Due to the health crisis caused by SARS-CoV-2, the creation of a new vaccine platform based on mRNA was implemented. Globally, around 13.32 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses of diverse platforms have been given, and up to this date, 69.7% of the total population received at least one injection of a COVID-19 vaccine. Although these vaccines prevent hospitalization and severe forms of the disease, increasing evidence has shown they do not produce sterilizing immunity, allowing people to suffer frequent re-infections. Recent research has also raised concerns that mRNA vaccines could induce immune tolerance, which, added to that caused by the virus itself, could complicate the clinical course of a COVID-19 infection. Furthermore, recent investigations have found high IgG4 levels in people who were administered two or more injections of mRNA vaccines. It has been suggested that an increase in IgG4 levels could have a protecting role by preventing immune over-activation, similar to that occurring during successful allergen-specific immunotherapy by inhibiting IgE-induced effects. Altogether, evidence suggests that the reported increase in the IgG4 levels detected after repeated vaccination with the mRNA vaccines is not a protective mechanism; rather, it may be a part of the immune tolerance mechanism to the spike protein that could promote unopposed SARS-CoV2 infection and replication by suppressing natural antiviral responses. IgG4-induced suppression of the immune system due to repeated vaccination can also cause autoimmune diseases, promotes cancer growth, and autoimmune myocarditis in susceptible individuals.
I am aware of the desire to depopulate the planet by several megalomaniacs in the elite quarters of our world. So whatever our leftist governments want is not what we want.
They want to kill us and yet … we vote for them.
A quandary, a suicidal one.
I can’t remember where I first read about this hypothesis, but when I did, I kept thinking that this could explain the high levels of reinfection I’m seeing amongst friends that keep getting boosted (one family friend is up to her fifth booster now, making seven shots of mRNA in total!).
I’ve never been vaxxed, and I’ve (probably) had COVID twice: once in October 2019 in northern Italy, and the Omicron variant just over five months ago. The first was the weirdest cold I’d ever had in my life, and the second was just a cold for all practical intents and purposes.
As a health care worker in an Ontario hospital I saw evidence over the years that the incidence of respiratory infections was directly related to the flu vaccine.
Personal conclusion: the vaccine compromised the immunes system.
This paper has no chance at passing peer review. I have no idea of the quality, but that doesn’t matter. Vast amounts of the scientific and medical community have sold out to big pharma money. They have proven they are unethical, immoral and worthy only for a Nuremburg necktie. They should be hung by the thousand.
I have:
100pcs of 10ft 2x4s and nails,
40 pairs of re-usable flex-cuffs,
100 yards of Teufelberger 10.5mm rope,
2 boxes of 62gr. green tip
and 1 full case of 124 gr. 9mm NATO that I’m ready to donate to the Adhoc Committee of Justice when the time comes
I can’t figure out if this paper has even been submitted to a journal, much less which journal.
The lead author Vladimir Uversky has published 26 papers in the last 5 months, or more than one per week.
This is not science. This is fraud.
Keep that head firmly in the sand KM, and by all means, keep your boosters up to date.
Every time you squawk about “mUh pEeR rEvIeW” I’m going to remind people of the Replication Crisis and Dr. Barry Marshall.
Yes, you make that magical incantation whenever you hear scientific results you don’t like, as if it proves something.
Except that you don’t even attempt to explain how there could be a “replication crisis” in COVID research, where there are countless papers describing original studies from all over the globe.
Well, the fat rodent might have something, except:
Uversky actually isn’t the lead author on all those “papers”. He’s mostly along for the ride – like a lot of authors in medical research “papers.” It happens quite a lot, although it is a practice that can more easily lend itself to fraud.
The first “paper”on the fat rodent’s list is a pre-print and not peer-reviewed, so technically it is not a “published paper”, as fat rodent would have us believe.
The second one on the list is a literature review and spent 3 months in peer review. Grad students write literature reviews for their supervisors.
The third one on the list is also a review, includes a lot of authors as well as Uversky near the end of the list. More difficult to distinguish who the grad student is on this one. Can’t tell when it was submitted.
The fourth one on the list is another pre-print, not peer-reviewed and not “published, no matter how much fat rodent tries to make us believe that was the case. It is also heavily mathematical and theoretical and not experimental. Very much like modeling papers written by climate disruption “scientists” who borrow a program from another “scientist”, tweek a few parameters, feed in a data set, write-up the output and ship it off to the Journal of Climate Disruption. In other words, it lends itself to the publish churn.
The fifth one on the list is this pre-print. Not published, not peer-reviewed.
The sixth one on the list is a pre-print…
The seventh one on the list is a pre-print, etc.
