Month: January 2022

Covid Prior Immunity and Common Cold Cross-Reactive T-Cells

This is quite technical and I’m not sure I understand it fully myself, but I’m going to have a go at trying to explain a point of disagreement between scientists arguing that cross-reactive T-cells have been responsible for protecting some people from Covid in the past and vaccine expert Geert Vanden Bossche who believes that there is no evidence for this phenomenon.

The Torygraph excitedly proclaims:

If you go to the article itself, written by Sarah Knapton, you read:

Large numbers of Britons were already protected from coronavirus before the pandemic began because of previous exposure to common colds, a groundbreaking new study suggests.

Researchers at Imperial College found that half of people living with an infected person in the second wave – before vaccines were available – were carrying high levels of memory T-cells from colds that may have stopped them picking up the virus.

First off, Knapton is pretty hopeless at identifying and citing her specific references. She confuses the reader by referring to two Imperial College studies, one published today (January 10th, 2022) and the other published much earlier, before the ‘vaccines’ rollout. She also throws in an unreferenced University College London study for good measure:

Early on in the pandemic, studies showed that some people carried immune cells that could recognise Covid-19 even though they had never been infected.

University College London even discovered that blood samples taken before the pandemic carried this immunity, but it was not known if it was actually stopping people picking up the virus.

To answer the question, Imperial recruited several hundred households in London last winter before the vaccine programme began, and took blood samples to measure levels of memory T-cells from colds before waiting to see who caught the virus.

Amidst this confusion of references and citations from various authors, we get to the real knub of the issue. It’s not that prior cross-reactive immunity meant that the populace was not equally susceptible to Covid infection – as claimed by Ferguson and the modellers at Imperial and as claimed by Whitty, Vallance etc. in defence of extreme control measures. It’s not that this incorrect assumption was used wrongly in the models to predict the occurrence of many more infections and deaths, thus justifying the initial, catastrophically harmful lockdown (and the two subsequent lockdowns). Oh no, that’s not even mentioned by Knapton. It’s all about developing new ‘vaccines’ on the basis of this ‘new, groundbreaking’ research:

Prof Lalvani added: “We’ve finally reached the Holy Grail which shows that those who were exposed but didn’t get infected had these types of T-cells. These are people who would have picked up a cold, one, two, three years before and their immune cells were in a memory state.

“Coronaviruses are a wide tribe, and these common cold viruses are quite far apart, yet even the T-cells targeting these distant relatives can cross-protect, so imagine if you took one of the core proteins of Sars-Cov-2 and put in a vaccine. The T-cells would cross-recognise variants which opens the door to a universal vaccine that will protect you against all current and future mutant strains as they arise.

“Such a vaccine would not need to be given as frequently because the memory T-cells last longer than the antibodies. We’re in this awful position where we need boosters every three months, but with T-cells you could cut it down to every year or two years.”

Pretty shabby ‘journalism’ from the Torygraph, as we’ve come to expect.

Geert Vanden Bossche is a bit of a hero in my opinion. Perhaps the most unlikely of heroes. A mild-mannered Belgian vaccine expert and former employee of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I do often wonder what happens when he comes across a phone booth!

He has warned from the word go about the dangers of mass vaccination with ‘leaky’ (non-sterilizing) vaccines and he has been almost universally ignored by the consensus ‘experts’. But he hasn’t given up and he keeps plugging actual science even if, at times, it’s a little hard for non-experts like myself to follow and interpret.

This is Geert’s advice for the unvaccinated:

The situation for the unvaccinated is now becoming increasingly difficult because of unjustifiable discrimination. However, I keep saying that the unvaccinated should now less and less worry about their health. Provided they were gradually increasing their contacts, their innate immune system should be well trained by now. Training will only pay off provided you’re in good health and you respect the rules (!) of a healthy lifestyle (which should be well known by now).

So, ‘yes’ even contacts with HEALTHY vaccinees should become less of a problem. It is critical though that people take their supplements (certainly vit C, Zinc) as soon as they don’t feel 100% fit. And keep taking your vitamin D during winter. Regular use of ginger and curcuma are a good idea too! Avoid large and frequent gatherings but make sure your immune system stays trained (so regular contacts are key!).

