Dear all,
I will put down what I believe the present blocks are to getting better therapeutics for vaccine injury. Some of these may be tractable and others may not be.
-
Accounting for individual variation in illness and treatment response
-
Association of biomarkers with clinical presentation
-
Trials of therapeutic protocol
Secondary Objectives
-
Biomarkers for autophagy
-
Population screening for spike or biomarkers to determine prevalence (may not be necessary)
-
Population screening for microclots and/or heart damage (may not be necessary)
-
Development of a prophylactic protocol (may be tailored from treatment protocol, may already be done)
Tertiary Objectives
-
Determination of antigen (spike) specificity of damage we see. I.e. Is the damage due to spike protein (i.e. specific) , or to some component of the mRNA vaccine itself (more general)?
-
How is covid vaccine injury similar to ‘regular’ vaccine injury? How is it different? On this, I believe the choice of antigen is less important, but this is intuition. However, you do see significant difference between AEs of different vaccines, so there is likely some antigen specificity.
-
What is the relative disease burden associated with each of the childhood vaccines?
-
Does differential vaccine coverage account for any of the variation in chronic disease rates? I believe it is unlikely that such a relationship will not emerge cleanly out of data but it may.
Thank you for reading this. On point 1) I have been working on a manuscript on the mechanistic basis of individual variation with university collaborators. It is taking more time than I expected, though we should be able to publish soon. Genetic factors have been studied, but nothing has popped out.
On point 2) I have discussed with some people in the FLCCC alliance about doing time series analysis on clinical biomarkers associated with clinical presentation. I hope to get (anonymized) data from one of the main FLCCC clinics working on vaccine injury
On point 3) it is important to have a consistent protocol for people to follow. Ideally this would be the FLCCC protocol put into a singular or near-singular product, such that those undergoing the protocol are experiencing a consistent therapeutic. I would think to have groups on two (possibly three) classes of therapies:
a) repurposed drugs and nutraceuticals
b) Microcurrent devices (ARC)
c) (Optional) Photobiomodulation
I believe it is highly tractable to get funds to do such a rigorous study, which can even borrow and adapt the study protocol form the five year cancer study. It is relatively simple to draft up a prospective study document. I have been taking this (Free to Audit) course on clinical trial design from Johns Hopkins if you are interested (https://www.coursera.org/learn/clinical-trials?utm_source=mobile).