of the admins and other contributors to help us find things we are interested in without setting off WWW3 around the topic of vaccines. Please delete this if it belongs elsewhere. @Wayne I agree with you that it's hard to find information when public health concerns kind of crowd out information about medical issues during a pandemic. And if you mention hesitancy about vaccines, you are not welcome in some places, even though you are not against them. The only warning on the Pfizer now is myocarditis. I wish someone would step up with a trial of what you can find on page 26 of this 2012- Physicians Primer document (the corresponding author passed away, sadly, as has Dr Cheney), but the issue is packaging, supply, antibody tests, and simply writing it up while the patients use isolation and prophylaxis (barriers). The study people refer to with low-dose Abilify is a collection of doctor notes, but using an approved vaccine in small doses hardly qualifies as an experiment except as regards antibody production at first. Otherwise, we are just looking at a continual series of boosters, it seems to me. I'd go for the 1/4 dose to start with. @Gingergrrl is gathering together issues related to autoimmunity, I think, when she is able. POTS is probably autoimmunity at this point? We all know that some have flat B cells and that's another category altogether. I read the entire document of the Pfizer clinical trial just to see who they included and excluded. The ingredients of all vaccines are freely available online, as well as the dosages. At the moment it's one size fits all.
"Decisions regarding vaccinations must remain with the treating physician and patient. If immunization is chosen, it is recommended that injections are administered by the treating physician. Some clinicians have found it helpful to divide the dose into two to four mini doses, with each dose given a full month apart to ensure there are no delayed reactions."
https://www.investinme.org/Document...-yMWzzsBVZJXR0l3-MeYnzeVA85ptoPOZQO-HwTEdpRkw
 

nerd

Senior Member
Messages
863
Likes
2,451
At the moment it's one size fits all.
I think this is the main, if not the only issue, with regards to vaccination risks. Diversification in general is underutilized in modern medicine. Precision medicine has become negativity connotated.

Some clinicians have found it helpful to divide the dose into two to four mini doses, with each dose given a full month apart to ensure there are no delayed reactions.
The issue with the vaccine trials is that they aren't smart trials. Smart trials would try all different kinds of approaches and determine the best scenario for different subgroups and patient groups. They would identify how to determine the correct dose and regimen for immune compromised, for B cell depleted, for example.

Why aren't they doing it despite the huge available funding? Because the current system discourages it. There's still this idea in medical leadership that large multi-centered RCTs are the way to go and that everything else is to be ignored because it's not good enough. But statistically speaking, this isn't correct.

You don't develop drugs for the most average person that can exist. Typical RCTs methodologies try to establish consensus for exactly this person, the average Joe, but not for patients with multiple comorbidities, untypical patients. They are still included, of course, if possible, but not in a statistically significant representation. Smart trials can fix such shortcomings.

That's why it can only be speculation if mini-doses still provide the same efficacy and for which vaccine and how it affects safety. I think their initial hope was that one-dose for all would be an option, to reduce the load at vaccination stations.

This also opens the question why we don't just try to push the antibodies up to nowhere. As with every drug, there have to be reasons why they can't just quadruple a single dose. These things are usually tested on animals and there's always a limit. But companies don't have to publish negative attempts. So if they tested it with toxic doses, you won't find it. If they tested other things that turned out ineffective, it remains their competitive asset. So that other companies can waste funds on the same approach as well.

But it's safe to say that we need antibodies at least for herd immunity. So why don't we monitor people for antibodies and determine this way, if they need another shot? If mini-doses don't work with regards to antibody concentrations, why not try something else? Because medical leadership hasn't approved any other regimens.

The other issue, and I'm really concerned by this, is the new trend to issue vaccination passes. In Germany, you have to take the official regimen and not all vaccine manufacturers are accepted. Sputnik, for instance, isn't accepted, and you won't get a vaccination pass for it. Not like we need it with ME, but who knows how long this system will last and how restricted access really becomes with such an indirect vaccination mandate? So if I'd like to go with Novavax and decide if and when I need another shot based on my antibodies, this isn't accepted. I have to take the second shot at the right point of time. If I miss it, I have to start all over again. It's stupid to think that you should take another first dose only because you waited one more week. It might even be a risk because the trials don't reflect how full vaccination affects an already vaccinated population.

What I'm also considering is that I'd ask my doctor to split up the dose, half the dose in both arms. One of the risk vectors, after all, was the spreading of spike proteins from the muscle tissue into other areas and organs where they aren't supposed to go, but predominantly the blood. Lower concentrations might reduce the overall risk to spread, while it's fair to say that two arms also increases the risk on a binomial scale. But I'd assume that half the dose decreases the risk more by more than half per arm.

I'm not surprised that they eventually approved the Biontech vaccine, but without addressing the lost efficacy and without addressing the leaking spike proteins, the interactions of the proteins that can cause thrombocytopenia and thrombotic events, without addressing the relatively frequent anaphylaxis, and barely recognizing the myocarditis risk for children, as if there weren't approaches how to vaccinate children while addressing the risks, either by dose adjusting, or by using other vaccines. They try to sell every "one for all" approval like it's without alternatives. But there are alternatives.

They want to make decisions for us, but not with us. They look at average people like they are too stupid to take responsibility anyways. It's like drunk drivers. If you don't prevent cars from driving drunk drivers, they are all over the place, right? People have no level of moral thinking or self control to take responsibility for themselves and for other drivers. If they think that, I guess they live in another reality. Even drunk, most people know themselves and they don't drive drunk. They don't swallow pool cleaner because a random person told them so. They know how to check facts. There are some black sheep, but that's no reason to restrict the freedom and personal rights of every person.

In fact, this indoctrination system makes the blind trust phenomenon only worse. If critical thinking is less and less utilized, people might just lose it. So how are they supposed to navigate one day, when deep fakes can persuade anyone that it's authentic? If you don't know who to trust, and you don't know how to verify the integrity of claims, what are you supposed to do? People will just randomly do anything, believe the first entity that "makes sense". And everything "makes sense" that sounds simple and populistic.
 
Last edited: