"In future posts in this series, I will cover other mechanisms of spike protein toxicity as well as other mechanisms of vaccine side effects that do not involve direct toxicity of the spike protein, and will brainstorm actionable steps vaccinees can take to protect against these effects or heal from them."
We'll certainly look forward to those thoughts. Do you have information on effects of spike protein among vaccinees lingering in lymph nodes for several months, the mechanism for their elimination, assuming that's what is needed, and how they end up there in the first place. Thanks, Howard Calvert
I've purchased many of your other pieces of work - this particular one was mind-blowing analysis (appreciated) and makes a lot of sense connecting dots around mucus membranes, loss of proteins that create junctions, mitochondrial and energy function that I've wondered about since the pandemic started. Also appreciated your muscle function example in point 2 in Additional notes... (tied into my nephew's rare neurodegenerative disease actually) - I can't wait for ongoing work you mention here and how to heal from or prevent and symptoms. This could explain a lot of what's happening to me over time since my vaccine that I've had no explanation for and you start to feel a little (crazy) and just stop talking about it to others as symptoms migrate to different places. Demonstrates "long-haul" isn't just for those that had covid (or maybe had it and went undetected) but also for some that got the vaccine. In addition, are now seeing young people getting blood clots, others in their 40's or 50's just dying suddenly of heart trouble - I'm not sure these things are random - there are too many coincidences showing up on the radar - it's becoming too frequent and within age groups that it didn't happen to before.
Fantastic work! I had been wondering about how the changes to the vax spike affected ACE2 binding. Great finds. Btw I'm certain the concentrations of S1 as measured by that Ogata study are underestimates of total S1 that can cause trouble since the assay they used wouldn't have picked up any spike bound to antibodies or on the surface of exosomes, etc. More on that here: https://joomi.substack.com/p/what-leads-to-more-free-spike-protein
Great point! Shouldn’t they early time points have low antibody levels though? The lymph node paper itself did provide evidence the antibodies interfere with the assay. I’ll try to read your post soon.
Yes probably but I'm not even sure that's when there's max spike in the body though since there are all these other reservoirs for spike that their assay wouldn't pick up
I am a PhD in science myself so i am all for analysis and information. But i cant shake the sense here that youre spreading fear - for free - and then charging money for a promised solution to the fear and problem you create!
Why not publish so we can see some expert rebuttals to clains like 4 month duration of spike protein persistence?.
I know journals are odd about what covid papers they accept. Ive got a covid paper i wrote stuck on a preprint server because the oddest reviews i have ever seen prevented its publication. It was treatment oriented but backed of course by science. Still tho, even preprint server would allow more professionals to comment on the specifics then here
I am not vaxed because i have MCAS, cfs, a rheumatologicalmAI disease , and a recurrent hepes virus that i think has already poked holes in my vascular system. Still tho, despite my own hesitations reading your post has made it harder for me, more fear mongering and inalready have plenty and made , objective facts harder to evaluate in my own daily reassessment of covid infection risk vs covid vax. Eg to evaluate cost benefit risk of vax, you need to know your risk of contracting covid. So noninfection better than vaccine but is vaccine better then covid infection? These issues need discussion.
I hope to see your work in more peer reviewed outlets. For now im skeptical you try to make money by making people afraid. Abd we will see if youvallow this to be posted
Is it likely in your opinion Chris that this damage could be going on for a year after initial mRNA series? My poor Mom has never regained her energy after completing her initial COVID vaccine series. I would especially love to hear your early thoughts on how to heal from this. My 82 year old mom is losing the desire to live in such a weak state. We are desperate for a solutions.
I just read that the spike protein replaced sperm in men! Another attempt to sterilize like the parts that invaded the ovaries in women? Our grandkids are being programmed to be childless....just one of the intentions of the shot . If all future immunizations are going to have similar results, people should be thinking about NO shots of any kind. They have proven to us they are just after money.
I think you messed up the math by a factor of 1000.
Your text said '...calculated on the basis that commercial S1 protein is 75 grams per mole.' and the link you provided there states Molecular Weight of S1 is 75 kDa, which is 75 kg / mol (kilogram per mole).
That would mean all of the concentrations you calculated are 1000 times smaller (not nM, but pM).
