I've saved this in Pocket to read in my ereader so I can digest it fully. When you have some time (realize it's the holidays), I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on what I brought up in my article ( https://wholistic.substack.com/p/mrna-vaccines-damaging-the-immune ) about the potential of high rates of IgG4 + CTLs potentially causing autoimmune IgG4-related disease. Which is also correlated with cancer. In my thinking, it doesn't matter necessarily what specific covid strain the IgG4 is targeting...if there is too much IgG4 of *anything* maybe that's enough to trigger an autoimmune at some point (despite IgG4 being a mechanism to calm down allergic reactions).
I've read your post (I believe last night) and the relationship between IgG4, cancer and IgG4-RD is pretty interesting.
From what I've read, IgG4 appears to be a newly discovered antibody and so it gets named the "odd antibody", and it may just be labeled as "odd" until further evidence sorts out exactly what IgG4 does. In many cases the evidence here tends to point to IgG4 as being a bystander, sort of like arriving at the scene of the crime and pointing fingers at the guy that tends to loiter around ("the suspect always returns to the scene of the crime!"), or that's sort of how I see it.
IgG4 still seem to have binding capacity, and the study noted that the class shift still shows some avidity. In that regard, it did seem as if IgG4 should be looked at specifically in relation to the antigen the antibody is intended to target. Specifically to cancer, it seemed that a high level of IgG4 would indicate that the body "gave up in dealing with cancer" and so the antibodies that were intended to bind to cancer cells, bind to effector cells, and lead to cell-mediated death of cancer just didn't consider it their problem anymore, and therefore the cancer may proliferate.
However, IgG4-RD does appear to suggest that high levels of IgG4 in general may be related to systemic fibrosis. In these cases it appears that IgG4 is related to chronic, autoimmune diseases, and so their presence may not only be due to long-term inflammation alone, but also some chronic disease state that activated the immune system, and in this case the body gave up in dealing with this situation as well. It may be because of this scenario that circulating levels of IgG4 may be higher in these individuals. As antibodies wane as the antigen disappears, we may hope that IgG4 release may be attenuated after a given time, although we still don't know when the body stops making spike proteins after vaccination, possibly alluding to Brian's comments on "forever spike". Adding more confusion, some reports suggest that those with IgG4-RD show sub detectable levels of IgG4, so even checking for IgG4 may not be a good measure of finding IgG4-RD 🤷♂️.
One person in Brian's Substack comment section posted this study with respect to cancer:
The IgG4 here appears to be a more localized concern, although in their research they used non-cancer-sepcific IgG4 and found attenuated effector function, possibly due to the binding of IgG4's Fc region to the region of other antibodies such as cancer-specific IgG1.
If this effect is indiscriminate, then it would spell trouble since this would mean that any IgG4 irrespective of the paratope region may block effector function for other antibodies.
However, what the researchers also noted was that this effector inhibition was seen with non-specific IgG1, although not to the same degree as IgG4.
So altogether, what exactly all of this means is still up in the air. It's sort of like we are examining novelty with novelty, and we don't have much information on either, but they're both occurring together and that may either be disastrous or something that may end up being not so severe. We just don't know right now.
Thanks. This is helpful. I am reminded somewhat (perhaps indirectly) of my own situation, in which I had a spinal tap done in May showing dual oligoclonal bands in both serum and CSF, definitely identifying that there is at least some sort of mechanism underlining my thankfully mild neuropathy (but not MS)...no virus or disease has been isolated, but I also test negative for classic autoimmune, so I'm wondering if just have too many antibodies (of any kind) wandering around keeping me inflamed post a serious infection I had.
So I saw that James-Lyons Weiler made a comment in the vein that that if cells are becoming tolerant to spike, and if our cells are being made to produce spike, then our body may not longer target those cells. It'd be interesting to see exactly what effect that would have and if that relates to autoimmune disease, but again we're sort of in the dark with all of this. 🤷♂️
I'm sorry you're still searching for answers, but it's good you're at least getting closer.
I went down a rabbit hole for IgG4, but of course there's so much context that's needed, and so it makes everything difficult to figure out.
So the issue is that we don't know to what extent this IgG4 issue is actually an issue, and in the era of Omicron it may not be too bad as it is quite distinct from prior variants. However, chasing variants is certainly going to be an issue, especially if we don't assume that some giant leap of a variant comes in the future to allow for another reset. Because all of the variants right now are pretty much sublineages of Omicron (likely some Omicron progenitor which Ba.1-Ba.5 stemmed from), then the lack of a giant leap in spike may be trouble in the future.
To your second point, I'll be honest and state that I'm not too good at reading epidemiological data since I think a lot of it may be up to speculation and extrapolation. I wouldn't really know how we would be able to see IgG4 conversion being an issue unless we survey people, figure out their prior vaccination and infection history, and just get them for their IgG subclasses, and see how severe of an illness people have.
