In a recent paper titled COVID-19 Vaccine Frontrunners and Their Nanotechnology Design, the authors make the introductory statements:
​
Moderna reached clinical trials 63 days after their sequence selection. It is striking that an unestablished nanotechnology formulation reached clinical testing almost a full month before established approaches (ie, inactivated and live-attenuated vaccines) entered clinical trials.

And, ...

It is also of note that in previous severe coronavirus outbreaks of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV clinical trials were not reached until 25 and 22 months after the outbreaks began.

And, ...

The improved speed into clinical trials is hopeful, but despite the rapid progress, there are still reasons for concern.
​
The fact is, vaccine development does not happen overnight. They must be preventative but also risk-free. Most substances are given to unwell patients, but vaccines are dispensed to healthy individuals and so necessitate an extremely high protective promise.

The current SARS CoV 2 vaccines are emergency use drugs and have bypassed usual developmental methodology.  It is important to note, because it has previously been shown with other respiratory type viruses (SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, RSV and measles) that antibodies produced can intensify disease ferocity via antibody dependant enhancement (this means the infection can get worse or the intensity of the immune response can be overwhelming).

The Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines are ‘nanotechnologies’ and these have not been proven before in clinical environments. In fact, this technology (called an mRNA vaccine) has been researched and tested for 30 years but never been approved.

Every virus is contrasting so there isn’t one perfect solution for all infections. Even within this single SARS-CoV 2 virus some hugely infected people are asymptomatic while others become critical. The enormous inconsistency may infer that a vaccine will not deliver consistent or prolonged immunity in all?

​The Questions ...

One of the major questions is what type of immune response in needed to guard against the virus?

At this point in time, we don’t know definitively. This should be somewhat of a concern given that we now have two (in Australia) vaccines available designed to produce a response without knowing if it the specific response we need.

In the entire history of vaccines, there has only ever been one that has eradicated a disease: the smallpox vaccine.  Some have come close, but eradication is evasive: polio, measles and mumps ...
Respiratory viruses, as the SARS-CoV 2 is, are particularly hard to vaccinate for, despite heavy efforts to manufacture a vaccine. This is partly because the airways and lungs are not an enclosed environment and can’t be protected as can cervical cancer, for example. With respiratory viruses you can be continuously exposed to the infection, in theory.

Most vaccines are delivered by intramuscular injection, and as such, they produce an antibody response that is better developed in the blood (called IgM or IgG responses). The type of protection we need on the mucosal surfaces of the lungs is an IgA response, which is minimal with intramuscular vaccines. At this point in time, there are other vaccines in trials that are looking at improving the IgA response, but this is not the mechanism of the vaccines that are on offer in Australia.

SARS-CoV 2 is different for a respiratory virus because it hitches to a receptor called the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2).  This receptor is found in almost all organs but particularly on the surfaces of the lungs and the digestive system, along with the brain. Hence, this particular virus damages at sites distal to its entry point. This is why it can have such destructive and broad effects. Predominantly, it hangs around in respiratory, circulatory, nervous and urogenital systems and why it’s responsible for many varied symptoms. Much of the pathology here, outside of the airway, is defended by IgG antibody responses, and this is the target of the vaccines we now have. This is vital to note, because the vaccine is not designed to promote an IgA response, and therefore, it’s not designed to prevent infection or its transmission in the airways.

This is one of the issues that hasn’t been addressed by governments or chief health officers. If the vaccine isn’t designed to prevent positive tests, do we shut down a city or state again when someone tests positive, as they will?

So, what is different about the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines compared to traditional vaccines?

Both rely on nanoparticle technology.  These nanoparticles are of the same proportions as the virus. As such, it confers an ability to enter cells as the virus would. Nanoparticles encapsulate the nuclear material (mRNA for Pfizer and DNA for AstraZeneca) and adjuvants for use of the immune system once inside the target cells.

Once inside the nucleus of the cell, the lab formulated genetic material from the virus is incorporated with our genetic material to produce an inert viral protein that our cells recognise as foreign and subsequently mounts an immune response.

