I am an accountant, not a physician or a scientist, and therefore cannot even begin to understand the complex science the brilliant Dr. Malone outlines in this post.
As an accountant, however, I do understand one thing: BIG PHARMA AND THEIR CAPTURED GOVT BUDDIES PROFITED IMMENSELY FROM PEDDLING AND MANDATING THESE POTENTIALLY HARMFUL REPEATED "BOOSTERS".
“children and healthy young adults, groups at minimal risk of severe disease but central to viral spread” I am convinced that this fear of children as vector was at the heart of many policy mistakes, including the closing of schools.
Early in the pandemic, the CDC issued a press release that overstated pediatric deaths by a factor of 100. As if 0.001 percent was the same as 0.001. The CDC recognized the error but made the correction without publicity.
Even at its worst, covid's lethality to children was roughly equal to that from a bad year of seasonal influenza. -- even before covid vaccines were available to kids. Naturally, the mistake fueled the fears of covid to children and young adults, adding to your point here.
Before debating the immunological consequences of repeated vaccination, we must ask whether the premise of a mass vaccination campaign was ever justified.
A response designed for a severe population-level threat was imposed on a disease signal largely generated by PCR testing and overwhelmingly associated with mild or asymptomatic illness.
If the mass vaccination program itself was unjustified, then any discussion about how it could have been better designed or optimised is beside the point.
The main scandal remains to be exposed: how an unjustified mass vaccination program was pressed upon the public under coercion and mandates, with the collaboration of the medical profession.
I understand that was your task, and you’ve clearly focused on it.
My point is the more fundamental one that still hasn’t been addressed - whether a mass vaccination campaign was ever justified in the first place, particularly given the nature of ‘the threat’ and the means by which compliance was secured: coercion and mandates. Not resolving this fundamental question misses the larger ethical failure.
I agree. Certainly the covid vaccine itself can be studied and improved etc. Bottom line, we need continued focus on mass vaccination program, particularly since there were other effective, inexpensive treatments available at the time.
This information is necessary for people trained in all schools of immunology, virology and vaccinology. And even then I'll bet you'll get all sorts of push back from certain corners of thought, and discussion can be helpful from educated and knowledgeable scientists and doctors.
From personal experience at 16, having almost died from an allergic reaction (trachea swelling and huge purple splotches and hives) the doctors testing me for allergens forgot to ask me how I was feeling emotionally. My nervous system was a mess. I discovered I could bring on an allergy attack and make one go away as well, once I figured out the main cause. When I was in the process of buying a house, and opening a new business, I started to feel my lip swelling. A clear sign of distress in my body. I leaned back in the shampoo bowl at work and did a deep relaxation with slow breathing, and it stopped. There has been a missing link in health assesement from what I see. Spiritual, mental and emotional health are seldom tied together with physical health. This is another whole topic, of course.
When I read" a similar problem" I questioned the cause. Mine was extreme with swollen eyes, lips and trachea as well as huge swollen purple splotches. Sounds pretty different to me. I got a shot of adrenaline in the doctors office so I could graduate, that just about put me out. Benadryl didn't do it either except I could sell it on the street...
That is a LOT of information and somewhat confusing to a "lay" person like myself. I am most concerned that we learned something from this manmade "pandemic" and prevent making the same mistakes in the future. It is most important that the medical field STAY AWAY from the political side, and MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON WHAT IS BEST FOR MANKIND, rather than using it as a means to control people in a certain political or profitable way. May God Bless you and your fellow scientist and hopefully can make a real difference for the future.
It seems apparent that vaccinating children and young teens or even young adults is a bad idea, in spite of the misguided advice of the AAP. The question about vaccinating adults with mRNA pseudo uridine Covid vaccines is whether there has been a significant increase in cancers in the vaccinated adult population. This certainly seems to be the case when looking at melanoma, as reported by Angus Dagleish, and highlighted on the program on YouTube with John Campbell. What is a good reference on cancer incidence related to these vaccines? This was certainly a comprehensive and mind-boggling presentation of immunology science, which would not b comprehended by the general public and most physicians who are not immunologists. It would be great if the ACIP generated a simple age correlated recommendation for these vaccines, specifically looking at which adult population should not ever get another one of them. I still have a sign in my exam room, which says “don’t boost.”