I am a PhD in science myself so i am all for analysis and information. But i cant shake the sense here that youre spreading fear - for free - and then charging money for a promised solution to the fear and problem you create!
Why not publish so we can see some expert rebuttals to clains like 4 month duration of spike protein persistence?.
I know journals are odd about what covid papers they accept. Ive got a covid paper i wrote stuck on a preprint server because the oddest reviews i have ever seen prevented its publication. It was treatment oriented but backed of course by science. Still tho, even preprint server would allow more professionals to comment on the specifics then here
I am not vaxed because i have MCAS, cfs, a rheumatologicalmAI disease , and a recurrent hepes virus that i think has already poked holes in my vascular system. Still tho, despite my own hesitations reading your post has made it harder for me, more fear mongering and inalready have plenty and made , objective facts harder to evaluate in my own daily reassessment of covid infection risk vs covid vax. Eg to evaluate cost benefit risk of vax, you need to know your risk of contracting covid. So noninfection better than vaccine but is vaccine better then covid infection? These issues need discussion.
I hope to see your work in more peer reviewed outlets. For now im skeptical you try to make money by making people afraid. Abd we will see if youvallow this to be posted
Honestly I think you are expressing your own paranoia here. Lo and behold, your comment has been up since April and I’m seeing it for the first time now.
My apologies for that, I’m learning some limitations of using “activity” on Substack to see new comments.
You’re neglecting that this post is free, and everyone is free to comment on it.
The four month claim is not mine to put into peer review. It has already been submitted and is already on preprint servers and others can take issue with it there.
"Hence, the spike protein is consistently found in the lymph nodes of the arm pits at least 60 days after vaccination, but traces are rarely found at all after natural infection."
As far as I can tell, no one has looked. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.abl9105 is a very scant/uneven glimpse into the post-infection lymph node situation and did not stain for spike itself, just reactive GC B Cells / TFH. But still found " GCs being active for months after infection" (Fig 5) which would imply said active germinal centers still have the spike protein in FDCs. Röltgen, et al. infected sample set was for critical infections, and GCs seem to be disorganized / disordered, so they aren't a good comparison.
There's a lot of overlap with a pore-forming toxicity model and Wentzel's kynurenine pathway model, including overlap with anaerobic metabolism - https://youtu.be/ZFPleh6z7io . (But I'm still not clear on what he proposes as the mechanism besides "inflammation.") On the other hand, nothing about the S1 really looks like it could effectively polymerize into a cylinder.
You are confusing the abbreviations. nM does not stand for “nanomoles.” It stands for nanomoles per liter or nanomolar. It does include volume in the denominator.
I also defined it upon first use, “40 nanomolar (nM, a measure of the concentration of molecules).”
While I understand how you could ask for even more detailed defining by stating that nanomolar is another term for nanomoles per liter, I think that’s a bit arbitrary to expect that anyone in the audience would care about that level of detail yet not care what a mole is, or would know what a mole is and not know that molarity is all universally defined using liters as a denominator. These are all equally the basics of SI units that are taught in Chem 101.
I did state that it is a unit of concentration, which by definition means it has volume incorporated in its denominator. Otherwise it would be an amount, not a concentration.
So I feel that my definition of it was clear enough for someone unfamiliar to simply take it at face value that this is a measure of concentration, and also clear enough to be straightforwardly known by someone who is familiar with it.
I do see that you wound up wanting to understand it in full detail without already understanding the convention, but you could also google “nanomolar” and the definition would turn up at the top.
I understand the convention, but the abbreviation has inherent ambiguity since it could mean "nanomoles" or "nanomoles per liter." The context has to drive the interpretation. I never saw the nanomolar abbreviation used in chem 101, but it's common in pharma. In chem 101, the abbreviation was always M. (molar) 10^-9 M., for example. Your usage is consistent and clear once I thought about it, but having to think about it forces a re-reading because the flow was broken.
I did google "nanomolar" to make sure I understood what it meant.
It's probably just me.
Would you like me to comment somewhere on one of your posts about the physics of masking, the wicking of droplets by masks, and the resulting impact on the evaporation of the droplets?
