• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

COVID- 19 Vaccine Dangers, Side Effects, Controversy - Closed thread, please see scientific library

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Israeli study shows the correlation between vaccine doses and deaths.
Why is this so difficult to accept?
They rolled a new technology before it was properly tested. It should really come as no surprise it's causing great harm and yes, killing people.
 
Sharon, check out the interview.

While we all share different personal experiences, our personal observations are not an accurate measure that can be used as a data set. There is interesting actuarial data however on adverse reactions and all cause mortality that is quite compelling. And expert testimony from whistle blowers in the military and from the Pfizer trials. There is so much evidence these shots are harming people. It shouldn't be that hard to accept. As to the doctors, any time there is a large number of people dying suddenly, it shouldn't be left up to speculation, but thoroughly investigated.

To add balance to your list: here's mine.

-I know of at least 3 people who have died suddenly post vaccination.
-And I have friends who know people who have also died suddenly and it is believed it was from the shot.
-I have many friends who have been injured. The four in the UK that kicked off this thread.
-A friend of mine's sister went into renal failure post vaccination and is not expected to make it.
-My neighbor became dizzy and has persistent vertigo and balance problems just after his 4th shot and is still struggling.
-Two close friends have had blood clots appear after vaccination.
-My own aunt had vaccine induced diabetes (doctor diagnosed)
-One of my best friends is suffering from vaccine induced chrones disease and mysterious chest pain as well as having vision problems and balance issues. We used to ride horses together. And now look.... Her neighbor has debilitating side effects.
-The pilot I met had a terrible illness after getting vaccinated and nearly died. I posted about that.
There are so many adverse reactions that are reported to me from friends, I can't keep track of them all...

I know one person who died of CoVid who was ventilated.

I have many friends who are vaccinated and have had CoVid several times. Most of my neighbors for example, have had repeat infections.

Like you, most people are NOT getting the bivalent booster. I hear from friends that UCSF is not recommending it either. Since it is not effective against current strains.

Most people I know don't realize we are in the fight of our lives against medical tyranny and a Great Reset. The G20 summit confirmed their agenda for 2030 and we should all become aware of what that is. But most people don't have the time or the interest.

What is certain, is that we do not know the long-term consequences of this new technology on our health.
The safety signals are alarming. And we should all be concerned about that and demanding a full investigation from our health officials.
 
Kirsch and Kennedy are important voices in the health freedom movement.
Kirsch has an organization, staffed with an impressive team of doctors and scientists that analyze vaccine safety issues.
And Kennedy is a leader in bringing together experts from throughout the medical community to discuss issues on vaccine safety as well. These voices are important and should not be silenced here or anywhere else.

Gates belongs in the WEF / Great Reset thread. Same for Soros, Bezos, Musk.
 
I am not silencing anyone and I think I have been very accepting considering the media and society climate regarding anything negative about the vaccines.

We are almost 3 YEARS out now. People have plenty of real life COVID-19 experiences. They can look at their lives and see what is what.

I still do not care what Kirsch and Kennedy (or any of the rest of them) think. I want facts.

Again - yes...the vaccines are a risk. This is known. The pharma companies are motivated by $. All of this is known. There will be tribunals as was said on this site early in the pandemic. People who lied, exploited, etc. will be exposed and punished.

I am just tired of the same ole ridiculous glossy videos, dramatic music, and rehash of the same anti-vaccine mantra. Some of it is completely unsupported by any facts. I also do not believe the pro-vaccine over-the-top claims either. I said so early on. I doubted the promoted efficacy of 90-95%. I also have said repeatedly not to rely solely on any COVID-19 vaccine to "save" you.

If people do not want to take the vaccines - then don't.
 
As to medical tyranny - even the W.H.O. thinks forced medicine is against human rights.

