/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15258122
Arsenic doesn't change your DNA therefore there are no long-term consequences to eating it every day. Eat arsenic. The government says so. :^)

>>15258127
>Arsenic doesn't change your DNA therefore there are no long-term consequences to eating it every day.
RTFA

>>15258122
>RTFA
>>15258178
memeRNA.
MemeRNA does not even work.
Does nothing.
Cannot enter the cells.
it's all memes

it's literally all the excipient trash of the vaccines that do all the damage.
>cationic liposomes
>PEG
>crystaline cholesterol

>sodium hydroxide
>hydrochloric acid
>potassium phosphate

memeRNA haaalp not my sweet generinoooos.
Fucking retards...

>>15258178
I don't read pseudoscientific tabloids. Just noting how meaningless of a criterion "mRNA technology does not alter your DNA" is.

>>15258198
>I don't read pseudoscientific tabloids. Just noting how meaningless of a criterion "mRNA technology does not alter your DNA" is.
Just noting how meaningless and uninformed that sentiment is.

>>15258204
What sentiment? Are you mentally ill? Facts are not sentiments. "It doesn't alter your DNA" doesn't mean it's not poison.

>>15258206
>"It doesn't alter your DNA" doesn't mean it's not poison.
Article mentions more than that. I'm just enjoying your making an ass out of yourself.

>>15258222
Well, it says:
>the mRNA disintegrates quickly

Quickly has gone from hours, to days, to months...where it ends, who knows?

>>15258222
>Article mentions more than that.
I don't care what your corporate bug narrative says. Anyone who even opens, let alone reads this article, is a fucking moron.

>>15258271
>Quickly has gone from hours, to days, to months...where it ends, who knows?
Uhhh for mRNA it would be hours. I think you are equivocating the mRNA with the spike protein, and then the spike protein with the antigens.
>>15258304
>I don't care what your corporate bug narrative says.
No shit sherlock everyone knows you lot are only here to preach. I don't care that you don't care. Works for me.

>>15258355
Your narrative has no traction here. No one here even considers you and other Pfizer drones human anymore. I'm pretty sure 90% of the posters on this board would be okay with putting your kind in concentration camps by now.

>>15258127
it's telling that your only argument is a contrived strawman

>>15258373
See >>15258371. It's telling that you are still shilling for Pfizer. 100% confirmation that you are a nonhuman element and the issue of how to deal with you has no moral compotent.

>>15258371
>Your narrative has no traction here. No one here even considers you and other Pfizer drones human anymore. I'm pretty sure 90% of the posters on this board would be okay with putting your kind in concentration camps by now.
Man you poltards do worse for your causes than facts ever could.

>>15258405
>muh imaginary /pol/ boogeyman
Exposed again. You and your kind are undersirable here. Go back.

>>15258377
>still no argument
concession accepted. go ahead and leave the thread and cry somewhere else

>>15258355
>Uhhh for mRNA it would be hours. I think you are equivocating the mRNA with the spike protein, and then the spike protein with the antigens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWVxVd6IGgg

>>15258458
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWVxVd6IGgg [Embed]
> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apm.13294
>Patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection
Why the hell are you people so stupid?

>>15258464
what if I had HCV?

>>15258449
Arguing is between humans. Dealing with your likes will not involve talking.

>>15258491
>what if I had HCV?
Then in addition you'd actually have to find cause for concern. Especially over and above that of getting infected without vaccination.

>>15258122
>https://www.henryford.com/blog/2022/02/5-reasons-we-know-the-covid-vaccines-dont-have-longterm-effects
what utter retardation is this? is this website satire?
>1. History has showed us that with vaccines, adverse effects occur within eight weeks of vaccination—not years later.
so because it didn't happen before it won't happen at any time? the science is settled, yes?
>2. Neither mRNA technology—nor viral vector technology—is new.
so, old thing == safe thing ?????? did i read that right?
>3. mRNA technology does not alter your DNA
well yeah i fucking hope so
why even bring that up, such a tired old strawman
>4. As opposed to other types of treatments and medications that are taken regularly, vaccines can’t cause a surprise reaction years down the road
that's just a repeat of point 1. with different wording
>“With vaccines, you’ll get one or two shots (maybe even three if you get a booster),” says Dr. Cunningham.
haha
>5. The mRNA vaccines might feel futuristic, but their ingredients actually are not.
what
what the fuck am i reading? the vaccines are safe because they are not futuristic? people didn't take it because it seemed too 'futuristic' to them?
>While mRNA isn’t found in food, it is natural: our bodies already make mRNA.
oh my fucking lord, who wrote this? a god damn sixth grader?
>Posted on February 1, 2022 by Henry Ford Health Staff
figures, i wouldn't want my name under such a heap of shit either.

the article should be named: "5 made up reasons why we think you didn't take the vaccine"

>>15258618
>>1. History has showed us that with vaccines, adverse effects occur within eight weeks of vaccination—not years later.
unless your novel never-previously-deployed "vaccine" technology causes subclinical heart damage that manifests as a heart attack years down the line that you otherwise wouldn't have had

>>15258498
>i STILL have no argument
kekerino

>>15258122
>>15258618
>>2. Neither mRNA technology—nor viral vector technology—is new.
They mean th research? Which other vaccines approved for humans use mRNA technology?
As for viral vector, it's not very common. Only notable one from memory was for ebola.
>5. The mRNA vaccines might feel futuristic, but their ingredients actually are not.
Jesus fucking christ ...

>>15258735
>They mean th research? Which other vaccines approved for humans use mRNA technology?
I think "approved" is a mistake in the question as pursuit of finalized approval depends on a lot of factors. Chief among them efficacy. See here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRNA_vaccine
You can check the cited literature and go down that rabbit hole if you like, but there've been many trials, tests, and so on, in humans and animals with mRNA technology. Generally speaking whether trials continue or not depends on effectiveness, and as they've been used to try and develop vaccinations for currently incurable infections, cancers, etc, success rate remains low. Generally higher than anything else but generally low.

Importantly, as your question I think intends to pertain mostly to safety, they generally pass phase 1 criteria. mRNA has been trialed a number of times, even wiki mentions the one from 2008

>>15258752
The trials usually end up being cut short due to horrendous side effects...

There's literally nothing incorrect about your pic. Go back to >>>/pol/.

>>15258826
>There's literally nothing incorrect about your pic
why did the CDC remove that statement then?
https://timtruth.substack.com/p/cdc-removes-their-claim-that-mrna

>>15258752
Yeah because it's insane to approve something with no obvious benefits but could still very well have long term side effects. Specifically in this case it's repeated uptake of boosters year after year, which was never tested. Of course the risk of heart problems is one in 33 sixtillions (or septillion, I forget), but the risk keeps increasing rapidly with every subsequent dose.
I'm not beta testing that crap for the sniffles.

>>15258835
Why don't you put your basement-dwelling fat ass to productive use and ask them instead of posting schizo rants?

>>15258840
>Of course the risk of heart problems is one in 33 sixtillions (or septillion, I forget)
It's 1 in 5,000.

anti-vax bros...

>>15258869
>vaccine injury linked to lower brain oxygen levels, cognitive problems and psychiatric symptoms.
Yeah we know. See:
>>15254553
>>15239824
>>15229337

>>15258835
It's not even the same point you absolute mouth-breathing retard.

>>15258904
but unvaccinated have higher rates of long covid though
post the study showing long-vaccine injury to the brain

>>15258927
>but unvaccinated have higher rates of long covid though
"Unvaccinated" means you aren't up to 7 boosters. Meaningless category with today's tortured stats.

>>15258802
>The trials usually end up being cut short due to horrendous side effects...
Well, you all continue to prove you won't even do the bare minimum. The 2008 example passed phase 1 too. I directly referenced it, gave you a wikipedia link to check some examples, and yet you can't even check that when spoon fed to you. You're full of shit.

>>15258840
>but could still very well have long term side effects.
Such as... ?

>Of course the risk of heart problems is one in 33 sixtillions (or septillion, I forget), but the risk keeps increasing rapidly with every subsequent dose.
Uhhh based on what now? I even went to double check, myocarditis incidence rates on VSD declined from dose 2 in the ages most effected from 97 to 64 per million. Not that it really matters as the severity of the myocarditis is generally not clinically significant.

>>15259132
>Not that it really matters as the severity of the myocarditis is generally not clinically significant.
lol it's just "clinically insignificant" permanent heart scarring. no big deal desu.

>>15259132
>Not that it really matters as the severity of the myocarditis is generally not clinically significant.
i vividly remember when the elevated risk of myocarditis in young men was first being discussed (in 2021, mind you), you vaxtard npcs dutifully parroted that it was exactly the same as the background rate and therefore was zero increase. i see you're now begrudgingly in the "okay, so maybe it's a side effect but it's totally nbd" phase, so i assume it's only a matter of time before you enter the "akshually, myocarditis is GOOD for you!" stage

>>15259200
nah we're already at "it's not my fault" (it's covid not the shots). the final verse in the prayer is "you deserved it".

