Covid / Spike protein related - changing text issues

[Pen]

I put something about Salk Institute and Spike Protein in a post in some thread. I do not recall which. Today I became aware that the text aI had seen from Salk Institute is no longer available. The wording was changed. There was no explanation, or statement that a revision had been made so far as I am aware.

I will try to put screenshots below. 
 

They are both dated April 30, but the parentheses about vaccine seems to have shown up in just the more recent part of May. It was not there earlier in May when I first saw it. 
 

I find the change without explanation troubling, personally.   In any case I am including it and clearly Salk wishes to say vaccine induced Spike is safe. Contrary to the impression given in the earlier version. I hope for everyone sakes that it is true that the spike created from the RNA or DNA in vaccines will be less dangerous than the spike attached to wild virus. Some people I know think the vaccine induced  spike will be more dangerous.  
 

either way I thought I should show the two versions.

 

I am currently exceeding my photo limit so have to delete some old before I can put new.

 

 I find it sad that the current state of “science” is that screenshots are needed to show what is changing rather than a clear chain of evidence and explanation if there is an article change. Especially a substantively significant one, not a typo correction. 

 

[Pen]

[Catwoman]

Thank you for posting this, Pen — I had seen the revised version of that article, but I would have gotten quite a different impression if I had seen the original version instead. 

I think they should have noted that they had made that significant change, rather than just slipping it in without explanation.

[Pen]

I consider lack of “transparency” to be a serious problem in “science”. 
 

I am trying to be “transparent “ myself in showing the two versions and do not want to have misled anyone from comments based on the version without the parenthetical statement. 
 

Though at the same time it raises my own sense of suspicion.

 

[Laurie]

If Wikipedia is correct, some of their funding comes from the NIH.    Maybe the Salk Inst. loses funding if they don't include the part about safely.    It seems every message during the pandemic must include "SAFE", whether it is or not,  so I pretty much ignore it at this point.    

[KSera]

1 hour ago, Catwoman said:

Thank you for posting this, Pen — I had seen the revised version of that article, but I would have gotten quite a different impression if I had seen the original version instead. 

I think they should have noted that they had made that significant change, rather than just slipping it in without explanation.

I can’t read the screenshots on my phone, but based on having read the site when Pen posted it a couple days ago and seeing the note that these reactions happened with virus spike protein not vaccine induced spike protein, I expect that’s what’s being discussed. I’m wondering what people are concerned about with this change, though. It looks to me like they realized the page wasn’t sufficiently clear, so they edited to clarify. I think the standards for editing something in a newspaper or in research are very different than when updates are made to a webpage.

Edited May 20, 2021 by KSera
Wow. Typos made this nonsensical 😳

[ktgrok]

11 minutes ago, KSera said:

It looks to me like they realized the page wasn’t sufficiently clear, so they edited to clarify. I think the standards for editing something in a newspaper or in research are very different than when updates are made to a webpage.

Right. I mean, we do that in our posts here all the time. Someone points out that what we said was unclear, or we realize what we said is being taken the wrong way, and edit to clarify. That's not nefarious. 

[Ausmumof3]

1 hour ago, Pen said:

I consider lack of “transparency” to be a serious problem in “science”. 
 

I am trying to be “transparent “ myself in showing the two versions and do not want to have misled anyone from comments based on the version without the parenthetical statement. 
 

Though at the same time it raises my own sense of suspicion.

 

I don’t understand the original issue but I agree with you in that I think the ability to change things online without acknowledgement of the changes is one of the problems/challenges of now.

[KSera]

13 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Right. I mean, we do that in our posts here all the time. Someone points out that what we said was unclear, or we realize what we said is being taken the wrong way, and edit to clarify. That's not nefarious. 

Right. Case in point, this post. I made some really bad Siri-induced typos in my post above that totally changed what I meant it to say. I have since changed it to say what I intended it to say. Not nefarious. I think the reason certain people are upset in this instance was because they liked this source when they thought it said what they wanted it to say, but now that it doesn’t, they think it’s a bad source. 

Edited May 20, 2021 by KSera

[Drama Llama]

43 minutes ago, Laurie said:

If Wikipedia is correct, some of their funding comes from the NIH.    Maybe the Salk Inst. loses funding if they don't include the part about safely.    It seems every message during the pandemic must include "SAFE", whether it is or not,  so I pretty much ignore it at this point.    

Are you saying that an organization founded by Jonas Salk wouldn’t have their own reasons for correcting something that was being misinterpreted to mean a vaccine was unsafe?

To me this seems like a case where scientists wrote something that was clear to other scientists, but was confusing to some lay readers, and might have contributed to vaccine refusal.  So they added text to clarify the message for those lay readers.

Yes, ideally, they should have put a footnote that additional text was added for clarity, but it’s hardly a conspiracy.

But then I can’t really read the first entry, which says that a virus with an attached spike protein is able to enter cells more easily, as meaning that a spike protein that is not attached to a virus is dangerous.  It’s like learning that some criminals wear sneakers so they can get into your house silently, and then becoming afraid of the sneakers in your closet. 

[KSera]

18 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

But then I can’t really read the first entry, which says that a virus with an attached spike protein is able to enter cells more easily, as meaning that a spike protein that is not attached to a virus is dangerous.  It’s like learning that some criminals wear sneakers so they can get into your house silently, and then becoming afraid of the sneakers in your closet. 

I agree. The page was getting passed around the internet by lay person conspiracy theorists as proof that the vaccine is dangerous, so I can see why that then forced them to add information to make it more clear to people what they were saying. 
 

