PROPHYLACTIC VACCINES / Do you see that?!

Do you remember the movie "I am Legend", doctors were trying to get rid of cancer and the damn medical intervention caused the mutation of a human/animal-like hybrid species? Vaccinologists, scientists, and clinicians are blinded by the positive short-term effects in individual patients but don't seem to bother about the disastrous consequences for global health. 

Why?! 

PROPHYLACTIC VACCINES work by exposing healthy individuals to a weakened pathogen, or parts of it, in order to trigger a protective immune response. This immune response involves various cells which attack or engulf their target to destroy it, as well as the generation of ‘memory’ immune cells. These continue to circulate in the body long after the vaccine has disappeared, ready to recognize and rapidly respond to that specific pathogen should we encounter it again. By speeding up the immune response, PROPHYLACTIC VACCINES prevent the development of disease symptoms or reduce their severity, in response to the pathogen. The prophylactic vaccines also block transmission of that pathogen to other people, by preventing it from gaining a foothold in the body and replicating. This is called sterilizing immunity. 

Do you see that in these PROPHYLACTIC VACCINES?! 

These PROPHYLACTIC VACCINES are highly dangerous when used in mass vaccination campaigns during a viral pandemic, and current human interventions could turn circulating variants into wild monsters.

This will happen because widespread vaccination will apply strong selection pressure on the virus to develop mutations that will ultimately become immune to the vaccine. People who have been vaccinated will spread the virus rather than protect the unvaccinated. Further, the immune systems of the vaccinated will be less effective at fighting variants of the virus. An unvaccinated person may stand a better chance against future virus variants.

There can be no doubt that continued mass vaccination campaigns will give rise to more viral variants with ever-increasing infectiousness and ultimately result in a dramatic incline in new cases despite enhanced vaccine coverage rates. Movies have turned out to be predictors of the future. We know they are fiction. But, imagine the bustling chaos of suddenly quiet, still, and devoid of life -- save for a solitary man and his companion, walking down a desolate, overgrown Fifth Avenue.  It doesn't mean that the elites are not trying to imitate that fiction and make it real. 

Zeljko Serdar

Aspirate Before Intramuscular Injection

Aspiration during any kind of injection is meant to ensure that the needle tip is at the desired location during this blind procedure. While aspiration appears to be a simple procedure, it has generated a lot of controversy concerning the perceived benefits and indications. Keeping in view the huge number of injections given worldwide, it is important that we draw attention to key questions regarding aspiration that, up till now, remain unanswered. Wrongly administering COVID-19 vaccines into blood vessels instead of the muscles could be behind the serious side effects.

A report published by the Journal of Korean Medical Sciences is one of the first in the world to suggest that technique known as aspiration -- which is pulling back on the syringe plunger before injecting the vaccine to ensure no blood vessel is accidentally punctured -- may provide better chances of avoiding side effects.

The report looked at Korea’s first fatal case of a rare blood clotting condition called thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, or TTS, in a 33-year-old man who received AstraZeneca’s vaccine. He died 19 days following his first vaccination in June, after developing blood clots in the brain called cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. As of Sept. 30, the latest date for which the data is available, there were 56 confirmed cases of myocarditis, pericarditis, or both, after Pfizer’s vaccine in Korea, and seven after Moderna’s. Thirty-two out of the total 63 cases were in people under 30. One in his early 20s died.

Over the same period, three people in Korea were confirmed with TTS after their first AstraZeneca dose. Two were men in their early 30s, one of whom died, and the other a woman in her 70s.

Another study, published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, made similar observations with mRNA-type vaccines. The study concluded that “inadvertent intravenous injection of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines may induce myocarditis or pericarditis.” Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis, an inflammation of the tissue surrounding the heart.

You might think it should occur equally in men and women, and also in older men and women. But heart inflammation after mRNA vaccines is reported to be more common in young men, while blood clots after adenovirus vector vaccines are more common in young women.

Hence, intramuscular injection, with aspiration prior to injection, could be a potential preventive measure when administering adenovirus-based vaccines. Currently, the guidelines do not require health care providers to aspirate before giving a COVID-19 vaccination. 

It astonishes me that anyone in the medical field would NOT aspirate before intramuscular injection. It is shocking that this could happen worldwide. So much harm has been done and no mention that it could have been inflicted upon innocent and possibly vulnerable patients. No wonder some people don't trust the vaccination. Please, aspirate before every single IM injection. It’s so simple. This should be standard protocol in every medical institution across the world and the fact it isn’t already is shocking to me. Zeljko Serdar, CCRES

The EU’s green-investing taxonomy

Our mission is to support and enable the investment community in driving significant and real progress by 2030 towards a net-zero and resilient future. This will be achieved through capital allocation decisions, stewardship, and successful engagement with companies, policymakers, and fellow investors.

The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) has published an open letter to EU Member State representatives and MEPs, calling for gas to be excluded from the EU Taxonomy. IIGCC is the leading European membership body enabling the European investment community in driving significant and real progress by 2030 towards a net-zero and resilient future. IIGCC’s 370+ members, representing €50 trillion AUM, are in a position to catalyze real-world change through their capital allocation decisions, stewardship, and engagement with companies and the wider market, as well as through their policy advocacy.

Stephanie Pfeifer, CEO, IIGCC, said: “As the cornerstone of the EU’s sustainable finance agenda, the inclusion of gas would undermine the credibility of the taxonomy as well as the EU’s own commitment to climate neutrality by 2050. While there is a place for gas as a short-term bridge as part of a period of transition, it cannot honestly be classified as green.”

