How are the vaccines going nine months on?

Back at the beginning of December, when the world was young, I did a piece on the newly-authorised (albeit for emergency use) MRNA vaccines, and included a list of ten reasons one might consider delaying or refusing the vaccinations. I thought it might be interesting to see how things are panning out nine months later, using the same list for headings.

  • RNA vaccines are a novel technology that reprograms human cells.

Still true, of course. It is now known that the spike protein, despite the publicity from the vaccine companies, is expressed in cells far removed from the site of injection. This accounts for the serious short-term side-effects observed with all types of the vaccine. It remains unclear whether in some people spike protein might continue to be produced and lead to long-term problems: so far these have not been seen. Evidence has emerged, though, that SARS-Cov-2 elements have been incorporated into human DNA (a predictable possibility given reverse transcriptase in cells and the large amount of DNA derived from RNA viruses in the human genome), so there is no reason vaccine RNA might not do the same, especially given the enhancers used to increase its absorption into cells.

  • The incidence of short and long term side effects is unknown. Auto-immunity can be lethal or life-changing.

Guillain-Barre syndrome was one of the few auto-immune side effects reported in the trials, but a whole range of effects from clotting to myocarditis, and shingles to miscarriage – and death – are now being reported at a rate far in excess of any previous vaccines for short-term effects. Authorities seem to be paying little attention to the reporting of these by the US VAERS, the UK Yellow Cards, and the EU’s EudraVigilance system. The apparent suppression of the immune system that has led to outbreaks of COVID in the newly vaccinated (and that has led to many care-home deaths on top of those from the original epidemic) was not, as far as I know, anticipated as a short-term adverse effect.

The largest theoretical fear for medium-term problems with these agents was ADE (antibody dependent enhancement), which is most likely to occur when the body meets strains of virus that partially escape the vaccine, so that the vaccinated do particularly badly from break-through infections. Although generally the pattern has been that the vaccines diminish severity, some increasing signs of ADE have been seen, and would be expected to increase given the selection for resistant strains by the mass-vaccination programmes themselves.

  • The degree and longevity of protection, in return for the risks, is unknown.

Well, it is known now: it is becoming increasingly clear from Israel and the UK that not only antibody levels, but vaccine protection, drops rapidly after six months or so, and that contradicts the model pushed by the WHO, Pharma and government that two shots all round would bring herd immunity (though whether it contradicts what they knew privately is another matter). Hence, governments are now talking about boosters as frequently as five-monthly and as long as forever, whilst the drug companies see the opportunity of marketing boosters for each new variant, almost certainly delivering them just as another new variant takes over. There seems to be no good research on the efficacy of this strategy, a CDC spokeswoman citing “hope” rather than data regarding boosters. Part of the problem is the development of resistant viral variants – why would a new dose of an ineffective drug help this? Neither is there evidence on the safety of extra doses, but the governments are forging ahead anyway, leading the science rather than following it.

The known risks of vaccination would remain the same after each booster, or would quite possibly increase, given that side effects are commoner after the second dose. Dr Robert Malone, in a new podcast in The Epoch Times, examines a paper suggesting that the second dose of vaccine in those previously infected may actually quench immunity, an effect he calls “high zone tolerance.” Three vaccine doses may well produce the same effect – not to mention the infamous cytokine storm seen at the animal stages of previous mRNA vaccine research.

  • For 99.88% of people the disease is not lethal.

Still true, though Ioannidis has increased that to 99.9% since his WHO paper, and under 60 the figure is orders of magnitude better. This has not stopped vaccines in “rich” (for which read “money-printing”) countries rolling them out across the whole adult population, against the originally stated plan of vaccinating only those at risk. The reasons given are vague and protean: protecting the elderly, eradicating the disease, preventing long-COVID (though the vaccine can cause a similar effect), and the lamest of all – reducing cases.

But as we all now know, if we’ve been paying attention, the vaccines neither prevent infection (and may actually allow higher viral loads to be carried asymptomatically) nor limit spread. This makes any justification other than individual protection a non-starter, and even then for what is nearly always a mild illness in most groups vaccination is achieving no more than preventing more effective natural immunity from developing for rather similar inconvenience, and much greater cost.

