Fact Checking the Vax Checkers pt 2: All About Spike Proteins!
Did somebody spike my coronavirus, coz I don't feel so good...
Memetically-modified spike protein confirmed on closer inspection
In our first instalment of Fact Checking the Vax Checkers, we had a bit of fun: showing that, despite the best narrative management efforts of our Debunking elite, recently vaccinated individuals were able to hold magnetic objects (including but not limited to Baby Yoda) in place on their injection site. While gaining new and unexpected superpowers alongside Covid immunity will likely only sweeten the deal for many, for others it points to a broader concern at the lack of understanding we have for what these adenovirus/mRNA technologies might actually be doing to our bodies.
It is in light of these concerns that we must now turn to more serious issues. If such unexpected symptoms of these novel vaccines are indeed occurring — whether it be from a fault in the product, or an unforeseen outcome of the product working exactly as intended — what is the potential for other less comic-book-worthy, potentially life-threatening outcomes?
This seems like a fairly obvious and reasonable question to ask. Not for the fact checkers, however — but we will get back to them soon. Let’s try and find some common ground first.
We are all, even those of us fully supportive of the Covid vaccine rollout, now very much aware of the risk — albeit still small — that these rushed-to-market pharmaceutical products may not work exactly as advertised. This risk was always there, even from the initial (and still ongoing) clinical trials: where subjects in the vaccinated group were subject to roughly twice the number of adverse events within 2 months compared to the control group. But when these events start to occur in real life, start to be picked up and reported on by the mainstream media, and even cause some pause for thought and reflection by regulatory agencies — the delicacy of the balancing act between risk and reward becomes very real.
One of the early challengers to the tightly controlled vaccine narrative was the ever-present depopulation spectre of fertility, and in particular female reproductive function. To delve into such murky waters was perhaps the most grievous of sins an ‘Anti-Vaxxer’ could commit at the start of the rollout. Such fears were stoked by astute observers pointing out that official information sheets were surprisingly open and transparent about the complete lack of testing on fertility.
These claims were, needless to say, quickly and fiercely debunked. That a side effect still theoretical in nature could be so decisively debunked says much about our current informational environment — on one hand the tendency of my side to share inconvenient information in the most alarming way possible, and for other side the complete and unwavering trust and belief in Science (quite possibly as a substitute for religion in our increasingly secular society). Nonetheless, the impacts on female reproductive cycles has continued to be one of the most divisive issues of the rollout, with anecdotal reports of menstrual changes after vaccination continuing to pour in.
Since then, we have also had other contenders. Blood clots was one of the first intruders on the scene, with much of the focus since turning to instances of Myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart — particularly in young people. It is clear that we have now reached a tipping point in the debate, where even formerly staunch pro-vax experts and parents are going on record to express their concerns about the safety of these new generation of jabs. We might even call this the new frontier of the Great (dis)Information Wars that we are currently caught up in.
So, what theories are currently being postulated to explain these severe adverse reactions to the Covid vaccines? And, more importantly: what do our esteemed Vax Checkers have to say about these theories?
First, a quick refresh on the mechanism of action of the Covid vaccines. While it seems almost cliched to still be making this point, they are not designed in the same way as normal vaccines — where a less-active sample of the pathogen in question is injected in order to trigger an immune response. These vaccines instead use genetic material (harmless adenoviruses in the case of AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, or messenger-RNA wrapped in a lipid nanoparticle in the case of Pfizer and Moderna) to act on our cells to create spike proteins. These spike proteins are designed to mimic those on the SARS-CoV-2 virus molecule, which are the feature that ‘unlock’ our cells and allow the virus to enter and do their thang. These vaccine-induced spike proteins, which stick to and protrude from the cells in which they were created, are the biological agent that triggers our immune system in a way that protects us from the coronavirus nasties in the future.
The mystery surrounding these spike proteins is where things get more interesting. You know that Wuhan lab-leak hypothesis that I and my fellow foilers have been telling you about? Well, what it suggests is that the virus did not evolve naturally, but was ‘activated’ from a previous coronavirus strain through deliberate alteration of — you guessed it — the spike protein! So, basically, we might be causing our bodies to create en mass the exact part of the virus that was artificially altered to make it more dangerous. You might be starting to see why they reeeeeally don’t want you to think this came from a lab.