“For institutional investors, the inclusion of gas will limit their ability to align their portfolios and investment with net-zero. At a time when we need clarity, the inclusion of gas creates an unhelpful precedent and muddies the waters for investors looking to do the right thing.”

“The inclusion of gas also risks channeling material levels of capital towards initiatives that undermine a sustainable, net-zero future. We urge policymakers to vote accordingly.”     

Will Martindale, Group Head of Sustainability, Cardano, said: “Many investors, both asset owners, and asset managers, are trying to chart a course that supports a 1.5°C future. The inclusion of gas in the taxonomy risks undermining this ambition and creates an unnecessary headache for those looking to align their portfolios and investments with net-zero.”

“This is a landmark piece of legislation that sets the tone for the investment community globally. The ramifications of this must not be forgotten when policymakers make their final decision.”

Fossil gas should be excluded from Europe’s list of sustainable investments, according to a group of climate investors with €50 trillion worth of assets. The group added it was still considering whether to consider nuclear as a sustainable investment. In an open letter, the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC), a powerful coalition of pension funds and asset managers, has warned that labeling fossil gas as a sustainable investment risk channeling capital towards activities that are incompatible with Europe’s climate ambition. The taxonomy is designed to give investors a guide to sustainable technologies in a bid to avoid greenwashing, where companies claim to be spending money on green activities which are actually ineffective or damaging to the environment. However, the latest list of sustainable investments has been widely criticized for including nuclear and gas projects, which some environmentalists see as undermining the climate ambition of the legislation.

The IIGCC has previously called for the taxonomy to be aligned with ambitions to reach net-zero emissions and wanted it to take a science-based approach. In the open letter, it argues that the draft criteria for fossil gas to obtain a green label – a threshold of life cycle emissions of 270g C02e/kWh for projects with permits granted before 2030 – would mean energy companies could be in compliance with the taxonomy, even if they are not aligned with Europe’s net-zero emission goal. While fossil gas may have a role to play as a bridge from more-polluting coal to renewables but it cannot meet the requirements set for a transitional activity under the taxonomy legislation, the letter argues, saying its inclusion would be “misleading”. “As the cornerstone of the EU’s sustainable finance agenda, the inclusion of gas would undermine the credibility of the taxonomy as well as the EU’s own commitment to climate neutrality by 2050,” said Stephanie Pfeifer, the CEO of IIGCC. “At a time when we need clarity, the inclusion of gas creates an unhelpful precedent and muddies the waters for investors looking to do the right thing. The inclusion of gas also risks channeling material levels of capital towards initiatives that undermine a sustainable, net-zero future,” she added. The other controversial aspect of the leaked draft is the prospect of a green label being granted to nuclear energy.

Asked about nuclear’s inclusion in the taxonomy, and IIGCC spokesperson told: “We have focused on gas as this issue is the priority for our members and has been the focus of our previous engagement with the Commission regarding the taxonomy.” “While gas is our focus, we continue to explore the question of the inclusion of nuclear in the taxonomy with our members and may choose to engage on this topic in the future,” the spokesperson added. Others have been quick to criticize the inclusion of nuclear energy. The Club of Rome, a think tank made up of notable scientists, economists, business leaders, and former politicians, have criticized the inclusion of both gas and nuclear projects. The proposal “disregards four years of rigorous scientific, financial analysis and stakeholder dialogue, which had aimed to support the mobilization of capital away from stranded assets into truly sustainable and low carbon economic alternatives,” said Sandrine Dixson-Declève, co-president of the Club of Rome and member of the European Commission’s Platform on Sustainable Finance.

“The moves to label natural gas and nuclear as ‘green’, in as far as being ‘transitional activities’, is completely misleading,” she added, pointing to China, which developed a taxonomy that excludes fossil gas, and South Korea’s taxonomy, which excludes nuclear power. Environmental organizations were left dismayed by the draft, with clean mobility NGO Transport and Environment (T&E) saying the EU was “set to kill off its own sustainable finance rules by greenwashing gas”. Greenpeace argued that there is yet to be a commercially viable long-term solution for disposing of nuclear waste and that giving fossil gas a green label would “only exacerbate its devastating climate impact”.

Meanwhile, the nuclear industry body, Foratom, has welcomed the inclusion of nuclear but has warned that ambiguous wording in the draft could lead to otherwise eligible nuclear power plants missing out on the green label. The gas industry organization, Eurogas, has been more tentative in welcoming the draft, saying gas turbines were critical to rapidly transition away from coal power generation. “Eurogas holds the ambition of fully decarbonizing the gas network soon after 2045. Progressively decreasing thresholds, as expected in the taxonomy, are going to help drive that, but realistic starting points are a must,” the industry group argues. To achieve this, Eurogas says the taxonomy should include an initial threshold of 350g CO2/kWh for power generation using combined-cycle gas turbines. For CHP, the best-in-class technology is currently at around 270g CO2/kWh, Eurogas notes. The 270g CO2/kWh threshold is also the maximum accepted under the taxonomy. Above that level, energy generation technologies are considered to be making “significant harm” to the environment.

What is the EU taxonomy? 

The EU taxonomy is a classification system, establishing a list of environmentally sustainable economic activities. ... The EU taxonomy would provide companies, investors and policymakers with appropriate definitions for which economic activities can be considered environmentally sustainable.

Nuvaxovid

Update: Nuvaxovid is now authorised across the EU. This follows the granting of a conditional marketing authorisation by the European Commission on 20 December 2021. 

