Dr. Eric Payne Letter To The Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons—Part 2

1) Even with 100% forced compliance – you cannot eradicate SARS-CoV-2 through vaccination.

• The initial randomized controlled clinical trial for the Pfizer/BioNtech mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2), suggested 95% protection against COVID-19, as defined by their primary endpoint “efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory confirmed Covid-19 and [2 month] safety”. This was funded by BioNTech and Pfizer (5, 6). The initial randomized controlled clinical trial for the Moderna mRNA vaccine (mRNA-1273) showed 94.1% efficacy at preventing COVID-19 illness, including severe disease. This was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) (7, 8).

• As the virus continued to expectedly mutate, the real-world effectiveness derived from these mRNA vaccines has diminished substantially. This was expected given these mRNA vaccines contain the genetic code for our bodies to produce the original SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan spike (s) protein/antigen only. It is this s protein which binds ACE2 receptors in our body for cell entry (9). The antibodies we generate in response, are directed towards this original s protein only, and as the s protein has continued to mutate away from the initial Wuhan strain, the antibodies produced in vaccinated individuals are having more difficultly recognizing the s protein of subsequent SARS-CoV-2 strains.  While these antibodies demonstrate some cross-reactivity to other SARS-CoV-2 variants, the decreasing vaccine effectiveness partly reflects mutations to the s protein. Thus, the “vaccine” has become extremely “leaky” in its ability to recognize subsequent variants.  

• Recently, Alberta Chief Medical Examiner of Health, Dr. Deena Hinshaw, shared evidence and publicly acknowledged that we cannot eradicate COVID-19 and are rather transitioning from a COVID-19 pandemic to endemic (8). This, despite widespread adherence to severe social restrictions including lockdowns, mandatory masks, prolonged quarantines, repeated testing and school closures, and the widespread gutting of pediatric social activities that allow for appropriate neurodevelopmental growth. Meanwhile, 68% of the Canadian population is now fully vaccinated (11), including 71% of eligible Albertans (12).  These rates are comparative to other privileged countries with widespread access to mRNA vaccines and dwarf those rates among less affluent nations (13). Data suggests that only 29% of the global population is currently fully vaccinated (13).

• To date, smallpox is the only human virus successfully eradicated through vaccination and it was less transmissible and lacked an animal reservoir (14). Even if we were to vaccinate all humans with a 100% effective vaccine, SARS-CoV-2 would continue to survive among animal reservoirs, including the white-tailed deer (15).

(2) Is it really the unvaccinated driving SARS-CoV-2 virus mutations?

• Those who have received a COVID-19 vaccine presumably have generated antibodies that will detect the s protein of SARS-CoV-2 should it enter their body. While those previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 have antibodies to the s protein AND other parts of the virus, including the nucleocapsid (16).  If the virus wants to replicate in these individuals it needs to mutate to evade destruction. However, those who did not receive a COVID-19 vaccine and did not become infected with SARS-CoV-2 presumably lack these antibodies and thus the virus does not need to mutate to enter host cells and replicate.

• The argument that those without a COVID-19 vaccine are driving mutations then depends on the notion that if we could achieve herd immunity or eradicate the virus more quickly, we would limit its ability to mutate, which all coronaviruses naturally do. However, this second argument fails given our inability to eradicate SARS-CoV-2 through vaccines, including our inability to vaccinate enough people and animal reservoirs globally to achieve herd immunity (13-15). Moreover, as shown below, the current mRNA shots no longer prevent transmission and COVID-19 vaccinated individuals are comprising an ever-increasing proportion of symptomatic patients (17).

• With widespread dissemination of COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic, we are placing enormous evolutionary pressure on SARS-CoV-2 to continue mutating to evade our immune system, gain cell entry, replicate, and possibly cause illness. And, we are now using very “leaky” vaccines, making viral evasion from our antibodies that much easier. Only the fit will survive. Consider the reasonable analogy of antibiotic resistance – this is driven by the widespread and inappropriate use of antibiotics, not by people avoiding antibiotics (18).

• A group of international experts recently stated in the New England Journal Medicine, “viral variants of concern may emerge with dangerous resistance to the immunity generated by the current vaccines” (19). Among their recommendations were: “avoid the use of treatments with uncertain benefit that could drive the evolution of variants; and consider targeted vaccination strategies to reduce community transmission” (19).

(3) As the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines to prevent transmission and severe disease continues to diminish – the medical narrative for a forced vaccine mandate evaporated.

• On July 30, 2021, the CDC director confirmed that “Delta infection resulted in similarly high SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated people. High viral loads suggest an increased risk of transmission and raised concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus” (20).

• On August 6, 2021, CDC Director Dr. Walensky stated on CNN: “Our vaccines are working exceptionally well. They continue to work well for Delta, with regard to severe illness and death — they prevent it. But what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission” (21).

