Variants have been one of the hallmarks of this pandemic, with ever more infectious forms of the virus apparently mutating themselves into existence at regular intervals. However. it is easy to forget that prior to 2021 variants were a rarity and the only sign of our variant ridden future was the emergence of the scarily named Kent variant (later renamed Alpha) late in 2020. The UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report started mentioning variants in May of 2021, but only in passing. However, as 2021 wore on new variants started appearing more frequently, and in recent reports there are 10 times more references to ‘variants’ compared to their debut. (To be fair, there used to be an entirely different vaccine report devoted to ‘variants of concern’, the Technical Briefings.)
But ‘variants’ weren’t simply a natural process of viral evolution – not when there were people to blame. By summer 2022 there had been multiple articles published explaining that it was the unvaccinated that created these variants, adding to the cries for (mandated) universal vaccination. I believe that the idea that it was the unvaccinated that were causing the problem arose due to a misunderstanding of the role of the mechanisms that drive viral evolution. While it is true that for many vaccines the main source of vaccine escape variants is the unvaccinated, this is only true for sterilising vaccines (which stop any viral load on infection), and isn’t the case for non-sterilising vaccines such as the COVID-19 ones. To explain this effect further we need to delve into the evolutionary process.
Evolution is a natural process that explains how organisms become better at surviving within a given environment. It occurs when certain differences between otherwise similar organisms are favoured for some reason, resulting in that particular difference becoming more prevalent in the organism’s population. Evolution requires two things to occur – a population of the organism with heritable diversity and selective pressure. The ‘population’ part refers to how many of the organisms in question exist; selective pressure refers to the ‘strength’ of the drive of the evolutionary process, which might be described as ‘survival of the fittest’, i.e., those specific organisms that happen to be better at surviving and reproducing will be more likely to pass on their genes to future generations, thus on average making the future species better at surviving and reproducing.
At first glance the ‘population’ part appears obvious as clearly there can’t be evolution without anything to evolve. However, it is a little more complex than this. When it comes to cuddly mammals it is generally fairly easy to see what ‘population’ means (you can count them). However, when it comes to viruses there are two factors: the viral load in any given infected host and the incidence of infection across a population. Evolution ‘cares’ about both factors, and it is important to consider these two ‘populations’ in the discussion that follows.
Most vaccines given to humans are fairly sterilising, that is, they stop any meaningful quantity of the virus developing in a vaccinated individual. Thus it is clear that by vaccinating a very high proportion of the population with a sterilising vaccine the evolution of that particular virus can be slowed to a crawl. No one vaccinated will have any meaningful viral load, and there will be only few in the population where evolution could occur (the unvaccinated). Note that there is still selective pressure for the virus to evolve to escape the vaccine-derived immunity – as soon as a viral mutation emerges that offers the virus a better chance of thriving within a vaccinated individual or infecting other vaccinated individuals it will soon take over as the predominant viral variant even in a largely vaccinated population. Indeed, the very fact that large numbers of people are vaccinated will become the predominant selective pressure for that virus – if the main thing ‘holding back’ the virus from thriving is vaccine derived immunity then that’s what evolution will ‘try to overcome’. However, with sterilising vaccines the only people with meaningful viral loads are the unvaccinated, and thus evolution towards vaccine escape largely occurs within the unvaccinated population. Moreover, because there is no selective pressure within unvaccinated individuals for vaccine escape (there is no vaccine-derived immunity in these individuals), the evolution towards vaccine escape will be muted.
However, the Covid vaccines aren’t sterilising: vaccinated people can still get infected and will have high viral loads when this occurs. We didn’t know this, way back in December 2020 when vaccination started. Arguably this should have been identified before the vaccines were approved, but it was considered a public emergency and normal vaccine development processes weren’t followed. However, it soon became clear that this was going to be a problem – I first became aware of the potential for trouble in March 2021 with the publication of a paper out of Israel. This team found far higher viral loads than expected in the vaccinated-and-infected; certainly enough viral load to allow viral evolution towards vaccine escape. Unfortunately, our authorities ignored this and other emerging evidence and continued to jab their populations indiscriminately.
At the point that it was clear the vaccines weren’t sterilising, the theory behind what might be the ‘correct’ level of vaccination changes completely. With non-sterilising vaccines, ‘herd immunity’ becomes impossible and this goal should have been dropped immediately. But worse than that, the fact that the vaccines weren’t sterilising meant there was a large selective pressure for evolution and a sufficiently high viral ‘population’ in vaccinated individuals, and so this also meant that the virus could more effectively evolve vaccine escape.
Also note that viral evolution to ‘get around’ vaccine protection in non-sterilising vaccines isn’t as simple as the vaccines ceasing to offer protection. There are instances of so-called ‘leaky vaccines’ that have evolved increased pathogenicity (severity) as a result of their evolutionary journey to escape vaccine protection. Perhaps the most famous example of a vaccine driving increased pathogen virulence is the vaccine for Marek’s disease. Marek’s disease was an inconvenience for the poultry industry when the vaccine for it was introduced into chicken farms in the early 1970s. From that point it has evolved to become significantly more pathogenic, requiring widespread vaccination to protect against the disease. The virus responsible for Marek’s disease continues to evolve vaccine escape and the risk of future problems is very real. Fortunately, there’s little evidence that this has occurred with Covid; hopefully this will remain the case.
Another relevant aspect of Covid evolution is the matter of how mutations appear to target the spike protein. Mutations in the viral RNA occur at random during each viral replication, and there is little preference in the RNA of the virus where mutations might occur. However, the proteins that they encode aren’t equally able to remain viable after a mutation in the RNA that encodes them. This means that while a mutation in the part of the viral RNA that encodes a given protein is as likely as anywhere else, the virus won’t survive a mutation in an unfavoured location and thus that particular mutation won’t even have a chance to exist. On the other hand, the Covid spike protein happens to be very tolerant of mutations in the RNA that encodes it, remaining viable even with relatively large numbers of mutations. As mutations in the spike protein change its shape and make-up slightly, this makes it look slightly different to antibodies that have been created by the body’s immune system to neutralise it, resulting in a reduced ability of the body’s immune system to deal with an infection. It is likely that through vaccination we exposed the immune systems of many millions of people worldwide to an identical spike protein, and the virus has responded by evolving rapidly through the introduction of changes in its spike protein which has allowed it to thrive in this new highly-vaccinated world.
There’s also a complication of viral evolution that you don’t find in evolution in most plants and animals, namely that the selective pressure that drives evolution in viruses occurs both between infected individuals and within infected individuals, and this is particularly relevant for vaccine escape. With normal vaccines there is no meaningful viral presence in vaccinated individuals, thus mutations occur within unvaccinated individuals. Sometimes these mutations happen to lead to partial escape of vaccine protection, but before evolution can select for this mutation it has to leave the unvaccinated individual and try to infect a vaccinated person – it is only then that the mutation is ‘tested’. However, if the vaccine escape mutation offers no selective advantage in an unvaccinated individual it won’t thrive before it gets a chance to try its higher infectivity in other, vaccinated individuals. The fact that the virus ‘doesn’t know’ if a given mutation that occurs in an unvaccinated individual actually achieves vaccine escape until the virus is transmitted to a vaccinated individual slows down the effective rate of viral evolution towards vaccine escape significantly.
On the plus side, as the virus has had such a very strong selective pressure to overcome the immunity offered by antibodies to the original (Wuhan) spike protein, this could have made it less likely to mutate to overcome the diverse range of antibodies (and other immune responses) generated after natural infection (i.e., after exposure to all of the proteins in the whole Covid virus).
