Yale Scientists Link Covid Vaccines To Alarming New Syndrome With Long-Term Effects
By: Donata Leskauskaite (AOL)
For-profit science strikes again. And the unbiased clickbait media is all over the story trying to capture as many eyeballs as possible.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Experts from Yale University have uncovered a new, concerning condition linked to the COVID-19 vaccines. Dubbed "Post-Vaccination Syndrome" (PVS), it not only comes with a host of uncomfortable symptoms—but it also causes persistent biological changes years after injection.
Not only that, the scientists also identified a troubling connection between PVS and the reactivation of a virus known as Epstein-Barr, a dormant agent that resides in most people and causes flu-like symptoms.
"This work is still in its early stages, and we need to validate these findings," Dr. Akiko Iwasaki, the study's author, said. "But this is giving us some hope that there may be something that we can use to treat PVS down the road."
While the study has not been publishedin its entirety, its initial findings have been enough to scare and anger netizens.
"I can't believe they forced us to take the shot without fully understanding its long-term effects," one user wrote.
Scientists discovered a new syndrome linked to the COVID-19 vaccines that causes persistent biological changes and chronic flu-like symptoms
Gloved hands administering Covid vaccine into a person's arm.
The findings are the result of research conducted on blood samples collected from 42 people diagnosed with the syndrome and comparing them to 22 control subjects who had the vaccine but had not experienced any post-jab symptoms.
The results showed that those with PVS had different proportions of immune cells compared to the control group, as well as elevated levels of COVID spike proteins years after being vaccinated.
These proteins were also found in 134 subjects who contracted coronavirus and suffered from it for a long period of time.
The similarities didn't end there, however, as both groups showed a reactivated Epstein-Barr virus, meaning that patients with PVS were adversely affected by the vaccine and might continue to have their health compromised for years to come.
"That was surprising to find spike protein in circulation at such a late time point," Dr. Iwasaki said.
Patients suffering from PVS reported experiencing fever, dizziness, and brain fog years after receiving their coronavirus shots
For many patients, the symptoms of PVS have been life-altering. Such is the case of 32-year-old Sascha Schwartz, a care worker from Germany, who has been fighting the symptoms of the syndrome ever since he was administered an AstraZeneca vaccine.
"I've never felt such stark helplessness and powerlessness as I have over the last two years. I feel trapped in my own body and have the feeling that I no longer exist," Schwartz said in an interview.
Fever, dizziness, and constant headaches became a part of his daily routine. The worst, he said, is a "brain fog" that makes it impossible for him to concentrate.
"You go on autopilot. It's like being drained of vitality. It's like you're in a stupor, where stimuli no longer register, and you feel electricity in your head," he shared.
Making matters worse was the dismissal of several doctors who, according to him, swatted away his complaints as "psychosomatic," or the product of mental stress.
"It took me six months to find an immunologist who would take me and my complaints seriously," he recounted, remembering how doctors told him countless times: "This can't be; the vaccines are safe."
AstraZeneca was forced to formally admit that their vaccine could, in rare cases, trigger an illness that results in permanent brain damage
The refusal to face the possibility that COVID vaccines came with long-lasting side effects for some people is nothing new for Kate Scott, the representative of a UK group called Vaccine Injured and Bereaved (VIBUK).
"We were pushed into the shadows during the pandemic," she told the BBC.
"We are an uncomfortable truth, but we are a truth and the truth is for everyone in our group—the vaccine caused serious harm and death."
The mother-of-two took matters into her own hands after her husband, Jamie Scott, was left severely disabled by what was confirmed to be Vaccine-Induced Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis (VITT), causing permanent brain damage.
The Scott family sued AstraZeneca in August 2023, and, as a result, the pharmaceutical company was forced to admit in February 2024 that its COVID vaccine "can, in very rare cases, cause VITT."
The Health Secretary of the United Kingdom, Wes Streeting, took notice of the matter and personally met with Kate, as well as two other women whose relatives were adversely affected by the vaccine, in September 2024.
Streeting is currently working on reforming the country's Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS), in order to better help those affected by the vaccine's side effects.
The study's authors urged doctors to not dismiss patient concerns and to listen to their experiences
Dr. Harlan Krumholz, the co-senior author of the Yale study and a professor of medicine at Yale, urged a cautious approach to interpreting the findings but acknowledged the severity of the challenges some individuals face after vaccination.
"It's clear that some individuals are experiencing significant challenges after vaccination," he mentioned. "Our responsibility as scientists and clinicians is to listen to their experiences, rigorously investigate the underlying causes, and seek ways to help."
On the other hand, Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine expert at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, spoke with the Daily Mail to defend the injections, emphasizing that they remain safe for the vast majority of people.
"The vaccines have been given to billions of people at this point, and there were large prospective placebo-controlled studies that didn't show these effects," he said.
As for the Yale study, the next stages involve understanding how widespread PVS truly is and identifying who might be most at risk.
While the paper is still in its infancy, its findings underscore the importance of further investigation into post-vaccination symptoms.
Netizens were left feeling powerless and angry and took to social media to share their experiences
"My coworker's 28-year-old son has the heart of an eighty-year-old and cannot walk up more than five steps without stopping to rest for about 3-5 minutes to catch his breath," one user wrote.
"I'm a 72-year-old who runs 5K regularly without difficulty. My stamina has now gone since Covid. I struggle to run and get breathless and tired very easily. This has nothing to do with age," another shared.
