2 ms·

Here is an autopsy report: A Case Report: Multifocal Necrotizing Encephalitis and Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination against COVID-19 [0]. Quoting the

Here is an autopsy report: A Case Report: Multifocal Necrotizing Encephalitis and Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination against COVID-19 [0]. Quoting the abstract: Surprisingly, only spike protein but no nucleocapsid protein could be detected within the foci of inflammation in both the brain and the heart, particularly in the endothelial cells of small blood vessels. Since no nucleocapsid protein could be detected, the presence of spike protein must be ascribed to vaccination rather than to viral infection. [0] https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/10/10/1651 https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/10/10/1651

yellowapple 4y ago
Also quoting literally the first sentence of the abstract: > The current report presents the case of a 76-year-old man with Parkinson’s disease (PD) who died three weeks after receiving his third COVID-19 vaccination. If I had a nickel for every confounding variable implied by either "76-year-old" or "Parkinson's disease" (let alone both, let alone for a sample size of 1), the Powerball jackpot would look like pocket change.
- wrycoder 4y ago
  Yes, but you need to read the whole paper.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    I already had, and my point still stands. It makes no effort to control for said confounding variables. It's heavily reliant on family members' subjective evaluations of health deterioration (i.e. it makes no effort to differentiate between "the patient's health started to decline immediately after the second dose" v. "the patient's health had already started declining but family members only noticed it after the second dose"). Hell, it doesn't even specify whether the cardiac events actually happened after or before the first dose; it just says it was on the "same day", which would be a pretty quick onset of symptoms. And that's just on the timeline of events. The autopsy itself only demonstrates the presence of spike proteins in the affected tissue; it does not demonstrate said presence to have caused the tissue to be affected, and it's just as likely that something else caused the inflammation (like, you know, the myriad health issues typical of elderly men) and kept the spike proteins around. Glaringly, the immunohistochemical portion of the autopsy seems to focus solely on SARS-CoV-2, and from that combined with ANE not normally being associated with PD concludes that the ANE has some relation to the presence of SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins. Such an analysis entirely ignores that ANE's causes are already known to include many other viruses, not just SARS-CoV-2. Did he test for influenza A? Influenza B? Herpes virus 6? What about genetic factors? Similar deal for myocarditis. Other viruses can cause it, like influenza (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7793451/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7793451/). That the article is silent on that possibility is a rather glaring flaw in its analysis. Variable after variable after variable after variable after variable, all entirely uncontrolled for, and I'm supposed to be convinced that this demonstrates a causal relationship?
    - wrycoder 4y ago
      How do you “control”, when it’s a (high quality) report of a single autopsy? The idea would be to encourage other autopsies which look for similar pathology. The key thing here is finding spike protein WITHOUT CAPSID protein in areas where the vaccine was not supposed to produce any protein (brain and heart). The foreign mRNA was supposed to stay at the injection site in the upper arm.
      - yellowapple 4y ago
        > How do you “control”, when it’s a (high quality) report of a single autopsy? By testing for and ruling out the myriad causes of myocarditis and ANE with already-established causal links, as I described above. > The idea would be to encourage other autopsies which look for similar pathology. And if those other autopsies fail to even so much as mention other more-well-known causes of myocarditis and ANE (let alone make any effort to rule out said causes), then they, too, will consequently fail to demonstrate causation. > The foreign mRNA was supposed to stay at the injection site in the upper arm. Okay, and it's good to know that it doesn't. That still doesn't do anything to establish a causal relationship between spike protein production and tissue damage.

yellowapple 4y ago

Also quoting literally the first sentence of the abstract: > The current report presents the case of a 76-year-old man with Parkinson’s disease (PD) who died three weeks after receiving his third COVID-19 vaccination. If I had a nickel for every confounding variable implied by either "76-year-old" or "Parkinson's disease" (let alone both, let alone for a sample size of 1), the Powerball jackpot would look like pocket change.

wrycoder 4y ago
Yes, but you need to read the whole paper.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  I already had, and my point still stands. It makes no effort to control for said confounding variables. It's heavily reliant on family members' subjective evaluations of health deterioration (i.e. it makes no effort to differentiate between "the patient's health started to decline immediately after the second dose" v. "the patient's health had already started declining but family members only noticed it after the second dose"). Hell, it doesn't even specify whether the cardiac events actually happened after or before the first dose; it just says it was on the "same day", which would be a pretty quick onset of symptoms. And that's just on the timeline of events. The autopsy itself only demonstrates the presence of spike proteins in the affected tissue; it does not demonstrate said presence to have caused the tissue to be affected, and it's just as likely that something else caused the inflammation (like, you know, the myriad health issues typical of elderly men) and kept the spike proteins around. Glaringly, the immunohistochemical portion of the autopsy seems to focus solely on SARS-CoV-2, and from that combined with ANE not normally being associated with PD concludes that the ANE has some relation to the presence of SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins. Such an analysis entirely ignores that ANE's causes are already known to include many other viruses, not just SARS-CoV-2. Did he test for influenza A? Influenza B? Herpes virus 6? What about genetic factors? Similar deal for myocarditis. Other viruses can cause it, like influenza (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7793451/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7793451/). That the article is silent on that possibility is a rather glaring flaw in its analysis. Variable after variable after variable after variable after variable, all entirely uncontrolled for, and I'm supposed to be convinced that this demonstrates a causal relationship?
  - wrycoder 4y ago
    How do you “control”, when it’s a (high quality) report of a single autopsy? The idea would be to encourage other autopsies which look for similar pathology. The key thing here is finding spike protein WITHOUT CAPSID protein in areas where the vaccine was not supposed to produce any protein (brain and heart). The foreign mRNA was supposed to stay at the injection site in the upper arm.
    - yellowapple 4y ago
      > How do you “control”, when it’s a (high quality) report of a single autopsy? By testing for and ruling out the myriad causes of myocarditis and ANE with already-established causal links, as I described above. > The idea would be to encourage other autopsies which look for similar pathology. And if those other autopsies fail to even so much as mention other more-well-known causes of myocarditis and ANE (let alone make any effort to rule out said causes), then they, too, will consequently fail to demonstrate causation. > The foreign mRNA was supposed to stay at the injection site in the upper arm. Okay, and it's good to know that it doesn't. That still doesn't do anything to establish a causal relationship between spike protein production and tissue damage.