• On August 19, 2021, the CDC issued a joint statement advocating for COVID-19 booster shots, citing evidence that despite full mRNA vaccination, patients were experiencing “reduced protection against mild and moderate disease” (20). This included a very recent U.S. national nursing home prospective observational study which demonstrated diminishing mRNA vaccine ability to prevent infection, with adjusted effectiveness levels against the Delta variant of 53.1% (95%CI = 49.1%-56.7%) (22).

• A Mayo Clinic Health Systems observational cohort study showed that in July 2021 during a period in Minnesota where the delta variant prevalence surged from 0.7% to 70% and the alpha strain decreased from 85% to 13%, the effectiveness against hospitalization remained high for Moderna – 81% (95%CI: 33-96.3%) and Pfizer/BioNtech – 75% (95%CI: 24-93.9%) (15). However, effectiveness against infection was lower for Moderna – 76%, (95%CI: 58-87%); and Pfizer/BioNtech – at only 42% (95%CI: 13-62%). Note that all COVID-19 vaccines approved by WHO and FDA are required to have an efficacy rate of 50% or above (24, 25).

• A very recent population-based cohort study (n=4,204,859) from Norway showed that vaccine effectiveness against Delta variant among fully vaccinated individuals was 64.6% (95%CI: 60.6-68.2) compared with 84.4% (95%CI: 81.8-86.5) against the Alpha variant (26).

• On July 23, 2021, Israel’s Health Ministry indicated that a complete course of the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine was just 39% effective at preventing infections and 41% effective at preventing symptomatic illness with the Delta variant but remained 91% effective at preventing serious illness and hospitalization (27). However, by August 16, 2021, and despite having 78% of those 12 and older fully vaccinated, 59% of gravely ill patients in Israel were fully vaccinated (28).

• These data likely explain why the CDC just changed the definition of immunity, from “producing immunity” to “providing protection” (1). While it might be appealing to state that some protection is still better than no protection – I will discuss why I do not feel that applies to these current mRNA vaccines – especially in very low risk groups.

(4) Natural immunity from SARS-CoV-2 is more durable and robust than the partial immunity achieved from the current mRNA vaccines.

• Intuitively, one would predict that our immune systems would generate a more complete, robust, and prolonged immune response to SARS-CoV-2, rather than the mRNA vaccines. Indeed, after about 6 months of progressively decreasing mRNA vaccine effectiveness, some governments are already mandating boosters with seemingly no end in sight (29). In contrast, those individuals with asymptomatic and symptomatic infections developed a robust immune response to the entire virus (including the nucleocapsid), as opposed to only partial immunity derived through mRNA vaccines towards the s protein.  

• A recent Nature paper showed that 17 years after the 2003 SARS outbreak, long-lasting memory T cells were still present to the nucleocapsid (n protein) in those infected with SARS-CoV, AND these T-cells displayed a robust cross-reactivity to the N protein of SARS-CoV-2 (16).

• Another recent Nature paper showed memory B cell response to SARS-CoV-2 evolves between 1.3 and 6.2 months after infection in a manner consistent with antigen persistence, evidenced by titres of IgM and IgG antibodies against the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein (30).

• A very recent large observational Israeli study compared SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity during a period when Delta was dominant. “After adjusting for comorbidities, we found a 27.02-fold risk (95% CI: 12.7-57.5) for symptomatic breakthrough infection as opposed to symptomatic re-infection (p<.001) (31).

• Extremely low reinfection rates have been observed since pandemic onset. For instance, “with a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID (32).

• Yet, we are using coercion to force individuals to take mRNA vaccines even if they have already had a prior COVID-19 infection, and even if they can provide lab confirmation of sustained immunity.

• Perhaps at minimum, we could assess for evidence of persistent immunity BEFORE we force EVERYONE to take the shot, especially among young healthy populations. At present, we have only 6-month longitudinal adult data to inform risks beyond the acute injection period.

(5) From a long-term safety perspective, these novel mRNA vaccines should be treated as guilty until proven otherwise, especially in low-risk groups.

• No crystal ball exists to predict long-term risks. Do you recall when we received emails from leadership re-assuring us that all 3 shots, including Astra Zeneca, were safe, only to have it recalled a few months later? Do you remember when mRNA vaccines were not associated with myocarditis/pericarditis in male adolescents (33)?

• Do you want to mandate these experimental mRNA vaccines despite the lack of long-term data? Perhaps there are certain vulnerable adult and pediatric groups who will prove to endure higher risk over time from the shots rather than from the virus itself?  

• Consider a young healthy woman who is coerced by AHS to take the experimental shot, and over the next few years it becomes clear that these “vaccines” are associated with fertility issues in some women? Crazy?

• The vaccine companies and medical officials have repeatedly claimed that when we are injected with these mRNA vaccines, the lipid nanoparticles which contain the s protein mRNA needed for our cells to produce the s protein – stay at the injection site. This appears false.

