Vax Hesitancy--Reasonable Or Not?

Is it reasonable to hesitate to allow people to inject gene therapy medications into your body? I want to present some material that addresses that question. There should be four links, but I'll try to keep most of this fairly brief. The final link will directly address the issue of Vaccine Hesitancy in exactly those terms. The first three links address the unusual nature of the Covid 'vaccines'. Some of these articles were sponsored by anti-vaxxing organizations, but the authors are by no means anti-vaxxers themselves--in fact, the final two articles feature scientists who have spent years in the field of vaccine development. For that reason, I hope that the views presented will be balanced.

So, first:

Could spike protein in Moderna, Pfizer vaccines cause blood clots, brain inflammation, and heart attacks?

Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, a pediatric rheumatologist, warned the FDA in December that mRNA vaccines could cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways not assessed in safety trials.

If you've been following the Covid vaccine news you may have heard about blood clotting issues. However, for me the most interesting part of this article has to do with neurological problems associated with Covid-19 the disease. What researchers have been finding is neurological problems in the brains of Covid-19 sufferers, but a lack of any evidence of actual viral presence in the brain. Scientists are speculating that these problems--damage to organs remote from the actual site of Covid infection--are caused not by the virus per se but by the famous "spike protein" (S-protein) alone. 

That's me summarizing. Here's an excerpt from the article that should provide a succinct idea of the reason concerns are rising regarding the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaxxes. As you'll see, these discussions are taking place in what could be called "medical establishment" journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine--not just at anti-vaxxing sites:

In a more recent analysis published Feb. 4, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke  documented microvascular injury but no evidence of virus in the brains of patients who died from COVID-19. They reported, “In a convenience sample of patients who had died from COVID-19, multifocal microvascular injury was observed in the brain and olfactory bulbs by means of magnetic resonance microscopy, histopathological evaluation and immunohistochemical analysis of corresponding sections, without evidence of viral infection.”

If not viral infection, what else could be causing injury to distant organs associated with COVID-19?

The most likely culprit that has been identified is the COVID-19 spike protein released from the outer shell of the virus into circulation. Research cited below has documented that the viral spike protein is able to initiate a cascade of events that triggers damage to distant organs in COVID-19 patients.

Worryingly, several studies have found that the spike proteins alone have the capacity to cause widespread injury throughout the body, without any evidence of virus.

What makes this finding so disturbing is that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines manufactured by Moderna and Pfizer and currently being administered throughout the U.S. program our cells to manufacture this same coronavirus spike protein as a way to trigger our bodies to produce antibodies to the virus.

...

A second study published in December, 2020, in Neurobiology of Disease reported that the SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins showed a direct negative impact on endothelial cells and provide “plausible explanations” for the neurological consequences observed in patients with COVID-19.

...

... They concluded that ACE2+ endothelial damage is a central part of SARS-CoV-2 pathology and may be induced by the spike protein alone. Injection of the full-length S1 spike subunit in the tail vein of mice, as part of the same study, led to neurologic signs (increased thirst, stressed behavior).

...

Let’s now circle back to the concerns voiced by Whelan in his letter to the FDA [the letter was written before the official release of the 'vaccines']:

“I am concerned about the possibility that the new vaccines aimed at creating immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein have the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in a way that does not currently appear to be assessed in safety trials of these potential drugs.”

Whelan was referring to the fact that mRNA vaccines work by incorporating the genetic blueprint for the key spike protein on the virus surface into a formula that — when injected into humans — instructs our own cells to make the spike protein.

In theory, the body then will make antibodies against the spike protein to protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The problem with this scenario, as we saw above, is that the spike protein alone — which the mRNA vaccines instruct the body to make — has been implicated as a key cause of injury and death in COVID-19 infections.

Based on the research conducted to date, it is very likely that some recipients of the spike protein mRNA vaccines will experience the same symptoms and injuries associated with the virus.

As a result, the concerns of these scientists arise from the way these "vaccines" work. These "vaccines" DO NOT prevent infection or reinfection--which is the reason for using the "", because a true vaccine is supposed to prevent infection.. Instead, the the Pfizer and Moderna drugs cause the body to produce large numbers of spike proteins. The potential then exists, theoretically, that the inevitable infection or reinfection of "vaxxed" persons could lead down the road to "microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys." I'm not a doctor, but that sounds like something I'd prefer to avoid. And, by the way, do you now understand why you're being told to wear one or more masks even after being vaxxed?

