WHICH WAY OUT? 10 scientific facts that tend to be ignored (Part 2)

Part 2 – Facts 6-10

We have been in this pandemic for two years already, and even if this seems like a long time, we still can’t know yet what the long term consequences will be.

Before looking at further scientific facts that shouldn’t be overlooked when talking about the pandemic, first, a brief reminder of how gene expression works. Gene expression is the process by which the information encoded in DNA is used to produce a protein.

In the cell nucleus, the DNA is transcribed to mRNA. mRNA then leaves the nucleus and in the cell it gets translated into proteins by structures called the ribosomes.

Conventional vaccines using attenuated, deactivated or subunits of the pathogens are made of proteins. Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use mRNA, and Astra Zeneca and Johnson and Johnson vaccines use DNA.

6 – GENE THERAPY OR mRNA “VACCINES” LACK LONG TERM SAFETY DATA

One of the big questions is, are these new vaccines gene therapy or mRNA vaccines? And why does it matter?

Science constantly evolves and discoveries often happen indirectly or accidentally.

Originally, the idea behind gene therapy research was to help patients with genetic disorders. Simply put, the idea was to inject healthy genes into cells of patients with disease causing genetic mutations in order to have the cells express the new genes, produce healthy proteins, and cure the disease. The problem was that the body mounted an immune response against these newly created proteins, recognizing them as non-self, and therefore attacking them.

The researchers then changed their plans and used this technique to generate an immune response, just like in conventional vaccines, except that instead of injecting viral particles (proteins), they inject the code for the viral particles (mRNA or DNA). The host cells then create the viral protein particles to present to their own immune system. So basically, just like viruses, this technology uses the cells’ reproduction machinery to produce proteins.

The issue here is that injecting a protein into your body is not the same as injecting the code of the protein and having your body express it. The latter is a more complex process, it includes more steps, and therefore the technology is much more challenging. So, understandably, the FDA regulations to put a gene therapy drug on the market are much stricter than the regulations to release a conventional vaccine (which usually takes several years). Even though many argue that gene therapy has been studied for decades, newly developed drugs still need their own testing before they can be used on people, and in less than a year, there was simply no time to go through all the steps of rigorous testing for gene therapy. Because of this, it is more likely that the testing requirements used to get the current mRNA “vaccines” authorized were not the ones for gene therapy but the ones for conventional vaccines, or even less than that.

7 – THE CURRENTLY AUTHORIZED MRNA “VACCINES” DECREASE SYMPTOMS BUT NOT TRANSMISSION

The original studies of the currently authorized mRNA vaccines tested for reduction of COVID symptoms, hospitalization, and death (1/2). In the middle of the pandemic and at times where our ICUs were overflowing, these outcome measures were indeed very valid and relevant. But we have to keep in mind that we cannot conclude anything else than what has been tested. The studies were never designed to show these vaccines reduce transmission.

Only just recently, a study coming from England showed that for the alpha and pre-alpha variants there was some reduction in transmission, but not for the delta variant. For delta, vaccinated and unvaccinated carry similar viral loads, the vaccinated clear it faster, but at some point everyone can transmit (3). Therefore, with delta being the predominant variant nowadays, keep in mind that the vaccine only protects the recipient, no one else.

For the new omicron variant, data is only starting to come out now. We can definitely not say that the vaccines developed before we even knew about this variant will be effective against it.

8 – THE CURRENT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE DOESN’T JUSTIFY MANDATING CHILDREN’S VACCINES

Concerning kids and their health risks when infected with COVID, an important study came out of Sweden. Sweden never had a lockdown nor mask mandates or school closures, they only recommended social distancing. This study shows that among the 1.95 million children who were 1 to 16 years of age, 15 children who had Covid-19 were admitted to an ICU, and none died (4).

In an English study, a team of researchers looked through all hospital admissions and deaths reported for people younger than 18 and found that overall risk of death of severe disease from COVID-19 is very low in kids (5).

So, it is rather save to conclude that the majority of kids aren’t really at risk for dangerous outcomes when catching COVID.

Because of these low numbers, for the children’s vaccines (5-11y.o.) the outcome measures – reduction of symptoms, hospitalization and death – were not usable. In order to produce a study with statistically significant results looking at these same outcome measures, the researchers would have needed very large numbers of study participants. It would not have been feasible in such a short amount of time. In fact, only a few thousand children participated in the studies that led to emergency authorization of the vaccine for this age group.

