Stuart Showalter Law Blog: Why the SARS CoV-2 / CoViD-19 Vaccine may not protect you; public health policy and rationality

Since the first time I heard of the SARS CoV-2 virus [early March 2020] I thought the reaction to it was disproportionate to the threat. I especially thought that younger and more healthy people were clearly overreacting. I often referred to vehicle collisions in making this argument. That 16-24 years age group is hit hard vehicularly but not infectiously. So, shortly after I returned from a trip to Las Vegas I contacted the Indiana Department of Health through their SARS CoV-2 specific platform on 24 March 2020. I did so for the specific purpose of volunteering to be clinically exposed to the SARS CoV-2 virions, sequestered, and monitored so researchers could observe the progress of the virus and how my body would defeat it. No takers on that offer.

Apparently, since prior to that time, medical researchers have been working on creating a vaccine for the SARS CoV-2 virus. Of late it is being reported that such a vaccine is imminent and will be the catalyst to prevent people from becoming infected and thus suppress the contagion. Such may not be realized, at least wholly. I finally got around to going through my back issues of the Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA] and found some telling articles.

I mention volunteering to be a lab rat only to relate that in mid-March, after I had read two reports on it, I knew that I was not in any danger from this novel virus and figured it would be good to add this virus identity to my immune system catalogue.

My basis for my confidence was my existing knowledge about contagions generally and corona and influenza viruses in particular. Going into 2020 I already had experience with the seminars or training events for health-care workers related to previous variations of the influenza virus such as the 2009 novel H1N1 and the 2008 onward Orthomyxoviridae H5N1 [H5N6 H7N9] varieties. I had also been informed about 2005 Marburg, 2011 H3N2v, 2012 novel coronavirus, 2013 MERS-CoV, and the never ending expansion of the Human Rhinoviruses [HRVs] which stand at 100+ variants. I figure it’s always a good thing to learn about past and existing viral epidemiologies and disease pathogenesis. It beats watching television.

One thing that I immediately noticed this year was the similarities in the media hype and reactions by public health officials to some of the previous outbreaks and the current panic. Primarily, it has been the deliberate effort to invoke fear in the general public by overstating the threat just as had been done in 2008, 2009, 2012, and 2013.

In such previous cases public officials promulgated, at least within their domain, plans for severe restrictions on business transactions and personal liberties including forced detainment of individuals. The difference between those past outbreaks and the current outbreak is that the level of panic and the spread of the contagion never reached a point to where the U.S. citizenry demanded that their rights be curtailed as is happening now.

Officials have had greater success in invoking fear and propagating the spread of the virus this time.

Public officials have clearly lied -- by this I mean intentionally provided false information with intent to deceive -- about their motivations and the threat to the public. The most prolific lying involves public officials misstating their bases or objectives for policy actions. As the virus propagates and the contagion cycle chronology can be compared to concurrent official actions this becomes more clear.

Early on when the infection ratio was around 1 to 100:000 numerous state governors imposed mandates to force the closure of selected businesses by classification, not by practical likelihood of reducing person-to-person contact -- spread of the virus. As an example, when I was in Las Vegas while a “lockdown” order was in effect I went into a store and shopped for DVD movies. The duration of my shopping was over an hour in which I chose six for purchase. Currently while the ratio is about 1 to 30 there are no lockdowns in place. Clearly then, lockdowns, like those imposed when the ratio of infected to uninfected persons was much lower than now, can not be for the purpose of reducing transmission.

On a side note there is a deliberate effort by decision makers not to hold themselves accountable for their actions. It is called the reification fallacy. They claim that a CoViD-19 monster is walking around signing orders, locking doors and sending out furlough letters. However, a virus does not have agency and cannot choose to nor enforce the closure of businesses or cause panic in people. The SARS-CoV-2 virus did not make any decisions -- it is an automoton. People made those decisions.

The face mask idea, which is purported to reduce the contagion, is another example of clear lies by so-called healthcare leaders and public officials. I previously wrote about how the U.S. Government stated that a surgical face mask “by design, does not filter or block very small particles in the air that may be transmitted by coughs, sneezes, or certain medical procedures.” In the same document the government concluded that the use of surgical type face masks should be recommended to the public. More telling is the complete lack of any type of compliance with standards of efficacy for face masks. Any consumer electrical cord must meet standards, usually consistent with testing by Underwriters Laboratory [UL], before they are allowed to be sold. This is for the safety of consumers. No such requirements for face masks, which are supposedly to prevent the spread of an alleged deadly virus, have been imposed. The small droplets referenced, that the typical surgical mask material is not designed to inhibit, are 100 to 400 times larger than the SARS CoV-2 virion. Going beyond the permeability of the material brings about the complete lack of standardization in masks for contours which create a uniform air gap barrier between the mask surface edge and the face of the wearer. Clearly then, the required use of face masks or “face coverings” is not for the purpose of substantially reducing transmission from person-to-person.

