There is dispute between doctors and scientists on some issues, as with debates regarding how dangerous variants could be, but curiously, where some agree, is on their opposition to the vaccine rollout, with detractors of the vaccines ranging from those who have been critical of other vaccines in the past to doctors and scientists who have worked/ are working on developing vaccines.
Fear of “variants” fuels vaccine drive
On the UK Column on 2 Feb 2021 Iain Davis discussed the scaremongering in the UK, regarding the dangers of a “new variant.”
The projected danger was based on a comparison of computer simulations by Imperial College London (ICL) experts (who were responsible for the modelling that the first hard lockdowns were based on – projections that turned out to be grossly exaggerated, as discussed in an epidemiology post).
Their projections regarding the variant led to a paper by the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG), which entrenched the view that the pandemic had not yet abated.
“[T]he SARS–CoV–2 genome is vast in comparison to the tiny genetic variations that are allegedly so lethal. A recent study of T-cell immunity by Californian scientists demonstrated how the human immune system is able to adapt to the new SARS–CoV–2 variants. The scientists found: ‘By attacking the virus from many angles, the body has the tools to potentially recognise different SARS–CoV–2 variants’. The human immune system normally defends itself against the whole virus, not just one specific genetic component. It does this by breaking the complete virus down into its constituent nucleotide sequences. Prepared to resist each and every one of these genetic signals, it won’t be fooled by any minor genetic mutation in one spike protein.”
Iain Davis
Davis concludes: “It is difficult to understand how the experts at ICL couldn’t work this out for themselves. The ICL team were led by Prof. Erik Volz. Just as they did after releasing their wildly inaccurate COVID–19 models in the spring, they immediately started backpedaling on their claims that the new variant was up to 70% more transmissible,” with even Volz himself describing the comparison of models their projections were based on, as “not particularly good”.
Davis’ analysis of the data shows that “at the most basic epidemiological level, the new variant narrative was wrong. The statistics prove it. They also show that the sharp increase in mortality which correlates precisely with the COVID–19 vaccine rollout cannot easily be explained by blaming new variants.” (To understand how he comes to this conclusion one needs to read this entire article.)
Meanwhile, the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) clearly expected a large number of reported adverse drug reactions from the vaccine since they had awarded a tender for artificial intelligence software that could log them. The data logged, however, was not being made available, at the time Davis was writing.
Davis further writes, that in the UK the “MHRA informed the Financial Times that the COVID–19 vaccines had undergone rigorous testing. This was a disingenuous statement. None of the COVID–19 vaccine are close to completing any clinical trials. They are not licensed by the MHRA and do not have marketing authorisation. They have been distributed in the UK thanks to legislative changes to Regulation 174 of the Human Medicine Regulations 2012 (as amended). These changes included the removal of all liability from manufacturers and distributors.”
Warning of pathogenic priming increasing susceptibility to the wild virus
Vocal opponents of the vaccine rollout include experts working in the field of vaccinology and doctors generally pro-vaccine. Dr Geert van den Bossche, who has worked for GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (Gavi) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, has come out with a statement and paper on his blog, warning that mass infection prevention with a leaky COVID vaccine in the midst of a pandemic can only breed highly infectious variants. He calls for the immediate cancellation of all ongoing COVID mass vaccination campaigns, and rather for the promotion of measures that enable natural immunity, as the best defence against the coronavirus, even though he completely endorses vaccine use and argues that this has eradicated many pathogen-based illness.
In the UK Column news broadcast on Friday 19 March 2021, Mike Robinson and Patrick Henningsen discuss how Van den Bossche’s paper points out that while natural innate immunity provides broad protection, immunisation is like “installing software on a computer”, where your body is effectively locked into the specific strain of the virus that the vaccine provides.
They discuss the trials using ferrets, who were vaccinated against earlier SARS viruses. Initially, it seemed to boost their immunity but when they were exposed to the wild virus, they all died (noted by Wakefield earlier). The vaccine failed due to “pathogenic priming” – vaccine-induced susceptibility to the wild type, rather than providing protection.The same problem has arisen in countries in Africa, including Tanzania, and in Pakistan and India, with the polio vaccines. The WHO admitted in September 2020, as discussed in an article on 21st Century Wire, that children had died once they were exposed to the wild virus after receiving Polio vaccine.
Experiments looking at vaccine induced mutants
Scientists have also studied variants that have emerged, after vaccination, which can elicit a much poorer response in the vaccine community, as is the case with people who are vaccinated against the flu and then exposed to a different strain. UK Column cites two scientific papers, one from 2017 by Eleanor Watkins and Michael Maiden, and an earlier one in 2015, by Watkins, Maiden and Professor Sunetra Gupta, among other authors, that demonstrate this phenomenon. The authors write: “Here we show […] that vaccination induces genotypic changes among non-vaccine strains, which lead to an increase in both transmissibility and virulence”. Thus it may not be the natural variants that are of concern but rather the mutations that can result from mass vaccination.
