If we’re to include “hull losses” (the entire aircraft is destroyed) then I regret to point out that a closer analogy is a 9/11 every few days or weeks (I’m saying it’s deliberate. I’m not making a mathematical point).
The “vaccines” were toxic-by-design. I find it implausible that four, independent R&D teams all alighted on toxic CoV s…
If we’re to include “hull losses” (the entire aircraft is destroyed) then I regret to point out that a closer analogy is a 9/11 every few days or weeks (I’m saying it’s deliberate. I’m not making a mathematical point).
The “vaccines” were toxic-by-design. I find it implausible that four, independent R&D teams all alighted on toxic CoV spike protein as the immunogen in their vaccine. No. That’s collusion & malfeasance.
Then the “full development package” which is always agreed with medicines regulators. The packages are all obscenely inadequate, both in what was even studied as well as what the findings were. The clinical trials were fraudulent. The regulatory interactions were fraudulent. The manufacturing is even now fraudulent. The public data in some countries is hidden & in others deliberately misinterpreted.
This isn’t an accident. Is mass moral cowardice in the face of obvious bad practise at every level.
My understanding is the nucleoprotein is not accessible to antibodies. So it seems vaccine-induced humoral immunity may not be effective?
Injected-vaccine-induced T cells home to the skin where they are useless. Respiratory infection induced T cells home to the lungs, nasopharynx where they protect.
So would one have to also change the route of administration (intranasal) for a nucleoprotein-based vaccine to work?
I don’t think it’s true that antibodies can’t access it.
More important is this: other than secretory IgA facing the air side in airways, antibodies are of little importance in host defence against respiratory viruses.
What really does that crucial task are T-cells. It doesn’t matter even if the immunogen is invisible, the immune system dismantles the pathogen & finds it’s preferred pieces (“epitopes”) then destroys cells displaying that marker.
Thank you Dr. Yeadon for all your work exposing vaccine safety problems.
Since you worked on asthma, thought this may be of interest:
Aeroallergen contaminated injected vaccines cause the development of asthma. New CHO cell protein contaminated biologic treatment for asthma - tezepelumab, will cause de novo autoimmune disorders.
That’s a big issue. It’s not surprising that introduction of foreign protein into the airway can result in allergic type responses to subsequent exposure. While that’s certainly a form of immunity, it’s not the kind that’s desirable! We can observe a Type I (acute) & sometimes a Type IV (Cell mediated) allergic reaction.
I’ve often wondered how they ensure this doesn’t happen with nasal vaccines (there I go, presuming intent is to avoid harms!). Nasal flu vaccine is routinely given to English kids at school. I don’t think it’s justified. It’s extraordinarily unusual for a previously healthy child to die of flu. Does this warrant vaccination of almost 100% of kids annually in the hope of saving one life? Again, I doubt it. The reason is how low must the rate be of serious adverse effects for that trade off to make ethical sense? Probably far fewer than 1 in 1 million.
Statistical “powering” to detect such low rates of SAEs is problematic. I doubt it’s possible to test for safety in enough kids even to stand up the intended claim. I’m a risk / benefit person & ideally the same individual gets both. I don’t like most kids bearijg risk in order to benefit one person, it’s unethical.
If we’re to include “hull losses” (the entire aircraft is destroyed) then I regret to point out that a closer analogy is a 9/11 every few days or weeks (I’m saying it’s deliberate. I’m not making a mathematical point).
The “vaccines” were toxic-by-design. I find it implausible that four, independent R&D teams all alighted on toxic CoV spike protein as the immunogen in their vaccine. No. That’s collusion & malfeasance.
Then the “full development package” which is always agreed with medicines regulators. The packages are all obscenely inadequate, both in what was even studied as well as what the findings were. The clinical trials were fraudulent. The regulatory interactions were fraudulent. The manufacturing is even now fraudulent. The public data in some countries is hidden & in others deliberately misinterpreted.
This isn’t an accident. Is mass moral cowardice in the face of obvious bad practise at every level.
I’ll keep pointing this out until they intern me.
Mike
My problem is that it would seem to me that the vaccine industry was always so. The question I then ask is why did insiders not speak up before?
The vaccine was unnecessary because we have cheap, safe, effective early treatments.
https://vinuarumugham.substack.com/p/covid-19-severity-is-a-result-of?s=w
Hypothetically, let's say we need a vaccine. What would you use as the immunogen?
If I had to do it, I’d pick part of the nucleoprotein.
I’d be guided by the direction of natural immunity.
That’s been done & it turns out the vast majority (~90%) of the immune responses are directed to virus protein fragments other than spike.
My understanding is the nucleoprotein is not accessible to antibodies. So it seems vaccine-induced humoral immunity may not be effective?
Injected-vaccine-induced T cells home to the skin where they are useless. Respiratory infection induced T cells home to the lungs, nasopharynx where they protect.
So would one have to also change the route of administration (intranasal) for a nucleoprotein-based vaccine to work?
I don’t think it’s true that antibodies can’t access it.
More important is this: other than secretory IgA facing the air side in airways, antibodies are of little importance in host defence against respiratory viruses.
What really does that crucial task are T-cells. It doesn’t matter even if the immunogen is invisible, the immune system dismantles the pathogen & finds it’s preferred pieces (“epitopes”) then destroys cells displaying that marker.
Do you agree that injected-vaccine-induced T cells are no good because they home to the wrong location?
Mechanisms of T cell organotropism
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27038487/
My main problem with them is they don’t create mucosal immunity.
The next huge problem is they infect potentially large numbers of cells in extra pulmonary sites & these cells are then killed by our NKT / T-cells.
For reasons I’m too stupid to understand, these agents don’t appear to provide much of any actual protection.
Thank you Dr. Yeadon for all your work exposing vaccine safety problems.
Since you worked on asthma, thought this may be of interest:
Aeroallergen contaminated injected vaccines cause the development of asthma. New CHO cell protein contaminated biologic treatment for asthma - tezepelumab, will cause de novo autoimmune disorders.
https://vinuarumugham.substack.com/p/aeroallergen-contaminated-injected?s=w
And the general case:
Vaccines and Biologics injury table based on mechanistic evidence – Feb 2020 Covering over 125 conditions
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2582634
That’s a big issue. It’s not surprising that introduction of foreign protein into the airway can result in allergic type responses to subsequent exposure. While that’s certainly a form of immunity, it’s not the kind that’s desirable! We can observe a Type I (acute) & sometimes a Type IV (Cell mediated) allergic reaction.
I’ve often wondered how they ensure this doesn’t happen with nasal vaccines (there I go, presuming intent is to avoid harms!). Nasal flu vaccine is routinely given to English kids at school. I don’t think it’s justified. It’s extraordinarily unusual for a previously healthy child to die of flu. Does this warrant vaccination of almost 100% of kids annually in the hope of saving one life? Again, I doubt it. The reason is how low must the rate be of serious adverse effects for that trade off to make ethical sense? Probably far fewer than 1 in 1 million.
Statistical “powering” to detect such low rates of SAEs is problematic. I doubt it’s possible to test for safety in enough kids even to stand up the intended claim. I’m a risk / benefit person & ideally the same individual gets both. I don’t like most kids bearijg risk in order to benefit one person, it’s unethical.