So this whole ‘Rona vaccine business is, in short, an extraordinarily complex and daring hacking of our immune system. If pulled off according to plan, it would also without doubt earn the kind of undying praise that it is currently being showered with: a brilliant and unparalleled act of medical ingenuity to provide hope in the direst of circumstances, and perhaps the greatest accomplishment of Western Scientism — sorry, science — to date.
Unfortunately, this coherent and manicured narrative has since been disrupted somewhat by inconvenient doomsayers, whose dissenting voices have steadily travelled from the fringes inwards and into the vicinity of the mainstream debate.
We owe much of this disruption to the career-sabotaging work of Canadian viral immunologist Dr. Byram Bridle. A previously unabashed pro-vaccine Doctor, he recently released a relatively short and highly readable report cataloguing some of the major concerns with the vaccine rollout. These are his key claims, also summarised in this short radio interview, which have since been picked up on by alternative media and circulated widely.
Bridle’s central and most significant claim is that the vaccine-induced spike proteins produced by our cells are not passive proteins but biologically active, and hence likely toxic. In the words of Bridle:
“This means that the spike protein is not just an antigen that is recognized by the immune system as being foreign. It means that the spike protein, itself, can interact with receptors throughout the body, called ACE2 receptors, potentially causing undesirable effects such as damage to the heart and cardiovascular system, blood clots, bleeding, and neurological effects.”
Not surprisingly, the fact checkers were quick to come at Bridle and put this uppity Canuck firmly back in his maple-scented box. Upon consultation with various experts, our friends at Politifact conclude that there is in fact no relevant data presented by Bridle in support of his provocation. In the damning and denunciatory words of one such expert: "It would be nice to have any direct evidence if this were true.” With no such direct evidence deemed to have been presented — and, to be fair, Bridle is working largely in the domain of speculation — the claims are conclusively asserted to be ‘False’.
Now, rather than employing the blunt instrument that is ‘False’, one might argue that a more nuanced judgment by the fact checkers — perhaps ‘unproven’ or ‘unsubstantiated’ — would be a more accurate one-word encapsulation of the issue. One might also argue that what we have just witnessed unfold is an interesting and slightly sneaky reversal of the burden of proof.
If we accept that the original SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which the vaccine is intended to mimic, is toxic — and it appears that it is — then it is hardly an act of reckless irresponsibility to propose that the vaccine-induced spike protein might act similarly. One would suggest that, with this concern in mind, it should be up to vaccine advocates to clearly and compelling identify the specific properties of the vaccine spike protein that render it non-toxic compared to the original coronavirus version. Instead we are referred by Politifact to the CDC’s unsupported and unilateral declaration that the spike protein is harmless, along with a vague reference to the number of vaccinations that have been successfully administered to date.
From what I have found, this short commentary offers the most detailed rebuttal to claims that the vaccine-induced spike protein may be harmful. The rebuttal rests on the assumption that the spike protein, once created, will not be released to roam freely around the circulatory system, wreaking carnage like the proverbial bull in the china shop, but will remain stuck to the cell membrane wall. This remains true, we are reassured, regardless of where the original vaccine agent — whether adenovirus or mRNA — circulates and initiates the cellular spike protein production. Essentially, the reasoning offered to us here has naught to do with the spike protein itself, but on the assumed movement of the protein within the body — again, lots of assumptions basically.
In a late plot twist, however, with what appears to be an addition after the initial publication of the commentary, the author provides additional reassurance to the recently jabbed that their innards are not in fact currently being swamped by hoards of rogue spiked assailants. We are informed (in italics no less) that the vaccine-induced spike proteins, for every brand except AstraZeneca/Oxford at least, will have specific mutations that ‘stabilise’ it and make it less likely to bind with ACE2 receptors around the body — the mechanism through which it is believed that the virus spike protein does its damage.
This seemed convincing, until I scrolled down and found out that the note was added based on a comment on the original article by a chap named Aaron, and seems purely speculative in nature. Indeed, if this reassurance did in fact have actual evidence behind it, presumably it would have been relevant enough to include in the initial version. To strengthen these doubts, and in a fairly lol-worthy development that made me question the validity of the article as a whole, another commentator links to a peer-reviewed article in Nature that concludes the exact opposite: stabilised coronavirus spike proteins do indeed have affinity for these ACE2 receptors. Awkward!
