While the least vaxxed (Sweden) is dong fine:
Natural antibodies are at least 40x better protecting than vaccines <--- Israel data= reality not a study or fake news!
Vaccines are OK for people age > 65 with comorbities. Anybody healthy and younger than 65, going to vaccinate, is on a Russian roulette trip that will continue roller coaster like. Further he is a jumping Jack in the biggest big pharma fraud ever!
The video tells all facts related to patents from 2002 to 2015 that covered the full DNA of SARS COV-2. So it's clear that all of SARS COV-19 DNA has been patented long before of the outbreak. It also explains why Sanofi is paying the France government to ban/punish all possible treatments. As mentioned before Sanofi holds the base patents for embedding RNA in the vaccine and a large chunk of teh virus DNA.
Perhaps we should call it "Our Covid Business Model"
the full video is here..just in case yt 'loses' it
Natural antibodies are at least 40x better protecting than vaccines <--- Israel data= reality not a study or fake news!
Vaccines are OK for people age > 65 with comorbities. Anybody healthy and younger than 65, going to vaccinate, is on a Russian roulette trip that will continue roller coaster like. Further he is a jumping Jack in the biggest big pharma fraud ever!
are you sure this is about antibodies? Or the broad spectrum of immune response from natural infection.
Fauci does a good act as a "swaggerer" = mafioso
but the 'swagger' is becoming "stagger"
(but only in private .. maybe in case he falls over?)
" he won't be in public , a private briefing" TM 4.24
Fauci's problem is that 'private' never remains 'private' in the USA and 'redaction' is not forever.
especially for public figures.
"
When things get stressful for the White House advisor, Fauci turns to what he calls his “favorite book of philosophy”: “The Godfather.”
Fauci says the 1969 novel by Mario Puzo reminds him of the lesson that,
”‘it’s nothing personal, it’s strictly business.’
That’s just how I look at it,” Fauci told New Yorker reporter Michael Specter.
Perhaps we should call it "Our Covid Business Model"
the full video is here..just in case yt 'loses' it
Not sure why you want to post this again on the next page - but here in case it gets lots is the (rather obvious) refutation
(HINT: SARS-CoV-2 is a different virus from SARS-CoV or the various other known coronaviruses. NIH has patented viruses purely in order to stop commercial interests from doing so and restricting future work).
Display MoreFauci does a good act as a "swaggerer" = mafioso
but the 'swagger' is becoming "stagger"
(but only in private .. maybe in case he falls over?)
" he won't be in public , a private briefing" TM 4.24
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
Fauci's problem is that 'private' never remains 'private' in the USA and 'redaction' is not forever.
especially for public figures.
"
When things get stressful for the White House advisor, Fauci turns to what he calls his “favorite book of philosophy”: “The Godfather.”
Fauci says the 1969 novel by Mario Puzo reminds him of the lesson that,
”‘it’s nothing personal, it’s strictly business.’
That’s just how I look at it,” Fauci told New Yorker reporter Michael Specter.
I find this stuff unpleasant, and those who post it are stoking the populist fires of disappointment and jealousy. Poor, for a site that claims to be about science. And appalling that somone who has spent his life working to advance public health should be so attacked.
There is (I suppose) a case to be made for Fauci being corrupt. You cannot ever exclude that as a possibility, though all the evidence I've seen is that he is not corrupt. You can more reasonably make a case for his being wrong. This does not advance either of those cases one iota and merely reflects badly on those who propagate it.
Thanks RB for highlighting the problems in the US over having any sort of proper debate.
I find this stuff unpleasant, and those who post it are stoking the populist fires of disappointment and jealousy. Poor, for a site that claims to be about science. And appalling that somone who has spent his life working to advance public health should be so attacked.
Such XXXXX for your FM buddies simply are disgusting. Fauci never work for the public. He always had his position for optimizing private (mafia) profit.
.
Do not mix a "public" position with working for the public! Only cricket brains cannot make this distinction.
The public always looks at what somebody did for the public.
Fauci did know::
- HCQ works fine
- Ivermectin kills the virus
- How his friends added the AIDS spikes RNA to the virus
- He financed gain off research
- ...
are you sure this is about antibodies? Or the broad spectrum of immune response from natural infection.
I found this from Israel - with take-home the opposite of the X40 figure
“This is the first large-scale study to explore the protection due to prior SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine,” says Yair Goldberg and colleagues.
“Our results question the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals,” they write.
And here is the actual paper:
This is a very interesting study, I am indebted to W for (indirectly) referencing it which I quote at length below. For those (like my boss, and me, when not much interested) who never read more than the first paragraph of something long:
Why does W say prior infection is 40X better than vaccination? They only had one death in the prior infected cohort,
so this shows a death protection of pretty well 100%. So W is saying (just under) 100% is 40X better than 94%.
True... and false.
We know some people are at very high risk of dying from COVID. They are the ones that will possibly die even after vaccination. They are also part of the ones that will die from an infection (and there are a lot of those!). The reinfected group have less serious infection than originally (because they have some immunity) and therefore given that they did not die first time round they are highly unlikely to die second time! This filtering does not exist for the vaccinated group, which still contains the "first-time casualties".
I found stats really boring when taught it as UG. But actually, Baysian stats is interesting. And seeing how stats applies to real problems - like this - is also interesting. Even simple relationships like this can confuse people. (No comment on who here would be so confused - I'd hope no-one).
One caveat (see below) this is all testing alpha infection or vaccination against alpha variant. What would be more useful is alpha infection or vaccination against delta variant. or maybe (e.g. Bob#2 might be interested in this) original COVID infection versus vaccination against delta variant. That would likely be less favourable to reinfection than this "reinfect with same variant" data.
Details, caveats - well worth reading in full
Worldwide shortage of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection while the pandemic is still uncontrolled leads many states to the dilemma whether or not to vaccinate previously infected persons. Understanding the level of protection of previous infection compared to that of vaccination is critical for policy making. We analyze an updated individual-level database of the entire population of Israel to assess the protection efficacy of both prior infection and vaccination in preventing subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization with COVID-19, severe disease, and death due to COVID-19. Vaccination was highly effective with overall estimated efficacy for documented infection of 92·8% (CI:[92·6, 93·0]); hospitalization 94·2% (CI:[93·6, 94·7]); severe illness 94·4% (CI:[93·6, 95·0]); and death 93·7% (CI:[92·5, 94·7]). Similarly, the overall estimated level of protection from prior SARS-CoV-2 infection for documented infection is 94·8% (CI:[94·4, 95·1]); hospitalization 94·1% (CI:[91·9, 95·7]); and severe illness 96·4% (CI:[92·5, 98·3]). Our results question the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals.
Methodologically this work is quite challenging, as you would expect:
In this study, we estimate the efficacy of the vaccine in the reduction of documented SARSCoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 disease. We focus on four cohorts: unvaccinated
individuals; vaccinated individuals followed from first dose to a week after the second
dose; vaccinated individuals followed from a week after the second dose onwards, and the
Recovered Cohort of unvaccinated individuals previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. For
more details, see the Methods section. All efficacies, of vaccine or previous infection, are
compared to the unvaccinated cohort.
The prospective observational analysis that we present faced several challenges. The first
challenge was self-selection of treatment, which implies differences in potential risk factors
between vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals. These include age, sex, sociodemographic level,
level of infection in the immediate environment, and possibly other
behavioral variables that could affect level of exposure to the virus. The second challenge
was detection bias: willingness to undergo vaccination can be associated with trust in the
healthcare system, which may also imply a tendency to comply with testing regulations. On
the other hand, vaccinated individuals may feel more protected and may ignore mild
symptoms indicative of the disease, and have less motivation to get tested as they are not
required to self-quarantine after a contact with a positive individual. The third challenge
was the variation in infection risk throughout the vaccination campaign, mainly due to
varying lockdown levels, relative prevalence of viral mutants, and local outbreaks. Lastly,
the status of individuals (i.e., unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, or fully vaccinated) was
dynamic: with time, individuals move from one cohort to another, and between risk groups.
In the Methods Section we explain how we designed the analysis to address these
challenges.
