In a sense, the publication of the study by Lawrence Purpura et al.1Link to the study by Purpura et al. in Clinical Infectious Diseases on January 9, 2026, which can be called historic: for the first time, a high-impact journal recognizes a link between long Covid and the fact that vaccination results in long-term complaints for a substantial number of people, including biochemical substantiation and institutional support. Unfortunately, it is not clear from the study what this number is approximately, as we will see. The big advantage is simply that researchers at Columbia University have now officially embraced a new entity: Post-acute Covid-19 Vaccination Syndrome or PACVS (also known as PASCV: Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19 Vaccination).
Note: I use the term PVS, which stands for Post-Vaccination Syndrome (PACVS/PASCV, PAIS, PAS, PIS etc.). When I write LC, I mean Long Covid.
Purpura's analyse van 181 patiënten bevestigt deels wat we al eerder benadrukten2Article: What disease is the post-covid report about?, namely that symptoms of PVS and LC on the other hand largely overlap. In the PVS group, complaints such as peripheral neuropathy occurred3Peripheral neuropathy: damaged nerves outside the central nervous system (i.e. outside the brain and spinal cord, tinnitus and skin rash are significantly more common.
What is really new is that they have found biochemical differences between Covid- and vax-induced complaints. These are harder indications: clearly increased specificity autoantibodies4Autoantibodies are antibodies that the body mistakenly recognizes as hostile. In a healthy immune system, antibodies are produced to eliminate bacteria or viruses. Bee autoimmune diseases that mechanism has gone off the rails: the immune system targets the body's own structures. The PACVS group showed significantly higher rates of anticardiolipin IgM (PACVS 42.9%, LC 11.6%; P = 0,02) en anti-U1-RNP (PACVS 21,4%, LC 2,3%; P = 0,04). The importance of this is that they are tangible biomarkers, i.e. measurable immunological traces that - if carefully defined - can confirm or refute self-reports. In other words: a clear profile has been found of specific autoantibodies that can be used to determine whether it is a vaccination or infection-related condition.
That alone is a breakthrough: an official academic label for a phenomenon that until recently was dismissed as “fear”, “appointment syndrome” or “coincidence”. Science is carefully stepping over the threshold. But at least the door is now ajar.
Separation or appearance
The researchers describe how they divided their patient group into three categories: 1) Long Covid without ME/CFS5ME/CFS (Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) is a multisystem disease characterized by prolonged, disabling exhaustion, often worsened after mild exertion (“post-exertional malaise”), and may be associated with cognitive impairment, sleep problems and autonomic dysregulation., 2) Long Covid with ME/CFS, and 3) PVS.
With/without ME/CFS mainly depends on the severity of the symptoms. But the selection that preceded the three-way division is certainly just as decisive.
The participants came from a clinic with the telling name: Infection‑Associated Chronic Illness (IACI) Clinic from Columbia University in New York, where patients report long-term complaints after infection. Apparently some post-vax patients have also reported and the clinic is dealing with them very carefully. In their White Paper6White Paper van 2024 PDF van IACI White Paper 2024 there is no mention of budgets for research into vaccine damage or side effects. So they actually smuggled post-vax patients into a Long Covid study.
It is therefore not a sample from the general population, but a referral group: people who had already identified themselves as long Covid patients or as post-vax patients. This is how it is stated explicitly in the Methods:
“Patients were stratified into three groups … based on clinic provider and questionnaire assessment.”
In other words, the classification was based on what the patient and the treating physician thought the trigger was.
Er zijn geen objectieve tijdlijnen, geen vaccinatie‑data voorafgaand aan infectie, geen serologie die virus‑ en vaccinale antistoffen kan onderscheiden, dus de specialist moet afgaan op het patiëntenrelaas. De scheiding gebeurde voorafgaand aan het onderzoek. Dat ging op gevoel, expertise, vermoeden... en correlatie(!) in de herinnerde timing.
The fact that those antibodies were still significantly different, despite possible misclassification, means that the underlying biological reality is likely even more pronounced than the paper shows.
