Expertise
In the late 1970s, as the sun blazed down outside, I'd frequently be found indoors with blackouts over the windows, working by a dim green light as I tried to investigate the biochemistry underlying the way in which a plant, Xanthium strumarium, was able to tell how long the days were, triggering flowering. Day after day, the same experiments, ultimately proving fruitless. So, I'm a PhD failure! But it did give me an insight into the nature of expertise. To a layperson, the title 'Dr', whether medical or philosophical, carries significant cachet. It certainly isn't nothing - let no-one accuse me of 'PhD envy'! However, if I'd succeeded, I would have become more expert in a very narrow topic - the biochemical response of a plant to light duration, specifically in relation to the enzyme tocopherol oxidase. It would have made me no more expert in my degree subject, biochemistry, than the graduate degree that preceded it. If I'd combined my research with some teaching, that would have kept me a lttle more up to date with the broader field. But as far as research is concerned, it is a narrowing of specialism.
Similar considerations apply to medical qualification. There's a lot to cram into the 5 or 6 years of a medical degree, and a lot of subsequent specialism, but complex subjects such as statistics, microbiology, immunology, epidemiology or biochemistry are covered in a handful of lectures, often never to be touched again. Undoubtedly some doctors are expert in one or more of these, but it would be wrong to assume all are. The enthusiasm of some doctors for some decidedly fringe ideas should be a caution against assigning oracle status.
Some people really are experts, of course. We wouldn't want to commit the fallacy of Argument from Authority - experts can be wrong - but it might be foolish to argue with someone about their actual field, and better instead to defer to them and maybe learn something. However, how far does that authority extend? That is a trickier task for the layman to ascertain. As far as most specialisms are concerned, we are all laymen; even people in associated fields. Without knowledge of a field, you are less likely to know what is and isn't a central part of it: you don't know what you don't know. For all of us, expert and dilettante alike, phenomena well above and well below our level of direct perception demand construction of mental models. We'd expect those of experts to be much more detailed than our own, but it does not always follow that they are more accurate.
Puffing up of credentials is a common tactic in pseudoscientific circles. In fact it's quite distinctive; you very rarely see it in what one might presumptuously call 'legitimate science'. Argument there is done much less by donning the glove puppet of an assumed expert than by discussion of ideas and the evidence underpinning them. Argument by authority is ultimately self-defeating, since all one need do is find an equally qualified authority of opposite opinion, don their glove puppet and mock-wrestle. Certainly saves a lot of thinking...
In the currently polarised atmosphere of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, a number of figures have emerged as pet experts among the vaccine-sceptic community. They are rarely simply named, but are typically given a brief resume as well. There's "Nobel Prize winning inventor of PCR Dr Kary Mullis". There's "Leading virologist Dr Geert vanden Bossche". There's "Inventor of mRNA vaccines Dr Robert W. Malone". There's "Nobel Prize-winning virologist Luc Montagnier". There's "Leading frontline doctor Pierre Kory". Now, although I've somewhat sardonically scare-quoted these, this is to echo how they are typically presented, rather than a dismissal. Much (though not all) of the additional information above is actually true, or at least arguable. But how far does their expertise reach? Nobel Prize winners are particularly prone to believing their own press releases. Mullis, William Shockley, Linus Pauling, James Watson, Ivar Giaever, all strayed from their disciplines to make clumsy pronouncements in areas in which they had no more fundamental claim to expertise than you or I. This is not to try and establish any kind of rule - I'm not saying all Nobel winners are wrong! - but to sound a note of caution.
_________________________________________________________________
Mullis is an interesting example. Undoubtedly a brilliant chemist, his PCR has proved invaluable in several fields. However, he became embroiled in the HIV/AIDS debate - he was convinced HIV was not the causative agent, but simply something common you would expect to detect if you ran enough cycles, harmlessly present at low level in everyone. This has been over-interpreted as a claim that he said PCR should not be used for diagnosis. For one thing, he did not say that, for another, should we listen if he had? In reality, it is extensively used for diagnosis, by people who, we must assume, know what they are doing. An amusing twist: Luc Montagnier, who believes (like Geert vanden Bossche) that vaccination creates dangerous variants, received his Nobel Prize for the discovery of HIV. They don't give Nobels for discovery of the mundane; that discovery had Nobel significance only because of the link between HIV and AIDS - a link Mullis denied! The stage is set for a 'Nobel-off': a glove-puppet fight nicely illustrative of the danger of over-egging credentials. They can't both be right. In that instance, my money's on the virologist.