As to the "great reset" - sure, we have covered that as an economic issue. You started a thread on this topic and we have other posts too. Please post this subject on those threads:

The WEF Great Reset, UN Agenda 21, Mass Formation, various Control Attempts by World Elites
https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum...tion-various-control-attempts-by-world-elites
 
My husband and I haven't been sick at all since we quit wearing masks. How can that be? Neither of us has had the Covid vaccine or flu vaccines. We've been to museums, eaten out, shopped. Husband goes to work out indoors at a community gym/wellness center several times a week. The TV room there is full of angry, unmasked seniors yelling when news about the war in Ukraine or Covid vaccine policy is on. He overheard one volunteer in her 70's who had not been vaccinated yet fully recovered from Covid, (no 'long' Covid!), talk about having to find a new doctor because he was pushing the vaccine on her so hard. Now that is a vaccine policy side effect - discontinuity of healthcare because of conflict over this so-called 'vaccine.' It is not a settled issue by any stretch.
 
3 years of this means the vaccine/public health policies are big fat failures in my opinion. And the current booster coding for two strains is something new.
Yes, Gates, Soros, Musk and Bezos have nothing to do with vaccine side effects.
Kirsch and Kennedy are citizen safety watchdogs. I think Kirsch got interested because of his own experience with the vaccines and negative experiences of friends and family. I think Kennedy's vocal cord dystonia followed a flu vaccine, but it was mothers of vaccine-injured who kept reaching out to him that got him hooked on the topic. He truly wishes vaccines and the treatment of the vaccine-injured would improve so he could break away from his advocacy. He covers this along with other topics in this interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKEjftGvrcw
 
It normally takes 10-15 years to determine if a vaccine is safe and effective. We still have 7-15 years to go with the Covid mRNA vaccines - that should be regulated and prescribed as drugs.

https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/23/18/10881
Cosentino, M.; Marino, F. Understanding the Pharmacology of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Playing Dice with the Spike? Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 10881. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms231810881
Abstract

Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines are the mainstays of mass vaccination campaigns in most Western countries. However, the emergency conditions in which their development took place made it impossible to fully characterize their effects and mechanism of action. Here, we summarize and discuss available evidence indicating that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines better reflect pharmaceutical drugs than conventional vaccines, as they do not contain antigens but an active SARS-CoV-2 S protein mRNA, representing at the same time an active principle and a prodrug, which upon intracellular translation results in the endogenous production of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein. Both vaccine-derived SARS-CoV-2 S protein mRNA and the resulting S protein exhibit a complex pharmacology and undergo systemic disposition. Defining COVID-19 mRNA vaccines as pharmaceutical drugs has straightforward implications for their pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic, clinical and post-marketing safety assessment. Only an accurate characterization of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines as pharmaceutical drugs will guarantee a safe, rational and individualized use of these products.

Keywords:
COVID-19; mRNA vaccines; SARS-CoV-2; spike protein; pharmacology; safety; adverse effects; pharmacodynamics; pharmacokinetics

1. Introduction

In most Western countries, the mass Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) vaccination campaigns, which have been ongoing since the end of 2020, are based on two mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 (BioNTech–Pfizer BNT162b2 and Moderna mRNA-1273) [1,2]. Both products contain mRNAs encoding the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein, which is essential in the binding of the virus to the host cells expressing its receptor angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). These products were presented from the outset as intrinsically safe, since it was believed that, similar to conventional vaccines, after intramuscular injection, most of the dose would remain in the muscle and the rest would drain through the lymphatic system, being eventually captured by antigen-presenting cells and B cells and undergoing complete elimination in a few tens of hours at the most [3,4]. On this basis, the public was explicitly reassured by influential blogs (see for example [5]) as well as by academic institutional web pages (see for example [6]) that these products were not expected to exhibit any relevant systemic disposition and that the resulting S protein would remain attached to the surface of the cells and would not be released in the bloodstream and tissues to encounter ACE2 receptors and eventually induce organ damage. Step by step, however, it became clear that this was not the case.

