Swiss Doctor Locked Away in Mental Asylum for Speaking Against COVID Laws


Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption Re-Posted Nov 22, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Dr. Thomas Binder is a Swiss cardiologist with over 34 years of experience in treating respiratory infections. He received a doctorate in immunology and virology, specializing in internal medicine and cardiology, from the University of Zurich. Binder is an intelligent man who was deemed insane by the Swiss government for speaking out against COVID regulations.

Dr. Binder has been an outspoken critic of COVID restrictions since the beginning of the pandemic. On April 9, 2020, the cardiologist criticized the government’s response to COVID and provided his own analysis of the virus. He posted his thoughts on his private website, and the post received over 20,000 views.

Three days later, a day before Easter, 60 armed police officers and 20 members of the Kantonspolizei Aargau’s anti-terrorism unit forcibly removed Dr. Binder from his home. Authorities searched through the doctor’s online activity and could not find anything to use against him. However, an emergency room doctor who was working with the authorities arrived and diagnosed Dr. Binder with “corona insanity.” He was locked away in a mental asylum for questioning the COVID narrative.

Yet, he refuses to be silenced. He is now a member of the Doctors for COVID Ethics and the German Physicians and Scientists for Health, Freedom, and Democracy. I applaud him for still speaking against coronavirus mandates despite the government’s pitiful attempt to silence him.

The Year the World Went Crazy (2020)


Armstrong Economics Blog/Conspiracy Re-Posted Nov 5, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Sunday Talks, Anthony Fauci Claims His COVID-19 Recommendations Had Nothing to Do With School Closings


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on October 16, 2022 | sundance

Appearing with Jonathan Karl for an interview Dr. Anthony Fauci now claims his advice had nothing to do with the closings of schools during the government response to COVID-19.

This pontificating pustule of political pomposity has the nerve to claim all of his COVID-19 dictates and recommendations from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) were not responsible for what he calls unanticipated “deleterious effects” to students and young people.  WATCH: 

.

The full interview is below:

.

CDC admits they SH*T the bed, Amber Heard style | HPH #136


By Habibi Bros. Published originally on Rumble on August 17, 2022 

Siraj and Jay discuss the CDC admitting to f*cking up the COVID-19 pandemic response, Liz Cheney gets ousted from Congress, developments in the FBI raid of Trump’s home at Mar-A-Lago, and the one-year anniversary after the catastrophic Afghanistan withdrawal. It’s everything that makes you want to drink on Habibi Power Hour.

The LEFT is Violating the Foundation of Law


Armstrong Economics Blog/Human Rights Re-Posted Jul 23, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

There have been some bad decisions by the Supreme Court, such as Dread Scott and allowing the Japanese imprisonment during WWII. But never in the history of the nation has what is unfolding over abortion ever taken place, which is in itself, a confirmation that our computer is forecasting that the United States will separate. It has become impossible to live together. The left just hates the right, and it is always the LEFT, as in the Communist Revolutions, that end up waging war and justify the slaughter of anyone who they disagree with.

The ONLY way to secure the future is to divide the United States between LEFT and RIGHT. There are many who personally have no desire to be an economic slave for policies I do not agree with on an economic and RELIGIOUS basis. Even the progressive tax policies of the left violate the Ten Commandments, which is an affront to the religious beliefs of many.

Equal Rights is precisely that. They somehow are eliminated if it comes to material wealth. An A student should be reduced to a C student because it is not fair that an F student should fail. They should be given a C, so everyone is equal regardless of talent. That worked well for communism.

Ironically, the entire issue of legalizing gay marriage was because of the tax code. Any couple who lives together and contributes to a relationship should be treated the same as a married couple because it is economic equality, be they gay or just a common-law type marriage. It is always the hunt for taxes that creates inequality.

Fauci Set to Retire


Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption Re-Posted Jul 19, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Dr. Anthony Fauci, Mr. COVID himself, announced that he would retire at the end of Joe Biden’s term. Fauci hinted in an interview that he fears an investigation into his personal dealings if the conservatives take back control next year. “They’re going to try and come after me, anyway. I mean, probably less so if I’m not in the job,” Fauci told Politico. We know the vaccination does not work and causes more harm than good. The long-term effects of the vaccines and lockdowns are now coming to light, and Fauci is responsible as the mascot for the entire COVID agenda.

Fauci maintains that boosters will be necessary every year, similar to the flu vaccine, despite the components of the two vaccines differing drastically. Fauci also admitted that the people are waking up to the fear-mongering and brainwashing techniques he used to scare the world to stay inside.

“It’s becoming more and more difficult to get people to listen, because even the people who are compliant want this behind them,” Fauci said, bewildered that people do not obey his every word. “What I try to convince them [of], with my communication method, is we’re not asking you to dramatically alter your lifestyle. We’re not asking you to really interfere with what you do with your life. We’re just asking you to consider some simple, doable mitigation methods.”

The ”simple, doable mitigation methods” involved involuntary house arrest, school closures, business closures, and forced vaccinations of an EXPERIMENTAL mRNA gene-altering therapy. These policies were a gut punch to the global economy. Countless people lost their jobs and lives due to his warped God-complex view of “trust the science.” This man should be held accountable for the damage he has done to society – permanent damage that will linger for generations to come.

Hypocrisy


Armstrong Economics Blog/Uncategorized Re-Posted Jul 2, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

The immunological rationale against C-19 vaccination of children, Part II: A Review and Update


Published originally on TrialSite News on May 13, 2022

Geert Vanden Bossche, DVM, PhD

General Manager at Voice for Science and Solidarity | The biggest challenge in vaccinology: Countering immune evasion

By Rob Rennebohm, MD and Geert Vanden Bossche, DVM, PhD

FOREWORD:

Since the initial posting of the Open Letter to Parents and Pediatricians Regarding COVID Vaccines, new scientific information has emerged that has added strength, further detail, and further clarity to the concerns and understandings explained in the Open Letter.  In particular, Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche has authored two new illuminating articles, entitled The Immunologic Rationale Against C-19 Vaccination of Children and Predictions on the Evolution of the COVID 19 Pandemic.  Here are links to those two articles:

Link 01: https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/scientific-blog/the-immunological-rationale-against-c-19-vaccination-of-children

Link 02: https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/scientific-blog/predictions-gvb-on-evolution-c-19-pandemic

To share the above-mentioned additional information with parents and pediatricians, we have co-authored this Open Letter—Part II: A Review and Update.

In Part II we have provided 37 references. In addition, the reader is referred to the 1078 references in the original Open Letter and to the many other references in Dr. Vanden Bossche’s two articles.

The reader is also referred to the following video-interviews, regarding the Open Letter:

Video-interview (Dr. Philip McMillan and Dr. Rennebohm):

Video-conversation between Dr. Vanden Bossche, Dr. McMillan, and Dr. Rennebohm: 

https://philipmcmillan.substack.com/p/first-recorded-discussion-between?s=w

Further information about COVID may be found on the following websites:

Dr. Vanden Bossche’s website: voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org

Dr. Rennebohm’s website: notesfromthesocialclinic.org

Note: the drawings in this article are those of Kathe Kollwitz (1867-1945), a compassionate German artist who was deeply concerned about children, mothers, human suffering, poverty, injustice, and war. If she were with us today, Kathe would undoubtedly be deeply concerned about the COVID situation and other profound issues currently facing Humanity.

 PART II—A REVIEW AND UPDATE:

Decisions regarding COVID vaccination of children should be based as much as possible on a deep appreciation of the immunology, virology, vaccinology, evolutionary biology, molecular biology, and molecular epidemiology involved.  The discussion below is intended to help parents and their physicians to make an informed, scientifically sound decision about COVID vaccination.  

1)  Naturally Acquired Immunity:  How does the immune system normally deal with SARS-CoV-2?

When a person is exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus (hereafter referred to as SC-2), the virus typically enters through the person’s nose or throat and threatens to infect the person’s upper respiratory tract (URT).  By “threatens to infect” we mean that the virus tries to enter the mucosal cells in the URT.  The virus wants to enter those cells because it needs to replicate within our cells in order to survive.  Viruses cannot replicate outside of living cells and, therefore, cannot survive outside of cells. 

The SC-2 virus is able to enter cells because it has spike protein on its surface that it inserts into the ACE-2 receptors on mucosal cells (and, potentially, other cells).  When this insertion occurs, the ACE-2 “door” of the cell opens and the virus enters the cell.  The spike protein is the “key,” and the ACE-2 receptor is the “keyhole.”  Specifically, and more accurately, it is the Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) at the tip of the spike protein that is inserted into the “keyhole” to unlock the “door.”

Below are drawings of the spike protein. [1] The spike protein has an S1 region and an S2 region.  The RBD is at the tip of the S1 region.  When the RBD is in its “open” conformation, it is able to fit into the “keyhole” of the ACE-2 receptor on human cells.  When the RBD is in the “closed” conformation, it is unable to fit into the keyhole of the ACE-2 receptor. Later we will talk more about these conformational changes.

After the virus enters and replicates within the cell, parts of the virus move from the interior of the cell to the outside wall of the cell.  This is mentioned because it is the presence of this viral material on the cell surface that is recognized by the immune system and tells the immune system that the cell has been infected.

How does the immune system normally prevent SC-2 infection, or at least prevent it from getting out of control?  The following discussion is complicated, but do not feel obligated to master all of the information.  What is important is to appreciate the extraordinary complexity, competency, beauty, flexibility, and delicacy of the human immune system and to view it as a precious immune ecosystem that we must respect and protect. As with other ingenious ecosystems in Nature, we must not recklessly interfere with the human immune ecosystem, especially in children.  

Below is the table presented and discussed in the original Open Letter to Parents and Pediatricians.  It provides a broad overview of the immune system and emphasizes that it is comprised of two major compartments—the mucosal immune system and the systemic immune system, each of which has an innate immunity division and an acquired (adaptive) immunity division.

The first line of defense is the innate immunity division of the mucosal immune system. [2-11]  In particular, natural polyspecific IgM antibodies [12-18] attach (bind) to the virus (before the virus has had a chance to enter cells) at multiple sites on the surface of the virus—they do not just bind to the spike protein; they bind to many other sites on the virus, as well. [12-18] The natural antibodies that bind to the spike protein make it difficult for the virus to enter mucosal cells—because, when the spike protein is coated with antibody (particularly anti-RBD antibody), it no longer optimally fits into the ACE-2 keyhole. 

By “polyspecific” we mean that these natural antibodies are capable of binding to a variety of different viruses, not just to one specific type of virus.  For example, they can bind to (and at least partially protect us from) all of the different common coronaviruses, not just to SC-2.  These antibodies are non-specific and polyspecific, not specific for just one virus.  All of us were born with these innate natural antibodies. They are continually replenished by the B1 lymphocytes of our innate immune system.

So, one of the first protective things that happens when a virus enters the URT is that our innate natural antibodies bind to the invading SC-2 virus and make it difficult, even impossible, for the virus to enter mucosal cells.  In other words, these natural antibodies have the capacity to either fully or partially “neutralize” the spike protein on the surface of the virus (in addition to binding to other sites on the virus).  Fully neutralized spike protein is unable to open the door to the cell.  When unable to enter cells, the virus withers and dies.

If the natural antibodies are not able to fully prevent entry of virus into cells, and some virus enters some cells, the natural antibodies work with NK cells (natural killer cells) to help the NK cells to kill the mucosal cells that have become infected.  These NK cells are also part of our innate immune system.  The natural antibodies and the NK cells recognize the viral material on the outside surface of the infected cells.  That is how they know which cells need to be killed, and which cells must be left alone.  By killing the infected cells, the infection is stopped in its tracks. Yes, some of our mucosal cells (the infected ones) are sacrificed in this process, but that is okay.  It is better to sacrifice some cells than to allow the infection to grow and spread. Besides, the infected cells would have been killed by the virus anyway.

The above process, by which natural antibodies and NK cells of our innate immune system work together to at least partially protect us, is a process that can be practiced and further improved through that practice.  Our innate immune system, in particular, learns from each disease-fighting experience it has, and it becomes more efficient and effective the next time around.  For example, when the innate immune system is exposed to SC-2 in the future, including a new SC-2 variant, it uses its previous experience with SC-2 to improve its response to that future encounter.  Also, if a person has had a disease-fighting experience with other coronaviruses in the past, that experience can contribute to protecting that person against SC-2, even when SC-2 is encountered by that individual for the first time. 

In other words, experience with a variety of respiratory viruses provides valuable “training” for the innate immune system. This training is an epigenetic process.  Young children, in particular, produce abundant quantities of natural antibodies to protect them from the many viruses they encounter for the first time.  Because the concentrations of these natural antibodies progressively wane as children grow up, we are wise to “allow” young children to encounter ordinary relatively harmless respiratory viruses during their childhood—so that their innate immunity can be optimally trained. 

When viruses break through children’s first line of immune defense, children gain an opportunity to train their innate immune system to work better in the future.  That is to say that by contracting mild—or in worse-case scenario—moderate disease, children better arm themselves for future encounters with ordinary/common viruses.  Of course, we cannot have our children rely on their innate immune system when it comes to highly infectious dangerous viruses (e.g., measles) as the latter may massively break through their first line of immune defense and, therefore, put them at high risk for severe disease. This is why vaccination against highly infectious and/or potentially highly debilitating diseases are highly recommended, especially if those viruses are antigenically stable (i.e., not highly mutable).   However, we do not do our children a favor by trying to prevent them from ever getting a “cold” of any sort.  Experience with ordinary colds helps prepare their innate immune system for an eventual encounter with more serious respiratory viruses, like new more virulent variants of SC-2.  We must protect and avoid harming our valuable innate immune system, especially in children.

In addition to the above-described mucosal innate immune response to a virus (like SC-2), our mucosal immune system also has an “adaptive” (or “acquired”) immune system that is prepared to deal with the virus, if needed.  This is a more sophisticated and specific response to a specific virus, like SC-2.  Namely, B cells of the adaptive/acquired immune system make antibodies that are very specific for SC-2 (and specific only for SC-2), and some of these B cells become “memory B cells” that will remember how to produce the same SC-2-specific antibodies in the future, when/if the person is exposed to SC-2 in the future.  Also, the adaptive immune system has the capacity to generate and activate virus specific cytolytic T cells—i.e., cytolytic T cells that are specifically capable of killing cells that have become infected with a specific virus.  Just as there are memory B cells, there are memory cytolytic T cells.  However, to date, there has been no evidence of generalized induction of SC-2-specific memory cytolytic T cells as a result of natural SC-2 infection or COVID vaccination.

If the mucosal immune system (with its innate and adaptive/acquired divisions) is unable to prevent the viral infection from penetrating deep into the lower respiratory tract (LRT) and into the systemic compartment (the internal organs and body as a whole), we have a systemic immune system to help us.  The systemic immune system, like the mucosal immune system, has innate and adaptive/acquired divisions.

When a person has been more than minimally threatened by a respiratory virus, like SC-2, the above innate and adaptive immune reactions not only neutralize and kill the virus at the time of that initial threat, but also provide that person with robust, long-duration sterilizing immunity against that specific virus—such that when that person is exposed to that same virus in the future, that person will be able to quickly kill the virus.  This is what is meant by naturally acquired immunity.  It is a naturally acquired sterilizing immunity to that specific virus.  

At this point in our discussion we should mention that if the specific virus (e.g., SC-2 virus) has developed several important mutations between the time of the person’s first encounter with the virus and a subsequent encounter, the virus-specific antibodies that were developed by the adaptive immune system during the first encounter (with SC-2, e.g.) might not work optimally for the new viral variant.  However, the good news is that our innate immune system can be at least partially protective in this situation, and our adaptive/acquired immune system can make adjustments for the future.  That is one of many reasons why it is so important to have a healthy, experienced, well-trained, unimpeded innate immune system.  The better trained the innate immune system is, the better it is able to protect us.

Regarding mutations, it is helpful to know that some viruses are much more mutable than others.  Some viruses, like measles, are not highly mutable.  The SC-2 virus is much more mutable than the measles virus.    

2)  How does the mass COVID vaccination campaign drive the appearance of a succession of predominant SC-2 variants that are increasingly able to “escape” the neutralizing effect of the vaccines? 

In the initial Open Letter to Parents and Pediatricians we discussed how the mass COVID vaccination campaign has been driving the successive appearance of one predominant new SC-2 variant after another, with each new variant becoming more infectious than preceding variants.  To briefly review that explanation:  The spike protein of the virus is the part of the virus that enables it to enter (infect) human cells.  The vaccinal antibodies threaten the virus by attaching to the spike protein in a way that makes the spike protein “key” (the RBD, specifically) a poor fit for the ACE-2 receptor site (“keyhole”). [19-35]

At this point we need to distinguish between “fully neutralizing antibodies,” “partially neutralizing antibodies,” and “non-neutralizing” antibodies and between “optimal/sterilizing” immunity and “sub-optimal/non-sterilizing” immunity.  A fully neutralizing antibody against the SC-2 virus—i.e., antibody against the RBD of the spike protein e.g.—attaches to the RBD of the spike protein in such a way that the spike protein is no longer able to fit into the keyhole to unlock the door to the cell and, therefore, the  virus is unable to enter (infect) the cell.  That is, a fully neutralizing antibody contributes to optimal, sterilizing immunity.  If an antibody only partially neutralizes the spike protein, it might slow down infection of cells but does not prevent at least some viral infection and transmission.  A non-neutralizing antibody against the spike protein will not slow down viral entry into the cell, and, as we will discuss later, might, under certain circumstances, actually facilitate viral entry into the cell.  So, vaccines that produce antibodies that are, or become, only partially neutralizing, will be sub-optimal non-sterilizing vaccines, not optimal/sterilizing vaccines. 

At this point, let us clarify that the COVID mRNA vaccines were designed to primarily elicit production of neutralizing antibodies against the spike protein, particularly against the RBD of the spike protein.  It should be realized, though, that the COVID vaccines elicit production of antibody not just against the RBD of the spike protein, but also antibody against other sites on the S1 component of the spike protein as well as antibody against sites on the S2 component of the spike protein.  (See earlier images, in section 1.) These vaccinal antibodies differ regarding the extent to which they neutralize the spike protein—the antibodies against the RBD being by far the most neutralizing. Some of the antibodies produced by COVID vaccination are non-neutralizing.  So, the COVID vaccines result in the production of both neutralizing and non-neutralizing antibodies.