Last, but not least: mental health is critical, make sure you are in good company and do not fall victim of fear!

Can’t argue with that. Good man. He’s on our side, but more importantly he’s on the side of science and medical ethics.

When it comes down to actual science, he’s hard to beat, but also a little hard to understand at times! But this is what Geert has to say about the ‘hypothesis’ of cross-reactive immune T-cells:

I don’t know how many more contributions I need to write to kill this idea.

Quite recently I was once again confronted with a paper (L. Swadling et al. 2021; 1) leading some scientists to believe that pre-existing cross-reactive T cells against Coronavirus (CoV) replication-transcription complex (RTC) can abort infection and thereby prevent seroconversion against SARS-CoV-2 (SC-2).

The Swadling et al paper is yet another study, published November 2021, this time by University College London, which is not mentioned by Knapton, but is also on the subject of cross-reactive T-cells. The abstract says:

Here we hypothesize that pre-existing memory T cell responses, with cross-protective potential against SARS-CoV-2 (refs. 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11), would expand in vivo to support rapid viral control, aborting infection.

It also says:

Our data highlight RTC-specific T cells as targets for vaccines against endemic and emerging Coronaviridae.

So it’s another ‘vaccine’ pushing study, which is not surprising, considering mass vaccination salesman, Professor Bollox himself, is listed as one of those involved:

So anyway, back to what GVDB says:

Firstly, the authors don’t even claim what many seem to infer from their publication—it merely suggests a role of these pre-existing RTC-specific T cells in aborting SC-2 infection (e.g., ‘we hypothesize that pre-existing memory T cell responses would expand to support rapid viral control, aborting infection’; ‘Pre-existing RTC-specific T cells would be expected to favor early control, explaining their enrichment after abortive compared to classical infection’ or: ‘suggesting abortive infection’, or: ‘supporting a potential role [of NSP12- specific T cells] in protection from PCR-detectable infection and seroconversion’). Secondly, I will illustrate below why this [peer-reviewed] paper does nothing to prove that pre-existing RTC-specific T cells with cross-reactive potential abort infection.

There is no single piece of evidence showing that natural CoV infection (or even any of the C-19 vaccines) induces Ag-specific cytolytic T memory cells. One is therefore unable to reasonably speculate that CoV-specific T memory cells prevent disease.

That seems fairly straightforward. So, here’s where it gets a bit more complicated and difficult to interpret what GVDB is actually saying:

Lack of consensus that immune protection against CoV (and likely against Flu as well) is primarily provided by self-centered innate immune effector lymphocytes (e.g., innate antibody [Ab]-secreting B cells and NK cells) and not by conventional foreign-centered T and B cells is only grist to the mill of those who advocate for C-19 vaccination across all age groups. So, not surprisingly, the authors of this article are proposing that ‘The boosting of such T cells may offer durable pan-Coronaviridae reactivity against endemic and emerging viruses, arguing for their inclusion and assessment as an adjunct to spike-specific antibodies in next-generation vaccines.’ On the other hand, however, they seem to realize that they may be missing the key mechanism that is responsible for abortion of SC-2 infection and that expansion of pre-existing RTC-specific T cells in seronegative (SN) health care workers (HCWs) is only the result of asymptomatic infection but not the cause: ‘A caveat of this work is that we analysed only peripheral immunity; it is plausible that mucosal-sequestered antibodies had a role in our seronegative cohort. It also remains possible that innate immunity mediates control in abortive infections, with RTC-biased T cell responses being generated as a biomarker of low-grade infection.’ And furthermore: ‘A transient/abortive infection that is not detectable by PCR or seroconversion could conceivably result from a lower viral inoculum and/or from a more efficient innate and/or adaptive immune response.’