Physicians are not in field discussing the mask-droplet-wicking-evaporation topic, but physicists _are_ in field. I even know of a current paper on the topic (Goncalves, Nature, Jan 2022).
"This is shown by making synthetic lipid bilayers permeable to charged ions."
This suggests that spike proteins would facilitate zinc entry into cells without the need for ionophores. Or does this only happen when a spike protein impacts the cell membrane without being part of a virus?
Everything said about ionophores on the internet is complete bullshit. Sorry to say it but everyone I’ve seen commenting since hydroxychoroquine came out for COVID seems to be completely confused on zinc transport. Listen to my long form podcast on zinc at chrismasterjohnphd.com or read a review of zinc metabolism or the zinc chapter of Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease.
There is absolutely nothing good whatsoever about indiscriminate holes being poked in cell membranes.
Eight individuals is a very small sample. I question whether all vaccinated individuals show the same exosomal half life as these eight. Usually there is a range. This has to be preliminary, although it is a signal that caution should be exercised. Of course, the signal will be ignored by the FDA.
I agree with you. But in the criminally negligent scarcity of data we have, we must use what we have. I did not make any statement about the half life. I simply said it is found at least as long as four months out, which is true.
"In future posts in this series, I will cover other mechanisms of spike protein toxicity as well as other mechanisms of vaccine side effects that do not involve direct toxicity of the spike protein, and will brainstorm actionable steps vaccinees can take to protect against these effects or heal from them."
We'll certainly look forward to those thoughts. Do you have information on effects of spike protein among vaccinees lingering in lymph nodes for several months, the mechanism for their elimination, assuming that's what is needed, and how they end up there in the first place. Thanks, Howard Calvert
I've purchased many of your other pieces of work - this particular one was mind-blowing analysis (appreciated) and makes a lot of sense connecting dots around mucus membranes, loss of proteins that create junctions, mitochondrial and energy function that I've wondered about since the pandemic started. Also appreciated your muscle function example in point 2 in Additional notes... (tied into my nephew's rare neurodegenerative disease actually) - I can't wait for ongoing work you mention here and how to heal from or prevent and symptoms. This could explain a lot of what's happening to me over time since my vaccine that I've had no explanation for and you start to feel a little (crazy) and just stop talking about it to others as symptoms migrate to different places. Demonstrates "long-haul" isn't just for those that had covid (or maybe had it and went undetected) but also for some that got the vaccine. In addition, are now seeing young people getting blood clots, others in their 40's or 50's just dying suddenly of heart trouble - I'm not sure these things are random - there are too many coincidences showing up on the radar - it's becoming too frequent and within age groups that it didn't happen to before.
Great information for the vaxxed and unvaxxed. Please see this link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34461999/
Fantastic work! I had been wondering about how the changes to the vax spike affected ACE2 binding. Great finds. Btw I'm certain the concentrations of S1 as measured by that Ogata study are underestimates of total S1 that can cause trouble since the assay they used wouldn't have picked up any spike bound to antibodies or on the surface of exosomes, etc. More on that here: https://joomi.substack.com/p/what-leads-to-more-free-spike-protein
Great point! Shouldn’t they early time points have low antibody levels though? The lymph node paper itself did provide evidence the antibodies interfere with the assay. I’ll try to read your post soon.
Yes probably but I'm not even sure that's when there's max spike in the body though since there are all these other reservoirs for spike that their assay wouldn't pick up
Oh totally.
Excellent review!
Thanks!
Very interesting. Thank you
I am a PhD in science myself so i am all for analysis and information. But i cant shake the sense here that youre spreading fear - for free - and then charging money for a promised solution to the fear and problem you create!
Why not publish so we can see some expert rebuttals to clains like 4 month duration of spike protein persistence?.
I know journals are odd about what covid papers they accept. Ive got a covid paper i wrote stuck on a preprint server because the oddest reviews i have ever seen prevented its publication. It was treatment oriented but backed of course by science. Still tho, even preprint server would allow more professionals to comment on the specifics then here
I am not vaxed because i have MCAS, cfs, a rheumatologicalmAI disease , and a recurrent hepes virus that i think has already poked holes in my vascular system. Still tho, despite my own hesitations reading your post has made it harder for me, more fear mongering and inalready have plenty and made , objective facts harder to evaluate in my own daily reassessment of covid infection risk vs covid vax. Eg to evaluate cost benefit risk of vax, you need to know your risk of contracting covid. So noninfection better than vaccine but is vaccine better then covid infection? These issues need discussion.