Therefore, as outcome measures, the vaccine manufacturers measured the amount of antibodies produced in the blood of children (antibody titers) after injecting the vaccine, looking for a number of antibodies at least as high as what they measured in the 16-25 y.o. after getting fully vaccinated. I am not sure why they compared it to the 16-25 y.o. rather than the 12-16 y.o. I can only guess that maybe because a 80 lbs 12y.o. gets the same vaccine as a 250 lbs grown up man, they may have been concerned that for some teenagers the antibody titer was too high.

9 – NATURAL IMMUNITY IS BETTER THAN VACCINE-INDUCED IMMUNITY

Inevitably, if measuring the antibody titers in children is sufficient to conclude that they are protected against the disease and authorize a vaccine, the question arises, why would this same approach not be accepted for people who have had COVID and recovered? Because on top of an antibody response from B-cells, people who have acquired natural immunity also have a robust T-cell response, which would be even better.

It just doesn’t make sense to consider people who have recovered from the disease the same as unvaccinated. And it doesn’t make sense to ask them to get the vaccine as if they were not immunized at all.

As we can see from the John Hopkins Covid Map below (6) India was hit hard in spring and even thought their vaccination rate increased, it is still fairly low (. %). They haven’t had a new peak of infection since. Also, Spain and Italy were hit hard at the beginning of the pandemic but seem less affected now. Is it natural immunity or the increased vaccination rate? We can’t conclude that it is just from the vaccine.

India as of Dec 7th, 2021 (red: infected, white: death, green: vaccinated)

Never have we had a vaccine in history that has been more efficient than natural immunity. There are studies showing that natural immunity is more efficient than vaccine-induced immunity (7,8). There is absolutely no reason to believe that we managed to achieve better immunity with the current vaccines. We need to acknowledge that both, vaccination and prior infection protect from hospitalization and death, but neither stops transmission, as breakthrough cases (getting infected after vaccination) and reinfection (getting COVID twice) occur.

Science seems to be telling us that the population with the best protection are:

unvaccinated people who have natural immunity after infection
unvaccinated kids without underlying issues
vaccinated people, but only short term, and there is a risk of ADE (see part 1) and a series of other side effects
unvaccinated who haven’t had the disease. However, it is important to note that general good health mostly leads to milder disease, whereas underlying health issues lead to more severe outcomes. 80% of the unvaccinated who had COVID in 2020 before the vaccine came out had mild cases.

Natural immunity and learning how to live with this new virus must become our long term goal. We cannot sanitize the entire planet to keep us safe. All we are doing is creating environments that are dominated by germs that are resistant to the products we are using. They may just become our next “enemies”.

What we can do is take control over our own health: address the underlying conditions, chose a healthy lifestyle making sure we eat healthy, sleep enough, exercise regularly, and get our vitamin D levels up.

Getting a majority of people achieve natural immunity is more likely to get us out of the pandemic than forcing vaccines and booster every few months onto everyone. Fortunately, as mentioned before, more contagious but less deadly variants are more likely to become dominant, because if the virus kills its host, it won’t be able to spread and transmit.

10 – NO MEDICAL INTERVENTION IS EVER RISK FREE

Let’s not forget that these vaccines have been emergency authorized. Emergency authorization can only be granted for a drug if there is an emergency and there are no other treatments available. So everyone who takes the vaccines agrees to participate in an ongoing clinical trial. It is crucial that we collect as much data from as many people as possible.

The VAERS – Vaccine Adverse event reporting system (8) does just that. It is largely underreported but still shows more death from the COVID vaccine than from all other vaccines combined so far. Several other milder and stronger side effects have been reported, as well as life threatening effects.

Of course, long COVID clearly shows us that the disease can have long term consequences in people as well. Therefore, it is indeed important to give people access to the tools we have, however, they should be informed about the potential risks of the vaccines. In the current situation, it is absolutely crucial to do individual risk assessment and give people freedom of choice. A one-size-fits-all medical intervention never has been and never will be the right solution.

More long term safety data is absolutely necessary, especially for our children who will be the ones suffering from long term consequences. They are not at high risk for dangerous outcomes of the disease. Surely, there are children who do benefit from the vaccines, but emergency authorization allows them to have access. This is enough to cover everyone’s choice. There is no need for approval nor mandates.

Everyone is biased

We all make decisions based on what happens in our close environment. If we, or someone we know, have been badly affected by a disease, we will put our trust in vaccines. If we, or someone we know, have had a reaction to a vaccine or any drugs, or had a bad experience with modern medicine, we will be careful and look for other options. All of us have our own stories. No one wants to harm or get harmed. No one wants to be forced to do a medical intervention without informed consent and personal risk analysis. No one wants to end up fighting for their life.

Instead of losing a family member or friends over a debate that is more policy than science based, maybe it is time to take a break from all this, celebrate the holidays in a safe but happy way, without judging, without blaming, just enjoying.

Happy holidays!