“It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble; it's what we do know that ain't so.” Will Rogers
The vaccines trials were rolled out from mid March 2020; the virus to be neutralised was the original Wuhan strain. If we take a leap of faith and assume that the vaccine is effective against that, will it necessarily be effective against mutated strains in the future?
Mutations
Well, it depends who you listen to. Thus far, no variant has been less than 99.7% identical to the original strain. Anybody who has been infected and who, therefore, has antibodies, will still be protected. Would the same protection apply to those who are merely vaccinated? This is where it gets tricky. If you follow the news, 'health experts' are warning that variants, particularly the South African and Brazilian ones, may reduce the effectiveness of vaccines. The meaning may seem straightforward; but the wording is key, because they referenced vaccines, not natural immunity.
Together with the UK strain, these are the three main variants so far identified. The UK variant, the cause of so much alarm in December 2020, has seemingly disappeared; from public discourse. And given the homogeneity of all known strains, what is it about the South African and Brazilian strains that may be cause for alarm? Well, they have extensive mutations on the spike protein, the only part of the virus which the vaccines attack and it would seem that these mutations change the nature of the spike protein itself to such an extent that these strains are largely resistant to the vaccines. Or so we're told.
“Mutationally, this virus is travelling in a direction that could ultimately lead to escape from our current therapeutic and prophylactic interventions directed to the viral spike. If the rampant spread of the virus continues and more critical mutations accumulate, then we may be condemned to chasing after the evolving SARS-COV-2 continually, as we have long done for influenza.”(1)
However, there is no suggestion (and no existing scientific research on Covid or any other virus to indicate) that those who have produced antibodies naturally would be similarly compromised. A difference in genetic make-up of 0.3%, whether on the spike protein or elsewhere, would not be anywhere near sufficient to overwhelm the existing immune response. This not so subtle difference in the delivery of the 'variant messaging' is not being highlighted. Strange, isn't it?
Could it be that there is a realization that any meaningful exploration of this subject would serve to foster 'vaccine hesitancy', a phrase destined to join 'climate deniers' in the lexicon of shame? Because it would seem that if you don't get the vaccine but prefer to take your chances on the herd immunity route and generally choose to live your life as a singular entity with a modicum of free choice, selfish and life threatening though that may be, and you do instead contract the virus and survive it (as at least 99.8% of people do, even without the benefit of proven treatments), you will have antibodies that target the whole genetic sequence of the virus, not just 12-13% of it and will, in all likelihood, be protected against any variant that may present itself. It couldn't be that, could it?
It couldn't be that relying on vaccines leaves you more vulnerable and under-prepared than if you were to let nature take its course? After all, there are increasing reports of 'breakthrough' cases. These are people who are fully vaccinated but testing positive for Covid; Washington, Florida, South Carolina, Texas, New York, Minnesota...the list goes on. The official explanation is that, as the vaccines were only ever said to be 95% effective, there is bound to be 5% or so who fail to respond. Vaccinated people boosting the metric for Covid cases. Who’d have thought it?
There are, however, at least three other possibilities; the vaccines don't work as well as we're being told, variants are the problem as described or the notoriously unreliable PCR test is performing as expected and spewing out false positives with gay abandon.
When the fox is in charge of the hen house, obtaining accurate information is difficult, especially when corporate media is busy running a blocking pattern rather than doing its job. It does appear that scientists are panicking about new strains and the reasons they are more and more of a problem without wanting to admit the real reason, but that could easily be another head fake.
After all, the next generation of Covid vaccines is already in production, the ones that will tackle the variants; the ones that they'll want you to take next year.(2) And these ones won't even have the benefit of a truncated clinical trial, conducted against a background of political pressure and confirmation bias. These will pass through on the nod; after all, they will be 99.7% the same, won't they? What would be the point of further testing?
We find ourselves in the situation where an experimental drug, unapproved, still in stage III clinical trials, will be manufactured and distributed as a Mark II without any further testing. Okay, it's not been decided yet. But, on past form, it will be. There's nothing to stop them. That's what happens when you allow an unjustified precedent to be set. It makes it easier to push the envelope next time around.
Indications of ADE?
Back in the 1960s, vaccine experiments to combat feline coronavirus (FIDV) found that vaccination enhanced secondary live virus infection via non neutralizing antibodies and also caused peritonitis.(3) This was the precursor to all the other failed coronavirus vaccine trials over the next forty years, including SARS trials in the early 2000s.