I more than appreciate the good Doctor's credentials, knowledge, research and insight. Particularly that he shares that insight with us. I am relegated to the anecdotal world and more than skeptical of the captured healthcare industry's and media's " coincidence is not causation". The injection protocol for these experimental COVID toxins was two injections, separated by a two week waiting period and followed by another two week waiting period before a patient/victim was classified as "fully vaccinated". Add to that one month period of being injected, yet not fully vaccinated, the injection availability and the patient/victim's personal availability. That establishes the time period of being injected, but not yet fully "vaccinated" between five weeks to two months. Assuming the average of six weeks, all adverse reactions experienced for that six weeks were coded to COVID or anything other than adverse reactions, because the patient/victim was not yet fully vaccinated. A few more coincidences; unprecented blood clots encountered by coroners and embalmers, pinnacles of human health dropping on courts and fields of play, no repurposed drugs allowed, death by Remdesivir and or respirator, the impossible disappearance of historically reliable influenza diagnoses', a survival detrimental hospital treatment protocol supported by generous Government bonuses, the denial of natural immunity and punitive measures implemented to extort society into injecting. That may not all be science, but impossible to ignore.
Manipulation and miss direction to validate the mRNA injections was extensive and should be a criminal investigation. I wonder how many research studies are based on the phony numbers.
Dear Dr. Malone. Your discussion about how the mRNA was handled and your deep dive analysis about how the mRNA interacts with the immune system
is above my pay grade as well as most of your readers. From a macro level this is what I see. First, the recognition that the mRNA injections should never have been released begs the question: Why were they released when the safety of the mRNA injections were never validated? Who is responsible? You also argue that there is a valid use for mRNA. How can that be if the targeted cells are selected randomly when injected? The lie was that they only impacted muscle cells. Then, the next question is: If the mRNA reprograms cellular function to create a foreign substance to stimulate the immune system response, how do we know it will not interfere with normal biological functions? Obviously, that occurred. In fact, the US excessive deaths in 2021 point to the increased fatalities from the injection. In round numbers, they were 1.1 million in 2021 versus 550, 000 in 2020. If the mRNA injections were of value that number would have been less than 550,000 in 2021.
What I see lacking in this whole discussion, is a recognition that if the individual’s immune system is whole and vibrant and functioning well, that all the tools for defeating the invasion of a pathogen are in place and risk of death is minimal. If NIH would do studies
validating this, we would be going down a different road in medicine.
Finally, the VAERS system is under utilized and under reporting the true number of adverse effects created by the RNA injections. If 47,000 VAERS deaths reported are only 5% of the total created, then the actual numbers are between 540,000 and 1.1 million. The true number of non-lethal side effects is also under reported. Unless there is a method of having 100% of the ADR’s reported, as well as having research parameters in place that can validate the safety of the RNA, we should shut the program down. The focus should be in making sure that everyone has a whole and vibrant immune system. That means taking the toxins out of our food supply, which is a goal of RFK Jr and to be sure that the immune system has all biological components for properly reacting to pathogens. That includes having a blood value of the hormonal form of Vitamin D above 50 ng’s. Not the NIH position that 20 ng’s being normal. I am living proof, since I was knocked flat for 21 days with Covid and took no drugs, but my immune system was whole with a D value of 70 ng’s. I am in the high risk category because of age, because the high risk category are seniors who have dysfunctional immune systems for a great variety of reasons, including low D.
In my opinion, the original sin (beyond deliberately creating a novel virus in a lab), was the disparagement & suppression of early out-patient treatment with re-purposed medications, such as HCQ & IVM. Everything else, as related to the covid "vaccines" is secondary. Not only was HCQ disparaged & disallowed, but Fauci made sure that the only place you could get it was in the hospital, when it was too late to be effective. As most know, anti-virals need to be given within the first 48-hrs. to be effective. With HCQ, the window was within the first 5-days. Remdesivir, which is also an anti-viral, was also inappropriate, besides being toxic to the kidneys, heart, & liver. This was known in advance, as it was the first drug to be eliminated in the Ebola trials, when it was responsible for the deaths of more than 50% of those in the trial. The entire response to covid was either inappropriate or damaging & no one is being held accountable. Ivermectin not only functioned as an anti-viral, but addressed the hyper-inflammatory phase of covid, which is why is turned out to be even more effective than HCQ - another reason why it had to be disparaged & suppressed. IgG class switching would not even be a topic of discussion, had the response to this man-made virus been appropriate, as there would have been no need for inadequately & poorly tested experimental genetic injections. Between what was disparaged & suppressed & what was pursued & promoted per EUA, tens of thousands have either died or been seriously damaged. They were crimes of both omission & commission.