>>15258915
It's exactly the same topic, mRNA not degrading quickly like they said it does

>>15259184
>lol it's just "clinically insignificant" permanent heart scarring.
You do realize myocarditis is a specrum, right? And only at the extreme ends where necrosis occurs you get scarring? No? Sigh.

>>15259200
>i vividly remember when the elevated risk of myocarditis in young men was first being discussed (in 2021, mind you), you vaxtard npcs dutifully parroted that it was exactly the same as the background rate and therefore was zero increase.
You didn't ask me about the background rate. I simply pointed out the data does not agree with your assertion on its face. The background rate is estimated around 1-10/100,000 so the reported VSD rate is within range of the background rate. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X21005788

In other words, if one were to do a study on millions of people controlling for background rate and current rate in the non-vaccinated, age, and so on, you'd have either no signal or an extremely poor one. That is exactly what we see as seen in studies like this one https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2784015

>i see you're now begrudgingly in the "okay, so maybe it's a side effect but it's totally nbd" phase, so i assume it's only a matter of time before you enter the "akshually, myocarditis is GOOD for you!" stage
I see you're still addicted to being dishonest.

>>15258122
>science experts are fucking morons aren't they?
"Science" has been ruined by the government "experts".

Nobody believe anything anymore by the government or so-called "experts".

>>15259220
>https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2784015
that study compared vaccinated with vaccinated
>Incidence of events that occurred among vaccine recipients 1 to 21 days after either dose 1 or 2 of a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine was compared with that of vaccinated concurrent comparators who, on the same calendar day, had received their most recent dose 22 to 42 days earlier
don't understand how this has anything with your point that
>if one were to do a study on millions of people controlling for background rate and current rate in the non-vaccinated, age, and so on, you'd have either no signal or an extremely poor one.

>>15259373
*anything to do with

>>15259373
>that study compared vaccinated with vaccinated
At different times. So unless the vaccine causes schrodinger's myocarditis it stands to reason to account for other possible differences in lifestyle, risks, etc, this is the best way to do it. As cited other vaccination studies do the same thing.
>don't understand how this has anything with your point that
In that study by comparing like-for-like over time you're comparing background rate among the same demographic (those who would get vaccinated). The study I linked explains why comparisons with the unvaccinated is less preferable. Suppose I could've worded that better by saying "or unvaccinated".

Anyhow, as I said, you are left with claiming vaccines cause schrodinger's side effects if you're discounting this.

>>15259399
>In that study by comparing like-for-like over time you're comparing background rate among the same demographic (those who would get vaccinated)
ok this makes more sense
>schrodinger's myocarditis
so it is your opinion that myocarditis which happens +42 days after vaccination cannot be caused by the vaccine?

>>15259373
>>15259399
Had a thought. Maybe you don't get why the comparison between time periods is important? I can try to explain in a simpler way than the study. If you don't get it just ask. If the rates of reported side-effects vary across time with no consistency related to vaccination event, that precludes the vaccine as the cause of the reported side-effects. Since the reports to VAERS do not cluster nearer vaccination where the vast majority of side-effects would if they were related.

That is to say, within the same demographic "those who are getting vaccinated" there's no temporally proximate association with vaccination since the outcome rates are the same 1-21 and 22-42 days apart. That should not surprise you if you already know that VAERS just freely reports any-and-all "events after vaccination" no matter how irrelevant.

>>15259417
>so it is your opinion that myocarditis which happens +42 days after vaccination cannot be caused by the vaccine?
If a vaccine were to be the cause of a given set of side-effects the rate of side effects should cluster nearer the vaccination event on average.

What you are proposing, instead, is that side effects only become the fault of the vaccine after 42 days. That is why I said "schrodinger's side-effects", because they only seem to appear in your mind when nobody's looking. I hope you see why that's funny and why you shouldn't base your belief on the ABSENCE of evidence.

>>15259432
>spike protein replication/time
>overabundant replication
>time
>42 days worth of time
>death

>>15259444
Uhhh no. Generally the spike protein is eliminated very rapidly in normal people. Various studies using various methods for serum analysis generally indicate 1-2 weeks to return to baseline (baseline for whatever the noise level is in the testing method). This rate can vary for comorbidities and varies with age, but there's no mass demographic with a clearance rate after 42 days.

Can't say there's NO comorbidity where it'll hang around for after 42 days, probably immunocompromised or something seriously wrong. But that definitely is not anywhere close to the norm. Norm is 1-2 weeks and this was known back in aug 2021 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8434114/

>>15259425
>>15259432
>the rate of side effects should cluster nearer the vaccination event on average.
is that something you can assume when prior to this there was no mass application of corona-virus vaccines and the vaccine also uses a new mode of transportation? seems dangerous.
>VAERS
well that came out of nowhere and i don't think the study even used any data from it

being condescending won't help in this case as i refuse to give a fuck

>>15259469
wait, so when vaccinated, the spike clears out in weeks
but when you're infected it can last up to a year?
>https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.06.14.22276401v1
>Strikingly, we detect SARS-CoV-2 spike antigen in a majority of PASC patients up to 12 months post-diagnosis, suggesting the presence of an active persistent SARS-CoV-2 viral reservoir
how does that work?

>>15259478
>well that came out of nowhere and i don't think the study even used any data from it
Please go to the study link and ctrl+F VAERS. Yes, yes it does.
>is that something you can assume when prior to this there was no mass application of corona-virus vaccines and the vaccine also uses a new mode of transportation? seems dangerous.
Claims require evidence. You are, again, just using the absence of evidence and speculating because you think it's new. What does the transportation have to do with it? How does anything about it cause schrodinger's side-effects after 42 days when the proteins are cleared within 1-2 weeks?

>being condescending won't help in this case as i refuse to give a fuck
Given what I deal with on this board you should be very thankful I've been remotely pleasant with you so far. My honest opinion is people like you are seriously fucking stupid and deserve your excess mortality rates, because ideally that means there's less of you in future.

The sole reason I do this is to waste time out of boredom because the truth matters. If you find that condescending, too fucking bad. If your feelings are hurt because you have a bunch of really stupid ideas because you're really ignorant and stupid, too bad. If I didn't lick your asshole enough to salve your hurt ego upon realizing you're fucking stupid? Don't care. I don't even care if you live by actually listening to people far less retarded than you are. You grossly misinterpret why I do this.

>>15259496
Antigens are not the proteins...

>>15259500
>>15259478
And before you say "no it doesn't" it uses it as a comparison point.

>>15259500
>study link and ctrl+F VAERS
yes, because it talks about the study being a source of information which adds to databases like VAERS and then compares their findings with the data from it, it doesn't use the data for the study itself
did you even read your own fucking source?
>You are, again, just using the absence of evidence and speculating because you think it's new
>when the proteins are cleared within 1-2 weeks?
it doesn't get any truer the more you repeat it
>you should be very thankful
nah
>Antigens are not the proteins...
what?
>The S protein is the main antigen component in all structural proteins of SARS-CoV-2.

>>15259568
>yes, because it talks about the study being a source of information which adds to databases like VAERS and then compares their findings with the data from it, it doesn't use the data for the study itself
>did you even read your own fucking source?
Called it >>15259508
>it doesn't get any truer the more you repeat it
see citation >>15259496 feel free to fucking google it.
>>15259568
>>Antigens are not the proteins...
>what?
>>The S protein is the main antigen component in all structural proteins of SARS-CoV-2.
JESUS fucking christ why are you allowed to breed. Yes, the spike protein is contained within the antigen. Not the viral proteins, not the standalone spike protein, not the protein created by the mRNA vaccine. Each of these are different. The antigens are distinct from the proteins relevant to vaccination or viral infection.

So to explain it for your baby brain, there's an antigen spike protein, a viral spike protein, the mRNA spike proteins, and each of these are different things even though they are referred to as "spike proteins". So when I said "the spike protein is cleared" and cited that other study showing it gets cleared in 1-2 weeks, that means the proteins measured from the vaccine are cleared. Obviously the antigens still exist you fucking neanderthal.

And if you think antigens are magically the cause of the schrodinger side-effects you're fishing for, congratulations. That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

>>15259575
>>15259568
Misclicked. For "see citation" I refer to link in this post >>15259469

>>15259575
>seething big pharma glowie reaching hypertension point
^Soon to be another vaccine death statistic.

>>15259583
That one actually gave me a chuckle.

>>15258122
now we know you are a shill

>>15259575
>the spike protein is contained within the antigen. Not the viral proteins, not the standalone spike protein, not the protein created by the mRNA vaccine.
ok got it
>And if you think antigens are magically the cause of the schrodinger side-effects you're fishing for, congratulations. That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard
Doesn't this go against:
>The vaccine-encoded antigen (S protein) is stabilized in its prefusion form in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines [19,20]; it is therefore plausible that, if entering the circulation and distributing systemically throughout the human body (Figure 2 ), it can contribute to these AEs in susceptible individuals.
>you're fishing for
understandable that it seems this way but until now i haven't found any other incident which fits as closely to the changes i perceived over the last 1 and a half years

>>15259575
>JESUS fucking christ why are you allowed to breed.
Bourla obviously feels the same way you do.