I hope to see your work in more peer reviewed outlets. For now im skeptical you try to make money by making people afraid. Abd we will see if youvallow this to be posted
Is it likely in your opinion Chris that this damage could be going on for a year after initial mRNA series? My poor Mom has never regained her energy after completing her initial COVID vaccine series. I would especially love to hear your early thoughts on how to heal from this. My 82 year old mom is losing the desire to live in such a weak state. We are desperate for a solutions.
That sounds like long-standing inflammation, or nutrient depletion. But perhaps some cellular damage persists and escapes the immune system.
I just read that the spike protein replaced sperm in men! Another attempt to sterilize like the parts that invaded the ovaries in women? Our grandkids are being programmed to be childless....just one of the intentions of the shot . If all future immunizations are going to have similar results, people should be thinking about NO shots of any kind. They have proven to us they are just after money.
I think you messed up the math by a factor of 1000.
Your text said '...calculated on the basis that commercial S1 protein is 75 grams per mole.' and the link you provided there states Molecular Weight of S1 is 75 kDa, which is 75 kg / mol (kilogram per mole).
That would mean all of the concentrations you calculated are 1000 times smaller (not nM, but pM).
Igor Sviben PhD Chemistry, University of Zagreb
Yikes! Thank you! I’ll have to look at this and fix it if warranted as it so far seems to be soon.
I am a PhD in science myself so i am all for analysis and information. But i cant shake the sense here that youre spreading fear - for free - and then charging money for a promised solution to the fear and problem you create!
Why not publish so we can see some expert rebuttals to clains like 4 month duration of spike protein persistence?.
I know journals are odd about what covid papers they accept. Ive got a covid paper i wrote stuck on a preprint server because the oddest reviews i have ever seen prevented its publication. It was treatment oriented but backed of course by science. Still tho, even preprint server would allow more professionals to comment on the specifics then here
I am not vaxed because i have MCAS, cfs, a rheumatologicalmAI disease , and a recurrent hepes virus that i think has already poked holes in my vascular system. Still tho, despite my own hesitations reading your post has made it harder for me, more fear mongering and inalready have plenty and made , objective facts harder to evaluate in my own daily reassessment of covid infection risk vs covid vax. Eg to evaluate cost benefit risk of vax, you need to know your risk of contracting covid. So noninfection better than vaccine but is vaccine better then covid infection? These issues need discussion.
I hope to see your work in more peer reviewed outlets. For now im skeptical you try to make money by making people afraid. Abd we will see if youvallow this to be posted
Honestly I think you are expressing your own paranoia here. Lo and behold, your comment has been up since April and I’m seeing it for the first time now.
My apologies for that, I’m learning some limitations of using “activity” on Substack to see new comments.
You’re neglecting that this post is free, and everyone is free to comment on it.
The four month claim is not mine to put into peer review. It has already been submitted and is already on preprint servers and others can take issue with it there.
"Hence, the spike protein is consistently found in the lymph nodes of the arm pits at least 60 days after vaccination, but traces are rarely found at all after natural infection."
As far as I can tell, no one has looked. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.abl9105 is a very scant/uneven glimpse into the post-infection lymph node situation and did not stain for spike itself, just reactive GC B Cells / TFH. But still found " GCs being active for months after infection" (Fig 5) which would imply said active germinal centers still have the spike protein in FDCs. Röltgen, et al. infected sample set was for critical infections, and GCs seem to be disorganized / disordered, so they aren't a good comparison.
There's a lot of overlap with a pore-forming toxicity model and Wentzel's kynurenine pathway model, including overlap with anaerobic metabolism - https://youtu.be/ZFPleh6z7io . (But I'm still not clear on what he proposes as the mechanism besides "inflammation.") On the other hand, nothing about the S1 really looks like it could effectively polymerize into a cylinder.
That was a reference the findings of the same paper showing it in vaxxed. They also looked at unvaxxed but infected.