There’s an additional nuance to this effect. The interplay between mutations and viral fitness is complex, and it is possible that a mutation might result in a virus that achieves some escape of vaccine-derived immunity (positive for the virus) but which also has a slightly inferior ability to infect upper respiratory tract cells (negative for the virus) compared with the variant then prevalent in the population. In a community with low vaccination levels the fact that the mutation resulted in an inferior infectivity would probably result in that mutation dying out, because the vaccine escape mutation wouldn’t offer much benefit if few individuals were vaccinated. However, if a community has high vaccination levels then the escape of vaccine derived immunity will give the mutated virus a selective advantage even with lower infectivity in non-vaccinated individuals and the mutated variant could take over as the dominant variant in that outbreak. Furthermore, once that mutation has become established it might be possible for a further mutation to occur that regained the original virus’s infectivity, so that it has both high infectivity and vaccine escape. It is for this reason that it can in some circumstances be advantageous to only vaccinate the most vulnerable in circumstances where sterilising immunity is not obtained and where the vaccine targets mutable parts of the virus’s genetic code (particularly for RNA viruses, which mutate much faster than DNA viruses). Too late for that now, though.
One more minor point of note about the Covid variants. Back in 2021, the World Health Organisation decided that it should name each new variant using the Greek alphabet. It is likely that this response arose due to media news organisations being keen on naming variants from the area of the world where they were first discovered. The WHO had enough problems insisting that people didn’t refer to Covid as the ‘Chinese Virus’, although it is a bit weird that it was so passionate about this relatively irrelevant aspect of a worldwide public health emergency. (To be fair, the avoidance of ‘stigmatising’ names for new diseases has been WHO policy since 2015.) The strange thing is, there have been no more Covid variants named by the WHO since Omicron came along. Omicron is rather highly mutated compared with the original Wuhan strain and all prior variants. Indeed, there is an argument that the Omicron variant really should have been called COVID-21 given the evolutionary distance from and clinical differences with COVID-19. All of the major subvariants of Omicron are at least as valid as ‘new variants’ as the variants that came prior to Omicron, and so the WHO stopping at Omicron is odd. Then again, if the WHO had continued to name new variants it would probably have run out of Greek letters by summer 2022 (they were even two short, as they decided to not use Nu or Xi for some strange reason). Anyway, I imagine that the succession of complex named variants (XBB!, BA2.75.2! etc.) suggests to many that the evolution of Covid has become a scientific curiosity and doesn’t reflect an ever increasing rate of viral mutation compared with the Greek letters of 2021. Perhaps this is of convenience to some parties.
Amanuensis is an ex-academic and senior Government scientist. He blogs at Bartram’s Folly – subscribe here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
It seems to me that part of the problem is the use of the term “vaccine” at all, for such a product, compared with the conventional “sterilising vaccines”. As far as I know, the manufacturers never claimed that the C-19 one could prevent the infection of the recipient, only to mitigate the symptoms of any related infection.
It is possible that false information, or at least the absence of it, is a deliberate tactic of some promoters, to encourage it’s use.
Notwithstanding your note that “We didn’t know this, way back in December 2020 ” , the actual NHS leaflet promoting it’s use in March 2021, which came to me and others, said: “We do not yet know whether it will stop you from catching and passing on the virus.” Maybe they did know a lot more about it, and the whole thing was a marketing tool; not the ‘whole truth’.
Whether the accelerated evolution of unintended variations in related viruses is a mistake or not is a moot point. After all, it should be well understood that similar problems to do with excessive use of antibiotics tend to cause the development of bacteria that can survive the drug concerned.
Are they making the same old mistake, albeit re viruses rather than bacterial infections?
After all, it should be well understood that similar problems to do with excessive use of antibiotics tend to cause the development of bacteria that can survive the drug concerned.