Thank you for this enlightening read. It well sets out the need for an informed individualized decision-making as regards covid 19 boosting. To me, it also highlights the need for the practioners to be fully informed and conversant with the issues you cover here!
I personally consider current practice as the most pressing to deal with. The other related issues should follow.
I am still left with questions re the possibilities of the relative merits of prophylactic medications vs vaccines. The merits of a vaccine prevention vs early treatment. In view of your discussion one notes that. these alternatives too may be impacted by individual circumstance.
My take here is the medical community generally needs to be familiar with the points you raise ASAP so they can effectively counsel patients! That ACIP at its next meeting, should address appropriate responses to deal with the issues you've identified going forward.
Thank you again for your research and analysis of these pressing issues!. And thamk you for sharing this with us.
I'm just a retired steel salesman from Pittsburgh so while I appreciate your writings, most of the time I get lost after a paragraph or two. I'm just not educated or trained to understand the details other than to know that the pandemic was at least an accident and probably intentional and the vaccines do more harm than good. I do have one question: Has there been a study done comparing the mRNA Covid vaccines vs the non-mRNA vaccines? Pfizer/Moderna vs Novavax. Is the problem the vaccine or the way it was manufactured? And the bigger question is if mRNA is a flawed answer to vaccine production? My pharmacist has told me that (thank goodness) the Pfizer/Moderna Covid 19 vaccines are the only vaccines being produced using mRNA.
I find the studies showing that the COVID mRNA vaccines reduced the risks of severe illness and death to be highly questionable. These were not randomized controlled clinical trials. They were observational studies and were subject to significant bias and confounding. Many fully vaccinated people who were hospitalized in mid 2021 were just assumed to be unvaccinated or partially vaccinated. There's also a time window bias - if you say the vaccine is effective for a 4 to 5 month window, then there's automatically a lower likelihood of seeing the negative event occur during the short time window compared to another group where the event can occur before, during, or after the time window. Lastly, there's the problem of treatment bias. In mid to late 2021, there was a significant amount of bias and even outright hatred for the unvaccinated who became hospitalized for COVID. This resulted in neglect and even mistreatment which directly worsened their outcomes. There are horror stories of DNR orders being entered into patient records without their consent. There's never been good evidence of benefit in this regard.
My understanding is that pseudouridine increases mRNA stability, which would allow translation to happen for a longer period. But it also increases translation errors. So I would not consider that as ‘efficiency’. And DNA / RNA hybrids, escape natural degradation processes which allow this junk to persist. Persistent contaminants have been confirmed in vivo.
Regarding stated mRNA jac function, I will compress the immune mechanistic info into a nutshell. I can now see the gain of function SARS CoV2 product as a general and severe allergen, and the mRNA products as the desensitization protocol.
I am an accountant, not a physician or a scientist, and therefore cannot even begin to understand the complex science the brilliant Dr. Malone outlines in this post.
As an accountant, however, I do understand one thing: BIG PHARMA AND THEIR CAPTURED GOVT BUDDIES PROFITED IMMENSELY FROM PEDDLING AND MANDATING THESE POTENTIALLY HARMFUL REPEATED "BOOSTERS".
True story.
In a nutshell!!!
“children and healthy young adults, groups at minimal risk of severe disease but central to viral spread” I am convinced that this fear of children as vector was at the heart of many policy mistakes, including the closing of schools.
Children, who not at risk of the common respiratory ailments called 'COVID-19', were vaccinated to purportedly protect the elderly.