>>15259708
>Doesn't this go against:
Ah, I get the issue. In general, Antigen is referring to something foreign. In that case, the spike protein generated by mRNA and covid. So the antigen (spike protein created by mRNA) is cleared in 1-2 weeks or so, the **antibody** is what sticks around for months.

That is why I said saying the antigen created by mRNA "magically causing the issue" would be so dumb. In the overwhelming majority of persons it does not stick around as your immune system clears it very rapidly (hence the 1-2 weeks).

>understandable that it seems this way but until now i haven't found any other incident which fits as closely to the changes i perceived over the last 1 and a half years
Not sure what you mean? If you mean the seeming disagreement of many estimates and figures, that has to do with methodological differences and subtle points about what they each mean. Or in some cases gross incompetence.

>>15258122
>https://www.henryford.com
Right out of "Brave New World" dystopian future, where everyone is vaxxed and drugged to the max.

Now go take your new increased ration of Soma so you keep believing the lies.

>>15258355
>it would be
Post a source or fuck right off. Stop pulling "facts" straight out of your ass.

>>15259822
>Post a source or fuck right off. Stop pulling "facts" straight out of your ass.
Not out my ass. I just know a lot more than you do.
The european medicines angecy report reads as follows,
>As expected, mRNA-1647 were distributed throughout the body (including brain, heart, lung, eye, testis), and were rapidly cleared from plasma during the first 24 hours, with the T1/2 estimated in a range from 2.7 to 3.8 hours. The highest mRNA-1647 concentrations were at the injection site. Following plasma clearance, proximal and distal lymph nodes and spleen are the major distant organs to which mRNA-1647 distributes. For these highly exposed tissues, Cmax was between 2 and 24 hours post-dose, and T1/2 was 14.9 hours for muscle of site of injection, 34.8 hours for proximal lymph nodes, 31.1 hours for distal lymph nodes, and 63.0 hours for spleen. Liver distribution of mRNA-1647 was also evident, consistent with the recognised LNP distribution pattern.

And before you get all mad mRNA-1647 is the same platform as mRNA-1273 (moderna covid vaccine) LNP SM-102 and an ADME was performed on mice as is typical. There are also clearance rate with respect to numerous RNA of numerous platforms and they're generally quite short.

This also comports with general research on lipid carriers and clearance rates which vary by lipid particle size https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211383522004932

As well as RNA clearance rates for RNA drugs https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9821128/

So if you think there's something nefarious or important there you'd actually need some reason to conclude RNA magically differs from all other RNA used, or the same lipid is magically not the same lipid. You can find all kinds of related information searching for ADME (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, and Excretion) research on both.

The summary fact is: There is no runaway bioaccumulation or something that would cause harm. So what the fuck are you so upset about?

>>15259988
>The summary fact is: There is no runaway bioaccumulation or something that would cause harm. So what the fuck are you so upset about?
The fact that autopsies of vaxies universally disprove these results would be one good one.

>>15259997
>The fact that autopsies of vaxies universally disprove these results would be one good one.
Oh, so you're just retarded. My bad. The case studies you refer to examine spike proteins and the like, not the presence of the lipid particles or mRNA itself. You told me to "post a source" when I was talking about mRNA, not the spike protein.

Spike proteins generally take 1-2 weeks and can take longer with immunocompromised people. As already cited above https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8434114/

>>15260005
>You told me
Is "you" in the room with you right now?

>>15258355
>Uhhh for mRNA it would be hours. I think you are equivocating the mRNA with the spike protein, and then the spike protein with the antigens.
No. I find it concerning you're preaching with old information and seem to be clueless about something that's been known for over a year.

https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0092867422000769
>The observed extended presence of vaccine mRNA and spike protein in vaccinee LN GCs for up to 2 months after vaccination was in contrast to rare foci of viral spike protein in COVID-19 patient LNs.
So the spike protein (and mRNA) are hanging around longer in the vaccinated than in the infected. I thought the vaccines were supposed to mimic infection, not create the illusion of an ongoing infection so the immune system develops a tolerance? SARS-CoV-2 is not pollen, you want immunity, not tolerance.

>and persistence of spike antigen accumulated in the GCs of mRNA vaccinees and detectable vaccine RNA in GCs for up to 2 months post-second dose.
The mRNA persists for up to 2 months. It may actually be longer, but it can be at least 2 months. But since you brought up the spike protein, that was only supposed to last for two weeks. That time frame is now up to 6 months based on other papers, but I don't feel like doing more research for you.

>>15258122
it's strange that journalists are the only ones saying it doesn't alter your dna
all the scientifiic papers i've read are pretty clear that it does

>>15260051
>So the spike protein (and mRNA) are hanging around longer in the vaccinated than in the infected.
Yeah so you don't know what any of that meant. Even I'm embarrassed for you.
From your own source,
>>Spike antigen detection levels were high in the mix of day 1 and day 0 samples, decreased in the mix of day 1 and day 21, and day 1 and day 22–23 samples, and below the cutoff for positive in the mix of day 1 and day 28 samples (Figure 7L).
The spike antigen is what's created by the mRNA vaccine. The study agrees with what I said entirely and repeats my earlier citation. That is, below the cutoff (detection noise threshold) on day 28. If you look at figure 7J, K, and L, in each case BNT162b2 vaccination spike concentration measured in plasma were below noise threshold by day 28. That means "negative". So exactly what I've said.
>>The observed extended presence of vaccine mRNA and spike protein in vaccinee LN GCs for up to 2 months after vaccination was in contrast to rare foci of viral spike protein in COVID-19 patient LNs.
This is talking about LNs (lymph nodes) and germinal centers (GC). In other words, they're not observing extended presence of spike protein, they're observing that vaccinated patients have better protection as shown by the LN GC's CREATED by exposure to the vaccine.
>>[...] we identified follicular hyperplasia with robust axillary LN GCs after mRNA (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273) vaccination, containing CD21+ follicular dendritic cell networks, BCL6+ B cells, and PD-1+ cells at significantly higher frequencies compared with those in peribronchial LNs of deceased COVID-19 patients. These findings demonstrate greater stimulation of GC B cells and Tfh cells in vaccination and normal functional organization of GC follicular dendritic cells.

tl;dr you posted evidence in favor of the vaccine and think it meant the opposite by understanding none of it.

>>15260112
>The study agrees with what I said entirely and repeats my earlier citation. That is, below the cutoff (detection noise threshold) on day 28.
Because the majority of papers are looking for unbound spike proteins. When looking at spike protein-antibody complexes, magically they reappear.

>as shown by the LN GC's CREATED by exposure to the vaccine.
How does that change the fact that they're carrying the mRNA? It seems like you're trying to argue semantics.

>>15260132
>When looking at spike protein-antibody complexes, magically they reappear.
Figure 7L and what I quoted IS the spiked samples of mixed plasma and it's still below detection threshold by day 28.
>How does that change the fact that they're carrying the mRNA? It seems like you're trying to argue semantics.
So you just don't know how the immune system works even at a child's level? Wow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lymph_node

Okay, so, lymph nodes take up what are called "antigen-presenting cells" which take up an antigen to teach the T cells what the damn thing looks like.

How, exactly, did you think it worked?

>>15260147
>Figure 7L and what I quoted IS the spiked samples of mixed plasma and it's still below detection threshold by day 28.
That's looking for unbound spike. The results differ when you look for bound and unbound, and in fact even in healthy people, an inability to appropriately bind the spike to antibodies can cause long covid.

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.061025
"Extensive antibody profiling and T-cell responses in the individuals who developed postvaccine myocarditis were essentially indistinguishable from those of vaccinated control subjects, despite a modest increase in cytokine production. A notable finding was that markedly elevated levels of full-length spike protein (33.9±22.4 pg/mL), unbound by antibodies, were detected in the plasma of individuals with postvaccine myocarditis, whereas no free spike was detected in asymptomatic vaccinated control subjects"

>How, exactly, did you think it worked?
Anon, I'm looking at the paper. When they're very clear that the GCs contain vaccine mRNA, then I'm going to say they contain vaccine mRNA. You can argue around that all you like and claim 'buh buh the mRNA degrades in hours, this is totally something different," but the paper explicitly states it's vaccine mRNA.

>"Our histological data from SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-vaccinated humans at considerably later time points (7–60 days post-second dose) show vaccine RNA almost entirely in GCs, distributed primarily between the nuclei of GC cells, similar to the pattern seen by immunostaining for follicular dendritic cell processes or B cell cytoplasm. Additional co-localization studies with higher resolution may be required to determine more exactly which specific cell types harbor mRNA vaccine and spike antigen in humans following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and infection and may provide further mechanistic insights into the basis for the differences in serological responses after vaccination compared with infection."

