Guillain-Barré Syndrome after COVID-19 Vaccination in the Vaccine Safety Datalink

Abstract

Importance Post-authorization monitoring of vaccines in a large population can detect rare adverse events not identified in clinical trials including Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). GBS has a background rate of 1-2 per 100,000 person-years.

Objective To 1) describe cases and incidence of GBS following COVID-19 vaccination, and 2) assess the risk of GBS after vaccination for Ad.26.COV2.S (Janssen) and mRNA vaccines.

Design Interim analysis of surveillance data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink.

Setting Eight participating integrated healthcare systems in the United States.

Participants 10,158,003 individuals aged ≥12 years.

Exposures Receipt of Ad.26.COV2.S, BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine.

Main Outcomes and Measures GBS with symptom onset in the 1-84 days after vaccination as confirmed by medical record review and adjudication. Descriptive characteristics of confirmed cases, GBS incidence rates during postvaccination risk intervals after each type of vaccine compared to the background rate, rate ratios (RRs) comparing GBS incidence in the 1-21 vs. 22-42 days postvaccination, and RRs directly comparing risk of GBS after Ad.26.COV2.S vs. mRNA vaccination, using Poisson regression adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, site, and calendar day.

Results From December 13, 2020 through November 13, 2021, 14,723,318 doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered, including 467,126 Ad.26.COV2.S, 8,573,823 BNT162b2, and 5,682,369 mRNA-1273 doses. Eleven cases of GBS after Ad.26.COV2.S were confirmed. The unadjusted incidence rate of confirmed cases of GBS per 100,000 person-years in the 1-21 days after Ad.26.COV2.S was 34.6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.8-65.7), significantly higher than the background rate, and the adjusted RR in the 1-21 vs. 22-42 days following Ad.26.COV2.S was 6.03 (95% CI: 0.79-147.79). Thirty-four cases of GBS after mRNA vaccines were confirmed. The unadjusted incidence rate of confirmed cases per 100,000 person-years in the 1-21 days after mRNA vaccines was 1.4 (95% CI: 0.7-2.5) and the adjusted RR in the 1-21 vs. 22-42 days following mRNA vaccines was 0.56 (95% CI: 0.21-1.48). In a head-to-head comparison of Ad.26.COV2.S vs. mRNA vaccines, the adjusted RR was 20.56 (95% CI: 6.94-64.66).

Conclusions and Relevance In this interim analysis of surveillance data of COVID-19 vaccines, the incidence of GBS was elevated after Ad.26.COV2.S. Surveillance is ongoing.

.

Nasal Vaccine May Be the Secret Weapon Against New COVID-19 Variants

Nasal Vaccine May Be the Secret Weapon Against New COVID-19 Variants

The emergence of COVID-19 variants such as delta and omicron have sent scientists scrambling to determine whether existing vaccinations and boosters are still…

scitechdaily.com

The emergence of COVID-19 variants such as delta and omicron have sent scientists scrambling to determine whether existing vaccinations and boosters are still effective against new strains of SARS-Cov-2.

A new response to the rapidly mutating virus might be found right at the door to our lungs, says Yale’s Akiko Iwasaki, the Waldemar Von Zedtwitz Professor of Immunobiology. In a new study, she and her colleagues found that intranasal vaccination provides broad-based protection against heterologous respiratory viruses in mice, while so-called systemic immunization, which uses an injection to elicit body-wide protection, did not.

Their findings are published today (December 10, 2021) in the journal Science Immunology.

“The best immune defense happens at the gate, guarding against viruses trying to enter,” said Iwasaki, senior author of the study.

Mucous membranes contain their own immune defense system that combat air- or foodborne pathogens. When challenged, these barrier tissues produce B cells which in turn secrete immunoglobin A (IgA) antibodies. Unlike vaccines which elicit a system-wide immune response, IgA antibodies work locally on mucosal surfaces found in the nose, stomach, and lungs.

While the protective role of IgA-producing cells had been well established in combatting intestinal pathogens, Iwasaki’s lab wondered if triggering IgA response might also produce a localized immune response against respiratory viruses.

Working with researchers at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, they tested a protein-based vaccine designed to jump start an IgA immune response, administering it to mice through injections, as is commonly done with systemic immunizations, and also intranasally. They then exposed mice to multiple strains of influenza viruses. They found that mice that had received vaccine intranasally were much better protected against the respiratory influenza than those that received injections. Nasal vaccines, but not the shot, also induced antibodies that protected the animals against a variety of flu strains, not just against the strain the vaccine was meant to protect against.