Missed or evaded
The same complaints – fatigue, brain fog, neuropathy, autonomic dysregulation – occur in both groups (we'll stick to vax/unvax for now). Yet the authors present their results as if they were clearly defined groups.
Slechts vijftien procent van de gevallen viel onder PVS. Dat zou opgevat kunnen worden als een relatief klein aantal - maar we weten hoe de groep is voorgeselecteerd.
Even speculatief over die ondervertegenwoordiging. Artsen zaten er niet om te springen om diagnoses van vaccinatieschade uit te delen vanwege vaccins die eigenlijk veilig waren - wat ze zelf ook hun patiënten hadden voorgehouden. Covid daarentegen was in die ogen een van de vreselijkste ziektes denkbaar. Er was ook geen loket voor post-vax. Geen support, geen budget, geen behandeling. Waar vloeien die patiënten dan heen? Naar Long Covid faciliteiten. Als patiënt kun je maar beter zeggen dat je het na een Covid-infectie hebt gekregen, al weet je wel beter. De sue-cultuur in de VS zal geen doorslaggevende rol spelen, want hier in NL gaat het niet veel anders.
In the table appendices we see detailed figures on the number of Covid infections and the disease severity - down to the level of "mild, moderate, severe, critical" and the number of infections.
It is striking that no one in the post-vax group has had Covid more than twice. That corresponds well with the Long Covid group. The MECFS group fared worse.
Wat er echt uit springt is dat de helft(!) van de post-vax-patiënten niet éénmaal geïnfecteerd is geweest, kijk maar in regel 0. "U heeft Covid" kan een lastige diagnose zijn geweest bij patiënten die zich hadden laten prikken.
After this representation of the number and severity of infections in all participants, including post-vaxxers, you would also expect the same for the vaccination statuses of all participants including the Long Coviteers.
Helaas. Terwijl dat best een informatief staatje had kunnen zijn. Hoeveel Long Covid patiënten hadden voorafgaand aan de eerste symptomen een vaccinatie gehad, de hoeveelste was dat en hoeveel tijd zat er tussen dat prikmoment en de eerste klachten? Dat zou natuurlijk duidelijk kunnen maken dat gevaccineerden nauwelijks Long Covid kregen - maar dan had dat tabelletje vast wel in het rapport gestaan.
Another compromise may have been that a high vaccination rate in the LC group, possibly even higher than in the PVS group, would raise questions about the effectiveness of the vaccine. Because what has it actually protected against? Or did the panacea otherwise cause similar - and perhaps even more - damage than the disease it prevented? Not good.
Over de vaccinatiestatus van de LC-groep wordt dus met geen woord gerept - anders dan bij het Nederlandse Long Covid rapport.
The Dutch version: with vaccination there is more than 5 times the risk of Long Covid
Anyone who thinks this is an American incident should think Dutch post‑Covid‑rapport7Link to it Post-Covid rapport let's take a look. There too, only self-reported complaints were examined, and without distinction between virus or vaccination trigger.
The self-reported Long Covid research population existed, it is mentioned almost in passing, before 93 percent from vaccinated people – compared to a national vaccination rate of less than 67 percent, if we include children (after all, they were also exposed to the virus).
Nu zijn de vaccinaties aan de man gebracht met reclameflyers en overheidscampagnes die 90% bescherming beloofden tegen Covid. Daarin zijn honderden miljoenen euro's belastinggeld geïnvesteerd8Item The mediacracy 2. In addition, they also helped against long Covid (for the few who were still infected).
Then you expect an overrepresentation of unvaccinated people among Long Covid patients. The opposite appears to be the case: almost only vaccinated people reported complaints.
We calculate this in the calculator at the bottom of this article.
Tinnitus, one of the characteristic complaints in the PVS group in Purpura's study, was only added to the second Dutch questionnaire after a striking number of participants had mentioned it spontaneously. In this way, a potential vaccine signal could also be quietly concealed in the Netherlands under the post-Covid umbrella.
De parallellen zijn opvallend: als vaccinatie een factor dreigt te worden, verdwijnt die uit de methodiek. Wel zo veilig...
