Horowitz: Science mag that warned about danger of leaky vaccines in 2018 posts false editor’s note to cover for COVID shots

Leaky vaccines are worse than no vaccine at all. That is the unmistakable conclusion one would derive from a May 2018 article in Quanta magazine, a top scientific publication, about the unsuccessful attempts to create vaccines for HIV, malaria, and anthrax that aren’t leaky and don’t run the risk of making the pathogens more dangerous.

Yet now that we are seeing such a microbiological Frankenstein play out in real life and people like Dr. Robert Malone have been citing this article to raise red flags about the leaky COVID shots, Quanta magazine took the unprecedented step of slapping an editor’s note on an article three and a half years later to get people to stop applying it to the leakiest vaccine of all time.

But the assertion that the shots reduce transmission is patently false, and the fact that these vaccines indeed don’t stop transmission or reduce viral load makes them the perfect candidate for the nightmare scenario the article’s author, Melinda Wenner Moyer, once warned about.

In order to distract from the failure of the shots to stop transmission, the injection cult focused on their purported ability to protect against severe illness. But as so many more vaccinated became severely ill as well – following like clockwork the timeline of events we witnessed from the leaky Marek’s disease chicken vaccine – they then focused on boosters to distract from the next failure. But any way you slice it, there is no way to run or hide from the fact that these shots have not reduced transmission one iota. In fact, some of the most prolific spreads are happening in places with near-universal vaccination rates among adults, often the most vaccinated region in the country having the highest number of cases per capita.

In many ways, this vaccine is much leakier than even the ones Moyer warned about in 2018. This is why Israel needs to authorize a fourth shot already for those with three shots, just to get them some protection from serious illness. The Pfizer CEO declared this week that in the U.S., “I think we will need a fourth dose.” At least 68 health care workers in a Spanish hospital got the virus despite already having been jabbed three times. 90% of those who recently rested positive on a flight from South Africa to the Netherlands were vaccinated, and all 14 who tested positive for Omicron were vaccinated. And of course, there is no denying the negative efficacy we are seeing on infection rates in the U.K. among the vaccinated.

Studies have consistently shown that transmission rates and viral loads were not different from vaccinated to unvaccinated people. An Oxford study even showed that the vaccinated did not experience lower rates of “long COVID” from infection. Researchers from the CDC’s COVID-19 Response Team recently posted a preprint study of prisoners and found that “no significant differences were detected in duration of RT-PCR positivity among fully vaccinated participants (median: 13 days) versus those not fully vaccinated (median: 13 days; p=0.50), or in duration of culture positivity.” They concluded, “Clinicians and public health practitioners should consider vaccinated persons who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 to be no less infectious than unvaccinated persons.”

So now that we’ve established that, contrary to the editors of Quanta, the vaccine is as leaky as it comes, what are the consequences? The 2018 article warns that unlike standard vaccines that drop in efficacy over time, leaky vaccine “failures caused by vaccine-induced evolution are different” because “these drops in vaccine effectiveness are incited by changes in pathogen populations that the vaccines themselves directly cause.” Moyer warns that RNA viruses have “a mutation rate as much as 100,000 times greater than that found in human DNA.”

But what if you threw 8.23 billion doses (and counting) of a leaky, non-sterilizing vaccine up against a mutant-prone RNA virus like a coronavirus? While the article focuses on potential leaky vaccines for HIV and malaria, working from the lesson of the Marek’s disease chicken vaccine, the concern that “these new vaccines may incite a different, and potentially scarier, kind of microbial evolution” should apply doubly for the COVID shots. Quoting professor Andrew Read of Penn State, Moyer shows how leaky vaccines in humans could potentially allow the virus to have its cake and eat it too – become very transmissible while remaining dangerously virulent, just like the learned experience with Marek’s chickens.

The problem with leaky vaccines, Read says, is that they enable pathogens to replicate unchecked while also protecting hosts from illness and death, thereby removing the costs associated with increased virulence. Over time, then, in a world of leaky vaccinations, a pathogen might evolve to become deadlier to unvaccinated hosts because it can reap the benefits of virulence without the costs — much as Marek’s disease has slowly become more lethal to unvaccinated chickens. This virulence can also cause the vaccine to start failing by causing illness in vaccinated hosts.

It's hard not to get goose bumps when observing that this is exactly what has been occurring since around July – roughly when the vaccines began leaking. The virus became extremely transmissible and was at least as virulent, as so many younger and healthier people were crushed by the virus. First it appeared to mainly affect the unvaccinated, then over time, as witnessed by the weekly data reports from the U.K., it began affecting even the protection from serious illness in the vaccinated – to the point that public health authorities could no longer hide the failure and had to throw a hail Mary calling for boosters.

Moyer notes that Read found a similar phenomenon with a leaky malaria vaccine in mice as with Marek’s disease vaccines in chickens:

In a 2012 paper published in PLOS Biology, Read and Vicki Barclay, his postdoc at the time, inoculated mice with a component of several leaky malaria vaccines currently being tested in clinical trials. They then used these infected-but-not-sick mice to infect other vaccinated mice. After the parasites circulated through 21 rounds of vaccinated mice, Barclay and Read studied them and compared them to malaria parasites that had circulated through 21 rounds of unvaccinated mice. The strains from the vaccinated mice, they found, had grown far more virulent, in that they replicated faster and killed more red blood cells. At the end of 21 rounds of infection, these more quickly growing, deadly parasites were the only ones left.

Now extrapolate that nightmare to humans, and you will understand the insane infection rates of a virulent virus creating death and mayhem since July at much higher rates than we saw before the vaccines ever appeared. Researchers at Queen Mary, University of London, noticed a strange phenomenon from ONS England mortality data that seemed to show a spike in deaths from the unvaccinated every time there was a large vaccination drive.

What would the two factors have to do with each other? Could this be the effect of those vaccinated with a leaky virus – before their protection from severe illness wears off – absolutely blasting the unvaccinated with a more virulent and aggressive virus made stronger by the suboptimal evolutionary pressure placed upon it by the vaccine?

Moyer ends the article by noting that, as Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche has warned, “the most crucial need right now is for vaccine scientists to recognize the relevance of evolutionary biology to their field.” However, she quotes Professor Read as saying that “researchers are afraid: They’re nervous to talk about and call attention to potential evolutionary effects because they fear that doing so might fuel more fear and distrust of vaccines by the public.”

So even three years ago, vaccination was just as sacrosanct in that you were not allowed to raise any red flags about flaws in some vaccines. And that is what we are seeing today. No matter how many red flags we see with this vaccine – from individual injuries to micro-evolutionary concerns about creating stronger resistant strains – you can never question any form of vaccine under any circumstance for any reason. And doing so will even get the publication to place an editor’s note three and a half years after publication wrongly suggesting that the leakiest vaccine of all time doesn’t leak.

Indeed, professor Read has already been forced to publicly denounce any comparison of COVID shots to his research on leaky vaccines, even if that required him to falsely assert that the COVID shots reduce transmission.

As New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern warned, “There’s not going to be an endpoint to this vaccination program.”

New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern says "There’s not going to be an endpoint to this vaccination program"www.youtube.com

She is correct. There is no endpoint to a leaky vaccine that directly induces viral immune escape. Precisely because those vaccines don’t work and actually make the virus stronger are why there is always a need for more vaccines that will make even more resistant pathogens so you can keep vaccinating and use the fear generated from the failures of the first round to facilitate the marketing of the second round. After all, we wouldn’t want a vaccine program to become a victim of its own success.