This scheme was admitted during a Lords Committee meeting in the UK in June 2020, considering the science of COVID-19, see my email to professors Peter Openshaw and Arne Akbar - Is it ethical to vaccinate the young to purportedly protect the old? Sent in September 2022: https://vaccinationispolitical.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/peter-openshaw-and-arne-akbar-is-it-ethical-to-vaccinate-the-young-to-purportedly-protect-the-old.pdf
What sort of society sacrifices the natural health of the young to purportedly protect the old?
A society that aborts routinely.
A very sick society!
Early in the pandemic, the CDC issued a press release that overstated pediatric deaths by a factor of 100. As if 0.001 percent was the same as 0.001. The CDC recognized the error but made the correction without publicity.
Even at its worst, covid's lethality to children was roughly equal to that from a bad year of seasonal influenza. -- even before covid vaccines were available to kids. Naturally, the mistake fueled the fears of covid to children and young adults, adding to your point here.
Before debating the immunological consequences of repeated vaccination, we must ask whether the premise of a mass vaccination campaign was ever justified.
A response designed for a severe population-level threat was imposed on a disease signal largely generated by PCR testing and overwhelmingly associated with mild or asymptomatic illness.
If the mass vaccination program itself was unjustified, then any discussion about how it could have been better designed or optimised is beside the point.
The main scandal remains to be exposed: how an unjustified mass vaccination program was pressed upon the public under coercion and mandates, with the collaboration of the medical profession.
I was tasked with making sense of the IgG4 class switching. That is what this is about.
I understand that was your task, and you’ve clearly focused on it.
My point is the more fundamental one that still hasn’t been addressed - whether a mass vaccination campaign was ever justified in the first place, particularly given the nature of ‘the threat’ and the means by which compliance was secured: coercion and mandates. Not resolving this fundamental question misses the larger ethical failure.
For the COVID-19 vaccination, I have clear where I stand for four years... Just listen to Joe Rogan and I in 2021...
I agree. Certainly the covid vaccine itself can be studied and improved etc. Bottom line, we need continued focus on mass vaccination program, particularly since there were other effective, inexpensive treatments available at the time.
This information is necessary for people trained in all schools of immunology, virology and vaccinology. And even then I'll bet you'll get all sorts of push back from certain corners of thought, and discussion can be helpful from educated and knowledgeable scientists and doctors.
From personal experience at 16, having almost died from an allergic reaction (trachea swelling and huge purple splotches and hives) the doctors testing me for allergens forgot to ask me how I was feeling emotionally. My nervous system was a mess. I discovered I could bring on an allergy attack and make one go away as well, once I figured out the main cause. When I was in the process of buying a house, and opening a new business, I started to feel my lip swelling. A clear sign of distress in my body. I leaned back in the shampoo bowl at work and did a deep relaxation with slow breathing, and it stopped. There has been a missing link in health assesement from what I see. Spiritual, mental and emotional health are seldom tied together with physical health. This is another whole topic, of course.
My daughter had a similar problem which was caused by a Rx cold product that was the root cause. Screwed up her immune system.
When I read" a similar problem" I questioned the cause. Mine was extreme with swollen eyes, lips and trachea as well as huge swollen purple splotches. Sounds pretty different to me. I got a shot of adrenaline in the doctors office so I could graduate, that just about put me out. Benadryl didn't do it either except I could sell it on the street...
That is a LOT of information and somewhat confusing to a "lay" person like myself. I am most concerned that we learned something from this manmade "pandemic" and prevent making the same mistakes in the future. It is most important that the medical field STAY AWAY from the political side, and MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON WHAT IS BEST FOR MANKIND, rather than using it as a means to control people in a certain political or profitable way. May God Bless you and your fellow scientist and hopefully can make a real difference for the future.
It seems apparent that vaccinating children and young teens or even young adults is a bad idea, in spite of the misguided advice of the AAP. The question about vaccinating adults with mRNA pseudo uridine Covid vaccines is whether there has been a significant increase in cancers in the vaccinated adult population. This certainly seems to be the case when looking at melanoma, as reported by Angus Dagleish, and highlighted on the program on YouTube with John Campbell. What is a good reference on cancer incidence related to these vaccines? This was certainly a comprehensive and mind-boggling presentation of immunology science, which would not b comprehended by the general public and most physicians who are not immunologists. It would be great if the ACIP generated a simple age correlated recommendation for these vaccines, specifically looking at which adult population should not ever get another one of them. I still have a sign in my exam room, which says “don’t boost.”