But as it relates to endless waves of Omicron, it's likely that Omicron and whatever variants arise in the future are going to be with us for many years. As a respiratory virus repeat infections irrespective of vaccination status should be expected, and so we may just see seasonal outbreaks continue onwards.
If you may be concerned about herd immunity I would argue that herd immunity has many issues, mostly being that herd immunity is a predictive model that tries to determine how many people should have immunity based on the type of immunity (natural vs vaccine), what type of vaccine is being used (sterilizing, leaky, etc.), dynamics such as populations, behaviors, and many things such as that, and that's not even looking at the virus itself and it's R0 value or what type of virus it is. To that, one should ask where the 70% or 80% herd immunity value comes from it's highly likely that the numbers are, to a certain degree, manufactured.
I’ve been waiting for a post from you on this, after receiving several others that made a big deal of it. I’m glad to hear the situation is perhaps not as dire as it could be.
It would be really concerning if we were not in the era of Omicron (although this is based on my amateur opinion), but given that Wuhan and many of the pre-Omicron variants are no longer circulating it wouldn't really be a serious issue if one were to gain tolerance to a nonexistent spike. Granted, this would require further investigation to see if the situation is more dire than I made it out to be, and to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if OAS makes an appearance again and become inserted into the tolerance discussion.
We just need more information, and as of now this should raise serious hesitancy against Omicron-specific vaccines.
Everything is shifting constantly and it is very difficult to make sense of things (for me at least). When I see excess deaths reverse I will be more confident we don’t have anything to worry about...
I'll bet it's difficult for everyone to make sense of things. It certainly is for me! And for a select few they may pretend to have things figured out when in reality nothing is fully known yet.
Dec 27, 2022·edited Dec 27, 2022Liked by Modern Discontent
Hi Kimchi-friend (ha! ironically just realized I watched a YT video of someone making it (she's a Korean cook who turned plant-based)...I digress)...so...re: this " However, after a while the immune system likely gets tired of dealing with the cancer, the class switch towards IgG4 occurs, and antibody-mediated removal of cancer is halted and unchecked growth continues on."
Does that mean that if someone got the Covid injections and had a "predisposition" (may not be the right word) to cancer, that the injections could cause the cancer to be triggered?
I ask b/c I have two friends who are boosted who got cancer this year. Both early stage (Stage 0 and Stage 1.) Ironically, both had fertility treatments and are blaming the cancer on that, but I think that the injections were the catalyst for the cancer to grow b/c their immune system was no longer fighting it off. Thoughts? Thanks and happy holidays!!
Kimchi and other Korean dishes hopefully! I have been told I make a pretty good jajangmyeon (I'm having to check up the names to make sure I'm spelling them right!)!
So as to the scenario with cancers, I will be honest and say that we're dealing with a lot of noise making it a bit difficult to figure out what exactly is going on.
I've tended to hold the belief that if the cancers are related to the vaccines, it may be that these individuals are at a threshold of keeping tumors in check, and that the dysregulation and possible immunosuppression from the vaccines may be what lowers that threshold and causes the cancer emergence.
Television shows are absolutely not a good frame of reference, but for some reason I keep thinking of this scene from Bob's burgers, and I think of that in consideration of the uptick in cancers, in that we all have tumor formations occurring, but each of us vary in the tumors present and the degree of tumor severity, and all of that plays a factor in the cancer growths I believe.
Of course, this also comes on the heels of tons of other variables that tend to be missed including poor nutrition, stress, lack of exercise, and other factors that may exacerbate cancer risk.
Now, as it relates to IgG4, and this is something I've seen, we can't implicate all IgG4 as being related to all cancers. What's likely happening is that tumor growth occurs, leading to different expressions of surface proteins as well as a few funky, mutated receptors. Antibodies may target these cancer cells and result in cell-mediated removal of these cancerous cells. However, for some reason, possibly through chronic inflammation as inflammation seems to be at the center of all maladies, the immune system just decides that it's not worth the effort to deal with the cancer growth and shifts over to IgG4. The IgG4 antibodies should still bind, but they can't signal to effector cells to tell them to deal with the cancer (i.e. "not my problem anymore").
To that effect, the IgG4 antibodies should be related to the proper antigen (in this case antigens related to the tumors), as it's not likely that IgG4 antibodies as a whole can be implicated.
I saw that C&C made reference to IgG4-related diseases (IgG4-RD), and I would be critical of this association because IgG4 being present doesn't tell us exactly what the IgG4 is intended to target; just that it's there.
And so that's also another issue, similar to the amyloid plaques in Alzheimer's where we're not sure if the amyloid plaques are the cause of the neurodegeneration, or if their presence is indicative of cellular dysfunction (I tend to lean towards the latter argument to be honest).
The same is likely happening with the presence of IgG4, as it is likely to serve as a marker of dysfunction, serving as the end result signaling that the immune system is tired of having to deal with whatever it was intended to deal with.
