Skip to main content


Spike Protein Behavior

I’ve been getting a lot of questions in the last few days about several Spike-protein-related (and vaccine-related) topics, so I thought this would be a good time to go into them. There’s been a recent report about the vascular effects of the Spike protein alone (not coronavirus infection per se), and another presentation on similar effects in lung tissue. These are almost certainly looking at the same phenomena – the lungs are of course full of vascular tissue, and what’s being seen in both cases is very likely mediated by effects on the vascular endothelium.

In the first study, hamsters were injected with a pseudovirus was created that expressed surface Spike protein, while in the second the researchers just injected the protein directly into mice. The pseudovirus team went on to compare endothelial cells with different mutational forms of the ACE2 surface protein (S680D, with increased stability and S680L, with decreased stability). The response to the pseudovirus was quite different in these two, suggesting that it is indeed the binding of the Spike protein to ACE2 that’s a key part of this process. That happens as the coronvirus infects vascular tissue, of course, but this work shows that it’s not the whole process of viral infection that’s responsible for all the trouble: it starts with the initial binding event.

So I’ve been getting questions about what this means for vaccination: if we’re causing people to express Spike protein via mRNA or adenovirus vectors, are we damaging them just as if they’d been infected with coronavirus? Fortunately, the answer definitely seems to be “no” – in fact, the pseudovirus paper notes near the end that the antibody response generated by vaccination against the Spike protein will be beneficial in two ways, against infection and against the Spike-mediated endothelial damage as well. There are several reasons why the situation is different.

Consider what happens when you’re infected by the actual coronavirus. We know now that the huge majority of such infections are spread by inhalation of virus-laden droplets from other infected people, so the route of administration is via the nose and/or lungs, and the cells lining your airway are thus the first ones to get infected. The viral infection process leads at the end to lysis of the the host cell and subsequent dumping of a load of new viral particles – and these get dumped into the cellular neighborhood and into the bloodstream. They then have a clear shot at the endothelial cells lining the airway vasculature, which are the very focus of these two new papers.

Compare this, though, to what happens in vaccination. The injection is intramuscular, not into the bloodstream. That’s why a muscle like the deltoid is preferred, because it’s a good target of thicker muscle tissue without any easily hit veins or arteries at the site of injection. The big surface vein in that region is the cephalic vein, and it’s down along where the deltoid and pectoral muscles meet, not high up in the shoulder. In earlier animal model studies of mRNA vaccines, such administration was clearly preferred over a straight i.v. injection; the effects were much stronger. So the muscle cells around the injection are hit by the vaccine (whether mRNA-containing lipid nanoparticles or adenovirus vectors) while a good portion of the remaining dose is in the intercellular fluid and thus drains through the lymphatic system, not the bloodstream. That’s what you want, since the lymph nodes are a major site of immune response. The draining lymph nodes for the deltoid are going to be the deltoid/pectoral ones where those two muscles meet, and the larger axillary lymph nodes down in the armpit on that side.

Now we get to a key difference: when a cell gets the effect of an mRNA nanoparticle or an adenovirus vector, it of course starts to express the Spike protein. But instead of that being assembled into more infectious viral particles, as would happen in a real coronavirus infection, this protein gets moved up to the surface of the cell, where it stays. That’s where it’s presented to the immune system, as an abnormal intruding protein on a cell surface. The Spike protein is not released to wander freely through the bloodstream by itself, because it has a transmembrane anchor region that (as the name implies) leaves it stuck. That’s how it sits in the virus itself, and it does the same in human cells. See the discussion in this paper on the development of the Moderna vaccine, and the same applies to all the mRNA and vector vaccines that produce the Spike. You certainly don’t have the real-infection situation of Spike-covered viruses washing along everywhere through the circulation. The Spike protein produced by vaccination is not released in a way that it gets to encounter the ACE2 proteins on the surface of other human cells at all: it’s sitting on the surface of muscle and lymphatic cells up in your shoulder, not wandering through your lungs causing trouble.

Some of the vaccine dose is going to make it into the bloodstream, of course. But keep in mind, when the mRNA or adenovirus particles do hit cells outside of the liver or the site of injection, they’re still causing them to express Spike protein anchored on their surfaces, not dumping it into the circulation. Here’s the EMA briefing document for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine – on pages 46 and 47, you can read the results of distribution studies. These were done two ways – by using an mRNA for luciferase (and thus looking at the resulting light emission from the various rodent regions!) and by using a radioactive label (which is a more sensitive technique). The great majority of the radioactivty stays in and around the injection site. In the first hours, there’s also some circulating in the plasma. But almost all of that ended up in the liver, and no other tissue was much over 1% of the total. That’s exactly what you’d expect, and what you see with drug dosing in general: your entire blood volume goes sluicing through the liver again and again, because that’s what the liver is for. But when things like this hit the hepatic tissue, they stay there and eventually get chewed up by various destructive enzymes (that’s also a big part of what the liver is for). It’s a one-way ticket.

So the reports of Spike protein trouble are interesting and important for coronavirus infection, but they do not mean that the vaccines themselves are going to cause similar problems. In fact, as mentioned above, the fact that these vaccines are aimed at the Spike means that they’re protective in more ways than we even realized.

Update: there’s another level of difference that I didn’t mention. In the Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech, J&J, and Novavax vaccines, the Spike protein has some proline mutations introduced to try to hold it in its “prefusion” conformation, rather than the shape it adopts when it binds to ACE2. So that should cut down even more on the ability of the Spike protein produced by these vaccines to bind and produce the effects noted in the recent papers. That comes in particularly handy for the Novavax one, since it’s an injection of Spike protein itself, rather than a vaccine that has it produced inside the cells. Notably, the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine is producing wild-type Spike (although that’s still going to be membrane-anchored as discussed above!)

217 comments on “Spike Protein Behavior”

  1. Some Dude says:

    Are there any consequences for the protein-based vaccines currently in development?

    1. John says:

      “Our findings show that the SARS-CoV2 spike protein causes lung injury even without the presence of intact virus,” Pavel Solopoy, a research assistant professor at the Frank Reidy Research Center for Bioelectrics at Old Dominion University said. “This previously unknown mechanism could cause symptoms before substantial viral replication occurs.”


      What total BS.

      There are literally hundreds of papers that talk of this “previously unknown mechanism”.

  2. Some girl says:

    What about future inhaled vaccines?

    1. Giselle Tamayo says:

      I would use antibodies instead of proteins and the like-type of vaccines for inhaled treatments.

      1. another dude says:

        antibodies are proteins

    2. Mantis toboggan says:

      Are there any examples of inhaled vaccines that have outperformed injected vaccines? I remember a little while ago an inhaled (nasal) flu vaccine not being very effective and recommended against. I do see that there are some in development for COVID, just wondering what the precedent was.

  3. Aaron says:

    Is stabilized spike protein able to bind to ACE2 at all?

    If it can’t bind and damage cells, it may not be an issue for many of the vaccines.

    1. Derek Lowe says:

      Good point – added that to the post.

      1. sgcox says:

        Isn’t it other way around ? In the prefusion conformation protein is open and RBD exposed to the receptor binding, as well as to neutralising antibodies. PP mutations will probably hampers virus-cell fusion but that is irrelevant to soluble spike which was a subject of these studies.

        1. Derek Lowe says:

          You know, that’s a good question. I suppose it depends on if the ACE2 binding effects seen in these latest papers are set off by just the initial RBD binding, or by the rearrangement that happens afterwards!

    2. Not-an-epidemiologist says:

      Yes, the stabilised spike binds ACE2 just fine, see:

      “Indeed, both the wild-type and 2P-stabilized SARS-CoV S ectodomains demonstrate similar affinities for ACE2 by SPR (185 and 150 nM respectively)”

      The Hsieh et al, Science, 2020 paper on HexaPro also notes that the HexaPro mod and the S-2P mod have the same ACE2 affinity (although they don’t make the comparison to wild-type).

      (Note that the conformational change upon binding is all about assisting viral entry into the cell, not binding the ACE2 receptor.)

      1. Elliot Groove says:

        Thank you for this. Good knowledge.

      2. Sjantz says:

        So if I’m understanding, this could happen in the vaccines?

  4. Jon Duran says:

    It seems odd to not even discuss the potential correlation between this and observed side-effects, no? Was very much looking forward to that being addressed here.

    1. Derek Lowe says:

      Short answer is that we are not seeing reports of lung damage from the vaccines, from what I can see. So I don’t think there’s much to correlate?

      1. Jon Duran says:

        The correlation to examine wouldn’t be spike protein effects on lungs, but of clotting specifically. Referencing:

        “Here we suggest that, in part, the presence of spike protein in circulation may contribute to the hypercoagulation in COVID-19 positive patients and may cause substantial impairment of fibrinolysis. Such lytic impairment may result in the persistent large microclots we have noted here and previously in plasma samples of COVID-19 patients. This observation may have important clinical relevance in the treatment of hypercoagulability in COVID-19 patients.”

        Inadvertent injection into blood vessels has been raised in the comments here previously (“aspirate to vaccinate.”)

        Since blood clots and these vaccines are top-of-mind, it’s hard not to ask this, for me at least.

        1. Clueless says:

          Excellent point, thank you

        2. Some Guy says:


        3. Kassandra says:

          Thanks a lot for your comment. The relation of accidental blood stream injections and resulting clotting problems in particular in the brain seems to have another potentially relevant aspect. The Astra-Zeneca shot uses a modified chimpanzee adenovirus as vector. These viruses use the CD46 receptor instead of the usual CAR receptor for infecting cells. “We found that human umbilical vein and brain microvascular endothelial cells (HUVECs and HBMECs) were CD46-positive” ( That might result in brain endothelial cell being preferably infected by the vector, resulting in an expression of the S2 spike protein by the endothelium. In addition, auto-apoptosis of these cells infected by the vector might be inhibited by the adenovirus E3 complex suppressing it, thus the spike proteins are presented to the blood stream until T killer cells take them out. So, the spike protein may have plenty of time to trigger a Vaccine Induced Prothrombotic Immune Thrombocytopenia in the brain. This might explain the seemingly higher frequence of this serious complication compared to the mRNA delivery methods which have other problems, in particular related to the ionizable cationic lipid packaging which have strong toxic effects.

    2. Patrick says:

      As far as I’ve heard, the only “abnormal” (as in, isn’t explained by the expected immune response or rare allergic reactions) side effect that I think we’ve seen is the blood clotting issue, which is A) not seen with the mRNA vaccines (so if it’s a spike issue rather than an adenovirus vector issue it still has to somehow be linked to the adenovirus vectors, which seems a stretch), and B) has no obvious possible mechanistic correction to this new information.

      1. Patrick says:

        Correction —> connection

  5. Nigel says:

    What about inadvertent intravenous administration of the vaccine ?
    Might that be a contributing factor the the very rare side effects see with (eg) the AZN vaccine ?