I do think this is pretty standard on the Internet. We can talk about whether it should be different, but when health advice changes, for example, hospital webpages and CDC webpages update their advice based on new knowledge.

 

eta: fact check article referring to the fact that the Salk Institute page has been being passed around on Facebook: https://factcheck.afp.com/posts-misrepresent-us-study-dangers-coronavirus-spike-protein

AFP.com is rated “least biased” by mediabiasfactcheck. It is based in France: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/afp-agence-france-presse/

Edited May 21, 2021 by KSera

[Catwoman]

39 minutes ago, KSera said:

Right. Case in point, this post. I made some really bad Siri-induced typos in my post above that totally changed what I meant it to say. I have since changed it to say what I intended it to say. Not nefarious. I think the reason certain people are upset in this instance was because they liked this source when they thought it said what they wanted it to say, but now that it doesn’t, they think it’s a bad source. 

I didn’t think it was nefarious, either, but since the change added an important detail, I think it should have been noted.

I assumed it was an innocent omission and once someone noticed it, they added a phrase to clarify.

[Penelope]

It has been customary for a report like that to indicate that it was edited, on what date, and to explain why the edit was made.

This past year, I have been disappointed to see that even major news organizations don’t always hold to that standard. While this is not a news organization and seems to be a press release, it still seems unprofessional to not hold to a standard and just change the page without noting it. I wonder if the edited article went on to explain why the vaccine-induced protein would have a different effect on the body than the spike on the whole virus, because if they are trying to prevent misunderstandings, just stating the vaccine spike is “safe” is not going to convince a thinking person.

Edited May 21, 2021 by Penelope
Typo

[KSera]

39 minutes ago, Penelope said:

I wonder if the edited article went on to explain why the vaccine-induced protein would have a different effect on the body than the spike on the whole virus, because if they are trying to prevent misunderstandings, just stating the vaccine spike is “safe” is not going to convince a thinking person.

The release links to the journal article the paper is based on, which gives more details. Pen didn’t link, but here’s the release again:

https://www.salk.edu/news-release/the-novel-coronavirus-spike-protein-plays-additional-key-role-in-illness/?fbclid=IwAR2OuJNufIY33MSFrk0CXAGtkx8KBW3_xW3aAr3UHWhICa6GQjTPx28ccXY
 

And here’s the paper:

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

The people spreading the original version of the Salk media release didn’t spread the link to the paper was based on, because this was the conclusion in that paper:

“This conclusion suggests that vaccination-generated antibody and/or exogenous antibody against S protein not only protects the host from SARS-CoV-2 infectivity but also inhibits S protein-imposed endothelial injury.”

So, the paper suggests that the vaccine is actually protective against the kind of injury that the virus associated spike protein can produce.

 

A correction notice at the bottom would’ve been nice, but I don’t see what specifically it is that has people upset about that in this one specific instance. I don’t see what nefarious reason anyone could come up with for them to make the change. I guess, thinking about it, people may be upset because they’ve been spreading the article around and then, lo and behold, they’re finding the article doesn’t support the narrative they are trying to promote. 
 

Side note: The paper this is based on is way above my pay grade, and I don’t claim to even be able to pretend to understand the whole paper. I expect that’s the case for 99.99%+ of the people drawing erroneous conclusions based upon it.

[Catwoman]

2 hours ago, ktgrok said:

Right. I mean, we do that in our posts here all the time. Someone points out that what we said was unclear, or we realize what we said is being taken the wrong way, and edit to clarify. That's not nefarious. 

 

2 hours ago, KSera said:

Right. Case in point, this post. I made some really bad Siri-induced typos in my post above that totally changed what I meant it to say. I have since changed it to say what I intended it to say. Not nefarious. I think the reason certain people are upset in this instance was because they liked this source when they thought it said what they wanted it to say, but now that it doesn’t, they think it’s a bad source. 

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I agree with both of you about it not being nefarious, but I do have to give @Pen a lot of credit for her honesty. It was very nice of her to come back to post the revised information, and not want anyone to rely on the older, incorrect version of the article that she had posted a while back.

 

 

Edited May 21, 2021 by Catwoman
Posts should make sense. It probably still makes no sense...

[Penelope]

2 hours ago, KSera said:

The release links to the journal article the paper is based on, which gives more details. Pen didn’t link, but here’s the release again:

https://www.salk.edu/news-release/the-novel-coronavirus-spike-protein-plays-additional-key-role-in-illness/?fbclid=IwAR2OuJNufIY33MSFrk0CXAGtkx8KBW3_xW3aAr3UHWhICa6GQjTPx28ccXY
 

And here’s the paper:

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

The people spreading the original version of the Salk media release didn’t spread the link to the paper was based on, because this was the conclusion in that paper:

“This conclusion suggests that vaccination-generated antibody and/or exogenous antibody against S protein not only protects the host from SARS-CoV-2 infectivity but also inhibits S protein-imposed endothelial injury.”

So, the paper suggests that the vaccine is actually protective against the kind of injury that the virus associated spike protein can produce.

 

A correction notice at the bottom would’ve been nice, but I don’t see what specifically it is that has people upset about that in this one specific instance. I don’t see what nefarious reason anyone could come up with for them to make the change. I guess, thinking about it, people may be upset because they’ve been spreading the article around and then, lo and behold, they’re finding the article doesn’t support the narrative they are trying to promote. 
 

Side note: The paper this is based on is way above my pay grade, and I don’t claim to even be able to pretend to understand the whole paper. I expect that’s the case for 99.99%+ of the people drawing erroneous conclusions based upon it.

