Thought it was worth giving my views and some scientific responses to this outrageous editorial in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases:
Calling for genetic experiments to be carried out on children as young as two. Deception and manipulation of the most evil kind.
"We believe that it is key to controlling the pandemic including emergence of VOCs that children even down to 2 years of age are immunised."
Their greed is boundless and their shame is non-existent. Variants of concern, VOCs, are the alleged reason for this scandalous idea, so let's see if their reasoning holds up.
"This means that if children are indeed a potential source of SARS-CoV-2 infections and vaccination can efficiently prevent transmission..."
If the jabs limit transmission at all, it's by reducing symptoms...and kids almost never get any symptoms. Further on, the authors of this piece will admit this outright. Right out of the gate, this whole thing is a non-starter.
"SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic virus."
There's no evidence of that, in spite of the official story (which is slowly coming apart). On the other hand, there's a lot of evidence that it isn't. At this point, recycling this notion as fact is lying.
"...will not disappear in a few months and indeed annual resurgence has been predicted in a modelling study."
Ooh, a modelling study! It will not fully "disappear" for a long time, if ever. Are they trying to imply that anyone seriously thought it would? Name all the ILI diseases that have disappeared, please.
Annual returns were predicted from the very start because it's just another coronavirus. All ILI diseases come and go seasonally. Some of these viruses do eventually die out, but it takes a very, very long time. For instance, the virus that caused the Spanish Flu is still in circulation. SARS is still out there. H1N1 is still out there. And so on.
It behaves like the other HCoVs and you don't need a bloody modelling study to predict something that obvious. So, it's now endemic, yes. Every couple of years there will be a small resurgence in the small vulnerable population, the totally predictable outcome. Without testing we wouldn't even know it was there, it's just part of the background.
"Emergence of VOCs is driven by circulation of viruses in non-immunes and the selection pressure from immunity in people with previous infections or vaccination."
First of all, there's little to no evidence that the variants of concern are really anything to be concerned about. Without lockdown, the possibilities of a significant mutation occurring are sharply reduced.
"Therefore, reducing the viral reservoir will be key to reducing the virus’s opportunity to mutate."
Hah, ok, they're starting to get themselves in a muddle. First, they're saying selection pressure is driven by immune and vaccinated people. So if you make more people immune or vaccinated i.e. reduce the viral reservoir, that will increase the selection pressure. Right? Or wrong? They don't seem to know. (This mechanism is the one Geert Vanden Bossche talked about....jury's still out, but some who are at least as well informed as he is seem to think he's wrong. Not the least of which is Mike Yeadon.)
Moreover, the reduction of the viral reservoir is how you get to herd immunity! So, are jabs a good thing because they reduce the viral reservoir or a bad thing because they increase selection pressure? Oh dear. Bit of a mess.
In truth, getting out the way and letting it hit the herd immunity threshold as quickly as possible is the key. You can't possibly roll out jabs as quick as the virus can pass through a population of healthy young people with robust immune systems. No way. So, if speed is of the essence, rapid spread through the healthy population is the best strategy. That is, stop trying to intervene and let nature do what it does better than any conceivable pharmaceutical operation can. Again, this is a non-starter. Nature wins by a huge margin.
I took a closer look at one of the papers they offer up on these supposed variants of concern. The paper:
...discusses the possibility of immune escape in a couple of variants. They examine this by taking samples of antibodies from the blood from people who were earlier "cases" (yes, I'm using scare quotes, I assume you know why) - what's called 'convalescent plasma' - and examining them in the lab to see if the antibodies in those plasmas neutralise the variants.
First of all: plasma contents vary highly (fig. 2), according to the immune response of the person who was infected (supposedly; they verified early cases with PCR, probably badly). A person who mounts a very strong immune response is a person who was made very sick. Someone who just had a sniffle mounts a weak immune response, because they already have cross-immunity or other kinds of protection in place.
And it's the plasmas from the weak responses that are found in the lab to be failing to neutralise the variants.
Do you see the problems?
Firstly, they're using these plasmas instead of examining real responses in people. The plasmas are not the full immune response.
Secondly, as already mentioned, the PCR test cannot be assumed to be a decent confirmation of actual infection.