  • For children and young people serious risk from COVID is almost nil.

… and we now know that side effects of vaccination are greater in younger age groups. It’s still the case that the under-16s who have died worldwide without known underlying conditions can virtually be counted on one hand. It’s also still true from studies across the world that for children to infect adults is uncommon and that outbreaks in schools are rare. In one study, teachers had lower rates of COVID when schools were open than when they were shut. Today our independent vaccine advisory body JCVI decided the risks did not sufficiently outweigh the benefits to vaccinate children…

… and then bottled out by suggesting the government should look at “wider issues,” so that SAGE spokesmen and ministers are now going to roll them out anyway, ostensibly “to prevent further disruption to education.” Consider what that means, when push comes to shove: putting children at real risk of sickness or death is not considered as important as educating them (whereas hitherto, they’ve been forced out of school or muzzled in masks for 18 months when they were (not at any significant risk).

But in any case the calculus is spurious: government is persisting in the idea of testing kids mercilessly and sending them all home for 10 days if one tests positive, despite the evidence of non-spread in schools. The disruption to education, in other words, is entirely due to government policy: the few children who actually get symptomatic COVID would lose a few days of school, once only. And that is true even though, as it’s so easy to forget in the deliberate confusion, the vaccine doesn’t prevent the spread of infection anyway, so to be consistent schools will have to keep testing and sending the poor kids home anyway – only with the additional burden of useless and risky vaccinations. And the scientific or even sociological logic behind this is…???

  • Many people – possibly most by now – are already immune.

Once more, even more true than when I wrote it. Though it’s hard to differentiate natural immunity from short-lived vaccine immunity now, given that they only test antibodies rather than T-cell immunity, I’ve seen estimates of 80% for the former. To be fair, it’s beginning to look as though COVID immunity will be relatively short-lived like other coronaviruses, especially with (vaccine-selected) variants emerging every few weeks. But now the virus is endemic those with natural immunity are likely only to get a mild dose every few years. Even the high positive test numbers now, linked to low deaths and hospitalisations, may in part be due to the harmless prevalence of the virus in the community – were we to do the same number of PCRs for the 200 other viruses around, we might well find similar numbers.

  • It is not good medicine to risk harming a whole population to protect a vulnerable minority who can themselves be vaccinated.

That, of course, is the whole sorry story of this pandemic, except that whilst lockdowns and all the other horrors were first touted as a stop-gap to protect the elderly (no, sorry – it was the NHS that needed protecting from us), we now know that those measures directly killed many elderly folk (care homes and hospitals being the main sources of lethal infections), and indirectly killed others through neglect of other medical conditions, sensory and emotional deprivation and so on. The vaccines are less effective in the elderly and will wear off quickly, committing our elderly to frequent boosters. It also seems probable that many elderly people died last winter because they acquired fatal COVID in the days after vaccination, when the vaccine suppressed their immune system.

As for the population at large, the chilling example of avian Marek’s disease makes it possible that by universal innoculation during a pandemic we might select for the most lethal strains of SARS-CoV-2, that will make non-vaccination a death sentence, as it is for chickens. Those who suspect a conspiracy to get us all hooked on vaccines for life, thereby making us dependent on both government and Big Pharma, have a justification right there – for the problems surrounding Marek’s disease were scarcely unknown to “the experts” who produced and promoted the vaccines.

  • COVID-19 is a risk that is decreasing by the day, and may be virtually gone by the time the vaccine is available.

Here, maybe, I was wrong, though close examination of the excess-death figures round the globe suggest that I wasn’t that wrong. All is seldom as it seems in the COVID stats. Although there are some significant mysteries surrounding the repeated waves of infection this year even out of season (isn’t it odd that there was virtually none in Britain last summer without vaccines, but persistent levels now?) much might be explained by the present of more transmissible variants and the limitations of the vaccines. The jury seems to be out on why the most vaccinated countries in the world, like Israel, are also experiencing the highest infection rates: it may simply be more testing, but it could be an effect of the vaccination programme itself.

