“Coronaviruses cause a brief (and poor) antibody response which does NOT allow the creation of effective vaccines“
Dr. Massimo Citro’s Second Reply to Dr. Gwyneth A. Spaeder
Dear Dr. Spaeder,
Thank you for your reply. I have the highest esteem for you and for the world-famous institution from which you graduated, so I am sure that you will not be able to deny that coronaviruses cause a brief (and poor) antibody response (they may not even respond, sometimes) which does not allow the creation of effective vaccines against single-chain RNA viruses — for which failed attempts have been made in which the grave and frequent risks (Antibody-Dependent Enhancement, first of all) are superior to the benefits, that with these types of viruses you can never achieve the so-called herd immunity and that you should not vaccinate during the period of an epidemic, especially with these families of viruses, in order not to favor the mutations which flee from the vaccine as well as ADE and vaccine-resistance.
Our common scientific preparation must make us recognize that these are gene-based vaccines and, as such, are subject to the regulations of GMO drugs. This must be made clear to the public, just as it must be made clear that, although they have obtained conditional authorization, they do not de facto lose the characteristic of experimentation (since there is not yet sufficient data to establish their efficacy and safety). These molecules are already used in various oncological and lung diseases (such as cystic fibrosis and so on) but it is the first time ever that they are being used as vaccines. Personally, I think that all compulsory vaccines, including vaccines used on children, in the military and those imposed for work reasons, constitute a violation of the ethical codes of individual freedom.
We come to what you call the crux of our disagreement the way we assign value to medical research and publications. As an independent researcher, I usually study mainly serious publications in serious journals, selecting studies not polluted by partisan sponsorships or conflicts of interest. There is a need to be very cautious and attentive because self-referential or partisan studies (which today, as you well know, unfortunately constitute the majority) lack credibility. I remind you of the “Lancet-Gate” scandal: On May 22, 2020, in two of the most prestigious scientific journals, The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine, two studies claimed to have analyzed more than 96,000 records of COVID-19 patients from more than 600 hospitals in the world to prove that hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin are not only useless but even dangerous.
The studies were withdrawn two weeks later because they were phony, completely invented (the obvious purpose was to withdraw hydroxychloroquine from consideration as an excellent drug during the first phase of infection), as even the directors of the two journals admitted. Richard Horton himself (editor of The Lancet) had acknowledged in 2015 that “half of the scientific literature could be false” while the well-known epidemiologist John Ioannidis already argued in 2005, “most of the published studies are false, and many experiments are not replicable.” So we must be very careful not to fall into the trap of “it is valid since it is published in an authoritative magazine.” I am also in favor of rigorous and intellectually serious scientific investigation, and that is why I only consider works that bear the words “no financing, no conflicts of interest.”
For example, with regard to spike prefusion (which I also talk about in my book Apocalisse [Apocalypse] — in the process of publication), you cite the article by the esteemed cardiologist Glen Pyle, which criticizes numerous studies from which, through pseudoviruses, it is clear that the spike alone is able to seriously damage the endothelium, causing the deadly damage that we know.
Pyle argues that the vaccinal spike does not go into the circulation and therefore cannot damage the endothelium since “the vaccine remains largely contained near the injection site,” and he states this based on the Ols study, which, however, does not refer to SARS-CoV-2 but to HIV-1 — and he limits himself to arguing that “the intradermal administration of an mRNA vaccine (there is no mention of the vaccine for SARS-CoV-2) led to a more efficient activation of antigen-presenting cells at the injection site than intramuscular vaccination and was accompanied by transiently higher levels of vaccine-specific T cell responses and antibody concentrations.”
This does not mean that the spike does not go into the circulation. In addition, the Ols study is funded by the NIH (historical partner of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) and by IAVI (in turn funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation): conflicts of interest. Pyle reiterates that no significant amount of vaccine enters the circulation since the EMA has established this.
But what scientific credibility can an entity that is 84% funded by the pharmaceutical industry have? Pyle claims that this would happen thanks to the conformational change due to prefusion, and he does so by citing the article by Cross, which reports the claims of the two inventors of prefusion, but note that Barney S. Graham and Jason McLellan work with NIH, NIAID and Moderna and are entirely biased. There is no credible scientific validity in these claims. According to Pyle, the spike thus engineered would not be able to make the shape change necessary to bind effectively to cells and cites Corbett’s study, in which several different authors, including Graham himself, are inventors who have made patent applications for spike prefusion and for a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2: conflicts of interest.
In the end, Pyle quotes verbatim that “in addition to designing the spike protein so that it cannot be fully activated, the protein is labeled with an extra piece still called transmembrane” and is based on Polack’s well-known study regarding the efficacy and safety of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, a study funded by Pfizer and BioNTech — zero credibility!
You will know that Derek Lowe has also tried to argue that the vaccine is drained from lymph and not from blood, but, unfortunately, Lowe has conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry, having worked for Bayer, Vertex, Schering-Plough and Novartis and is a columnist for the Royal Society of Chemistry, whose “editorial policies meet the guidelines established by major funders” — including Wellcome, Research England, NIH, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, HHMI, UKRI and the European Commission. There is no evidence that spike vaccines do not go into circulation and produce damage, so how can it be said with certainty that the spike produced is harmless and that the contrary thesis is unfounded?