It would appear that Uversky is a prolific writer, but the full list of “published 26 papers” that fat rodent refers to doesn’t actually exist…? Many on the rodent’s list are in fact pre-prints, which Uversky and Co. are deliberately using to review and edit their manuscripts prior to submission to a journal. Everybody does it, not just Uversky. Literature reviews are also not particularly tough to get published. Grad students knock them off for their supervisors all the time.
So why is fat rodent deliberately misleading the reader to discredit this pre-print?
b_i mRNA was around before sars-cov-2. It has never worked.
There was a time when “peer review” actually meant something. It no longer does.
Art
It still means a lot today, just not what it used mean. Now it means BULLSHIT has been written.
“Although these vaccines prevent hospitalization and severe forms of the disease…”
Horse. Shit.
Eh, it’s probably a pro forma sop to the medical/research communities to keep them from automagically shutting off their willingness to read through the study.
If it works, I’m all for it — anything to crack the ramparts.
DB I agree. Food for thought. How does anyone know that you will not be as effected as hard if you get this experimental HS drug?? How do they know how sick you would get without it???
This info coming from the same people who said this drug was 95% effective.
Precisely. There is no possible way to empirically measure this.
Yes. Horse Shit. I was about to ask where the proof of that is. There is none.
The BC CDC erased their statistics and charts of Covid cases, hospitalizations, ICU beds and Deaths, in July of 2022, when those stats, known as the DONUT CHARTS, showed that “Vaccinated” people made up 90% of all stats.
YES, INCLUDING DEATHS. 90% VACCINATED!
KM, you are a fool and naive shill! Back to the LPC war room with you.
It’s been 3 months since PV released it’s footage of Pfizer Director Walker admitting they are screwing around with the virus to develop vaccines. Nothing. Now you see the PM and Fauci telling their versions of history.
Reply to RedPop
Hard to believe the Canadian pimp is now saying he did not order anyone to get the vaccine, Or lose their jobs, their savings, bank accounts or go hungry or lose their homes, Naw he would never say that?
History rewrites will prove it.
Remember “Should we tolerate these people?” Trudeau’s behavior and attitude regarding COVID and vaccines has been unconscionable.
LindL
And the CUCKS will……………………………………..?
Related: Trudeau embellished the ‘Nazi’ lie to justify not talking to the Convoy.
In the middle of this presentation a former CBC reporter shows the connection between the Nazi flags at the Convoy and the links to PMO .He refers to great investigating by Alexa from Rebel.
https://rumble.com/v2gwp3o-former-cbc-reporter-illustrates-how-the-state-broadcaster-is-reporting-misi.html
The main point of his presentation is CBC propaganda.
Because Justin is already in some hot water.
It’s lying time.
Anyone else notice Biden, Putin and XYZ China have all been acting crazy since they had their booster shots?
Pray to God they don’t blow up the world.
Are any of you familiar with plasmodium vivax malaria?
I have heard that covid has some similarities.
Your comment reminded me of something:
https://www.facebook.com/journeymanpictures/videos/malcolm-is-a-little-unwell-trailer/2237005496623055/
I think it would be interesting to see a paper that breaks down the odds of getting any *one* of the growing number of serious or life changing side effects of the injections. The list of adverse reactions is getting so long that you’d have to put it into categories. Temporary or permanent. An immediate, medium or long term disability.
The numbers appear rosier when you isolate the adverse effects into individual silos but the combined risk of getting any series adverse reaction must be getting pretty alarming. What are the odds of getting a heart/cardiac event or neurological issues or fertility problems or autoimmune disorders or immune dysfunction or turbo cancer or kidney disease, or…
It also looks like each additional booster increases the odds of getting at least one adverse reaction.
I’m increasingly thankful that my stubbornness and cynicism kept me and my family in the unvaccinated group.
Current governments, and their sycophantic minions, will not entertain any study whatsoever, in regards to vaxxed with various injuries, and unvaxxed lacking the same injuries and conditions.
It would be self-incriminating.
My expectation is these same criminals and despots will die off rapidly, from their precious experimental jabs.
We’ve not witnessed the sudden death syndrome among politicians that much.
Not that I’ve noticed.
Their political vaxx must work, huh.
Well, Moderna switched from therapeutic applications to vaccines in 2017 because of the horrible side effect profile in animal trials with subjects given regular doses.
No one has ever tested to see how many mRNA doses (boosters) it takes to get to the pre 2017 levels that were so dangerous they couldn’t even get approval to run a phase 1 clinical trial in humans back then.
The paper has not been peer reviewed. It’s not even clear that it’s been submitted to a journal. It might never get published.
A little early, then, to be basing opinions on.
Peer review has no value….it used to…but no longer. It is not “peer review” but rather PAL review. Those who howl “peer review” are the same people who whistle when the walk past graveyards.
Peer review has enormous value. It’s particularly good at rejecting papers that are poor quality, and improving papers that are of reasonable quality.
