What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

PVS: Post Vaccination Syndrome (1 Viewer)

@Sparky Polastri can I ask your background in all of this? It's ok if you don't want to answer. You seem to have pretty fully formed opinions on most of it and I'm just curious where that comes from. Medical background? Covid aficionado? Trust me bro? No disrespect meant here either I just want to know where the ideas we're discussing come from.
I am finishing up my PhD at Vanderbilt University. I was incredibly lucky to have participated in a couple research studies on COVID at the very beginning of my grad school career since cardiovascular issues seemed to pop up with many. Had a paper published with my mom's lab (my PI and her are really good friends) which was really cool on the effects of COVID on the heart. I don't know everything about this stuff for sure, but I've been involved in a lot of different aspects as I blaze my path to completion. Hope to continue the heart research once done.
That's awesome and thank you for the response. I've appreciated your take on things, but as you know everyone on the internet seems to be an expert and mostly an expert in "trust me bro".

What do you make of the extremely high levels of VEGF and SCD40L found in long covid patients? Also in my case and many others my TAT tests were literally off the charts after 2 years. Quest lab ends the high end of their scale at >60 and I exceeded that. If you want exact ranges on the Cytokine panel i took I would happily provide that if you think it would be of any use to you, or helpful in this conversation. If not that's ok too.
Being completely transparent, I haven't followed the long covid stuff that much. That said, shooting from the hip, we know how destructive covid was to the "infrastructure" of our bodies. Everything from lungs, to blood vessels, to heart to everything really could be impacted depending on the person. I can easily see scenarios where the body had to really do some work to rebuild/repair significant damage from the virus. The more inflammation we have the higher some of those markers are going to be.
Yeah, that's the gist of it and fair enough. Do you think the elevated VEGF for a period of years increase any risk for cancer?
To cause cancer? No. Its a SIGN that something might be going on. VEGF is protein that is used to stimulate blood vessel growth. Cancers need blood to grow/spread, so when we see elevated levels its a sign that the body needs to grow blood vessels. That can be for a bunch of different reasons and it's important to understand WHY its elevated.
Thank you. I had made a post up thread about VEGF and it's role in growing new cancer and feeding existing cancer through angiogenesis. That makes me feel better.

VEGF in my case was Vascular damage and repair. And i couldn't help but wonder if that also meant the possibility of increased risk for tumor growth.

I appreciate your honesty in not making assumptions and sticking to your current knowledge base.
:thumbup: I try to stay in my lane most of the time. Drives me nuts when I see people clearly being google jockeys and pretend they know what they are talking about. With me its "what you see is what you get". Cancer is basically a collection of abnormal cells. They've either gone awry in serving their purpose or they have been given an incomplete instruction and become wayward and grow uncontrollably.
 
@Sparky Polastri can I ask your background in all of this? It's ok if you don't want to answer. You seem to have pretty fully formed opinions on most of it and I'm just curious where that comes from. Medical background? Covid aficionado? Trust me bro? No disrespect meant here either I just want to know where the ideas we're discussing come from.
I am finishing up my PhD at Vanderbilt University. I was incredibly lucky to have participated in a couple research studies on COVID at the very beginning of my grad school career since cardiovascular issues seemed to pop up with many. Had a paper published with my mom's lab (my PI and her are really good friends) which was really cool on the effects of COVID on the heart. I don't know everything about this stuff for sure, but I've been involved in a lot of different aspects as I blaze my path to completion. Hope to continue the heart research once done.
That's awesome and thank you for the response. I've appreciated your take on things, but as you know everyone on the internet seems to be an expert and mostly an expert in "trust me bro".

What do you make of the extremely high levels of VEGF and SCD40L found in long covid patients? Also in my case and many others my TAT tests were literally off the charts after 2 years. Quest lab ends the high end of their scale at >60 and I exceeded that. If you want exact ranges on the Cytokine panel i took I would happily provide that if you think it would be of any use to you, or helpful in this conversation. If not that's ok too.
Being completely transparent, I haven't followed the long covid stuff that much. That said, shooting from the hip, we know how destructive covid was to the "infrastructure" of our bodies. Everything from lungs, to blood vessels, to heart to everything really could be impacted depending on the person. I can easily see scenarios where the body had to really do some work to rebuild/repair significant damage from the virus. The more inflammation we have the higher some of those markers are going to be.
Yeah, that's the gist of it and fair enough. Do you think the elevated VEGF for a period of years increase any risk for cancer?
To cause cancer? No. Its a SIGN that something might be going on. VEGF is protein that is used to stimulate blood vessel growth. Cancers need blood to grow/spread, so when we see elevated levels its a sign that the body needs to grow blood vessels. That can be for a bunch of different reasons and it's important to understand WHY its elevated. This is NOT my area of expertise, so you'll likely get textbook answers....hahahaha
To piggy back off this, let's say you have a very early tumor anywhere in your body, would you expect the increased levels of VEGF to cause any concerns? No this isn't a veiled attempt to gotcha with turbo cancer, this is a real concern.
It would depend on the size of the tumor and it's demands for blood. If it can get by on current blood supply, you aren't going to get elevated levels because no need to grow new vessels. The current ones are working fine.
 
@Sparky Polastri can I ask your background in all of this? It's ok if you don't want to answer. You seem to have pretty fully formed opinions on most of it and I'm just curious where that comes from. Medical background? Covid aficionado? Trust me bro? No disrespect meant here either I just want to know where the ideas we're discussing come from.
I am finishing up my PhD at Vanderbilt University. I was incredibly lucky to have participated in a couple research studies on COVID at the very beginning of my grad school career since cardiovascular issues seemed to pop up with many. Had a paper published with my mom's lab (my PI and her are really good friends) which was really cool on the effects of COVID on the heart. I don't know everything about this stuff for sure, but I've been involved in a lot of different aspects as I blaze my path to completion. Hope to continue the heart research once done.
That's awesome and thank you for the response. I've appreciated your take on things, but as you know everyone on the internet seems to be an expert and mostly an expert in "trust me bro".

What do you make of the extremely high levels of VEGF and SCD40L found in long covid patients? Also in my case and many others my TAT tests were literally off the charts after 2 years. Quest lab ends the high end of their scale at >60 and I exceeded that. If you want exact ranges on the Cytokine panel i took I would happily provide that if you think it would be of any use to you, or helpful in this conversation. If not that's ok too.
Being completely transparent, I haven't followed the long covid stuff that much. That said, shooting from the hip, we know how destructive covid was to the "infrastructure" of our bodies. Everything from lungs, to blood vessels, to heart to everything really could be impacted depending on the person. I can easily see scenarios where the body had to really do some work to rebuild/repair significant damage from the virus. The more inflammation we have the higher some of those markers are going to be.
Yeah, that's the gist of it and fair enough. Do you think the elevated VEGF for a period of years increase any risk for cancer?
To cause cancer? No. Its a SIGN that something might be going on. VEGF is protein that is used to stimulate blood vessel growth. Cancers need blood to grow/spread, so when we see elevated levels its a sign that the body needs to grow blood vessels. That can be for a bunch of different reasons and it's important to understand WHY its elevated. This is NOT my area of expertise, so you'll likely get textbook answers....hahahaha
To piggy back off this, let's say you have a very early tumor anywhere in your body, would you expect the increased levels of VEGF to cause any concerns? No this isn't a veiled attempt to gotcha with turbo cancer, this is a real concern.
It would depend on the size of the tumor and it's demands for blood. If it can get by on current blood supply, you aren't going to get elevated levels because no need to grow new vessels. The current ones are working fine.
Ok, but what I'm asking is for arguments sake i have a tumor growing slowly in my colon, very small, probably could make it to the next colonoscopy before spreading. Now i have this vaccine reaction and my vegf spikes extremely high. Any concerns this will grow the cancer at an increased rate? If this was part of the original answer i missed it and apologize.
If the spike is high because it's growing vessels to service the tumor, then its possible. The biggest contributor to how quickly a cancer tumor grows though is the type of cell that has gone rogue. If you see a spike and it's because you are growing/repairing damaged vessels then no. Your doctors can tell what if there is new vessel growth to service the tumor mainly by size and rigidity.
 
