Just found this cool paper, Nicotinamide pathways as the root cause of sepsis - an evolutionary perspective on macrophage energetic shifts --https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33686748/
The mitochondria in your cells can detect foreign RNA, and downregulate protein production, increase autophagy to destroy it. The vaccine mRNA uses pseudo-uridine to defeat this recognition, and the cell just happily makes lots of spike protein.
Hi Tim! Thanks for this deep dive into the mitochondia science. I will study both articles. In the first article, they only talk about dsRNA, not sure this applies to mRNA. Found these references from this article:
Great finds, thanks! I wish more people would realize that every cell is part of our immune system, and there is a lot you can do to keep it working well.
I really like this statement: I posit that the prolonged elevated level of antibodies post Covid-19 mRNA vaccination (4-7 months), is the evidence that the mRNA is active in the vaccinees’ cells for that long, producing S spike proteins and causing elevated immune reaction on the ongoing basis. When this mRNA finally wears off, it’s time for a booster!
It may explain why there is such a post-injection mortality increase that persists for months.
The antibody decay titer study should have been a tactical nuke level warning the vaxes are not working as they were described. The CDC is proud of it. {headpalm}.
I really loved this article. Thank you. It’s the nitty gritty ins and outs of science as oppose to what we hear all the time about THE magic cure. It’s like designing a car to be the fastest ever and it can do 400mph but when it reaches that speed they never factored in how to control the car, keep it stable and make it go in the desired direction, so they found that out after they set millions off in these cars heading to 400mph…disaster looms! That’s experiments for you, and if there’s restricted debate and trial data hidden or fraudulently altered then it’s never going to end well.
Thanks again for this study, it's actually supporting my arguments:
Isn't this much more rapid decline in AB titers in vaccinated ante 3 months post 2nd vaccination A PROOF that we are not seeing a normal vaccination-conferred (much stronger, according to the hype) immunity here, but rather something else? As in: the abnormally high level of titers post vaxx being caused by an immune response to the still present immunogen? As long as the mRNA spike factories keep producing, the AB titers necessarily stay elevated. So, we can actually deduce from the AB titer dynamics the dynamics of the die-off of the mRNA in the transfected cells, taking into account that, after 3 months, natural AB titers decrease at the rate of only 4%, whereas the ante vaccination titers are collapsing (relatively speaking). Presumably as the mRNA code finally degrades in the transfected cells.
Thanks for the hat-tip. I'm not in the field I've just been reading studies (usually just the Abstract, Intro, Discussion, Conclusions; whatever applies) so take the following for what it's worth:
Yes. Something is different. I thought the same thing when I read it originally. I assumed it must be due to the more "broad-based" protection you get from natural immunity but I have no idea, really - well, apart from your observations which could well be on target.
A few things I noticed (I'm no expert so feel free to correct my misunderstanding):
1. In every study that includes titer surveys (about a dozen or so I looked at) they are always shown on a logarithmic scale. So "20 times" isn't that dramatic, at least given the way they're traditionally viewed in these studies. My wife and I had ~50 times difference (we're both previously infected/recovered).
2. No one will state what a protective number is, and I searched. I found one doctor that hazarded a guess at 50 but that was just a guess.
3. I think it's wrong to equate antibody levels to protection. The level of titers above a protective level doesn't seem to be more protective. This should be obvious from the big Israel study that compared natural immunity to vaccinated immunity and came up with a 13x better. This was (I think) published the same week (or certainly right around the same time) as the titer level study: https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital . And this is all short term protection anyway.
Abs are not created equal. The neutralizing Ab titers in convalescent are are 10 to 100 higher that in vaxxed. But the vaxxed have lots of non-neutralizing Abs. I saw a study to that effect before. More is not always better.
Thanks for the link, but you misread the results. They say that:
- the vaccination with the BNT162b2 vaccine elicited much higher antibody titers at 3 months post second vaccination, compared to the titers collected in serum from convalescent patients.
- in SOME individuals, the AB titers decreased UP TO 40% a month (from the highest mean antibody response) on the 4th and thereafter month.
