This blog began in 2007, focusing on anthrax vaccine, and later expanded to other public health and political issues. The blog links to media reports, medical literature, official documents and other materials.
Wednesday, November 24, 2021
From the VA study in Science I wrote about a few days ago--rapidly falling efficacy of the three US vaccines
So we are learning new things about the injections every day, hmmm. How about that. As the shots began rolling out to cheers less than a year ago, not a peep about expecting a rapid decline in effectiveness, nary a clue that we would face a perpetual regime of "boosters" every few months. And here there should now be a very very important realization: if we didn't know these most basic facts about the injections at the outset, what else don't we yet know? What other fun surprises await us?
And why did we not know these most basic expectations at the outset? Because these products were *NOT TESTED*. Hello? How can this not be more clear. No one can say if they are safe (though they did and do). No one can say if they are effective (though they continue to lie about that, too). WE DON'T KNOW. We can't know.
How could we know? Well, for one thing, we weren't meant to know. We weren't even allowed to ask. These injections are a rubbish collection of questionable chemicals cobbled together by overenthusiastic chemistry geeks, egos intoxicated with their infallibly clever new play toy, and pushed by the most sophisticated drug pushers in the business. Who needs to test them? Let's just shoot them into every arm we can and see how it turns out.
Welll... With respect, just how much did you know about vaccinology before all this? I'm guessing the average person didn't have much idea -- and even less interest -- about the perpetual race in flu vaccine manufacture to keep up with the endless mutations in these viruses, for example.
A bigger concern for me is all the many failed attempts to develop a safe coronavirus vaccine in the years between when SARS (CoV-1) popped up in 2002/03 (COVID-02) and 2019, including the 'shot in the arm' that MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, COVID-12) gave the program 10 years on. No matter the vaccine platform or technology used, the test animals developed vaccine-enhanced disease when later challenged with the virus they were now supposed to be protected against.
That was well reported and widely known in research circles long before SARS-CoV-2 came to town. But it is still largely unknown amongst the test subjects (folks who are getting vaccinated against COVID-19). That is a travesty of global proportions.
With respect, "vaccinology" has nothing to do with it. These injections are not vaccines under any reasonable definition of the term, in either mechanism of action or in effects and outcomes. They neither stop infection nor stop transmission. They do not confer immunity. At best -- and questionably -- they may provide some limited-term therapeutic value. Where any such value appears to be more than offset by risk of longer-term immune compromise.
In fact, these injections are identified by the manufacturers themselves as "gene therapy" products.
Referring to these products as "vaccines" simply plays into the hands of the propaganda campaign. The word "vaccine" has for many the comforting connotations of safety and protection. The language further conveys the notion of acceptable social responsibility. Many parents can get behind the idea of vaccinating their children, and perceive it as the responsible thing to do. On the other hand, how many parents would shrink in horror from the notion of untested, unproven, novel "gene therapy" being deployed on their kids?
Finally, well-informed readers of Dr. Nass are surely aware by now that these injections are neither necessary nor called far. The coronavirus infections are readily managed by proven and effective treatment. Naturally conferred immunity is by far more effective and durable than the toxic potions.
"These injections are not vaccines under any reasonable definition of the term, in either mechanism of action or in effects and outcomes."
I disagree. They can reasonably be considered vaccines. The whole point of vaccination, also known as immunisation, is to elicit an immune response against the target pathogen or a key component of its pathogenicity. The COVID-19 vaccines of all stripes, including the synthetic mRNA vaccines, do elicit a measurable immune response against the S1 spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. They do what they're designed to do.
One can fault the vision of the vaccine technologists on this one, as all COVID vaccines currently in use are demonstrably poor at protecting people from infection and disease caused by this virus. In effect, they backed the wrong horse by developing vaccines (plural) that target only the S1 portion of the spike protein which has been so poorly conserved over time (lots of mutations) -- and which is so pathogenic in its own right as to cause many and varied adverse effects. So, while they are indeed vaccines, they are neither safe nor effective vaccines.
These things are still reasonably called vaccines. The only difference between the more conventional vaccines (O-AZ and J&J viral-vector vaccines and the whole-virus vaccines used around the world) and the mRNA vaccines is the extra step, in which the latter encode the person's body to produce the S1 spike protein against which the immune system mounts a(n ostensibly) protective response.
The goal of vaccination/immunisation is an immune response that is shown or expected to be protective against the native pathogen. And all currently available COVID vaccines do that -- up to a point (high antibody titres post-vaccination against the S1 spike protein of the original SARS-CoV-2). The fact that this elicited immune response is not particularly effective in the face of so many variants is a whole 'nother conversation, and it would run along the lines of the pointlessness and potential harm of using a flu vaccine that is several mutations out of date or that never worked against the lineage currently in circulation, and which is excessively antigenic.
