When it comes to vaccination, the Biden administration is doing it wrong
Dr. Robert Malone probably knows more about mRNA vaccines than most people, for he invented them when he worked at the Salk Institute, back in 1988. He’s teamed with Peter Navarro, a former Trump White House official, to write a strong challenge to the way the Biden administration is approaching the whole vaccine issue.
The editorial isn’t long, nor is it complicated, but it’s packed with important information about the vaccine, available treatments for COVID, and the Biden administration’s bad, and harmful, policy decisions. According to Malone and Navarro, there are four fundamental errors underlying the Biden approach to COVID vaccines.
First, they challenge the belief that the vaccines can eradicate COVID as the vaccines once did smallpox or polio. Without even looking at the editorial most of us can see the problem with that assumption. Polio is not wiped out but is a scourge in Africa and the Middle East. Still, we keep it away from here because the polio vaccination prevents the disease. The same is true for smallpox. It appeared in periodic outbreaks around the world and could be stopped by aggressively using vaccines that prevent the disease.
As we’ve learned the COVID vaccine doesn’t prevent anything. Indeed, judging by what’s going on in Israel and Australia, it may make people more vulnerable to infection (which was always a risk with mRNA vaccines against a coronavirus, which constantly mutates). Right now, at best, the vaccination can lessen symptoms, which is nothing to sneeze at.
Malone and Navarro have this to say about that first flawed assumption:
However, the virus is now so deeply embedded in the world population that, unlike polio and smallpox, eradication is unachievable. SARS-CoV-2 and its myriad mutations will likely continually circulate, much like the common cold and influenza.
The second flawed assumption, which I touched upon above, is that the vaccine, unlike those for polio or smallpox, doesn’t actually vaccinate. As the editorial says, “our currently available vaccines are quite ‘leaky.’” They lessen symptoms but do nothing to stop the virus’s spread.
And then we get to the really big problems. The first is the flawed assumption “that the vaccines are safe.” In fact, there are a lot of rare, but very serious side effects:
Known side effects include serious cardiac and thrombotic conditions, menstrual cycle disruptions, Bell’s Palsy, Guillain Barre syndrome, and anaphylaxis.
Down the line, there’s the possibility of long-term problems such as autoimmune conditions, disease enhancement, or fertility problems. We really don’t know because the short timeline from development to injection precluded important longitudinal studies.
And the fourth and final big problem is the fact that the vaccine works for 180 days and then needs endless boosters. This, says the authors, creates “an arms race with the virus.” Normally, to survive, viruses do exactly what COVID is doing with the Delta strain: they become more infectious but less deadly. (Ebola, for example, is so deadly that it cannot maintain a permanent presence among human hosts.)
The problem with mass vaccination for a mutating coronavirus is the same problem you get when doctors prescribe antibiotics too promiscuously. Thus, just as bacteria become antibiotic resistant, which could plummet us into a premodern world in which people die from mosquito bites (as the poet Rupert Brooks did at Gallipoli), mass vaccination may produce vaccine resistant mutant coronaviruses:
Science tells us here that today’s vaccines, which use novel gene therapy technologies, generate powerful antigens that direct the immune system to attack specific components of the virus. Thus, when the virus infects a person with a “leaky” vaccination, the viral progeny will be selected to escape or resist the effects of the vaccine.
If the entire population has been trained via a universal vaccination strategy to have the same basic immune response, then once a viral escape mutant is selected, it will rapidly spread through the entire population – whether vaccinated or not.
A far more optimal strategy is to vaccinate only the most vulnerable. This will limit the amount of vaccine-resistant mutations and thereby slow, if not halt, the current vaccine arms race.
Given all these concerns, we should be treated those who are ill with Ivermectin and the Hydroxychloroquine cocktail and reserving the vaccine for the vulnerable (just as we reserve annual flu shots for older folks).
I’ve just skimmed the editorial’s surface. I urge you to read the whole thing. It’s illuminating.