Why the vaccine was predictably (in retrospect!) a bad idea

The contradiction in the title of this is deliberate, because most of the problems appearing with the RNA vaccines developed for COVID could have been, and in many cases were, predicted years ago. However, the real world is the sole ultimate teacher. This article is only to draw attention to some fairly simple truths that were knowable from the start, but were buried by the fanatical enthusiasm of influential organisations and individuals for novel vaccines.

As background, remember that pandemic planning was under consideration for years through a WHO that was rather less corrupted than it is now. The main hypothetical organism was an influenza mutation, but the various scares over the years made something like SARS or MERS a distinct possibility as well.

These excellent pandemic plans, almost universally ditched last March, as we all know, did not involve vaccination, if only because it was known that by the time an appropriate vaccine was developed and tested for an entirely new bug, any pandemic would be over. The planners were right not to incorporate non-existent technologies into their advice – something the green energy enthusiasts might do well to consider before banning fossil fuels.

It appears that the emerging technology of mRNA vaccinations offered some enthusiasts – including, of course, the ubiquitous Bill Gates – the potential of rolling out new vaccines quickly enough to shorten a pandemic, provided one could get the whole planet vaccinated in short order. It is not surprising that Big Pharma would jump at the chance of such a big killing – I mean “financial killing” of course; the obsession of some of the other big players with overpopulation is a discussion for another day.

Still, it is interesting to speculate how the vision of quenching all future pandemics with this novel approach – very prominent in strategy documents for the UN, the WEF and so on – would lead to other measures being necessary to control the world’s billions into getting the vaccine so developed: emergency powers to curtail freedoms for the state, tight control of the media, universal digital identities and so on would be necessary for the idea to work. It is notable how many of these were under discussion at high level long before COVID appeared, and of course during the pandemic, as in the Great Reset WEF conference and the launch of ID2020.

Fast forward from pandemic planning a decade ago to October 2019, when the WEF and Gates Foundation “Event 201” modelled a Coronavirus pandemic that actually began, apparently through an entirely coincidental lab leak, just a month later. It would seem that the “gaps” in strategy highlighted at this event may have had some influence on the actual worldwide response – some research on that would be a good project for someone. Mass vaccination was very much on its agenda, though. And come March, sure enough the carefully laid pandemic plans were torn up (except in Sweden, for example, where final excess deaths have proved lower than 2015), and the whole world was mobilised for mRNA vaccination. Only vaccines could save us.

It was necessary to overplay the severity of the pandemic massively to make this “moonshot” strategy, with its associated social and economic strictures, persuasive. It was also necessary to censor any suggestion of alternative therapeutic approaches: as we shall see, had these been pursued, a way to ameliorate all such pandemics could have been found for the future, whereas the vaccination strategy is fast becoming the means to make this pandemic permanent.

In summary, many powerful figures saw RNA vaccines as the strategy for, in particular, a Coronavirus pandemic. Other avenues were downplayed, including for example the antiviral properties of patent-expired ivermectin, which were already becoming known way back in 2012.


Now, opponents of mRNA vaccines warned long ago about the cytokine storm phenomenon that curtailed development of SARS-1 vaccines at the animal stage. Nobody seems to know if those issues were specifically addressed in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development, and if so how, though the animal study stages were bypassed. But some of the mechanisms proposed for it are intrinsic to the technology.

On the other hand, the individual pathogenicity of the SARS-2 spike protein itself, which appears to be to blame for both the late-stage deaths from clotting and the fatal outcomes of vaccination, could perhaps not have been predicted. Retrospectively, to program the body’s cells to manufacture the very component of the virus that kills people with COVID was not a good move, especially if through various mechanisms that reprogramming may become a permanent feature of cell lines in the vascular system.

At the very least, giving such a pathological primer to those at low risk or with natural immunity to the wild virus is foolhardy – and that danger is known at this stage, before the vaccination of the very young and the pregnant has got fully underway. In this matter, the unstoppable momentum of the urge to vaccinate is seen at its worst, for governments are ploughing ahead with the plans despite the lack of tangible benefit, the risks to life and health, and the increasing toll of young lives from the predicted vasculitides (the correct plural of vasculitis – somebody should tell Dr Malcolm Kendrick, who is great on this subject but doesn’t know the right plural!).