Different nanoparticles are available. In the case of Pfizer, they use lipid (fats) nanoparticles (LNPs) and for AstraZeneca, they use another virus (which comes from chimps. It can enter human cells but seems to be inert once inside).

Older types of vaccines would have used actual live or dead virus.

What about the issue of adjuvants?

Adjuvants are immunostimulatory molecules that are designed to annoy the inflammatory and immune systems to hopefully produce a heightened response to vaccine stimulation. The issue here is that many adjuvants have earlier not passed muster due to toxicity pitfalls. In the past, and at times today, the adjuvants in vaccines include molecules like mercury and aluminium. These have no business being in the human body.

Where the Australia’s available vaccines should potentially improve their efficacy is that when encapsulated in nanoparticles, both viral nucleic material and adjuvants should reach their target destination cells. This serves multiple purposes that other types of vaccines don’t.

Firstly, it means that adjuvants aren’t as likely wander off and affect other cells. If you are targeting lung cells, you don’t want the adjuvants backstroking towards the brain, for example.

Secondly, it may mean that the amount of adjuvant is less because you don’t have to account for the loose amount that wanders off, reducing its effectiveness.

Thirdly, the adjuvant is less likely to degrade along its journey, also reducing its effectiveness.

Fourthly, if the antigen (here, nucleic material) and the adjuvant arrive at the target cells at different times, it can set up an autoimmune response where we react against our cells (self-antigens) if these other cells, rather than the target cells,  have taken up the adjuvant.

This type of nanoparticle delivery process is already utilised with common supplements or formulas you may have taken.  For example, liposomal vitamin C or Mutaflor (an Iron formula), in which the iron molecule is attached to a sugar molecule for ease of absorption.

Another possible positive for this nanoparticle process is that the smaller molecules can also move through the spaces between cells, where other larger, non-nanoparticle vaccines cannot. Material in these spaces is picked up by the lymphatic system rather than the circulatory system. The lymphatic system is vital to our immune response whereby certain cells in the lymphatic system called antigen presenting cells take the antigen (inert viral material) to the lymph nodes to meet other immune cells which go on to stimulate much longer lasting immune responses (sometimes years, although we’re not sure this is the case yet with SARS-CoV 2?).

Although this may be seen as a positive, what is not talked about is that if viral material can be delivered to the lymphatic system, then so can the adjuvants. If we react to the adjuvants then this is a problem, because as many of you will know, once something is in the lymphatic system (like cancer), it can end up creating a problem anywhere.

So, while nanoparticle technology would seem to be a safer, more efficient way of delivering a vaccine, there are issues as noted in the previous paragraph.

So, what are they adjuvants in the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines?

Only 29 of the 202 companies that applied to produce a vaccine made it through the initial standards to start trials. Of these companies, very few have released their initial data on safety and ability to produce an immune response.

To get the viral material into the cellular mechanism, amongst others, Pfizer has used lipid nanoparticles cholesterol, phosphatidylcholine and polyethylene glycol-lipid.  They did not list all the LNPs they used.  There is no indication from Pfizer that they did or did not use adjuvants.  However, they do mention that the viral material can act as an adjuvant and there is increasing use of certain LNPs themselves as adjuvants.  This would seem to be better than, say, mercury.

Early trials did not list any severe reactions, but common adverse events included headache, fever and pain. Note here that Pfizer was judging its response on IgG mediated assays, which, as already mentioned, is not aimed at preventing infection or transmission of coronavirus.

The AstraZeneca vaccine doesn’t mention whether it used an adjuvant. It only tested for an IgG response and its adverse events were listed as pain, fatigue and headache.

Of the 29 listed trial participants, only 4 companies directly mention the use of adjuvants. The rest? Do they or don’t they?

Part of the problem with both vaccines is that limited information is available. Many researchers and scientists outside of the company bubble are guessing at the possible mechanisms of function.

