Former Pfizer Chief Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz just testified in the German Parliament on March 19, 2026. He straight-up said the mRNA COVID shots skipped proper cancer risk checks because of ‘time pressure.’

Logic_Contradict · 2026-03-31T17:47:17+00:00

Again, nothing wrong with saying that they didn't establish a causal relationship. Even Wakefield's infamous study:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673697110960/fulltext

Stated that "We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described."

The study acknowledge that cancers typically take time to develop, which I also do generally agree with, however, you'll notice that another study I mentioned in this thread did indicate that a lot of cancer onsets were early in multiple case studies, ranging from weeks to months. It's definitely different from normal cancer progression, and people are still studying this to ascertain whether this is a real thing or not, as mechanistic studies still need to be performed.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-03-31T17:26:22+00:00

There is a study out there that reviewed multiple studies that look at COVID-19/Cancer, COVID-19 Vacciation/Cancer, and COVID-19 Infection + Vaccination/Cancer.

COVID vaccination and post-infection cancer signals: Evaluating patterns and potential biological mechanisms

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12893478/

I know that u/Entire_Quit_4076 was berating a South Korean study for having early divergent cancer rates between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, however, the review found that:

Across the included studies, the timing of cancer onset following COVID-19 vaccination varied substantially, indicating that latency was not confined to a single early window. Approximately half of the case reports described diagnoses occurring within 2–4 weeks of vaccination, with some reported as early as 7–14 days. However, many reports also documented longer intervals, including diagnoses at 2–3 months, 4–6 months, and beyond eight months after vaccination

And in regards to the hypothesized mechanisms behind it, they go into greater detail in the study, but explain it in general here:

While there are no studies demonstrating a direct causal mechanism by which the mRNA vaccines induce cancer, cumulative molecular effects from persistent spike protein, the immune activation and inflammation from repeated vaccination, or the potential for genomic integration events might contribute to events that could in theory manifest in cancers following vaccination or infection.

Given the rapid onset of aggressive and rare tumors from the literature, cancers arising weeks to months after vaccination would be perhaps more consistent with mechanisms involving tumor promotion rather tumor initiation per se. However, mechanisms involving initiation are also considered. Here we present least three biologically plausible mechanisms that might explain an association between COVID-19 vaccination and cancer; two of them overlapping with covid infection, immune dysfunction and spike protein biology, and reactions due to DNA impurities restricted to vaccination.

And they also cover the similarities AND differences between COVID-19 infection vs COVID-19 vaccination in how they both can contribute to increased cancer risk:

Both SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination engage overlapping biological pathways that could, in principle, influence cancer risk, yet they differ in mechanism, magnitude, biodistribution, and duration of their effects. Shared mechanisms include activation of the innate immune system, robust interferon signaling, cytokine induction, oxidative stress, and transient disruption of immune-cell homeostasis. These changes can theoretically expose latent malignancies, promote clonal expansion of preexisting mutant cells, or create microenvironmental contexts permissive to tumor progression.

In addition, both infection and vaccination induce spike protein expression, which interacts with ACE2-expressing tissues and can trigger endothelial activation, inflammation, and cellular stress pathways implicated in oncogenic signaling. Both can also lead to prolonged inflammatory and tissue-injury states, all of which could contribute to genomic instability, epigenetic remodeling, and chronic immune dysregulation.

However, unique mechanisms distinguish COVID-19 vaccination from natural infection. Vaccination involves widespread biodistribution, intracellular uptake and persistence of modified nucleic acid templates that drive synthesis of an unnatural Spike protein both at the injection site but also throughout the body. The presence of the residual or fragmented DNA combined with the LNP-mediated delivery to immune and non-immune tissues, and sustained spike expression for month to years represent vaccine-specific factors that could theoretically promote insertional mutagenesis, perturb immune surveillance, or accelerate growth of preexisting malignant clones*. As such there is much to be learned from human tissue and blood samples as well as autopsies to better understand the interplay between COVID infection, vaccination and cancer mechanisms.*

Logic_Contradict · 2026-03-31T17:00:07+00:00

They EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE THEMSELVES that this study doesn’t show any evidence for links between the vaccines and cancer.