The next link is to an interview with a psychiatrist, Peter Breggin, who has a long history of involvement in the fight against using drugs or surgery (lobotomy, for example) to treat mental illness--or ADD in children. He's an interesting guy, and it's worth reading his bio at the link. The interview is long and wide ranging, but it covers a lot of topics that Breggin covers in his forthcoming book--COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We are the Prey. As you can see, Breggin makes no bones about his position. He sees two aspects to the current crisis--a scientific aspect but, equally important, a political aspect--and both are covered in his book. As you'll see from his bio, he's used to doing battle with politicians on scientific matters. In modern America science and politics cannot be separated--that's fact. Here's the link to the interview:

Globalists are using COVID-19 to ‘crush the spirit’ of mankind

To give you some idea of the issues that he covers, here's one that really caught my attention. The interviewer asks Breggin about the suppression of effective treatments for Covid--I assume the reference is largely to HCQ. Breggin responds that those treatments HAD to be impugned as non-effective. The reason is this: The emergency authorization for Pfizer and Modern could not be granted unless there were no effective treatments for Covid-19. If there were effective treatments, there would be no emergency. OK, now ask yourself: Does Big Pharma--and that includes Pfizer and Moderna but also their financial backers--donate to politicians and even to the government medical/scientific establishment? Yes, they do.

Third, we have another interview. This interview is with a widely respected and highly qualified Belgian vaccinologist--he's currently still involved in vaccine development. I point this out right up front, because the interview is at an anti-vaxxing site. Here is the interview link:

Interview With Geert Vanden Bossche: Should Mass COVID Vaccinations Be Stopped?

Now, here's his bio:

Geert Vanden Bossche received his DVM from the University of Ghent, Belgium, and his PhD degree in Virology from the University of Hohenheim, Germany. He held adjunct faculty appointments at universities in Belgium and Germany. After his career in Academia, Geert joined several vaccine companies (GSK Biologicals, Novartis Vaccines, Solvay Biologicals) to serve various roles in vaccine R&D as well as in late vaccine development. Geert then moved on to join the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Health Discovery team in Seattle (USA) as Senior Program Officer; he then worked with the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) in Geneva as Senior Ebola Program Manager. At GAVI he tracked efforts to develop an Ebola vaccine. He also represented GAVI in fora with other partners, including WHO, to review progress on the fight against Ebola and to build plans for global pandemic preparedness. Back in 2015, Geert scrutinized and questioned the safety of the Ebola vaccine that was used in ring vaccination trials conducted by WHO in Guinea. His critical scientific analysis and report on the data published by WHO in the Lancet in 2015 was sent to all international health and regulatory authorities involved in the Ebola vaccination program. After working for GAVI, Geert joined the German Center for Infection Research in Cologne as Head of the Vaccine Development Office. He is at present primarily serving as a Biotech/ Vaccine consultant while also conducting his own research on Natural Killer cell-based vaccines.

Again, this is a lengthy and wide ranging interview. Unfortunately, while Vanden Bossche speaks very good English, he has an unusual and strong accent and a rapid speaking style. The first half of the interview is quite technical. If I can try to summarize, his concerns about the mRNA vaccines arise from the fact that they are highly specific in targeting the "spike protein". His concern is that this highly specific targeting will lead to the virus rapidly and easily evolving "workarounds"--"variants". He contrasts this to the type of immunity that is gained through traditional vaccines or, even better, "innate [natural] immunity," which provide much broader protection and are not easily circumvented by the virus. The result, he believes, will be reinfection of vaccinated persons who will (for a number of reasons) be very vulnerable to new variants or mutations--but whose "innate" or "natural" immunity will have been suppressed by the vaccines (again, technical reasons). 

I won't attempt a further summary, because the final interview--yet to come, below--will largely agree with Vanden Bossche and will be in more accessible English. However, here's a summary from the link above:

In summary, the concerns center around the notion that a combination of lockdowns and extreme selection pressure on the virus induced by the intense global mass vaccination program might diminish the number of cases, hospitalizations and deaths in the short-term, but ultimately, will induce the creation of more mutants of concern.

This is the result of what Vanden Bossche calls ‘immune escape’ (i.e. incomplete sterilization of the virus by the human immune system, even following vaccine administration). This will in turn trigger vaccine companies to further refine vaccines that will add, not reduce, the selection pressure, so producing ever more transmissible and potentially deadly variants.

