[hj38 (OP)]

 I guess you have heard of him.

Basically as i understand he says it was insanity to mass inject people with a "leaky" vaxx during a pandemic.

Because we left the virus to mutate so that resistant variants will have an advantage and become dominant.

He also expects more dangerous variants. As far as i understand he mean non neutralizing antibodies take over when the virus is resistant to neutralizing abs.

The non neutralizing abs protect against severe disease but eventually there may be variants that overcome this immune pressure.

Usually dangerous variants can´t spread well but what about now when so many got the shots?

So he recommends governments implement large antiviral drug campaigns in heavily vaxxed countries.

I´m actually told by a very credible source that some ADHD meds will help for what is coming. Not sure if it´s a specific medication or why. I read these meds can increase methylation. Can that explain why?

 

What do you think of his thoughts? The first parts about the danger of mass vaxxing this way seems obvious to me.

An interview with Bossche from April.

https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/videos-and-interviews/deadlier-variants-dr-geert-vanden-bossche-on-what-to-expect-in-the-near-future-and-why [nofollow]

[hj38 (OP)]

"Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein

The deployment of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 brings the question of mutational escape from antibody prophylaxis to the forefront. Rapid evolutionary evasion of neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) poses a number of threats to biomedical interventions aimed at bringing the virus under control, namely the risk of reduced vaccinal efficacy over time as resistant variants continue to emerge (which may or may not be rectifiable with annual vaccine updates), the risk of waning effectiveness of natural immunity as a result of evasion of common nAbs, and the risk of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE)."

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250780 [nofollow]

[hj38 (OP)]

"COVID vaccines can't keep up with new Omicron subvariants

New subvariants of the Omicron strain of the COVID-19 virus "appear to be even more immune-resistant than the original," Axios reported Wednesday.

The original Omicron strain was known as BA.1, but that's old hat by now. All the cool kids are getting BA.4, or even BA.5. Unfortunately, while the virus has moved on, vaccine makers are stuck in the past."

https://news.yahoo.com/covid-vaccines-cant-keep-omicron-145138040.html [nofollow]

[alancalverd]

You can't actively defend against an unknown enemy. The only way to eliminate all possible variants and prevent the evolution of a virus is to isolate all the carriers. Quarantine has been in use since biblical times, and works.

Problem with COVID is its high infectivity before it produces any symptoms, so unless you have a reliable test for asymptomatic infection and apply it to 100% of the population, or you apply 100% isolation and quarantine, the disease will spread and probably mutate.

Fortunately the disease is not 100% fatal, so at some point you have to take an economic decision: 100% test, trace and quarantine, or vaccinate?

In this case it turned out that the vaccine was as easy to develop as, and a lot cheaper than, a reliable test (and in the UK the test and trace "system", like so many other initiatives,  was a scam for diverting taxpayers' money to a member of the Conservative party).

Retrospectively you can estimate the "cost" - however you want to measure it - of vaccination, and its effectiveness, You need to correct for incidences of crass incompetence (including the war crime of discharging infective patients to unprotected nursing homes) and compare this with the medium-term outcome of strict quarantine (Australia and New Zealand).

It's pretty obvious that the vaccinated fraction of the population suffered less than the unvaxed in any comparable cohort, and continue to do so as the virus mutates. In the longer term we can look at the value of immediate and strict quarantine followed by mass vaccination  versus the disorganised panic in Europe, the political impact of armed antivaxers in the USA, and the mass slaughter of the unvaccinated Brazilian population.

In answer to the OP: prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. But the history of smallpox and poliomyelitis does rather favor vaccination.

[evan_au]

COVID vaccines can't keep up with new Omicron subvariants

All of the mass-market vaccines to date have targeted the original Wuhan strain of COVID-19.

However, Moderna has applied to the FDA to approve a vaccine that targets both Wuhan and original Omicron strains, and Pfizer is reportedly not far behind.
- The CDC is concerned about a potential surge of COVID over the (Northern) winter, so they are preparing a more relevant booster, and allowing several months for the approval process.
- At least the approval process is now more streamlined, as there is a known safety profile for the RNA vaccines - they are only testing for antibody response.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/06/08/moderna-booster-omicron-coronavirus-trial/

Like the flu vaccine, the COVID vaccine is chasing a moving target (BA.4 & BA.5), as is the immune systems of the general population.
- In Australia, we have had virtually no flu cases for almost 2 years, as quarantine, masks and social distancing are all effective against flu
- The government has started a mass flu vaccination campaign as we rapidly approach mid-winter.

mass inject people with a "leaky" vaxx during a pandemic

I assume that "leaky" refers to the fact that the vaccine does not provide 100% protection, so vaccinated people can also catch the virus?

