4 ms·

I don't understand what you're defending against. The science proves you wrong. The inflammatory response is primarily triggered by the [1] spike protein. "We

I don't understand what you're defending against. The science proves you wrong. The inflammatory response is primarily triggered by the [1] spike protein. "We observed that spike (S) protein potently induces inflammatory cytokines and chemokines including IL-6, IL-1β, TNFα, CXCL1, CXCL2, and CCL2" I'm curious to see the fuller data set on adolescent males since it does seem initially that moderna may be more likely to trigger this rare myocardial response due to its much higher potency. The S1 and S2 components of the spike protein linger in the body for up to 12 months. So it would seem that the second dose would be harsher since there is already a reserve of S in the body. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7987013/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7987013/

kuhewa 5y ago
Well, yes, the spike protein induces an immune response. That's the entire purpose of using it as an antigen in a vaccine. If you don't see the daylight between that and your original claim that 'saturating the body with spike protein' which gets uptaken in tissue in the heart as metabolic substrate which then results in myocarditis, I don't know what to say.
- 1123581321 5y ago
  You misquoted him twice; he said "The spike protein RNA vaccine saturates the body" and clarified he was referring to the response mechanism of the vaccine by saying "the vaccine saturates", which you referred to in the first sentence of the comment I'm replying to. It seems like you two are discussing the same thing, as a third party.
  - kuhewa 5y ago
    I don't think I'm misrepresenting them even if I paraphrased. The vaccine doesn't saturate the body, and there's no evidence the heart is subject to these side effects due to lipid vesicles being uptaken from circulation because the heart uses them as substrate. Then to not leave any doubt, they cite McCullough on the topic who is way off the rails beyond available evidence.
    - 1123581321 5y ago
      Your second sentence seems like the most promising path to helpful discussion. It sounds like you're saying the Khan preprint is wrong because of an association with McCullough, but I don't know the name and it doesn't appear in the study (I haven't listened to the podcast.) I'm sure there's more to what you mean by disagreeing with the mechanism the other user proposed.
      - kuhewa 5y ago
        Nothing appears to be amiss with the Khan preprint, it just doesn't support claims being made.
- TrispusAttucks 5y ago
  Perhaps we would be more in agreement if "saturated" was replaced with dispersed or diffused?
  - kuhewa 5y ago
    No because there isn't evidence myocarditis occurs due to the vaccine acting systemically and getting uptaken by cardiac tissue.
    - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
      "Moderna's (MRNA.O) COVID-19 vaccine is up to four times more likely to cause inflammation of the heart muscle, a very rare side effect, than its rival vaccine from Pfizer-BioNTech (PFE.N)" https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/moderna-covid-19-shot-more-likely-cause-heart-inflammation-than-pfizers-study-2021-12-17/ https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
      - kuhewa 5y ago
        Well yes, that is a main takeaway from the study in question. Non sequitur to my post though

kuhewa 5y ago

Well, yes, the spike protein induces an immune response. That's the entire purpose of using it as an antigen in a vaccine. If you don't see the daylight between that and your original claim that 'saturating the body with spike protein' which gets uptaken in tissue in the heart as metabolic substrate which then results in myocarditis, I don't know what to say.

1123581321 5y ago
You misquoted him twice; he said "The spike protein RNA vaccine saturates the body" and clarified he was referring to the response mechanism of the vaccine by saying "the vaccine saturates", which you referred to in the first sentence of the comment I'm replying to. It seems like you two are discussing the same thing, as a third party.
- kuhewa 5y ago
  I don't think I'm misrepresenting them even if I paraphrased. The vaccine doesn't saturate the body, and there's no evidence the heart is subject to these side effects due to lipid vesicles being uptaken from circulation because the heart uses them as substrate. Then to not leave any doubt, they cite McCullough on the topic who is way off the rails beyond available evidence.
  - 1123581321 5y ago
    Your second sentence seems like the most promising path to helpful discussion. It sounds like you're saying the Khan preprint is wrong because of an association with McCullough, but I don't know the name and it doesn't appear in the study (I haven't listened to the podcast.) I'm sure there's more to what you mean by disagreeing with the mechanism the other user proposed.
    - kuhewa 5y ago
      Nothing appears to be amiss with the Khan preprint, it just doesn't support claims being made.
TrispusAttucks 5y ago
Perhaps we would be more in agreement if "saturated" was replaced with dispersed or diffused?
- kuhewa 5y ago
  No because there isn't evidence myocarditis occurs due to the vaccine acting systemically and getting uptaken by cardiac tissue.
  - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
    "Moderna's (MRNA.O) COVID-19 vaccine is up to four times more likely to cause inflammation of the heart muscle, a very rare side effect, than its rival vaccine from Pfizer-BioNTech (PFE.N)" https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/moderna-covid-19-shot-more-likely-cause-heart-inflammation-than-pfizers-study-2021-12-17/ https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
    - kuhewa 5y ago
      Well yes, that is a main takeaway from the study in question. Non sequitur to my post though