Antibiotics are chemical substances which are toxic to cells (I’m allergic to mould which implies being allergic to penicillin. Which means that it kills enough useful cells of my body that I become sick because of it). They’re static, hence, cells can evolve to become immune against them. Vaccines are not antivrials. They’re supposed to stimulate the immune system of the body which then does the actual work of killing pathogens after an infection occurred. Viruses cannot evolve to become immune to that because the immune systems co-evolves to kill them nevertheless. These are two entirely different mechanisms.
There is a fair analogy to be made with antibiotics — the problem comes when the ‘thing that stops the organism thriving’ doesn’t reduce the population to zero, which then allows evolution to occur (in the presence of selective pressure).
There’s no analogy to be made with antibiotics. Vaccination doesn’t affect viruses directly at all and the immune system will ultimatively reduce the population to zero (to the degree that this is possible in a world where microorgansims and viruses are abundant).
The analogy in my comment above was an attempt to compare it with the traditional managerial, or medicinal approach to the use of other products that did create it’s own problems. I’ve been around long enough to notice that fashions come and go in the trade. E.g. some years ago, the dentist I used to use often prescribed 7 days worth of whatever, allegedly in a precautionary way. Not popular now, I think. One was sometimes advised to take the whole lot, and not stop half way through – but maybe not all did.
While humans do evolve their immune systems to counter the threat from pathogens, this takes place over long timescales and won’t help us in this case (eg, Europeans appear to have evolved a mechanism to partially protect against some hemorrhagic viruses — this presumably occurred due to selective pressures in Europe long ago).
Obviously we do enter a game of immune adaptation to viral evolution (I think this is what you mean), but this doesn’t mean that viruses can’t evolve to overcome an immune response created after an earlier infection — indeed, this viral evolution to overcome immunity is exactly what happens in many viruses. Fortunately, the immune response to infection is to generate antibodies and cellular immunity that recognise many of the proteins/regions in the pathogen, and as at least some of these won’t mutate rapidly (ie, the proteins become unviable after any mutation in the pathogen’s DNA/RNA) it is likely that the broad immunity will continue to offer protection.
While humans do evolve their immune systems to counter the threat from pathogens, this takes place over long timescales and won’t help us in this case
Thank you for proving that we all died of COVID after we were never born because our first ancestors already died out millions of years ago because they never developed an immune system capable of adapting to new pathogens. A small problem remains, though: Who are you and I why can we are argue about this? And doesn’t the fact that we both exist and can make us de facto indistinguishable from those other real humans who – unfortunately – never came to be?
I could equally well make the counter argument — how come there are such things as viruses in humans when humans have an immune system?
The reality is that organisms play a merry arms race, with pathogens evolving to overcome immunity, and our immune systems adapting to overcome resistant pathogen strains.
Because the immune system takes time to eliminate most pathogens of an active infection. Until this has happened, the alien organism (or virus) can replicate and possibly also infect other people (or animals). The immune system doesn’t protect us from getting sick, only from getting so sick that we die of it (for the case we’re discussing here).
The idea with the arms race is close to what I meant to describe, just with one important difference: A real arms race occurs because of directed activities of both parties. They’re intentionally competing with each other. That’s not the case for viral (or bacterial) mutation. Such mutations happen as undirected replication error during the reproductional process. Should such a mutation accidentally convey a reproductional advantage, eg, shorter replication cycle or stronger resistance against some negative environment factor (like already existing antibodies), the mutated speciment will be able to replicate more than the unmutated ones until its descendents (with this mutation) overwhelmingly outnumber the descendents of specimen without it.
Insisting on such details is not pettifogging: Sars-CoV2 has repeatedly been mispresented as dangerous, sort-of intelligent opponent actively seeking to overcome humans by clever mutations of itself.
‘… the manufacturers never claimed that the C-19 one could prevent the infection of the recipient, only to mitigate the symptoms of any related infection.’
Not even that.
Initially all they claimed from their so-called Human trial was reduction of symptomatic infections from 0.88% in the placebo group, to 0.04% in the active ingredient group – and in a fit, healthy cohort aged 18 to 55.
Smoke and mirrors.