The COVID vaccines were designed to try to fully neutralize the spike protein of the initial Wuhan strain of SC-2.  Unfortunately, since the beginning of the vaccination campaign, the vaccine has been administered in the midst of an active pandemic—which is a very problematic thing to do.  After vaccination, it takes at least 1-2 weeks before a sufficient quantity of mature neutralizing anti-spike antibody is produced.  In the meantime, immature spike-specific vaccinal antibodies are produced, but they are capable of only partially neutralizing the virus, as opposed to fully neutralizing the virus.  Because the vaccine has been administered in the midst of an active pandemic, vaccinated people have been likely to encounter the SC-2 virus before they have been able to mount an adequate mature vaccinal antibody response.  This has meant that spike protein, though somewhat impaired by the immature partially neutralizing vaccinal antibodies, has still been able to fit into the ACE-2 keyhole, thus enabling some virus to enter the cells.  This has resulted, at the population level, in viral replication occurring in the midst of only partially neutralizing (sub-optimal/non-sterilizing) vaccinal antibodies.  This has put great immune pressure on the virus-host ecosystem to select “immune escape” variants that have the ability to “evade (escape)” the partially neutralizing effect of the immature anti-spike vaccinal antibodies.  In this setting, viral mutations (as explained in the next two paragraphs) that have enabled new, more infectious immune escape-variants have been selected and allowed to expand in prevalence (thanks to the mass vaccination campaign) to become dominant. 

When a virus enters a cell, it replicates exuberantly within that cell.  Copying mistakes during this replication result in mutations—e.g., mutations in the spike protein of the SC-2 virus.   Certain random mutations of the spike protein result in that mutated spike protein being a better fit (for the keyhole), even with some vaccinal antibody partially draped over parts of the spike protein, and this gives those mutated viruses (those variants with the better fitting mutated spike protein) a selective advantage for survival. 

In other words, new variants with these successful spike mutations will gain a competitive fitness advantage over the older variants, which will lose in the competition and die out.  In this way, a rapid mass vaccination campaign, in the midst of an active pandemic of a highly mutable virus drives the dominant propagation of new, increasingly vaccine-resistant variants. If a new variant then comes along that is even better able to “escape” the vaccinal antibodies and unlock the ACE-2 door, that variant will be selected and propagate more and more abundantly on a background of population-level immune pressure on the viral life cycle and will become dominant until it is out-competed by a yet more fit new immune-escape variant, and so on….  This is the basic concept of “natural selection” that Darwin taught us more than 160 years ago.

In the above way, the mass vaccination campaign, waged in the midst of an active pandemic, has predictably resulted in a succession of new dominant variants—with each new dominant variant being more vaccine-resistant, more  infectious, and better “fit” than its predecessor.  The Omicron variant is the latest in this succession.  Since the Omicron variant is largely vaccine-resistant, it has become even more infectious in vaccinees than any of its predecessors.  (See next section.)

 3)  How do non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies actually facilitate entry of virus into the cell? 

Initially, the vaccinal antibodies against the spike protein of the Wuhan strain were considerably neutralizing against that Wuhan strain and, thereby, were able to at least partially impair entry of virus into cells.  However, as each new SC-2 variant has emerged (due to immune pressure and natural selection of more “fit” “escape” variants), those original anti-RBD vaccinal antibodies have become less and less neutralizing (against the newer spike proteins) and are now largely failing to neutralize the Omicron variant.  That is, the vaccinal anti-RBD antibodies that worked somewhat well against the spike protein of the Wuhan strain now fail to neutralize the spike protein of more recent variants.  The new variants have mutations on their spike protein that have enabled them (the new variants) to largely “escape” vaccinal anti-RBD antibodies. [19-25]

At this point we need to understand that, whereas neutralizing vaccinal antibodies prevent virus from entering cells, non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies can, under certain circumstances,  actually facilitate entry of virus into cells.  How can that be and when does this happen? [32-35] This happens when an SC-2 variant (like Omicron) becomes largely resistant to the neutralizing vaccinal antibodies.  As the neutralization capacity of the anti-RBD vaccinal antibodies diminishes, the affinity of the non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies for the N-terminal domain (NTD) of the spike protein increases. This, then, results in a conformational change in the shape of the spike protein that makes this conformationally changed spike protein a better fit for the ACE-2 receptor.  In this way, non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies can facilitate viral entry into the cells of vaccinated people.  This is a major reason why vaccinated people (with their high quantities of non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies, which are made even higher after receiving “booster” shots) have become so easily infected—more easily infected than unvaccinated people (who do not have these facilitating non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies).  Compared to unvaccinated people, vaccinated people are now being more easily infected (due to these facilitating non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies, as well as the vaccine-resistance of the new variants).

 4)  The next evolutionary step is for the variants to become more virulent.

So far, new dominant SC-2 variants have not become more virulent (deadly), despite becoming  more infectious.  For example, the Omicron variant has been easily infecting vaccinated people (due to the Omicron variant being resistant to neutralizing vaccinal antibodies and because, in addition, the non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies are facilitating viral entry into cells) but has been causing only mild COVID illness.  Why?  This is because the same non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies that facilitate viral entry into cells are actually impairing spread of viral infection deep into the lower respiratory tract (LRT) and into the systemic compartment of the human body. [36, 37]. That is, the non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies are impairing development of more extensive and severe disease.  In short, this is because conformational changes in the virus, caused by the non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies, impair the processes of trans-infection and trans-fusion (infection of uninfected cells by neighboring infected cells). Trans-infection and trans-fusion eventuate in very harmful syncytia formation deep in the LRT and systemic compartment of the body. This impairment (by non-neutralizing antibodies) of deep viral infection and syncytia formation in the LRT and systemic compartment results in less severe disease.  That is why the Omicron variant causes only mild disease, despite being very infectious.

But this is about to change!  The immune pressures created by the mass vaccination campaign will eventually (possibly within a few months) result in the natural selection and predominance of variants that have the capacity to “escape” this vaccinal non-neutralizing antibody-mediated impairment of deep infection and syncytia formation.  Once this occurs, the new variants will be more virulent (more deadly) than any of their predecessors.  Omicron constitutes a critical step in the shift of immune pressure in that resistance of Omicron to potentially neutralizing antibodies allows vaccinees to convert population-level immune pressure on viral infectiousness (exerted by vaccinal neutralizing antibodies) to population-level immune pressure on viral trans infectiousness (exerted by non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies), which results in more severe disease.  In other words, the COVID vaccination campaign is inevitably going to generate an SC-2 variant that is both highly infectious and highly virulent and will dominate.

5)  The COVID vaccines actually undermine the natural immune system and prevent its training. 

Another extremely important adverse effect of the COVID vaccines is that they undermine and suppress the functionality and training of the innate immune system, especially in children.  Whereas the vaccinal antibodies bind tightly to the spike protein, innate natural antibodies bind only loosely.  This results in the vaccinal antibodies crowding out and outcompeting the natural antibodies for binding sites on the spike protein. It is as if the vaccinal response (the immune response stimulated by the vaccine) says to the innate immune system, “I’ve got this; you need not get involved; leave this to me.”  This vaccinal response bypasses and sidelines the natural antibodies and, thereby, interferes with the use and training of innate immunity.  The COVID vaccines, thereby, weaken innate immunity.

 6)  Furthermore, the quality of COVID vaccine-acquired immunity is inferior to the quality of naturally acquired immunity against SC-2.

Naturally acquired immunity (immunity acquired as a result of natural infection) is multi-dimensional, multi-faceted, and results in robust, long-standing, sterilizing immunity— particularly (but not exclusively) when it involves both the innate and adaptive components of the immune system.  In contrast, COVID vaccinal immunity is non-sterilizing and relatively uni-dimensional.  Unfortunately, a major limitation of the COVID vaccines—and a major difference between how the natural immune system approaches the virus and how the vaccine approaches the virus—is that the COVID vaccines result in vaccinal antibodies that attach only to polypeptidic sites on the spike protein, not to any of the virus surface-expressed self-glycan motifs/patterns that are typically recognized by polyspecific innate natural antibodies.  Because natural/innate antibodies produced by the innate immune system engage through multivalent interaction with repetitive patterns of self-mimicking glycans that are expressed on the surface of enveloped glycosylated viruses, these antibodies have high avidity for several respiratory viruses (including all SC-2 variants) while binding with much lower affinity to spike protein than do spike-specific antibodies. 

Compared to naturally acquired immunity, COVID vaccinal immunity is uni-dimensional, single-minded immunity that focuses on production of antibodies that bind with high affinity to specific antigenic sites (“epitopes”) of the spike protein (e.g., the RBD of the spike protein).  Vaccinal immunity creates memory B cells (for future production of anti-spike antibodies) but there is no evidence that the COVID vaccines create spike-specific memory cytolytic T cells.  Also, the vaccinal training focuses on the adaptive part of the systemic immune system, not the innate immunity division within the systemic compartment.  Furthermore, the COVID vaccines almost exclusively train the systemic compartment, and only partially so, and have little effect on the mucosal compartment, which is the most important site of immune protection against a respiratory virus.  In fact, as mentioned earlier, the vaccinal antibodies undermine a person’s innate immunity—both in the systemic and mucosal compartments.  For these reasons, vaccinal immunity is far inferior to naturally acquired immunity.

7)  Furthermore, the sub-optimal training the systemic compartment receives from vaccination becomes habitual for the vaccinated individual, because of the “priming” and memory it creates within the adaptive immunity division of the systemic immune system. 

The COVID vaccines train (“prime”) the person’s immune system to reflexively respond to SC-2 by producing (within the systemic compartment) anti-spike antibodies (and only anti-spike antibodies) whenever the person is exposed to SC-2 or is “boosted.”  Worse, the antibodies produced become outdated, because of the new variants that appear.  These vaccinal antibodies then outcompete the innate natural antibodies, undermine our innate immunity, and perpetuate and escalate the misguided and outdated immune reaction to the virus.  Instead of our innate immune system becoming increasingly trained and experienced, it becomes sidelined, and our immune system reacts with the same old, outdated, single-minded, anti-spike antibody response that is non-sterilizing and enhances viral infectiousness as it loses its viral neutralizing capacity.  This is an inflexible, continually repeated, ineffective, deleterious immune response, and it is repeatedly invoked every time the vaccinated person is exposed to the virus or receives a booster.  And whenever it gets triggered, it contributes to the escalation of the entire problem.  It should also be realized that this vaccinal “imprinting” or “priming” is not just a temporary phenomenon.  It is like installing a type of software in one’s immune computer that cannot be erased.

8)  The COVID vaccines do not contribute to herd immunity:

Only sterilizing immunity contributes to herd immunity.  When a person becomes naturally infected with SC-2, and the infection is more than minimal, that person develops naturally acquired sterilizing immunity (particularly when the adaptive immune system participates in the immune response) and, thereby, contributes to herd immunity.

COVID vaccination does not contribute to herd immunity. The COVID vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission and, therefore, do not/cannot result in sterilizing immunity.  In fact, the COVID vaccines may inhibit a vaccinated individual from developing sterilizing immunity, even when that individual subsequently develops actual infection.  Even if a person happened to have developed naturally acquired sterilizing immunity from past infection before becoming vaccinated, the vaccine might interfere with that sterilizing immunity.

Mass vaccination of everyone (i.e., across all age groups), with a sub-optimal, non-sterilizing vaccine, during an active pandemic, is particularly good at preventing development of herd immunity.  If all are vaccinated, such that none has sterilizing immunity, there is no one left who is capable of contributing to herd immunity.  Pandemics do not subside until sufficient herd immunity has developed.

9)  Would this development of increasingly vaccine-resistant, increasingly infectious new predominant variants have happened if the COVID vaccine had been used in a truly prophylactic way, well in advance of a pandemic?

The above phenomenon—of a rapid mass vaccination campaign with a sub-optimal vaccine in the midst of an active pandemic, driving the natural selection and dominant expansion of a succession of predominant variants that are increasingly infectious (compared to their predecessors)—would still occur, but at a slower pace, if the same vaccine were used well in advance of an epidemic caused by a viral strain whose antigenic constellation is optimally matched by the vaccine. The key to understanding this is to realize the difference between using a vaccine (even one that produces considerably neutralizing anti-spike antibody) in the midst of an active pandemic versus using the same vaccine well in advance of the pandemic. 

[Note: Before proceeding further with this explanation, it is important to again emphasize that, normally, when the immune system produces specific antibodies in response to a specific viral threat, the immune system first produces immature antibodies (which are only partially neutralizing and, therefore, sub-optimal), before it is able to produce an adequate quantity of mature antibodies (that are more neutralizing).  It takes at least 1-2 weeks, often longer, before an adequate quantity of mature antibodies are produced.]   

If vaccination is occurring in the midst of a pandemic, people are being vaccinated while the virus is circulating widely in the community at a high level, such that a substantial amount of vaccinated people are likely to be exposed to the virus shortly after vaccination, before their immune system has been able to mount a mature response. This enables the virus to replicate in the presence of immature sub-optimal only partially neutralizing vaccinal antibodies, which places the virus under intense immune pressure and forces the natural selection of mutated spike protein that is able to escape the immature vaccinal antibody and more easily infect cells.  If, on the other hand, this same vaccine is administered many months before a pandemic arrives (i.e. when there is no virus around), each vaccinated person has sufficient time to generate high quantities of mature neutralizing virus-specific antibodies.  Then, when the virus arrives, those antibodies are already present and able to impede infection and transmission.  Prophylactic vaccination against coronavirus would only be effective in the case of an endemic situation (i.e., to prevent an outbreak).  As endemicity implies asymptomatic infection, only small parts of the population will be exposed to the virus shortly after prophylactic vaccination, which will create minimal immune pressure.

A key difference here is “sufficient time to generate” the mature antibodies.  When the vaccine is given in the midst of an active pandemic (i.e., when there is lots of virus circulating in and around people), many people who receive the vaccine become infected before the vaccine has had “sufficient time to generate” the mature vaccinal antibodies.  That is, these people are becoming infected while they are in the process of slowly developing their mature antibodies—i.e., they are becoming infected while they are producing immature antibodies, which are only partially neutralizing and are, therefore, sub-optimal. It is this combination of viral replication occurring in the midst of sub-optimal vaccinal antibody development in large parts of the population (mass vaccination!) that results in severe immune pressure and natural selection of more infectious “escape” variants.  When a vaccine is administered well in advance of a coronavirus epidemic, this combination only occurs at low frequency because the mature prophylactic vaccinal antibodies are mostly produced in the absence of circulating virus—i.e., in the absence of viral replication—and this results in less population level immune pressure on the virus.

Another key concept is the difference between mass vaccination across all age groups (i.e., vaccinating everyone) and selective vaccination of only the most vulnerable (the elderly and those with worrisome co-morbidities).  Mass vaccination across all age groups places enormous immune pressure on the virus (as does complete lockdown, by the way).  Selective vaccination puts much less immune pressure on the virus.

10)  Will it help to develop new, updated mRNA vaccines that match new mutated SC-2 variants—e.g., an Omicron-specific mRNA vaccine?

The pharmaceutical companies that have produced the current COVID mRNA vaccines are promoting the notion that new, updated mRNA vaccines can be easily and quickly produced to replace mRNA vaccines that have become outdated.  For example, a new Omicron-specific mRNA vaccine can be produced, and, after that, new variant-specific mRNA vaccines can be produced for future new variants.  One problem with this strategy is that it will be impossible to keep up with the new variants.  Each new variant-specific mRNA vaccine will drive the natural selection of new variants with new escape mutations that will quickly render the most recent mRNA vaccine obsolete.  This will be a never-ending battle that the virus will win. 

But a more important problem with this strategy is that re-vaccination of vaccinees with an updated spike (Omicron)-based vaccine during an active pandemic will further increase likelihood of breakthrough infections and will further increase population-level immune pressure on viral virulence. This is primarily because such vaccination increases quantities of vaccinal non-neutralizing antibodies—that, as explained earlier (in sections 3 and 4), enhance viral infectiousness (facilitate viral entry into cells) and increase population-level immune pressure that results in the natural selection of more virulent variants. 

This strategy will only perpetuate and worsen the problems created by the mass COVID vaccination campaign. This strategy, therefore, must be strongly resisted.

11)  Do the concerns expressed in this article about the “COVID vaccines” apply only to the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) or to all of the currently available COVID vaccines?

As of May 11, 2022, ten COVID vaccines have been granted Emergency Use Listing (EUL) by the World Health Organization (WHO).  These vaccines can be categorized into four groups, according to the “platform” used:

  • Messenger RNA: Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech
  • Viral Vector: Johnson & Johnson, Oxford/AstraZeneca, Covishield
  • Protein Subunit: Novavax, Covovax
  • Inactivated Whole Virus: Covaxin, Sinovac, Sinopharm

In addition, the Sputnik (viral vector) vaccine is used in Russia and other countries.

Although these COVID vaccines may differ regarding the side effects they may cause in individual people who receive the vaccine, all of these vaccines create the same problem at a population level.  That is, mass vaccination in the midst of the COVID pandemic with any of these vaccines will result in the vaccinated population placing the virus under great immune pressure, and this will result in a succession of variants that have become dominant, through natural selection, because they have “escape” mutations through natural selection, because they have “escape” mutations that inevitably make them first more infectious, then resistant to potentially neutralizing vaccinal Abs and eventually also more virulent (deadly).

So, yes, at the population level—at the evolutionary biology level—the concerns expressed in this article are applicable to all currently available COVID vaccines.

