I recently came across yet another article suggesting that cross-reactive memory T cells serve a critical role in protecting COVID-19 contacts against infection and thereby abrogate subsequent induction of de novo SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses:
Dr. Vanden Bossche. Thank you for the detailed explanation. You are doing real science. The academic caliber of your work stands in stark contrast to the idiocy of public health officials.
I remember that when this T-cell protection was suggested by Dr. Scott Atlas when he was included in the panel of advisors in the US Trump Administration, Dr. Fauci called it "misinformation".
To me this aggressive push by the mainstream to adopt this "T-cell protects" view is a sign that they are afraid that people who are fully vaccinated and boosted and topped up with fourth vaccine might start worrying why they are getting infected and dying.
It's a plot to get people to accept vaccine danger when it's involved in spreading virus in society.
"This will only bring grist to the mill of those addicted to the mass vaccination program and claiming that such novel vaccines will protect against novel SARS-CoV-2 variants with potential to escape naturally acquired or vaccine-induced humoral immunity."
This is it. They are trying to switch the vaccine addiction to a novel failure. Good that Geert and others are speaking out now. If we don't, we will get another vaccine that will be applied to billions and we will only learn later if the association with protection was causal or a consequence (that is, fake)
The purpose of the article was to strengthen an integrity of the vaccinology. This is valid concern during the times when new vaccine developments are abused in a political process. However, protection of integrity should not be ensured at the expense of isolation from the political processes or denial of further advances in the industry. Vaccine development funding depends on the political process and being aware that creation of a sterilizing vaccine against HCoVs is hardly possible, developers look for adjuvants and immunity activating solutions able to stimulate abrogation of the infection at an early stage. For instance, interferon activating strategy using influenza virus (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01780-8) or autoregulatory cytokine induction strategy using orf virus (https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-5956-10-4)? Dr. Laderoute may have some proposal with regard to innate immunity activation strategies using vaccine without cross-reactive properties. Do you think all those advances should be stopped to avoid them being abused in a political process?
I do not believe anything should be stopped. I don't believe anything or any reason should be used to prevent development of anything.
I do believe that people who are developing something have an obligation to not hide/mislabel/misclassify the results of their efforts.
I don't think this is an individual problem but one associated with incentives and how institutional support is granted. The way we do intervention effectiveness studies is funded by institutions that implemented those interventions and studied by those who promoted it. How can we good a good picture of what really happened unless it's impossible to hide the hazards (such as in chronic diseases like AIDS).
The reason why I am skeptical of vaccine intervention in any disease that's acute rather than chronic is related to the fact that the vaccine can increase the prevalence of the disease and if we design our studies to hide that transmission, we will always find high relative protection while increasing absolute risks for all.
In case of the Coronavirus vaccines, this is the case: Before vaccines, we didn't have an out of control epidemic in every part of the world. After vaccines, we do. This maybe an association or a causal variable but we are always measuring individual relative risk in a tight window while nature works outside those bounds. The virus doesn't wait 14 days after 2 doses to start infecting, it infects when it can and re-infects when it can. This can mean that any snapshot that shows relative risk reduction is simply hiding absolute risk increase for everyone and that snapshot only captured that time when the relative risk in the intervention group had declined due to survivorship.
So to return to your original question, I have an original question that partially answers yours (I think):
Shouldn't we be also developing metrics formulated and simultaneously deployed for measurements of hazards from potentially non-sterilizing vaccines against infectious processes?
The single most important hazard from vaccines is onward transmission. It may enhance that. If the infectious process is highly mutable, it may even help enhance/speed-up the evolution for survival without corresponding enhancement of immunity in future hosts. You can catch this problem in things like HIV where the host once infected is infected for life (we think). Therefore all HIV vaccines are stopped before universal and mass deployment. We can't do the same for respiratory viruses because most people will survive if they clear it, and most will die if they don't. And we refuse to look if vaccinated transmit the virus in this period. This is true for Influenza, regardless of the kind of immunity we are trying to stimulate.
The most important question that vaccinologists should answer which they won't as it threatens their profession:
What's the *minimum number needed to treat* to disturb the equilibrium within a population that may result in irreversible erosion of the herd's immunity.
What's the number of vaccine doses one must deploy within a small time period that risks destabilizing the competition to irrevocably favor highly transmissible variants taking over the population?
These are questions that vaccinologists should answer because their base assumption is that their deployments are at most worthless but they don't entertain the possibility that all ecologies are in a state of unstable equilibrium and a vaccine is an agent which could trigger this instability and erode the ability of previously immune to sterilize what's out there because the vaccines helped promote their extinction by favoring the persistence of variants the vaccines couldn't neutralize.