And many journals now have double-anomymous reviews, meaning the reviewers don’t know who the authors are, and vice versa. Further, editors tend to go out of there way to find reviewers who are not associated with the authors.
So, KM, as laymen, precisely how does one determine the difference between peer review & pal review?
I don’t think “pal review” is as big a problem as some claim. Many researchers are honest to a fault, and are straight even with those they know and like. A bigger problem in my view is the “curmudgeon”, a reviewer who is reflexively dismissive of other researchers’ work. But a good editor recognizes when that occurs, and doesn’t reject the paper on that account.
But to answer your question, go to the journal website and read “Instructions To Authors”. It will tell you if the journal uses double-blind anonymous review. Most major journals do. This doesn’t guarantee objectivity, but it helps a lot.
I was being facetious, but seeing as you answered so nicely…
In some disciplines, pal review is huge. Witness Globull Warming.
And, yes, some researchers are honest. However, when you your life’s work, concomitant funding, possibly tenured position, job, whatever, is about to go spiraling down the drain, many won’t rock the boat. Witness the coof.
As far as double blind testing is concerned, that’s making the assumption there are enough researchers (with a desire to peer review) in your field to be anonymous. I have a friend, ethologist, did his graduate work on bird song back in the late 70’s/early 80’s. There were about 3 experts on the planet at the time willing to peer review birdsong work. He knew each of them personally & their particular writing style. So, even though they submitted anonymous reviews, he knew who they were.
Happily, they came from a time where integrity stood for something & were honest & offered sound critique.
My comment is stuck in moderation but here is a link to a journal accepted research on the igG4 switch
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.adg7327
When the peers are criminally corrupt big pharma shills, who cares?
This is all of a piece with previous attemps to prove that COVID vaccines are inordinately dangerous.
Any evidence supporting this supposition are presented as ground truth. There’s not even the mildest attempt to question the quality of the evidence. In this case, we have a paper that might not yet even have been submitted to a journal, much less peer reviewed or accepted. And its lead author Vladimir Uversky has authored 26 papers in the last 5 months, or more than one per week, making one wonder how many of the paper’s “authors” have even read it.
But it doesn’t matter. It will added to the “growing evidence” that vaccines are toxic.
KM, a quick perusal of the VAERS data, or its European equivalent are evidence that the mRNA shots are inordinately dangerous. The only question left is how dangerous.
And really, I still think subjective matters. Any vaccine which has people getting 6 or 7 doses, and still walking around in masks has failed. Period.
The VAERS site explicitly states that one should never draw conclusions from it, as it lacks the proper scientific controls. It’s intended to suggest where future research might be warranted, but no more.
But that doesn’t stop people from doing exactly what the VAERS site says they shouldn’t do.
They do not draw conclusions from single cases, but from patterns that emerge. That’s legitimate and that is the purpose of VAERS — to flag signals of problems with the vaccines.
Not to flag problems with vaccines, but to flag POSSIBLE problems with vaccines. In their words…
“This way, VAERS can provide CDC and FDA with valuable information that additional work and evaluation is necessary to further assess a possible safety concern.”
Notice the words “additional work and evaluation is necessary”.
@Killer — funny that despite all the worrisome signals, little is being done to investigate all of the problems with the Covud vaccines. Instead, records are being removed. If they did investigate, perhaps it would help alleviate concerns about the vaccines. Instead, the ” official” agencies seem more interested in cover-up.
I think a lot of the potential problems have been researched. As an example, there have been many papers on myocarditis caused by both vaccines and COVID. Which problems are being ignored?
Peter
Killer is alla unDORK in drag!
The site owner asks that people remain civil.
Totally up to you whether you follow that instruction. Kate never seems to do much about it.
Methinks you doth protest too much.
You’re a shill.
And what do you think of the lead author publishing papers at the rate of one per week? Does that instill confidence?
A nice example of what-about-ism. You are a shill.
If there is insufficient scrutiny of claims that the vaccines are toxic, it is much in line with the unproven and ubiquitous claim of “safe and effective”. The anti-vaxer side is not the only group that may be less than vigorous in investigating claims. Remember that outrageous claim by someone at the Dalla Lana claiming that unvaxed were greater risk to others than vaxed — based on a hopelessly flawed mathmatical model. It was thorougly debunked, but got published anyway — and conveniently carried in many, many Canadian newspapers. It was outrageous — so much for peer review and objectivity.
“If there is insufficient scrutiny of claims that the vaccines are toxic, it is much in line with the unproven and ubiquitous claim of “safe and effective”.
I disagree. There have been numerous peer-reviewed large-scale double-blind studies (and meta-studies) in respected journals that have concluded that the benefits of the vaccines greatly outweigh the drawbacks.