The selection pressure will cause greater convergence in mutations that affect the critical spike protein of the virus that is responsible for breaking through the mucosal surfaces of our airways, the route used by the virus to enter the human body. The virus will effectively outsmart the highly specific antigen-based vaccines that are being used and tweaked, dependent on the circulating variants. All of this could lead to a hockey stick-like increase in serious and potentially lethal cases — in effect, an out-of-control pandemic.

Not only that, it will be Western nations with high proportions of metabolically diseased, overweight or obese individuals with compromised immune systems that will be hit hardest.

And here's my transcription of a portion of Vanden Bossche's recommendations, which come toward the end of the interview:

[~1:06]

My viewpoint has not changed at all. Stop, please, stop immediately this mass vaccination campaign!

Second, based on the science that, I think, makes a lot of sense, we know that our young and HEALTHY people--could even be people seventy five years old, in perfect health--they do have good innate immunity. That has been clearly proven during the first wave. We haven't seen any kids or people in good health, even elderly people, doing exercise and not having overweight or diseases, these people didn't get ill. So, this is clearly--and there's more of evidence of this--that is thanks to their innate immunity. So, innate immunity is unbelievably precious. It is so precious, we need to conserve this. [His concern is that the vaccines will compromise "innate" immunity.]

My point is, because it is the only way I can explain why people who are protected during the first wave--don't develop symptoms--all of a sudden during the second wave become ill. What we're seeing right now in hospitals are younger people--and I thought they were protected in the first wave! Why all of a sudden would they become vulnerable? The only explanation for me that makes sense is the competition with the antigen specific antibodies--the surge they have, the short lived surge [produced by the vaccines], but if during that period [of the surge] they become infected, reinfected, their innate immunity is suppressed, and that likelihood that that happens increases when you have an increasing amount of highly infectious [variants?] that are circulated. 

If that is really true, which I think it is, then in order to preserve this precious innate immunity that, by the way, is functional against ALL the variants, even if we have still 250 other variants coming up it's functional against all coronavirus. If we want to preserve this, we need to avoid suppression of the innate immunity by antigen specific antibodies [through the vaccines]. And this is the short lived surge I'm talking about, so I'm advocating for--I know it's available in US--a ... simple diagnosis fingerprint test. People could simply monitor whether they have antibodies. If they have antibodies, they know that after 4-6 weeks those antibodies will disappear ... these people can go out. I mean, they have the full fledged innate immunity, AND by going out they can TRAIN this immunity. Because remember--innate immunity has no immunological memory--it needs to be trained. So this would free up all of our youngsters and old people in good health who could monitor themselves. ... I think it's really worthwhile investigating into this.

The third thing that goes with this, is for God's sake this is a unique opportunity for governments and political leaders to call up to their people to take good care of their health--their lifestyle. ... Stay healthy food, exercise. I would love to see the statistics of people who got Covid disease and did regular exercise and had no overweight, for example. These are only two criteria, there is many more. And we know ... the correlation between good health and innate immunity is very strong correlation.

The fourth thing is we need to protect those people who can no longer rely on this innate immunity, especially given the fact that we have an increasing amount of new variants of course. And these are the people, I think it's sad to say, who have been naturally infected and have the specific antibodies but also more and more people who got vaccinated. We need to protect these people. That is absolutely important because we see already right now that antibodies become less and less functional against those new variants and my fear is that within the next days or weeks we will have full resistance even [of the virus against the vaccines]. When that happens, dysfunctional [?] antibodies, people can throw them in the bin. They're completely useless. It's even worse, they suppress their innate immunity. So they have nothing to rely upon, and that would be extremely sad.

The good news is ... there is incredible progress with regard to early treatment of Covid. I mean, there are folks, they have been published in peer reviewed journals, who have kind of, ya, you could call it a cocktail of different medication, all of them are approved, safe, et cetera, that people can take and have been proven to reduce hospitalization and severe disease by 85%. Can you imagine? When I hear this, when I see this published, I think it should be by law, any medical doctor who diagnoses Covid 19 disease--or infection, even--should not let the patient go home and just say, ya, you know, you should just isolate and go in quarantine and wait and see. It should be law that these people are automatically provided with a first aid package.