  6. Ppete says:

    That sounds all nice, except we have a real cases of quite suspicious myocarditis possibly linked to mRNA vaccines…
    Yes, the incidence is low, but again, like with clots, it’s overwhelmingly young people with negligible risk from covid itself

    1. Brian Kilkowski says:

      1. That “possibly” is a shaky hook to hang that much weight. How about first coming up with slightly less thin gruel of evidence first?

      2. Assuming its real, is it *actually* dominant in young people, or is it only *noticed* in young people ( because in older people it blends into a background of cardiac disease, especially during a pandemic)?

      3. Assuming both of the above are true, it is perfectly reasonable for a society to expect its members, *all* of its members, to take up such risks on behalf of everyone. Unless you plan on putting a bullet in your own head on your thirty ninth birthday, one day *you* will be that elderly person who benefits disproportionately from universal vaccination. To not accept that risk now, yet expect that protection later, would make you a hypocrite.

      1. Ppete says:

        I don’t necessarily disagree, although I think the link is real…however the way how the problem is treated is kind of disingenuous (as it was with clots). And this post is part of it

      2. Jon Duran says:

        1. It’s worthwhile to examine this on its merits, good question.

        2. Ditto.

        3. I didn’t see anywhere that Ppete claimed he would expect others to inject things into their bodies when he was elderly (if he isn’t yet already) on his behalf, so I’m not clear how imagining he did and calling him a hypocrite based on what you imagine is productive.

        1. Ppete says:

          I’m actually young(er) and took the vaccine. It was before I know about this possible problem, but would took in nevertheless.

          To be clear I’m not saying it’s serious problem or even real problem at all…but I don’t like the way it’s treated (and other possible vaccine-related issues)

          1. Jon Duran says:

            I agree. And I didn’t assume anything about you, I just don’t like it when people do that as a discussion point and attack strawmen based on their imaginations.

            I’m desperately in search of honest dialogue & examination around these things. (Most of) the planet shut itself down recently so I don’t think that’s a crazy thing to seek. Abusive hectoring is just as toxic as wild-eyed fearmongering. A lot of it going around these days…

      3. Kathy Dopp says:

        natural immunity is probably more long-lasting and effective and less risky for a young person as a means to avoid any possibility of serious COVID in old age. See some of the studies here:

        1. B . Johnson says:

          Any website that parades the now widely mis-used quote by Thomas Jefferson about liberty, probably in regard to necessary public health measures, immediately falls under suspicion regarding any “compilation” of research data.

      4. Yvette says:

        “…it is perfectly reasonable for a society to expect its members, *all* of its members, to take up such risks on behalf of everyone”
        As someone in a high-risk group now, I respectfully disagree with you. There are very serious, very deep ethical discussions here that have not taken place. What is perfectly reasonable to you is not a settled matter for many of us in terms of ethics. We always need to be careful of “common sense” assumptions, particularly when it comes to the things we feel it’s “perfectly reasonable” to demand others do with their bodies. And yes, potential exposure to a pathogen impacts others’ bodies too. As do many other human behaviours that we have had to weigh and measure to allow for a balance between individual autonomy and collective benefit. No one gets to short-circuit these ongoing ethical conversations with pronouncements that the conclusions are self-evident. Particularly when the science about the proposed intervention is still unfolding before our eyes.

        1. Daniel says:

          Well said.

    2. Martin says:

      Please keep in mind that myocarditis is accountable for 20% of sudden deaths in young adults. Over a 2 million cases of myocarditis with cardiomyopathy are observed every year worldwide. It’s not a rare occurence.

      1. Roland says:

        The disparity between ‘myocarditis following 1st dose’ and ‘myocarditis following 2nd dose’ in Israel seems to be a highly significant signal, and then we’re factoring out the background rate already (assuming cut-off for observing 2nd dose cases is less than the ~28 days between doses).

        The fact the data had to be leaked in Israel (and hasn’t been denied) and other countries are being cagey (mirroring some original reactions do the Oxford vaccine clot data, when we now know they were furiously whispering about how much to tell the public) is, I have to say, disappointing. If there are ‘specific concerns’, even rare and ‘not conclusively proven’ ones, surely it’s unethical not to mention those to patients when millions are being dosed every day?

        1. Cassandra says:

          Is withholding such factual information (read the EUA’s) for the greater good? Who knows, the clinical trial is still running. I shall wait for long term data to rule out any more nasty surprises. Let’s also keep track of the escalating fatality rate in vaccine breakthrough cases – approaching 1.5% now according to CDC data. The idea of vaccinating kids is completely absurd – given the known risks of Covid and the unknown risks of vaccines.

        2. Cassandra says:

          Is withholding such factual information (read the EUA’s) for the greater good? Who knows, the clinical trial is still running. I shall wait for long term data to rule out any more nasty surprises. Let’s also keep track of the escalating fatality rate in vaccine breakthrough cases – approaching 1.5% now according to CDC data. The idea of vaccinating kids is completely absurd – given the known risks of Covid and the unknown risks of vaccines.

          1. WST says:

   the mean time, there were 3 days without any deaths in Israel, and few <5 in UK …

          2. Cassandra says:

            Oh yeah great point WST. Deaths in the UK fell to near zero, last summer after the first wave. Without a vaccine. Wow. If the vaccine were responsible for this reduction in deaths we would expect to see more due to the widespread use of the AZ vaccine and lower documented efficacy. Maybe there’s just no more susceptible people for the virus to kill. Israel are cocooning from the real world, see New Zealand as an example of what national isolation can achieve for reduction/prevention of deaths. So WST what is your point?

          3. Gus says:

            Because of the lockdown dullard. Please be quiet Cassandra – the adults are trying to have a conversation

          4. MisterGoober says:

            I’ve also noticed that the death rate in breakthrough cases is higher than expected. Couldn’t we assume a higher rate of immune system malfunction in those cases since they were “breakthrough” cases to begin with (the vaccine didn’t do what we expected)?

        3. Cassandra says:

          In the meantime there were days without deaths…. also at the end of wave 1 deaths fell to near zero in many places without vaccines – UK included. The UK got decimated in both waves, maybe there’s just nobody susceptible left to die? It’s certainly not vaccine efficacy at work there as more deaths would be expected due to AZ’s well documented lower efficacy and widespread use in that country. Try and book a flight to Israel – you can’t get in, so they are still prone to escape variants and effectively closed off from the wider world. Look at New Zealand for a comparison of national isolation. But hey, WST feel free to declare a triumph for vaccines for reduction of deaths. What then happened last in the UK last summer?

          1. Gus says:


          2. Deva says:

            CDC just passed a document that indicates they want their samples from VACCINATED people to be 28 CT in the RT-PCR or less. That is way lower than I’ve seen being used upon everyone else.

            Wouldn’t that produce artificially lower results which would lead to the perception that the vaccines are more effective than they are? I know there is no standardized CT being used for the RT-PCR and that could be why there are so many false positives, as well as cases of missed diagnosis. There should be a standard if we are going to have a useful equivalence in measurement. The standard should be used on vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.

    3. JoeyManfredo says:

      Young people might not be at high risk for mortality, but there are many complaining of long term post-infection symptoms including warping of taste/smell. Living out your life w/o the ability to enjoy food could be a pretty serious quality of life issue. There was also a paper published yesterday that found persistent anosmia potentially indicates lingering virus in the brain.

      Definitely need more research all around.

      1. Trey says:

        Thank you for mentioning that. The number of younger people being diagnosed with things like dysautonomia disorders (which can be quite debilitating) like POTS post-covid is significant. We have so many joining our support groups over the last year that we’ve come to hope it will bring a silver lining in the form of more research for understanding and treatment of these disorders.

        1. Doug H MD says:

          where is your group?

      2. Enthusiastic nerd says:

        Yes. This needs more awareness. I was asymptomatic when I had covid, I didn’t even suspect myself of being infected, yet I lost my sense of smell for almost 3 months. When it came to back, which occurred at a really slow pace, I noticed that all of the bad smells are identical. I can’t tell rotten fruit from garbage apart. And with the pleasant smells, it’s not the same anymore. I can’t feel a good third of what I was aware of before.

    4. Not-an-epidemiologist says:

      The EU evidence pointed firmly against any link to myocarditis or pericarditis over previously-published background levels (which are actually quite high) a couple of weeks ago. Has anything changed?

      Background rates are here:

      Note that the background rate is ~ 1 per 50,000 individuals every 30 days. So, you know, vaccinate 1M people in a month and you’d expect 20 cases as background. I can’t see any evidence that the case numbers that are supposedly worrying people are anything like this high.

      1. Roland says:

        That’s the background rate among well monitored, highly active, predominantly young service personnel. There’s no reason to think the rate of myocarditis serious enough to present to medical professional among the general population is similar.

        A recent paper puts the rate of hospital admissions for myocarditis at ~1 in 340,000 in England ( ). I don’t think it’s clear how serious the Israel cases are though, or indeed how they overlap with patients who may already be in hospital potentially with heart issues.

        I haven’t seen any EU evidence, or any real comment from the EMA at all other that they’re investigating.

        Interestingly the VAERS data *doesn’t* show any difference between myocarditis following first dose, and following second dose. One possible reason for the disparity in Israel is that at some point they put word around to look out for myocarditis, which surely increased detection. Perhaps that coincided with a increase in 2nd doses and sharp decline in 1st doses but the timeline is very unclear and I don’t think they were vaccinating fast enough to get such a clear division even if they increased vigilance suddenly and at the worst possible time.

        1. Roland says:

          That’s ~1 in 340,000 per 30 days sorry. Of course the rate in Israel may not be all that comparable. Another thing to consider about background rates is that viral infection is one of the main causes of myocarditis, and we’ve just skipped an entire Flu season, and presumably severely suppressed most other respiratory infections too. It wouldn’t be a surprise if background rates of myocarditis were significantly suppressed too.

  7. NumCracker says:

    What about wild-type inactivated-virus vaccines as Sinovac’s? That seems me quite different scenario!

    1. Jon Duran says:

      It’s hard to imagine when that will ever be available in the US/Europe, but it seems particularly preferable given the experimental nature of the alternatives. Oh well.

      1. Derek Lowe says:

        I think you have that point backwards: the inactivated-virus vaccine, depending on the state of its Spike protein, might be worse from this standpoint.

        1. Jon Duran says:

          Great point, “inactivated” does a lot of work in the description – assumption would be that these effects are taking into account.

  8. Daniel Barkalow says:

    Have to mention the applicable xkcd:
    Also, it’s interesting to note that dictionaries are needing to update their definitions of “vaccine” because they don’t cover our current vaccines. They assumed that a less harmful analogue of the antigen would be in the preparation administered, which seemed unavoidable until recently.