This gave them their ‘95% effective’ deceit, implying it would reduce symptomatic infections by 95% in the population, whereas it meant reducing risk of infection in an individual by 95%. So 100 vaccinated people could still get it, not just 5 as implied.
But the absolute risk anyway was only 0.88% which means that natural immunity was 99.2% effective.
There never was nor has there been any falsifiable data with respect to reduced severity – just a lot of claims. In fact currently, observation from data shows an increase risk of symptomatic infection, severity and death among the vaccinated particularly triple or more dosed.
There’s no reason to assume that current COVID vaccines provide any benefits. Apart from that, that’s the misapplied Typhoid Mary story again: It’s possible that people are immune (or mostly immune) to what certain bacteria do what causes sickness, say, toxic execrations. Because of this, such bacteria can colonize their bodies and happily reproduce inside them. They’re cellular organisms capable of reproducing on their own. This is not true for viruses. These reproduce by hijacking the reproductive apparatus of cells of their host’s bodies. This causes these cells to cease functioning and ultimatively, leads to their premature death. Hence, viral reproduction necessarily causes damage to the host body aka sickness. And high viral load means very sick.
The impartial explanation of the Marek’s disease phenomenon is: Chicken in chicken mass productions facilities living in a density which wouldn’t ever occur in nature are exposed to extremely high loads of both pathogens and toxics. If they don’t get a certain cocktail of chemical substances which has been worked out by trial and error as early as possible, they usually die before they grew large enough to be sold. Those who die nevertheless end up as junk. Nobody’s regular doing post-mortems on them to determine the exact cause of death (that woule be ludicrous proposition).
Lastly, there is no such thing as vaccine-derived immunity vs natural immunity, just immunity caused by encountering a pathogen the immune system destroyed (or kept at bay) before the host body died. Crankden Bossche’s downfall is the fact that so-called natural immunity to flu (and colds) is leaky: Most people get mildy or moderately sick, infect a bunch of other people and then recover. If this would naturally lead to killer escape mutations our ancestors (or rather, all multi-cellular organisms) would have died out long before he ever got a chance to go onto this particular fear-mongering crusade.
Lastly, there is no such thing as vaccine-derived immunity vs natural immunity,
But isn’t the problem with the so-called ‘vaccines’ that they induce only a small and highly mutable part of the virus – the spike – in the body, which then develops immunity only against this spike … which then mutates in the wider environment (self selection via the stabbed) leaving the stabbed susceptible to the new virus, and actually more susceptible owing to immune imprinting?
Surely then, as far as the covid stabs are concerned, there’s a massive difference between natural and ‘vaccine’-induced immunity?
As I already wrote: There’s no reason to assume that present COVID vaccines have any beneficial effect (save the very benefical effect on the balance sheet of the companies which sell them). Everytime somebody collects another batch of statistics about that, the outcome is a different correlation.
Strictly speaking, assuming they had a benefical effect, immunity created by COVID vaccination would only be crossreactive wrt actual Sars-CoV2 viruses as the immune system was trained to fight something different but similar enough (that’s the claim). But that’s because the two biological agents involved here are different, not because one is artifical and the other natural (to which degree Sars-CoV2 viruses are natural is additionally unclear).
“However, the Covid vaccines aren’t sterilising: vaccinated people can still get infected and will have high viral loads when this occurs. We didn’t know this, way back in December 2020 when vaccination started.”
I think there’s evidence to suggest we DID know this. I don’t think the manufacturers ever claimed it. It was the politicians and “public health” people that pushed it.
Of course we knew. Just as we knew that some of that viral load might be unaffected by the imperfect immune response triggered by the ‘vaccine’ resulting in ‘break out’ variants.
Just as we also knew that immune systems prepped to recognise and respond to Viral Version A, when confronted by Viral Version B will ‘see’ enough similarity to A to believe it is A and produce an immune response which will not actually work on B. And so consumed with responding to what it thinks is A, it will not function to adapt to B.