But the vaccine is also "leaky" in that only 2/3 of the world's population has received any COVID vaccine. That is a very large population in which mutations can occur.
- And the vaccine is also leaky in that COVID-19 can infect many species beyond bats and humans - many species of rodents seem to be susceptible, and deer and canines also seem to be affected. When a disease enters a new host, there are strong mutational pressures.
- One theory is that the Wuhan strain jumped from humans into another species, was heavily mutated before jumping back into humans as Omicron. We are not seriously trying to vaccinate every susceptible species (although it is rumored that some people had their pets vaccinated...).

recommends governments implement large antiviral drug campaigns in heavily vaxxed countries

The two proven antivirals have severe side-effects, and so are only prescribed as a limited 1-week course.
- In particular, one of them works by inducing errors in RNA replication, so it is banned in anyone who might be pregnant, or might possibly become a parent
- That means that they can't be used as a preventative/prophylaxis, unlike vaccines which are used as a preventative.

Or is he proposing to relabel Ivermectin as an "antiviral"?
- The best studies to date have shown that Ivermectin is ineffective against COVID, when administered at a safe dosage.

I recommend that when there is significant COVID around, that you wear a mask, as this is proven to be effective against all strains of COVID, as well as influenza and other respiratory diseases.

[hj38 (OP)]

From Vanden Bossches paper. Why he believe the mass vaccination lead to more dangerous variants for the vaccinated.

Natural selection of new, O-glycosylated variants, which I have predicted to rapidly emerge (https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/scientific-blog/predictions-gvb-on-evolution-c-19-pandemic),would [nofollow] allow to overcome binding of both, potentially infection-inhibiting (i.e., neutralizing) Abs directed at theimmuno dominant receptor-binding domain (RBD) and potentially ‘trans infection’-inhibiting (note 2) (i.e., virulence-mitigating) Abs directed at the conserved antigenic site within the N-terminal domain of S protein (S-NTD). Consequently,O-glycosylation of the S-RBD would overcome population-level immune pressure that results from boosting of vaccine-primed Abs directed at conserved NTD-specific epitopes that cross-protect against severe disease. This is because NTD-associated ‘trans infection’-inhibiting (i.e., virulence mitigating) epitopes will be shielded against their corresponding Abs by the O-glycosites inserted at the predicted O-glycosylation sites of the new variants (New covariants). At the same time, these O-glycosites would also shield RBD-associated infection-inhibiting (i.e., neutralizing) epitopes against their corresponding Abs. Natural selection of the O-glycosylated Newco variants would, therefore, enable SC-2 to effectively counter the growing virus-neutralizing and virulence-mitigating capacity of a highly vaccine-experienced population that is exposed to Omicron, and thereby relieve the pressure on the viral life cycle.

The more Omicron expands in prevalence and the more frequently vaccinees get re-exposed and fall victim to breakthrough infections, the higher the prevalence of both elevated virulence-mitigating anti-S Abs will become.  The higher this prevalence and the higher the anti-S Ab titers, the higher the site occupancy of the predicted O-glycosylation sites will need to be for Newco variants to resist the trans infection-inhibiting immune response of Omicron-infected vaccinees. This is because more densely O-glycosylated variants will more effectively prevent mitigation of viral virulence. Given the population-level immune pressure caused by the exposure of highly vaccinated populations to the highly infectious Omicron, Newco variants will primarily rely on glycosite instead of amino acid mutations in their RBD to gain the required fitness advantage in a landscape of increasing population-level immune pressure on S-NTD.

This already explains why the upcoming Newco variants are likely to evolve to a super variant that is not only highly infectious but also highly virulent and fully resistant to C-19 vaccines, including those that have been adapted to the spike protein of the circulating variant. This is why the authors of this paper are desperately wrong in thinking that tailoring the vaccines to the polypeptide sequence of S on the dominantly circulating variant would have a beneficial effect on the outcome of the mass vaccination program. On the contrary, usage of so-called ‘updated’ vaccines to continue this program will only aggravate the outcome due to further boosting of anti-NTD Ab titers.

Conclusion:In the absence of large scale antiviral prophylaxis, the vicious circle of steadily increasing immune pressure causing steadily rising infection rates will ultimately drive highly vaccinated populations to promote the expansion of a super variant that will likely be featured by full resistance to potentially neutralizing epitopes (due to lack of immunogenicity of these epitopes) combined with a high propensity to cause Ab-dependent enhancement of infection (ADEI; facilitated by the infection-enhancing Abs) and a high propensity for causing ADEI-mediated Ab-dependent enhancement of disease (ADED).This is how the evolutionary dynamics of the virus will unfold and how the end station of this misguided mass vaccination program will look.