And to be clear, I have no interest in debating the origins.

I'm only saying, as Forbes reported, sometimes things change that were once dismissed or denigrated as conspiracy theorie
Let's take a step back.

We can both agree that something could leak from a lab in two ways:

1. Something created or manipulated in a lab leaks.

2. Something naturally occurring being studied in a lab leaks.

Those are two different things. One of your sources says "lab manipulated" is a conspiracy theory. But to back that up, you've provided sources that seem to speak to #2, a lab leak.

I don't think those terms should be used interchangeably as you have.

The letter Forbes cites as calling out conspiracy theories also clearly says this "We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin." So they're saying #1 is conspiracy.

As far as I know, no one credible is saying COVID was made in a lab. That's in conspiracy theory territory. I'll take a source if you dispute that, though (the Forbes article you've sourced says this "...or was artificially created by researchers before it escaped—though the latter theory has been heavily contested by many experts.")

So, no, I'm not sure anything has changed on conspiracy theories related to COVID. All that's happened is conspiracy theorists have taken things out of context to play gotcha.
:goodposting: Spot On!

There is zero evidence this virus was created in a lab. People continue to try and figure out if it was even altered in a lab. There is a very little bit of evidence that leaves that a slight possibility, but it's not likely with what is known right now. The most likely scenarios are coming from infection out in the wild or infection while studying in the lab.
Whether it was created in a lab or altered in a lab doesn't matter. What matters is it likely escaped from the lab, which was in the realm of conspiracy theory for quite a long time whenever anyone suggested that.

It doesn't matter how many times you try to conflate the two issues (whether it was created in a lab, or just escaped because it was being studied/altered in a lab), people were still gaslit about the very idea it could have possibly been the responsibility of the folks working at that lab in Wuhan.
Me conflate? Good one!

As to "escape" from a lab and the shock/awe of that possibility. It's tough to empathize with that position knowing how prevalent the virus was found to be in a variety of animals out in the wild there. Read an article just a couple weeks ago about research on three other animals showing the virus has been in circulation among them for a long while prior to the outbreak.

I know our CIA is behind the "lab leak" theory now. However, I'm trying to figure out why it matters at all knowing how many different sources appear to have been carrying it at the time. Does it matter if it came from a person infected while researching vs from an animal? If one believes that, why does it matter?

The other thing that people might want to stop and consider is why it's been so hard to get info as part of the general public and supposedly so tough for our spy agencies to get info. Feels very coordinated if one wants to go that path doesn't it? That's as conspiratorual as I'll ever get on this as I simply don't believe the governments want us to know so we're never going to for certain.

The two most likely options have always been infected person studying it or caught from animal. Anyone saying either of those were conspiracies should not be listened to IMO.
It matters a great deal, because had this research not been happening in the first place, then the pandemic wouldn't have happened. Moreover, people lied or at least obfuscated about what was happening for quite a long time. It's still happening.

If you can't see why that matters that's either odd or dishonest. Saying 'oh we'll never know' may be correct, but it doesn't mean you get to dismiss that theories that make you uncomfortable.
 
And to be clear, I have no interest in debating the origins.

I'm only saying, as Forbes reported, sometimes things change that were once dismissed or denigrated as conspiracy theorie
Let's take a step back.

We can both agree that something could leak from a lab in two ways:

1. Something created or manipulated in a lab leaks.

2. Something naturally occurring being studied in a lab leaks.

Those are two different things. One of your sources says "lab manipulated" is a conspiracy theory. But to back that up, you've provided sources that seem to speak to #2, a lab leak.

I don't think those terms should be used interchangeably as you have.

The letter Forbes cites as calling out conspiracy theories also clearly says this "We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin." So they're saying #1 is conspiracy.

As far as I know, no one credible is saying COVID was made in a lab. That's in conspiracy theory territory. I'll take a source if you dispute that, though (the Forbes article you've sourced says this "...or was artificially created by researchers before it escaped—though the latter theory has been heavily contested by many experts.")

So, no, I'm not sure anything has changed on conspiracy theories related to COVID. All that's happened is conspiracy theorists have taken things out of context to play gotcha.
:goodposting: Spot On!

There is zero evidence this virus was created in a lab. People continue to try and figure out if it was even altered in a lab. There is a very little bit of evidence that leaves that a slight possibility, but it's not likely with what is known right now. The most likely scenarios are coming from infection out in the wild or infection while studying in the lab.
Whether it was created in a lab or altered in a lab doesn't matter. What matters is it likely escaped from the lab, which was in the realm of conspiracy theory for quite a long time whenever anyone suggested that.

It doesn't matter how many times you try to conflate the two issues (whether it was created in a lab, or just escaped because it was being studied/altered in a lab), people were still gaslit about the very idea it could have possibly been the responsibility of the folks working at that lab in Wuhan.
Me conflate? Good one!

As to "escape" from a lab and the shock/awe of that possibility. It's tough to empathize with that position knowing how prevalent the virus was found to be in a variety of animals out in the wild there. Read an article just a couple weeks ago about research on three other animals showing the virus has been in circulation among them for a long while prior to the outbreak.

I know our CIA is behind the "lab leak" theory now. However, I'm trying to figure out why it matters at all knowing how many different sources appear to have been carrying it at the time. Does it matter if it came from a person infected while researching vs from an animal? If one believes that, why does it matter?

The other thing that people might want to stop and consider is why it's been so hard to get info as part of the general public and supposedly so tough for our spy agencies to get info. Feels very coordinated if one wants to go that path doesn't it? That's as conspiratorual as I'll ever get on this as I simply don't believe the governments want us to know so we're never going to for certain.

The two most likely options have always been infected person studying it or caught from animal. Anyone saying either of those were conspiracies should not be listened to IMO.
It matters a great deal, because had this research not been happening in the first place, then the pandemic wouldn't have happened. Moreover, people lied or at least obfuscated about what was happening for quite a long time. It's still happening.

If you can't see why that matters that's either odd or dishonest. Saying 'oh we'll never know' may be correct, but it doesn't mean you get to dismiss that theories that make you uncomfortable.
Your belief is that the only way this happened was because the virus was being studied in a lab? This couldn't have happened in a way a bunch of other coronaviruses get to humans via consumption, bites etc?
 
And to be clear, I have no interest in debating the origins.

I'm only saying, as Forbes reported, sometimes things change that were once dismissed or denigrated as conspiracy theorie
Let's take a step back.

We can both agree that something could leak from a lab in two ways:

1. Something created or manipulated in a lab leaks.

2. Something naturally occurring being studied in a lab leaks.

Those are two different things. One of your sources says "lab manipulated" is a conspiracy theory. But to back that up, you've provided sources that seem to speak to #2, a lab leak.

I don't think those terms should be used interchangeably as you have.

The letter Forbes cites as calling out conspiracy theories also clearly says this "We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin." So they're saying #1 is conspiracy.

As far as I know, no one credible is saying COVID was made in a lab. That's in conspiracy theory territory. I'll take a source if you dispute that, though (the Forbes article you've sourced says this "...or was artificially created by researchers before it escaped—though the latter theory has been heavily contested by many experts.")

So, no, I'm not sure anything has changed on conspiracy theories related to COVID. All that's happened is conspiracy theorists have taken things out of context to play gotcha.
:goodposting: Spot On!