"I got most of the above symptoms and my life has deteriorated so badly. I try most things to negate the damage, but who knows how much damage has actually been done?!" one reader said.
"Most of us already knew this, as evidence from independent studies showed this to be the case over and over again," another argued.
"But if anyone even dared to mention it to the media, they were called 'conspiracy theorists.'"
Tags
Who is online
49 visitors
The political good for the elite outweighs the harm to a few. Thoughts & prayers.
Don't know what you mean by "elite". I spent 8 days in the hospital with Covid. I already had moderate COPD most likely from smoking for some 20+ years. I quit in 1978. I am now on oxygen 24/7. I had the two initial shots and three boosters, last one being the Omicron, and none since, nor do I plan to get another.
So yeah, it's too bad that some are allegedly adversely affected by the vaccine. I and millions of others took the jabs because it seemed to be the prudent thing to do at the time. I don't know if it did any good or not, but I've had shots all my life starting in grade school, continuing with the mandatory military pokes, and the annual flu shots. i still have to get the RSV vaccine.
Funny how many things the left called "conspiracy theories" are actually true.
The article above (AOL) cites the Daily Mail as the source of this info. There are no links to any Yale studies about this.
Quote from the linked article, which is NOT a study.
“This work is still in its early stages, and we need to validate these findings,”
A. I offered the link so as to have it from the horses mouth, so to speak, rather than the article you objected to. It was neither an argument for or against what the article may be suggesting. Rather it is simply offered as direct information for consideration towards an informed opinion.
B. Yes, actually. It was a study. If it were not, where did the data that needs validating come from? That they have more work to do does not mean it doesn't qualify as a study.
I personally believe it's too early to draw any conclusions from the article. As indicated, there's more work to be done. However, it's a mistake to see this in terms of vaxxers vs anti-vaxxers. This study needs to be done for the sake of those who may be suffering negative effects as well as to hopefully identify people with physiologies that shouldn't get the vaccine. Leave the politics out of it.
I apologize if I came out sounding like I was against you. I was just trying to point out that it was simply another article/opinion and not the Yale study that the seeded article claimed to be referencing.
That's what I am tryiing to determine. Articles that cite studies generally link to those studies as the source.
While true, it also means there is not yet any data for anyone to cite, especially not in a published article. The conclusion to the study may show the exact opposite of what this article implies when that conclusion is eventually drawn.
acknowledged.
Perhaps, but I'm assuming at this point that there is some danger based on what I also assume to be preliminary findings. At least, that is how I read the article I submitted for consideration. However, even if this is confirmed by subsequent validation, all it would mean is that there may be some problems for some people concerning this particular vaccine. That is, whatever the outcome, I do not personally think it would constitute an argument for either the vaxxer or anti-vaxxer argument. It will simply be data relevant to this particular vaccine. Risks associated with this vaccine doesn't necessarily translate as that, therefore, all vaccines carry the same risks.
This should not be taken as an argument against anything you've said. It's simply an expression of how I see this.
And again, an article that cited a study without providing that study to see if their citation was correct.
Too late. If the study has not reached a conclusion, even before any kind of peer review, it should never have been cited. That is lazy and dishonest writing.
There are multiple ongoing studies on UAP's (UFO's), can I citing them, claim that there are hyper intelligent Dinosaurs travelling from the past in order to re-establish their dominance in the modern world?
Well, as you yourself pointed out, it didn't reach a conclusion. It simply reported what initial data suggested to them. This is standard practice. We all see things like this in every field of study practically every day. Some new thing A has the potential for B but further study is needed sort of thing. I don't know why that would be considered dishonest.
That would depend on the evidence you use to support such a conclusion, but I assume that you intend that whatever study you might refer to would be highly speculative (else we'd already have conclusive proof) and so, yeah, that would not be an example of a warranted conclusion.
Problem is, there's no conclusion in the cited study for which you can object to. There's no "vaccines are bad" or "the Covid vaccine causes more harm than good" presented in the article. Just that preliminary findings suggest the vaccine may cause problems for some people but further study is needed.
Rather, what may be dishonest is someone else taking this study and using it to support a conclusion that it doesn't actually support. Not at this point, anyway. For instance, using it as evidence that vaccines are bad or, on the other side, that this study is evidence that people are trying to discredit vaccines.
Prove that statement.
You cannot without providing the study. That's why studies should never be used unless you can link to them. Nobody knows what the study is pointing to without being able to see the study itself, and the specific results.
If the study was accessible, and was pointing in the direction the author indicated, why did he not include the link to support his claim? If the study is not yet accessible, how did the author get to it to draw his conclusion?
The only evidence I am citing are the ongoing studies.
Um... I can only conclude that I don't understand your point. The people behind the article I provided are the ones who provided the information about the study. So....?
No.... They provided no information about the study, they merely claimed there was a study then claimed where the study was pointed. That's all, nothing else.
They provided no evidence that there was an actual study linking the vaccines, and they provided no evidence that it was the direction the study was pointing. It could simply be a study investigating this "new syndrome" that happened to occur towards the end of COVID.
If that theory is correct I'm glad I was never vaccinated. I wanted to be but wasn't able to. However, I still caught the Covid Omicron virus, which fortunately was not as serious, and I believe I am a victim of "Long Covid" which indicates certain lasting effects, but I can live with them. I wonder if the scientists' opinion is based on Long Covid rather than on vaccinations.