Thirdly, they're arguing that the variants of concern are a concern - i.e. that they might bypass immunity even in those previously infected - in those for whom the original infection was never an issue. Because their innate immune responses were so good!
Hah. To sum up: In the real world, the people who mounted weak immune responses won't notice a new variant either and the people who mounted strong immune responses will repel it with their newly-memorised immune responses.
"Reaching the herd immunity threshold means that if we have to reach immunity in 60-70% of a population to slow down virus circulation, we have to successfully vaccinate 80-100% of all the African adults 20+ years with a vaccine with ∼80% efficacy against any variant. "
Ah yes, let's go back to pretending people have no innate immunity. Reminder: at least half the population are pre-immune thanks to cross-immunity due to exposure to other coronaviruses, so that figure about vaccinating is a straight up lie. There are dozens of confirmations out there of this fact.
I also notice they include a reference to a recent paper by Devi Sridhar, entitled "Herd immunity by infection is not an option."
I'm not going to review all of the trash contained therein (I'd be happy to do it for money, if anyone wants to pay for such a thing?) but the headline itself gives away plenty. We already reached herd immunity by infection and we're going to keep on doing it every year.
She will doubtless go into how 70% of people need to be immune and only a few percent of people showed antibodies and all the same, tired nonsense, while ignoring the fact that there are dozens of papers showing that cross-immunity is very widespread and so infection rates will never get above a few percent of the population. Reaching 70% immunity by infection is a literal impossibility!
Start as you mean to go on, eh Devi? By being wrong to the point of appearing childishly stupid.
You might wonder: how does this stuff get past peer review? No self-respecting epidemiologist or immunologist is going to let this garbage fly. Perhaps it's the fact that Sridhar is technically in "Global Health", therefore it will, presumably, be her Global Health peers, few or none of whom are experts in anything relevant (they are promoters of a way of doing business, not scientists or medics) will give her worthless drivel a pass? I suspect that's how.
These people have something seriously wrong with them. Anyway, back to the original paper...
"Since the direct benefits for the children are limited..."
This is the admission I referred to earlier; the jabs target symptoms and children effectively never get them. Direct benefits to children are not limited, they are non-existent.
"...this can only be envisaged with vaccines that demonstrate an excellent safety profile in this age group."
Which would require ten years of careful study unless you're lying about how much you care about the young. Well?
"At present it is not possible to predict if new VOCs will require booster vaccinations with second generation vaccines like we know it from influenza."
It's actually easy to predict that these vaccines will fail. Indeed, they are already failing. From the perspective of these businesses, the best pharmaceutical products are those which don't work very well and therefore require constant, regular, re-deployment.
We've all grown used to the idea of planned obsolescence; it's a byproduct of "sustainable" business, meaning a business that can keep on selling indefinitely. These near-worthless jabs are a perfect mechanism for generating steady income in massive volumes. That's why they constantly push the flu vaccine schedule, in spite of the fact that they don't work very well, save very few lives and weaken natural immune responses in the long run.
And now we get to the reasons for all the lies explored in the foregoing:
"Conflict of interests Philippe Buchy is an employee of the GSK group of companies and hold shares in the GSK group of companies. This article represents the views of the authors only, and not the views of GSK."
I get it: it's a few billion dollars every year at least if they get what they want. As individuals, these people are highly unlikely to be held responsible for what happens as a result of a policy like this and they're actually duty-bound to render maximum profits to their employer no matter what. Even if it means a global plan to carry out genetic modification experiments on children.
The ecocide proposal that was explained to me a week ago at that excellent Navdana event included something relevant. The idea is to use ecocide as a catch-all top-level crime for any attack on nature. People, of course, are nature (though it still feels a little odd to point that out,) so crimes against humanity would be one aspect of it. Importantly, the ecocide charge would bypass the protections that individuals at criminal businesses are currently almost always afforded, making executives criminally responsible for the harm their companies do under their guidance. Therefore, should they become international law, I would assume they'd become highly relevant to pharmaceutical executives who push hideous ideas like the above. Another very good reason to offer support to the development of the ecocide legal framework: https://www.stopecocide.earth/