In the introduction, the authors claim that "The many alterations in the vaccine mRNA hide the mRNA from cellular defenses and promote a longer biological half-life and high production of spike protein" without giving any reference to support this assumption.
They also assume that "the immune response to the vaccine is very different from that to a SARS-CoV-2 infection", without any references supporting this view. Actually, the given references (2 to 4) support the opposite view. The only citation that could support their opinion, reference 5, is a pre-print released in August 2021 and still unpublished.
The author explain that " One remarkable observation they made was that there was an expansion of circulating hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs) in COVID-19 patients, but this expansion was notably absent following vaccination" and that "striking expansion in circulating plasmablasts observed in COVID-19 patients was also not seen in the vaccinees" which can only support the opinion that vaccination is not infection.
The authors also write about phase II and phase III trials of the ARNm vaccines that "those were terminated early and placebo arms given the injections". This is untrue and none of the given arguments can either support an early stop of the trials nor the falsification of the placebo arm like the author claim, which would require important evidences to be supported.
The author's opinion that "governments are reticent to consider the possibility that these injections might cause harm in unexpected ways" is also untrue considering the unprecedented pharmacovigilance work that followed the release of Covid-19 vaccines.
https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/pharmacovigilance-covid-19-drug-safety-pandemic/
The author discovered that "The biological response to mRNA vaccination as it is currently employed is demonstrably not similar to natural infection" which is true for any vaccine, an infection carrying the disease, not the vaccine. So what? "We will connect these underlying physiological effects with both realized and yet-to-be-observed morbidities". Can one understand that they are going to find long-term effects of the absence of viral infection? That would only have been relevant if they could have proved any protective effect of SARS-Cov-2 infection, which, to my knowledge doesn't exist. This doesn't prevent the authors from claiming that they "anticipate that implementation of booster vaccinations on a wide scale will amplify all of these problems". This is not science, this is divination.
The authors claim that "it has become clear that the vaccines do not prevent transmission of the disease" supporting this assumption with reference 10 which is only a * correspondence, and ignoring many articles that support the opposite assumption**. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2116597
They also ignore the questions of the variants which is important in understanding the effect of vaccines on the transmission rate reduction. https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298.long
The same way, the claim that “Regarding symptom severity, even this aspect is beginning to be in doubt” relying on the Israeli example through reference 12 which concludes that “a third vaccine dose may be needed” due to “some waning of immunity”. Thus, this claim is unsupported.
They even dare to write that “34/152 (22%) of fully vaccinated patients among 17 Israeli hospitals died of COVID-19” supporting this affirmation with reference 13 which is a case report on “clinical characteristics of 152 fully vaccinated hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Israel” explaining that these “patients had a higher rate of co-morbidities and immunosuppression compared with previously reported non-vaccinated hospitalized individuals with COVID-19”. This is clearly a misinterpretation of the given bibliography.
Nevertheless, the authors write that “The increasing evidence that the vaccines do little to control disease spread and that their effectiveness wanes over time make it even more imperative to assess the degree to which the vaccines might cause harm” and that “S ARS-CoV-2 modified spike protein mRNA vaccinations have biological impacts is without question”. One could argue they did not prove any of the assumptions they intend to demonstrate and since they “recognize that the causal links between biological effects initiated by mRNA vaccination and adverse outcomes have not been established in the large majority of cases” the rest of this article is completely irrelevant.
This is why this analysis was only focused on the introduction, but the many unsupported claims and misunderstandings of the scientific literature tend to show that this pre-print has an agenda of claiming a danger on Covid-19 vaccine based on cherry-picking and poor evidence, ignoring high-impact literature and scientific consensus.
Trying to avoid ad-persona arguments, I cannot ignore that this has often been reproached to the first author in her previous publication. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Seneff
The conclusion? "billions of lives are potentially at risk". With asteroid falls and aliens invasion too.
The authors "call on the public health institutions to demonstrate, with evidence, why the issues discussed in this paper are not relevant to public health", thus calling for the demonstration that something doesn't exist, which is a scientific nonsense.
