|
by
HART
February 15,
2023
from
HartGroup Website
Facts
previously
dismissed
as
misinformation
now admitted...
On 11 January 2023 a paper was published in Cell Host & Microbe
titled "Rethinking
next-generation vaccines for coronaviruses, influenza viruses, and
other respiratory viruses".
There are just 3 authors, one of whom is
Anthony Fauci, who served as
the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases (NIAID) from 1984 to 2022, and the chief medical
advisor to the President (Biden)
from 2021 to 2022.
Fauci is generally regarded as one of the key architects of the
USA's - and therefore the world's - response to the pandemic,
including,
pushing for the
emergency authorization and rollout of the
Covid vaccines, and the
formulation of policies which exerted huge pressure on citizens
in nearly all countries to be injected with these products or
else face sanctions, ranging from social ostracisation via the
use of "vaccine passport" schemes, through to job losses, and
even fines merely for being unvaccinated...
Fauci made some bold
claims about the Covid vaccines in order to justify such coercive
policies, including that they would
prevent infections and limit
transmission of the virus to others.
These claims were then
picked up by political leaders worldwide and used to justify their
own policies, even when - from early data - it became obvious that,
the vaccines did
not prevent infections or reduce the viral load of
those infected.
This latest article,
therefore, has quite rightly raised some eyebrows because of the
astonishing concessions it contains, amongst which are the
following:
1 - Of the
influenza vaccines, the authors note:
As of 2022, after
more than 60 years of experience with
influenza vaccines,
very little improvement in vaccine prevention of infection
has been noted.
As pointed out
decades ago, and still true today, the rates of
effectiveness of our best approved influenza vaccines would
be inadequate for licensure for most other
vaccine-preventable diseases.
The authors then draw
parallels between the vaccines for Covid and those for
influenza:
The vaccines for
these two very different viruses [Covid19 and influenza]
have common characteristics: they elicit incomplete and
short-lived protection against evolving virus variants that
escape population immunity.
2 - They
propose that the reason why vaccines against Covid and influenza
are ineffective compared to those against mumps, measles,
rubella and smallpox and varicella zoster (chickenpox) is that
the former replicate predominantly in local mucosal tissue,
without causing viremia.
They posit that the finding by
PCR testing of the circulation
of viral SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the bloodstream, is an "RNAemia" (as
is seen with most mucosal respiratory virus infections), as
distinct from viremia, in which infectious viruses can be
cultured from the blood.
This statement is rather glossed over, but it actually has huge
significance, in that it is essentially saying that the finding
by PCR testing of tissues in people with mucosal respiratory
virus infections like Covid may simply represent the presence of
RNA not culturable whole virus.
However, much has been made of these PCR findings, leading to
statements that Covid is,
"highly unusual,
attacking all tissues" and "Covid isn't just a respiratory
disease but a circulatory one",
...notions which the
authors of this paper seem not to share, the tone of the article
being very much that SARS-CoV-2 sits within the broad category
of mucosal respiratory viruses.
(Having said that, one point the authors did not make is that
even in the absence of circulating whole virus, it could be that
circulating spike protein leads to the clots and other vascular
pathology seen both in infection and after vaccination, although
this seems a likely potential mechanism only in more severe
disease.)
3 - They then state that antigenic drift is the reason
why we can expect people to be infected multiply both with
influenza and SARS-CoV-2.
4 - Tying
these all together, they conclude that:
It is not
surprising that none of the predominantly mucosal
respiratory viruses [of which influenza and SARS-Cov-2 are
examples] have ever been effectively controlled by vaccines.
They then write that:
This observation
raises a question of fundamental importance:
if natural
mucosal respiratory virus infections do not elicit
complete and long-term protective immunity against
reinfection, how can we expect vaccines, especially
systemically administered non-replicating vaccines, to
do so?
How indeed?
This is one of the
points that those who questioned the design of the Covid
vaccines have been making repeatedly.