Also, look at Fig. 2a and 2b in the study. 1 month post jabs, or infection: the vaxxed start at AB titers of median 9913 AU/mL, while the infected start with about 490 AU/mL. See the difference?
They say (at 6 months?): Higher SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody titers were observed in vaccinated individuals (median 1581 AU/mL IQR [533.8-5644.6]) after the second vaccination, than in convalescent individuals (median 355.3 AU/mL IQR [141.2-998.7]; p<0.001).
So, the AB titers, although falling off more rapidly, stay way higher in the vaccinated even at 6 months after, on average. BUT, in a sizable proportion of the vaccinated the decline is so rapid that, at 6 months, 16.1% of vaccinated have titers less that 50 AU/ml.
Okay. I read it as a big spike up front that puts the titers above those natural infection BUT the decay rate is so rapid that within a few months the measured titers are lower in the vaxed. I'll take another look. Thanks.
1. Beware of "reports" and "studies". I can have a report to say you owed me $10m!
2. Antibodies must wane over time, or we not exist! I am surprised that "our" experts and pundits either don't know or neglect to mention this medical fact.
3. Our innate and adaptive immune systems - B-cells and killer T-cells - are our defenders. When foreign "bodies" enter our body, those systems create "antibodies" to fight them. Hence the term "antibodies". They are anti foreign bodies. Once the bandits are whacked, the antibodies recede. Or otherwise we would be dead from accumulated bodies. Like raising soldiers to fight a battle and then disband them again once the battle is won. When there is a battle flares up, soldiers would be reformed to go again.
Totally with you, chasing antibodies is a fallacy. Why would the body continue to divert resources to defend against a pathogen no longer present. However some people like the idea of chasing a target to show efficacy but that can never be personalised. I opted to use ab titre testing for my dog so I’m guilty in supporting the concept at one level when it suited me. I was looking for two articles I read recently, one discussing there is as yet no concensus on the ab levels to show proof of covid immunity and the only vaccine that they have a standard for is measles. I can’t remember the name for the level, correlation proportion? Made that up, it began with a c and p. The other article was published Nov 2019 where they were now calling into question the value of a specific ab level for measles. I just thought if they now are not sure for measles after nearly 60 years then being able to hang your hat on a target ab level for covid is even further away. This article discusses using ab titre testing to avoid use of the measles booster based on first dose “success. https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1932/rr-16
Excellent article! It adds clarity to one of the many possible reasons that Pfizer has fought in court to keep it's records private, first for 55 years and now 75 years.
I am updating this article now (so it's as complete as possible) with a couple more studies supporting my main premise of high AB titers being caused by the presence of S spike proteins, also will issue an alert about it in a new post. I like to update my posts as I find new supporting evidence, or not, as the case may be, as happened with the EXPOSE article.
"But, according to Dr. Robert Malone’s tweets back in July, in the course of this study they were picking randomly six healthy “controls” out of healthy “vaccinated” individuals. To their astonishment, all six had S spikes in their monocytes 6 months after their “vaccination”, with one “control” having S spikes in 15% of monocytes!"
Where can we find documentation of this? The published paper says nothing about it.
Now I've read the final paper as well. Unfortunately they cannot distinguish between the spike protein lingering independent of infection and it could easily be found that long due to continued viral infection of cells beings scavenged by the monocytes, such as endothelial cells as they suggest.
I would be very interested to see the healthy vaccinee data if it is possible to find it anywhere, as the vaccine has no such "excuse" to persist for months.
Just found this cool paper, Nicotinamide pathways as the root cause of sepsis - an evolutionary perspective on macrophage energetic shifts --https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33686748/
The mitochondria in your cells can detect foreign RNA, and downregulate protein production, increase autophagy to destroy it. The vaccine mRNA uses pseudo-uridine to defeat this recognition, and the cell just happily makes lots of spike protein.
This is related to the cell danger response, https://naviauxlab.ucsd.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Naviaux-CDR-Environmental-Health_2019.pdf
Hi Tim! Thanks for this deep dive into the mitochondia science. I will study both articles. In the first article, they only talk about dsRNA, not sure this applies to mRNA. Found these references from this article:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32983015/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182538/
Great finds, thanks! I wish more people would realize that every cell is part of our immune system, and there is a lot you can do to keep it working well.