When I said I didn’t think that just putting a statement in would convince anyone, I wasn’t suggesting that there was anything about the paper that would suggest that the vaccine would cause damage or that there were nefarious motives. 

I certainly don’t understand all of it either, but when it was reported, I listened to some discussion about it. 
 

The experiments were done using pseudovirus (a non-replicating lab-created virus, with spike on the outside), at huge doses that would probably be more than what would occur with natural infection, on hamsters. So we don’t know what it means for humans with the actual virus.

I didn’t think just stating it was safe makes complete sense to the layperson who isn’t an expert, but understands enough or heard enough from poor sources to know what the paper was about.
I also am not sure how they could make the conclusion they did, when they don’t even know that their results apply to natural viral infection in humans. Yes, the antibodies made by the vaccine will block spike protein, but for the body to make antibodies, the vaccine first must make spike protein, and these experiments are saying that the spike protein itself, not something else about the virus, causes cell damage.
-Edit-I stated that badly; I don’t mean that anyone thinks that nothing else about the virus causes disease, just that the experimenters were trying to see if this protein does on its own. 

So even if the results have anything to do with real spike in real humans (and I don’t know), it seems like the reason the vaccine wouldn’t be a problem is because the vaccine:  a) makes spike protein in smaller numbers than a true viral infection (?? Is this dose of pseudovirus in hamster equivalent to real virus in humans?), and  b) doesn’t get into the vascular cells in large enough amounts, if at all, to cause the type of damage they found in these experiments. 

Edited May 21, 2021 by Penelope
Clarify something

[Halftime Hope]

2 hours ago, KSera said:

The release links to the journal article the paper is based on, which gives more details. Pen didn’t link, but here’s the release again:

https://www.salk.edu/news-release/the-novel-coronavirus-spike-protein-plays-additional-key-role-in-illness/?fbclid=IwAR2OuJNufIY33MSFrk0CXAGtkx8KBW3_xW3aAr3UHWhICa6GQjTPx28ccXY
 

And here’s the paper:

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

The people spreading the original version of the Salk media release didn’t spread the link to the paper was based on, because this was the conclusion in that paper:

“This conclusion suggests that vaccination-generated antibody and/or exogenous antibody against S protein not only protects the host from SARS-CoV-2 infectivity but also inhibits S protein-imposed endothelial injury.”

So, the paper suggests that the vaccine is actually protective against the kind of injury that the virus associated spike protein can produce.

 

A correction notice at the bottom would’ve been nice, but I don’t see what specifically it is that has people upset about that in this one specific instance. I don’t see what nefarious reason anyone could come up with for them to make the change. I guess, thinking about it, people may be upset because they’ve been spreading the article around and then, lo and behold, they’re finding the article doesn’t support the narrative they are trying to promote. 
 

Side note: The paper this is based on is way above my pay grade, and I don’t claim to even be able to pretend to understand the whole paper. I expect that’s the case for 99.99%+ of the people drawing erroneous conclusions based upon it.

 

So let me see if I can approximate this in lay terms. 

Although the results of this study are limited a bit by not using exactly the same virus--we used one that isn't infectious, so it doesn't exactly mimic what the real pathogen does--our data reveals that the spike protein alone (without the virus replicating itself, too) can cause damage to the class of cells that line capillaries, blood vessels, the gut, etc. (endothelial cells or collectively endothelium), as shown by impaired mitochondrial function and reduced correction of oxidation, in spite of increased fueling of the cell by breaking down glucose into energy. The spike protein in the lining cells increases reduction-oxidation stress starting a cascade (through blah, blah, blah steps) that ultimately destabilizes ACE2. With more studies we'll know for sure, but it looks like, paradoxically, although the Spike protein may inactivate or lessen ACE2, so that the virus becomes less infective, protecting those lining cells. But in the process, reducing ACE2 disregulates the renin-angiotensin balance (this balance controls the blood pressure, fluid balance, permeability, and constriction of the whole vascular system), making the endothelial dysfunction worse, leading to inflammation of the endothelium.  

[This next sentence is pretty understandable.]  Collectively, our results suggest that the S protein-exerted EC damage overrides [has a greater effect than] the decreased virus infectivity. 

This conclusion suggests that vaccination-generated antibody and/or exogenous antibody [such as monoclonal or polyclonal antibodies and/or convalescent plasma] against S protein not only protects the host from SARS-CoV-2 infectivity but also inhibits S protein-imposed endothelial injury.

 

***So here's what the original paper doesn't address or even suggest:  that the spike protein in vaccines (or created by the mRNA in vaccines, depending on the vaccine) behaves any differently, or creates any less damage per spike, than the spike protein studded on the outside of the virus.** 

I'll say it a different way:  the new clause in parentheses in the recently-edited Salk institute news release makes a bold claim which is not part of the research paper that the news release is purporting to report on.  If it is in the research paper somewhere and I missed it, I'll edit this post with an "edited to add" statement that explains the change. 

If I didn't miss it, and it's not in the original paper, this is Bad Science Reporting, agenda-driven science-reporting. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2021 by Halftime Hope

[KSera]

1 minute ago, Halftime Hope said:

So let me see if I can approximate this in lay terms. 

Sorry, I think that part of my post was misunderstood. I didn't mean that I can't read the study and parse it out for myself. I meant that it is not my area of expertise, and I expect there are exceedingly few people for whom it is, despite everyone passing it around Facebook with erroneous conclusions. I do appreciate you taking the time to interpret it. I guess I should have stated that differently.