But to me a greater predictable failure of the mass-RNS-vaccination strategy has not been adequately discussed, though it is staring us in the face as the Indian variant spreads across England and the Nepal variant closes Portugal off to British tourists, whilst France excludes us to avoid “le variant anglais.” Within six months of vaccine rollout, genetic variants are threatening to make the vaccines useless.

The selling point of mRNA vaccines is that they are quick to develop, because one only has to produce RNA for a few key parts of the virus, rather than find a way of making the whole virus safe to inject. In the case of COVID, as we know, they concentrated mainly on the spike protein.

The Coronavirus, unlike Influenza, is relatively stable genetically, which is why immunity to each variety is lifelong – those exposed to SARS-1 back in the day are still fully immune. But as any virologist knows, and not simply evolutionary biologists like Brett Weinstein offering comments from outside the field, all viruses undergo mutations, all the time, just like all other life.

So any virus you care to name is going to have endless genetic variants across the world and over time from genetic drift alone. And it doesn’t matter, because our immune systems were designed with this reality in mind. Our cellular immunity to the whole virus explains why so much of the population who had had Coronavirus colds proved immune to SARS-CoV-2.

But mRNA vaccines are not designed with that natural reality in mind. Make someone immune to the spike protein alone, and they will not be immune to anything lacking that protein, or a mutated version that your antibodies or T-cells can’t bind**. And that means that every routine mutation of the virus now becomes a potential deal-breaker for your whole vaccination strategy.

So far the problem, if one believes the press releases, has been partial, but perhaps significant. Protection from the vaccine in the 90% range (relative, not absolute) has been recorded as dropping to the 60% range with some variants. That happens still to be acceptable in the development of herd immunity, but at some point there’s bound to be a variant that beats one or all the vaccines. And then Big Pharma will be playing whack-a-mole with thousands of new variants, and hence thousands of new vaccine variants; and meanwhile governments will try in vain to keep some discernible order on things by travel bans and worse. Simultaneously the locked-down world population will be struggling to keep up, medically and financially, with ongoing boosters, each of which may be priming new victims for a cytokine storm.

The problem is worse than that if some specialists are to be believed (and they speak with evolutionary logic): vaccinating the whole world for, effectively, one protein, will actively select for those strains of virus without the protein. The more you vaccinate, the more resistant the virus will become. A pandemic that would, naturally, have died out in a couple of years will become a permanent battle because of the treatment strategy we chose – ignoring biological truths that were obvious from the start. Indeed, vaccination during pandemics has been theoretically dismissed for such reasons in the past – but remember, we tore the old science up last year in favour of something else. 2020 was the year that science, and indeed reason, died.

Now it should be equally obvious that the simple fact of universal biological variation destroys the whole concept of the targeted mRNA vaccine as a viable strategy for pandemic management. Coronaviruses are one of the more genetically stable virus types, yet the problems are manifesting already. Any future pandemic for which you identify a target protein on which to base a vaccine will also hit the buffers within months.

Note how much worse this is than the threat of a new pandemic flu outbreak. Influenzavirus survives by being highly mutable. But in practice, you can pretty well guarantee that all the important new strains will emerge in the particular conditions of the far east every decade or two. Even Spanish Flu appears to have started in China, a century before gain of function studies there. But the kind of minor variants currently threatening to “beat the vaccine” occur anywhere and everywhere the virus exists: whilst the positive selection for vaccine-resistant strains will occur wherever you have a mass-vaccination programme.

It is possible that all this will turn out to be of minor importance. The fascinating work of a retired NHS statistician, John Dee, takes a deep dive into the ONS statistics to suggest that the vaccine rollout in the UK, freed from confounding factors, has had no effect whatsoever on reducing hospital admissions (any more than lockdown has) – see his June 2 entry. On the other hand, other experts have suggested that, through mechanisms that I think come into the “unpredicted” category, vaccination may end up weakening our natural immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and in that case we will be in big trouble, having artificially handicapped the only mechanism that ultimately provides the herd immunity that ends pandemics.

There are times when the ignorant belief that one can control nature is truly catastrophic. Usually that happens when you seek to impose that delusion on the whole population.

So Gad went and said to David, “Do you choose to endure three years of famine in your land, three months of fleeing the pursuit of your enemies, or three days of plague upon your land? Now then, think it over and decide how I should reply to Him who sent me.” David answered Gad, “I am deeply distressed. Please, let us fall into the hand of the LORD, for His mercies are great; but do not let me fall into the hands of men.”

2 Sam 24:14

** Or your vaccine-induced antibodies might bind the mutant spike-protein, but not destroy it, thus actually suppressing your body’s ability to respond to infections. This was observed in the aborted development of the SARS-1 vaccines.

About Jon Garvey

Training in medicine (which was my career), social psychology and theology. Interests in most things, but especially the science-faith interface. The rest of my time, though, is spent writing, playing and recording music.
This entry was posted in Medicine, Politics and sociology, Science. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Why the vaccine was predictably (in retrospect!) a bad idea

  1. Jon Garvey says:

    Another brief observation on testing. Indian variant is found, so HMG does surge testing of as many folks as possible, sick or not, targeted on the areas where it is found.

    Total testing numbers have been around the same since early April, so fewer tests must be happening in the areas where they are not surge-testing.

    So if they do more tests in areas with the Indian variant, they are going to find a higher proportion of “cases” with the Indian variant, right? Whether or not they are forming a higher proportion of “cases” nationwide. But that is sampling bias, not news.

  2. Jon Garvey says:

    On the same subject, this article discusses the latest findings on the belatedly understood dangers of injecting spike proteins to protect against a disease caused by spike proteins.

    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing – especially when it poses as the complete answer for the whole world’s problems.

    • Elizabeth B. says:

      Thank you again for all this information. I had been struggling to decide whether or not to get the vaccine, or encourage my daughter to get it. We have not had COVID 19 even though we have been all around people who have. Even the very week some were diagnosed positive. A couple of weeks ago, We were tested for antibodies, both negative.

      I should have come here long ago to see your opinion but I have avoided almost all websites since last summer. Too depressing. Your writing is not depressing, but the lockdown situation in the UK has been. With a best friend having passed and other sadnesses, reading about the world falling apart has not been a priority.

      It is time to get back to being more informed.

      Many thank yous for your medical insights!

      • Jon Garvey says:

        Elizabeth – Declaration of Interest. My wife and I had the vaccine (AstraZeneca): I decided that the early side-effect data was sufficiently encouraging that at 69 years old the cost-benefit was probably OK.

        Rather cynically, we also concluded that if we copped it, or if the theoretical very late risks such as cytokine storm come the next Coronavirus surge wiped us out, it would be a welcome release from the current nightmare!

        However, given the risk that adverse reactions to spike proteins are cumulative, there is no way I would take a booster or a further shot tweaked for variants. I’ve also strongly suggested to my kids that they resist any pressure to vaccinate our five granddaughters.

        Also, our personal decision was made in the absence of knowing about the selective pressure on variants, and the effectiveness of therapeutic agents like ivermectin. If the vaccine is individually advantageous to us, it doesn’t mean it’s been good health policy.

  3. Jon Garvey says:

    And here’s a vital segment of discussion hosted by Brett Weinstein but, crucially, involving the actual inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology, Robert Malone, who has been trying to get the COVID vaccines pulled, without success.

    It’s interestingly parallel to the Nobel Prize winning inventor of the PCR test Kary Mullis, who said before his death in 2019 that the test should never be used for diagnostic purposes, and certainly not for screening the well.

  4. Elizabeth B. says:

    Jon,
    Thanks for writing about this. So glad I looked in here. I have wanted the thoughts of an unbiased professional regarding the covid19 vaccine. It is not easy to trust anyone on either side of the vaccine issue. Appreciate the explanations here.

Leave a Reply