The Yale team is currently testing nasal vaccine strains against COVID strains in animal models.

While both vaccine injections and nasal vaccines increased levels of antibodies in the blood of mice, only the nasal vaccine enabled IgA secretion into the lungs, where respiratory viruses need to lodge to infect the host, Iwasaki said.

If the nasal vaccines prove to be safe and efficient in humans, Iwasaki envisions them being used in conjunction with current vaccines and boosters that work system wide in order to add immune system reinforcements at the source of infection.

Reference: “Intranasal priming induces local lung-resident B cell populations that secrete protective mucosal antiviral IgA” 10 December 2021, l Science Immunology.

DOI: 10.1126/sciimmunol.abj5129

Other co-first-authors of the study are Ji Eun Oh, Eric Song, and Miyu Moriyama, all from Yale.

Quote from Alan Smith

Just wanted to ask you all to consider sending a quick email to your MPs about domestic covid passports that are once again back on the table as part of the government's "Plan B".

I do not know what the UK passport plan is. However, as long as the passport is optional, meaning you don't have to get one if you don't want to, I do not see how it interferes with anyone's freedom. You don't want a passport? Fine! You can't go on airplanes, or into concerts or grocery stores. As I have said before, it is like wearing clothes. You are allowed to be naked, but not in a grocery store. It does not take away one tiny bit of your freedom to wear clothes -- or to get vaccinated.

Unvaccinated people are interfering with my freedom. They are the only ones causing a problem. I will not go on an airplane with them, or go into a restaurant. At my age, a breakthrough case is more dangerous than an unvaccinated case would be at age 30. See:

https://www.axios.com/age-coronavirus-risk-vaccines-2e1391b0-5d0e-4fa9-894b-4b894dc017c9.html

Complaining about a vaccine passport is like complaining that you have to have a driver's license to operate a car.

Quote from Fm1

Exposures Receipt of Ad.26.COV2.S, BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine.

Ad,26 is Johnson and Johnson. It has a low (absolute) risk, but high relative to background. mRNA came in near background.

I sleep alot now, was caughing and snooring a bit like a cold and now, taste is totally gone. Was trying to test me, but there is mote then one week

testing time. Will be of no use then

Quote from JedRothwell

Unvaccinated people are interfering with my freedom. They are the only ones causing a problem.

No they are not, but Mandates are interfering with everyone's freedom

COVID-19: stigmatising the unvaccinated is not justified

and:

The epidemiological relevance of the COVID-19-vaccinated population is increasing

Quote from JedRothwell

Complaining about a vaccine passport is like complaining that you have to have a driver's license to operate a car.

Not at all the same thing but does demonstrate something about you:

Stupid Analogies

"In some ways, this worse than bullshit, which I use here to mean content-less blather that is so convoluted that its truth value is difficult to evaluate, and which was never even intended to convey a particular truth value. That’s because while BS makes you look like an idiot, analogies make you look smart and witty and profound, thus ridding you of the burden of proof and giving your audience a false sense of awe and understanding. It helps you get an upper hand in an argument without actually making a great deal of sense."

With Ivermectin in Hand, Wife Dies While Husband Begs Hospital to Administer - Pezou

David DeLuca of Sicklerville, New Jersey will never know if the Ivermectin prescribed by an out-of-state doctor for his wife would have saved her life.

pezou.com

With Ivermectin in Hand, Wife Dies While Husband Begs Hospital to Administer

“In my opinion, they gave up on her on day one. ir protocols killed her,” David said.

“ legal system won’t do its job. People need to know (Ivermectin) is out there. I want her story to be told because I want other people to be protected and not go through what my kids went through, losing their mother.”

“I trusted the system to help, and they didn’t care.”

Quote from uncertainH

No they are not, but Mandates are interfering with everyone's freedom

COVID-19: stigmatising the unvaccinated is not justified

and:

The epidemiological relevance of the COVID-19-vaccinated population is increasing

Not at all the same thing but does demonstrate something about you:

Stupid Analogies

"In some ways, this worse than bullshit, which I use here to mean content-less blather that is so convoluted that its truth value is difficult to evaluate, and which was never even intended to convey a particular truth value. That’s because while BS makes you look like an idiot, analogies make you look smart and witty and profound, thus ridding you of the burden of proof and giving your audience a false sense of awe and understanding. It helps you get an upper hand in an argument without actually making a great deal of sense."

Display More

I'd like your analysis of why you think this is an inexact analogy.