But then, that virologist, Luc Montagnier, believes that a DNA sequence can be resurrected de novo after transmission of its electromagnetic signature via a WAV file and email. No-one has even bothered to attempt to replicate this experiment, despite the fame and fortune that await anyone diving into what would be revolutionary physics if true. It just seems too absurd. In an interestingly entangled twist, we'd have to suspect contamination - Mullis's concern that incidental material may be amplified is a valid one. It would be preferable to use an entirely synthetic sequence with no known living match: a fairly obvious control. But what do I know? I never even finished my PhD!
_________________________________________________________________
Now, in vanden Bossche and Montagnier, we have virologists who believe that mass vaccination should be stopped due to selection of vaccine escape mutants. In that instance, I would be looking for a second opinion from an epidemiologist or evolutionary biologist, with input from an immunologist (who may or may not also be a virologist). 'Virology' is quite a broad discipline. Structure of viruses, molecular biology, interaction with hosts, clinical case management, vaccine, immunology, interaction with populations ... someone going under that banner may certainly be expert in all of these areas. They may not. Consider one of vanden Bossche's recent proclamations:
Now, I'm no expert ... but this is guff. He is saying that the optimum protection against this pathogen is to be immunologically naive towards it. Which certainly went well in the first few phases of the pandemic, didn't it? I would like a second opinion.
Now, this may seem like mere ad hominem (in its proper sense, not the pretentious synonym for 'insult' often used). I'm not saying it makes him wrong about anything else. Yet it certainly seems fair game since I am countering a mirror of the ad hominem fallacy: Argument from Authority; we should listen to him on any related subject because he is (we are assured) a world authority on vaccines and viruses. He might be, I doubt it, but his views on immunology, like his views on evolution, are well out of the mainstream. Indeed his responses to others are not above a little ad hominem themselves!
_________________________________________________________________
A keen supporter of vanden Bossche's views is arch-contrarian Dr. Robert W. Malone. He claims to be, and is routinely referred to as, 'the inventor of mRNA vaccines'. He certainly was involved in some early work eliciting translation of 'foreign' RNA encased in lipid. He's a doctor who hasn't treated patients since gaining his MD. He never completed his PhD (hey, join the club!). But he is well published in molecular biology, so there are areas he certainly has me beat - except he says some things that appear, to my own educated eyes, plain wrong.
Should we be impressed by 'inventor of mRNA vaccines'? We're obviously supposed to be. It's almost become his full title! More recently, he has turned vehemently against his supposed invention, for reasons that are unclear, but which would make it a travesty if he was ever included in a future Nobel citation for the technology. As with Mullis, we get the slightly rum situation that the inventor of a technology is imported as an authority on how useless it is!
Dr Malone has recently issued a proclamation aimed at dissuading parents from vaccinating their kids.
Before you inject your child – a decision that is irreversible – I wanted to let you know the scientific facts about this genetic vaccine, which is based on the mRNA vaccine technology I created:
There are three issues parents need to understand:
● The first is that a viral gene will be injected into your children’s cells. This gene forces your child’s body to make toxic spike proteins.
Now, let's just pause here. The language is quite ... ahem ... inflammatory. What does a virus do? It injects all its genes - not merely that for 'toxic' spike - into your children's cells. It 'forces your child's body to make proteins'.
Given that viruses are at least as mean in their subversion of cellular mechanism, on what grounds is infection preferable?