Another paper UK Column cite is, “Original antigenic sin: A comprehensive review”, by Anup Vatti et al., which also warns that immunisation can lead to a weakened immune reaction, when exposed to a different strain of epitope, resulting in “an antibody-dependent enhancement of the disease or at the opposite, it could induce anergy. Both of them triggering loss of pathogen control and inducing aberrant clinical consequences.”
AstraZeneca has conducted vaccine trials in the UK, Brazil and South Africa, which led UK Column to ponder whether it is just a coincidence that the “new variants” of the SARS virus have emerged here. in light of the findings of the papers cited above, could these variants be as a result of vaccine-induced pathogenic priming? Despite travel restrictions being put in place due to these variants, there is no evidence that these are more virulent than the original. But what will the future hold, in terms of potentially harmful variants that emerge as a result of the mass vaccination programme?
Disagreement regarding whether vaccines will cause dangerous mutants to emerge
But some scientists dispute the danger of variants. PANDA consultant Dr Michael Yeadon, former vice president and chief scientific advisor at Pfizer and Dr Marc Giradot wrote a rebuttal of Van den Bossche’s article, where they cite scientific articles as evidence that concern over variants is misplaced, since the body’s natural immunity provides broad protection of variants, and anyway, as they mutate, they may become more transmissible but at the same time weaker and less virulent.
Where scientists with differing viewpoints do agree with Van den Bossche is that there is no cause for a vaccination rollout.
On 8 March 2021, Mike Whitney quotes Yeadon, as having stated, months previously: “There is absolutely no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic… You do not vaccinate people who aren’t at risk from a disease. You also don’t set about planning to vaccinate millions of fit and healthy people with a vaccine that hasn’t been extensively tested on human subjects”.
Vaccines will not provide immunity
And there there is the issue of immunity… was the alleged purpose of the vaccine not to stop people from becoming infected? Shockingly the answer is: no.
Vaccine trial protocols: success measured as reduction of mild symptoms
Veteran journalist Jon Rappoport, in a blog post on 19 March, 2021, quotes from an article in the New York Times from 22 September 2020, by Peter Doshi and Eric Topol, where the authors pointed out that protocols of the trials for COVID vaccines manufactured by AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna, meant that, “a vaccine could meet the companies’ benchmark for success if it lowered the risk of mild COVID-19, but was never shown to reduce moderate or severe forms of the disease, or the risk of hospitalisation, admissions to the intensive care unit or death. […] To say a vaccine works should mean that most people no longer run the risk of getting seriously sick. That’s not what these trials will determine.”
Rappoport quotes further, “If you were to approve a coronavirus vaccine, would you approve one that you only knew protected people only from the most mild form of COVID-19, or one that would prevent its serious complications?” (Clue: “most mild” means cough, or chills and fever, which cure themselves without the need for a vaccine.) “The answer is obvious. You would want to protect against the worst cases. But that’s not how the companies testing three of the leading coronavirus vaccine candidates, Moderna, Pfizer and AstraZeneca, whose US trial is on hold, are approaching the problem.” Thus, Rappopport comments that these vaccines are “completely ineffective at preventing serious illness. BY DESIGN.” [Capitalisation in original]
So, since it is not established that vaccines will prevent transmission and even as a prophylactic, they are only required to stop mild symptoms, why would people take a risky, unproven vaccine to stop mild symptoms only?
UK Column echo Rappoport’s research: AstraZeneca makes it quite clear that while the vaccine is said to provide “protection against severe disease” they do not say that it will provide immunity, despite the media hyping it to the contrary. This point is underscored by Van den Bossche: these vaccines don’t prevent infection, they are prophylactic vaccines, which will diminish symptoms but not provide immunity, and thus should not typically be administered to people who are exposed to highly infectious pressure. He also notes that this is the first time in history that a mass vaccination programme has been rolled out in a context where a novel virus is going around.
Even key US advisor Dr Anthony Fauci admits it is unknown whether the vaccine will protect against transmission, in this interview (8.05 in video and in transcript).
“The BBC are hedging their bets” by acknowledging that it is not known whether the vaccine will prevent transmission but then saying that for this reason everyone must get vaccinated; the logic being that since you are likely to catch this virus it makes it even more important that you suppress the symptoms.”
Mike Robinson, UK Column
This also means that having a vaccine does not allow you to live normally (with no social distancing, masks etc.) Robinson then logically argues that if the vaccines only reduce symptoms, then there should be a comparison of the efficacy, safety and risk of side effects of vaccines against other prophylactics. But since initially it was said that vaccines should be rolled out to stop the spread, Henningsen comments, “This isn’t how the package was sold – they’re effectively moving the goal posts.”
On the issue of COVID-19, while doctors and scientists do not agree on all the details, as per the example of variants above, many are cautioning against this vaccine rollout, with detractors ranging from those who have been critical of other vaccines in the past to doctors and scientists who have worked/ are working on developing vaccines.
In the next blog post we touch on the issue of coercive measures to push people to be vaccinated, the human rights violation this entails, and we refer to some brave health practitioners who are resisting being vaccinated and speaking out.