They Knew the Danger...
"Gain-of-function" pathologies observed during vaccine development
As world leaders opine as to the best response for covid-19, they are using as the only solution a vaccine. World immunology and infectious disease experts such as the late Nobel Laureate Luc Montangier, and Geert Vanden Bossche, have sounded the alarm on what they have termed “Immune Escape” and Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE) respectively.
Geert Vanden Bossche describes biological mechanisms leading to increased evolutionary pressure on viruses and what happens when non-neutralizing antibodies are introduced in the middle of a pandemic in great detail in a recent hours long interview with Del Bigtree on TheHighwire and may be viewed here.
When ‘theoretical observations’ by Nobel laureates are labeled disinformation by a political and corporate establishment, where is the average person to go to find answers to their questions? 🤷♂️
Whereas most WHO, CDC, FDA, and other experts agree on the technology needed to respond to a pandemic (i.e. vaccines), what information exists behind the long-term effects of this strategy?
Interestingly enough, Ralph Baric, who with Dr. Shi at Moderna’s Wuhan Institute of Virology allegedly developed the S1 subunit for the COVID19 spike, according to Senator Roger Marshall, KS (@4:20):
Provided his comments to the current strategy’s effects during experimentation on SARS vaccines to the Center for Arms Control & Non-Proliferation; Biological and Chemical Weapons Program.
Before we get to Dr. Baric’s comments, there are two things to note about Fauci’s response in the video.
He’s not going to answer the question, even though he says,
“Yeah, but that’s irrelevant until you put a context …
His first response is to a paper, by Baric & Shi, in Nature, in his reference to “gain of function”.
I found this Nature article very interesting. Dismiss the initial fact-checker warning. This is NOT an origin story, this is a search for the specific meaning of “gain of function” Fauci may be referencing as needing context, as well as the reasoning for continuing GOF research.
This paper is extremely dense, but in the abstract we find the limitations of medical technology to deal with upper respiratory infections.
“Vaccine approaches failed to neutralize and protect from infection using… spike
Bruh… Say WHAT!? 😲
What research changed this finding to now use spike as the basis for the current vaccines!? Why did gain-of-function research have a moratorium and then allowed to continue after!? 🤷♂️
There appears to have been confusion related to definition, which lead to questions of delineation in a memo from The Scientists Working Group on Biological and Chemical Weapons, on October 22, 2014, regarding their support for the Cambridge Working Group Consensus Statement on the Creation of Potential Pandemic Pathogens (PPPs)
It appears as though an alarm was being sounded into the investigation of PPPs in a “memory holing”, or reclassification of gain-of-function research.
However, in Dr. Baric’s comments we get a hint as to what exactly “gain of function” is in the biological vernacular as it existed back in 2014, and why it is relevant to us today.
Stay with me, because the next part is alot, and I will do my best to provide meaning, context, and importance in quotes, after you see this:
Keep in mind Baric’s comment is given from a perspective advocating the continuation of research using PPPs. Prior to the existence of the terminology and classification of PPPs, Baric uses GOF to refer to gain-of-function research, generally.
More seriously, doubly inactivated vaccines induced a Th2 immune pathology associated with massive influxes in the numbers of eosinophils and neutrophils; effectively causing a gain in virus pathogenic potential in an unpredictable manner (Bolles et al., 2012). The resulting increased immune pathology can sometimes progress to fatal disease and similar findings have been reported in primates.
Baric cites research that inducing T-Helper 2 (CD4+) cells associated with an increase in white blood cells effectively causes a “gain of virus pathogenic potential”.
Is this “virus pathogenic potential”, in relation to the increased severity of the disease, a “function” of the immune system itself? Does gain of function refer to the immune response to a disease as opposed to a change on the virus itself? 🤔
Baric alludes to this line of questioning in his Nature paper in the context of the government moratorium on GOF studies.
***Important Note: SHC014-MA15 is the specific S1 spike Sen. Marshall may have been referring to in the video above***
In the context of the moratorium, Baric’s references to “increased pathogenicity” and “gain in pathogenesis” was NOT an expected outcome. When biological mechanisms involving the immune system make a virus WORSE it gave reason for a moratorium on the entire viral research industry. In 2014, this was a novel outcome and Baric gives context to what would have happened if someone were to just use laboratory correlates as a basis for public health policy.
If in vitro correlates of protection (e.g., neutralization titers, T-cell responses, etc.) and minimal animal models are used to justify human vaccine use, the surprising outcome would have been that the existing data would have supported the use of doubly inactivated vaccines in human populations, potentially enhancing serious disease outcomes and death in a SARS outbreak setting.
“Inactivated vaccines” refers to the practice of finding a way to provide virus specific antigens to the body by delivering it in a package that does NOT harm the patient. Antigens are specific protein sequences of a virus. The spike protein is considered an antigen of the whole virus, because it is part of the whole virus. The Nature study showed SHC014-MA15 did NOT harm the mouse. Baric’s warning was related to what would have happened if he did NOT have access to a “robust animal model of human disease”, because animal models alone would have shown SHC014-MA15 to be safe.
This Revelation was absolutely dependent on the availability of a robust animal model of human disease… under identical conditions, drugs that were highly efficacious in the surrogate model, failed to protect the animals from lethal SARS-CoV challenge (PMC4178736). Thus, results and surrogate models should be evaluated cautiously.
Likewise, the second example Baric provides under the Implications in Model Development on surrogate models, such as the one for Sindbis, expresses caution on their reliance alone. Remember, Baric’s Nature study just shit the bed on the entire industry; so he is giving credence to their previous work, while pointing out limitations and advocating necessity to continue his own research.