>>15260162
>That's looking for unbound spike.
And you now think the very paper you cited that supposedly refuted my claim about serum clearance is wrong because... convenience I suppose?
>Anon, I'm looking at the paper. When they're very clear that the GCs contain vaccine mRNA, then I'm going to say they contain vaccine mRNA. You can argue around that all you like and claim 'buh buh the mRNA degrades in hours, this is totally something different," but the paper explicitly states it's vaccine mRNA.
In the lymphatic system. Where you'd want it to be. Because that's how the immune system works. Have you suffered a lot of head trauma in your life or something?

>>15260179
It must be tiring to be this smug without actually knowing anything.

>>15260186
>It must be tiring to be this smug without actually knowing anything.
Says the person who apparently thinks normal functioning of the lymphatic system is evidence of something nefarious and worth remarking on in response to... posts about serum antigens where your own paper also agrees are cleared by 28 days.

Bud, you got issues.

>>15260202
You're schizo. I'm not even that guy, I just came in to read this thread again after many hours and found you mouthing off about nonsense.

>>15260208
Meh, so many retards around here it's hard to tell you apart. Go cry about it.

>>15260202
>thinks normal functioning of the lymphatic system is evidence of something nefarious
It's apparently not normal, did you see the comparison to the infected controls? Lemme guess, it's the first vaccine in history that creates superior immunity to natural infection, even though we now have papers arguing otherwise.

>>15260179
>And you now think the very paper you cited that supposedly refuted my claim about serum clearance is wrong because...
CTRL + F "serum" - nope, I never mentioned serum. Where'd you come up with that? What I cited showed persistence of mRNA, which is what we were arguing about, no? Serum is a different matter, but spike protein is not cleared at the rate you're arguing, the essays used to detect simply missed them because they were looking for unbound spike. It's persisting in the blood much longer, but bound to antibodies. That's not really a good thing.

>In the lymphatic system. Where you'd want it to be. Because that's how the immune system works.
It doesn't work that way with natural infection or viral vector vaccines, at least not so prolonged. But I'm sure that's another super positive finding for the mRNA vaccines.

>>15260302
>It's apparently not normal, did you see the comparison to the infected controls?
It is normal for the lymphatic system to retain antigens. Spike protein was retained in both. So yes, I did see. Somehow you did not.
>Lemme guess, it's the first vaccine in history that creates superior immunity to natural infection
Superior in what way? As in less people die? Yeah vaccines win.

>>15260325
>It is normal for the lymphatic system to retain antigens. Spike protein was retained in both. So yes, I did see. Somehow you did not.
Um...

"The observed extended presence of vaccine mRNA and spike protein in vaccinee LN GCs for up to 2 months after vaccination was in contrast to rare foci of viral spike protein in COVID-19 patient LNs."

That's a clear difference between infection and mRNA vaccination. In fact the other vaccines also differed from mRNA.

>Superior in what way? As in less people die? Yeah vaccines win.
Now you're arguing disingenuously. Infection carries a risk, sure (so does vaccination, but I don't want you to have a stroke over that statement so let's avoid it for now), but the recovered have less risk of infection and severe infection over the next year than do the double vaccinated. That's a little odd considering the superior retention of mRNA and spike protein in the GC's, no?

What do you think about the shift to IgG-4 in the vaccinated? Do you consider that a good thing even though it's primarily been related to diseased states previously?

>>15260308
>CTRL + F "serum" - nope, I never mentioned serum. Where'd you come up with that? What I cited showed persistence of mRNA, which is what we were arguing about, no?
I did. From the first time I mentioned it. If you decided to talk about something completely different that's on you. The post you responded to was about serum clearance.
>the essays
Assay. It's called an "Assay".
>It's persisting in the blood much longer, but bound to antibodies. That's not really a good thing.
Oh please enlighten me. So far you can't even grasp kindergarten "what immune system do" so this should be rich.

>>15260335
>That's a clear difference between infection and mRNA vaccination. In fact the other vaccines also differed from mRNA.
Yeah and the sentence before explains why that is and it isn't a good thing.
>>Loss or impairment of GCs in patients with severe COVID-19 suggests that SARS-CoV-2 viral infection subverts the humoral immune response, by directly damaging immune cells or as a secondary effect of inflammatory responses to infection (Feng et al., 2020; Kaneko et al., 2020).
>but the recovered have less risk of infection and severe infection over the next year than do the double vaccinated.
Speaking of being disingenuous. See image. You tell me which is preferable.

>>15258122
>5-reasons-we-know-the-covid-vaccines-dont-have-longterm-effects
Because so many are dying en masse that they don't live long enough to have long-term effects? keks

>>15260350
>I did. From the first time I mentioned it. If you decided to talk about something completely different that's on you. The post you responded to was about serum clearance.
Oh get the hell out of here, no one mentioned mRNA in terms of serum clearance. You've now spent half a dozen posts arguing that "akshually mRNA doesn't persist" in spite of the fact that the paper provided repeatedly discusses vaccine mRNA persisting in GC's for at least two months. You can try to twist it any way you like, you were wrong and you're being a really sore sport by not just admitting it.

>Oh please enlighten me. So far you can't even grasp kindergarten "what immune system do" so this should be rich.
I already posted a study, are you not clicking my links? It compared spike protein circulation and compared bound and unbound in those who developed myocarditis.

Here's more:
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/2/451
>"Very recently, Spike-mRNA has been detected in the blood of vaccinated individuals 15 and up to 28 days after COVID-19 vaccination [61,62]. Thus, it is likely that mRNA-LNPs remain in circulation for extended periods of time, retaining their ability to induce S protein expression in encountered cells."

Ruh roh, I thought they were taken in by the lymphatic system very quickly and didn't have a chance to circulate! Another swing and miss by scientists, the mRNA in fact circulates for up to a month.

>Yeah and the sentence before explains why that is and it isn't a good thing.
Speaking of being disingenuous, why did you pull a quote only about severe infection? But even in that case, it's funny they're arguing for "damaging immune cells" in spite of the fact that severity of infection is actually a very good barometer for avoiding future infection.

>Speaking of being disingenuous. See image. You tell me which is preferable.
I'll take unvaccinated and the numerous treatments available to keep viral load down, thanks.

>DNA reverse transcriptase isn't a thing

>>15259786
>the antigen (spike protein created by mRNA) is cleared in 1-2 weeks or so, the **antibody** is what sticks around for months.
if i read
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8786601/
right, i think this not actual (anymore)
>We suspected that high concentrations of spike-specific antibodies developed by vaccinees within the first 2–3 weeks after the prime vaccine dose could impede detection of spike antigen [...] Spike antigen detection levels were high in the mix of day 1 and day 0 samples, decreased in the mix of day 1 and day 21, and day 1 and day 22–23 samples, and below the cutoff for positive in the mix of day 1 and day 28 samples (Figure 7L). Together, our results are consistent with spike-specific antibodies blocking the detection of the antigen in antigen capture-based assays.

>>15259786
>>15261228
>Not sure what you mean?
You already got half of it, when the mrna-vaccines got to market they were pushed as the new best thing since sliced bread, they were going to end the pandemic and the technique was going to cure cancer and ever other illness under the sun. people who showed skepticism were vilified.
The efficacy being touted in the beginning just wasn't there, the protection it gave was massively overstated, to this day definition of interactions between the vaccine and the body change in severity and time.
all this + 'the seeming disagreement of many estimates and figures' i could comprehend as resulting from the lack of time and preparedness.
What i found more difficult to explain is the massive difference in study outcomes/statistics pertaining to covid vaccination/infection and my lived reality (i know this isn't scientific but bear with me).
in my circle of acquaintances (n around 90), before vaccination:
>4 people got infected, two of those had a light head cold, two didn't have any symptoms and only found out through regular testing (if i remember correctly all 4 tested negative less than 2 weeks from the first positive test)
>no one i knew was on any kind of medication against high blood pressure
after vaccination (vaccinated n around 70, unvaccinated n=5)
>everyone vaccinated has tested positive for covid at least once, most twice and from three i know they're on their third bout
>unvaccinated: one was one of the four infected before vaccination was available, sine then no infection, me and three others haven't got it until now, one i don't know because he doesn't test
>for those infected severity seems to go up not down, currently there are 9 people sick (fever, headache, melalgia, etc) and 3 of them are in the third week of being sick
>all around the frequency of people falling sick (not just covid) has fucking skyrocketed, at my work i don't know the last time more than 3/4 were at the office concurrently
cont.