This phenomenon is so well known it has a name, two in fact, either Antigenic Imprinting or Original Antigenic Sin. It can be caused by natural exposure, but this is not widespread throughout a population, but mass vaccination makes it widespread giving the new Variant a large supposedly immunised population in which to reproduce.
The irony being, it will be less successful in the unvaccinated whose immune system will not be distracted and will go to work on it.
Back in early 2021 the thoughts were that the vaccine simply didn’t work in some people — these then got ‘breakthrough infections’. The idea was that in those individuals where the vaccine worked, it offered sterilising immunity.
IMO this was always ‘unlikely’, but that’s what was being promoted by some.
If only Charles Darwin had written a book. Then he could have pointed out that if an organism acquires by genetic mutation a characteristic which makes it best adapted to its environment, it will be the most successful at reproduction.
Being RNA based, the virus is hopeless at getting exact copies of itself made – hopeless!
Each coronavirus creates about 100 000 copies in each cell it invades. It can invade millions of cells in just one host so overall throughout a populations it produces zillions and zillions of mutations, each one a test to see if it can get past the antigen imprinted immune system belonging to the idiot Jab-Junky.
Holy gosh, Batman, what are the odds that at least one of them will make it? Good indeed Robin, a fact we knew until we The Science™️ Pandemic struck, which is why mass vaccination programmes during the active phases of viral contagion were previously contraindicated. Bad idea. Expose millions to new variants with no protection.
‘… ex-academic and senior Government scientist.’
I laughed for two minutes when I read that.
Why?
Could be worse — I could work in military intelligence or be in charge of government efficiency.
For those that know about these things, can we assume that unvaccinated people, when they catch any Covid variant naturally, develop immunity from catching it a second time?
If that is the case then it makes a nonsense of universal vaccination. As many have said it should have been concentrated on those who are extremely vulnerable and let herd immunity develop in the rest.
It is doubtful that natural infection with Covid results in long term protection against infection.
But it should offer rather better protection than the vaccines.
It is doubtful that natural infection with Covid results in long term protection against infection.
But surely it does against serious and even significant disease?
Yes.
What do you base this claim upon?
As JohnK points out in the first post, the deliberate branding of the poisons as “vaccines,” which they clearly are not, has helped dupe millions across the world. Although describing the injections as prophylactics would have been equally disingenuous at least the general public would not have been conned into believing they were taking an injection that might provide some benefits. But then “have you had your Covid1984 prophylactic jabs?” would not have carried the same cache resulting in poor take up.
In other words the whole injection programme has been based on outrageous falsehoods from the off.
“Come and get your deathshot” has poor marketing appeal.
Or if they had described the injections as gene therapy. That is according to this Big Pharma executive.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/wHBKyHDHBHti/
So, one should never “vaccinate” huge swathes of humanity with none sterilising vaccines.
You don’t have viral escape, you have vaccine failure. We will never achieve a reasonable level of herd immunity, there are not enough unjabbed.
So a vast cohort of vaccinated humanity is now playing host to covid, giving it an undreamt of opportunity to carry on mutating.
I mean, who could ever have foreseen such a thing.
GCB has been saying this for over two and a half years – and I’ve no doubt many other immunologists/vaccinologists have thought the same.
GVB has been right so far, and if he is correct when he says that it is only a matter of time before this immune pressure gives forth a really deadly variant – but of more danger to the jabbed.
So, just carry on jabbing ad infinitum – what could go wrong.
What bigpharma and The RPTB have done and will continue to do is criminal.
If the ‘leaky vaccine’ targets very stable proteins in the pathogen (conserved regions in the pathogen’s DNA/RNA) then there’s also less chance of evolution working towards bad outcomes.
Fully understanding that is beyond my limited knowledge of virology I’m afraid but thanks for the information.
That said, we shouldn’t be relying upon a “less chance” situation if covid had been dealt with properly, ie as per the existing public health measures before Clown World took over.