  9. Mike nichols says:

    “when the mRNA or adenovirus particles do hit cells outside of the liver or the site of injection, they’re still causing them to express Spike protein anchored on their surfaces, not dumping it into the circulation. ”

    Except when the cell gets destroyed by killer t-cells. Then the spikes that were waiting to be expressed get released. The pfizer vaccine has 13 trillion mRNA instructions. Nobody knows how many instructions get delivered to a cell.

    1. Michael H says:

      Once the killer T-cell induces the targeted, spike-presenting cell to undergo apoptosis, wouldn’t it likely be engulfed by a macrophage before spikes are released? That way the spikes end up getting digested, rather than floating around freely.

      “Cells undergoing programmed cell death are rapidly ingested by nearby phagocytic cells. The phagocytes recognize some change in the cell membrane, most probably the exposure of phosphatidylserine, which is normally found only in the inner leaflet of the membrane. The ingested cell is then completely broken down and digested by the phagocyte without the induction of co-stimulatory proteins. Thus, apoptosis is normally an immunologically ‘quiet’ process; that is, apoptotic cells do not normally contribute to or stimulate immune responses.”

      That last sentence sounds especially promising. It may be in the best interest of a virus for an infected cell to spill its contents freely, but the immune system “knows” that containment is beneficial.

  10. Rens de Groot says:

    Vaccine induced thrombosis and thrombocytopenia (VITT) and thrombocytopenia on its own as side effects of in particular the adenovir based vaccines could potentially be partially explained by the discussed effects of spike on the endothelium. There is more (anti PF4 abs) but this may play a role in platelet activation and PF4 secretion.

  11. simmtomm says:

    BioNTech claims that the lipid composition of the coat around the mRNA specifically stees the particles of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine for uptake by dendritic cells, which are those antigen presenting cells where the immun response party generally starts. Well designed.

  12. UncleOxidant says:

    How long will these spike proteins remain in a vaccinated person’s system? I’d guess not very long since the mRNA hits a cell and that cell starts expressing spike protein and then is done. Eventually you run out of those mRNA particles. Does this happen in a few days or is it longer? Side effects from the mRNA vaccines seem to not last much beyond a week for most people so maybe that’s the clue to this?

    1. pablo says:

      here is a science document regarding how long the Spike proteins lingered in different organs in the case of the Influenza Mrna vaccine trials:

      1. christian says:

        Thank you for this really interesting paper. In conclusion they had the solution for mRNA Vacancies back in 2017. (because as the paper shows they did human trails before and they work out!)

        That makes me more confident of taking my 2.nd shot in 2 weeks.

      2. Pablo help! i am trying to answer the same question but this giant article is daunting! How long is it?

  13. izmimario says:

    i’m very sorry if this is just anedoctal evidence about myself, i’m 33 and the night after the first astrazeneca jab i had a very unusual 103°F fever. then intermittent pinches and burning sensations all around the body, not too intense and not too frequent, for 7-10 days, and headaches every other day. a CBC made at the time showed minor thrombocytopenia (124,000), i made another a few days later and platelets were back to normal. after the first 10 days, the pinching/burning sensations didn’t get worse but became much steadier, and this time always localized at the arms/legs, especially the part farthest from the trunk. i’m 20 days in and those bothersome pain sensations are still there, especially during the evenings. i strongly suspect it’s a vascular problem or something. i know i’ve never had great peripheral circulation, but i’ve never felt like this. in all honesty i don’t know what to do, i can only hope whatever happened is reversible. also i don’t know whether i should have a second jab or not.

    1. Kathy Dopp says:

      Every person I asked about their mRNA shot said they had a bad headache lasting about 2 days, so what causes this if none of the vaccine is getting to the vascular system around the head, as other doctors are claiming is a common spot for spike protein growth that causes scouring out of the small capillaries around the brain?

      1. Toby Gibson says:

        “Every person I asked about their mRNA shot said they had a bad headache lasting about 2 days”

        Here is one anecdotal experience that differs. Three of us had the BioNTech mRNA vaccine. Our side effects were mild. I only had soreness of the arm and nothing else. We did not have headaches.

      2. MisterGoober says:

        General Inflammation from the immune system ramping up to fight an intruder? Similar to a cold/flu?

  14. Doug H MD says:

    Derek: is it not possible to measure the spike protein itself? Has this been done if it is?

  15. JoeyManfredo says:

    One of the authors of the Salk Institute paper, that found the spike protein can cause cell damage on its own, did a local TV news interview today. He’s been adamant on his twitter, @manorlaboratory, that their paper is being misinterpreted by some saying it means vaccines could be problematic since they introduce spike proteins.

    Watch his explanation of how their paper may apply to vaccines from the news interview today:

    1. john hewitt says:

      I talked at length with Uri from Salk Inst. publicly on Monday and it seems to me no one has a clue, let alone one shred of experimental data regarding how long vax-made spike actually lasts in the body or how it is dispersed once cells die or are lysed by reactive t-cells.

      1. Rob Deno says:

        Where did you speak to him? I hope you’re not talking about twitter as I’ve read through his replies and he says nothing like that.

        Seems like you have an agenda based on your replies after this one.

  16. Forex says:

    thanks for the great information

  17. john hewitt says:

    Spike is some nasty stuff, keep it out of your body at all costs

    SARS-CoV-2 spike protein induces brain pericyte immunoreactivity in absence of productive viral infection


    1. MisterGoober says:

      So we have two choices here:
      1. Controlled non-replicating spike through a vaccine

      2. Wild replicating spike with a live virus attached.

      Not getting exposed to the spike at all doesn’t seem likely. Choice #1 seems like the preferable option.

  18. john hewitt says:

    Emma Burkey just got vaxxed, went into a coma, now she has to blink to communicate. This is what spike can and will do to your brain folks.

    1. Troll Feeder says:

      If your spike protein hypothesis is correct, a real COVID infection would probably have killed this young woman. It isn’t intuitive, but this might be the best possible outcome.

      1. theasdgamer says:

        Or maybe not. Maybe the actual virus would have elicited a robust, diverse immune response and the woman would have recovered.

  19. theasdgamer says:

    From the OP: “We know now that the huge majority of such infections are spread by inhalation of virus-laden droplets from other infected people”

    I thought it was aerosols. The MIT paper about indoor spread was pretty clear that aerosols were the primary means of spread and that social distancing had no effect on infections.

    I also have a chemistry question about the SARS-COV-2 spike proteins–do any of them have a polar character such that a small charge might be imparted to the lipid shell?

    1. John Wayne says:

      This quote (“We know now that the huge majority of such infections are spread by inhalation of virus-laden droplets from other infected people”) is a description of getting infected with aerosols.

      Exposure to aerosols are reduced by masks and social distancing when you are indoors. If you are outdoors the risks are way lower.

      The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines consist of the RNA of choice in a lipid shell. After these particles deliver their payloads to (mostly) the muscle cells at the site of injection, they make the spike protein. As a result, the spike protein will not really get an opportunity to interact with the lipid nanoparticles. On a separate note, when these nanoparticles are being designed, the average charge they possess is usually a critical parameter.

      1. theasdgamer says:

        “This quote (“We know now that the huge majority of such infections are spread by inhalation of virus-laden droplets from other infected people”) is a description of getting infected with aerosols.”

        _A guideline to limit indoor airborne transmission of COVID-19_

        JW wrote: “Exposure to aerosols are reduced by masks and social distancing when you are indoors.”

        The MIT study found:
        “The current revival of the American economy is being predicated on social distancing, specifically the Six-Foot Rule, a guideline that offers little protection from pathogen-bearing aerosol droplets sufficiently small to be continuously mixed through an indoor space”

        The MIT guys were confused about masking and aerosols. The likelihood that aerosols will contain any water after a few minutes is vanishingly small because water will evaporate from them extremely quickly. Masking will only increase the rate of water evaporation from aerosols because masking increases friction from air jets going towards the ears. The aerosols are basically just virus once water evaporates from microdroplets.

        1. Cassandra says:

          Might help to explain why there has been a dramatic increase in infections since masks were introduced by dummies without any evidence of their efficacy in reducing viral transmission/infection. Excellent analysis on why the make them up as you go along rules are not working.

          1. Derek Lowe says:

            Once again, a gentle reminder that it does not have to be part of your day to post here. . .

          2. bruce says:

            Cassandra, there are a number of factors. The virus has simply had more time to spread, and there are more contagious variants out there now.

            But the reason that comes first to mind is that there are a lot of complete idiots out there who, often for political reasons, don’t wear masks, and spread conspiracy theories to discourage other people from wearing masks.

          3. theasdgamer says:

            Bruce, you might want to try science some time. It’s actually quite fun.

          4. theasdgamer says:

            Here’s some science, Derek, just in case some lurkers might be interested. You never know….

            “They [the researchers] found that at 35C (95F) and 40 percent relative humidity, a droplet can travel about 8 feet. However, at 5C (41F) and 80 percent humidity, a droplet can travel up to 12 feet. The team also found that droplets in the range of 14-48 microns possess higher risk as they take longer to evaporate and travel greater distances. Smaller droplets, on the other hand, evaporate within a fraction of a second, while droplets larger than 100 microns quickly settle to the ground due to weight.”

            Did you catch that? Smaller droplets evaporate within a fraction of a second. And friction (air jets, mask, skin) and expansion from beneath the mask into free space will tend to increase evaporation as friction produces heat and the increased space will increase evaporation which is explained by quantum physics (my physics isn’t _that_ rusty). The proportion of larger droplets will decrease and free virus proportion will increase with mask wearing from the jets going towards the ears. There will be _some_ filtering of virus from the mask. Some. But even the larger droplets captured by the mask will tend to evaporate water and free virus, ultimately.

            Do we know anything about the polarity of the virus? Does the spike protein introduce polarity to the virus, perhaps? That might help a mask with a charged filter capture polar virus even though the virus shell is lipid.

            My county has let its mask mandate expire and my interest in covid is vanishing, but I’m still just a little curious about masks and asymptomatic spread. It’s concerning that people in my county still tend to wear masks. People have little resistance to panic mongering and it’s a little discouraging.

        2. theasdgamer says:

          The MIT relied on several studies of location of infectees relative to an infected person.

          “There is now overwhelming evidence that indoor airborne transmission associated with relatively small, micron-scale aerosol droplets plays a dominant role in the spread of COVID-19 (4, 5, 7, 17⇓–19, 22), especially for so-called “superspreading events” (25⇓⇓–28), which invariably occur indoors (29). For example, at the 2.5-h-long Skagit Valley Chorale choir practice that took place in Washington State on March 10, some 53 of 61 attendees were infected, presumably not all of them within 6 ft of the initially infected individual (25). Similarly, when 23 of 68 passengers were infected on a 2-h bus journey in Ningbo, China, their seated locations were uncorrelated with distance to the index case”

          Conclusion: Distance between infectees and other people in indoor spaces don’t correlate to likelihood of infections.