"At best -- and questionably -- they may provide some limited-term therapeutic value."
There is absolutely no therapeutic (remedial) value to any of the currently available COVID vaccines. They are not therapies of any sort -- i.e., something used in the treatment of disease. And they're not intended to be; they're vaccines. The mRNA vaccines are considered "gene therapy" under current regulations, but only because of their platform (gene-based medical interventions). They have absolutely no therapeutic value, so they are being put in the wrong box when the FDA talks about them as "gene therapy." There is some fancy footwork going on under the table here, but the only legitimate way in which they may be considered "therapy" is when discussing rules and regulations.
All that said, I agree that all currently available COVID vaccines are both unnecessary and excessively harmful. (All vaccines are provocative by design, so all vaccines carry some level of risk.)
Arguing that "they are not vaccines" and "they are gene therapies" (which is the case for only two of the many COVID vaccines) is a bit like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin: it gets us nowhere worth being, and it just keeps us squabbling amongst ourselves.
It would be far more useful to be challenging the twin claims of safety and efficacy.
The principles of real vaccines are genius. Take an inert or attenuated form of the pathogen, introduce a bit of it to the immune system. The body then "gets to know" the pathogen safely, while the body's own immune response has a chance to prepare a defense.
If one's immune system were compared to a bloodhound, a vaccine is like giving that hound a scent to work with. Now it is trained to recognize and attack the intruder.
The current batch of injections are nothing at all like this. In the first place, the substances in the injections are designed to *evade* any direct immune response. The have to get past your natural defenses with stealthy intrusion, to deliver their genetic payload deep inside your healthy working cells.
Once inside the target cells, the genetic payload is then unleashed to co-opt the cell's own internal genetic machinery. The cell is induced to start making other stuff than it was designed for. In the present instance, your cells are reprogrammed to make a toxin, the notorious spike protein, and then flood your body with it.
That's it. That's what these injections do, sum total. Invade your body, pass through immune response screening, commandeer your own cellular material, and coerce them into fabricating harmful toxins.
(Hmmm, when described that way, sounds just like how a bio-weapon might be engineered...)
That is why these injections are not vaccines.
That is also why words have definitions and meanings, so we can use them properly, with care, and without deception.
So we are learning new things about the injections every day, hmmm. How about that. As the shots began rolling out to cheers less than a year ago, not a peep about expecting a rapid decline in effectiveness, nary a clue that we would face a perpetual regime of "boosters" every few months. And here there should now be a very very important realization: if we didn't know these most basic facts about the injections at the outset, what else don't we yet know? What other fun surprises await us?
ReplyDeleteAnd why did we not know these most basic expectations at the outset? Because these products were *NOT TESTED*. Hello? How can this not be more clear. No one can say if they are safe (though they did and do). No one can say if they are effective (though they continue to lie about that, too). WE DON'T KNOW. We can't know.
How could we know? Well, for one thing, we weren't meant to know. We weren't even allowed to ask. These injections are a rubbish collection of questionable chemicals cobbled together by overenthusiastic chemistry geeks, egos intoxicated with their infallibly clever new play toy, and pushed by the most sophisticated drug pushers in the business. Who needs to test them? Let's just shoot them into every arm we can and see how it turns out.
Welll... With respect, just how much did you know about vaccinology before all this? I'm guessing the average person didn't have much idea -- and even less interest -- about the perpetual race in flu vaccine manufacture to keep up with the endless mutations in these viruses, for example.
ReplyDeleteA bigger concern for me is all the many failed attempts to develop a safe coronavirus vaccine in the years between when SARS (CoV-1) popped up in 2002/03 (COVID-02) and 2019, including the 'shot in the arm' that MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, COVID-12) gave the program 10 years on. No matter the vaccine platform or technology used, the test animals developed vaccine-enhanced disease when later challenged with the virus they were now supposed to be protected against.
That was well reported and widely known in research circles long before SARS-CoV-2 came to town. But it is still largely unknown amongst the test subjects (folks who are getting vaccinated against COVID-19). That is a travesty of global proportions.
With respect, "vaccinology" has nothing to do with it. These injections are not vaccines under any reasonable definition of the term, in either mechanism of action or in effects and outcomes. They neither stop infection nor stop transmission. They do not confer immunity. At best -- and questionably -- they may provide some limited-term therapeutic value. Where any such value appears to be more than offset by risk of longer-term immune compromise.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, these injections are identified by the manufacturers themselves as "gene therapy" products.