Last sentence is "we encourage all individuals to make their own health care decisions with this information as a contributing factor in those decisions" ignoring experts decisions and lack of scientific backgournd in the poipulation. I don't like to give my opinion on scientific assumptions, but I will make an exception: I think this is scientific populism.
Does a recently published paper by Peter McCullough and colleagues really “establish a mechanistic framework” for m… https://t.co/l6pHX9LYpe
McCullough just published a paper in “Food and Chemical Toxicology” that posits biological mechanisms underlying pu… https://t.co/Yn5FRu8hGo
This paper proposes that distinct from COVID infection, mRNA vaccines suppress type I IFN leading to a cascade of d… https://t.co/a1GO88Kgaa
This long review article presents many details about various biological pathways, but their links to mRNA vaccines… https://t.co/EeSYaVvk1j
In fact, so much of their evidence is from papers on severe COVID-19 infections, not vaccination, much content in t… https://t.co/BfQFfMmyJ0
A number of places in the article seem to make stronger statements linking mRNA vaccines to some of these processes… https://t.co/D8rwxB1s2e
They suggest connections of these mechanisms to various anecdotal case reports for herpes zoster reactivation, live… https://t.co/CdH4G4NL7d
The paper amounts to laying out a series of hypotheses about mechanisms of harm that may come from mRNA vaccines.… https://t.co/OUcUOU1zVi
However, not all hypotheses are equally justified. Some are well-girded in direct evidence from relevant studies,… https://t.co/gF1aeMgPnZ
Indeed the speculative nature of their exploration is implicitly acknowledged by the authors in their choice of wor… https://t.co/ioCDZ3eCHG
It seems to me that rather than “establish a mechanistic framework”, this paper simply lays out speculative mechani… https://t.co/TJ6G5FXLHo
Their conclusion uses the classic “shifting the burden” trick, presuming that it is the responsibility of the scien… https://t.co/9l7GlZ6uJS
The entire last part of the paper presents results from VAERs attempting to “strengthen” a causal link between mRNA… https://t.co/XoOIjicB67
Their case for causation is driven by their claim that the mechanisms discussed in this paper represent “causal pat… https://t.co/2L0LHqZCrK
This follows a line of argument used by others that the only possible explanation for higher VAERs reports close to… https://t.co/J5U11uRsVj
They step through their chosen symptom categories and list what % of VAERs reports in 2021 were for COVID rather th… https://t.co/Y9jgOWH0eN
Of course, this approach assumes that event reporting rates in 2021 do not vary across vaccine type, i.e. that COVI… https://t.co/hMEgAygbiO
I previously showed Medicare data posted by CMS whistleblower demonstrate equivalent death rates <14d after flu or… https://t.co/5JCma68UI1
Here, from various negative control events I looked up in VAERs, we can see that indeed reporting is higher for COV… https://t.co/NUjsMFMMQs
Results from several symptom categories demonstrates how their conclusions tend to overreach and ignore important confounding effects.