2. Evidence for Systemic Biodistribution of COVID-19-Vaccine-Induced S Protein in Vaccinated Subjects

A study published in May 2021 documented for the first time circulating vaccine-induced S protein in the blood of 11 out of 13 subjects as early as one day after injection of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, up to 150 pg/mL and for about two weeks after injection [7]. Immediately, it was observed that such concentrations were several orders of magnitude lower than those needed to bind ACE2 receptors, and that in any case after two weeks no trace of the protein was detectable in blood. Soon after, however, a report was published describing the case of a woman suffering from Moderna-COVID-19-vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia and with 10 ng/mL vaccine-induced S protein levels in plasma 10 days after vaccination [8], thus nearly 100 times higher than those reported previously [7], suggesting excessive vaccine-induced production of S protein as a determinant of vaccine toxicity. Meanwhile, both vaccine mRNA and vaccine-induced S protein were shown in axillary lymph nodes up to 60 days after the second dose of both Moderna or BioNTech–Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines [9], thus showing that endogenous production of S protein following vaccination may occur for much longer than previously thought. The S protein has been so far identified in endomyocardial biopsies of patients with myocarditis up to nearly two months following COVID-19 vaccination [10], in circulating monocytes of patients with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC)-like symptoms following COVID-19 vaccines [11], in the vesicular keratinocytes and endothelial cells in the dermis in a patient who had persistent skin lesions due to varicella zoster virus (VZV) reactivation over three months after COVID-19 vaccination [12], and the S protein mRNA was present in the right deltoid and quadriceps muscles of a woman with myositis one month after injection of the BioNTech–Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccine into the left deltoid muscle [13]. Taken as a whole, evidence strongly supports the possible link between inappropriate expression of S protein in sensitive tissues and subsequent tissue damage.
3. Adverse Effects Following COVID-19 Vaccination: Too Much S Protein, for Too Long and/or in the WRONG Place?

A comprehensive review of the literature recently discussed the role of COVID-19-mRNA-vaccine-induced S protein in adverse effects following vaccination [14], and we showed that production of S protein induced by COVID-19 mRNA vaccines may well compare to the estimated production during SARS-CoV-2 infection [15]. The present opinion paper identifies, develops and discusses the implications of the role of the S protein in adverse effects following vaccination and indicates the most appropriate pharmacological approaches for a better characterization of these vaccines, with the aim of providing guidance towards their rational and individualized use. Indeed, based on these premises, a major explanation of adverse effects following COVID-19 vaccination could well be that mRNA vaccines induce in selected individuals excessive production of S protein, for too long and/or in inappropriate tissues and organs, and this occurrence is at present unpredictable, since systemic biodistribution and disposition of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine has so far never been considered an issue, and as a consequence it has never been studied as it would have actually deserved. Remarkably, the inadequate understanding of how to target specific organs and cells for protein expression is well-acknowledged as one of the major limitations of mRNA gene therapy [16]; however, for mRNA vaccines, it has been so far ignored.

4. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Pharmaceutical Drugs Rather than Conventional Vaccines

In other words, considering COVID-19 mRNA vaccines the same as simple conventional vaccines was a major misunderstanding, since they are quite distinct and in specific ways better reflect pharmaceutical drugs and should be therefore considered as such. COVID-19 mRNA vaccines contain active SARS-CoV-2 S protein mRNA, which represents at the same time a prodrug and an active principle. Although it might sound unconventional to define the content of a vaccine as a prodrug, the definition undoubtedly applies to these products, which are also unconventional in general, given their completely innovative conception, which even required updating the meaning of the word “vaccine” in vocabularies (see for example the Merriam-Webster Dictionary [17]). As such, these products urgently need a proper conceptualization. Conventional vaccines contain antigen(s), which represent their active component, in turn exerting their effect by acting on endogenous targets (the immune system cells). On the contrary, mRNA vaccines do contain a molecule (the mRNA) which is unable to trigger any anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune response unless it is translated by endogenous cell metabolism into an active moiety, which is the viral S protein. In other terms, mRNAs contained in vaccines fully meet the definition of a “prodrug”...
 
There was absolutely nothing political in my comment.

And fyi - here is a publicized case of a leg clot caused by COVID-19 in 2020. Vaccines were not available yet.

"Cordero entered the emergency room on March 30 and had a succession of health setbacks, including mini-strokes, blood clots, septic infections, a tracheostomy and a temporary pacemaker implanted. He had been on a ventilator and unconscious and had his right leg amputated. A double lung transplant was being explored."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/broadway-veteran-nick-cordero-dies-from-virus-complications
 
This is an example of what I am saying. In my life experience, in a large metropolitan area of 2 million and one of the world's top tourist destinations, I feel N95s have worked great for me. You feel you have lived fine without them. So we, like everyone else, are responding to what we are seeing and what we think works for us. We are almost 3 years out now and we have our life experiences and observations.

