Dr. Bhargava on a new human challenge study which gave unvaxxed volunteers a dose of SARS-CoV-2

Finally a human challenge trial has been performed with SARS-CoV-2. Healthy male and female volunteers who were all both unvaxxed and had no evidence of prior infection, received one droplet of SARS-CoV-2 in the nose. While this study provides new insights, it also confirms what we already knew: that COVID does not pose any statistical risk to young, healthy people.Show more

The preprint can be found here:

Safety, tolerability and viral kinetics during SARS-CoV-2 human challenge
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1121993/v1

A write-up by Imperial College University in London can be found here:

COVID-19 human challenge study reveals detailed insights into infection
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/233514/covid-19-human-challenge-study-reveals-detailed/

The study showed that only about half of the participants had any symptoms at all, and none had severe symptoms.

Already 18 months ago, I was a proponent of fun summer camps where young people could voluntarily get together and have a good time, whilst at the same time acquiring natural immunity, which robustly and durably protects both themselves and others. See:

A cool group quarantine for young people and the delta plan corona herd immunity
https://frankploegman-blog.translate.goog/2020/08/13/een-toffe-groepsquarantaine-voor-jongeren/?_x_tr_sl=nl&_x_tr_tl=en

The summer is a time when the human immune system is at its strongest (e.g. because of vitamin D, relative humidity, melatonin, interferon) and conditions for transmission are unfavorable for microbes (e.g. intense sunlight, higher temperatures, more ventilation, relative humidity). This makes the summertime an excellent period to safely acquire natural immunity.

The idea of fun summer camps is similar to measles parties. If young people get infected during these summer camps, they can be also be infectious, but they won't pose a risk to the high risk group, because there will be no people from the high risk group around. By the time the young people go back home, they won't be infectious anymore.

The safety of the human challenge trial provides an excellent alternative to build robust, durable, sterilizing (=blocking transmission) immunity: you can give young, healthy volunteer a real vaccine in the nose, instead of a highly toxic, non-sterilizing, ineffective, gene therapy injection in the shoulder. (For anyone who does get sick, you can start early treatment to further reduce the low risk and discomfort, whilst still building natural immunity.)

Of course, at the time I proposed this, almost nobody was in favor of such a 'stupid' plan, because everybody 'knew' COVID was highly dangerous and everybody wanted to wait for vaccines which everybody 'knew' would be both safe and effective. What a deception that turned out to be!

The article by Imperial College comes to some invalid conclusions, such as regarding the importance of face masks worn over the nose. It may be true the viral load is highest in the nose, but if face masks don't significantly block transmission ― which they don't according to all high quality trials ― then they are useless at best.

Suspiciously absent from the article is any mention of naturally acquired immunity.

"Importantly, the study demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies are safe and well tolerated by the volunteers with no serious symptoms and no Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)." Now that the human challenge has proven to be safe, it can be used to much quicker and cheaper test assumptions, for instance regarding airborne transmission.

If you put the infectious people ('donors') in a badly ventilated room with dry air with uninfected people ('receivers') and you take all mitigation measures against big droplets (e.g. face masks, social distancing), and you still see no measurable difference in transmission, you know that these mitigations measures are completely useless.

If you repeat this trial but with excellent ventilation and optimal humidity, and you see no transmission, this means that nearly all transmission is airborne.

If you repeat it again with excellent ventilation and optimal humidity, but with no mitigation measures against big droplets (i.e. no face masks, no social distancing, no hand washing), and there still is almost no transmission, that's your proof that the mitigation measures against big droplets are useless.

It is very unlikely that such a study will be performed in the near term, because the 'experts' are extremely attached to their dogma's. This proves they are pseudo-scientists, because real scientists only care about the Truth. These pseudo-scientists care about their ego. A trial such as the one I proposed just now, forms a severe risk of exposing these 'experts' as quacks. The problem is not just with individual scientists, but also with the system as a whole.

"Science advances one funeral at a time." ― Max Planck, Nobel Laureate

You can also use challenge trials to test treatments. For instance, you infect 100 young, healthy, lean volunteers. For half of the group ('treatment group') you asks them to start thrice daily nasal rinses with 99% normal salt water and 1% baby shampoo as soon they get flu-like symptoms. The other half ('control group') gets standard of care (which equates to no care). Then you measure the difference in for instance disease severity, disease duration, viral load, etc.

POSTSCRIPT

To anyone who both has a healthy skeptical nature and is well informed, the question arises how the researchers could determine that SARS-CoV-2 caused the illness. If they take mucous from a 'COVID' patient and can prove the presence of alleged SARS-CoV-2 genetic material, the question still stands how they can prove SARS-CoV-2 caused the illness in the recipient and not some other pathogen.

I have not seen any convincing proof that researchers have been able to purify SARS-CoV-2 such that you can obtain fluid which contains ONLY SARS-CoV-2 in salt water without any other pathogens.

SOURCE: https://rumble.com/vx4r7z-dr.-bhargava-on-a-new-c19-human-challenge-study-which-gave-unvaxxed-volunte.html

The whole interview with dr. Aditi Bhargava can be found here: https://rumble.com/vwz7q1-tpc-733-dr.-aditi-bhargava-integration-of-pfizer-mrna-into-genome.html.