Now, IgG4 autoantibodies can be dangerous since they would be targeting host cells, which wouldn't be the case in cancer or SARS-COV2, as autoantibodies would be a dangerous cause of many autoimmune diseases.
I will say though that IgG4-RD seems to be a growing field and we may find out more in the future, but as it stands right now the language around IgG4-RD seems too ambiguous for my liking, and it would require a lot more research than what I wrote here to examine the extent of IgG4-related issues.
Anyways, happy holidays! Hopefully this provided some answers, and I hope your friends are able to deal with their situations. Cancer in general is an awful disease to manage!
Thank you so so much for such a thorough response! I will have to sit and digest it all.
The first part: "I've tended to hold the belief that if the cancers are related to the vaccines, it may be that these individuals are at a threshold of keeping tumors in check, and that the dysregulation and possible immunosuppression from the vaccines may be what lowers that threshold and causes the cancer emergence."
--> YES! this is what I was thinking. That it was possibly already stirring in their bodies, but their immune system was suppressed enough by the injections that there weren't enough T/B cells (ok, that might not be correct but the immune cells that normally fight cancer) to continue fighting the cancer.
More to come... and thank you, again!
(yes, haha ... there are a few other kimchi dishes I make ... and on the topic of Asian cuisine recipes...this soup is FANTASTIC (I use galangal and kaffir lime leaves and omit the ginger): https://minimalistbaker.com/tom-kha-gai-butternut-squash-soup/
Also, I've heard of the minimalist baker before and maybe have used some recipes.... I would like to know who you are buying my data from! You probably have all of the recipes I looked up for Thanksgiving saved now! 😉
That's my general idea, because if we assume sudden onslaughts of cancer from rampant immune suppression what numbers should we be looking for? Cancers are on the rise, but it's not as if every single person who has gotten the vaccine now has unchecked cancer (again, as far as I am aware), so it's one of the reasons why I hesitate to make broad assumptions as to what's going on. It seems more plausible that more people are nudged further into risky territories.
It's also one of the reasons I find the term "healthy" extremely frustrating now, because what exactly does it mean to be healthy? Millions of people take medications, and so are they healthy in spite of the medications, or are the medications making them healthy? I've seen several case studies commenting "aside from the obesity the person was healthy", so aside from the morbidity the person had no morbidities??? When we use broad terms such as healthy we start to lose a lot of the nuances. Right now it seems like everyone is pointing fingers at IgG4 for being at the center of all maladies, when there's more to the story than that.
To the last part, I may make a quick write-up to suppress (no pun intended!) the widespread finger pointing at IgG4. 🤷♂️
Well this is a far broader issue, because many people can be considered healthy if you just overlook the unhealthy aspects.
To quote something else, I keep thinking about the scene from Scott Pilgrim VS The World where the ex-boyfriend makes the comment "chicken parmesan isn't vegan?".
You are as vegan as you make yourself out to be, and you are only as healthy as the information that is provided.
I raised this criticism when the two case reports of the teenage boys was released, which included one kid being on ADHD medications and another being obese. Rather than see how these two factors may contribute to the catecholamine situation, most people just made a comment that "these were perfectly healthy teens who died in their sleep".
But again, what does it mean to be healthy? If we keep arguing that all of these people who are dying suddenly, or who are getting cancer or are getting all of these adverse reactions were perfectly healthy beforehand we don't get any closer to figuring out why some people do perfectly fine while others get severely injured or die.
That's the thing I want to argue against, but sometimes it feels like the narrative is more important than getting closer to finding an answer.
I agree with you. That being said, it is still not "typical" for children, even if they are obese, to just die in their sleep. I have not heard of that happening before, and I've been around for a few decades.
I thought this was an interesting link as to why some people have no adverse reactions to the jabs and some do. I REALIZE that there are so many other factors for each given individual, but there is an undeniable rise in excess mortalities since it was rolled out. Yes, correlation is not causation blah blah blah, but taken as a whole, if obesity in kids caused them to die in their sleep (for example) and then every other causation, why is it, in total, happening more now? ((rhetorical))
This is actually scary, because I have watched some of her videos in the past! I think her tteokbokki recipe (I think technically rabokki) where her and her husband just loaded it up with everything but the kitchen sink!
But anyways, I'll go back and answer your serious comment!
Scary in coincidental! I have watched a few of her plant-based recipes and I think they're pretty interesting. I do find the need to make non-meat items taste like meat weird if I were to be honest...
haha well, I understand that but a lot of plant-based eaters started out as meat-eaters and they do like the taste of it. I am mostly plant-based, and my parents changed our family's diet when I was little not because we didn't like the taste of meat but for health reasons.
In the last couple of years I have heard many experts questioning the use of the outdated Wuhan spike in the vaccines. I guess that discussion really started around the time that Delta hit. With the revelation now that the population has been homogenized in terms of tolerance toward the Wuhan spike, it makes me wonder if this was the plan all along. Is there not an open "port" in the operating system of most of the people on this planet now? Can this port not be accessed in the future by using the correct key (i.e. Wuhan spike)? Was Omicron released to swamp out Wuhan spike from accessing this port because the time was not ripe for doing so? Do the people running this operation understand the viral dynamics of their variants well enough to effectively have an on/off switch control for accessing the open port?
I believe it started around the time of rollout, but then Omicron's appearance really made more noise about the mismatch in spikes.
It's always a battle between intent and incompetence, and I may differ from others but in seeing a lot of this I tend to lean towards the idea that these people have mistaken their hubris for actual competency, and so everything they do is more out of ignorance, thinking that they can construct and direct the flow of a pandemic so to speak.
Is this just one possible avenue of damage to those who are vaccinated or is this the main catalyst to everything else (SCD, cancers, blood clotting, etc.) that is going on? If it is the main catalyst, could this mean that the issues were seeing in the vaccinated be solved or reversed?
Honestly, the results of the IgG4 don't really tell us much about the downstream ramifications. The study only tells us what is being observed, and every other assumption is more of a "what if" scenario. Mine was intended to be more of a optimistic look, but others have taken a more pessimistic approach in suggesting that this may be indicative of greater harm.
The issue is that both IgG4 and the vaccines themselves are all new concepts, and so we have one novel concept begetting another one and people are trying to figure out something definitive.
Now, in many circumstances the production of IgG4 appears to be due to repeat antigen exposure, and one might say that the use of a Wuhan-specific vaccine during a time of Omicron may be the proper mismatch that would allow novel B cells that are Omicron-specific. However, Brian's article that I included in the update suggests that the clonal expansion from Wuhan appears to target Omicron as well, in which case that would mean that repeat vaccination of Wuhan-specific spike may have an effect on targeting Omicron spike.
But again, all of this is up in the air right now, and we don't really have anything to go off of aside from this one study. So we would need more research to figure out what's going on.
Thanks for the many highlights. The critical piece on this is still the "actual imprinting study" which suggests that rather than recruiting a de novo naive B Cell response, existing B Cells are just re-entering SHM to make Omi-Wuhan cross-binding antibodies. https://unglossed.substack.com/p/the-actual-imprinting-study
So those B Cells will still be on the IgG4 tolerance train.
I've included an update linking to your post. Hopefully my interpretation is adequate enough, although I had to reskim the article and didn't spend too much time parsing through the article again.
Cool cool. The supplemental table s4 of the Sci Im version has the variants and vaccine types and presumably was also in the pre-print as the source for my markup
Interesting, I'll take a look back and see. I seem to have missed that. I do find it interesting that the published version sort of GLOSSED over that part of their study.
Darn, that would have been something good to consider! It's so hard to keep up with all of the articles released, and in some cases it's only later where I go back and spend time in older posts.
In the end, it's likely better that vaccination decline and we gather evidence of natural infections in the following months as it moves farther away from "last dosage".
I'll add your post for additional perspective and food for thought.
Thank you so much for this post. I read the radagast post this morning and it scared me. But you gave me some optimism, just as the title of your post said you would! 😄💕
Well a lot of this is new territory, so the answer to most things will just be "we don't know", but there may be a tendency to follow up "we don't know" with "but we're probably all doomed!"
Maybe not that hyperbolic, but so much of what we are learning MAY lean into something bad, but unless we have concrete evidence we're still speculating, and here I'd rather not just bet on everything turning to crap since far too many people are already scared and fatigued, meaning they are already sensitive to negative reports.
I guess it's part of me slightly being optimistic that there is still a way out. I tend not to follow the global depopulation idea since it seems far too nihilistic, even for someone like me!
As to the Radagast post, he makes some interesting remarks to the cross-reactive proteins, but it's not like cross-reactive antibodies are making up a very large number of antibodies. Or maybe they are, but then we would need answers to which antibodies are cross-reactive.
These bio-injections are geared towards a synthetic spike that is radically different from the alleged 'Wuhan' spike. They literally could not protect from the original spike bio-weapon, even if they were actually "vaccines"
I've saved this in Pocket to read in my ereader so I can digest it fully. When you have some time (realize it's the holidays), I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on what I brought up in my article ( https://wholistic.substack.com/p/mrna-vaccines-damaging-the-immune ) about the potential of high rates of IgG4 + CTLs potentially causing autoimmune IgG4-related disease. Which is also correlated with cancer. In my thinking, it doesn't matter necessarily what specific covid strain the IgG4 is targeting...if there is too much IgG4 of *anything* maybe that's enough to trigger an autoimmune at some point (despite IgG4 being a mechanism to calm down allergic reactions).
I've read your post (I believe last night) and the relationship between IgG4, cancer and IgG4-RD is pretty interesting.
From what I've read, IgG4 appears to be a newly discovered antibody and so it gets named the "odd antibody", and it may just be labeled as "odd" until further evidence sorts out exactly what IgG4 does. In many cases the evidence here tends to point to IgG4 as being a bystander, sort of like arriving at the scene of the crime and pointing fingers at the guy that tends to loiter around ("the suspect always returns to the scene of the crime!"), or that's sort of how I see it.
IgG4 still seem to have binding capacity, and the study noted that the class shift still shows some avidity. In that regard, it did seem as if IgG4 should be looked at specifically in relation to the antigen the antibody is intended to target. Specifically to cancer, it seemed that a high level of IgG4 would indicate that the body "gave up in dealing with cancer" and so the antibodies that were intended to bind to cancer cells, bind to effector cells, and lead to cell-mediated death of cancer just didn't consider it their problem anymore, and therefore the cancer may proliferate.
However, IgG4-RD does appear to suggest that high levels of IgG4 in general may be related to systemic fibrosis. In these cases it appears that IgG4 is related to chronic, autoimmune diseases, and so their presence may not only be due to long-term inflammation alone, but also some chronic disease state that activated the immune system, and in this case the body gave up in dealing with this situation as well. It may be because of this scenario that circulating levels of IgG4 may be higher in these individuals. As antibodies wane as the antigen disappears, we may hope that IgG4 release may be attenuated after a given time, although we still don't know when the body stops making spike proteins after vaccination, possibly alluding to Brian's comments on "forever spike". Adding more confusion, some reports suggest that those with IgG4-RD show sub detectable levels of IgG4, so even checking for IgG4 may not be a good measure of finding IgG4-RD 🤷♂️.
One person in Brian's Substack comment section posted this study with respect to cancer:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32819973/
The IgG4 here appears to be a more localized concern, although in their research they used non-cancer-sepcific IgG4 and found attenuated effector function, possibly due to the binding of IgG4's Fc region to the region of other antibodies such as cancer-specific IgG1.
If this effect is indiscriminate, then it would spell trouble since this would mean that any IgG4 irrespective of the paratope region may block effector function for other antibodies.
However, what the researchers also noted was that this effector inhibition was seen with non-specific IgG1, although not to the same degree as IgG4.
So altogether, what exactly all of this means is still up in the air. It's sort of like we are examining novelty with novelty, and we don't have much information on either, but they're both occurring together and that may either be disastrous or something that may end up being not so severe. We just don't know right now.
Thanks. This is helpful. I am reminded somewhat (perhaps indirectly) of my own situation, in which I had a spinal tap done in May showing dual oligoclonal bands in both serum and CSF, definitely identifying that there is at least some sort of mechanism underlining my thankfully mild neuropathy (but not MS)...no virus or disease has been isolated, but I also test negative for classic autoimmune, so I'm wondering if just have too many antibodies (of any kind) wandering around keeping me inflamed post a serious infection I had.
So I saw that James-Lyons Weiler made a comment in the vein that that if cells are becoming tolerant to spike, and if our cells are being made to produce spike, then our body may not longer target those cells. It'd be interesting to see exactly what effect that would have and if that relates to autoimmune disease, but again we're sort of in the dark with all of this. 🤷♂️
I'm sorry you're still searching for answers, but it's good you're at least getting closer.
I went down a rabbit hole for IgG4, but of course there's so much context that's needed, and so it makes everything difficult to figure out.
I had 2 immediate thoughts, one of which you quickly addressed at the end of your article.
1: Impact of a bivalent booster (or any future attempt to create more "up to date" boosters)?
2: What would we be looking for in population level data of highly vaccinated and boosted countries? Endless waves of Omicron/subsequent variants?
So the issue is that we don't know to what extent this IgG4 issue is actually an issue, and in the era of Omicron it may not be too bad as it is quite distinct from prior variants. However, chasing variants is certainly going to be an issue, especially if we don't assume that some giant leap of a variant comes in the future to allow for another reset. Because all of the variants right now are pretty much sublineages of Omicron (likely some Omicron progenitor which Ba.1-Ba.5 stemmed from), then the lack of a giant leap in spike may be trouble in the future.
To your second point, I'll be honest and state that I'm not too good at reading epidemiological data since I think a lot of it may be up to speculation and extrapolation. I wouldn't really know how we would be able to see IgG4 conversion being an issue unless we survey people, figure out their prior vaccination and infection history, and just get them for their IgG subclasses, and see how severe of an illness people have.
But as it relates to endless waves of Omicron, it's likely that Omicron and whatever variants arise in the future are going to be with us for many years. As a respiratory virus repeat infections irrespective of vaccination status should be expected, and so we may just see seasonal outbreaks continue onwards.
