Scientists in the Netherlands carried out a large study, which included 604 patients and was funded by the Dutch government.

The researchers posted their findings online as a preprint already 3 weeks ago:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.09.29.23296354v1.full.pdf

Title: Suppressed IgG4 class switching in dupilumab- and TNF inhibitor-treated patients after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination

= = =

The jist of the study:

Scientists reported people who had received at least three mRNA shots showed a sharp increase in a type of antibodies called IgG4.

Usually, the IgG4 class make up less than 5 percent of all IgG antibodies, and often less than 1 percent.

But the scientists found that after a third shot, IgG4 made up about 21 percent of all the IgG antibodies they found in the average healthy adult. The levels varied very widely, though, and in 1 in 4 adults IgG4 was nearly 50 percent of all IgG antibodies.

Because IgG4 is so uncommon when the immune system is working normally, no one really knows what the impact of much-higher-than-normal IgG4 levels may be.

= = =

NOTE: This preprint reports new research that has not been certified by peer review and should not be used to guide clinical practice.

7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

NOTE: This preprint reports new research that has not been certified by peer review and should not be used to guide clinical practice.

The preprint is just a rendering of the results of the study. 

Obviously it cannot be used 'to guide clinical practice', because at this moment NOBODY really knows what the impact of much-higher-than-normal IgG4 levels may be.

2 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

The preprint is just a rendering of the results of the study. 

Obviously it cannot be used 'to guide clinical practice', because at this moment NOBODY really knows what the impact of much-higher-than-normal IgG4 levels may be.

A preprint once peer reviewed is often amended and and corrected before publication if it eventually ever gets reviewed that is.

It has happened more than often enough than to be thought of as pure coincidence, or divine serendipity, that whenever things get a bit too sleepy on AN, pop we would have another covid-related provocative thread jump out to brighten the day.

Just saying (while yawning...)
 

6 minutes ago, watthong said:

It has happened more than often enough than to be thought of as pure coincidence, or divine serendipity, that whenever things get a bit too sleepy on AN, pop we would have another covid-related provocative thread jump out to brighten the day.

Just saying (while yawning...)
 

I think it good that the c-19 saga is not swept under the carpet.

 

There is also the warning to anyone who would take a further jab/booster/shot, that all is not as the authorities would have us believe.

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

A preprint once peer reviewed is often amended and and corrected before publication if it eventually ever gets reviewed that is.

If the data is correct it should not be amended. Only conclusions.

Yet more scaremongering krap from the king of konspiracy theories.

30 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

I think it good that the c-19 saga is not swept under the carpet.

 

There is also the warning to anyone who would take a further jab/booster/shot, that all is not as the authorities would have us believe.

A reminder: authorities, whether it's in Asia or in the Caribbeans (or in any "chocolate producing" country for that matter) are not to be confounded with science.

.

I know I have antibodies but I didn't even know what IgG4  was

I don't see what difference it would make if it was read on a pier. 

1 minute ago, watthong said:

 

A reminder: authorities, whether it's in Asia or in the Caribbeans (or in any "chocolate producing" country for that matter) are not to be confounded with science.

What science might that be Watthong? Much of the c-19 science is not so scientific after all.

 

One of the difficulties, is that batches of jab ingredients vary so much. Some batches have little more effect than a sore arm, while others have far graver consequences for those accepting them into their bodies.

 

Good that this study has revealed such interesting data.

4 minutes ago, sirineou said:

.

I know I have antibodies but I didn't even know what IgG4  was

I don't see what difference it would make if it was read on a pier. 

The relevance of the study - funded by the Dutch government - is that it might help understand the mechanism that makes triple-jabbed people more prone to covid-infections.

7 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

What science might that be Watthong? Much of the c-19 science is not so scientific after all.

 

 

"Much of the c-19 science is not so scientific after all." You're absolutely right.

So let's go back to bleach, ultra-violet light,  and in your case, chocolate.

29 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

If the data is correct it should not be amended. Only conclusions.

 

Well  that's a completely useless statement. Unless its checked nobody knows if the data or conclusions are correct........lol

 

Besides which only, slightly more than half of COVID-19–related scientific studies posted on the preprint server medRxiv were published in peer-reviewed journals within the next 2 years.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

The relevance of the study - funded by the Dutch government - is that it might help understand the mechanism that makes triple-jabbed people more prone to covid-infections.