Covid is entering its 4th year and there seems no sign of any proper herd immunity via unjabbed recovery from natural infection..
Let’s hope it continues to mutate into just an ordinary cold.
‘GCB’? Are you referring to Geert Vanden Bosche? If so, then yes that’s exactly what he has been saying, and quite rightly.
An insightful article. Forgive me if I’m off the mark but..
“Why [even in the 21st century] haven’t we created a cure for the common cold?” One of those pesky questions and phenomena that we’ve as laymen (and the real scientists) have queried and wrestled with for decades. “Ah, it’s actually quite simple dear boy – There’s so many but even a single strain mutates so quickly in circulation so before you’ve enough who become inoculated it’s adapted and evolved making ‘the solution’ imperfect.”
Is that essentially what they’ve been claiming with this sodding covid “vaccine”? “We’ve cured the common cold – roll up, roll up!?!”
So not only have we created “a vaccine” (that was marketed as a sterilisation in the absence of their publicly claiming otherwise – but as we now know.. was / is nothing of the sort, so fraudulent marketing if you ask me, but I digress) on a family of viruses that are the primary causes of colds, flus and now covid. But we’ve also created “a remedy” that has caused untold damage to the existing biosphere by creating this smorgasbord of disease even more prevalent than it already was in the wider world? (was this already due to existing “vaccines”? – digressing again but I’m suspicious of it all now). Not to mention potentially damaging those who took the advice in good faith a swathe of people’s immune systems (and lives) in this relentless pursuit to experiment and play god?
We may have made a catastrophic mistake! If only there were those who were warning of this type of arrogance and approach (inc predicting the actual reality of the world we now live & everything the author of this piece, Amanuensis lays out) long before this calamity really got going. Oh wait…
Waiting for the next shoe / claim to drop. “We’ve cured the common cold.”
The lack of any success in the development of a ‘common cold vaccine’ (including those that targeted coronaviruses) should have been a huge red flag. The use of ‘novel techniques’ wasn’t a sure fire way to overcome prior lack of success, and only introduced other risks.
Absolutely. For those who are interested, there is a lot of history about the work of the Common Cold Unit in Salisbury which is available online. ISTR it closed down around 1989. Some might already know that it was where the term “coronavirus” was invented, on account of the shape of it’s images under electron microscopy. Until that technology developed, no-one had ever seen a virus.
That’s interesting. I must admit that I have been veering towards the conclusion that viruses are simply a theoretical construct, and known by their perceived effects rather than anything else. I will look into the work you cite – thank you.
Certainly be interested in researching that, news to me. Thanks.
Precisely, you’ve laid out my ramblings far more succinctly. Thank you. What’s frustrating is the obfuscation and denial within the scientific community. Surely they knew the claims were bogus yet they said very little, or nothing – though I understand the insidious nature of censorship and the artificial environment it portrays.
One important thing to bear in mind is that for most people, “immunity” to covid isn’t that important because covid isn’t that dangerous. It’s in the same order of danger as flu, and appears to be more dangerous to people with already poor health. Bearing this in mind, the whole vaccination program is insane/evil delete as applicable.
There was a strong argument to be made in early 2021 to use the newly developed vaccines to protect the most very vulnerable. I’m not convinced that this would have worked, but the risk/reward suggested that it was an appropriate way forwards.
Well by “vaccination program” I meant mass vaccination without informed consent, coercion, mandates, bribery, downplaying the risks, the safety shortcuts. If you’re arguing that it could have been OFFERED to the “vulnerable” with a huge bunch of caveats and full disclosure of all the shortcuts, trial shortcomings, the fact that it wasn’t tested on the vulnerable, known adverse effects, a realistic picture of how dangerous covid wasn’t, and the fact that there were possible alternative treatments, well I would say an incredibly tentative maybe, but we’re in the realms of fantasy here. Informed consent wasn’t really possible because of the lies told about covid. Anyway, it rather looks like it’s killing the vulnerable.
