Geert Vanden Bossche covered(s) this on youtube and his site. It's worth reading his scientific reference section: https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/supportive-references-from-literatu We should probably try to avoid a Marek's disease situation at all cost. There are so many ways in which these vaccines are a bad idea: bio-distribution of nanolipids, circulating spike protein in blood plasma, LINE1 reverse transcription, spike protein inhibiting DNA repair, etc, etc, etc The current topic you have landed is near the top of the list of bad.
Warning: I'm not an immunologist. I do follow your reasoning. My only comment would be that *hopefully* Mullers Ratchet keeps doing it's thing to drive the evolution towards less lethal strains, so that if your theory is correct the harm caused will be minimised. As Geert Vanden Bosche has said many times, vaccinating into a pandemic is a terrible idea. Perhaps that can be refined further to say that vaccinating *specific cohorts* is even more stupid.
Perhaps you are not the only person worrying about this. Could this be one of the reasons behind the US government now feverishly pitching vaccinations for children? One more domino added to the ever-building domino effect of poor choices and unintended consequences..
If the virus is normally bouncing between young and old hosts, then we can imagine a swarm/cloud of phenotypes which reduces to pro-young phenotypes when the old are removed from the infection pool, i.e. genetic bottleneck. Obviously this is short-term as the old reenter the pool once "infection efficacy" drops to near-0 or even worse after 4 months. As it happened in most of the West, the "bottleneck" period set in when the virus was going out of season anyway and the end of the bottleneck coincided with the virus coming back in season.
Note that this sets aside the complicated question of whether there really is such a thing as "age fitness." The question is clearer if put in the perspective of the virus, which only cares about transmission, rather than who is and isn't "immune" - was there a problem with successfully transmitting through children before? (it's possible, if not likely, given that children seem to be half or predominately asymptomatic - but we don't know if that means no transmission) - and were there versions of the virus in the genetic swarm / cloud that were better at this problem? If that's the case, it might account for the rise of the allegedly more "transmissible" and "child compatible" Delta, though this still over-simplifies things since the virus was out of season during the rollout and it's not clear you can apply a bottleneck when the virus is "hiding" in subclinical background transmission.* It's a trippy question but it seems at least possible that we've already seen the worst that can happen: kids can carry the virus a bit more, maybe transmit it more, but they are still robustly "immune" to it. Transmissibility is only scary when combined with incompetent / inflammatory immune responses. For kids, it's just a cold.
*One key piece of evidence against the argument that the (off-season rolled-out) vaccines applied any escape pressure is that "infection efficacy" still seemed to hold for the recently dosed younger adults while it plummeted for the elderly who were past the protection window. If Delta had achieved anti-spike antibody escape, "infection efficacy" should have dropped for all groups at once (barring a reach to a theory that the vaccines "charge up" innate immunity, when in fact the opposite seems to be the case). So if no antibody escape pressure was applied, no "age" escape pressure should have been applied either. Once again, boosters could finally prompt some movement there.
the leaky vaccines are definitely putting pressure on the virus to escape the narrow spike protein focused immunity confered by them but I think they'd have to optimize for that over anything else. To add to that, most younger people will fight off the virus at the mucus barrier anyway, I hope.
In fact the weaker immune systems in the older hosts (especially the very old) are primed for this kind of "easy" evasion. Especially soon after the first dose when the weaker immune system with a very immature immunity is exposed to the viral threat.
It certainly selects for viral evasion, but I'm not certain what the specific mechanism for age related viral selection would be. I suppose at some age there comes more innate immune response and that also is a gradient.
So really there are two gradients - first overall immune response which in general fades with age. So as you get more and more adaptive to the immune system, you are able to evade younger and younger immunity. But at some point the innate immune response starts to become a bigger and bigger player in initial infection dynamics - especially in the mucosal membranes where vaccine immunity is not present. Depending on the steepness of this gradient, it is possible that this is a hill the virus will have a very hard time climbing because it is much less specific.
If the gradient is sufficiently shallow however, you could see viral evasion through serial passage in terms of innate immune pressure (which I stipulate as a proxy for age).