Referring to these products as "vaccines" simply plays into the hands of the propaganda campaign. The word "vaccine" has for many the comforting connotations of safety and protection. The language further conveys the notion of acceptable social responsibility. Many parents can get behind the idea of vaccinating their children, and perceive it as the responsible thing to do. On the other hand, how many parents would shrink in horror from the notion of untested, unproven, novel "gene therapy" being deployed on their kids?
Finally, well-informed readers of Dr. Nass are surely aware by now that these injections are neither necessary nor called far. The coronavirus infections are readily managed by proven and effective treatment. Naturally conferred immunity is by far more effective and durable than the toxic potions.
"These injections are not vaccines under any reasonable definition of the term, in either mechanism of action or in effects and outcomes."
ReplyDeleteI disagree. They can reasonably be considered vaccines. The whole point of vaccination, also known as immunisation, is to elicit an immune response against the target pathogen or a key component of its pathogenicity. The COVID-19 vaccines of all stripes, including the synthetic mRNA vaccines, do elicit a measurable immune response against the S1 spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. They do what they're designed to do.
One can fault the vision of the vaccine technologists on this one, as all COVID vaccines currently in use are demonstrably poor at protecting people from infection and disease caused by this virus. In effect, they backed the wrong horse by developing vaccines (plural) that target only the S1 portion of the spike protein which has been so poorly conserved over time (lots of mutations) -- and which is so pathogenic in its own right as to cause many and varied adverse effects. So, while they are indeed vaccines, they are neither safe nor effective vaccines.
These things are still reasonably called vaccines. The only difference between the more conventional vaccines (O-AZ and J&J viral-vector vaccines and the whole-virus vaccines used around the world) and the mRNA vaccines is the extra step, in which the latter encode the person's body to produce the S1 spike protein against which the immune system mounts a(n ostensibly) protective response.
The goal of vaccination/immunisation is an immune response that is shown or expected to be protective against the native pathogen. And all currently available COVID vaccines do that -- up to a point (high antibody titres post-vaccination against the S1 spike protein of the original SARS-CoV-2). The fact that this elicited immune response is not particularly effective in the face of so many variants is a whole 'nother conversation, and it would run along the lines of the pointlessness and potential harm of using a flu vaccine that is several mutations out of date or that never worked against the lineage currently in circulation, and which is excessively antigenic.
"At best -- and questionably -- they may provide some limited-term therapeutic value."
There is absolutely no therapeutic (remedial) value to any of the currently available COVID vaccines. They are not therapies of any sort -- i.e., something used in the treatment of disease. And they're not intended to be; they're vaccines. The mRNA vaccines are considered "gene therapy" under current regulations, but only because of their platform (gene-based medical interventions). They have absolutely no therapeutic value, so they are being put in the wrong box when the FDA talks about them as "gene therapy." There is some fancy footwork going on under the table here, but the only legitimate way in which they may be considered "therapy" is when discussing rules and regulations.
All that said, I agree that all currently available COVID vaccines are both unnecessary and excessively harmful. (All vaccines are provocative by design, so all vaccines carry some level of risk.)
Arguing that "they are not vaccines" and "they are gene therapies" (which is the case for only two of the many COVID vaccines) is a bit like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin: it gets us nowhere worth being, and it just keeps us squabbling amongst ourselves.
It would be far more useful to be challenging the twin claims of safety and efficacy.
The principles of real vaccines are genius. Take an inert or attenuated form of the pathogen, introduce a bit of it to the immune system. The body then "gets to know" the pathogen safely, while the body's own immune response has a chance to prepare a defense.
ReplyDeleteIf one's immune system were compared to a bloodhound, a vaccine is like giving that hound a scent to work with. Now it is trained to recognize and attack the intruder.
The current batch of injections are nothing at all like this. In the first place, the substances in the injections are designed to *evade* any direct immune response. The have to get past your natural defenses with stealthy intrusion, to deliver their genetic payload deep inside your healthy working cells.
Once inside the target cells, the genetic payload is then unleashed to co-opt the cell's own internal genetic machinery. The cell is induced to start making other stuff than it was designed for. In the present instance, your cells are reprogrammed to make a toxin, the notorious spike protein, and then flood your body with it.
That's it. That's what these injections do, sum total. Invade your body, pass through immune response screening, commandeer your own cellular material, and coerce them into fabricating harmful toxins.
(Hmmm, when described that way, sounds just like how a bio-weapon might be engineered...)
That is why these injections are not vaccines.
That is also why words have definitions and meanings, so we can use them properly, with care, and without deception.