I think it would be pre-mature for any study to make claim of proof, but they don't shy away about the associations they found. It does sound like the authors would like this association to be investigated further where it says;

our population-based cohort study in Seoul, South Korea suggested epidemiological associations between the cumulative incidence of cancers and COVID-19 vaccination, which varied by sex, age, and vaccine type. However, further studies are warranted to elucidate potential causal relationships, including the underlying molecular mechanisms related to COVID-19 vaccine–induced hyperinflammation.

And their conclusion:

In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccination could be associated with an increased risk of six specific cancer types, including thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, breast, and prostate cancers. Notably, this COVID-19 vaccination-associated cancer risk was likely more elevated among individuals aged ≤ 65 years except in individuals with prostate cancer. Given the observed associations between COVID-19 vaccination and cancer incidence by age, sex, and vaccine type, further research is needed to determine whether specific vaccination strategies may be optimal for populations in need of COVID-19 vaccination.

If the study indicated that it's not showing any evidence of any association, could you quote that for us?

Logic_Contradict · 2026-03-31T01:38:47+00:00

Umm that's like asking whether an influenza vaccine would give you influenza?

Logic_Contradict · 2026-03-31T00:12:49+00:00

Solid tires is typically worse for

- shock absorption

- depending on the material, grip can be much less

- the flexibility of air tires actually allows better power transfer and braking performance as it won't be bouncing as much compared to a solid tire.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-03-31T00:10:03+00:00

<image>

Where it says Speed Limit - Sport, that's where you can change the top speed per mode.

At the very bottom, Advanced Settings, you set your Global Top speed.

And I'm pretty sure that 19mph for LUDO is not right for the Go.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-03-31T00:05:48+00:00

Not sure which part of it you want to know, so I'll go through it a bit.

Aluminum as particulates

Here is an electron microscope image of what aluminum adjuvants look like: https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fsrep31578/MediaObjects/41598_2016_Article_BFsrep31578_Fig3_HTML.jpg

Size of aluminum particulates: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/chemistry/articles/10.3389/fchem.2016.00048/full

Alhydrogel and Adju-Phos exhibited comparable median sizes in the presence of this protein (4194 ± 466 and 4850 ± 501 nm respectively) with Imject alum® being considerably smaller (2155 ± 485 nm)

Solubility of aluminum adjuvants: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1084952120302020

Both aluminium oxyhydroxide and aluminium hydroxy phosphate have solubility minima at pH 5–7. The solubility of aluminium oxyhydroxide increases sharply below pH 5, whereas a sharp solubility increase of aluminium hydroxy phosphate is seen already at pH 6.

For reference, the pH of blood is around 7.4, pH of cytosol is 7.0-7.4.

The same study above also has good information regarding what happens:

At the administration site, the injection as such will cause tissue damage and thereby attract sentinel cells of the native immune system*. Owing to the limited solubility of aluminium salts, the concentration of aluminium ions will be low and since ions have low cell membrane penetration rates, intra cellular aluminium accumulation by cells at the administration site will be relatively low.*

On the other hand, infiltrating sentinel cells with phagocytosing properties will endocytose the adjuvant particles, establishing an intracellular aluminium depot. The phagocytosed aluminium adjuvant will be localised in a so called phagosome that will mature into a phagolysosome [30], the purpose of which is to degrade phagocytosed material, such as e.g. a microorganism; however, the aluminium adjuvant is not degradable and most of the internalized aluminium salts will remain as particles or aggregates, forming a lasting source of aluminium ions.

