Keeling Over on the Soccer Field: Is It ‘Long COVID’ — or the Vaccines?

Guest Post by Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D.

Today, there appeared on this site the article, “Study Helps Explain Post-COVID Exercise Intolerance.” This article is typical of the perversion of science by corporate and government interests, the exposure of which I have taken on as my mission here at Unauthorized Science.

The central problem with this article is that it assumes that the “exercise intolerance” is due to “long COVID,” the disease. The possibility it could be a side-effect of vaccination is not mentioned either in the ScienceBlog article, in the Yale press release, or in the journal article, which is the source for this story.

The journal article updates a similar article published nearly two years ago.

The authors of that journal article are Dr. Peter A. Kahn, Dr. Phillip Joseph, Paul M. Heerdt, M.D., Ph.D., and Dr. Inderjit Singh, all doctors at Yale Medical School. No funders are listed for this article.

Like most university researchers in medicine, the authors have built their careers on Pharma-funded research. Singh has been funded by Merck and published extensively on statins, which I believe to be among the most over-prescribed and most profitable Pharma products.

Khan acknowledges funding from Serca Pharmaceuticals, FVC Health, Coaptech, TEO Science, Quantum Labs, Biohaven and Chronius Pharmaceuticals. Heerdt consults for Philips Pharma.

My impression is that authors in this field avoid direct conflicts of interest, but in the long haul, they know that their careers are served by narratives friendly to the National Institutes of Health and pharma companies that fund almost all medical research in America.

Is it a plausible consideration that “exercise intolerance” could be a vaccine side-effect?

I think it’s actually more plausible than the author’s assumption that this is “long COVID.”

• The mRNA vaccines were pressed upon billions of people globally with no long-term safety studies. This was an unprecedented departure from past regulation practice.

• And the control groups in the Pfizer and Moderna trials were given the vaccine just a few months into the trials, assuring that these trials can never test the long-term safety of the products. With Kafka-esque logic, the companies claimed that their products were so safe and effective that it would be unethical to deny their benefits to the placebo group in the study, so Shucks!

It’s just too bad that we’re never going to have the data that would establish just how safe and effective they are. At the time when they claimed it would be unethical to deny the benefit of their product to the 30,000 subjects in the control groups, more people had died in the vaccine group than in the control group.

• Some people who are vaccinated get a much higher dose of spike protein than people who contract the disease. This is because mRNA vaccines, unlike traditional vaccines, do not deliver a measured dose of the epitope to the body. Instead, they deliver coded instructions for making the spike protein, and cells of our bodies do the work of creating it. Most people who receive the shots can degrade the mRNA within a few days.

But in a small percentage of people, the mRNA persists for months, continuing to churn out the spike protein. In a smaller set — we don’t know how many people because no one is conducting quantitative research — the mRNA is reverse-transcribed back into DNA, and the body’s generation of spike protein never stops. Since the liquid nanoparticles carrying mRNA are concentrated in the ovaries, it is possible that DNA coding for the spike could be passed to succeeding generations. No one is looking for this effect.

• We now know that COVID-19 came from a bioweapon laboratory, and the spike protein was the part of the virus that was engineered to be toxic. This means that there are people who know exactly how it was designed and in what way it was engineered to be toxic.

These scientists probably also know how to cure the disease, because every bioweapon is researched in parallel with an antidote. Cross-examining these scientists could save millions of lives. Why is no one with authority conducting the investigations or issuing the subpoenas?

There is an urgent need for studies comparing the health of COVID-19-vaccinated and unvaccinated people. This research is not being done, and the data that would identify people who die or were hospitalized is available to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), but not being released.

It is my opinion, given the present messaging climate, that if such studies supported the long-term benefits of mRNA vaccination, we would be hearing about them loud and clear. The fact that these data are not being reported and the studies are not being done is suspicious.

If this were true, I would have read about it in The New York Times

Why is it that here on Science Blog and elsewhere through the community of medical researchers and medical journalists, no one is talking about the possible dangers of the vaccines?

Scientists have been told that it is not a good idea to talk about vaccine dangers because this could fuel “vaccine hesitancy,” which is already a big problem in the public.

Vaccines are a public health benefit that depends on a large proportion of the public accepting the vaccine, to prevent transmission. “No one is safe until everyone is safe.”

The problems with this message are that:

1. Maybe the vaccine hesitancy is justified. After all, the mRNA vaccines have triggered a hundred times more reports (including deaths) to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) than any vaccine in the past, and

2. In the famous quote about the “speed of science,” a Pfizer spokesperson admitted that the vaccines were never tested to see if they prevent transmission.

My own research and a study from Harvard School of Public Health both indicate that people vaccinated for COVID-19 are more likely to transmit the disease than people who are unvaccinated.

Fact check

I encourage you to fact-check the claims I have made here. But recognize that you can’t get a fair sample of the literature with any search engine, including Google Scholar and PubMed.

You will easily find claims that the spike protein is not toxic, that the mRNA disappears promptly from the body, that the mRNA stays in muscles of the arm, that VAERS deaths are over-reported and have nothing to do with the vaccine, that all deaths in the mRNA vaccine trials were unrelated to the vaccine, etc. The prevalence of such articles is claimed as a “scientific consensus.”

But this is exactly my motivation for posting this piece. The academic literature, the mainstream reporting, and the search engines that index them are alike being biased by injections of money from Big Pharma.

If you have the patience to locate articles and both sides and drill down to the data on which they are based, I would be interested to hear your thoughts in the comments section.

This is a short, readable book that I consider to be a reliable reference on the dangers of the mRNA vaccine technology.