Views: 86
We live in an age where the Hippocratic oath is not operational. One of the weapons doctors can use to help do no harm in this age is educate themselves about treatments using concepts that are understandable, to communicate the concepts behind treatments in very simple terms so that the average person can understand them. I have tried to do this with my patients so they can actually understand when a treatment is of little benefit or worse, hurtful. This way there is no hiding behind authorities, policies, marketing, technical terms, fancy names, stock quotes or statistics. Statistics is a sometimes abused field where a link between nonsense and rubbish can be made to look impressive. Things have to make sense, common sense, and in the field of health this means associations and questions have to have biological plausibility.
The following is on the nature and complications of viruses and vaccines and presents well-know concepts followed by questions that are logical, based on the underlying understanding. An average person should be able to come up with the questions. There are no links, because the concepts are well established and can be easily searched. The questions put the burden for answers on the vaccine industry, not me, nor the public. They are natural questions that arise from the understanding of the process. The simple concepts are not an invitation for attack by experts in the field. The burden of teaching concepts for the common person falls also on the industry. Remember: biological plausibility.
Viruses are non-living infecting agents that come “alive” only in our cells. In our cells, the viruses reproduce the proteins to make up the virus itself which then can be released to infect other cells. The damage is done when our immune system goes after the cells infected resulting in inflammation. This damage can be mild or can kill a person.
Antibodies are binding proteins we generate in response to the infection that can trap the virus and hold them for breakdown by our bodies. They are produced by the initial infection and saved for the next infection. They are our defense but they also bring along an inflammation response.
Vaccines are pieces of viruses we introduce to stimulate the production of antibodies, to protect us from future infections. So when we get infected, we are ready this time. The antibodies bind and our bodies clean up (with inflammation as a result). The infection is gone. Or is it? Remember we said that virus are non-living proteins. In the case of a bacterial infection, antibodies will bind and the bacteria are killed, along with the other treatments we use for bacterial infections. Bacteria are living organisms, now dead. Gone. The proteins and protein pieces that make up a virus, as well as those protein pieces that come from vaccines, may linger within or as part of our cells even after the infection and inflammation have subsided.
The vaccines are also grown in animal cells, introducing virus and host proteins that come from whatever species was used to develop the vaccine. The antibodies that are generated from these other proteins are never talked about. So along with the viruses that could linger, the antibodies we generate, with all the potentially cross-reactivity with our own tissue, are always available from that point on. Both are like a code that linger for the next trigger.
QUESTIONS #1: Since these proteins could linger in different tissues in our bodies after an infection or after a vaccine, can’t they resurface at some point? Can the antibodies that have been generated actually attack our cells even when there is no threat? Could this be a cause of the so called auto-immune and chronic inflammatory diseases that some people get? There are multiple diseases people can get after a viral infection (e.g. acute disseminated myelitis). Why then should we not expect the same after vaccines? If Chicken pox can result in a reactivation decades later (shingles-note that this is a different and potentially more severe disease) why can’t a vaccine? If a person can generate antibodies to a kidney transplant, why wouldn’t they generate antibodies to a vaccine’s accessory proteins introduced from their development using human and other mammalian cell lines? Could repeated vaccines, especially those related to each other or a prior related viral infection burden the immune system of those who are not sick? Do you think these are reasons enough that we should limit the number of related vaccines? This brings up a strange concept that has been introduced into our culture that related vaccines need to be taken more than once in a lifetime. Like the yearly flu shot. More on this at the end.
One of the defenses viruses have against our immune system is that they can mutate, or change protein codes to evade the antibodies we have made to eliminate them. RNA viruses, such as H1N1 (the flu) or coronaviruses generally have high mutation rates compared to DNA viruses. One of the ways viruses can change is via genome recombination when there are at least two viral genomes present in the host cell. Genetic recombination can be thought of as an exchange of traits between two viruses. This is similar to how a baby gets characteristics from both father and mother in their genetic code. Genetic recombination also can occur between viruses and vaccines, which are the weakened versions of the virus. Even without genetic recombination, continually treating something that is never completely eliminated is a know mechanism for break-through mutations.
QUESTIONS #2: Since genetic recombination can occur between viruses and vaccines, effectively producing a mutation, could the use of repeated related vaccinations increase the mutation rate in humans so that we actual become incubators for mutations? Could this be another reason we should limit the number of related vaccines?
QUESTION #3: Given certain viruses, like COVID-19, have no or mild symptoms in the majority of people to begin with, and have pharmaceutical cures, is a vaccine even worth it, let alone a mandatory vaccine for all, given that
- Some inflammation can be started by the vaccine itself?
- There is a risk of disturbing the peace to cause antibodies to attack the host?
- The specific immune response may distract and even burden the body from other needed defenses?
- There is a risk of mutations?
Once upon a time vaccines were designed to be done deals [1]. Get them once and you are protected for life, maybe with a booster or two. How we got to the point of accepting a yearly vaccine, I am not sure of. But to make the absurdity of the notion hit home, consider how one day appendectomies could be limited to just snipping off the end of the appendix so that we could have yearly appendectomies, for the rest of our lives. Providing sustainable income for the health industry for years to come. Not the best analogy but I’m sure you can get the point. Welcome to the world without the Hippocratic oath.
[1] Although the vaccine industry staked its proofs in the early 20th Century, their “proofs” never corrected for the emergence and coming of age of general public hygiene and increased medical and surgical knowledge , which could have accounted for much of the improved health of the public.
Update-4/17/21. This “side effect” of introducing foreign proteins or codes in our body is much more explicit in the new generation of so-called mRNA “vaccines”.
Update-2/15/25. A distilled message from this post is that the concept of using inflammation to prevent inflammation is fundamentally flawed. As it would be ridiculous to propose that small sins would help give us immunity against bigger sins (in fact it is quite the opposite).
