At his media briefing on March 3rd 2020, the World Health Organisation (WHO) Director General said: “COVID-19 is a new virus to which no one has immunity”.
The WHO managed to get quite a lot wrong in its pronouncements about COVID-19. I am just focusing on the “to which no one has immunity” for now. But put this together with all the other inaccuracies in the WHO statements and guidance about COVID-19 and it does raise concerns about our Government’s recent outsourcing of health decisions to the WHO in the next pandemic.
Why is pre-existing immunity to COVID-19 important?
Pre-existing Covid immunity is important because it would normally mean we have already built up some immunity to the virus from earlier exposures, making our response to COVID-19 less severe. And in fact, many of us had COVID-19 very mildly and sometimes with no symptoms at all.
It’s important to point out, however, that pre-existing immunity will not be the only reason for mild COVID-19. A healthy vitamin D level and absence of risk factors such as older age, obesity and other underlying medical conditions will also play a part.
Several scientists have pointed out that recognition of our pre-existing immunity could have considerably improved pandemic decision-making. Additionally, there would have been less need to generate the fear which became government policy during the pandemic and the pandemic measures could have been confined to the vulnerable, as suggested by the Great Barrington Declaration.
To explain this further, what follows is a summary of my three-part article on pre-existing immunity to COVID-19, which was recently published in an academic journal. The three parts can be found here, here and here.
There was, in fact, every reason to expect that we had some pre-existing immunity to COVID-19.
Firstly it is a coronavirus. There are six other known human coronaviruses: SARS (mainly confined to Asia in 2003), MERS (the Middle East in 2012) and four common cold viruses. While we may never have encountered SARS or MERS, we have certainly come in contact with at least one of the common cold coronaviruses (the clue is in the name). More than 90% of the human population has antibodies to at least three of the four common cold coronaviruses.
Furthermore, there is 65%-69% genetic similarity between SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing COVID-19, and the common cold coronaviruses, so it would be surprising if there were not some pre-existing immunity.
In any case, the WHO had acknowledged in 2009 that “the vulnerability of a population to a pandemic virus is related in part to the level of pre-existing immunity to the virus”. But no-one in the WHO apparently remembered this or bothered to check back.
Indeed, when COVID-19 arrived, very few doctors or scientists considered whether we might have any pre-existing immunity. Certainly, it did not appear to be factored into the UK Imperial College mathematical modelling which drove pandemic policy. If it had been, possibly the prediction of “510,000 deaths without mitigating measures” might have been reduced to something a little more realistic and maybe the government would not have been frightened into the endless lockdowns.
I will start by explaining how we had pre-existing immunity to other coronaviruses and go on to discuss how our COVID-19 response might well have been affected by other microbes and non-Covid vaccinations.
Pre-existing immunity from other coronaviruses
The immune cells which do the heavy lifting against respiratory viruses such as COVID-19 are the T-cells of the adaptive immune system (sources for this section can be found in Part 1 of my journal article). In order for us to have pre-existing coronavirus immunity to COVID-19 we must have cross-reactive memory T cells from a previous coronavirus infection. These memory T cells allow the immune system to shortcut the normal procedure of first activating the innate immune system, which could take around a week, but instead would allow the adaptive immune system to produce T cells to the new virus immediately.
In short, memory T cells are a huge asset as they massively speed up an effective immune response, thereby lessening the duration and severity of COVID-19.
Numerous studies have shown that up to 90% of pre-pandemic blood contains memory T cells from prior coronavirus exposures, although proportions can vary widely. Several studies have also shown that a larger number of cross-reactive memory T cells are associated with lower COVID-19 incidence or severity and rapid viral clearance. A modelling study estimated that immunity from common cold coronaviruses to SARS-CoV-2 could last 7.8 years.
Some of these studies were published early in the pandemic, giving the WHO plenty of opportunity to correct its pronouncement and for pre-existing immunity to be factored into the modelling.
Pre-existing immunity from other micro-organisms
There are no other viruses which seem to confer pre-existing immunity to COVID-19 and in fact some may exacerbate it (sources for this section can be found in Part 2 of my journal article). Malaria, however (which is caused by a parasite rather than a virus), appears to be highly protective, which possibly explains why parts of Africa suffered less from COVID-19.
There have been several studies on bacteria found in the gut and respiratory tract. The situation is not clear-cut, but in general, those of us with poor bacterial diversity and lower levels of beneficial bacteria, especially those producing short-chain fatty acids, tended to have higher COVID-19 incidence and severity and increased inflammation. Gastrointestinal problems were fairly common with more severe COVID-19, no doubt because of the imbalance in gut bacteria.
Pre-existing immunity from non-Covid vaccination
Although vaccines are now being promoted as the answer to every medical problem, few studies have examined whether their effect might be non-specific and could protect against other viruses as well. The answer is yes, they could (source for this section are in Part 3 of my journal article).
The Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccine against tuberculosis appears to be a good candidate. A wealth of studies, including a meta-analysis, the highest form of evidence, reported that countries with pre-existing BCG vaccination had fewer confirmed COVID-19 cases and reduced severity, duration of illness and mortality. It may possibly also protect against the hyperinflammation commonly seen in the elderly with severe Covid. It seems to be most effective when given to newborns and infants when the immune system is more susceptible to modulation.
Because prior BCG vaccination appeared to confer protection, several trials of BCG vaccination were carried out during the pandemic but meta-analyses and reviews were inconclusive, possibly because these trials were in adults, not infants. Furthermore, because the vaccine induces a temporary pro-inflammatory state with strong cytokine responses, it could make recipients temporarily more susceptible to severe COVID-19, which is itself pro-inflammatory, whereas if vaccination had occurred prior to the pandemic the inflammation would have had time to resolve.
The influenza vaccine also seemed effective. Most studies showed that it demonstrated a significantly reduced incidence and severity of COVID-19 infection compared to those who had not been vaccinated, including in the elderly. Recent vaccination may be necessary; it had less protective effect in patients who had not been vaccinated in the last year. Nevertheless, many of those who regularly have the flu vaccine are now likely to have the COVID-19 vaccine as well. The interaction of the two vaccines has not been tested in any trial to date.
Other potentially effective vaccines include:
Pre-existing Covid immunity is important because it would normally mean we have already built up some immunity to the virus from earlier exposures, making our response to COVID-19 less severe. And in fact, many of us had COVID-19 very mildly and sometimes with no symptoms at all.
It’s important to point out, however, that pre-existing immunity will not be the only reason for mild COVID-19. A healthy vitamin D level and absence of risk factors such as older age, obesity and other underlying medical conditions will also play a part.
Several scientists have pointed out that recognition of our pre-existing immunity could have considerably improved pandemic decision-making. Additionally, there would have been less need to generate the fear which became government policy during the pandemic and the pandemic measures could have been confined to the vulnerable, as suggested by the Great Barrington Declaration.
To explain this further, what follows is a summary of my three-part article on pre-existing immunity to COVID-19, which was recently published in an academic journal. The three parts can be found here, here and here.
There was, in fact, every reason to expect that we had some pre-existing immunity to COVID-19.
Firstly it is a coronavirus. There are six other known human coronaviruses: SARS (mainly confined to Asia in 2003), MERS (the Middle East in 2012) and four common cold viruses. While we may never have encountered SARS or MERS, we have certainly come in contact with at least one of the common cold coronaviruses (the clue is in the name). More than 90% of the human population has antibodies to at least three of the four common cold coronaviruses.
Furthermore, there is 65%-69% genetic similarity between SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing COVID-19, and the common cold coronaviruses, so it would be surprising if there were not some pre-existing immunity.
In any case, the WHO had acknowledged in 2009 that “the vulnerability of a population to a pandemic virus is related in part to the level of pre-existing immunity to the virus”. But no-one in the WHO apparently remembered this or bothered to check back.