EMA has recommended granting a conditional marketing authorisation for Novavax’s COVID-19 vaccine Nuvaxovid (also known as NVX-CoV2373) to prevent COVID-19 in people from 18 years of age. 

Nuvaxovid is the fifth vaccine recommended in the EU for preventing COVID-19. It is a protein-based vaccine and, together with the already authorised vaccines, will support vaccination campaigns in EU Member States during a crucial phase of the pandemic.

After a thorough evaluation, EMA’s human medicines committee (CHMP) concluded by consensus that the data on the vaccine were robust and met the EU criteria for efficacy, safety and quality.

Results from two main clinical trials found that Nuvaxovid was effective at preventing COVID-19 in people from 18 years of age. The studies involved over 45,000 people in total. In the first study, around two thirds of participants received the vaccine and the others were given a placebo (dummy) injection; in the other study, participants were equally split between Nuvaxovid and placebo. People did not know if they had been given Nuvaxovid or placebo.

The first study, conducted in Mexico and the United States, found a 90.4% reduction in the number of symptomatic COVID-19 cases from 7 days after the second dose in people who received Nuvaxovid (14 cases out of 17,312 people) compared with people given placebo (63 out of 8,140 people). This means that the vaccine had a 90.4% efficacy in this study.

The second study conducted in the United Kingdom also showed a similar reduction in the number of symptomatic COVID-19 cases in people who received Nuvaxovid (10 cases out of 7,020 people) compared with people given placebo (96 out of 7,019 people); in this study, the vaccine efficacy was 89.7%.

Taken together, the results of the two studies show a vaccine efficacy for Nuvaxovid of around 90%. The original strain of SARS-CoV-2 and some variants of concern such as Alpha and Beta were the most common viral strains circulating when the studies were ongoing. There is currently limited data on the efficacy of Nuvaxovid against other variants of concern, including Omicron.

The side effects observed with Nuvaxovid in the studies were usually mild or moderate and cleared within a couple of days after vaccination. The most common ones were tenderness or pain at the injection site, tiredness, muscle pain, headache, a general feeling of being unwell, joint pain, and nausea or vomiting.

The safety and effectiveness of the vaccine will continue to be monitored as it is used across the EU, through the EU pharmacovigilance system and additional studies by the company and European authorities.

Where to find more information

The  product information for Nuvaxovid contains information for healthcare professionals, a package leaflet for members of the public and details of conditions of the vaccine’s authorisation.

An assessment report with details of EMA’s evaluation of Nuvaxovid and the full risk management plan will be published shortly. Clinical trial data submitted by the company in the application for marketing authorisation will be published on the Agency’s clinical data website in due course.

More information is available in an overview of the vaccine in lay language, including a description of the vaccine’s benefits and risks and why EMA recommended its authorisation in the EU.

How Nuvaxovid works

Nuvaxovid works by preparing the body to defend itself against COVID-19. The vaccine contains a version of a protein found on the surface of SARS-CoV-2 (the spike protein), which has been produced in the laboratory. It also contains an ‘adjuvant’, a substance to help strengthen the immune responses to the vaccine.

When a person is given the vaccine, their immune system will identify the protein as foreign and produce natural defences — antibodies and T cells — against it. If, later on, the vaccinated person comes into contact with SARS-CoV-2, the immune system will recognise the spike protein on the virus and be prepared to attack it. The antibodies and immune cells can protect against COVID-19 by working together to kill the virus, prevent its entry into the body’s cells and destroy infected cells.

Nuvaxovid is given as two injections, usually into the muscle of the upper arm, 3 weeks apart.

Conditional marketing authorisation

The European Commission will now fast-track the decision-making process to grant a decision on the conditional marketing authorisation for Nuvaxovid, allowing this vaccine to be included in vaccination programmes rolled out across the EU.

Conditional marketing authorisation (CMA) is used as the fast-track authorisation procedure to speed up approval of treatments and vaccines during public health emergencies in the EU. CMAs allow authorisation of medicines that fulfil an unmet medical need on the basis of less complete data than normally required. This happens if the benefit of a medicine or vaccine’s immediate availability to patients outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that not all the data are yet available. 

A CMA guarantees that the approved medicine or vaccine meets rigorous EU standards for efficacy, safety and quality and is manufactured in approved, certified facilities in line with high pharmaceutical standards for large-scale production.

Once a CMA has been granted, companies must provide further data from ongoing or new studies within pre-defined deadlines to confirm that the benefits continue to outweigh the risks.

Monitoring the safety of Nuvaxovid

In line with the EU’s safety monitoring plan for COVID-19 vaccines, Nuvaxovid will be closely monitored and subject to several activities that apply specifically to COVID-19 vaccines. Although large numbers of people have received COVID-19 vaccines in clinical trials, certain side effects may only emerge when millions of people are vaccinated.

Companies are required to provide monthly safety reports in addition to the regular updates required by legislation and conduct studies to monitor the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines as they are used by the public. In addition, independent studies of COVID-19 vaccines coordinated by EU authorities will give more information on the vaccine’s long-term safety and benefit in the general population.

These measures will allow regulators to swiftly assess data emerging from a range of different sources and take any necessary regulatory action to protect public health.

Assessment of Nuvaxovid

During the assessment of Nuvaxovid, CHMP had the support of EMA’s safety committee, PRAC, who assessed the risk management plan of Nuvaxovid, and the COVID-19 EMA pandemic task force (COVID-ETF), a group that brings together experts from across the European medicines regulatory network to facilitate rapid and coordinated regulatory action on medicines and vaccines for COVID-19.

