This is speculative in nature and not a mechanistic review with a number of major flaws. It’s not surprising that it’s not in a reputable journal and is not indexed on scientific literature sites.
It tries to make the claim the spike protein from vaccination and infection are equal. They are not. First, infection produces exponentially more spike protein than vaccination. Second, viral spike is produced in infected cells throughout the body but vaccine spike is produced primarily in the deltoid muscle injection site. The paper claims that vaccine spike is “also in significant quantities under free form circulating in blood thus reaching different organs including the heart, brain, liver, kidneys, and the brain” which is based on another highly flawed paper (Angeli et al.). Further, vaccine spike behaves differently than infection spike and use another flawed study (Nuovo et al.) that uses wild virus spike instead of vaccine spike. They also didn’t cite it properly, which adds further evidence that this isn’t a high-quality journal with editorial rigor.
Throughout the paper, they twist what other papers have said to make their speculative claims without any evidence for their conclusions, stating “This is also potentially the case for the spike protein…Therefore, it is justified to investigate…mechanisms for…vaccine side effects in all the organs where they have been reported.”
They claim that “mRNA is found mainly in the liver (up to 21.5%), the adrenal glands, the spleen (≤ 1.1%) and the ovaries (≤ 0.1%)” which is based on a study of radio-labeled lipid nanoparticles, not vaccine mRNA, and use of in vitro models, not in vivo. There is NO evidence for these patterns in humans. They use similar flawed methodology for their neurological claims.
They do the same flawed analysis with cardiovascular risk and overstate the risk of VITT (using only 11 case reports) and myocarditis and completely omit the relative risk compared to infection, which has been well established for both thromboembolic events as well as myocarditis, as being much higher for infection.
The speculate about the role of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) but don’t provide serological evidence nor is there any real-world evidence that this occurs. It’s part of a larger pattern of jumping from a hypothesis to a claim without evidence to support it.
A final red flag is that they received “funding from Association BonsSens.org,” which may have been a deliberate typo to keep people from realizing that it is an anti-vaccine advocacy page with authors who promote false COVID-19 claims.
