Dr. Louis Pasteur represents one of the founding fathers of the science of immunisation. He became a pivotal researcher in modern history due to his proposal that weakened or dead pathogens could be administered into a living organism to stimulate the immune system to fight it and gain memory against the healthy version of the respective pathogens. Ever since his experiments proved successful on all counts, the medical industry has been developing vaccines against many kinds of serious and deadly pathogens, thereby preventing hundreds of millions of people from becoming infected and dying in the past few centuries.

The following question comes; how then could such a powerful scientific branch become so questioned, particularly during the past decade? How did vaccinology become so affected during the COVID-19 era?

Perhaps, it is the mismatch of context and the increasing size of institutional corruption, which has clearly shown not to discriminate whilst slowly assimilating the mainstream medical industry around the world. The lack of  contextual research and a voluminous emphasis on fact-checking has been preventing the scientific community from connecting the important dots. It is thereby critical to allow critics to have a say in order to be fully capable of doing our due dilligence and correcting any potential mistakes made in the past, even despite the massive success.

Such questions include:

Is the success rate as high in certain genetic backgrounds and age groups than it is in the rest?

Are there any risks that come along the benefits for certain people?

Are there any other alternatives, given that medicine is rather a multi-dimensional domain?

It seems that, although we watered the necessary branches of adaptive immunity, we have continuously failed to address the foundational importance of innate immunity and to determine the connections between the two areas of human immunity. Although we are still only in early stages of determining how the innate immune system is linked with the adaptive immune system, we seem to be so sure that the way contemporary medicine has interpreted vaccinology is excellent for almost all people. Furthermore, it also seems that we have generalised the administration of specific vaccines to age groups where there are more or less hidden and long-term risks. Instead of double-checking, the mainstream scientific communities alongside the media, have repeatedly told the public that such doubts come from scientifically-uninformed people and disregarded claims, some of which could actually be factual. As a result, the discipline of vaccinology may now be in a serious danger of regression and, if there is no significant change of approach to addressing concerns from members of the general public, it could become extinct. In other words, we are now actually close to the point of failing to progress in an important aspect of medicine.

My stance on the matter, as a graduate in medical sciences, is the following.

Classical ways of vaccination not only stimulate the adaptive immune system to “memorise” the structure and function of a pathogen, but also do not stimulate the immune system to induce harmful levels of interleukin 17 (IL17) signalling. In other words, vaccines generally do not cause inflammation or forms of the infectious diseases in cause.

However, there is not enough evidence to claim that the administration of numerous vaccines is safe for all age groups and genetic backgrounds (i.e. babies aged 0-2, who are in critical neuro-immunological stages of development) and there is also not enough evidence to claim such forms of inoculations are the only way to address infectious diseases. There is clear evidence of a bridge between the brain and the immune system, and a significantly sharpened development of the adaptive immune system (the immune memory) will lead to a high pressure for the brain to develop, leading to risks of developmental delays of some important brain sub-regions. I understand a certain vaccine stimulates the immune system to gain memory against three antigens at once, which also poses a risk of significantly increased demands for important sub-regions of the brain to develop if the vaccine is administered repeatedly and to a baby in critical stages of neurological development.

Vaccination -> reduced IL-17-linked inflammation -> lower chances of neurodevelopmental delays in infants

There is a solid link between maternal infection and a higher incidence of neurodevelopmental delays in offspring due to  highly-activated interleukin 17 (IL17) and T-helper cell 17 (Th17) immune pathways. Vaccines seem to be lowering this problem, as they decrease the activation rate of such immune pathways.

However, the disease affects less than 1% of the population, whilst the vaccines are administered to over 60% of the babies, who are still in critical phases of neurological and immunological development. Likewise, whilst the majority of the patients will develop mild, high-functioning forms of neurodevelopmental disease, the proportion of people requiring significant medical help for various kinds of disease will eventually sharply rise, particularly if such mass infant vaccination campaigns continue. From generation to generation, it will progressively become more serious, as adding more neurodevelopmental delay-related genes will generally lead to more significant forms of the disease in the new offspring. In other words, the matter starts from a numbers’ game and the problem will significantly manifest slowly and over more than just a couple of generation, and hence, this is why the matter is particularly important to address before we may face irreversible negative changes in our society.

The intention of the vast majority of the campaigners are good, as they want the diseases of concern to slowly and effectively become erradicated. It is not the will to prepare the immune system against such diseases from early stages of life that is the problem, but the resources and the way used to attempt such a preparation.

The innate and adaptive immune systems are complementary and interdependent, and each has its own unique importance. The way the mass vaccination campaigners are using is separating the two by over-emphasising on one of them; the adaptive immune system.
The adaptive immune system works because of a functional innate immune system, and the innate immune system works because of a functional adaptive immune system. If you want to do a good job in vaccinology, focus on the foundations of human immunity and offer the required attention to both sections of it.

We water plants because the seeds will be fed with further needed water, and this will ultimately make the plants keep growing, although plants do need water as well for health and growth. It is not the plant that foundationally needs water, but the seeds, even in more advanced phases of growth. The same applies to the immunity of all living organisms.

And the reality is that the seeds represent pattern-recognition receptors and interferon-producing genes, whilst the water represent interferons, and particularly Type I and Type III Interferons. And the administration of low doses of Type I and Type III human recombinant interferons, possibly with plant-derived interferon-stimulating proteins, might be the answer we have been looking for during a long time.
Interferons are known to be key innate immune components by interfering with pathogenic reproduction and spread from their first moment of infection, as they simultaneously have strong antipathogenic effects and maintain a balance between produced anti-inflammatory and pro-inflammatory components.
An interferon production that takes place at the right time and in the right amount strongly favours the development of healthy and effective adaptive immune responses. The recognition of pathogens is critical for the development of a healthy immune response. In other words, correct immune discernment leads to a much favourable immune evolution.

Too much water, and water toxicity might occur. The same happens with interferon therapy; too many interferons, and immune chaos might occur (especially if the therapy happens at a more advanced stage of the infectious disease as well).

Do we still need to work on developing the right B-cells, T-cells and antibodies? Yes. But this should be done at the right time and in the right context. Generalised and chaotic approaches might only lead to more chaos in the end, as a negative response might breed more negativity. Overall, this is a call for a restoration of discernment in an age of informational chaos.

References available at the end of the following post: https://blog.weaccuse.org/this-post-will-probably-shock-you-to-the-core/