Delphi-rapport
In a study for healthcare professionals published in March 20259The Delphi-rapport we find: "In dit rapport gebruiken we de term post-COVID voor de langdurige klachten die mensen houden na een besmetting met COVID-19. Een andere term die wordt gebruikt is Long COVID".
Another quote: "Daarnaast zien we dat een gebrek aan erkenning van post-COVID wordt ervaren door deelnemende zorgprofessionals. Dit weten we ook uit eerder onderzoek onder patiënten met post-COVID en andere PAIS-patiënten." PAIS staat voor Post Acute Infection Syndrome. In de PDF zoeken naar "vacci" levert 0 hits op.
PVS patients do not seem to be able to count on C-support. It's clearly time for V-support.
Precarious matter
However careful it may be, the Purpura paper marks a change. It must have been a struggle for the authors, but there is now an official, peer-reviewed document that talks about the post-acute vaccination syndrome with demonstrable biomarkers, mentioned in the same breath as long Covid. That is something that cannot be reversed.
There may be more in store.
De categorisering waarop de analyse rust is methodologisch diffuus: zelfselectie, overlappende infectie‑ en vaccinatiegeschiedenissen en subjectieve tijdlijnen maken de groepsindeling kwetsbaar. Een forse miscategorisering is denkbaar, zeker omdat de tijdcorrelatie tussen prik en symptomen veel gewicht is gegeven. Inmiddels weten we immers van mensen die onmiddellijk voelden dat er iets mis was, en we zien ook gevaccineerden die een sluimerende ziekte onder de leden hadden die zich pas veel later openbaarde - zo blijkt althans uit obducties.
So PVS patients will undoubtedly have ended up in the LC group and perhaps vice versa. That is precisely why it is striking that, despite this noise, significant differences remain visible, especially in the biomarkers. This indicates an underestimation rather than an overestimation of the actual contrast between long Covid and post-vaccine syndromes. In the future the distinction will be made clearer.
Such comparisons can of course only be made if not everyone has been injected. That was the ideal image of the pharmaceutical companies (they even injected the placebo groups of the trials). It was also the goal to which our government invested hundreds of millions: from door to door, from poor to poor.
Corona is too big to fail.
Let's hope that other scientists abroad will take the next step, and then another, until the media can no longer ignore it. Preprints are already in the starting blocks.10Preprint: Immunological and Antigenic Signatures Associated with Chronic Illnesses after COVID-19 Vaccination
De Post-Covid vaxgraad Calculator
Explanation of the calculator
De vaccinatiegraad in Nederland is 67% van de hele bevolking. Er is niet gekozen voor 'alleen 12-plussers' omdat een virusziekte de hele bevolking aangaat.
It is difficult to speak of an unequivocal vaccine effectiveness. It sold as 90%. But every injection first makes you more vulnerable, then offers some extra protection, but that disappears again (leaving damage to this and that person). Whether that protection will occur exactly during a wave can only be hoped.
The expected vaccination rate for Long Covid calculates the total number of people who are not well protected, including those vaccinated. That total is the unvaccinated plus (at 90% VE): 10% of the vaccinated, who do not fall into the 90%.
% of vaccinated people in the LC group: the observed number, the pre-selection is 93%, the figure from the Dutch Post-Covid report.
If the expected vax rate in LC patients is 16.9%, and the observed voluntary registration turns out to be 93%, then the chance of developing LC is more than 5 times as great as you would think based on the reported figures.
Dus ergens klopt er iets niet. Die 93% is alleen te halen alleen als je een slider toevoegt: "LC door vax". Een andere manier is om de vaccin-effectiviteit op -550 te zetten (maar die gaat maar tot 0).
Bonus: Manager of injection location expresses regret
Footnotes
- 1Link to the study by Purpura et al.
- 2
- 3Peripheral neuropathy: damaged nerves outside the central nervous system (i.e. outside the brain and spinal cord
- 4Autoantibodies are antibodies that the body mistakenly recognizes as hostile. In a healthy immune system, antibodies are produced to eliminate bacteria or viruses. Bee autoimmune diseases that mechanism has gone off the rails: the immune system targets the body's own structures. The PACVS group showed significantly higher rates of anticardiolipin IgM (PACVS 42.9%, LC 11.6%; P = 0,02) en anti-U1-RNP (PACVS 21,4%, LC 2,3%; P = 0,04)
- 5ME/CFS (Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) is a multisystem disease characterized by prolonged, disabling exhaustion, often worsened after mild exertion (“post-exertional malaise”), and may be associated with cognitive impairment, sleep problems and autonomic dysregulation.