>>15259786
>>15261234
>3 people are now on hypertension medication, two on blood thinners, two had hospital stays because of diffuse heart problems
>on multiple occasion i was the only unvaccinated in a closed room with multiple other people, multiple times these events went with a massive spread in infection, i tested religiously after every one, nothing

again, i know this is anecdotal but it is hard to completely disregard my own reality when it goes so massively against general wisdom

propaganda by huge spam, as usual

>>15261234
>The efficacy being touted in the beginning just wasn't there, the protection it gave was massively overstated, to this day definition of interactions between the vaccine and the body change in severity and time.
As shown in the image posted here, with the differences in death rates alone >>15260350 I'm not sure what you mean by "massively overstated". You're going to have to give me an example of what lead you to that feeling if I am to understand where you're coming from.
>>15261242
>again, i know this is anecdotal but it is hard to completely disregard my own reality when it goes so massively against general wisdom
I can't exactly help you with that. I can try to outline the problem. People either understand how their gut intuitions and snap judgments will almost always be wrong, or don't. This is not a value judgment on you as a person, it is a statement in general about the fact human "intuitions" such as they evolved are about as bad for determining complicated truths as it gets. It's part of that whole "thinking fast and slow" thing that book popularized.

Something that may interest you and with respect to how inept/insane antivaxxers in general are, such as in threads like these (that fucker who thinks lymph nodes training cells is somehow a problem), research has been done on people like that. Generally they've high faith in their "gut feelings" and will ignore/twist evidence or reality to justify those feelings. The only way that changes is if people adopt more calm and serious reflection on just how often those feelings end up being factually wrong. I've never seen that actually happen.

It's just using the wrong tool for the job. No amount of evidence tends to fix that unless someone can take the steps and make the conscious choice to reflect on and learn about how their intuitions and anecdotes can/will completely lie to them. At its most extreme you get clinical narcissism where that sort of becomes worship of ones own notion and intuition.

>>15262020
>As shown in the image posted here, with the differences in death rates alone
Well yes if you're citing complete fraud you can claim anything.

>>15262024
>Well yes if you're citing complete fraud you can claim anything.
Yeah totally makes perfect sense for every single hospital and all the staff and all the states and counties and everyone working there to all be in on the giant conspiracy.

If you ain't trolling, pal, you're just sad.

>>15258122

>>15262028
>Yeah totally makes perfect sense for every single hospital and all the staff and all the states and counties and everyone working there to all be in on the giant conspiracy.
They report the data the way the CDC tells them to, or the CDC throws it out. No conspiracy necessary it's just bureaucratic inertia.

>>15262118
>They report the data the way the CDC tells them to, or the CDC throws it out. No conspiracy necessary it's just bureaucratic inertia.
Oh sure. And somehow all the tens of thousands of locations submitting that information and all the people who've access to that information, including scientists, magically don't find any discrepancies or blow the whistle at all.

You haven't the first fucking clue how any of this works. You're just a schizo.

>>15262123
They do blow the whistle. How do you think you're finding out about it on 4chan /sci/ lmao. The most recent whistleblowers have been from actuarial organizations who aggregate the actual insurance claim data for people and their health problems (what treatments are billed, vs. what's coded on intake forms and death certificates).

If you're not seeing any of this then you're either arguing in bad faith, very ignorant, or just not interested in the topic (see #1).

>>15262132
Oh please do enlighten me. This should be fucking funny.

>>15262135
Until you make the choice to discuss this in good faith we have nothing more to talk about. You can do the research on your own and come to the right conclusions, or you can continue as you are. You've lost the right to genuine engagement.

>>15262139
Yeah I thought not. Sorry pal I don't give a shit about your fee fees.

>>15262144
This is what I'm talking about. You're not here to learn, you're here to have your biases reinforced. No matter how many papers people throw at your feet you won't read a single one through a serious lens, you just contort their wording to pick out things that fit your bias.

Arguing with you is a waste of time. Presenting information to you is a waste of time.

>>15262148
Don't care about your narcissistic preacher drivel neither. Go cry about it.

>>15261228
Thanks anon...

>Together, our results are consistent with spike-specific antibodies blocking the detection of the antigen in antigen capture-based assays.

So the spike's still circulating, it's just attached to the antibody and thus avoids the assay.

>>15262329
thanks, shill, for dumbfucking western cattle

>>15262329
>>15261228
>So the spike's still circulating, it's just attached to the antibody and thus avoids the assay.
Yes, it can, for that kind of assay. The thing to understand about why that study noted antigen-binding as a problem in figure 7 has to do with the specific tool used to take samples of plasma. In this case, "electrochemiluminescence" uses a chemical that binds to the antigen. In this particular case the chemical used may have created detection problems, as the study notes.

This is not a universal serum sample analysis method, as many other chemicals and methods can be used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunoassay
This does not indicate bound antibodies are hanging around for months on end, but rather only explains a problem with the assay used for this particular study.

I simply do not understand why, from a single study using a single assay, everyone concludes "therefore all assays are wrong". Looking over various links given indicating agreement with the well known serum clearance rate, they're all using different assays and methods to determine effectively the same serum clearance rate.

I do not know if I should just link dump every assay ever done showing they all agree with one another using a multiplicity of methods or what, but I also do not get what the problem is.

>>15263015
Feel free to produce one assay that ensures it's detecting spike proteins bound by antibodies. That still doesn't get to the fact that spike mRNA remained in serum for up to 28 days, and remains in the germinal centers for up to (and possibly beyond) two months. That's not "normal," and it's not what we were told when the vaccines were rolled out.

>>15263062
>Feel free to produce one assay that ensures it's detecting spike proteins bound by antibodies.
There are assays that detect bound proteins, yes. There is no "ensure" as all assay methods have a detection threshold. Sofar as I can determine, it does not as yet appear as though anyone has seen cause to specifically do a time series serum analysis on RBD S1 spike immune complexes from vaccination. This is probably because there's no reason, or I can't find nor think of a reason, for doing so.

Anyhow, bound antigen/antibodies are called "immune complexes". These would not remain circulating very long unless your immune system was not functioning well. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/immune-complex specifically Clearance of Immune Complexes and phagocytosis etc https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2019.00891/full
Point is, I don't see a reason clearance of spike protein should be abnormal. You'd have to explain that.
>That still doesn't get to the fact that spike mRNA remained in serum for up to 28 days
In chronic Hep-C patients. Immune fuctions naturally suffer depending on how immunocompromised someone is. You haven't explained what the problem is with that, either.
>and remains in the germinal centers for up to (and possibly beyond) two months.
The lymphatic system among its numerous functions does accumulate, retain, etc, antigens. Lymph follicles do this to propagate adaptive immune response. There are various curves and studies available on antigen adaptation and retention time see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9063628/ figure 2 and noted antigens in endothelial cells being retained up to 5 weeks.

>That's not "normal," and it's not what we were told when the vaccines were rolled out.
As just explained, yes it is normal for lymphatic function. I do not know what you mean by "not what we were told". You've yet to explain what you think the issue is or why.

>>15263232
>>15263062
Also regarding lymph antigen retention and vaccination there seems to be a lot of research illustrating that too https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1606050113 and is generally a good thing as it means better immune responses with higher antibody counts. This paper is on HIV but there's a wide variety of them on different subjects, infections, etc.

Though, I repeat, I have no idea why you think any of this poses a problem.

>>15263232
>yes it is normal for lymphatic function
Which is why no experiment detected it in people who had natural immunity...? Despite it being proven to be superior to vaxed immunity?

>>15263251
>Which is why no experiment detected it in people who had natural immunity...?
I do not know why you think that. Sometimes there are tons of results in a university portal or other paywalled resources, and none on google or alternatives, but in this case there are tons. There are plenty of papers on follicle capture of antigen retention and lymphatic function with respect to covid-19, the FDC and other elements of the lymphatic system.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9329515/
https://academic.oup.com/cei/article/210/3/273/6884048
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2022.953022/full
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c08379
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2021.763098/full
And so on
>Despite it being proven to be superior to vaxed immunity?
I do not know what you mean. Superior how? Overall? In what way? With respect to risk it definitely is not. With respect to lymphatic function one critical problem covid-19 presents is dysregulation of the lymphatic system noted in quite a few articles, such as the last one linked https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2021.763098/full.. That is definitely not something you want happening and if I recall there's a lot of research on how that relates to possible mechanisms of autoimmunity after infection.

And, again, I have no idea why you think any of this poses a problem. What problems do you have and why? You make claims like "But we were told", yet when prompted for a source you provide none.

>>15263232
>As just explained, yes it is normal for lymphatic function.
The time frame is not normal, anon. The studies are in this thread. Spike and mRNA are persisting in the germinal centers far longer than is the case for both natural infection and other vaccine types. The mRNA vaccines are creating an abnormal response. You can't simply say "well, retention is normal, let's completely ignore the time frame because stuff."

>and is generally a good thing
Well that's interesting because natural infection is behind the mRNA vaccines in that regard, yet natural infection offers superior protection, as numerous papers have now stated.

>with higher antibody counts.
Completely pointless number chasing other than showing that the immune system did respond. The antibody count is not tied to durable immunity, especially when considering memory B and T cells, along with mucosal IgA immunity. Also, IgG antibodies tend to be inflammatory, and they're not intended to remain elevated (that's what the memory cells are for). And now we're finding out there's a conversion to IgG-4, something that was previously associated with diseased states, yet somehow that's a positive, I'm sure.