12)  Summary:

  • Because the mass COVID vaccination campaign has been rapidly implemented in the midst of an active pandemic, instead of well in advance of the pandemic—i.e., because viral exposure has often occurred while vaccinal antibodies have been immature and only partially neutralizing and have, thereby, not prevented infection—the vaccination campaign has continually placed great population-level immune pressure on a highly mutable replicating virus (SC-2).  This has resulted in a succession of variants that have become dominant, through natural selection, because they have “escape” mutations that make them more “fit.”  These dominant variants have become increasingly vaccine resistant and have resulted in the mature vaccinal antibodies becoming increasingly less neutralizing.
  • As new SC-2 variants become increasingly vaccine-resistant, and the neutralizing vaccinal antibodies become increasingly less-neutralizing, non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies actually facilitate entry of virus into the cells of the vaccinated.
  • Although the non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies are now facilitating viral entry into cells (of the vaccinated), they have (temporarily) been impairing penetration of the viral infection deep in the body—thereby impairing syncytia formation and reducing disease severity. But this temporary beneficial effect of the non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies is about to change (vanish), because the next inevitable evolutionary step is that the mass vaccination campaign will drive the development of variants that are able to “escape” the immune pressure being exerted by these non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies that are impairing  penetration of the viral infection (and impairing  syncytia formation deep in the body)—i.e. these new variants will have increased virulence. These new more virulent variants are likely to appear soon, especially if the mass vaccination program is expanded by booster campaigns and vaccination of younger age groups (children).
  • In short, the mass vaccination campaign results in the natural selection of variants that are increasingly infectious and eventually increasingly virulent in vaccinees, as a result of enhanced immune pressure exerted by their non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies. The mass vaccination campaign has prolonged the pandemic and made it more dangerous, especially for the vaccinated.
  • Furthermore, the COVID vaccines undermine the functionality and training of our innate immune system and, instead, prime our adaptive/acquired immune system to habitually respond with the same old, outdated, single-minded, anti-spike antibody response that—instead of conferring sterilizing immunity—actually enhances viral infectiousness as a result of viral resistance to potentially neutralizing vaccine-induced anti-spike antibodies.
  • Expanded mass immunization (i.e., vaccination of an increased percentage of the population, ongoing administration of booster, and vaccinee’s exposure to Omicron) will soon drive the emergence of variants that will be highly virulent in vaccinees. This will be a direct consequence of an ever-increasing prevalence of elevated vaccinal non-neutralizing antibodies and, therefore, a self-amplifying deleterious immune response that consists of antibody dependent enhancement of viral infectiousness (leading to breakthrough infection!) and concomitant immune pressure on viral trans infectiousness (leading to increased virulence).  None of this applies to non-vaccinated children. In the event that the virus breaks through their innate line of immune defense, their recovery from symptomatic SC-2 disease will result in improved innate immunity that—thanks to the epigenetic mechanism of innate immune adaptation (training)—will confer more effective sterilizing immunity upon future exposure.  That is why and how children constitute an important pillar for generating herd immunity.  This is in sharp contrast to COVID vaccination, which prevents highly vaccinated populations from developing sterilizing immunity and, in fact, promotes the opposite of herd immunity in that it leads to a higher level of viral infectivity in the population (and, therefore, a higher level of circulating virus and vulnerable people in the community).  Adequate herd immunity is what brings a pandemic to end.
  • It is abundantly clear that naturally acquired immunity to SC-2 is far superior to vaccine-acquired immunity to SC-2, both at an individual level and at a population level.

13)  So, there are many reasons, based on science alone, why children should not receive COVID vaccines?

  • The COVID vaccines undermine, suppress, weaken, and give less practice to a child’s natural innate immune system, making the child not only less able to handle SC-2, but also less able to handle other viruses. A healthy innate immune system also protects against development of autoimmunity and malignancy.  We must avoid undermining and suppressing the innate immune system, especially in children. We do not want to interfere with the functionality and training of a child’s developing innate immune system.  We need to protect a child’s innate immune system, not undermine and sideline it. 
  • The innate immune system (with its polyspecific natural antibodies and NK cells, etc. ) is more flexible than the uni-dimensional vaccinal anti-spike approach. Natural antibodies can successfully cross-react with future new variants.  Following a disease-fighting experience, this first line of immune defense can be trained to better adapt to fighting new viral variants.
  • The COVID vaccines have driven the development and predominance of increasingly infectious variants. Furthermore, the COVID vaccine’s non-neutralizing antibodies are now actually facilitating entry of the virus into their cells. Vaccinated people are now being more easily infected than are the unvaccinated.
  • The vaccines are now poised to drive the development of more virulent variants. This will lead to more severe, more life-threatening illness, particularly in the vaccinated. 
  • The mass vaccination campaign is prolonging the pandemic, making it more dangerous, and preventing development of adequate herd immunity.
  • The vaccines train the immune system to reflexively respond in the same old, outdated, inadequate, single-minded, non-flexible, non-sterilizing way every time the vaccinated person is exposed to the virus or gets boosted by vaccine. This “software” is not erasable. This perpetuates and escalates the overall problem.
  • The vaccines do not result in sterilizing immunity; naturally acquired immunity does.
  • The vaccinated do not contribute to herd immunity; naturally acquired immunity does.
  • The unvaccinated and healthy child will be better able to handle more infectious and more virulent future SC-2 variants, than will the vaccinated, because:
    • They will not have the competing vaccinal anti-spike antibodies that sideline and weaken a person’s innate immunity.
    • They will not have the facilitating non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies that actually increase entry of the virulent variant into their cells and contribute to exerting immune pressure on viral virulence.
    • Their innate immunity has not been undermined by past vaccination and, therefore, will be free and able to optimally help them; whereas the vaccinated child’s innate immunity has been undermined, sidelined, and weakened.
    • Their immune system will be able to respond to SC-2 in a normal, natural, multi-dimensional, multi-faceted, flexible way—as opposed to the same old, less flexible, more uni-dimensional, less effective way the vaccines “prime” the immune system to reflexively respond over and over again.
    • Their innate immune system will be able to reprogram the functional activity of innate antibody-producing B cells such as to more effectively fight new variants.
    • Even unvaccinated immunocompromised children and otherwise particularly vulnerable children will be better able to handle the SC-2 virus (and other viruses), because of the above reasons.
  • The unvaccinated child will be contributing to herd immunity, whereas the vaccinated child will be dis-contributing to development of herd immunity.
  • A vaccinated child will be worse off than an unvaccinated child because:
    • The vaccinated child’s developing innate immune system will be sidelined, robbed of needed practice (training), and unavailable (or at least less able) to fight against not only SC-2, but other viruses.
    • The vaccinated child will have facilitating non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies that actually increase entry of virulent virus into their cells and contribute to exerting immune pressure on viral virulence.
    • The vaccinated child’s vaccinal antibodies will be unable, anyway, to protect the child from new SC-2 variants that have evolved to become vaccine-resistant and more infectious; and will, ultimately, be unable to protect the child from viral variants that, in addition, have evolved a higher level of viral virulence in vaccinated individuals.
    • The vaccinated child’s immune system will be programmed to repeatedly respond in an inflexible, ineffective, uni-dimensional way, instead of responding in the normal, natural, multi-dimensional, multi-faceted, flexible way.
    • Because the vaccinal antibodies suppress and weaken the child’s innate immunity, the vaccinated child will be less able to avoid autoimmunity.
  • On the basis of the above, alone, the vaccines should not be given to children.
  • On top of all this, the vaccines are not nearly as “safe” as advertised. For example, they lead to many autoimmune side effects (myocarditis, e.g.), and the mRNA sticks around for a much longer time than was initially realized.  Please see the original Open Letter for a detailed discussion of the side effect risks for individual vaccinees. On this side effect basis (at the individual level), alone, these vaccines should not be given to children.
  • In short, there is no scientifically sound justification for COVID vaccination of children. In fact there is scientific evidence that COVID vaccination of children will harm those children and be harmful to Humanity as a whole. The serious short-term and long-term risks of the mass vaccination program far outweigh any fleeting (and soon permanently gone) short-term benefits.
  • On a scientific basis alone, the COVID vaccines should not be given to children—because they undermine the immune system, they render the vaccinated person more vulnerable to infection, and they will soon cause a more virulent strain that will cause much more severe disease, particularly in the vaccinated.
  • It is our social responsibility to call for an immediate cessation of COVID vaccination of children. In addition to shutting down the COVID vaccination campaign for children, the entire COVID vaccination campaign needs to be carefully and objectively re-evaluated, both from an evolutionary biology standpoint (at the population level) and from a side effect standpoint (at the individual level).
  • We must protect our children and grandchildren from a misguided COVID vaccination campaign that is scientifically simplistic, scientifically naïve, and clearly capable of causing great harm.
  • As physicians, we must “do no harm.” We must protect children from harm, not expose them to harm.   We must protect their precious immune ecosystems, not recklessly interfere with the wisdom of their natural immune responses.

14)  If the vaccination campaign is halted (at least for children and potentially for adults), what is left for us to do to protect children and adults from severe COVID—particularly if a new variant appears that is extremely infectious and very virulent?

There is much that we can and must do:

  • Thorough, scientifically sound and understandable patient education about COVID can be provided to parents, children, and the public as a whole—particularly regarding COVID vaccination.
  • As a pediatrician, a pediatric rheumatologist, and a Susac syndrome specialist, I have been greatly impressed by the capacity of parents, other adults, and even children (particularly adolescents) to comprehend complex medical information—especially when that information is explained in an understandable way. (My 11-year-old grandson quickly and easily comprehended why NBA basketball players and NFL football players, when they “test positive for COVID,” should ask for the CT value at which  their COVID PCR test was positive, before accepting mandatory quarantine from play.) Adults and children deserve thorough, accurate  patient education, and they benefit enormously from it.  Such education reduces mystery, anxiety, fear, confusion, and anger.  It is liberating.  It can be therapeutic.    
  • Regarding COVID testing, we should shift to reliance on genomic sequencing for accurate diagnosis of SC-2 and use the CT values of PCR testing for estimation of viral load. It is not too late to start collecting and reporting data properly, and we must do so.
  • Good exercise, good nutrition (including immune-supporting nutraceuticals), fresh air, sunshine, and good emotional health (including reduction of COVID-related fear, mystery, confusion, cognitive dissonance, and anxiety) will help optimize people’s immune systems, particularly their innate immune systems.
  • For those who become infected, early (and accurate) outpatient diagnosis (with disclosure of PCR CT values and verification by genomic sequencing) and early outpatient treatment with safe anti-viral therapies will help prevent escalation of disease.
  • For those who develop a hyperimmune/hyperinflammatory reaction (during the second and third weeks of illness, e.g.) prompt and appropriately aggressive immunosuppression will be critically important.
  • In highly vaccinated communities/countries/populations it may be necessary to treat virtually everyone with safe anti-viral therapy, perhaps for 6-8 weeks, in an effort to thoroughly reduce the viral infectious pressure in these populations/communities and to interrupt the vicious cycle of high infectious pressure causing enhanced immune pressure on the viral life cycle and, hence, driving immune escape.
  • We must promote respectful, healthy, scientific dialogue—particularly among health care professionals, but also among citizens—dialogue and education that will elevate understanding of the COVID situation, create consensus, bring people together, and unite people in positive, constructive efforts to do what is needed to preserve lives and end this pandemic.

Children are dependent on their parents to make a wise and informed decision about COVID vaccination.  Parents depend on their physicians to provide accurate, sufficient, honest information and wise advice, regarding COVID vaccination.  Some parents might want to read the original Open Letter and this Part II of the Open Letter, show it to their physicians, and ask their physicians what parts of these writings the physicians disagree with and on what scientific basis. 

Physicians have an obligation to be fully familiar with the concerns raised in these documents (and in Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche’s writings and interviews) and to be willing to engage in respectful, honest, healthy, constructive, deep scientific dialogue with colleagues and parents about these concerns.  For the sake of children, pediatricians are encouraged to take the lead in organizing and advocating such dialogue.  Children and parents would benefit enormously from pediatricians seizing that opportunity and uniting as a group to ensure that truly informed consent is being provided to parents.  

For example, it would be enormously helpful if the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) were to publish, widely disseminate, and publicly promote the following statement (or a version of it that the AAP feels comfortable endorsing):

“After careful scientific review of the immunology, virology, vaccinology, evolutionary biology, molecular biology, and molecular epidemiology of the COVID situation, the AAP has concluded that, on a scientific basis alone, COVID vaccination of children should be strongly discouraged, until/unless new scientific evidence suggests otherwise.  At this point, the campaign to encourage COVID vaccination of children appears to have been unwise—both at an individual level and a population level. We call for an immediate discontinuation of COVID vaccination of children. We recommend that the entire COVID vaccination campaign be carefully, thoroughly, objectively, honestly, and altruistically re-evaluated.” 

If the AAP is unwilling to embrace the above statement (or their own similar version), then, in a spirit of promoting much needed respectful, healthy, scientific dialogue, the AAP is encouraged to explain exactly how its analysis of the immunology, virology, vaccinology, evolutionary biology, molecular biology, and molecular epidemiology of the COVID situation has led them to a different scientific conclusion.  At the very least, the AAP is encouraged to call for a National Pediatric Summit on COVID Vaccination at which scientists and physicians representing a full, inclusive spectrum of scientific views convene to engage in respectful dialogue about the scientific issues involved in COVID vaccination of children.

Parents and practicing pediatricians are encouraged to send this Open Letter—Part II and the initial Open Letter to the AAP and encourage the AAP to either endorse the above conclusions or provide a detailed scientific explanation for their unwillingness to do so and call for a National Pediatric Summit to discuss issues of COVID vaccination in children.  Parents, children, and pediatricians deserve such a response from the AAP.

AFTERWORD:

Physicians and other dedicated scientists are still learning about the COVID situation, including the benefits and risks of COVID vaccination.  Our own understandings are continually evolving, such that some of our current understandings (including some of the understandings explained in this article) may eventually need to be modified, even replaced, by new and better understandings.  Such is the nature of scientific/medical inquiry.  Accordingly, a new Open Letter—Part III may soon need to be written.

The process of attaining a best possible understanding of the COVID situation could be accelerated if scientists and physicians were to optimally engage in respectful, healthy, scientific dialogue. That is why Dr. Vanden Bossche, in March 2021, made an urgent call for such dialogue about vaccination issues. Unfortunately, that call went largely unheeded by the proponents of the prevailing COVID narrative.  It is hoped that the original Open Letter to Parents and Pediatricians and this Update will facilitate much needed, overdue scientific dialogue about COVID vaccination—particularly, COVID vaccination of children.       

 Rob Rennebohm, MD

Email: rmrennebohm@gmail.com

Website: notesfromthesocialclinic.org

Geert Vanden Bossche. DVM, PhD

Website: www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org

May 12, 2022

REFERENCES:

By Rob Rennebohm, MD and Geert Vanden Bossche, DVM, PhD

FOREWORD:

Since the initial posting of the Open Letter to Parents and Pediatricians Regarding COVID Vaccines, new scientific information has emerged that has added strength, further detail, and further clarity to the concerns and understandings explained in the Open Letter.  In particular, Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche has authored two new illuminating articles, entitled The Immunologic Rationale Against C-19 Vaccination of Children and Predictions on the Evolution of the COVID 19 Pandemic.  Here are links to those two articles:

Link 01: https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/scientific-blog/the-immunological-rationale-against-c-19-vaccination-of-children

Link 02: https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/scientific-blog/predictions-gvb-on-evolution-c-19-pandemic

To share the above-mentioned additional information with parents and pediatricians, we have co-authored this Open Letter—Part II: A Review and Update.

In Part II we have provided 37 references. In addition, the reader is referred to the 1078 references in the original Open Letter and to the many other references in Dr. Vanden Bossche’s two articles.

The reader is also referred to the following video-interviews, regarding the Open Letter:

Video-interview (Dr. Philip McMillan and Dr. Rennebohm):

Video-conversation between Dr. Vanden Bossche, Dr. McMillan, and Dr. Rennebohm: 

https://philipmcmillan.substack.com/p/first-recorded-discussion-between?s=w

Further information about COVID may be found on the following websites:

Dr. Vanden Bossche’s website: voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org

Dr. Rennebohm’s website: notesfromthesocialclinic.org

Note: the drawings in this article are those of Kathe Kollwitz (1867-1945), a compassionate German artist who was deeply concerned about children, mothers, human suffering, poverty, injustice, and war. If she were with us today, Kathe would undoubtedly be deeply concerned about the COVID situation and other profound issues currently facing Humanity.

 PART II—A REVIEW AND UPDATE:

Decisions regarding COVID vaccination of children should be based as much as possible on a deep appreciation of the immunology, virology, vaccinology, evolutionary biology, molecular biology, and molecular epidemiology involved.  The discussion below is intended to help parents and their physicians to make an informed, scientifically sound decision about COVID vaccination.  

1)  Naturally Acquired Immunity:  How does the immune system normally deal with SARS-CoV-2?

When a person is exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus (hereafter referred to as SC-2), the virus typically enters through the person’s nose or throat and threatens to infect the person’s upper respiratory tract (URT).  By “threatens to infect” we mean that the virus tries to enter the mucosal cells in the URT.  The virus wants to enter those cells because it needs to replicate within our cells in order to survive.  Viruses cannot replicate outside of living cells and, therefore, cannot survive outside of cells. 

The SC-2 virus is able to enter cells because it has spike protein on its surface that it inserts into the ACE-2 receptors on mucosal cells (and, potentially, other cells).  When this insertion occurs, the ACE-2 “door” of the cell opens and the virus enters the cell.  The spike protein is the “key,” and the ACE-2 receptor is the “keyhole.”  Specifically, and more accurately, it is the Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) at the tip of the spike protein that is inserted into the “keyhole” to unlock the “door.”

Below are drawings of the spike protein. [1] The spike protein has an S1 region and an S2 region.  The RBD is at the tip of the S1 region.  When the RBD is in its “open” conformation, it is able to fit into the “keyhole” of the ACE-2 receptor on human cells.  When the RBD is in the “closed” conformation, it is unable to fit into the keyhole of the ACE-2 receptor. Later we will talk more about these conformational changes.

After the virus enters and replicates within the cell, parts of the virus move from the interior of the cell to the outside wall of the cell.  This is mentioned because it is the presence of this viral material on the cell surface that is recognized by the immune system and tells the immune system that the cell has been infected.

How does the immune system normally prevent SC-2 infection, or at least prevent it from getting out of control?  The following discussion is complicated, but do not feel obligated to master all of the information.  What is important is to appreciate the extraordinary complexity, competency, beauty, flexibility, and delicacy of the human immune system and to view it as a precious immune ecosystem that we must respect and protect. As with other ingenious ecosystems in Nature, we must not recklessly interfere with the human immune ecosystem, especially in children.  

Below is the table presented and discussed in the original Open Letter to Parents and Pediatricians.  It provides a broad overview of the immune system and emphasizes that it is comprised of two major compartments—the mucosal immune system and the systemic immune system, each of which has an innate immunity division and an acquired (adaptive) immunity division.

The first line of defense is the innate immunity division of the mucosal immune system. [2-11]  In particular, natural polyspecific IgM antibodies [12-18] attach (bind) to the virus (before the virus has had a chance to enter cells) at multiple sites on the surface of the virus—they do not just bind to the spike protein; they bind to many other sites on the virus, as well. [12-18] The natural antibodies that bind to the spike protein make it difficult for the virus to enter mucosal cells—because, when the spike protein is coated with antibody (particularly anti-RBD antibody), it no longer optimally fits into the ACE-2 keyhole. 

By “polyspecific” we mean that these natural antibodies are capable of binding to a variety of different viruses, not just to one specific type of virus.  For example, they can bind to (and at least partially protect us from) all of the different common coronaviruses, not just to SC-2.  These antibodies are non-specific and polyspecific, not specific for just one virus.  All of us were born with these innate natural antibodies. They are continually replenished by the B1 lymphocytes of our innate immune system.

So, one of the first protective things that happens when a virus enters the URT is that our innate natural antibodies bind to the invading SC-2 virus and make it difficult, even impossible, for the virus to enter mucosal cells.  In other words, these natural antibodies have the capacity to either fully or partially “neutralize” the spike protein on the surface of the virus (in addition to binding to other sites on the virus).  Fully neutralized spike protein is unable to open the door to the cell.  When unable to enter cells, the virus withers and dies.