And I do not think anything will change either of our minds.
 
I agree that it takes years to fully determine the efficacy and safety of any medicine, including vaccines. It was always known that a PANDEMIC vaccine might be distributed quickly. It was always going to be a bit of a risk. Only time gives us the perspective we need to make a fully informed decision. All vaccines are drugs. This is common sense. This site has always said that vaccines are medicine and to consult a medical practitioner about them.

Again, if people do not want to take the vaccines, or wear N95 masks, then don't.
 
For balance on this video:

N95 Respirators

• Long, Y. et al. (2020). “Effectiveness of N95 respirators vs surgical masks against influenza: A
291
systematic review and meta-analysis.” J Evidence Based Medicine. 2020;12:93-101. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381
• “The current meta-analysis shows the use of N95 respirators compared to surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Randonovich, Lewis, et al. (2019) “N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial”. JAMA. 2019 Sept 3; (322(9):824-833. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/
• “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) “Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942, https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747
• “Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant.”

Chou, Roger, et al. (2020) “Masks for Prevention of Respiratory Virus Infections, Including SARS-CoV-2, in Health Care and Community Settings.” Ann Intern Med June 24:M20-3213. 2020 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7322812/
• Randomized trials in community settings found possibly no difference between N95 versus surgical masks and probably no difference between surgical versus no mask in risk for influenza or influenza-like illness, but compliance was low. Bothersome symptoms were common.

Zhu JH, et al. “Effects of long-duration wearing of N95 respirator and surgical facemask: a pilot study.” J Lung Pulm Respir Res. 2014;1(4):97‒100. http://medcraveonline.com/JLPRR/JLPRR-01-00021.pdf
• As the protection efficacy and possible effects on nasal functions and subjective sensations of wearing N95 respirator/surgical facemask have been well demonstrated, wearing of respirator and facemask altered the fractions of air components and changed microclimate around the nasal cavity, which would further affect the function of mucosa and its transportation rate.

• Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review.” Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to- preventtransmission-of-influenza-virus-a- systematicreview/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05/core-reader
• N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.
 
Conclusion Regarding Masks They Do Not Work

See attachment for details.

There are NO randomized, controlled trials (RCT) with verified outcomes that show a benefit to health care workers or community members for wearing a mask or a respirator. There is no such definitive study. Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public (documented below).

Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask. There is not. Neither masks nor respirators protect; cloth coverings are essentially worthless.

It should be noted that the surgical masks are primarily designed to protect the environment from the wearer, whereas the respirators are supposed to protect the wearer from the environment. (Balazy, et al).

Coronavirus particles are <0.125 microns in size. Masks and respirators filter particles 0.30 to 0.80 microns in size. Masks cannot possibly work. No bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application.
 

Attachments

This is excellent. Most everyone I know believes the mRNA CoVid vaccine is the same as a conventional vaccine as noted in point #4.
This has lead many people not to ask questions, however if it was referred as a "prodrug." no doubt the shot would have been under greater scrutiny.
 
There is a lot here. As far as 2020 goes - sadly - public health officials lied about masks, especially N95s because there were not enough to protect health care workers. They did not want the general public grabbing the last remaining stocks of masks.

There are studies that show N95 masks are effective but the filing above claims these papers have "bias". Any paper I post will be discounted as having bias. So let's say that is true - all papers that support N95 mask wearing are biased. What am I left with?

Well - I am left with my own observations and common sense:
1) I personally know a hospital healthcare worker who has worked throughout the pandemic and always wears an N95 mask on every shift. This person has not become ill with COVID-19 despite exposure to patients and co-workers who became sick with the disease. In almost 3 years.
2) I do not know anyone who routinely wears an N95 mask indoors who has become sick with the disease, including me. In almost 3 years.
3) It makes common sense that any physical barrier to viral particles will impact them to some degree. It also makes sense that less virus particles (less viral load) getting into the respiratory tract is better than more.