If you may be concerned about herd immunity I would argue that herd immunity has many issues, mostly being that herd immunity is a predictive model that tries to determine how many people should have immunity based on the type of immunity (natural vs vaccine), what type of vaccine is being used (sterilizing, leaky, etc.), dynamics such as populations, behaviors, and many things such as that, and that's not even looking at the virus itself and it's R0 value or what type of virus it is. To that, one should ask where the 70% or 80% herd immunity value comes from it's highly likely that the numbers are, to a certain degree, manufactured.
Hopefully that answers some questions!
I’ve been waiting for a post from you on this, after receiving several others that made a big deal of it. I’m glad to hear the situation is perhaps not as dire as it could be.
It would be really concerning if we were not in the era of Omicron (although this is based on my amateur opinion), but given that Wuhan and many of the pre-Omicron variants are no longer circulating it wouldn't really be a serious issue if one were to gain tolerance to a nonexistent spike. Granted, this would require further investigation to see if the situation is more dire than I made it out to be, and to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if OAS makes an appearance again and become inserted into the tolerance discussion.
We just need more information, and as of now this should raise serious hesitancy against Omicron-specific vaccines.
Everything is shifting constantly and it is very difficult to make sense of things (for me at least). When I see excess deaths reverse I will be more confident we don’t have anything to worry about...
I'll bet it's difficult for everyone to make sense of things. It certainly is for me! And for a select few they may pretend to have things figured out when in reality nothing is fully known yet.
Hi Kimchi-friend (ha! ironically just realized I watched a YT video of someone making it (she's a Korean cook who turned plant-based)...I digress)...so...re: this " However, after a while the immune system likely gets tired of dealing with the cancer, the class switch towards IgG4 occurs, and antibody-mediated removal of cancer is halted and unchecked growth continues on."
Does that mean that if someone got the Covid injections and had a "predisposition" (may not be the right word) to cancer, that the injections could cause the cancer to be triggered?
I ask b/c I have two friends who are boosted who got cancer this year. Both early stage (Stage 0 and Stage 1.) Ironically, both had fertility treatments and are blaming the cancer on that, but I think that the injections were the catalyst for the cancer to grow b/c their immune system was no longer fighting it off. Thoughts? Thanks and happy holidays!!
Kimchi and other Korean dishes hopefully! I have been told I make a pretty good jajangmyeon (I'm having to check up the names to make sure I'm spelling them right!)!
So as to the scenario with cancers, I will be honest and say that we're dealing with a lot of noise making it a bit difficult to figure out what exactly is going on.
I've tended to hold the belief that if the cancers are related to the vaccines, it may be that these individuals are at a threshold of keeping tumors in check, and that the dysregulation and possible immunosuppression from the vaccines may be what lowers that threshold and causes the cancer emergence.
Television shows are absolutely not a good frame of reference, but for some reason I keep thinking of this scene from Bob's burgers, and I think of that in consideration of the uptick in cancers, in that we all have tumor formations occurring, but each of us vary in the tumors present and the degree of tumor severity, and all of that plays a factor in the cancer growths I believe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jih-DYbXXNk
Of course, this also comes on the heels of tons of other variables that tend to be missed including poor nutrition, stress, lack of exercise, and other factors that may exacerbate cancer risk.
Now, as it relates to IgG4, and this is something I've seen, we can't implicate all IgG4 as being related to all cancers. What's likely happening is that tumor growth occurs, leading to different expressions of surface proteins as well as a few funky, mutated receptors. Antibodies may target these cancer cells and result in cell-mediated removal of these cancerous cells. However, for some reason, possibly through chronic inflammation as inflammation seems to be at the center of all maladies, the immune system just decides that it's not worth the effort to deal with the cancer growth and shifts over to IgG4. The IgG4 antibodies should still bind, but they can't signal to effector cells to tell them to deal with the cancer (i.e. "not my problem anymore").
To that effect, the IgG4 antibodies should be related to the proper antigen (in this case antigens related to the tumors), as it's not likely that IgG4 antibodies as a whole can be implicated.
I saw that C&C made reference to IgG4-related diseases (IgG4-RD), and I would be critical of this association because IgG4 being present doesn't tell us exactly what the IgG4 is intended to target; just that it's there.
And so that's also another issue, similar to the amyloid plaques in Alzheimer's where we're not sure if the amyloid plaques are the cause of the neurodegeneration, or if their presence is indicative of cellular dysfunction (I tend to lean towards the latter argument to be honest).
The same is likely happening with the presence of IgG4, as it is likely to serve as a marker of dysfunction, serving as the end result signaling that the immune system is tired of having to deal with whatever it was intended to deal with.
Now, IgG4 autoantibodies can be dangerous since they would be targeting host cells, which wouldn't be the case in cancer or SARS-COV2, as autoantibodies would be a dangerous cause of many autoimmune diseases.
I will say though that IgG4-RD seems to be a growing field and we may find out more in the future, but as it stands right now the language around IgG4-RD seems too ambiguous for my liking, and it would require a lot more research than what I wrote here to examine the extent of IgG4-related issues.
Anyways, happy holidays! Hopefully this provided some answers, and I hope your friends are able to deal with their situations. Cancer in general is an awful disease to manage!
Thank you so so much for such a thorough response! I will have to sit and digest it all.
The first part: "I've tended to hold the belief that if the cancers are related to the vaccines, it may be that these individuals are at a threshold of keeping tumors in check, and that the dysregulation and possible immunosuppression from the vaccines may be what lowers that threshold and causes the cancer emergence."
--> YES! this is what I was thinking. That it was possibly already stirring in their bodies, but their immune system was suppressed enough by the injections that there weren't enough T/B cells (ok, that might not be correct but the immune cells that normally fight cancer) to continue fighting the cancer.
More to come... and thank you, again!
(yes, haha ... there are a few other kimchi dishes I make ... and on the topic of Asian cuisine recipes...this soup is FANTASTIC (I use galangal and kaffir lime leaves and omit the ginger): https://minimalistbaker.com/tom-kha-gai-butternut-squash-soup/
Also, I've heard of the minimalist baker before and maybe have used some recipes.... I would like to know who you are buying my data from! You probably have all of the recipes I looked up for Thanksgiving saved now! 😉
😂😂 I slept w/Elon.
JK. I promise you will love this soup...I've made it many times and it's a HUGE hit (I do use fish sauce in it...)
Ah, so you're that elusive electronic singer...whose name I can't remember. I'll just assume you masquerade similar to Stan's dad being Lorde!
Fish sauce is great! It's one of the things that makes you wonder if you should tell people that the dish isn't actually vegan 🤣
HAHA...totally!
That's my general idea, because if we assume sudden onslaughts of cancer from rampant immune suppression what numbers should we be looking for? Cancers are on the rise, but it's not as if every single person who has gotten the vaccine now has unchecked cancer (again, as far as I am aware), so it's one of the reasons why I hesitate to make broad assumptions as to what's going on. It seems more plausible that more people are nudged further into risky territories.
It's also one of the reasons I find the term "healthy" extremely frustrating now, because what exactly does it mean to be healthy? Millions of people take medications, and so are they healthy in spite of the medications, or are the medications making them healthy? I've seen several case studies commenting "aside from the obesity the person was healthy", so aside from the morbidity the person had no morbidities??? When we use broad terms such as healthy we start to lose a lot of the nuances. Right now it seems like everyone is pointing fingers at IgG4 for being at the center of all maladies, when there's more to the story than that.
To the last part, I may make a quick write-up to suppress (no pun intended!) the widespread finger pointing at IgG4. 🤷♂️
LMAO "aside from the obesity the person was healthy"....omg...we've entered such a politically-correct, gas-lighting era.
bah-dump-bump....you'll be here all week...
Well this is a far broader issue, because many people can be considered healthy if you just overlook the unhealthy aspects.
To quote something else, I keep thinking about the scene from Scott Pilgrim VS The World where the ex-boyfriend makes the comment "chicken parmesan isn't vegan?".
You are as vegan as you make yourself out to be, and you are only as healthy as the information that is provided.
I raised this criticism when the two case reports of the teenage boys was released, which included one kid being on ADHD medications and another being obese. Rather than see how these two factors may contribute to the catecholamine situation, most people just made a comment that "these were perfectly healthy teens who died in their sleep".
But again, what does it mean to be healthy? If we keep arguing that all of these people who are dying suddenly, or who are getting cancer or are getting all of these adverse reactions were perfectly healthy beforehand we don't get any closer to figuring out why some people do perfectly fine while others get severely injured or die.
That's the thing I want to argue against, but sometimes it feels like the narrative is more important than getting closer to finding an answer.
I agree with you. That being said, it is still not "typical" for children, even if they are obese, to just die in their sleep. I have not heard of that happening before, and I've been around for a few decades.
I thought this was an interesting link as to why some people have no adverse reactions to the jabs and some do. I REALIZE that there are so many other factors for each given individual, but there is an undeniable rise in excess mortalities since it was rolled out. Yes, correlation is not causation blah blah blah, but taken as a whole, if obesity in kids caused them to die in their sleep (for example) and then every other causation, why is it, in total, happening more now? ((rhetorical))
https://twitter.com/C25216702C/status/1604540426870218752
I just read the rest. I understood most of it, so thank you (again) for taking the time to write it out and explain it somewhat "simply".
What is the name of the Korean cook turned plant-based? Inquiring minds want to know :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9j2ZD7hYco here's her video on it, and her name is Seonkyoung Longest.
This is actually scary, because I have watched some of her videos in the past! I think her tteokbokki recipe (I think technically rabokki) where her and her husband just loaded it up with everything but the kitchen sink!
But anyways, I'll go back and answer your serious comment!
scary in a cool coincidence kind of way? or scary that she went plant-based 🤣?