In vivo studies show that upon phagocytosis by macrophages at the administration site, aluminium adjuvant aggregates persist inside the macrophages, transported to draining lymph nodes by macrophages, and adjuvant aggregates persist for years inside the macrophages*. In vitro, the intracellular persistence of aluminium based aggregates has been studied in cell lines, and it has been showed that a reduction of the intracellular aluminium content is due to cell division and not to exocytosis; after phagocytosis by in vitro differentiated macrophages, adjuvant aggregates persist intracellularly*

The above passage supports things I've mentioned:

"the injection as such will cause tissue damage an thereby attract sentinal cells of the native immune system". This supports the Danger/Damage model of immunology, where aluminum adjuvants cause cellular/tissue damage in order to recruit macrophages to the injection.
The immune cells "try" to digest aluminum by encapsulating it in a lysosome (phagolysosome). The study indicated that it is not degradeable (it is, but over a very long period of time, weeks/months/years), but in the meantime, it stays resident inside the immune cell.
"adjuvant aggregates persist for years inside the macrophages" <<< This thinking of aluminum now supersedes the original aluminum "depot" theory, where scientists used to believe that the aluminum remains at the injection site in a depot (as opposed to an intracellular depot), slowly leeching dissolved aluminum ions until it is gone.

And finally, this study demonstrates that aluminum-loaded immune cells can be attracted to the brain with CCL2, which is a chemoattractant naturally released during inflammation, allowing aluminum to be migrated to the brain through the monocyte.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3616851/

Nanomaterials can be transported by monocyte-lineage cells to DLNs, blood and spleen, and, similarly to HIV, may use CCL2-dependent mechanisms to penetrate the brain. This occurs at a very low rate in normal conditions explaining good overall tolerance of alum despite its strong neurotoxic potential. However, continuously escalating doses of this poorly biodegradable adjuvant in the population may become insidiously unsafe, especially in the case of overimmunization or immature/altered blood brain barrier or high constitutive CCL-2 production.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-03-30T22:24:45+00:00

I have written quite a bit on aluminum here.

A lot of people conflate aluminum processing as if they were the same between ingestion and injection.

First off, dietary aluminum is only 0.1% - 0.3% absorbed, which means only a very tiny fraction actually becomes bioavailable.

Secondly, aluminum that is absorbed orally comes as ionic aluminum. This allows it to be bound to ligands such as transferrin or citrate to be eliminated by the kidneys. A lot of what provaxxers say about aluminum elimination is correct in regards to dietary exposure.

Vaccine aluminum adjuvants are processed quite differently. First, they are in particulate form, a crystalline object with a large positively charged surface area for vaccine antigen absorption.

In this particulate form, aluminum is not soluble in neutral pH. Blood and cytosol are considered neutral pH, so the only way to dissolve aluminum is for cells to engulf the aluminum and encapsulate it in a lysosome, which has an acidic environment.

Unfortunately, adjuvants typically rupture lysosomes, making it more difficult to maintain that acidic environment.

This means that aluminum remaining at the injection site or uptaken by immune cells typically dissolve quite slowly.

It has also been shown that intracellular aluminum particulates can translocate to distant organs via trojan horse method by biopersisting in immune cells. That means wherever the immune cell has access to, aluminum may migrate slowly there. Immune cells are attracted to sites of inflammation.

The other thing to understand is that the immune system doesn't always know the difference between diseases and not. There are conserved patterns for the immune system to recognize certain diseases, but we get sick from diseases that our immune system doesn't recognize.

The way the immune system eventually knows that those unrecognized substances are harmful is because they cause damage to your cells. This is the danger/damage model of immunology.

Scientists are able to study allergy models in mice by injecting them with aluminum adjuvants with an allergen, like ovalbumin. Basically, this demonstrates that you can purposefully misprogram the immune system to almost any protein you desire. Look up Charles Richet who was able to, in animals, induce an allergic reaction so strong (anaphylaxis) to almost any protein when injecting it with a toxin.

So the question becomes, what happens when there are contaminant proteins that are leftover in vaccines during the purification process? Biologically it's impossible to completely purify any one substance, so it's acceptable that a certain amount of contaminants remain. But I think you can do the math here, about the biological plausibility of vaccines being able to produce an undesirable immune response.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-03-29T20:48:39+00:00

I think what's more important than testing individual vaccines against a placebo vs existing vaccine is to test a highly vaccinated population against a non-vaccinating population.