[1:12:39]

OK, we're in the home stretch--but it'll be a bit of a lengthy stretch. What we have now is a talk that was given by a Canadian vaccinologist, Dr Byram Bridle, from the University of Guelph--he's currently active in trying to develop cancer and viral vaccines. In other words, Bridle is anything BUT an anti vaxxer. 

I'll be working from a transcript and, unfortunately, Dr. Bridle's speaking style is a bit like a Valley Girl, so I'll try to clean it up a bit. However ...

Bridle is directly addressing the issue of vaccine hesitancy--from his own perspective as a vaccinologist who wants to maintain "faith" in vaccines. as of 2/24/21. It's worth quoting him to get that perspective out in the open as of 2/24/21. And so Bridle states near the beginning:

“I would probably prefer to have natural immunity” — Dr Byram Bridle (Viral Immunologist)

I just want to differentiate two terms we’ve been hearing a lot about during this pandemic:

1. One is anti-vaxxers. And usually when that term is used, it’s often referring to people who tend to hold an extremely negative view of all vaccines, regardless of what the scientific data has to say about them.
2. But I want to highlight that vaccine hesitancy is very, very different. And a lot of people who have the vaccine hesitancy are being made to feel very bad these days, right? It’s as though if they were simply educated enough about vaccines, then they would have no problem with these COVID-19 vaccines. But that’s not the case. That’s not the definition, certainly that I use. These are individuals instead who are unsure of their commitment to taking a vaccine. And it’s usually because of outstanding questions. So in other words, the onus is not on the individual. It’s not that the individual simply needs to be educated. We have, there’s lots of people who are very deep thinkers about this, doing their own research about the COVID-19 vaccines and coming up with very legitimate questions.

We’re in a unique situation with these vaccines. There are questions that are unanswered now that were never unanswered at this point for previous vaccines.

So you can see where he's going. Many of those unanswered questions are very similar to the concerns raised by Vanden Bossche. Bridle goes on to repeat that the onus is on the drug companies, not the individuals, and that he is going to try to discuss the issues that need to be addressed.

Bridle begins by explaining at some length how vaccines are supposed to work. He then expresses his surprise that these Covid vaccines could be "rolled out" so quickly and explains in plain words what's going on:

There was no way that we would reasonably have good, well-vetted COVID-19 vaccines available now and available within a year from the beginning of the pandemic.

...

But this is because these COVID-19 vaccines have reached the public rollout phase by, and I’ll say it in quotes, “cutting corners”. And by cutting corners, I’m not implying that people were skipping key steps, although honestly, there could be some potential questions around that.

BYRAM BRIDLE ➝ 00:15:18

But what I mean by this is when we were asked to comment previously on how long it takes these vaccines to be developed, that was based on the understanding that the roll out would follow the typical timeline, which is that companies would complete phase three clinical trials, and then they would conduct the analysis.

...

So in this case, none of us were expecting, I don’t think, that the vaccines would be rolled out very early on in the phase three clinical trials. So the phase three trials are not done. So in essence, what this means is the public rollout right now is an extension of the phase three clinical trial.

BYRAM BRIDLE ➝ 00:16:04

So those being vaccinated now are, whether they realize it or not, part of the phase three experiment, the part of a vaccination experiment and the companies have openly acknowledged this in their reports to the regulatory agencies, because, for example, there’s a minimum period of time for which they have to track things like the safety of the vaccine.

According to Bridle, the results of the experiment won't be known for at least two years. Reread that.

BYRAM BRIDLE ➝ 00:17:02

Okay. So this is important to keep in mind. So as a consequence, these have been approved in a remarkable time, but that alone has raised some legitimate questions that are unique to these coronavirus vaccines.

And also I want to highlight that the nature of the virus itself – and I’ll get into this in a little bit – and as well, some very perplexing decisions about the rollout are raising additional questions that I would consider quite legitimate.

Next, Bridle moves on to the "long term safety profile" of these vaccines--and notes that there is no long term safety profile, only a short term profile. And that's because we're still in the experimental phase. The significance of this can be seen from some of the anecdotal evidence that Bridle cites. For example: The first day the Pfizer shot was rolled out in the UK there were examples of anaphylactic shock--something that had not appeared previously in the trials. That's why these experimental shots are now being given in closely monitored centers.

