thats right . And mechanistically the vax doenst induce IgA, no agent has ever worked to stop spread of viral upper respiratory infections. When people ask " why havent they produced A cure for the common cold?" Well... there's a reason, Pfizer knew it wouldnt stop infection and did either actively promoted the lie that it would or failed to publically correct the errors or misunderstanding of politicians and public health people. Fauci must have known as well. if he didnt that makes him ignorant and incompetent. If he did know and lied then that makes him evil. So fauci is either ignorant, incompetent or evil or some combo of all three
I'm glad someone else recognizes the need for IgA to fight a respiratory virus. The shots mainly stimulated IgG - which indicates they were stimulating a memory response - but IgG mainly fights infection in the blood, not lungs. They also didn't significantly stimulate T-cell function that would be an earlier line of defense against a viral infection than antibodies would.
Fauci is both ignorant and incompetent - there is no question there. As for evil? Perhaps some barkless beagles could weigh in on that.
Exactly - you can't vaccinate against a respiratory virus and prevent infection w/o inducing an immune response at the site of infection (as you said likely primarily including T-cells!). This was/is a 100% known fact - something I think many of us non-virologists/vaccinologists came to understand over 1 1/2 years ago.
Anyway, not sure they will be sterilizing, but there are a few interesting intranasal/oral IgA (and T cell) inducing vaccines fairly far along in development.
Bharat BioTech (India) developed inCovacc which was licensed from Washington University (St Louis). It's an adenovirus, spike-based vaccine recently approved - as a primary series - in India, with another phase 3 completed as a booster. Not much of the phase 3 human trial data is publicly released yet, though in previous trials it was seemingly successful in preventing transmission in rhesus macaques. Bharat's US partner (Ocugen) for Covaxin (whole virion vaccine) has also licensed the vaccine from Wash U to commercialize it in the US (& EU/Japan).
Vaxart also has oral vaccines which are similarly adenovirus based (a spike-only and a spike/n-protein version) and Codagenix (and Serum Institute of India) is developing a live attenuated intranasal vaccine.
May all be too little too late, but it is interesting how these options were not pulled forward during 'Warp Speed' when they were clearly in development at the time - especially so when all we seemed to hear from big pharma was that they took no warp speed $ (so what did it go towards???).
It is definitely plausible that Pfizer didn't have the data until after the "field trial" on the general public. Given that the EUAs bypassed the normal process of clinical studies.
The subsequent suppression of data, that's another story. It could be a best seller - lies, intrigue, corruption, murder, ... all it lacks is a hero :-(
They released the trial data that 'proved' the 95% efficacy, and THAT DATA ITSELF proved the jab doesn't stop transmission, considering they only measured people who got sick. That's not how vaccines work (or wasn't back then!)
How does one demonstrate efficacy in such a trail? Give 100 people the vaccine, then expose all 100 to the virus, and see who get's sick? Then do the same with 100 people who did not receive the vaccine, to establish a control with which to compare the effect. While 100 people wouldn't be mathematically valid to generalize to a population of 7 billion, and there are ethical issues with intentionally infecting people.
I've read some clinical trials of other drugs that follow the control model, with volunteers - people who are already sick and usually untreatable. That sort of control can show a difference between no meds and meds in treating a condition, but how does one validate prevention of a condition? From the literature it seems typically a lot of ad-hoc methods masquerading as science are used. I didn't see data on the pre-release clinical trial because what I found on the FDA site made it look like there was none prior to the EUA.
It had to have known because literally every piece of real-world data that we had showed that the vaccine didn't stop transmission.
thats right . And mechanistically the vax doenst induce IgA, no agent has ever worked to stop spread of viral upper respiratory infections. When people ask " why havent they produced A cure for the common cold?" Well... there's a reason, Pfizer knew it wouldnt stop infection and did either actively promoted the lie that it would or failed to publically correct the errors or misunderstanding of politicians and public health people. Fauci must have known as well. if he didnt that makes him ignorant and incompetent. If he did know and lied then that makes him evil. So fauci is either ignorant, incompetent or evil or some combo of all three
I'm glad someone else recognizes the need for IgA to fight a respiratory virus. The shots mainly stimulated IgG - which indicates they were stimulating a memory response - but IgG mainly fights infection in the blood, not lungs. They also didn't significantly stimulate T-cell function that would be an earlier line of defense against a viral infection than antibodies would.
Fauci is both ignorant and incompetent - there is no question there. As for evil? Perhaps some barkless beagles could weigh in on that.
Exactly - you can't vaccinate against a respiratory virus and prevent infection w/o inducing an immune response at the site of infection (as you said likely primarily including T-cells!). This was/is a 100% known fact - something I think many of us non-virologists/vaccinologists came to understand over 1 1/2 years ago.
Anyway, not sure they will be sterilizing, but there are a few interesting intranasal/oral IgA (and T cell) inducing vaccines fairly far along in development.
Bharat BioTech (India) developed inCovacc which was licensed from Washington University (St Louis). It's an adenovirus, spike-based vaccine recently approved - as a primary series - in India, with another phase 3 completed as a booster. Not much of the phase 3 human trial data is publicly released yet, though in previous trials it was seemingly successful in preventing transmission in rhesus macaques. Bharat's US partner (Ocugen) for Covaxin (whole virion vaccine) has also licensed the vaccine from Wash U to commercialize it in the US (& EU/Japan).
Vaxart also has oral vaccines which are similarly adenovirus based (a spike-only and a spike/n-protein version) and Codagenix (and Serum Institute of India) is developing a live attenuated intranasal vaccine.
May all be too little too late, but it is interesting how these options were not pulled forward during 'Warp Speed' when they were clearly in development at the time - especially so when all we seemed to hear from big pharma was that they took no warp speed $ (so what did it go towards???).
It is definitely plausible that Pfizer didn't have the data until after the "field trial" on the general public. Given that the EUAs bypassed the normal process of clinical studies.
The subsequent suppression of data, that's another story. It could be a best seller - lies, intrigue, corruption, murder, ... all it lacks is a hero :-(
They released the trial data that 'proved' the 95% efficacy, and THAT DATA ITSELF proved the jab doesn't stop transmission, considering they only measured people who got sick. That's not how vaccines work (or wasn't back then!)
How does one demonstrate efficacy in such a trail? Give 100 people the vaccine, then expose all 100 to the virus, and see who get's sick? Then do the same with 100 people who did not receive the vaccine, to establish a control with which to compare the effect. While 100 people wouldn't be mathematically valid to generalize to a population of 7 billion, and there are ethical issues with intentionally infecting people.
I've read some clinical trials of other drugs that follow the control model, with volunteers - people who are already sick and usually untreatable. That sort of control can show a difference between no meds and meds in treating a condition, but how does one validate prevention of a condition? From the literature it seems typically a lot of ad-hoc methods masquerading as science are used. I didn't see data on the pre-release clinical trial because what I found on the FDA site made it look like there was none prior to the EUA.