I more than appreciate the good Doctor's credentials, knowledge, research and insight. Particularly that he shares that insight with us. I am relegated to the anecdotal world and more than skeptical of the captured healthcare industry's and media's " coincidence is not causation". The injection protocol for these experimental COVID toxins was two injections, separated by a two week waiting period and followed by another two week waiting period before a patient/victim was classified as "fully vaccinated". Add to that one month period of being injected, yet not fully vaccinated, the injection availability and the patient/victim's personal availability. That establishes the time period of being injected, but not yet fully "vaccinated" between five weeks to two months. Assuming the average of six weeks, all adverse reactions experienced for that six weeks were coded to COVID or anything other than adverse reactions, because the patient/victim was not yet fully vaccinated. A few more coincidences; unprecented blood clots encountered by coroners and embalmers, pinnacles of human health dropping on courts and fields of play, no repurposed drugs allowed, death by Remdesivir and or respirator, the impossible disappearance of historically reliable influenza diagnoses', a survival detrimental hospital treatment protocol supported by generous Government bonuses, the denial of natural immunity and punitive measures implemented to extort society into injecting. That may not all be science, but impossible to ignore.
Manipulation and miss direction to validate the mRNA injections was extensive and should be a criminal investigation. I wonder how many research studies are based on the phony numbers.
agree faulty and phony, like the faulty model in climate (science).
Dear Dr. Malone. Your discussion about how the mRNA was handled and your deep dive analysis about how the mRNA interacts with the immune system
is above my pay grade as well as most of your readers. From a macro level this is what I see. First, the recognition that the mRNA injections should never have been released begs the question: Why were they released when the safety of the mRNA injections were never validated? Who is responsible? You also argue that there is a valid use for mRNA. How can that be if the targeted cells are selected randomly when injected? The lie was that they only impacted muscle cells. Then, the next question is: If the mRNA reprograms cellular function to create a foreign substance to stimulate the immune system response, how do we know it will not interfere with normal biological functions? Obviously, that occurred. In fact, the US excessive deaths in 2021 point to the increased fatalities from the injection. In round numbers, they were 1.1 million in 2021 versus 550, 000 in 2020. If the mRNA injections were of value that number would have been less than 550,000 in 2021.
What I see lacking in this whole discussion, is a recognition that if the individual’s immune system is whole and vibrant and functioning well, that all the tools for defeating the invasion of a pathogen are in place and risk of death is minimal. If NIH would do studies
validating this, we would be going down a different road in medicine.
Finally, the VAERS system is under utilized and under reporting the true number of adverse effects created by the RNA injections. If 47,000 VAERS deaths reported are only 5% of the total created, then the actual numbers are between 540,000 and 1.1 million. The true number of non-lethal side effects is also under reported. Unless there is a method of having 100% of the ADR’s reported, as well as having research parameters in place that can validate the safety of the RNA, we should shut the program down. The focus should be in making sure that everyone has a whole and vibrant immune system. That means taking the toxins out of our food supply, which is a goal of RFK Jr and to be sure that the immune system has all biological components for properly reacting to pathogens. That includes having a blood value of the hormonal form of Vitamin D above 50 ng’s. Not the NIH position that 20 ng’s being normal. I am living proof, since I was knocked flat for 21 days with Covid and took no drugs, but my immune system was whole with a D value of 70 ng’s. I am in the high risk category because of age, because the high risk category are seniors who have dysfunctional immune systems for a great variety of reasons, including low D.