The libertarian case against vaccine passports, as I understand it, is that they do not always work protecting others, and I guess the restriction on behaviour - not to enter an enclosed crowded place without a passport - is more severe than for a driving license - where you cannot drive a car on a public road without a license.

I can see the case for LFTs OR passports. The problem though is that LFTs require people to be honest - PCR tests take too long. Anyway mostly the requirement is test or passport, even though neither work perfectly. Both are better than nothing.

I can also see the concern from libertarians that vaccine passports (observational data) significantly increase vaccination rates and that is the main public health reason for making attendance at events conditional on them.

None of these cases seem to hold water to me. I know that I can (low probability) harm others driving a car. I know that I can (low probability) harm others by going untested into a crowded indoor place and that the chances of harm are higher unvaccinated, juts as they are higher if a drive a car while drunk.

Perhaps driving whilst drunk is a better analogy than driving without a license?

THH

Quote from Shane D.

“ legal system won’t do its job. People need to know (Ivermectin) is out there. I want her story to be told because I want other people to be protected and not go through what my kids went through, losing their mother.”

You know Shane that this idea (that ivermectin protects) is advocated by some pressure groups and internet opinion-setters but not commonly accepted by independent doctors.

If you reckon that any doctor should be free to prescribe quack medicine because they think it works, there is a good case for allowing ivermectin. Otherwise not.

The large RCTs in progress are not looking good: the only one terminating has been negative: positive results as good as dexamethasone would have been revealed by now in an interim report.

Quote from THHuxleynew

You know Shane that this idea (that ivermectin protects) is advocated by some pressure groups and internet opinion-setters but not commonly accepted by independent doctors.

If you reckon that any doctor should be free to prescribe quack medicine because they think it works, there is a good case for allowing ivermectin. Otherwise not.

The large RCTs in progress are not looking good: the only one terminating has been negative: positive results as good as dexamethasone would have been revealed by now in an interim report.

You might want to check on the status of the rct trials, none have reached full enrollment, so I'm not sure where you are getting your information but doctors are more than willing to prescribe ivermectin, it's the hospital administrations that don't allow ivermectin. Let's be clear on this Thomas.

COVID-19 Infection Trends Continue to Surprise America As Most Vaccinated States Experience More Intense Surges

COVID-19 Infection Trends Continue to Surprise America As Most Vaccinated States Experience More Intense Surges

Outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 across America are reported, as the most heavily vaccinated states experience steeper climbs in cases than even the least

trialsitenews.com

Outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 across America are reported, as the most heavily vaccinated states experience steeper climbs in cases than even the least vaccinated states. The trends suggest growing numbers of breakthrough infections. From New York and Indiana to Michigan and Maine and Pennsylvania, surges in cases equate to many hospitals being near full capacity. Conditions are so bad in some places that in certain states, National Guard members are deployed to help deal with the pandemic. After a review of the top 10 most vaccinated states versus the top 10 least vaccinated ones, the data points to again, some surprising findings—like the last TrialSite review, the level of vaccination doesn’t ensure a reduction in surges.

USA Today reports that the National Guard units were mobilized in states from Maine to New York as cases exploded—meanwhile, in Michigan, the Department of Defense resources were mobilized at various hospitals including Beaumont Hospital—Dr. Paolo Marciano the hospital’s chief medical officer called the support a “tremendous lifeline.”

TrialSite conducted a review of the trend in cases and deaths across the 10 most heavily vaccinated and the 10 least vaccinated states. What follows is that breakdown.

Top 10 Vaccinated States

State Vaccination Rate (2 doses) Trend (up or down)

Vermont 74.52% Historical Spike in cases; Death rate unacceptably high

Rhode Island 74.31% Historical Spike in cases; Death rate Stabilized

Maine 73.67% Historical Spike in cases; Death rate unacceptably high

Connecticut 73.13% Historical Spike in cases; Death rate Stabilized

Massachusetts 72.59% Historical Spike in cases; Death rate unacceptably high

New York 69.46% Rising Cases—a spike; Death rate stabilized

West Virginia 68.99% Surge in cases—unacceptable death rate

New Jersey 68.88% Surge in cases—death rate stabilized

Maryland 68.84% Recent surge may be waning—recent unacceptable death rate appears on the decline

Virginia 66.31% Surge in cases—unacceptable death rate

Least Vaccinated States

State Vaccination Rate (2 doses) Trend (up or down)