"S1 and S2 probably both act as direct, pore-forming toxins at concentrations as low as 0.1 nM."
The units of concentration include volume in the denominator. Can't tell if this is nM/Liter or nM/ml.
You are confusing the abbreviations. nM does not stand for “nanomoles.” It stands for nanomoles per liter or nanomolar. It does include volume in the denominator.
So does nanomolar = nanoMoles per liter? Even if technically correct, this is confusing. Abbreviations should only be used if they are clear.
I also defined it upon first use, “40 nanomolar (nM, a measure of the concentration of molecules).”
While I understand how you could ask for even more detailed defining by stating that nanomolar is another term for nanomoles per liter, I think that’s a bit arbitrary to expect that anyone in the audience would care about that level of detail yet not care what a mole is, or would know what a mole is and not know that molarity is all universally defined using liters as a denominator. These are all equally the basics of SI units that are taught in Chem 101.
I did state that it is a unit of concentration, which by definition means it has volume incorporated in its denominator. Otherwise it would be an amount, not a concentration.
So I feel that my definition of it was clear enough for someone unfamiliar to simply take it at face value that this is a measure of concentration, and also clear enough to be straightforwardly known by someone who is familiar with it.
I do see that you wound up wanting to understand it in full detail without already understanding the convention, but you could also google “nanomolar” and the definition would turn up at the top.
Yes, you did define the abbreviation.
I understand the convention, but the abbreviation has inherent ambiguity since it could mean "nanomoles" or "nanomoles per liter." The context has to drive the interpretation. I never saw the nanomolar abbreviation used in chem 101, but it's common in pharma. In chem 101, the abbreviation was always M. (molar) 10^-9 M., for example. Your usage is consistent and clear once I thought about it, but having to think about it forces a re-reading because the flow was broken.
I did google "nanomolar" to make sure I understood what it meant.
It's probably just me.
Would you like me to comment somewhere on one of your posts about the physics of masking, the wicking of droplets by masks, and the resulting impact on the evaporation of the droplets?
Physicians are not in field discussing the mask-droplet-wicking-evaporation topic, but physicists _are_ in field. I even know of a current paper on the topic (Goncalves, Nature, Jan 2022).
I see NIST apparently declared molarity obsolete at least 14 years ago but you wouldn’t know if from a class or lab or web site or even Wikipedia.
See here for the common abbreviations:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molar_concentration
Please link me to a source using nM to mean nanomoles. I have never seen that.
You can leave any comments you like. The more the merrier. I will not likely have time to work on masks for a while though.
Oh, you meant the specific abbreviation "nM". I haven't seen that.
I see the Europeans using nanoMoles per liter for 25OHD levels in publications.
https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/66/suppl_2/S153/1855298?login=true
Yes. The abbreviations are clear. They are universally used this way.
"the inflammatory response attacking the proteins at the cell junctions."
Mast cells?
I don’t know if there were any immune cells present in their model. If there were, they didn’t make it clear.
"This is shown by making synthetic lipid bilayers permeable to charged ions."
This suggests that spike proteins would facilitate zinc entry into cells without the need for ionophores. Or does this only happen when a spike protein impacts the cell membrane without being part of a virus?
Everything said about ionophores on the internet is complete bullshit. Sorry to say it but everyone I’ve seen commenting since hydroxychoroquine came out for COVID seems to be completely confused on zinc transport. Listen to my long form podcast on zinc at chrismasterjohnphd.com or read a review of zinc metabolism or the zinc chapter of Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease.
There is absolutely nothing good whatsoever about indiscriminate holes being poked in cell membranes.
Eight individuals is a very small sample. I question whether all vaccinated individuals show the same exosomal half life as these eight. Usually there is a range. This has to be preliminary, although it is a signal that caution should be exercised. Of course, the signal will be ignored by the FDA.
I agree with you. But in the criminally negligent scarcity of data we have, we must use what we have. I did not make any statement about the half life. I simply said it is found at least as long as four months out, which is true.
One of my questions is whether aspiration during injection affects immune response and where the injected material goes.
I don’t know, but it is absolutely clear from Pfizer’s own data that the lipid nanoparticles go everywhere when injected appropriately.