PVS: Post Vaccination Syndrome (3 Viewers)

[jhib]

Re: some of the posts upthread...

- I have been insanely busy the last week or so. Have had some free time to lurk, read and add emojis to posts, but no time to thoughtfully address with words until now.

- The OP link provides commentary regarding (and a direct link to) the LISTEN study, which shows striking similarities between PVS and Long Covid.

"Post-acute conditions following COVID-19 vaccination have been reported for multiple vaccine platforms including mRNA and adenoviral-vectored vaccines. We observed that the general health status of the PVS participants was far below the general US population average"

"A large fraction of individuals reported the onset of symptoms to be as early as within one day of COVID19 vaccination."

"Most notably, we found elevated levels of spike (S1 and full length S) in circulation up to 709 days after vaccination among a subset with PVS, even in those with no evidence of detectable SARS-CoV-2 infection."

"Given the striking similarities between long COVID and PVS symptoms, there has been speculation regarding the potential causal role of the persistent presence of spike protein driving the chronic symptoms. Additionally, a recent study has shown spike protein binding to fibrin resulting in inflammation ex vivo and neuropathy in animal experiments. S1 subunit is sufficient to cause formation of trypsin-resistant fibrin clots when added to plasma from healthy individuals. The persistent presence of S1 and the full-length spike protein across multiple long COVID cohorts lends further support to this hypothesis."

- The Covid vaxxes used in the US were novel compared to all earlier vaccines, namely that both the mRNA (Pfizer, Moderna) and DNA-vector (J&J) variants all reprogrammed human body genetics to induce our own cells to produce Spike proteins, which we now know to be cytotoxic. We were told the Spike production/circulation would be would limited both in scope/scale (to the injection site) and temporally (for a short period of time), both of which have proven untrue in the years since. This is VERY different technology compared to traditional vaccines.

- The definition of the term vaccine changed during the Covid era, per Miriam Webster,

From:

a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease

To:

a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease: such as
a. an antigenic preparation of a typically inactivated or attenuated (see attenuated sense 2) pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus) or one of its components or products (such as a protein or toxin)
b. a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)

The definition changed because a new form of vaccine was introduced? Would you expect it to stay the same?

Seriously. This isn't the gotcha that anti-vaxxers think it is. It's simply how language works.

 

[dkp993]

The OP link provides commentary regarding (and a direct link to) the LISTEN study, which shows striking similarities between PVS and Long Covid.

There is no difference, only the cause. They are the same as far as symptoms and treatment are concerned.

This has been true for my buddy who has long Covid but suspects it came from a Covid booster. Like you, strong correlation, but the VA does not concur.

It's next to impossible to get any kind of acknowledgement unless you're lucky enough to get into a research program, or try your luck on the holistic circuit.

It's a real shame people have to go through this alone. If your buddy was like me this is probably one of the worst things he's gone through and there's next to no help at all.

My Sister in law has long COVID and is part of the Mayo Clinic’s long COVID program. She’s a tough midwestern woman but has suffered quite a bit the past 4 years. Part of that suffering is the fear of COVID that comes with it. She’s living a bit of a tortured life honestly.

Do you know what treatments Mayo is providing? In my experience some of these long covid clinics are more for research than treatment.

Specifically, I don’t. But I believe your assessment is accurate.

 

[uwillbsoon]

The OP link provides commentary regarding (and a direct link to) the LISTEN study, which shows striking similarities between PVS and Long Covid.

There is no difference, only the cause. They are the same as far as symptoms and treatment are concerned.

This has been true for my buddy who has long Covid but suspects it came from a Covid booster. Like you, strong correlation, but the VA does not concur.

It's next to impossible to get any kind of acknowledgement unless you're lucky enough to get into a research program, or try your luck on the holistic circuit.

It's a real shame people have to go through this alone. If your buddy was like me this is probably one of the worst things he's gone through and there's next to no help at all.

My Sister in law has long COVID and is part of the Mayo Clinic’s long COVID program. She’s a tough midwestern woman but has suffered quite a bit the past 4 years. Part of that suffering is the fear of COVID that comes with it. She’s living a bit of a tortured life honestly.

Do you know what treatments Mayo is providing? In my experience some of these long covid clinics are more for research than treatment.

Curious: Do they know if you'd have suffered similar ailments if you'd been infected by COVID?

 

[TheAristocrat]

I'll take a PM to the board that is jumping into this thread

 

[LawFitz]

Re: some of the posts upthread...

- I have been insanely busy the last week or so. Have had some free time to lurk, read and add emojis to posts, but no time to thoughtfully address with words until now.

- The OP link provides commentary regarding (and a direct link to) the LISTEN study, which shows striking similarities between PVS and Long Covid.

"Post-acute conditions following COVID-19 vaccination have been reported for multiple vaccine platforms including mRNA and adenoviral-vectored vaccines. We observed that the general health status of the PVS participants was far below the general US population average"

"A large fraction of individuals reported the onset of symptoms to be as early as within one day of COVID19 vaccination."

"Most notably, we found elevated levels of spike (S1 and full length S) in circulation up to 709 days after vaccination among a subset with PVS, even in those with no evidence of detectable SARS-CoV-2 infection."

"Given the striking similarities between long COVID and PVS symptoms, there has been speculation regarding the potential causal role of the persistent presence of spike protein driving the chronic symptoms. Additionally, a recent study has shown spike protein binding to fibrin resulting in inflammation ex vivo and neuropathy in animal experiments. S1 subunit is sufficient to cause formation of trypsin-resistant fibrin clots when added to plasma from healthy individuals. The persistent presence of S1 and the full-length spike protein across multiple long COVID cohorts lends further support to this hypothesis."

- The Covid vaxxes used in the US were novel compared to all earlier vaccines, namely that both the mRNA (Pfizer, Moderna) and DNA-vector (J&J) variants all reprogrammed human body genetics to induce our own cells to produce Spike proteins, which we now know to be cytotoxic. We were told the Spike production/circulation would be would limited both in scope/scale (to the injection site) and temporally (for a short period of time), both of which have proven untrue in the years since. This is VERY different technology compared to traditional vaccines.

- The definition of the term vaccine changed during the Covid era, per Miriam Webster,

From:

a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease

To:

a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease: such as
a. an antigenic preparation of a typically inactivated or attenuated (see attenuated sense 2) pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus) or one of its components or products (such as a protein or toxin)
b. a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)

The definition changed because a new form of vaccine was introduced? Would you expect it to stay the same?

Seriously. This isn't the gotcha that anti-vaxxers think it is. It's simply how language works.

It was meant to point out that there is a very distinct difference between the mRNA & DNA-vector Covid shots and the traditional vaccines of the pre-Covid era. That distinction is important. This is new technology. This is novel technology. This is genetic-modification technology.

