Canada’s Immunization Guide - Immunogenicity, efficacy and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, IgG4 antibodies, and the Nuremberg Code
oh my!
interpretations appreciated!
COVID-19 vaccine: Canadian Immunization Guide, For health professionals
in the section: Immunogenicity, efficacy and effectiveness we can read:
Immunogenicity
All COVID-19 vaccines induce humoral immune responses, including binding and neutralizing antibody responses. As well, all authorized COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to produce cellular immune responses in adult populations. The immune responses may vary depending on the product used, number of doses, interval between the doses, and the age and underlying medical conditions of the vaccine recipient. No immunological correlate of protection has been determined for SARS-CoV-2, and therefore the implications of differences in immune responses post-COVID-19 vaccination on protection against infection and severe disease, as well as on duration of protection, is uncertain.
(emphasis added)
Canada’s Immunization Guidance for COVID-19 vaccines goes on with efficacy and effectiveness findings, none of which is indicating any great success, which i think is evidenced by the real world effects we see in Canada:
but, what i’m really curious about is when the Guide states: No immunological correlate of protection has been determined for SARS-CoV-2… WHAT IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN???
then there’s this paper, published in Science Immunology on December 22, 2022: Class switch towards non-inflammatory, spike-specific IgG4 antibodies after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination. Jessica Rose (one of my heroes) has covered these findings extremely well in a deep dive series on Immunoglobulin IgG4. i know it sounds super sciency but Jessica provides clear definitions and explains the mechanisms in plain english, so any moderately intelligent layperson can confidently understand what is being discussed.
i think, this might explain the Immunisation Guide’s strange statement.
Immunogenicity: Immunogenicity is the ability of a foreign substance, such as an antigen, to provoke an immune response in the body of a human or other animal.
Astra Zeneca has this to say about immunogenicity in the context of the COVID-19 vaccine trials (which is quite telling for where we see ourselves today): https://www.astrazeneca.com/what-science-can-do/topics/disease-understanding/what-does-immunogenicity-mean-in-the-context-of-covid-19-vaccines.html#
friendly reminder that these vaccines are still in trial phases and are therefor experimental, and a number of bioethics codes protect humans from coerced participation in medical experiments, among them the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki Declaration.
The Nuremberg Code - DIRECTIVES FOR HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion, and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury disability or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgement required by him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
The Nuremberg Military Tribunal's decision in the case of the United States v Karl Brandt et al. includes what is now called the Nuremberg Code, a ten point statement delimiting permissible medical experimentation on human subjects. According to this statement, humane experimentation is justified only if its results benefit society and it is carried out in accord with basic principles that "satisfy moral, ethical, and legal concepts." To some extent the Nuremberg Code has been superseded by the Declaration of Helsinki as a guide for human experimentation.
--"Permissible Medical Experiments." Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10. Nuremberg October 1946 - April 1949, Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office (n.d.), vol. 2., pp. 181-182.
Thank you for letting me be a part of this group, Gabby.