Few people understand the transmission routes of various virions and public officials don’t appear to be doing much to inform the public. Even though the Human Rhinovirus -- the common cold -- is transmitted from intranasal pathways and not the oral route, the conventional prevention paradigm commonly included using the hand to cover the mouth when coughing. But that may lead to hands contacting nasal discharge which can then lead to fomite transmission when others touch those surfaces. This was a logical inconsistency that confounded me as a child and affirmed my distrust of adults. I recall these statements clearly; “Wash your hands because you can pick up germs on your hands and you don’t realize how much you touch your face.” “Cover your mouth with your hand when you cough so you don’t spread germs to others.” So, put germs on your hands that touch surfaces that others may touch and then touch their faces as a means to prevent transmission?

Those proponding use of face masks generally employ congruence bias or confirmation bias to satisfy their desired outcome rather than letting the evidence determine the conclusion. While they may be able to demonstrate that under certain controlled laboratory experiments that a mask or, rather, a portion thereof may be able to trap the virion they have deliberately ignored the results of real world application. They are only seeking evidence to support the mask wearing agenda and ignore contrary evidence or create experiments that are designed to support the desired outcome without disclosing all results.

Mask wearing is akin to the mandatory use of car seats for babies and small children. When those mandates were first implemented the number of injuries and deaths didn’t decline as predicted. Researchers investigated. They discovered that it was not due to failure of the car seats which had, during testing, demonstrated great efficacy. But those were in controlled laboratory experiments -- think crash test dummies and a car on a skid slamming into a post or wall. The determinant factor for lack of efficacy was real world application. People did not install the seats correctly and also did not secure the children appropriately or used seats not in concordance with the size of the child unlike the experimenters who did everything properly. Yet for face masks there are no standards of efficacy for wearing them. Hence, just like improperly restraining a child in an inproperly installed car seat can give the appearance of protection so does using a face mask which, through propuction and usage, lacks efficacy can do the same. Clearly then, the use of face masks is not for the purpose of reducing transmission.

While I am onto car seats here is an analogy. If the same efficacy standard was applied to automobile lap belts as to face masks to prevent the passing of a virion then vinyl strapping for lawn chairs, old leather belts for pants, and cotton t-shirts torn into strips would be acceptable in cars as lap restraints.

There is a valid reason that ANSI and UL exist along with the standards for which they apply ratings to products. Just as not any old material which can provide the appearance of being a restraint belt in an automobile as suitable, neither are the various materials being used as face masks. Anything that gives the appearance of being a face mask is actually suitable for the intended purpose of the mandates. Do you still think mask mandates are about promoting better health?

Thus far the purported lockdowns and use of face masks have been ineffective in significantly reducing transmission - deliberately so. The next step in the so-called mitigation process is going to be a vaccine. But, before you think a vaccine will be effective in keeping you from contracting the SARS CoV-2 virus and possibly developing into CoViD-19 I have more information for you.

So this is where I finally get onto what I finally found in my search through back issues of JAMA.

The Infectious Disease Society of America held its 2011 annual meeting in January that year during the height of the Influenza season. This topic was covered in the 16 March issue of JAMA in an article titled Influenza Vaccine Makers Seek Ways to Speed production, Boost Effectiveness. Anthony S Fauci is referenced as indicating that creating Flu vaccines is problematic in various ways. One is that the virus frequently accumulates genetic mutations that alter its surface proteins. Those proteins are what allow the virus to attach to and impregnate a healthy cell. During the 2010-2011 Influenza season the CDC identified 89 Influenza variations from respiratory specimens collected for examination.

Another problem is the lag time in creating a vaccine for a novel virus. For example, it took about six months to produce a vaccine for the 2009 influenza A [H1N1] virus. One study found that the 2010 Flu vaccine provided protection to 78.5% of vaccinated subjects against infection by a matched strain of the Flu. That number was slightly higher than the usual protection rate of 70-75% in adults according to Arnold S Monto, University of Michigan. However, many people in populations most vulnerable to complications, such as the elderly or extremely young, may not be protected by vaccines. Yet a vaccine with a 70% effectiveness rate is considered to have “efficacy”.

Persons who may not study medical literature that hear that a vaccine is “effective” may think that it will protect them individually. That is, a vaccinated individual can go about his or her merry way through the sea of virus virions and not get infected. But for over 20% of people a vaccine does not provide that protection. This is because in the contagious disease arena that word has a different meaning -- prevents contagion. Here is how that plays itself out mathematically. I am making this oversimplified but you’ll get the idea behind the “herd immunity” said to be achieved at 70% saturation.

