Forwarded from Mike Yeadon
Robin,
As usual, GVB skirts the entire issue of T-cells and their breadth of antigenic virus recognition and appears to want to base his fear mongering solely on the role of antibodies.
As for the mechanism of host protection I describe - which is absolutely classical & not considered theoretical at all - how else does GVB propose host immunity works? If you’ve acquired immunity from surviving infection or having been vaccinated, but then don’t see the virus again for months, most likely you won’t have appreciable quantities of circulating antibodies. But you will have circulating T-cells capable of recognising up to several dozen virus short peptides which he’s right to point out are presented in conjunction with appropriate MHC. It’s therefore also true that some of your cells do need to become infected before your immune system recognises that the virus is present. And this is fine, because immunity doesn’t necessarily prevent SUBCLINICAL infection, but it does protect you against CLINICAL illness.
No variant so far differs sufficiently from the original virus to have ANY chance of escaping immunity conferred in the way which has been demonstrated in several peer reviewed journal articles over the last year.
If this wasn’t true, by now we’d be seeing reinfection accompanied by CLINICAL illness all over the world. And we’re not seeing that, anywhere.
Do please remember, PCR tests don’t distinguish reliably clinical illness from sub clinical infection (or downright errors in the test). So when I see news articles claiming reinfection, notice they always & only speak of the distorted language of ‘cases’, entirely the wrong term for a symptomless person with a positive PCR at high cycle threshold.
SARS-CoV-2 creates a great many variants but it’s easiest to distinguish the effect of these on resilience of host protection by reference to how DIFFERENT these variants are from the original virus. If you were to create an image of the original virus & then superimpose all the variants, one after another, it would seem as if the virus remains where it is, vibrating, as it were. Much activity, but little change in its overall structure. In every case to date, the changes are irrelevantly tiny, a handful of amino acids out of almost 10,000. This means the majority of those MHC-restricted peptides are unchanged from variant to variant. Our immune systems have absolutely no difficulty whatsoever in recognising these as a virus we’ve encountered before & this means we rapidly recruit T-cell clones, selected-for during the acquisition of immune memory, and it is these rapidly available T-cells which protect us from clinical illness by killing those small numbers of virus-infected cells. This all happens without us even becoming aware of our wonderful protective immune system.
We will not remain sub clinically infected for long enough to grow a sufficiently large virus load to become infectious. So this notional selection pressure won’t get much of a chance to operate.
In fact, think about it: when was the longest time during which the virus was able to replicate unhindered? That’s right: during the initial infection. That allowed several days to a couple of weeks before an immunocompetent host mounts a sufficient response to overwhelm the virus.
And it’s during that process that a selection pressure could operate, yet it’s out of this activity that the variants arose. Yet still, almost everyone clears the infection. So much for “variants formed under selection pressure are likely to be more dangerous & escape immunity”.
Clearly, this is precisely NOT occurring. The only variants forming are those so close-in to the original virus that they’re not escaping immunity at all.
To state again: the number of variants of SARS-CoV-2 formed is theoretically very large but, so long as they are all nearly identical to the original - which ALL of them are - they’re irrelevant from an immunological standpoint.
(I recognise that some might have different behaviours as infectious agents, but that’s a separate topic entirely).
As usual, GVB skirts the entire issue of T-cells and their breadth of antigenic virus recognition and appears to want to base his fear mongering solely on the role of antibodies.
As for the mechanism of host protection I describe - which is absolutely classical & not considered theoretical at all - how else does GVB propose host immunity works? If you’ve acquired immunity from surviving infection or having been vaccinated, but then don’t see the virus again for months, most likely you won’t have appreciable quantities of circulating antibodies. But you will have circulating T-cells capable of recognising up to several dozen virus short peptides which he’s right to point out are presented in conjunction with appropriate MHC. It’s therefore also true that some of your cells do need to become infected before your immune system recognises that the virus is present. And this is fine, because immunity doesn’t necessarily prevent SUBCLINICAL infection, but it does protect you against CLINICAL illness.
No variant so far differs sufficiently from the original virus to have ANY chance of escaping immunity conferred in the way which has been demonstrated in several peer reviewed journal articles over the last year.
If this wasn’t true, by now we’d be seeing reinfection accompanied by CLINICAL illness all over the world. And we’re not seeing that, anywhere.
Do please remember, PCR tests don’t distinguish reliably clinical illness from sub clinical infection (or downright errors in the test). So when I see news articles claiming reinfection, notice they always & only speak of the distorted language of ‘cases’, entirely the wrong term for a symptomless person with a positive PCR at high cycle threshold.