Yep, agreed. And if the advanced of age cannot mount an immune response naturally, just by virtue of the fact of them being old and immunocompromised anyway, then why was it thought this novel jab would do any better? When did doctors throw all of their learning out of the window and believe that the immune system stopped and started with antibodies? Crazy. I still maintain, knowing what we know now, these jabs were never of any benefit to anyone, let alone the elderly. And if the jabs didn’t kill them the death protocols in hospitals/care homes did. Easier to hide unnatural deaths in the old folk and a safe place to start with your depopulation agenda. The cull just becomes more obvious as you jab down through the age groups and pregnant women.
I still maintain, knowing what we know now, these jabs were never of any benefit to anyone, let alone the elderly.
I agree, and it’s not often enough pointed out. No one should have been having this stuff.
knowing what we know now
I knew it by mid January 2021, at the latest.
“Protection” was a guise. TPTB probably figured it was a justified risk in the elderly because there’d be less life years lost if/when it all went tits up. And they’d get to hide behind the person’s comorbidities as a cause of death because nobody could possibly attribute an old person’s death to the jab. Not when the whole narrative depended on everybody taking the shots so as to protect grandma and the government cared so much about the public’s welfare that the elderly were prioritised when the weapons were first deployed.
Vaccine Schmaxine. It’s an infernal genetic jollop that doesn’t work but has brought untold misery to the human race.
I would much rather consult a Herbalist Shaman from Outer Mongolia or Darkest Peru or Stevenage than consult with the brightest medical spark who still speaks up and supports this utterly abomnable train wreck of a program.
As the Covid “vaccines” only targeted the spike protein and not the nucleocapsid protein, and only addressed systemic immune response, there was never a chance that mucosal immunity would result, thus viral load in the upper respiratory tract was never going to be reduced.
Hence, the jabs were never likely to be sterilising, and evolution was always likely to occur.
And surely anyone in the field would have known that, right from the start? Anyone with a basic knowledge of the immune system?
I don’t have any medical background at all, but I pretty soon found out that the stabs did not produce mucosal immunity, and thus couldn’t prevent upper respiratory tract infection, and thus couldn’t prevent transmission …
Is there any excuse for the people who pushed the stabs as preventing transmission?
Several immunologists, virologists and other doctors with a modicum of interest in Covid and the mRNA transfection agents were saying this even before the jabbing programs commenced.
As you say, a basic knowledge of the immune system was all that was needed.
Unfortunately, across the board, all these voices were censored as we know.
I can see no excuses for doctors having no idea about this. Then again they were all “just following orders”.
Trouble is, I am pretty sure that many doctors really do not have any idea about this. Forgotten the day after they passed their immunology module at medical school.
I’m saying this from anecdotal evidence, not just making it up.
And of course it’s much easier just to follow orders than think for oneself, let alone stand out in a crowd against those orders.
The authorities DID know that the jabs weren’t sterilising when they started rolling them out.
When the jabs were first announced, I clearly remember Mike Graham on (what was then TalkRadio) say “so they won’t stop you getting Covid and they won’t prevent you from dying …. so not a lot of use then” and he laughed.
Subsequently, TalkRadio presenters (including Mike Graham) regularly promoted the jab programme and any comments like that disappeared, so they obviously got “a nudge” from OFCOM.
In every case, vaccine or no vaccine, it is the natural immune system that defeats a pathogen. A vaccine will give the natural immune system a ‘pre-view’ of a particular virus so that it is prepared for when the actual virus turns up. In addition, live virus vaccines, as opposed to dead virus vaccines, have been shown to ‘boost’ natural immunity so that it can defeat other pathogens and not just the one targeted by the vaccine. The big failure during this medical catastrophe was treating vaccines like a religion, in which, if a treatment is called a vaccine then it is asserted, it WILL cure you, and no discussion.