stereomatch | 4 points
Dr. Eliana Aaron From Israel Talks about Vaccination and More - Dr Been (Mar 9, 2021)[-] mekikichee | 2 points
Speaking on vaccines, has anyone seen Geert Vanden Boscche dire warning? Geert is an international vaccine expert with work history at GAVI and close associate of Bill Gates.
He is warning that mass vaccination in the middle of pandemic is driving immune escape with disastrous consequences for global health.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N9PdZn_Yd5w
Ps: he's advocating for natural killer cell-based vaccines instead of current ones targeting antibodies. No mention of cheap, safe, effective repurposed drugs.
When your only tool is a đ¨.....
[-] stereomatch | 1 points
Video interview of Geert Vanden Bossche:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9PdZn_Yd5w Geert Vanden Bossche PhD and his warning to the world against 'Immune Escape' March 9, 2021
Table of contents taken from the uploader's comment there:
3:22 Placing pressure on viruses without stopping transmission forces mutations
6:00 Sars-Cov-2 requires hosts and cannot survive without one
7:20 The analogy of antibiotic resistance to explain vaccine resistance
9:38 Mass vaccinations during a pandemic are contra-indicated
10:40 Extended vaccine dosing intervals creates opportunity for Sars-Cov-2 immune escape
11:20 Being an asymptomatic carrier produces a suboptimal immune state
12:58 We are creating a worse problem than natural pandemics
14:30 Infection prevention measures and lockdowns are pressuring Sars-Cov-2 to mutate into new strains
17:57 The âinnateâ immune system is the most important determinant in COVID-19 outcomes
20:16 We are weakening our innate immune systems by isolating them from exposure to pathogens
22:18 Australia and New Zealand are so isolated from Sars-Cov-2 that they have become the most susceptible in the world to bad COVID-19 outcomes
23:44 Lockdowns prevent mortality at the individual level but create disasters at the population level
25:28 Allowing a natural pandemic cycle
27:06 The virus itself teaches us how to intervene without causing immune escape
27:40 Antibodies are not responsible for elimination of COVID-19 because they comes too late. The mechanism responsible are NK Cells in the innate immune system
30:04 In natural pandemics viruses jump between immunological populations
32:19 Surges in antibodies (adaptive immune system) post infection outcompete natural antibodies (innate immune system) thus suppressing innate immunity
35:00 In pandemics, the likelihood of encountering a virus explodes
36:35 Young people will soon get COVID-19 because of higher likelihood of encounter combined with suppressed innate immunity
37:05 In a normal pandemic, viruses feel no mutation pressures (the story of herd immunity)
39:22 We are creating asymptomatic carriers and achieving the opposite of herd immunity
41:57 The Spanish Flu â over in 2 years. Naturally.
44:10 A summary of how we are pressuring Sars-Cov-2 to escape immunity and target young people
46:43 We have already created mutated strains so âletting the pandemic runâ may have been an option at the beginning but not now
49:00 Properly assessing the impact of human intervention
50:15 The binary of pro-vaccination vs anti-vaccination is not nuanced enough
51:08 Geertâs dire warning â âwe are at the eve of a huge disasterâ
54:12 Testing Geertâs hypothesis â watch the countries who have large vaccination coverage
58:40 This is the first time in the history of humanity that we have intervened in a pandemic in such an aggressive way
59:41 How long until this hypothesis is proven?
1:01:05 What would prove Geertâs hypothesis incorrect? Spoiler: endemic and benign outcomes.
1:02:22 Where is the scientific evidence that we are heading toward herd immunity?
1:03:52 Sterilising immunity would change the game by closing sources of immune escape.
1:04:42 NK cell based vaccines (innate immunity) and introducing memory to NK cells.
1:05:58 The only scientifically reasonable approach is to completely eradicate the mutated strains through bolstering innate immune systems
1:07:55 How NK cell vaccine technology would work
1:10:57 The lack of interest in NK cell immunity
1:13:24 Mass global vaccination can only cause 2 outcomes: massive success or massive failure - anything in between is temporary and illusory
1:14:55 Innate cellular immunity will allow the destruction of infected cells and thus successful intervention in ongoing disease processes like cancer
1:21:46 There is no one currently funding innate immunity technologies such as NK cell memory
1:23:40 Natural approaches to strengthen innate immunity: good general health
1:27:39 The most important defence during the pandemic: our innate immune system
1:28:01 Do NOT vaccinate young people against COVID-19 (because of innate immune suppression, and specific antibodies do not explain viral recovery)
1:30:31 Distinguishing between immunological populations, not just simple demographic populations
1:33:02 Are there any immunological populations that we should still vaccinate with current vaccines that donât confer sterilising immunity?