Idaho 45.63% Decline in cases—unacceptable death rate

Wyoming 46.39% Decline in cases—unacceptable death rate

Alabama 46.67% Stabilized—cases and deaths way down

Mississippi 47.53% Stabilized—cases and deaths way down

Louisiana 49.35% Stabilized—cases and deaths way down

North Dakota 49.55% Cases up-still in a surge; deaths unacceptably high

Georgia 49.77% Stabilized—cases and deaths on way down

Arkansas 50.07% Cases (and deaths) appear on way back up after decline

Tennessee 50.18% Cases way down; deaths unacceptably high

Indiana 51.14% Surge in cases—death rates way down but still too many

Summary

As TrialSite has chronicled, there seems to be no correlation between vaccinated states and fewer cases. This goes for other nations as well. In fact, as measured by proportional growth, the most vaccinated states in America now experience greater COVID-19 surges than the least vaccinated states—as was the case during the last review.

For example, in America’s top ten most vaccinated states, 9 out of 10 now experience historic or near-high surges in the total number of SARS-CoV-2 cases. The one exception is Maryland where the recent surge may be waning. Obtaining a breakdown of breakthrough infections within each state is more challenging and necessitates a review of either state or county-level data and not all of them cover this thoroughly. Clearly, the trend indicates growing numbers of breakthrough infections and, not surprisingly, the push for boosters to thwart such infections remains a big focus of government health authorities.

TrialSite found that the growth of reported COVID-19 deaths is by no means indicative of vaccination rates at the state level. But generally, TrialSite concurs that COVID-19 vaccination correlates clearly with lower hospitalization and death rates—at least that has been the case thus far since the advent of the vaccines.

Conversely, in the least most vaccinated states, we find that in most of them surges have waned since the Delta variant-driven spikes of a few months ago. In fact, 7 out of 10 states in this category report either significant reductions in infections or stabilized situations.

The COVID-19 variants such as Delta and potentially now Omicron can overpower existing vaccines; however, the data still indicate that vaccination at least for half a year or so protects people against more serious advancement of the virus leading to less hospitalization and death. However, breakthrough infections appear to markedly rise based on the general observation that the most vaccinated states experience greater surges now as compared to the top 10 most unvaccinated states.

One thing is for certain—this pandemic isn’t over, and people should be cautious about the Holiday Season. Vaccination should be considered; however, TrialSite suggests for children a more proactive and careful benefit-risk analysis should be conducted given acknowledgment of adverse events such as myocarditis in young people especially males—combined with less risk for severe disease and associated hospitalization and death. However, some children face greater risk due to comorbidities and should be considered for vaccination as they face a higher risk for severe COVID-19. Also, the Delta variant impacted many more young people than previous variants, including the original Wuhan wildtype variant—meaning vaccination becomes a more prominent topic

The emerging evidence I believe for using HCQ, Zn2+, ivermectin, doxycycline or azithromycin, and our old friends Avigan, Vitamin D3 or combinations thereof, is just as strong as using the vaccines. I have taken the mRNA pfizer double vaccine but if I fall desperately ill I cannot see why taking Ziverdo or Anti-bat as we have called it based on sound pharmacological evidence should be prohibited since the toxicology of all these and other components is well known. Drug companies are now at least considering using (and doing valid research into) the direct Anti -Viral approach which will be just as profitable as vaccines anyway.

The vaccines are like the sambuca strut, one step forward, two steps back. One booster, two boosters 3 boosters and more

Three shots of Pfizer COVID vaccine 4x less effective against Omicron'

'Three shots of Pfizer COVID vaccine 4x less effective against Omicron'

Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis says country could recommend boosters as early as three months after second shot

m.jpost.com

Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis says country could recommend boosters as early as three months after second shot

The neutralizing ability of even three shots of the Pfizer corona vaccine is four times less against the Omicron than the Delta variant, according to researchers at Sheba Medical Center.

>>

The team looked at the ability of serums of 40 vaccinated healthcare workers at Sheba to neutralize the Omicron variant – 20 who received the booster shot within the last month, and 20 who had only received two shots, the last one five or six months ago.

The study is based on the exclusive data available in Sheba as part of the large serology study conducted among health workers at the medical center. It was conducted in collaboration with the Health Ministry’s Central Virology Lab, which is located on the Sheba campus.

Those who received the second dose did not have any neutralization ability against the variant, while they continued to have some ability against Delta and even the original Wuhan strain.

There was no neutralization ability whatsoever, and that is very worrisome,” said Dr. Gili Regev-Yochay, director of the Infectious Disease Epidemiology Unit at the hospital, in a briefing on Saturday night, adding that these people might also be exposed to serious disease.

It is also unclear if people who received two doses more recently would also be protected, she said.