 

So , out of curiosity , which vaccine did you have and are you in any way worried ?

33 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

The relevance of the study - funded by the Dutch government - is that it might help understand the mechanism that makes triple-jabbed people more prone to covid-infections.

Tripple-jabbed?!

 

For me; this is a bit of a hit-and-miss study. Not to say is has not been worthwhile. I have resevations.

 

If one is single jabbed, the chance of a bad reaction depends upon a couple of factors. One is how toxic the particular jab is. The other is if a person has any underlying problems.

 

Let's say the chance of getting a toxic jab is 50%. A second jab opens the door to four possibilities; all rated at 25%.

 

1/ Both jabs are toxic

2/ The first was toxic but not the second

3/ The second was toxic but not the first

4/ Both jabs were benign.

 

However, a further (third) jab swings the odds very much into the chance that at least one jab will be toxic (87.5%). In fact the chance of having three benign jabs are just 12.5% or one in eight.

 

https://howbadismybatch.com/

18 minutes ago, Denim said:

 

So , out of curiosity , which vaccine did you have and are you in any way worried ?

To satisfy your curiosity > Me and my lady are the only ones in our Isaan village that did NOT take the jabs.  And coincidentally we are also the only ones that didn't catch covid (or didn't notice it if we did).  And to clarify: we are not hermits and attended several meetings (mostly funerals) and did not practice 'safe distancing', nor used face-diapers or any other mitigation measures.  

At this very moment 2 of my lady's triple-jabbed aunts are in the local hospital, as they catched covid again and seem not to be able to recover. 

I am not worried about myself or my lady as we have robust natural immunity (I probably did catch covid, but I never tested as it was just like a mild cold and better next day).  But I am worried about my loved ones that were coerced into taking these '100% safe and effective' shots.  

 

Mmmmmm?

 

Had Sinovac, AstraZeneca (Thai version), Moderna, Pfizer AND Covid19..... heaven knows what my immune system is doing.

4 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Tripple-jabbed?!

 

For me; this is a bit of a hit-and-miss study. Not to say is has not been worthwhile. I have resevations.

 

If one is single jabbed, the chance of a bad reaction depends upon a couple of factors. One is how toxic the particular jab is. The other is if a person has any underlying problems.

 

Let's say the chance of getting a toxic jab is 50%. A second jab opens the door to four possibilities; all rates at 25%.

 

1/ Both jabs are toxic

2/ The first was toxic but not the second

3/ The second was toxic but not the first

4/ Both jabs were benign.

 

However, a further (third) jab swings the odds very much into the chance that at least one jab will be toxic. In fact the chance of having three benign jabs are just 12.5% or one in eight.

 

https://howbadismybatch.com/

 

To paraphrase Orwell's 'Animal Farm' >

All covid-jabs are toxic

But some covid-jabs are less toxic than others...

"Long-term effects," unknown or otherwise, seems to be more life-threatening to some folks, than the very real, very near and very known prospect of death by drowning in your own fluids in an ICU bed while your family and loved ones look on in despair from the other side of the glass window. 

 

But now that such prospect has been mostly averted by the advance of science who in record time has given us efficacious vaccines to combat covid19, it's time to get back to the haystack and search of the "unknown long term effects" needles and denounce the scientific cure. This reminds me of the kind of capture cults have on their followers.

10 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

Mmmmmm?

 

Had Sinovac, AstraZeneca (Thai version), Moderna, Pfizer AND Covid19..... heaven knows what my immune system is doing.

Why? Never saw any covid in our area. Did you?

4 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Why? Never saw any covid in our area. Did you?

Stayed in the epi-centre, Klong Toei, for the whole thing....never had a sniffle.......went on holiday to the Issan rice fields and was laid low for a week...????

16 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

To satisfy your curiosity > Me and my lady are the only ones in our Isaan village that did NOT take the jabs.  And coincidentally we are also the only ones that didn't catch covid (or didn't notice it if we did).  And to clarify: we are not hermits and attended several meetings (mostly funerals) and did not practice 'safe distancing', nor used face-diapers or any other mitigation measures.  

At this very moment 2 of my lady's triple-jabbed aunts are in the local hospital, as they catched covid again and seem not to be able to recover. 