1:33:50 Sterilising immunity vaccines will not be possible because they are based on adaptive immunity (T cells and B cells)
1:37:32 Strong innate immunity at any age is not appealing to big pharma because you canât sell it but itâs a powerful protective measure
1:40:20 What would be the best response humanity could mount to destroy Sars-Cov-2/COVID-19?
1:42:05 We cannot determine the level of natural antibodies, but we can determine the level of specific antibodies
1:44:15 If positive for specific antibodies your innate immunity is suppressed, so stay isolated until the titers disappear
1:45:55 Geert has worked inside the major vaccination companies and their work is exceptional, but it misses the point
[-] stereomatch | 1 points
Video interview of Geert Vanden Bossche:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9PdZn_Yd5w Geert Vanden Bossche PhD and his warning to the world against 'Immune Escape' March 9, 2021
What I could understand of this interview - commentary
10:00 minute mark:
"Virus will take advantage of this suboptimal immune response" (immediately after being vaccinated or between the two doses) ...
He is saying something about danger of immunizing in the middle of a pandemic
This is something I have heard before also from other vaccine experts - something about it being ideal to vaccinate before the virus is very prevalent.
The idea I guess is that (like polio) - if polio is in few places, it has less parallel processing going on to create new variants to be tested for fitness.
When you immunize the population in this situation, you make it harder for the virus to expand number of hosts much beyond what they were before.
In contrast, if you vaccinate in the middle of a pandemic, then you already have a huge population of active cases, and thus there is more possibility of variants among them.
When those large numbers of people are given a vaccine, that gets rid of the main strain, but the different strains survive. And they become the source for new outbreak.
But for outbreak you require new hosts within a short period of time (since adaptive immunity one it kicks in, gets rid of every last bit of virus/virus variants in a host over time).
In order for these variants to escape to new hosts, they need these humans carrying the variants to move around, and to not quarantine, and to be asymptomatic so they are moving around meeting other people thinking they are ok and not infected and not infective to others.
He seems to argue that vaccinated folks are asymptomatic carriers of variants somehow. Something which is not immediately clear, although he tries to explain it in a number of ways.
Vaccinated people who have not developed full adaptive immunity yet (since it takes 2-3 weeks to do so after vaccination) are vulnerable to being infected (true) - and when infected during this window, it is more likely that the partial immunity develop in them will kill of the majority strain, but kill off less of these variants (since variants are not as effectively targeted by the vaccine's very specific targeting).
Thus during this window, there is possibility of preferential survival and transmission of the variants.
Variants are produced by chance and so the greater the pandemic, the greater the variants existing at any one time in the whole population.
Thus he says vaccinating exactly when the pandemic is at peak wave is dangerous, as it increases three likelihood of variant strains to exist (by the sheer numbers) and by the window where mass vaccination has happened but not enough time has passed for adaptive immunity to develop. In this interim period the main variant faces greater pressure vs variants - and this transmissions that occur during this window (vaccinated subjects thinking they are ok to mingle around, or who are coincidentally infected but because of the partial vaccination effect see only asymptomatic disease).
He goes on to suggest that an overactive specific immunity (adaptive immunity developed as a response to vaccination) winds up swamping the innate immunity - and this is bad because it is the innate immunity which does the bulk of the work of killing off a new virus or variant.
Now I don't fully understand why am overactive specific immunity would neuter innate immunity - unless he means in an indirect or relative sense - for example that the adaptive immunity from vaccination kills off the main variants fast, and do not prime or train the innate arm. Then when the person encounters a variant that is not being covered well by the vaccine immunity/adaptive immunity, then the burden to eliminate it falls on the innate immune system, but that is not in tip top shape as that wasn't fully trained even on the main variant the last time it was exposed, because the vaccine induced adaptive immunity took care of the main variant easily and well before the inmate immunity could be activated.
