7 ms·

Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations

52 points by tamaharbor 5y ago

sinuhe69 5y ago
It's just a preprint and a literature review? Criticism: https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/does-mccullough-s-paper-really-establish-a-mechanistic-framework-for-mrna-vaccine-harm https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/does-mccullough-s-pap...
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  Even if it's not a preprint, it includes one of the worst actors during the entire pandemic (McCullough[1]) in a 2nd tier food journal and it's first author isn't a biologist but a computer scientist who's already published a bunch of antivax nonsense in "naturopathic" journals[2]... why are HNers so obsessed with being 'contrarian' to the point of promoting just pure scientific garbage? [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough#COVID-19 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough#COVID-19 [2] - https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/2021/SeneffNigh_mRNA_vaccines_IJVTPR.pdf https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/2021/SeneffNigh_mRNA_vac...
  - loceng 5y ago
    > ... it includes one of the worst actors during the entire pandemic )(McCullough[1] You mean one of the most highly credentialled and most demonized expert during the pandemic?
    - mikeyouse 5y ago
      Yes yes, repeatedly pushing for HCQ even in 2021, claiming there's no evidence of asymptomatic spread, claiming you can't be reinfected with Covid, and claiming there were "tens of thousands" of vaccination deaths -- all of which came after substantial evidence to the contrary is something an expert, and not a hack would do.
      - loceng 4y ago
        Didn't see your reply until now. Watch these, focus on refuting the content of their claims, not reacting to the names involved - as you've clearly bought into the smear campaign and other propaganda/misinformation: 5+ hour long discussion by highly credentialed domain experts not toeing the line: "COVID-19: A Second Opinion" - https://rumble.com/vt62y6-covid-19-a-second-opinion.html https://rumble.com/vt62y6-covid-19-a-second-opinion.html (discussion from experts begins around 40 minute mark) If that's too long for you to start, here's a 38 minute summary version for you to start with: https://rumble.com/vtamrn-covid-19-a-second-opinion-shorter-highlight-video.html https://rumble.com/vtamrn-covid-19-a-second-opinion-shorter-... I'm guessing you're the type of person to not actually watch things like this "because they're all quacks!" anyway, am I right?
  - j3th9n 5y ago
    You expected a science article like this coming from scientists paid by governments and the pharma industry?
    - mikeyouse 5y ago
      Yes, yes. The only truth seekers are computer scientists.
  - zionic 5y ago
    >in a 2nd tier food journal I'm not taking either side here because I don't know enough to feel confident doing so, but I do have an issue with statements like this. The paper should stand or fall on its own merits, if we only accept content from specific "tiers" we open the door to scientific corruption.
    - rzwitserloot 5y ago
      It would perhaps be best if the first 'dump' of a paper is met with essentially no attention or news coverage at all until it's been properly reviewed and fully studied. However, the world has 7 billion people on it and, ya know, herding cats and all that. That's a pipe dream. But perhaps we can strive to temper initial reactions and make sure we post the followups once said studies are done. Until then, _IF_ we need to the thoroughly disdainful thing of judging a book by its cover because reading it takes some time, its a fair comment to state: Boy that cover sucks.
    - loceng 5y ago
      Demonizing and putdowns/name calling and down votes are the name of their game to try to suppress critical conversation.
    - mikeyouse 5y ago
      Alas, that's not the way the publishing world works. If a study on vaccination ends up in a food & toxicology journal, there's typically a reason for that! And if it ends up in the 29th most impactful food & toxicology journal[1], there's typically a reason for that too. [1] - https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3005 https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3005