5 - In a
section which looks like it was written before the (thankfully
temporary) purging in 2020 of prior immunology theory and
knowledge, they then discuss in some depth the complexity of the
highly-evolved mucosal immune response, and the delicate balance
that it must (and therefore by implications so must vaccines)
achieve between tolerance (preventing tissue damage) and
infection control (which may ultimately result in an aberrant
immune response).
Some sample extracts:
The immunologic
"Faustian bargain" between tolerance versus infection
control, which permits transient, moderated infection by
respiratory agents of low or intermediate pathogenicity to
restrain the destructive forces of an immune elimination
response may be problematic for vaccine control of
respiratory viruses, not only in the local and systemic
sensing of vaccine antigens but also in eliciting optimal
immune responses.
The
immune system is complex with
many effectors.
Serum antibody titers to
various viral
epitopes may only indirectly
correlate with protection because of association with other more
critical (but not usually measured) immune effectors.
In short, correlations between serum antibody titers and
susceptibility to influenza infection may be statistically valid in
large studies, but imperfect in the context of individual variation,
rapid viral evolution, and waning titers.
A closely related question is whether vaccines that generate immune
responses only against single critical epitopes conserved across
virus strains and subtypes, or a limited number of such epitopes,
can perform as well as vaccines that elicit broad humoral and
cell-mediated responses against multiple epitopes.
Although such conserved
epitopes seem ideal candidates, vaccines based on this approach have
not been particularly successful.
Attempting to control mucosal respiratory viruses with systemically
administered non-replicating vaccines has thus far been largely
unsuccessful, indicating that new approaches are needed.
In summary, this article reads like an admission of failure - of the
vaccines to prevent infection and transmission at least.
But the most notable
point is that the reasons given are based on immunological theory
and knowledge which was commonly known before 2020, meaning that the
assertions made about them preventing infection and transmission
must have been known - or at least strongly suspected - to be
untrue.
Is this lying? We leave
it to the reader to judge...
Even after data emerged which confirmed the inability to block
infection and transmission, the voices raising this were suppressed
and censored by forces seemingly under the control of US Federal
agencies, as we have seen from the "Twitter files" releases.
This article clearly has the "fact checkers" in a bind, as to
counter the article's premises they would have to debunk those who
they had previously staunchly defended.
Associated Press
has published a risible "fact check" which essentially states that
the article does not explicitly state that the vaccines do not
prevent severe disease, whilst remaining completely silent on the
most important concession:
the inability
to block infection and transmission...!
Alex Berenson's
take
on this article is also worth a
read, as is
this piece in The Daily Sceptic
by an anonymous senior Pharmaceutical Industry executive.
It remains to be seen whether this Fauci article has any
effect on mainstream opinion which seems immobile, despite the
weight of accumulating evidence against both the safety and
effectiveness of the vaccines.
Another example of former Covid vaccine enthusiasts expressing
concerns and apparently recanting, but without any mainstream
acknowledgement, can be found in an article written by
Paul Offit, an American
pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases, vaccines,
immunology, and virology.
Notably, Professor Offit
has been a member of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
His article in the prestigious and decidedly establishment journal
NEJM titled "Bivalent
Covid-19 Vaccines - A Cautionary Tale" raised the
worrying specter of "immune imprinting" (where the immune system
becomes fixated on one particular antigenic sequence and therefore
less able to deal with variations of the same) and concluded that:
"we should stop
trying to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young
people by boosting them with vaccines containing mRNA from
strains that might disappear a few months later".
However, this has not
been accompanied by any official toning down of the enthusiasm with
which the boosters have been recommended by USA Federal officials,
although many other countries have essentially stopped offering the
vaccines to younger and healthy individuals.
The disconnect between real-world data and the promises made
for these vaccines was jarring enough.
Now we have previous
proponents expressing the same doubts previously censored
critics have been raising for years...
When is
the mainstream media going to
restore much-needed balance to the debate instead of acting as an
unquestioning mouthpiece for government...?
|
