"Saving grandma" was a radical lie
What vaccinating the not-at-risk really did was squander the ability of the vaccines to protect grandma
Nice new article on T cell cross-immunity to Covid that is conferred by previous exposure to other coronaviruses, confirmed now not just by T cell reactivity but by resistance to infection.
A very substantial level of some kind of pre-existing immunity always had to be the reason why from right from the start Covid infection waves always turned down quickly instead of blasting off into exponential growth until they burned through entire populations, as Neil Ferguson the other idiots at Imperial College had predicted.
What makes them idiots (or worse) is that they pretended they didn't get it, and kept predicting the same pandemic spread that would occur if there was no pre-existing immunity. The dramatic failure of their predictions proved there had to be very substantial pre-existing immunity and they just kept pretending not to comprehend this.
The new research is also from Imperial, and while it provides some confirmation of what we already knew had to be the case, it suffers from another gratuitous and irrational bout of Imperial College Disease: turning a blatant blind eye to obvious truth in order to continue to support scientifically egregious political narratives.
I wrote a comment, they censored me, and so here we are: my first Substack post.
I've been using longish comments as a kind of diary of my thoughts-of-the-day and have been meaning for a while to start posting some of them on my own site. They would just get me banned from my Google-hosted (and now mostly dormant) Error Theory blog, but Substack should do nicely.
The authors clearly understand the social cost of vaccination with a leaky narrow-spectrum (spike-only) vaccine: that it drives the evolution of vaccine-resistant virus strains. As they explain:
The spike protein is under intense immune pressure from vaccine-induced antibody which drives evolution of vaccine escape mutants.
Thus they must understand the social harm that results from over-vaccination (from vaccinating large segments of the population, such as healthy young people, who are at no significant risk from Covid) with this kind of leaky vaccine. Not only does over-vaccination needlessly impress many millions of additional bodies into the business of evolving vaccine resistant virus strains, but when so much of the population has the same vax-induced antibodies it is inevitable that these resistant strains will become dominant.
(On the issue of dominance, see Geert Vanden Bossche, who explains in the video here. At 33:00 Dr. Malone's introduces Bossche's thesis, at 34:30 Bossche gives his own introduction, then at 36:00 he starts delving into the evolutionary dynamics.)
In contrast, if we only urged the most vulnerable to get vaccinated and then focused on stopping transmission to and from this vaccinated group then the resistant strains would still pop up but they could be kept from becoming dominant, allowing the efficacy of the vaccines to be preserved.
In economic terms (my background), vaccine efficacy is a scarce resource that should have been husbanded and reserved for the most needy. Instead we squandered it on people who didn't need it at all and didn't even want to take it but were forced to if they wanted to go to college, keep their jobs, not get purged from the military, etcetera.
This coercion to take the radically experimental mRNA vaccines (in violation of the Nuremberg Code against forced participation in medical experiments) was rationalized on the grounds that young people, by taking a vaccine that was all risk and no benefit for them, would be "saving grandma." But this was a radical lie. What vaccinating the not-at-risk really did was squander the ability of the vaccines to protect grandma.
The authors of the Imperical College paper must understand this, yet even though the subject of their paper is the external costs of vaccination they still make a strong pitch for people to get vaccinated with no consideration of their risk profile, as if there is social benefit to people taking the vaccines whether or not they need it:
While this is an important discovery, it is only one form of protection, and I would stress that no one should rely on this alone. Instead, the best way to protect yourself against COVID-19 is to be fully vaccinated, including getting your booster dose.
First of all, there is nothing "best" about the vaccines for anybody at this point. They lost their ability to block infection and transmission by last July (Delta), and now pretty much completely miss the target. See for instance the recent preprint research article, "Considerable escape of SARS-CoV-2 variant Omicron to antibody neutralization."
As summarized by Reuters:
Both teams also found that even in vaccine recipients who received a booster dose, and in survivors who received vaccines, antibodies had substantially diminished neutralizing power. In these individuals, the European group said, neutralizing antibody levels were 5 to 31 times lower against Omicron than against Delta.
Economics has something to say here too. The immune system has limited resources. Forcing those limited resources to produce vast numbers of mis-targeted antibodies is obviously a very bad idea. Here's an economist's prediction: the booster train can't help but lead to depleted immune systems that cannot respond effectively to anything.
Except it isn't really a prediction. It's already happening. And that's before accounting the injuries that the vaccines inflict on other parts of the bodies of the vaccinated: the heart problems, the strokes, the clotting, and the not yet known long-term risks (like the still near-complete absence of reproductive safety data).
It would be nice if, on the subject of not relying on “only one form of protection,” Imperial College could spare a word for the availability of safe, effective, early-treatment protocols, which would be a veritable first glass of water for those who are thirsting in the censored-media desert. But no, their only glass of water is for those already drowning under bad vaccine advice.
At the least, doctors and researchers need to stop going along with the evil pretense that vaccination protects other people when they know full well that the social externalities are negative, not positive.
Thanks for reading,