5 Filters

Might vaccines lead to more deadly strains of Sars-CoV-2?

Covid
#1

Seemingly yes. A very interesting article from 2015 on how so called “leaky vaccines” - those that prevent serious illness, but do not stop transmission (sound familiar?) - can lead to more virulent strains of the pathogen circulating. H/T Robert Malone via LinkedIn

The bad news (as the article points out) is that those who choose not to get vaccinated are at ever greater risk of dying from the more and more virulent strains that might get selected for by the vaccinated population.

Yet another reason why I wish we had taken a more serious approach (globally) to this virus, and followed Indy Sage’s advice from the beginning. We are storing up serious trouble for ourselves in the future… These kinds of “arms race” games against nature rarely work in our favour!

" Andrew Read from Pennsylvania State University thinks that the vaccines were responsible. The Marek’s vaccine is “imperfect” or “leaky.” That is, it protects chickens from developing disease, but doesn’t stop them from becoming infected or from spreading the virus. Inadvertently, this made it easier for the most virulent strains to survive. Such strains would normally kill their hosts so quickly that they’d die out. But in an immunised flock, they can persist because their lethal nature has been neutered. That’s not a problem for vaccinated individuals. But unvaccinated birds are now in serious trouble"

<snip>

“The duo infected vaccinated and unvaccinated chicks with five different strains of Marek’s virus, of varying virulence. They found that when unvaccinated birds are infected with mild strains, they shed plenty of viruses into their surroundings. If they contract the most lethal strains, they die before this can happen, and their infections stop with them. In the vaccinated chicks, this pattern flips. The milder strains are suppressed but the lethal ones, which the birds can now withstand, flood into the environment at a thousand times their usual numbers.”

Looks like an interesting way to take an already dangerous virus (SC2) and make it even more deadly without all that expensive gain of function research.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vaccines-enhance-spread-of-deadlier-chicken-viruses

1 Like
#2

Yes open ended genome…what do they expect?..Surely true…I believe they know this…it’ll keep everyone “in-line” (so they think), megalomaniacs…but if the HIV thing (Twin Towers et.al), is true these f**kers have nothing to lose anymore…we live in very strange times…be prepared to; “endure the unendurable”…

2 Likes
#3

I think this was what Geert v.d. Bosch (which I have misspelled, for sure) warned against about 4 months back. The research with chickens was cited there too.

Not to underestimate the risks but aren’t leaky vaccines, quote unquote, a much bigger money spinner than jabs that do the trick once and for all? c.f. GMO one-use only seeds? Software that is deprecated after three years? You will own nothing and be happy?
Follow the money.

EDIT: yes I garbled the spelling. Right dude though:

This link seems to be from a vaxxx enthusiast so caveat emptor. It does mention B&MG Foundation money is sloshing about in v.d.Bossche’s background. Where would Da Science be without them?

1 Like
#4

Oh and PS: National Geographic? The same Society founded by 33 men in 1888 and based in Washington and not even a bit connected to CIA? That National Geographic?

They are reporting a PLOS article though, so that’s ok.

All of the above by the way is not to disclaim the fact that the medicinal compounds were rushed, in just about every aspect. It’s issues like vaccine escape, which I don’t doubt at all is a real thing, that take a long time to emerge.

For now I’m sticking with the immune system that’s seen my right for close to 60 years now.

1 Like
#5

Yep, you’re exactly right. I’d forgotten the good German doctor. It’s a worrying situation, unless you sell vaccines and booster shots for a living, I guess.

LOL - I had no idea about this history. Fascinating! I’m gonna read more about that.

Yeah, it’s not a periodical I pay a lot of attention to. If it wasn’t for Malone pointing it out I would have missed it altogether.

All power to you!

1 Like
#6

I will too, can’t recall where I picked up this goss re National Geo but it might have been Mark Crispin Miller. The 33 and 1888 are just numbers, I imagine, but it’s the details like that which trigger conspiracist crackpots like myself :kissing_smiling_eyes:

1 Like
#7

Hi folks , I seem to recall some commentators suggesting that if the new variants derive from the jabbed then there is a case for isolating the jabbed rather than the other way around! I assume they mean isolate the jabbed who have become covid carriers after being jabbed as opposed to all the jabbed ( which would now be effectively a 70% lock-down ! )
I wouldn’t subscribe to any isolation policy on the basis that there is no evidence that it reduces the risk to others.
We apparently have within each of us 10 to the power of 15 different and distinct viruses. The air, soil and sea each holds 10 to the power of 30 distinct viruses.
We are looking at infinite lockdowns to sell infinite jabs for infinite viruses - a complete waste of time for the general public. More so when you consider alternative non jab solutions to viral infections which we have all agreed exist.