>>15263286
>You make claims like "But we were told", yet when prompted for a source you provide none.
The CDC deleted their statement saying that the mRNA and spike protein would be cleared in just a few days and memoryholed that they ever promised it wouldn't linger. Someone in this thread already showed that to you and you just ignored it.

>>15263286
>I do not know what you mean. Superior how? Overall? In what way? With respect to risk it definitely is not. With respect to lymphatic function one critical problem covid-19 presents is dysregulation of the lymphatic system noted in quite a few articles, such as the last one linked
Hypothesizing instead of looking at real world results (actual reinfections) is a major problem.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)02465-5/fulltext
>Our analysis suggests that the level of protection from past infection by variant and over time is at least equivalent if not greater than that provided by two-dose mRNA vaccines.

>That is definitely not something you want happening and if I recall there's a lot of research on how that relates to possible mechanisms of autoimmunity after infection.
Ha! You're going to ignore the autoimmunity issues of the mRNA vaccines, which are concerning enough despite certainly being under reported.

>>15263286
>You make claims like "But we were told", yet when prompted for a source you provide none.
Are you honestly going to act like we weren't told the mRNA was degraded within hours? You're going to ignore the papers showing it can circulate for much longer than that, and sits in the germinal centers for months?

>>15263292
>The time frame is not normal, anon.
As already noted, and cited, this is not true. Given you ignored the explanation and citations you can simply pick through some thousands of explanations saying the same thing to your hearts content. google.com/search?q=long+term+antigen+retention+lymphoid
>Well that's interesting because natural infection is behind the mRNA vaccines in that regard, yet natural infection offers superior protection, as numerous papers have now stated.
As already noted, it is not true with respect to risk.
>Completely pointless number chasing other than showing that the immune system did respond.
Um, no? In just about every way no. There are numerous papers on this sort of thing. Citing this model alone is 2,379 on researchgate alone https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351633509_Neutralizing_antibody_levels_are_highly_predictive_of_immune_protection_from_symptomatic_SARS-CoV-2_infection
>The antibody count is not tied to durable immunity, especially when considering memory B and T cells, along with mucosal IgA immunity.
If you look at some articles here >>15263286 you will find this is false as well. Antibody levels predict the course of infections https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35855960/
I'm sorry, but you just seem to be spitting out words and concepts with no comprehension of their meaning.
>>15263299
No clue what you refer to.
>>15263307
You are being very selective in your quote.
>>Protection from past infection in comparison with that conferred by vaccination, however, must be weighed against the risks of severe morbidity and mortality associated with the initial infection
And two doses. Not boosters.
>Hypothesizing instead of looking at real world results (actual reinfections) is a major problem.
Not hypothesizing. You just ignored all the citations.

>>15263312
>Are you honestly going to act like we weren't told the mRNA was degraded within hours?
This seems to have already been explained >>15259988 serum clearance of the mRNA itself would be pretty fast in healthy subjects. No reason to think this mRNA is any different from any other mRNA, and no reason to think the transport molecule would behave differently just because it has this particular mRNA.

Since you won't provide a source I'll just go with that. I also, still, have no idea why you think this is an issue. What, you think the mRNA is cytotoxic? Based on...?

>>15263338
>No clue what you refer to.
You can feign ignorance all you like but it's been mentioned several times in this thread. Someone even linked you proof here >>15258835 and you made some gay excuse not to read it.

>>15263344
I've no idea why that was removed. If it's a matter of being as scientifically accurate as possible the fact immunocompromised patients may have it linger longer could warrant removing the blanket statement and leaving in the fact it is nonetheless broken down.

You think this is a problem... why?

>>15263351
>the fact immunocompromised patients
Everyone.
>You think this is a problem... why?
Why is lying and then covering it up a problem?

>>15263354
>Everyone.
I definitely have no idea what you're referring to.
>Why is lying and then covering it up a problem?
Uhhh if it wasn't known that immunocompromised patients would take longer to remove it, that isn't a lie. Updating the statement would be the honest thing to you. You've a funny notion of what lying means.

>>15263361
>I definitely have no idea what you're referring to.
You seem to be suffering from short-term memory loss then. How many boosters have you had? That's known to be a side effect.

>>15263364
>You seem to be suffering from short-term memory loss then
No, if we're talking serum I believe that's in immunocompromised patients. If we're talking tissues like the lymphatic system I've definitely explained that. If you forgot that explanation already, well, I guess someone ninja'd some vaccines into you according to you.

>>15262020
>You're going to have to give me an example of what lead you to that feeling if I am to understand where you're coming from.
ok
>"If you take the vaccine you won't get sick"
>"You won't spread the virus if you're vaccinated"
>"The vaccine is 99% effective"
>giving out boosters based on Delta when that strain wasn't even active in the population anymore
>(x) is cleared from the body within hours
>and a gem from my city: vaccinated healthcare workers don't need to go into quarantine when testing positive and should keep working
I could go on almost endlessly.
>I can try to outline the problem. People either understand how their gut intuitions and snap judgments will almost always be wrong, or don't. This is not a value judgment on you as a person, it is a statement in general about the fact human "intuitions" such as they evolved are about as bad for determining complicated truths as it gets. It's part of that whole "thinking fast and slow" thing that book popularized.
Yes, I know which is why I wrote "it is hard to completely disregard my own reality when it goes so massively against general wisdom"
It's not just about gut feel but the things I see with my own two eyes.
Plus I find this line of reasoning kind of funny because this way of thinking almost always makes the mistake of conflating individuums with society at large. Look at it this way: if I were the "median person" so about 45, sedentary, slightly overweight and with multiple other health issues and no clue how to effectively avoid infection then yes, not taking the vaccine could have been more dangerous.
But I am not that guy.

>>15263338
>As already noted, and cited, this is not true. Given you ignored the explanation and citations you can simply pick through some thousands of explanations saying the same thing to your hearts content.
You can't just spam a bunch of links with no quoted material and expect people to do the work of reading them for you. The study specifically quoted showed that mRNA existed in the germinal centers for the mRNA vaccines far longer than with both natural infection and viral vector vaccines. Unless you provide information showing that both viral vector vaccines and natural infection typically lead to RNA and spike protein existing in germinal centers, then I'm not interested.

>As already noted, it is not true with respect to risk.
Risk of what? We're talking about someone who survived the illness. Those people, based on studies, are at the same risk, or less risk, of infection and severe infection than the double vaccinated.

>Um, no? In just about every way no. There are numerous papers on this sort of thing. Citing this model alone is 2,379 on researchgate alone
That's great, you've managed to dig up more lies. I really appreciate it. Given I just provided you with a meta analysis showing natural infection is equal to or superior to vaccination, and given that mRNA vaccines result in higher titers than natural infection (except in severe cases), we know what you've linked must be false. BTW, do you realize you linked an in vitro study, and you're telling me that's superior to real world results?

>And two doses. Not boosters.
So you recommend boosting every four months? That's about the time you have a severe drop in protection. Protection from natural infection, according to what I posted, extends out to a year.

>>15263732
epic fail

>>15263343
You were provided a source, but thanks for a mouse study. Here's another:

https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/10/7/1538/pdf
>We found that vaccine-associated synthetic mRNA persists in systemic circulation for
at least 2 weeks.
>Healthy individuals

So there you have it, persistence in serum of at least two weeks, using healthy subjects. Your claim (and the claim of many scientists) that it's gone within hours was an extraordinary lie.

>I also, still, have no idea why you think this is an issue.
Even ignoring potential health aspects, you think it's totally fine that we were told, and there's asshats like you still preaching, that the remnants of the vaccine are cleared within hours or a few days, and now I've provided two sources show at least two weeks and 28 days? Is it really hard to imagine why lying doesn't engender trust when it comes to other issues?

>>15263732
>Unless you provide information showing that both viral vector vaccines and natural infection typically lead to RNA and spike protein existing in germinal centers, then I'm not interested.
That should read "existing in germinal centers for at least two months."

>>15263743
another stoody lol

>>15263743
He won't even respond to this lol. I think you've finally broken his spirit by giving everyone incontrovertible proof he was lying.

>>15263570
Was hoping more for citations. Either way as warned I don't think much can be done about your personal feelings or your framing of events, because those tend to run deeper.
>It's not just about gut feel but the things I see with my own two eyes.
People see a lot of things with their own two eyes that aren't true. Flat earthers for example. I will say that I definitely do not like most public science communication as it tends to misrepresent uncertainties, mostly by not mentioning them. This ends up with the science being criticized wrongly rather than the speaker being a dipshit. However, look at it from my perspective in this thread: Factually speaking just about every single post I have replied to claiming things about the lymphatic system, or immunology, are so wrong they're total ignorance. They're flat-earth level wrong. All your feelings on science communication, right or wrong, should be manyfold about the dishonest and disinterested antivaxxers.
>Look at it this way: if I were the "median person" so about 45, sedentary, slightly overweight and with multiple other health issues and no clue how to effectively avoid infection then yes, not taking the vaccine could have been more dangerous.
Based on data so far in the majority of cases you're safer being vaccinated at every age bracket. Although if I recall the data with omicron under 18 data is too sparse to give comparison.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7134a3.htm
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status?country=~All+ages
There's no reason whatever that if you're healthy you'd be at more risk from vaccination, and the data support that. The raw data that does not control for comorbidity might not, of course, and as noted before that is why the best "adverse event" studies only compares "within demographic" (those who get vaccinated) and find no increased real risk from vaccination. This seems to have already been raised >>15259220

>>15264448
>Based on data so far in the majority of cases you're safer being vaccinated at every age bracket.
That has literally never been true anon. You have to be completely brainwashed to think so.