They tried to cope with these issues but note that we cannot be sure their results are free bias - even so I think they have done a fair job of this:
To account for environmental risk, we calculated a municipality daily risk index by the
number of cases newly confirmed in the past seven days per 10,000 residents. We used a 7-
day moving average since the number of PCR tests typically drops at weekends. The index
was categorized into four risk levels (up to one , one to four, four to ten, and more than ten
daily cases per 10,000) to yield the municipality daily risk category, and was used as a
covariate in the risk model.
Behavioral differences among people may result in different levels of exposure to infection
and compliance with PCR testing guidelines. We partially accounted for this by counting
the number of PCR-test clusters that an individual underwent from March 1, 2020, to
December 20, 2020 (i.e., prior to the vaccination program). Here, a PCR-test cluster
comprised all consecutive test performed within 10 days of each other. We then defined
three individualized background risk levels: no PCR tests, one cluster, and two or more
clusters, and this covariate was also included in the risk model. For previously-infected
individuals, we set the level to one cluster and checked sensitivity to this value. Note that
the time interval for defining this variable (up to December 20, 2020) did not overlap with
the follow-up period.
Interestingly, though they do not commented on this till the end, it looks as though prior infection will all
be alpha variant. The question then is are they testing re-infection on alpha or delta? They say at the end of
the paper that the testing is nearly all B1.1.7 (alpha). this means their work does not tell us what we want to
know now - how well does alpha infection, or vaccination, protect us from delta variant?
In addition to estimating vaccine efficacy, we estimated the protection of prior SARS-CoV2 infection against a recurrent infection. Thus, we also included in the dataset individuals
who had recovered from COVID-19. Recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection is not welldefined, and individuals may continue to show traces of the virus weeks and sometimes
even months after the infection.14 We defined as a recurrent infection only cases occurring
three months or more after the first diagnosis. We also considered only individuals for
whom the first infection was diagnosed between June 1 and September 30, 2020, as the
PCR results before June 1 are considered less reliable. Hence, individuals infected before
June 1, 2020 or between October 1, 2020 and December 20, 2020 were excluded from the
analysis.
What do they think about this?
There are some limitations to this observational study. One major source of confounding is
related to possible population differences between individuals who were vaccinated
compare to those who were not. This confounding is partially addressed by controlling for
risk factors. Specifically, for each individual we adjusted for sex, age group, number of past
PCR tests and the time-dependent environmental exposure. Another major source of
potential bias is related to detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection. As apparent from the PCR
test counts in Table 3, individuals who are fully vaccinated or were previously infected get
tested less often than the unvaccinated cohort. Our results for the outcomes of
hospitalization, severe disease, and death do not suffer from this bias and thus are more
reliable. The vaccine protection against infection might be biased upward as explained
above, nevertheless the remarkable curtailing of the outbreak in Israel which followed the
high vaccine uptake by the Israeli population further suggest that the vaccine is efficient in
blocking transmission, see Figure 1.
The efficacy estimates of the BNT162b2 vaccine in this study are similar to those reported
by previous large-scale studies. For the severe disease outcome, the randomized trial of
BNT162b21 reported 89% efficacy for severe disease. A study by the Israeli Ministry of
Health using aggregated data5 reported 96% efficacy for people as defined in our Cohort 2.
A study on data from Israel’s largest HMO6 split people as defined in our Cohort 1B and
reported an efficacy of 62% and 80% for the third and fourth weeks after the first vaccine,
respectively, and of 92% for their Cohort 2. In comparison, our analysis showed efficacy of
66% for Cohort 1B and 94% for Cohort 2. For other outcomes, the estimated vaccine
efficacy for Cohort 2 in our study were 93% and 94%, for documented infection and
hospitalization, respectively. These estimates are similar to previous studies5,6 that
estimated efficacy of 92% and 96% for documented infection, and of 87% and 96% for
hospitalization. Our findings are based on a longer follow-up and a larger number of event
than in the previous individual-level data reports. For example, the analysis of severe cases
in the randomized clinical trial is based on only 10 cases, and that of Israel’s largest HMO
on 229.6 In comparison, the analysis in our study is based on 8,463 cases, including 2,240
cases from Cohort 1 and 319 cases from Cohort 2. On the other hand, the other two
studies1,6 have the respective advantages of randomization and a detailed matching process
which help in bias reduction.
The estimated protection against reinfection in this study is similar to that of the BNT162b2
vaccine. For documented SARS-CoV-2 reinfection, these results are similar to the results
obtained in a large study from Qatar of 95% protection,13 and suggest higher protection
than reported by other previous studies. A large study from Denmark14 suggested 80%
protection against reinfection. A study on healthcare workers in the United Kingdom16
reported that previous infection was associated with an 83% lower risk of infection. These
two studies are based on 11,727 and 6,614 previously infected individuals, with 72 and 44
reinfections, respectively. In comparison, the Recovered cohort in our study comprised
187,549 individuals, with 894 reinfections. One possible reason for the differences in the
estimated protection against reinfection could be related to detection bias of SARS-CoV-2
infection. However, our estimated high levels of protection against hospitalization and
serious disease after reinfection are unlikely to be affected by detection bias, and are
reassuring.
For me, the most important reservation about these results is the one the commented on last
(I guess most important for them too):
An important assumption made here is that rates of infection or hazards are independent of
time from vaccination. However, the rate of infection is expected to depend on time from
vaccination or on time from first infection. Studying the hazard as a function of time is
crucial for understanding waning immunity and for the need for additional booster
vaccinations. Follow-up is currently too short to answer time-dependent questions, but this
is a crucial and required next step that can be answered using the national Israeli data in the
future. The hazard may also depend on calendar time, not only via environmental exposure,
but also because of new variants appearing, against which, the vaccine may have different
efficacy. During the period over which the data were collected, the COVID-19 variant
B.1.1.7 was by far the most prevalent variant, and accounted for most of the documented
cases, hence the approximation of a constant hazard is justified. Yet, it is of great
importance to repeat this study in other populations in order to estimate the efficacy for
other variants and vaccines.
So take home: this is reassuring as far as it goes. But it does not answer the questions we care about now:
(1) How long does natural or vaccine induced immunity last?
(2) How does natural (from alpha or original variant) or vaccine induced immunity compare against delta variant?
I found this from Israel - with take-home the opposite of the X40 figure
Once in your live you should finally get it that a paper from 24.April cannot reflect the actual data that we now have at 27.July 2021. My data is from actual hospitalizations in Israel where one secondary infection is matched by 40 vaccine breakthrough cases. (May be you remember that you already commented on this!! and claimed that it must be less because only older have breakthrough cases...
So you here show twice your inability to follow a science discussion and make proper arguments. Further the persons linked to your THHuxleynew avatar either seem not to properly communicate...Or one person has Alzheimer.
And appalling that somone who has spent his life working to advance public health???
sometimes a window in my bluescreen appears..
interesting comment from Eric Weinstein about " somone"
Anthony Fauci should step down..
"If I wanted to maximise the number of lives saved ..
for better of for worse I am associated with so many negatives..
that I believe my presence here is in fact detrimental to our objectives..
and I will allow a younger person without the baggage to inherit this role...
TM 20.23
External Content
www.youtube.com
Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
"
Bad CDC news for vaccine friends from USA::
Linked by https://context-cdn.washington…b669-5308f2827155.#page=1
The document:: CDC 29July2021.pdf
USA:: Already 15% of hospital entries among fully vaccinated.
Delta is as transmissible as chicken Pox.
Overall CDC is still optimistic. But USA has a back leg to Israel of 2 months. There we know protection from Pfizer did break down after 5 months...So the 15% will go up to 35..50% within one more month.
What natural infections can give can be seen in Sweden : https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/
Almost Zero=0 deaths since weeks. Now slightly increasing cases as in Switzerland.
Fauci did know::
- HCQ works fine
- Ivermectin kills the virus
- How his friends added the AIDS spikes RNA to the virus
- He financed gain off research
I believe all of those statements are false. I am sure Fauci does not believe that HCQ works fine. I think he like most scientists does not see any evidence for Ivermectin working. The lab leak theory can still be considered as possible, but what the NIH-funded research in Wuhan did was not considered likely to be dangerous (and still is not). "add AIDS spike to the virus" - see later post on anti-Fauci misinformation. Financed gain off research - not true.
Display MoreBad CDC news for vaccine friends from USA::
Linked by https://context-cdn.washington…b669-5308f2827155.#page=1
The document:: CDC 29July2021.pdf
USA:: Already 15% of hospital entries among fully vaccinated.