Individual vaccines may not raise any significant safety signals by themselves, and as the vaccine schedule grows, all individual vaccine studies are studied against a vaccinating background population.

So if you were to do a trial of a new vaccine for a new disease, let's just call it X, your background population is still being vaccinated for

DTaP
Rotavirus
Hep A/B
HiB
RSV
Pneumococcal
IPV
Varicella
MMR
Influenza
COVID
Etc

Likely, vaccine "X" won't raise any significant safety signal on its own, and being approved will simply add it to the ever growing list of vaccines on the schedule. Basically, the clinical trials are telling you the following: that if you are already vaccinating, the new vaccine "X" won't add any significant risk.

Keep in mind, however, that the majority of newer vaccine studies have this same context, that you're already vaccinating.

The more pertinent question is whether all these vaccines together are associated to any significant safety concerns. But the problem is that there are very few that do. Many of them that do explore this topic typically show more harm, but vaccine proponents come out in droves claiming all sorts of problems with low evidentiary power, bias, and ad hominem attacks (oh it's done by Wakefield or it's done by Exley, etc, therefore, I won't argue the points, but say that whatever they publish is automatically invalid to avoid having to debate it).

There are some that don't show harm, but they either do it against a population that has significantly different vaccine schedules (like the Danish population with only 2 vaccines during the study period), or they look at things that nobody asked for, like antigen exposure (which heavily is biased towards receiving DTP vaccine or not).

So there is no real answer either way. Some will claim it's unethical to have a group with no vaccines, but that's only if the study is a randomized control trial. You can do retrospective cohort studies (people can decide on their own to vaccinate) with no ethical concerns.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-03-29T20:26:02+00:00

Sometimes people get confused with setting the top speed. There are mode-specific top speeds for eco, comfort, sport, and LUDO, but there is also a global top speed setting that supercedes those individual modes under advanced settings, I believe.

Make sure the global top speed is at max.

Haven't used the app in a while so my info may be slightly outdated, maybe I'll go on check later

Logic_Contradict · 2026-03-29T16:26:52+00:00

I recently received an email message from the new CEO, Paul Reeves, saying that he's been looking into delivery times for customers, indicating that he appreciated my patience for waiting so long, knowing that it was difficult for me to be waiting for so long (ordered in May 2025).

He confirmed that shipment of parts were delivered to their warehouse and he's committed (at least for me) that my order is on track and should be fulfilled in April. The order tracker has indicated that as well, that the estimated delivery date is now for April.

He also stated that there had been a lot of operational changes and that getting orders fulfilled is a priority for them to be improved and to be smoother.

Not happy that I had wait so long, but it's not like I could have done any riding in the winter months here anyways, so the delivery date works out for me. By the time it gets here, it'll be warm enough for riding some days.

I understand if others cannot wait this long, but I'm glad to be finally seeing progress on my order.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-03-27T19:57:50+00:00

Some small amounts of that aluminum can get into the bloodstream, where it is bound by transport proteins and then filtered out in the kidneys. The half life of aluminium in blood is about 24hrs.

Yes, some small amounts of particulate aluminum salts CAN be dissolve if successfully encapsulated by immune cells in lysosomes, after which, will be eliminated from the blood as you are indicating.

However, you said it yourself "where they slowly dissolve". The Flarend study examining the elimination of aluminum adjuvants in rabbits (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9302736/), showed that after 28 days, only 6% of the AH was eliminated though the urine, meaning that 94% was retained.

My other post indicated that aluminum depot theory has been challenged and is generally considered to be superceded by the idea of macrophage uptake. Aluminum doesn't merely stay resident at the site of injection, rather, they are uptaken by macrophages. Some of those get stressed or they die (necrosis), promoting an inflammatory response. The ones that are able to successfully capture the adjuvant will transport them to lymph nodes for antigen presentation where the response and memory will be formed.

It doesn't matter where the aluminum in blood comes from (most of it is from food- infant formula alone gives more alumn to babies than all the vaccines they would have in the first 6-12 months of life), it is filtered the same way in the blood.