Basic virology finds that strains get more infectious and less lethal with time and this is true if not for the hole in epidemiology that some viruses are not stopped by the immune system (e.g. betaherpesvirus 5). The theory of Marek's disease holds true in onboarder viruses such herpes viruses (including the alphaherpes viruses in chickens from which Marek's disease is observed). Coronaviruses lack the immune system evading traits of onboarding viruses. This is obviously observed by the fact that vaccinated can spread covid more so than unvaccinated (especially after 6 months). For Marek's effect to hold true, SARS Cov-2 needs genes for cellular immune suppression (and arguments of this is Long Covid hold no water because "Long Covid" is mostly mental rather physical). I could be wrong but it is some "hopium" that the problem doesn't worsen. I do think the virus will get better at invading hosts over time, but the best virus at invading hosts (the rhinovirus aka common cold), is mostly harmless (that won't stop the overcounting of deaths, increasing tyranny, and gas lighting of purebloods as case rates goes up but deaths from covid reduce).
Here is a simple fact: had we left this alone, it would be done. Every time we change nature by trying conquer it, we make things exponentially worse. The same arrogance that engineered this virus, is strengthening it and making it more dangerous.
I've been following you for quite awhile for sober analysis of data. I listen to Alex Jones as a kind of 'worst case scenario' preparation. Watching the two of you converge is frightening.
"my greatest hope is that somebody will now give me a set of very good reasons why my theory doesn't hold."
This sums up my feelings for the past year. I think it's going to be a dark winter, and I pray it turns out I'm as crazy as my family thinks I am.
Check out Peter Breggin’s book. He provides plenty of documented research that the “Wuhan spike protein” [p. 178] was engineered by combining WIV1-CoV like spike proteins such as those donated by Dr. Zhengli-Shi to the NIAID funded “2016 follow up paper describes in detail how Chinese and American scientists were working together to create what was clearly a precursor to SARS-CoV-2 ” [p. 28].
Geert Vanden Bossche covered(s) this on youtube and his site. It's worth reading his scientific reference section: https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/supportive-references-from-literatu We should probably try to avoid a Marek's disease situation at all cost. There are so many ways in which these vaccines are a bad idea: bio-distribution of nanolipids, circulating spike protein in blood plasma, LINE1 reverse transcription, spike protein inhibiting DNA repair, etc, etc, etc The current topic you have landed is near the top of the list of bad.
Warning: I'm not an immunologist. I do follow your reasoning. My only comment would be that *hopefully* Mullers Ratchet keeps doing it's thing to drive the evolution towards less lethal strains, so that if your theory is correct the harm caused will be minimised. As Geert Vanden Bosche has said many times, vaccinating into a pandemic is a terrible idea. Perhaps that can be refined further to say that vaccinating *specific cohorts* is even more stupid.
At about 1:58 they talk about it. I don't think they understand the point.
https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/medcram-covid-19-vaccines
Perhaps you are not the only person worrying about this. Could this be one of the reasons behind the US government now feverishly pitching vaccinations for children? One more domino added to the ever-building domino effect of poor choices and unintended consequences..
If the virus is normally bouncing between young and old hosts, then we can imagine a swarm/cloud of phenotypes which reduces to pro-young phenotypes when the old are removed from the infection pool, i.e. genetic bottleneck. Obviously this is short-term as the old reenter the pool once "infection efficacy" drops to near-0 or even worse after 4 months. As it happened in most of the West, the "bottleneck" period set in when the virus was going out of season anyway and the end of the bottleneck coincided with the virus coming back in season.
Note that this sets aside the complicated question of whether there really is such a thing as "age fitness." The question is clearer if put in the perspective of the virus, which only cares about transmission, rather than who is and isn't "immune" - was there a problem with successfully transmitting through children before? (it's possible, if not likely, given that children seem to be half or predominately asymptomatic - but we don't know if that means no transmission) - and were there versions of the virus in the genetic swarm / cloud that were better at this problem? If that's the case, it might account for the rise of the allegedly more "transmissible" and "child compatible" Delta, though this still over-simplifies things since the virus was out of season during the rollout and it's not clear you can apply a bottleneck when the virus is "hiding" in subclinical background transmission.* It's a trippy question but it seems at least possible that we've already seen the worst that can happen: kids can carry the virus a bit more, maybe transmit it more, but they are still robustly "immune" to it. Transmissibility is only scary when combined with incompetent / inflammatory immune responses. For kids, it's just a cold.