      - Izkata 5y ago
        Calling it a "food toxicology journal" is significantly downplaying its scope. Even just the name of it is "food and chemical", and this is what it says about itself: > Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), an internationally renowned journal, that publishes original research articles and reviews on toxic effects, in animals and humans, of natural or synthetic chemicals occurring in the human environment with particular emphasis on food, drugs, and chemicals, including agricultural and industrial safety, and consumer product safety. Areas such as safety evaluation of novel foods and ingredients, biotechnologically-derived products, and nanomaterials are included in the scope of the journal. FCT also encourages submission of papers on inter-relationships between nutrition and toxicology and on in vitro techniques, particularly those fostering the 3 Rs. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/food-and-chemical-toxicology/about/aims-and-scope https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/food-and-chemical-toxi...
gsibble 5y ago
Rumors have been swirling for a while that the vaccines lowered your immune systems capabilities over the long term so this doesn't surprise me.
- loceng 5y ago
  Rumors backed by legitimate data, data that didn't wasn't generated during clinical trials because it wasn't looked for; arguably because the trials were purposefully designed to be inadequate - multiple proof points to support this argument.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rzwitserloot 5y ago
  Welcome to 2022 and the modern internet. Rumors have been swirling for a while that the moon is made out of cheese, a pizza parlour without a basement has kids locked up in it, and that you may have already won 1 million dollars. Your comment is best-case completely meaningless, worst case actively stirring up trouble. Cut it the fuck out.
- gsibble 5y ago
  To all of you responding, all I said was there were rumors. I didn't say they were true. Here's an article debunking the rumors from December 2021: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-coronavirus-britain/fact-check-covid-19-vaccines-do-not-weaken-peoples-immune-systems-like-chemotherapy-idUSL1N2SY1SP https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-coronavirus-britai... So there have been rumors. That's a fact.
  - newbamboo 5y ago
    Reuters is not a credible source, even if they’re right in this case. Leave peer review to peers, in journals where it belongs. Reuters is just another USA Today at this point. They should not be the arbiters of what constitutes valid science. We have scientists and a thing called The Scientific Process. It’s not something to discard out of fear or political anxiety. Another lesson, like inflation, we’re all going to have to suffer through because our elite ruling class didn’t do their homework.
hammock 5y ago
Has anyone published a risk/benefit analysis of the vaccines?
- gsibble 5y ago
  Not that I'm aware of. They were rushed to market and the clinical data was supposed to remain hidden for 75 years which certainly seems odd at the least.
  - teekert 5y ago
    What?? I call bs unless you have some proof.
    - gsibble 5y ago
      Which part? Here's a source on the 75 years: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/why-a-judge-ordered-fda-to-release-covid-19-vaccine-data-pronto https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/why-a-...
      - mikeyouse 5y ago
        This is an not remotely true: > and the clinical data was supposed to remain hidden for 75 years which certainly seems odd at the least. They released all of the relevant clinical data right away - weird antivaxxers sued for the full patient records which the FDA will provide after redacting PII, which they estimated would take 75 years given the huge volume of pages they'd have to review and their current staff size / existing workload that they're legally obligated to address. The data "wasn't supposed to remain hidden" it's just never made public because the summary data already addressed everything in the individual patient files. The patient files can be made public after redaction but unless congress gives them a bunch more money to hire new staff, they're only capable of processing 500 pages/month.