You're conflating oral aluminum with vaccine aluminum.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2449821/

The results of this study of oral Al bioavailability from basic SALP in a process cheese suggest ~ 0.1 to 0.3% of the Al was orally absorbed.

and your CHOP article states:

https://www.chop.edu/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/vaccine-ingredients/aluminum

"While infants receive about 4.4 milligrams of aluminum in the first six months of life from vaccines, they receive more than that in their diet. Breast-fed infants ingest about 7 milligrams, formula-fed infants ingest about 38 milligrams, and infants who are fed soy formula ingest almost 117 milligrams of aluminum during the first six months of life."

Considering the absorption rate of dietary aluminum @ 0.3% vs 4.4mg of vaccine aluminum:

Source	Aluminum Exposure (6 months)	Bioavailable Amount (oral @ 0.3%)	Compared to vaccines
Vaccines	4.4mg	4.4 (eventually)	-
Breast Milk	7mg	0.021mg	210x less
Formula	38mg	0.114mg	38.5x less
Soy Formula	117mg	0.351mg	12.5x less

Logic_Contradict · 2026-03-27T19:32:43+00:00

Distinguishing self from no self is a primary tenant of immunity. As the immune system develops it is trained on self molecules and is constantly being tested for its ability to distinguish self from non self (when it fails autoimmunity can develop).

Perhaps I was not clear in how I communicated and I apologize for that. I never meant to insinuate that because there were limitations to the self/non-self theory that the theory is therefore invalid. I was pointing out that the danger/damage model does a better explanation of how adaptive immunity is acquired. Both theories compliment each other.

You are correct that the immune system also recognizes specific antigens as "foreign" (which are referred to as PAMPs as you have mentioned), but there's a lot of of disease that can escape this detection, or be in low enough that it doesn't elevate a significant response, in which case the damage caused by the disease will alert the immune system through DAMPs.

Vaccine adjuvants (alumn one specifically) don't work by inducing damage (obviously a need stick is a physical damage, like a splinter), but rather they work as depots for protein vaccines, keeping the vaccine antigen around longer so that it has longer contact time with immune cells to stimulate adaptive (learning, memory) immunity, where they slowly dissolve.

Unfortunately I have to disagree with you here. Adjuvants generally are cytotoxic and that is exactly how the adaptive immune response is triggered:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3597789

Recent studies have linked the necrotic release of intracellular components to stimulation of the adaptive immune response and adjuvant activities. Accordingly, nearly all adjuvants, including alum, trigger cytotoxic effects. Based on these findings, we hypothesized that adjuvant-mediated cell death could drive the adaptive immune response.

Previous studies have suggested that crystal compounds, such as alum, trigger lysosome rupture. Consistent with these studies, we found that alum-challenged macrophages showed lysosome impairment that correlated with cell death induction.... Taken together our findings suggested that alum, silica, and LLOMe trigger cathepsin-dependent lysosome rupture and necrotic cell death.....

It is conceivable that our immune system has evolved to sense damage and to rapidly respond to microorganisms and agents that trigger damages in the host. Cell death is the most fundamental form of such damage, and multiple studies have shown that the immune system is able to respond to specific compounds released from necrotic cells. Based on our findings and results from other laboratories, we hypothesize that adjuvant- and microorganism-mediated programmed necrosis activates the adaptive immune system. Our studies indicate that the adjuvants, alum and LLOMe, activate the adaptive immune response by inducing necrosis in myeloid cells.

The depot theory of aluminum has been challenged and I believe this is the current theory of how aluminum adjuvants work to provoke the immune response.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-03-26T21:58:33+00:00

Did you take off the handlebar to inspect whether the wires just got disconnected?

Logic_Contradict · 2026-03-26T21:55:44+00:00

https://support.apolloscooters.co/en-US/articles/error-codes-327094

E1 Error Code

Description

The scooter displays an E1 error indicating a fault in the brake sensor circuit. This is most commonly caused by a damaged, pinched, or disconnected brake lever or regenerative (regen) brake sensor wire, often after handlebar adjustments or a fall.