Another example involves a concerning rise in "non-Covid" deaths in long terms care facilities in the UK--post vaccine. Remember above how there was concern that the "spike protein" was responsible for organ damage leading to death, leaving no sign of viral involvement? I suspect that's what Bridle has in mind. There just hasn't been time to figure all this out. As he says:

And what I mean by that is after somebody has been vaccinated, there are hundreds, probably thousands of other variables that occur in their day-to-day life that could have contributed to the problem. So it’s very difficult. So the only way we can really determine if it’s related to the vaccine often is just is with a large body of data that allows you to generate a very strong correlation. Okay.

But what I think what’s obvious here regardless is if these vaccines over time were to accrue a track record of causing too many severe, overly severe unpredicted side effects, this could potentially be cause for withdrawal of a vaccine.

And he cites long term effects from the swine flu pandemic, that weren't published until three years later. Again, as he says: "That's the point." It's the point about running experiments on the general public.

The next issue he discusses is "duration of immunity." Again, as he says, the problem is that there has been no long terms study, so in the real world this is a real unknown. This should suggest to you Vanden Bossche's concerns, as well.

Now, here's a big one.

Bridle gets into the whole question of "effectiveness" of the shots. Remember you were told that these shots had a nigh miraculous 95% effectiveness? Well, get ready for a nasty surprise. Bridle points out deficiencies in how that number was generated--he's far from the first to do so--and then adds:

So this was the confirmation wasn’t done. And this was only revealed in a summary report that was issued later by the United States food and drug administration, their health regulatory agency.

Now it’s interesting as a re-analysis with these new data taken into account was actually performed by the associate editor of the British Medical Journal. Now just called the BMJ. Alright. I do want to point out this is a non peer reviewed opinion letter. Okay.

But their new estimate taking into account that these unconfirmed cases actually predicts that the effectiveness could be as low as 19 to 29%, which is a remarkable difference.

But again, I want to highlight this can neither be confirmed or refuted until raw data are released to the scientific community. However, I was intrigued by this because this, this letter was published in mid January and the FDA held their meeting December 10th in 2020.

Note what he's saying. He's not arguing for any particular set of numbers. What he's saying, though--and it's apparent even at this point--is that "hesitancy" if perfectly rational. And he then goes on to cite some other examples from around the world showing that the effectiveness appears to be dramatically lower than advertised.

I'm going to skip over some of the discussion to get to the point at which Bridle expresses concerns about the vaccines and the virus itself. You'll see why I say that he appears to be in general agreement with Vanden Bossche. Also, you'll see that he makes a major point of saying that in important respects this whole development has been very short sights--from a scientific standpoint. He sees a high possibility that the new variants will bypass the narrowly focused vaccine "immunity", and like Vanden Bossche sees the "natural" immunity as preferable--he states that explicitly:

One final thing. I am very concerned about the emergence of SARS coronavirus two variants. Very concerned about this in the context of the vaccines.

Several of these have been identified. ...

... And this is to be expected. This is not unusual. We know the coronaviruses do this. Just so that you understand a little bit of the virology here, coronaviruses are designed to copy their genetic material in a way that inherently induces random mutations.

BYRAM BRIDLE ➝ 00:41:40

...

 

...

I’m a researcher. I focused my career on developing ways to maximize the probability of an outcome occurring. Usually I’m trying to maximize the potential for a vaccine to treat cancers or prevent infectious diseases.

But if you were to ask me as a scientist, how would I design an experiment that would maximize our chance of generating a highly immuno evasive variant of the SARS coronavirus two?

My answer would be essentially the exact way we’re rolling out these vaccines, precisely the way they’re rolling out these vaccines.

... There are three key things that I would want in my experimental design if I wanted to maximize the chance of generating a variant that can evade all of our current COVID-19 vaccines.

First of all, I would want the vaccine to be rolled out very slowly. Secondly, I would want that vaccine to be distributed in a piecemeal fashion. So just vaccinating a few people over here and a few people over there, disperse through the populations.

...

The next thing he gets into is very similar to Vanden Bossche. You have the "reservoir population" reinfecting the vaccinated population. But, whereas the reservoir population won't be at terrible risk--we already know that this virus is NOT a risk except to a small portion of the population--vaccinated people may end up being at high risk. The more you vax, the worse it could end up, as Vanden Bossche maintains. And this concern becomes acute if, as Vanden Bossche argues, the mutations will not really be so random, due to human generated pressures. And Bridle goes on to argue, similarly, that the narrow focus on the spike protein could end up being extremely problematic--meaning, dangerous.

