The Covid-19 plandemic reshaped the world, and the rapid development of vaccines was hailed as a scientific triumph by the Big Pharma dominated mainstream. Billions of doses were administered globally, pulling in billions of dollars for Big Pharma. But as the dust settles, questions about the long-term effects of these vaccines are starting to emerge.
A recent study by Yale University's immunology team has brought these concerns into sharp focus, shedding light on what they call "long-vax"—a condition involving persistent symptoms following vaccination. Their findings, though preliminary, raise critical questions about vaccine safety, the role of politics in science, and the need for greater transparency in public health.
The Yale study, led by a team of immunologists, set out to investigate the long-term effects of Covid-19 vaccination on immune function. What they uncovered was a pattern of injuries that they believe has been underreported and understudied. According to the team, these vaccine-related harms—referred to as "long-vax"—have been evident in patient interactions for years, yet the academic and medical communities have been slow to acknowledge them. The study's findings are based on four years of data collection, with the team noting consistent patterns of symptoms among those affected.
In 2023, the Yale researchers released a preprint (a study not yet formally peer-reviewed or published) detailing their observations. They examined 241 participants who reported post-vaccination syndrome (PVS), a condition characterised by a range of symptoms that mirror what doctors have seen in clinical practice. These symptoms include chronic fatigue, neurological issues, and cardiovascular problems, among others. While the sample size was relatively small, the consistency of the symptoms across participants suggests that PVS may be more widespread than previously thought.
One of the most striking aspects of the Yale study is its commentary on the intersection of science and politics. The researchers predicted that vaccine injuries would only gain scientific recognition if Donald Trump were to become president again, the study being before Trump's election. This claim might sound surprising, but it reflects a broader concern about how political incentives can shape scientific discourse.
During the pandemic, the vaccines were heavily politicised. Public health officials and many scientists championed them as a critical tool to end the crisis, often downplaying potential risks to maintain public trust. The Yale team's prediction suggests that a Trump presidency might shift the political climate, creating space for more open discussion about vaccine injuries without fear of backlash. Whether this prediction holds true remains to be seen, but it underscores a troubling reality: scientific inquiry can be influenced by political pressures, sometimes at the expense of truth.
The Yale study provides what the researchers describe as "the most pivotal data" on long-term harms from the Covid vax. They argue that these harms have been hiding in plain sight, evident to doctors who have treated patients with persistent symptoms post-vaccination. The term "long-vax" has been used to describe this phenomenon, drawing a parallel to "long Covid," where individuals experience lingering symptoms after a Covid-19 infection.
The 2023 preprint offers a glimpse into the scope of the problem. Among the 241 participants with PVS, the team identified symptoms that align with what they've observed in clinical settings. These include fatigue, brain fog, muscle pain, and even more severe issues like heart palpitations and nerve damage. While the study doesn't provide definitive proof of causation—correlation doesn't equal causation—it does highlight a pattern that warrants further investigation. The researchers emphasised that these findings are preliminary, but they argue that the consistency of the symptoms across participants and over time suggests a real issue that has been overlooked.
The Yale study raises a critical question: why has it taken so long for these potential vaccine injuries to be taken seriously? The answer, according to the researchers, lies in a combination of systemic and cultural factors. During the height of the pandemic, the focus was on getting shots into arms as quickly as possible. Public health campaigns emphasised the vaccines' safety and efficacy, often glossing over rare but serious side effects. This approach was understandable at the time—vaccine hesitancy was a major barrier to controlling the virus—but it may have created a blind spot when it came to long-term monitoring.
The study also points to a broader issue within the academic and medical communities: a reluctance to critically examine the vaccines for fear of fuelling anti-vaccine sentiment. Suppressing legitimate scientific inquiry is not the answer. By failing to acknowledge and study vaccine injuries, the medical community risks eroding public trust even further. Transparency, even when the findings are uncomfortable, is the best way to maintain credibility.
The Yale study is a wake-up call. It highlights the need for more robust, independent research into the long-term effects of Covid-19 vaccines. For individuals who may be experiencing symptoms of "long-vax," the study offers validation. Many of these patients have reported feeling dismissed by doctors or told that their symptoms are psychosomatic. The Yale team's work could pave the way for better diagnostic tools and treatments, giving these patients the support they need.
On a broader level, the study underscores the importance of depoliticising science. Whether it's a Trump presidency or a Democratic administration, scientific inquiry should be driven by evidence, not political expediency. The Yale researchers' prediction about Trump's influence on vaccine injury research is a reminder that science doesn't exist in a vacuum—it's shaped by the cultural and political context in which it operates. Moving forward, we need to create an environment where researchers feel safe to ask hard questions, even if the answers challenge the prevailing narrative.