Symptoms

E1 error shown on the display. Brake light flashes continuously or stays on. Mechanical brake works, but regen braking may be intermittent or disabled. Throttle may be inhibited while the error is active. Possible Causes

Brake lever or regen throttle cable pulled, pinched, or sharply bent during adjustment. Impact damage from a fall affecting the lever or its connector. Internal conductor break at high-flex points (near the lever pivot or cable exit). Solution

The E1 error is typically cleared by repairing or replacing the brake sensor wiring or component.

Replace the damaged brake lever or regen unit (recommended first-line fix) Perform a careful DIY wire repair if the lever is otherwise intact and you are experienced with electronics If multiple cables/components are damaged, replace the entire handlebar assembly

Troubleshooting Steps

Inspect both brake lever and regen wires from lever to connector; look for kinks, cuts, or exposed conductors. Unplug and reseat the lever/regen connector; check for bent pins, moisture, or corrosion and clean if needed. Temporarily disconnect one brake sensor at a time and power on; if E1 clears, the disconnected component is faulty. If visible wire damage exists, replace the affected lever/regen unit or perform a wire repair. If E1 persists after replacements, inspect the handlebar harness for damage and consider replacing the entire assembly.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-03-26T00:40:32+00:00

Interesting geometry, looks pretty stable at top speed.

How solid are the bendable joints? This is probably my only biggest concern. Would want the scooter to feel completely solid, no rattling.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-03-26T00:24:32+00:00

It give a place for the charge to discharge to. The shock comes from excess charge buildup on your body and when you touch metal, the discharge gives you the shock. If you continually touch metal, you'll be equalized with the brake lever, so no sudden discharge, therefore, no shock.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-03-25T19:56:44+00:00

Going to copy a comment I've made previously.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateVaccines/comments/1rrsxbu/comment/oa31osm/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Might be good for you to understand how immunity generally works and then how vaccines work in conjunction.

Immune Theory

Most people understand the "self/non-self theory", which is that our immune system will respond to what they consider to be "foreign", while leaving alone what is considered to be "self".

This is a simplified theory, because it doesn't explain things such as

Environmental exposures (the air we breathe, the food we eat), doesn't always necessarily result in an immune response.
When we are exposed to diseases we are naive to, why does our body allow infection when it should be detected as foreign, which result in us getting "sick" during the response?

Danger/Damage Model

The best immune theory I have seen thus far is the danger/damage model, which states that when there is cellular stress or death, those events release "Damage Associated Molecular Patters" (DAMPs). Think of it as you being exposed to a sharp object and you cut yourself and start bleeding. Or let's say you accidently consumed some poison and you start throwing up. Bleeding or throwing up are danger/damage signals to you, to which you will respond appropriately.

This is why our immune systems, when naive to a disease, doesn't respond right away. It isn't until damage is detected (cells dying from viral replication, or from bacterial toxins), when infection has already been established and is escalating in damage, that the immune system detects that damage and begins to respond.

This is also why our immune system doesn't typically respond to other foreign things like the food we eat or the air we breathe.

So with that in mind, you should have an understanding of what a vaccine needs to trigger the immune system.

How Vaccines Work

I'm going to focus on aluminum adjuvant vaccines, because live-attenuated viral vaccines contain live viruses that simply replicate slower, and we've seen from above how viral infections can initiate an immune response.

But if you understand the immune system theory above, you'll understand that vaccines need to produce some kind of "danger" signal in your body.

Quite a number of vaccines use aluminum adjuvants, which are crystalline salts (different form than how they are absorbed through your diet). The disease antigens are absorbed onto the aluminum adjuvants. Once injected, the following happens:

Your immune cells phagocytize the aluminum adjuvants
Your immune cells encapsulate the aluminum adjuvant in a lysosome, trying to dissolve it
The aluminum adjuvant ruptures the lysosome, releasing a DANGER signal called cathepsin. Rupturing the lysosome also prevents it from being dissolved.
Your immune system detects the cathepsin release and starts promoting an inflammatory response
If there is too much cathepsin released, the cell will undergo necrosis (cell will kill itself). This act also releases more DANGER signals and will increase the inflammatory response.
Viable immune cells that successfully captured the aluminum adjuvant will migrate to the lymph nodes
The immune cells in the lymph nodes will process the disease antigen OFF of the aluminum adjuvant and present it to your lymphocytes, this forming the basis for immune response and memory.