[Halftime Hope]

1 minute ago, KSera said:

Sorry, I think that part of my post was misunderstood. I didn't mean that I can't read the study and parse it out for myself. I meant that it is not my area of expertise, and I expect there are exceedingly few people for whom it is, despite everyone passing it around Facebook with erroneous conclusions. I do appreciate you taking the time to interpret it. I guess I should have stated that differently.

Thanks for explaining that.  

I still find what the Salk Institute did to be very disingenuous. They could have done a much better job explaining what was learned from this study and explaining the implications for how vaccines work, without making a baseless claim. And they wonder why people trust the medical establishment less and less. ("You had one job...") 

 

[Penelope]

31 minutes ago, KSera said:

 I meant that it is not my area of expertise, and I expect there are exceedingly few people for whom it is, despite everyone passing it around Facebook with erroneous conclusions. 

This is true for so many things. But only a few papers get passed around. What else has been published that is directly related to this result and would put it in context with a body of knowledge that most of us don’t have? I don’t know. 
 

But what is less clear sometimes is how these things get passed around, when lots of other basic science work doesn’t get any attention at all. Some scientists have complained that some researchers have pushed their preprints to news outlets, or even push work before it’s in pre-print or published, to get attention and give journalists the scoop, which results in very biased coverage when it’s presented out of context and no other scientists have even had the chance to review it. 
Just googling, the first few articles that come up for this are network news sources that only quote the researchers involved, so it’s likely it started there and not on social media. It’s possible that the authors of the study or the Salk institute were the ones who hyped their own study.
 

Edited May 21, 2021 by Penelope

[Pen]

5 hours ago, BaseballandHockey said:

Are you saying that an organization founded by Jonas Salk wouldn’t have their own reasons for correcting something that was being misinterpreted to mean a vaccine was unsafe?

To me this seems like a case where scientists wrote something that was clear to other scientists, but was confusing to some lay readers, and might have contributed to vaccine refusal.  So they added text to clarify the message for those lay readers.

Yes, ideally, they should have put a footnote that additional text was added for clarity, but it’s hardly a conspiracy.

But then I can’t really read the first entry, which says that a virus with an attached spike protein is able to enter cells more easily, as meaning that a spike protein that is not attached to a virus is dangerous.  It’s like learning that some criminals wear sneakers so they can get into your house silently, and then becoming afraid of the sneakers in your closet. 

afaik the Spike protein is how the (ETA SARS2) virus gets into a cell.  Usually in case of a (eta SARS2) CV via ACE2, but also can be via  cd462 and perhaps other ways.  If you r aware of normal wild virus cellular entrance without the spike protein please let me know. 
 

in case of mRNA shots my understanding is that the nano lipid envelopes are themselves what is capable of entering cells without needing surface receptors ... which means any type of cell at all could be vulnerable even if it would have had few receptors for spike protein and thus relatively invulnerable to the wild virus (Eta: I would personally be particularly concerned about brain and other nerve cells being even more vulnerable to nano lipid envelope entry or spike or spike bundles alone than they might have been vulnerable to the wild virus with attached spike itself) 

your analogy of the sneakers might be apt ... or it might not be

 

perhaps it would turn out that an analogy to Spike being like land mines or bear traps would be more apt where once laid in place they remain dangerous without the person who put them there being around 

or some other analogy 

I do not know. I do not think we have sufficient evidence to know. 
 

 

Edited May 21, 2021 by Pen

[Ausmumof3]

14 minutes ago, Pen said:

afaik the Spike protein is how the (ETA SARS2) virus gets into a cell.  Usually in case of a (eta SARS2) CV via ACE2, but also can be via  cd462 and perhaps other ways.  If you r aware of normal wild virus cellular entrance without the spike protein please let me know. 
 

in case of mRNA shots my understanding is that the nano lipid envelopes are themselves what is capable of entering cells without needing surface receptors ... which means any type of cell at all could be vulnerable even if it would have had few receptors for spike protein and thus relatively invulnerable to the wild virus (Eta: I would personally be particularly concerned about brain and other nerve cells being even more vulnerable to nano lipid envelope entry or spike or spike bundles alone than they might have been vulnerable to the wild virus with attached spike itself) 

your analogy of the sneakers might be apt ... or it might not be

 

perhaps it would turn out that an analogy to Spike being like land mines or bear traps would be more apt where once laid in place they remain dangerous without the person who put them there being around 

or some other analogy 

I do not know. I do not think we have sufficient evidence to know. 
 

 

I don’t know as much about virology etc as you but I think the mRNA stuff doesn’t actually replicate so it’s only going into the bit of your body where it’s injected?  So there should be no risk of it getting into the brain?  Or is there something I’m missing?  

[Pen]

2 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I don’t know as much about virology etc as you but I think the mRNA stuff doesn’t actually replicate so it’s only going into the bit of your body where it’s injected?  So there should be no risk of it getting into the brain?  Or is there something I’m missing?  

I believe it gets carried around body particularly by circulatory system.

 

I would be very happy to learn conclusively that it all stays at injection site, but I do not think that is true. 

[Pen]

7 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I don’t know as much about virology etc as you but I think the mRNA stuff doesn’t actually replicate so it’s only going into the bit of your body where it’s injected?  So there should be no risk of it getting into the brain?  Or is there something I’m missing?  

Adding - ideally the blood brain barrier would help keep it out of brain, but there seem

to be a large number of neurological issues afterwards  making it seem that it’s very likely getting past the blood brain barrier. Nano is very small and I don’t think normally what we encounter though I am not certain of that . I don’t know if body (including blood brain barrier) is accustomed to handling nano lipids.  Could be that it isn’t actually going into nerve tissues but just causing problems due to microclots which if in brain area could cause Bell’s Palsy etc

[Ausmumof3]

5 minutes ago, Pen said:

I believe it gets carried around body particularly by circulatory system.