Malone doesn't provide any references for his claim that spike protein is 'toxic', so we have to guess what he means. In this discussion, bear in mind how virus and vaccine spikes respectively get into cells:
- Virus. A seasonal metaphor: imagine an intact virus as an orange studded with cloves. The cloves represent the spike protein, all sitting 'business end out'. Because the virus is spherical, all ends are up; regardless of orientation there is a good chance of random motion presenting a spike towards the cell surface of fluid-bathed sheets - epithelial or endothelial cells. If a spike protein docks with a cell protein, ACE2 or TLR4, on the cell surface, it changes its shape, which permits entry of the entire virus into the cell. The virus disassociates, and the cell's own machinery is hijacked to translate the RNA into several different proteins, including more spike, by the bucketload.
- Vaccine. The RNA or DNA coding only for the spike protein, usually slightly modified, is delivered intramuscularly wrapped in a package of lipid, a water-insoluble material. This is taken up by cells (but not via the ACE2 or TLR4 routes) and, much like the intact virus, the cellular machinery translates this non-host nucleic acid into spike protein.
There are two main candidates for a mechanism of cellular toxicity:
1) Invocation of the immune response - antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) or attack by a component of the cellular immune system. Arguably, this isn't really 'toxicity' at all. The cell isn't killed by the protein, but by the immune response to it - the very thing we are trying to invoke! Cells display proteins synthesised within them on their surface, like biker badges. If the immune system sniffs that a displayed protein is 'foreign', it may destroy the cell. But since it does so in either instance, virus or vaccine, and is pretty much what we want as part of an immune response, it's not a reason to prefer one over the other.
2) Direct effect of spike on cellular biochemistry. Again, we can ignore the internal spike, that produced inside the cell from viral/vaccine RNA, because that exists either way (though note the additional non-spike proteins synthesised from viral RNA, apparently of no concern to Malone).
The odd thing here is that the evidence often cited in support of 'spike is cytotoxic' claims derives from the effect of native virus-attached spike, not from direct investigation of vaccine-derived spike at all. "You should prefer to be presented with virus-attached spike, because the evidence suggests that configuration may be cytotoxic", is quite the logical contortion.
Here is one such paper. It investigates the damage caused by infection to hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells (HSPCs) and endothelial progenitor cells. HSPCs generate blood cells in bone marrow; endothelium is the lining of the circulatory system.
Here is another, popular with online antagonists. In this work, viral spike protein was attached to a 'pseudovirus' (because it is easier to work with than SARS) and injected into the thorax of Syrian hamsters.
However, in both cases the damage is directly related to the interaction of vector-attached native spike with its receptors. Recalling the model of the orange, one of the outward-pointing 'cloves' interacts with ACE2 and the the whole complex, ACE2, virus and all, sinks into the cell. ACE2 molecules thus become depleted on the cell surface and are unavailable to do their actual job: to regulate the angiotensin system. One or more of the consequences of this interaction (by mechanisms yet to be fully elucidated) can ultimately lead to cell death.
But recall:
a) Vaccine spike is produced inside cells. It's not trying to get in; it's already in, and therefore does not deplete ACE2.
b) Vaccine is injected intramuscularly, some finds its way to the lymph system. A small amount of the RNA may enter the bloodstream, but it won't make spike unless taken up by a cell. A small amount of spike may conceivably enter the extracellular environment, but ...
c) Even if it gets outside cells, vaccine spike does not interact significantly with ACE2. Most vaccine-spike mRNAs have two proline residues encoded. Proline is an amino acid that imparts inflexibility to protein chains at its insertion point. By strategically locating these residues, vaccine spike is locked in what is called the 'pre-fusion' configuration. It has to get to post-fusion configuration to complete the process, which it can't, so even in the unlikely event that it finds itself oriented correctly (compare our clove-studded orange with a tumbling 'free clove'), it will not undergo the transformation that leads to cell entry and its downstream consequences.
You see the problem, though? It took Malone all of 2 seconds to write 'toxic', with no backup beyond his reputation. It took me several hours for rebuttal. 'Twas ever thus.
