4 ms·

That is incorrect. However, I will let distinguished researchers argue with you. The S1 protein is cytotoxic on its own [1] even without the rest of the virus

That is incorrect. However, I will let distinguished researchers argue with you. The S1 protein is cytotoxic on its own [1] even without the rest of the virus The S1 protein can be found in the vaccinated [2] The S1 protein, on its own, can cross blood-barrier into the brain [3] Now, I know you want to argue that there is a huge difference between vaccinated Spike protein, and wild Spike. The evidence argues otherwise [4] [1] https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318902 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.31890... [2] https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab465/6279075 https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid... [3] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-020-00771-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-020-00771-8 [4] https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210409/Oxford-AstraZeneca-COVID-vaccine-induces-cell-spikes-similar-to-SARS-CoV-2s.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210409/Oxford-AstraZenec...

phonypc 5y ago
Your first citation is presumably what the previous comment was making reference to. The described procedure resulted in a "dose" ~100 000x greater than what circulates after vaccination. i.e. dose makes the poison. In light of that, the following citations don't convey the message you want them to.
- OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  > The described procedure resulted in a "dose" ~100 000x greater than what circulates after vaccination. The variance between infections can be greater than 1,000,000x between the least infected, and the most infected. They were not studying it as an example of vaccine-induced endothelial dysfunction, but, the vaccine does not stay localized anyways.
margalabargala 5y ago
None of these argue against my point. The first supports my point, the second I already agreed with, and the other two are unrelated. I have this disconcerting feeling that you're arguing against what you wish I were saying, rather than what I actually said. This website thrives on good faith arguments.

phonypc 5y ago

Your first citation is presumably what the previous comment was making reference to. The described procedure resulted in a "dose" ~100 000x greater than what circulates after vaccination. i.e. dose makes the poison. In light of that, the following citations don't convey the message you want them to.

OrvalWintermute 5y ago
> The described procedure resulted in a "dose" ~100 000x greater than what circulates after vaccination. The variance between infections can be greater than 1,000,000x between the least infected, and the most infected. They were not studying it as an example of vaccine-induced endothelial dysfunction, but, the vaccine does not stay localized anyways.

margalabargala 5y ago

None of these argue against my point. The first supports my point, the second I already agreed with, and the other two are unrelated. I have this disconcerting feeling that you're arguing against what you wish I were saying, rather than what I actually said. This website thrives on good faith arguments.