Friday, July 30, 2021

Sterilizing And Non-Sterilizing Vaccines

I've come up with a decent article that explains the difference between these types of vaccines, and it plays directly into what's going on currently with all the talk of the Dread Delta, viral loads, and so forth.

First the link:

Coronavirus: few vaccines prevent infection – here’s why that’s not a problem

Not a problem? That's the nub. It is a problem--for some vaccines. Including the gene therapy medications that have been repurposed as Covid vaccines.

Let's start with some excerpts that lead into the current situation:

... it may surprise you to know that not all vaccines provide the same level of protection. Some vaccines stop you getting symptomatic disease, but others stop you getting infected too. The latter is known as “sterilising immunity”. With sterilising immunity, the virus can’t even gain a toehold in the body because the immune system stops the virus entering cells and replicating.

There is a subtle yet important difference between preventing disease and preventing infection. A vaccine that “just” prevents disease might not stop you from transmitting the disease to others – even if you feel fine. But a vaccine that provides sterilising immunity stops the virus in its tracks.

In an ideal world, all vaccines would induce sterilising immunity. In reality, it is actually extremely difficult to produce vaccines that stop virus infection altogether. Most vaccines that are in routine use today do not achieve this.

It has now been confirmed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Covid 'vaccines' are non-sterilizing. They do not prevent infection, but hopefully prevent the disease--or a serious instance of the disease. We also now know that these 'vaccines', as was to be expected from non-sterilizing vaccines, do not prevent the vaxxed individuals from infecting others. The CDC wants us to believe that this is a new development with the Dread Delta, but many experts regard this as doubtful.

What would a lack of sterilising immunity mean for those vaccinated with the new COVID vaccines? Quite simply it means that if you encounter the virus after vaccination, you may get infected but show no symptoms.

There's an important distinction to be made here. As the author has already noted, theoretically a vaxxed person who is infected could transmit the infection and the disease to others--even if they personally feel fine. They feel fine because the vaccine is suppressing their symptoms, but they still carry the virus and spread it--asymptomatically. The results will depend on "viral load," the amount of virus being carried and spread by the vaxxed person. Interestingly, this is not likely to be such an issue with unvaxxed persons, since if they acquire a sufficient viral load to be a danger they will NOT feel fine and will be symptomatic--identifiable as a public health hazard--unlike the vaxxed carriers.

The hope was--although this wasn't widely communicated to the public--that the vaccines would keep the viral load in vaxxed persons low, so that the disease wouldn't be communicated. Of course, what we're now seeing is that that hope didn't stop ADE kicking in and helping to shape new and more transmissible variants--like the Dread Delta.

The author presents the hopeful view from the perspective of January, 2021:

In the absence of sterilising immunity, what effect might SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have on the spread of a virus through a population? If asymptomatic infections are possible after vaccination, there has been concern that SARS-CoV-2 will simply continue to infect as many people as before. Is this possible?

Asymptomatically infected people typically produce virus at lower levels. Though there is not a perfect relationship, usually more virus equals more disease. Therefore, vaccinated people are less likely to transmit enough virus to cause severe disease. This in turn means that the people getting infected in this situation are going to transmit less virus to the next susceptible person. This has been neatly shown experimentally using a vaccine targeting a different virus in chickens; when only part of a flock was vaccinated, unvaccinated birds still showed milder disease and produced less virus.

So, while sterilising immunity is often the ultimate goal of vaccine design, it is rarely achieved. Fortunately, this hasn’t stopped many different vaccines substantially reducing the number of cases of virus infections in the past. By reducing disease levels in individuals, this also reduces virus spread through populations, and this will hopefully bring the current pandemic under control.

Typically. Usually. Less likely. A different virus in a different species. Hopefully.

That was January, 2021. Yesterday was July 29, 2021, and the head of CDC, Rochelle Walensky, emailed the NYT that 

New research showed that vaccinated people infected with the Delta variant carry tremendous amounts of the virus in the nose and throat, she said in an email responding to questions from The New York Times.

The finding contradicts what scientists had observed in vaccinated people infected with previous versions of the virus, who mostly seemed incapable of infecting others.

That conclusion dealt Americans a heavy blow: People with so-called breakthrough infections — cases that occur despite full vaccination — of the Delta variant may be just as contagious as unvaccinated people, even if they have no symptoms.

In other words, the Great Gene Therapy Experiment may be a failure. Since ADE has cropped up in ALL previous attempts at a coronavirus vaccine, it was to be anticipated in this rushed job. That's exactly what real experts in the field have been warning, and they've been proven right. The Great Gene Therapy Experiment is thus seen to have been a risky venture from the start.

And this is without taking "side effects" into account.

This is not the sort of thing decent people do to a trusting public.

Robert Malone has a pinned tweet that sums it up--that whole annoying business of bioethics:

Robert W Malone, MD


OK, time for another one of these.  My positions -

1) bioethics require full risk disclosure and free choice.  Neither of these are being met.

2) For high risk populations, the risk/benefit ratio for the USA vaccines seem [sic] to make sense.

3) We do not know all the risks yet.

Note that under point #2 Malone doesn't express absolute certainty. There are other experts who question the advisability even of that.


  1. So, does this explain why they didn't want to test the vaxed for breakthrough infections vs. the unvaxed? Also, possibly explains why Wacky Psaki "declined" to release number of breakthroughs. “Why do you need to have that information?”.

    Sounds like they have it and it must be bad or they would've just released that info willingly. Wondering if they also have a breakdown on breakthroughs by vax vendor? I'm betting a yes as well. I Imagine the censors will be working overtime to keep the lid on this a long as possible.

  2. Mark, you've been on quite the tear lately.

    Lots of great info -- much appreciated by all, I'm sure.

