Natural immunity vs vaccine-induced immunity: An interview with Marc Girardot of PANDA

Marc Girardot is a strategy consultant and a member of PANDA. Last month, BizNews published his article on natural immunity vs vaccine-induced immunity – ‘Should people who have recovered from Covid take a vaccine?’ – which has been read over 80,000 times. In this interview, Girardot talks extensively about the fallacies surrounding asymptomatic transmission and the waning natural immunity of those who have recovered from Covid-19. Having worked closely with cancer vaccines in Paris, the strategy consultant had particularly interesting insights into the ‘vaccine race’. While Girardot believes that the vaccine is a fantastic advancement, he has some concerns. The power of natural immunity against viral infections is thoroughly explored, with Girardot stating that ‘evolution has done things perfectly.’ For ease of understanding, concise explanations of technical terms in the interview are set out below the excerpts taken from the interview. [Note that both references to auto-immunity in the interview were meant as references to cross-immunity]. – Nadya Swart

Marc Girardot on the reasons why Covid-19 drew his attention:

Well, first of all, I was always interested in biotech, and I was fortunate enough to be one of the rare people who had actually been close to a vaccine, a DNA vaccine, an anti cancer DNA vaccine here in Paris. It’s a wonderful technology. So I had, basically, a crash course in immunology before this all started – because it takes a little time to understand what’s going on. After that, me being a consultant, I’ve been trained to watch for red flags. That’s what I’ve been trained to do. Wherever there’s a red flag, I tend to wake up at night. So it’s 3:00 in the morning, my brain starts spinning and it never stopped, it actually never stopped. 

I was – I don’t know whether it was fortunate or unfortunate – my family and I had covid the first week of January 2020. So a long time ago, at the very beginning. And when we were actually moving back from Geneva to Paris at the very moment of the lockdown. And at the very beginning, I was like everybody else. I thought, wow, this looks like a very deadly virus. I had told my children (I have grown up children) to wash their hands, to watch out. It was supposed to kill 5% or 6%. You know, when you start adding up – it’s a lot of friends and family that can go away. So I was very careful at the very beginning. And then when I realised that I had had covid, that was the first red flag. And at the time, I started – like everybody else – doing models and stuff and it just didn’t make sense. I couldn’t fit my models, and I’m pretty good at that.

We knew that it was running very quickly, because we had seen the curve of death – but there is no way that it could kill a lot of people and run quickly, because if I had it – I’m not exactly a 20 year old – so the idea that I had it [in] January 2020 months, it meant that it was already spread in Paris. And if it was spread in Paris after Christmas; it meant it had spread in China and across the globe. And so I paused and I said; ‘OK, so it’s not that deadly – there’s no way it can be that deadly.’ So I was relieved and I continued to investigate. And then really my driver was seeing people who hadn’t the capacity or the time or were just terrified by the whole thing. So I decided [that] I’m going to try and figure this out. And I’ve been writing ever since! 

On vaccination being a medical procedure:

Well, the first thing that people need to know is that vaccines are never trivial. You know, you’re tinkering with your immune system. It’s a very sophisticated system. It’s a beautiful system that’s protecting our lives and [the lives of] everybody we love – and we’re tinkering with it. And you shouldn’t tinker with it for something that kills, well, today it’s 0,04%, ok? Just makes no sense to take that risk, especially for most people [who] actually have less risk than that. Kids don’t have any risk. So, that’s the first thing; it’s a medical procedure, and a lot of people forgot about that. It’s serious, and when you do that on a massive scale, it’s dangerous. Some people will die. That’s the first point. 

On the implications of the Covid-19 vaccines containing spike protein and the question marks around Covid-19 vaccines:

The second point is [that] the technology is brilliant. It’s a brilliant technology, it comes from cancer. I had known about it way before because they were a competitor of a company I was working at. It’s a brilliant technology. But that technology was developed for cancer. It was developed for people who are stage three or stage four cancer, who have zero chance of survival. You can take risks for that. I think where everybody precipitated, It’s not really a question of technology. Even though, of course, there is a problem with the technology, and I’ll come to it. But as I wrote in the article, the spike protein, we’ve realised, is toxic – it’s hyper inflammatory, and the body reacts very, very aggressively to it. 

There’s several theories about it. But one theory is [that] it holds a bit of code of staphylococcus. Your immune [system] is trained to attack that in a very vigorous fashion. So, there’s a design problem. All of them, they put it in without realising that it’s hyper inflammatory. That’s a design problem. They probably didn’t know that it was inflammatory at the time. And that’s why, normally, you take a long time to actually test it and do that. But it’s extremely inflammatory. Now, there is a third problem which is tied to the mRNA replication and the creation of spike. 

