Dr. Fauci cleans up with vaccines and respiratory viruses

Ik kon geen passende reactie bedenken op de studie die Fauci met enkele medeplichtigen onlangs publiceerde. Mijn bloed kookte maar tegelijkertijd vroeg ik mij af waarom iemand in hemelsnaam de publiciteit zoekt met een bekentenis van meervoudige doodslag met voorbedachte rade - en er zijn zwaardere aantijgingen te bedenken. Is hij echt onschendbaar...!? Hij neemt in die studie ook meteen een voorschot op zijn volgende scam: vaccins verspreiden via de lucht. Dat heft de beperkingen van geïnjecteerde vaccins op en gaat dus véél beter werken want injecteren, daar is weinig van te verwachten... Stel je toch voor. In onderstaand artikel komt dat aspect niet aan de orde. Het is een nuchtere beschouwing van een aantal aspecten uit de studie, voor zover die raken aan het gepraktiseerde vaccinatie-narratief. Het morele oordeel laat auteur David Bell over aan de individuele lezer. Daar heb ik dan in elk geval al gehoor aan gegeven.

Translation of a article by David Bell on Brownstone.org

"Pogingen om mucosale respiratoire virussen te bestrijden met systemisch toegediende niet-replicerende vaccins zijn tot dusverre grotendeels mislukt."

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 van het Covid-tijdperk: "The perspective of a new generation of vaccines against coronaviruses, influenza viruses and other respiratory viruses". Dit leverde verrassend weinig fanfare op in de media, gezien het auteurschap en de inhoud ervan.

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:

"…onze best goedgekeurde griepvaccins zouden ontoereikend zijn voor licenties voor de meeste andere door vaccins te voorkomen ziekten."

Indeed:

"…het is niet verrassend dat geen van de overwegend mucosale respiratoire virussen ooit effectief door vaccins is bestreden."

The authors give clear explanations for this lack of effectiveness:

"De vaccins voor deze twee zeer verschillende virussen hebben gemeenschappelijke kenmerken: ze bieden onvolledige en kortstondige bescherming tegen evoluerende virusvarianten die ontsnappen aan de immuniteit van de bevolking."

Not only the high mutation rate is a problem, but also the mode of infection:

"Zij vermenigvuldigen zich voornamelijk in lokaal mucosaal weefsel, zonder viremie te veroorzaken, en komen niet noemenswaardig in aanraking met het systemische immuunsysteem of de volledige kracht van adaptieve immuunreacties, die ten minste 5-7 dagen nodig hebben om te rijpen, gewoonlijk ruim na de piek van virale vermenigvuldiging en verdere overdracht op anderen."

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:

"Het belang van mucosaal secretoir IgA (sIgA) in pathogeenspecifieke reacties tegen virale infecties van de luchtwegen wordt al lang erkend voor influenzavirussen, RSV en meer recent 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 blijkt een betere effector te zijn in de bovenste luchtwegen, terwijl IgG beter is in de longen."

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:

"De vaccins voor deze twee zeer verschillende virussen hebben gemeenschappelijke kenmerken: ze bieden onvolledige en kortdurende bescherming tegen evoluerende virusvarianten die ontsnappen aan de immuniteit van de bevolking."

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 heeft meer dan 1 miljoen mensen in de Verenigde Staten gedood."

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:

"…de snelle ontwikkeling en inzet van SARS-CoV-2 vaccins heeft ontelbare levens gered en bijgedragen tot een vroege gedeeltelijke beheersing van de pandemie."

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.

Het bereiken van een "vroege gedeeltelijke epidemiebeheersing" is gewoon vreemd voor auteurs die hebben opgemerkt dat de IgG-respons pas echt op gang komt na de piek van de viremie en de overdracht. Dogma's tegenover bewijzen stellen is echt moeilijk als je je reputatie op het dogma hebt gevestigd, dus de strijd die hier zichtbaar is, is begrijpelijk.

In recognition of the impact of reality on the Covid vaccine program, we can accept the rather vague acknowledgement that despite vaccination:

"…er nog steeds significante aantallen sterfgevallen [onder de gevaccineerden] voorkomen."

As the authors acknowledge:

"Pogingen om mucosale respiratoire virussen te bestrijden met systemisch toegediende niet-replicerende vaccins zijn tot nu toe grotendeels mislukt."

The importance of this paper

De auteurs van dit paper ontwikkelen geen nieuwe hypothesen om te verklaren waarom de prestaties van het Covid-vaccin teleurstellend waren. Zij herhalen gewoon eerdere kennis. Er werd niet verwacht dat de voorspellingen van een hoge en aanhoudende werkzaamheid van het vaccin, en dat vaccinatie de "weg uit de pandemie" zou vrijmaken, zouden uitkomen. Deze beweringen waren een truc om aan te zetten tot het volgen van een plan dat bepaalde bedrijfs- en volksgezondheidsfiguren enorm zou verrijken. Mensen met een redelijke kennis van het onderwerp wisten dat de retoriek onjuist was, hoewel relatief weinig mensen dat zeiden. De rest werd waarschijnlijk voor de gek gehouden.

Fauci en co-auteurs leveren daarom een belangrijke bijdrage aan het Covid-verhaal, en onderstrepen het bedrog van de afgelopen twee jaar. Beweringen dat dit bedrog een algemeen goed bevorderde - dat er een "wereldwijde pandemie" was en naleving van de massavaccinatie de bevolking ten goede zou komen - worden weerlegd door het bewijs van Fauci et al. Massavaccinatie, hoewel financieel zeer succesvol voor een kleine maar invloedrijke minderheid, zou naar verwachting nooit werken.

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.