Thank you for posting those sources and explaining it in an understandable way.
Glad I could help. It's certainly a strenuous ride to parse all this out.
It seems possible but what about how mRNA prevent severe COVID cases like the ones where you have to go on a ventilator? And most people have side effects from it less severe than COVID infection itself? How do they explain the better clinical outcomes for people with the vaccine vs people who got real COVID? If the protein that vaccine makes you produce is as damaging as the virus itself; then why don't as many people get as sick from the vaccine as the virus?
The main explanation given, as per Dr. Derek Lowe's article the Salk Institute linked to, seems to be that the Spike protein of the vaccine is coded "differently" than the virus's, engineered to make sure it stays stuck where it gets introduced so that it doesn't flow freely throughout the bloodstream where it could cause damage. This is why Dr. Lowe emphasized the point of the vaccine being injected into the muscle and not directly into the blood. Also note that not all the S proteins are coded the exact same since each vax has a different formula, but they're all supposed to make the sticky S protein stay put.
Finally, since the S protein being introduced via injection rather than inhaled with virus means that you aren't being introduced to it for the first time in such a way that it will reach your lungs. It's supposed to encourage antibodies to prevent the airborne virus from hurting you.
The S protein in the vaccine factually cannot reach your lungs, hence no breathing or lung problems. In that sense the vaccine does seem able to do it's job and keep you away from living off a ventilator. That's everything I gleaned from Dr. Lowe's explanation.
However, of course the vaccine dose inevitably enters into the bloodstream regardless of injection site. Less of it goes through because of where and how it's injected, but it still goes through, and the problem is that the S protein alone can damage vascular cells. Despite running defense for the Covid vax, Dr. Lowe admits that vax tests proved that trace amounts can even be found in plasma. The vaccine dose--and the Spike proteins with it--have the potential to get through and do harm. The only reassurance from Dr. Lowe here is the S protein being designed to stick and stay put, but that in itself may not be as reassuring as he thinks considering the side effects and recent heart inflammation cases we see.
Here's the issue then as I see it: The recent study proved Covid was not a respiratory disease but rather a vascular disease (which effects respiration). The Spike protein causes damage even without the virus, even bringing inflammation to the heart region. We have reports of blood clots being a potential side effect of the vaccines and now reports of heart inflammation post-vaccine. Those reports of heart inflammation are after the Moderna and Pfizer so the CDC is investigating which one might be the cause.
Looking at the reports of blood clots and now heart inflammation (in teens, at that), and seeing the Spike protein's effect during the study from the Salk Institute, there is a possibility the Spike protein itself is the cause. The fact that these vaccines prevent Covid isn't enough for us to ignore the correlation here and its implications, since all of them have Spike proteins.
"Correlation does not equal causation" is not a sentiment used to hand-wave new scientific findings and their implications. It's supposed to emphasize the necessity to research before making absolute conclusions. The correlation is there, and we already know that blood clots are a side effect of the vaccines, so the next step would be to test and see if the clots--and inflammation case--is linked back to the Spike protein itself. This issue desperately needs further study and investigation, because it'd be madness to inject otherwise healthy people with something that carries potential for vascular damage just to protect them from an illness they are more likely to fully recover from.
My worry isn't uber-vaxers totally disregarding this scientific concern but how both the broader medical industry and governments are obsessed with just getting everyone vaccinated, especially those not at risk for Covid. There's also the matter that, if this problem is proven to be linked to the Spike proteins of the vaccines, it would mean BigPharma could lose potential tens of billions of dollars in annual revenue, since the S proteins (whatever difference in "type" there may be between vaccine formulas) are intrinsic to every single vaccine for SARS-CoV-2.
If so, why do they think the benefits do not outweigh the risks?
They do think that, though. Both the Salk Institute and the doctor whose article they linked to attested to the benefit of the vaccine outweighing any risks. In fact, both said there was no risk--but only in reference to the concern some had that, since the Spike protein is in vaccines, the vaccines could give you Covid. They will not give you Covid and do seem to prevent Covid.
But that's not the real issue here and sadly the issue I'm talking about isn't addressed by either. I'd like to see a doctor address it.
Maybe we'll see something from the CDC investigation into Moderna and Pfizer vaccines after those poor kids' heart inflammation.
Well you're in good company lol
I'm with you on unintended longterm consequences. Cancer is always a possibility. We're pretty much going on faith on the advice of cancer experts that the mechanism by which the vaccines work is not likely to be involved in carcinogenesis.
Honestly I didn't even consider the potential for cancer until you brought it up. Personally I take medication that has a very low percentage of causing skin cancer and lymphoma. A lot of things some of us take have that risk, yeah, so it didn't cross my mind--although, those things which have such risks are typically ran through long-term study and aren't just dispensed en masse by emergency approval alone. My issue has always been the lack of transparency at the start (pushing it out before putting up their research for peer review), the unique indemnification, and most importantly the lack of long-term study and how quickly these vaccines were developed.
Signing up for my vax, I had to sign away my rights if I had an autoimmune disorder because they don't know how they will react together.
...Wait, seriously? As in literally? Like, the paper you signed said that?