‍

[alancalverd]

Why he believe the mass vaccination lead to more dangerous variants for the vaccinated.

Presumably because he doesn't understand biology. Viruses do not compete for territory or resources so no advantage accrues to a variant by the elimination of the parent. Whether the parent is suppressed quickly (by vaccination or quarantine) or slowly (by killing all the hosts that do not have natural immunity) makes no difference to the emergence of variants in the long term: as long as there is a viable base of parent, mutations will occur.

If anything, reducing the parent base by vaccination will reduce the probability of any particular variant evolving, and thus the likelihood of one that does not respond to or trigger the same antibodies.   

[hj38 (OP)]

Why he believe the mass vaccination lead to more dangerous variants for the vaccinated.

Presumably because he doesn't understand biology. Viruses do not compete for territory or resources so no advantage accrues to a variant by the elimination of the parent. Whether the parent is suppressed quickly (by vaccination or quarantine) or slowly (by killing all the hosts that do not have natural immunity) makes no difference to the emergence of variants in the long term: as long as there is a viable base of parent, mutations will occur.

If anything, reducing the parent base by vaccination will reduce the probability of any particular variant evolving, and thus the likelihood of one that does not respond to or trigger the same antibodies.

Bossche says the variant that will diminish the immune pressure is the variant that will become dominant. The virus has no longer plan.

Usually it is more difficult for a very dangerous variant to spread but now that so many have been "vaccinated"?

[hj38 (OP)]

Basically if i understand Bossche the problem is the narrow protection from the shot + immune imprinting. So when the virus is resistant infections in the vaxxed lead to a boost of non neutralizing abs. It becomes a vicious circle.

Those abs prevent severe disease but eventually the virus will likely mutate to variants that will overcome that immune pressure. More dangerous variants. Guess they can spread easier because the distance between vaxxed is shorter.

[hj38 (OP)]

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.04.18.22271936v1 [nofollow]

Igor explain what it means.

https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/moderna-knew-vaccinated-people-will?s=r [nofollow]


"This study looked at two sides of the Moderna Phase 3 vaccine trial: the vaccinated group and the control group. They looked at unvaccinated people having Covid, versus vaccinated people having so called “break-through Covid infections”.

Skipping some details, our natural, unvaccinated immunity learns to recognize the “spikes” (S-protein), the “nucleocapsid” (N-Protein) and other pieces of the virus, and develops antibodies and immune memory reacting to all of those.

This multifaceted memory also provides broader protection against “variants”.

In contrast, vaccination with any existing Covid vaccine, floods our cells with only S-protein (the “spike protein”) from a virus that only existed around January 2020.

The difference between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated is FIVE TIMES, which is huge. The unvaccinated are five times more likely than the vaccinated to develop broad immunity including N antibodies.

for those vaccinated persons whose breakthrough infection occurred after the second dose, (illness detected on Day 29), their ability to develop N antibodies was 13 TIMES worse than that of the unvaccinated.

This inability to obtain broader natural immunity is the reason for endless covids: a covid infection in the vaccinated does not result in lasting immunity and acts similarly to an almost-worthless booster shot. A “breakthrough infection” adds a large number of temporary S-antibodies to the obsolete Wuhan virus. Whereas, the unvaccinated obtain numerous antibodies to all sorts of facets (epitopes) of the virus that infected them."

[alancalverd]

The unvaccinated are five times more likely than the vaccinated to develop broad immunity including N antibodies.

and 3 - 10 times as likely to become infected with clinical symptoms, 3 times as likely to require hospital treatment of those symptoms, and 6 times as likely to die.

Natural immunity is very effective indeed for those who recover,  but not everyone wants to have clinical symptoms or die from a disease spread by those who are attempting to gain natural immunity to it.

[hj38 (OP)]

I´m told ADHD meds will help for VAIDS.

Not sure why. Someone suggested because of methylation. Any experts?

[Origin]

I´m told ADHD meds will help for VAIDS.

Well, considering that VAIDS is fiction I doubt any meds would do anything.
Stop spreading misinformation about health issues.  Reported.

[hj38 (OP)]

The shots damage the natural immune system. There are studies now.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/328102 [nofollow]

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.04.18.22271936v1.full [nofollow]

[hj38 (OP)]

Since the natural immune system is damaged it leads to chronic Covid. T-cells are then damaged studies also show.

But some ADHD meds will help i am told spiritually. 100% sure about that.

[evan_au]

In the absence of large scale antiviral prophylaxis

In my experience, people who talk obliquely about "prophylaxis" or "early intervention" are talking about Ivermectin.