If the natural antibodies are not able to fully prevent entry of virus into cells, and some virus enters some cells, the natural antibodies work with NK cells (natural killer cells) to help the NK cells to kill the mucosal cells that have become infected.  These NK cells are also part of our innate immune system.  The natural antibodies and the NK cells recognize the viral material on the outside surface of the infected cells.  That is how they know which cells need to be killed, and which cells must be left alone.  By killing the infected cells, the infection is stopped in its tracks. Yes, some of our mucosal cells (the infected ones) are sacrificed in this process, but that is okay.  It is better to sacrifice some cells than to allow the infection to grow and spread. Besides, the infected cells would have been killed by the virus anyway.

The above process, by which natural antibodies and NK cells of our innate immune system work together to at least partially protect us, is a process that can be practiced and further improved through that practice.  Our innate immune system, in particular, learns from each disease-fighting experience it has, and it becomes more efficient and effective the next time around.  For example, when the innate immune system is exposed to SC-2 in the future, including a new SC-2 variant, it uses its previous experience with SC-2 to improve its response to that future encounter.  Also, if a person has had a disease-fighting experience with other coronaviruses in the past, that experience can contribute to protecting that person against SC-2, even when SC-2 is encountered by that individual for the first time. 

In other words, experience with a variety of respiratory viruses provides valuable “training” for the innate immune system. This training is an epigenetic process.  Young children, in particular, produce abundant quantities of natural antibodies to protect them from the many viruses they encounter for the first time.  Because the concentrations of these natural antibodies progressively wane as children grow up, we are wise to “allow” young children to encounter ordinary relatively harmless respiratory viruses during their childhood—so that their innate immunity can be optimally trained. 

When viruses break through children’s first line of immune defense, children gain an opportunity to train their innate immune system to work better in the future.  That is to say that by contracting mild—or in worse-case scenario—moderate disease, children better arm themselves for future encounters with ordinary/common viruses.  Of course, we cannot have our children rely on their innate immune system when it comes to highly infectious dangerous viruses (e.g., measles) as the latter may massively break through their first line of immune defense and, therefore, put them at high risk for severe disease. This is why vaccination against highly infectious and/or potentially highly debilitating diseases are highly recommended, especially if those viruses are antigenically stable (i.e., not highly mutable).   However, we do not do our children a favor by trying to prevent them from ever getting a “cold” of any sort.  Experience with ordinary colds helps prepare their innate immune system for an eventual encounter with more serious respiratory viruses, like new more virulent variants of SC-2.  We must protect and avoid harming our valuable innate immune system, especially in children.

In addition to the above-described mucosal innate immune response to a virus (like SC-2), our mucosal immune system also has an “adaptive” (or “acquired”) immune system that is prepared to deal with the virus, if needed.  This is a more sophisticated and specific response to a specific virus, like SC-2.  Namely, B cells of the adaptive/acquired immune system make antibodies that are very specific for SC-2 (and specific only for SC-2), and some of these B cells become “memory B cells” that will remember how to produce the same SC-2-specific antibodies in the future, when/if the person is exposed to SC-2 in the future.  Also, the adaptive immune system has the capacity to generate and activate virus specific cytolytic T cells—i.e., cytolytic T cells that are specifically capable of killing cells that have become infected with a specific virus.  Just as there are memory B cells, there are memory cytolytic T cells.  However, to date, there has been no evidence of generalized induction of SC-2-specific memory cytolytic T cells as a result of natural SC-2 infection or COVID vaccination.

If the mucosal immune system (with its innate and adaptive/acquired divisions) is unable to prevent the viral infection from penetrating deep into the lower respiratory tract (LRT) and into the systemic compartment (the internal organs and body as a whole), we have a systemic immune system to help us.  The systemic immune system, like the mucosal immune system, has innate and adaptive/acquired divisions.

When a person has been more than minimally threatened by a respiratory virus, like SC-2, the above innate and adaptive immune reactions not only neutralize and kill the virus at the time of that initial threat, but also provide that person with robust, long-duration sterilizing immunity against that specific virus—such that when that person is exposed to that same virus in the future, that person will be able to quickly kill the virus.  This is what is meant by naturally acquired immunity.  It is a naturally acquired sterilizing immunity to that specific virus.  

At this point in our discussion we should mention that if the specific virus (e.g., SC-2 virus) has developed several important mutations between the time of the person’s first encounter with the virus and a subsequent encounter, the virus-specific antibodies that were developed by the adaptive immune system during the first encounter (with SC-2, e.g.) might not work optimally for the new viral variant.  However, the good news is that our innate immune system can be at least partially protective in this situation, and our adaptive/acquired immune system can make adjustments for the future.  That is one of many reasons why it is so important to have a healthy, experienced, well-trained, unimpeded innate immune system.  The better trained the innate immune system is, the better it is able to protect us.

Regarding mutations, it is helpful to know that some viruses are much more mutable than others.  Some viruses, like measles, are not highly mutable.  The SC-2 virus is much more mutable than the measles virus.    

2)  How does the mass COVID vaccination campaign drive the appearance of a succession of predominant SC-2 variants that are increasingly able to “escape” the neutralizing effect of the vaccines? 

In the initial Open Letter to Parents and Pediatricians we discussed how the mass COVID vaccination campaign has been driving the successive appearance of one predominant new SC-2 variant after another, with each new variant becoming more infectious than preceding variants.  To briefly review that explanation:  The spike protein of the virus is the part of the virus that enables it to enter (infect) human cells.  The vaccinal antibodies threaten the virus by attaching to the spike protein in a way that makes the spike protein “key” (the RBD, specifically) a poor fit for the ACE-2 receptor site (“keyhole”). [19-35]

At this point we need to distinguish between “fully neutralizing antibodies,” “partially neutralizing antibodies,” and “non-neutralizing” antibodies and between “optimal/sterilizing” immunity and “sub-optimal/non-sterilizing” immunity.  A fully neutralizing antibody against the SC-2 virus—i.e., antibody against the RBD of the spike protein e.g.—attaches to the RBD of the spike protein in such a way that the spike protein is no longer able to fit into the keyhole to unlock the door to the cell and, therefore, the  virus is unable to enter (infect) the cell.  That is, a fully neutralizing antibody contributes to optimal, sterilizing immunity.  If an antibody only partially neutralizes the spike protein, it might slow down infection of cells but does not prevent at least some viral infection and transmission.  A non-neutralizing antibody against the spike protein will not slow down viral entry into the cell, and, as we will discuss later, might, under certain circumstances, actually facilitate viral entry into the cell.  So, vaccines that produce antibodies that are, or become, only partially neutralizing, will be sub-optimal non-sterilizing vaccines, not optimal/sterilizing vaccines. 

At this point, let us clarify that the COVID mRNA vaccines were designed to primarily elicit production of neutralizing antibodies against the spike protein, particularly against the RBD of the spike protein.  It should be realized, though, that the COVID vaccines elicit production of antibody not just against the RBD of the spike protein, but also antibody against other sites on the S1 component of the spike protein as well as antibody against sites on the S2 component of the spike protein.  (See earlier images, in section 1.) These vaccinal antibodies differ regarding the extent to which they neutralize the spike protein—the antibodies against the RBD being by far the most neutralizing. Some of the antibodies produced by COVID vaccination are non-neutralizing.  So, the COVID vaccines result in the production of both neutralizing and non-neutralizing antibodies.

The COVID vaccines were designed to try to fully neutralize the spike protein of the initial Wuhan strain of SC-2.  Unfortunately, since the beginning of the vaccination campaign, the vaccine has been administered in the midst of an active pandemic—which is a very problematic thing to do.  After vaccination, it takes at least 1-2 weeks before a sufficient quantity of mature neutralizing anti-spike antibody is produced.  In the meantime, immature spike-specific vaccinal antibodies are produced, but they are capable of only partially neutralizing the virus, as opposed to fully neutralizing the virus.  Because the vaccine has been administered in the midst of an active pandemic, vaccinated people have been likely to encounter the SC-2 virus before they have been able to mount an adequate mature vaccinal antibody response.  This has meant that spike protein, though somewhat impaired by the immature partially neutralizing vaccinal antibodies, has still been able to fit into the ACE-2 keyhole, thus enabling some virus to enter the cells.  This has resulted, at the population level, in viral replication occurring in the midst of only partially neutralizing (sub-optimal/non-sterilizing) vaccinal antibodies.  This has put great immune pressure on the virus-host ecosystem to select “immune escape” variants that have the ability to “evade (escape)” the partially neutralizing effect of the immature anti-spike vaccinal antibodies.  In this setting, viral mutations (as explained in the next two paragraphs) that have enabled new, more infectious immune escape-variants have been selected and allowed to expand in prevalence (thanks to the mass vaccination campaign) to become dominant. 

When a virus enters a cell, it replicates exuberantly within that cell.  Copying mistakes during this replication result in mutations—e.g., mutations in the spike protein of the SC-2 virus.   Certain random mutations of the spike protein result in that mutated spike protein being a better fit (for the keyhole), even with some vaccinal antibody partially draped over parts of the spike protein, and this gives those mutated viruses (those variants with the better fitting mutated spike protein) a selective advantage for survival. 

In other words, new variants with these successful spike mutations will gain a competitive fitness advantage over the older variants, which will lose in the competition and die out.  In this way, a rapid mass vaccination campaign, in the midst of an active pandemic of a highly mutable virus drives the dominant propagation of new, increasingly vaccine-resistant variants. If a new variant then comes along that is even better able to “escape” the vaccinal antibodies and unlock the ACE-2 door, that variant will be selected and propagate more and more abundantly on a background of population-level immune pressure on the viral life cycle and will become dominant until it is out-competed by a yet more fit new immune-escape variant, and so on….  This is the basic concept of “natural selection” that Darwin taught us more than 160 years ago.

In the above way, the mass vaccination campaign, waged in the midst of an active pandemic, has predictably resulted in a succession of new dominant variants—with each new dominant variant being more vaccine-resistant, more  infectious, and better “fit” than its predecessor.  The Omicron variant is the latest in this succession.  Since the Omicron variant is largely vaccine-resistant, it has become even more infectious in vaccinees than any of its predecessors.  (See next section.)

 3)  How do non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies actually facilitate entry of virus into the cell? 

Initially, the vaccinal antibodies against the spike protein of the Wuhan strain were considerably neutralizing against that Wuhan strain and, thereby, were able to at least partially impair entry of virus into cells.  However, as each new SC-2 variant has emerged (due to immune pressure and natural selection of more “fit” “escape” variants), those original anti-RBD vaccinal antibodies have become less and less neutralizing (against the newer spike proteins) and are now largely failing to neutralize the Omicron variant.  That is, the vaccinal anti-RBD antibodies that worked somewhat well against the spike protein of the Wuhan strain now fail to neutralize the spike protein of more recent variants.  The new variants have mutations on their spike protein that have enabled them (the new variants) to largely “escape” vaccinal anti-RBD antibodies. [19-25]

At this point we need to understand that, whereas neutralizing vaccinal antibodies prevent virus from entering cells, non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies can, under certain circumstances,  actually facilitate entry of virus into cells.  How can that be and when does this happen? [32-35] This happens when an SC-2 variant (like Omicron) becomes largely resistant to the neutralizing vaccinal antibodies.  As the neutralization capacity of the anti-RBD vaccinal antibodies diminishes, the affinity of the non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies for the N-terminal domain (NTD) of the spike protein increases. This, then, results in a conformational change in the shape of the spike protein that makes this conformationally changed spike protein a better fit for the ACE-2 receptor.  In this way, non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies can facilitate viral entry into the cells of vaccinated people.  This is a major reason why vaccinated people (with their high quantities of non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies, which are made even higher after receiving “booster” shots) have become so easily infected—more easily infected than unvaccinated people (who do not have these facilitating non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies).  Compared to unvaccinated people, vaccinated people are now being more easily infected (due to these facilitating non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies, as well as the vaccine-resistance of the new variants).

 4)  The next evolutionary step is for the variants to become more virulent.

So far, new dominant SC-2 variants have not become more virulent (deadly), despite becoming  more infectious.  For example, the Omicron variant has been easily infecting vaccinated people (due to the Omicron variant being resistant to neutralizing vaccinal antibodies and because, in addition, the non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies are facilitating viral entry into cells) but has been causing only mild COVID illness.  Why?  This is because the same non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies that facilitate viral entry into cells are actually impairing spread of viral infection deep into the lower respiratory tract (LRT) and into the systemic compartment of the human body. [36, 37]. That is, the non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies are impairing development of more extensive and severe disease.  In short, this is because conformational changes in the virus, caused by the non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies, impair the processes of trans-infection and trans-fusion (infection of uninfected cells by neighboring infected cells). Trans-infection and trans-fusion eventuate in very harmful syncytia formation deep in the LRT and systemic compartment of the body. This impairment (by non-neutralizing antibodies) of deep viral infection and syncytia formation in the LRT and systemic compartment results in less severe disease.  That is why the Omicron variant causes only mild disease, despite being very infectious.

But this is about to change!  The immune pressures created by the mass vaccination campaign will eventually (possibly within a few months) result in the natural selection and predominance of variants that have the capacity to “escape” this vaccinal non-neutralizing antibody-mediated impairment of deep infection and syncytia formation.  Once this occurs, the new variants will be more virulent (more deadly) than any of their predecessors.  Omicron constitutes a critical step in the shift of immune pressure in that resistance of Omicron to potentially neutralizing antibodies allows vaccinees to convert population-level immune pressure on viral infectiousness (exerted by vaccinal neutralizing antibodies) to population-level immune pressure on viral trans infectiousness (exerted by non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies), which results in more severe disease.  In other words, the COVID vaccination campaign is inevitably going to generate an SC-2 variant that is both highly infectious and highly virulent and will dominate.

5)  The COVID vaccines actually undermine the natural immune system and prevent its training. 

Another extremely important adverse effect of the COVID vaccines is that they undermine and suppress the functionality and training of the innate immune system, especially in children.  Whereas the vaccinal antibodies bind tightly to the spike protein, innate natural antibodies bind only loosely.  This results in the vaccinal antibodies crowding out and outcompeting the natural antibodies for binding sites on the spike protein. It is as if the vaccinal response (the immune response stimulated by the vaccine) says to the innate immune system, “I’ve got this; you need not get involved; leave this to me.”  This vaccinal response bypasses and sidelines the natural antibodies and, thereby, interferes with the use and training of innate immunity.  The COVID vaccines, thereby, weaken innate immunity.

 6)  Furthermore, the quality of COVID vaccine-acquired immunity is inferior to the quality of naturally acquired immunity against SC-2.

Naturally acquired immunity (immunity acquired as a result of natural infection) is multi-dimensional, multi-faceted, and results in robust, long-standing, sterilizing immunity— particularly (but not exclusively) when it involves both the innate and adaptive components of the immune system.  In contrast, COVID vaccinal immunity is non-sterilizing and relatively uni-dimensional.  Unfortunately, a major limitation of the COVID vaccines—and a major difference between how the natural immune system approaches the virus and how the vaccine approaches the virus—is that the COVID vaccines result in vaccinal antibodies that attach only to polypeptidic sites on the spike protein, not to any of the virus surface-expressed self-glycan motifs/patterns that are typically recognized by polyspecific innate natural antibodies.  Because natural/innate antibodies produced by the innate immune system engage through multivalent interaction with repetitive patterns of self-mimicking glycans that are expressed on the surface of enveloped glycosylated viruses, these antibodies have high avidity for several respiratory viruses (including all SC-2 variants) while binding with much lower affinity to spike protein than do spike-specific antibodies. 

Compared to naturally acquired immunity, COVID vaccinal immunity is uni-dimensional, single-minded immunity that focuses on production of antibodies that bind with high affinity to specific antigenic sites (“epitopes”) of the spike protein (e.g., the RBD of the spike protein).  Vaccinal immunity creates memory B cells (for future production of anti-spike antibodies) but there is no evidence that the COVID vaccines create spike-specific memory cytolytic T cells.  Also, the vaccinal training focuses on the adaptive part of the systemic immune system, not the innate immunity division within the systemic compartment.  Furthermore, the COVID vaccines almost exclusively train the systemic compartment, and only partially so, and have little effect on the mucosal compartment, which is the most important site of immune protection against a respiratory virus.  In fact, as mentioned earlier, the vaccinal antibodies undermine a person’s innate immunity—both in the systemic and mucosal compartments.  For these reasons, vaccinal immunity is far inferior to naturally acquired immunity.

7)  Furthermore, the sub-optimal training the systemic compartment receives from vaccination becomes habitual for the vaccinated individual, because of the “priming” and memory it creates within the adaptive immunity division of the systemic immune system. 

The COVID vaccines train (“prime”) the person’s immune system to reflexively respond to SC-2 by producing (within the systemic compartment) anti-spike antibodies (and only anti-spike antibodies) whenever the person is exposed to SC-2 or is “boosted.”  Worse, the antibodies produced become outdated, because of the new variants that appear.  These vaccinal antibodies then outcompete the innate natural antibodies, undermine our innate immunity, and perpetuate and escalate the misguided and outdated immune reaction to the virus.  Instead of our innate immune system becoming increasingly trained and experienced, it becomes sidelined, and our immune system reacts with the same old, outdated, single-minded, anti-spike antibody response that is non-sterilizing and enhances viral infectiousness as it loses its viral neutralizing capacity.  This is an inflexible, continually repeated, ineffective, deleterious immune response, and it is repeatedly invoked every time the vaccinated person is exposed to the virus or receives a booster.  And whenever it gets triggered, it contributes to the escalation of the entire problem.  It should also be realized that this vaccinal “imprinting” or “priming” is not just a temporary phenomenon.  It is like installing a type of software in one’s immune computer that cannot be erased.

8)  The COVID vaccines do not contribute to herd immunity:

Only sterilizing immunity contributes to herd immunity.  When a person becomes naturally infected with SC-2, and the infection is more than minimal, that person develops naturally acquired sterilizing immunity (particularly when the adaptive immune system participates in the immune response) and, thereby, contributes to herd immunity.

COVID vaccination does not contribute to herd immunity. The COVID vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission and, therefore, do not/cannot result in sterilizing immunity.  In fact, the COVID vaccines may inhibit a vaccinated individual from developing sterilizing immunity, even when that individual subsequently develops actual infection.  Even if a person happened to have developed naturally acquired sterilizing immunity from past infection before becoming vaccinated, the vaccine might interfere with that sterilizing immunity.

Mass vaccination of everyone (i.e., across all age groups), with a sub-optimal, non-sterilizing vaccine, during an active pandemic, is particularly good at preventing development of herd immunity.  If all are vaccinated, such that none has sterilizing immunity, there is no one left who is capable of contributing to herd immunity.  Pandemics do not subside until sufficient herd immunity has developed.