Delta is as transmissible as chicken Pox.
Overall CDC is still optimistic. But USA has a back leg to Israel of 2 months. There we know protection from Pfizer did break down after 5 months...So the 15% will go up to 35..50% within one more month.
What natural infections can give can be seen in Sweden : https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/
Almost Zero=0 deaths since weeks. Now slightly increasing cases as in Switzerland.
As I have been saying all along, we were going to see a summer bump in cases similar to last year. Delta has defeated the vaccine as I said it would and without early home treatment this will continue for the foreseeable future. Mortality for delta has yet to be determined but based on the little data we have it does not look more lethal . That might change with the changing of seasons and it gains strength .
Once in your live you should finally get it that a paper from 24.April cannot reflect the actual data that we now have at 27.July 2021. My data is from actual hospitalizations in Israel where one secondary infection is matched by 40 vaccine breakthrough cases. (May be you remember that you already commented on this!! and claimed that it must be less because only older have breakthrough cases...
So you here show twice your inability to follow a science discussion and make proper arguments. Further the persons linked to your THHuxleynew avatar either seem not to properly communicate...Or one person has Alzheimer.
Not sure what you mean about communication? Talk to mods if you want to contact me. I don't always notice PMs from this site but do see them eventually.
Los Angeles County Bombshell: Blacks in County Die at Nearly 6X the Rate of Whites While Breakthrough Cases Total 25% Now
Los Angeles County health officials report that over 25% of new SARS-CoV-2 infections in the nation’s most populated county are occurring among the fully vaccinated. Therefore, the breakthrough infection trend associated with the Delta COVID-19 variant of interest in places like Israel and the UK is now happening in the United States. Indicating a worsening situation, this data was presented by Barbara Ferrer, director of Public Health. Ms. Ferrer also shared that the cases among the unvaccinated were rising at a far faster pace. While the experts here in Southern California, of course, argue that the vaccine is effective, they acknowledge some breakthrough infections are to be expected. But the growth to 25% from 20% the month previous is “noticeable.” Ms. Ferrer’s data also indicates that this particular spike preys on poor minorities—especially Black Angelenos—far more than any other group. While no mainstream media calls out the racial aspects of the surge here in the Southland, communities of color bear the brunt of the infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. The media seems to continuously keep a generalized level of fear up as to ensure the vaccination message is top of mind everywhere. At the same time, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into communities to educate minorities about vaccinations—is it working in the Black community, for example? The reality is that Blacks die at nearly six times the rate of whites here in this latest surge.
Local news affiliates also covered the presentation, but yet again, they avoided the elephant in the room—Fox 11 reported that from July 1 through July 16, a total of 3,592 vaccinated people were infected as compared to 13,598 unvaccinated infections. The daily test positivity rate is 5.2%, reports Ms. Ferrer, up from over 1%. The Public Health director presented general trends with an apparent uptick in 7-day Daily Average reported cases and hospitalization, which somewhat lags the first measure. So more hospitalizations are, unfortunately, to be expected as cases spike.
Cases in Los Angeles County are up, and young people are more impacted in this Delta-triggered wave. For example, the 12-17 group’s numbers have increased from 25 on June 18 to 137 on July 18. For the age 5 to 11 cohort during the same time period, the cases increased from 21 to 112. And with 4-year-olds and under, that figure totaled 17 last month and jumped to 89 this month. Los Angeles County hospitalization rates from June 18 to July 18 are up slightly, reports Ferrer, but again they can lag. There have been no young deaths.
Los Angeles County Snapshot
With about 10 million people (not including those undocumented, which is substantial here), Los Angeles is the most populated county in the nation. Highly diversified, its Black population is at about 8.1%, but has declined substantially due to underlying demographic shifts as traditional Southcentral Los Angeles districts were transformed by waves of incoming Mexican and Central Americans. Nearly 50% of the county is now Hispanic (Latino).
Currently, 52.5% of the population has received both vaccine shots, while 64.3% of the eligible population has received at least one shot.
COVID-19 & Racial & Ethnic Minorities
In a shocking but not surprising manifestation of the realities of economic state and race and ethnicity in America, it becomes apparent that the current surge in infections and hospitalizations in Los Angeles County is predominantly a Black and Latino problem—the mainstream media, of course, doesn’t want to delve into this matter. Blacks by far bear the brunt of the pathogen’s wrath.
First, race and ethnicity correlate with a proclivity for vaccination in Los Angeles County. While the mainstream media seeks to stoke divisive fires, shaming people and generally vilifying individuals that haven’t opted for vaccination, they often imply that this group of “vaccine-hesitant” people fall into the group of political “right wings,” or “anti-vaxxer” loons. Even subtle attacks have been made on born-again Christians and other assorted conservative caricatures. Of course, the actual truth is very different from the emerging Biden administration narrative. Instead, there is a plethora of rationale for why people avoid or wait to receive a vaccination.
But that’s the kind of tone coming out of Washington nowadays as the champagne socialist set now runs the show. Indeed, they have ruthlessly embraced a national narrative that doesn’t allow us to clearly or accurately pinpoint the true problem. The reality is that there is a sizable population that directly knows someone in their network that has either experienced a major adverse event or even death in association with the mass vaccination program. Out of the 11,000+ deaths reported in VAERS, the CDC declares that just three or so of these mortalities can be directly correlated, causally, to the jab. Yet when clustering the data, a very uncomfortable number of cases occur within 24 to 36 hours of the event, often in perfectly healthy people. People sense something is off, and they don’t like it when the government doesn’t offer more transparency in such circumstances.
Of course, across the county, Blacks are getting vaccinated at far lower rates than whites. As most Blacks tend to vote democratic, that contradicts the narrative that political aspirations power the resistance to the jab.
In a place like Los Angeles County, the incidence of vaccination is far less in the Black community than among whites or Asians. Overall, Asians are the most vaccinated population in the county, followed by whites, then Indigenous Americans; the vaccination rates drop markedly first with Latinos. At the very bottom of the vaccination base are African Americans—especially among people 30 and under.
Case/Hospitalization/Death Rates Over Past Month
Ms. Ferrer shared that from June 19 to July 17, the data associated with Case Incidence Rate, Hospitalization Rate, and Death Rate was made available in a slide titled “Age-Adjusted Case, Hospitalization, and Death Rates Per 100,000 People by Race and Ethnicity Over Two Week Period Ending June 19 and July 17.”
COVID-19 Case Incident Rate
Group June 19 July 17
rate per 100,000 in LA
Black 52 309
Latino 24 104
White 19 150
Asian 7 61
COVID-19 Hospitalization Incident Rate
Group June 19 July 17
rate per 100,000 in LA
Black 10.5 23.4
Latino 5.3 9.4
White 2.9 7.5
Asian 1.6 2.7
COVID-19 Death Rate
Group June 19 July 17
rate per 100,000 in LA
Black .8 1.1
Latino .5 0.6
White .2 0.2
Asian .2 0.2
As depicted by the data, Blacks are getting infected at double the rates of whites, but a noticeable trend materializes when reviewing hospitalization and death data. In Los Angeles County, this is predominantly a disease of minorities and poverty; and in this county, for the most part, economic class and race are intertwined. Of course, the elderly are the most at risk but that factor’s enhanced by race and income. That is, poor and elderly Blacks that are unvaccinated face far graver risks. Of course, if the authorities had authorized, or at least endorsed numerous economical, early-state treatments working across the globe, including in America, this would have been a very different pandemic. But the government must spin the narrative that it’s a lack of compliance and obedience of the population that’s the main culprit.
Hospitalization, a key metric, indicates the risk of material strain on the health system locally and, of course, represents a higher pathway toward severe long-term damage and death.
Shockingly, much of mainstream media fails to report on the racial aspects of this Delta surge. Instead, they overwhelmingly push a key narrative, a sort of script clearly shaped from or influenced by government health authorities that generalizes the risk of disease so as to scare everyone into getting vaccinated. This disturbing trend unfolds in Los Angeles where Blacks, a minority in Los Angeles County making up only 8% of the total population, are hospitalized at over three times the rate of whites. Blacks fare worse when looking at County death rates, and Blacks die at nearly six times the rate of whites. Hispanics (Latinos) die at three times the rate of whites and Asians.