You can find an excellent 15 minute discussion of the vaccine-induced spike protein dilemma in this video. Essentially, it reminds us that the arguments offered for the safety of the spike proteins are theoretical assumptions only, and have no experimental support. In short: if for whatever unforeseen reason the spike protein did make it out into the bloodstream, it remains perfectly reasonable to assume that we would still have issues on our hands… particularly for our poor, ostracised AZ/Oxford variety.
Now, this is where we return to Bridle, for his second claim. This claim needs to be interpreted closely and correctly, given — in light of the previous discussion — it could easily lead to an exaggerated sense of alarm about what these vaccine-induced spike proteins might be up to.
Bridle points towards evidence suggesting the active ingredient of the vaccines — the adenovirus for AZ/JJ and the mRNA for Pfizer/Moderna — does not simply stay in or near the injection site, but appear to circulate to and initiate spike protein development in various organs throughout the body. The implications of this being: were a mechanism for the release of the spike protein from its host cell found to exist, such release would be occurring not just near the shoulder, but also in various other less-than-ideal locations.
What is his evidence for his claim? He points to a recently made public report provided by Pfizer to the Japanese Government. It seems to show increased concentrations of the lipid nanoparticles (the vaccine component responsible for delivering the mRNA to cells) in various organs around the body: including the reproductive organs and brain.
A few qualifications here. Firstly, the study was undertaken on rats, and so it goes without saying that the results cannot automatically be translated to humans. Secondly, the concentrations used on the rats were high: roughly a thousand fold what would be given to a human child through a vaccine, in fact. Thirdly, just because the lipid nanoparticles ended up in these locations, it does not mean the mRNA did so as well. As such, Bridle’s attempts to relate these results to humans has come in for sharp criticism. Even I am am going to call this one out as a bit of a fizzer, which is being made out to something far more concerning than it really it is.
That said: we might again question the priorities of the Vax Checkers here. Rather than simply discounting the results of the study, should we not instead be asking why these initial results did not immediately trigger further animal studies and subsequent studies of the actual bio-distribution of the current Covid vaccines in humans (see concerns at the bottom of this article)? For now, because we lack these detailed human studies, we can only speculate on the extent that spike protein is being produced in different organs off the body. And, despite their efforts to attack such speculation, the vaccine companies and its proponents have only themselves to blame for its existence.
In defence of Bridle’s unpopular speculation, we do have one small study that appears to provide tentative support for his theories. The study looked at the plasma samples of 13 individual who had been recently vaccinated with the Moderna mRNA jab. They found spike protein derived from the vaccine (as opposed to any cross over from the live virus) in 11 of the 13 participants, albeit in minute doses that could only be picked up through a highly sensitive detection technique. Minute as it may be, it does put a fairly hefty dent in the absolute confidence that these spike proteins stay exactly where they are told to.
The authors propose two possible mechanisms by which these spike proteins can be released. The first is that certain enzymes known to cleave proteins may act in this way to remove at least part of the spike protein from the membrane. The second, and most relevant, was that the action of the immune response against cells containing spike proteins destroys the cells and releases the proteins into the blood stream. This raises the issue of auto-immunity — one of the main fears that many opposed to the rollout have — whereby these vaccines may in fact lead to the immune system attacking our own cells to damaging degrees. In fact, in a development well worth paying attention to, auto-immunity is now being posited as the primary mechanism by which Covid-19 is doing its damage.
Bridle has come in for considerable criticism for his bold outspokenness (you can find the most comprehensive debunking of the entirety of his claims here). Nonetheless, if at least some of his fears do turn out to have merit, one imagines that history will treat him more kindly than the Vax Checkers currently are.
While Dr. Bridle’s credentials are excellent, there are other notably qualified individuals raising similar concerns. In fact, in May, a group of 57 scientists and doctors put their names to a paper calling for the immediate halt of the mass vaccination program based on concerns over its “safety, efficacy, and necessity”.
Such alarmist claims — exacerbated by the drastic and likely unrealistic call for halting the vaccine roll-out — did not make much impact on the mainstream narrative. That was, until they were taken up by one particular expert, whose apparent credentials made his warnings almost impossible to ignore and leave un-fact-checked.
This expert happens to be the self-proclaimed inventor of the mRNA technology being used in these current vaccines: Dr. Robert Malone. Politifact, not resting on their laurels after their initial hit job on Bridle, backed up again for a second round against Malone.