9)  Would this development of increasingly vaccine-resistant, increasingly infectious new predominant variants have happened if the COVID vaccine had been used in a truly prophylactic way, well in advance of a pandemic?

The above phenomenon—of a rapid mass vaccination campaign with a sub-optimal vaccine in the midst of an active pandemic, driving the natural selection and dominant expansion of a succession of predominant variants that are increasingly infectious (compared to their predecessors)—would still occur, but at a slower pace, if the same vaccine were used well in advance of an epidemic caused by a viral strain whose antigenic constellation is optimally matched by the vaccine. The key to understanding this is to realize the difference between using a vaccine (even one that produces considerably neutralizing anti-spike antibody) in the midst of an active pandemic versus using the same vaccine well in advance of the pandemic. 

[Note: Before proceeding further with this explanation, it is important to again emphasize that, normally, when the immune system produces specific antibodies in response to a specific viral threat, the immune system first produces immature antibodies (which are only partially neutralizing and, therefore, sub-optimal), before it is able to produce an adequate quantity of mature antibodies (that are more neutralizing).  It takes at least 1-2 weeks, often longer, before an adequate quantity of mature antibodies are produced.]   

If vaccination is occurring in the midst of a pandemic, people are being vaccinated while the virus is circulating widely in the community at a high level, such that a substantial amount of vaccinated people are likely to be exposed to the virus shortly after vaccination, before their immune system has been able to mount a mature response. This enables the virus to replicate in the presence of immature sub-optimal only partially neutralizing vaccinal antibodies, which places the virus under intense immune pressure and forces the natural selection of mutated spike protein that is able to escape the immature vaccinal antibody and more easily infect cells.  If, on the other hand, this same vaccine is administered many months before a pandemic arrives (i.e. when there is no virus around), each vaccinated person has sufficient time to generate high quantities of mature neutralizing virus-specific antibodies.  Then, when the virus arrives, those antibodies are already present and able to impede infection and transmission.  Prophylactic vaccination against coronavirus would only be effective in the case of an endemic situation (i.e., to prevent an outbreak).  As endemicity implies asymptomatic infection, only small parts of the population will be exposed to the virus shortly after prophylactic vaccination, which will create minimal immune pressure.

A key difference here is “sufficient time to generate” the mature antibodies.  When the vaccine is given in the midst of an active pandemic (i.e., when there is lots of virus circulating in and around people), many people who receive the vaccine become infected before the vaccine has had “sufficient time to generate” the mature vaccinal antibodies.  That is, these people are becoming infected while they are in the process of slowly developing their mature antibodies—i.e., they are becoming infected while they are producing immature antibodies, which are only partially neutralizing and are, therefore, sub-optimal. It is this combination of viral replication occurring in the midst of sub-optimal vaccinal antibody development in large parts of the population (mass vaccination!) that results in severe immune pressure and natural selection of more infectious “escape” variants.  When a vaccine is administered well in advance of a coronavirus epidemic, this combination only occurs at low frequency because the mature prophylactic vaccinal antibodies are mostly produced in the absence of circulating virus—i.e., in the absence of viral replication—and this results in less population level immune pressure on the virus.

Another key concept is the difference between mass vaccination across all age groups (i.e., vaccinating everyone) and selective vaccination of only the most vulnerable (the elderly and those with worrisome co-morbidities).  Mass vaccination across all age groups places enormous immune pressure on the virus (as does complete lockdown, by the way).  Selective vaccination puts much less immune pressure on the virus.

10)  Will it help to develop new, updated mRNA vaccines that match new mutated SC-2 variants—e.g., an Omicron-specific mRNA vaccine?

The pharmaceutical companies that have produced the current COVID mRNA vaccines are promoting the notion that new, updated mRNA vaccines can be easily and quickly produced to replace mRNA vaccines that have become outdated.  For example, a new Omicron-specific mRNA vaccine can be produced, and, after that, new variant-specific mRNA vaccines can be produced for future new variants.  One problem with this strategy is that it will be impossible to keep up with the new variants.  Each new variant-specific mRNA vaccine will drive the natural selection of new variants with new escape mutations that will quickly render the most recent mRNA vaccine obsolete.  This will be a never-ending battle that the virus will win. 

But a more important problem with this strategy is that re-vaccination of vaccinees with an updated spike (Omicron)-based vaccine during an active pandemic will further increase likelihood of breakthrough infections and will further increase population-level immune pressure on viral virulence. This is primarily because such vaccination increases quantities of vaccinal non-neutralizing antibodies—that, as explained earlier (in sections 3 and 4), enhance viral infectiousness (facilitate viral entry into cells) and increase population-level immune pressure that results in the natural selection of more virulent variants. 

This strategy will only perpetuate and worsen the problems created by the mass COVID vaccination campaign. This strategy, therefore, must be strongly resisted.

11)  Do the concerns expressed in this article about the “COVID vaccines” apply only to the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) or to all of the currently available COVID vaccines?

As of May 11, 2022, ten COVID vaccines have been granted Emergency Use Listing (EUL) by the World Health Organization (WHO).  These vaccines can be categorized into four groups, according to the “platform” used:

  • Messenger RNA: Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech
  • Viral Vector: Johnson & Johnson, Oxford/AstraZeneca, Covishield
  • Protein Subunit: Novavax, Covovax
  • Inactivated Whole Virus: Covaxin, Sinovac, Sinopharm

In addition, the Sputnik (viral vector) vaccine is used in Russia and other countries.

Although these COVID vaccines may differ regarding the side effects they may cause in individual people who receive the vaccine, all of these vaccines create the same problem at a population level.  That is, mass vaccination in the midst of the COVID pandemic with any of these vaccines will result in the vaccinated population placing the virus under great immune pressure, and this will result in a succession of variants that have become dominant, through natural selection, because they have “escape” mutations through natural selection, because they have “escape” mutations that inevitably make them first more infectious, then resistant to potentially neutralizing vaccinal Abs and eventually also more virulent (deadly).

So, yes, at the population level—at the evolutionary biology level—the concerns expressed in this article are applicable to all currently available COVID vaccines.

12)  Summary:

  • Because the mass COVID vaccination campaign has been rapidly implemented in the midst of an active pandemic, instead of well in advance of the pandemic—i.e., because viral exposure has often occurred while vaccinal antibodies have been immature and only partially neutralizing and have, thereby, not prevented infection—the vaccination campaign has continually placed great population-level immune pressure on a highly mutable replicating virus (SC-2).  This has resulted in a succession of variants that have become dominant, through natural selection, because they have “escape” mutations that make them more “fit.”  These dominant variants have become increasingly vaccine resistant and have resulted in the mature vaccinal antibodies becoming increasingly less neutralizing.
  • As new SC-2 variants become increasingly vaccine-resistant, and the neutralizing vaccinal antibodies become increasingly less-neutralizing, non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies actually facilitate entry of virus into the cells of the vaccinated.
  • Although the non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies are now facilitating viral entry into cells (of the vaccinated), they have (temporarily) been impairing penetration of the viral infection deep in the body—thereby impairing syncytia formation and reducing disease severity. But this temporary beneficial effect of the non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies is about to change (vanish), because the next inevitable evolutionary step is that the mass vaccination campaign will drive the development of variants that are able to “escape” the immune pressure being exerted by these non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies that are impairing  penetration of the viral infection (and impairing  syncytia formation deep in the body)—i.e. these new variants will have increased virulence. These new more virulent variants are likely to appear soon, especially if the mass vaccination program is expanded by booster campaigns and vaccination of younger age groups (children).
  • In short, the mass vaccination campaign results in the natural selection of variants that are increasingly infectious and eventually increasingly virulent in vaccinees, as a result of enhanced immune pressure exerted by their non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies. The mass vaccination campaign has prolonged the pandemic and made it more dangerous, especially for the vaccinated.
  • Furthermore, the COVID vaccines undermine the functionality and training of our innate immune system and, instead, prime our adaptive/acquired immune system to habitually respond with the same old, outdated, single-minded, anti-spike antibody response that—instead of conferring sterilizing immunity—actually enhances viral infectiousness as a result of viral resistance to potentially neutralizing vaccine-induced anti-spike antibodies.
  • Expanded mass immunization (i.e., vaccination of an increased percentage of the population, ongoing administration of booster, and vaccinee’s exposure to Omicron) will soon drive the emergence of variants that will be highly virulent in vaccinees. This will be a direct consequence of an ever-increasing prevalence of elevated vaccinal non-neutralizing antibodies and, therefore, a self-amplifying deleterious immune response that consists of antibody dependent enhancement of viral infectiousness (leading to breakthrough infection!) and concomitant immune pressure on viral trans infectiousness (leading to increased virulence).  None of this applies to non-vaccinated children. In the event that the virus breaks through their innate line of immune defense, their recovery from symptomatic SC-2 disease will result in improved innate immunity that—thanks to the epigenetic mechanism of innate immune adaptation (training)—will confer more effective sterilizing immunity upon future exposure.  That is why and how children constitute an important pillar for generating herd immunity.  This is in sharp contrast to COVID vaccination, which prevents highly vaccinated populations from developing sterilizing immunity and, in fact, promotes the opposite of herd immunity in that it leads to a higher level of viral infectivity in the population (and, therefore, a higher level of circulating virus and vulnerable people in the community).  Adequate herd immunity is what brings a pandemic to end.
  • It is abundantly clear that naturally acquired immunity to SC-2 is far superior to vaccine-acquired immunity to SC-2, both at an individual level and at a population level.

13)  So, there are many reasons, based on science alone, why children should not receive COVID vaccines?

  • The COVID vaccines undermine, suppress, weaken, and give less practice to a child’s natural innate immune system, making the child not only less able to handle SC-2, but also less able to handle other viruses. A healthy innate immune system also protects against development of autoimmunity and malignancy.  We must avoid undermining and suppressing the innate immune system, especially in children. We do not want to interfere with the functionality and training of a child’s developing innate immune system.  We need to protect a child’s innate immune system, not undermine and sideline it. 
  • The innate immune system (with its polyspecific natural antibodies and NK cells, etc. ) is more flexible than the uni-dimensional vaccinal anti-spike approach. Natural antibodies can successfully cross-react with future new variants.  Following a disease-fighting experience, this first line of immune defense can be trained to better adapt to fighting new viral variants.
  • The COVID vaccines have driven the development and predominance of increasingly infectious variants. Furthermore, the COVID vaccine’s non-neutralizing antibodies are now actually facilitating entry of the virus into their cells. Vaccinated people are now being more easily infected than are the unvaccinated.
  • The vaccines are now poised to drive the development of more virulent variants. This will lead to more severe, more life-threatening illness, particularly in the vaccinated. 
  • The mass vaccination campaign is prolonging the pandemic, making it more dangerous, and preventing development of adequate herd immunity.
  • The vaccines train the immune system to reflexively respond in the same old, outdated, inadequate, single-minded, non-flexible, non-sterilizing way every time the vaccinated person is exposed to the virus or gets boosted by vaccine. This “software” is not erasable. This perpetuates and escalates the overall problem.
  • The vaccines do not result in sterilizing immunity; naturally acquired immunity does.
  • The vaccinated do not contribute to herd immunity; naturally acquired immunity does.
  • The unvaccinated and healthy child will be better able to handle more infectious and more virulent future SC-2 variants, than will the vaccinated, because:
    • They will not have the competing vaccinal anti-spike antibodies that sideline and weaken a person’s innate immunity.
    • They will not have the facilitating non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies that actually increase entry of the virulent variant into their cells and contribute to exerting immune pressure on viral virulence.
    • Their innate immunity has not been undermined by past vaccination and, therefore, will be free and able to optimally help them; whereas the vaccinated child’s innate immunity has been undermined, sidelined, and weakened.
    • Their immune system will be able to respond to SC-2 in a normal, natural, multi-dimensional, multi-faceted, flexible way—as opposed to the same old, less flexible, more uni-dimensional, less effective way the vaccines “prime” the immune system to reflexively respond over and over again.
    • Their innate immune system will be able to reprogram the functional activity of innate antibody-producing B cells such as to more effectively fight new variants.
    • Even unvaccinated immunocompromised children and otherwise particularly vulnerable children will be better able to handle the SC-2 virus (and other viruses), because of the above reasons.
  • The unvaccinated child will be contributing to herd immunity, whereas the vaccinated child will be dis-contributing to development of herd immunity.
  • A vaccinated child will be worse off than an unvaccinated child because:
    • The vaccinated child’s developing innate immune system will be sidelined, robbed of needed practice (training), and unavailable (or at least less able) to fight against not only SC-2, but other viruses.
    • The vaccinated child will have facilitating non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies that actually increase entry of virulent virus into their cells and contribute to exerting immune pressure on viral virulence.
    • The vaccinated child’s vaccinal antibodies will be unable, anyway, to protect the child from new SC-2 variants that have evolved to become vaccine-resistant and more infectious; and will, ultimately, be unable to protect the child from viral variants that, in addition, have evolved a higher level of viral virulence in vaccinated individuals.
    • The vaccinated child’s immune system will be programmed to repeatedly respond in an inflexible, ineffective, uni-dimensional way, instead of responding in the normal, natural, multi-dimensional, multi-faceted, flexible way.
    • Because the vaccinal antibodies suppress and weaken the child’s innate immunity, the vaccinated child will be less able to avoid autoimmunity.
  • On the basis of the above, alone, the vaccines should not be given to children.
  • On top of all this, the vaccines are not nearly as “safe” as advertised. For example, they lead to many autoimmune side effects (myocarditis, e.g.), and the mRNA sticks around for a much longer time than was initially realized.  Please see the original Open Letter for a detailed discussion of the side effect risks for individual vaccinees. On this side effect basis (at the individual level), alone, these vaccines should not be given to children.
  • In short, there is no scientifically sound justification for COVID vaccination of children. In fact there is scientific evidence that COVID vaccination of children will harm those children and be harmful to Humanity as a whole. The serious short-term and long-term risks of the mass vaccination program far outweigh any fleeting (and soon permanently gone) short-term benefits.
  • On a scientific basis alone, the COVID vaccines should not be given to children—because they undermine the immune system, they render the vaccinated person more vulnerable to infection, and they will soon cause a more virulent strain that will cause much more severe disease, particularly in the vaccinated.
  • It is our social responsibility to call for an immediate cessation of COVID vaccination of children. In addition to shutting down the COVID vaccination campaign for children, the entire COVID vaccination campaign needs to be carefully and objectively re-evaluated, both from an evolutionary biology standpoint (at the population level) and from a side effect standpoint (at the individual level).
  • We must protect our children and grandchildren from a misguided COVID vaccination campaign that is scientifically simplistic, scientifically naïve, and clearly capable of causing great harm.
  • As physicians, we must “do no harm.” We must protect children from harm, not expose them to harm.   We must protect their precious immune ecosystems, not recklessly interfere with the wisdom of their natural immune responses.

14)  If the vaccination campaign is halted (at least for children and potentially for adults), what is left for us to do to protect children and adults from severe COVID—particularly if a new variant appears that is extremely infectious and very virulent?

There is much that we can and must do:

  • Thorough, scientifically sound and understandable patient education about COVID can be provided to parents, children, and the public as a whole—particularly regarding COVID vaccination.
  • As a pediatrician, a pediatric rheumatologist, and a Susac syndrome specialist, I have been greatly impressed by the capacity of parents, other adults, and even children (particularly adolescents) to comprehend complex medical information—especially when that information is explained in an understandable way. (My 11-year-old grandson quickly and easily comprehended why NBA basketball players and NFL football players, when they “test positive for COVID,” should ask for the CT value at which  their COVID PCR test was positive, before accepting mandatory quarantine from play.) Adults and children deserve thorough, accurate  patient education, and they benefit enormously from it.  Such education reduces mystery, anxiety, fear, confusion, and anger.  It is liberating.  It can be therapeutic.    
  • Regarding COVID testing, we should shift to reliance on genomic sequencing for accurate diagnosis of SC-2 and use the CT values of PCR testing for estimation of viral load. It is not too late to start collecting and reporting data properly, and we must do so.
  • Good exercise, good nutrition (including immune-supporting nutraceuticals), fresh air, sunshine, and good emotional health (including reduction of COVID-related fear, mystery, confusion, cognitive dissonance, and anxiety) will help optimize people’s immune systems, particularly their innate immune systems.
  • For those who become infected, early (and accurate) outpatient diagnosis (with disclosure of PCR CT values and verification by genomic sequencing) and early outpatient treatment with safe anti-viral therapies will help prevent escalation of disease.
  • For those who develop a hyperimmune/hyperinflammatory reaction (during the second and third weeks of illness, e.g.) prompt and appropriately aggressive immunosuppression will be critically important.
  • In highly vaccinated communities/countries/populations it may be necessary to treat virtually everyone with safe anti-viral therapy, perhaps for 6-8 weeks, in an effort to thoroughly reduce the viral infectious pressure in these populations/communities and to interrupt the vicious cycle of high infectious pressure causing enhanced immune pressure on the viral life cycle and, hence, driving immune escape.
  • We must promote respectful, healthy, scientific dialogue—particularly among health care professionals, but also among citizens—dialogue and education that will elevate understanding of the COVID situation, create consensus, bring people together, and unite people in positive, constructive efforts to do what is needed to preserve lives and end this pandemic.

Children are dependent on their parents to make a wise and informed decision about COVID vaccination.  Parents depend on their physicians to provide accurate, sufficient, honest information and wise advice, regarding COVID vaccination.  Some parents might want to read the original Open Letter and this Part II of the Open Letter, show it to their physicians, and ask their physicians what parts of these writings the physicians disagree with and on what scientific basis. 

Physicians have an obligation to be fully familiar with the concerns raised in these documents (and in Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche’s writings and interviews) and to be willing to engage in respectful, honest, healthy, constructive, deep scientific dialogue with colleagues and parents about these concerns.  For the sake of children, pediatricians are encouraged to take the lead in organizing and advocating such dialogue.  Children and parents would benefit enormously from pediatricians seizing that opportunity and uniting as a group to ensure that truly informed consent is being provided to parents.  

For example, it would be enormously helpful if the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) were to publish, widely disseminate, and publicly promote the following statement (or a version of it that the AAP feels comfortable endorsing):

“After careful scientific review of the immunology, virology, vaccinology, evolutionary biology, molecular biology, and molecular epidemiology of the COVID situation, the AAP has concluded that, on a scientific basis alone, COVID vaccination of children should be strongly discouraged, until/unless new scientific evidence suggests otherwise.  At this point, the campaign to encourage COVID vaccination of children appears to have been unwise—both at an individual level and a population level. We call for an immediate discontinuation of COVID vaccination of children. We recommend that the entire COVID vaccination campaign be carefully, thoroughly, objectively, honestly, and altruistically re-evaluated.” 