If people want to expose themselves to COVID-19 then that is their right to do so. If any paper I post here is attacked as having "bias" then I am not going to waste my time. Here is our scientific library where there are studies that support wearing an N95 mask for COVID-19:
https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum/welcome-to-the-scientific-library

Here is Fauci admitting he got COVID-19 after taking his mask (I believe an N95) off indoors at a gathering (contradicting his 2020 statement):
https://www.yahoo.com/video/dr-fauci-just-revealed-got-171118375.html

Nothing in the above filing or statements in 2020 by various leading health officials will impact my personal experience for the last three years.

In the maze of information - use your critical mind. Ask yourself - does it make sense to try to not get COVID-19 or not? I think it does and I am doing a lot to try to prevent it. One of those things is wearing an N95 indoors.
 
Rubbery Blood Clots

Another form of Spike Protein Disease
https://drtenpenny.substack.com/p/rubbery-blood-clots

Rubbery Blood Clots

We have seen pictures of blood clots that have been pulled from the veins of cadavers. Mike Adams produced one of the largest collections of these rubbery strings. He wrote this on NaturalNews.com: “We don’t yet know what all these structures are. We know what they are not, however: They are not simply clotted blood cells. If they were, then at the 1500x magnification shown in the last photo, above, we would be able to see individual blood cells. These are not blood cells, they are protein structures.”

Here is an interview with Richard Hirschman, if you’d like to hear what he has to say.

What is causing this? Like the other 20+ Mechanisms of Injury (MOI) that I identified and published in May/July 2021, are these rubber-like clots something that can be directly attributed to the COVID-19 injections?

A very recent study (published May 2022) may shed some light and give an explanation for these unusual and horrific clots.
ABSTRACT(summary)

SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with a surprising number of morbidities. Uncanny similarities with amyloid-disease associated blood coagulation and fibrinolytic disturbances together with neurologic and cardiac problems led us to investigate the amyloidogenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S-protein).... Our data propose a molecular mechanism for potential amyloidogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 S-protein in humans...

REF: Sofie Nyström and Per Hammarström. “Amyloidogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein.” J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2022, 144, 20, 8945–8950. May 17, 2022 - LINK

As you can see from the REF (reference) the title of this article is “Amyloidogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein.”

What the heck is amyloidogenesis? (pronounced am-uh-loi-doe-genesis)

What does this have to do with rubbery blood clots found by Richard Hirschman, a mortician who found a large number of strange blood and tissue clots in cadavers after the COVID shots?

Let’s take a step back and explain a few terms.
What is amyloid and what is amyloidosis?

Amyloid is an abnormal protein; it is not found in the body under healthy conditions. It occurs when a protein is damaged and begins to fold abnormally on itself. Amyloidosis (am-uh-loi-DOE-sis) is the term given when the abnormal amyloid proteins accumulate in organs and throughout the body, interfering with normal function.

Amyloids are thread-like, fibrous strands that look like strings. These tiny structures are typically 7–13 nanometers in diameter and can be many microns in length. To understand how microscopically small that is, one inch is 25,400,000 nanometers.

When thousands of amyloids aggregate together, they twist into fibrils with a sheet-like appearance. This is called a β-sheet. Amyloid fibrils can also be bound tightly together by horizontal fibers known as cross-β strands. These abnormal proteins can fold, unfold and refold into different configurations, each time increasing their stability and tinsel strength. The fibrils are usually highly organized, with consistent lengths and a tensile strength that approaches that of steel (Fabrizio, pg13)

As of 2017, at least 25 amyloid proteins have been associated with human diseases: Seven are associated with neurodegenerative conditions, such as Alzheimer and Parkinson diseases and 15 have been found to aggregate the heart, spleen, liver, pancreas and kidney. The remaining are miscellaneous findings, often associated with rare genetic diseases. When organs are filled with amyloid proteins, this condition is called systemic amyloidosis. The severity of systemic amyloidosis can range from non-symptomatic deposition to localized cell death to complete impairment of specific organs.
REF: Fabrizio Chiti and Christopher M. Dobson. “Protein Misfolding, Amyloid Formation, and Human Disease.” Annual Review of Biochemistry Vol. 86:27-68 (May 12, 2017) LINK

Researchers asked the question: Does the spike protein induce the formation of amyloid, leading to blood clots?
To study this premise, researchers took a selection of spike protein sequences and in vitro, added substances known to induce amyloid fibrils. Almost all of the spike proteins formed amyloid fibrils within a few hours after they combined the spike proteins with neutrophil elastase, an enzyme released during an infection.