The Yale study on COVID vaccine injuries is far from the final word on the subject. Its findings are preliminary, and more research is needed to confirm the prevalence and mechanisms of "long-vax." But it serves as an important reminder that no medical intervention is without risk, and that ignoring those risks does a disservice to patients and the public.
https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/yale-proved-covid-vax-injury-exists
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.02.18.25322379v1.full.pdf
"Most recently, Yale's immunology team conducted a long-term study of the effects of vaccination on immune function, which represents a watershed moment in studying these injuries as there has been a longstanding embargo in the academic community of acknowledging these injuries.
Note: previously I predicted the one thing which could get the scientific establishment to begin publishing data on vaccine injuries would be Trump becoming president again as there would then be a political incentive to criticize them (as Trump endorsed the COVID vaccines).
As this represented the most pivotal data on creating longterm awareness of the harms of the COVID vaccine (e.g., beyond it being very detailed, it coming from Yale would make "long-vax" a condition) I have been in touch with participants throughout it (who've shared bits and pieces of the data coming out), all of which has been consistent with what we've been seeing in vaccine injured patients for the last four years.
Initially, in 2023, they shared some of their preliminary data as a 2023 pre-print (which has still not been formally published) which detailed the common symptoms seen in the 241 participants with post vaccination syndrome (PVS), which match what we've seen in clinical practice.
To quote the study:
In conclusion, people reporting PVS after covid-19 vaccination in this study are highly symptomatic, have poor health status, and have tried many treatment strategies without success. As PVS is associated with considerable suffering, there is an urgent need to understand its mechanism to provide prevention, diagnosis, and treatment strategies.
Note: these results were discussed in more detail in this October 2023 online conference (e.g., the mast cell component of the illness). From watching this conference, my impression was that the investigators sincerely want to help the trial participants, but due to the unpleasant implications of their findings, are in a very challenging position (hence why their 2023 pre-print has still not been published).
In their recently pre-published study of 42 post-vaccine syndrome (vaccine injured) participants (and 22 controls) a variety of changes were discovered. These included including lower CD4 cells and elevated TNFα+ and CD8 T cells (which equates to a picture of immune suppression and autoimmunity). Additionally, post-vaccine syndrome (PVS) participants had a tendency for the re-activation of chronic infections and had a chronic persistence of the spike protein.
General HealthVaccine injured individuals reported lower general health scores, such as lower physical function scores, higher anxiety, depression, fatigue, and pain scores and increased sleep disturbances.
This is important because it demonstrates that vaccine injuries are a real condition with actual health effects (rather than just 'being in your head').
Spike Protein PersistenceTo my knowledge, this study provides the best demonstration that the COVID vaccine persists for a prolonged period in the body and when present, typically is much higher than in controls.
This data collectively shows that:
•The COVID vaccine spike protein can persist for years in the body. The major limitation with each previous study was that spike was still found at the end of the study duration, so it was not possible to know how long it actually persisted. As this study shows, a few months was not long enough to measure the spike protein's persistence, as in some cases, it lasted for close to two years (were it to be measured again, might last even longer).
•In many cases, COVID spike protein persistence eventually stopped but symptoms continued. Assuming this is correct, that means in many cases the vaccine will eventually be eliminated (which may depend upon the vaccine lot they received), and that not all of the post-vaccine symptoms are a result of persistent spike protein production.
•The persistence of the spike protein without any proof of a natural infection provides strong evidence the vaccine's spike protein is what's persisting in the body.
Note: I recently discussed this topic with Dr. Malone (who I consider to be one of the most knowledgeable people in this area). We are both of the opinion that while genomic integration may play a role in spike protein persistence, the more probable explanation is simply that the body cannot break down the mRNA (and possibly the spike proteins) due to how it was modified, leading to the perpetual production of spike proteins. Presently, the data does not exist to quantify the scale of spike protein genomic integration, but with what is currently known (which could change as more data becomes available) cellular production of additional vaccine mRNA is most likely not responsible for the majority of the free spike protein found in the vaccine injured individuals.
Immunologic Suppression and Viral ReactivationOne of the major problems with the COVID vaccine has been that it causes a significant number of people to develop signs of immune suppression, such as continually getting ill with the flu or having a reactivation of a chronic viral infection (e.g., shingles in general along with severe cases of shingles has been strongly linked to vaccination).
Note: less severe versions of this immune suppression have also been observed to follow shedding exposures.
A variety of theories have been put forward to explain why this happens, such as:
•The immune system being locked onto the vaccine antigen, which results in it losing the ability to target other natural antigens (and has been proven to be an issue with many other vaccines as well).
•The vaccine creating an IgG4 class switch, which essentially causes the immune system to no longer fight back against COVID spike proteins.
•The overstimulation of the vaccine overtime causes a suppression of spike protein antibodies (which the study observed). This could either be a result of the vaccine injured patients have an existing inability to develop immunity to the vaccine's spike protein (as suggested by the January 2023 study) or that the vaccine gradually eliminated the body's ability to bind to the spike protein, resulting in individuals becoming more vulnerable to the spike protein over time if they happened to have a long-acting vaccine continue to produce spike protein inside them.