In my opinion, the original sin (beyond deliberately creating a novel virus in a lab), was the disparagement & suppression of early out-patient treatment with re-purposed medications, such as HCQ & IVM. Everything else, as related to the covid "vaccines" is secondary. Not only was HCQ disparaged & disallowed, but Fauci made sure that the only place you could get it was in the hospital, when it was too late to be effective. As most know, anti-virals need to be given within the first 48-hrs. to be effective. With HCQ, the window was within the first 5-days. Remdesivir, which is also an anti-viral, was also inappropriate, besides being toxic to the kidneys, heart, & liver. This was known in advance, as it was the first drug to be eliminated in the Ebola trials, when it was responsible for the deaths of more than 50% of those in the trial. The entire response to covid was either inappropriate or damaging & no one is being held accountable. Ivermectin not only functioned as an anti-viral, but addressed the hyper-inflammatory phase of covid, which is why is turned out to be even more effective than HCQ - another reason why it had to be disparaged & suppressed. IgG class switching would not even be a topic of discussion, had the response to this man-made virus been appropriate, as there would have been no need for inadequately & poorly tested experimental genetic injections. Between what was disparaged & suppressed & what was pursued & promoted per EUA, tens of thousands have either died or been seriously damaged. They were crimes of both omission & commission.
Thank you for this enlightening read. It well sets out the need for an informed individualized decision-making as regards covid 19 boosting. To me, it also highlights the need for the practioners to be fully informed and conversant with the issues you cover here!
I personally consider current practice as the most pressing to deal with. The other related issues should follow.
I am still left with questions re the possibilities of the relative merits of prophylactic medications vs vaccines. The merits of a vaccine prevention vs early treatment. In view of your discussion one notes that. these alternatives too may be impacted by individual circumstance.
My take here is the medical community generally needs to be familiar with the points you raise ASAP so they can effectively counsel patients! That ACIP at its next meeting, should address appropriate responses to deal with the issues you've identified going forward.
Thank you again for your research and analysis of these pressing issues!. And thamk you for sharing this with us.
I'm just a retired steel salesman from Pittsburgh so while I appreciate your writings, most of the time I get lost after a paragraph or two. I'm just not educated or trained to understand the details other than to know that the pandemic was at least an accident and probably intentional and the vaccines do more harm than good. I do have one question: Has there been a study done comparing the mRNA Covid vaccines vs the non-mRNA vaccines? Pfizer/Moderna vs Novavax. Is the problem the vaccine or the way it was manufactured? And the bigger question is if mRNA is a flawed answer to vaccine production? My pharmacist has told me that (thank goodness) the Pfizer/Moderna Covid 19 vaccines are the only vaccines being produced using mRNA.
yes, making high immunology understandable while still retaining the scientific detail is a challenge. I did my best.
any studies between mRNA vs non mRNA?
Was wondering your thoughts on this new, at least new to me Nepah virus?
https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1E8i9db6jo/?mibextid=wwXIfr
That threat has been visible and considered for a long time. Not new.
I find the studies showing that the COVID mRNA vaccines reduced the risks of severe illness and death to be highly questionable. These were not randomized controlled clinical trials. They were observational studies and were subject to significant bias and confounding. Many fully vaccinated people who were hospitalized in mid 2021 were just assumed to be unvaccinated or partially vaccinated. There's also a time window bias - if you say the vaccine is effective for a 4 to 5 month window, then there's automatically a lower likelihood of seeing the negative event occur during the short time window compared to another group where the event can occur before, during, or after the time window. Lastly, there's the problem of treatment bias. In mid to late 2021, there was a significant amount of bias and even outright hatred for the unvaccinated who became hospitalized for COVID. This resulted in neglect and even mistreatment which directly worsened their outcomes. There are horror stories of DNR orders being entered into patient records without their consent. There's never been good evidence of benefit in this regard.
Ignorance of immune biology is the point. Reality is whatever they wish it to be, don't confuse the picture with evidence.
Headline in today's Daily Telegraph UK:
Surge in women’s cancers but not men’s
Rise in under-50s feared to be due to lifestyle factors, including sunbeds and processed foods
Cancer is surging among women under 50, with a 16 per cent rise since 2000, without any such rise for men, research shows.
Like men don't use sunbeds or eat processed foods??? Duh.
My understanding is that pseudouridine increases mRNA stability, which would allow translation to happen for a longer period. But it also increases translation errors. So I would not consider that as ‘efficiency’. And DNA / RNA hybrids, escape natural degradation processes which allow this junk to persist. Persistent contaminants have been confirmed in vivo.
Regarding stated mRNA jac function, I will compress the immune mechanistic info into a nutshell. I can now see the gain of function SARS CoV2 product as a general and severe allergen, and the mRNA products as the desensitization protocol.
No wonder people are melting down.