Lab tests conducted in South Africa last week showed that antibodies from two shots of the Pfizer vaccine may be up to 40 times less effective against the Omicron variant.

In response to these studies, Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, head of Public Health Services, said in an interview with N12 Saturday night that the ministry is considering asking people to get their third dose as soon as three months after the second.

“People who have received the booster are better protected than those who received only the second, and of course, more than the unvaccinated,” Alroy-Preis said.

She noted that the only individual infected with the Omicron who is in serious condition is unvaccinated.

There are a million Israelis who have had two shots five or more months ago and have not gotten their boosters, she said, and another 325,000 who had two shots more recently and would be eligible for an earlier third dose if the policy changed.

“Two doses are not effective enough,” Alroy-Preis said.

On the other hand, the Sheba study found that the booster dose does increase the ability of the vaccine to work against Omicron by about 100-fold, meaning that there is “significant protection,” Regev Yochay said. “It is lower than the neutralizing ability against the Delta – about four times lower. But it is very optimistic.”

She added that “it looks like with Omicron there is a chance that people with the booster could get infected, but have much less chance of getting seriously infected.”

Regev Yochay said that it is still unclear whether the effectiveness of the booster shot will also decrease over time, and that this is something the Sheba researchers are looking into now.

The Israeli study, which should be stressed is a neutralizing antibody study done in the lab and not based upon real-world data, has been sent out for peer review.

Post

RE: Media/News/Video Library-No discussions please

New preprint from @Wyttenbach and Russ George:

A new experimental path to mucleosynthesis.

https://www.researchgate.net/p…_path_to_nucleosynthesis/

As correctly suggested by @Rob Woudenberg , please continue the discussion of this work here:

lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/6141/

Curbina

Dec 12th 2021

"Hypotheses non fingo"

mRNA technology researcher says pandemic-induced, censorship-based science is “mind-boggling”

mRNA technology researcher says pandemic-induced, censorship-based science is “mind-boggling”

Aubrey Marcus, founder of holistic health and lifestyle brand, Onnit, and New York Times best-selling author, invited three guests on his self-titled

trialsitenews.com

Aubrey Marcus, founder of holistic health and lifestyle brand, Onnit, and New York Times best-selling author, invited three guests on his self-titled podcast. According to the podcast page, guests provide “expertise in mindset, relationship, health, business and spirituality.” Episode #337, titled “The Inconvenient Injured w/ Vaccine Advocates Dr. Aditi Bhargava, Kyle Warner and Brianne Dressen,” explores the perspective of Bhargava, molecular biologist, Professor, and Principal Investigator at UCSF who develops mRNA technology. The additional guests tell their personal stories of experiencing an mRNA vaccine injury which we will summarize in our Part II article.

An open mind is most definitely important with a novel, unfolding pandemic such as the one we now face. Marcus begins by prefacing the conversation for viewers/listeners to keep an open mind so that ideas and issues can be discussed, examined, and critically explored regardless of politics or the current scientific taboos.

Exposing Scientific Loopholes

Bhargava is concerned about the way that scientists have approached the pandemic. It seems like scientific standards, norms and ideals have been abandoned. A challenging time, even difficult as the scientist frustrations as the standard for scientific norms and ideals have been compromised. However, she also believes that coronavirus research and publication speed has exposed many loopholes in the scientific process that should be addressed in a methodical manner.

For example, it took 11 years for scientists with differing opinions to come to a consensus regarding SARS-CoV-1 as the pathogen that caused the SARS epidemic in early 2000s. The outbreak, she believes, was likely a result of gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses being performed in many institutions and as highlighted by a laboratory-acquired infection in Singapore, in case of bat CoV, gain-of-function entails intentionally creating mutations that could infect humans, not a natural host, simply to see what could happen. This seemingly unwarranted justification, says Bhargava, is “playing with fire” especially given that CoV in bats does not cause disease, just mild sniffles, and bats clear that virus fairly quickly; under the guise of pathogen discovery program, an ulterior purpose is “to develop biological warfare weapons.”

In contrast, the rigid consensus that Sars-CoV-2 is the cause of current COVID-19 pandemic was made in less than two months; how to treat it or contain it, has been a chaotic and unscientific process, at best for the last two years.

The Technical Term for Preventing Infection

In terms of mRNA vaccines, Bhargava says they do not meet the traditional definition because unlike live-attenuated vaccines, (MMR, chickenpox, yellow fever,) mRNAs do not qualify due to their inability to reduce viral load or prevent infection, or transmission. They could more accurately be categorized as a drug, says Bhargava.