There is zero evidence this virus was created in a lab. People continue to try and figure out if it was even altered in a lab. There is a very little bit of evidence that leaves that a slight possibility, but it's not likely with what is known right now. The most likely scenarios are coming from infection out in the wild or infection while studying in the lab.
Whether it was created in a lab or altered in a lab doesn't matter. What matters is it likely escaped from the lab, which was in the realm of conspiracy theory for quite a long time whenever anyone suggested that.

It doesn't matter how many times you try to conflate the two issues (whether it was created in a lab, or just escaped because it was being studied/altered in a lab), people were still gaslit about the very idea it could have possibly been the responsibility of the folks working at that lab in Wuhan.
Me conflate? Good one!

As to "escape" from a lab and the shock/awe of that possibility. It's tough to empathize with that position knowing how prevalent the virus was found to be in a variety of animals out in the wild there. Read an article just a couple weeks ago about research on three other animals showing the virus has been in circulation among them for a long while prior to the outbreak.

I know our CIA is behind the "lab leak" theory now. However, I'm trying to figure out why it matters at all knowing how many different sources appear to have been carrying it at the time. Does it matter if it came from a person infected while researching vs from an animal? If one believes that, why does it matter?

The other thing that people might want to stop and consider is why it's been so hard to get info as part of the general public and supposedly so tough for our spy agencies to get info. Feels very coordinated if one wants to go that path doesn't it? That's as conspiratorual as I'll ever get on this as I simply don't believe the governments want us to know so we're never going to for certain.

The two most likely options have always been infected person studying it or caught from animal. Anyone saying either of those were conspiracies should not be listened to IMO.
It matters a great deal, because had this research not been happening in the first place, then the pandemic wouldn't have happened. Moreover, people lied or at least obfuscated about what was happening for quite a long time. It's still happening.

If you can't see why that matters that's either odd or dishonest. Saying 'oh we'll never know' may be correct, but it doesn't mean you get to dismiss that theories that make you uncomfortable.
I agree. That's why it's important to also be precise about man-made vs non-man made lab leaks as well. We shouldn't conflate the two to score political points.

That has implications as well.
 
@Sparky Polastri can I ask your background in all of this? It's ok if you don't want to answer. You seem to have pretty fully formed opinions on most of it and I'm just curious where that comes from. Medical background? Covid aficionado? Trust me bro? No disrespect meant here either I just want to know where the ideas we're discussing come from.
I am finishing up my PhD at Vanderbilt University. I was incredibly lucky to have participated in a couple research studies on COVID at the very beginning of my grad school career since cardiovascular issues seemed to pop up with many. Had a paper published with my mom's lab (my PI and her are really good friends) which was really cool on the effects of COVID on the heart. I don't know everything about this stuff for sure, but I've been involved in a lot of different aspects as I blaze my path to completion. Hope to continue the heart research once done.
That's awesome and thank you for the response. I've appreciated your take on things, but as you know everyone on the internet seems to be an expert and mostly an expert in "trust me bro".

What do you make of the extremely high levels of VEGF and SCD40L found in long covid patients? Also in my case and many others my TAT tests were literally off the charts after 2 years. Quest lab ends the high end of their scale at >60 and I exceeded that. If you want exact ranges on the Cytokine panel i took I would happily provide that if you think it would be of any use to you, or helpful in this conversation. If not that's ok too.
Being completely transparent, I haven't followed the long covid stuff that much. That said, shooting from the hip, we know how destructive covid was to the "infrastructure" of our bodies. Everything from lungs, to blood vessels, to heart to everything really could be impacted depending on the person. I can easily see scenarios where the body had to really do some work to rebuild/repair significant damage from the virus. The more inflammation we have the higher some of those markers are going to be.
Yeah, that's the gist of it and fair enough. Do you think the elevated VEGF for a period of years increase any risk for cancer?
To cause cancer? No. Its a SIGN that something might be going on. VEGF is protein that is used to stimulate blood vessel growth. Cancers need blood to grow/spread, so when we see elevated levels its a sign that the body needs to grow blood vessels. That can be for a bunch of different reasons and it's important to understand WHY its elevated. This is NOT my area of expertise, so you'll likely get textbook answers....hahahaha
To piggy back off this, let's say you have a very early tumor anywhere in your body, would you expect the increased levels of VEGF to cause any concerns? No this isn't a veiled attempt to gotcha with turbo cancer, this is a real concern.
It would depend on the size of the tumor and it's demands for blood. If it can get by on current blood supply, you aren't going to get elevated levels because no need to grow new vessels. The current ones are working fine.
Ok, but what I'm asking is for arguments sake i have a tumor growing slowly in my colon, very small, probably could make it to the next colonoscopy before spreading. Now i have this vaccine reaction and my vegf spikes extremely high. Any concerns this will grow the cancer at an increased rate? If this was part of the original answer i missed it and apologize.
If the spike is high because it's growing vessels to service the tumor, then its possible. The biggest contributor to how quickly a cancer tumor grows though is the type of cell that has gone rogue. If you see a spike and it's because you are growing/repairing damaged vessels then no. Your doctors can tell what if there is new vessel growth to service the tumor mainly by size and rigidity.
Good info, but because this appears to be what happens to ALL the vasculature of the body from large arteries to the smallest capillaries i would assume this means tumors aswell. Something to think about when discussing the likenesses of tumor growth. If I'm way off base I'll accept my correction and update my thinking on what's possible and what isn't.
Not sure I am following you here. Are you saying that the doctors have told you that all your veins/arteries etc were damaged? When it comes to tumor growth and speed, the cell type is the largest factor as I understand it, but I'd like to understand what the doctors told you was happening a little bit better.
 
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.
I certainly think it's possible or even probable that some very very small % of people could have a severe adverse reaction to a vaccine. Any vaccine. Any drug for that matter.

The debate for public health officials and drug approvals people is whether the small % of people adversely affected (and what those effects are) are justifiably harmed for the greater good of preventing severe outcomes for the population if the vaccine is NOT approved.
Reasonable take. Seems we've established a certain amount of collateral damage is acceptable. Do you think there's any responsibility for the pharmaceutical companies to help those deemed collateral damage. Without getting political should governments do more to help? Universities? Because after 5 years there's still limited research into long covid and pvs, unless I'm unaware of some big study other than the small focused studies i listed above.
Good question. Do people that experience a severe outcome from other drugs approved by the FDA receive compensation as you suggest?
Yes they do. The difference here is that if you are harmed by the flu vaccine you're eligible for the vaccine compensation program, but the covid vaccine was issued under an EUA which precludes any liability due to its experimental use even after 4 years in the general public. Neat trick huh?
One would think that if one got a booster after it passed from EUA to full approval, then one would be eligible in the same way.
 
@Sparky Polastri can I ask your background in all of this? It's ok if you don't want to answer. You seem to have pretty fully formed opinions on most of it and I'm just curious where that comes from. Medical background? Covid aficionado? Trust me bro? No disrespect meant here either I just want to know where the ideas we're discussing come from.
I am finishing up my PhD at Vanderbilt University. I was incredibly lucky to have participated in a couple research studies on COVID at the very beginning of my grad school career since cardiovascular issues seemed to pop up with many. Had a paper published with my mom's lab (my PI and her are really good friends) which was really cool on the effects of COVID on the heart. I don't know everything about this stuff for sure, but I've been involved in a lot of different aspects as I blaze my path to completion. Hope to continue the heart research once done.
That's awesome and thank you for the response. I've appreciated your take on things, but as you know everyone on the internet seems to be an expert and mostly an expert in "trust me bro".