Indeed, when COVID-19 arrived, very few doctors or scientists considered whether we might have any pre-existing immunity. Certainly, it did not appear to be factored into the UK Imperial College mathematical modelling which drove pandemic policy. If it had been, possibly the prediction of “510,000 deaths without mitigating measures” might have been reduced to something a little more realistic and maybe the government would not have been frightened into the endless lockdowns.
I will start by explaining how we had pre-existing immunity to other coronaviruses and go on to discuss how our COVID-19 response might well have been affected by other microbes and non-Covid vaccinations.
Pre-existing immunity from other coronaviruses
The immune cells which do the heavy lifting against respiratory viruses such as COVID-19 are the T-cells of the adaptive immune system (sources for this section can be found in Part 1 of my journal article). In order for us to have pre-existing coronavirus immunity to COVID-19 we must have cross-reactive memory T cells from a previous coronavirus infection. These memory T cells allow the immune system to shortcut the normal procedure of first activating the innate immune system, which could take around a week, but instead would allow the adaptive immune system to produce T cells to the new virus immediately.
In short, memory T cells are a huge asset as they massively speed up an effective immune response, thereby lessening the duration and severity of COVID-19.
Numerous studies have shown that up to 90% of pre-pandemic blood contains memory T cells from prior coronavirus exposures, although proportions can vary widely. Several studies have also shown that a larger number of cross-reactive memory T cells are associated with lower COVID-19 incidence or severity and rapid viral clearance. A modelling study estimated that immunity from common cold coronaviruses to SARS-CoV-2 could last 7.8 years.
Some of these studies were published early in the pandemic, giving the WHO plenty of opportunity to correct its pronouncement and for pre-existing immunity to be factored into the modelling.
Pre-existing immunity from other micro-organisms
There are no other viruses which seem to confer pre-existing immunity to COVID-19 and in fact some may exacerbate it (sources for this section can be found in Part 2 of my journal article). Malaria, however (which is caused by a parasite rather than a virus), appears to be highly protective, which possibly explains why parts of Africa suffered less from COVID-19.
There have been several studies on bacteria found in the gut and respiratory tract. The situation is not clear-cut, but in general, those of us with poor bacterial diversity and lower levels of beneficial bacteria, especially those producing short-chain fatty acids, tended to have higher COVID-19 incidence and severity and increased inflammation. Gastrointestinal problems were fairly common with more severe COVID-19, no doubt because of the imbalance in gut bacteria.
Pre-existing immunity from non-Covid vaccination
Although vaccines are now being promoted as the answer to every medical problem, few studies have examined whether their effect might be non-specific and could protect against other viruses as well. The answer is yes, they could (source for this section are in Part 3 of my journal article).
The Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccine against tuberculosis appears to be a good candidate. A wealth of studies, including a meta-analysis, the highest form of evidence, reported that countries with pre-existing BCG vaccination had fewer confirmed COVID-19 cases and reduced severity, duration of illness and mortality. It may possibly also protect against the hyperinflammation commonly seen in the elderly with severe Covid. It seems to be most effective when given to newborns and infants when the immune system is more susceptible to modulation.
Because prior BCG vaccination appeared to confer protection, several trials of BCG vaccination were carried out during the pandemic but meta-analyses and reviews were inconclusive, possibly because these trials were in adults, not infants. Furthermore, because the vaccine induces a temporary pro-inflammatory state with strong cytokine responses, it could make recipients temporarily more susceptible to severe COVID-19, which is itself pro-inflammatory, whereas if vaccination had occurred prior to the pandemic the inflammation would have had time to resolve.
The influenza vaccine also seemed effective. Most studies showed that it demonstrated a significantly reduced incidence and severity of COVID-19 infection compared to those who had not been vaccinated, including in the elderly. Recent vaccination may be necessary; it had less protective effect in patients who had not been vaccinated in the last year. Nevertheless, many of those who regularly have the flu vaccine are now likely to have the COVID-19 vaccine as well. The interaction of the two vaccines has not been tested in any trial to date.