*One key piece of evidence against the argument that the (off-season rolled-out) vaccines applied any escape pressure is that "infection efficacy" still seemed to hold for the recently dosed younger adults while it plummeted for the elderly who were past the protection window. If Delta had achieved anti-spike antibody escape, "infection efficacy" should have dropped for all groups at once (barring a reach to a theory that the vaccines "charge up" innate immunity, when in fact the opposite seems to be the case). So if no antibody escape pressure was applied, no "age" escape pressure should have been applied either. Once again, boosters could finally prompt some movement there.
the leaky vaccines are definitely putting pressure on the virus to escape the narrow spike protein focused immunity confered by them but I think they'd have to optimize for that over anything else. To add to that, most younger people will fight off the virus at the mucus barrier anyway, I hope.
In fact the weaker immune systems in the older hosts (especially the very old) are primed for this kind of "easy" evasion. Especially soon after the first dose when the weaker immune system with a very immature immunity is exposed to the viral threat.
It certainly selects for viral evasion, but I'm not certain what the specific mechanism for age related viral selection would be. I suppose at some age there comes more innate immune response and that also is a gradient.
So really there are two gradients - first overall immune response which in general fades with age. So as you get more and more adaptive to the immune system, you are able to evade younger and younger immunity. But at some point the innate immune response starts to become a bigger and bigger player in initial infection dynamics - especially in the mucosal membranes where vaccine immunity is not present. Depending on the steepness of this gradient, it is possible that this is a hill the virus will have a very hard time climbing because it is much less specific.
If the gradient is sufficiently shallow however, you could see viral evasion through serial passage in terms of innate immune pressure (which I stipulate as a proxy for age).
Yes, research Geert Vanden Bossche if you have not. I believe he and you are correct in this.
Thought provoking as usual. If I may be permitted to nitpick, I believe you have a hypothesis but not a theory. Not yet, anyway.
Basic virology finds that strains get more infectious and less lethal with time and this is true if not for the hole in epidemiology that some viruses are not stopped by the immune system (e.g. betaherpesvirus 5). The theory of Marek's disease holds true in onboarder viruses such herpes viruses (including the alphaherpes viruses in chickens from which Marek's disease is observed). Coronaviruses lack the immune system evading traits of onboarding viruses. This is obviously observed by the fact that vaccinated can spread covid more so than unvaccinated (especially after 6 months). For Marek's effect to hold true, SARS Cov-2 needs genes for cellular immune suppression (and arguments of this is Long Covid hold no water because "Long Covid" is mostly mental rather physical). I could be wrong but it is some "hopium" that the problem doesn't worsen. I do think the virus will get better at invading hosts over time, but the best virus at invading hosts (the rhinovirus aka common cold), is mostly harmless (that won't stop the overcounting of deaths, increasing tyranny, and gas lighting of purebloods as case rates goes up but deaths from covid reduce).
This is a clear explanation of what Geert VandenBoosch has been trying to warn about for months!
https://37b32f5a-6ed9-4d6d-b3e1-5ec648ad9ed9.filesusr.com/ugd/28d8fe_266039aeb27a4465988c37adec9cd1dc.pdf
Here is a simple fact: had we left this alone, it would be done. Every time we change nature by trying conquer it, we make things exponentially worse. The same arrogance that engineered this virus, is strengthening it and making it more dangerous.
I've been following you for quite awhile for sober analysis of data. I listen to Alex Jones as a kind of 'worst case scenario' preparation. Watching the two of you converge is frightening.
"my greatest hope is that somebody will now give me a set of very good reasons why my theory doesn't hold."
This sums up my feelings for the past year. I think it's going to be a dark winter, and I pray it turns out I'm as crazy as my family thinks I am.
Check out Peter Breggin’s book. He provides plenty of documented research that the “Wuhan spike protein” [p. 178] was engineered by combining WIV1-CoV like spike proteins such as those donated by Dr. Zhengli-Shi to the NIAID funded “2016 follow up paper describes in detail how Chinese and American scientists were working together to create what was clearly a precursor to SARS-CoV-2 ” [p. 28].
https://www.wearetheprey.com/
Presumably you keep up with https://anandamide.substack.com/p/directed-evolution