- 6White Paper van 2024 PDF van IACI White Paper 2024
- 7Link to it Post-Covid rapport
- 8Item The mediacracy 2
- 9The Delphi-rapport
- 10
On the one hand, I applaud these types of studies: even though there are a few methodological comments to be made (I saw small numbers, and it is not clear to me how they selected the cases and controls), it is commendable that the question can now also be asked in an academic institution: was mass vaccination in 2021 actually a great idea?
On the other hand, it strikes me that the academy only becomes critical at a time when it no longer really matters. That is the case now, but was also the case with softenon, for example (only 6 years after the drug came on the market, and at a time when the manufacturer itself had decided to stop using softenon, the academic world woke up and wrote critical articles about the use of softenon). The same can be said about slow-release opiates, antipsychotics in children, the effectiveness of a number of diabetes medications, smoking, etc. How is it possible, I wonder, that smart buds need such a long time to see something 'possible', which was and has been clear to the general public for a long time. And what else does it add?
It's a bit like the proverb: when the calf has drowned, the well is filled in, but even worse. Not only must the calf have drowned, all those people who were responsible for that calf (not to drown) must also have disappeared from 'the picture' before the academy takes action. What also helps to get academics critical of a drug is if that drug is no longer prescribed. The latter may not (just) be the case with injecting Mrna for Covid, but it was the case with other means. I already mentioned Softenon. Slow release opiates are (I think) also clearly depicted in the dope-sick series. Anti-diabetes drugs, something about this came out in the media, 60 years later, see for example here: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/0003-4819-157-9-201211060-00016?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed
Well, maybe something for science journalists from quality newspapers to write about. They often get their inspiration from here.
Was it actually such a great idea to vaccinate en masse in 2021?
As far as I am concerned, it is an economic activity that could generate a lot of profit. The risk that this mass vaccination would have potentially harmful side effects was greatly minimized with (global) power and money. Lessons from the past were ignored.
The reason was not an economic activity but an accident. There are always parties that see opportunities to make money from this. Especially if they themselves are partly responsible for the accident.
False logic: it was not the risk that was minimized with the aforementioned means, but the willingness to face that risk and take it into account.
The myth that the pus from an inflamed cow udder “conferred immunity against the deadly smallpox virus,” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox_vaccine ) has been around for 230 years, so you better not hold your breath until you encounter serious academic criticism of the MRI shots.
And Anton, are you sure the virtual virus escaped accidentally? Wasn't it on purpose? Were you there?
No, I'm not sure, but I've described it extensively so I don't understand why you're asking about that.
Your other questions come across more as banter than interest.
You reprimand someone (“no economic activity”) with a firm statement (“accident”) for which you only have some vague indications.
Then it seems as if you have not asked yourself the critical questions that I asked you - obviously not out of interest, because I already know the answer.
You have tried “extensively” to make your opinion plausible – that's all.
Mass vaccination as an economic activity took place after the panic that arose after the laboratory leak of Sars Cov 2 at the WIV. For me (and others), this leak is not an opinion but a conclusion after reading scientific publications, books (including the Wuhan Trilogy), events such as the telephone conference (of top virologists, among others) on 1-2-2020 and the taking offline of the internationally available database of identified viruses on 12-9-2019 by Chinese researchers and much more other information (e.g. USA congress hearings about corona) There is also no (reliable) scientific publication that reports on a Sars Cov 2 virus-transmitting animal that is responsible for the outbreak. The proof I requested of a zoonotic outbreak of Covid 19 from virologists working in the Netherlands (including M.K.) has not been provided. These experts spoke/wrote about consensus and never provided scientifically demonstrable evidence.