If we were rats, we would eat more acetyl-l-carnitine for mitochondrial health: https://www.pnas.org/content/99/4/1870
Oh wait, I already have some!
Interesting!
I really like this statement: I posit that the prolonged elevated level of antibodies post Covid-19 mRNA vaccination (4-7 months), is the evidence that the mRNA is active in the vaccinees’ cells for that long, producing S spike proteins and causing elevated immune reaction on the ongoing basis. When this mRNA finally wears off, it’s time for a booster!
It may explain why there is such a post-injection mortality increase that persists for months.
The antibody decay titer study should have been a tactical nuke level warning the vaxes are not working as they were described. The CDC is proud of it. {headpalm}.
Regarding translation cycles and eventual mRNA degradation - the poly(A) tail is a topic worth looking into.
Lots of interaction in transcription depending on length, some apparently very tissue-specific.
Neurons, oocytes and embryonic cells apparently can (re-)polyadenylate shortened poly(A) tails for 'storage' and later transcription.
Can you explain what that indicates? (Forgive me...I'm struggling to keep up with this conversation)
I really loved this article. Thank you. It’s the nitty gritty ins and outs of science as oppose to what we hear all the time about THE magic cure. It’s like designing a car to be the fastest ever and it can do 400mph but when it reaches that speed they never factored in how to control the car, keep it stable and make it go in the desired direction, so they found that out after they set millions off in these cars heading to 400mph…disaster looms! That’s experiments for you, and if there’s restricted debate and trial data hidden or fraudulently altered then it’s never going to end well.
Very nice analogy. People like me need lots of them!
You say that high levels of antibodies persist for months after the vaccine. This report says they wane quickly; much quicker than natural immunity (40%/month vs 5%/month): https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.19.21262111v1.full
Thanks again for this study, it's actually supporting my arguments:
Isn't this much more rapid decline in AB titers in vaccinated ante 3 months post 2nd vaccination A PROOF that we are not seeing a normal vaccination-conferred (much stronger, according to the hype) immunity here, but rather something else? As in: the abnormally high level of titers post vaxx being caused by an immune response to the still present immunogen? As long as the mRNA spike factories keep producing, the AB titers necessarily stay elevated. So, we can actually deduce from the AB titer dynamics the dynamics of the die-off of the mRNA in the transfected cells, taking into account that, after 3 months, natural AB titers decrease at the rate of only 4%, whereas the ante vaccination titers are collapsing (relatively speaking). Presumably as the mRNA code finally degrades in the transfected cells.
How else would you explain these data?
Thanks for the hat-tip. I'm not in the field I've just been reading studies (usually just the Abstract, Intro, Discussion, Conclusions; whatever applies) so take the following for what it's worth:
Yes. Something is different. I thought the same thing when I read it originally. I assumed it must be due to the more "broad-based" protection you get from natural immunity but I have no idea, really - well, apart from your observations which could well be on target.
A few things I noticed (I'm no expert so feel free to correct my misunderstanding):
1. In every study that includes titer surveys (about a dozen or so I looked at) they are always shown on a logarithmic scale. So "20 times" isn't that dramatic, at least given the way they're traditionally viewed in these studies. My wife and I had ~50 times difference (we're both previously infected/recovered).
2. No one will state what a protective number is, and I searched. I found one doctor that hazarded a guess at 50 but that was just a guess.
3. I think it's wrong to equate antibody levels to protection. The level of titers above a protective level doesn't seem to be more protective. This should be obvious from the big Israel study that compared natural immunity to vaccinated immunity and came up with a 13x better. This was (I think) published the same week (or certainly right around the same time) as the titer level study: https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital . And this is all short term protection anyway.
Abs are not created equal. The neutralizing Ab titers in convalescent are are 10 to 100 higher that in vaxxed. But the vaxxed have lots of non-neutralizing Abs. I saw a study to that effect before. More is not always better.
* 13x better for natural immunity (if that wasn't obvious)
Thanks for the link, but you misread the results. They say that:
- the vaccination with the BNT162b2 vaccine elicited much higher antibody titers at 3 months post second vaccination, compared to the titers collected in serum from convalescent patients.
