Fauci got it all wrong, like how he got HIV wrong & BACTRIM, killed infected males, massive error with the COVID vaxx; injectable vaccines don't directly produce secretory antibodies in nasal mucosae
by Paul Alexander
Injectable vaccines do not directly produce secretory antibodies in the nasal pharyngeal cavity. Those antibodies are what are needed to stop infection. This is why in theory nasal spray vaccines best
Let us think about this. A friend exchanged and I interacted and want to share the sharing. It is important that I/we share always as we try to inform and we learn from each other.
There was a massive strategic error from the get-go, probably at the direction of Fauci. They tried to do too much, and produce a vaccine that could permanently stop infection, and eradicate the virus. This was an unrealistic goal, especially in such a short period of time. There are two big problems to this approach:
1) -Injectable vaccines do not directly produce secretory antibodies in the nasal pharyngeal cavity (mucosal cells/lining/layer in the nasopharyngeal and oral passages). Those antibodies are what are needed to stop infection. This is why in theory nasal spray vaccines can be developed
The first dash point is a blinding glimpse of the obvious to the scientific community. If an injectable vaccine does not produce secretory antibodies in the nasal pharyngeal cavity that can stop infection, what do you do? You massively over-power the vaccine, relative to the severity of the disease, such that so many antibodies are produced, that for lack of a better term, they leach their way into the nasal pharyngeal cavity, for a short period of time, when antibody levels are through the roof. There is so much in the way of initial antibodies produced, there is evidence they are aerosolized, and can even be shed to other people. Remember the trials were only 4 months of data. As time from vaccination lengthened, there were massive breakthrough infections, even with Delta, where the vaccine was more closely matched to the strain. Provincetown Mass happened, during Delta, roughly 4-6 months after that cohort had all been fully vaccinated.
The net result was a vaccine that may have been somewhat effective over a very short period of time (but much less effective than clinical trials showed) even when it was matched to the strain in circulation, at the expense of an unacceptable amount of adverse events relative to the severity of the disease. If the vaccine would have been sterilizing and put the virus out of business, one could make an argument that this was worth it. Of course, that turned out not to be the case. It should have been obvious it wasn’t going to go that way, or that the risk of it going down this way was an un-acceptable one to take.
The structural problem is the measurement of vaccines on the basis of their ability to stop infection. It is unrealistic for the current injectable vaccines to be able to do this for any lengthy period of time. But this is how they are measured. Same issue for Novavax. To stop infection, they had to over-power it, the spike protein remains toxic, so they ran into the same problem with myocarditis. At least the FDA advisory panel seems to have treated them symmetrically with Pfizer and Moderna (although watch the FDA slow roll things from here), but it still does not mean it is safe, or any more effective on a long term basis than the other stuff. My guess is the advisory committee was stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they spiked Novavax, by definition they would be failing Pfizer and Moderna, which they could not do.
If there was a more realistic goal from the get go of producing a vaccine that could help reduce the severity of symptoms, we would probably be in a better place. The measurement of antibody levels alone is a bad metric. Now it is an even worse metric, as they are the wrong antibodies anyway. Vaccines targeted at symptom reduction would not need to be so over-powered, and would be more comfortably on the curve below. Interestingly, there are more traditional Covid vaccines on the market, just not in the US, that although they produce lower antibody levels initially and were less effective at blocking infection, when measured over a longer period of time seem BETTER at reducing overall disease severity and with fewer negative side effects, than the mRNA vaccines. This includes the Chinese whole virus vaccine which was initially mocked for its lower antibody production.
Now we are left in the worst possible position. A mutated virus, and a still overpowered vaccine that does not seem to do much to help. The solution of the authorities, more shots of the already overpowered but ineffective vaccine. Doing so only increases the risk of more side effects, and then bigger structural issues like ADE and putting more selective pressure on the virus to further mutate.
This is a very wrong-footed approach and all started at the top with Fauci. He has been unrealistic in his views about the power of vaccines since HIV, where he also failed badly. He went down the same path again with Covid, at the expense of emphasizing early therapeutic intervention, which is also the same mistake he made with HIV (Bactrim). In addition to being a fool, Fauci is a terrible narcissist. He wanted to be the hero that saved the world. It was the same with HIV where he failed, and saw this as his 2nd bite at the apple. Fauci pushed an agenda that was unrealistic and misguided, and we are left with the consequences, which are many, both viral and societal and economic now. I don’t think that bothers him one bit, as Fauci’s only concern seems to be Fauci and his legacy.
It is fascinating how fast certain strains BA.4 and BA.5 sub-variants seem to be able to gain market share. Almost stunning. Very efficient. Almost too efficient. The ability of certain strains to overwhelm everything. One would think the marginal returns from mutations would decrease over time. But each new strain seems to be as efficient as the prior strains in their ability to take market share. Will be interesting how this one plays out, including re-infection rates and potential affinity for the highly vaccinated, as the Portugal vs South Africa compare potentially indicates.