SARS-CoV-2 creates a great many variants but it’s easiest to distinguish the effect of these on resilience of host protection by reference to how DIFFERENT these variants are from the original virus. If you were to create an image of the original virus & then superimpose all the variants, one after another, it would seem as if the virus remains where it is, vibrating, as it were. Much activity, but little change in its overall structure. In every case to date, the changes are irrelevantly tiny, a handful of amino acids out of almost 10,000. This means the majority of those MHC-restricted peptides are unchanged from variant to variant. Our immune systems have absolutely no difficulty whatsoever in recognising these as a virus we’ve encountered before & this means we rapidly recruit T-cell clones, selected-for during the acquisition of immune memory, and it is these rapidly available T-cells which protect us from clinical illness by killing those small numbers of virus-infected cells. This all happens without us even becoming aware of our wonderful protective immune system.
We will not remain sub clinically infected for long enough to grow a sufficiently large virus load to become infectious. So this notional selection pressure won’t get much of a chance to operate.
In fact, think about it: when was the longest time during which the virus was able to replicate unhindered? That’s right: during the initial infection. That allowed several days to a couple of weeks before an immunocompetent host mounts a sufficient response to overwhelm the virus.
And it’s during that process that a selection pressure could operate, yet it’s out of this activity that the variants arose. Yet still, almost everyone clears the infection. So much for “variants formed under selection pressure are likely to be more dangerous & escape immunity”.
Clearly, this is precisely NOT occurring. The only variants forming are those so close-in to the original virus that they’re not escaping immunity at all.
To state again: the number of variants of SARS-CoV-2 formed is theoretically very large but, so long as they are all nearly identical to the original - which ALL of them are - they’re irrelevant from an immunological standpoint.
(I recognise that some might have different behaviours as infectious agents, but that’s a separate topic entirely).
Forwarded from Mike Yeadon
I’d be interested in GVB’s response to my characterisation so far, because I genuinely don’t understand his narrative at all & I have tried, having listened to two of his long form interviews.
Is he saying that the variants of SARS-CoV-2 are much more different from the original sequence than I’m relating? If yes, please provide a link to this. I’m not seeing any such larger changes in the literature.
Or, is he saying that a change as tiny as I’m talking about (0.3% or so in the primary sequence) is enough to no longer be recognised as a pathogen we’ve seen before? If so, perhaps he’d like to comment on how that could be & in particular, I’d be very interested in his thoughts on these two papers?
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.26.115832v1
This paper by Le Bert et al (2020) shows that those who recovered from infection with SARS in 2003 still retain good T-cell immune recognition 17y later AND also recognise SARS-CoV-2, which they’d NOT encountered before, Now, that’s cross protection & these two viruses differ by more than 20%. Rather destroys any argument that the tiny extent of drift of SARS-CoV-2 requires the planetary obsession of which GVB is part, does it not?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266637912100015X
This paper by Tarke et al (2021) shows that a large number of T-cell epitopes are selected & form part of the repertoire in immunity (there’s another set of smaller, overlapping but non-identical set of epitopes against which antibodies are raised). The authors themselves conclude that their findings remove concern that small changes in the virus, such as we’ve seen so far, will enable immune escape.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.27.433180v1
The same group also showed that subjects who’d survived infection by SARS-COV-2 or had been vaccinated ALL recognised ALL the variants which the investigators had available.
By the way, I’d be be interested in his reactions to this in depth review on the clinical efficacy of ivermectin. Its been subject to ruthless censorship for at least SIX MONTHS, resulting in countless avoidable deaths. I argue that if it, along with the other useful treatments, (which have been beautifully summarised in a protocol for targeted, sequential, multi drug treatment of covid19, which Dr Peter McCullough & others have drafted & posted on the website of the American Association of Physicians & Surgeons), were more widely appreciated & APPLIED in clinical practise, we could control covid19 much better than we do now, and CANCEL the Emergency Use Authorisations for all the experimental, gene-based, spike protein inducing ‘vaccines’. Does GVB agree, or is he interested only in peddling further, also experimental vaccines?
Ivermectin review:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/pdf/ajt-28-e299.pdf
McCullough et al multi drug treatment of covid19:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.28.21250706v1.full
And also:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33387997/
Bottom line for me is that the extent of variation in SARS-COV-2 simply isn’t concerning. There’s no hint of immune escape nor would it be expected, based on both theoretically & empirically.