          Here’s a little physics about microdroplets and evaporation…

          Small droplets (100 µm) settle within a small time frame (<0.5 s), limiting the radius of infection.

          Intermediate droplets (∼30 µm) show the highest probability of infection due to a slightly longer evaporation lifetime and low Stokes number."

          This study assumes that intermediate droplets are transmitted to nearby individuals. However, the MIT study's references showed that to not be the case.

          Here's the link to the physics microdroplet study…

          Intermediate droplets have a _slightly longer_ evaporation time. Maybe 1 to 5 seconds to evaporate, in my opinion. And if you're wearing a mask, the jets towards the ears will cause even more evaporation due to friction with the mask, skin, and ambient air inside the mask, leaving a percentage of exhaled free virus to be wafted about the room by air currents.

          But, hey, what do physicists and engineers know?

          1. theasdgamer says:

            The copy didn’t work well.

            1. Small droplets (100 µm) settle within a small time frame (<0.5 s), limiting the radius of infection.

            3. Intermediate droplets (∼30 µm) show the highest probability of infection due to a slightly longer evaporation lifetime and low Stokes number.

          2. Gus says:

            Oh ffs sake give it a break . Countless studies have show masks reduce the expulsion of both aerosols and droplets, and the less initial viral load you are exposed to the less severe infection you will get – if anything your post is an argument for better masks, not no masks.

          3. theasdgamer says:


            My argument is:

            1. N95 masks may not work for anybody or maybe will only work for trained professional health care workers

            2. Mask mandates don’t work

            Lol @ “countless” low quality studies.

            Where _some_ masks _might_ work is in indoor applications. Surgical masks won’t prevent aerosolized virus from being inhaled. Cloth masks are equally useless. N95 masks _might_ work for trained professionals if the N95 masks can manage to trap viruses for 8 hours.

            It’s not about droplets–the MIT study reviewed _numerous_ studies to support that claim–it’s about free virus.

          4. chickenlittle says:

            Look at the real world evidence. Infections globally at an all time high… I know the more you count the more you find. But masks are being worn by the vast majority of people and if they worked wouldn’t you expect to see a reduction in infections? Of course real world evidence is often used to “prove” vaccine efficacy. Reduction in deaths in UK and Israel is always brought up by the scientific minded posters here. Strange to think how the deaths receded after the first wave sans vaccines!

          5. theasdgamer says:

            N95 pore size looks to range from 0.1 to 1 micron.

            SARS-COV-2 diameter is 0.12 micron.

            Chain link fence, meet mosquito.

        3. Rastakins says:

          Seems MIT is confused by the difference between small droplets and aerosols. The droplets propagation has a gravity component but the aerosol component will be propagated following inverse-square law. There is nothing magic about six foot social distancing. There still can be risk. Time, crowds, and activity must also be considered.

          Here’s my revised CoViD eXposure risk calculator (April 2020) to determine relative risk:

          (1/D)^2 * T * R * P = Risk (relative)

          D is distance to other persons
          T is time
          R is respiration factor from table below
          P is number of people within distance D

          Respiration factor table (R):
          Sleeping: 1
          Standing: 2
          Walking 3.5 MPH: 6
          Jogging 5 MPH or bicycling 13 MPH: 13
          Fast running 10 MPH or bicycling 20 MPH: 26

          Virion propagation by aerosol is assumed. Any units can be used for D and T, as long as they are consistent. I will use feet and seconds.

          Some examples:

          Case 1, Walking 3′ past someone in a supermarket, 2 seconds:
          ((1/3)^2) x 2 x 6 x 1 = 1.3

          Case 2, Standing in line, 6′ apart with one person in front and one in back of you, 15 minutes:
          ((1/6)^2) x 900 x 2 x 2 = 100

          The takeaway: the lines outside supermarkets are 77x more hazardous than a close encounter inside a supermarket. These hazardous lines should be abolished.

          Case 3, Standing in line, 6′ apart with a family of three in front and a couple in back of you, 15 minutes:
          ((1/6)^2) x 900 x 2 x 5 = 250

          The more people that near you, the greater the exposure. Again, these hazardous lines should be abolished.

          Case 4, Full speed on exercise bike in gym, 8′ apart with one person to the left and one to the right of you, 10 minutes:
          ((1/8)^2) x 600 x 26 x 2 = 487

          A vigorous stationary ride at the gym is might be more hazardous than standing in a line outside the gym.

          Case 5, Leisurely bicycle ride, 30′ apart with one person in front of you, 45 minutes:
          ((1/30)^2) x 2700 x 13 x 1 = 39

          Using real bicycles outside, large distances between bikes can make this quite safe. Exposure is probably even lower due to dispersion by turbulence. If riding side-by-side, exposure is likely zero. Get some fresh air. Take a ride!

          1. theasdgamer says:

            Outdoors there are air currents that disperse aerosols. The infection risk is indoors. Individual virions will hardly be affected by N95 masks if the masks rely solely on physical filtration. It’s like trying to protect against mosquitos with a chain link fence. All the nontherapeutic interventions look to be worthless.

      2. Gus says:

        What about the Astra Zeneca ?

  20. Toby Gibson says:

    As mentioned above, vaccinations can be and are at a low rate erroneously injected directly into blood vessels. The control for this is aspiration: pulling back on the plunger to check for blood being brought backwards into the syringe. Aspiration has specifically not been recommended for COVID-19 vaccines.

    I’ve checked the literature but been unable to determine what cell receptor(s) the ChAdOx1 adenovirus vector (or the precursor simian virus Y25) uses to enter cells. But like many adenoviruses, it presumably has broad tissue tropism, a factor which is advantageous for a vaccine vector.

    On the rare occasions when the vaccine is injected into a blood vessel, then the viral particles can essentially invade either the cells in the blood or the cells lining the blood vessels. In principle, those cells can be anywhere in the body, including the brain and the heart. Productive gene expression will lead to Spike protein being expressed on the surface of those cells.

    ACE2 is not the only receptor for the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein. Neuropilin-1 is another receptor, binding the CendR motif of Spike protein which is generated following cleavage by Furin.

    Since Neuropilin-1 is present in cells of the vascular endothelium, the question arises: Is this receptor ideally situated to partake in vaccine-induced thrombosis, provided that Spike protein is being expressed in the blood vessels?

    The rare cases of thrombosis are associated with low platelet counts. Since it is the thromboses that cause the symptoms that lead to hospitalisation, another question arises: Are the low platelet counts induced by the vaccine or are they an undiagnosed preexisting condition?

    And a final question: Would the use of aspiration during administration of the adenovirus vaccines essentially eliminate those rare thromboses?

    1. john hewitt says:

      CDAXR receptor for group B coxsackie viruses and subgroup C adenoviruses. CAR protein is expressed in several tissues, including heart, brain, and, more generally, epithelial and endothelial cells.

    2. izmimario says:

      sorry for the elementary question: would endothelial damage from a blood injection be completely reversible? or does it partially stuck?

    3. DRN says:

      hmm… seriously, why aren’t these vaccines given intradermally? I think it wouldn’t affect efficacy much.

    4. A Nonny Mouse says:

      All IM injections should be aspirated as a matter of protocol (according to my son who was taught that). I had my second injection a few days ago and there was certainly no aspiration even though I told him to do it!

  21. S. Simons says:

    There is a lot of reassurance given for vaccines due to the fact that vaccines are injected intramuscularly. Were the hamsters and mice in the mentioned studies injected intramuscularly as well or was the injection administered directly into their blood streams?

    1. Derek Lowe says:

      Intramuscular – earlier studies had tried all the different routes, and i.m. was the best, followed by subcutaneous, with i.v. noticeably worse.

      1. S. Simons says:

        So in the study, hamsters and mice were injected intramuscularly and were observed to have significant cellular damage noted due to to the spike proteins. How does this study then provide any reassurance that the same level of damage won’t occur in humans when getting an intramuscular vaccine? Understandably we are different species, but are all mammals with similar circulation systems.

        1. Derek Lowe says:

          No. The study with the Spike protein had it administered into the trachea, and the conference report appears to be i.v. And remember, giving purified Spike protein separately is very different from having it made inside the cell, as the post explains.

          1. Eneida M. Silva says:

            Hi Derek, so given your comment that giving purified spike protein is very different than having it made inside the cells, would it be safer to take an MRNA vaccine rather than say Novavax vaccine (Novavax is just the spike protein), Thanks, Eneida

      2. DRN says:

        In your other post, “mRNA Vaccines: What Happens”, you mentioned:
        “And here’s a 2017 paper from the same team at Karolinska along with Moderna, looking at LNP-mRNA influenza vaccines in a primate model as well. They didn’t even bother with intravenous dosing by this point – it’s a comparison between intramuscular and intradermal. It looks like the intradermal dose comes on more quickly in antibody production, but in the end, the two are pretty similar.” — so I’m a bit sad with this situation. I would have liked to take the vaccine intradermally, as an experiment, and test my antibody levels afterwards. Biodistribution is the only reason why I’m unvaccinated yet.
        Hmm… could the currently approved formulations of vaccine be used intradermally right off the bat? Maybe I can convince someone to do some sort of clinical trial… xD Anyways we have a “vaccine crisis” in my country, we have excess doses and no one wants to take them…

        1. MisterGoober says:

          Is bio distribution really that much of an issue except for nerve cells and other cells that regenerate slowly? If a cell expresses spike and is engulfed, wouldn’t our bodies just create new cells to replace the old?

  22. Daren Austin says:

    If spike protein is binding to ACE2 and internalized, given levels of ACE2 and normal surface turnover rates, there will be rapid clearance. Anyone who’s ever worked on a cell-surface targeting mAb knows this. Even antibodies with FcRn binding and recirculation, can have dramatically short half-lives when there is an abundance of target. The spike protein has a broadly similar molecular weight (too big for renal clearance), but target-mediated clearance will strip it from the circulation very rapidly.

  23. Guest23 says:

    Here’s a tweet from one of the authors of the Circulation Research paper:

  24. J K says:

    Could the initial infection be so localized that it would help explain some of the span of clinical manifestations of the disease? Nasal mucosa being “hit” først vs deep down the bronchial tree. As to why some get serious pulm tissue involvement and others don’t. Anosmia. Etc.

  25. Alberto J. Villena says:

    Just a conceptual note on the Derek’ sentence “ Now we get to a key difference: when a cell gets the effect of an mRNA nanoparticle or an adenovirus vector, it of course starts to express the Spike protein. But instead of that being assembled into more infectious viral particles, as would happen in a real coronavirus infection, this protein gets moved up to the surface of the cell, where it stays”.
    Actually, the S protein is not expressed on the surface of the mRNA (transitionally) transfected cells. The newly synthetized S proteins are cleaved in the proteasome in short peptides, and these ones are coupled to MHC proteins into the endoplasmic reticulum. Then, the MHC-peptides complexes are moved to the cell surface for antigen presentation.
    So, no or very little amount of full S proteins would be released from the mRNA transfected cell after vaccination.