        teekert 5y ago
f6v 5y ago
> Since these vaccines are specifically designed to induce high and ongoing production of SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoproteins Mmm, I call BS on this. What does “ongoing” mean? And why does it need to be “ongoing”?
schrodingersCat 5y ago
This article is an ouroboros of self-citation and speculation. The lead author, McCullough, is a known proponent of Hydroychloroquine, denier of asymptomatic spread of covid, and a paid, invited speaker at right wing and anti-vaxx conferences (see his Wikipedia for citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough). This "research" paper offers lots of speculation, and very little data. The number of times these authors made unfounded and spurious confusion spurious is too high to mention all of them. I'll call out one example -"There were 3,657 cases of anosmia (loss of smell), clearly demonstrating that the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein from the injec- tion in the arm was reaching the olfactory nerve." None of the authors are qualified to make this claim, the authors made no attempt to rule out confounding factors like prior Covid-19 infection, and no direct evidence for thistle claim was presented. Tl;Dr - the article is bad science and should be ignored
- t0bia_s 4y ago
  From wiki "McCullough has contradicted public health recommendations ... by suggesting that healthy persons under 30 had no need for a vaccine". How many people do you knew personally under 30 and dead because of covid? According to official statistic in my country, it is 0,0048% dead people under 30 with positive PCR (not necessary dying only because of covid). 48 dead people under age 30 in 2 years of pandemic. So this wiki text is irrelevant and McCullough has data for his statement.
- bananabiscuit 5y ago
  Can we hold the rushed and botched safety trials that “prove” that the vaccine is safe and effective to the same standards as this article is being held to?
  - fabian2k 5y ago
    The trials were not botched, and we have an absolutely enormous amount of information about the safety of the vaccines now from many different studies.
    - 5y ago
doesnotexist 5y ago
Pure garbage masquerading as science. Take a look at the kinds of claims the paper makes at first. Then stop for a second. Now imagine how someone doing real science might try to prove such a claim. Now scan the paper looking for any thing even remotely reminiscent of evidence for the claim and you won't find it. Also consider this nugget: "The increasing evidence that the vaccines do little to control disease spread" According to this, there were 11,000 Covid-19 vaccine papers published in 2021. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03686-xA https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03686-xA On balance where do you suspect the evidence falls?
- yucky 5y ago
  >Now imagine how someone doing real science might try to prove such a claim. I imagine someone "doing real science" wouldn't destroy their own control groups, would they? https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/19/969143015/long-term-studies-of-covid-19-vaccines-hurt-by-placebo-recipients-getting-immuni https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/19/9691430...
b0sk 5y ago
Time and again, we have misinformation peddlers posting these dumb articles while at the same time far graver threats like how close we came to losing our democracy are ignored (Marshall Law: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2022/04/28/marshall-law https://daringfireball.net/linked/2022/04/28/marshall-law) These guys are going to try again and will probably succeed. Why is Hacker News oblivious to this?
- jdjdjejr 5y ago
  >b-b-but what about TrUmP????? every time
catsareok 5y ago
Wow, everyone in the comments section is a fucking expert - no matter which side of the issue they're on! What a lucky person I am to have stumbled upon such a large group of experts! Jesus fucking christ.