To continue Malone's purple prose:
These proteins often cause permanent damage in children’s critical organs, including
○ Their brain and nervous system
○ Their heart and blood vessels, including blood clots
○ Their reproductive system
When delivered attached to a viable virus, indubitably. Viruses, if they enter the bloodstream, can cause damage to endothelial linings, and travel to organs where scarring, tissue breach and a hyperactive immune response can do considerable harm. They go everywhere. Conversely, vaccine is more localised, and while there are legitimate concerns about vaccine-associated cardiovascular issues, these are typically reversible, particularly in the young.
○ And this vaccine can trigger fundamental changes to their immune system
That is, in fact, the general idea! It's not clear what horror Malone is handwaving at, here.
● The most alarming point about this is that once these damages have occurred, they are irreparable
○ You can’t fix the lesions within their brain
○ You can’t repair heart tissue scarring
Which is why we are generally very keen to avoid infection, which carries by far the greater risk while the disease is prevalent. Children are susceptible to MIS-C, an admittedly rare but potentially fatal multi-organ syndrome; more commonly, they can suffer Long Covid in significant numbers.
○ You can’t repair a genetically reset immune system, and
What's a 'genetically reset' immune system? And how does vaccine spike achieve this, but viral spike (or any other viral protein) does not?
○ This vaccine can cause reproductive damage that could affect future generations of your family
How? Presumably he's talking of direct genetic change to gametes, here, or developmental deformity, and not simply tissue damage. Mechanism unclear, citation needed.
● The second thing you need to know about is the fact that this novel technology has not been adequately tested.
○ We need at least 5 years of testing/research before we can really understand the risks
There are excellent reasons why this was able to be safely telescoped in the recent emergency. But more interesting, Malone himself advocated precisely this. He co-authored a 2013 paper in which, among other things, they Proof-of-Concept developed a vaccine to H7N9 in 20 hours ...
○ Harms and risks from new medicines often become revealed many years later
This is not really a 'medicine' - the contents have no pharmaceutical effect on biochemistry. And these technologies have been in development for a considerable time. Dr Kizzmekia Corbett of Moderna already had a vaccine to a coronavirus spike before Covid-19 hit, for example. Much focus on these viruses had been triggered by SARS and MERS outbreaks of the early 2000's. Also, the components of the vaccine are all things that we have sloshing around inside us anyway. Admittedly, we don't have that specific sequence of RNA, but RNA is rapidly turned over, and it is biologically opaque as to what mechanism we can anticipate by which that will cause issues years hence. On the other side of the scales, viruses have the notional capacity to cause cancers, to take up residence and flare up years later, to cause serious postviral syndromes, to subvert immunity, even to 'change our DNA'. So if it's a straight either/or, vaccine vs infection, we need to consider both sets of risk.
● Ask yourself if you want your own child to be part of the most radical medical experiment in human history
Everything - including mass infection, hope for the best - has an experimental quality with this novel virus and associated conditions. The Precautionary Principle would advocate the route of least harm, which, on the evidence, is vaccination.
● One final point: the reason they’re giving you to vaccinate your child is a lie.
○ Your children represent no danger to their parents or grandparents
○ It’s actually the opposite. Their immunity, after getting COVID, is critical to save your family if not the world from this disease
A puzzling remark. As long as they don't infect anyone this time round, the immunity they acquire will be protective at some point in the future? I can't quite grasp the sense of having a transmissible disease in order not to transmit the disease.
_________________________________________________________________
I once had a primary school teacher who told the girls that if they chewed their hair it would wrap around their lungs, and all of us that if we didn't visit the toilet frequently, we would burst. I think that's when the seeds of my instinctive scepticism were sown. I'm not sure why I've been reminded of her at this juncture ... 😎... anyway, choose your experts carefully. Get other opinions and find out what the counterarguments are; don't just slavishly follow gurus. If it's controversial, there will inevitably be someone as well or better qualified who disagrees. If your Twitter bio says "Question Everything", practice what you preach.
Postscript
- Death statistics are artificially inflated by PCR cycle hacking and incentivisations to fraud.
- People only believe things due to mass psychosis (a rule that only applies to his opponents).
- Interventions demand years of development (despite, in 2013, co-authoring a call to do precisely what was done).
Comments
Post a Comment