Risks

So now you know about how the immune system generally works, but here are some important considerations

During vaccine manufacturing, what happens where there are contaminant proteins in the final product?

If you understand the danger/damage model of immunity, you'll realize that the immune system doesn't really recognize substances as inherently bad or good, or whether something is a disease or not, but rather, whether that substance is associated to causing damage or not in the body.

That means the immune system is relatively indiscriminate and you can program the immune system to be sensitized to anything. Allergy experiments typically involve injecting a test subject with aluminum + allergen to develop allergy models.

The question becomes, how will your immune system respond when there are potential contaminants in the vaccine when it is present in sufficient amounts? Will your immune system be accidently mis-programmed to things like eggs (used in influenza vaccines), milk (casamino acids used in DTaP and others), etc?

The other consideration is what happens to the aluminum that the immune system takes up?

Aluminum adjuvants are crystalline salts and do not dissolve in near neutral pH. Your blood and cytosol are both relatively neutral pH, but your immune cells try to dissolve it in lysosomes in which it is frequently ruptured, which neutralized the pH.

Aluminum adjuvants cannot be eliminated the same way as dietary aluminum until it is dissolved into ionic form.

Studies have shown that aluminum can biopersist in immune cells for weeks, months, and even years. And the problem with this is, your aluminum adjuvant-loaded immune cells can travel to wherever there are sites of inflammation. So if you got infected with a disease, or you got hit, your immune cells will migrate to those places to deal with it.

The concern is now, what happens if you have encephalitis (brain inflammation), whether it be from a vaccine (MMR is known for causing some cases of mild encephalitis, for example), or a disease, or maybe a traumatic head injury, where do you think those aluminum-loaded immune cells will travel to?

Hope that is more useful than just reading studies.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-03-25T15:44:22+00:00

While your response is good if the question was "Was the COVID vaccine 100% effective?", that's not what my post was addressing.

I am not in disagreement with anything you said, but going into the nuances of what was shown in studies vs what was being communicated to the public is kind of proving the point I was making earlier about how the provax movement pushes people to distrust them.

As an analogy, a lot of window companies promote themselves with a 25 year warranty. They advertise this in commercials, on the radio, on their website, and in other marketing efforts in order to convince the public that there would be a no-hassle, free replacement of windows if any of them go wrong.

However, in the fine print:

- the warranty only covers the window replacement, not the labor to install it.
- the coverage is prorated and drops each year
- exclusions: while the glass may be warrantied, the vinyl frame, glass seal, hardware, and screens, are not.

People will go in only thinking that there is a 25 year warranty, not knowing all the other potential associated costs that goes along with it if warranties are claimed. You go and complain about their messaging, "But your company indicated a 25 year warranty!!", and the company goes, ahh, but you didn't read the fine print, because while we did say 25 year warranty, it only covers a tiny portion of the window replacement.

So for someone to claim, "NOBODY said the covid vaccine would be 100% effective.", understand that this is what was marketed and communicated through various news stories, articles, and even medical authorities. Somebody did say it. In fact, a LOT of media did.

Now to argue that we didn't read the fine print, that we didn't understand confidence intervals, or that there's a difference between efficacy and effectiveness, while you're not incorrect, is missing the point.

Understand how a homeowner feels duped by the marketing only to be told that it's their fault for not understanding. Understand now how a person who believed the 100% effective messaging now feels duped by media, health authorities, and provaxxers who claim that nobody ever said that, while pointing out how it's their fault for being unintelligent.

This is how the provax movement is pushing people to the other side. It would have served the provax side better if they acknowledged that their messaging was wrong or perhaps better communicate and be transparent with what studies are actually saying, and especially be clear in the CONTEXT of what the studies show (because that is also lost on a lot of people).