If the AAP is unwilling to embrace the above statement (or their own similar version), then, in a spirit of promoting much needed respectful, healthy, scientific dialogue, the AAP is encouraged to explain exactly how its analysis of the immunology, virology, vaccinology, evolutionary biology, molecular biology, and molecular epidemiology of the COVID situation has led them to a different scientific conclusion.  At the very least, the AAP is encouraged to call for a National Pediatric Summit on COVID Vaccination at which scientists and physicians representing a full, inclusive spectrum of scientific views convene to engage in respectful dialogue about the scientific issues involved in COVID vaccination of children.

Parents and practicing pediatricians are encouraged to send this Open Letter—Part II and the initial Open Letter to the AAP and encourage the AAP to either endorse the above conclusions or provide a detailed scientific explanation for their unwillingness to do so and call for a National Pediatric Summit to discuss issues of COVID vaccination in children.  Parents, children, and pediatricians deserve such a response from the AAP.

AFTERWORD:

Physicians and other dedicated scientists are still learning about the COVID situation, including the benefits and risks of COVID vaccination.  Our own understandings are continually evolving, such that some of our current understandings (including some of the understandings explained in this article) may eventually need to be modified, even replaced, by new and better understandings.  Such is the nature of scientific/medical inquiry.  Accordingly, a new Open Letter—Part III may soon need to be written.

The process of attaining a best possible understanding of the COVID situation could be accelerated if scientists and physicians were to optimally engage in respectful, healthy, scientific dialogue. That is why Dr. Vanden Bossche, in March 2021, made an urgent call for such dialogue about vaccination issues. Unfortunately, that call went largely unheeded by the proponents of the prevailing COVID narrative.  It is hoped that the original Open Letter to Parents and Pediatricians and this Update will facilitate much needed, overdue scientific dialogue about COVID vaccination—particularly, COVID vaccination of children.       

 Rob Rennebohm, MD

Email: rmrennebohm@gmail.com

Website: notesfromthesocialclinic.org

Geert Vanden Bossche. DVM, PhD

Website: www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org

May 12, 2022

REFERENCES:

  1. Huang Y, Yang C, Xu Xf. et al. Structural and functional properties of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein: potential antivirus drug development for COVID-19. Acta Pharmacol Sin 411141–1149 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41401-020-0485-4
  2. Russell MW, Moldoveanu Z, Ogra PL and Mestecky J (2020) Mucosal Immunity in COVID-19: A Neglected but Critical Aspect of SARS-CoV-2 Infection. Front. Immunol. 11:611337. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.611337
  3. Russell MW, Mestecky J, Strober W, Kelsall BL, Lambrecht BN, Cheroutre H. The mucosal immune system: Overview. In: J Mestecky, W Strober, MW Russell, BL Kelsall, H Cheroutre, BN Lambrecht, editors. Mucosal Immunology, 4. Amsterdam: Academic Press/Elsevier (2015). p. 3–8.
  4. Russell MW. Biological functions of IgA. In: CS Kaetzel, editor. Mucosal Immune Defense: Immunoglobulin A. New York: Springer (2007). p. 144–72.
  5. Baker K, Blumberg RS, Kaetzel CS. Immunoglobulin transport and immunoglobulin receptors. In: J Mestecky, W Strober, MW Russell, BL Kelsall, H Cheroutre, BN Lambrecht, editors. Mucosal Immunology, 4. Amsterdam: Academic Press/Elsevier (2015). p. 349–407.
  6. Kubagawa H, Bertoli LF, Barton JC, Koopman WJ, Mestecky J, Cooper MD. Analysis of paraprotein transport into saliva by using anti-idiotype antibodies. J Immunol (1987) 138:435–9.
  7. Vabret N, Britton GJ, Gruber C, Hegde S, Kim J, Kuksin M, et al. Immunology of COVID-19: current state of the science. Immunity (2020) 52:910–41. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2020.05.002
  8. Conley ME, Delacroix DL. Intravascular and mucosal immunoglobulin A: Two separate but related systems of immune defense? Ann Int Med (1987) 106:892–9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-106-6-892
  9. Russell MW, Kilian M, Mantis NJ, Corthe? sy B. Biological activities of mucosal immunoglobulins. In: J Mestecky, W Strober, MW Russell, BL Kelsall, H Cheroutre, BN Lambrecht, editors. Mucosal Immunology, 4. Amsterdam: Academic Press/Elsevier (2015). p. 429–54.
  10. Bidgood SR, Tam JC, McEwan WA, Mallery DL, James LC. Translocalized IgA mediates neutralization and stimulates innate immunity inside infected cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2014) 111(37):13463–8. doi: 10.1073/ pnas.1410980111.
  11. Jackson S, Mestecky J, Moldoveanu Z, Spearman P. Appendix I: Collection and processing of human mucosal secretions. In: J Mestecky, J Bienenstock, ME Lamm, L Mayer, JR McGhee, W Strober, editors. Mucosal Immunology, 3. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Academic Press (2005). p. 1829–39
  12. Reyneveld GI, Savelkoul HFJ and Parmentier HK (2020) Current Understanding of Natural Antibodies and Exploring the Possibilities of Modulation Using Veterinary Models. A Review. Front. Immunol. 11:2139. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.02139
  13. Coutinho A, Kazatchkine MD, Avrameas S. Natural autoantibodies. Curr Opin Immunol. (1995) 7:812–8. doi: 10.1016/0952-7915(95)80053-0
  14. Holodick NE, Rodríguez-Zhurbenko N, Hernández AM. Defining natural antibodies. Front Immunol. (2017) 8:872. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00872
  15. Panda S, Ding JL. Natural antibodies bridge innate and adaptive immunity. J Immunol. (2015) 194:13–20. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1400844
  16. Ochsenbein AF, Zinkernagel RM. Natural antibodies and complement link innate and acquired immunity. Immunol Today. (2000) 21:624–30. doi: 10.1016/s0167-5699(00)01754-0
  17. Binder C. Naturally occurring IgM antibodies to oxidation-specific epitopes. Adv Exp Med Biol. (2012) 750:2–13. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3461-0_1
  18. Loske, J., Röhmel, J., Lukassen, S. et al. Pre-activated antiviral innate immunity in the upper airways controls early SARS-CoV-2 infection in children. Nat Biotechnol (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-01037-9
  19. Van Egeren D, Novokhodko A, Stoddard M, et al. Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. PLoS One. 2021;16(4):e0250780. Published 2021 Apr 28. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0250780
  20. Graves CJ, Ros VID, Stevenson B, Sniegowski PD, Brisson D. Natural selection promotes antigenic evolvability. PLoS Pathog. 2013; 9: e1003766. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1003766 PMID: 24244173
  21. Thomson EC, Rosen LE, Shepherd JG, Spreafico R, Filipe A da S, Wojcechowskyj JA, et al. Circulating SARS-CoV-2 spike N439K variants maintain fitness while evading antibody-mediated immunity. Cell. 2021; 184: 1171–1187.e20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.01.037 PMID: 33621484
  22. Korber B, Fischer WM, Gnanakaran S, Yoon H, Theiler J, Abfalterer W, et al. Tracking Changes in SARS-CoV-2 Spike: Evidence that D614G Increases Infectivity of the COVID-19 Virus. Cell. 2020; 182: 812–827.e19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.06.043 PMID: 32697968
  23.  Plante JA, Liu Y, Liu J, Xia H, Johnson BA, Lokugamage KG, et al. Spike mutation D614G alters SARSCoV-2 fitness. Nature. 2020; 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2895-3 PMID: 33106671
  24. Weisblum Y, et al. Escape from neutralizing antibodies by SARS-CoV-2 spike protein variants. Elife. 2020 Oct 28;9:e61312. doi: 10.7554/eLife.61312.PMID: 33112236 
  25. Sui J, et al.  Effects of human anti-spike protein receptor binding domain antibodies on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus neutralization escape and fitness. J Virol. 2014 Dec;88(23):13769-80. doi: 10.1128/JVI.02232-14. Epub 2014 Sep 17.PMID: 25231316
  26.  Hodcroft EB, Zuber M, Nadeau S, Comas I, Candelas FG, Consortium S-S, et al. Emergence and spread of a SARS-CoV-2 variant through Europe in the summer of 2020. medRxiv. 2020; 2020.10.25.20219063. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.25.20219063 PMID: 33269368
  27.  Kemp SA, Harvey WT, Datir RP, Collier DA, Ferreira I, Carabelli AM, et al. Recurrent emergence and transmission of a SARS-CoV-2 Spike deletion ΔH69/V70. bioRxiv. 2020; 2020.12.14.422555. https:// doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.14.422555
  28.  Davies NG, Abbott S, Barnard RC, Jarvis CI, Kucharski AJ, Munday JD, et al. Estimated transmissibility and impact of SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 in England. Science. 2021 [cited 6 Apr 2021]. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.abg3055 PMID: 33658326
  29. Lee WS, Wheatley AK, Kent SJ, DeKosky BJ. Antibody-dependent enhancement and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapies. Nature Microbiology. 2020; 5: 1185–1191. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020- 00789-5 PMID: 32908214 4
  30. Stoddard M, Sarkar S, Nolan RP, White DE, White L, Hochberg NS, et al. Beyond the new normal: assessing the feasibility of vaccine-based elimination of SARS-CoV-2. medRxiv. 2021; 2021.01.27.20240309. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.27.20240309
  31. Lempp, F.A., et al. Lectins enhance SARS-CoV-2 infection and influence neutralizing antibodies. Nature 598342–347 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03925-1
  32. Liu et al.  An infectivity-enhancing site on the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein targeted by antibodies.  Cell 184, 3452–3466; 2021.  (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867421006620)
  33. Peacock TP, et al. The SARS-CoV-2 variant, Omicron, shows rapid replication in human primary nasal epithelial cultures and efficiently uses the endosomal route of entry. January 3, 2022. (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.31.474653v1)
  34. Yahi N, Chahinian H, Fantini J. Infection-enhancing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies recognize both the original Wuhan/D614G strain and Delta variants. A potential risk for mass vaccination? J Infect. 2021 Nov;83(5):607-635. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2021.08.010. Epub 2021 Aug 9. PMID: 34384810; PMCID: PMC8351274. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34384810/)
  35. Gadanec LK, McSweeney KR, Qaradakhi T, Ali B, Zulli A, Apostolopoulos V. Can SARS-CoV-2 Virus Use Multiple Receptors to Enter Host Cells?. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(3):992. Published 2021 Jan 20. doi:10.3390/ijms22030992 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7863934/#B233-ijms-22-00992)
  36. Perez-Zsolt D, et al. SARS-CoV-2 interaction with Siglec-1 mediates trans-infection by dendritic cells.  Cellular & Molecular Immunology 18:2676–2678; 2021. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41423-021-00794- 6.pdf
  37. Meng, B., Abdullahi, A., Ferreira, I.A.T.M. et al. Altered TMPRSS2 usage by SARS-CoV-2 Omicron impacts infectivity and fusogenicity. Nature 603706–714 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04474-x https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.17.473248v2).
  1. Huang Y, Yang C, Xu Xf. et al. Structural and functional properties of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein: potential antivirus drug development for COVID-19. Acta Pharmacol Sin 411141–1149 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41401-020-0485-4
  2. Russell MW, Moldoveanu Z, Ogra PL and Mestecky J (2020) Mucosal Immunity in COVID-19: A Neglected but Critical Aspect of SARS-CoV-2 Infection. Front. Immunol. 11:611337. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.611337
  3. Russell MW, Mestecky J, Strober W, Kelsall BL, Lambrecht BN, Cheroutre H. The mucosal immune system: Overview. In: J Mestecky, W Strober, MW Russell, BL Kelsall, H Cheroutre, BN Lambrecht, editors. Mucosal Immunology, 4. Amsterdam: Academic Press/Elsevier (2015). p. 3–8.
  4. Russell MW. Biological functions of IgA. In: CS Kaetzel, editor. Mucosal Immune Defense: Immunoglobulin A. New York: Springer (2007). p. 144–72.
  5. Baker K, Blumberg RS, Kaetzel CS. Immunoglobulin transport and immunoglobulin receptors. In: J Mestecky, W Strober, MW Russell, BL Kelsall, H Cheroutre, BN Lambrecht, editors. Mucosal Immunology, 4. Amsterdam: Academic Press/Elsevier (2015). p. 349–407.
  6. Kubagawa H, Bertoli LF, Barton JC, Koopman WJ, Mestecky J, Cooper MD. Analysis of paraprotein transport into saliva by using anti-idiotype antibodies. J Immunol (1987) 138:435–9.
  7. Vabret N, Britton GJ, Gruber C, Hegde S, Kim J, Kuksin M, et al. Immunology of COVID-19: current state of the science. Immunity (2020) 52:910–41. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2020.05.002
  8. Conley ME, Delacroix DL. Intravascular and mucosal immunoglobulin A: Two separate but related systems of immune defense? Ann Int Med (1987) 106:892–9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-106-6-892
  9. Russell MW, Kilian M, Mantis NJ, Corthe? sy B. Biological activities of mucosal immunoglobulins. In: J Mestecky, W Strober, MW Russell, BL Kelsall, H Cheroutre, BN Lambrecht, editors. Mucosal Immunology, 4. Amsterdam: Academic Press/Elsevier (2015). p. 429–54.
  10. Bidgood SR, Tam JC, McEwan WA, Mallery DL, James LC. Translocalized IgA mediates neutralization and stimulates innate immunity inside infected cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2014) 111(37):13463–8. doi: 10.1073/ pnas.1410980111.
  11. Jackson S, Mestecky J, Moldoveanu Z, Spearman P. Appendix I: Collection and processing of human mucosal secretions. In: J Mestecky, J Bienenstock, ME Lamm, L Mayer, JR McGhee, W Strober, editors. Mucosal Immunology, 3. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Academic Press (2005). p. 1829–39
  12. Reyneveld GI, Savelkoul HFJ and Parmentier HK (2020) Current Understanding of Natural Antibodies and Exploring the Possibilities of Modulation Using Veterinary Models. A Review. Front. Immunol. 11:2139. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.02139
  13. Coutinho A, Kazatchkine MD, Avrameas S. Natural autoantibodies. Curr Opin Immunol. (1995) 7:812–8. doi: 10.1016/0952-7915(95)80053-0
  14. Holodick NE, Rodríguez-Zhurbenko N, Hernández AM. Defining natural antibodies. Front Immunol. (2017) 8:872. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00872
  15. Panda S, Ding JL. Natural antibodies bridge innate and adaptive immunity. J Immunol. (2015) 194:13–20. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1400844
  16. Ochsenbein AF, Zinkernagel RM. Natural antibodies and complement link innate and acquired immunity. Immunol Today. (2000) 21:624–30. doi: 10.1016/s0167-5699(00)01754-0
  17. Binder C. Naturally occurring IgM antibodies to oxidation-specific epitopes. Adv Exp Med Biol. (2012) 750:2–13. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3461-0_1
  18. Loske, J., Röhmel, J., Lukassen, S. et al. Pre-activated antiviral innate immunity in the upper airways controls early SARS-CoV-2 infection in children. Nat Biotechnol (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-01037-9
  19. Van Egeren D, Novokhodko A, Stoddard M, et al. Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. PLoS One. 2021;16(4):e0250780. Published 2021 Apr 28. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0250780
  20. Graves CJ, Ros VID, Stevenson B, Sniegowski PD, Brisson D. Natural selection promotes antigenic evolvability. PLoS Pathog. 2013; 9: e1003766. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1003766 PMID: 24244173
  21. Thomson EC, Rosen LE, Shepherd JG, Spreafico R, Filipe A da S, Wojcechowskyj JA, et al. Circulating SARS-CoV-2 spike N439K variants maintain fitness while evading antibody-mediated immunity. Cell. 2021; 184: 1171–1187.e20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.01.037 PMID: 33621484
  22. Korber B, Fischer WM, Gnanakaran S, Yoon H, Theiler J, Abfalterer W, et al. Tracking Changes in SARS-CoV-2 Spike: Evidence that D614G Increases Infectivity of the COVID-19 Virus. Cell. 2020; 182: 812–827.e19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.06.043 PMID: 32697968
  23.  Plante JA, Liu Y, Liu J, Xia H, Johnson BA, Lokugamage KG, et al. Spike mutation D614G alters SARSCoV-2 fitness. Nature. 2020; 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2895-3 PMID: 33106671
  24. Weisblum Y, et al. Escape from neutralizing antibodies by SARS-CoV-2 spike protein variants. Elife. 2020 Oct 28;9:e61312. doi: 10.7554/eLife.61312.PMID: 33112236 
  25. Sui J, et al.  Effects of human anti-spike protein receptor binding domain antibodies on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus neutralization escape and fitness. J Virol. 2014 Dec;88(23):13769-80. doi: 10.1128/JVI.02232-14. Epub 2014 Sep 17.PMID: 25231316
  26.  Hodcroft EB, Zuber M, Nadeau S, Comas I, Candelas FG, Consortium S-S, et al. Emergence and spread of a SARS-CoV-2 variant through Europe in the summer of 2020. medRxiv. 2020; 2020.10.25.20219063. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.25.20219063 PMID: 33269368
  27.  Kemp SA, Harvey WT, Datir RP, Collier DA, Ferreira I, Carabelli AM, et al. Recurrent emergence and transmission of a SARS-CoV-2 Spike deletion ΔH69/V70. bioRxiv. 2020; 2020.12.14.422555. https:// doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.14.422555
  28.  Davies NG, Abbott S, Barnard RC, Jarvis CI, Kucharski AJ, Munday JD, et al. Estimated transmissibility and impact of SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 in England. Science. 2021 [cited 6 Apr 2021]. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.abg3055 PMID: 33658326
  29. Lee WS, Wheatley AK, Kent SJ, DeKosky BJ. Antibody-dependent enhancement and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapies. Nature Microbiology. 2020; 5: 1185–1191. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020- 00789-5 PMID: 32908214 4
  30. Stoddard M, Sarkar S, Nolan RP, White DE, White L, Hochberg NS, et al. Beyond the new normal: assessing the feasibility of vaccine-based elimination of SARS-CoV-2. medRxiv. 2021; 2021.01.27.20240309. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.27.20240309
  31. Lempp, F.A., et al. Lectins enhance SARS-CoV-2 infection and influence neutralizing antibodies. Nature 598342–347 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03925-1
  32. Liu et al.  An infectivity-enhancing site on the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein targeted by antibodies.  Cell 184, 3452–3466; 2021.  (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867421006620)
  33. Peacock TP, et al. The SARS-CoV-2 variant, Omicron, shows rapid replication in human primary nasal epithelial cultures and efficiently uses the endosomal route of entry. January 3, 2022. (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.31.474653v1)
  34. Yahi N, Chahinian H, Fantini J. Infection-enhancing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies recognize both the original Wuhan/D614G strain and Delta variants. A potential risk for mass vaccination? J Infect. 2021 Nov;83(5):607-635. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2021.08.010. Epub 2021 Aug 9. PMID: 34384810; PMCID: PMC8351274. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34384810/)
  35. Gadanec LK, McSweeney KR, Qaradakhi T, Ali B, Zulli A, Apostolopoulos V. Can SARS-CoV-2 Virus Use Multiple Receptors to Enter Host Cells?. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(3):992. Published 2021 Jan 20. doi:10.3390/ijms22030992 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7863934/#B233-ijms-22-00992)
  36. Perez-Zsolt D, et al. SARS-CoV-2 interaction with Siglec-1 mediates trans-infection by dendritic cells.  Cellular & Molecular Immunology 18:2676–2678; 2021. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41423-021-00794- 6.pdf
  37. Meng, B., Abdullahi, A., Ferreira, I.A.T.M. et al. Altered TMPRSS2 usage by SARS-CoV-2 Omicron impacts infectivity and fusogenicity. Nature 603706–714 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04474-x https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.17.473248v2).