What do you make of the extremely high levels of VEGF and SCD40L found in long covid patients? Also in my case and many others my TAT tests were literally off the charts after 2 years. Quest lab ends the high end of their scale at >60 and I exceeded that. If you want exact ranges on the Cytokine panel i took I would happily provide that if you think it would be of any use to you, or helpful in this conversation. If not that's ok too.
Being completely transparent, I haven't followed the long covid stuff that much. That said, shooting from the hip, we know how destructive covid was to the "infrastructure" of our bodies. Everything from lungs, to blood vessels, to heart to everything really could be impacted depending on the person. I can easily see scenarios where the body had to really do some work to rebuild/repair significant damage from the virus. The more inflammation we have the higher some of those markers are going to be.
Yeah, that's the gist of it and fair enough. Do you think the elevated VEGF for a period of years increase any risk for cancer?
To cause cancer? No. Its a SIGN that something might be going on. VEGF is protein that is used to stimulate blood vessel growth. Cancers need blood to grow/spread, so when we see elevated levels its a sign that the body needs to grow blood vessels. That can be for a bunch of different reasons and it's important to understand WHY its elevated. This is NOT my area of expertise, so you'll likely get textbook answers....hahahaha
To piggy back off this, let's say you have a very early tumor anywhere in your body, would you expect the increased levels of VEGF to cause any concerns? No this isn't a veiled attempt to gotcha with turbo cancer, this is a real concern.
It would depend on the size of the tumor and it's demands for blood. If it can get by on current blood supply, you aren't going to get elevated levels because no need to grow new vessels. The current ones are working fine.
Ok, but what I'm asking is for arguments sake i have a tumor growing slowly in my colon, very small, probably could make it to the next colonoscopy before spreading. Now i have this vaccine reaction and my vegf spikes extremely high. Any concerns this will grow the cancer at an increased rate? If this was part of the original answer i missed it and apologize.
If the spike is high because it's growing vessels to service the tumor, then its possible. The biggest contributor to how quickly a cancer tumor grows though is the type of cell that has gone rogue. If you see a spike and it's because you are growing/repairing damaged vessels then no. Your doctors can tell what if there is new vessel growth to service the tumor mainly by size and rigidity.
Good info, but because this appears to be what happens to ALL the vasculature of the body from large arteries to the smallest capillaries i would assume this means tumors aswell. Something to think about when discussing the likenesses of tumor growth. If I'm way off base I'll accept my correction and update my thinking on what's possible and what isn't.
Not sure I am following you here. Are you saying that the doctors have told you that all your veins/arteries etc were damaged? When it comes to tumor growth and speed, the cell type is the largest factor as I understand it, but I'd like to understand what the doctors told you was happening a little bit better.
Essentially yes. The hypothesis was that my insanely high VEGF and SCD40L numbers were due to pretty significant damage to my Vascular system which caused the clotting cascade that put me into a hypoxic state and drove the majority of my symptoms.

Additionally, because of this Vascular damage there is a non zero chance that the potential for increased tumor growth IF there was a tumor is possible. To be clear noone suggested i have cancer or will get cancer, just that it was something they'd be concerned about if the inflammation and damage aren't controlled.

Triple therapy reduced these numbers rather quickly. It was suggested this was bogus earlier in the thread, but i was tested before and after therapy and the results spoke for themselves.

I'm not really confident they provide a causation possibility here as much as a correlation. As I said before, speed of growth of a tumor is more about the cell type than anything else. Is their argument "hey, your body fixed all these blood vessels that were attached to this tumor and your body heeled them so now the flow of blood is increased and causing the tumor to grow" I'm not sure I buy that. The cells tell the body what they need. At best all that's happened in that argument is that the old paths were restored after being damaged so at a high level, the virus would have damaged paths to the tumor and your body heeled those paths and back to the way it was, not worse than it was before.
 
"hey, your body fixed all these blood vessels that were attached to this tumor and your body heeled them so now the flow of blood is increased and causing the tumor to grow"
Yes that, and that it also stimulated new blood vessel growth in our hypothetical tumor.
So I can buy that there was a fix of existing. I can't buy that there would be more growth without the cells asking for it. Though I'm open to the data they use to suggest this.
 
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.
I certainly think it's possible or even probable that some very very small % of people could have a severe adverse reaction to a vaccine. Any vaccine. Any drug for that matter.

The debate for public health officials and drug approvals people is whether the small % of people adversely affected (and what those effects are) are justifiably harmed for the greater good of preventing severe outcomes for the population if the vaccine is NOT approved.
Reasonable take. Seems we've established a certain amount of collateral damage is acceptable. Do you think there's any responsibility for the pharmaceutical companies to help those deemed collateral damage. Without getting political should governments do more to help? Universities? Because after 5 years there's still limited research into long covid and pvs, unless I'm unaware of some big study other than the small focused studies i listed above.
Good question. Do people that experience a severe outcome from other drugs approved by the FDA receive compensation as you suggest?
Yes they do. The difference here is that if you are harmed by the flu vaccine you're eligible for the vaccine compensation program, but the covid vaccine was issued under an EUA which precludes any liability due to its experimental use even after 4 years in the general public. Neat trick huh?
One would think that if one got a booster after it passed from EUA to full approval, then one would be eligible in the same way.
IIRC the bivalent vaccines were under the EUA due to being a different formula from the original.
 
The difference here is that if you are harmed by the flu vaccine you're eligible for the vaccine compensation program, but the covid vaccine was issued under an EUA which precludes any liability due to its experimental use even after 4 years in the general public. Neat trick huh?
Are you sure this is correct at the present time?
The reason I ask is because I looked at the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which says it doesn't cover COVID vaccine claims but directs those COVID claims to another program: Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which outlines the claims process. It looks like the CICP was beefed up to handle the increase in COVID vaccine claims.
 
"hey, your body fixed all these blood vessels that were attached to this tumor and your body heeled them so now the flow of blood is increased and causing the tumor to grow"
Yes that, and that it also stimulated new blood vessel growth in our hypothetical tumor.
So I can buy that there was a fix of existing. I can't buy that there would be more growth without the cells asking for it. Though I'm open to the data they use to suggest this.
I believe I've provided that with the links above? Second link was quick and to the point, first was a little lengthy.
Sorry, must have missed it. Which link is it that ties the vaccine to the speed of tumor growth? That's what they are claiming right? As I said before, I haven't followed the long covid stuff all that closely.
 
I thought "turbo cancer" was not a recognized medical condition and is actually a debunked theory put forth in large part by folks who have an interest in discrediting the covid vaccine and mrna vaccines in general? Everything I can find is telling me that is the case but maybe I'm misreading.
 
Yeah, I'm confused as to the point honestly. Those two links are talking about ways to potentially fight the growth of blood vessels that supply blood to a tumor. That's been a theory for quite a while, but really tough to make headway on. I don't know what that link has to do with this convo about COVID or COVID vaccines. Someone needs to help me connect the dots on how they think the vaccines, or the virus itself contribute to unordinary vessel growth etc.
 
I thought "turbo cancer" was not a recognized medical condition and is actually a debunked theory put forth in large part by folks who have an interest in discrediting the covid vaccine and mrna vaccines in general? Everything I can find is telling me that is the case but maybe I'm misreading.
You're correct. What I'm trying to point out is where i believe the idea comes from. The doctors and researchers I've spoken with approach any increased cancer risk very carefully and nobody is saying this is a probable outcome, but there are concerns and I've linked where those concerns might come from. Being in the long covid community sometimes people will run with incomplete information and blow it into something more than it is like "turbo cancer". It gets on Twitter and we're off to the races. This is my opinion on the origins based on what I've seen and heard. I hope all this makes sense.
@LawFitz may have some answers for you, he started the thread and mentioned he had a couple of relatives pass away from "turbo cancer", maybe he can share some information he got from the doctors.
 