Here are nerve inflammation symptoms they analyzed. https://t.co/7IbWSFtMdK
One nerve inflammation symptom is anosmia. They claim this “clearly demonstrates” the spike injected into arm reac… https://t.co/fKNcjf1QGx
Here are neurodegenerative disease symptoms they analyzed. https://t.co/Tpdua85oJ9
In presenting neurodegenerative diseases, they acknowledge that they take decades to develop, yet imply some sort o… https://t.co/Obzn8q2XPB
They conclude by suggesting these VAERs results reflect increased cancer risk from mRNA vaccination, citing their m… https://t.co/HoA4ITqKqe
Their suggestions that they have evidence that mRNA vaccines increase cancer risk and that their literature review… https://t.co/3ZmqPLHssH
Scientists have detected, validated, and characterized various minority harm risks of vaccines, including anaphylax… https://t.co/bJIfFbsKI4
And deep characterization of the subgroups at highest risk of these serious complications, and of the severity and… https://t.co/TnFNytYbt0
Studies like this one integrating information from existing literature to posit hypotheses explaining these harms a… https://t.co/wJlM8gaN91
However, in my opinion, the purported “mechanistic frameworks” laid out in this paper lack documented connections t… https://t.co/IHDTKL3uEd
Additionally, their case for vaccine relatedness is built upon flawed VAERs analyses that link higher reporting rat… https://t.co/aqSGE8J0tr
Bottom line is that unless these assertions are validated, they should be acknowledged as hypotheses to investigate… https://t.co/1ZySdO3DeI
Here is a blog post related to this thread: https://t.co/eqteHwoGop
A detailed deconstruction by David Gorski in the blog "Science Based Medicine":
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/scientific-review-articles-as-antivaccine-disinformation/
A detailed criticism of this manuscript has been pre-printed and is available here: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/m58yh
Dear friends Let me tell you about a recent editorial experience hard to believe: the editorial scandal of the anti… https://t.co/vBBvLWsKcN
This is the crazy story of a 16,000-word review, with more than 200 references, whose objective is to discredit ant… https://t.co/iPLnaiVP0a
There are several links already on this article debunked by many people Here some links 👉https://t.co/13JkWMh5dW… https://t.co/dM9gHehiyd
We then, invited by the Editor, submitted a Letter to request a retraction of the article and we have argue with su… https://t.co/ujU9HpIkL8
Here is the modified version of our Letter to Editor … after 3 rounds of reviewing made by… 4 reviewers ! (Probably… https://t.co/64K2gZSy91
And here are the comments of the 4 reviewers after 3 rounds 😳😳 6/9⤵️ https://t.co/VARvTGnkSf
Here are some of our responses to Editor Our point was to stand with the retractation of the paper arguing this po… https://t.co/ji8AKO3qB9
Unfortunately for the scientific debate after having illustrated and demonstrated the misleading points of Seneff… https://t.co/xfkaIxKhhX
This is where we are now. All the co-authors agreed today: we will not give up! Now it is time to write a positio… https://t.co/J9tngDC7h3
The team 🙏🙏 : @fabrice_frank @lonnibesancon @EricBillyFR @saada_vsaada @PolskiBarbara @AlexSamTG and Pr Jacques Ro… https://t.co/TAq20FpiIV
@RetractionWatch @les_vaxxeuses @Wal_Trudeau @gorskon
And of course if a EIC among the readers of this thread is interested in a position paper about [Can a request for… https://t.co/xLzkQyCZRo
*retraction
From the paper"
"Importantly, only 14% of COVID-19 VAERS-reported deaths as of June 2021 could have vaccination ruled out as a cause (McLachlan et al., 2021). This strongly suggests that these unprecedented vaccines exhibit unusual mechanisms of toxicity that go well beyond what is seen with more traditional vaccines."
As someone pointed out in the comments at the Retraction Watch article mentioned above, the second sentence is not supported by the first sentence - this is a logical fallacy. As the commentor noted, "Ah yes, if one cannot rule something out, then surely it must be responsible. In 100% of these deaths, we cannot rule out exposure to sasquatch dung."
Readers should become aware that a recent paper Jérôme Barrière & colleagues call into question the conclusions of this study
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12015-022-10465-2
From the Abstract:
''Recently, an article by Seneff et al. entitled “Innate immunosuppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs” was published in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT). Here, we describe why this article, which contains unsubstantiated claims and misunderstandings such as “billions of lives are potentially at risk” with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, is problematic and should be retracted. We report here our request to the editor of FCT to have our rebuttal published, unfortunately rejected after three rounds of reviewing. Fighting the spread of false information requires enormous effort while receiving little or no credit for this necessary work, which often even ends up being threatened. This need for more scientific integrity is at the heart of our advocacy, and we call for large support, especially from editors and publishers, to fight more effectively against deadly disinformation.''
Attach files by dragging & dropping,
selecting them, or pasting
from the clipboard.
Uploading your files…
We don’t support that file type.
with
a PNG, GIF, or JPG.
Yowza, that’s a big file.
with
a file smaller than 1MB.
This file is empty.
with
a file that’s not empty.
Something went really wrong, and we can’t process that file.