The immunological rationale against C-19 vaccination of children, Part I


Published originally on TrialSite News on April 20, 2022

Geert Vanden Bossche, DVM, PhD

General Manager at Voice for Science and Solidarity | The biggest challenge in vaccinology: Countering immune evasion

Table of content

  • Key message
  • Innate immunity: The child’s guardian angel
  • There is no better example of how human immune intervention defies natural immunity than C-19 vaccination in children 
  • Children are particularly susceptible to immunological side-effects of the C-19 vaccines 
  • Vaccination of children in particular drives immune escape and dramatically diminishes the chance for generating herd immunity
  • Omicron serves as an excellent live attenuated vaccine in healthy unvaccinated children. Vaccinating them with any of the current C-19 vaccines will only further increase instead of mitigating the selective immune pressure exerted by highly vaccinated populations and unquestionably take away the last glimmer of hope for generating herd immunity  
  • No single healthy child should be considered eligible for C-19 vaccination, neither from a public nor from an individual health viewpoint
  • Summary and overall conclusion

Key message

When a deep understanding of immunology, virology, vaccinology, evolutionary biology, and molecular biology is applied to analysis of whether children should receive current vaccines against COVID-19 (C-19), it is concluded that recommendation of such vaccination is scientifically unsound and that such vaccination is harmful to individual children, children as a group, and Humanity as a whole, for the following reasons:    

  1. children have an abundant population of innate B cells that are capable of rapidly producing innate/ natural antibodies (Abs), mostly of IgM isotype, and that are highly adaptable to a broad and diversified spectrum of antigens or pathogenic agents. Innate Abs can facilitate cell-mediated killing of host cells infected with Coronaviruses (CoVs), including all SC-2 variants, independently of previous immune priming by antigen/pathogen encounters.  
  2. innate immunity can be trained such as to acquire memory and, therefore, improve the host’s innate immune defense upon future exposure to more infectious variants that may emerge during an epidemic or pandemic.
  3. the C-19 vaccines undermine the innate immune system—by, for example, hindering binding of innate, low-affinity antibodies and by interfering with the normal training of a child’s innate immune system.  
  4. By priming specific vaccine-induced immunity instead of exploiting the host’s pre-existing natural multi-specific immune defense, the C-19 vaccines prevent the development of optimal, sterilizing immunity in vaccinees.  
  5. Whereas natural immunity (i.e., innate Ab-mediated killer cell immunity combined with neutralizing S(pike)-specific Abs acquired upon recovery from natural disease) contributes to generating herd immunity during a pandemic/ epidemic, neutralizing, S-specific vaccinal Abs do not. Since the vaccine prevents the development of optimal, sterilizing natural immunity, C-19 vaccines prevent the vaccinated child from contributing to building herd immunity during a SARS-CoV-2 (SC-2) pandemic.
  6. Since unvaccinated children’s immune systems contribute to the development of herd immunity against CoVs, they contribute a huge public health benefit.  C-19 vaccination of children prevents this public health benefit. 
  7. Priming the child’s immune system with C-19 vaccines is likely to further enhance immune escape and increase the infectiousness and virulence of future variants.
  8. Increasingly, it is unvaccinated children who will be best able to handle future  infection by new SC-2 variants, compared to vaccinated children and vaccinated adults—because the unvaccinated have unhampered capacity to naturally activate innate Ab-mediated sterilizing immunity, whereas the vaccinated have compromised innate immunity and are prone to breakthrough infections (due to declining vaccinal Ab titers) and potentially predisposed to Ab-dependent enhancement of disease (due to suboptimal neutralizing capacity of vaccinal Abs). 
  9. Compared to unvaccinated individuals, vaccinated individuals are more likely to become infected with SC-2 in case the virus becomes largely resistant to the potentially neutralizing vaccinal Abs—because, among other things, non-neutralizing vaccinal anti-S Abs actually facilitate entry of SC-2 into human epithelial cells of the upper respiratory tract.   
  10. The vaccine’s interference with the function and training of a child’s innate immune system makes the vaccinated child more susceptible to not only C-19 disease, but also other viral (respiratory) diseases.
  11. In addition, the vaccines may provoke immune inflammatory and auto-reactive effects on individual vaccinees—causing vaccine-related side effects such as myocarditis, for example, and other potential autoimmune diseases.   
  12. Bottom Line: There is compelling scientific evidence that the risks associated with C-19 vaccination far outweigh any benefits—at an individual level, at an evolutionary biology level, and at a herd immunity level.

Innate immunity: The child’s guardian angel

Innate immunity is a natural general protection that a person is born with.  The innate immune system with which children are born is the reason that healthy children do not become severely ill with SC-2 infection.  When they are exposed to the SC-2 virus, pre-existing immune effector cells of their innate immune system produce high concentrations of functional innate natural poly-specific antibodies (Abs) that are capable of recognizing all SC-2 variants and even all CoVs. These innate natural poly-specific antibodies are thought to recognize all SC-2 variants (and other CoVs) and are directed at true self-antigens (e.g., self-glycans) as well as self-mimicking antigen patterns on the virus. Self-mimicking glycan patterns are, for example, exposed on the surface of glycosylated enveloped viruses. Children who are born with rare genetic deficiencies of innate immune effector genes or whose innate immune defense is weakened due to underlying diseases may not benefit from a sufficiently strong protective immune response. However, these cases are the very rare exception and are not considered for the purpose of the following opinion piece.

There is also compelling evidence that innate immunity can be trained by epigenetic changes.  The latter can change the immune response in such a way that innate immune cells respond more strongly towards a second exposure to the virus than to the initial exposure.  Repeated challenges to SC-2 during the C-19 pandemic would already explain why ‘trained’ innate immune cells in older age groups (in contrast to naïve innate immune cells in children) may even lead to negative vaccine efficacy in these age groups (see attachment at the bottom; data Public Health Scotland and UK Health Security Agency; UKHSA).

The quality of one’s innate immune system is directly related to one’s overall health.  If a person is healthy, has no underlying disease, has good nutrition, lives an active lifestyle, is in good physical and mental health, then that person will have good innate immunity.  

There is a further layer of protection, if innate immunity is breached, and that is acquired (adaptive) immunity.  In the case of an acute, self-limiting viral infection, if the innate immune system is able to reduce the bulk of the viral load but cannot eliminate all of the virus, such that some virus pushes through and causes disease – then nature has a backup, which is our acquired (adaptive) immune system.  Acquired (adaptive) virus-specific Abs produced by immature B cells catch the particles of the virus that have breached our first line of innate immune defense and facilitate abrogation of infection by cytotoxic T cells, thereby enabling recovery from natural disease.  Furthermore, the acquired (adaptive) immune system remembers this specific event and —by maturing virus-specific memory B cells (to produce neutralizing Abs of high affinity and specificity in the future) — is able to provide durable protection against future exposure to both the original virus and a broad spectrum of viral variants. 

In the case of CoV, durable protection against infection is provided by both, the epigenetically trained poly-specific innate Abs and the S(pike)-specific Abs produced by adaptive immune system’s memory B cells. Since the innate immune response clears the bulk of viral load before the elicited S-specific Abs peak, the latter do not exert immune pressure on viral infectiousness. Based on all of the above, it follows that – even during a pandemic – natural immunity can trigger and sustain sterilizing immunity without driving immune escape. This already explains why a ‘natural’ pandemic of an acute, self-limiting viral infection will spontaneously generate herd immunity and, therefore, transition into an endemic phase. In contrast, neutralizing S-specific Abs induced by C-19 vaccines may not have sufficient neutralizing capacity to prevent infection when vaccination is performed during a pandemic. This inevitably leads to selective (i.e., S-directed) immune pressure on the circulating virus.  

The innate immune system is equipped with extremely potent humoral and cellular effectors (i.e., innate Abs and natural killer cells, respectively) that are capable of preventing productive viral infection. Provided their presence in sufficiently high concentration and / or their training by previous exposure, innate Abs provide immediate, early and broad protection against several viral pathogens, including CoVs and Influenza viruses, making them a crucial non-redundant component of the humoral immune system

Innate Abs are produced mainly, if not exclusively, by a subset of long-lived, self-replenishing B cells termed B-1 cells. It has been suggested that the unique developmental pattern of these B-1 cells, which rests on positive selection by self-antigens, ensures production of innate Abs expressing evolutionarily important specificities that are required for recognition of common pathogen-related rather than antigen-specific signals. Different repertoires of such antibody specificities collectively operate to maximize the flexibility of the host’s first line of immune defense in response to free-circulating self-antigens and different sets of invading pathogens that share similar self-like motifs. This already explains why innate Abs for SC-2 protect against all coronaviruses, including all their variants, but also influenza virus and most likely other glycosylated viruses causing acute disease (e.g., respiratory viruses such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus). However, B-1 cells have evolved a unique response pattern that minimizes the risk of autoimmunity.

There is no better example of how human immune intervention defies natural immunity than C-19 vaccination in children 

Children’s innate immune systems are, by their nature, robust and strong and that is why the vast majority of children who are exposed to SC-2 contract asymptomatic infection and the overwhelming majority of them are protected from severe C-19 disease, regardless of the characteristics of the SC-2 lineage they are exposed to. It is because of this innate immune system, that vaccination does not benefit children; in fact, vaccination may be detrimental in that acquired vaccine-induced Abs that are no longer capable of neutralizing highly infectious SC-2 variants may still bind to the virus and thereby outcompete naïve innate natural Abs of much lower affinity. In this way, adaptive vaccine-induced immunity, unfortunately, enables children to exert immune pressure on viral infectiousness (i.e., on S protein), especially when vaccinal Abs are naturally recalled over and over again due to the dominant circulation of more infectious viral variants. Furthermore, it cannot be ruled out that subneutralizing concentrations of vaccinal Abs complexed with SC-2 virions can cause 1st grade Ab-dependent enhancement of disease (ADED). 1st grade ADED may be due to predominant production of afucosylated Abs. It is not known whether synthesis of afucosylated Abs could be promoted as a result of suboptimal affinity of neutralizing anti-S Abs since afucosylated Abs are known to enhance the affinity of IgG for the IgG-Fc-receptor III family (FcγRIII), found on natural killer cells (and on subsets of other cells) in the immune system.

In the case of Omicron, preponderance of non-neutralizing over neutralizing Abs renders vaccinees more susceptible to infection as compared to non-vaccinated individuals. The more their vaccinal Abs are boosted (by additional booster shots or by the circulating virus), the more vaccinees will become susceptible to infection. 

Vaccination interferes with development of herd immunity: Both naturally occurring Ab-mediated immune defenses (i.e., NK cell activation by innate Abs and cytotoxic T cell activation by acquired Abs) are capable of preventing or abrogating productive SC-2 infection and reducing transmission during a pandemic/ epidemic, thereby allowing the healthy & unvaccinated part of the population to contribute to herd immunity (naturally), which is in the public health benefit as the pandemic can only be terminated when herd immunity is achieved. This is in sharp contrast to the effect of vaccine-induced anti-S Abs, which exert selective immune pressure on viral infectiousness when present at high prevalence (mass vaccination!). In the case of Omicron, anti-S Abs are directed at both the receptor-binding domain and the N-terminal domain of the S protein (S-RBD and S-NTD, respectively); because these Abs are present at high prevalence (due to the high level of Omicron’s infectiousness in a highly vaccinated population), these Abs will exert additional immune pressure on viral infectiousness (as anti-S-RBD [Omicron] Abs also target the broadly neutralizing antigenic site within the RBD) as well as on viral virulence (as exposure to Omicron results in boosting of Abs directed against the conserved enhancing antigenic site comprised within NTD).  

Because of the important contribution of the innate immune effector cells to protecting children from productive viral infection and hence, from disease, SC-2 is an infection in children in the same way that influenza is an infection in children but neither is a childhood disease.  Children certainly catch SC-2 but due to their innate immunity the infection is mostly asymptomatic or only causing mild illness. It is not abnormal nor unusual for children to be ill or to have a day or two being unwell. Cases of severe disease in children are rare and almost no cases of death have been reported in the 1-19 age cohort. For the period 1 February 2021 to 31 December 2021, the number of deaths in England and Wales where C-19 was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate there were two males (< 1y; 15-19 y) and one female (10-14 years) according to Office for National Statistics. These findings are confirmed by the vaccine surveillance report published by UKHSA in March 2022 (see attachment). Of course, children with underlying diseases or older individuals with a weakened innate immune system may contract more severe symptoms and require hospitalization. Likewise, dominant circulation of highly infectious variants may lead to more frequent productive infection and more pronounced disease symptoms in children, as further explained below. It would be wrong, though, to conclude that this can be solved by a mass vaccination program as there can be no doubt that the fulminant expansion in prevalence of such highly infectious variants (e.g., Omicron) directly resulted from the mass vaccination program and that the continuation of this program is only going to further increase selective immune pressure and, therefore, further promote the expansion of even more infectious variants. It is important to note that in the case of Omicron, lack of neutralizing capacity exhibited by vaccine-induced Abs has now led to enhanced viral infectiousness in vaccinees, i.e., vaccinees are more susceptible to infection as compared to the non-vaccinated. This already explains why vaccine effectiveness has now dramatically declined, even in children (see also attachment at the bottom). When the virus breaks through the first line of children’s immune defense (i.e., the innate Ab-mediated immune defense), their immune system engages the next line of natural immune defense, i.e., cytotoxic T cells, the activation of which is likely triggered by the internalization into dendritic cells of virions that are complexed by S-specific Abs (IgMs) produced by immature B cells. In this way, the virus is eliminated in ways that do not generate selective immune pressure on viral infectiousness while enabling training of poly-specific Ab-producing innate immune effector cells. People who recover from C-19 disease (i.e., the overwhelming majority of children who contract symptomatic SC-2 infection) will ultimately develop full-fledged IgGs that rapidly neutralize the virus (including a broad spectrum of variants) upon re-exposure, whereas the trained innate immune system will take care of the remaining viral load by virtue of poly-specific innate Abs that have acquired a higher level of affinity for more infectious circulating variants. 

The statements from governments and vaccination stakeholders that vaccination of children will provide them with improved protection from contracting severe disease defies nature and how our natural immune defense successfully deals with natural infection by enveloped glycosylated viruses known to predominantly cause acute self-limiting infection or disease. This includes training of innate Ab-secreting immune effector cells, which enables more effective recognition of SC-2 and all its variants and thereby improves protection against disease. Vaccine-induced protection, however, only protects against severe disease. In addition, this type of protection will likely be of short duration as it comes with substantial immune pressure on viral virulence.  

Once Omicron will be replaced by a new family of variants that can overcome this immune pressure, the vaccines will no longer protect against severe disease. It is the polyreactive Abs in the innate immune system that protect healthy children and youngsters from (severe) disease. This mechanism of protection is fundamentally different from the one protecting vaccinated from severe disease.  All non-live vaccines against acute infectious diseases are Ab-based.  Ab-based viral vaccines protect against disease but never protect against severe disease only. Furthermore, viral vaccines that enhance the susceptibility of vaccinees to infection while protecting them from (severe) disease have not been described. It is, therefore, highly likely that the in vivo protection against severe disease – as claimed by the current C-19 vaccines – is not due to S-specific neutralizing Abs but to S-specific non-neutralizing Abs that are capable of both, enhancing viral infectiousness and hampering viral virulence. This particularly applies to infections caused by Omicron, which is known to be largely resistant to potentially neutralizing vaccinal Abs.  When present in sufficient concentration, high affinity, S-specific Abs readily outcompete low affinity, multi-specific Abs for binding to the same antigen. Given the high viral infection rate and hence, great risk of re-exposure (and, therefore, natural boosting), it is reasonable to assume that many of those that are vaccinated experience long-lived functional suppression of their protective, polyreactive innate Abs and are thereby left to rely on vaccine-induced Abs immunity for protection against severe C-19 disease while becoming more susceptible to SC-2 infection and possibly also to infections caused by other glycosylated enveloped viruses that are normally recognized by the same innate Abs. This particularly applies to children as their innate immune effector cells are largely naïve for lack of immune training. In addition, as already mentioned above, protection against severe diseases is likely going to be short-lived due to the ongoing natural selection of new immune escape variants. 

Children are particularly susceptible to immunological side-effects of the C-19 vaccines

Innate Abs bind with lower affinity to SC-2 than vaccinal Abs.  Vaccinal Abs that fail to neutralize the virus but are still able to bind the virus may, therefore, diminish or even suppress binding of relevant (i.e., CoV-reactive) innate Abs to SC-2.  As the vaccinal Abs are antigen-specific, they have a higher affinity for the virus and can outcompete polyreactive innate Abs, even if they do not neutralize it (like with Omicron, as discussed above). When vaccinal Abs are boosted, for example because of repeated exposure to ‘more infectious’ circulating variants, they can suppress innate self-protective Abs for a prolonged period of time. Prolonged suppression of relevant innate Abs by vaccinal Abs could lead to tolerance towards other respiratory viral pathogens and hence, cause enhanced susceptibility to other acute viral respiratory infections.  

Innate self-protective Abs play an important role in discarding antigens derived from degraded or degenerated autologous host cells. Hence, prolonged suppression of relevant innate Abs by non-neutralizing vaccinal Abs may lead to lack of elimination of such altered self-antigens and, therefore, cause the host immune system to start attacking the body’s own cells / tissues. This implies that vaccination of children in the presence of variants that are largely resistant to neutralizing Abs could be at risk of causing autoimmune diseases.