Yeah, I'm confused as to the point honestly. Those two links are talking about ways to potentially fight the growth of blood vessels that supply blood to a tumor. That's been a theory for quite a while, but really tough to make headway on. I don't know what that link has to do with this convo about COVID or COVID vaccines.
It's cool. This isn't really where i want to go with any of this. Your saying the link points out a way to fight tumors, but how does it do that? By targeting angiogenesis. My point is angiogenesis can grow tumors. "Tumor angiogenesis is regulated by the production of angiogenic stimulators including members of the fibroblast growth factor and vascular endothelial growth factor families." VEGF is highly elevated in long covid. I've spoken with plenty of people with PhD's and 20 years working experience that have explained this to me and maybe i misunderstood. The links seem to say it does, but maybe it doesn't. I don't believe in turbo cancer and neither does anyone I've had serious discussions with. I'm good with dropping it. It's creeping back into conspiracy territory and I'd prefer to stay out of that.
Seems you are making a connection that isn't there. All angiogenesis is is the growth of blood vessels from other blood vessels. It also is part of the heeling of wounds and tissue regeneration. It doesn't "grow tumors". It grows blood vessels that in turn provide the necessary ingredients to keep those cells alive. The tumor "growth" is merely more and more cells beginning to freak out and do something they weren't designed to do. That's what the tumor is....a mass of cells that have gone rogue. They can affect the cells around them and cause them to go rogue and when that happens, the tumor "grows".

I don't think you're close to "conspiracy theory" territory here personally. I think you've just confused some terms.

ETA: Think of it this way. You have a front end loader pushing a bunch of dirt around and making a pile. It runs out of gas because the gas source got cut off or damaged somehow. If you want to make the pile bigger, you have to get more gas in the front end loader right? Well, you have to fix the gas line coming to the pump that pumps the gas into the machine. Fixing that gas line isn't making the pile bigger is it? No, it's providing the fuel to the front end loader so it can make the pile bigger. In this scenario the pile is the tumor. The front end loader are the cells that are making other cells go rogue and the gas line is the blood. The fixing of the gas line is angiogenesis. Hopefully that helps some??
 
Last edited:
In terms of cancer, if they could figure out a way to get the body to ignore the request for more blood from cancer cells it would basically stop the growth of tumors. This is why they are looking at the process. To see if they can figure a way to starve the tumor.
 
It doesn't "grow tumors". It grows blood vessels that in turn provide the necessary ingredients to keep those cells alive.
Wouldn't increased energy equate to increased growth in this hypothetical mass of cells?
If the cells demand more blood, the body will grow more blood vessels. What the body does NOT do is just randomly grow blood vessels.
The link just above does a better job explaining then I do.
That link is telling you the exact same thing I am.
 
The difference here is that if you are harmed by the flu vaccine you're eligible for the vaccine compensation program, but the covid vaccine was issued under an EUA which precludes any liability due to its experimental use even after 4 years in the general public. Neat trick huh?
Are you sure this is correct at the present time?
The reason I ask is because I looked at the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which says it doesn't cover COVID vaccine claims but directs those COVID claims to another program: Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which outlines the claims process. It looks like the CICP was beefed up to handle the increase in COVID vaccine claims.
Yeah, so the VICP as you pointed out isn't for covid vaccines. At the time of my Injury the CICP program was available, but the burden of proof was next to impossible. Last i looked there were very very few that were actually accepted. We're here 4 years later still trying to decide if we even believe in PVS, so imagine in the early days attempting to prove the vaccine harmed you. Additionally that program was set up for extreme disability ie paralysis and death, so high blood pressure and POTS (minimizing symptoms here to a more understood medical outcome that can be tested with common diagnostics) weren't sufficient for any compensation.

If this has changed and the burden of proof is lowered along with severity of Injury that's great and I'll have to look at it again. There are people that ended up unable to work due to their symptoms, yet they still weren't sufficient for any kind of assistance.
I was taking issue with your statement that "the covid vaccine was issued under an EUA which precludes any liability due to its experimental use even after 4 years in the general public." It turns out that's not the case.

And I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the VICP won't pay out a lot of claims due to lack of proof that the vaccination caused the harm.
 
And people's body are flooded with the signal to build more blood vessels via VEGF.
No. The "signal" comes from the cells. VEGF is the evidence that the body got the message and is doing it.
Tomato tomato. The signal went through if there's evidence it did.
It's an important distinction to understand if you want to get to the bottom of it. Your initial statement in this quote string is incorrect. It should read "People's bodies are flooded with signals to build more blood vessels via the cells asking for it and elevated VEGF levels are evidence that the body is building/repairing them"

Your statement and the one I put here are VERY different.
 
And people's body are flooded with the signal to build more blood vessels via VEGF.
No. The "signal" comes from the cells. VEGF is the evidence that the body got the message and is doing it.
Tomato tomato. The signal went through if there's evidence it did.
It's an important distinction to understand if you want to get to the bottom of it. Your initial statement in this quote string is incorrect. It should read "People's bodies are flooded with signals to build more blood vessels via the cells asking for it and elevated VEGF levels are evidence that the body is building/repairing them"

Your statement and the one I put here are VERY different.
Cool, I feel like I'm being played and you're messing with me? The need for different language when we're saying the same thing in the replied post I'm not following. I've explained I'm not a medical professional and I'm retelling what I'd heard and how I understood it. The precision of my words may not be up to medical standards, but what I'm describing here and what you are have the exact same outcome, "evidence of building/repairing blood vessels". I appreciate the correction in my wording. And honestly it's a side point to anything pertaining to the main topic. You can take the win and I'll concede.
We aren't saying the same thing. As long as you understand my analogy and what I'm saying, that's all I care about. If they try to tell you that VEGF is anything but an indicator that something is happening, they are lying to you. If they say elevated VEGF is causing something, they are lying to you.
 
In terms of cancer, if they could figure out a way to get the body to ignore the request for more blood from cancer cells it would basically stop the growth of tumors. This is why they are looking at the process. To see if they can figure a way to starve the tumor.
This is what bevacizumab and other drugs that are relatively effective do.
 
I'd like to mention one last about the CICP program since it was brought up as an option for covid vaccine compensation. It was wildly inadequate as a replacement for the VICP.

Since the rollout of the vaccine until today the CICP has approved only 26 claims (I assure you the total number of people experiencing PVS is FAR higher than that) almost all myocarditis, a few pericarditis, 2 for syncope, 1 GBS, 1 TTS, 1 anaphylaxis. I'm guessing these are easier to prove since some likely occurred immediately after injection and if you have a baseline heart test prior in the cases of myocarditis and pericarditis proving a change in heart condition would be easier. They paid 2 large claims, which were likely the result of a death, while the rest of the payments were a few thousand dollars each. So you got heart scaring, long term chest pain, and likely reduced life span in the case of myocarditis but here's 3k, try not to spend it all on one medical bill....

If there's data showing I'm wrong here I would love that, but the information I'm seeing on their website seems to confirm my assessment.

Edited to add another link


It's really unfortunate to hear that. I've heard similar stories before about CICP not paying out very much to date. I'm sorry to hear about all the problems you're going through and all the hurdles you're being forced to jump.

What you describe above is one of the reasons I was willing to dig my heels in over the vaccine and highlights how big the "legally distinct" disclaimer is.
 
There's no reason why the conversation should be shut down by using terms the other side disagrees with.

We can disagree. As @KarmaPolice noted, it's exactly why the conversation gets bogged down. Some are cool with that. Others are not.
Exact reason I checked out early in this thread. There’s one guy that has to be correct and his opinion is all that matters. No point in even discussing it IMO.
 