I would list some of them (as I have many times in the past), but whenever one includes a link, one risks being sent to moderation purgatory.
“There have been numerous peer-reviewed large-scale double-blind studies (and meta-studies) in respected journals that have concluded that the benefits of the vaccines greatly outweigh the drawbacks.”
This, too, is changing, as more symptoms from the jabs manifest themselves & more people die.
In addition, don’t use the word “respected” as an argument. First, it’s an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. Second, journals like NEJM, Nature, etc., have published the same pap as others have.
This is just nonsense. These have been under development at least since SARS-1. All failed, both adenoviral and mRNA. Early in 2020 the narrative went out that we can’t get back to normal until everyone is vaccinated with something that didn’t yet exist. There is no benefit at all to any of these shots. Zero. None. Nadda.
“There is no benefit at all to any of these shots.”
Here’s a recent meta-analysis of 68 studies that said different.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(23)00015-2/fulltext#:~:text=We%20pooled%20infection%20data%20from,%E2%80%9386%3B%20table%202).
The references to those 68 studies can all be found at the end of the paper.
That’s my evidence. What’s yours?
Curious that The Lancet publishes meta-studies covering the “effectiveness” of the jabs, yet completely & entirely ignored meta-studies of Ivermectin an an effective treatment.
Hi KM, you forgot to follow the money. The Lancet report you linked to at 4.35pm states
“Funding
Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Public Health Agency of Canada.”
Researchers are whores, pure and simple. They will always write a report that pleases the people providing the funds. The Canadian govt does not want to admit it made a huge mistake so they have bought a report which exonerates them.
There are so many problems with the report I don’t know where to start. Why does it not compare the incidence and severity of Covid in inoculated people against the un-inoculated people? If 30% of the world did not get the jab that provides a huge sample group to compare to. Why then are the world’s health authorities not comparing the overall health of jabbed vs un-jabbed? Also why hasn’t any government addressed the excess deaths that are occurring world wide post-jab? Or the sudden drop in sperm motility in jabbed men and the alarming increase in still births?
So funding from a government immediately nullifies the results? That’s just nonsense. Funding from government is pretty much essential for any large-scale medical study in Canada. Where else is the money going to come from? Would you prefer from major pharmaceuticals?
“Would you prefer from major pharmaceuticals?”
SSDP. They’ve both got an agenda.
The problem is this: no matter how well a study is done, no matter how scrupiously scientific its methodology, no matter how many other studies back up its findings, if it finds support for vaccines then the anti-vaxxers will find some reason to declare it invalid.
Funding from the “wrong” sources, some of the authors working for the “wrong” organization, “pal review” (whether there’s evidence of that or not), “the duplication crisis” (whether there’s evidence of that or not), something. They’ve built a hermetically sealed bubble that nullifies out all opposing evidence.
Evidence against vaccines can be embarassingly shoddy and speculative but it doesn’t matter; it’s accepted as true without serious scrutiny. Meanwhile papers supporting vaccines are held to impossibly high standards.
Remove the scales from your eyes. The jabs are shit, in 14 different colours, 26 different flavours & a half dozen different textures. From the initial premise through to today.
All the alleged peer/pal review on the planet isn’t going to change that.
Anyone else here know of anyone having pancreatic problems after being vaxed I know of three two are dead, ones “recovering”.
Just wondering.
Yes….just heard about a 50ish man from southern Ontario….sudden onset pancreatitis, died within 6 weeks. Likely not reported as linked to jab because family was pro jab.
Haven’t downloaded what you posted, but suspect this paper is what is referenced in the abstract. Was on my radar as a preprint and made a splash when it was finally published.
Dec 22 Science Immunology Vol 8 #79 Class switch toward noninflammatory, spike-specific IgG4 antibodies after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination.
Since spike protein is produced via induced artificial rna expression over time what struck me is the rise in IgG4 post injection 2 prior to injection 3.
KM: “So funding from a government immediately nullifies the results? That’s just nonsense. Funding from government is pretty much essential for any large-scale medical study in Canada. Where else is the money going to come from? Would you prefer from major pharmaceuticals?”
That would be nonsense, as it is too expensive and inefficient. Much better for pharma to buy the politicians and regulators. Pfizer has so many ex-regulators and politicians on it’s payroll and board, it is more lobbying group than drug company.
Dr. Scott Gottlieb, Exhibit A
I doubt I will live long enough to see a majority catch up and admit they were wrong but I can hope I guess.
Anyone that wants my vaccine allottment is welcome to it.
KM touts a study of studies, big woop. Some may be useful, but that too, is not known.
If the various solutions were safe and effective, we wouldn’t be having these discussions to this degree.
Anyone that trusts the solutions, have at it. Continue to do as you’re told and by all means, cheer on your favorite pharma billionaire.
You are their rightful prey.