  3. "the risk/benefit ratio for the USA vaccines *seem* [sic] to make sense.... We do not know all the risks yet."

    Yeah, pushing "vaccines" which "*seem* to make sense" is really The Science!
    See Kunstler today, in "Things Get Ripe", on
    "the question arises: are they actually trying to kill us all, or are they so corrupt and stupid that everything they touch falls apart?"

    1. Malone himself told Bannon: I'm a vaccine true believer. So he's disposed to believe there's some use to be made of these vaxes. Which suggests how alarming the data must be even for a true believer.

  4. What about Ivermectin or HCQ instead?

    1. Malone says we need to pivot to repurposed treatments, like those.

  5. Mark, I hope your use of "Dread Delta" is decidedly ironic.

    The critical point I see getting lost in all of this is the essential end of even an arguable pandemic, Delta or no. Hospitalizations and deaths are nowhere near what they were last year, even with the hyperinflated numbers classifying everyone and everything as Wuflu related. As a result we are allowing ourselves to be stampeded into another panic but without anything like the exaggerated numbers of 2020. Kin

    1. Ever hear of the Dread Pirate Roberts?

    2. Ah yes, Princess Bride. I'm sure that book transgresses all the sacred intersectionals. It will be burned no doubt by the wokesters.

  6. "and this will hopefully bring the current pandemic under control."

    This is a blatant lie. Malicious and deliberate. Here is why:

    They admitted jabbed people still spread the virus at the time.

    At the same time, they also promoted the jabs by promising jabbed will be allowed to take off masks, drop social distancing and return to normal.

    By doing this they knew the reduced virus load of jabbed would be offset by jabbed people freely and carelessly spreading the virus at a higher rate. They still don't want to talk about that factor, hoping no one will notuce.

    They've been lying to push their agenda.

  7. No news to anyone here, but Fox News is every bit as bad as any of the others. Since sports died over the last two years, I pretty much don't watch TV at all, and watch zero TV "news." But I literally just flipped on a TV to troubleshoot a problem with the signal quality, and it was turned to Fox News.

    The sub on Martha MacCallum's show has some Dr. Brett Girior on, listed as a former Trump Admin Covid Task Force member and former Assistant HHS Secretary, saying the only answer is for everyone to be vaccinated, and until then it must be masks for all. No mention of course of even the existence of any other possible way of dealing with this thing other than universal vaccination, nor any mention of death numbers - just case numbers.

    He ends with, "Delta is very contagious and very deadly. Please get your vaccine. They're highly effective, they're very safe, and they're the way we end this pandemic."

    And the sub nods dutifully, telling him how great it always is to have him on.

    I so wish that people would stop watching "The elections were totally fair and all the right people won and don't anyone dare even mention them on this network!" Fox. (I'd make an exception for Tucker Carlson, though hopefully via DVR only - not live.) They're just feeding the greater tyrannical beast running wild over our freedom, and whatever little entertainment they get from the experience is a horribly losing tradeoff.

    1. Brad, Adm/Dr. Giroire was the sane member of the Trump Covid team and had remained pretty much right until that remark. I too was surprised to hear him say that, replayed today on another Fox program (I would rather have my hair pulled out than watch Martha McCallum. Or Bret Baier. Or….) The Delta variant must have him really alarmed. He looked it. However he is a former pediatrician who ended up in Public Health, so ? He’s not a virologist/immunologist/epidemiologist.

      We do record some Fox programs that seem to hang right. Harris Faulkner, who daily rips the Biden administration and puts up with zero from any Dems that she has to have as guests (those little right/left split window deals - on her program the left window loses). I don’t know why they have cut her so much slack. She is very outspoken. We record and watch parts of Tucker, Primetime when Mark Steyn is on, Maria Bartiromo (good with either her or Dagen McDowell, who is wonderful), Kudlow. We watch Angels baseball (also recorded and viewed delayed so we can >> through commercials and any junque). They are losing but are nice people.

    2. Thanks, Bebe for your typically excellent points. I'm a long-time fan of Steyn, and Bartiromo has been good on most things. I'm still holding out though for when Fox allows its talent to start talking about the 2020 elections specifically and the fight for fraud-free elections in general.

      As long as Fox won't allow talk - serious talk - of making our elections low-tech (paper ballot-driven) and fraud-free, I'm going to keep wishing for its customer base to vote with the remote. I don't see any other way of forcing them to better serve the pro-freedom / anti-tyranny market, which is the only market I care about.

  8. Malone says he himself is double-jabbed. He has to travel a lot.

    I second Brad. Mark’s output is remarkable and top quality. Thankyou.

  9. From a discussion with Geert Vanden Bossche"

    "Thank you for this Geert. Question - is the problem with the vaccines that they are all just made to mimic the little tiny spike as opposed to the whole virus? If so, what about the Novavax one in development, which will be a full sized fake virus - would that be what you mean by a sanitizing virus or will that one likely have same problems?

    Replying to above
    John Ronning
    "The Novavax is a subunit vaccine that still works on the s spike protein, therefore it does not sterilise. The codagenix vaccine is a live attenuated giving protection against all variants. Just completed phase 1 trials"

    Good news, one can but hope.

    If I absolutely need a vax to travel overseas (to see my kids) I may hold out for the Codagenix vax, if all goes well with their trials. Don't know if they will be included in the EUA by FDA, but FDA reported that Novavax WILL be.


  10. Time for some humor - snarky humor - from Don Surber. He can have a way with words…

  11. Did they really believe that a one-size-fits-all-viruses would work out? It never has with the seasonal flu, which they often miss with the new annual vaccine because it has mutated into something different from the previous season. The injection of the spike protein from the Covid that first hit us last year might reasonably spur immune reaction to only it, not any subsequent mutations. Am I oversimplifying?