More info: 

Nuvaxovid is a vaccine for preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in people aged 18 years and older.

Nuvaxovid contains a version of a protein found on the surface of SARS-CoV-2 (the spike protein), which has been produced in the laboratory.

Detailed information about this vaccine is available in the product information, which includes the package leaflet.

---

How is Nuvaxovid used?

Nuvaxovid is given as two injections, usually into the muscle of the upper arm, 3 weeks apart.

Arrangements for the supply of the vaccine will be the responsibility of national authorities. For more information about using Nuvaxovid, see the package leaflet or consult a healthcare professional.

---

How does Nuvaxovid work?

Nuvaxovid works by preparing the body to defend itself against COVID-19. It contains a version of the spike protein that has been produced in the laboratory. It also contains an ‘adjuvant’, a substance to help strengthen the immune responses to the vaccine.

When a person is given the vaccine, their immune system will identify the protein in the vaccine as foreign and produce natural defences — antibodies and T cells — against it.

If, later on, the vaccinated person comes into contact with SARS-CoV-2 virus, the immune system will recognise the spike protein on the virus and be prepared to attack it. The antibodies and immune cells can protect against COVID-19 by working together to kill the virus, prevent its entry into the body’s cells and destroy infected cells.

---

What benefits of Nuvaxovid have been shown in studies?

Results from two main clinical trials found that Nuvaxovid was effective at preventing COVID-19 in people from 18 years of age. The studies involved over 45,000 people in total. In the first study, around two thirds of participants received the vaccine and the others were given placebo (a dummy injection); in the other study, participants were equally split between Nuvaxovid and placebo. People did not know if they had been given Nuvaxovid or placebo.

The first study, conducted in Mexico and the United States, found a 90.4% reduction in the number of symptomatic COVID-19 cases from 7 days after the second dose in people who received Nuvaxovid (14 cases out of 17,312 people) compared with people given placebo (63 out of 8,140 people). This means that the vaccine had a 90.4% efficacy in this study.

The second study conducted in the United Kingdom also showed a similar reduction in the number of symptomatic COVID-19 cases in people who received Nuvaxovid (10 cases out of 7,020 people) compared with people given placebo (96 out of 7,019 people); in this study, the vaccine efficacy was 89.7%.

Taken together, the results of the two studies show a vaccine efficacy for Nuvaxovid of around 90%. The original strain of SARS-CoV-2 and some variants of concern such as Alpha and Beta were the most common viral strains circulating when the studies were ongoing. There is currently limited data on the efficacy of Nuvaxovid against other variants of concern, including Omicron.

---

Can people who have already had COVID-19 be vaccinated with Nuvaxovid?

There were no additional side effects in the people who received Nuvaxovid in the clinical trials and had previously had COVID-19.

There were not enough data from the trial to conclude on how well Nuvaxovid works for people who have already had COVID-19.

---

Can Nuvaxovid reduce transmission of the virus from one person to another?

The impact of vaccination with Nuvaxovid on the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the community is not yet known. It is not yet known how much vaccinated people may still be able to carry and spread the virus.

---

How long does protection from Nuvaxovid last?

It is not currently known how long protection given by Nuvaxovid lasts. The people vaccinated in the clinical trials will continue to be followed for up to 2 years to gather more information on the duration of protection.

---

Can children be vaccinated with Nuvaxovid?

Nuvaxovid is not currently recommended for people below 18 years of age. EMA has agreed with the company on a plan to trial the vaccine in children at a later stage.

---

Can immunocompromised people be vaccinated with Nuvaxovid?

There are limited data on immunocompromised people (people with weakened immune systems). Although immunocompromised people may not respond as well to the vaccine, there are no particular safety concerns. Immunocompromised people can still be vaccinated as they may be at higher risk from COVID-19. 

---

Can pregnant or breast-feeding women be vaccinated with Nuvaxovid?

Animal studies do not show any harmful effects in pregnancy, however data on the use of Nuvaxovid during pregnancy are limited. Although there are no studies on breast-feeding, no risk for breast-feeding is expected.

The decision on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant women should be made in close consultation with a healthcare professional after considering the benefits and risks.

---

Can people with allergies be vaccinated with Nuvaxovid?

People who already know they have an allergy to one of the components of the vaccine listed in section 6 of the package leaflet should not receive the vaccine.

Cases of anaphylaxis (severe allergic reaction) have occurred in people receiving COVID-19 vaccines. Therefore, as for all vaccines, Nuvaxovid should be given under close medical supervision, with the appropriate medical treatment available. People who have a severe allergic reaction when they are given the first dose of Nuvaxovid should not receive the second dose.

---

How well does Nuvaxovid work for people of different ethnicities and genders?

The main trials included people of different ethnicities and genders. Efficacy was maintained across genders and ethnic groups.

---

What are the risks associated with Nuvaxovid?

The most common side effects with Nuvaxovid in the trials were usually mild or moderate and got better within a few days after vaccination. These included headache, nausea (feeling sick) or vomiting, muscle and joint pain, tenderness and pain at the injection site, tiredness and feeling unwell. These affected more than 1 in 10 people.

Redness and swelling at the injection site, fever, chills and pain in the limbs occurred in less than 1 in 10 people. Enlarged lymph nodes, high blood pressure, rash, reddening of the skin, itching at the injection site and itchy rash were uncommon side effects (affecting less than 1 in 100 people).

---

Why has EMA recommended the authorisation of Nuvaxovid?