Jan Bonte has written 1240 pages about the origin of SARS-CoV-2, but apparently did not draw the same conclusion as you; otherwise there wouldn't have been a question mark in his subtitle.
Be that as it may, the evidence for the existence of SARS-CoV-2 is so poor and unscientific that it must be concluded that it does not exist.
A question mark at the end of a title or subtitle does not mean that someone believes that viruses do not exist. It doesn't even mean the question isn't answered in the book.
Nothing further needs to be concluded, but you can draw your own conclusions. In the context of the corona pandemic, it is just as irrelevant whether you believe that viruses exist or not, as it is irrelevant if someone keeps saying that God does not exist when analyzing a religious war. Or Allah or any concept. Or that we live in a matrix or that death is just an illusion or that the gods were cosmonauts or that we are controlled by aliens or that everything is predestined. It simply doesn't matter in this context.
It's better to wage that crusade somewhere else. It's actually just disturbing here. You remind me of Rowan Atkinson interview met Elton John think.
I now consider that subject closed.
The subtitle of Bonte's book is “Corona, escaped from the lab?” So Jan is not sure, but he undoubtedly believes in the existence of the virus.
Of course “nothing should be concluded,” it is just a way of expressing my opinion and a response to Hans's statement.
Of course, “in the context of the corona pandemic” it is relevant whether or not the virus exists. For example, an increase in patients on mechanical ventilation in the ICU requires a different explanation.
I don't think it's fair to call my commentary a “crusade.” In this case and for example in our discussion about the reliability of the PCR test, I feel it necessary to express my opinion.
I could say more about that, for example about why I consider the existence indications unscientific. However, if there is no interest in that, I will leave it out.
You say you now consider the subject “closed,” but it is clear you never considered it.
1) You're repeating yourself about the title.
2) You literally wrote “must be concluded”. But OK, that's semantics.
3) Whether it is a relatively harmless virus (with instilled seriousness) or something other than a virus (with instilled seriousness) or an innocent disease (with instilled seriousness) or simultaneous coincidence across the entire world (with instilled seriousness) – it doesn't really matter to me for the course of events. But I have also tried to clarify that with an analogy. One more thing: a war because of an unnecessary, artificial threat is also a war, and in it you can also analyze strategic errors and follies with the aim of exposing the madness.
4a+b) We live in a free country, but it is better to find someone who finds the subject interesting and wants to defend it.
5) You're not the first to point this out to me. I have previously seen a number of videos by Dr. Watched Sam Bailey and read pieces from that corner. To me they were unconvincing. For me, contagiousness exists, just like interpersonal exchange of hormones, ideas, etc.
1) You wrote: “A question mark at the end of a title or subtitle does not mean that someone believes that viruses do not exist.” This makes no sense at all so I have clarified my argument. By the way, I find it funny that Jan calls his own book a masterpiece.
3) You don't really care if it's a virus or not, but you are sure it accidentally escaped from a lab? Well…
4) I responded to Hans. Maybe he's interested.
5) Sam Bailey videos are always fun to watch, aside from that horrible New Zealand English
I do not claim that contagiousness (of bacteria, for example) does not exist. And before a retrovirus was accepted as the cause of AIDS, there was a lot of research into retroviruses as a possible cause of cancer. That would mean that cancer is contagious, which you probably don't believe.
Jeroen, we are at the end of the levels so I don't know if the order of the answers will still be correct.
1) You understood this correctly, it didn't make sense because your reasoning didn't make sense either.
3) I'm not 100% sure, I've said that before but you keep trolling. I find the question of whether intentional or accidental an interesting one. Whether there was actually something like a virus that was used to set up a scam or whether the virus was completely created out of thin air (pun intended) doesn't really matter to me yet. Maybe that will come to light later.
4) OK
5) I hardly understand her. But she sure is fun to watch!
I wouldn't know about the contagiousness of cancer. My father died of a brain tumor, I had a lot of contact with him when he was ill, my mother cared for him at home until his death and she never left his side. 25 years later my mother herself died of metastatic cancer. I have had intensive contact with her in recent weeks. At least I'm still here.
