Posted originally on TrialSite News on December 11, 20214 Comments

Aubrey Marcus, the founder of holistic health and lifestyle brand, Onnit, and New York Times best-selling author, invited three guests on his self-titled podcast. According to the podcast page, guests provide “expertise in mindset, relationship, health, business, and spirituality.” Episode #337, titled “The Inconvenient Injured w/ Vaccine Advocates Dr. Aditi Bhargava, Kyle Warner, and Brianne Dressen,” explores the perspective of Bhargava, molecular biologist, Professor, and Principal Investigator at UCSF who develops mRNA technology. The additional guests tell their personal stories of experiencing an mRNA vaccine injury which we will summarize in our Part II article.

An open mind is most definitely important with a novel, unfolding pandemic such as the one we now face. Marcus begins by prefacing the conversation for viewers/listeners to keep an open mind so that ideas and issues can be discussed, examined, and critically explored regardless of politics or the current scientific taboos.

Exposing Scientific Loopholes

Bhargava is concerned about the way that scientists have approached the pandemic. It seems like scientific standards, norms and ideals have been abandoned. However, she also believes that coronavirus research and publication speed has exposed many loopholes in the scientific process that should be addressed in a methodical manner.

For example, it took 11 years for scientists with differing opinions to come to a consensus regarding SARS-CoV-1 as the pathogen that caused the SARS epidemic in the early 2000s. The outbreak, she believes, was likely a result of gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses being performed in many institutions and as highlighted by a laboratory-acquired infection in Singapore, in the case of bat CoV, gain-of-function entails intentionally creating mutations that could infect humans, not a natural host, simply to see what could happen. This seemingly unwarranted justification, says Bhargava, is “playing with fire” especially given that CoV in bats does not cause disease, just mild sniffles, and bats clear that virus fairly quickly; under the guise of pathogen discovery program, an ulterior purpose is “to develop biological warfare weapons.”

In contrast, the rigid consensus that Sars-CoV-2 is the cause of the current COVID-19 pandemic was made in less than two months; how to treat it or contain it, has been a chaotic and unscientific process, at best for the last two years. 

The Technical Term for Preventing Infection

In terms of mRNA vaccines, Bhargava says they do not meet the traditional definition because unlike live-attenuated vaccines, (MMR, chickenpox, yellow fever,) mRNAs do not qualify due to their inability to reduce the viral load or prevent infection, or transmission. They could more accurately be categorized as a drug, says Bhargava.

(In the summer of 2021, the CDC changed its definition of a “vaccine” by replacing the word “immunity” with “protection” which they have claimed is for accuracy. Merriam-Webster also updated their definition in May, as pointed out by Dr. Peter Doshi.)

Bhargava also states that there have not been well-controlled clinical trials control-group studies (which compare vaccinated vs. unvaccinated with a similar health history, age, sex, and exposure risk) to conclude that the vaccines are efficacious and safe.

The Claim that “the Science is Clear”

Bhargava is “puzzled” as to why the scientific community is “turning a blind eye” to severe side effects. To not objectively acknowledge and explore adverse events, “is contradictory to everything we know about developing drugs,” she explains. The media continually suggests that the “science is clear.” Yet, when she reviews peer and non-peer-reviewed scientific publications, it leaves her with more questions and less clarity, despite her expertise and experience.

The topic of biological science and research had never been so widely consumed by the media and the public in “real-time” until recently, she says. While the urgency for answers is understandable, studies that normally take months to establish and peer-review are fast-tracked, yet devoid of the cautionary mindset that “science is always changing.” For example, if a natural infection takes 2 weeks to train the immune system, so does the vaccine. And the vaccine only trains a small arm of the immune system. (The architect of mRNA technology, Dr. Robert Malone, echoes this issue, saying established scientific data, which health officials rely on, is usually six months behind.)

Mechanism of Action for Covid-19 Vaccines:

There are currently three categories of vaccines developed for Covid-19. They include 1) inactivated (e.g., India’s Covaxin or a couple of the Chinese vaccines such as SinoVac, CoronaVac) representing the traditional approach; 2) Recombinant (Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca) which use adeno-associated virus fused with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (“the shell” of the virus); and 3) mRNA (Pfizer and Moderna). 

In the short-term (2-3 months post-vaccination), it may appear that vaccines decrease infection and transmission, the long-term effects of these vaccines on cellular and immune function is a complete unknown; it’s uncertain that these will be the only changes produced, says Bhargava. 