Here’s what I think GVDB is saying:

/ Protection from SARS-CoV-2 can be achieved via the innate immune system, which is our first line of defence against pathogens, and includes the mucosal immune system which I previously wrote about. With respect to an airborne respiratory virus, the defensive role played by the mucosal immune system consisting of the mucus membranes inside the nose and throat is obviously very important. We’ll come back to this. The authors confirm that the mucosal innate immune system may be playing a part in preventing infection when they say: A caveat of this work is that we analysed only peripheral immunity; it is plausible that mucosal-sequestered antibodies had a role in our seronegative cohort.

/ Immune protection from cross-reactive adaptive B and T-cells is not the primary reason why immune naive (i.e. those not previously exposed) people don’t get infected with SARS-2. Indeed, the existence of this immune response is not evidence of prior cross-reactive immunity, it is evidence of prior infection with SARS-2. The authors confirm this as a possibility when they say: It also remains possible that innate immunity mediates control in abortive infections, with RTC-biased T cell responses being generated as a biomarker of low-grade infection.

/GVDB points out quite rightly that the study is being used as a platform for the development of next generation ‘vaccines’ across all age groups. On this aspect he is particularly scathing:

It’s also difficult to understand why the authors of this and similar SC-2 T cell-dedicated papers are not more skeptical about their own conclusions or postulates on using conserved, cross-reactive T cell epitopes in future C-19 vaccines. Are they unaware that there are no licensed or ‘successful’ candidate vaccines that (universally!) induce T cell-based abrogation of infectious transmission?  Or that no vaccines exist that use non-structural proteins as targets for fighting infectious pathogens? All fields in infectious diseases, whether dealing with viruses, bacteria, or parasites, have explored T cell-based immune interventions to abrogate infection and prevent or cure disease, but all have miserably failed. In contrast to what the authors state, T cells don’t seem to be particularly effective vaccine targets.

In conclusion, GVDB dismisses T-cells as being functionally important in preventing infection in immune naive or previously exposed individuals or terminating infection in such individuals:

SC-2 reactive T memory cells are neither responsible for early nor for late abrogation of SC-2 infection and, therefore, can neither prevent nor terminate C-19 disease. 

So this is where it gets interesting because it appears that something did indeed prevent many people early on in the pandemic from getting infected with SARS-CoV-2 or suffering moderate to severe symptoms. If it wasn’t cross-reactive T-cells from prior infection with the common cold viruses, what was it? Maybe this study gives us a clue:

Interestingly, circulating SARS-CoV-2–reactive T cells have been described in SARS-CoV-2 naive individuals, and it has been suggested that they may have arisen from encounters with related coronaviruses (610).

The authors acknowledge the common cold cross-reactive T-cell hypothesis. But here’s what they find:

Epidemiological studies indicate that asymptomatic infections or infections with a mild course of disease can frequently represent the majority of the study population (15). These observations suggest that the mucosal immune system of the upper respiratory tract may play a role in limiting disease severity in a significant percentage of SARS-CoV-2 infections. This prompted us to explore the presence of mucosal SARS-CoV-2–reactive B cells in tonsillar tissue specimens collected from pediatric patients 3 or more years prior to the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic.

In this study, we report the identification of pre-existing mucosal SARS-CoV-2–reactive Abs. These Abs are encoded by naive and Ag-experienced B cells, exhibit neutralizing potential, and do not recognize endemic human coronaviruses.

This is quite an extraordinary finding. They identify SC-2 reactive mucosal B-cells in children from before the pandemic, but these same cells are not reactive to the common cold viruses, so it’s not a case of cross-reactivity via exposure to other common coronaviruses.

Recent studies showing S-protein reactivity of sera collected from SARS-CoV-2–negative individuals suggest that a previous encounter with endemic HCoV may be a potential source of pre-existing circulating S-protein–reactive Abs (1113).

We observed that our panel of Abs readily recognized the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 S-proteins with a small subset of Abs also binding to the S-protein of SARS-CoV but that none of the Abs showed reactivity to the S-proteins of the endemic HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-229E coronaviruses (Fig. 3D3E).

The authors clearly identify a role for the innate mucosal immune system in the prevention of infection from SARS-CoV-2, which has nothing to do with cross-reactive T-cells.