In terms of cancer, if they could figure out a way to get the body to ignore the request for more blood from cancer cells it would basically stop the growth of tumors. This is why they are looking at the process. To see if they can figure a way to starve the tumor.
This is what bevacizumab and other drugs that are relatively effective do.
See...learn something here. I know very little about the cancer world outside of textbooks. My grandfather had four different ones over the course of his life and beat them all, including pancreatic cancer (that one took being part of a trial to get rid of though) but I have never studied them.
 
And people's body are flooded with the signal to build more blood vessels via VEGF.
No. The "signal" comes from the cells. VEGF is the evidence that the body got the message and is doing it.
Tomato tomato. The signal went through if there's evidence it did.
It's an important distinction to understand if you want to get to the bottom of it. Your initial statement in this quote string is incorrect. It should read "People's bodies are flooded with signals to build more blood vessels via the cells asking for it and elevated VEGF levels are evidence that the body is building/repairing them"

Your statement and the one I put here are VERY different.
Cool, I feel like I'm being played and you're messing with me? The need for different language when we're saying the same thing in the replied post I'm not following. I've explained I'm not a medical professional and I'm retelling what I'd heard and how I understood it. The precision of my words may not be up to medical standards, but what I'm describing here and what you are have the exact same outcome, "evidence of building/repairing blood vessels". I appreciate the correction in my wording. And honestly it's a side point to anything pertaining to the main topic. You can take the win and I'll concede.
We aren't saying the same thing. As long as you understand my analogy and what I'm saying, that's all I care about. If they try to tell you that VEGF is anything but an indicator that something is happening, they are lying to you. If they say elevated VEGF is causing something, they are lying to you.
They're probably saying it more precisely than I am, and if I've been lied to they were really great lies since the methods and research resulted in my recovery while so many others continue to suffer, but my point still remains the same.

I've seen how these types of interactions bog down conversations here. Feels disingenuous and arguing for arguings sake. Not interested, but thank's for taking the time to try and add to the conversation. It feels you like mean well, but I'm not interested in getting caught up in a back and forth over minutia and I'll move on as this is offering nothing to the main topic.
Of course. If they did say something different to you than what you are conveying here then the disconnect is easy to see. Hopefully that's happened, but hard for me to say since I don't know what they actually said to you. Glad you got some relief in treatment. Lots of people out there around the world studying long covid and its effects. While the latest mutations have become less deadly it still can be really damaging to the body. This is why a lot of people will continue to suggest the vaccine so that damage can be lessened.
 
Well, to shift back towards the actual stated topic the OP wanted to start a discussion about (mRNA vaccination research in general and not just in regards to Covid), it's pretty exciting to think it has the potential to greatly aid in the fight against various forms of cancer.


In conclusion, while challenges such as delivery efficiency, immune response regulation, tumor heterogeneity, and manufacturing remain, the clinical advances of mRNA vaccines represent a significant step forward in oncology, offering new hope for patients with a wide range of cancers. The potential for personalized medicine and improved therapeutic outcomes makes mRNA vaccines a highly promising area for research and clinical development. By addressing the current limitations through innovative research and collaborative efforts, mRNA technology is poised to drive important advancements in cancer treatment. As these therapies are refined and clinical trials expand, mRNA technology is set to drive important advancements in cancer treatment, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes and improving oncology practices.
 
Well, to shift back towards the actual stated topic the OP wanted to start a discussion about (mRNA vaccination research in general and not just in regards to Covid), it's pretty exciting to think it has the potential to greatly aid in the fight against various forms of cancer.


In conclusion, while challenges such as delivery efficiency, immune response regulation, tumor heterogeneity, and manufacturing remain, the clinical advances of mRNA vaccines represent a significant step forward in oncology, offering new hope for patients with a wide range of cancers. The potential for personalized medicine and improved therapeutic outcomes makes mRNA vaccines a highly promising area for research and clinical development. By addressing the current limitations through innovative research and collaborative efforts, mRNA technology is poised to drive important advancements in cancer treatment. As these therapies are refined and clinical trials expand, mRNA technology is set to drive important advancements in cancer treatment, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes and improving oncology practices.
Saw one the other day that was having trials I think on pancreatic cancer that was showing positive results. Didn’t understand the stuff enough to really decipher…but encouraging nonetheless.
 
And people's body are flooded with the signal to build more blood vessels via VEGF.
No. The "signal" comes from the cells. VEGF is the evidence that the body got the message and is doing it.
Tomato tomato. The signal went through if there's evidence it did.
It's an important distinction to understand if you want to get to the bottom of it. Your initial statement in this quote string is incorrect. It should read "People's bodies are flooded with signals to build more blood vessels via the cells asking for it and elevated VEGF levels are evidence that the body is building/repairing them"

Your statement and the one I put here are VERY different.
Cool, I feel like I'm being played and you're messing with me? The need for different language when we're saying the same thing in the replied post I'm not following. I've explained I'm not a medical professional and I'm retelling what I'd heard and how I understood it. The precision of my words may not be up to medical standards, but what I'm describing here and what you are have the exact same outcome, "evidence of building/repairing blood vessels". I appreciate the correction in my wording. And honestly it's a side point to anything pertaining to the main topic. You can take the win and I'll concede.
We aren't saying the same thing. As long as you understand my analogy and what I'm saying, that's all I care about. If they try to tell you that VEGF is anything but an indicator that something is happening, they are lying to you. If they say elevated VEGF is causing something, they are lying to you.
They're probably saying it more precisely than I am, and if I've been lied to they were really great lies since the methods and research resulted in my recovery while so many others continue to suffer, but my point still remains the same.

I've seen how these types of interactions bog down conversations here. Feels disingenuous and arguing for arguings sake. Not interested, but thank's for taking the time to try and add to the conversation. It feels you like mean well, but I'm not interested in getting caught up in a back and forth over minutia and I'll move on as this is offering nothing to the main topic.
Of course. If they did say something different to you than what you are conveying here then the disconnect is easy to see. Hopefully that's happened, but hard for me to say since I don't know what they actually said to you. Glad you got some relief in treatment. Lots of people out there around the world studying long covid and its effects. While the latest mutations have become less deadly it still can be really damaging to the body. This is why a lot of people will continue to suggest the vaccine so that damage can be lessened.
Never doubted that the vaccine helps people and saved lives. It went sideways for me and I simply wanted to add that perspective.

Starting to feel like that perspective might not be appreciated as my experience differs from the narrative most people would like to believe. I think i came with receipts for what I've said regarding my experience (let's exclude our side quest into tumor growth as it really doesn't pertain to the overall conversation and was an attempt to explain where some of the conspiratorial ideas might have come from) in disease, compensation/treatment, research. Maybe that's enough and this topic has run its course.
I think real world experiences from people experience are pretty valuable myself. Far more valuable than "this guy I know who said this other dude's sister's brother...." stuff we get way too often. I can't make you believe me, but my questions really are to understand you and what you were told. There's nothing else to them. You said you had the virus and got the vaccines too. Did the doctors ever tell you how they'd determine what part each played? I might have asked that before, but I don't remember. Sorry if it's a repeat.
 
And people's body are flooded with the signal to build more blood vessels via VEGF.
No. The "signal" comes from the cells. VEGF is the evidence that the body got the message and is doing it.
Tomato tomato. The signal went through if there's evidence it did.
It's an important distinction to understand if you want to get to the bottom of it. Your initial statement in this quote string is incorrect. It should read "People's bodies are flooded with signals to build more blood vessels via the cells asking for it and elevated VEGF levels are evidence that the body is building/repairing them"

Your statement and the one I put here are VERY different.
Cool, I feel like I'm being played and you're messing with me? The need for different language when we're saying the same thing in the replied post I'm not following. I've explained I'm not a medical professional and I'm retelling what I'd heard and how I understood it. The precision of my words may not be up to medical standards, but what I'm describing here and what you are have the exact same outcome, "evidence of building/repairing blood vessels". I appreciate the correction in my wording. And honestly it's a side point to anything pertaining to the main topic. You can take the win and I'll concede.
We aren't saying the same thing. As long as you understand my analogy and what I'm saying, that's all I care about. If they try to tell you that VEGF is anything but an indicator that something is happening, they are lying to you. If they say elevated VEGF is causing something, they are lying to you.
They're probably saying it more precisely than I am, and if I've been lied to they were really great lies since the methods and research resulted in my recovery while so many others continue to suffer, but my point still remains the same.