REF: Sofie Nyström and Per Hammarström. “Amyloidogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein.: J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2022, 144, 20, 8945–8950. May 17, 2022. LINK


So, yes, the spike protein can lead to the formation of amyloid in serum. If you want to see a few pictures of what this looks like under the microscope and in the blood, go here.

The problem is, plasmin, which usually regulates clot formation to prevent “over-clotting” is not capable of breaking down and removing these spike-amyloid clots.

Spikes and Clots

Researchers demonstrated this phenomenon a second way. Plasma was taken from healthy, unvaccinated donors. When the spike protein was added to their blood, extensive microclots formed leading to hypercoagulation.

The spike protein also interacts with platelets and fibrinogen, interfering with blood flow, also leading directly to hypercoagulation. When the spike protein was mixed with other blood proteins, the combined amyloid-like structure was resistant to the enzymes that would normally break down the clot (called impaired fibrinolysis). This leads to the persistence of a voluminous number of microclots in small blood vessels throughout the body called capillaries. Millions of these tiny clots effectively block the passage of red blood cells into tissues, decreasing oxygen exchange and leading to multiorgan system failure.

BOTTOM LINE:

spike proteins + fibrin -> amyloid proteins -> large, rubbery clots -> death

While the recent findings in the blood may seem bizarre, even other worldly, it appears the answer is coming directly through that needle. Spike protein disease, leading to the deposition of amyloid in organs and filling up arteries and veins is certainly one more MOI for the books.
Articles/References (no particular order)
 
Source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4206070

COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters for Young Adults: A Risk-Benefit Assessment and Five Ethical Arguments against Mandates at Universities
Posted: 12 Sep 2022
Kevin Bardosh, University of Washington; University of Edinburgh - Edinburgh Medical School
Allison Krug, Artemis Biomedical Communications LLC
Euzebiusz Jamrozik University of Oxford
Trudo Lemmens, University of Toronto - Faculty of Law
Salmaan Keshavjee, Harvard University - Harvard Medical School
Vinay Prasad, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)
Martin A. Makary, Johns Hopkins University - Department of Surgery
Stefan Baral, John Hopkins University
Tracy Beth Høeg, Florida Department of Health; Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital

Date Written: August 31, 2022

Abstract

Students at North American universities risk disenrollment due to third dose COVID-19 vaccine mandates. We present a risk-benefit assessment of boosters in this age group and provide five ethical arguments against mandates. We estimate that 22,000 - 30,000 previously uninfected adults aged 18-29 must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent one COVID-19 hospitalisation. Using CDC and sponsor-reported adverse event data, we find that booster mandates may cause a net expected harm: per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented in previously uninfected young adults, we anticipate 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities. Given the high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile is even less favourable. University booster mandates are unethical because: 1) no formal risk-benefit assessment exists for this age group; 2) vaccine mandates may result in a net expected harm to individual young people; 3) mandates are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given the modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission; 4) US mandates violate the reciprocity principle because rare serious vaccine-related harms will not be reliably compensated due to gaps in current vaccine injury schemes; and 5) mandates create wider social harms. We consider counter-arguments such as a desire for socialisation and safety and show that such arguments lack scientific and/or ethical support. Finally, we discuss the relevance of our analysis for current 2-dose COVID-19 vaccine mandates in North America.

Note: Funding: This paper was partially supported by a Wellcome Trust Society and Ethics fellowship awarded to KB (10892/B/15/ZE) and Wellcome Trust grants to EJ (216355, 221719, 203132).
Competing Interest Statement: We do not have any competing interests to declare.
 
It's interesting that this paper was in part funded by the Welcome Trust. They are at the heart of a major controversy over receiving funding passed on to the Wuhan Lab for gain of function research. This was allegedly made possible through a loophole exploited by Fauci at the NIH.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top