 

I would be very happy to learn conclusively that it all stays at injection site, but I do not think that is true. 

I thought being intramuscular meant it would stay in the muscles not getting pumped around by the blood like an intravenous thing.  But I don’t have any scientific basis for that.  I haven’t followed the vaccine science on the mRNA as closely as the other because it’s likely to be a few months before we have them available at my level anyway and initially we were all getting Astra Zeneca though that’s changed due to clotting issues.

[Ausmumof3]

Just now, Pen said:

Adding - ideally the blood brain barrier would help keep it out of brain, but there seem

to be a large number of neurological issues afterwards  making it seem that it’s very likely getting past the blood brain barrier. Nano is very small and I don’t think normally what we encounter though I am not certain of that . I don’t know if body (including blood brain barrier) is accustomed to handling nano lipids.  Could be that it isn’t actually going into nerve tissues but just causing problems due to microclots which if in brain area could cause Bell’s Palsy etc

The neurological stuff I have seen mentioned is like tinnitus which I thought was probably linked to inflammation or something.

[Pen]

1 minute ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I thought being intramuscular meant it would stay in the muscles not getting pumped around by the blood like an intravenous thing.  But I don’t have any scientific basis for that.  I haven’t followed the vaccine science on the mRNA as closely as the other because it’s likely to be a few months before we have them available at my level anyway and initially we were all getting Astra Zeneca though that’s changed due to clotting issues.

I think looking into that before deciding for sure would be worthwhile!

There are strange stories of magnets sticking to jab site afterwards which (if true) suggests something is staying at the original jab site at least for awhile.  If you do get any of these jabs I would be very interested in results if you try the magnet experiment. I can’t decide if it’s real or not. If a small lightweight magnet didn’t stick to your jab site that doesn’t necessarily disprove that others are telling the truth that it did on theirs. But if you were to report that yes, a magnet sticks to yours, I would believe you. 

[Ausmumof3]

7 minutes ago, Pen said:

Adding - ideally the blood brain barrier would help keep it out of brain, but there seem

to be a large number of neurological issues afterwards  making it seem that it’s very likely getting past the blood brain barrier. Nano is very small and I don’t think normally what we encounter though I am not certain of that . I don’t know if body (including blood brain barrier) is accustomed to handling nano lipids.  Could be that it isn’t actually going into nerve tissues but just causing problems due to microclots which if in brain area could cause Bell’s Palsy etc

https://medium.com/microbial-instincts/concerns-of-lipid-nanoparticle-carrying-mrna-vaccine-into-the-brain-what-to-make-of-it-42b1a98dae27
 

ok I found this which goes into some detail about what I presume you’re concerned about.  So it looks like the lnps do enter and can be carried around the body through the intramuscular injections.  In studies in mice in other mRNA stuff it shows they show up on a lot of different areas of the body but disappear pretty quickly.  So far we don’t think they cross the blood brain barrier but it hasn’t been proven for certain and we don’t know what they might do when they get there.  Does that fit with the areas of concern you’re raising?

[Pen]

5 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

The neurological stuff I have seen mentioned is like tinnitus which I thought was probably linked to inflammation or something.

 Definitely also Bell’s Palsy, including reports of painful Bell’s Palsy (it usually is painless). Chorea. Paralyses. Though again I think all these could be predominantly clot based.   My father, for example, is paraplegic due to a blood flow stoppage problem initially (not vaccine related). 

[Ausmumof3]

4 minutes ago, Pen said:

I think looking into that before deciding for sure would be worthwhile!

There are strange stories of magnets sticking to jab site afterwards which (if true) suggests something is staying at the original jab site at least for awhile.  If you do get any of these jabs I would be very interested in results if you try the magnet experiment. I can’t decide if it’s real or not. If a small lightweight magnet didn’t stick to your jab site that doesn’t necessarily disprove that others are telling the truth that it did on theirs. But if you were to report that yes, a magnet sticks to yours, I would believe you. 

Ok that’s a weird thing I haven’t heard of and can’t imagine what would case that to happen.  I mean metal?  Is that like a microchip conspiracy theory thing?

My parents have had Astra Zeneca.  It definitely has made one of them unwell for a while.  I think they still think it was the right decision though.

[Pen]

1 minute ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://medium.com/microbial-instincts/concerns-of-lipid-nanoparticle-carrying-mrna-vaccine-into-the-brain-what-to-make-of-it-42b1a98dae27
 

ok I found this which goes into some detail about what I presume you’re concerned about.  So it looks like the lnps do enter and can be carried around the body through the intramuscular injections.  In studies in mice in other mRNA stuff it shows they show up on a lot of different areas of the body but disappear pretty quickly.  So far we don’t think they cross the blood brain barrier but it hasn’t been proven for certain and we don’t know what they might do when they get there.  Does that fit with the areas of concern you’re raising?

i have to read it and it is late here! I’ll read and hope to

reply tomorrow!

[Pen]

Just now, Ausmumof3 said:

Ok that’s a weird thing I haven’t heard of and can’t imagine what would case that to happen.  I mean metal?  Is that like a microchip conspiracy theory thing?

I have no idea. I don’t think it’s particularly microchip issue.  I can’t imagine a microchip or nanochip having enough magnetic metal or magnetic components to support another even small magnet.  
 