At the moment regulatory authorities are not even looking to establish how many jabbed are injured or die from the vaccine never mind subsequent infection with covid strains as all the reporting systems seem to be flawed and open to being ignored.

cheers

4 Likes
#8

Here’s a response from the author of the chicken paper to concerns about COVID vaccination leading to the evolution of more deadly strains.

3 Likes
#9

Clearly, Andrew is amongst the ‘vaccine’-hypnotised.

All I can say to this piece is: Wake up soon, Andrew! Notice the growing army of ‘vaccine’ killed/maimed people to straighten your ideas out. The poison-stabs are not vaccines. They appear more and more to be designed to create a slo-mo, plausibly-deniable genocide of millions of Earth’s humans. Thank god some wholesome healing protocols against the longer-term effects of the stabs are starting to appear. See Reiner Fuellmich and Viviane Fischer’s conversation with Mike Adams, posted nearby today. This war isn’t over yet.

#10

Hmm an MSc in unspecified science says a microbiology professor is incorrect and misguided, reaches out to another expert who disgrees - looks like a ‘fact check’. The other expert is indeed a vax enthusiast - Paul Offit is or used to be about the biggest name in vaccines; as developer, spokesman and massive shareholder.

"A vaccine shows your body an inert part of the virus so that it can make neutralizing antibodies against it. If the body ends up making low levels of these antibodies, i.e. not enough to swiftly kill the virus when you catch it, this could allow the virus to stick around in your body for a little bit and make copies of itself. Some of these copies may by chance have the right kinds of errors in their genetic code to become variants of concern, although the mutation rate of this coronavirus is quite low.

“But if you have a vaccine that results in high levels of neutralizing antibodies, that’s not a way to create variants,” he continued. To use an analogy, if a gaggle of invaders is coming but you have only managed to round up a few soldiers, be prepared for a long siege during which the enemy might learn a thing or two about your defences and adapt. But if you have a full and overpowering army at your command, the invaders won’t stick around for long. So the question becomes: do the COVID-19 vaccines give us low or high levels of neutralizing antibodies?"

I read recently a simpler way that one of the ways vaccines can lead to stronger variants is by killing off the strongest competition, thereby allowing a new kid on the block that the vaccine wasn’t designed to overcome to reproduce in greater numbers. I can’t judge this - but when one expert sticks his neck out so publicly (and accountably) with a reasoned case, opponents often make points aimed at the public and the media, at no cost to themselves because they have the backing of the mainstream. Often it’s an ‘expendable’ that runs with the story.

Edit: Vanden Bossche’s reply would be interesting! The above rebuttal was written back in March. But given the progress of the delta scariant, I doubt the rebuttals from Jarry and Offit would have been the same had they been written now.

Incidentally Offit’s first quoted sentence: “A vaccine shows your body an inert part of the virus so that it can make neutralizing antibodies against it”,

would seem not to apply to the gene-based vaccines. It shows your body some gene codes! And your body then produces what scientists are saying is the part of the coronavirus that does most or much of the harm.

There’s quite a few “rhetorical tricks” in the article, given that that’s one of the accusations he makes in his accompanying adhom job.

1 Like
#11

Thanks @JMC, and nice to see you here again!

I thought the article was pretty interesting, and I agree with the main thrust of it. Essentially the author seems to be making three fairly clear points:

1 - one can’t simply extrapolate behaviour from one virus to another.
2 - there is no evidence that a vaccine has ever led to the evolution of a more deadly strain of the pathogen
3 - finally, even if that does somehow happen, those who are vaccinated are protected against this deadly strain. It’s the unvaccinated that are at ever greater risk

That all seems pretty level headed to me. Read never really proved that vaccinations led to more deadly strains of Marek’s disease in chickens either, simply that were such a strain to naturally evolve, the vaccinations would allow it to spread in a way that it wouldn’t have been able to otherwise, leaving unvaccinated cohorts at greater and greater risk.