If a vaccine is 70% effective on individuals then 3 per 10 people can still contract and pass it. 10 people get exposed and 3 become infected. Then, each of those 10 expose themselves to 10 people each. 7 aren’t infected and don’t pass it on [0 of 70] but the 3 who are infected pass it on to 30% of those they encounter [9 of 30]. 9 of 100 people become infected. Now each of those 100 encounter 10 people. The 9 who are infected pass it on to 30% of those they encounter [27 of 90]. So out of 1110 people who were exposed 41 are infected. That rate is >4%, much lower than if no vaccination. Now to compare.

If 20% of people have a natural immunity and go through the same process then it plays out this way. 8 of 10 are infected. They pass it on to 64 of 100 who pass it on to 512 of 1000. Thus, 584 of 1110 get infected. This is 52%, more than half.

A vaccine for a contagion is not intended to protect the individual but the “herd” by restricting transmission. This is why you may hear that hub people get priority for vaccines. Hubs are the people who interact with numerous people from different milieus. The food delivery person who makes delivery to 20 different office buildings is a hub whereas the mailroom clerk in an office building who makes deliveries to 200 offices within one building is not a hub.

If a vaccine is developed for the SARS CoV-2 virus it may not be administered in a manner that protects to its fullest potential. This is because of the dynamics of varying populations which may react differently to a standard vaccine. Infectious disease clinicians aware of these factors develop adjuvants targeted to particular groups. Think of daily multi-vitamin tablets. A single strand of vitamin and minerals in a particular dosage may help all. But if the dosages are adjusted for selected groups such as those who are pregnant, elderly, athletic, diabetic, or young the vitamin cocktail would be more effective.

This was done for the 2009 H1N1 vaccine. Practitioners could select the vaccine with an appropriate adjuvant for particular individuals which increased effectiveness for their patients and reduced the number of doses. But that was in Europe. In the United States practitioners were not provided with this array of enhanced H1N1 vaccines. Thus, it became a policy matter as to whether more effective protection was offered.

In the United States there was one vaccine offered which could be administered by a clerk at a chain drug store. It may not have been as effective for individuals but there was greater efficiency in production, distribution and administration to patients. It was a policy decision considering financial costs and convenience.

Getting back to lap restraints in cars again helps to elucidate how so-called safety measures are policy decisions considering financial costs and convenience. In reading the reports on laboratory results of restraints in cars it is overwhelmingly clear that the use of 5-point belts with substantially reduce injuries and deaths in collisions. Just look at a race car crashing at close to 200mph and the driver climbing out and walking away 20 seconds after what remains comes to a halt. Reading the psychological and manufacturing reports reveals that the financial costs of adding 5-point harnesses for driver and passengers pushes the price of new cars to a price point that reduces purchases or newer, overall safer, vehicles. Thus, consumers will squeeze more life out of the old clunker. Then there is the added time that it takes to latch a 5-point harness versus the single point restraint. The conclusion is that the added time that it takes to use the 5-point harness -- under one minute -- will result in usage that is reduced substantially. Thus, overall there will be more injuries and deaths if all cars had a 5-point harness because users would find the extra time and effort for usage to be more costly than complying with usage mandates. Hence, the policy is to use a marginally safe restraint to produce greater compliance. Again, it is not about protection of the individual but of the herd.

Conclusion

Although much of the statements from businesses, public health officials, politicians indicate that their intent is to protect you, individually as implicitly or directly stated, it is just not so. So called mitigation efforts have never been about individuals’ health but about control. Control of a contagion and of the individuals within the society.

Businesses have been the most disingenuous. Purported mitigation policies implemented by businesses have most often been determined by lawyers acting on behalf of insurers, not health practitioners. For myself, having practiced in both law and health, I have chosen to use my health knowledge for determining my actions which is why I do not wear a mask including in businesses requiring them.

I will conclude this article with what I wrote a while back in a posting on Facebook regarding the use of masks and why mandates were in place.

Look at it from the neo-fascist viewpoint. There are no individuals. No one is sick. No one is healthy. No one pays their bills. No one doesn't pay their bills. No one is responsible. No one is irresponsible. There is only the State and the Society. Society is sick. Society is not healthy. Society is not responsible. Society doesn't pay its bills. The State ensures the health of society. The State is responsible for the welfare of society. The State provides the money for society and pays its bills.

It’s still up to you whether you drink the Kool-Aid.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Make a suggestion for me to write about.

Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.

Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.