 

Just now, Ausmumof3 said:

My parents have had Astra Zeneca.  It definitely has made one of them unwell for a while.  I think they still think it was the right decision though.

my father also similar ... and for him in his circumstances I too think it was  ... his likely lifespan makes short term freedom more important to him than long term survival 

 

good night 😴 

[Ausmumof3]

6 minutes ago, Pen said:

 Definitely also Bell’s Palsy, including reports of painful Bell’s Palsy (it usually is painless). Chorea. Paralyses. Though again I think all these could be predominantly clot based.   My father, for example, is paraplegic due to a blood flow stoppage problem initially (not vaccine related). 

 

10 minutes ago, Pen said:

I think looking into that before deciding for sure would be worthwhile!

There are strange stories of magnets sticking to jab site afterwards which (if true) suggests something is staying at the original jab site at least for awhile.  If you do get any of these jabs I would be very interested in results if you try the magnet experiment. I can’t decide if it’s real or not. If a small lightweight magnet didn’t stick to your jab site that doesn’t necessarily disprove that others are telling the truth that it did on theirs. But if you were to report that yes, a magnet sticks to yours, I would believe you. 

And yes I agree but I figure we will have better data on side effects by the time I’m eligible down here as it’s looking like November December will be the earliest.  My dh may be a little sooner but he’s unlikely to have much choice anyway in his line of work.  

[Ausmumof3]

1 minute ago, Pen said:

I have no idea. I don’t think it’s particularly microchip issue.  I can’t imagine a microchip or nanochip having enough magnetic metal or magnetic components to support another even small magnet.  
 

 

my father also similar ... and for him in his circumstances I too think it was  ... his likely lifespan makes short term freedom more important to him than long term survival 

 

good night 😴 

Their concerns aren’t so much about freedom as we have very few restrictions here now and they don’t travel internationally.  Life is basically normal.  It’s more the concern about breakouts from quarantine with their age and vulnerability.  Sleep well.

[KSera]

55 minutes ago, Pen said:

I think looking into that before deciding for sure would be worthwhile!

There are strange stories of magnets sticking to jab site afterwards which (if true) suggests something is staying at the original jab site at least for awhile.  If you do get any of these jabs I would be very interested in results if you try the magnet experiment. I can’t decide if it’s real or not. If a small lightweight magnet didn’t stick to your jab site that doesn’t necessarily disprove that others are telling the truth that it did on theirs. But if you were to report that yes, a magnet sticks to yours, I would believe you. 

This is part of the microchip conspiracy theory. That is where it comes from. No, it’s not true. 

Eta: I feel like I have to add a disclaimer anytime I reply to something Pen writes, because she won’t see my reply. In fact, the subject of this thread is addressed in a reply I wrote to her when she shared that Salk Institute article the other day. I replied about the parenthetical statement in the article explaining that the vaccine induced spike proteins behave differently. But she didn’t see that since I’m on ignore. Anyway, I reply for the sake of others reading the thread, but if anyone is conversing directly with Pen in these threads, she’s not seeing the same information you are, so you might need to repeat some things if I was the one who said them.

Edited May 21, 2021 by KSera

[HeartString]

The magnet thing doesn’t make sense to me.  The needles are tiny.  Even if they did inject you with something metal it would have to be so tiny that it wouldn’t be enough for a magnet to stick to through skin and hang on to.  It doesn’t seem like the weight of the magnet would allow it.   
 

 

 

 

 

[ktgrok]

The vaccine injects a limited amount of mRNA which  produces a limited amount of spike protein before the mRNA degrades - so any damage caused by the spike would be limited as well. Vs a virus which is replicating over and over and over throughout the body. 

"The dose makes the poison" comes to mind. 

Edited May 21, 2021 by ktgrok

[Pen]

1 hour ago, HeartString said:

The magnet thing doesn’t make sense to me.  The needles are tiny.  Even if they did inject you with something metal it would have to be so tiny that it wouldn’t be enough for a magnet to stick to through skin and hang on to.  It doesn’t seem like the weight of the magnet would allow it.   
 

 

 

 

 

I know. It doesn’t make sense to me either. But I wish I had heard about it before people I know personally were getting theirs so I could have asked them to test it. 🙂 My Dad would have and I think an aunt and uncle would have. But the people I know personally well enough to ask (and to guess that they have right personality to be willing ) if they’d do a magnet test were early to get it. Idk which of the vaccines is allegedly doing that either.   I also wish someone would test vials of vaccines with a magnet while the liquid is still in them. And what about needles? If needle tips broke off in some arms are they a magnetic metal?  It again seems like just a needle tip even if magnetic couldn’t support a whole even small lightweight magnet though. 

[Penelope]

9 hours ago, Pen said:

afaik the Spike protein is how the (ETA SARS2) virus gets into a cell.  Usually in case of a (eta SARS2) CV via ACE2, but also can be via  cd462 and perhaps other ways.  If you r aware of normal wild virus cellular entrance without the spike protein please let me know. 
 

in case of mRNA shots my understanding is that the nano lipid envelopes are themselves what is capable of entering cells without needing surface receptors ... which means any type of cell at all could be vulnerable even if it would have had few receptors for spike protein and thus relatively invulnerable to the wild virus (Eta: I would personally be particularly concerned about brain and other nerve cells being even more vulnerable to nano lipid envelope entry or spike or spike bundles alone than they might have been vulnerable to the wild virus with attached spike itself) 

your analogy of the sneakers might be apt ... or it might not be

 

perhaps it would turn out that an analogy to Spike being like land mines or bear traps would be more apt where once laid in place they remain dangerous without the person who put them there being around 

 

 

Yes, the nanoparticles can theoretically get into any cell. The idea is that most of them are taken up by dendritic cells in the area of injection. But theoretically, they can go elsewhere. It should be a small amount, though I am not up on the basic science of where they checked in animals. 
However, with regard to the bolded, developing immunity eventually would shortly destroy these spike-displaying cells. Neither the mRNA nor the cells with spike on them are sticking around in the body for the long term.
 

Look, I don’t think this particular concern is completely crazy. This issue of where does the mRNA end up, and what could that mean, as it is a new technology in humans, is the only concern I had myself (other than some unexpected rare side effect like the clots from AZ/JNJ), and I don’t  read anything from anti-vax or conspiracy theorists. But now they have been tested, essentially, in many millions of people. It is clear they work and have saved lives and prevent the worst consequences of this virus. 
Going into this, I might have preferred a more traditional vaccine, and I think there are other people who felt that way, too. We are lucky that mRNA turned out to be so effective. 
 

So I understand that there are real reasons why someone might be cautious or reserving judgment. But the magnets. Don’t you think that is irrational, biologically implausible? 

Edited May 21, 2021 by Penelope

[Pen]

8 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://medium.com/microbial-instincts/concerns-of-lipid-nanoparticle-carrying-mrna-vaccine-into-the-brain-what-to-make-of-it-42b1a98dae27
 

ok I found this which goes into some detail about what I presume you’re concerned about.  So it looks like the lnps do enter and can be carried around the body through the intramuscular injections.  In studies in mice in other mRNA stuff it shows they show up on a lot of different areas of the body but disappear pretty quickly.  So far we don’t think they cross the blood brain barrier but it hasn’t been proven for certain and we don’t know what they might do when they get there.  Does that fit with the areas of concern you’re raising?

Yes.  That discussion does fit with some of the areas of concern .   I may see if my Dad is up for reading it and discussion including in light of his own post mRNA vaccine reactions . (He’s an MD and when well enough and not busy with other things usually enjoys that type of discussion.) 
 

a few thoughts I had reading it

That the Luciferase marker disappears fairly quickly seems clear , but not so clear to me what else disappears

which tissues at least in mice rats monkeys the Luciferase seemed to indicate the LNPs going to was very interesting 

I think besides the T-cells attacking whatever tissues cells the LNPs have gone to there are open questions about what else can happen there (such as in brain there being an inflammatory response perhaps over time , or autoimmune type response over time, or plaque or prion like formation situations developing over time).   There’s also issue of where the “other stuff” in the jabs goes. The non- LNP stuff whatever all it is.  Like if there are magnetic substances  in it for real as suggested by the alleged sticking magnets are there brain (or other) issues from potentially toxic metals? Alzheimer’s type reactions down the road for example. I know my Dad has not seemed to be his usual highly intelligent self since his shot - though he seems significantly improved now compared to shortly after the 2nd .  And then too there seems to be a very characteristic headache (particularly toward base of neck iirc) that no one I know who has tried to describe it says they had before—what’s causing that apparently unusual and characteristic headache, I wonder.  
 

The concluding parts about how risks of wild virus outweigh risks of virus make sense to me for people in certain very high risk groups — at least if we are using an idea that their risk will decline by a high relative risk percentage, and not just by an absolute risk reduction percentage of ~1%
 

however, given that much of what got done was done based on incorrect models and predictions by Neil Ferguson, giving highly inflated impression of imminent disaster; and that there have been highly inflated (and manipulated at will) impressions of “cases” based on rPCR testing done with high cycle rates; and that there are other treatments that can help even if not perfect, I am personally not persuaded by that argument— though I see it is a required type thing to write to allow publications 

Getting back to the original topic of the thread and the added parenthetical, which also seems like maybe it’s a required type of thing to write, here’s an oddity. What do they mean by “safely encoded by vaccines”? While still encoded in mRNA form it does seem like the encoded form is safe. The problem seems to be once they are being made by the body and whether they are still safe.

that may sound like a semantic quibble, but I see statements that seem potentially accurate when taken very  narrowly (as if a lawyer may have helped word them) but which may not be true in a broader way as people may read them.  Another recent example: the idea that the  synsytins were not “targeted” by the “vaccines” .  That could be totally true that there was no desire to “target” synsytins, and even that the “vaccines” aren’t what is doing it if there are problems with increased miscarriages etc. Yet it could cleverly evade the issue of whether there is in fact a problem happening related downstream to what the “vaccines” set in motion. For example, spike protein produced by cells as a result of the mRNA or DNA in the “vaccines” having a close resemblance to synsytin protein thence resulting in immune system attacking own body’s synsytins. 

[KSera]

From the AFP article I linked above: 

A Salk Institute spokesperson told AFP the spike proteins in Covid-19 vaccines are safe because they only remain in a person's arm muscle for a short period.

"The spike protein in the coronavirus behaves differently from the spike protein in vaccines”, the spokesperson said. 

Vaccine safety

Experts told AFP that Covid-19 vaccines do not produce harmful levels of spike proteins.

Peter Murray, professor of immunology at the Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry, told AFP that Covid-19 vaccines produce far fewer spike proteins than SARS-CoV-2.

“The spike protein components of the vaccine are not produced in the same amounts as a normal viral infection (probably a million times less),” he said.

Annette Beck-Sickinger, professor of biochemistry at Leipzig University, said spike proteins are only created on the surface of the muscle cells when a person is vaccinated. 

“After the vaccination there are no free spike proteins meandering through the body and destroying our blood vessels,” she said. 

[Pen]

11 hours ago, Penelope said:

Yes, the nanoparticles can theoretically get into any cell. The idea is that most of them are taken up by dendritic cells in the area of injection. But theoretically, they can go elsewhere. It should be a small amount, though I am not up on the basic science of where they checked in animals. 
However, with regard to the bolded, developing immunity eventually would shortly destroy these spike-displaying cells. Neither the mRNA nor the cells with spike on them are sticking around in the body for the long term.

 

I certainly agree in theory that after Spike Protein gets made in cell and displayed as an antigen that the cell should soon be destroyed by immune system and the mRNA and Spike and cell debris should be getting cleaned up and excreted. 
 

I don’t know what is actually happening though. Perhaps similar to manufacture of whole virions in large numbers in a cell which then go out, perhaps large numbers of spike proteins get made and are then themselves being carried around the body and doing who knows what. Even if not “infective” they may still be able to attach places or form globs of themselves that may cause other problems like microclotting . People seem to like analogies so think of a spike of  foxtail which had lost its viable seed, but can still penetrate a dog’s ear and cause a problem even though it can’t any longer grow a new plant.  Or an old rusty bent nail which would not be much use anymore for a fine carpenter,  but could still penetrate a human foot if stepped on (ask me how I know 😑). 
 

Quote

 

 

Look, I don’t think this particular concern is completely crazy. This issue of where does the mRNA end up, and what could that mean, as it is a new technology in humans, is the only concern I had myself (other than some unexpected rare side effect like the clots from AZ/JNJ), and I don’t  read anything from anti-vax or conspiracy theorists. But now they have been tested, essentially, in many millions of people. It is clear they work and have saved lives and prevent the worst consequences of this virus. 
 

 

eta:

that’s something that may be clear to you.

 

It is not clear to me. Which lives were clearly saved? 
 

How many have been clearly saved ? 
 

How do you know when a life has “clearly” been saved by these shots?

And what is the saved versus lost comparison? 
 

 

Beyond that I remain concerned by long term .  Prior attempts at vaccines utilizing the new at least mRNA technology appeared to go well in animals short term with an appearance of robust immunity. Then longer term the animals mostly died.  (I mean obviously eventually they all would die, but within the longer term study parameters the longer term did not go well.) 

 

Eta, eta: r u familiar with “‘leaky’ vaccine” concept? That is of great concern to me in regard to the current flock of SARS2 “vaccines” of all the types I have read about . The scientist who afaik (cannot recall name) was particularly important regarding Marek Chickens “leaky” vaccine issues has seemed to be a SARS2 “vaccines” proponent which at first had seemed reassuring. But I no longer feel reassurance from his being on board with the vaccine train. 

 

 

 

Quote

 

Going into this, I might have preferred a more traditional vaccine, and I think there are other people who felt that way, too. We are lucky that mRNA turned out to be so effective. 
 

So I understand that there are real reasons why someone might be cautious or reserving judgment. But the magnets

 

I am not cautious about the cv mRNA and DNA “vaccines”  because of the alleged sticking magnets.  
 

I probably should have put the part to Ausmomof3 asking if she does get the vaccine if she’d check with a magnet in a PM. She strikes me as the type person who has natural curiosity enough that she might do the experiment, and I think she would be honest about the result either way.

Unfortunately it seems to have misled you to think I or perhaps people I know are cautious because of the magnets.
 

So let’s put that to rest: No. Neither I nor anyone I know who has told me their reasons, against getting these shots, is cautious because of the alleged sticking magnets.  

I think it’s fascinating! — but not fascinating enough to get these shots so I can do magnets tests myself 😉

 

Quote

. Don’t you think that is irrational, biologically implausible? 

 

I think logically it is implausible that the amount of liquid in the injections would have enough magnetic substances to hold a magnet.  .

Maybe the videos are scams.  It certainly is hard to believe. 

But if they are not, and people are genuinely experiencing this, then no, it is not irrational. And if they are real, then it must be biologically actual.
 

Perhaps a bit  like a black swan may seem implausible if we have only ever seen white ones, yet if black swans exist then they exist.  Though maybe they don’t, maybe all the photos of them are doctored. Maybe any live one that looks black was dyed. That’s part of the problem IMO with things being faked, and with “ lack of transparency” — petty much everything except personal immediate real world  becomes suspect. 

Anyway if people are actually experiencing magnetic vaccine sites then it would be irrational to deny the reality. Instead I would want to know how / why it is happening.  At the moment I maintain my “dont know mind”. Maybe the videos are scams, maybe real.

 

Frankly I have had some personal severe illness that others tend to deny as being real (ME/CFS, Lyme, autoimmunity) so I am not inclined to dismiss things out of hand if people say they are experiencing  ____. 

OTOH

 I am quite sure that the forecasting by Neil Ferguson - used for much decision making - was incorrect. 
 

I am quite sure the Lancet publication allegedly showing Hydroxychloroquine not to work was fraudulent. 
 

I am quite sure that the rPCR testing cycles give inflated sense of “cases” when set at >40 (or for that matter probably much lower still) give an inflated number of “cases” and also can be used to manipulate sense of number of “cases” in both directions by adjusting the cycles used.  As well as there being lack of consistency in what gets defined as a “case”. 

I do NOT mean that Covid is not real.  Do not make that assumption based on my previous statements. Obviously lots of people especially in nursing homes died.  Obviously there is a real illness.  
 

But the “scientific establishment” is not impressing me as being honest.  And that’s far more significant to me than the people in videos with magnets that supposedly stick to injection sites. 
 

 

 

. 
 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by Pen