I've seen how these types of interactions bog down conversations here. Feels disingenuous and arguing for arguings sake. Not interested, but thank's for taking the time to try and add to the conversation. It feels you like mean well, but I'm not interested in getting caught up in a back and forth over minutia and I'll move on as this is offering nothing to the main topic.
Of course. If they did say something different to you than what you are conveying here then the disconnect is easy to see. Hopefully that's happened, but hard for me to say since I don't know what they actually said to you. Glad you got some relief in treatment. Lots of people out there around the world studying long covid and its effects. While the latest mutations have become less deadly it still can be really damaging to the body. This is why a lot of people will continue to suggest the vaccine so that damage can be lessened.
Never doubted that the vaccine helps people and saved lives. It went sideways for me and I simply wanted to add that perspective.

Starting to feel like that perspective might not be appreciated as my experience differs from the narrative most people would like to believe. I think i came with receipts for what I've said regarding my experience (let's exclude our side quest into tumor growth as it really doesn't pertain to the overall conversation and was an attempt to explain where some of the conspiratorial ideas might have come from) in disease, compensation/treatment, research. Maybe that's enough and this topic has run its course.
I think real world experiences from people experience are pretty valuable myself. Far more valuable than "this guy I know who said this other dude's sister's brother...." stuff we get way too often. I can't make you believe me, but my questions really are to understand you and what you were told. There's nothing else to them. You said you had the virus and got the vaccines too. Did the doctors ever tell you how they'd determine what part each played? I might have asked that before, but I don't remember. Sorry if it's a repeat.
Ok, I'll bite and we'll see where it goes. Kind of feels like it's just you and me having the conversation at this point, but as long as we can keep things moving along and not get bogged down in minutia that's fine with me.

We did cover this, but I'll answer your question again and go into a bit more detail. First covid infection was in 2020 during the initial wave. I was very sick, all respiratory symptoms, cough, sore throat, ect. Lasted about 2 weeks and i had reduced cardio for a month or 2 after recovery, but other than that all good. Got the first 2 moderna vaccines as soon as they were available and was actually pretty excited to get them and get on with life. First 2 shot were no issue, second had some side effects same as most people and i was fine in a day or two.

I forget what variant we were on in December of 21, but we were hosting the family Christmas and I insisted everyone get boosted or i was going to cancel. Got my booster and you can read my first post to understand how that went.

6 months later i got covid again, ironically from a long covid clinic. Made everything much worse as I mentioned before, probably a lot worse than the booster.

As in the OPs original post researchers were relatively quick to find that PVS and Long Covid aside from cause presented similarly, so much so there wasn't much of a need to differentiate between the two. Treatments that were effective for one would be expected to be effective for the other. Typically infections and vaccines in this sense were labeled as an "exposure". So for me i had a total of 5 exposures, first 3 didn't result in any problems, but the 4th and 5th did. It's the repeated exposures that seemed to cause my issues and that's been kind of expected if you look into the long covid research.

Does this answer your question?
It does. Thanks. And its refreshing to see someone talk about this in terms of "exposures". That's how we should look at it. That's how the body looks at it. It doesn't care if the protein is presented by a vaccine or by the virus itself. All that said, I would caution you from falling into a trap of letting people convince you that your experiences are "because of the vaccines". Your experiences are because of your exposures, of which vaccines were a part. That might not seem like a big difference, but to me and science it is. It's also a warning sign of the source trying to frame it that way. Tread lightly and "trust but verify" what you're being told by sources who take that approach.

I'd also encourage you to look up and learn about the complement process (with an E). It will shed some light on why things may get worse instead of better with repeated exposure to the same proteins.
 
@The Longtime Lurker ,

The problem is there is no profit incentive to do the research needed to differentiate causation between Long Covid and PVS. And contrarily, sadly, there is not just extreme profit motive in the other direction, but also a host of political and psychological factors at play that are impeding the conversation, not just here in these forums, but across society.

Here is an article from the NIH website from 2022-23, which posits breakdowns in immune system function as the cause for PVS and increased cancer risk. This would also explain why your body seemed to exhibit less resistance to Covid, once the booster made things go haywire.


Articles like this were/are brushed off too readily. I'm hopeful one day a govt entity will step in and do the necessary research to explore this issue properly. It certainly won't come from the private medicine/research market.

I remember people predicting early on that PVS would be widely attributed to Long Covid. Not suggesting Long Covid doesn't exist. As you have said, they seem to be very similar, but that also makes them widely conflated, to the disservice of all who have been harmed by the Covid vaxxes. :(
 
This whole thread reaks of anti-vax BS.

These are the types of responses that shutter conversation.

If you don't like the thread, very simple solution... Click away from it and move on with your day and allow those of us interested in this topic to explore without your very-specifically uninvited contempt. Please.
 
This whole thread reaks of anti-vax BS.

These are the types of responses that shutter conversation
.

If you don't like the thread, very simple solution... Click away from it and move on with your day and allow those of us interested in this topic to explore without your very-specifically uninvited contempt. Please.

That is the goal.

People who are not able to understand the science, ie TURBO-CANCER, need to be very publicly shot down so that the ideas do not spread.
 
The real interesting stuff i haven't even touched on. That's the disease progression and recovery.

I'm curious to hear more. I know of several people who have either PVS or Long Covid, and your experience could be helpful to share with them.

Thanks for sharing so much already, and even more so for being tolerant and even-keeled when some here have not.
 
This whole thread reaks of anti-vax BS.

These are the types of responses that shutter conversation.

If you don't like the thread, very simple solution... Click away from it and move on with your day and allow those of us interested in this topic to explore without your very-specifically uninvited contempt. Please.

That is the goal.

People who are not able to understand the science, ie TURBO-CANCER, need to be very publicly shot down so that the ideas do not spread.
I don't think just because some people use the term "turbo cancer" you throw out an entire group of people suffering.

Just curious, but do you accept the possibility that the vaccine can cause issues in some people even if it's a small percentage. Or to go a step further do you believe long covid in and of itself is conspiracy?


When someone randomly joins that site immediately to support a very polarizing topic and also has all of the exact low probability factors come together in a perfect way that sends my alarm indicator in high gear.

Maybe it is cynicism from years on the internet.

I am not going to debate people that take someone who says turbo-cancer seriously and while also being a new to this internet site. I apologize.

You can feel free to express your opinion and i will express mine.
 
It's seems like a fine line to me.

Rejecting or ignoring good science is bad. And a lot of the anti-vax rhetoric does this.

But at the same time good science is all about questioning things. So putting a lid on all discussion doesn't sound right to me either.

Good scientists have the most at stake. Because if fake articles get too high than the general public loses trust in all science.

This is why science spends effort policing itself. It is just these type of policing efforts are hardly ever picked up by mainstream news.

Errors in articles are not found by some random dude on the internet who has no formal training in the subject. Period.


Over the past decade, furtive commercial entities around the world have industrialized the production, sale, and dissemination of bogus scholarly research. These paper mills are profiting by undermining the literature that everyone from doctors to engineers rely on to make decisions about human lives.