So that’s specific to both mRNA and DNA, and in the mRNA, at least for the Pfizer one, the data we have from the mouse – that came from the regulatory authorities in Japan – shows that in a mouse, it goes to the spleen, it goes to the bone marrow, it goes to the ovaries, and it also goes to the brain. And, you know, anybody who has any sense of anything understands that you don’t want to be producing spike protein in your brain. Or even in your bone area where all [of] your immune system is built. 

That’s really (I think), and I think Robert Malone, who’s one of the founders of (or at least the initiators of) the mRNA vaccines also acknowledged that if the vaccine had stayed in the muscle, it would have been great, because then if you destroy cells – because your immune system is going to attack every single contaminated cell, people need to understand that – in the muscle it’s ok, because muscle regenerates. When you exercise, you get new muscle – it regenerates. But they added PEG (Polyetheline Glycol) and it’s gone everywhere – and that’s a major problem. 

And notably, there’s a major problem for women around [their] ovaries. The problem of those spike protein nanoparticles going to the ovaries, that’s a question mark. That’s a huge question mark. Clearly, some women I’ve been talking to have been telling me that they’re feeling something here [in their ovaries]. So it means the ovaries maybe, possibly are filtering. Young men seem to have Myocarditis, which can kill you. So there’s plenty of things in the vaccine that are question marks. 

But again, I’m not anti-vaccines. I think it’s fantastic technology. But if you tell me somebody is going to inject it to my children, I will say no – in a very, very, very clear way. The risk outweighs. And when you start looking at some of the data, I also think there’s another problem in the design; they designed it in the muscle, which is, as I said, is not the right place – because the immune system is exquisite. Really, it’s beautiful. It’s complicated to understand, but one of the things it does, as I explained in the article, is it’s very optimised. So, the first defence is not, of course, in the muscle – because in the muscle you don’t get infected. You get infected here [Girardot gestures to his throat and nasal passage]. 95% of your respiratory infections are here and maybe 5% are here [Girardot gestures to his throat and nasal passage, and to his lungs, respectively]. 

So the immune system protects you with a two year resident memory T-cell blockage. It’s amazing, you know, evolution has done things perfectly. So, it protects you for two years and then you have the second degree – those are the sentinels, basically. And then if ever it penetrates that sentinel, then you start getting the fever, the T cells, the antibodies kick in, etc.. And a vaccine that would have been here [Girardot gestures to his throat and nasal passage] would have been much better. 

It also, in my view, would be much better for a lot of the people who are suffering from severe covid, because the people who are suffering from severe covid often are immune depleted. And so the reality of it is it’s not really that they’re lacking the information on what to target. To a certain extent, the older you are, the more you have experience with the disease. So your epitope repertoire is very high. That’s what the vaccine does; it acts as if your immune system didn’t know about that. If you’re 90 years old, there’s very, very little chance that you haven’t met some of it or a big part of it. What elderly or sick people have; they either have a lower reaction, they have less T cells, they have less antibodies. But from the reaction we’re seeing, it’s not really that that’s the problem. They also have a delayed reaction – that, to me, is really what’s happened. 

Most of the time [the virus] stays here [Girardot gestures to throat and nasal passage], but if you give the virus a free pass – then it goes much further down. And therefore, what happens is; where the reaction starts, it’s not the same battlefield. You know, you have a very contained battlefield here, maybe you’ll kill a few nerve cells so you don’t taste anything. But fundamentally, nothing serious is damaged. Now, if you let it go further, some of it will go to the brain, to the heart, to the lungs – everywhere. And especially, you’ll get inflammation everywhere – which is what we’re seeing with bad covid. 

On the reason that the death rate among the elderly in Asia is not as high as the rest of the world:

So it would be much better to have had a vaccine that prepared that block here [Girardot gestures to throat and nasal passage], and to a certain extent, that’s what you’re seeing in Asian countries, or very dense countries who have elderly people who probably are saved by that because they have very, very high attack rates – above 50%, 60% a year. In Tokyo, for example, last year there was a serological study that came and, I think it was, 8% of the people who tested already had antibodies, but during summer, during three months, another 40% were contaminated. 

So just in a few months, Tokyo was contaminated 50%. You see, if you’re hit like 60% every year; well, you basically have 90% of the population that has this protection here [Girardot gestures to throat and nasal passage]. It’s very dense, so everybody’s giving themselves a tiny bit of virus. The virus is a bit like, I don’t know if you know, Tintin; there is this captain that’s getting this band-aid and everybody’s getting that band-aid. So that’s exactly what you’re seeing; everybody is probably contaminating each other with a slight, tiny dose, which updates the software. 