Other potentially effective vaccines include:
- The oral polio vaccine: population studies show that countries with effective polio vaccination programmes had fewer COVID-19 infections and less severe disease.
- The measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine: immunisation records and studies show that more recent MMR vaccination is associated with decreased COVID-19 infection rates. The sole randomised control trial of MMR vaccination of healthcare workers during the pandemic found that MMR reduced the risk of symptomatic infection.
- The diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTP) and herpes zoster vaccines.
It is clear that, contrary to the WHO statement on March 3rd 2020, we could have had considerable pre-existing immunity to COVID-19 for the following reasons:
- We have all been in contact with common cold coronaviruses, from which we will have derived memory T cells which could generate an immediate strong immune response to COVID-19. The only exceptions to this are those with weakened immune systems, often found in the elderly or in those with serious underlying medical conditions.
- Anyone who had previously contracted malaria was also likely to be protected.
- A wide diversity of beneficial gut bacteria seemed to be protective.
- Prior non-Covid vaccination appeared to be effective in reducing COVID-19 incidence and severity, although vaccination timing seems important. BCG vaccination as an infant was more protective than later in life, although recent influenza and MMR vaccines were more protective than earlier vaccination.
Should we then be having all the vaccinations we can, in order to protect us against another respiratory virus pandemic? No, as every vaccine comes with its potential adverse effects, not least of which could be excess inflammation from antibody stimulation, which can cause serious problems in the body, particularly in the elderly.
Although traditional vaccines seem able to co-exist in our bodies without too much difficulty, particularly when there is a large time interval between them, no studies have so far looked at the interaction between the Covid vaccines and prior vaccination for other conditions. In any case, the COVID-19 vaccines are arguably not technically vaccines. They have been described, with good reason, as “experimental gene therapy”.
Maybe the success of traditional vaccination has little to do with the specific virus injected but hinges upon the fact that any virus is injected and initiates an immune response which is ‘remembered’. This would suggest that a ‘universal vaccine’ for any respiratory virus might be possible.
Conclusions
Almost every academic review article ends with the recommendation that more studies should be carried out, and that is certainly true in this field. Few scientists have thought to consider these issues and the issues certainly have not received the interest they deserve.
Although far from being the only determinants of COVID-19 outcome, the number of studies demonstrating some form of pre-existing immunity from prior infection, gut microbiome or prior vaccination suggests that such pre-existing immunity is an important phenomenon which should have been taken into account in pandemic planning.
It is hoped that in future pandemics our health authorities might recognise the presence and importance of pre-existing immunity to viruses and possibly screen for memory T cells, microbiome imbalance and prior vaccination in order to highlight those most at risk.
This leads on to the implications for the development of the COVID-19 vaccines. If a substantial proportion of us have pre-existing immunity the need for specific COVID-19 vaccines may be reduced in those least at risk.
Furthermore, we have no idea how the ‘vaccines’ manufactured specifically against COVID-19 will be affected by pre-existing immunity: will such immunity enhance their effect or negate it? Back in 2020, it was suggested that pre-existing immunity be factored into the COVID-19 vaccine phase I clinical trials but needless to say, this was ignored.
The issues are far more complicated than I have indicated here, but I hope that I have been able to give a flavour of what the research is showing and, more importantly, to demonstrate that we had little to worry about if we had pre-existing immunity to COVID-19, unless we were in a vulnerable category.
I would also like to mention that my article was published in the journal of the US Independent Medical Alliance (IMA), formerly the Front Line Covid Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), which you might remember from the pandemic era. True to its name, this is a pharma-free journal. The IMA website is well worth a browse – it has branched out from treating COVID-19 and vaccine injury to other health conditions, including treating cancer.
