“And if a vaccine worked is less than another?”
The relaunch on the blog an interview with prof Paolo Bellavite published Friday on the newspaper.it
“When will be public the safety and efficacy studies of vaccines and anti-COVID will present a new dilemma. What do we do with the vaccine that will work for less? I would not like to be in the shoes of the minister of Hope…”. Already, free competition – which also means put at the disposal of the population in the best product – it seems to disappear in front of the emergency Coronavirus. It is explained by Paolo Bellavite, hematologist, researcher and professor of General Pathology. “Governments have already bought the vaccines, anti-COVID prior to their development, but it does not mean that when they come to them will pay more. We have only funded, in part, to the production.”
In Italy we will have the vaccine, the american company Pfizer, and the italo-English for AstraZeneca. Given that both of you are talking about efficiency to 90%, it might not happen that work the same way?
“Very unlikely, because they are based on mechanisms very different. So it is easily predictable that a careful review of the results when they are published, some vaccines are more effective and safe than others. It could also be that the competition will be won by those who will produce a vaccine at a lower cost or more easy to handle in transportation and storage. Would be very curious that in the end turns out to be profitable on the world market, the vaccine produced from the nation that started the virus. In any case, it must be said that, at the time, the effectiveness, as well as safety, you do not know. We are waiting of the studies”.
The said professor Crisanti and they put him on the cross for this. It is said that he had to be silent, and who has taken the side to the no-vax.
“Instead, it is the crucial point. Every drug that enters the market is anticipated by a work published and subject to revision in the scientific world. It is in the interest of the citizens that the companies present themselves in this way and also our minister, who has funded the studies with the public money, should is alive”.
However, of the vaccines on arrival you are already saying that they are effective at 90%…
“Confusing is the word effectiveness. At the moment it is seen that these vaccines produce an immune reaction, i.e. the immune system of the person who receives it develops lymphocytes. It is a normal fact, any foreign substance injected causes an antibody response. But then it is necessary to see if these antibodies are sufficient to protect the front of the ‘evidence’ of the disease. Are the assessments of phases 2 and 3”.
…that, this time, they were made together, and quickly, to face the emergency.
“That’s correct. But the most of the experiments are still in progress, and we need to look at the works when they are complete and published. To understand how it has carried out the administration, if the control group was given a placebo, another vaccine, or nothing, to know the age of the participants, the incidence and the intensity of the disease, to understand if the vaccine reduces outbreaks and, finally, if these products are safe.”
How do you know if they are safe?
“Safety is evaluated in the phase 1, then also in the later stages and even in the post-marketing phase. But so far we only know something of the phase 1, and in a very limited way for a vaccine to phase 2, because the control of the adverse reactions lasted only a week (have appeared in publications in journals such as the Lancet, JAMA or the New England Journal). Instead, as the vaccines made with new procedures and never tested in the world, it would be appropriate to extend the study of security for several months. Finally, a very sensitive issue is the evaluation of the causal relationship of adverse events after vaccination, that is, to understand if the pathological reaction is due really to the vaccine or to other concomitant causes. This step of evaluation is normally done by means of an “algorithm” developed by the who, however, is not free of critical aspects, as I have shown in a recent work (Here)
In that sense, these vaccines are different from those that we have used up to today?
“The vaccine of the chinese in the more advanced stage of design and production is made with a procedure known, i.e., using the inactivated virus and using aluminum as an adjuvant. The europeans and americans inject particles or virus vectors containing the strands of RNA that, with various technological devices, are made to enter in our cells. Later it will be the human cells to produce proteins that are typical of the virus, which our immune system will recognize as foreign, giving way to the process of immunization. In theory, the strands of RNA can enter in any cell of the tissue where the vaccine is injected or arrives spreading: muscle, connective, blood, neurons…”.
It is a procedure that could compromise the equilibrium of the immune system?
“The risk is – equal to that of a viral infection – which is active aggression of the immune system: the cells that produce the viral proteins are seen as foreign and are therefore attacked by the immune system. In some subjects predisposed genetically or susceptibility of the other type, an autoimmune reaction can spread and become systemic, also attack other organs. Of this I have spoken in the text of criticism of the algorithm the who, which I have quoted above. I repeat: this can also happen after a viral infection, for this reason I say that adverse events should be measured even in the medium term, i.e. for months. So you can be put on the balance of risks and benefits and you can choose consciously”.
So, she strengthens the position of Crisanti?
“Certainly. Are for the utmost caution. Haste is a bad counselor, and I am puzzled about the requests of derogation to the normal authorisation procedures and which are gradually made by the various pharmaceutical companies in the competition. Then if I feel ventilate any obligations, blackmail or certificates, the perplexity becomes immediately total opposition”.
England are looking urgently for a tool of artificial intelligence to process “the high volume of expected adverse reactions of the vaccine Covid-19”, please click here. What do you think?
“Ben is a tool of this type, as long as it is an efficient software and independent and do not forget the contribution of doctors, nurses, and families. We already know the limits of the so-called passive surveillance, it is important to set up a collection of reports of a systematic and active for the duration of at least six months. The purpose, as we have said is an informed choice”.
When disappears, the pandemic?
“I am not a prophet but if we look at the behavior of the previous coronavirus, we should say that it will tend to decrease. Outbreaks of coronavirus occur in waves, with a peak, usually during the winter, and a break in the summer. Certain that the pandemic is a problem far more serious because they are possible reinfezioni for passages between the continents and between hemispheres”.
And then they spontaneously disappear?