Most hospitalizations involve unvaccinated people, and people should take that into account when considering vaccination, but there are also breakthrough infections that lead individuals to the hospital. According to Ferrer, of the total vaccinated population in Los Angeles County (4.8 million), 6,530 of these individuals tested positive, representing a breakthrough infection rate of 0.13%. Of that total, 287 have been hospitalized, and 30 have died. So anyone, such as the POTUS, that declared vaccination means one cannot get sick and die is espousing misinformation and spreading a dangerous lie.
Brief Note on Masking
Ferrer notified the public that mandatory indoor masking is now required whether vaccinated or not due to the high transmissibility rate of the Delta variant. TrialSite notes that data indicate it’s not as deadly, but this is still an unfolding situation, and the numbers can certainly rise. For more on the county’s masking policy, check out this website.
Mortality for delta has yet to be determined but based on the little data we have it does not look more lethal
What data is that? The only analyses I've seen have it as 2X more fatal than original COVID but I don't think quality of data is good yet. Maybe you have found something new?
A last word of caution to all those pretending the Covid-19 pandemic is toning down….
Synopsis
The current expansion in prevalence of infectious Sars-CoV-2 variants is highly problematic because it erodes natural Ab-based, variant-nonspecific immunity in the non-vaccinated part of the population. The high infectivity rate that results from this expansion not only further enhances the expansion of these variants but may also drive natural selection of viral variants that are featured by an even higher level of infectiousness. Erosion, therefore, of natural Ab-based, variant-nonspecific immunity promotes breeding and transmission of more infectious viral variants in the non-vaccinated part of the population. On the other hand, mass vaccination promotes natural selection of increasingly vaccine immunity (VI)-escaping variants in the vaccinated part of the population. Taken together, mass vaccination conducted on a background of high infectivity rates enables more infectious, increasingly VI-escaping variants to expand in prevalence. This evolution inevitably results in inclining morbidity rates in both, the non-vaccinated and vaccinated population and precipitates the emergence of circulating viral variants that will eventually fully resist vaccine-mediated immunity (VMI). This is why mass vaccination campaigns should not be conducted during a pandemic of a highly mutable virus, let alone during a pandemic of more infectious variants (unless transmission-blocking vaccines are used!). It is critical to understand that a rapid decline in viral infectivity rates that is not achieved by natural infection but merely results from expedited mass vaccination campaigns will only delay abrupt propagation of emerging, fully vaccine-resistant viral variants and hence, only delay the occurrence of a high wave of morbidity and mortality. In contrast, mass vaccination campaigns that are progressing more slowly, especially when conducted on a background of relatively low infectious pressure, will result in a steadily growing propagation of increasingly VI-escaping variants and hence, cause a wave of morbidity and mortality that continues to grow bigger and larger as more and more people become vaccinated. It’s only when fully vaccine-resistant viral variants will become dominant that this wave will start to peak.
To prevent more detrimental consequences of the ongoing evolution of Sars-CoV-2, we have no choice but to mitigate erosion of natural, Coronavirus (CoV)-nonspecific immunity in non-vaccinated individuals and exertion of strong immune selection pressure on immunodominant vaccinal epitopes in vaccinated individuals. This is to say that we MUST stop mass vaccination and lower viral infectivity rates immediately. Continued mass vaccination will only lead to a further increase in morbidity and hospitalization rates, which will subsequently culminate in a huge case fatality wave when the expansion of more infectious, vaccine-resistant variants will explode.
A rapid and substantial decrease in viral infectivity rates could be achieved by a short-term course of large-scale antiviral chemoprophylaxis (suitable candidates have already been identified) and adequate infection prevention measures while early treatment of symptomatically infected subjects and implementation of a healthy eating (including certain dietary supplements) and lifestyle (including exercise!) plan would further contribute to building herd immunity. Although this strategy is unlikely to eradicate the virus, it should allow forcing the pandemic into transitioning to a kind of ‘artificial’endemicity. Of course, as asymptomatic reservoirs (asymptomatically infected vaccinated or non-vaccinated humans or even animals) would remain, mass gatherings would still need to be avoided in the future and large-scale chemoprophylaxis campaigns using antiviral drugs would likely need to be repeated at specific time intervals and for as long as no sterilizing immune intervention is available. The action plan proposed above should immediately be implemented: Once the virus will become entirely resistant to the current vaccines, the above-mentioned measures will no longer be able to prevent a dramatic rise in casualties, unless campaigns of antiviral chemoprophylaxis are conducted worldwide and on a permanent basis.
Analysis of current evolution of the pandemic and impact thereon of mass vaccination campaigns
I herewith reiterate that I will continue to distance myself from those who pretend the pandemic is over or at least toning down as a result of growing herd immunity (HI). I take issue with the way the observations of genomic/ molecular epidemiologists are downplayed and with the fact that immunological data are oftentimes ignored, taken out of context, misinterpreted or not understood. I do not concur with experts who pretend that the pandemic has now started transitioning into an endemic phase and that the virus will eventually spontaneously degrade into yet another common cold CoV that is only of minor concern to public health. It seems, indeed, like some experts now tend to attribute diminished severity of disease and declining mortality rates to growing HI and/ or waning viral virulence. As will be explained below, the predictions they make are not taking into account the complex interplay between the growing infectious pressure exerted by more infectious circulating viral variants and the rising immune selection pressure exerted on the virus by the rapidly expanding immunized population. Their predictions are also not in line with recently published data from molecular/ genomic epidemiologists showing how rising population-level immune selection pressure is now driving the genomic evolution of Sars-CoV-2 variants (see previous contribution on website http://www.geertvandenbossche.org: ‘Why is the ongoing mass vaccination experiment driving a rapid evolutionary response of SARS-CoV-2?’ ).
It is simply mind-blowing that some experts still continue to ignore the negative impact of mass vaccination on the evolution of this pandemic. On the contrary, some of them even pretend that the weak link between the number of infectious cases and morbidity/ hospitalization rates, as now observed in several countries in Europe and in the US, proves that variants do not escape the immune system. They attribute this to a kind of broadly protective HI that has been acquired through previous exposure to common cold CoV and/or previous asymptomatic infection with Sars-CoV-2 and/or (according to others) Covid-19 vaccination. Some experts even continue to emphasize the role of cross-reactive T cells elicited by one or more of the above-described immunization events as a key contributor to HI. That cross-reactive memory T cells would prevent spike(S)-directed immune escape and, therefore, prevent S-directed immune escape variants from propagating and adapting to the host population is not based on any scientific evidence. There is, indeed, no scientific proof whatsoever that cross-reactive memory T cells in previously exposed or vaccinated individuals effectively contribute to eliminating/ killing CoV-infected cells. There is not even proof that any kind of T cell could possibly eliminate CoV-infected host cells in the absence of S-specific memory B cells. There is, therefore, no scientific evidence that cross-reactive, variant-nonspecific T cells contribute to curtailing or diminishing viral transmission and thus, contribute to HI. If the opposite would apply, one would not understand why, at a later stage of the pandemic, some previously asymptomatically infected subjects all of a sudden contract Covid-19 disease!
But even anti-S Abs generated upon previous exposure to common cold CoV or upon previous asymptomatic infection with Sars-CoV-2 or after immunization with Covid-19 vaccines fail to control viral transmission. This is because
Anti-S Abs elicited by previous exposure to common cold CoV do not neutralize Sars-CoV-19
Anti-S Abs elicited by asymptomatic infection are short-lived and not fully functional (there is no evidence that asymptomatic infection with Sars-CoV-2 induces memory B cells). It has been reported that these short-lived Abs are not responsible for virus elimination (the latter occurs even before anti-S-Abs start to peak)
Anti-S Abs elicited by vaccination lose their neutralizing capacity towards more infectious and increasingly S Ab-resistant variants (hence, explaining the steadily increasing occurrence of ‘breakthrough’ cases).
But, even more importantly: How do these experts reconcile an allegedly growing HI with rising infectivity rates that are currently observed in many countries due to increased circulation of the delta variant? Wouldn’t this argue for a growing erosion rather than for a consolidation of HI? This observation is certainly far from indicating that the pandemic is currently transitioning into endemicity.