    1. DRN says:

      This paper seems to contradict your statement:

    2. DRN says:

      This article (click on my name) seems to contradict your statement.

  26. Harlan Easley says:

    Meet the mRNA vaccine rookies aiming to take down COVID-19

    “Upon vaccination, the mRNA vaccine encoding the viral spike protein packaged in a lipid nanoparticle enters the cell. There, it is translated in the ribosome into protein. This protein is either broken into smaller pieces (peptides) by the proteasome or transported via the Golgi apparatus to the outside of the cell. ”

  27. DRN says:

    Thanks very much for writing this article, as it sheds some light on the issue and I think will lead to some productive discussions. I still have some curiosities, though, as I’m a layman. (the questions are for anyone in this comment section that has expertise with these things, of course)

    1) The report on Moderna’s vaccine mentions that the LNP+mRNA particles enter various organs, including the heart and the brain, crossing the blood-brain barrier. How does the immune system react to this? Does it mount an attack against those cells? (section 2.3.3)
    2) As others have already mentioned, what are the implications when the vaccine is incorrectly administered? Assuming some fraction of the vaccine is injected into a vein, can something like this happen?:
    mRNA/viral vector is uptook by cells in blood/veins –> those cells express the spike protein on their surface –> some of them go through the bloodstream causing toxicity –> the immune system mounts an attack against them (possibly causing clots/thrombocytopenia)?

    4) All things considered, wouldn’t a subunit vaccine be safer, in theory, as it uses directly the antigen as opposed to gene delivery to cells, and is rapidly cleared from the body? Let’s take the vaccine from Novavax for example, which uses 5 μg of spike protein. In the article below we find—although I’m not sure how reliable it is—that at the moment of peak infection, a person that’s infected with COVID should carry around 1-100 μg of virions. So wouldn’t those 5 μg of spike delivered IM be insignificant compared to an infection? And the efficacy seems to be the same as with mRNA vaccines.

    Totally anecdotal: my dad took the Pfizer vaccine. I told him to take it in his right arm rather than the left after reading some posts with complaints of chest pains and related issues, thinking it would be good to keep inflammation & vaccine components as far from the heart as possible. Then the reports about an association with myocarditis in Israel came out. My dad had no side effects from either dose yet, and he had his 2nd shot a few days ago. So, I don’t know, would the choice of arm matter when it comes to side effects?
    And seriously, why don’t we receive these vaccines intradermally?

    1. DRN says:

      and follow-up questions:
      I don’t really understand what’s the fate of all those spike proteins/peptides in a human body. So clearly they get expressed on cells’ surface and I suppose they stay more or less in place in a controlled environment. But how strong is the membrane attachment really? What happens when a cell full of spike proteins dies?
      I also suppose there’s a surface limitation to the number of spikes a cell can hold. Can more spikes be produced than a cell can hold? And if yes, what happens in this case?

      1. DRN says:

        and a final note: I read a comment from someone who actually does in vitro transcription of mRNA, and they said they get more soluble spike protein than membrane-embedded. What does this actually mean?

    1. Daren Austin says:

      Did you read the assessment – it details the pharmacokinetics of the lipds not the produced spike protein.

      “Pharmacokinetic studies have not been conducted with COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 and are generally not considered necessary to support the development and licensure of vaccine products for infectious diseases (WHO, 2005; WHO, 2014).”

      They did confirm spike protein production in the liver (of rats).

  28. Erast van Doren says:

    This is all BS, of course. Protease gets only a small proportion of proteins, and it also isn’t virus specific. Most of the spike-protein will be secreted into the blood, where it causes exactly the effects we are seeing, such as thrombosis.

    1. theasdgamer says:

      Wait, I thought that the spike protein was somehow targeted to be inserted into the cell membrane. Do you have any evidence that this isn’t the case?

  29. J Curwen says:

    There are 10 nanograms of DNA allowed in the “RNA vaccines”, corresonding to 3.03 x 10^10 300 bp DNA fragments. Their potential for genomic integration in combination with the new LNPs has never been tested.
    Now it turns out that the quality control system for measurement of residual template DNA is done by quantitative PCR with two (2) primers, so only full length inserts are detected, no fragments (after DNAseI digestion!). Therefore the amount of DNA is completely underestimated.
    How can the EMA allow this? Every student knows that absolute DNA quantification is done by acid hydrolysis followed by mass spec.

  30. Kathy Dopp says:

    So if this article is correct, then why do so many persons report getting bad headaches for two days following the mRNA vaccines. (every person I’ve asked about it and every person one of my friends asked, reported having bad headaches lasting about 2 days following the shot.

    1. Adam S says:

      I’m thinking most readers have a pretty sound hypothesis as to why your friend’s have headaches after reading your comments on this post.

  31. Arthur Anderson says:

    My expertise is in chemistry, not in molecular biology. Can someone inform me of why we are not simply expressing the spike protein, then creating a vaccine based on a denatured form of the spike protein vs using mRNA vaccines?

    Yes, I know it’s easier to mass produce mRNA vaccines, but why is it impossible to create a more conventional, less intrusive vaccine?

    1. DRN says:

      That’s what Novavax is doing… but unfortunately they move really slow.

  32. Omar Stradella says:

    Before the pandemic, the comment section of Derek’s blog used to be interesting and enlightening. Since then, it’s been flooded with ignorant, anti-vaxx drivel. I can’t wait for the pandemic to be over so we can go back to the nice discussions about drug discovery and development. “Let’s make In the Pipeline great again” 😉

    1. Gus says:

      The thing is – its an excellent place to discredit their bullshit. I know its tiresome – but you cant just be ivory tower academics – if this vaccination drive is going to work you have to engage with the public too – not gloss over potential problems and give it to them straight based on facts – otherwise these anti-vax nutjobs will have a field day and there’s a lot of people who will not take the vaccine because they will believe their crap.

    2. Jon Duran says:

      Speaking for myself and others I know, we’re thrilled that us and our children are vaccinated from polio, measles, etc. No “anti-vaxxers” here. Tetanus shots are a great thing when you step on a rusty nail. Etc.

      We’re also extremely curious and skeptical of new vaccine technology that hasn’t been robustly trialed, especially when how it interacts with the human body is being learned about in real-time.

      Being denigrated and mocked like some wild-eyed maniac in response furthers that skepticism, not that I think you genuinely care.

      1. theasdgamer says:

        There’s no bigger fool than someone who is wise in his own eyes. Your common, everyday fool has a better chance of learning something.

        I learn stuff here on occasion–especially from those with opposing views. Those on the opposite side never seem to learn much.

      2. Gus says:

        None of us are naive about this. But ALL vaccines went from stage 4 trials to massive public use at some point. These are new there’s no doubt about it, and yes it’s natural to be cautious, they are instructing our cells to make spike proteins etc but as a species out back is up against the wall here. Do you really think the Israelis, a nation that has aggressively asserted Jewish interests globally would poison their own populace if they thought there was a serious worry or less risk from letting covid run wild. The fact is neither of us are qualified to assess the safety of these vaccines. But one thing I do know is that not all people who ARE qualified to comment are evil Satan worshipping monsters out to cull the human race. Most people working in science, as you know, are decent folk and unless the people who REALLY know what they’re talking about sound the alarm en masse then I’m going to trust them more than some crap someone mate read on bitchute. And yes there will be problems with vaccines but that doesn’t mean we have to blow every potential problem up like to some silly scifi horror movie. That’s going to make them stop wanting to inform the public at all. If you have serious worries about these vaccine then feel free to share papers from hi impact peer reviewed journals.

        1. theasdgamer says:

          My view of Qanon is that it was a deep state operation aimed at feeding conservatives a mixture of truths, half-truths, and fantasy in order to poison the well against pedophilia ring truth and against election fraud truth. The pedophilia rings in Washington are no surprise and that was the truth mixed in with nonsense. Pedophilia rings are standard in the halls of power everywhere.

          But what of the Army and Gates Foundation sponsoring a study back in 2013 on using mosquitos to deliver a vaccine? With Gates’ history with the tetanus vaccine in Africa being used to reduce births, that’s concerning. Gates was friends with Epstein (not Qanon fantasy) and Gates is looking more and more like a James Bond villain.

          1. Gus says:

            Bill Gate is just a nerd that made it big and wants to do his bit to help humanity. The thing is if he makes a mistake (as all humans do) it will have a lot more impact as he has more power – but he is no villain, apart from Windows 10 of course – he should go to jail for that shit. I digress. I suspect most people with that much money ran into Epstein at some point. As for the rest of your post – its so far off-topic , I suspect that any serious scientific minds will have abandoned this comments section now – which is sad because some of us normal members of the public are trying to find evidence-based answers.

          2. theasdgamer says:


            You’re likely unaware of Gates’ mission to reduce the human population.

            Gates met with Epstein “many times”. Now I know that the New York Times is part of the fake news media, but maybe this is a case of a broken clock being correct.


          3. Gus says:

            You accuse Bill Gates of all sorts of nonsensical conspiricy theories and yet you let him get away scott free for his REAL crime against humanity: Wiindows 10….

      3. Christina Hall says:


  33. JohnR says:

    Severe cases of Covid-19 are associated with extensive lung damage and the presence of infected multinucleated syncytial pneumocytes. The viral and cellular mechanisms regulating the formation of these syncytia are not well understood. Here, we show that SARS-CoV-2-infected cells express the Spike protein (S) at their surface and fuse with ACE2-positive neighboring cells. Expression of S without any other viral proteins triggers syncytia formation. [1]

    [1] Syncytia formation by SARS-CoV-2-infected cells.

    Like other fusion proteins that are active pH independently, S protein mediates not only fusion between the viral and the cellular membranes during particle entry but also fusion of infected cells with uninfected cells. This process is mediated by newly synthesized S protein accumulating at the cell surface. The resulting syncytia are giant cells containing at least three, often many more nuclei. Cell-cell fusion is used by viruses such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), measles virus (MV), or herpes virus to spread in a particle-independent way. The resulting syncytia are documented as pathological consequence detectable in various tissues such as the lung (measles virus), skin (herpes virus), or lymphoid tissues (HIV). In the brain, cell-to-cell transmission via hyperfusogenic F proteins constitutes a hallmark of MV-caused encephalitis as a fatal consequence of acute MV infections manifesting years later (from one day to 15 years). [2]

    [2] Quantitative assays reveal cell fusion at minimal levels of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and fusion from without.

    1. DRN says:

      For anyone wondering, seems like JohnR took the paragraphs from this study:

      I’d like to highlight: “Here, we show that SARS‐CoV‐2‐infected cells express the Spike protein (S) at their surface and fuse with ACE2‐positive neighboring cells. Expression of S without any other viral proteins triggers syncytia formation.”
      I think this needs some discussion in our context. Anyone competent can comment?

