top of page
Search
  • Writer's pictureRobert O Young DSc, PhD, Naturopathic Practitioner
    • May 5, 2020
    • 2 min read

Do You Really Trust Vaccines to Protect YOU Against a Phantom Virus?

So What Is All the Fuss Over the Phantom Corona Virus?

The Real Question Is What Is The True Intended Purpose of a Vaccine for the 'Corona Effect'?



Is the Vaccine More Deadly Than the Symptoms from a non-existing Virus caused by other contributing factors?


Is there a non-toxic natural treatment for preventing and reversing the 'Corona Effect'?


Read the following research on the effects of a vaccine developed for the Corona virus and Why Are Populations of Cities From Some Countries More Affected Than Others For CON-vid-19?



The following is an article on the research for a vaccine against the Corona Virus

Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to Pulmonary Immunopathology on Challenge with the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) Corona Virus PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e35421. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035421. Epub 2012 Apr 20

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) emerged in China in 2002 and spread to other countries before brought under control. Because of a concern for reemergence or a deliberate release of the SARS coronavirus, vaccine development was initiated. Evaluations of an inactivated whole virus vaccine in ferrets and nonhuman primates and a virus-like-particle vaccine in mice induced protection against infection but challenged animals exhibited an immunopathologic-type lung disease.

DESIGN:

Four candidate vaccines for humans with or without alum adjuvant were evaluated in a mouse model of SARS, a VLP vaccine, the vaccine given to ferrets and NHP, another whole virus vaccine and an rDNA-produced S protein. Balb/c or C57BL/6 mice were vaccinated i.m. on day 0 and 28 and sacrificed for serum antibody measurements or challenged with live virus on day 56. On day 58, challenged mice were sacrificed and lungs obtained for virus and histopathology.

RESULTS:

All vaccines induced serum neutralizing antibody with increasing dosages and/or alum significantly increasing responses. Significant reductions of SARS-CoV two days after challenge was seen for all vaccines and prior live SARS-CoV. All mice exhibited histopathologic changes in lungs two days after challenge including all animals vaccinated (Balb/C and C57BL/6) or given live virus, influenza vaccine, or PBS suggesting infection occurred in all. Histopathology seen in animals given one of the SARS-CoV vaccines was uniformly a Th2-type immunopathology with prominent eosinophil infiltration, confirmed with special eosinophil stains. The pathologic changes seen in all control groups lacked the eosinophil prominence.



Read the following article, Why Are Populations of Cities From Some Countries More Affected Than Others For CON-vid-19? - https://www.drrobertyoung.com/…/why-are-populations-of-citi… Is There a Natural Holistic Protocol for the Symptoms of the 'Corona Effect'? Check out the following articles on a natural protocol for the 'Corona Effect': 1) Are YOU Following a CON-VIT-DIE-IT or a pH Miracle Alkaline LIVE-IT Lifestyle? - https://www.drrobertyoung.com/…/are-you-following-a-con-vit… 2) Are We Making Ourselves Sick? A Story About Toxicity, Sickness and Recovery from the 'Corona Effect' - https://www.drrobertyoung.com/…/are-we-making-ourselves-sic…


Vaccine ComSerum neutralizing (neut) antibody and lung virus titers for each vaccine dosage group. A. Geometric mean serum antibody titer as log2 and standard error of the mean (S.E.) on day 56 for each vaccine dosage group. Seven to eight mice per group. Vaccines: double inactivated whole virus (DIV), recombinant S protein (SV), viral-like particle vaccine (VLP), with alum (+A). Five mice per group were given 0.1 ml of vaccine intramuscularly on days 0 and 28. B. Geometric mean virus titer (log10 TCID50/g) and standard error of the mean (S.E.) in lungs on day 58 (two days after SARS-CoV challenge) for each vaccine dosage group. Analyses: A. GMT with compared to without alum: DIV p>.05, VLP p>.05, SV p = .001. GMT for different vaccine dosage: DIV with alum p = .007, DIV without alum p>.05, SV with alum p = .028, SV without alum p = .01. Multiple regression: GMT increased for alum p = .012 and dosage p<.001, for SV alum only p = .001. B. GMT for all DIV groups not different p>.05, GMT for SV group without alum p .008 and with alum p .023. GMT for VLP group is not different p>.05.
Vaccine Comparisons of Three SARS-CoV Vaccines, Experiment 1.
Vaccine ComMean lung cellular infiltration/lesion pathology and percent eosinophils in infiltrates for each vaccine dosage group two days after challenge with SARS-CoV. A. Mean lesion score and standard error of the mean (S.E.) for each vaccine dosage group. All mice exhibited lung histopathology. Scores are mean of scores for seven to eight mice per group. Scoring. 0 – no pathology, 1 and 2 – (1) minimal (2) moderate peribronchiole and perivascular cellular infiltration, 3 and 4 – 1 and/or 2 plus minimal (3) or moderate (4) epithelial cell necrosis of bronchioles with cell debris in the lumen. B. Mean percent eosinophils on histologic evaluation for seven to eight mice in each vaccine dosage group. Mean for each mouse is the mean percent eosinophils on five separate microscopy fields of lung sections. Analyses: A. Mean lesion scores were different p<.001. DIV without alum greater than with alum p = .001, VLP without alum greater than with alum p = .008. Posthoc comparisons: DIV lower than SV p = .001 and controls p<.001 but not VLP p>.05. SV lower than controls p .048. B. Mean percent eosinophils were different p<.001. Mean percent eosinophils lower for DIV with alum than without alum p = .049 and lower for SV with alum than without alum p = .001. Mean percent eosinophils lower for SV than DIV p = .002 or VLP. P = <.001. Mean percent eosinophils greater than controls for DIV, SV and VLP, all three vaccines p<.001.
Vaccine Comparisons of Three SARS-CoV Vaccines, Experiment 1.