It is not only the fact there is no beneficial effect to receive the vaccine and that a child may become more susceptible to other viral diseases or even autoimmune diseases but there is also a serious risk that certain vaccines, in particular genetic C-19 vaccines (e.g., mRNA vaccines), could already harm the child’s health shortly after their administration by causing immune-inflammatory side-effects (e.g., myocarditis). Side-effects that occur shortly after vaccine administration are of particular concern with genetic C-19 vaccines and merely add to the risks that should be taken into account in the risk/ benefit analysis of genetically based C-19 vaccines. 

Highly infectious variants are likely to re-infect previously asymptomatically infected individuals shortly after their first exposure. Since previous asymptomatic infection raises short-lived concentrations of S-specific, non-neutralizing Abs, these individuals may become more susceptible to SC-2 infection. This particularly applies to young children as their innate Abs are largely naïve (i.e., produced by immature B cells) and can, therefore, readily be suppressed by S-specific Abs in young children. It is, therefore, not surprising that a pandemic of more infectious variants comes with an enhanced infection rate in young children. Because mass vaccination has resulted in the expansion in prevalence of more infectious variants, the above-mentioned observation is to be considered an (indirect) immunological side-effect of the mass vaccination program. Public Health authorities have argued that children are an important source of viral transmission. They don’t seem to understand that mass vaccination is the culprit of enhanced viral transmission, not the solution. Furthermore, it is currently unknown whether premature susceptibility to viral infections that innate Abs normally protect against could pose a new threat to the health and well-being of young children. It should, therefore, be investigated whether the enhanced incidence of hepatitis in young children (e.g., ages 2-5 years)., for example, could possibly result from such enhanced susceptibility. Data from UKHSA have shown, though, that children can rapidly mitigate their enhanced susceptibility to infection by virtue of training their innate immune system. This already explains why vaccine effectiveness has now become negative in these younger age groups as well (as already mentioned above). Previous asymptomatic/ mild infection does not prevent innate immune training as this type of infection does not prime the host immune system. This provides additional evidence that there is no health benefit in vaccinating young children.    

As mRNA vaccines lead to uncontrolled in vivo synthesis of a protein (i.e., spike) that is decorated with self-glycans, vaccine-related immune inflammatory side-effects could occur many months after vaccination (expression of S protein has been reported to persist for up to several months) and may manifest in several different organs (expression of S protein has been demonstrated in several different organs). It cannot be ruled out that – in the presence of S-specific Abs – enhanced expression of S protein on the surface of transfected host tissue cells triggers fusion of those cells with healthy, non-transfected host cells and thereby leads to formation of syncytia and histopathological changes in general. Cell surface-expressed S protein has been shown to trigger trans fusion between infected and non-infected host tissue cells. 

As soon as you start vaccinating with non-live vaccines, then acquired immunity is being engaged while natural, Ab-mediated immunity is bypassed. This is of course the intention of being vaccinated: so that a more specific antibody response can more effectively deal with the infection.  However, if the virus a person has been vaccinated against significantly changes, then the specific adaptive Abs generated for that virus by the vaccine may no longer recognize it as well as before and it will fail to neutralize it.  On the other hand, the broader innate immune response that may have been able to deal with the changed virus is crowded out by the adaptive vaccine-induced immune response, leaving one vulnerable to significant infection by viral variants or 1st ADED, the latter as a potential result of poor binding of neutralizing Abs to heterologous antigenic sites. From an immunological viewpoint, it is reasonable to assume that this is particularly relevant in individuals who are vaccinated shortly before their primary exposure to a viral variant (i.e., the S protein of which differs from the one provided by the vaccine) or whose innate immune effector cells are poorly trained, as is regularly the case in young children. But even if there is a reasonable fit between the circulating variant and the elicited S-specific Abs, basic virology teaches that – unless live attenuated vaccines are used – mass vaccination in the middle of a pandemic of a highly mutable virus such as SC-2, for example, is a recipe for immune escape and that viral variants that escape potentially neutralizing Abs will expand in prevalence in the population.

Vaccination of children in particular drives immune escape and dramatically diminishes the chance for generating herd immunity

When administered during a pandemic, C-19 vaccines cannot diminish viral transmission in the population, and can, therefore, not contribute to herd immunity.  Young age groups have a particularly high capacity for contributing to herd immunity as they have strong functional innate Ab capacity and hence, a high potential for mediating broad Ab-mediated sterilizing immunity against CoV (presumably via non-selective innate IgM-mediated activation of NK cells and/ or activation of MHC-unrestricted cytotoxic CD8+ T cells mediated by broadly cross-reactive, acquired IgM). As vaccine-induced, S-specific neutralizing IgGs readily outcompete naïve innate Abs in young children, the selective immune pressure they place on viral infectiousness will only increase. As a result, ‘more infectious’ immune escape variants will enjoy a strong competitive advantage, which will accelerate their dominant propagation in the host population. By vaccinating children, their individual health is not only being potentially harmed but so is public health generally – compromising innate immunity of large parts of the population prevents herd immunity from being established and further enhances the adaptation of more infectious immune escape variants to the highly vaccinated population, thereby accelerating their dominance in the host population.  Children’s healthy immune systems are the reservoirs to eliminate the virus and constitute an important source for generating herd immunity and diminishing the likelihood for more infectious variants to dominate.

Omicron serves as an excellent live attenuated vaccine in healthy unvaccinated children. Vaccinating them with any of the current C-19 vaccines will only further increase instead of mitigating the selective immune pressure exerted by highly vaccinated populations and unquestionably take away the last glimmer of hope for generating herd immunity  

We can only get rid of the pandemic when we achieve herd immunity. Herd immunity is population immunity and by definition is only achieved when the viral transmission rate is low enough to ensure that the vulnerable people (i.e., those with a weak or immune suppressed health status) have a low probability of becoming infected. That is, the vulnerable are automatically protected by the herd immunity generated by the bulk of the population.

In my opinion, I consider that we had an opportunity to achieve herd immunity at the start of this pandemic which was interrupted by lock downs until mass vaccination started – these measures meant that the opportunity to achieve herd immunity in the early stages was lost. I consider that the opportunity to achieve herd immunity has now shrunk even further with the arrival of the Omicron variant because this variant has acquired a substantial level of resistance to the vaccinal Abs.  As a result, non-neutralizing vaccinal Abs are now rendering the virus more infectious in vaccinees, which explains why the vast majority of the population is now more susceptible to infection. That is exactly the opposite of what mass vaccination was supposed to do. In the unvaccinated, however, Omicron is serving as a live attenuated vaccine in that it stimulates natural immunity in ways that do not discriminate between SC-2 variants and don’t exert immune pressure on viral infectiousness (i.e., via Ab-mediated abrogation of infection by polyreactive, MHC-unrestricted cytotoxic immune cells). This mechanism typically contributes to building herd immunity and termination of a pandemic of an acute, self-limiting viral disease. This means that only the unvaccinated part of the population is now contributing to herd immunity but, unfortunately, it also means that the latter is no longer within reach because large parts of the population have now become vaccinated.

Another benefit of live attenuated vaccines (i.e., Omicron in the unvaccinated) is that they are able to train innate immune effector cells, which therefore can even improve their recognition of the virus to ameliorate the protective effect of innate Abs. Immune effector cells that secrete innate Abs can be trained just like other innate immune effectors can be trained: by repeated exposure to what is called ‘pathogen-associated molecular patterns’. This is, in fact, nicely shown by the data published by the UK Health Security Agency, previously Public Health England and Public Health Scotland – where they have shown that basically with aging and also with more exposure to the pathogen, the number of cases in the unvaccinated people was dramatically reduced – even to an extent such that vaccine effectiveness has now  become negative in the vast majority of age groups (see above). 

No single healthy child should be considered eligible for C-19 vaccination, neither from a public nor from an individual health viewpoint

As vaccine-induced anti-S Abs cannot prevent productive viral infections in the host population, they cannot prevent natural selection of more infectious variants. Consequently, the induction of vaccinal Abs in large parts of the population promotes selective transmission of ‘more infectious’ variants and hence, prevents herd immunity from being established. The more people we vaccinate, the more and the faster the population will exert immune pressure on the life cycle of the virus. This is now at high risk of promoting the expansion of new variants that are not only more infectious but also much more virulent.
In contrast, naturally induced immunity sterilizes the virus in that it prevents or abrogates productive infection by circulating variants in ways that don’t provide more infectious variants with a competitive fitness advantage. Naturally induced immunity can, therefore, dramatically diminish viral transmission. This is, by the way, what explains the rapid/ steep decline in the infection, mortality and morbidity rate after a previous surge in cases during a natural pandemic. In the rather exceptional event that a non-vaccinated healthy child (i.e., without underlying diseases or immune deficiencies) would contract moderate disease, the child will not only recover from the disease but also develop acquired immunity, which is long-lived, directed against a diversified spectrum of SC-2 variants and will protect that child, even when the titers of acquired Abs are low (as this will enable trained innate Abs to come into the play). On the exceptional occasion that Omicron would break through the innate immune defense of a healthy child, or for that matter any unvaccinated healthy individual, to cause more serious disease, the patient can be successfully treated – that has always been acknowledged and can successfully be dealt with by early multidrug treatment. In this way, even patients who are at risk of developing serious disease can not only successfully recover but even contribute to herd immunity. The immune status of a person who recovered from C-19 is, therefore, very different from the one induced by a C-19 vaccine. Vaccinal anti-S Abs have a narrower spectrum and are, therefore, not only less protective towards infection by viral variants but also suspicious of causing ADED in case their binding to S on the circulating variant is too weak to neutralize the virus. 

Omicron is now increasingly generating durable anti-infective immunity in the unvaccinated part of the population. However, given the infection-enhancing effect of non-neutralizing vaccinal Abs in vaccinees and their strong and frequent recall as a result of natural boosting (via Omicron!), herd immunity is no longer within reach in highly vaccinated populations. The more people we vaccinate, the more and the faster the population will exert immune pressure on the life cycle of the virus. This is now at high risk of promoting the expansion of new variants that are not only more infectious but also much more virulent. Along the same lines of reasoning, we should not vaccinate against the Omicron variant as mass vaccination against Omicron too will boost titers of non-neutralizing, i.e., infection-enhancing Abs and thereby inevitably further increase selective immune pressure on the virus and foster the propagation of far more dangerous variants that fully resist potentially neutralizing Abs. For this reason, it is vital that we leave healthy, unvaccinated people alone, that we leave healthy unvaccinated children alone, and that – instead – we diminish viral transmission by conducting large-scale antiviral chemoprophylaxis campaigns in highly vaccinated countries while protecting the vulnerable and enabling their access to early multidrug treatment.

Summary and overall conclusion

In summary, we can conclude as summarized below: 

Because innate immune effector cells in young children are not trained to deal with highly infectious viruses, their innate Abs harbouring a repertoire of specificities targeted at enveloped glycosylated viruses can be readily outcompeted by high-affinity vaccinal Abs directed at S protein, even if these Abs do no longer neutralize the virus. Consequently, vaccination of children turns off their broadly poly-specific natural anti-viral immunity in exchange for S-specific vaccinal Abs that are becoming increasingly useless since their neutralizing capacity becomes more and more eroded because of enhanced escape of the mutated S protein on SC-2 from highly specific, potentially neutralizing Abs (a trend that has been clearly confirmed by molecular epidemiologists) while outcompeting protective innate Abs. Low vaccinal Ab titers are, therefore, at high risk of allowing for breakthrough infections in children who are exposed to viral variants. 

In addition, vaccinal Abs with diminished neutralizing capacity towards SC-2 variants are likely to enhance the susceptibility of vaccinated children to 1st grade ADED and thereby making S-specific vaccinal Abs in vaccinees, and particularly in children, more dangerous. 

Enhanced suppression of innate Abs by a sustained (pandemic!) high prevalence of elevated anti-S Abs in vaccinated children would also turn them into an excellent breeding ground for more infectious immune escape variants while likely rendering them more susceptible to other viral infections and auto-immune diseases

On the basis of the above, there can be no doubt that the conclusion of the risk/ benefit analysis strongly and unambiguously argues against vaccinating children against SC-2 for the risk of administering C-19 vaccines to healthy children outweighs the benefit. Therefore, there is no benefit in synthetically protecting children with vaccines when their natural immunity produces a long-lasting immune response that is much safer and more efficient, both from an individual and public health viewpoint. Defying the child’s natural immune defense against SC-2, and several other acute self-limiting viral infections (e.g., Influenza), is an unforgivable sin!

Attachment:

UK Health Security Agency

COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report

Released March 31 2022

Data is March 1 – March 27

Summary of cases, hospitalizations and deaths: 

One can view the back releases of this weekly report and see the trend toward diminished vaccine effectiveness emerge and grow steadily stronger since that time

Cases

  • For ages 18 and over, vaccination increased the rate of infection regardless of the number of doses, sometimes over 400% 
  • For ages under 18, 1 or 2 doses slightly increased the rate of infection
  • For ages under 18, 3 or more doses (200,000 people out of over 64 million in the country) reduced rate of infection by only 30%

Hospitalizations

  • For ages over 18, 3 or more doses decreased rate of hospitalizations by at most 40%, sometimes not at all
  • For ages over 29, 1 or 2 doses increased rate of hospitalization for every age, sometimes by over 200% 

Deaths

  • For ages over 18, 3 or more doses decreased rate of death by at most 58%, but some age groups were as low as 16%
  • For ages over 29, 1 or 2 doses increased rate of death for nearly every age group, often by over 200%

Overall, these data suggest that taking these vaccines greatly increases the spread of COVID.

That these vaccines give at most a mediocre reduction of negative outcomes, and only for a short time.

That these vaccines in every case cause a greater magnitude, long term, increase in negative outcome.

The data above are relate to COVID, not to any side-effects of the vaccines.

The LibreOffice spreadsheets are depicted below. They reflect the percent chance of case/hospitalization/death in (fully or partially) vaccinated vs unvaccinated. 

March 2022 Chart of UK Case Rate % vs Unvaccinated by Doses (< 18 years):

The raw data can be found in the tables below.

Page 16 details the number of vaccinated individuals for each group with data covering the same dates:

Data is on page 85:

80 and over Population: 2,725,031

3 Doses = 2,489,360

2 Doses = 2,566,995 – 2,489,360 = 77,635

1 Dose = 2,606,360 – 2,566,995 = 39,365

Unvaccinated = 2,725,031 – 2,606,360 = 118,671

70-79 Population: 4,979,828

3 Doses = 4,554,742

2 Doses = 4,705,335 – 4,554,742 = 150,593

1 Dose =  4,742,016 – 4,705,335 = 36,681

Unvaccinated = 4,979,828 – 4742016 = 237,812

60-69 Population: 6,420,555

3 Doses = 5,428,766

2 Doses = 5,818,926 – 5,428,766 = 390,160

1 Dose = 5,894,275 – 5,818,926 = 75,349

Unvaccinated = 6,420,555 – 5,894,275 = 526,280

50-59 Population: 8,374,446

3 Doses = 6,380,544

2 Doses = 7,251,305 – 6,380,544 = 870,761

1 Dose =  7,391,008 – 7,251,305 = 139,703

Unvaccinated =  8,374,446 – 7,391,008 = 983,438

40-49 Population: 8,228,211

3 Doses = 5,048,918

2 Doses = 6,395,752 – 5,048,918 = 1,346,834

1 Dose = 6,612,527 – 6,395,752 = 216,775

Unvaccinated = 8,228,211 –  6,612,527 = 1,615,684

30-39 Population: 9,478,334

3 Doses = 4,328,966

2 Doses =  6,405,034 – 4,328,966  = 2,076,068

1 Dose =  6,791,732 – 6,405,034 = 386,698

Unvaccinated =   9,478,334 –  6,791,732&nbsp

COVID-19ChildrenImmunologyVaccination

Comments (1)What do you think?

0/3000Publish

therealrestoreinc

Apr. 21, 2022, 7:16 a.m.

Here’s a comment for you…There are unvaccinated adults among us who have not had one COVID-19 shot and are alive and well. Many of us over 60, even 70 years old are loving our natural immune systems’ gift to us and in gratitude have chosen to care for the immune system instead of provoking it artificially with synthetic mRNA. We are those childlike COVID warriors. Re: Quote “Omicron is serving as a live attenuated vaccine in that it stimulates natural immunity in ways that do not discriminate between SC-2 variants and don’t exert immune pressure on viral infectiousness (i.e., via Ab-mediated abrogation of infection by polyreactive, MHC-unrestricted cytotoxic immune cells). This mechanism typically contributes to building herd immunity and termination of a pandemic of an acute, self-limiting viral disease. This means that only the unvaccinated part of the population is now contributing to herd immunity…” LEAVE THE FOLLOWING OUT, THIS REST OF THE QUOTE – BECAUSE IT IS NOT UNIVERSALLY TRUE [“…but, unfortunately, it also means that the latter is no longer within reach because large parts of the population have now become vaccinated.”] and EMPHASIZE THIS QUOTE: “…leave healthy, unvaccinated people alone, that we leave healthy unvaccinated children alone, and that – instead – we diminish viral transmission by conducting large-scale antiviral chemoprophylaxis campaigns…”

Reply

Company

About UsTerms of ServicePrivacy PolicyContact Us

Publish on TrialSite

Writing Best PracticesWhy TrialSite?

TrialSiteNews

159 W Broadway, Suite 200

Salt Lake City, UT 84101

Gates & the Vaccine Crisis


Armstrong Economics Blog/Disease RePosted Jun 8, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Bill Gates is not a doctor. He is not even a specialist in disease or history. He has been influenced by his father, and the two of them have been influenced by Thomas Malthus who advocated promoting the plague to reduce the population because it would one day run out of food. I have studied history, but I remember asking a simple question in high school health class – why can’t we create a vaccine for the common cold like Polio? The answer was also simple. We cannot create a vaccine for a disease that also resides in animals. Hence, we see bird flu, swine flu, and the latest monkeypox. Covid-19 has already infected about 40% of the deer population.

Luc Montagnier who is a renowned scientist in this field has come out and warned that the vaccines are creating a major danger to society. It is the very vaccination that is creating the “breakthrough” infections because the virus they created in a lab is a lifeform in itself. It will mutate to defeat the vaccines. The risk of COVID mutating like a superbug that becomes far worse and more lethal in the years ahead is greatly increased thanks to people like Gates and Schwab. It was Gates who wanted to vaccinate the entire world in six months. Did he understand the real science that such an act might create the next Black Plague and kill 50% of the world population?

Montagnier explains that the vaccines may kill off some mutations, but the ones that survive become strong, and the virus will mutate to survive. He has warned that the vaccines are actually feeding the disease and promoting it. The new resistance to the vaccines means that the “new variants are created by the selection of antibodies produced by vaccination.

Our model on the disease cycle had forecast a new wave would emerge at this time, but it did not predict which virus would emerge. I cannot be sure if what Bill Gates has unleashed upon the world will end up fulfilling that cyclical forecast. The mutations of this creation may evolve in ways even Gates had no idea.