If the picture changes, so too will my view.
This means THERES NO JUSTIFICATION WHATSOEVER FOR VACCINES AGAINST VARIANTS!!
Anyone know what’s in those “3rd jab vials”?
I’m often asked “So why do we require new vaccines against influenza each year?”
This is because the way flu changes it’s structure is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the slow, antigenic drift we observe in SARS-COV-2.
Instead, flu can undergo reassortment or antigenic SHIFT, exchanging whole sections of genetic information. In terms of the movement analogy, for flu, it’s as if it has its ‘seven league boots on’. It can combine these methods & in a year, evolve so much that, when it cones round again in the next season, it can actually present to our immune systems as if it was a new pathogen entirely. It doesn’t always do this and has been reasonably stable in recent years.
Is he saying that the variants of SARS-CoV-2 are much more different from the original sequence than I’m relating? If yes, please provide a link to this. I’m not seeing any such larger changes in the literature.
Or, is he saying that a change as tiny as I’m talking about (0.3% or so in the primary sequence) is enough to no longer be recognised as a pathogen we’ve seen before? If so, perhaps he’d like to comment on how that could be & in particular, I’d be very interested in his thoughts on these two papers?
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.26.115832v1
This paper by Le Bert et al (2020) shows that those who recovered from infection with SARS in 2003 still retain good T-cell immune recognition 17y later AND also recognise SARS-CoV-2, which they’d NOT encountered before, Now, that’s cross protection & these two viruses differ by more than 20%. Rather destroys any argument that the tiny extent of drift of SARS-CoV-2 requires the planetary obsession of which GVB is part, does it not?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266637912100015X
This paper by Tarke et al (2021) shows that a large number of T-cell epitopes are selected & form part of the repertoire in immunity (there’s another set of smaller, overlapping but non-identical set of epitopes against which antibodies are raised). The authors themselves conclude that their findings remove concern that small changes in the virus, such as we’ve seen so far, will enable immune escape.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.27.433180v1
The same group also showed that subjects who’d survived infection by SARS-COV-2 or had been vaccinated ALL recognised ALL the variants which the investigators had available.
By the way, I’d be be interested in his reactions to this in depth review on the clinical efficacy of ivermectin. Its been subject to ruthless censorship for at least SIX MONTHS, resulting in countless avoidable deaths. I argue that if it, along with the other useful treatments, (which have been beautifully summarised in a protocol for targeted, sequential, multi drug treatment of covid19, which Dr Peter McCullough & others have drafted & posted on the website of the American Association of Physicians & Surgeons), were more widely appreciated & APPLIED in clinical practise, we could control covid19 much better than we do now, and CANCEL the Emergency Use Authorisations for all the experimental, gene-based, spike protein inducing ‘vaccines’. Does GVB agree, or is he interested only in peddling further, also experimental vaccines?
Ivermectin review:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/pdf/ajt-28-e299.pdf
McCullough et al multi drug treatment of covid19:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.28.21250706v1.full
And also:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33387997/
Bottom line for me is that the extent of variation in SARS-COV-2 simply isn’t concerning. There’s no hint of immune escape nor would it be expected, based on both theoretically & empirically.
If the picture changes, so too will my view.
This means THERES NO JUSTIFICATION WHATSOEVER FOR VACCINES AGAINST VARIANTS!!
Anyone know what’s in those “3rd jab vials”?
I’m often asked “So why do we require new vaccines against influenza each year?”
This is because the way flu changes it’s structure is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the slow, antigenic drift we observe in SARS-COV-2.
Instead, flu can undergo reassortment or antigenic SHIFT, exchanging whole sections of genetic information. In terms of the movement analogy, for flu, it’s as if it has its ‘seven league boots on’. It can combine these methods & in a year, evolve so much that, when it cones round again in the next season, it can actually present to our immune systems as if it was a new pathogen entirely. It doesn’t always do this and has been reasonably stable in recent years.
bioRxiv
Different pattern of pre-existing SARS-COV-2 specific T cell immunity in SARS-recovered and uninfected individuals
Memory T cells induced by previous infections can influence the course of new viral infections. Little is known about the pattern of SARS-CoV-2 specific pre-existing memory T cells in human. Here, we first studied T cell responses to structural (nucleocapsid…
"Just look at this article, by an anonymous author, claiming to “debunk common myths.
Just like governments main narrative points, with one, trivial exception, it is ALL LIES.
Please allow me to dismantle their PROPAGANDA;
1. ‘Only anti bacterial soap will kill the virus’.