52 points by tamaharbor 5y ago

It's just a preprint and a literature review? Criticism: https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/does-mccullough-s-paper-really-establish-a-mechanistic-framework-for-mrna-vaccine-harm https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/does-mccullough-s-pap...

mikeyouse 5y ago
Even if it's not a preprint, it includes one of the worst actors during the entire pandemic (McCullough[1]) in a 2nd tier food journal and it's first author isn't a biologist but a computer scientist who's already published a bunch of antivax nonsense in "naturopathic" journals[2]... why are HNers so obsessed with being 'contrarian' to the point of promoting just pure scientific garbage? [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough#COVID-19 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough#COVID-19 [2] - https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/2021/SeneffNigh_mRNA_vaccines_IJVTPR.pdf https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/2021/SeneffNigh_mRNA_vac...
- loceng 5y ago
  > ... it includes one of the worst actors during the entire pandemic )(McCullough[1] You mean one of the most highly credentialled and most demonized expert during the pandemic?
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    Yes yes, repeatedly pushing for HCQ even in 2021, claiming there's no evidence of asymptomatic spread, claiming you can't be reinfected with Covid, and claiming there were "tens of thousands" of vaccination deaths -- all of which came after substantial evidence to the contrary is something an expert, and not a hack would do.
    - loceng 4y ago
      Didn't see your reply until now. Watch these, focus on refuting the content of their claims, not reacting to the names involved - as you've clearly bought into the smear campaign and other propaganda/misinformation: 5+ hour long discussion by highly credentialed domain experts not toeing the line: "COVID-19: A Second Opinion" - https://rumble.com/vt62y6-covid-19-a-second-opinion.html https://rumble.com/vt62y6-covid-19-a-second-opinion.html (discussion from experts begins around 40 minute mark) If that's too long for you to start, here's a 38 minute summary version for you to start with: https://rumble.com/vtamrn-covid-19-a-second-opinion-shorter-highlight-video.html https://rumble.com/vtamrn-covid-19-a-second-opinion-shorter-... I'm guessing you're the type of person to not actually watch things like this "because they're all quacks!" anyway, am I right?
- j3th9n 5y ago
  You expected a science article like this coming from scientists paid by governments and the pharma industry?
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    Yes, yes. The only truth seekers are computer scientists.
- zionic 5y ago
  >in a 2nd tier food journal I'm not taking either side here because I don't know enough to feel confident doing so, but I do have an issue with statements like this. The paper should stand or fall on its own merits, if we only accept content from specific "tiers" we open the door to scientific corruption.
  - rzwitserloot 5y ago
    It would perhaps be best if the first 'dump' of a paper is met with essentially no attention or news coverage at all until it's been properly reviewed and fully studied. However, the world has 7 billion people on it and, ya know, herding cats and all that. That's a pipe dream. But perhaps we can strive to temper initial reactions and make sure we post the followups once said studies are done. Until then, _IF_ we need to the thoroughly disdainful thing of judging a book by its cover because reading it takes some time, its a fair comment to state: Boy that cover sucks.
  - loceng 5y ago
    Demonizing and putdowns/name calling and down votes are the name of their game to try to suppress critical conversation.
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    Alas, that's not the way the publishing world works. If a study on vaccination ends up in a food & toxicology journal, there's typically a reason for that! And if it ends up in the 29th most impactful food & toxicology journal[1], there's typically a reason for that too. [1] - https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3005 https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=3005
    - Izkata 5y ago
      Calling it a "food toxicology journal" is significantly downplaying its scope. Even just the name of it is "food and chemical", and this is what it says about itself: > Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), an internationally renowned journal, that publishes original research articles and reviews on toxic effects, in animals and humans, of natural or synthetic chemicals occurring in the human environment with particular emphasis on food, drugs, and chemicals, including agricultural and industrial safety, and consumer product safety. Areas such as safety evaluation of novel foods and ingredients, biotechnologically-derived products, and nanomaterials are included in the scope of the journal. FCT also encourages submission of papers on inter-relationships between nutrition and toxicology and on in vitro techniques, particularly those fostering the 3 Rs. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/food-and-chemical-toxicology/about/aims-and-scope https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/food-and-chemical-toxi...

gsibble 5y ago

Rumors have been swirling for a while that the vaccines lowered your immune systems capabilities over the long term so this doesn't surprise me.

loceng 5y ago
Rumors backed by legitimate data, data that didn't wasn't generated during clinical trials because it wasn't looked for; arguably because the trials were purposefully designed to be inadequate - multiple proof points to support this argument.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rzwitserloot 5y ago
Welcome to 2022 and the modern internet. Rumors have been swirling for a while that the moon is made out of cheese, a pizza parlour without a basement has kids locked up in it, and that you may have already won 1 million dollars. Your comment is best-case completely meaningless, worst case actively stirring up trouble. Cut it the fuck out.
gsibble 5y ago
To all of you responding, all I said was there were rumors. I didn't say they were true. Here's an article debunking the rumors from December 2021: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-coronavirus-britain/fact-check-covid-19-vaccines-do-not-weaken-peoples-immune-systems-like-chemotherapy-idUSL1N2SY1SP https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-coronavirus-britai... So there have been rumors. That's a fact.
- newbamboo 5y ago
  Reuters is not a credible source, even if they’re right in this case. Leave peer review to peers, in journals where it belongs. Reuters is just another USA Today at this point. They should not be the arbiters of what constitutes valid science. We have scientists and a thing called The Scientific Process. It’s not something to discard out of fear or political anxiety. Another lesson, like inflation, we’re all going to have to suffer through because our elite ruling class didn’t do their homework.

hammock 5y ago

Has anyone published a risk/benefit analysis of the vaccines?