Wish I had saved it at the time, I recall reading a publication TWO YEARS AGO (might have been from Nature) whereas Tal Zaks (Moderna ) mentioned pivoting to “T-Cell” target for “vaccine”. After reading what Geert has been explaining, I’m going to try to find that article, it’s as if Tal Zaks already had knowledge that the vax that they would release upon the world was going to fail. I’m wondering if the MERS trials that were in later stages in South Korea in 2017 have anything about this topic ???
Sorry, I find this difficult to understand. Could you perhaps do a longer explanation including diagrams to show what you consider ‘ usual’ immunology, what the authors are suggesting and your alternate explanation? Thanks
I would love for Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche to evaluate a study that was sent in an email to me. The summary is this:
"Summary
SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines induce robust anti-spike (S) antibody and CD4+ T cell responses. It is not yet clear whether vaccine-induced follicular helper CD4+ T (TFH) cell responses contribute to this outstanding immunogenicity. Using fine-needle aspiration of draining axillary lymph nodes from individuals who received the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine, we evaluated the T cell receptor sequences and phenotype of lymph node TFH. Mining of the responding TFH T cell receptor repertoire revealed a strikingly immunodominant HLA-DPB1∗04-restricted response to S167–180 in individuals with this allele, which is among the most common HLA alleles in humans. Paired blood and lymph node specimens show that while circulating S-specific TFH cells peak one week after the second immunization, S-specific TFH persist at nearly constant frequencies for at least six months. Collectively, our results underscore the key role that robust TFH cell responses play in establishing long-term immunity by this efficacious human vaccine."
Could somebody give us non-jargon summary of this... I spent time with a web dictionary looking up abrogate, de novo, etc - think I got those things, but there's a whole bunch of very technical descriptions specific to this field that I just am not sure I've got the right understanding of.
thanks in advance for anybody willing to help those of use who want to understand this but are lacking the formal education in this area.
Dr. Vanden Bossche. Thank you for the detailed explanation. You are doing real science. The academic caliber of your work stands in stark contrast to the idiocy of public health officials.
At some point the idiocy starts to look like malice.
Yes, that is what it really is. The idiocy is just what it looks like, underneath there is pure evil and it's deliberate and thought out
I remember that when this T-cell protection was suggested by Dr. Scott Atlas when he was included in the panel of advisors in the US Trump Administration, Dr. Fauci called it "misinformation".
To me this aggressive push by the mainstream to adopt this "T-cell protects" view is a sign that they are afraid that people who are fully vaccinated and boosted and topped up with fourth vaccine might start worrying why they are getting infected and dying.
It's a plot to get people to accept vaccine danger when it's involved in spreading virus in society.
"This will only bring grist to the mill of those addicted to the mass vaccination program and claiming that such novel vaccines will protect against novel SARS-CoV-2 variants with potential to escape naturally acquired or vaccine-induced humoral immunity."
This is it. They are trying to switch the vaccine addiction to a novel failure. Good that Geert and others are speaking out now. If we don't, we will get another vaccine that will be applied to billions and we will only learn later if the association with protection was causal or a consequence (that is, fake)
The purpose of the article was to strengthen an integrity of the vaccinology. This is valid concern during the times when new vaccine developments are abused in a political process. However, protection of integrity should not be ensured at the expense of isolation from the political processes or denial of further advances in the industry. Vaccine development funding depends on the political process and being aware that creation of a sterilizing vaccine against HCoVs is hardly possible, developers look for adjuvants and immunity activating solutions able to stimulate abrogation of the infection at an early stage. For instance, interferon activating strategy using influenza virus (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01780-8) or autoregulatory cytokine induction strategy using orf virus (https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-5956-10-4)? Dr. Laderoute may have some proposal with regard to innate immunity activation strategies using vaccine without cross-reactive properties. Do you think all those advances should be stopped to avoid them being abused in a political process?
I do not believe anything should be stopped. I don't believe anything or any reason should be used to prevent development of anything.
I do believe that people who are developing something have an obligation to not hide/mislabel/misclassify the results of their efforts.
I don't think this is an individual problem but one associated with incentives and how institutional support is granted. The way we do intervention effectiveness studies is funded by institutions that implemented those interventions and studied by those who promoted it. How can we good a good picture of what really happened unless it's impossible to hide the hazards (such as in chronic diseases like AIDS).
The reason why I am skeptical of vaccine intervention in any disease that's acute rather than chronic is related to the fact that the vaccine can increase the prevalence of the disease and if we design our studies to hide that transmission, we will always find high relative protection while increasing absolute risks for all.