I don’t understand what their point is here.
Fair to say that the transmission route is opaque.
I don’t recall any published literature, demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt, what routes of infection have been proven. But manual contact, then face touching, is a frequently seen path, together with aerosols (again, though, this latter is assumed rather than demonstrated.
For the manual contact route to be important, it would be expected to easy to show presence of the virus. Does anyone and psoers proving that?
For the aerosol route to be important, surely we should easily detect it on air filters in hospital wards filled with ill, symptomatic patients with covid19. Last time I checked, I was surprised not to find papers with these findings. Can anyone help me with a couple of unequivocal findings.
2. Young people aren’t at risk of getting Covid-19.
Well, this is a straw man, nobody thinks this. What they think is that healthy young people don’t get ILL with this virus. In the main, this is true. Virtually no such people have even died ‘with covid19’, let alone of it.
3. It’s less dangerous than the flu.
For those under 70y & lacking serious chronic illnesses, this is true. They’re lying again, trying to pressure young people to accept vaccination that they don’t need.
4. Masks don’t keep you safer.
ANOTHER LIE! There is no literature showing that masks clearly reduce respiratory virus transmission. Throw your masks in the bin. They’re tools to keep you anxious only.
5. Vitamin C can help you.
Again, isn’t this another straw man? I don’t recall this ‘therapeutic’ being commonly proposed. Perhaps they’re trying to persuade you that “there is nothing but vaccination” to protect you, whereas numerous treatments do beneficially alter outlines, including Vit D, HCQ, Ivermectin, steroids, zinc, certain antibiotics.
What an awful article."
Just like governments main narrative points, with one, trivial exception, it is ALL LIES.
Please allow me to dismantle their PROPAGANDA;
1. ‘Only anti bacterial soap will kill the virus’.
I don’t understand what their point is here.
Fair to say that the transmission route is opaque.
I don’t recall any published literature, demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt, what routes of infection have been proven. But manual contact, then face touching, is a frequently seen path, together with aerosols (again, though, this latter is assumed rather than demonstrated.
For the manual contact route to be important, it would be expected to easy to show presence of the virus. Does anyone and psoers proving that?
For the aerosol route to be important, surely we should easily detect it on air filters in hospital wards filled with ill, symptomatic patients with covid19. Last time I checked, I was surprised not to find papers with these findings. Can anyone help me with a couple of unequivocal findings.
2. Young people aren’t at risk of getting Covid-19.
Well, this is a straw man, nobody thinks this. What they think is that healthy young people don’t get ILL with this virus. In the main, this is true. Virtually no such people have even died ‘with covid19’, let alone of it.
3. It’s less dangerous than the flu.
For those under 70y & lacking serious chronic illnesses, this is true. They’re lying again, trying to pressure young people to accept vaccination that they don’t need.
4. Masks don’t keep you safer.
ANOTHER LIE! There is no literature showing that masks clearly reduce respiratory virus transmission. Throw your masks in the bin. They’re tools to keep you anxious only.
5. Vitamin C can help you.
Again, isn’t this another straw man? I don’t recall this ‘therapeutic’ being commonly proposed. Perhaps they’re trying to persuade you that “there is nothing but vaccination” to protect you, whereas numerous treatments do beneficially alter outlines, including Vit D, HCQ, Ivermectin, steroids, zinc, certain antibiotics.
What an awful article."
Forwarded from 👥 UNITED NON COMPLIANCE 🚫
Vitamin C will help: https://c19vitaminc.com/
Forwarded from 👥 UNITED NON COMPLIANCE 🚫
As for aerosols, it is actually age and body mass index related, the older the age the more aerosols spread:
"We note that all volunteers of under 26 years of age and all subjects under 22 BMI [body mass index] were low spreaders of exhaled bioaerosol."
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/8/e2021830118.long
"We note that all volunteers of under 26 years of age and all subjects under 22 BMI [body mass index] were low spreaders of exhaled bioaerosol."