>taking drugs because the tv told you to
lol. lmao.

>>15264448
>Factually speaking just about every single post I have replied to claiming things about the lymphatic system, or immunology, are so wrong they're total ignorance
what's some examples of posts you're talking about?

>>15264448
>the best "adverse event" studies only compares "within demographic" (those who get vaccinated) and find no increased real risk from vaccination
kek

>>15264414
>He won't even respond to this lol.
I don't live on 4chan. At that time I was asleep. As the kids are saying these days: Cringe.
>by giving everyone incontrovertible proof he was lying.
So you're just going to pretend he hasn't been shown wrong on everything about immunology so far? That speaks for itself.
>>15263732
>You can't just spam a bunch of links with no quoted material and expect people to do the work of reading them for you.
Summarized two examples. These were ignored. You have no basis to continue claiming it is "unusual". >>15263232 >>15263240
>Unless you provide information showing that both viral vector vaccines and natural infection typically lead to RNA and spike protein existing in germinal centers, then I'm not interested.
That is exactly what I did >>15263286
>Risk of what? We're talking about someone who survived the illness.
Risk having gotten it in the first place.
>Given I just provided you with a meta analysis showing natural infection is equal to or superior to vaccination
Two shots. Not boosters.
>we know what you've linked must be false.
You didn't read it I see. Obviously people with no infection or poor antibody production do worse upon infection. That is what the modeling is about.
>BTW, do you realize you linked an in vitro study, and you're telling me that's superior to real world results?
You misunderstand what it meant by your ignorance, as just noted. Real world results indicate infection is considerably more dangerous no matter what "risks" you imagine for vaccination. Read your own citation please.
>So you recommend boosting every four months?
The funny thing is this is what the modeling is useful for as well, binding affinity, etc. Calibration curves based on risks like age for things like that. You're batting 0 so far. Effectiveness BEGINS to wane after 3-4 months (depends on age, comorbidity, etc), on average it will not reach near baseline for more than a year depending on a lot of factors, such as viral mutation.

>>15264473
>So you're just going to pretend
I don't have to. You're being humiliated in this thread and you've shown you don't even read any of the studies you post.

>>15264473
>Summarized two examples. These were ignored. You have no basis to continue claiming it is "unusual". >>15263232 >>15263240
Provide quotes showing the RNA and spike of SARS-CoV-2 remain in the germinal centers for two months in natural infection and vector vaccines. I'm not going through the trouble of reading your studies, you need to state the relevant information and then maybe I'll look at them.

>Risk having gotten it in the first place.
So what? Imagine we're talking about the recovered exclusively.

>Two shots. Not boosters.
Boosters offer no superiority until immunity is waning, and immunity wanes faster in the vaccinated compared to the previously infected.

>You didn't read it I see. Obviously people with no infection or poor antibody production do worse upon infection. That is what the modeling is about.
Ah yes, modeling that was so accurate with the pandemic as well.

>Obviously people with no infection or poor antibody production do worse upon infection.
That's not obvious anon. There were people with no antibodies who still avoided infection altogether. Serum antibodies have little to do with preventing a respiratory virus. The vaccines rely on IgG spillover into the nasal mucosa, which is the only thing that's somewhat relevant to what you've said, because very high levels will lead to more ending up in the mucosa. Meanwhile, the infected produce IgA that's specific to mucosa and is usually unaccounted for with serum studies.

>You misunderstand what it meant by your ignorance, as just noted.
Do not provide any more in vitro or animal studies. Stick to humans. It's been three years, you have enough to choose from.

>You're batting 0 so far.
You stated mRNA and LNP's are out of circulation within hours to a few days. That was wrong based on in vivo human studies. You chose not to respond. That was what started this entire debate, so in the crux of the matter, you've proven you're willing to lie and ignore.

>>15264475
That wasn't me jackass. But how convenient you ask for studies, you've been given two different ones showing your original post is wrong, so now you've decided you don't need to respond (yet you spent plenty of time responding to another comment).

>you don't even read any of the studies you post.
I'm guessing you don't considering all you do is spam links, provide no quotes to prove your position, and then accuse me of not reading them when I have no idea if you've even read them. Why should I do your work for you?

I want you to be very specific with how you respond, or I'm going to assume your entire intention was to waste my time.

1. Provide quotes showing the RNA and spike of SARS-CoV-2 remain in the germinal centers for two months in natural infection and vector vaccines. I'm not going through the trouble of reading your studies, you need to state the relevant information and then maybe I'll look at them.

2. Explain why >>15263743 isn't proof that vaccine-associated synthetic mRNA persists in systemic circulation for at least 2 weeks. I stepped into this thread after you posted >>15259988, that's what I've been responding to. You're giving out bad information, either ignorantly or intentionally.

>>15264523
>you've
>your
Is "you" in the room with us now, anon? There are at minimum 5 people in this thread shitting on you, but your schizophrenic brain thinks we're all the same enemy because you don't want to admit that you're a credulous midwit who got conned.

>>15264502
>I'm not going through the trouble of reading your studies
Then in all fairness I am not going through the trouble of spoon feeding you as well as explaining them to you. Your dishonesty is on full display which works for me.
>>15263743
>You were provided a source
On immunocompromised patients. What about "if your immune system is functioning poorly clearance rates will be prolonged" do you not understand?
>at least 2 weeks.
And I see nobody paid attention to what I wrote about assay methods and detection thresholds >>15263232 and anyhow I am genuinely impressed such minute quantities can be measured like this down to less than one copy per nanogram of RNA from 500 microliters of blood.

So you take issue with the fact that, from a sample of 500 μL blood, you can find less than 1 copy (remember it's in log 10) of the vaccine mRNA per nanogram of RNA extracted.

... Why? At what point is the amount so small it ceases to matter?

I keep asking why, and I keep not having anyone explained.
>>15264523
>Explain why >>15263743 isn't proof that vaccine-associated synthetic mRNA persists in systemic circulation for at least 2 weeks
Explain why that's a problem? I am not sure you understand just how small the amounts are. Yes, technically speaking, this rigorous series of dilutions and whatnot can still detect the vaccine mRNA sofar as I can tell. I still have no idea why that's a problem. I also have no idea if you understand how small those amounts are, given they had to run it for 40 cycles (the maximum IIRC). Then again I am also not sure how to convey how small of an amount that is.

>>15264767
>Explain why that's a problem?
"Why is it a problem that the CDC is lying and then covered it up?"
This old canard. The problem is because it's obvious that vaxies are spike factories seemingly indefinitely. That's not what we were sold, and now the people in charge of the nation's health are (like you) disingenuously pretending it's both a nothingburger and the New Normal and you need to get used to it.

The spike protein is cytotoxic. Vaxies never ever clearing it from their bodies and producing it forever is why cancers are up 40% and why highly vaxed countries like New Zealand are seeing the highest spike in deaths in history.

>>15264774
>"Why is it a problem that the CDC is lying and then covered it up?"
Not having bothered to detect something on the order of less than 1 per nanogram is not lying. Again, how small until it's meaningless to you?
>This old canard.
Your perpetual evasion and dishonest reframing betrays you. Again, how small until it's meaningless? Since when does "not knowing such a small amount can be detected" mean "lie"?

>>15264767
>Then in all fairness I am not going through the trouble of spoon feeding you as well as explaining them to you. Your dishonesty is on full display which works for me.
You don't have to explain them to be, just provide a quote showing exactly what I stated, that natural infection and vector vaccines lead to RNA and spike proteins persisting in the germinal centers for two months. Surely in your spam of links, one of your studies shows that? Because I provided a study, and it showed the mRNA vaccines were the exception. When you have something that is an exception rather than the norm, it's by definition not normal.

>Explain why that's a problem?
Let's quote the study, because I don't spam links and expect you to read them without providing some information.

"A recent ultrasensitive single-molecule assay was however able to detect the S-protein
in the plasma of some mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccinees at 15 days following injection [12],
while in another study, both mRNA and S-protein could be found in axillary LNs after
60 days [13]. Moreover, extracellular vesicles decorated with S-proteins persist up to
4 months after vaccination with BNT162b2 [14]. This raises the possibility that LNP–mRNA
complexes remain in circulation for extended periods of time, retaining their ability to
induce S-protein expression in contacted cells."