• In a recent prospective (December 2020 to March 2021) pilot study of 13 healthcare workers (≥ 18 years, mean age 24 years) at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard investigators obtained longitudinal plasma samples of SARS-CoV-2 proteins from participants who received two doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna), and lacked a prior history of SARS-Cov-2 illness. These antigens included SARS-CoV-2 antigens spike (S1-S2 unit), S1, and nucleocapsid and antibodies IgG, IgA, IgM against SARS-CoV-2 spike, S1, receptor binding domain (RBD), and nucleocapsid (34).  

• After the first dose, the mRNA-1273 produced detectable levels of S1 antigen in plasma in 11 participants, and spike antigen was detected in 3 of 13 participants, an average of 15 days post first injection. Protein clearance correlated with production of IgG and IgA. Their negative control – the nucleocapsid antigen from SARS-CoV-2 was expectedly absent, as the vaccine does not lead to production of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen. “In all 13 participants, as expected, IgG levels against spike, S1, and RBD increased after the first injection, whereas IgG against nucleocapsid showed no change over time” (34).

• Authors concluded, “The mechanisms underlying release of free S1, and the subsequent detection of the intact spike protein remain unclear.  Nonetheless, evidence of systemic detection of spike and S1 protein production from the mRNA-1273 vaccine is significant and has not yet been described in any vaccine study” (34).

• Why has this not been described in the vaccine studies? Where is the biodistribution safety data? If the s antigen is circulating in our plasma weeks later, could it be causing harm? Note that the above Boston study was conducted in young healthy people with robust T-cell immunity. I wonder what we would see in a vulnerable elderly person with comorbidities. Does this contribute to SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) and other instances of adverse thrombotic events (35)?

• As a neurologist, I must wonder if these s proteins are circulating in our cerebral spinal fluid, given that the ACE2 receptors are also present in brain and could gain them access (36). Crazy?

• In a murine model, the virus “SARS-CoV-2 crosses the blood-brain-barrier accompanied with basement membrane disruption…,” ensued by “inflammatory responses including vasculitis, glial activation, and upregulated inflammatory factors” (37).

• Further when injected intravenously, the S1 protein of SARS-CoV-2 was found to cross the blood-brain-barrier in mice. Inflammation potentiated this uptake. The S1 protein entered all brain regions, with no statistically different differences among them, including cortex, olfactory bulb, striatum, thalamus and hypothalamus, hippocampus, cerebellum and brainstem (38).

• Canadian immunologist and vaccine researcher Dr. Byram Bridle (Guelph University) was awarded a large government grant for research on COVID-19 vaccine development.  Only through a Freedom of Information Act, did he and other scientists subsequently gain access to Pfizer’s rat biodistribution study from the Japanese regulatory agency (39). It clearly showed that when injected intramuscularly, the concentration was highest at the dosing site, then the liver, and then detected in the spleen, adrenal glands, and ovaries (39).

• If you are not at least concerned by these studies, please ask yourself why the bioavailability and biodistribution data in humans, is not readily available to contradict these studies.  There is no reason we should not have this data across many different patient populations, especially after 1 year of distributing the mRNA vaccines.  I could not find one study that measured mRNA vaccine protein uptake in human CSF. While I understand very well the difficulty obtaining CSF, there are many clinical situations where this could have been readily collected.

• Instead, they censor and aggressively attack one of our own! If you search for Dr. Byram Bridle you will readily see the internet smear campaign against him.  I listened to his initial interviews months ago when he received the Pfizer rat studies. He was genuinely petrified and shocked by the data and wanted to warn people. There is no denying that the mRNA vaccine injection distributes throughout our body based on the existing data. But just because it does circulate, does not mean it is causing harm either.

• Dr. Bridle was especially attacked for his comments that the s protein itself is toxic and can cause harm. Given the biodistribution data I have shared and what we know about some of the rare adverse events that occur post mRNA injection, his opinion is not one that should be aggressively dismissed immediately. It is incredible the attack he has endured for discussing the science.

Below is a link to a brief article from the local Guelph News discussing Dr. Bridle.

https://www.thestar.com/local-guelph/news/2021/06/21/immunologists-raise-concerns-on-u-of-guelph-prof-s-views-on-covid-19-vaccine-safety.html

• SARS-CoV-2 infection disturbs several pathways associated with neurodegeneration, including but not limited to Parkinson and Huntington disease. (40). “Given the neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV-2, deeper investigation is warranted into the virus’ contribution to the long-term development of neurodegenerative disease” (41).  

• If some of the s antigen our bodies produce in response to the mRNA vaccine is indeed entering our brains and cerebral spinal fluid, then we should heed those warnings about the possibility of early neurodegenerative diseases.

• It was recently shown that “SARS-CoV-2 S1 RBD binds to a number of aggregation-prone, heparin binding proteins including Ab, a-synuclein, tau, prion, and TDP-43 RRM. These interactions suggests that the heparin binding site on the S1 protein might assist the binding of amyloid proteins to the viral surface and thus could initiate aggregation of these proteins and finally leads to neurodegeneration in brain” (42).