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/8/e2021830118.long
PNAS
Exhaled aerosol increases with COVID-19 infection, age, and obesity
Superspreading events have distinguished the COVID-19 pandemic from the early outbreak of the disease. Our studies of exhaled aerosol suggest that a critical factor in these and other transmission events is the propensity of certain individuals to exhale…
I received many emails from a Reuters journalist asking me to talk about Mike Yeadon. I did not say one word. It is now clear why. Read the whole thread: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1393659818708144129.html
"Pfizer board member James C Smith was CEO of Thomson Reuters Corporation until 2020, and is currently chairman of the Thomson Reuters Foundation. Reuters has failed to disclose this conflict of interest in all of their very favorable coverage of Pfizer & their vaccine. >>>
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1393659818708144129.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1393659818708144129.html
Threadreaderapp
Thread by @pc_432 on Thread Reader App
@pc_432: Pfizer board member James C Smith was CEO of Thomson Reuters Corporation until 2020, and is currently chairman of the Thomson Reuters Foundation. Reuters has failed to disclose this conflict of interest in a...…
Forwarded from Mike Yeadon
Robin,
Aminolipids are apparently required to dose animals & humans with mRNA sequences & have them enter tissues & cells, which is a minimum requirement in order to have any chance to express some biological effects.
Yet certain aminolipids were also recognised as being too toxic for repeated injections. Presumably “too toxic” even in human illnesses like cancer?
If so, then even further away from safe to administer to billions of people at least twice (& potentially a great deal more often than just twice).
I’ve just stumbled across this paper in Cell, a prestigious journal, from 2018.
Note how close to the emergency use authorisation of a “vaccine” based in similar technology.
The frightening quote in the abstract:
“ This effort has resulted in the first example of the ability to safely repeat dose mRNA-containing lipid nanoparticles in non-human primate at therapeutically relevant levels.“
So, first time ever in 2018?
Mike
Aminolipids are apparently required to dose animals & humans with mRNA sequences & have them enter tissues & cells, which is a minimum requirement in order to have any chance to express some biological effects.
Yet certain aminolipids were also recognised as being too toxic for repeated injections. Presumably “too toxic” even in human illnesses like cancer?
If so, then even further away from safe to administer to billions of people at least twice (& potentially a great deal more often than just twice).
I’ve just stumbled across this paper in Cell, a prestigious journal, from 2018.
Note how close to the emergency use authorisation of a “vaccine” based in similar technology.
The frightening quote in the abstract:
“ This effort has resulted in the first example of the ability to safely repeat dose mRNA-containing lipid nanoparticles in non-human primate at therapeutically relevant levels.“
So, first time ever in 2018?
Mike
At least on this channel and group, Everybody Knows..
"Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
Everybody knows that the captain lied
Everybody got this broken feeling
Like their father or their dog just died
And everybody knows that the Plague is coming
Everybody knows that it's moving fast
Everybody knows that the naked man and woman
Are just a shining artifact of the past
Everybody knows the scene is dead
But there's gonna be a meter on your bed
That will disclose
What everybody knows"
Leonard Cohen
https://youtu.be/mnfoUJxI2dM
"Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
Everybody knows that the captain lied
Everybody got this broken feeling
Like their father or their dog just died
And everybody knows that the Plague is coming
Everybody knows that it's moving fast
Everybody knows that the naked man and woman
Are just a shining artifact of the past
Everybody knows the scene is dead
But there's gonna be a meter on your bed
That will disclose
What everybody knows"
Leonard Cohen
https://youtu.be/mnfoUJxI2dM
Someone tried to burn down the Christian pastor's house in Canada, Artur Pawlowski, who refused to cancel mass during the lockdowns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q40f6-1GsxQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q40f6-1GsxQ
Forwarded from Australian Vaccination-risks Network (Meryl Dorey)
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
This rates in the top 5 most important clips from the entire scamdemic so far. r McCullough drops so many truth bombs here - please share this after watching it.
I'm not an "anti-lockdown activist". I am simply pro-normal physical daily life. And sovereignty over one's own body like we always had. Strange that wanting the old normal life back is now considered as some kind of extremely radical revolutionary position..
Forwarded from Eh'den
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Here is the full interview of Tucker Carlson with Dr. Peter McCullough.
PLEASE - SHARE IT WITH EVERYONE YOU KNOW !!!
PLEASE - SHARE IT WITH EVERYONE YOU KNOW !!!
They just want to save us folks..
"Big pharma executives mocked 'pillbillies' in emails"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9586551/Big-pharma-executives-mocked-pillbillies-emails.html
"Big pharma executives mocked 'pillbillies' in emails"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9586551/Big-pharma-executives-mocked-pillbillies-emails.html
Mail Online
Big pharma executives 'cruelly mocked opioid addicts who got hooked on to painkillers as PILLBILLIES', emails show
Top officials at AmerisourceBergen sent emails disparaging those who have gotten hooked off of their products, court documents show. It is being sued by West Virginia officials.