It is exceedingly difficult to get a handle on exactly how big the problem is. About 55,000 scholarly papers have been retracted to date, for a variety of reasons, but scientists and companies who screen the scientific literature for telltale signs of fraud estimate that there are many more fake papers circulating—possibly as many as several hundred thousand. This fake research can confound legitimate researchers who must wade through dense equations, evidence, images, and methodologies, only to find that they were made up.
 
These discussions can drive a person batty, as so many people think in black and white rather than the shades of grey that exist in this world.

All of the following can be true:
* The vaccine was an amazing breakthrough that saved millions
* The vaccine can cause an adverse reaction for a small percentage of the population (this is a fact for some otc medications)
* There is no proven linkage that the vaccine causes _______ (fill in the blank with turbo cancer or anything else)
* The science may change related to adverse reactions as it becomes proven by known scientific methods

Why people go to their corners and ignore the possibilities outside their current frame of thinking, I’ll never understand.
 
These discussions can drive a person batty, as so many people think in black and white rather than the shades of grey that exist in this world.

All of the following can be true:
* The vaccine was an amazing breakthrough that saved millions
* The vaccine can cause an adverse reaction for a small percentage of the population (this is a fact for some otc medications)
* There is no proven linkage that the vaccine causes _______ (fill in the blank with turbo cancer or anything else)
* The science may change related to adverse reactions as it becomes proven by known scientific methods

Why people go to their corners and ignore the possibilities outside their current frame of thinking, I’ll never understand.
Because they have nothing better to do than trash people with different views than they have.
 
If only there was something that took 30 seconds that could have prevented this....

This right here is why I struggle to have “discussions” with people that take anti science stands. Flat earthers, the anti vax crowd(all vaccines, not just Covid), conspiracy theorists and those that aggressively proselytize fringe concepts.

My ding dong nephew is a flat earther. He’s an intelligent dude. But then that. There’s zero point having a discussion about it with him. Why waste time?

I know the conspiracy/ measles thread is down the hall
 
This whole thread reaks of anti-vax BS.

These are the types of responses that shutter conversation.

If you don't like the thread, very simple solution... Click away from it and move on with your day and allow those of us interested in this topic to explore without your very-specifically uninvited contempt. Please.

I would say respectfully (because I think you've generated some valuable conversation here over the years) that you did your thread and this discussion a disservice by choosing to link an article from an outwardly agenda-driving author in your OP. The article opens with a hyperbolic title and a comic frame mocking a vaccine-crazy doctor. That's always going to start the discussion on the wrong foot and essentially "shutter conversation." I was put off on the topic from the start because of the source you chose as your reference point. Its unfortunate because the article (to its credit) provides a link to the study itself which for me would have been a better reference in your OP. Its a science-based study but not all that difficult for a layperson to digest the main points. Its a "pre-print" of a study that hasn't yet been peer-reviewed in which the researchers identified and studied 42 people who fit the profile they've defined as "PVS" and they summarize the data. Its interesting but ultimately has no real scientific value other than suggesting additional research is worthwhile - which I think is non-controversial.

One interesting thing for me about the study is that the researchers felt compelled to start their Summary section by noting - in the very first sentence - that C-19 vaccines "have prevented millions of COVID-19 deaths." The Introduction to the paper starts with a similar "disclaimer" sentence. But the paper has nothing to do with how effective the vaccine was, so these "disclaimer" sentences seem completely superfluous. To me, it reads as though these Yale researchers felt they had to acknowledge this up front in order to be taken seriously. Its kind of like that discourse mechanism where someone says, "Hey I don't believe in X, but ..."
 
I'm assuming you've not been directly involved personally

I refused to take the shots, knowing they were still in an experimental phase, and about the prior failures of mRNA tech before Covid. My nuclear family the same. Most of my wider family and friends did take the shots and I have noticed dramatic health declines in many of them, ranging from seemingly depleted immune systems reflected by repeated severe bouts with Covid and flu, to chronic LC/PVS symptoms, and even including as I posted to start the thread, stroke and cancers. I also coached three youth athletes who suffered varying degrees of carditis immediately after the shots, and another whose uncle died very unexpectedly within days of getting vaxxed during the early rollout.

Are the shots correlated with all of the above? Yup. Are they causal? I don't know one way or the other, but I do know that profits, politics and psychology have collectively created a severe downstream current in the journey upward towards truth. Examples abound in this thread and beyond. Take the note about retracted articles - the clear assumption is that the retractions are only for fringe sources, and not also for nefarious profit/politically-motivated institutional actors, of which there are so very many in this saga.
 
I would say respectfully (because I think you've generated some valuable conversation here over the years) that you did your thread and this discussion a disservice by choosing to link an article from an outwardly agenda-driving author in your OP.

Thanks for the respectful approach. I'd love to cite more mainstream sources, but they won't touch this topic b/c so many have made it utterly taboo. If someone even dares suggest that the Covid vaxxes may have been problematic and should be questioned, they immediately get attacked and defamed, equated to flat-earthers, etc. The mainstream simply has way more to lose than gain by expressing such views, even if they have them, so any questioning ends up almost exclusively in off-stream sources, unfortunately.

I do appreciate that you made the effort to look past the messenger and consider the message. Hopefully others will too.
 
@The Longtime Lurker ,

The problem is there is no profit incentive to do the research needed to differentiate causation between Long Covid and PVS. And contrarily, sadly, there is not just extreme profit motive in the other direction, but also a host of political and psychological factors at play that are impeding the conversation, not just here in these forums, but across society.

Here is an article from the NIH website from 2022-23, which posits breakdowns in immune system function as the cause for PVS and increased cancer risk. This would also explain why your body seemed to exhibit less resistance to Covid, once the booster made things go haywire.


Articles like this were/are brushed off too readily. I'm hopeful one day a govt entity will step in and do the necessary research to explore this issue properly. It certainly won't come from the private medicine/research market.

I remember people predicting early on that PVS would be widely attributed to Long Covid. Not suggesting Long Covid doesn't exist. As you have said, they seem to be very similar, but that also makes them widely conflated, to the disservice of all who have been harmed by the Covid vaxxes. :(
@The Longtime Lurker. Stuff like the above is what I'm talking about when they ignore the entirety of your situation and focus only on the vaccine. Be careful when you see this approach.
 
These discussions can drive a person batty, as so many people think in black and white rather than the shades of grey that exist in this world.

All of the following can be true:
* The vaccine was an amazing breakthrough that saved millions
* The vaccine can cause an adverse reaction for a small percentage of the population (this is a fact for some otc medications)
* There is no proven linkage that the vaccine causes _______ (fill in the blank with turbo cancer or anything else)
* The science may change related to adverse reactions as it becomes proven by known scientific methods

Why people go to their corners and ignore the possibilities outside their current frame of thinking, I’ll never understand.
I consider myself as someone who lives in the grey and has a general problem with black and white thinking. But I also acknowledge that not all shades of grey are equivalent and some pairs are much closer to black and white than they are to each other. I've probably been put into one of the "sides" of this thread by other posters, and if you fill in that blank with something like turbo cancer as suggested, I agree with every point - and have said similar in response to Lurker's questions. Lurker has probably been put into the other side by some, but he agreed 100%.

I would add that I think that not only is there no proven linkage regarding turbo cancer, but our current knowledge of how cancer itself works makes any eventual proven linkage extremely unlikely to the point it is only a fringe idea with little worth. And though the science could eventually prove more significant adverse reactions, the vaccines are currently an overwhelming net positive and current regulations and attitudes should reflect that. But yes, I still agree with all four points.

I might have missed it obviously, but in the all the past posts by LawFitz in this thread and the many others in the past on similar topics, I have never seen that kind of nuance expressed. So I guess I'll ask directly now, do you agree with all of those four points, @LawFitz?
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top