Scary in coincidental! I have watched a few of her plant-based recipes and I think they're pretty interesting. I do find the need to make non-meat items taste like meat weird if I were to be honest...
haha well, I understand that but a lot of plant-based eaters started out as meat-eaters and they do like the taste of it. I am mostly plant-based, and my parents changed our family's diet when I was little not because we didn't like the taste of meat but for health reasons.
In the last couple of years I have heard many experts questioning the use of the outdated Wuhan spike in the vaccines. I guess that discussion really started around the time that Delta hit. With the revelation now that the population has been homogenized in terms of tolerance toward the Wuhan spike, it makes me wonder if this was the plan all along. Is there not an open "port" in the operating system of most of the people on this planet now? Can this port not be accessed in the future by using the correct key (i.e. Wuhan spike)? Was Omicron released to swamp out Wuhan spike from accessing this port because the time was not ripe for doing so? Do the people running this operation understand the viral dynamics of their variants well enough to effectively have an on/off switch control for accessing the open port?
I believe it started around the time of rollout, but then Omicron's appearance really made more noise about the mismatch in spikes.
It's always a battle between intent and incompetence, and I may differ from others but in seeing a lot of this I tend to lean towards the idea that these people have mistaken their hubris for actual competency, and so everything they do is more out of ignorance, thinking that they can construct and direct the flow of a pandemic so to speak.
Is this just one possible avenue of damage to those who are vaccinated or is this the main catalyst to everything else (SCD, cancers, blood clotting, etc.) that is going on? If it is the main catalyst, could this mean that the issues were seeing in the vaccinated be solved or reversed?
Honestly, the results of the IgG4 don't really tell us much about the downstream ramifications. The study only tells us what is being observed, and every other assumption is more of a "what if" scenario. Mine was intended to be more of a optimistic look, but others have taken a more pessimistic approach in suggesting that this may be indicative of greater harm.
The issue is that both IgG4 and the vaccines themselves are all new concepts, and so we have one novel concept begetting another one and people are trying to figure out something definitive.
Now, in many circumstances the production of IgG4 appears to be due to repeat antigen exposure, and one might say that the use of a Wuhan-specific vaccine during a time of Omicron may be the proper mismatch that would allow novel B cells that are Omicron-specific. However, Brian's article that I included in the update suggests that the clonal expansion from Wuhan appears to target Omicron as well, in which case that would mean that repeat vaccination of Wuhan-specific spike may have an effect on targeting Omicron spike.
But again, all of this is up in the air right now, and we don't really have anything to go off of aside from this one study. So we would need more research to figure out what's going on.
Thanks for the many highlights. The critical piece on this is still the "actual imprinting study" which suggests that rather than recruiting a de novo naive B Cell response, existing B Cells are just re-entering SHM to make Omi-Wuhan cross-binding antibodies. https://unglossed.substack.com/p/the-actual-imprinting-study
So those B Cells will still be on the IgG4 tolerance train.
I was able to label specific breakthrough infection variants in my original take on the pre-print, don't remember where the info was https://unglossed.substack.com/i/65225978/post-mrna-infection-increases-igg-less-than-boosting
I've included an update linking to your post. Hopefully my interpretation is adequate enough, although I had to reskim the article and didn't spend too much time parsing through the article again.
Cool cool. The supplemental table s4 of the Sci Im version has the variants and vaccine types and presumably was also in the pre-print as the source for my markup
Interesting, I'll take a look back and see. I seem to have missed that. I do find it interesting that the published version sort of GLOSSED over that part of their study.
That's it. 25mil law suit
Darn, that would have been something good to consider! It's so hard to keep up with all of the articles released, and in some cases it's only later where I go back and spend time in older posts.
In the end, it's likely better that vaccination decline and we gather evidence of natural infections in the following months as it moves farther away from "last dosage".
I'll add your post for additional perspective and food for thought.
Thank you so much for this post. I read the radagast post this morning and it scared me. But you gave me some optimism, just as the title of your post said you would! 😄💕
Well a lot of this is new territory, so the answer to most things will just be "we don't know", but there may be a tendency to follow up "we don't know" with "but we're probably all doomed!"
Maybe not that hyperbolic, but so much of what we are learning MAY lean into something bad, but unless we have concrete evidence we're still speculating, and here I'd rather not just bet on everything turning to crap since far too many people are already scared and fatigued, meaning they are already sensitive to negative reports.
I guess it's part of me slightly being optimistic that there is still a way out. I tend not to follow the global depopulation idea since it seems far too nihilistic, even for someone like me!
As to the Radagast post, he makes some interesting remarks to the cross-reactive proteins, but it's not like cross-reactive antibodies are making up a very large number of antibodies. Or maybe they are, but then we would need answers to which antibodies are cross-reactive.
These bio-injections are geared towards a synthetic spike that is radically different from the alleged 'Wuhan' spike. They literally could not protect from the original spike bio-weapon, even if they were actually "vaccines"