Under the Zoonotic SARS-CoV section Baric, continues,
Emerging viruses exist in swarms of heterologous but related viruses, thus, Future outbreaks could be derived from other precursor strains which are antigenically and genetically distinct. Antigenic variation could obviate the potency and efficacy of SARS vaccines and immunotherapeutics or erode the therapeutic potency of antiviral drugs.
Meaning, even IF vaccines and pharma were effective for one strain, antigenic (spike/protein) and genetic (RNA/mRNA/DNA) variation will naturally select a winner from previous viral strains and mutations…
These recombinants can use the human…receptor, some produce lethal disease with ARDS in aged mice, and demonstrate a 5 to 100+ fold reduction in neutralization by Sera targeting the epidemic SARS-CoV S glycoprotein.
Here Baric’s reference to the use of the human receptor highlights the damage he was able to uncover by having access to “materials” that showed “ARDS… and reduction in neutralization by Sera”.
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)is a life-threatening lung injury that allows fluid to leak into the lungs. Breathing becomes difficult and oxygen cannot get into the body… I wonder why ARDS sounds so familiar… Sera is another word for antibodies. “Reduction in Neutralization by Sera” means the antibodies were NOT able to make viral antigens inert to the human body, or the antibodies produced were non-neutralizing by nature.
Whew… Isn’t it such a great thing he was able to discover this before it happened to the public writ large…🙄
Vaccines using the SARS S glycoprotein do not protect against lethal heterologous Spike challenge, Especially in aged animals; Thus, current SARS vaccines will fail to protect against these precursor strains should they seed future outbreaks. In fact, the doubly inactivated vaccines don't protect but do stimulate the Th2 immune pathology noted above (PMC3209347). Similarly 1 strain appears resistant to the existing panel of broadly neutralizing human monoclonal antibodies.
I want to focus on the bombshell first sentence Baric lays out in plain English for any current public health policy expert on his clinical observations🧐, that Spike protein based vaccines DO NOT PROTECT for future outbreaks👀, but will instead focus on the observations and reasoning Baric provides regarding Th2 immune pathology, as well as monoclonal antibodies.🤭
Th2 immune pathology is based on a subset of CD4+ pathways the adaptive immune system may take regarding a vaccine or any other pathogen. “Th1 cells drive the type-1 pathway ("cellular immunity") to fight viruses and other intracellular pathogens, eliminate cancerous cells, and stimulate delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) skin reactions. Th2 cells drive the type-2 pathway ("humoral immunity") and up-regulate antibody production to fight extracellular organisms; type 2 dominance is credited with tolerance of xenografts and of the fetus during pregnancy.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12946237/
The Th2 humoral response is held in concert with Th1. Th2 immune pathology is science speak for when Th2 becomes dominant over Th1. Th1 is considered preferential in viral immunology, because the cellular immune response leads to the creation of CD8+, cytotoxic specialized killer T-cells. CD8+ cells are “antibodies” pharma companies use as the “gold standard” for proof of efficacy and continuing Emergency Use Authorizations…
Monoclonal antibodies are specialized cells that bind to a specific epitope or antigen, like the spike protein. Their main function is in binding to a protein so it does no further damage, and is eliminated from circulation within the body. When strains are “resistant” to monoclonal antibodies, it is an indication of a change in epitope or protein structure due to mutation, and the resistant strain is escaping the immune system.
For surveillance and development of Public Health intervention platforms, these data have huge implications, demonstrating that existing vaccines require reformulation. These outcomes could not have been predicted from In Silico sequence information, biochemical assays, neutralization assays with surrogate viruses, or surrogate In Vivo models of human disease. Animal models can lie, however, their reliability is often times directly proportional to their capacity to replicate human disease.
The implication that vaccines require reformulation are resultant from the observation of changes to the S protein emerging from viruses existing in swarms of heterologous but related viruses. The increased pathogenic nature of SHC014-MA15 could NOT have been predicted unless they have access to animal models that replicate human disease. I believe this is in reference to chimeric lab animals expressing the human genome in specific organs.
The final sentence does NOT make any sense unless viewed under the context of a scientist delineating the experimental processes others are using, and the unexpected outcome producing increased pathogenicity from a spike protein that initially presented itself as “inactivated” in animal models. Baric claims ignorance due to the novel chimeric nature of the engineered spike protein, producing an unforeseen event in the human body, and makes a pitch to keep the chimerically engineered animal subjects.
With that, everyone is sufficiently insulated from any confusion with being labeled a scientific pariah by any association with “Gain-of-function” research, because that research produces the unwanted result of an increased pathogenic, non-neutralizing response within the immune system. Gain of function implies harm to the organism itself via an increased biological functioning, leading to greater or increased pathogenicity within the body or host. No scientist will admit conducting research leading to harm being done to people. If they did, they would in essence, be providing a function for a system antithetical to medical ethics. The creation of the PPP distinction insulated the scientific community by providing a whipping boy the erudite establishment could collectively scoff at and label “Gain-of-function” in disdain.
Clearly above reproach for anything possibly associated with such a tragedy…
They will just forget the reasoning behind the outrage, as well as the biological mechanisms involved, while the public health political establishment moves forward with policies directly counter to all previous scientific evidence, and Geert Vanden Bossche outlines the same mechanisms observed in Antibody Dependent Enhancement…
All things have their roots and branches... and when the root of gain of function branches into PPP, gain of function still exists, but no one has done any research into it since then because it's so dangerous...
I’m sure that’s the Context Fauci was looking to share with Senator Marshall… 🤦♂️
***Important Note: It is molecularly impossible for the SHC014 spike protein, to be the same as a COVID19 virus that naturally evolved out of a bat’s cloaca in a Chinese wet market, right?***