Really, there isn’t much new here. Malone was essentially amplifying the same arguments as Bridle, albeit through a much larger megaphone on the highly popular Darkhorse podcast hosted by Bret Weinstein (the reputation of Malone, measured and reasonable throughout, is done no favours by the often hysteria of the other guest). Hence, the authors basically summarise their previous denunciations of the Canadian immunologist, with a few extra expert opinions chucked in for good measure.
"Where is the evidence?" said one definitely not cherry-picked expert. "No one is saying that vaccines are risk free. The minute there’s any reasonable signal that things are occurring in a vaccinated group and not in an unvaccinated group, then the FDA takes a closer look."
Slightly confusingly, the article then immediately presents what might be reasonably argued as such evidence: a higher-than-expected number of cases of heart inflammation (myocarditis) in mostly young people after receiving doses of mRNA-based vaccines.
Given the acknowledged danger of the original SARS-Covid-2 virus in causing myocarditis, in which the spike protein is proposed to play a key role, we might easily view this increased risk of heart inflammation as a potential signal for the spread of vaccine-induced spike protein. We might also say the same about high incidences of blood clots in post-vaccinated individuals, given the suggested role of viral spike proteins in the hyper-coagulation of Covid-19 patients. And then there is that nasty proposition that the spike protein may impact on the blood brain barrier, which might potentially explain the temporary face paralysis that is Bell’s Palsy.
Leaving the aforementioned study of Moderna-vaccinated participants aside, with its small sample and even smaller quantities of rogue spike protein, we are still dealing only with theories. But they are scientifically-plausible theories, which in normal circumstances might make an objective onlooker pause and take stock.
True to form then, the claims of Malone et al. are again dismissed with the dreaded ‘false’ rating. Nothing to see here people.
This is undoubtably difficult material to wade through and interpret, even for those with scientific backgrounds, let alone the layperson. So, if you have made it (or skipped to) this far and are in need of some solid ground on which to move forward, these are my key takeaways.
We do not know for certain that the vaccine-induced spike proteins created by our cells are dangerous. Nonetheless, there is sound reason to believe they might be, given the original virus spike protein appears to be pathogenic in itself.
We also do not know the extent to which these spike proteins stay anchored in their origin cells, as they are intended to do, or escape and wreak similar kinds of chaos that they are proposed to do as a result of viral infection. The little evidence available suggests there are at least trace amounts of spike protein release, likely as a result of the origin cells being attacked by our own immune responses.
If they were to escape, we also do not know the extent to which these proteins will be limited to the injection site around the shoulder, or — thanks to the bio-distribution of the vaccine vector around the body — would be released from the cells of other organs. We don’t know this because all we have are highly imperfect studies on rats, and a complete lack of bio-distribution data for these current vaccines on humans.
Now, even if this all were true, there is no reason to panic (yet), given the only data made available for spike protein release suggests it occurs at extremely low levels. This is presumably why adverse reactions are so rare (if indeed they are being caused by these rogue spike proteins), as it is only in very rare (and still unknown) circumstances where these spike proteins are being created in dangerous amounts.
Nonetheless: such cellular escape and circulation of a toxic vaccine-induced spike protein offers a potential explanation for adverse reaction signals we are now seeing emerge: including blood clotting, heart inflammation, neurological issues and women’s reproductive health. The other (related) explanation is an overly aggressive response by our immune system to these rogue spike proteins. If I was going to offer up an unsolicited and unqualified opinion, I would suggest it is this auto-immune response that accounts for the most severe post-vaccine adverse effects, rather than the spike proteins themselves.
It is, therefore, perhaps further reason to pause and give thought to the extent that you choose to be a part of this ongoing experiment. Especially if — or, let’s be honest, when — it evolves into ongoing booster shots against perpetual viral variants that are rushed out with an exponentially decreasing amount of safety data to support them. This sounds to me like a perfect recipe for a new generation of auto-immune diseases to be unleashed on the population, which we will probably end up blaming on anything except the vaccine.
So, given there is little we do actually know for sure, what was the point of this whole exercise?
It is this: if the fact-checkers would have their way, you would not even know that such theories were even possible. In fact, you would believe that they were demonstrably not possible, and in fact ‘false’.
Whether benignly or deliberately, our fact-checking fraternity has succeeded in shifting the burden of proof away from the scientific norm of ‘first do no harm’, and instead to ‘prove that we aren’t doing any harm’.
Shouldn’t that be their job, not ours?
Originally published on Substack. Sign up there for updates on new articles.