Our detection of pre-existing SARS-CoV-2–reactive Abs in the mucosal immune system of the upper respiratory tract that, although lacking the potency of neutralizing Abs isolated from Covid-19 convalescent individuals, exhibit the ability to partially block ACE2 binding in vitro provides an as-yet-unexplored contribution of the mucosal adaptive immune system to pathogen protection.

Prepandemic serum samples were reported to cross react to SARS-CoV-2, indicating that humoral immune responses to endemic HCoV may engage the viral pathogen following infection but they do not correlate with protection from SARS-CoV-2 (1113). In our analysis, we did not observe cross-reactivity of the mAbs with the endemic HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-229E

Humoral immune responses are those which occur in the blood and the lymphatic fluid, as distinct from mucosal. The authors here identify prepandemic mucosal neutralising antibodies which have played a role in preventing people from getting infected with, or seriously suffering from SARS-CoV-2, which are not related to previous exposure to the common cold. The origin of this pre-existing immunity is therefore a bit of a mystery, but it does explain why children in particular are less susceptible to infection with SARS-CoV-2.

We are left to contemplate how important T-cells actually are in preventing infection and serious disease from Covid versus the importance of mucosal immunity mediated via immune cells in the upper respiratory tract. We are also left to contemplate what role each played in the protection of the populace from the newly emergent SARS-CoV-2 virus very early on in the pandemic and how that prior immunity actually arose, if it was not from exposure to the common cold.

Update:

It would appear that the Imperial College London study was started in September 2020 but has only just now been published. This is a ridiculously long time to take to publish data which was collected over a year ago.

It’s good to have further confirmation of this from Imperial (and also recently from UCL), but it has to be said it’s pretty late to the party, and it’s not clear why a study which began in September 2020 during a public health emergency has taken 16 months to report, particularly when vaccines were brought to market in 10 months. 

Egg-Head Jabid Gets Egg All Over His Face At King’s College NHS

He visited King’s College London Hospital today and asked the question, what do staff think of the vaccine mandates being introduced. If looks could kill. But the nurses remained silent. Consultant Dr Steve James didn’t though:

Ouch! Jabid looked suddenly stupid and way out of his depth. But he still managed to insult an experienced professional medic by suggesting that his facts were merely opinion and by stating that the government relied on the very best advice of ‘vaccine experts’. Yeah, we know the kind of ‘experts’ he’s talking about. Billionaire computer geeks, former war criminal PMs, hopelessly compromised Chief Medical Officers, the WEF, hard sell Pfizer vaccine salesmen, etc. Even when they receive actual expert advice from panels like the JCVI, who advised against jabbing kids, they ignore it.

Bob Moran sums up Jabid’s spanking at King’s quite nicely:

Now, in case you were wondering if Jabid is actually the scientifically illiterate, factually challenged, arrogant little egg-headed turd that he comes across as, here is the evidence. In response to Dr James arguing that ‘vaccine’ effectiveness tended to wane very quickly and it was impractical to keep giving staff boosters every month or so, Jabid claimed that infection-acquired antibodies waned also. Well, yes, that’s what they do. It’s entirely natural. Jabid appears not to understand at all what naturally acquired immunity actually is. Because what happens is, with a mild to moderate, even severe infection, the body produces antibodies in the blood and the lymph to fight the virus. These antibodies don’t just target the spike region (as do the ‘vaccines’); they target other parts of the virus too, meaning that the antibody response is broad spectrum.

What then happens is that once the viral infection is defeated, these humoral antibodies naturally decline and eventually all but disappear. However, this does not mean that the immune system cannot see off another attack by the same virus, because the immune cells retain a memory of the virus, such that fresh antibodies can be produced rapidly if the body is challenged again by infection. This Nature article explains:

Many people who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 will probably make antibodies against the virus for most of their lives. So suggest researchers who have identified long-lived antibody-producing cells in the bone marrow of people who have recovered from COVID-191.

The study provides evidence that immunity triggered by SARS-CoV-2 infection will be extraordinarily long-lasting.