Dr Rachel Nicoll is a medical researcher, lecturer and writer. This article was sourced HERE
6 comments:
This s an article with many misframed suggestions. It can be published anywhere willing to accept it. It is wrong and wrong and people should take little notice.
Those who remember, remember the sick overwhelming health systems all over the world.
I think that there is a lot of after-the-factism. Okay, we know now that covid 19 risk groups differed. So, if we have a big epidemic, say avian influenza or whatever, we should assess the at risk groups and prioritize. Maybe the at risk groups only would be the very elderly or infants. So, schools stay open and we isolate retirement villages. Another question: have we dramatically increased ICU capacity over the past five years? NZ , if I recall, was way behind countries such as Germany in ICU beds, per capita. I seriously doubt that has changed, as we prefer building offices for managers and administrators than building patient rooms.
The only TRUTH I know is -
"FEAR became government policy".
And as a consequence, later came the gas lighting, bullying, deceit, trampling on basic freedoms, and capitulation of the police, legal and medical professions.
For which we all should feel SHAME.
I daresay millions of folk would love to participate in the beard-stroking and academic debate surrounding the effectiveness of the human immune system.
But they can't, because they are dead. Dead from a virus that had no parallel since the Spanish flu of 1919. Dead because their Governments hesitated to enforce simple preventative action because they wanted to wait and see how the immune system reacted (I'm looking at you Boris Johnson), or they wanted to protect their god-given human right to be wrong (your turn Trump).
We should count our lucky stars that our Government recognised its primary function was to keep its citizens safe, and made the hard decisions they did.
But they didn't have the luxury of time to debate the niceties of their actions. Lockdowns were gamble because Government did not have all the information they needed. But no-one did. And all decision making is done in the absence of full information. Their gamble paid off because medical technology came up with an antidote. In record time too.
The decisions taken by our government, validated by the subsequent Royal Commission, followed best clinical practice and advice from the WHO available in 2020, and history shows they were spectacularly successful at saving Kiwi lives. The envy of the world you might recall.
So when I read a headline that proclaims "The World Health Organisation Got It Wrong Again" I might naturally be suspicious of the motives of the author who seems be interested only in retrofitting the science to justify Boris Johnson's rhetoric and Trump's ignorance.
I therefore await with interest the results of the further research she deems necessary. But that's just part of the world moving on and learning how to manage future pandemics. The past is a different country, and whatever answers she comes up with in the future will not refute decisions made in the context of our knowledge in 2020.
We will never know the "truth" as when this evolved in Wuhan, the Chinese Govt shut down every media source in China and 'hunted down' any person within China who put data out via a social media platform.
Base on Video footage, available from within China as this 'issue' unfolded, it was evident that even China was "caught off guard" and went to great lengths to contain the disease.
On a morbid note, I wonder how many mass graves they had to create to bury the dead?
The truth from China will never be forthcoming.
But they did "manipulate" the WHO, who in turn manipulated the rest of the World.
I have also read from an other source (this being unverifiable) - that China through its various Embassies went to some length to ensure that Nations 'took exceptional steps' to "shut down" their own Nations.
Here in NZ our "esteemed" Labour Party has ensured that any 'committee' looking into how they acted, as in a sense ensured that such a committee will have difficulty in 'seeking truth', when those who held a Portfolio, in the then Labour Govt have notified that "they will not be part of such an enquiry".
From what I have 'heard" what has been sought, is not what the NZ Public has been told about - if it has it will be scant presentation of data gathered.
So, lets put the "sorry saga" behind us and move on, even away from the WHO who have shown they are not a capable agency.
Here we go again. Anon 3.09 joining the usual suspects with their innuendo, speculation and unfounded assertions. S/he actually admits his/her sources are "unverifiable" but is happy to burst into print anyway. And incidentally, Adern, Hipkins and Robertson all gave evidence to Phase 1 of the Royal Commission, presumably under oath. But predictably, that was not good enough for a died-in-the-wool conspiracy theorist who wouldn't recognise due process if s/he fell over it.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.