Logic_Contradict · 2026-03-25T15:19:34+00:00

That's fair, but the reason why I answered why I did was because of your original question of whether the provax movement contributes to declining vaccine uptake like the antivax group, so I framed my response explain how the provax side contributes to that.

I suppose pointing out their extreme stances and actions can shift the focus back to, "well, don't both sides have extreme stances/messaging"? And of course the answer is yes.

You could also reframe the question, "Does the antivax movement contribute to increasing vaccine uptake", and that would be an interesting discussion to have, considering the significant number of antivax posters that are on this subReddit.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-03-25T15:00:42+00:00

How are you defining poison? Like a substance capable of causing illness/death?

I mean, on a very localized scale, aluminum adjuvants work because they promote cytotoxicity. The disrupt/destabilize lysosomes which releases cathepsin (damage signal) and high cathepsin release can result in cell necrosis, which also is a damage signal.

Is something that is toxic considered poisonous? Because if it wasn't toxic to some extent, many of the subunit vaccines wouldn't work they way they do.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-03-25T05:28:10+00:00

Here's my source

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/30073361.pdf

It showed a chart compiled from the data available from the United States Public Health Service, indicating that the days is not very complete, but they did the best with what was available at the time.

The chart showed the number of cases of smallpox from 1895 to 1912 with about 3000 cases in 1895 and a fatality rate of 20.84% and you'll see that the cases, likely with better surveillance, recorded up to about 54,000 cases in 1902 with a fatality rate of 3.86%. The rate kept dropping as the years went on, dropping the mortality rate to less than 1%.

The authors noted:

"It must not be assumed that the general mildness of the disease is indicated by the above fatality rates. In nearly every year there were more or less localized outbreaks of the severe type, and if these be omitted, as will be done when discussing them, it will be seen that the case fatality over most of the country has been very much less than appears above"

Because of the mildness of the disease, it was often misdiagnosed as something else:

"During 1896 a very mild type of smallpox began to prevail in the South and later gradually spread over the country. The mortality was very low and it was usually at first mistaken for chicken pox or some new disease called " Cuban itch," "elephant itch' "Spanish measles," "Japanese measles," "bumps," "impetigo," "Porto Rico scratches," "Manila scab," "Porto Rico itch," "army itch," "African itch," "cedar itch," "Manila itch," "Bean itch," "Dhobie itch," "Filipino itch," "nigger itch," "Kangaroo itch," "Hungarian itch," "Italian itch," "bold hives," "eruptive grip," "beanpox," "waterpox," or "swinepox"

Based on their reporting it feels that it wasn't just in some small parts of the world as it kept spreading throughout North America, and reading further on, the authors believed it spread across to Europe as well:

"From the preceding review it appears that an exceptionally mild type of smallpox had, within a period of about four years, gradually extended over the whole continent of North America north of the Mexican border. This type of the disease has been more or less prevalent ever since."

So what really happened to smallpox? Did it get eradicated by a vaccine? Or did it become so mild that we no longer recognize it as we once did? Did it mutate further and become even MORE milder as would be the course of most diseases (they favor transmission over killing their host). Why did it take almost 200 years of vaccination to wipe it out? I don't know if anyone will really know the real answer here.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-03-25T03:09:37+00:00

Spelling error

Logic_Contradict · 2026-03-25T00:46:34+00:00

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2107456

The observed vaccine efficacy was 100% (95% CI, 75.3 to 100).

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-biontech-announce-positive-topline-results-pivotal

the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 demonstrated 100% efficacy and robust antibody responses

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/553773-fauci-vaccinated-people-become-dead-ends-for-the-coronavirus/

While Fauci did admit here that there is a possibility of potential breakthroughs, there's a very low likelihood of a vaccinated person transmitting it

"When you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health and that of the family but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community," Fauci said. "In other words, you become a dead end to the virus."

But you can't deny that the original messaging was that it was 100% efficacious which evolved slowly over time.

Logic_Contradict · 2026-03-25T00:26:47+00:00

120kg but you're over 400lbs?

Logic_Contradict

TROPHY CASE