“Usually it happens so. Today, the 14-15% of the people tested positive for the virus, the total number of people immunized for natural way is destined to grow. If you were to get a SARS-Cov3 would find a population with a sort of immunity sufficient to make the next virus is less aggressive. You must also count on the immunity of the cellular type (lymphocytes T “memory”) that is in part a crusade with other coronavirus”.
So, she is optimistic.
“Yes, if we were facing a virus, natural, no, if it was engineered. In this second case, we would not know for what purposes it was devised, and may behave very different from known viruses.”
But it has not been elucidated, and the origin?
“No. You speak of the “jump to species”, but was not found in any animal species with this virus; the court finds it is not known if and how it occurred. It would not be the first escape of the virus to the wild, cultivated and modified, and the source of the COVID-19 are still in doubt may give us the opportunity to reflect. When in doubt, in view of the gravity of the phenomenon that occurred, the only possibility that is released from a laboratory should re-evaluate the moratorium of international researchers calling for the suspension of the experiments, called gain of function gain of function) in laboratories around the world.” Click here to read the moratorium.
It was useful to the lockdown?
“Yes, it made sense because no one knew what else to do to stop the rapid growth and avoid the overhead of intensive therapy, but with science, then we can observe that began too late (the first outbreaks were seen already at the end of February and it was understood that it was not a single outbreak), and lasted too long, because the curve of the epidemic in mid-April was in marked decline, and the intensive therapies were lightened. Even if the temporal curve does not itself show the effectiveness of the measure (because, in the same period there have been substantial changes in the climate), it is difficult to deny the importance of the lockdown in moderating the occasions of contact, and saw, moreover, that you ignore other ways to stop a virus that spreads so quickly. I speak only of the aspect of epidemiological, not the impact of a measure so severe on the economy and on the lives of people. The masks do not serve to almost anything outdoors and the children in the school environment and create much discomfort. The spacing of at least a couple of metres, instead, has proven to be effective in appropriate studies, while the closing of the people in the home or in homes for the elderly without adequate information and equipment for the prevention of infections explains a good part of the mortality in the first wave. The one that feeds the confusion and undermine credibility is to continuously produce the Dpcm in addition to blame the people, as if the same epidemic depended on the alleged bad behavior of some individual, perhaps very healthy. Not to mention the load of fear that you want to keep a constantly high. You continue to repeat that only the vaccine is going to save us but, as we have said, it is still all to prove. No vaccine made with organisms killed or the virus inactivated or engineered, managed to eradicate the disease towards which it was directed. Better not to have illusions, that may be paid with great disappointment and many of the victims”.
I ask her if there clarifies the issue of immunity. Those who have already contracted the COVID-19 should be sleeping between two pillows, and yet since the start of the epidemic is continually said that we could riammalare. If so, what is it vaccinated?
“Are several theories quirky and unproven, the daughters of ignorance of statistics and epidemiology. But the cornerstones of immunology does not change just because the virus is new. First: most of the infectious diseases confers immunity of greater or lesser duration, but it has always happened to riammalare of some infectious disease. Not often but it can happen. Second: the duration of the antibodies is not eternal. When a person is healed not continue to produce antibodies, not the serve. The remains, however, a cellular immunity which is given by memory T lymphocytes, increased durability, even years or decades if the subject in the meantime undergoes some natural appeal. Third: the theory of the herd effect is only valid for large epidemics, but less for the vaccines) explains that, when a large part of the population is immune to infection, this circulates less, to the point that, beyond a certain critical threshold, does not circulate even among subjects not immune. After a disease like the COVID-19 remain antibodies, so much so that there are many donors of plasma, but the duration of antibodies by vaccination is an aspect that at the moment do not know and that will emerge from the studies”.
However, we are sick of the cold (rhinoviruses and coronaviruses) many times…
“True, but we don’t know if the “many” times, depend on meeting as many strains of the virus. Each virus can also have dozens of strains and the viruses are hundreds”.
During the first lockdown she has published a study on orange. Here.
“Trying to protect me and the family I caught it between my knowledge of complementary medicine and nutraceuticals. In addition to drink large freshly squeezed orange juice, we used a supplement, acetylcysteine. There are several studies on this antioxidant and very powerful, used to counteract the influences. Then having the time available I studied the orange and other citrus fruits and with surprise, along with his colleague Alberto Donzelli, we realized that to lock the coronavirus is not so much the vitamin C as the most likely hesperidin, the main flavonoid content in these fruits”.
That property has?
“In the studies of molecular simulation led to the computer it acts like an anti viral, blocks the spike protein (that facilitates the entrance of the SARS-CoV-2 in the cells) and, if the virus enters the cell, preventing it from replicating itself. In addition, it combats “oxidative stress” which develops in the cells attacked by the virus. In the review cited above, we collected the simulation studies and molecular laboratory, for this is correct to speak of plausibility, not of proven clinical efficacy”.
Then, from this study, it is born supplement.
“Exactly, after the publication of the review in the journal Antioxidants, have been contacted by a Company leader in the research microimmunoterapia, which has asked me to collaborate to the realization of an integrator based on hesperidin, to which we added the quercetin, another flavonoid, which I had studied in my lab years ago. This substance, by lowering the levels of histamine, has the property to keep under control the mechanisms of inflammation. In addition, we added vitamin C which has antioxidant effect and contributes to the normal function of the immune system. The literature of the possible beneficial effect in the COVID-19 of these three substances is very wide and fast growing. So has arrived the supplement.