Replies

Hmm, I looked on PubMed and only found one paper with those two authors listed, which was published several months ago. This is not a research paper, but a review. Normally, a review is a paper in which the authors read a selection of papers on the subject and summarize them in order to provide a quick snapshot of the latest knowledge in the field.

‘Spikeopathy’: COVID-19 Spike Protein Is Pathogenic, from Both Virus and Vaccine mRNA.

In order to come up with the conclusion that the spike protein itself is pathogenic, they referred to two other papers.

The first of these is this research paper, "SARS-CoV-2 binds platelet ACE2 to enhance thrombosis in COVID-19," where the authors report that they found that platelets which had been exposed to spike protein from either the virus or the vaccine would aggregate when exposed to a chemical that causes aggregation (i.e. clotting). This means that the spike protein primed the cells to aggregate, not that it causes them to aggregate on their own.

The second of these is The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binds and modulates estrogen receptors. These authors report that they found that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binds to estrogen receptor alpha (ERα). Since ERα is a cytosolic protein, this means that the virus already has to be inside cells before this binding can happen.

Neither of these papers used as "evidence" that the spike protein is itself pathogenic actually shows that. They show that the spike protein can mimic (some) activities of hormones when it binds to the receptors activated by those hormones. They hypothesize that some of the pathogenic effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection is mediated through these hormone mimicking activities.

The review, overall, is not worth reading, because it took a premise and only referenced papers that the authors could use to advance that premise. That is not the proper use of the review process.

Now, let's attempt to understand relative risk as it applies to Covid vaccines vs. Covid disease. A Covid vaccine causes the production of a limited amount of spike protein for a few hours. The spike protein might stick around for a few days, after which it is no longer present. A SARS-CoV-2 virus is literally covered with spike protein, and it forces the body to keep churning out more spike protein for weeks. So, given a choice between a little dose from a vaccine and a large, prolonged dose from a Covid infection, which choice is more likely to cause health issues?

Hyperbolic exaggeration of the rare serious adverse effects of vaccines while completely avoiding any mention of the common serious adverse effects of infection is done for one purpose. It is done in order to scare people away from using vaccines. Those who try to scare people away from vaccines do so because they don't care if people die or their health is permanently impaired. A lot of times, they only care about the money they get from selling snake oil which (they promise) will completely replace your immune system.

And, finally, no, Australia is not discontinuing the distribution of vaccines. The government of Australia actually wants more people to stay alive. Living people = more tax collections. Dead people = no taxes collected.