I have in my file at least twenty six or seven research [papers] that show cross-immunity and it’s everywhere, you have it everywhere. You have it in Singapore and Germany, UK, US, Europe, Canada, Ecuador, everywhere. So this immunity is really something that we – everybody – collectively should have known was there. 

The reality of it is, since they have very high attack rates – they are getting infected by very low doses every other year, [like] every three years. So they keep having this protection here [Girardot gestures to his throat and nasal passage] that I was telling you about that bypasses the delay. It’s always there. It’s a sentinel force of T cells that are there. They don’t need to be specialised – they’re there and they kill the virus there. And that’s the big difference between countries like, well, South Africa – in the part that’s not very dense – Europe, the US – it’s not very dense – where we have a attack rates of 10%, 15%, and therefore you have only have 20% of the elderly that would be protected. See the difference? You have 80% of these elderly that wouldn’t have that protection. 

On SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2, the genetic similarity in their code and the significance thereof:

In January 2020, when we sequenced the proteome of SARS-CoV-2, they came out and they said, ‘Well, it’s a coronavirus.’ So it has this whole chunk of it, which is about 50% to 60% of the code, which is from the family – it’s the same one. It codes for the membrane, it codes for all the same things. So, if you’ve had a cold in your life; to your immune system, there’s no difference then if you would receive a vaccine. The vaccine that companies like Pfizer and Moderna are producing; what they’re doing is they’re presenting your immune system with 5% to 10% of the genetic code.

If in the past you have met it, you won’t necessarily have met the spike protein, but you will have met 60% to 70% and in some cases 96%. If you’ve met SARS-CoV-1, you will have met 96% of the code. You have all these T cells that are ready and you have some of the antibodies that are ready that will save your life. You might be a bit sick, etc. but you will never die. You can die from it if you’re not immune and if you get a big dose or if you’re basically very, very old and, unfortunately, it’s the end of your life. 

On Covid-19 infections in children:

They’re naive [to the virus]. Some of them are getting immunised every year and after every year there’s a growing number of them who are immunised. You get to 20 years old – almost everybody has had covid in their lives. And basically what this does is that the more that happens, the less the elderly, at the end, will be put in danger. You actually want this to be shared as much as possible. In fact, we need it long term. What you need is for people to have it in a low dose as much as possible.

And therefore, I think the children protect the grandparents – contrary to the other [perspective]. You know, my daughter had covid. She had a night of fever. My wife had two weeks of fever, I had two days of fever. She (my daughter) killed it in one day. And it’s been proven that children have much, much smaller doses. So it’s better if a grandma kisses her grandchild, because she gets a small dose and she’ll be able to deal with it. 

On whether critical phases of standard vaccine efficacy trials have been bypassed in the vaccine race:

Traditionally, yes, that’s my personal opinion – that’s certainly not PANDA’s perspective, I can’t talk for PANDA on that. My perspective on that is, of course. There’s been animal trials and what is called PA hasn’t been done as much as it should have. The toxicology of the spikes should have been detected. It should have been detected way before. We rushed into it. I think vaccines are wonderful technology, [but] they need to be, as any medical intervention, they need to be focused and used in the right way. There is a trade off, there are cost benefit analyses to be done. Personally, I think the younger population absolutely don’t need it. But I think fundamentally the technology is wrong, as I said. And also, they should have worked on the toxicity of the spike.

Of course, the spike is very antigenic, so it’s important that we build the immune system against it. But fundamentally, it would have taken some more time to understand which bits of code needed to be taken out and that they didn’t have time to do. For sure, the race is not a good idea. To tell you the truth, having worked on the cancer side, seeing how demanding the authorities have been – or are – to some of those companies that have solutions for people who are in stage four cancer, who are going to die. They still impose crazy, very, very stringent regulations – and I know because I’ve worked in it. And then you look at what they’re doing for this… It’s completely, I mean, there is something wrong with that.

  • Cross-Immunity is the fact that one is largely immune against a virus one has never met because that disease shares a significant part of its genes with other viruses one has already met. For example, SARS-COV-2 shares 65-82% genome with other main coronaviruses, many have already a fighting force in place.
  • Epitope repertoire is a database of the targets for T-cells to attack. The larger the repertoire, the faster and the greater the response against infected cells.
  • Staphylococcus is is a very nasty bacteria. I mentioned it because apparently the spike protein shares a bit of very inflammatory elements at its surface, which could be the reason for the inflammation it triggers.
  • Resident Memory T-cells are sentinel T-cell in abundance during 2 years in the portals of entry of a virus. They are extremely effective in preventing and cutting down an infection at the source. They are a fundamental evolution to avoid self-replicating epidemics.

Read Also:

(Visited 8,527 times, 5 visits today)