      1. From Here says:

        Actually, JohnR took the paragraphs from this page,

        but wasn’t too sure if I should link to it.

        1. Gus says:

          You should have done – now I know I cant trust a word he types.

          1. peter says:

            Oh really!?

            It was amazing.

            Just to get the Amnesty International Reports on Covid-19 and Care Homes made it worth a look.

            The section on vaccines is excellent as well.

            Well worth a read.

    2. umuroff says:

      Thank you, so this is likely to happen at IM injection sites. Such atypical cellular masses may indeed allow DNA integration, DNA which is present in vaccines. Germ line cells are located far away so i don’t think there is a major threat to humanity. However unknown effects can certainly be expected when we are armed with this knowledge about cell membranes expressing spike protein and ACE2 is abundantly expressed in the microvasculature.

      1. theasdgamer says:

        “We demonstrate for the first time that ACE2 and the entry-facilitating transmembrane protease TMPRSS2 are expressed on very small CD133+CD34+Lin-CD45- cells in human umbilical cord blood (UCB), which can be specified into functional HSCs and EPCs. The existence of these cells known as very small embryonic-like stem cells (VSELs) has been confirmed by several laboratories, and some of them may correspond to putative postnatal hemangioblasts. Moreover, we demonstrate for the first time that, in human VSELs and HSCs, the interaction of the ACE2 receptor with the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein activates the Nlrp3 inflammasome, which if hyperactivated may lead to cell death by pyroptosis. Based on this finding, there is a possibility that human VSELs residing in adult tissues could be damaged by SARS-CoV-2, with remote effects on tissue/organ regeneration.”

        So stem cells are potential targets of spike proteins from SARS-COV-2 and from vaccine-generated spike proteins in cell membranes.

        Do VSELs have the potential to incorporate SARS-COV-2 RNA into their DNA? And could the vaccine cause a reduction in VSELs?

  34. Linda says:

    This is simply incorrect in a very important point. With natural Covid-19 infections, the SARS-CoV-2 virus (with its spike protein) rarely enters the bloodstream. Covid-19 is a respiratory virus, like an extremely severe cold. It is NOT a systemic infection, like the measles. Severe Covid-19 is caused by an over-reaction of the immune system, not by the virus itself. In fact, most people who develop severe Covid-19 have a low viral load by the time the end up in the ICU.

    This is important because, in contrast to the natural infection, the injection DOES cause spike proteins to end up in the bloodstream, and in particularly, they migrate in to the heart. That causes inflammation, which is NOT GOOD.

    1. stewart says:

      It’s long been clear (see coagulopathy symptoms) that COVID-19 is not purely a respiratory disease. More recently people have been saying that it’s better characterized as a vascular disease rather than a respiratory one.

      For transmission SARS-COV-2 may like a respiratory disease, but so does measles.

    2. theasdgamer says:

      Stewart is correct. Covid is a coagulopathic disease which has an immune component and can result in cytokine storm in the lungs in some people, although that isn’t the primary cause of death from covid. The primary cause of death is systemic organ failure from the microclotting that occurs in capillaries. The microclotting produces hypoxemia, which is deadly if it goes on long. Another cause of death from covid is strokes and heart attacks.

  35. Gus says:

    “Notably, the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine is producing wild-type Spike”

    Hi as someone who is definitely pro-vaccine – What are the potential implication of this? Also – as someone in his 40s who had his first jab, shortly before it was banned for the under 60s in my country – I keep hearing that with the RNA vaccines they are out your system fairly quickly – is the same true with the Astra Zeneca – and I know there’s a load of anti-vax nutjobs here – so you might be reluctant to answer this – are there any potential long term issues you can think of with the Astra Zeneca – or is it a case of – once a couple months have gone by it too is out your system and unlikely to cause any harm in the future? Please only answer if you an expert in vaccines, ie Derek or another PhD level researcher – I don’t want to hear from anti-vaxxers.

    1. theasdgamer says:

      You think Derek is an expert in vaccines???

      I’m rusty in physics and chemistry, but at least I know my limitations. One of those limitations is _not_ the inability to read journal articles out of field.

      I have read over a hundred–probably closer to two hundred–covering a wide array of aspects of covid and non-therapeutic worthless interventions.

      1. Gus says:

        He seems to know his shit and his profile says “Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He’s worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases.”
        Which admittedly is not a PhD in vaccinology but feel free to direct me to a better informed blog if you know of one (not an anti vax nut job site or buttchute please)

        1. theasdgamer says:

          Derek writes well and uses the right jargon. His analysis of the RECOVERY trial sucked badly. Derek does better when he’s discussing medicinal chemistry.

          I’m retired and have the time to read journal articles in depth.

          It’s smart to be cautious about the mRNA technology.

          1. Gus says:

            Yeah it would be really nice if someone who knows what they’re talking about could just answer the damn question instead of detailing it with ad hominen attacks.

          2. theasdgamer says:


            You started with the ad hominem and now you complain about it?

  36. Gus says:

    I’m sure there’s a really obvious answer to this – but why would Astrazeneca potentially cause thrombosis in a tiny amount of people after the first jab – but not the second?

    1. Bossman says:

      You think that thrombosis is limited to AZ? Do some searching

      1. Gus says:

        No but I’m asking about astrazeneca. Why is it only the anti vax nutters are answering my questions. Comon guys humor my ignorant layman’s ass.

        1. arcsix says:

          Completely not an expert here – but my guess is that if an individual’s immune system is going to react improperly to an antigen, it’s much more likely to happen with the first exposure. So if you get past the first dose with no problem then that is an indication that you are much less susceptible to this particular immune pathology.

          1. theasdgamer says:

            I have a relative who got the first dose of Sinovax, then covid a couple of weeks later. His pO2 dropped to 90, but he has recovered after a couple of weeks. By way of comparison, my wife, who is 65+ only had a mild case (ILI symptoms) even with more comorbidities than the first relative and recovered within two days of symptom onset. And she had a second case and recovered within 12 hours of symptom onset the second time, which indicates a robust and diverse immune response to covid with no lingering effects.

            In my household, we supplemented with zinc and vitamin C & D quickly after symptom onset and with elderberry concentrate, which contains high levels of quercetin. I was prepared and had everything on hand.

            No one in my household has had any vaccines.

            Two other relatives I know of have caught covid and one died.

          2. theasdgamer says:


            Allergic reactions can happen anytime. A small exposure may trigger a severe allergic reaction, but a large exposure may overwhelm the immune response and the allergic reaction might not occur. And the first exposure to an antigen sets up the later immune response which can trigger an allergic reaction upon second exposure.

            There’s the very, very basic nuts and bolts of allergies.

          3. da boss says:

            It is well known that penicillin allergy and bee stings can be much worse on second exposure.

    2. Jeffo says:

      Just a completely uneducated guess but maybe it’s because the first jab had already made sufficient antibodies that blocks spike proteins produced by the 2nd jab from binding to ACE2?

    1. Kenneth N Shonk says:

      Link is too long to work according to google.

  37. What about m6a RNA messenger and DNA alterations. It is 100% possible and like with the mRNA vaccines. Eua vaccines are winwin for eugenists.

    1. theasdgamer says:

      You might not have a choice:

      “Immunization Via Mosquito Bite With Radiation-attenuated Sporozoites (IMRAS)”

      from 2013

      sponsored by the Army

      funded by Gates Foundation


      What could go wrong?

      1. Janet Love says:

        What could go wrong ?

        In a word, Everything. Would you really trust your life to the source philosophy that generated Windows Operating Systems ?

        I rest my case.

      2. Janet Love says:

        Everything…. could go wrong. Swatting a pesky mozzie at night is… well, good luck with putting that Genie back in the bottle…

      3. Augustine Leudar says:

        Has it occurred to you that Bill Gates intentions are actually good and he’s trying to help humanity?

        1. pablo says:

          Is that why he opposes the liberation of patents? because clearly there are state of the arts labs ready to manufacture vaccine in the third world

  38. Skeptical says:

    Intramuscular injection of mRNA nanoparticles is targeting tissue macrophage/dendritic cells. These cells are phagoctytic and thus are able to take-up the the lipid nanoparticle formulation. The targeting of vaccines intramuscular versus intradermal minimizes the magnitude of the immune response. The skin is much more macrophage rich and hence a more robust response. As far as I can tell no one has measured circulating levels of spike protein. No surprise here as protein/peptide drugs are rapidly degraded in the plasma. This point is well known to many chemists who have spent the last 30-40 years trying to make stable peptides.

  39. Janet Love says:

    No Daniel, ‘Dictionaries do not “need” – and must NOT alter their definitions of “Vaccine” to suit a particular… variant. ‘Vaccine’ has for considerable time been defined, Used, and UNDERSTOOD by the general populace to be a certain product which works in a known way.
    To apply the old meaning… to a different mechanism is deception, as it will be perceived by the old, traditional terms.
    Besides, mRNA has even less to do with cows…

    1. MisterGoober says:

      The “old” meaning isn’t that old. As we learn more, we’ll continuously be finding new and better ways to prevent humans from succumbing to contagious diseases. Why would you limit the definition to technology and knowledge from the late 1700s or 1800s?

  40. FrankN says:

    Derek: Sorry to get OT now, but it might interest you that EMA is now looking into a possible relation between AZ vaccination and the Guillaume-Barre Syndrome – a possible side effect already announced by you several months ago.

    Link (unfortunately in German)

  41. Peter Waldo says:

    “Deny any part of reality, and you will lose your awareness of all of it” (E. Cronkhite)
    That so many of the brightest minds in science could be so duped is astounding. Instead of healthy doubt and honest questioning this is simply a dangerous example of the power of dogma and blind faith in a broken belief system (“science”). Atop a mountain of denial you’re deceiving yourselves at the cost of human suffering. All in support of some nefarious agenda that a child could accurately identify. As the Hindus believe the “sum” of a person’s actions weigh heavily on their fate and future. Karma is real, please wake up and find the courage to do the right thing.

  42. Richard Koenig says:

    I’m no scientist and no anti-vaxxer, but I have this question:
    You take an mRNA vaccine. Some of it gets into the bloodstream. The nanoparticle gets entry to various tissue types–heart, lung, brain–at least for a brief time, as the European preclinical review, if I understand it, explains. Is the antigen then expressed on the membranes of cells in those tissues? If yes, then is it presented to immune-system cells? If yes, for how long? If for any length of time, then why would this process not trigger an autoimmune response?

    1. da boss says:

      Several naturally occurring proteins share similar epitopes to the spike protein, hence we have people all sorts of weird and not so wonderful side effects like people going blind and being paralysed etc. It’s all for the greater good though so ho hum, mustn’t grumble and carry on! Stiff upper lip from the Oxford boffins except when you get Bell’s Palsy of course.