gsibble 5y ago
Not that I'm aware of. They were rushed to market and the clinical data was supposed to remain hidden for 75 years which certainly seems odd at the least.
- teekert 5y ago
  What?? I call bs unless you have some proof.
  - gsibble 5y ago
    Which part? Here's a source on the 75 years: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/why-a-judge-ordered-fda-to-release-covid-19-vaccine-data-pronto https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/why-a-...
    - mikeyouse 5y ago
      This is an not remotely true: > and the clinical data was supposed to remain hidden for 75 years which certainly seems odd at the least. They released all of the relevant clinical data right away - weird antivaxxers sued for the full patient records which the FDA will provide after redacting PII, which they estimated would take 75 years given the huge volume of pages they'd have to review and their current staff size / existing workload that they're legally obligated to address. The data "wasn't supposed to remain hidden" it's just never made public because the summary data already addressed everything in the individual patient files. The patient files can be made public after redaction but unless congress gives them a bunch more money to hire new staff, they're only capable of processing 500 pages/month.
      - teekert 5y ago

f6v 5y ago

> Since these vaccines are specifically designed to induce high and ongoing production of SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoproteins Mmm, I call BS on this. What does “ongoing” mean? And why does it need to be “ongoing”?

schrodingersCat 5y ago

This article is an ouroboros of self-citation and speculation. The lead author, McCullough, is a known proponent of Hydroychloroquine, denier of asymptomatic spread of covid, and a paid, invited speaker at right wing and anti-vaxx conferences (see his Wikipedia for citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough). This "research" paper offers lots of speculation, and very little data. The number of times these authors made unfounded and spurious confusion spurious is too high to mention all of them. I'll call out one example -"There were 3,657 cases of anosmia (loss of smell), clearly demonstrating that the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein from the injec- tion in the arm was reaching the olfactory nerve." None of the authors are qualified to make this claim, the authors made no attempt to rule out confounding factors like prior Covid-19 infection, and no direct evidence for thistle claim was presented. Tl;Dr - the article is bad science and should be ignored

t0bia_s 4y ago
From wiki "McCullough has contradicted public health recommendations ... by suggesting that healthy persons under 30 had no need for a vaccine". How many people do you knew personally under 30 and dead because of covid? According to official statistic in my country, it is 0,0048% dead people under 30 with positive PCR (not necessary dying only because of covid). 48 dead people under age 30 in 2 years of pandemic. So this wiki text is irrelevant and McCullough has data for his statement.
bananabiscuit 5y ago
Can we hold the rushed and botched safety trials that “prove” that the vaccine is safe and effective to the same standards as this article is being held to?
- fabian2k 5y ago
  The trials were not botched, and we have an absolutely enormous amount of information about the safety of the vaccines now from many different studies.
  - 5y ago

doesnotexist 5y ago

Pure garbage masquerading as science. Take a look at the kinds of claims the paper makes at first. Then stop for a second. Now imagine how someone doing real science might try to prove such a claim. Now scan the paper looking for any thing even remotely reminiscent of evidence for the claim and you won't find it. Also consider this nugget: "The increasing evidence that the vaccines do little to control disease spread" According to this, there were 11,000 Covid-19 vaccine papers published in 2021. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03686-xA https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03686-xA On balance where do you suspect the evidence falls?

yucky 5y ago
>Now imagine how someone doing real science might try to prove such a claim. I imagine someone "doing real science" wouldn't destroy their own control groups, would they? https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/19/969143015/long-term-studies-of-covid-19-vaccines-hurt-by-placebo-recipients-getting-immuni https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/19/9691430...

b0sk 5y ago

Time and again, we have misinformation peddlers posting these dumb articles while at the same time far graver threats like how close we came to losing our democracy are ignored (Marshall Law: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2022/04/28/marshall-law https://daringfireball.net/linked/2022/04/28/marshall-law) These guys are going to try again and will probably succeed. Why is Hacker News oblivious to this?

jdjdjejr 5y ago
>b-b-but what about TrUmP????? every time

catsareok 5y ago

Wow, everyone in the comments section is a fucking expert - no matter which side of the issue they're on! What a lucky person I am to have stumbled upon such a large group of experts! Jesus fucking christ.