Antibodies — proteins that can recognize and help to inactivate viral particles — are a key immune defence. After a new infection, short-lived cells called plasmablasts are an early source of antibodies.

But these cells recede soon after a virus is cleared from the body, and other, longer-lasting cells make antibodies: memory B cells patrol the blood for reinfection, while bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) hide away in bones, trickling out antibodies for decades.

“A plasma cell is our life history, in terms of the pathogens we’ve been exposed to,” says Ali Ellebedy, a B-cell immunologist at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, who led the study, published in Nature on 24 May.

Ellebedy’s team tracked antibody production in 77 people who had recovered from mostly mild cases of COVID-19. As expected, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies plummeted in the four months after infection. But this decline slowed, and up to 11 months after infection, the researchers could still detect antibodies that recognized the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

To identify the source of the antibodies, Ellebedy’s team collected memory B cells and bone marrow from a subset of participants. Seven months after developing symptoms, most of these participants still had memory B cells that recognized SARS-CoV-2. In 15 of the 18 bone-marrow samples, the scientists found ultra-low but detectable populations of BMPCs whose formation had been triggered by the individuals’ coronavirus infections 7–8 months before. Levels of these cells were stable in all five people who gave another bone-marrow sample several months later.

“This is a very important observation,” given claims of dwindling SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, says Rafi Ahmed, an immunologist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, whose team co-discovered the cells in the late 1990s.

If Jabid doesn’t know this, then he isn’t fit to be health secretary. Of course, Nature being what it is, it cannot give the impression that natural immunity is superior in any way to vaccine immunity – although several studies show that it is – so it states the caveat that even memory cell mediated infection-acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2 might not last for years. Bizarrely, this contradicts its earlier statements that infection-acquired immunity probably lasts a lifetime. Well, it might not last a lifetime, but with SARS 1, infection-acquired immunity was shown to be still effective after 17 years, so I’d say that was pretty long lasting naturally acquired immunity to a virus genetically very similar to SARS-CoV-2.

What’s not clear is what antibody levels will look like in the long term and whether they offer any protection, Ahmed adds. “We’re early in the game. We’re not looking at five years, ten years after infection.”

Ellebedy’s team has observed early signs that Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine should trigger the production of the same cells4. But the persistence of antibody production, whether elicited by vaccination or by infection, does not ensure long-lasting immunity to COVID-19. The ability of some emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants to blunt the protective effects of antibodies means that additional immunizations may be needed to restore levels, says Ellebedy. “My presumption is, we will need a booster.”

The other obvious point to make is that Ellebedy probably means an annual booster, not a flipping booster every month or two, as is currently being proposed by power mad governments and insane medical officers, and which is actually happening (to little effect) in Israel for instance, who are now onto the fourth jab.

So a big congratulations to Dr Steve James for speaking up in defence of logic and science and revealing Jabid for what he is. let’s hope Kings NHS Trust don’t sack him for his bravery.

Black Swan? No, Indiana’s Quadruple 3-Sigma Event Is More Like The Black Death

In Indiana, people aged 18-64 are dying in huge, unprecedented numbers. More specifically, employees of large companies who benefit from group life insurance policies negotiated by their employer are dying in huge numbers. A forty percent increase in 2021 over pre-pandemic levels. It ain’t Covid. It ain’t even the Black Death (Bubonic/pneumonic/septicaemic Plague – which wiped out 40% of Europe’s population in the mid 14th century). Most deaths are recorded as due to a variety of other causes. So what is it? Whatever it is, it’s bad, really bad, this bad:

Davison said the increase in deaths represents “huge, huge numbers,” and that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64” who are the employees of companies that have group life insurance plans through OneAmerica.

“And what we saw just in third quarter, we’re seeing it continue into fourth quarter, is that death rates are up 40% over what they were pre-pandemic,” he said.

“Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic,” he said. “So 40% is just unheard of.””

Jessica Rose sarcastically calls it a ‘quatastrophe’:

So we’re talking about levels that are 4 times worse that what would be considered a catastrophe. Wait, doesn’t that make it a quatastrophe? Hardy har har. 