  43. WHAT COULD GO WRONG? says:

    @ DRN; 7 May, 2021 at 6:00 am

    “Here, we show that SARS‐CoV‐2‐infected cells express the Spike protein (S) at their surface and fuse with ACE2‐positive neighboring cells. Expression of S without any other viral proteins triggers syncytia formation.”

    And no one thinks that this is important enough to comment on?

    What is going on ?????


    The aim of mRNA vaccines is to have the spike protein expressed on the surface of your cells.

    Expression of the spike protein without any other viral proteins triggers syncytia formation.

    Infected cells fusing with many non-infected cells.


    1. what could go wrong says:

      To clarify things, the second to last line should have been:

      Vaccine infected cells fusing with many surrounding cells.

      1. Not a clue, but interested says:

        Not that I am by any means a scientist but doesn’t the spike protein in mRNA vaccines have a modification in order to allow upon injection that it keeps its “spike like profile”. Wouldn’t this mean it could act differently than the wild type spike mentioned in the paper you are referring to?

    2. theasdgamer says:

      So, the spike protein is expressed at the cell membrane in a different orientation than if the cell had been infected from the outside and fused at a cell’s ACE2 or TMPRSS or npilin receptor and this different orientation allows fusion with these other receptors in other nearby cells? I’m trying to understand how other cells with ACE2 and other receptors might get near enough to a spike protein on cell membrane cell (let’s call it SPCMC) to bond. I think that there has to be another element somewhere to explain the SPCMC “special effects.”

      1. theasdgamer says:

        Ok, ACE2 in SPMPC can fuse to CD147 in T cells. That might possibly result in a rupture in the SPCMC cell membrane. If the SPCMC is a vascular endothelial cell, platelets might begin to form a clot. If the clotting occurred in the vasculature of the dura membrane, then the dura would become inflamed and people would experience headaches. This would resolve as the clots were dissolved.

        I’m still looking for a journal article showing that free vaccine-generated spike proteins can be released into extracellular space. Or possibly if you know someone working on this question, you might ask them to comment.

        1. theasdgamer says:


          “Ok, ACE2 in SPMPC can fuse to CD147 in T cells.”

          should be

          “Ok, the spike protein in SPMPC can fuse to CD147 in T cells.

    3. DRN says:

      I’ve dug a bit and it seems the stabilized configuration of the protein takes care of that, at least in part (prevents fusion).

      1. theasdgamer says:

        So the spike protein on a cell membrane which has been generated by a vaccine will somehow not bond to neighboring cells but will bond to B cells to generate an immune response? Are T Cells and VSEL stem cells also potential targets?

        Can you please link a journal article?

        1. DRN says:

          I don’t know the answer to your other questions, but here’s one article on the stabilized S protein of MERS virus:
          The relevant part: “The rigidity of the helix-loop-helix afforded by the prolines impairs or (perhaps) abolishes the membrane fusion activity of the S protein, as evidenced in Fig. 2A.”
          Funny that I found it on the “conspiracy” website that was linked in some other comment.

  44. Deva says:

    @cassandra – Also for all of those saying lockdown. Take a look at Haiti. When I look at what has happened there that completely defies any narrative we are hearing. Very low deaths due to COVID. No enforced lockdown, social distance, masks, etc. of any kind. When I checked the other day they didn’t yet have any vaccine available. Yet why would they need it considering their circumstance? Now when you consider Haiti and their off and on health system problems it is very surprising to me to see how well they are doing. Now I did mention this elsewhere yesterday and someone came back with a quip about India. India and Haiti are very different but I went ahead and looked. At the time 160 million doses of vaccine had already been provided in India. They had many of the standard things people are doing to mitigate and stop the problem (at least that is the narrative). Haiti has not been. Yet it is doing amazingly well. I think finding out why could be a pretty important thing.

    I came here because I keep encountering people that are unvaccinated that are experiencing numerous issues after spending much time around people vaccinated with the mRNA vaccines. I personally only know people who have taken the Pfizer variant. It is indeed odd and growing in number and that made me wonder if anyone had studied the effects the spike proteins being expressed have upon the unvaccinated?

    1. Gus says:

      Has it occurred to tlyou that in HAITI they are just not bothering to test or register covid deaths because they can’t afford the tests or to have a lockdown because they are one of the poorest nations on Earth?
      Lockdown is common sense. If you don’t see people you can’t catch a virus from them. Even someone with a single functioning brain cell can work that out. I’m actually amazed some people posting here can get past the captcha.

    2. Gus says:

      This is an I teresting article on Haiti, its clear that’s what’s works. In HAITI isn’t necessarily going to work in the states. They’ve an average age of 23 for starters….

  45. Edward Lye says:

    Thanks for an erudite exposition. I encountered more in this article{including comments} than in all the webinars and articles from both sides of the divide that I have come across. It is a pleasure to read this open discourse without censorship and encounter the hard questions often left unanswered. If COVID-19 is that {think Train To Busan} infectious and deadly, I would now be the King of Sweden simply by sailing there and being the first to set foot just as the last citizen drops dead. Since I have yet to receive congratulatory messages from Heads of Government around the world, I have to conclude that the truth is still out there. My only contribution to this discussion is a novel suggestion that the Covid vaccine is the perfect Trojan Horse. A clear colourless liquid that could contain virtually anything. A perfect means to disable or liquidate political dissidents. No fancy Ricin pellet delivered by umbrella. Just switch vials. Any third-rate magician could do it. With a mask on, who can tell? It is not inconceivable. The NSA intercepted a shipment of Cisco? routers/switches? and loaded their own firmware, resealed the boxes and let the shipment continue. If you wanted to conduct drug trials, X percentage of vials could be replaced. Just monitor the news/VAERS for results. Vaccine sales lagging? Replace the vaccine with pure virus of another strain. This will offset the cost of owning that CRISPR contraption. Untraceable. Undiscoverable. It is a pity James Bond has retired. We could do with his help. It was unsettling when I saw a documentary which showed news readers from various TV stations reporting word-for-word that jet fuel melted the steel beams leading to the collapse of you know what. I just saw a similar compilation of world leaders selling the idea of “Build a Better World”. That sent a chill straight up my spine. My Spidey Sense spiked.

  46. Simon from Florida says:

    Even optimistically assuming only 1% of spike proteins reaches your circulatory system That surely is not uniform for all unwitting recipients ie there is a bell curve of distribution and that applies for every additional dose going forward every year with extreme risk of negligent intravenous injection failure to spin the revolver cylinder again (the deer hunter movie 1978 ) result in cancellation of your vaccine passport with all its linked benefits see Israel green passport and Chinese social credit score for details
    So apart from the super risk takers what protection exists for those who believe in my body my choice who receive blood spit semen organs sweat etc from the ever giving distribution from the booster receivers bearing in mind there will be an unknown partial distribution in all those sites each time?

  47. Dan says:

    As I read about all this: So what is the “spike protein” being used? What Coronavirus natural and or manmade? (which variant?)
    (Salk article: “pseudo virus”?)

    Would the adverse reactions be stats based on the millions being given the “shot”? Failure to keep (accurate/available to all) records!
    Could a part of the problem be the process and added ingredients?
    (sad that some must (suffer/die) for the many? hope you are not that one?)

    signed: a cynic! (a chance to live longer, maybe not)

  48. Christian says:

    Here is something you may did found which is interesting:

    This was known in Oktober 2020 bye the “german CDC” which is so called PEI (Paul-Ehrlich-Institus)

    The Study found that spike proteins are able to do a so called “”Fusion-from-Without” with other cells and this results in cloths (only the S-Proteins is able to do so) but there is a difference between Vector and M-RNA as i found.

    The M-RNA is only using Pieces from the Spikes and not the whole spike! (Thats what i read in different papers about it)

    But Astra is using the whole protein as you can see here ( they did picture this under a so called CryoET. You can see the whole S-Protein.

    There are 3 Facts that speaks against the Spike-Protein Thesis when it comes to M-RNA (Biontech/Moderna)

    1. The MRNA is injected into the Delta Muscle, which means: The proteins produced would be stored in the shell of muscle cells and presented to the immune system. “Then this cannot lead to clumping, since the‘ glue points ’cannot move freely.”

    2. The cells could also release the proteins, but even then they would still have too few “glue points” – “For the ‘clumping’, however, you need many of these points, which are firmly connected so that the cells can be clumped together”,

    3. “The proteins are cut into small pieces and shown to the immune system by ‘presenters’, so only small pieces of them. The sticking does not play a role here.”

  49. Christian says:

    Here is something you may did found which is interesting:
    This was known in Oktober 2020 bye the “german CDC” which is so called PEI (Paul-Ehrlich-Institus)
    The Study found that spike proteins are able to do a so called “”Fusion-from-Without” with other cells and this results in cloths (only the S-Proteins is able to do so) but there is a difference between Vector and M-RNA as i found. The M-RNA is only using Pieces from the

    Spikes and not the whole spike! (Thats what i read in different papers about it) But Astra is using the whole protein as you can see here ( they did picture this under a so called CryoET. You can see the whole S-Protein. There are 3 Facts that speaks against the Spike-Protein Thesis when it comes to M-RNA (Biontech/Moderna) 1. The MRNA is injected into the Delta Muscle, which means: The proteins produced would be stored in the shell of muscle cells and presented to the immune system. “Then this cannot lead to clumping, since the‘ glue points ’cannot move freely.” 2. The cells could also release the proteins, but even then they would still have too few “glue points” – “For the ‘clumping’, however, you need many of these points, which are firmly connected so that the cells can be clumped together”, 3. “The proteins are cut into small pieces and shown to the immune system by ‘presenters’, so only small pieces of them. The sticking does not play a role here.”

  50. Shove yer vaxy up yer jacksy says:

    This is all a zero sum game. A huge proportion of global population in the first world are taking experimental vaccines and risking their lives. Apparent that short term side effects and deaths are happening as well as rapidly escalating breakthrough infections with alarmingly high hospitalisation and death rates (CDC). Logically we already know these vaccine campaigns are a completely futile exercise. How? Just take a look at Manaus, nice sample size of a couple of million people, it’s a fact that over 70% of people there were infected in first wave and the region was decimated again. Herd immunity is a complete fallacy. Manufacturers of vaccines know as much – why are they planning on manufacturing billions of doses into 2023/2024?
    For obvious reasons I really don’t believe a crude spike protein vaccines can provide as much protection as natural infection? How could it?
    How are so many supposedly educated and enlightened people swallowing this utter nonsense? Most of the world seem to have lost the capacity to think for themselves, leaving the bumbling idiots in the WHO and Bill Gates to make up their destiny. Bill’s track record of funding clinical trials is unsavoury, now we have the biggest human experiment ever conducted running out of control. We are prepared to put this junk into our citizens and children in a huge act of misplaced blind faith. Nobody here can provide any coherent arguments back for these truths which are recorded in the comments section for posterity. I really do worry about the consequences, anything can happen, and going by the shambolic and reprehensibly selfish roll out of the snake oil to date, it most likely will. Nature is an irresistible force in levelling inequality, our meddling here will end in tears.