That last bit is relevant. How is expression over that time frame not concerning to you? It's essentially creating the equivalent of a chronic infection rather than an acute one. That's likely why we're seeing conversion to IgG-4, something you have not yet addressed.

I also like this bit:
"The biodistribution and functional half-life of vaccine-associated S-protein mRNA
in humans are currently unknown."

At 18 months, this hadn't been explored? We were told there were no shortcuts during the trials, yet I find it hard to believe it's common practice to injection millions of people without exploring the half-life first.

>>15264793
>You don't have to explain them to be, just provide a quote showing exactly what I stated, that natural infection and vector vaccines lead to RNA and spike proteins persisting in the germinal centers for two months
Nah. I explained how the lymphatic system works and gave you sources to go learn more. You choose not to. Also you're doing so to be dishonest as I will prove. There is not a single resource I gave you that would imply retention of antigens by the lymphatic system is "abnormal" because that is literally what it normally does. By the way? You're so ignorant you do not seem to realize if it does not, such as due to lymphatic damage caused by covid, you will have worse immunity to subsequent infection. So which is it? Covid-19 causes worse immunity, or antigen retention is normal?
>How is expression over that time frame not concerning to you?
Because the quantities remaining from their 500 ml blood samples are so ridiculously small it required a qpcr run of 40 cycles just to find less than 1 per nanogram. Also because there's no reason to think the spike protein generated nor the mRNA itself is cytotoxic.
>I also like this bit:
Oh HO, so you CAN in fact read citations, and you are choosing not to when convenient. Who would've guessed?
>At 18 months, this hadn't been explored?
Probably is. Might not be registered in a publicly available format. Equally likely is there's no reason to, given there's still no good reason to suspect adverse events are related to the vaccine >>15259220 and there's no reason to believe this vaccine is magically different from all the other research done on mRNA vaccines.

>>15264823
so much words, pure nonsense, like Bible

>>15264823
>there's no reason to think the spike protein generated nor the mRNA itself is cytotoxic
Been watching you sperg in this thread for days and you just discredited yourself entirely my dude. Even the most pro person will tell you the protein can cause all kind of problems itself.

>>15264864
Lol and yet that is precluded by the population study on adverse events. See, like flat earthers, all about duck dodge weave.

>>15264897
Your own CDC says spike proteins cause long covid, and it claims there's an "epidemic" of long covid that requires mass boosting with the spike proteins.

>>15264909
>Your own CDC says spike proteins cause long covid, and it claims there's an "epidemic" of long covid that requires mass boosting with the spike proteins.
You're conflating the result of an active covid-19 infection and mRNA spike proteins. So you either don't realize how dumb that is or you're lying. Which is it?

>>15264913
>You're conflating the result of an active covid-19 infection and mRNA spike proteins.
The "experts" who you trust to tell you that the spike protein isn't a problem are the very people I'm repeating in my statement. If you say I'm conflating the two then it is they who are, and you are discrediting them. Do you want that? Because if you discredit them you discredit your entire argument with it.
>So you either don't realize how dumb that is or you're lying. Which is it?
I know which one you're doing.

>>15264918
>The "experts" who you trust to tell you that the spike protein isn't a problem are the very people I'm repeating in my statement.
The very people you are misrepresenting.
> If you say I'm conflating the two then it is they who are, and you are discrediting them
Discrediting you lying about them you mean.
>I know which one you're doing.
Yeah, liars like you really hate the truth.

>>15264919
>The very people you are misrepresenting.
Sadly I am not misrepresenting them. They really are expecting people to be as credulous as you pretend to be.
>Yeah, liars like you really hate the truth.
As evidenced by your behavior in this thread. All you can do is lie and deflect. When asked to provide proof of your claims you deflect. When presented with proof your claims are false you lie, claiming the articles don't say the exact words they say in plain text.
I can't imagine how you can post here without feeling humiliated. Every time an anon comes into this thread it's to denigrate and shame you, heaping more and more facts on the grave of your narrative.
If you're being paid for this I expect you'll be fired soon.

>>15264926
I'm sorry you're upset at how easily anyone with basic knowledge of immunology can explain how you liars take things out of context.

>>15264823
>Nah. I explained how the lymphatic system works
I feel comfortable in telling you to fuck off now. I gave you multiple opportunities, and you cannot produce a source showing natural infection and viral vectors result in RNA and spike protein retention for two months. You can insult my intelligence all you like, but telling me I need to learn more instead of simply providing a source proves you have no source, just links that do not provide the evidence you need.

>You're so ignorant you do not seem to realize if it does not, such as due to lymphatic damage caused by covid, you will have worse immunity to subsequent infection. So which is it? Covid-19 causes worse immunity, or antigen retention is normal?
It's neither, and I've provided the sources showing it's neither. Immunity from infection does not lead to antigen retention to the same length as the mRNA vaccines, yet leads to superior protection.

>Oh HO, so you CAN in fact read citations
It's a shock to you that for the studies I've provided, and the quotes I've included, that I can read what I've posted? I'm not you, I don't spam links without including the bits that are relevant.

>Equally likely is there's no reason to, given there's still no good reason to suspect adverse events are related to the vaccine
Anon, that is fucking absurd. Point me to some medications and vaccines that were given to millions of people without knowing the half-life of said medication or vaccine.

>You're conflating the result of an active covid-19 infection and mRNA spike proteins.
First, both the viral vectors and mRNA rely on injecting the payload into the cell to produce the spike, so you're getting into a gray area suggesting that's significantly from a virus entering the cell to produce more of itself. Second, I hope you're not going to spew more vomit about how the spike from the injections differs from the virus because it's in a closed position, ignoring how quickly they're cleaved into sub units.

>>15264983
Ah yes, the flat earther conversation. Explain how everything works, provide citations explaining how it works, explain why that means they're wrong, and they end the conversation pretending you did none of that while re-asserting the first thing they misunderstood to begin with.
>It's neither, and I've provided the sources showing it's neither.
Since you don't remember the explanation or citations, including quoting your own showing that's false, I guess someone snuck a lot of vaccines in you according to >>15263364

>>15264989
>Since you don't remember the explanation or citations
Provide quotes from the links, bitch. Two months for RNA and spike retention in viral vectors and natural infection.

>>15264996
>Provide quotes from the links, bitch.
I don't entertain the demands of whining children throwing tantrums. Throw however many tantrums you like. Unfortunately to understand things you have to put in the work to learn, and you are refusing to. I am not holding your hands to comfort you through that process.

Or, what, did you think I care that you choose to remain an idiot? Oh that was a huge mistake on your part.

>>15260372
If it is that bad for military youth, who average 22 years old and much more fit than the average zoomer, imagine how bad it really it among the general population.

>>15265061
Ironic. All you ever do is accuse everyone else of behaving the same way you are. What was the narcissist's prayer again?

>>15265061
>Unfortunately to understand things
There's nothing to understand. You stated it's normal for spike protein and RNA to remain in germinal centers for two months. If it's normal, then the same should hold true for natural infection and viral vector vaccines. If you can't prove that, then the mRNA vaccines are abnormal. It's really that simple.

>Or, what, did you think I care that you choose to remain an idiot?
I know you can't prove our argument with a simple quote from a study that showed what I asked (and I, in fact, have a study showing you're incorrect). Keep insulting my intelligence, but you were already proven wrong about serum half-life of the vaccines, which you begrudgingly admitted, and you're wrong about persistence in the germinal centers. I set out to disprove >>15259988, and I've done so. If you really think I'm stupid, then you just lost to an idiot, so congrats.

>>15265163
spam goes on lol

>>15258122
STFU KIKE

Bump.

>>15265163
You finally BTFO'd him so hard he left with his tail between his legs. I'm surprised he didn't get the jannies to sweep it up like usual.

>>15267226
lol imagine being this pathetic

>>15258122
>5 Reasons We KNOW The COVID-19 Vaccines Don't Have Long-Term Health Effects
LMAO! The more they say "safe and effective" and try to convince everyone of that, the more skeptical the public becomes to all of their pharma shit.

>>15265163
Thank you Dr. Chud, you've done everything in your power to treat him. Now the responsibility falls into the hands of Dr. Shipman.

>>15258869
"Long Covid" = term used to obfuscate the vaxx damage.

henry ford you say? hes been known to speak the truth...

>>15269926
kek

Friends, I had coronavirus at the beginning of February 2022 and it lasted about 6 weeks, I felt very bad, time passed and it was hard for me to breathe, I also felt very tired. I went to the doctor to treat a problem that I have and he diagnosed me with major depression for being tired all the time, after taking 4 antidepressants daily for a year I did not improve at all. I feel very weak, much weaker than a few years ago. I don't really feel that I have depression because I'm not sad, with low self-esteem, or apathetic, so I was reading a bit and it says that the coronavirus can cause fatigue and weakness after a couple of months of the disease, is it really true this?

>>15269965
>so I was reading a bit and it says that the coronavirus can cause fatigue and weakness after a couple of months of the disease, is it really true this?
Have you previously had mononucleosis?