They can't talk about Ivermectin directly, because the fact-checkers at Facebook tend to tag their posts.
- And the WHO points to the Clinical Trials and says that they cannot recommend Ivermectin for general deployment (although it is fine in a controlled clinical trial)
- The people who promote Ivermectin often seem to be paying an inordinate amount of credence to that fount of medical wisdom: Donald Trump (while blithely ignoring two other spouts on the same fountain: Hydroxchloroquine and internal application of UV, both of which are known to be dangerous)

So, what "antiviral prophylaxis" is he advocating?

Since the natural immune system is damaged

I think it is entirely fair to say that vaccination with the spike (S) protein produces antibodies against the S protein, but does not produce antibodies against the nucleocapsid (N) protein.

However, I feel it is not fair to say that "the natural immune system is damaged". The natural immune system  generates antibodies against antigens. If it is presented with S protein antigens, it will generate S protein antibodies. That is what it is supposed to do, and demonstrates a well-functioning immune system.
- At best it shows that the the vaccines are narrowly targeted. And there is a good reason for that: The more antigens you present, the greater the risk that you will match some natural protein in some fraction of the population, with potentially lethal side-effects.


I heard a podcast a couple of months ago saying that unvaccinated people who had a severe bout of COVID in the end had a predominance of antibodies against S protein. Yes, they also had antibodies against N protein, but that didn't neutralize the virus and allow them to pull through. [Disclaimer: Given peer-review cycle times, it is possible that these patients were infected with Delta or earlier variants, rather than Omicron - but I expect that the same would be true of Omicron...]

[alancalverd]

Since the natural immune system is damaged it leads to chronic Covid.

Citation needed. And "spiritual" will not suffice. My spirit guides tell me that Donald Trump is the reincarnation of Jesus.

[Petrochemicals]

Corona in nations that implemented strict lockdown is rapidly catching up with other countries who where more lax. The vaccine did not stop transmission, only cut down on severe illness. Mutations I am told occour due to chronic infection,. Natural immunity in the young may well have been a better way to protect the world than waiting for a vaccine that failed to materialise.

[alancalverd]

The vaccine did not stop transmission,

Not true. It reduced the incidence of COVID among the vaccinated population. OK, to be pedantic, it didn't stop active carriers from exhaling (transmitting) , but it did reduce the susceptibility of others to becoming clinically infected (receiving) and passing it on.

"Natural immunity among the young" did not stop youngsters infecting their elders, and clearly could not "protect the world"  unless you consider disabling or killing everyone over 50 as a Good Thing.

[hj38 (OP)]

In the absence of large scale antiviral prophylaxis

In my experience, people who talk obliquely about "prophylaxis" or "early intervention" are talking about Ivermectin.

They can't talk about Ivermectin directly, because the fact-checkers at Facebook tend to tag their posts.
- And the WHO points to the Clinical Trials and says that they cannot recommend Ivermectin for general deployment (although it is fine in a controlled clinical trial)
- The people who promote Ivermectin often seem to be paying an inordinate amount of credence to that fount of medical wisdom: Donald Trump (while blithely ignoring two other spouts on the same fountain: Hydroxchloroquine and internal application of UV, both of which are known to be dangerous)

So, what "antiviral prophylaxis" is he advocating?

Since the natural immune system is damaged

I think it is entirely fair to say that vaccination with the spike (S) protein produces antibodies against the S protein, but does not produce antibodies against the nucleocapsid (N) protein.

However, I feel it is not fair to say that "the natural immune system is damaged". The natural immune system  generates antibodies against antigens. If it is presented with S protein antigens, it will generate S protein antibodies. That is what it is supposed to do, and demonstrates a well-functioning immune system.
- At best it shows that the the vaccines are narrowly targeted. And there is a good reason for that: The more antigens you present, the greater the risk that you will match some natural protein in some fraction of the population, with potentially lethal side-effects.


I heard a podcast a couple of months ago saying that unvaccinated people who had a severe bout of COVID in the end had a predominance of antibodies against S protein. Yes, they also had antibodies against N protein, but that didn't neutralize the virus and allow them to pull through. [Disclaimer: Given peer-review cycle times, it is possible that these patients were infected with Delta or earlier variants, rather than Omicron - but I expect that the same would be true of Omicron...]

The problem seem to be immune imprinting. If infected with a new variant after the shot the immune system produce old type antibodies. Those can enhance infection Bossche argue and refer to studies.

"It gets even worse: for those vaccinated persons whose breakthrough infection occurred after the second dose, (illness detected on Day 29), their ability to develop N antibodies was 13 TIMES worse than that of the unvaccinated"

https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/moderna-knew-vaccinated-people-will?s=r [nofollow]

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.04.18.22271936v1 [nofollow]