In other words he is saying there is the need to train and keep robust the innate immune system. That he says is not being done if the adaptive immune (vaccine induced) is too strong (after being recently trained by the vaccination).
Maybe there is some other way a too strong adaptive immune response makes the innate immune response weak, but I am not getting that.
He also makes the case for NK cells (natural killer cells) based vaccine technology as being superior to antibody/T-cell/B-cell based immunity that the current crop of vaccines are doing.
But he says no work is being done on NK cell based vaccination technology - that would boost the innate immune arm.
One of the reasons his arguments may be confusing is that he is phrasing it as "virus wants this or wants that" - since virus doesn't think but just things happen because of random mutation and selection (which is what darwinian selection is) - this may be a handwaving way of explaining it, but may be an imprecise way of explaining it.
So maybe better way to phrase is that when vaccinations start they create a window of a few weeks in which the person is still vulnerable to infection, - slightly protected by the first dose, but still awaiting the second dose. Or for single dose vaccines, a few weeks until full immunity develops.
This risk is mentioned in the Dr Been interview of the Israeli vaccine expert. Hospitalizations of vaccinated patients is usually only happening to those who got infected in this vulnerable window - where patient got infected after vaccination, but vaccine induced immunity hasn't fully kicked in yet (takes 2-3 weeks for that).
With mass vaccinations, this creates a period where a large enough group of people are being vaccinated and are going through this 2-3 week transition period where these main variant is being suppressed by the partial vaccination, but the variants are being suppressed less so. This fitness gradient then preferentially favors the variants to survive more during this interim period. And if these people are partially protected by the partial vaccination, then they have lower symptoms and more are asymptomatic.
And if they are asymptomatic they are more likely to be running around. In addition they may relax and go out more and engage in risky activities more thinking they have started to be protected by the vaccine, when in reality they are partially vulnerable for 2-3 weeks.
This behavior then allows the variants to preferentially be spread to others. If they had not been vaccinated, they would carry and be transmitting 99 percent of the time the majority strain they carry, and maybe 1 percent of the time may be the variant which just randomly was created by chance in their body.
So if they were not being vaccinated they would mostly still spread the main variant. But with vaccinations they may spread less of the main variant (which has been killed off by the partial vaccination effect), but are still carrying the variant which didn't get killed as much (since it was not exactly matching the vaccine induced immunity).
This maybe why vaccine experts say that vaccinations should occur during a lull and not during a wave.
(continued below)
[-] stereomatch | 1 points
(continued from above)
Use of repurposed drugs in support of vaccination
Now to examine what role early treatment, with antivirals or Ivermectin may play in this dynamic.
Since ivermectin and others are not selective for variants ie are not expected to favor one variant over the other or the main variant over new variants - and are mainly expected to do their work by much more general or macro effects - it is not expected to exert such evolutionary pressure that would cause new variants to preferentially survive vs the main variant.
In contrast, the argument goes that since vaccines are designed to target certain features of a virus - ie they target physical structures of shapes of a virus, that creates evolutionary pressure for main variant to die and variants to die less.
Although effort is made to pick features of antigens/targets in the virus which are common to the viruses in circulation, or are key to whole behavior of the virus - for example the vaccines may all target the spike protein - which is required to enter the cell via ACE2 - still changes can occur in the spike protein even in variants so that the changes still work to infect but are different enough that they are not caught by the vaccines' extremely targeting mechanisms.
In contrast the naturally immunity one gets from actually being infected is "smoother" ie a less severe response but spread out over much larger array of targets/antigen types on the virus.
An analogy could be comparing the black body spectrum from a filament lamp which has energy at all frequencies - compare that to the spectrum from a fluorescent lamp - which has much sharper and isolated peaks in the spectrum. So much higher energy but isolated/fewer peaks vs there energy-at-all-frequencies of the black body radiation from the filament lamp.
Actual infection vs Vaccination response
Thus for example with actual infection, humans create an immune response/antibodies to all manner of shapes and locations on the virus.
There may also be a response to the spike protein among others. But the individual response may not be that strong. But the combined response may be large over let's say 1000 antigens.
In contrast, with vaccination, the vaccine designers have to pick a few antigens/targets - so they try to pick the most effective ones. They may do this by surveying the antigens that are being targeted by patient 1 and patient 2. The idea being that you want to pick a few antigens which are common and which will cover most variants as well - so that the multi-antigen targeting vaccine will be effective.