Cancer is pretty much the leading cause of death. Wouldn't you have noticed the contagiousness already? Is the number of deaths among nursing staff in cancer wards higher than in other wards? Interesting if so! But hey, how do you find that out? In any case, the nursing staff themselves have not realized it yet.
Let's stop talking about the trilogy that evokes associations with Erich von Däniken's masterpieces.
And thank God I don't read any more vain analogies from you, so I'll stop trolling.
My condolences for your parents. It is difficult to determine whether a disease is contagious or not. As far as I know, retroviruses have not been accepted as a cause of cancer in humans (although they are in some animals).
What is accepted is that a herpes virus causes the AIDS-defining disease Kaposi's sarcoma (also called "gay cancer"). This applies not only to the epidemic (AIDS-defining) subtype, but to all subtypes, including the endemic ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaposi%27s_sarcoma ).
It is of course remarkable that a human virus seems to respect area boundaries.
By the way, so-called “poppers” are the more obvious explanation for epidemic KS:
https://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/jlpoppers.htm
Fine, thank you. Where you find me again is with your comment “It is of course remarkable that a human virus seems to respect area boundaries.” That is indeed something striking, something that Denis Rancourt, for example, has also pointed out emphatically. Then there must at least be other factors at play than a virus - if that already exists (this to accommodate you as well 😉 ).
Do you have a link for the non-spreading viruses that Rancourt pointed out?
It is extremely unlikely that a virulent and contagious viral respiratory pathogen that would have caused the exceedingly large COVID-era excess mortality in the USA, could not have crossed the border into Canada, the world’s longest international land border (8,890 km) between two major trading partners; where both countries are normally (pre-COVID-era) continuously subject to seasonal (winter) viral respiratory disease epidemics having virtually identical mortality characteristics.
https://denisrancourt.ca/uploads_entries/1635189453861_USA ACM into 2021 - article—-12d.pdf
We have shown repeatedly that excess mortality most often refused to cross national borders and inter-state lines. The invisible virus targets the poor and disabled and carries a passport.
https://denisrancourt.substack.com/p/there-was-no-pandemic
He almost always says it, in every video (check out odysee). E.g. from 3:00 am https://odysee.com/@Coronavirus:4e/Dr.-Denis-Rancourt-Unveiling-All-Cause-Mortality:8
It is one of the core arguments for his conclusion that there was no special virus and therefore no viral pandemic and therefore no viral excess mortality.
Thank you. Sounds good, only Denis's metaphors could be better; After all, a passport gets you across the border. 😉
Everything exists, Jeroen.
Regarding the item whether or not viruses are present in humans and animals. For example, the BVD virus in cattle and the FIP virus in cats. These viruses can remain in the host for years and ultimately have a fatal outcome.
Viruses that can cause leucosis are known in both cattle and cats.
The Sars Cov 2 virus can be present asymptomatically in both humans and mink.
With viruses it is difficult to apply Koch's postulates, so there are often still questions to be answered.
Indeed, the reason was the unexpected escape from the lab of a virus with an unexpected worldwide course. The parties responsible for this have turned necessity into a virtue by bringing a largely incompletely tested vaccine onto the market.
Money is an important motivation, also according to Prof.Dr. Sterz (toxicologist)
https://youtu.be/F0hlS7ulWcE
https://youtu.be/AjoBzssi9i8
I was already working on him too https://virusvaria.nl/?p=34483&preview=1&_ppp=1a96d57921
In February 2021, my scientifically graduated child received a “recruitment email” to earn a lot of money with the advertising campaign for long covid. I sent these proofs to several people but I received no response. At the end of that long Covid recruitment email, there was also a call to take the shot. Why did I remember this: it was freezing to the point where it was creaking and the "victim of long Covid" at the time who worked at the company where people could apply had been in bed for months, the story goes, but that person's social media showed skating marathons on natural ice... It really affected me because the call for the shot was mainly aimed at young people who could apply for multiple jobs. A relative of ours, at the age of 90, was still in perfect health, found dead in bed 4 days after the injection. In February 2021, a lot of misery could have been prevented, except for people who have long-term complaints after an infection with whatever. I will continue to follow it all and read it critically, thanks!