Nuvaxovid offers a high level of protection against COVID-19 which is a critical need in the current pandemic. The main trials showed that the vaccine has around 90% efficacy. Most side effects are mild to moderate in severity and are gone within a few days.

The Agency therefore decided that Nuvaxovid’s benefits are greater than its risks and that it can be recommended for authorisation in the EU.

EMA has recommended a conditional marketing authorisation for Nuvaxovid. This means that there is more evidence to come about the vaccine (see below), which the company is required to provide. The Agency will review any new information that becomes available and this overview will be updated as necessary.

---

What information is still awaited for Nuvaxovid?

As Nuvaxovid is recommended for a conditional marketing authorisation, the company that markets Nuvaxovid will carry out studies to provide additional assurance on the pharmaceutical quality of the vaccine.

In addition, independent studies of COVID-19 vaccines coordinated by EU authorities will also give more information on the vaccine’s long-term safety and benefit in the general population.

---

What measures are being taken to ensure the safe and effective use of Nuvaxovid?

Recommendations and precautions to be followed by healthcare professionals and patients for the safe and effective use of Nuvaxovid have been included in the summary of product characteristics and the package leaflet.

A risk management plan (RMP) for Nuvaxovid is also in place and contains important information about the vaccine’s safety, how to collect further information and how to minimise any potential risks. A summary of the RMP is available.

Safety measures will be implemented for Nuvaxovid in line with the EU safety monitoring plan for COVID-19 vaccines to ensure that new safety information is rapidly collected and analysed. The company that markets Nuvaxovid will provide monthly safety reports.

As for all medicines, data on the use of Nuvaxovid are continuously monitored. Suspected side effects reported with Nuvaxovid are carefully evaluated and any necessary action taken to protect patients.

---

Other information about Nuvaxovid

Nuvaxovid was recommended by EMA’s human medicines committee (CHMP) on 20 December 2021 for a conditional marketing authorisation valid throughout the EU. The European Commission will issue a decision shortly.

Detailed recommendations for the use of this product are described in the product information, which will be available in all official European Union languages after a decision on the marketing authorisation has been issued by the European Commission.

Ethics and life’s big questions

Why philosophers have advocated simple living for 2,500 years—and why we ignore them at our peril. The good life is a simple life. Among philosophical ideas about how we should live, this one is a hardy perennial; from Socrates to Thoreau, from the Buddha to Wendell Berry, thinkers have been peddling it for more than two millennia.

And it still has plenty of adherents. Magazines such as Real Simple call out to us from the supermarket checkout; Oprah Winfrey regularly interviews fans of simple living such as Jack Kornfield, a teacher of Buddhist mindfulness; the Slow Movement, which advocates a return to pre-industrial basics, attracts followers across continents.

Through much of human history, frugal simplicity was not a choice but a necessity – and since necessary, it was also deemed a moral virtue. But with the advent of industrial capitalism and a consumer society, a system arose that was committed to relentless growth, and with it grew a population (aka ‘the market’) that was enabled and encouraged to buy lots of stuff that, by traditional standards, was surplus to requirements. As a result, there’s a disconnect between the traditional values we have inherited and the consumerist imperatives instilled in us by contemporary culture.

In pre-modern times, the discrepancy between what the philosophers advised and how people lived was not so great. Wealth provided security, but even for the rich wealth was flimsy protection against misfortunes such as war, famine, disease, injustice, and the disfavour of tyrants. The Stoic philosopher Seneca, one of the richest men in Rome, still ended up being sentenced to death by Nero. As for the vast majority – slaves, serfs, peasants, and labourers – there was virtually no prospect of accumulating even modest wealth.

Before the advent of machine-based agriculture, representative democracy, civil rights, antibiotics, and aspirin, just making it through a long life without too much suffering counted as doing pretty well. Today, though, at least in prosperous societies, people want and expect (and can usually have) a good deal more. Living simply now strikes many people as simply boring.

Yet there seems to be growing interest, especially among millennials, in rediscovering the benefits of simple living. Some of this might reflect a kind of nostalgia for the pre-industrial or pre-consumerist world, and also sympathy for the moral argument that says that living in a simple manner makes you a better person, by building desirable traits such as frugality, resilience, and independence – or a happier person, by promoting peace of mind and good health, and keeping you close to nature.

These are plausible arguments. Yet in spite of the official respect their teachings command, the sages have proved remarkably unpersuasive. Millions of us continue to rush around getting and spending, buying lottery tickets, working long hours, racking up debt, and striving 24/7 to climb the greasy pole. Why is this?

One obvious answer is good old-fashioned hypocrisy. We applaud the frugal philosophy while ignoring its precepts in our day-to-day lives. We praise the simple lifestyle of, say, Pope Francis, seeing it as a sign of his moral integrity, while also hoping for and cheering on economic growth driven, in large part, by a demand for bigger houses, fancier cars, and other luxury goods.

But the problem isn’t just that our practice conflicts with our professed beliefs. Our thinking about simplicity and luxury, frugality and extravagance, is fundamentally inconsistent. We condemn extravagance that is wasteful or tasteless and yet we tout monuments of past extravagance, such as the Forbidden City in Beijing or the palace at Versailles, as highly admirable. The truth is that much of what we call ‘culture’ is fuelled by forms of extravagance.

Somewhat paradoxically, then, the case for living simply was most persuasive when most people had little choice but to live that way. The traditional arguments for simple living in effect rationalise a necessity. But the same arguments have less purchase when the life of frugal simplicity is a choice, one way of living among many. Then the philosophy of frugality becomes a hard sell.