However since they need to get the same impact with 5 antigen targeting, they have to enhance the response multi-fold. They may do this with larger dose, or by using adjuvants (which irritate or provoke the immune response thus amplifying the effect).
For this reason you will hear of studies which talk about just how much more effective the vaccine is against the spike protein vs natural infection to the virus.
However one thing not mentioned in this such one sided analysis is that the natural infection is actually consisting of 1000s of antigens, while the vaccine only is targeting 4-5 antigens (spike protein being one of them). That is the vaccine is deriing it's effect from 4-5 antigen targeting at much higher levels, while natural infection creates 1000s of antigens being targeted but each at much liver lower levels but a cumulative large effect.
This is analogous to the filament lamp with smoother spectrum (energy at all frequencies) vs the filament lamp emitting very spotty radiation at only a few frequency peaks.
Now this discussion may make "natural infection" a more organic option compared to the artificial 4-5 antigen vaccines. However some may argue that exposing the body to so many antigens via natural infection with virus actually creates a multi-spectrum response which is MORE likely to create under responses which may create autoimmune disease - the more antigens there are, the not likely it is that it just happens to also match some part of the body itself. By this argument having only immune response to 4-5 antigens/targets may be a blessing, even though the response to these 4-5 may be much much stronger. If one of these 4-5 happen to match some part of the body, then THAT could create a too strong autoimmune response. So anyway, there could be these types of considerations.
Use of repurposed drugs with vaccination
While being vaccinated, people could be given ivermectin to tide them over until their immune response from vaccination has revved up. If the ivermectin reduces transmission (Zagazig Univ Egypt study showed 8x reduction) generally, it could reduce the risk mentioned above by 8x.
As a result there would be 8x fewer variants.
Explained this way it makes sense that some ARE recommending ivermectin and other such drugs are used while vaccination programs are in progress.
Perhaps this is why these people are not hostile to ivermectin etc. - but instead seem to support it's use as an adjunct to vaccination.
As this interview also explains:
https://covexit.com/the-professor-robert-clancy-interview/ The Professor Robert Clancy Interview Posted on February 25, 2021
Both vaccines and early treatment are needed. Vaccines will not be 100% effective; the mucosal compartment is subject to different rules than is the rest of the body â flu vaccines are a classic model where protection is 20-60% each year, and only lasts about 12 months (due to the characteristics of the mucosal immune system). In addition, many will, for various reasons, not be vaccinated. The current (very limited data) suggests that the vaccines shift disease: asymptomatic infection <â mild disease <â serious disease <â death, meaning they may not achieve sterilizing immunity or achieve herd immunity, but move disease outcomes towards less severe disease. Itâs also important to note that by shifting the infection to asymptomatic infections, a source of virus infection is maintained in the community, which promotes in turn more infections, which justifies the need for treatment. (more data is needed on just how infective this asymptomatic infection is) Are both vaccinations and earlier COVID-19 infections both delivering similar immunity? We know that the aim is to prevent mucosal infection â this requires activation of the mucosal immune system. Only natural infection does this â injection vaccines primarily activates systemic immunity, i.e. there are two immune systems. Protection depends on how well the systemic immune response can âoverflowâ in the mucosal compartment.
[-] stereomatch | 1 points
Here is an article by Adam Gaertner who is an early advocate of Ivermectin - here he explains the immune response and goes a new mutation may cause problems:
https://covidcandy.net/coronavirus/a-new-mutation-threatens-a-fragile-recovery/ A NEW MUTATION THREATENS A FRAGILE RECOVERY Posted by Adam Gaertner Mar 7, 2021
[-] stereomatch | 1 points
If you see the other comment thread, I have tried to make some sense of what he may be saying in the video.
[-] Ok-Film-9049 | 3 points | Mar 09 2021 21:25:18
I really enjoyed this video and you have covered the key points. The pharmacos won't make that much from vaccines because you can't patent the code of the spike protein. However, I will be glad when IVM becomes an option. But can understand why Dr Been kept to vaccines. 'The main governments won't acknowledge IVM until after trying to vaccinate nearly everyone. A sad situation but need to get the most from vaccines also.
permalink