So, if HI cannot account for reduced severity of the disease, then maybe spontaneous attenuation of the virus could? But how on earth would a treacherous virus all of a sudden breed descendant variants that are no more harmful than a common cold CoV? Viruses can only replicate, mutate or hide. Selection and adaptation of the mutations they produce is driven by selection pressure placed on specific phenotypic features of the virus. But what kind of selection pressure would force the virus into attenuation? And how could that happen, given that the current selection pressure on Sars-CoV-2 is reportedly known to be exerted by the population’s overall immune status and is directed at the S protein, which is known to enable viral infectiousness? When and how does natural immune selection pressure on the infectiousness of a pathogen cause diminished virulence? If these mass vaccination campaigns were really driving the propagation of ‘attenuated’ viral variants that are no longer of public health concern, I would rather welcome them as a blessing rather than rejecting them as a scourge! However, as far as I am aware, no genomic evidence has been provided so far to show that the delta variant or any other more infectious variant is currently evolving mutations that would mediate a more benign course of the disease or enable the virus to become intrinsically more infectious for younger age groups.
The scientifically more plausible explanation for the observed decline in disease severity in the non-vaccinated is that the delta variant, or any other more infectious variant, increasingly affects younger age groups (e.g., young adults). Younger age groups have higher levels of natural, polyreactive B1b Abs and can, therefore, better cope with antigenic variants than the elderly or individuals with underlying disease (see references from the literature on website http://www.geertvandenbossche.org under topic 1). This already explains why the delta variant is seemingly ‘less virulent’. But why does the delta variant (or other more infectious variants) increasingly target young to middle-aged adults? This, most likely, has to do with its higher level of infectiousness rather than with its intrinsic virulence. Higher viral infectiousness implies enhanced affinity of the variant spike protein for the Ace-2 (angiotensin-converting enzyme 2) entry receptor. Enhanced affinity results in diminished capture of the virus by natural, variant-nonspecific Abs. There is abundant and compelling scientific evidence on the protective effect of polyreactive, natural Abs, including their protective effect against a number of viral infections (see references from the literature on website http://www.geertvandenbossche.org under topic 1). Elevated levels of these Abs are to be considered a hallmark of natural protection from symptomatic infection upon Sars-CoV-2 exposure. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that individuals with low functional levels of natural Abs will be more prone to contracting severe Covid-19 disease.
But how or why do more infectious variants arise?
During the first ten months of the pandemic, high waves of infectious cases that occurred in overcrowded areas (e.g., slums, favelas, highly populated cities,..) affected by the pandemic may have caused immune pressure on viral infectiousness, especially upon re-exposure of previously asymptomatically infected individuals. It is possible that such events have been driving natural selection and enhanced circulation of more infectious, S-directed immune escape variants. The higher and more widespread the viral infectious pressure, the higher the likelihood that previously asymptomatically infected subjects become re-exposed to the virus at a point in time where their titers of low affinity, S-directed Abs are still high enough to compete with their natural, polyreactive Abs for binding to the circulating Sars-CoV-2 lineage (see Fig. 1; in previous contributions, I have explicitly explained why S-specific Abs have higher affinity for S protein than natural IgMs, which bind to virus surface-expressed motifs through multivalent interactions). Consequently, enhanced infectivity rates could lead to a transient increase of the susceptibility of younger age groups (< 60-65 years) to Covid-19 disease and may, therefore, raise morbidity and hospitalization rates in these age groups (as is currently observed in many European countries as well as in the US). So, the higher and more widespread the viral infectious pressure, the more productive the breeding ground for more infectious variants and the higher the likelihood for natural selection of certain S-directed immune escape variants (i.e., such that evolved mutations capable of resisting suboptimal immune pressure on viral infectiousness). Immune escape variants that are selected because of their capacity to overcome such immune pressure exhibit a higher level of infectiousness. This is how high infectivity rates may facilitate breeding of increasingly infectious viral variants. During the first year of the pandemic, several of such ‘more infectious’ immune escape variants have emerged (e.g., alpha, beta, gamma, delta).
Depending on the remaining protective effect provided by natural Abs, younger and healthy age groups, and children in particular, may not even show any symptoms at all, even though dominant circulation of more infectious variants (e.g., delta variant) is now substantially increasing the risk of repeated exposure. This already explains why Covid-19 disease in the non-vaccinated is primarily observed in young, middle-aged adults. Since younger age groups are generally better protected by natural, poly-reactive Abs, cases of severe disease in these groups are rather rare. The severity of the disease in these subjects is thought to depend on the time point of re-exposure after their previous infection (i.e., the shorter thereafter, the higher the concentration of blocking S-specific Abs, the higher the likelihood for contracting more severe disease).
Because both, binding of natural CoV-nonspecific Abs to Sars-CoV-2 and binding of Sars-CoV-2 to the Ace-2 entry receptor is mediated by multivalent interactions, it is reasonable to assume that the blocking effect of natural, CoV-nonspecific Abs on the interaction between the Ace-2 receptor and a given Sars-CoV-2 lineage primarily depends on the functional concentration of these natural Abs. This would already explain why, under normal circumstances (i.e., if not suppressed by S-specific Abs), young and/ or healthy individuals can effectively deal with all Sars-CoV-2 viral variants. The higher the affinity of S for Ace-2 (i.e., the higher the level of intrinsic viral infectiousness) and the older the age group, the lower the residual (i.e., non-suppressed) functional capacity of natural Abs.
In contrast, vaccinal Abs are directed at a limited set of S-derived Sars-CoV-2 motifs (i.e., epitopes primarily comprised within the receptor-binding domain [RBD] of the S protein). Hence, very few mutations within this limited set of epitopes will already substantially diminish the affinity of vaccinal Abs for binding to Sars-CoV-2. This, however, does not apply to S-specific Abs acquired upon recovery from natural Covid-19 disease as those are directed at a much broader and diversified spectrum of B cell epitopes. This would already explain why more infectious Sars-CoV-2 variants more readily escape from vaccinal S-specific Abs than from naturally acquired S-specific Abs and also why we are now seeing more and more breakthrough disease cases with the more infectious delta variant in vaccinees whereas young and/ or healthy individuals (provided seronegative for S protein) or previously symptomatically infected people remain largely protected from Covid-19 disease.
Molecular epidemiologists conclude that, because of the steadily increasing S-directed immune pressure exerted by the human population, circulating variants are now increasingly evolving mutations that drive resistance to S-specific Abs, especially to those recognizing immunodominant epitopes that are situated within the RBD and N-terminal domain (NTD) of the S protein. It is highly unlikely that naturally acquired S-specific Abs are responsible for this immune pressure as people who recover from Covid-19 disease only constitute a relatively small subset of the population and mount Abs against a much broader and more diversified panel of S-derived epitopes. Given the nature of the vaccinal Abs and the large vaccine coverage rates in most countries, there can be no doubt that the steadily increasing population-level immune pressure found to be exerted on RBD, for example, is caused by vaccination of large masses of people (in a previous contribution, I have expressed my astonishment about the fact that these brilliant scientists didn’t even mention ’mass vaccination’ at all as a potential cause of the massive increase in S-directed immune pressure; (see previous contribution on website http://www.geertvandenbossche.org: ‘Why is the ongoing mass vaccination experiment driving a rapid evolutionary response of SARS-CoV-2?’ ). This evolution is, of course, extremely worrisome. Whereas progressing convergent evolution towards increased resistance against functional, S-specific Abs elicited by the vaccine may not necessarily further increase the affinity of the virus for the Ace-2 receptor (and hence, not commonly cause more disease in young and healthy individuals), it is reasonable to assume that such evolution will rapidly raise the number and severity of disease cases in the vaccinated part of the population. This is because growing VI escape will cause vaccinees to lose their vaccine-mediated immune protection while having their natural, CoV-nonspecific natural Abs suppressed by high titers of long-lived, S-specific vaccinal Abs . It is reasonable to assume that, as a general rule, the level of suppression of natural, CoV-nonspecific Abs will increase with increasing strength (adjuvantation!), frequency and coverage rate of booster immunizations (including 2nd generation vaccines!).