•The spike protein collapsing the zeta potential of the body (which as it gets more severe can cause blood clots of increasing sizes). Since many symptoms of infectious illnesses result from the zeta potential collapse they create, those symptoms of illness are magnified when there is already an impaired zeta potential.
•The spike protein directly destroying immune cells (e.g., CD4 cells—something also seen in HIV) and the stem cells that create the immune cells.
In addition to showing a loss of key immune cells, the study also showed both the CD4 and CD8 cells had signs of being "exhausted," as changes were observed in them that are known to correlate with those cells partially losing ability to respond to infections due to a chronic over-activation of them (e.g., by persistent vaccine spike protein).
Finally, much in the same way that there were signs of immune dysfunction, the study also observed consistent significant signs of viral reactions in the cohort, most notably with Epstein Barr virus, but also with herpes (however for some reason, shingles was not assessed in this study) and frequently both concurrently. In turn, we have frequently seen EBV be a component of the vaccine injury picture (to the point sometimes it needs to be treated) and frequently also observe an increase in herpes.
Additionally, there was also a possible increase in seropositivity to a few other pathogens (e.g., H. Pylori and the parasite Toxocara), which could potentially (but more likely than not doesn't) explain some of the gastrointestinal issues seen in vaccine injured patients or their response to ivermectin.
AutoimmunityOne of the most common issues associated with the COVID vaccines were autoimmune disorders (detailed here) due to the fact the spike protein had an unusually high overlap with human tissue and because it was designed to express itself on the surface of human cells.
In the Yale study, they observed:
We observed significant increases in IgM reactivities against 65 antigens, IgG 309 reactivity against 1 antigen and IgA reactivities against 39 antigens in PVS compared to controls after multiple testing corrections. Among these antigens, two showed log₂fold change of greater than 2: anti-nucleosome IgM [which is strongly associated with lupus] and anti-AQP4 IgA [which is associated with a rare autoimmune disorder that attacks the central nervous system, particularly optic nerve and spinal cord].
Note: a significant increase in TNF⍺ levels in simulated CD8+ cells (which can often lead to immune dysfunction) and a non-significant increase in CD8+ IFNγ were observed.
I feel these results are important as they validate something many of us have been claiming for four years with the vaccines.
Note: less severe versions of autoimmunity have also been observed to follow shedding exposures.
ConclusionThroughout my life, as I've come to feel that because of the bad trade-offs inherent to many policies or technologies, those behind them (particularly the government) will take an approach akin to trying to pound a square peg through a round hole (as government always defaults to utilizing the force at its disposal to solve the problems it encounters). In contrast, whenever I encounter situations where there really does not seem to be a good way to balance the trade-offs, I take that as a sign I need to consider a completely different approach rather than forcing the one I've committed to into working.
With COVID for example, I realized near the start that it would be an exercise in futility to address it with a vaccine—a truth much of the world has now had its eyes opened to. Instead, it was my assessment from the start that the best option would be to quickly develop viable treatments for the illness that could prevent severe complications from it and then allow infected individuals to recover with a strong immunity to the disease (and as we've now seen, natural immunity is vastly superior to vaccine immunity for COVID-19).
Unfortunately, rather than heed that approach, our medical apparatus decided to do everything it possibly could to push the vaccine upon us, while simultaneously doing all they could to bury the myriad of effective off-patent treatments developed for COVID-19.
Since the pathway Bill Gates put into place for lucrative accelerated approvals is still in place, I believe this highlights how important it is for us to actually understand how these technologies work and the trade-offs involved with them (which are never disclosed). In turn, it is my sincere belief that if the public had known part of what I presented here, they likely would have never taken the COVID vaccines (or any future mass-produced mRNA vaccine). Similarly, as I've tried to illustrate here, contamination and poor production is a systemic problem with vaccines, and were robust independent testing to be conducted (so people actually knew what was in the vaccines they were taking), the demand for them would likely disappear until the industry was forced to clean up its act.
In that light, this study is extremely important as it provides objective proof the vaccine is indeed doing something harmful and abnormal, and that it is occurring long after vaccination. As such, when this topic is broached with a skeptical doctor (or academic) you can now say "did you know a multi-year Yale study recently discovered that the vaccine does chronically damage the immune system of certain recipients and cause a variety of persistent and debilitating symptoms?"
Overall, it is my belief that the most effective way to stop these unsafe products (and those in the pipeline) is not to ban them, but to simply have enough people boycott them that they become financially unsustainable (and due to the new era of information diffusion we are walking into thanks to platforms like 𝕏, it's actually possible). The FDA and CDC have lost an immense amount of trust because of how flagrantly they lied to the public, and have thus far refused to take any accountability for their actions.
Fortunately, this is something that will likely change once public pressures and financial pressures (e.g., people no longer buying the drugs rubber-stamped by the FDA) force the agency to make genuine amends for its conduct throughout the pandemic and return to good science, which as Secretary RFK Jr. showed in his recent inaugural speech he intends to do for America's public health agencies."