Adjuvants should be fully and specifically listed. According to an article in Frontiers in Immunology titled Adjuvants for Coronavirus it is written:

Aluminium salt-based adjuvants (alum) were the first adjuvants used in licensed human vaccines. They are still the most widely used because of their wide-spectrum ability to strengthen immune responses and their excellent track record of safety.  In limited coronavirus vaccine studies, it has been suggested that neutralizing antibody against the spike protein might be mechanistically correlated with immune protection. When alum was formulated with S protein or receptor- binding domain (RBD), it significantly enhanced humoral immune responses. This was demonstrated by higher titres of serum IgG1, increased high affinity viral neutralising antibodies, and the generation of long-lasting memory B cells in mice.

The Pfizer vaccine uses the S protein / RBD mechanism for its action, but it doesn’t it doesn’t say whether it does or doesn’t use aluminium as a adjuvant?

Mentioned above in the Pfizer vaccine ingredient list is the lipid nanoparticle polyethylene glycol. Whilst it is not a heavy metal adjuvant like mercury or aluminium, please read the following article elsewhere in this newsletter:

Immediate Hypersensitivity to Polyethylene Glycols and Polysorbates: More Common Than We Have Recognized.

This article highlight just a few of the questions that should be asked about when making this important decision.  Unfortunately, it’s not the kind of information you are likely to get via many of the media outlets we utilise.  It’s important to be informed.

​Be well.

Polyethylene glycols (PEG) have many and varied uses in medical and commercial environments.  

They are commonly used as carrier molecules in liquid or solid type medications.  It is used to conjugate (bind) with medications to improve their efficiency, their effectiveness and ability to generate an immune response.

It is a petroleum based product, although more natural forms have been developed.  It has been banned from organic cosmetic products in the EU.

In the US, it is used as the primary component in oral bowel preparation formulas for colonoscopy.

In recent times, focus has been on its role in anaphylaxis to bowel prep liquids.  There seems to be insufficient understanding of its reactive capability in medications.  There have been reports of multiple skin related exposures to topical creams containing PEG.

Gastrointestinal exposure is suggested to cause reactions in those with already impaired mucosal barriers.  In general, impaired epithelial lining of the gut and blood vessels (here called endothelium) is thought to be one of the factors associated with the co-morbidities of CoV-19.

At this point in time, it is important to know that the mechanism of action is not well understood.

It may be relevant to note that PEG is being used as a lipid nanoparticle (LNP) to help increase the efficacy of the current Pfizer vaccination.  Part of its role may be to act as a adjuvant to provoke the tissue into a heightened inflammatory or immune response?

​Be well.

By the way, if you’d like to read more (and I suggest you do!) have a look at the following:

The Dirty Dozen: PEG Compounds and their contaminants
Safety Evaluation of Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Compounds for Cosmetic Use
​Probable neuropsychiatric toxicity of polyethylene glycol: roles of media, internet and the caregivers

​In the end, these co-morbid conditions all share similar causes.  Different lifestyles, genetic predispositions,  environmental factors and other facets then go on to determine which disease these factors manifest into.  So, the real question becomes, how do we prevent the inflammation, the oxidative stress, mitochondrial damage, the immune storms and the breakdown of detoxification pathways?  These are all upstream questions and solutions as opposed to a downstream solution like vaccinations.  Downstream solutions ignore the causes and focus on the symptoms. Meanwhile, the upstream causes are free to cause further damage.

Very few are championing the simple solutions which prevent these co-morbid and upstream cellular issues.  What would happen if we ate less sugar and processed foods?  What if we lost weight?  What if we stopped overeating?  What if we got more exercise? Or more sun?  What if we learned to meditate?  Reduce stress? What if we stopped over-prescription of synthetic medications? What if we mandated organic farming and made it cheaper?  What if we drank more water? What if we consumed more vegetables and less meat?

The research is all out there.  The problem is, on average, it takes 17 years for published research to become mainstream teaching and indoctrinated into clinical practice.  We don’t have that long.  The next health pandemic will be around the corner - same dog, different leg.

I would implore everyone to become educated on CV and walk with caution through the mainstream narrative.  Unless you are reading the original research, don’t take second hand information as truth.  I appreciate it is hard to resource correct scientific information and often, even harder to understand.  If you have any questions around the CV and preventative health, I would be happy to address them in articles like this or on Paragon’s Wellness Wall facebook page.
 