- in SOME individuals, the AB titers decreased UP TO 40% a month (from the highest mean antibody response) on the 4th and thereafter month.
Also, look at Fig. 2a and 2b in the study. 1 month post jabs, or infection: the vaxxed start at AB titers of median 9913 AU/mL, while the infected start with about 490 AU/mL. See the difference?
They say (at 6 months?): Higher SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody titers were observed in vaccinated individuals (median 1581 AU/mL IQR [533.8-5644.6]) after the second vaccination, than in convalescent individuals (median 355.3 AU/mL IQR [141.2-998.7]; p<0.001).
So, the AB titers, although falling off more rapidly, stay way higher in the vaccinated even at 6 months after, on average. BUT, in a sizable proportion of the vaccinated the decline is so rapid that, at 6 months, 16.1% of vaccinated have titers less that 50 AU/ml.
Okay. I read it as a big spike up front that puts the titers above those natural infection BUT the decay rate is so rapid that within a few months the measured titers are lower in the vaxed. I'll take another look. Thanks.
The "few" being 6 months.
Yes. I said "few" because I didn't go back and read it yet. But that sounds about right.
1. Beware of "reports" and "studies". I can have a report to say you owed me $10m!
2. Antibodies must wane over time, or we not exist! I am surprised that "our" experts and pundits either don't know or neglect to mention this medical fact.
3. Our innate and adaptive immune systems - B-cells and killer T-cells - are our defenders. When foreign "bodies" enter our body, those systems create "antibodies" to fight them. Hence the term "antibodies". They are anti foreign bodies. Once the bandits are whacked, the antibodies recede. Or otherwise we would be dead from accumulated bodies. Like raising soldiers to fight a battle and then disband them again once the battle is won. When there is a battle flares up, soldiers would be reformed to go again.
Totally with you, chasing antibodies is a fallacy. Why would the body continue to divert resources to defend against a pathogen no longer present. However some people like the idea of chasing a target to show efficacy but that can never be personalised. I opted to use ab titre testing for my dog so I’m guilty in supporting the concept at one level when it suited me. I was looking for two articles I read recently, one discussing there is as yet no concensus on the ab levels to show proof of covid immunity and the only vaccine that they have a standard for is measles. I can’t remember the name for the level, correlation proportion? Made that up, it began with a c and p. The other article was published Nov 2019 where they were now calling into question the value of a specific ab level for measles. I just thought if they now are not sure for measles after nearly 60 years then being able to hang your hat on a target ab level for covid is even further away. This article discusses using ab titre testing to avoid use of the measles booster based on first dose “success. https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1932/rr-16
Wholeheartedly concur!
Excellent article! It adds clarity to one of the many possible reasons that Pfizer has fought in court to keep it's records private, first for 55 years and now 75 years.
I am updating this article now (so it's as complete as possible) with a couple more studies supporting my main premise of high AB titers being caused by the presence of S spike proteins, also will issue an alert about it in a new post. I like to update my posts as I find new supporting evidence, or not, as the case may be, as happened with the EXPOSE article.
Are you a research scientist? Would you be interested in collaborating on a publication? If yes, please reach out zana@zanacarver.com
JFC. 😮 No other words.
"But, according to Dr. Robert Malone’s tweets back in July, in the course of this study they were picking randomly six healthy “controls” out of healthy “vaccinated” individuals. To their astonishment, all six had S spikes in their monocytes 6 months after their “vaccination”, with one “control” having S spikes in 15% of monocytes!"
Where can we find documentation of this? The published paper says nothing about it.
I just checked all three versions of the preprint, and they, like the published article, say nothing about vaccinated people.
Now I've read the final paper as well. Unfortunately they cannot distinguish between the spike protein lingering independent of infection and it could easily be found that long due to continued viral infection of cells beings scavenged by the monocytes, such as endothelial cells as they suggest.
I would be very interested to see the healthy vaccinee data if it is possible to find it anywhere, as the vaccine has no such "excuse" to persist for months.
And the mRNA is sensitive to UV light. Keeping the vials under the fluorescent lamp could damage them.
Good to know!