In the past, adeno-associated viral (AAV) vectors used in gene therapy caused issues when they were integrated into patients’ genomes randomly. Some of the patients in the gene therapy trials found the original disease being cured but development of other symptoms or cancers gene therapy trials experienced a cure of one disease, but other types of cancers resulted in their place,  causing death in every single trial, says Bhargava. Due to these unforeseen outcomes, the FDA wants a minimum five-year follow-up for adeno-associated viral vectors used in therapy.

Interestingly, many people are naturally infected with adenovirus but have no symptoms or disease; the virus lies dormant in their genome. “We don’t know if the recombinant AAV vaccine (with Sars-CoV-2 spike protein), a mutated adeno-vector, can somehow activate the virus which is latent in some people, and if that virus becomes activated…,” she says, it could essentially perform a “rescue” to the mutant version of the virus in the vaccine by providing the missing pieces; this could have unintended consequences.

These unintended consequences highlight the issue of the public-facing stance that Covid-19 vaccines are unequivocally “safe and effective.” Bhargava dispels the notion that these side effects are random and not causation from the vaccines because side effects “are clustered.” 

Warner agreed, stating that he recently attended a vaccine-injury press conference in which those who claimed to be affected had injuries in three main groups: neurological, cardiac, and autoimmune. (Warner experienced severe cardiac and autoimmune issues after his second dose of Pfizer.) He noted that the vax-injured cohort compiled a mixed demographic, with their only common denominator being the vaccine, says Warner. Prior to the pandemic, says Bhargava, scientists would proceed in investigating this perplexing commonality, instead of ignoring the reports. 

The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, (where patients and doctors can make vaccine injuries known to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,) has been discounted by health officials, scientific publications, and the media, citing that self-reporting is not credible in determining that the vaccines are the causation of the injury. 

Warner says the in-depth amount of information that must be provided to make a valid claim gives credibility to the genuineness of the reports. Also, false reporting to VAERS is a federal crime. Warner references a study conducted by non-profit Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare called the Lazarus report, which found that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.” Given this determination, —even using the most conservative figure— the death toll would be alarming.

Warner clarifies that neither he nor Dressen (who experienced debilitating neurological disorders with one injection of AstraZeneca) are advocating for ending the vaccine initiative. However, if medical professionals continue to deny their patients a vaccine-related injury diagnosis, they cannot get the appropriate medical support. Warner also claims that doctors who do acknowledge and diagnose vaccine injuries are in jeopardy of losing their license.

Mandates vs. Fundamental Immunology

To Bhargava, mandates do not make scientific sense for several reasons. She provided her rationale including:

One, the vaccines fail to stop infection or importantly, transmission, so how will they end the pandemic? The CDC stopped tracking breakthrough infections in fully vaccinated people since May of 2021 (just a few months into the vaccine drive) unless they were hospitalized or had severe disease. In contrast, all cases, whether mild or asymptomatic in the vaccinated are being reported. This is skewing of data. The promise of herd immunity for Covid-19 is doubtful considering our failure to reach herd immunity with the flu—despite the widespread use of yearly flu shots. “Have we eradicated it?” asks Bhargava. “No.”

Two, even for mandated childhood vaccines such as chickenpox, there can be breakthrough infections and transmissibility. However, with natural immunity, the recovered patient cannot be reinfected and is therefore exempt from needing the pox vaccine. But somehow there is no exemption for natural immunity with Covid-19. Of course, TrialSite reminds it has followed studies that evidence reinfection with CoV-2 is a rare phenomenon, but it does occur. Some early data indicate Omicron may pose a larger threat for more reinfection, but the notion is mere speculation; re-infections have yet to be confirmed by sequencing and prior infection variant identity is seldom reported. Only time and data will tell.

Three, there are fundamental differences between RNA and DNA viruses. “You can’t compare Covid to chickenpox, because chickenpox is caused by DNA viruses. They don’t mutate as often, and they induce life-long immunity…” —even if they are around someone who is actively infectious—. In contrast, the flu (RNA) behaves differently, selectively, as does Covid. Household members may not contract it from a sick member, and if they do, symptoms and their level of severity can vary. 

