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

@RWMaloneMD

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.