(In the summer of 2021, the CDC changed its definition of a “vaccine” by replacing the word “immunity” with “protection” which they have claimed is for accuracy. Merriam-Webster also updated their definition in May, as pointed out by Dr. Peter Doshi.)

Bhargava also states that there have not been well-controlled clinical trials control-group studies (which compare vaccinated vs. unvaccinated with similar health history, age, sex, and exposure risk) to conclude that the vaccines are efficacious and safe.

The Claim that “the Science is Clear”

Bhargava is “puzzled” as to why the scientific community is “turning a blind eye” to severe side effects. To not objectively acknowledge and explore adverse events, “is contradictory to everything we know about developing drugs,” she explains. The media continually suggests that the “science is clear.” Yet, when she reviews peer and non-peer-reviewed scientific publications, it leaves her with more questions and less clarity, despite her expertise and experience.

The topic of biological science and research had never been so widely consumed by the media and the public in “real-time” until recently, she says. While the urgency for answers is understandable, studies which normally take months to establish and peer-review are fast-tracked, yet devoid of the cautionary mindset that “science is always changing.” For example, if a natural infection takes 2 weeks to train the immune system, so does the vaccine. And the vaccine only trains a small arm of the immune system. (The architect of mRNA technology, Dr. Robert Malone, echoes this issue, saying established scientific data, which health officials rely on, is usually six months behind.)

Mechanism of Action for Covid-19 Vaccines:

There are currently three categories of vaccines developed for Covid-19. They include 1) inactivated (e.g., India’s Covaxin or a couple of the Chinese vaccines such as SinoVac, CoronaVac) representing the traditional approach; 2) Recombinant (Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca) which use adeno-associated virus fused with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (“the shell” of the virus) and 3) mRNA (Pfizer and Moderna).

In the short-term (2-3 months post vaccination), it may appear that vaccines decrease infection and transmission, the long-term effects of these vaccines on cellular and immune function is a complete unknown; it’s uncertain that these will be the only changes produced, says Bhargava.

In the past, adeno-associated viral (AAV) vectors used in gene therapy caused issues when they integrated into patients’ genomes randomly. Some of the patients in the gene therapy trials found the original disease being cured but development of other symptoms or cancers gene therapy trials experienced a cure of one disease, but other types of cancers resulted in their place, causing death in every single trial, says Bhargava. Due to these unforeseen outcomes, the FDA wants a minimum five-year follow-up for adeno-associated viral vectors used in therapy.

Interestingly, many people are naturally infected with adenovirus but have no symptoms or disease; the virus lies dormant in their genome. “We don’t know if the recombinant AAV vaccine (with Sars-CoV-2 spike protein), a mutated adeno-vector, can somehow activate the virus which is latent in some people, and if that virus becomes activated…,” she says, it could essentially perform a “rescue” to the mutant version of the virus in the vaccine by providing the missing pieces; this could have unintended consequences.

These unintended consequences highlight the issue of the public-facing stance that Covid-19 vaccines are unequivocally “safe and effective.” Bhargava dispels the notion that these side effects are random and not a causation from the vaccines, because side effects “are clustered.”

Warner agreed, stating that he recently attended a vaccine-injury press conference in which those who claimed to be affected had injuries in three main groups: neurological, cardiac, and autoimmune. (Warner experienced severe cardiac and autoimmune issues after his second dose of Pfizer.) He noted that the vax-injured cohort compiled a mixed demographic, with their only common denominator being the vaccine, says Warner. Prior to the pandemic, says Bhargava, scientists would proceed in investigating this perplexing commonality, instead of ignoring the reports.

The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting system, (where patients and doctors can make vaccine injuries known to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,) has been discounted by health officials, scientific publications, and the media, citing that self-reporting is not credible in determining that the vaccines are the causation of the injury.

Warner says the in-depth amount of information that must be provided to make a valid claim gives credibility to the genuineness of the reports. Also, false reporting to VAERS is a federal crime. Warner references a study conducted by non-profit Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare called the Lazarus report, which found that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.” Given this determination, —even using the most conservative figure— tthe death toll would be alarming.

Warner clarifies that neither he nor Dressen (who experienced debilitating neurological disorders with one injection of AstraZeneca) are advocating for ending the vaccine initiative. However, if medical professionals continue to deny their patients a vaccine-related-injury diagnosis, they cannot get the appropriate medical support. Warner also claims that doctors who do acknowledge and diagnose vaccine injuries are in jeopardy of losing their license.