Steve Kirsch definitely thinks it’s the ‘vaccines’ and gives his reasons why:

  1. These deaths started only after the vaccines rolled out
  2. The deaths are “primarily working-age people 18 to 64” who are the employees of companies that have group life insurance plans through OneAmerica. That’s not to say 65 and over aren’t affected as well. What’s key is that we’re seeing effects in young people.
  3. There are more excess deaths than anytime in history, so it is likely caused by a new threat, never seen before in history, like a novel vaccine that has never been used before or something new like that that a huge number of people would be exposed to (such as by a state that pushes vaccination).
  4. Not due to COVID (COVID deaths are way down).
  5. They are dying from a variety of causes, not just a single cause. So this rules out food or air-based pathogens. I note that the variety of causes of death is consistent with the wide range of adverse events caused by the COVID vaccines, for example.
  6. It has to affect massive numbers of people to get an effect size that high. So it is something new affecting at least half the population, like a new mandated vaccine for example.
  7. There is a huge push for vaccines by the Indiana governor, he wants to have everyone vaccinated. Interesting. “Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb doubled down on the drive to get everyone in the state vaccinated.”
  8. Useful fact: Adults 65 and older account for 16% of the US population but 80% of COVID-19 deaths in the US, somewhat higher than their share of deaths from all causes (75%) over the same period. We’ll use that 75% stat later.
  9. It isn’t just the one life insurance company, they are all seeing this huge rises at other insurance companies. So this is something huge and national in scope, like a vaccine mandate in the entire US, or something like that.

It doesn’t look good. We can probably assume that a high percentage of the people who died have been double or triple-jabbed, probably higher than the adult population in general, but even so, if it is the vaccines which are primarily causing these premature deaths, this is going to play out in the population as a whole and it is going to be an absolutely huge, unprecedented public health catastrophe, moreover an avoidable catastrophe, one which our governments and health authorities must at least have been aware of quite early on as a realistic possibility, given the extremely poor safety profile of the ‘vaccines’, even as revealed by Pfizer’s trials prior to emergency use authorisation. The fact that the ‘vaccines’ were not withdrawn much earlier is a crime; very likely it is a crime against humanity on a scale which exceeds considerably any comparable crimes in the 20th century. I do not think that is an exaggeration. It is not hyperbole now and, in retrospect, it was not hyperbole back in July 2020 when I first raised this spectre in relation to enforced wearing of masks. Tyranny proceeds in small steps, until one day you wake up and realise that a genocide has been slipped under the rug when you weren’t looking. You might prefer to call it mass corporate manslaughter or democide as a resultant of malfeasance in public office. Robert Malone hints darkly that it may be something more sinister even than that:

As Jan Jekielek (a senior editor with The Epoch Times) recently said to me, it is getting harder and harder to tell which ones are mere conspiracy theories and which are true reality. 

One farm visitor told me of his foreshadowing massive numbers of deaths within three years consequent to the genetic vaccines, and that this was all about the “Great Reset” and the depopulation agenda of the World Economic Forum (WEF).  I tried to reassure him that, in my opinion, this was highly unlikely.

But I am wandering from a point that I am afraid to clearly state. 

It is starting to look to me like the largest experiment on human beings in recorded history has failed.  And, if this rather dry report from a senior Indiana life insurance executive holds true, then Reiner Fuellmich’s “Crimes against Humanity” push for convening new Nuremberg trials starts to look a lot less quixotic and a lot more prophetic.

Jessica Rose is rather more blunt:

So what does this tell us? It tells us that we are potentially in a huge steaming pile of shit. To be frank. These indications from our friend at the insurance company are simply that – indications. If what we are seeing in VAERS, and the other adverse event reporting systems, is the mere reflection of what is actually going on with regards to injuries, which I presume it is, then we ain’t seen nothing yet. And if what is being reported with regards to immune deficiencies associated with these injections is not simply anecdotal or representative of a small sub-cohort of individuals, we could be looking at a government imposed complete health disaster.