BYRAM BRIDLE ➝ 00:43:47

All the while these people that have been vaccinated are surrounded by people who are not immune. And therefore conserve is what we call a reservoir population. This means this is the population in which the virus can spread.

All the time, the virus is going to be randomly generating these mutations. And that virus then is these people come into relatively close contact with the vaccinated individuals.

These random mutants can probe their potential to infect these vaccinated individuals.

And if they haven’t randomly acquired a mutation, it allows them to, infect that individual, then there’s going to be no infection, but they’re still going to circulate in that population of non-immune people. And it’s probably just a matter of time before there is a random mutation that does allow them to infect those individuals. And those viruses will be very problematic because they will have evaded the vaccine induced immunity.

BYRAM BRIDLE ➝ 00:44:41

Now, the third thing that I would do to ensure that that this could be maximized, this opportunity for the virus, a problematic variant to emerge, is I would make sure that the vaccine that I was using was conferring very narrowly focused immunity.

A previous speaker actually talked about this, right? When we naturally get infected, our immune system will respond to multiple components of the virus. But honestly, and you know I’m involved with the SARS coronavirus two vaccine development.

We have been short-sighted generally speaking as the scientific community. We knew these viruses from the get-go could mutate, but we decided to focus primarily on the spike protein, a single component.

Now, the reason why is, again, as I said, the spike protein is what allows the virus to get into our cells.

So the idea is if you could generate antibodies against the spike protein, and then it can’t bind to our cells and we can’t get infected.

But if you think about it, it’s much easier for a virus to fundamentally alter one protein in its structure. It’s going to be far more difficult for that virus to alter multiple components of its structure and maintain fitness.

And so that’s the other thing. So we’re talking narrowly focused immunity. So we are only asking this virus to change one protein in order to be able to evade these vaccines.

...

BYRAM BRIDLE ➝ 00:46:43

...

But if the rest of the world has these variants circulating, all those vaccinated individuals are gonna be susceptible to these variants that don’t care about that spike protein specific immunity anymore.

And and you may, as a population, have wanted much more broad immunity that’s conferred by natural natural acquisition of immunity, meaning you acquire the infection and clear it. So I’m very concerned about this.

And you might say, you know, is this, you know, am I completely wrong? No, we have evidence of this already. ...

BYRAM BRIDLE ➝ 00:47:43

...

And so, arguably, it’s just a matter of time before we will have variants that can bypass this narrow immunity conferred by all of these vaccines. I hope I’m wrong, but I really don’t think that I am.

Now, get a load of what Bridle is laughing about--and remember, he's a vaccinologist. A true believer, if you will:

... most people that have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 have indeed acquired natural immunity. ...

It can protect them from reinfection, ... natural immunity is very broad.

So if a new variant infects, chances are that the immunity you have is going to blunt that infection, whereas if you have that narrowly focused immunity conferred by the vaccine, and this variant has evaded that spike protein specific immunity, those people are going to be at much greater risk of more severe disease than those who acquire the new variant, but have this broad acting natural immunity.

And there’s even evidence, interestingly, that those with preexisting immunity against other coronaviruses, including the SARS coronavirus one from 17 years ago, and even from some of the cold causing coronaviruses, can cross protect some people.

So this is the sweet evidence that natural immunity can be pretty good. I actually kind of laugh when I see these publications coming out, because this is kind of immunology 101 that I teach all my students. This is what our immune systems are designed to do.

No, you didn't hear this on CNN or from Tony Fauci, but Bridle's Immunology 101 students all heard it.

I'll leave you with this, and answer Bridle gives to a question:

I honestly believe it’s just a matter of time before a variant will emerge, that can bypass the immunity conferred by the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines and others that we may come up with because they’re too narrowly focused.

So if that happens, there’s two potential solutions. You could simply go back and swap in the new spike protein from the new variant, but that’s not going to solve the long-term problem. Because then another variant will emerge. That will probably evade that one.

So to me, a better solution is we should have done this from the get-go, because again, we knew about this viral biology, right?

So arguably we should have been incorporating multiple targets into the vaccines, because again, it’s very difficult for a virus to make substantial changes to multiple proteins and still maintain its fitness.

Or, then again, maybe we should have been relying on our God-given natural or "innate" immunity.