Mandates vs. Fundamental Immunology

To Bhargava, mandates do not make scientific sense for several reasons. She provided her rationale including:

One, the vaccines fail to stop infection or importantly, transmission, so how will they end the pandemic? The CDC stopped tracking breakthrough infections in fully vaccinated people since May of 2021 (just a few months into the vaccine drive) unless they were hospitalized or had severe disease. In contrast, all cases, whether mild or asymptomatic in the vaccinated are being reported. This is skewing of data. The promise of herd immunity for Covid-19 is doubtful considering our failure to reach herd immunity with the flu—despite the widespread use of yearly flu shots. “Have we eradicated it?” asks Bhargava. “No.”

Two, even for mandated childhood vaccines such as chickenpox, there can be breakthrough infections and transmissibility. However, with natural immunity the recovered patient cannot be reinfected, and is therefore exempt from needing the pox vaccine. But somehow there is no exemption for natural immunity with Covid-19. Of course, TrialSite reminds it has followed studies that evidence reinfection with CoV-2 as a rare phenomenon, but it does occur. Some early data indicate Omicron may pose a larger threat for more reinfection, but the notion is a mere speculation; re-infections have yet to be confirmed by sequencing and prior infection variant identity is seldom reported. Only time and data will tell.

Three, there are fundamental differences between RNA and DNA viruses. “You can’t compare Covid to chicken pox, because chickenpox is caused by DNA viruses. They don’t mutate as often, and they induce life-long immunity…” —even if they are around someone who is actively infectious—. In contrast, the flu (RNA) behaves differently, selectively, as does Covid. Household members may not contract it from a sick member, and if they do, symptoms and their level of severity can vary.

Furthermore, it is rare to contract flu year-after-year, (evidence of a significant level of robust, ongoing immunity.) Upon reinfection perhaps five or ten years later, the subsequent infection is often milder. “The idea that people who have recovered from Covid also need to be vaccinated is completely mind-boggling to me, and to the whole principle of immunology.”

Four, “natural immunity has been known to be the gold standard for the longest time,” says Bhargava. Consider the development of the smallpox vaccine:

It was observed in 1796, that milkmaids who contracted the cowpox disease were protected from smallpox. Therefore, scientists were able to inoculate others using some of the secretion in the cowpox blisters (gross but necessary,) and exposed it to people who became resistant to smallpox.

Historically, scientists unanimously recognized the value of natural immunity. Why won’t virologists affirm its crucial role in this pandemic?

Mass Vaccination Causing Evolutionary Pressure

Five, putting pressure on the virus by vaccinating during a pandemic causes it to mutate for its survival. Bhargava uses “a disguise” analogy: mRNA vaccines are built in a way that the body recognizes “the face” of the virus, (the spike protein.) So, when the virus wants to infect a vaccinated host, it puts on “a mask.” However, with natural immunity, the body is acquainted with all facets of the virus’ identity, making it harder to conquer its host.

These ideas are shared by Malone, and Belgian virologist, Geert Vanden Bossche, who advocate that mass vaccination is compelling the virus to mutate, essentially training it to become more resilient.

Incomplete Data Breeds Public Distrust

Bhargava reviewed recent data from the United Kingdom’s Health Ministry. It examined alternate antibodies created in vaccinated vs. naturally acquired immunity cohorts, which fight other parts of the virus, such as the nucleocapsid protein. The vaccinated group was reported to have lower amounts of antibodies for the nucleocapsid protein than the unvaccinated, naturally infected group. “What that tells me is that the vaccine is interfering with the function of your immune system to mount a robust response against the virus when you get infected,” says Bhargava.

Most of the published research comparing antibody levels in vaccinated immunity vs. natural immunity are comparing spike protein antibodies only, “and disregarding other components,” says Bhargava. If our immune system’s antibody defense were a pie, the spike protein would only comprise 35 – 50%. Comparing the data this way often favors the vaccinated, while ignoring all the other antibodies that naturally infected persons produce.

There were also flaws in the way scientists evaluated the virulence of the Delta variant. In the studies she read they did not track the symptoms of the unvaccinated which would provide necessary info for a comparison against the vaccinated breakthrough cases.

Without the Delta data of the unvaccinated, how can we know it is more virulent? To make such a conclusion, researchers would have to observe cases of more severe disease in the unvaccinated, ensuring that underlying health conditions were similar in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Of course, if that information was present in scientific publication, and it was determined to be the case, the media would have shared it worldwide, right? Is it possible that the unvaccinated experienced milder symptoms, which may explain why this data was not recorded or shared?