    1. Gus says:

      Sigh. I see the actual scientists here are adopting the ignore it and it will go away stance. I will take the bait one last time.

      “How are so many supposedly educated and enlightened people swallowing this utter nonsense?”

      Because it isn’t nonsense and educated people know this. It is in fact you that is swallowing nonsense and anti science propaganda on dodgy websites such as bitchute. Undermining public confidence in science is an initiative mainly I suspect to undermine climate science by certain wealthy interest groups. Note how many anti vaxers are also anti climate science, the connection cannot be ignored.

      1. Shove your vaxy up ur jacksy says:

        You have answered nothing, absolutely nothing – nor are you capable of answering the questions I posed. Let’s see this science in action Gustavo, it will unfold and shall be an education for you and others incapable of thinking! As a sentient being I can read, understand, assimilate and predict obvious outcomes based on my interpretation of the facts – as a scientist these sources are often scientific literature and trusted sources such as the CDC, which I referenced (although I’m very skeptical that they are now being transparent with what they know). You’ll find out the hard way that the world has been sold a lie.

        1. Gus says:

          Automatically adopting the opposite of the mainstream narrative, cherry-picking academic studies that fit your bias and that you are not qualified to assess properly and believing everything you read on bitchute – does not qualify as “thinking for yourself” or make you some kind of renegade free thinker battling the forces of evil. I hope to God you don’t “learn the hard way” but then I am not as keen as you to see other people suffer to prove I’m correct.
          As for the answers to your questions – google them – in terms of herd immunity- it’s probably correct for some diseases and not for others (eg dengue) and as to why a vaccine might offer better protection than natural protection – google it! There’s plenty of articles about this very subject including in this week’s New York Times – I’m not doing your homework for you. Of course, this is a new disease so there is plenty the real experts simply don’t know.

      2. theasdgamer says:

        What do covid and climate science have in common?

        Massive panic-mongering.

  51. John says:

    What’s with the many Mantis toboggan comments on “Spike Protein Behavior” under “Recent Comments” that never turn up?

  52. John says:

    I have never seen a paper claiming this. I reckon he got the idea from this part of the preearth article.

    Is the spike protein always dangerous?

    By itself, the Covid spike protein should be less dangerous than the virus. For many the Covid virus causes little harm, but for others it is fatal. So for many, the Covid spike protein, by itself, will cause little harm, but for others it may prove fatal. So why not cripple it in some way, while retaining its original conformation? This appears to be what Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna have done, although they do not claim this.

    The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines produce a spike protein (denoted S-2P) with two amino acid changes from the wild-type. The two changes, K986P and V987P, are to stabilize the pre-fusion form of the protein. This stabilization is necessary to make sure that antibodies are made against the pre-fusion, and not the post-fusion form. A 1967 trial of an RSV (Respiratory Syncytial Virus) vaccine was a disaster as the vaccine induced antibodies that bound to the post-fusion form of the RSV-spike protein, but did not prevent infection, which lead to inflammation, clogged airways, and more severe disease than with no vaccine at all. [7][8]

    The idea of stabilizing the pre-fusion form comes from previous work on HIV, RSV, SARS and MERS. The equivalent changes, V1060P and L1061P, that stabilize the pre-fusion form of the MERS spike protein are claimed to significantly impair cell fusion. So, it is probable that the changes, K986P and V987P, do likewise for the Covid spike protein.

    The phrase “stabilizing the pre-fusion form” implies that the pre-fusion form can still change to the post-fusion form, that is, that the Covid spike-2P protein can still cause cell fusion, but probably not to the same extent. One guesses that syncytia are still formed, but they are fewer and smaller. Still, it seems that enough cells die to trigger an immune response without an adjuvant.

  53. stefano says:

    So all the clotting disorders that are documented are to be disregarded.

  54. Jorge Bizarro says:

    I’m baffled by the lack of questioning about the reaction of the immune system and platelets to the spikes on membrane walls. Could they not irritate circulating platelets and cause local thrombosis? – Will the immune system attack cells with that foreign protein, which is by the way seems quite similar to a ‘prion-type’ protein?

    1. John says:

      This brief article looks at the spike, platelets, etc.

      Dangerous side effects of genetically induced production of SARS CoV-2 spike proteins

    2. Derek Lowe says:

      A strange thing to say – the Spike protein has nothing in common with prions. And the clots are not caused by “irritation” of platelets – it’s an antibody binding event.

  55. anon2938 says:

    Injecting a liquid into a muscle does not prevent it from entering the bloodstream. The dispersion is slower than with a direct injection into an artery but the end result is about the same.

    If a coral snake bites you, you’re in trouble no matter where it bit.

    1. theasdgamer says:

      Extracellular fluids make it into the lymph system and from there into the blood.

  56. TY Tang says:

    I recall reading other articles that mentioned the spike proteins will be released by the cells that produce them. Is there clear data showing that the spike protein stays on the surface of the cells? thanks

  57. Some dude says:

    The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine has not been approved or licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but has been authorized for emergency use by FDA under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to prevent COVID-19 for use in individuals 16 years of age and older. The emergency use of this product is only authorized for the duration of the emergency declaration unless ended sooner.

  58. The Dude says:

    “Janci Chunn Lindsay: Covid vaccines could induce cross-reactive antibodies to syncytin, and impair fertility as well as pregnancy outcomes

    First, there is a credible reason to believe that the Covid vaccines will cross-react with the syncytin and reproductive proteins in sperm, ova, and placenta, leading to impaired fertility and impaired reproductive and gestational outcomes.”

    1. John says:

      Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay – CDC ACIP public comment – April 23, 2021

      Doesn’t sound good.

      I thought youtube censored all this sort of stuff? What’s up?

    2. Cassandra says:

      Didn’t the recently single computer nerd say that he wanted to stope people reproducing?

  59. John says:

    What do you think about this?

    The Amnesty International Reports: Covid-19 and Care Homes.

    The report on the United Kingdom. Some passages:

    Covid-19 has had a devastating impact on older persons living in care homes in England. 28,186 “excess deaths” were recorded in care homes in England between 2 March and 12 June, with over 18,500 care home residents confirmed to have died with Covid-19 during this period. UK government decisions and failures resulted in violations of the human rights of people living in care homes, notably the right to life, to health and to non-discrimination. From discharging 25,000 patients, including those infected, into care homes; to denying care homes residents admission to hospital and imposing “do not attempt resuscitation” orders on them without due process, to failing to provide PPE (personal protective equipment) and testing to care homes. Older persons living in care homes were abandoned to die.

    I guess; “people in care homes had their right to life violated”, sounds better than; “people in care homes were murdered,” but it is less accurate.

    The following was so deceptively worded that I have added explanation (in brackets).

    The Department of Health and Social Care…. adopted a policy,… that led to 25,000 patients, including those (known to be) infected (with Covid-19, and also those who were) possibly infected with Covid-19 (as they) had not been tested, being discharged from hospital into care homes between 17 March and 15 April—exponentially increasing the risk of transmission to the very population most at risk of severe illness and death from the disease. (This, while being denied) access to testing, (being denied) personal protective equipment, (while having) insufficient staff, and limited (and confusing) guidance. (As expected) care homes were overwhelmed.

    Care home managers have reported to Amnesty International, as well as to the media, that they were pressured in different ways to accept patients discharged from hospital who had not been tested or who were Covid-19 positive.

    I was contacted by concerned residents, saying surely we wouldn’t put Covid-19 patients in care homes where the most vulnerable are? But commissioning [the council commissioning department] said, yes we are….

    They endangered older people by discharging infected patients into care homes, without even providing tests and personal protective equipment.

    Baroness Ros Altmann said: “care homes were left behind in the scramble for PPE, for emergency admission, ventilation and for testing… It’s almost as if the system is stacked against them.”

    Care England has also reported incidents of supplies ordered by care homes being requisitioned for the NHS (National Health Service).

    Our local hospital always had over 500 empty beds and so staff were not under pressure and they had lots of PPE. (However) we had 45 percent of the staff self-isolating and were scrambling to get PPE and even food.

    By barring both oversight and family visits, the government increased the risk that care home residents would be exposed to abuses that would not be identified, reported and investigated.

    It was the same in Italy. Some passages from the Italian report:

    We can distinguish the transfers of Covid-19 positive patients discharged from hospitals to care homes:
    1) patients from hospitals who were no longer acute but still Covid-19 positive.
    2) patients from hospitals who were assumed non-Covid-19 positive, but were not tested,…

    Infected patients discharged from hospitals also arrived in the same facilities. Some had not been swabbed at all (i.e., were not tested), but others had been determined positive for Covid-19 in hospital and had been sent to care homes without verifying the homes ability to assist these people safely.

    The transfers of patients from hospitals to nursing homes took place continuously, without warnings, instructions or discussions.

    The sending of positive Covid-19 patients discharged from hospitals to care homes…. where there were inadequate supplies of nasal swabs, and PPE, endangered the lives of residents and staff.

    The managers of a care home reported that it has not been able to obtain any PPE from local health authorities for several weeks and that the small quantity that they eventually managed to buy, independently, was requisitioned by the customs authorities and redirected to hospitals.

    Hundreds of patients had died, but in many homes, in Lombardy and elsewhere, swabs were rare, mostly not available at all. In many facilities, the first swabs (both for residents and operators) arrived only in the month of April, when the peak of infections and deaths had passed and thousands of residents had died. In other homes they arrived weeks later than this.

    In Lombardy the situation was completely lost: we were abandoned like ships at sea without fuel, a total abandonment, they didn’t even answer the phone.

    Nobody is going in [to care homes], so there are no witnesses to whatever is going on.

    Amnesty International report: United Kingdom (English)
    Amnesty International report: Italy (Italian)
    Amnesty International report: Spain (Spanish)
    Amnesty International report: Belgium (French)

    It is interesting that the United States branch of Amnesty International did not see fit to publish anything on the situation there.

  60. SD says:

    “Fortunately, the answer [b]definitely seems[/b] to be “no” – in fact, the pseudovirus paper notes…”

    Which one is it? “Definitely” or “seems” ?

  61. Christian says:

    Found something related to the topic which is really interesting:

    Problem what I have with this is that I’m 31 and I got my first Pfizer shot 8 Days ago. I have the 2’nd in 2 weeks.

    I don’t know if I should take it or not. I hope there will be some new recommendations during the next week. I’m a bit afraid because of this.

    1. Derek Lowe says:

      I am not a physician, but I recommend you get it (I did). The mRNA vaccines (like Pfizer’s) have not been associated with the unusual blood clots seen with some of the adenovirus ones.

  62. Cassandra says:

    Is this case just coincidental bad luck after Pfizer vaccine?
    Just informing

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.