Further experiments with Dengue Fever vaccines in 2015, found that children with high levels of antibodies to any strain of Dengue Fever were protected against all four serotypes (strains), even the two severe ones. However, those with low or waning antibodies were at more risk from severe Dengue Fever than those with no antibodies at all. The familiar story of pathogenic priming, a problem never solved by traditional vaccines and never before tested in humans with mRNA vaccines.(4)
It has not been established, in clinical trials or since, where the mRNA actually goes; what cells it infects, which cells produce the spike proteins. Is it that they are in different places in different people? Perhaps the heart, the brain, the lungs? Perhaps, if you're unlucky, in a place where there is already a weakness, possibly undiscovered?
In the Pfizer and Moderna trials, there were a number of instances of blood clotting and skin surface bleeds. This is probably because the SARS-COV-2 spike protein is not just a passive docking mechanism. It's production is also likely to initiate blood coagulation via multiple mechanisms, a fact that has been strangely absent from news broadcasts and medical bulletins.
But the implications are pretty clear. If you engineer a mRNA drug to fool the body into producing viral spike protein, potential protection against Covid is not the only likely outcome. This problem is what's known as a class problem. It won't just be those two vaccines, as we are learning. It will apply to any vaccine that targets the spike protein.
Additionally, in China initially, and then worldwide, severe cases have been noted. Is it possible that prior infection with another coronavirus, such as SARS or even the common cold, have primed patients prior to SARS-COV-2?(5)
This may seem counter-intuitive given that variants of SARS-COV-2 are not going to be a problem. But SARS and SARS-COV-2, by contrast, are only 80% genomically similar and SARS, therefore, has a much better chance of outsmarting the immune system. Whilst there is cross-reactivity, inasmuch as SARS antibodies do react to a SARS-COV-2 infection, there doesn't seem to be a lot of spike protein neutralising going on and, as previously noted, non neutralising antibodies are not our friends.
Conclusions
“We have no evidence to suggest that...there is, at present no evidence to demonstrate a connection...” or varieties of the same sentiment abound. Whilst this type of meticulously parsed language is common in letters denying an insurance claim, it should not be the default setting of public servants presiding over a 'public health crisis.' It's just a holding statement, not a statement of fact, and should be treated as such. Do they believe that using such terms will inoculate them from future infamy, when it turns out that the evidence was there all along if they'd just bothered to look for it?
But this is where we find ourselves. In a place where people who receive the Covid vaccine are, at the very best estimate, 150 times more likely to die with a short period of time, than if they'd had the flu vaccine. That calculation was made when 110 million doses had been administered in the US, although only 40 million were second doses. At that point, there had been 1,800 recorded deaths. In contrast, during the past two flu seasons, 180 million shots had been administered, with only 20 recorded deaths.(6)
I accept that these are governments telling us this, so a large measure of skepticism is warranted, if only for the reason that it is tempting to cheat if you can't be caught. There is also the probability that both figures are underestimates, the better to encourage us to do what the government believes to be 'the right thing.' Nonetheless, the figures are striking.
There are numerous serious questions to be asked. There is much we don’t know, which is the reason why clinical trials last years. But we are in midst of them instead, on a scale unprecedented. We should expect reported problems to be the tip of the iceberg, unavoidable admissions. Governments have demonstrated that they have an agenda and their impartiality and truthfulness cannot be assumed. Too many things make little or no sense if you're paying attention and when that realization strikes home, it is natural that everything becomes suspect until proven otherwise. Things are not as they seem.
Citations
Pengfei Wang, et al Increased Resistance of SARS-CoV-2 Variants B.1.351 and B.1.1.7 to Antibody Neutralization
Negro Francisco, Is Antibody Dependent Enhancement Playing A Role In Covid 19 Pathogenesis, Swiss Med Wkly. 2020;150:w20249
Henning Ulrich et al, Dengue Fever, COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2), and Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE): A Perspective DOI: 10.1002/cyto.a.24047
Lv N, Wu NC, Tsang OTY, Yuan M, Perera RAPM, Leung WS, et al. Cross-reactive antibody response between SARS-CoV-2 and SARSCoV infections. BioRxiv 2020.03.15.993097 [Preprint]. 2020 [posted 2020 March 17, cited 2020 April 9]. Available from: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.15.993097v1
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html Berenson, Alex. Unreported Truths About Covid-19 and Lockdowns: Part 4: Vaccines (p. 18). Blue Deep, Inc.. Kindle Edition.