It’s also fair to note that the CDC no longer tracks breakthrough infections in the vaccinated, unless there is death or hospitalization, so there is not truly a clear picture in which to make scientific determinations. The scientific community is “cherry-picking” their data, says Bhargava.

Marcus confirms that these inexplicable actions on behalf of the leaders in scientific research provoke the mounting doubt of the general public. Things aren’t right, and their minds are compelled to search for, or reach for answers. On the other hand, there are voices on both sides of the political spectrum who are allowing their conclusions to run off the deep end.

Confidence in Truth Emerging

“If people lose faith in science, that will be, I think, the end of medicine as we know it,” says Bhargava.

Bhargava acknowledges why physicians and nurses who see and treat patients adhere to protocol given by health authorities, however, “in the lab, there are always deviations from the experimental protocol. That’s how discoveries are made.” Lab experiments fail 99% of the time. Protocol is only a guideline; she encouraged her surgical students to deviate from the protocols as needed and ask questions during experimentation that might lead to insight along the way. “If you do that, your chances of succeeding will be much higher.”

Final thoughts:

With only incomplete data on hand, how can scientific inferences be made with strong confidence? “When there are no appropriate controls and no proper documentation of data,” the inferences made hold little value. Bhargava emphasizes the importance of accepting the inconvenient-yet-important data. Information such as adverse events or alternative therapeutics should be examined so that it can help us understand more about SARS-CoV-2 and the role that our current vaccines have in protecting the world from Covid-19

The Aubrey Marcus Podcast: All The Episodes Here

Aubrey Marcus is the founder of ONNIT. A nutritional supplement and holistic health provider based on his philosophy of Total Human Optimization.

www.aubreymarcus.com

Quote from stefan

I sleep alot now, was caughing and snooring a bit like a cold and now, taste is totally gone.

Did you not buy any drugs to help you? Cheapest thing Orange juice industrial pressed at least 5dl/day contains hesperidin a virus antibody! Take 10'000 to 20'000IU V-D*! + 100mg zink.

Quote from Shane D.

legal system won’t do its job. People need to know (Ivermectin) is out there.

People have to know that going to a US/EU/UK hospital with CoV-19 is a death or crippling sentence. Treat yourself at home. You can get oxygen even at home.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I'd like your analysis of why you think this is an inexact analogy.

The libertarian case against vaccine passports, as I understand it, is that they do not always work protecting others, and I guess the restriction on behaviour - not to enter an enclosed crowded place without a passport - is more severe than for a driving license - where you cannot drive a car on a public road without a license.

I can see the case for LFTs OR passports. The problem though is that LFTs require people to be honest - PCR tests take too long. Anyway mostly the requirement is test or passport, even though neither work perfectly. Both are better than nothing.

I can also see the concern from libertarians that vaccine passports (observational data) significantly increase vaccination rates and that is the main public health reason for making attendance at events conditional on them.

None of these cases seem to hold water to me. I know that I can (low probability) harm others driving a car. I know that I can (low probability) harm others by going untested into a crowded indoor place and that the chances of harm are higher unvaccinated, juts as they are higher if a drive a car while drunk.

Perhaps driving whilst drunk is a better analogy than driving without a license?

Display More

Not really sure why an analogy is even warranted since they don't really add much to a discussion but here it goes...

Firstly a drivers license is a voluntary registration process put in place largely to make sure that the driver is trained and tested on the rules of the road and has proven that they know how to operate the vehicle. The benefits of this program are easy to measure, such as a reduction in the accident rates

A Vaccine passport is a system put in place to restrict access to certain venues and services to a segment of society based on a perceived threat to public health, although as you mentioned it was also hoped to be used as a method of coercion. The perceived threat or benefit is extremely hard to measure but we do know that all people vaxxed or not can spread the virus if they are sick, we know that vaccines are waning in effectiveness. Although it is hard, if not impossible to measure, let's assume that if we could calculate a risk factor that clearly demonstrated that an unvaxxed person represents a greater risk to others by some measurable amount, and we establish a threshold that says if you are more than xx% more likely to transmit and infect others then you will not be allowed in. A restriction based on probability.

So perhaps the more appropriate analogy is that women are more likely to cause accidents therefore women are no longer allowed to drive. In America black people are more likely to commit crimes so racial profiling is ok.

And if we are basing all this on percentages, then there are all kinds of other risk factors that should be considered for instance obesity, pre existing medical conditions, even just lifestyle ( IE a vaxxed person with a false sense of confidence who goes out to bars and clubs every night ). But people shouldn't be afraid of an obese person just as they shouldn't be afraid of an unvaxxed person.