Be well.

It’s a conversation I have a couple of times a week in the clinic: ‘What can I do’? Sometimes it’s about self-improvement or bigger aspects like climate change. Lately, of course, it’s been about CV. The statement is usually accompanied by resignation and possibly, ‘it’s too hard’ or ‘I’m just one person.’

There’s generally a fear of moving against the tide and speaking up, or of being too busy.

I could answer this many ways, but here’s my take on it ... and it speaks to who we are, down deep and to the frequency that we generate and emit to the world. The tipping point all starts with you.

We all need to do what we can. We all need to play our part. Most of us were not born to change the world on our own, but all of us were born to fulfill our potential: to be happy, to love, to contribute. 
(Actually, I believe we are already filled to the brim with our ‘potential’. Our journey is to recover who we already are: our state of being. To truly ‘be’, does have the power to change the world).

In this particular context, I am going to say the greatest source of unhappiness is not being able to like oneself. Here, happiness implies that we have self-worth or value that we attribute to ourselves and not attributed to recognition by others. It would follow then, that ‘I am of benefit to the community’ or ‘I am of benefit to another’ may be the sole thing that allows us to appreciate our worth?

As mentioned, a consequential matter here is that contribution to others does not imply it is on display for others to see.

One of the reasons for my being in this lifetime is to recognise that the only tasks I have are my own and not to take on other people’s roles. Also, it is not for people to impose their roles upon me.

So, it is not for me to decide if my contributions are helpful. That is for others to decide and it’s not for me to interfere. In fact, there have been thousands of times in my career when I have not known if I’ve made a contribution! But, I centre myself with the knowledge that my contribution does not have to be evident. All we need is the is the internal sense that ‘I am of benefit to another’ or more specifically, a consciousness of contribution.

In short, happiness and peace are the consciousness of contribution.

People, in general, seek recognition. Today, more so than ever before. I believe it’s because people want to have regard for themselves. They want to feel valued or that they have value. Recognition becomes a yardstick for contribution. Conversely, if people don’t get recognised, they stop contributing in the end. This cannot be our fate. Because if we fail to act, for our self-improvement, climate change or the deeper issues behind global health, we will have zero choice but to swim with the current of other’s wishes, opinions or social norms.

If we want to change ourselves, our relationships or the world, there is no freedom in the desire that the change must be a grand gesture and be something that is seen, influences thousands or gains recognition. Freedom is only achieved through happiness (which is only defined by the self and not others) and contribution.

A true sense of contribution means that you will have no need of recognition from other sources but will come from the sensibility of knowing ‘I have been of worth to someone or something’. Ultimately, the feeling of contribution creates a sense of community, whether it’s a community of two, or a community of millions. I think this is part of our process of evolution, this community feel and our ability to contribute to it. If we are individually going to have a sense of belonging, which I think we a desperately seeking, then ‘community’ and ‘contribution’ are vital. 

So, ok ... the bare bones. We don’t need big, grand gestures to feel we are contributing. Most of it will go unnoticed and the important thing is our ‘consciousness of contribution’ and to know that we ‘are of worth’. It may not mean that today you planted a grove of trees or you got arrested at a climate change rally or sharing your thought over a beer with the Deli Lama was really worth the trip. It may simply mean that you decided these thoughts were worth passing on in an email to others? Who knows? Maybe your email goes down the line 100 times? What a contribution you facilitated! And without recognition!

The point of this article is that for us to change the world, we start by changing who we are. 
We learn self-acceptance: that is ok and valuable to be who we are and that we are immeasurable just as we are. 

We learn to have confidence in others: unconditional belief that others with do the right thing, even when they don’t! Doubt will keep us right where we are.

We contribute to others: we develop self-worth and a sense of community in our interpersonal relationships (near and far). Keep to your own tasks and don’t take on those of others. It’s ok to sever ties with those who interfere with yours (this circles back to self-acceptance).

If we can achieve this (or even some of it), we become those who people want to be near or listen to. This is not the aim, but a consequence. See you at the tipping point!

​Be well.