Sooo..... I think this implies that those who have received allergy desensitisation shots for pollen, et. al., which result in IgG4 that prevents the allergy symptoms, may have an inhibitited antibody response to neoplams, likely most inhibited when the allergen is "in season". Beekeepers likely also have some risk. Sigh, just something more to worry about.
Was the "combined image" your work or one of the other links? After giving https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-28101-5 a look there are a few problems with synthesizing those results to the mRNA-IgG4 question. Fig 5 shows that few participants are mRNA; this does totally reverse for the 3/4 groups but it's unclear what their total experience is. Time between infection and draws isn't clear as far as I can tell. And given that unvaccinated patients are in the same range as 3-4 dose patients it becomes more a question of what is different about the (not-mRNA-heavy) two dose group...
I hesitate to conclude anything causal from an association with boosters because this might be an artifact of improving / stabilizing quality of mRNA product. So if the early stuff was very low in full length RNA content, it wouldn't have been as oncogenic in my own pet theory for cancer. And this was exactly what I ventured at the time - so if there's more cancer after boosters, that might just suggest RNA quality control is all that matters.
But lots of compelling references on the generic IgG4 hazard side. It's basically certain that it would hurt rather than help, via Fc-Fc.
Thanks Jim.
Sooo..... I think this implies that those who have received allergy desensitisation shots for pollen, et. al., which result in IgG4 that prevents the allergy symptoms, may have an inhibitited antibody response to neoplams, likely most inhibited when the allergen is "in season". Beekeepers likely also have some risk. Sigh, just something more to worry about.
Excellent article, Jim. I added it to my data collection on the dangers of the injection.
Was the "combined image" your work or one of the other links? After giving https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-28101-5 a look there are a few problems with synthesizing those results to the mRNA-IgG4 question. Fig 5 shows that few participants are mRNA; this does totally reverse for the 3/4 groups but it's unclear what their total experience is. Time between infection and draws isn't clear as far as I can tell. And given that unvaccinated patients are in the same range as 3-4 dose patients it becomes more a question of what is different about the (not-mRNA-heavy) two dose group...
I hesitate to conclude anything causal from an association with boosters because this might be an artifact of improving / stabilizing quality of mRNA product. So if the early stuff was very low in full length RNA content, it wouldn't have been as oncogenic in my own pet theory for cancer. And this was exactly what I ventured at the time - so if there's more cancer after boosters, that might just suggest RNA quality control is all that matters.
But lots of compelling references on the generic IgG4 hazard side. It's basically certain that it would hurt rather than help, via Fc-Fc.
You forgot my write-up on this. :)
https://jessicar.substack.com/p/igg4-and-cancer-a-mechanism-of-action
Thanks 🙏🏼 Sharing this.