Vaccinal S-specific Abs cannot outcompete S-specific Abs from previously symptomatically infected individuals for binding to viral variants due to multivalent B-cell epitope recognition by the naturally primed immune system. On the other hand, immunity acquired upon recovery from natural Covid-19 disease is very robust and has repeatedly been reported to be capable of dealing very effectively with a diversified range of antigenic variants upon re-exposure (including variants of concerns; VoCs). Non-antigen (Ag)-specific innate immune adjuvantation enables epitope spreading and is, therefore, likely to contribute to broad immune recognition. Naturally acquired immunity is, therefore, an almost ‘invariant’ component of herd immunity. It is, however, uncertain whether binding of S-specific Abs from previously symptomatically infected individuals to circulating VI-escaping viral variants could render these individuals more susceptible to Ab-dependent enhancement of disease (ADE).
Based on all of the above, it becomes already apparent that mass vaccination campaigns conducted in the midst of a pandemic of more infectious variants will rapidly and dramatically weaken, instead of strengthen, the population’s overall immune protection status and, therefore, not contribute to generating herd immunity. This is because mutual viral transmission between the non-vaccinated and vaccinated population enables a self-amplifying, synergistic effect between high viral infectivity rates (due to more infectious circulating variants) and high vaccine coverage rates (due to mass vaccination). This results in enhanced expansion of more infectious, increasingly VI-escaping variants as depicted in Fig. 2:
High infectivity rates turn populations in overcrowded areas into a breeding ground for more infectious variants. This is because high infectivity rates increase S-directed immune selection pressure and drive natural selection and adaptation of even more infectious variants. When variants with enhanced infectiousness are introduced in less densely populated areas or in places where public health measures effectively restrict viral spread, they may no longer allow new variants with an even higher level of infectiousness to outcompete them. However, they may still erode natural immunity in a number of previously asymptomatically infected individuals (i.e., starting with healthy, middle-aged adults and progressively involving younger and younger individuals). As a result, viral infection and transmission rates can still rapidly increase. This is to say that more infectious variants will always have the capacity to enhance their propagation and transmission by using non-vaccinated subjects as factories for their production.
High vaccine coverage rates turn the exposed vaccinated population into a brewery for more VI-escaping viral variants.
Upon their transmission to vaccinees, more infectious variants that will evolve additional mutations conferring increasing resistance to functional S-directed vaccinal Abs will be selected as those gain a competitive advantage in vaccinees and will, therefore, reproduce more effectively in the vaccinated population. Subsequent transmission of the VI-escaping variants to non-vaccinated subjects will enable them to rapidly expand in prevalence and, therefore, replace or at least dominate previously circulating variants. This situation will persist for as long as vaccinal Abs are functional enough to hamper productive interaction between the RBD and the Ace-2 entry receptor.
The interactions described above allow to understand how mass vaccination on a background of enhanced viral infectiousness (pandemic!) engages both, the vaccinated and unvaccinated population to expedite natural selection and adaptation of immune escape variants harboring additional, RBD-associated mutations which increasingly inhibit VMI. This is to say that mass vaccination campaigns conducted during a pandemic of more infectious variants will precipitate resistance of more infectious Sars-Cov-2 variants to S-based Covid-19 vaccines.
The more ‘more infectious’ variants expand and dominate and the more these variants are subject to vaccine-mediated immune selection pressure, the more rapidly the beneficial effect from mass vaccination (i.e., prevention of disease and hence, reduction of viral transmission) will be replaced by a growing failure of the vaccines to protect the vaccinees and of the vaccinees to protect the unvaccinated. This evolution is currently expedited by i) expansion of mass vaccination campaigns in youngsters and children and ii) relaxation of infection-prevention measures, including more frequent contacts among healthy individuals. More frequent contacts between asymptomatically infected vaccinated and non-vaccinated subjects will only promote breeding of new variants that are both, more infectious and more readily escape from vaccine immunity (e.g., lambda variant).
Summary
In summary, it is reasonable to postulate that the expansion of a series of more infectious variants and the concomitant explosion of infection rates has been due to natural selection and adaptation of more infectious circulating variants, some of which likely emerged and propagated as a result from overcrowding. As the more infectious alpha, beta, gamma or delta variants emerged prior to the deployment of mass vaccination campaigns, the latter can, indeed, not be at the origin of these variants. However, as the human population has recently been reported to exert more and more immune pressure on immunodominant epitopes comprised within the RBD, it is reasonable to assume that this additional immune pressure results from mass vaccination because the Covid-19 vaccines are primarily targeting the RBD and vaccine coverage rates are steadily growing. More infectious variants that have evolved to harbor naturally selected, S-directed immune escape mutations will readily gain a competitive advantage as continued mass vaccination campaigns with current S-based Covid-19 vaccines cause vaccinees to augment and broaden immune selection pressure on critically important, immunodominant epitopes comprised within those vaccines. Due to widespread immune selection pressure combined with a high viral infection rate and more frequent contacts between healthy vaccinated and non-vaccinated people, more infectious immune escape variants will now rapidly further evolve to fully escape VMI while expanding in prevalence. This is to say that new immune escape variants that can no longer be eliminated by any kind of VMI will soon become the dominant circulating strains.
In other words, circulation of more infectious variants lead to higher viral infection rates. As those are mostly mitigated by widespread implementation of infection-prvention measures, their impact is mostly restricted to self-amplifying expansion of more infectious Sars-CoV-2 variants in the non-vaccinated part of the population. On the other hand, high vaccine coverage rates drives natural selection of increasingly VI-escaping Sars-CoV-2 variants. This evolution is now enabling more infectious, increasingly VI-escaping Sars-CoV-variants to cause enhanced rates of disease in both populations. Consequently, mass vaccination during a pandemic of more infectious variants self-amplifies expansion of more infectious, increasingly VI-escaping Sars-CoV-variants. Both, the vaccinated and non-vaccinated part of the population fully contribute to this evolution.
Because of all of the above, I can certainly not endorse the opinion of those who think that the decrease in disease severity and hospitalizations that is now observed in several countries where mass vaccination is well advanced would be due to some kind of ‘attenuation’ of viral variants or to some kind of growing HI. One rather concludes that this pandemic is far from over and even far from transitioning into endemicity. There can be no doubt that, at this stage, the pandemic is gearing up for breeding vaccine-resistant ‘supervariants’, a phenomenon that is at risk of fueling an even larger wave of morbidity, hospitalization and, unfortunately, also death, not at least in the vaccinated part of the population.
The ongoing mass vaccination campaigns must immediately be abrogated because all of the Covid-19 vaccines fail to block viral transmission and their large-scale use during a pandemic of more infectious variants will inevitably lead to vaccine resistance of circulating Sars-CoV-2 variants. Instead, mass chemoprophylaxis campaigns should be conducted at regular intervals to reduce viral infectious pressure and transmission and prevent more infectious viral variants from fueling the breeding and dominant propagation of more infectious, vaccine-resistant variants. Furthermore, people should boost their health status whereas early treatment of patients who come down with Covid-19 disease (for more information, please consult, for example, prof. Dr. P. McCullough’s presentations and publications) would not only prevent severe disease and hospitalization but also enable these patients to more rapidly acquire broadly protective Abs facilitating killing/ elimination of virus-infected host cells and, therefore, diminish viral transmission and contribute to herd immunity. The above-mentioned interventions have been summarized in Fig. 3.
As we are now dealing with a pandemic of more infectious variants (e.g., delta variant), we cannot afford any longer to target herd immunity without relying on large scale antiviral chemoprophylaxis combined with early treatment of Covid-19 diseased patients. This, together with an immediate halt of all Covid-19 mass vaccination campaigns, should now constitute the main pillars of our battle against this otherwise totally uncontrollable pandemic.
As much as I follow reports on vaccine safety issues with a great deal of concern, worry and anxiousness, I tend to believe that the potential epidemiological impact of these vaccination campaigns on human lives could be orders of magnitude larger than that of their potential short- or long-term side effecs. I am, therefore, begging the WHO and all stakeholders of these campaigns to immediately intervene as proposed above. After the first experiment failed (instead of generating herd immunity, mass vaccination is now turning vaccinees into potential spreaders of VI-escaping variants!), our human race cannot afford a second large scale experiment that aims at continuing mass vaccination while promoting exposure of the population to an even higher infectious pressure exerted by even more infectious immune escape variants!
Overall Conclusion
Both, long-lived Sars-CoV-specific immunity acquired upon recovery from disease and innate, CoV-nonspecific Ab-mediated immunity normally contribute to establishing broadly protective herd immunity and thereby enable a natural CoV pandemic (or, for that matter, any pandemic of an acute, self-limiting viral disease) to eventually transition into an endemic phase. However, circulation of more infectious variants comes with a high price to pay for herd immunity to establish as high infectivity rates are more likely to erode natural, polyreactive (i.e., CoV-nonspecific) immunity in young and/ or healthy individuals. As a result, morbidity and hospitalization rates, and ultimately also the number of deaths, will increase. The self-amplifying cycle of enhanced viral infectivity would only come to an end when the population density is diluted down to a level low enough for viral transmission (of a highly transmissible/ infectious variant!) to substantially diminish.
Whereas fast and dominant propagation of naturally selected, more infectious variants continues to erode the natural first line of variant-nonspecific immune defense in the non-vaccinated part of the population, vaccination of large parts of the population and contacts among vaccinated and non-vaccinated subjects are driving natural selection and adaptation of more infectious and increasingly VI-escaping variants and are, therefore, increasingly compromising VMI. Neither previous CoV infection (including Sars-CoV-2 infection), nor higher vaccine coverage rates can compensate for the lost immunological capacity. Indeed, memory T cells elicited upon previous CoV infection or vaccination are not reportedly known to be endowed with cytotoxic activity towards CoV-infected cells, nor can S-specific Abs elicited upon previous CoV infection or vaccination prevent more infectious, increasingly VI-escaping variants Sars-CoV-2 variants from spreading. Molecular epidemiologists have suggested that immune failure to block viral transmission (e.g., in immunosuppressed patients) causes variants to convergently evolve specifically selected mutations, thereby enabling escape from VMI. VI escape together with suppression of natural, CoV-nonspecific Abs by vaccinal Abs will make vaccinees highly susceptible to contracting Covid-19 disease.
Dominant propagation of more infectious viral variants could be mitigated by mass chemoprophylaxis using a potent antiviral. At the same time, immune pressure on vaccinal S-specific epitopes must be mitigated by calling an immediate halt to mass vaccination campaigns. Furthermore, early treatment of symptomatic subjects can prevent severe disease and provide them with durable protection against a diversified spectrum of more infectious variants and, thereby, also reduce viral transmission.
HOWEVER, THIS IS THE LAST OPPORTUNITY TO LIMIT THE DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES OF MASS VACCINATION.
Indeed, it is yet uncertain and unexplored to what extent naturally selected immune escape variants can recombine upon co-infection and generate even more complex variants, the phenotypic characteristics of which are totally unpredictable. It is also unclear whether early treatment could prevent vaccinees who have become highly susceptible to Covid-19 disease (i.e., due to viral resistance to VMI) from succumbing to severe disease. In addition, it is completely unknown whether vaccinees and even individuals who previously contracted symptomatic infection are more likely to fall victim to enhanced Covid-19 disease (i.e., ADE) as their vaccinal Abs may no longer function to neutralize the virus but could still bind to it. Treatment of patients with ADE may be much more difficult and the outcome less predictable.
The more Sars-CoV-2 evolves to acquiring VI-escaping properties, the less likely vaccinees will benefit from the above-proposed strategy. This is because even low infectivity rates of circulating variants could suffice to boost their vaccinal Abs and hence, suppress their innate immune defense. Such re-stimulation could only be prevented by eradicating all of the currently circulating Sars-CoV-2 variants. Eradication of those could be achieved by using universal vaccines that induce sterilizing immunity. The development of such vaccines may require a fundamentally different approach to immune intervention in that induced immune effector cells ought to be capable of CoV-nonspecific killing of CoV-infected cells and provide durable protective immunity in all subjects of the population (regardless of their immunization history and immunogenetic background). It goes without saying that such characteristics would render a vaccine highly and durably effective, even when used in mass vaccination campaigns in the midst of a pandemic of a highly mutable virus, and even if more infectious viral variants would already be circulating. Of course, vaccine safety remains paramount and cannot be subject to any compromise, especially not when a smart combination of antiviral chemoprophylaxis, infection prevention, early treatment and adherence to health-strengthening eating and life-style habits could still be safe and effective in preventing cases of severe disease and prevent VI-escaping variants from becoming dominant.
Unless continued mass vaccination with S-based vaccines in populations exposed to a CoV pandemic would be proven to not cause immune selection pressure on the functionality of the vaccinal Abs and unless S-specific Abs would be proven to not compete with natural, CoV-nonspecific Abs for binding to Sars-CoV-2, mass vaccination campaigns during a pandemic, especially during a pandemic of more infectious variants, will neither enable herd immunity nor mitigate future waves of disease (unless transmission-blocking vaccines are used!). In fact, they have exactly the opposite effect in that they promote the spread of increasingly VI-escaping variants and suppress natural immunity in vaccinees. This will only result in higher morbidity and mortality rates in the part of the population that is normally naturally protected from Covid-19 (i.e., the vast majority of the population). A decline of severe morbidity and mortality rates is only observed in the elderly and in people with some underlying diseases. The outcome, therefore, of the mass vaccination campaigns is very different from the original objective, which was to protect the vast majority of people, including those who are immunologically Sars-CoV-2 naïve (the latter would be protected by herd immunity!). Scientifically speaking, it is hard to understand how the circulating, more infectious Sars-CoV-2 variants would not rapidly evolve to overcome the RBD-directed immune pressure that is currently exerted by large parts of the human population and merge into a supervariant that evades the immune response induced by all of the S-based Covid-19 vaccines. It is simply unthinkable that the ongoing mass vaccination campaigns could mitigate, let alone terminate, this pandemic of more infectious Sars-CoV-2 variants and force the virus into adopting milder instead of even more problematic features.
I, therefore, reiterate that the currently observed convergence of naturally selected mutations towards S-derived antigenic sites that facilitate or are directly responsible for binding to the Ace-2 entry receptor combined with the velocity at which this evolution currently takes place poses a huge and imminent threat to the human population and will heavily backfire if we continue mass vaccination on a background of high viral infection rates while largely relaxing infection prevention measures.
Last but not least, it must be emphasized that those calling themselves ‘experts’ while pretending that this pandemic is ‘a pandemic among the non-vaccinated’ are devoid of any scientific insight into the evolutionary dynamics of Sars-CoV-2 as currently shaped by a combination of high viral infectivity and high vaccine coverage rates. Neither the vaccinated (who simply trusted that the vaccine would protect them from Covid-19 disease) nor the non-vaccinated (who simply trust that their natural immunity will protect them from Covid-19 disease) are to be blamed for the escalation of this pandemic. MASS vaccination is the one and only culprit.
Note: A copy of this letter has been sent to WHO, NIH, CDC, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI, CEPI, FDA, EMEA
Fig 1: More infectious immune escape variants outcompete the original virus lineage (Wuhan strain) for binding to Ace-2 entry receptor. Antigen (Ag)-specific IgG antibodies (Abs) outcompete natural, poly-reactive (multi Ag-specific) IgM Abs for binding to Sars-CoV-2. Ace-2 outcompetes Ag-specific but not natural, polyreactive Abs for binding to more infectious variants.
Fig 2: Effect of S(pike)-based Covid-19 vaccines on viral evolution when used for mass vaccination
during a Sars-CoV-2 pandemic. If flanked by infection prevention measure, more infectious variants
are not likely to lead to dominant propagation of naturally selected, even more infectious variants but
only to enhanced expansion of the circulating, more infectious variants
Fig 3: Interventions aimed at controlling propagation of more VI-escaping Sars-CoV-2 variants such as to
prevent dominant circulation of vaccine-resistant variants. Early treatment contributes to strengthening
broadly protective immunity mediated through acquired, S-specific Abs.
What data is that? The only analyses I've seen have it as 2X more fatal than original COVID but I don't think quality of data is good yet. Maybe you have found somethin
scientificamerica.com late June article. The site is down right now check later Thomas
Federal Government Vaccine Messaging Faces Reality Crisis
In what some consider shocking news, the growing breakthrough infections and evolving viral variants mean that vaccination within this next phase of the pandemic doesn’t necessarily stop the person who is vaccinated from spreading the virus. Real-world studies had hinted that vaccination slows the spread, but the Delta variant is a gamechanger. As Dr. Fauci recently explained, this means that if someone is infected with Delta, the viral load in the nasopharynx is comparable for both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. This means that the vaccinated can carry and spread the Delta variant, just like the unvaccinated.