Higher Dosages of SV Vaccine plus DIV and BPV VaSerum neutralizing (neut) antibody and lung virus titers for each vaccine dosage group. A. Geometric mean serum antibody titer and standard error of the mean (S.E.) on day 56 for each vaccine dosage group. Five mice per group given 0.1 ml of vaccine intramuscularly on days 0 and 28. B. Geometric mean virus titer (log10 TCID50/g) and standard error of the mean (S.E.) in lungs on day 58 (two days after SARS-CoV challenge) for each vaccine dosage group. Seven to eight mice per group. Vaccines: double inactivated whole virus (DIV), recombinant S protein (SV), β propiolactone inactivated whole virus (BPV) with alum (+A). Analyses: A. GMT with alum greater than without alum: SV p<.001, DIV p = .014. GMT for the two BPV groups are different p = .039. Multiple regression: DIV and SV increased with alum p≤.01, no dosage effect p>.05.
Higher Dosages of SV Vaccine plus DIV and BPV Vaccine Comparisons, Experiment 2.
Higher Dosages of SV Vaccine plus DIV and Mean lung cellular infiltration/lesion pathology and mean percent eosinophils in infiltrates for each vaccine dosage group two days after challenge with SARS-CoV. A. Mean lesion score and standard error of the mean (S.E.) for each vaccine dosage group. Scores are mean of scores for seven to eight mice per group. Scoring - 0 - no definite pathology, 1 - mild peribronchiole and perivascular cellular infiltration, 2 - moderate peribronchiole and perivascular cellular infiltration, 3 - severe peribronchiolar and perivascular cellular infiltration with thickening of alveolar walls, alveolar infiltration and bronchiole epithelial cell necrosis and debris in the lumen. Ten to 20 microscopy fields were scored for each mouse lung. B. Mean score and standard error of the mean (S.E.) for eosinophils as percent of infiltrating cells for each vaccine dosage group. Scores are mean of scores for seven to eight mice per group. Scoring: 0 - <5% of cells, 1 - 5–10% of cells, 2 - 10–20% of cells, 3 - >20% of cells. Ten to 20 microscopy fields were scored for each mouse lung. Analyses: A. Mean lesion scores were different p<.001. Mean scores were lower for SV than DIV p<.001 and less than BPV p = .006. B. Mean eosinophil scores were lower for SV than DIV p<.001 and less than BPV p<.001. Eosinophil scores greater for SV than PBS or live virus p<.001.
Higher Dosages of SV Vaccine plus DIV and BPV Vaccine Comparisons, Experiment 2.
Serum neutralizing (neut) antibody and lung virus titers for each vaccine dosage group. A. Geometric mean serum antibody titer and standard error of the mean (S.E.) on day 56 for each vaccine dosage group for each mouse strain (Balb/c or C57BL/6). Five mice per group given 0.1 ml of vaccine intramuscularly on days 0 and 28. B. Geometric mean virus titer (log10 TCID50/g) and standard error of the mean (S.E.) in lungs on day 58 (two days after SARS-CoV challenge for each vaccine dosage group for each mouse strain. Seven to eight mice per group. Vaccines: Double inactivated whole virus, (DIV), β propiolactone inactivated whole virus (BPV), with alum (+A). Analyses: A. GMT for highest DIV dosage without alum greater for Balb/c than C57BL/6 p = .008 but not for alum p>.05. GMT for the BPV vaccine and live virus were not different for the two strains p>.05. B. GMT for PBS control mice were not different p>.05. GMT for DIV without alum and BPV with alum greater for C57BL/6 than Balb/c p = .004.
Mouse and Vaccine Specificity, Experiment 3.
Mean lung cellular infiltration/lesion pathology and percent eosinophils in infiltrates for each vaccine dosage group for each mouse strain (Balb/c or C57BL/6) two days after challenge with SARS-CoV. A. Mean lesion score and standard error of the mean (S.E.) for each vaccine dosage group. Scores are mean of scores for seven to eight mice per group. Scoring 0 - no definite pathology, 1 - mild peribronchiole and perivascular cellular infiltration, 2 - moderate peribronchiole and perivascular cellular infiltration, 3 - severe peribronchiole and perivascular cellular infiltration with thickening of alveolar walls, alveolar infiltration and bronchiole epithelial cell necrosis and debris in the lumen. Ten to 20 microscopy fields were scored for each mouse lung. B. Mean score and standard error of the mean (S.E.) for eosinophils as percent of infiltrating cells for each vaccine dosage group. Scores are mean of scores for seven to eight mice per group. Scoring: 0 - <5% of cells, 1 - 5–10% of cells, 2 - 10–20% of cells, 3 - >20% of cells. Ten to 20 microscopy fields were scored for each mouse lung. Analyses: A. Mean lesion scores were not different p>.05. B. Mean eosinophil scores were different p<.001. Mean scores for vaccine groups greater than non-vaccine groups for Balb/c and C57BL/6 p<.001 for all comparisons. Mean eosinophil scores for the same groups not different for Balb/c and C57BL/6 p>.05.
Mouse and Vaccine Specificity, Experiment 3.

Is There a Natural Holistic Protocol for the Symptoms of the 'Corona Effect'?


Check out the following articles on a natural protocol for the 'Corona Effect':


1) Are YOU Following a CON-VIT-DIE-IT or a pH Miracle Alkaline LIVE-IT Lifestyle?



2) Are We Making Ourselves Sick? A Story About Toxicity, Sickness and Recovery from the 'Corona


600 views0 comments

Comments

bottom of page