That theoretical conclusion still remains, from what I can see. If a more deadly variant of covid arises spontaneously by mutation, then leaky vaccines, such as the ones we are currently using, are highly likely to allow that variant to spread like wildfire through the pop. That would leave any unvaccinated group (children, for example) more at risk than they currently are. This is one reason, I suppose, that creating vaccines takes such a long time, and an example of an unintended side effect of rushing these jabs out into service. Much better to have a vaccine that stops transmission as well as fighting illness.

I suppose the question comes down to one of a cost-benefit analysis - are the lives saved by the vaccine worth the theoretical risk of creating selection pressure on more deadly variants? That feels like a complicated question to answer, and it ignores other potential non-vaccine treatments like Ivermectin and Fluvoxamine, which don’t seem to suffer the same risks. A saner (less profit driven) approach might have been to use ivermectin to treat covid while we continue to solve the leakiness problem and do further tests for safety on this pretty new vaccine technology. I’m curious to see what the Cuban vaccine looks like, for example. It’s not based on mRNA or other vector technology and has an efficacy to rival the best of what’s out there right now. If that proves capable of stopping transmission as well as fighting the illness, that would be a much safer option for the world…

Lots to think about there, for sure.

Cheers
PP

2 Likes
#12

Agreement :slight_smile:

PP your point 3 - isn’t the point that the vaccinated are not protected, because the new strain must have bypassed it?

While I agree that (they say) viruses tend to evolve to be more transmissible and less dangerous, the danger for the public with a more transmissible and less dangerous virus may be greater.
In political terms, with TPTB interchanging, to suit, ‘cases’ and deaths as the main talking point (depending on which is going up) more vaccines followed by more scariants contributes massively to the powerlessness of the people to resist whatever other disaster capitalism projects are tacked on to the back of the distraction.
On your point 1, the virus is new (so I read :no_mouth:) so if we’re talking about vaccine risk you have to look at previous vaccines. It goes back to a point I keep raising - is the onus on those concerned to prove certain disaster will happen before a risk is even accepted? The rushed vaccines completely flout the Precautionary Principle - is this not a concern to a fellow PP? :slightly_smiling_face:

"potential non-vaccine treatments like Ivermectin "

You yourself were one of the first to point out the evidence on Ivermectin effectiveness (and still there are no negative studies on early treatment with hydroxychloroquine). It’s funny how we’re still all talking about the vaccines. which should not have been needed in the first place!
Cheers

2 Likes
#13

Thanks @PontiusPrimate :grin:. Yes, it seemed pretty level headed to me too.

I am also interested in the still continuing support for the use of Ivermectin to treat COVID. I may have missed it during my extended absence, but can someone please provide links to studies (or point me to the posts) that show it is effective and or to the sources that have convinced people it is effective. The only information I have been able to find independently recently is that the major Ivermectin study that seemed to be the most convincing study was withdrawn over ethical concerns ie the data appeared to be fraudulent.

The above link is a Guardian article about the withdrawal of the study but it has a lot of links to other useful articles and background. Anyway I am very interested to know what evidence people are using for the efficacy of Ivermectin when the major supporting study appears to have been dodgy.

1 Like
#14

Hi JMC. I hope the .xxandemic is treating you better than it is Dimac :slightly_smiling_face:

The Guardian article is on a bit of a mission, trying to diss the whole of the Ivermectin picture using one study. Two good medical sources on IM in my view are the FLCCC alliance and a group called BIRD in the UK (headed by Tess Lawrie a consultant to the govt); they wrote a joint statement on the retraction, in which they singled out that Guardian article as “misrepresentation of science”.

The best place to see lists of covid studies together I think is https://c19hcq.com/, you can select Ivermectin or just go to this link: https://c19ivermectin.com/. You can select Early and see just early treatment studies

This table shows the early treatment RCTs, there are 17 of them.

image
image940×448 64.7 KB

Link: Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 63 studies

The Elgazzar study would only have been ‘major’ in that it was seemingly one of the biggest (difficult to tell now, it’s been whiipped out of sight, which is unusual). However there are many other studies and Elgazzar only made up 3% of the total in terms of patients.The size of the overall improvement for early treatment in Randomized Controlled Trials, for example, is 61%; that 3% would never have changed the outcome, as FLCCC point out.

Cheers

3 Likes
#15

Great, thank you :slightly_smiling_face:. Will follow up those resources. Much appreciated.

#16

also here

2 Likes