That might be about to change, under the influence of two factors: economics and environmentalism. When recession strikes, as it has done recently (revealing inherent instabilities in an economic system committed to unending growth) millions of people suddenly find themselves in circumstances where frugality once again becomes a necessity, and the value of its associated virtues is rediscovered.

In societies such as the United States, we are currently witnessing a tendency for capitalism to stretch the distance between the ‘have lots’ and the ‘have nots’. These growing inequalities invite a fresh critique of extravagance and waste. When so many people live below the poverty line, there is something unseemly about in-your-face displays of opulence and luxury. Moreover, the lopsided distribution of wealth also represents a lost opportunity. According to Epicurus and the other sages of simplicity, one can live perfectly well, provided certain basic needs are satisfied – a view endorsed in modern times by the psychologist Abraham Maslow’s ‘hierarchy of needs‘. If correct, it’s an argument for using surplus wealth to ensure that everyone has basics such as food, housing, healthcare, education, utilities and public transport – at low cost, rather than allowing it to be funnelled into a few private pockets.

However wise the sages, it would not have occurred to Socrates or Epicurus to argue for the simple life in terms of environmentalism. Two centuries of industrialisation, population growth, and frenzied economic activity has bequeathed us smog; polluted lakes, rivers, and oceans; toxic waste; soil erosion; deforestation; extinction of plant and animal species, and global warming. The philosophy of frugal simplicity expresses values and advocates a lifestyle that might be our best hope for reversing these trends and preserving our planet’s fragile ecosystems.

Many people are still unconvinced by this. But if our current methods of making, getting, spending, and discarding prove unsustainable, then there could come a time – and it might come quite soon – when we are forced towards simplicity. In which case, a venerable tradition will turn out to contain the philosophy of the future.

Emrys Westacott is a professor of philosophy at Alfred University in New York. The Wisdom of Frugality (2016) by Emrys Westacott is published via Princeton University Press. 

https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691155081/the-wisdom-of-frugality 

Stanični imunitet

Mnogi prijatelji HCOIE portala postavljaju isto pitanje vezano za imunitet kod onih koji su preboljeli i onih koji su cijepljeni, dosta pitanja vezana su i za memorijske stanice. Postoje dva glavna mehanizma imunosti unutar adaptivnog imunološkog sustava – humoralni i stanični.

Humoralni imunitet se također naziva imunitet posredovan antitijelima. Uz pomoć pomoćnih T stanica, B stanice će se diferencirati u plazma B stanice koje mogu proizvesti antitijela protiv specifičnog antigena. Humoralni imunološki sustav se bavi antigenima iz patogena koji slobodno cirkuliraju ili izvan zaraženih stanica. Protutijela koja proizvode B stanice vezat će se za antigene, neutralizirajući ih ili uzrokujući lizu (otapanje ili uništavanje stanica lizinom) ili fagocitozu.

Stanična imunost javlja se unutar inficiranih stanica i posredovana je T limfocitima. Antigeni patogena su izraženi na površini stanice ili na stanici koja predstavlja antigen. Pomoćne T stanice oslobađaju citokine koji pomažu aktiviranim T stanicama da se vežu na kompleks MHC-antigena zaraženih stanica i diferenciraju T stanicu u citotoksičnu T stanicu. 

Nakon infekcije virusom SARS-CoV-2 ili cijepljenja dolazi do reakcije imunosnog sustava organizma koja dovodi do stvaranja specifičnih stanica zvanih limfociti. Limfociti su stanice koje cirkuliraju putem krvi i obavljaju svoje specifične funkcije u svrhu obrane organizma od virusa. Postoji velik broj limfocita, ali ih dijelimo u dvije osnovne skupine: limfocite T i limfocite B. Limfociti B su stanice koje stvaraju antitijela, a ona specifično prepoznaju virus te se na njega vežu, neutraliziraju ga i sprečavaju ulazak virusa u naše zdrave stanice. Ako virus ipak uspije dospjeti u naše zdrave stanice, u njima započinje replikacija virusne nasljedne upute te virusnih proteina i stvaranje novih virusnih čestica. Takve patološki promijenjene, bolesne stanice (prethodno fagocitirane od strane antigen predočnih stanica) mogu prepoznati naši limfociti T, koji u svojim granulama sadrže brojne citotoksične tvari, a na površini specifične stanične receptore. Stanični receptori limfocita T imaju sposobnost naše bolesne stanice potaknuti na programiranu staničnu smrt, čime stanica u kojoj se virus nalazi odumire te je spriječeno daljnje umnažanje virusa. Limfociti T čine prvu liniju naše stanične imunosti koja je naziv dobila upravo po tome što je posredovana stanicama - limfocitima T, a ne antitijelima.

Dio limfocita T i limfocita B nakon preboljene infekcije ili cijepljenja ima sposobnost pretvorbe u stanicu sa specifičnom funkcijom koju nazivamo memorijska stanica. Memorijske stanice imaju sposobnost pamćenja virusnih dijelova kako bi se aktivirale u trenutku kada organizam dođe u ponovni doticaj s virusom. Takve stanice višestruko ubrzavaju stvaranje aktivnih limfocita T koji će prepoznati bolesne stanice inficirane virusom i uništiti ih. Također, memorijske stanice ubrzavaju stvaranje limfocita B, koji će produkcijom antitijela neutralizirati slobodne virusne čestice u krvi. Tajna dugovječnosti stanične imunosti upravo je u memorijskim stanicama, a istraživanje objavljeno u jednom od najcitiranijih svjetskih časopisa - Nature otkriva da je stanična imunost na virusni antigen N trajala čak 17 godina u pacijenata nakon infekcije SARS-om 2003. godine.