In contrast, Charles Hoffe states that only 25% of the vaccine remains at the injection site, while the other 75% reaches the circulation via the lymphatic system, damages the endothelium and increases coagulation (increase in the D-dimer) in more than 60% of patients. Hoffe has been harshly attacked, including by a study done by Imperial College London (repeatedly funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), which has continually produced erroneous models of the epidemic. There is no evidence that the spike does not go into circulation; indeed, on the contrary, it has been seen that the spike vaccine circulates and is even conveyed by exosomes.
In addition, C-terminal truncated and soluble spike variants spill into the lymphatic and blood circulation and tend to escape HLA (immune evasion syndrome) causing “serious side effects when they bind to endothelial cells that express ACE-2 in blood vessels, vaccine-induced COVID-19 mimicry syndrome.”
Similar incompletely translated proteins enter the lymphatic and blood circulation and are picked up by different receptors (which, over time, are increasing) also in the brain tissue (neuropilin-1 above all) being able to damage the vessels and the nervous system. Truncated spikes can arrive in vivo to 26% of all those produced. Spike vaccines circulate in our body, so much so that “mRNA vaccines cause inflammation of the endothelium (endotheliitis) and infiltration of T lymphocytes into the cardiac muscle.”
Sorry to contradict you, but it is not at all true that these vaccines prevent hospitalization and death. There is no evidence that they have saved lives, on the other hand, they have killed many. Since this infection is treatable, it does not require vaccines as long as it is treated immediately and well. It is not so extraordinary that I have avoided hospitalization for my patients. I am only a doctor, not a specialist. I treat them in the way I have learned from literature and experience and hundreds of doctors in Italy, and other European nations have done the same as me and with even better results than me.
COVID-19 does not evolve into the severe form if it is treated, immediately and well, within the first 48 hours. It is medicine based on evidence. People heal, this is a piece of factual data. The tens of thousands of deaths or serious injuries among those who have undergone these serums are also evidence, above all among young people. The ineffectiveness of the vaccine is demonstrated by the epidemic itself, which is more ferocious than last year when the vaccines were not present.
The regime’s propaganda has made the president of France say that the unvaccinated minority of about 7 million people in a nation where more than 90% of the people are vaccinated is the cause of the large number of infected people, about 300,000 per day. But, if mathematics is not an opinion, if it were only the unvaccinated who infect, then the infection would have run out in less than a month. Instead, it is the vaccinated themselves who become infected and infect others.
Quasispecies can also be induced by traditional vaccines (attenuated viruses), but in those used against SARS-CoV-2, engineered starting from a unique sequence for the spike, these variants are even more frequent, making vaccine effectiveness critical and favoring reinfections.
Dear doctor, we are doctors; ours is a sacred role, and it has been so since ancient times, from Asclepius onwards. We must treat, reassure and protect our patients, and we must do so both in science and in conscience, without following the protocols written by the industry. If we are on the side of the patients, we cannot stand with the industry since the pharmaceutical industry does not want the good of others and certainly is not a sacred profession as that of the doctor must be.
Probably, each of us will remain in our positions. I am not interested in convincing anyone or in undermining the powerful financial oligarchic system that now rules everywhere. You will see that even this answer of mine will be accompanied by articles by some journalist who, not being able to argue about the contents, will invent nonsense concerning my person, confirming that they do not know how to make information but only propaganda.
Dear Dr. Spaeder, it has been a pleasure to discuss this issue with you, and I wish you all the best.
Massimo Citro, M.D.
Turin, 21 January 2022
 Route of Vaccine Administration Alters Antigen Trafficking but Not Innate or Adaptive Immunity, (Cell Rep. 30(12): 3964-71. 2020)
 “The tiny tweak behind COVID-19 vaccines” (Chem Eng News. 98(38)
 SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine design enabled by prototype pathogen preparedness. Nature. 586(7830): 567-571. 2020
 Bansal S et al, Cutting Edge: Circulating Exosomes with COVID Spike Protein Are Induced by BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) Vaccination prior to Development of Antibodies: A Novel Mechanism for Immune Activation by mRNA Vaccines J Immunol. 2021; 207(10):2405-10
 Kowarz, E. et al., Vaccine-Induced Covid-19 Mimicry” Syndrome: Splice reactions within the SARS-CoV-2 Spike open reading frame result in Spike protein variants that may cause thromboembolic events in patients immunized with vector-based vaccines
 Bolgan, L., COVID-19 – the vaccine, in www.studiesalute.it
 D’Alessandro A, High rate of SARS-CoV-2 nonsense spike genomes coding for prematurely truncated proteins. arXiv:2105.10074[q-bio. GN
 Gundry S, Observational Findings of PULS Cardiac Test Findings for Inflammatory Markers in Patients Receiving mRNA Vaccines. Circulation, 2021; 144: A10712
 Bolgan L., COVID-19 – the vaccine, in www.studiesalute.it
All the work done by Dr Martin Luther King is being wiped out and even despised by the globalist elites, Demon-crats and the ignorant among us.