In case of the Coronavirus vaccines, this is the case: Before vaccines, we didn't have an out of control epidemic in every part of the world. After vaccines, we do. This maybe an association or a causal variable but we are always measuring individual relative risk in a tight window while nature works outside those bounds. The virus doesn't wait 14 days after 2 doses to start infecting, it infects when it can and re-infects when it can. This can mean that any snapshot that shows relative risk reduction is simply hiding absolute risk increase for everyone and that snapshot only captured that time when the relative risk in the intervention group had declined due to survivorship.
So to return to your original question, I have an original question that partially answers yours (I think):
Shouldn't we be also developing metrics formulated and simultaneously deployed for measurements of hazards from potentially non-sterilizing vaccines against infectious processes?
The single most important hazard from vaccines is onward transmission. It may enhance that. If the infectious process is highly mutable, it may even help enhance/speed-up the evolution for survival without corresponding enhancement of immunity in future hosts. You can catch this problem in things like HIV where the host once infected is infected for life (we think). Therefore all HIV vaccines are stopped before universal and mass deployment. We can't do the same for respiratory viruses because most people will survive if they clear it, and most will die if they don't. And we refuse to look if vaccinated transmit the virus in this period. This is true for Influenza, regardless of the kind of immunity we are trying to stimulate.
The most important question that vaccinologists should answer which they won't as it threatens their profession:
What's the *minimum number needed to treat* to disturb the equilibrium within a population that may result in irreversible erosion of the herd's immunity.
What's the number of vaccine doses one must deploy within a small time period that risks destabilizing the competition to irrevocably favor highly transmissible variants taking over the population?
These are questions that vaccinologists should answer because their base assumption is that their deployments are at most worthless but they don't entertain the possibility that all ecologies are in a state of unstable equilibrium and a vaccine is an agent which could trigger this instability and erode the ability of previously immune to sterilize what's out there because the vaccines helped promote their extinction by favoring the persistence of variants the vaccines couldn't neutralize.
Answer to your question: Yes.
Wish I had saved it at the time, I recall reading a publication TWO YEARS AGO (might have been from Nature) whereas Tal Zaks (Moderna ) mentioned pivoting to “T-Cell” target for “vaccine”. After reading what Geert has been explaining, I’m going to try to find that article, it’s as if Tal Zaks already had knowledge that the vax that they would release upon the world was going to fail. I’m wondering if the MERS trials that were in later stages in South Korea in 2017 have anything about this topic ???
share with us what you find!! Thanks
Vaccine failure in Scotland
https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/complete-vaccine-failure-in-scotland
Down the Covid Rabbit Hole - Part 2
Vaccine derived viruses and what that means for SARS-CoV-2
https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/down-the-covid-rabbit-hole-part-2
CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG
How did Moderna's 2015 patented code end up in SARS-CoV-2 and what were they developing in 2017?
https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/ctcctcggcgggcacgtag
This was excellent. I think. 😳
Did the memory T cells do their role in the original Wuhan variant ? I see people getting infected twice, so either the T memory goes on holiday or ?
Sorry, I find this difficult to understand. Could you perhaps do a longer explanation including diagrams to show what you consider ‘ usual’ immunology, what the authors are suggesting and your alternate explanation? Thanks
I would love for Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche to evaluate a study that was sent in an email to me. The summary is this:
"Summary
SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines induce robust anti-spike (S) antibody and CD4+ T cell responses. It is not yet clear whether vaccine-induced follicular helper CD4+ T (TFH) cell responses contribute to this outstanding immunogenicity. Using fine-needle aspiration of draining axillary lymph nodes from individuals who received the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine, we evaluated the T cell receptor sequences and phenotype of lymph node TFH. Mining of the responding TFH T cell receptor repertoire revealed a strikingly immunodominant HLA-DPB1∗04-restricted response to S167–180 in individuals with this allele, which is among the most common HLA alleles in humans. Paired blood and lymph node specimens show that while circulating S-specific TFH cells peak one week after the second immunization, S-specific TFH persist at nearly constant frequencies for at least six months. Collectively, our results underscore the key role that robust TFH cell responses play in establishing long-term immunity by this efficacious human vaccine."
Link to study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867421014896
Came out today 2/17/2022. Volume 185, Issue 4, 17 February 2022, Pages 603-613.e15
Could somebody give us non-jargon summary of this... I spent time with a web dictionary looking up abrogate, de novo, etc - think I got those things, but there's a whole bunch of very technical descriptions specific to this field that I just am not sure I've got the right understanding of.
thanks in advance for anybody willing to help those of use who want to understand this but are lacking the formal education in this area.
Suspected Swiss Side Effects to the MRNA Vaccines
* Rare side effects to the extremely safe MRNA Vaccines
https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/suspected-swiss-side-effects-to-the
How does this contrast with the assertion that T-cell and B-cell memory after natural infection abrogate de novo symptomatic disease?