Sva cjepiva koja su sada na tržištu zasnivaju se na prezentaciji virusnog antigena S našem imunosnom sustavu kako bi naše stanice mogle prepoznati spike (S) protein virusa i pravodobno reagirati tijekom ulaska virusa u naš organizam. S druge strane, tijekom infekcije virusom SARS-CoV-2 dolazi do razgradnje cijele virusne čestice, obrade većeg broja različitih virusnih antigena uključujući i antigen S te naš imunosni sustav stvara zaštitu protiv svih virusnih komponenti. Istraživanja koja su u tijeku pokazuju da je razina imunosne reakcije na S protein virusa podjednaka u cijepljenih i onih koji su preboljeli covid-19.

Humoralni imunitet i imunitet posredovan stanicama dvije su vrste adaptivnog imunološkog odgovora koji omogućavaju ljudskom tijelu da se ciljano brani od štetnih agenasa kao što su bakterije, virusi i toksini. Iako postoji određeno preklapanje između ovih krakova imunološkog odgovora - oba se oslanjaju na funkcije limfoidnih stanica - postoje i neke važne razlike. Može se steći humoralni imunitet na određenu infekciju ili bolest ako se daje s protutijelima od nekoga tko je prethodno bio izložen istoj infekciji, zaobilazeći humoralni odgovor. Međutim, imunost posredovana antitijelima uključuje skup molekularnih komponenti i procesa koji se razlikuju od imunosti posredovane stanicama. U ovom članku definiramo humoralnu imunost i stanični imunitet, raspravljajući o različitim imunološkim procesima, svrhama i važnim tipovima stanica.

Jačina stanične imunosti je individualna karakteristika koja se zasniva na velikom broju faktora uključujući i genetsku podlogu pojedinca. Trenutno ne možemo predvidjeti kakva će biti reakcija na virus u pojedine osobe niti znamo koja je to razina stanične imunosti koja nas štiti od zaraze ili teškog oblika bolesti. Međutim, recentna znanstvena literatura objavljena u vodećem medicinskom časopisu Lancet navodi izrazito nisku pojavnost reinfekcije u osoba koje su preboljele i stvorile staničnu imunost na virus SARS-CoV-2. Humoralna imunost omogućuje neutralizaciju virusnih čestica u krvi i sprečava njihov ulazak u stanice, dok stanična imunost prepoznaje inficirane stanice, uništava ih i time zaustavlja daljnje širenje virusa. Svaki rezultat testa interpretira se individualno u kontekstu kliničke slike pacijenta, njegovih komorbiditeta, razine stanične i humoralne imunosti te prema potrebi i genetske analize. 

Ova tablica nije vezana uz temu ali je dobro da je proučite. 

Trajanje stanične imunosti još se ne može sa sigurnošću odrediti, ali istraživanja bazirana na ljudima koji su preboljeli SARS 2003. ukazuju da stanični imunosni odgovor, zahvaljujući memorijskim stanicama, može potrajati i do dva desetljeća. Trenutna pandemija traje prekratko da bismo mogli odrediti koliko će točno trajati stanična imunost na SARS-CoV-2, no Shrestha i kolege iz američke Klinike Cleveland u radu koji je retrospektivno analizirao populaciju SAD-a, i to 52.238 osoba među kojima i njih 1359 koji su preboljeli covid-19 i nisu cijepljeni, potvrđuje da ni jedna od 1359 osoba nije ponovno oboljela od covida-19. S druge strane, prije dva dana Lancet Infect Dis u preglednom članku navodi i studiju objavljenu u Clin Infect Dis, rađenu na 9119 osoba koje su preboljele covid-19 i koja potvrđuje da je samo 0,7 posto osoba imalo ponovnu infekciju SARS-CoV-2 (reinfekcija). Ti su rezultati potpuno u skladu s upravo objavljenom studijom u JAMA Internal Medicine na 1579 osoba u kojoj su analizirani oboljeli od covida-19 tijekom prvog vala bolesti u Italiji, a od kojih je samo pet osoba (0,31 posto) ponovno oboljelo od covida-19, dok je samo jedna ponovno oboljela osoba hospitalizirana. O zaštićenosti od zaraze ovisi nekoliko čimbenika, a među kojima su i stanična i humoralna imunost koje čine temeljnu obranu našeg imunosnog sustava. Među čimbenike o kojima ovisi hoće li se pojedina osoba zaraziti svakako spadaju i količina virusa unesenog u organizam, trajanje kontakta s inficiranom osobom, kao i sposobnost naše prirodne mehaničke zaštite - mukozne barijere koja oblaže nos, usnu šupljinu i unutrašnjost dišnih puteva.

Nakon preboljenja infekcije SARS-CoV-2 razvija se stanična imunost na različite virusne antigene, što znači da se naš imunosni sustav može boriti prepoznajući različite dijelove virusa. Ako s vremenom dođe do promjena u virusnim antigenima, stanična imunost može prepoznati druge komponente i tako aktivirati obranu protiv virusa. Zanimljivo je da su istraživanja pokazala da na pojedine virusne antigene postoji križna reaktivnost te tako stanična imunost protiv virusnog proteina N u osoba koje su 2003. preboljele SARS može križno reagirati i prepoznati protein N virusa SARS-CoV-2.