But actually, mRNA tech isn't all that new. It's been studied for decades, but was never deemed safe enough to use on humans until just after Covid hit, and mass panic, paranoia, politics and profiteering set in.

And no need to use pejoratives like the term 'anit-vaxxer.' I am not anti-vax, of the traditional sort. I am highly dubious though, of mRNA and DNA-vector tech. That much is obvious, but please don't turn this thread into another pissing match.

 

[LawFitz]

We were told the Spike production/circulation would be would limited both in scope/scale (to the injection site) and temporally (for a short period of time), both of which have proven untrue in the years since.

Don't know who told you this, but no reputable scientist did. The immune system REQUIRES the circulation of antibodies to attach antigens.

One source, of so many other there...

https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/prp2.1218

It was hoped that resident and circulating immune cells attracted to the injection site make copies of the spike protein while the injected mRNA degrades within a few days. It was also originally estimated that recombinant spike proteins generated by mRNA vaccines would persist in the body for a few weeks. In reality, clinical studies now report that modified SARS-CoV-2 mRNA routinely persist up to a month from injection and can be detected in cardiac and skeletal muscle at sites of inflammation and fibrosis, while the recombinant spike protein may persist a little over half a year in blood.

This review article focuses on medical biochemistry, proteomics and deutenomics principles that explain the persisting spike phenomenon in circulation with organ-related functional damage even in asymptomatic individuals.

Although in vitro/vivo–transcribed mRNAs encoding clinically important proteins have broad potentials for therapeutic applications, mRNA modified by pseudouridination and other changes, including methylation, is infeasible for clinical use because of its long-lasting and potentially permanent and immunostimulatory nature.

The persistent nature of mRNA coding for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein provides a dangerously long exposure to an unlimited dose of this pathogenic protein, and thus, it needs re-evaluation for continued human use. We have provided the molecular basis for a wide distribution of injuries, disabilities, and deaths resulting from spike protein-related diseases

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I don't think even the biggest anti vaccine people deny it helped against COVID. Their concern seems to be the possible side effects down the road. I remember taking chantix decades ago when it was the cutting edge anti smoking thing. That was a bad choice for me. Ha ha

Right. I get the thought, but it's flawed IMO. How many modern day vaccines have been found to be fine for a few years and then causes major problems in most that have taken it? The truth is most problems are found almost immediately after introduction. Within weeks if not sooner. Immune response problems are typically found within days. For example, Pfizer had 12 different formulas they went through in 3 weeks to find optimal dosage for immune response.

So you're convinced that it's flawed thinking for someone to be concerned about a brand new vaccine and it's long term side effects after a 3 week test?

I know 6 people in real life that have had strokes or heart attacks that took the vaccine. Might be coincidental. They could have all had other health issues that I wouldn't be aware of. That's pretty scary. Was it related to Covid? Vaccine? None of us know for sure but for me personally, I've heard about a lot more strokes in people aged 35-50 than I ever did before this.

I don't know a single person who's had a stroke and most people I know were vaccinated. Now what?

I don't care who you know? Now what?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Long time lurker, probably over 20 years, first time posting. I hesitated to write this since it'll probably get a less than popular reception and I apologize for the long post. I also hoped to post at the beginning of the conversation, but here it is. Since I have a little experience in this topic I thought I would share. I was also enrolled in the LISTEN study through Yale that this research is based on, though i didn't supply any samples and wasn't a direct participant other than providing information.

In December of 2021 I received my 3rd moderna vaccine and what happened after that was something I would have never believed if it didn't happen to me, so i fully understand those that don't/can't believe this is a real thing.

The day after the booster I started to experience an elevated HR and a tightness in my back which I chalked up to a normal reaction, but after 4 days of this I decided I could "workout" any lingering effects and proceeded to go for an easy ride on my bike trainer. After 30 mins or so I stopped took a shower and sat on the couch. Looking at my Garmin watch my HR was sitting between 110 and 130 an hour later and I was feeling awful. Afraid I was having a heart attack I had my wife drive me to the ER and was immediately brought into a room with suspected afib. My HR would swing from 110 to 150 with even the slightest movement. I passed the tests I was given to rule out a heart attack, negative for covid, and was given intravenous ativan as this was a suspected anxiety attack. Other than making me drowsy this didn't touch the HR issues and I was sent on my way to see my PCP the following week. Lots of tests, no solutions and things went from bad to worse

I'm fit and in shape, lift weights, bike, play sports, never a serious health issue in my 45+ years on this earth but over the next few months went from 180lbs to 150lbs, i could barely walk around the block after completing an untra endurance event just 3 months earlier, had horrible insomnia, unable to fall asleep or stay asleep and would experience hypnic jerks when I could often the entire night for close to two years, like 2-3 days a week jerk awake ALL NIGHT just before falling asleep and then crash hard for a night then rinse repeat. This is a hell you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy. I developed POTS, tachycardia, reduced vision in my right eye, neuropathy, blood pooling, high blood pressure, tinnitus, mood issues, horrible brain fog which was more like dementia than just groggy, palpitations. There was more, but this is probably enough to get the idea.

Local doctors were pretty much clueless as to what to do and what tests to provide. I did have an in-person zoom call with everyone's favorite researcher Dr Bruce Patterson (if you know you know), but his methods offered little help and I'll leave it at that. I did get a battery of tests from him that showed irregular Cytokine numbers. Other researchers offered tests like a TAT (thrombin antithrombin) to look for irregular clotting since normal tests such as a d-dimer weren't showing much. My TAT was literally off quest diagnostics chart, which I'm told isn't so great. Mt Sinai was doing research into this for long covid aswell as PVS and confirmed the presence of irregular fibrinogen clotting. Dr David Putrino headed that research if there's interest in that.

Yada yada long story short I fought this novel illness for 3 years before it finally resolved for the most part. I'm not 100%, but i would say I'm 99%. A few things linger, but i live normal again. The worst thing post recovery has been recurring shingles when i overdue it physically or get stressed.

I'm not posting this to change anyone's mind, but rather to give a first hand account of what happens in one of these PVS situations. Essentially the vaccine game me an extreme case of long covid, so anyone with any experience themselves or an acquaintance that's exactly what the PVS is like. If anyone has any questions or concerns I can try and answer what I can. I won't go into anymore details and waste time if not. If this isn't welcome, believe me, I get it. The only thing worse than the hell this put me through physically is the publics reaction and even worse friends and family. Getting a novel illness, a novel illness that's politically uncomfortable and nobody understands medically is an interesting experience.

I'll also add I'm in no way antivax. I understand the misinformation that comes from both sides of the argument aswell. I think for pretty much everyone they seem to work as advertised, but I'm not qualified to offer any more than an opinion in that regard. I did get 3 moderna after all, but for me they did not. AMA.

My uncle had a similar experience, but after his second shot. They were not able to tie it back to the vaccine though. What did your doctors find that tied it back to the vaccine?

For me it was timing mostly and then as things unfolded symptoms as they were mimicking long covid. One day i was doing epics on my bike and within a day of the booster i had all the HR and insomnia issues. Once my pcp threw his hands up I started looking into researchers and was lucky enough to get more advanced testing like the clotting tests and Cytokine panels. Once i had those reports it was much easier to work with my doctors locally.

Did they tell you what specific part of the vaccine caused your issues?

Never got a good answer to that. The damage and disregulation to my body and immune system were what treatments were based off. It's all theory, but due to the symptoms being so closely related to long covid the way these particular vaccines work caused the body to react similarly to a natural covid infection. There never seemed to be any other reaction to the ingredients in my case, but again if somebody knows conclusively I've never heard it.

Sounds about right. The ingredients shouldn't be an issue moving forward. Had you had covid prior to vaccinations?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

but was never deemed safe enough to use on humans until just after Covid hit

This is not true either. The problems with mRNA vaccine were their fragility and very short shel life. They have been the holy grail in approach with everyone trying to figure out that last piece to make them profitable.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

The OP link provides commentary regarding (and a direct link to) the LISTEN study, which shows striking similarities between PVS and Long Covid.

There is no difference, only the cause. They are the same as far as symptoms and treatment are concerned.

This has been true for my buddy who has long Covid but suspects it came from a Covid booster. Like you, strong correlation, but the VA does not concur.

It's next to impossible to get any kind of acknowledgement unless you're lucky enough to get into a research program, or try your luck on the holistic circuit.

It's a real shame people have to go through this alone. If your buddy was like me this is probably one of the worst things he's gone through and there's next to no help at all.

My Sister in law has long COVID and is part of the Mayo Clinic’s long COVID program. She’s a tough midwestern woman but has suffered quite a bit the past 4 years. Part of that suffering is the fear of COVID that comes with it. She’s living a bit of a tortured life honestly.

Do you know what treatments Mayo is providing? In my experience some of these long covid clinics are more for research than treatment.

Curious: Do they know if you'd have suffered similar ailments if you'd been infected by COVID?

Yeah, that's something i think about often. Nobody knows to my knowledge. I did have covid in 2020 and recovered fine though. Was it the combination? Was it just the vaccine? Would four infections do the same? Wish i knew.

Every time your body is exposed to the antigen (doesn't matter if introduced via vaccine or virus) it gets better at fighting said antigen. Your body will even use other instructions from other viruses to attack it if the proteins are similar enough. Pretty amazing process.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'll take a PM to the board that is jumping into this thread

What do you mean?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

We were told the Spike production/circulation would be would limited both in scope/scale (to the injection site) and temporally (for a short period of time), both of which have proven untrue in the years since.

Don't know who told you this, but no reputable scientist did. The immune system REQUIRES the circulation of antibodies to attach antigens.

One source, of so many other there...

https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/prp2.1218

It was hoped that resident and circulating immune cells attracted to the injection site make copies of the spike protein while the injected mRNA degrades within a few days. It was also originally estimated that recombinant spike proteins generated by mRNA vaccines would persist in the body for a few weeks. In reality, clinical studies now report that modified SARS-CoV-2 mRNA routinely persist up to a month from injection and can be detected in cardiac and skeletal muscle at sites of inflammation and fibrosis, while the recombinant spike protein may persist a little over half a year in blood.

This review article focuses on medical biochemistry, proteomics and deutenomics principles that explain the persisting spike phenomenon in circulation with organ-related functional damage even in asymptomatic individuals.

Although in vitro/vivo–transcribed mRNAs encoding clinically important proteins have broad potentials for therapeutic applications, mRNA modified by pseudouridination and other changes, including methylation, is infeasible for clinical use because of its long-lasting and potentially permanent and immunostimulatory nature.

The persistent nature of mRNA coding for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein provides a dangerously long exposure to an unlimited dose of this pathogenic protein, and thus, it needs re-evaluation for continued human use. We have provided the molecular basis for a wide distribution of injuries, disabilities, and deaths resulting from spike protein-related diseases

It's great to have theories and all, but to be credible they need to have data that is consistently reproducible and verified by others. I don't question that you can come up with a bunch of sources theorizing. It's a big question a lot of people are trying to answer.

 

[Harry Manback]

I'll take a PM to the board that is jumping into this thread

What do you mean?

I think it’s a conspiracy theory that people are coming from another board and commenting here. Which is super weird as I don’t think anyone but Longtime Lurker is a new member

 

[Sparky Polastri]

The OP link provides commentary regarding (and a direct link to) the LISTEN study, which shows striking similarities between PVS and Long Covid.

There is no difference, only the cause. They are the same as far as symptoms and treatment are concerned.

This has been true for my buddy who has long Covid but suspects it came from a Covid booster. Like you, strong correlation, but the VA does not concur.

It's next to impossible to get any kind of acknowledgement unless you're lucky enough to get into a research program, or try your luck on the holistic circuit.

It's a real shame people have to go through this alone. If your buddy was like me this is probably one of the worst things he's gone through and there's next to no help at all.

My Sister in law has long COVID and is part of the Mayo Clinic’s long COVID program. She’s a tough midwestern woman but has suffered quite a bit the past 4 years. Part of that suffering is the fear of COVID that comes with it. She’s living a bit of a tortured life honestly.

Do you know what treatments Mayo is providing? In my experience some of these long covid clinics are more for research than treatment.

Curious: Do they know if you'd have suffered similar ailments if you'd been infected by COVID?

Yeah, that's something i think about often. Nobody knows to my knowledge. I did have covid in 2020 and recovered fine though. Was it the combination? Was it just the vaccine? Would four infections do the same? Wish i knew.

Every time your body is exposed to the antigen (doesn't matter if introduced via vaccine or virus) it gets better at fighting said antigen. Your body will even use other instructions from other viruses to attack it if the proteins are similar enough. Pretty amazing process.

Which is interesting in these cases. Would you expect more exposure to cause less post viral/vaccine illness? Not sure if this matters as anything more than random chance, but it seems in these particular illnesses repeated exposure increases risk.

It depends on the individual's immune system and how robust it is. Generally speaking you'd expect less reaction for the same amount of load the more often you are exposed. There are also situations where you might have had it a couple times and the third or fourth time is miserable because of the quantity that's made it into your system. Million different variables in these convos and why it's been so difficult to move from theory to confidence in whats happening. In this case they haven't really gotten to a comfortable "working theory" that most can agree on.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

@The Longtime Lurker were your symptoms worse with covid or the vaccine?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I'll take a PM to the board that is jumping into this thread

What do you mean?

I think it’s a conspiracy theory that people are coming from another board and commenting here. Which is super weird as I don’t think anyone but Longtime Lurker is a new member

I enjoy the stock and finance threads and saw this passing through. I figured i have a little experience here and if anyone was curious about a first hand account I could give one. No ulterior motives

I personally love that you're here. Thus all the questions.

 

[Dickies]

3 big chickens I drank last night

In this economy?

I know right? on the plus side the bartender was pouring pints instead of 10 oz pours, on second thought maybe that's a minus

Love me some Henhouse. I just suffered similar symptoms as you a couple weeks ago after having a Pliny the Younger day. Didn't realize Big Chicken has been released this year yet..... Need to do some research, for science.

 

[FBG Moderator]

What a coincidence

If you have something civil to say, say it. If not, save the snark please.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

@The Longtime Lurker were your symptoms worse with covid or the vaccine?

It was about 6 months after the vaccine that i got covid for the second time. I was starting to finally feel a bit better (at my worst i was probably 30% of normal if that makes sense) and was about 60%. It knocked me right back to my worst and maybe even then some. I was better equipped to handle it, but it was just as bad if not worse

What about the first time you got it vs how you felt after taking vaccine? I assume you didn't do well with the vaccine either?

 

[Max Power]

Again, the drugs are exactly the same and that's exactly what those articles are saying and what I'm saying. This conflation over what legal recourse one has if it's "approved" or "EUA" is a political topic and true for every single vaccine that comes out. It has NOTHING to do with these vaccines specifically or their safety. Its more along the lines of what Z Machine was asking above which is a significantly more honest path than this one.

How is it political?

Really? Your "beef" here seems to be with how the federal government mandated it's workers to take the vaccines after the President issued a EO to do so. How is that NOT political?

My beef was with an illegal policy. Disagreeing with Government policy isn't inherently political.

If I was complaining about why Biden did it, that would be political.

 

[jhib]

Re: some of the posts upthread...

- I have been insanely busy the last week or so. Have had some free time to lurk, read and add emojis to posts, but no time to thoughtfully address with words until now.

- The OP link provides commentary regarding (and a direct link to) the LISTEN study, which shows striking similarities between PVS and Long Covid.

"Post-acute conditions following COVID-19 vaccination have been reported for multiple vaccine platforms including mRNA and adenoviral-vectored vaccines. We observed that the general health status of the PVS participants was far below the general US population average"

"A large fraction of individuals reported the onset of symptoms to be as early as within one day of COVID19 vaccination."

"Most notably, we found elevated levels of spike (S1 and full length S) in circulation up to 709 days after vaccination among a subset with PVS, even in those with no evidence of detectable SARS-CoV-2 infection."

"Given the striking similarities between long COVID and PVS symptoms, there has been speculation regarding the potential causal role of the persistent presence of spike protein driving the chronic symptoms. Additionally, a recent study has shown spike protein binding to fibrin resulting in inflammation ex vivo and neuropathy in animal experiments. S1 subunit is sufficient to cause formation of trypsin-resistant fibrin clots when added to plasma from healthy individuals. The persistent presence of S1 and the full-length spike protein across multiple long COVID cohorts lends further support to this hypothesis."

- The Covid vaxxes used in the US were novel compared to all earlier vaccines, namely that both the mRNA (Pfizer, Moderna) and DNA-vector (J&J) variants all reprogrammed human body genetics to induce our own cells to produce Spike proteins, which we now know to be cytotoxic. We were told the Spike production/circulation would be would limited both in scope/scale (to the injection site) and temporally (for a short period of time), both of which have proven untrue in the years since. This is VERY different technology compared to traditional vaccines.

- The definition of the term vaccine changed during the Covid era, per Miriam Webster,

From:

a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease

To:

a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease: such as
a. an antigenic preparation of a typically inactivated or attenuated (see attenuated sense 2) pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus) or one of its components or products (such as a protein or toxin)
b. a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)

The definition changed because a new form of vaccine was introduced? Would you expect it to stay the same?

Seriously. This isn't the gotcha that anti-vaxxers think it is. It's simply how language works.

It was meant to point out that there is a very distinct difference between the mRNA & DNA-vector Covid shots and the traditional vaccines of the pre-Covid era. That distinction is important. This is new technology. This is novel technology. This is genetic-modification technology.

But actually, mRNA tech isn't all that new. It's been studied for decades, but was never deemed safe enough to use on humans until just after Covid hit, and mass panic, paranoia, politics and profiteering set in.

And no need to use pejoratives like the term 'anit-vaxxer.' I am not anti-vax, of the traditional sort. I am highly dubious though, of mRNA and DNA-vector tech. That much is obvious, but please don't turn this thread into another pissing match.

Oh, I wasn't calling you an anti-vaxxer. I was pointing out it is a common tactic of anti-vaxxers to point to changing definitions as some kind of proof that the Covid vaccines are not even "real" vaccines. They also often complain about wording changes to the MW definition of 'anti-vaxxer': "a person who opposes the use of some or all vaccines, regulations mandating vaccination, or usually both."

I don't know about your general attitudes towards vaccines, but your posting history points to a vaccine hesitancy having been heavily influenced by the anti-vaxxers' playbook, whether it is definitively claiming people died of "turbo cancer", using terms like "heavily vaccinated" in reference to individuals, abundant links to slanted articles on studies, etc. I reject the idea that it's pejorative language or an attempt at a pissing match to call out anti-vax ideas as anti-vax, but I'm sorry if you take it differently.

 

[fatness]

My beef was with an illegal policy. Disagreeing with Government policy isn't inherently political.
If I was complaining about why Biden did it, that would be political.

What in the world does this have to do with the original topic?

 

[LawFitz]

Re: some of the posts upthread...

- I have been insanely busy the last week or so. Have had some free time to lurk, read and add emojis to posts, but no time to thoughtfully address with words until now.

- The OP link provides commentary regarding (and a direct link to) the LISTEN study, which shows striking similarities between PVS and Long Covid.

"Post-acute conditions following COVID-19 vaccination have been reported for multiple vaccine platforms including mRNA and adenoviral-vectored vaccines. We observed that the general health status of the PVS participants was far below the general US population average"

"A large fraction of individuals reported the onset of symptoms to be as early as within one day of COVID19 vaccination."

"Most notably, we found elevated levels of spike (S1 and full length S) in circulation up to 709 days after vaccination among a subset with PVS, even in those with no evidence of detectable SARS-CoV-2 infection."

"Given the striking similarities between long COVID and PVS symptoms, there has been speculation regarding the potential causal role of the persistent presence of spike protein driving the chronic symptoms. Additionally, a recent study has shown spike protein binding to fibrin resulting in inflammation ex vivo and neuropathy in animal experiments. S1 subunit is sufficient to cause formation of trypsin-resistant fibrin clots when added to plasma from healthy individuals. The persistent presence of S1 and the full-length spike protein across multiple long COVID cohorts lends further support to this hypothesis."

- The Covid vaxxes used in the US were novel compared to all earlier vaccines, namely that both the mRNA (Pfizer, Moderna) and DNA-vector (J&J) variants all reprogrammed human body genetics to induce our own cells to produce Spike proteins, which we now know to be cytotoxic. We were told the Spike production/circulation would be would limited both in scope/scale (to the injection site) and temporally (for a short period of time), both of which have proven untrue in the years since. This is VERY different technology compared to traditional vaccines.

- The definition of the term vaccine changed during the Covid era, per Miriam Webster,

From:

a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease

To:

a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease: such as
a. an antigenic preparation of a typically inactivated or attenuated (see attenuated sense 2) pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus) or one of its components or products (such as a protein or toxin)
b. a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)

The definition changed because a new form of vaccine was introduced? Would you expect it to stay the same?

Seriously. This isn't the gotcha that anti-vaxxers think it is. It's simply how language works.

It was meant to point out that there is a very distinct difference between the mRNA & DNA-vector Covid shots and the traditional vaccines of the pre-Covid era. That distinction is important. This is new technology. This is novel technology. This is genetic-modification technology.

But actually, mRNA tech isn't all that new. It's been studied for decades, but was never deemed safe enough to use on humans until just after Covid hit, and mass panic, paranoia, politics and profiteering set in.

And no need to use pejoratives like the term 'anit-vaxxer.' I am not anti-vax, of the traditional sort. I am highly dubious though, of mRNA and DNA-vector tech. That much is obvious, but please don't turn this thread into another pissing match.

Oh, I wasn't calling you an anti-vaxxer. I was pointing out it is a common tactic of anti-vaxxers to point to changing definitions as some kind of proof that the Covid vaccines are not even "real" vaccines. They also often complain about wording changes to the MW definition of 'anti-vaxxer': "a person who opposes the use of some or all vaccines, regulations mandating vaccination, or usually both."

I don't know about your general attitudes towards vaccines, but your posting history points to a vaccine hesitancy having been heavily influenced by the anti-vaxxers' playbook, whether it is definitively claiming people died of "turbo cancer", using terms like "heavily vaccinated" in reference to individuals, abundant links to slanted articles on studies, etc. I reject the idea that it's pejorative language or an attempt at a pissing match to call out anti-vax ideas as anti-vax, but I'm sorry if you take it differently.

'Anti-vaxxer' is and has been used as a pejorative. And that is especially derailing of respectful discussion when most people who have been labeled as such are hesitant towards, suspicious of, and questioning mRNA and other new genetic-modification tech, rather than traditional vaccines. But let's move on from that angle. I accept your apology.

 

[LawFitz]

Also, what does "heavily vaccinated" mean exactly?

Still not sure, but it brings to mind this guy.

Heavily vaxxed means boosters. Lots and lots of boosters.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Also, what does "heavily vaccinated" mean exactly?

Still not sure, but it brings to mind this guy.

Heavily vaxxed means boosters. Lots and lots of boosters.

How many is a lot in your opinion?

 

[turnjose7]

I initially refrained from commenting in this thread because I didn't want to escalate things, but there is some seriously bad and potentially dangerous misinformation starting to creep into it.

There is no way that Longtime Lurker's symptoms were due to "clotting." There are serious risks to taking antithrombotics and anticoagulants and taking 3 of these medications without a clear indication is very dangerous. I'm sorry that Longtime Lurker had so much trouble, but throwing random and potentially harmful drugs at a complex of symptoms that has no apparent underlying biological basis is a terrible idea.

Despite what dkp993 says, it is not incredibly rare for a 50 year old man to be diagnosed with new-onset atrial fibrillation.

I had to look up Bruce Patterson because I apparently didn't "know," but I would caution people to be careful about accepting anything he says about anything, not just about COVID. Some of his comments about things like Lyme and Alzheimers are horrifying and certainly don't have any sound scientific basis.

Please understand I am not suggesting that Longtime Lurker or dkp993 are being intentionally misleading. Again, I am sorry they both had to deal with health issues and wish them the best. But some of the things they are saying are just wrong.

And, of course, there is no such thing as "turbo cancer."

 

[The Z Machine]

The OP link provides commentary regarding (and a direct link to) the LISTEN study, which shows striking similarities between PVS and Long Covid.

There is no difference, only the cause. They are the same as far as symptoms and treatment are concerned.

This has been true for my buddy who has long Covid but suspects it came from a Covid booster. Like you, strong correlation, but the VA does not concur.

It's next to impossible to get any kind of acknowledgement unless you're lucky enough to get into a research program, or try your luck on the holistic circuit.

It's a real shame people have to go through this alone. If your buddy was like me this is probably one of the worst things he's gone through and there's next to no help at all.

My Sister in law has long COVID and is part of the Mayo Clinic’s long COVID program. She’s a tough midwestern woman but has suffered quite a bit the past 4 years. Part of that suffering is the fear of COVID that comes with it. She’s living a bit of a tortured life honestly.

Do you know what treatments Mayo is providing? In my experience some of these long covid clinics are more for research than treatment.

Curious: Do they know if you'd have suffered similar ailments if you'd been infected by COVID?

Yeah, that's something i think about often. Nobody knows to my knowledge. I did have covid in 2020 and recovered fine though. Was it the combination? Was it just the vaccine? Would four infections do the same? Wish i knew.

I don't think there's a way to prove any of those hypotheticals. Sounds like you had it rough for a few years. I'm glad that you got some treatment that worked for you and you're 99% back to normal. Thanks for sharing your story.

 

[Max Power]

My beef was with an illegal policy. Disagreeing with Government policy isn't inherently political.
If I was complaining about why Biden did it, that would be political.

What in the world does this have to do with the original topic?

The mandates were brought up, so I wanted to clarify a thing or two. I think it is also important to highlight the media's role in the whole thing.

It's why there is a stigma around people who are vaccine injured. The media and public health experts want to deny there is an issue or potential correlation and I see that as the same shady business big pharma media money buys.

Or maybe I'm just still traumatized by everything I went through, so I find it to be an outlet. I think people forget what the unvaccinated went through as well.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Again, the drugs are exactly the same and that's exactly what those articles are saying and what I'm saying. This conflation over what legal recourse one has if it's "approved" or "EUA" is a political topic and true for every single vaccine that comes out. It has NOTHING to do with these vaccines specifically or their safety. Its more along the lines of what Z Machine was asking above which is a significantly more honest path than this one.

How is it political?

Really? Your "beef" here seems to be with how the federal government mandated it's workers to take the vaccines after the President issued a EO to do so. How is that NOT political?

My beef was with an illegal policy. Disagreeing with Government policy isn't inherently political.

If I was complaining about why Biden did it, that would be political.

It wasn't illegal and claiming it was is exactly political. You can try and justify it all you want, but far less has been deemed way over the line here.

 

[Max Power]

Again, the drugs are exactly the same and that's exactly what those articles are saying and what I'm saying. This conflation over what legal recourse one has if it's "approved" or "EUA" is a political topic and true for every single vaccine that comes out. It has NOTHING to do with these vaccines specifically or their safety. Its more along the lines of what Z Machine was asking above which is a significantly more honest path than this one.

How is it political?

Really? Your "beef" here seems to be with how the federal government mandated it's workers to take the vaccines after the President issued a EO to do so. How is that NOT political?

My beef was with an illegal policy. Disagreeing with Government policy isn't inherently political.

If I was complaining about why Biden did it, that would be political.

It wasn't illegal and claiming it was is exactly political. You can try and justify it all you want, but far less has been deemed way over the line here.

I'll drop it.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

@The Longtime Lurker were your symptoms worse with covid or the vaccine?

It was about 6 months after the vaccine that i got covid for the second time. I was starting to finally feel a bit better (at my worst i was probably 30% of normal if that makes sense) and was about 60%. It knocked me right back to my worst and maybe even then some. I was better equipped to handle it, but it was just as bad if not worse

What about the first time you got it vs how you felt after taking vaccine? I assume you didn't do well with the vaccine either?

First time i got covid i was very sick but recovered fine. First and second vaccine was also no issue. Third vaccine and second covid infection is where i had lingering problems.

Thanks. This makes sense to me. The load in subsequent mutations were a bit higher even though they were waning in strength. The later variants were also a little more resilient to the vaccines as they mutated. Stands to reason your experiences have been what they are.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Again, the drugs are exactly the same and that's exactly what those articles are saying and what I'm saying. This conflation over what legal recourse one has if it's "approved" or "EUA" is a political topic and true for every single vaccine that comes out. It has NOTHING to do with these vaccines specifically or their safety. Its more along the lines of what Z Machine was asking above which is a significantly more honest path than this one.

How is it political?

Really? Your "beef" here seems to be with how the federal government mandated it's workers to take the vaccines after the President issued a EO to do so. How is that NOT political?

My beef was with an illegal policy. Disagreeing with Government policy isn't inherently political.

If I was complaining about why Biden did it, that would be political.

It wasn't illegal and claiming it was is exactly political. You can try and justify it all you want, but far less has been deemed way over the line here.

I'll drop it.

Thanks. The complaining about what we allow or won't allow is never ending. Thanks for helping the mods there.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Also, what does "heavily vaccinated" mean exactly?

Still not sure, but it brings to mind this guy.

Heavily vaxxed means boosters. Lots and lots of boosters.

As in takes all the recommended boosters?

This is a reason why this discussion bogs down, IMO. This seems to be a term like "anti-vaxxer" but from the other direction. When I read your post I picture a hypochondriac taking more things than are recommended by their doctor.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Also, what does "heavily vaccinated" mean exactly?

Still not sure, but it brings to mind this guy.

Heavily vaxxed means boosters. Lots and lots of boosters.

As in takes all the recommended boosters?

This is a reason why this discussion bogs down, IMO. This seems to be a term like "anti-vaxxer" but from the other direction. When I read your post I picture a hypochondriac taking more things than are recommended by their doctor.

Agreed. Anyone who asks a questions about vaccines is smeared as an "anti vaxxer" and anyone who takes recommended boosters is smeared in the other direction. Although they don't have the catchy term yet.

It's the never ending smarmy point scoring against "the other" side that many can't keep from doing. And the result is actual discussion dies.

Not sure there's any answer here if people aren't interested in actual discussion.

 

[sho nuff]

Re: some of the posts upthread...

- I have been insanely busy the last week or so. Have had some free time to lurk, read and add emojis to posts, but no time to thoughtfully address with words until now.

- The OP link provides commentary regarding (and a direct link to) the LISTEN study, which shows striking similarities between PVS and Long Covid.

"Post-acute conditions following COVID-19 vaccination have been reported for multiple vaccine platforms including mRNA and adenoviral-vectored vaccines. We observed that the general health status of the PVS participants was far below the general US population average"

"A large fraction of individuals reported the onset of symptoms to be as early as within one day of COVID19 vaccination."

"Most notably, we found elevated levels of spike (S1 and full length S) in circulation up to 709 days after vaccination among a subset with PVS, even in those with no evidence of detectable SARS-CoV-2 infection."

"Given the striking similarities between long COVID and PVS symptoms, there has been speculation regarding the potential causal role of the persistent presence of spike protein driving the chronic symptoms. Additionally, a recent study has shown spike protein binding to fibrin resulting in inflammation ex vivo and neuropathy in animal experiments. S1 subunit is sufficient to cause formation of trypsin-resistant fibrin clots when added to plasma from healthy individuals. The persistent presence of S1 and the full-length spike protein across multiple long COVID cohorts lends further support to this hypothesis."

- The Covid vaxxes used in the US were novel compared to all earlier vaccines, namely that both the mRNA (Pfizer, Moderna) and DNA-vector (J&J) variants all reprogrammed human body genetics to induce our own cells to produce Spike proteins, which we now know to be cytotoxic. We were told the Spike production/circulation would be would limited both in scope/scale (to the injection site) and temporally (for a short period of time), both of which have proven untrue in the years since. This is VERY different technology compared to traditional vaccines.

- The definition of the term vaccine changed during the Covid era, per Miriam Webster,

From:

a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease

To:

a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious agent or disease: such as
a. an antigenic preparation of a typically inactivated or attenuated (see attenuated sense 2) pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus) or one of its components or products (such as a protein or toxin)
b. a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)

The definition changed because a new form of vaccine was introduced? Would you expect it to stay the same?

Seriously. This isn't the gotcha that anti-vaxxers think it is. It's simply how language works.

It was meant to point out that there is a very distinct difference between the mRNA & DNA-vector Covid shots and the traditional vaccines of the pre-Covid era. That distinction is important. This is new technology. This is novel technology. This is genetic-modification technology.

But actually, mRNA tech isn't all that new. It's been studied for decades, but was never deemed safe enough to use on humans until just after Covid hit, and mass panic, paranoia, politics and profiteering set in.

And no need to use pejoratives like the term 'anit-vaxxer.' I am not anti-vax, of the traditional sort. I am highly dubious though, of mRNA and DNA-vector tech. That much is obvious, but please don't turn this thread into another pissing match.

Oh, I wasn't calling you an anti-vaxxer. I was pointing out it is a common tactic of anti-vaxxers to point to changing definitions as some kind of proof that the Covid vaccines are not even "real" vaccines. They also often complain about wording changes to the MW definition of 'anti-vaxxer': "a person who opposes the use of some or all vaccines, regulations mandating vaccination, or usually both."

I don't know about your general attitudes towards vaccines, but your posting history points to a vaccine hesitancy having been heavily influenced by the anti-vaxxers' playbook, whether it is definitively claiming people died of "turbo cancer", using terms like "heavily vaccinated" in reference to individuals, abundant links to slanted articles on studies, etc. I reject the idea that it's pejorative language or an attempt at a pissing match to call out anti-vax ideas as anti-vax, but I'm sorry if you take it differently.

'Anti-vaxxer' is and has been used as a pejorative. And that is especially derailing of respectful discussion when most people who have been labeled as such are hesitant towards, suspicious of, and questioning mRNA and other new genetic-modification tech, rather than traditional vaccines. But let's move on from that angle. I accept your apology.

mRNA vaccines do not alter your genetics.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

The complaining about what we allow or won't allow is never ending.

It wasn't a complaint

 

[Joe Bryant]

The complaining about what we allow or won't allow is never ending.

It wasn't a complaint

I wasn't talking to you, Sparky.

 

[uwillbsoon]

Also, what does "heavily vaccinated" mean exactly?

Still not sure, but it brings to mind this guy.

Heavily vaxxed means boosters. Lots and lots of boosters.

As in takes all the recommended boosters?

This is a reason why this discussion bogs down, IMO. This seems to be a term like "anti-vaxxer" but from the other direction. When I read your post I picture a hypochondriac taking more things than are recommended by their doctor.

Agreed. Anyone who asks a questions about vaccines is smeared as an "anti vaxxer" and anyone who takes recommended boosters is smeared in the other direction. Although they don't have the catchy term yet.

It's the never ending smarmy point scoring against "the other" side that many can't keep from doing. And the result is actual discussion dies.

Not sure there's any answer here if people aren't interested in actual discussion.

This is my irl experience. I was dumb for getting them or a monster for saying anything less than safe and effective.

Yeah, which is too bad. The reality is we should all blame COVID. It's the monster, not you. It forced all of these actions and people had to make tough decisions and deal with horrible outcomes.

My concern is we've taken a step away from science as a result of COVID which will make the next pandemic worse.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

The complaining about what we allow or won't allow is never ending.

It wasn't a complaint

I wasn't talking to you, Sparky.

I know. You were talking about me. I am the only one in this thread pointing out his political posts for the most part. I'm simply telling you it wasn't a complaint.

 

[jhib]

Also, what does "heavily vaccinated" mean exactly?

Still not sure, but it brings to mind this guy.

Heavily vaxxed means boosters. Lots and lots of boosters.

As in takes all the recommended boosters?

This is a reason why this discussion bogs down, IMO. This seems to be a term like "anti-vaxxer" but from the other direction. When I read your post I picture a hypochondriac taking more things than are recommended by their doctor.

Agreed. Anyone who asks a questions about vaccines is smeared as an "anti vaxxer" and anyone who takes recommended boosters is smeared in the other direction. Although they don't have the catchy term yet.

It's the never ending smarmy point scoring against "the other" side that many can't keep from doing. And the result is actual discussion dies.

Not sure there's any answer here if people aren't interested in actual discussion.

With all due respect, it is really not the case that anyone who asks questions about vaccines is smeared as an anti-vaxxer, or at least that is not what is happening here. This very discussion started off right off the bat with the linking of a slanted article about a study and references to "turbo cancer" and the "heavily vaccinated." To characterize that as simply asking questions seems disingenuous to me. In fact, I didn't even notice any questions other than "can we have this discussion?" accompanied by a bunch of statements. And IMHO, "actual discussion" about vaccines should include calling out anti-vax ideas and conspiracy theories as such when they are presented.

"Turbo cancer" is generally accepted by the scientific community as an anti-vaccination conspiracy theory. Do you feel it is unfair to suggest that someone who (for example) states as a matter of fact that people they know died of turbo cancer has been heavily influenced by the work of anti-vaxxers?

 

[FarFromHome]

I wasn't talking to you, Sparky.

I read that as Ellen talking to Clark.

 

[Battersbox]

Question for the fourm:

If the Yale study comes through peer review and reaches further publication, will it change anyone's opinion about the vaccines?

My impression is that there are very few scientists outside of these people at Yale pursuing this question of long term damage resulting from the vaccines. Should what they've found thus far demand more funding for this research? Most of what I've seen across the internet is still quick dismissal of these findings. I'm wondering what would need to be found before more funding would be thrown at this.

 

[BlackCrowes]

Question for the fourm:

If the Yale study comes through peer review and reaches further publication, will it change anyone's opinion about the vaccines?

My impression is that there are very few scientists outside of these people at Yale pursuing this question of long term damage resulting from the vaccines. Should what they've found thus far demand more funding for this research? Most of what I've seen across the internet is still quick dismissal of these findings. I'm wondering what would need to be found before more funding would be thrown at this.

if its repeatable by other researchers with a bigger sample size, it probably will. my opinion follows the science.

semi-related, first measles death in 10 years in West Texas today. Unvaccinated child :(

 

[Joe Bryant]

The complaining about what we allow or won't allow is never ending.

It wasn't a complaint

I wasn't talking to you, Sparky.

I know. You were talking about me. I am the only one in this thread pointing out his political posts for the most part. I'm simply telling you it wasn't a complaint.

And I'm telling you not everything is about you. This is a pretty common thing.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Also, what does "heavily vaccinated" mean exactly?

Still not sure, but it brings to mind this guy.

Heavily vaxxed means boosters. Lots and lots of boosters.

As in takes all the recommended boosters?

This is a reason why this discussion bogs down, IMO. This seems to be a term like "anti-vaxxer" but from the other direction. When I read your post I picture a hypochondriac taking more things than are recommended by their doctor.

Agreed. Anyone who asks a questions about vaccines is smeared as an "anti vaxxer" and anyone who takes recommended boosters is smeared in the other direction. Although they don't have the catchy term yet.

It's the never ending smarmy point scoring against "the other" side that many can't keep from doing. And the result is actual discussion dies.

Not sure there's any answer here if people aren't interested in actual discussion.

With all due respect, it is really not the case that anyone who asks questions about vaccines is smeared as an anti-vaxxer, or at least that is not what is happening here. This very discussion started off right off the bat with the linking of a slanted article about a study and references to "turbo cancer" and the "heavily vaccinated." To characterize that as simply asking questions seems disingenuous to me. In fact, I didn't even notice any questions other than "can we have this discussion?" accompanied by a bunch of statements. And IMHO, "actual discussion" about vaccines should include calling out anti-vax ideas and conspiracy theories as such when they are presented.

"Turbo cancer" is generally accepted by the scientific community as an anti-vaccination conspiracy theory. Do you feel it is unfair to suggest that someone who (for example) states as a matter of fact that people they know died of turbo cancer has been heavily influenced by the work of anti-vaxxers?

Thanks. With due respect, I've seen it repeatedly. Not just here.

But the bigger picture is we as society have demonstrated clearly we have a difficult time with this. And the more we can not jump to those sides (on either side), the closer we'll be able to move to an actual discussion in my opinion.

 

[Max Power]

Question for the fourm:

If the Yale study comes through peer review and reaches further publication, will it change anyone's opinion about the vaccines?

My impression is that there are very few scientists outside of these people at Yale pursuing this question of long term damage resulting from the vaccines. Should what they've found thus far demand more funding for this research? Most of what I've seen across the internet is still quick dismissal of these findings. I'm wondering what would need to be found before more funding would be thrown at this.

This interests me aswell. Being a participant in the study and providing whatever info i can doesn't move the needle here or irl. I'm either believed even before i start taking, or immediately dismissed. I know nobody here knows me and my experience plus 5 bucks might get you a cup of coffee, but even more than that I'm curious to the overall sentiment. Do most here believe the vaccine could cause severe long term reactions in some people? Or do most believe it really doesn't do anything negative outside a few days of minor flu like symptoms for pretty much everyone? I'm always curious where the line gets drawn.

The Overton window is shifting on the subject. We aren't in the same place we were in 2020-2022 where the risk/reward ratio was skewed to minimalize risk in favor of public health policy.

The further away we get from the event, the more we can reflect on the facts without adding emotion and that's ultimately a good thing.

 

[jhib]

Question for the fourm:

If the Yale study comes through peer review and reaches further publication, will it change anyone's opinion about the vaccines?

My impression is that there are very few scientists outside of these people at Yale pursuing this question of long term damage resulting from the vaccines. Should what they've found thus far demand more funding for this research? Most of what I've seen across the internet is still quick dismissal of these findings. I'm wondering what would need to be found before more funding would be thrown at this.

For one thing, I certainly don't get the same impression that very few scientists are looking at long term effects of vaccines or of Covid infection, but regardless...

I can't speak for anyone else, but my (and many others) "quick dismissal" isn't of the study itself, but in the way the study is being used to further (or to justify) existing vaccine hesitancy. The purpose of this kind of study, not being yet peer-reviewed and being on such a small scale, is only to bring up a hypothesis that can them be tested, not to come to any kind of conclusions itself. And I (with my very limited knowledge) am not aware of anything about the study itself that means it should be dismissed on face value. So of course, I am fine with further research in the area.

And whether my opinion about the vaccines changes very much depends on the details of any findings. What is the severity of the supposed harm, how small a percentage of vaccinated people are likely to be affected, how different (if at all) are the effects compared to the effects of actually having covid if not protected by the vaccine, etc. These are the kinds of things that need to be weighed the against current overwhelming positive results of the vaccines and how they have saved millions of lives.

 

[jhib]

Also, what does "heavily vaccinated" mean exactly?

Still not sure, but it brings to mind this guy.

Heavily vaxxed means boosters. Lots and lots of boosters.

As in takes all the recommended boosters?

This is a reason why this discussion bogs down, IMO. This seems to be a term like "anti-vaxxer" but from the other direction. When I read your post I picture a hypochondriac taking more things than are recommended by their doctor.

Agreed. Anyone who asks a questions about vaccines is smeared as an "anti vaxxer" and anyone who takes recommended boosters is smeared in the other direction. Although they don't have the catchy term yet.

It's the never ending smarmy point scoring against "the other" side that many can't keep from doing. And the result is actual discussion dies.

Not sure there's any answer here if people aren't interested in actual discussion.

With all due respect, it is really not the case that anyone who asks questions about vaccines is smeared as an anti-vaxxer, or at least that is not what is happening here. This very discussion started off right off the bat with the linking of a slanted article about a study and references to "turbo cancer" and the "heavily vaccinated." To characterize that as simply asking questions seems disingenuous to me. In fact, I didn't even notice any questions other than "can we have this discussion?" accompanied by a bunch of statements. And IMHO, "actual discussion" about vaccines should include calling out anti-vax ideas and conspiracy theories as such when they are presented.

"Turbo cancer" is generally accepted by the scientific community as an anti-vaccination conspiracy theory. Do you feel it is unfair to suggest that someone who (for example) states as a matter of fact that people they know died of turbo cancer has been heavily influenced by the work of anti-vaxxers?

Thanks. With due respect, I've seen it repeatedly. Not just here.

But the bigger picture is we as society have demonstrated clearly we have a difficult time with this. And the more we can not jump to those sides (on either side), the closer we'll be able to move to an actual discussion in my opinion.

Of course it happens that some people who are sincerely vaccine hesitant and are asking questions to help them understand the ideas are unfairly characterized as anti-vaxxers. But when we're involved in a conversation and someone says it always happens and "not sure there's an answer here if people aren't interested in actual discussion," the implication is that they think it's happening right here and now.

I'm sorry for misinterpreting things if that's not what you meant.

 

[RCon]

But the bigger picture is we as society have demonstrated clearly we have a difficult time with this. And the more we can not jump to those sides (on either side), the closer we'll be able to move to an actual discussion in my opinion.

Society needs to be able to call out nonsense when it arises. Flat earthers? Nonsense. Fake moon landing? Nonsense. Vaccines cause autism? Nonsense.

Some "opinions" deserve to be called out as nonsense and criticized. Labeling someone an anti-vaxxer when they repeatedly post anti-vax nonsense and outright lies is a good thing.

 

[jhib]

Question for the fourm:

If the Yale study comes through peer review and reaches further publication, will it change anyone's opinion about the vaccines?

My impression is that there are very few scientists outside of these people at Yale pursuing this question of long term damage resulting from the vaccines. Should what they've found thus far demand more funding for this research? Most of what I've seen across the internet is still quick dismissal of these findings. I'm wondering what would need to be found before more funding would be thrown at this.

This interests me aswell. Being a participant in the study and providing whatever info i can doesn't move the needle here or irl. I'm either believed even before i start taking, or immediately dismissed. I know nobody here knows me and my experience plus 5 bucks might get you a cup of coffee, but even more than that I'm curious to the overall sentiment. Do most here believe the vaccine could cause severe long term reactions in some people? Or do most believe it really doesn't do anything negative outside a few days of minor flu like symptoms for pretty much everyone? I'm always curious where the line gets drawn.

You can put me in the camp that currently believes BOTH that the vaccine could cause severe long term reactions in some people AND that it really doesn't do anything negative outside a few days of minor flu like symptoms for pretty much everyone.

That is, if by "some people" you mean a very small percentage of people and by "pretty much everyone" you mean the vast majority of people.

Do you feel otherwise?