I am not worried about myself or my lady as we have robust natural immunity (I probably did catch covid, but I never tested as it was just like a mild cold and better next day).  But I am worried about my loved ones that were coerced into taking these '100% safe and effective' shots.  

 

 

This post leads straight into the question; ''Did anyone catch covid in your village?''

 

Sounds like the villagers who got sick, did so because they were unlucky enough to have a toxic jab.

 

These EUA "vaccines" built on an mRNA platform completely bypassed long-term testing, and then was approved for human use (Comirnaty), again, without long-term testing.  Well the phamacutical companies are completely indemnified, so if they "made mistakes" that harm people's health.  Too bad.

"You are anti-vaxxer."

No.  I'm not.  I have no problem with shots built on traditional vaccine technology and which are proven to be sterilizing vaccines and have long-term testing and real-world use.  In other words, if you get the shot, you will not get the disease.  And I take rabies vaccines myself as I work with animals.  And I give my own animals vaccines.  Far from being "anti-vaxx" but over the last three years using pejoratives like "anti-vaxxer" and "conspiracy theorist" were commonly used by those who could not justify their own arguments, so they immediately fall back on ad-hominid attacks on those with whom they disagree. Can't support your own argument - then attack the character of the person you disagree with.   I saw plenty of that right here.

So I will take shots based on proven vaccine technology, but shots based on mRNA tech?  Nope. 

I won't even consider putting that stuff in my body, my family's bodies, or my animal's bodies until there are solid long-term meta-analysis studies showing both efficacy and safety.   And I don't trust regulators like the FDA which has a revolving door between those who supposedly regulate and the companies they regulate.  That's regulatory capture and it only benefits revenues and profits for pharmaceutical companies, and of course those regulators who move from the government watchdog for public safety to highly lucrative jobs with the companies they use to so-call regulate.

If after 7 to 10 years (a typical vaccine testing cycle) these shots are conclusively proved to be both safe and effective - even better - are sterilizing vaccines, then maybe I'd consider them.  For Covid though?  Probably not.
I had Covid.  It was a nothing-burger.  After three and a half years of extreme hyperbole and fear-monger, I catch the virus, and had a mild "flu-like" symptoms that were completely gone in 5 days.  Oh, by the way.  Every one of my extended family members who took the Covid shot (virtually all mandated <coerced> by their employers> came down with Covid before I did, and their kids too.  Me and my wife "unvaccinated?"  We didn't get until August of this year.  And again - it was nothing.  A nuisance.

So no, I'll never take the Covid (mRNA, AV, or inactivated virus) shots in the future either.  Anecdotally, I see no evidence within my own family that they work.  And I'm concerned for the long-term health of my family members who did take it. 

Over the long-term, we will eventually find the reality about these mRNA Covid 'vaccines' as well as the mRNA technology they are built up.  Good and bad.

55 minutes ago, watthong said:

 

"Much of the c-19 science is not so scientific after all." You're absolutely right.

So let's go back to bleach, ultra-violet light,  and in your case, chocolate.

 

Let's get back to nature!

 

Nature has all the answers we need.

 

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

The relevance of the study - funded by the Dutch government - is that it might help understand the mechanism that makes triple-jabbed people more prone to covid-infections.

 

.....is that it might help understand the mechanism that makes triple-jabbed people more prone to covid-infections.

Which turns out not to be case............

 

Are triple-vaccinated people more likely to be infected by the Omicron variant than the unvaccinated?

No. But that is the message television viewers in France apparently got from an interview with Dr. Martin Blachier.

 

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-pseudoscience/are-triple-vaccinated-people-more-likely-be-infected-omicron-variant-unvaccinated

1 hour ago, McTavish said:

Yet more scaremongering krap from the king of konspiracy theories.

 

Who are you talking about?

 

If you are inferring RP, then you are peeing up the wrong lamp-post. He don't like the way the whole covid saga has been framed and manipulated. Me nether. Probably most people are the same now.

 

 

7 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

 

Let's get back to nature!

 

Nature has all the answers we need.

 

 

                                                    So does the Kracken.

 

                                                 Let's release the Kracken!

I'd rather face the 'Kracken' than have a 'clot-shot' at the 'jabattoir'.

58 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

Mmmmmm?

 

Had Sinovac, AstraZeneca (Thai version), Moderna, Pfizer AND Covid19..... heaven knows what my immune system is doing.

 

Was that you in the blue lycra and red cape I saw fly past last night ?