Furthermore, it is rare to contract flu year-after-year, (evidence of a significant level of robust, ongoing immunity.) Upon reinfection perhaps five or ten years later, the subsequent infection is often milder. “The idea that people who have recovered from Covid also need to be vaccinated is completely mind-boggling to me, and to the whole principle of immunology.”

Four, “natural immunity has been known to be the gold standard for the longest time,” says Bhargava. Consider the development of the smallpox vaccine: 

It was observed in 1796, that milkmaids who contracted the cowpox disease were protected from smallpox. Therefore, scientists were able to inoculate others using some of the secretions in the cowpox blisters (gross but necessary,) and exposed it to people who became resistant to smallpox.

Historically, scientists unanimously recognized the value of natural immunity. Why won’t virologists affirm its crucial role in this pandemic?

Mass Vaccination Causing Evolutionary Pressure

Five, putting pressure on the virus by vaccinating during a pandemic causes it to mutate for its survival. Bhargava uses “a disguise” analogy: mRNA vaccines are built in a way that the body recognizes “the face” of the virus, (the spike protein.) So, when the virus wants to infect a vaccinated host, it puts on “a mask.” However, with natural immunity, the body is acquainted with all facets of the virus’ identity, making it harder to conquer its host. 

These ideas are shared by Malone, and Belgian virologist, Geert Vanden Bossche, who advocate that mass vaccination is compelling the virus to mutate, essentially training it to become more resilient.

Incomplete Data Breeds Public Distrust

Bhargava reviewed recent data from the United Kingdom’s Health Ministry. It examined alternate antibodies created in vaccinated vs. naturally acquired immunity cohorts, which fight other parts of the virus, such as the nucleocapsid protein. The vaccinated group was reported to have lower amounts of antibodies for the nucleocapsid protein than the unvaccinated, naturally infected group. “What that tells me is that the vaccine is interfering with the function of your immune system to mount a robust response against the virus when you get infected,” says Bhargava.

Most of the published research comparing antibody levels in vaccinated immunity vs. natural immunity are comparing spike protein antibodies only, “and disregarding other components,” says Bhargava. If our immune system’s antibody defense were a pie, the spike protein would only comprise 35 – 50%. Comparing the data this way often favors the vaccinated, while ignoring all the other antibodies that naturally infected persons produce.

There were also flaws in the way scientists evaluated the virulence of the Delta variant. In the studies, she read they did not track the symptoms of the unvaccinated which would provide necessary info for comparison against the vaccinated breakthrough cases. 

Without the Delta data of the unvaccinated, how can we know it is more virulent? To make such a conclusion, researchers would have to observe cases of more severe disease in the unvaccinated, ensuring that underlying health conditions were similar in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Of course, if that information was present in scientific publication, and it was determined to be the case, the media would have shared it worldwide, right? Is it possible that the unvaccinated experienced milder symptoms, which may explain why this data was not recorded or shared?

It’s also fair to note that the CDC no longer tracks breakthrough infections in the vaccinated unless there is death or hospitalization, so there is not truly a clear picture in which to make scientific determinations. The scientific community is “cherry-picking” their data, says Bhargava. 

Marcus confirms that these inexplicable actions on behalf of the leaders in scientific research provoke the mounting doubt of the general public. Things aren’t right, and their minds are compelled to search for or reach for answers. On the other hand, there are voices on both sides of the political spectrum who are allowing their conclusions to run off the deep end.

Confidence in Truth Emerging

“If people lose faith in science, that will be, I think, the end of medicine as we know it,” says Bhargava.

Bhargava acknowledges why physicians and nurses who see and treat patients adhere to the protocol given by health authorities, however, “in the lab, there are always deviations from the experimental protocol. That’s how discoveries are made.” Lab experiments fail 99% of the time. Protocol is only a guideline; she encouraged her surgical students to deviate from the protocols as needed and ask questions during experimentation that might lead to insight along the way. “If you do that, your chances of succeeding will be much higher.”

Final thoughts: 

With only incomplete data on hand, how can scientific inferences be made with strong confidence? Bhargava declared, “When there are no appropriate controls and no proper documentation of data,” the inferences made hold little value. She emphasizes the importance of accepting the inconvenient-yet-important data. Information such as adverse events or alternative therapeutics should be examined so that it can help us understand more about SARS-CoV-2 and the role that our current vaccines have in protecting the world from Covid-19. 

Call to Action: Check out Aubrey Marcus’ podcasts here. 

Related