Stanična imunost nastaje kao reakcija na gotovo sve infektivne bolesti te se razvija i prilikom infekcije drugim virusima i mikroorganizmima. S obzirom na dugotrajnost stanične imunosne memorije te s obzirom na mogućnost križne reaktivnosti, stanična imunost izuzetno je značajna komponenta našeg imunosnog sustava. Nedavno objavljena znanstvena studija u američkom medicinskom časopisu JAMA navodi zabrinutost zbog pojave probojnih infekcija nakon cijepljenja protiv SARS-CoV-2 virusa te ističu nepouzdanost razine titra antitijela kao zaštite od zaraze virusom SARS-CoV-2. Za razliku od antitijela čiji titar ubrzano pada s vremenom, trenutna saznanja ukazuju na dugotrajnost stanične imunosti i njezinu važnu ulogu u održavanju imunosne zaštite. 

Reference:

F.S. Dhabhar, in Encyclopedia of Stress (Second Edition), 2007

J. Descotes, in Encyclopedia of Toxicology (Third Edition), 2014

E. Diane Williamson, in Vaccines for Biodefense and Emerging and Neglected Diseases, 2009

Linda Kidd, Edward B. Breitschwerdt, in Canine and Feline Infectious Diseases, 2014

A.J. Zajac, L.E. Harrington, in Reference Module in Biomedical Sciences, 2014

GUSTAVO PACHECO-LÓPEZ, ... MANFRED SCHEDLOWSKI, in Psychoneuroimmunology (Fourth Edition), 2007

N.V. Bhagavan, Chung-Eun Ha, in Essentials of Medical Biochemistry, 2011

Tom R. Phillips, in Encyclopedia of Immunology (Second Edition), 1998

Global Future

A terrifying coalition of big business and big tech is so confident and brazen they are promising the public “you will own nothing, and you will be happy” in an advertising campaign for a global reset.

The Great Reset is a proposal set out by the World Economic Forum for a new globalized fiscal system that would allow the world to effectively tackle the so-called climate crisis.

Zeljko Serdar from CCRES said the plan intends to use the “tools of oppression” implemented during the pandemic, such as lockdowns and forced business closures as well as other measures destroying private property rights, to combat the coronavirus to achieve climate outcomes.

“I've spoken before about the insidious phrases which sound like common sense but is in fact just one of several slogans for the Great reset, another being the Orwellian phrase the fourth industrial revolution. This is as serious and as dangerous a threat to our prosperity and freedom as we have faced in decades”.

Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city - or should I say, "our city." I don't own anything. I don't own a car. I don't own a house. I don't own any appliances or any clothes.

It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city. Everything you considered a product, has now become a service. We have access to transportation, accommodation, food and all the things we need in our daily lives. One by one all these things became free, so it ended up not making sense for us to own much.

First communication became digitized and free to everyone. Then, when clean energy became free, things started to move quickly. Transportation dropped dramatically in price. It made no sense for us to own cars anymore because we could call a driverless vehicle or a flying car for longer journeys within minutes. We started transporting ourselves in a much more organized and coordinated way when public transport became easier, quicker, and more convenient than the car. Now I can hardly believe that we accepted congestion and traffic jams, not to mention the air pollution from combustion engines. What were we thinking?

Sometimes I use my bike when I go to see some of my friends. I enjoy the exercise and the ride. It kind of gets the soul to come along on the journey. Funny how some things seem never seem to lose their excitement: walking, biking, cooking, drawing, and growing plants. It makes perfect sense and reminds us of how our culture emerged out of a close relationship with nature.

In our city, we don't pay any rent, because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it. My living room is used for business meetings when I am not there.

Once in a while, I will choose to cook for myself. It is easy - the necessary kitchen equipment is delivered to my door within minutes. Since transport became free, we stopped having all those things stuffed into our homes. Why keep a pasta maker and a crepe cooker crammed into our cupboards? We can just order them when we need them.

This also made the breakthrough of the circular economy easier. When products are turned into services, no one has an interest in things with a short life span. Everything is designed for durability, repairability, and recyclability. The materials are flowing more quickly in our economy and can be transformed into new products pretty easily. Environmental problems seem far away since we only use clean energy and clean production methods. The air is clean, the water is clean and nobody would dare to touch the protected areas of nature because they constitute such value to our well-being. In the cities, we have plenty of green space and plants and trees all over. I still do not understand why in the past we filled all free spots in the city with concrete.

Shopping? I can't really remember what that is. For most of us, it has been turned into choosing things to use. Sometimes I find this fun, and sometimes I just want the algorithm to do it for me. It knows my taste better than I do by now.

When AI and robots took over so much of our work, we suddenly had time to eat well, sleep well and spend time with other people. The concept of rush hour makes no sense any more since the work that we do can be done at any time. I don't really know if I would call it to work anymore. It is more like thinking-time, creation-time, and development-time.

For a while, everything was turned into entertainment and people did not want to bother themselves with difficult issues. It was only at the last minute that we found out how to use all these new technologies for better purposes than just killing time.

My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. Those we lost on the way. Those who decided that it became too much, all this technology. Those who felt obsolete and useless when robots and AI took over big parts of our jobs. Those who got upset with the political system and turned against it. They live different kinds of lives outside of the city. Some have formed little self-supplying communities. Others just stayed in the empty and abandoned houses in small 19th century villages.

Once in a while, I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. Nowhere I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me.

All in all, it is a good life. Much better than the path we were on, where it became so clear that we could not continue with the same model of growth. We had all these terrible things happening: lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest, and unemployment. We lost way too many people before we realized that we could do things differently.

This blog post was written ahead of the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting of the Global Future Councils. Thank you for your interest in the World Economic Forum, the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation.