I couldn't think of an appropriate response to the study Fauci recently published with some accomplices. My blood boiled, but at the same time I wondered why on earth someone is seeking publicity with a confession of multiple premeditated manslaughter — and there are more serious allegations to think of. Is he really inviolable...!? In that study, he also immediately takes an advance on his next scam: distributing vaccines through the air. That lifts the restrictions of injected vaccines and will therefore work much better because injecting, little can be expected from that... Just imagine. The article below does not address that aspect. It is a sober consideration of a number of aspects of the study, insofar as they touch on the practiced vaccination narrative. The moral judgment leaves author David Bell to the individual reader. In any case, I have already responded to that.
Translation of a article by David Bell on Brownstone.org
"Attempts to combat mucosal respiratory viruses with systemically administered non-replicating vaccines have so far largely failed."Dr A Fauci (former director of NIAID), 2023, on vaccines for Covid-19.
Het tijdschrift Cell Host & Microbe publiceerde onlangs een van de belangrijkste Articles of the Covid era: "The perspective of a new generation of vaccines against coronaviruses, influenza viruses and other respiratory viruses". This generated surprisingly little fanfare in the media, given its authorship and content.
First, the last author Dr. Anthony Fauci, the recently retired director of the United States National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), was normally a magnet for the media. Second, because Dr. Fauci and his co-authors provide evidence that much of what the authorities have told the public about Covid vaccines conflicted with what they knew was true.
Compliments to Dr. Fauci for confessing the basics of viruses and immunology. As leading medical journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine of the Lancet had hired editors with such knowledge three years ago, they might have contributed to public health rather than to the destruction of society and global human rights. If those in authority had explained these truths and based their policies on them, the situation would have been different.
The same goes for the entire medical world. A lot of death, poverty and inequality could have been prevented. Trust in the institutions in which they work would also have been maintained.
The paper, co-authored by Dr. Fauci, discusses the possibilities of developing vaccines against the coronavirus and other rapidly mutating respiratory viruses. It is best to go through the document in three parts: the evidence provided by the authors, the remaining dogma that persists despite the fact that it conflicts with this evidence, and finally, the implications of the document for the response of Covid in the field of public health.
It is recommended that the original study as only excerpts are highlighted in this article.
Poor effectiveness of vaccines and the superiority of natural immunity.
The overview makes it clear that vaccines against respiratory viruses such as influenza or coronaviruses (e.g. SARS-CoV-2 responsible for Covid) are unlikely to reach the level of effectiveness we expect from other vaccines. The authors point to CDC Data showing that the efficacy of flu vaccines, which are now administered for all ages from 6 months, has ranged from just 14 percent to a maximum of 60 percent since 2005 (17 years ago this would have dropped to 10 percent, with average vaccine efficacy (VE) just under 40 percent). As Dr. Fauci notes:
"... Our best-approved flu vaccines would be insufficient for licensing most other vaccine-preventable diseases."
"... Not surprisingly, none of the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses have ever been effectively fought by vaccines."
The authors give clear explanations for this lack of effectiveness:
"The vaccines for these two very different viruses have common characteristics: they provide incomplete and short-lived protection against evolving virus variants that escape the immunity of the population."
Not only the high mutation rate is a problem, but also the mode of infection:
"They multiply mainly in local mucosal tissue, without causing viremia, and do not significantly come into contact with the systemic immune system or the full force of adaptive immune responses, which take at least 5-7 days to mature, usually well after the peak of viral multiplication and further transmission to others."
As this honest review notes, Covid vaccines were never expected to significantly reduce infection or transmission.
The authors explain what most infectious disease doctors and immunologists have known throughout the Covid outbreak; that circulating antibodies (IgG and IgM) play only a limited role in fighting infections such as Covid, while mucosal antibodies (IgA) in the upper respiratory tract lining, which are not stimulated by injected vaccines, play a much larger role:
"The importance of mucosal secretory IgA (sIgA) in pathogen-specific responses against viral respiratory infections has long been recognized for influenza viruses, RSV, and more recently SARS-CoV-2."
The importance of this is that systemic vaccines, as the authors note, do not induce mucosal IgA production.
The efficacy against severe Covid that systemic vaccines provide to some unexposed people within a given window is explained by the observation:
"IgA appears to be a better effector in the upper respiratory tract, while IgG is better in the lungs."
The early variants of SARS-CoV-2 were characterized by lung involvement. While the CDC has shown that vaccination on top of natural immunity provides little clinical benefit, the reduction in Covid mortality (as opposed to all-cause mortality) claimed for the vaccines has among the early potential immunosuppression and the later decrease of the efficacy a reasonable immunological basis.
As the NIH acknowledges, T cells are also a primary defense against coronaviruses, with cross-immunity to SARS-CoV-2 observed in many people who have not previously been infected. Fauci et al. make the interesting note that T-cell correlates for immunity are found after an influenza infection, but not after an influenza vaccination. This suggests another mechanism to explain the lower effectiveness of vaccines compared to natural infection, even against early SARS-CoV-2 variants.
In short, both the coronavirus and flu vaccines are bad:
"The vaccines for these two very different viruses have common characteristics: they provide incomplete and short-term protection against evolving virus variants that escape the immunity of the population."
Clearly and succinctly said.
Struggling with dogma
The real value of the article lies in the way the Covid dogma is contrasted with the evidence. The authors begin by noting that up to 5 million people worldwide die from respiratory viruses each year. A comparison with the 6.8 million Covid deaths recorded by the World Health Organisation in three years would have provided a useful context (Note: It is important to distinguish between Covid deaths and total deaths from the pandemic, including those from Covid and lockdown). However, such recognition would be ill-fitting for their following statement that:
"SARS-CoV-2 has killed more than 1 million people in the United States."
This is, of course, incorrect. It is based on deaths following a recent positive PCR result, in which the CNN's Covid analyst now admits it's exaggerations. Even stranger is that the authors claim:
"... the rapid development and deployment of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has saved countless lives and contributed to early partial control of the pandemic."
That the vaccines apparently saved too many lives for the authors is surprising. Dr Fauci felt able to contemplate the number of deaths during the first year of the Covid outbreak, when the virus hit a population said to have no prior immunity. Recorded mortality was similar in the second year, after mass vaccination was imposed, despite the fact that the serious disease was highly concentrated in a relatively small, well-defined Older minority which was given priority in the vaccination programme. It is therefore more likely that the vaccines prevented relatively few deaths. Such a lack of effect is fully in line with the expectations of the aforementioned authors.
Achieving "early partial epidemic control" is simply odd for authors who have noted that the IgG response doesn't really kick in until after the peak of viremia and transmission. Pitting dogma against evidence is really difficult when you've established your reputation on the dogma, so the struggle visible here is understandable.
In recognition of the impact of reality on the Covid vaccine program, we can accept the rather vague acknowledgement that despite vaccination:
"... significant numbers of deaths [among the vaccinated] continue to occur."
As the authors acknowledge:
"Attempts to combat mucosal respiratory viruses with systemically administered non-replicating vaccines have so far largely failed."
The importance of this paper
The authors of this paper are not developing new hypotheses to explain why the performance of the Covid vaccine was disappointing. They simply repeat previous knowledge. It was not expected that the predictions of high and sustained efficacy of the vaccine, and that vaccination would pave the "way out of the pandemic", would come true. These claims were a ploy to encourage them to follow a plan that would greatly enrich certain business and public health figures. People with a reasonable knowledge of the subject knew that the rhetoric was false, although relatively few people said so. The rest was probably fooled.
Fauci and co-authors are therefore making an important contribution to the Covid story, underlining the deception of the past two years. Claims that this deception promoted a common good — that there was a "global pandemic" and that adherence to mass vaccination would benefit the population — are refuted by the evidence of Fauci et al. Mass vaccination, while financially very successful for a small but influential minority, was never expected to work.
Natural immunity would always be more effective than vaccines, and explanations to the contrary, such as the John Snow Memorandum promoted by the Lancet contradicted expert knowledge and common sense. Belittling those who point out the relative superiority of natural immunity was slander. When the last author of this article publicly stated that Covid-19 vaccines work much better than natural immunity to protect you from the coronavirus, he knew that it was highly unlikely to be true.
The public health community misled the public to promote injections of a new class of drugs. They had no data on long-term safety, the vaccines targeted a virus they knew was little harmful to the vast majority of those they targeted, while many or most already had more effective natural immunity.
The long-term consequences of this deception remain to be seen, and will include a loss of trust in public health and medical practice. This loss of trust is justified and can be argued as a good thing. How everyone reacts to the confirmation that they have been fooled by those who promoted this story is an individual choice.
The most foolish reaction would be to pretend that the deception did not take place.
About the Author:
David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in the field of global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), program head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA.
The rats leave the Titanic. If the boss-rat packs his things, you better be quick, because the latter will be the 'bag holder' (the designated culprit).
I read in the observation that "non-replicating vaccines" work badly, that the next generation will be replicating – that they will therefore develop "healthy diseases". That's scary.
Fauci is a psychopath who should be publicly executed.
"No, there can't even be contagiousness." "Here's another statement: There's not one paper in the scientific literature that shows that, in the normal way you would otherwise get sick, you can infect a human or animal."
See for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22723413/ (Oops, here's Ron Fouchier...)
This one then, a bit older though: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24920819/ about aerosol virus infection through the eyes.
It's choking on it.
I happen to know these but there are dozens of them. And much more further back. They all go through the same development over the decades. Contact contamination and 1.5 m were in the area, but the recognition of air contamination took a long time. Perhaps it will continue to another new understanding, but that should either explain the observations of contamination or show with reproducible experiments that those observations must have been incorrect.
He just needs to get his booster. In Kentucky, for example. https:// banned. video/watch?id=63f929fc85d91c3d2e570754 (remove spaces from link, due to "spam" censorship)
Leo, I had mentioned earlier in another comment a study in which people were infected. That worked properly. Last week I gave a description there. I'm very curious what is wrong with that, it comes across as conclusive to me. https://virusvaria.nl/pokeren-met-besmettingen/