  • To make vaccination mandatory, or “passively coercive” (by issuing “freedom passports and the like) is a breach of God-given human rights, and ought to be resisted.

This remains true, and the odd thing is how duplicitously governments lied about their intentions regarding passports from the time I wrote this even until now, saying they would not happen, but then began to roll them out anyway for increasing numbers of purposes in every country including my own, and despite major protests like those in France. And despite the fact that not only do the vaccinated spread infection, but it is increasingly likely they will become the major spreaders, one study suggesting they carry far higher viral loads. So why are they still pushing passports? I still can’t get past the entirely non-medical, and evil, motives I pointed to in this piece. I’m still waiting for a less conspiratorial explanation that makes sense.

  • With vaccines from £14 a shot (Pfizer) to £2 a shot (Oxford) vaccinating the whole country, let alone the whole world, for spurious reasons is an unjust transfer of obscene amounts of money away from vital needs to big pharma and NGOs (the WHO, for example, was convicted of vaccine corruption over Swine Flu and has not been effectively reformed).

Once again there seems to be a choice between economic incompetence and malicious intent of various kinds. A financial crash dwarfing that of 2008 looks increasingly on the cards, and the likes of Rishi Sunak must see it coming as well as I do. Britain has over £2 trillion of debt (work it out – that’s around £63,000 for each person paying income tax), and countries like the US are in equally dodgy straits, linked to increasing inflation. Who is going to fund all these vaccines, apart from all the other silly expenses like zero-carbon by 2030? Since it makes no economic sense, what political or ideological sense can it make? Either, like Egypt under Joseph in Genesis, Pharaoh ends up owing us all as serfs, and/or a set of pharaohs wanting to have the world to themselves withdraws the boosters once they own the world, and let a vaccine-enhanced COVID reduce the world population to Henry Kissinger’s ideal of 50% of what it is now.

IN MY VIEW…

The vaccines appear, at least, to have done some good in reducing the severity of infections amongst those most at risk (though we will need a good winter to judge that properly). What would happen ideally is that the unvaccinated remainder should be exposed to COVID itself whilst we still have relatively mild forms (and the “Delta variant” appears to be both more transmissible and less deadly than the original, so now is the moment!). We don’t, therefore, need to be injecting children at all, nor restricting the inter-personal contact that is necessary to keep us healthily immune not only to COVID, but to all the other potential pathogens to which we are daily exposed, unless locked down or masked (if any of that works at all).

For myself, I won’t be accepting any further boosters, because I’m still at relatively low risk of dying from COVID if I catch it; because I don’t want to become dependent on frequently repeated mRNA vaccines with very limited efficacy lifelong; and mostly because if I get away with a mild COVID infection at some stage (ideally whilst my two AstraZeneca doses are still protecting me) I will have lasting immunity to whatever variants I subsequently meet, which is decreasingly the case for the vaccines. Additionally, being properly immune I won’t be one of the vaccine super-spreaders likely to become the norm within the next few months: I’ll be safer to be around, even if they refuse to give me a passport to normal life.

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.

4 Responses to How are the vaccines going nine months on?

  1. Ben says:

    My prediction: because vaccine breakouts are “mostly asymptomatic” (or so I read somewhere yesterday), people will finally start talking about false positives and calling for not testing or counting *vaccinated* people unless they have symptoms.

    • Jon Garvey says:

      Ben

      Did you mean “mostly symptomatic, as that’s what seems to make most sense of your comment. And it’s true – for example, Prof Fenton’s statistical analysis showed that the idea that 1 in 3 cases are asymptomatic is closer to 1 in 13, confirming Dr Fauci’s original (less corrupt) statement that epidemics are never driven by asymptomatic spread.

      You’re absolutely right that what will make the difference is if and when, somehow, what everyone who investigates for themselves discovers become generally known despite the thought control. The Lab-leak hypothesis is an obvious example 9though it’s less obvious why it was allowed to get out!).

Leave a Reply