This new data doesn’t take away from the fact that the vaccinated are still protected from more severe illness and death, although as TrialSite has reported in other articles, breakthrough infections are leading to hospitalizations and death, just at a lower level in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated. In light of this new data on transmission, the CDC has yet again changed its guidance to recommend wearing masks indoors, even for those who are fully vaccinated. (Not too long ago, the CDC recommended that fully vaccinated people did not have to wear masks indoors, so this is a swift change of advice.) The new data could also impact the quest for herd immunity, an altruistic concept in which those who are eligible to get vaccinated, and do, prevent the spread of a virus to those “in the herd” who cannot be vaccinated for whatever reason. Now, if one is vaccinated and experiences a Delta breakthrough infection, that whole premise is challenged.
Communication 101
Government-sponsored, pro-vaccination communication rippling through society and every mainstream media outlet has focused on the importance of vaccination as a societal duty to stop the spread of the disease and protect others. With the new data on the Delta variant and transmission, those statements are, at the least, misleading. Delta has complicated the vaccine rollout, and people suspect that something is awry when policies and mask recommendations rapidly shift.
The government’s communication scheme has continuously struggled in relaying information about COVID-19 to an already distrustful population, but that doesn’t mean that absolute answers should replace uncertain ones for the ease of implementing a policy. For a government also interested in combatting misinformation, with this new data on Delta and transmission, it’s inaccurate to promote COVID-19 vaccines with slogans and messages that emphasize “stopping the spread” or “protecting your loved ones.” People will recognize the discrepancy and lose trust.
Call to Action: The federal government must figure out how to communicate uncertainty in a more honest, transparent, and holistic way to avoid losing credibility with already skeptical audiences.
On the COVID Delta and masks for the vaccinated: “Governor Newsom, Dr. Wen, and Dr. Walensky, please spare us!”
Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite.
Between Dr. Wen, Governor Newsom, and CDC Director Walensky, I cannot say which one is more nonsensical and inept. I continue to struggle to pin down who wears that crown as these three lockdown lunatics seem to outdo each other daily with their efforts toward stupidity and verbal tripe. What a trio of misinformation and unscientific, highly unsound falsehoods they repeat daily to the public. Always uninformed. All this crap they are talking about Delta. Delta, Delta, Delta. But we have looked at the evidence, and it is infectious, but it is not deadly. It is not lethal. This is the current evidence, so we do not know where they get their junk science from to underpin the masking of the vaccinated who are indoors. Or even a push for broad mask use at this time.
Moreover, the narrative that new infections (Delta) are raging only in the unvaccinated is pure nonsense and a lie. It appears to actually be the opposite. Even Townhall’s Vespa wants them to shut the hell up with their nonsensical, unscientific tripe. Indications are that Delta is running at higher numbers in the unvaccinated (though Israel and U.K. data suggest 50:50, but we have to give room for immature data), but it does not make one sicker. It’s not ever about infections, it’s about hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths. Does the Delta drive this up? No! Not based on the evidence we have. It does not.
At times, I do not know if I should feel sorry for the CDC Director and her catastrophic, foolish statements or start crying that this is who leads the CDC. What a mess we are in. Newsom goes on television and slams Tucker when he talks such specious nonsense himself. He destroyed his state for 17 months with irrational and hysterical lockdowns that never worked. Children suffered in his state due to the unnecessary school closures and prolonged closures. Does the CDC Director ever read the science before she speaks? This new CDC guidance on masks indoors in the vaccinated takes the cake. Children, too? So why the heck did people take the vaccines? Are you tacitly saying the vaccines do not work? We could have told you that six months ago. It is the height of stupidity. What boloney.
We thought Dr. Fauci was the king of misinformation and scientific drivel, but Dr. Walensky has now begun challenging him for his chair. Remember when Fauci told the nation that asymptomatic spread is rare and never a driver of pandemics such as COVID? Yet he went on to lock down the country due to asymptomatic spread. If CNN’s Berman is lost, you know the CDC and Dr. Walensky are in some trouble. If you cannot keep him under wraps, then something has gone wrong, and your credibility is shot even to him who you own. Fully vaccinated people now must wear masks again in high-case areas. What constitutes a highly infectious area? Well, that’s not clear yet, but I’m sure the CDC and Dr. Anthony Fauci will make up some science fiction to justify this new mask mandate. The mandates are coming too. Not nationwide, Biden can’t do that yet due to the midterms, but federal agencies are one-by-one mandating it for workers who risk the loss of pay or their jobs if they refuse.
Remember when Makary of Johns Hopkins wrote the elegant piece in the WSJ on the potency of natural immunity and slammed Fauci et al. for their nonsense relegating natural immunity? He even wrote this: “The news about the U.S. Covid pandemic is even better than you’ve heard. Some 80% to 85% of American adults are immune to the virus: More than 64% have received at least one vaccine dose and, of those who haven’t, roughly half have natural immunity from prior infection. There’s ample scientific evidence that natural immunity is effective and durable, and public-health leaders should pay it heed”. We knew that while only 10-12% of Americans (35 to 40 million) have lab-confirmed infection, we project that it is actually 200 million based on a February 2020 modelling estimate that there are 7 times as many infections as there are lab-confirmed infections. Makary even writes, “Some health officials warn of possible variants resistant to natural immunity. But none of the hundreds of variants observed so far have evaded either natural or vaccinated immunity with the three vaccines authorized in the U.S.”
A word to this nonsensical, seemingly uninformed trio of Wen, Fauci, and Walensky: “the Delta is infectious but very, very mild.” It is not the problem as you are trying to make it out to be with this ridiculous mask guidance for vaccinated persons indoors. Again, then why did people take the vaccine? You said it would stop transmission and infections. Did the CDC, NIH, and vaccine developers lie? There is even a cogent debate that we are driving the emergence of variants with the vaccine program. What utter garbage, we do not need masks now, and definitely not for children in schools. What absurdity and how reckless. The sum of masking and mandates evidence shows that it is highly ineffective and potentially harmful. The U.K. and Israel data clearly verify that Delta is contagious but non-lethal. The pandemic is over, finished. We are closing it out, and we do not need a vaccine to do this; we need early multi-drug sequenced treatment (McCullough, Risch, Zelenko, Kory, etc.), combined with proper securing of the elderly high-risk persons in nursing homes (for once), improved personal behaviors around you, diet to keep body weight under control (as obesity is a key super-loaded risk factor), vitamin D supplements especially for minority persons with darker skin color (and those confined for prolonged periods indoors), improved hand hygiene, and above all, allow low risk, younger, well and healthy persons in the society to live free lives to be exposed naturally and harmlessly. In this way, they, the infected and then immune low risk persons, will help us protect the high-risk elderly. But the high-risk must be secured first.
The new CDC guidance on masks (out today in terms of indoor masks for the vaccinated etc.) is ludicrous and based on no science, false science, and flawed science. They should be ashamed that they continue to put garbage pseudoscience out, and they are working to scare the nation and parents into vaccinating their children. It is plain to see.
Leave our children alone; they are at very low, near statistical zero risk of acquiring the infection, including Delta, or of transmitting it, or getting severely ill or dying from it. This is established from stable global data. Not new science. There is no justification, none, zero, why our children are to be vaccinated for this illness. It is all a pack of lies, and the CDC, NIH, FDA, and vaccine developers better be careful that they do not cause the harm and deaths of our children with these vaccines, for they do not want to feel the subsequent wrath of parents. Maybe U.S. mothers will be the ones to straighten this mess out before the first child, God forbid, dies due to the vaccines. We have been warning that these vaccines are potentially unsafe. Do not use it on our children. It is reckless and dangerous to vaccinate our children with these vaccines that have not been safely tested and not followed for the proper duration to ‘exclude’ harms. The CDC’s VAERS database and Europe’s database for adverse vaccine effects show tens of thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands and even millions of adverse effects, and severe due to the vaccine. They are all temporally linked to the vaccine with strong biological plausibility and consistency. Our worst nightmare is coming through with the vaccines.
Governor Newsom, you lockdown lunatic, please keep your mouth shut and spare us the verbal diarrhea as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
