Prof. Aditi Bhargava Testifies: “Media reports often state that the science is clear. But scientific publications do not think that the science is clear.”

Dr. Aditi Bhargava, professor in the department of Ob/Gyn at the University of California, gave her testimony during a three-hour panel discussion hosted by U.S. Senator Ron Johnson on 3 November in Washington D.C.

Her testimony in Washington D.C. covered vaccine safety, vaccine trials and natural immunity which is the “gold standard” and “mandates to prevent spread by using spike antibody levels as the gold standard is gross misrepresentation of data” Prof. Bhargava said, “trust in scientific methods is at stake.”

You canwatch the full Expert Panel on Medical Mandates and Vaccine Injuries (3 hours) on The Highwire HERE. Prof. Bhargava’s testimony begins at timestamp 01:42:45.

Below is a transcript of Prof. Bhargava’s testimony, including images of the slides she presents:

My name is Aditi Bhargava and I’m a professor at UCSF and a microbiologist with 33 years of research experience. These are my scientific views.

Covid-19 vaccines are often compared to polio vaccines. This is apple to orange comparison because RNA and DNA viruses are fundamentally different.

DNA viruses mutate at a very slow rate. DNA viruses induce life-long immunity. After a natural infection with DNA viruses, such as the polio or chickenpox, no-one needs to be vaccinated who develops the disease in their life time.

In contrast, RNA viruses mutate frequently and do not induce life-long immunity, as we have seen with SARS-CoV-2 or flu viruses. One can have influenza multiple times in their lives. Vaccines or no vaccines. Flu had not been eradicated. Nor is there any talk to eradicate it. There is no herd immunity for flu. It is simply not an achievable goal.

Safety issues happen with vaccines despite best of intentions. There are no drugs without side-effects. For example, measles and […] virus vaccines have been recalled due to safety concerns despite stringent clinical trials and years of data. Unlike drug trials, vaccines trials are different as they are tested on a largely healthy population to prevent infection.

Good vaccines are modelled to mimic natural infection and rely on ones own immune system to produce antibodies and provide protection.

CDC estimates that nearly 43% of the country has already been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and thus naturally immune. And that was all before the more transmissible delta variant took hold.

Living in a bubble of sterile conditions is counterproductive to everything we know about strengthening the immune system. It’s Immunology 101. To downplay the beneficial and protective powers of our immune system goes against the founding principles of immunology. Several studies about SARS-CoV-2 are validating that knowledge.

There is no documented case of a naturally immune person getting re-infected with severe disease or hospitalisation, despite the first case reported nearly two years ago. In sharp contrast there are thousands of cases of severe Covid, hospitalisations and deaths in fully vaccinated people.

CDC now estimates 90% of Americans over the age of 16 have antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. But vaccine induced antibodies are only a small fraction of our immune responses.

Immune studies from the British Health Ministry suggests that Covid vaccines might interfere with the ability of our immune system to produce antibodies against other parts of the virus, [a] crucial aspect for developing cross protection. The spike antibodies are incomplete and cherry-picked stories.

Vaccine induced protection fell through 33 to 42% within 3 months. That is no different than the protection the unvaccinated have. Hence mandates to prevent spread by using spike antibody levels as the gold standard is gross misrepresentation of data.

It should not have taken the Massachusetts breakthrough infections this summer to discover that fully vaccinated people are just as vulnerable to being infected and transmit SARS-CoV-2 as the unvaccinated. Had the trials been stringent, had the phase II and III [trials] stuck to the protocols of follow-up, had the regulators enforced manufacturers to study prevention of infection in their clinical trials, this fiasco could have been avoided.

Instead, manufacturers configured these trials to study the prevention of mild symptoms and used pre-clinical models, such as the rhesus monkeys, in whom the virus does not cause disease. If all we can do is prevent symptoms and severe disease [then] we should be talking about drugs to treat Covid, not vaccines and mandates.

We lost the opportunity of discovering these major shortcomings by torpedoing the clinical trials. The placebo groups were eliminated just two months after the second dose. Instead, we are learning through trial and error on hundreds of millions of people. And, we insist on eliminating a very important control group by these vaccine mandates. There is no scientific study or experimental design in which we can learn anything of value without a control group. Certainly not about safety and efficacy.

Persistent high levels of antibodies often indicate […] to the body’s immune system. That is the basis of autoimmune disease. Hence boosters’ long-term adverse events should be taken seriously. The notion that we are in an emergency nearly two years after the pandemic [began] and that should justify cutting corners or taking short-cuts is simply wrong. Trust in scientific methods is at stake.

Media reports often state that [the] science is clear. But scientific publications do not think that the science is clear. And as you’ve heard from various testimonies – real people suffered adverse events and perhaps life-long disabilities due to sloppy trials.

I will conclude by asking you. If the vaccines don’t prevent infection and transmission, surely mandating person A to protect person B is pointless? But if the vaccines are effective – in preventing infection and transmission [and] decreasing symptoms, hospitalisations rates and death – then what do the vaccinated fear?

I've written this previously...

SCIENCE ISN'T MATH..

It never was.

And it sure isn't now.

Remember how science said ulcers were induced chiefly by stress or spicy food? It turns out, they are induced chiefly by bacteria. Whoops.

The history of science is littered with "no wait....that's wrong...THIS is right..." going through the rinse and repeat cycle endlessly.

And that's ok. Inquiry and challenge and "being a science heretic" is, in many ways, how mankind learns more and can fix more problems.

But science isn't math. Your checking account balance is the sum of deposits less sum of withdrawals. Always. Forever.

The problem arises when people try to equate science with math...usually they call it "settled science." And, to be sure, robust inquiry and disciplined application of the scientific method usually gives you clear and distinct results. Then, science is settled...until we get new data or better techniques, and then we get "wait a minute..".

For example, there was a most excellent article posted on how "settled science" wasn't so settled, wherein:

seems that Earth has been misplaced. According to a new map of the Milky Way galaxy, the Solar System's position isn't where we thought it was. Not only is it closer to the galactic centre - and the supermassive hole therein, Sagittarius A* - it's orbiting at a faster clip.

It further noted other "errors" in SCIENCE:

A good recent example of this is the red giant star Betelgeuse, which turned out to be closer to Earth than previous measurements suggested. This means that it's neither as large nor as bright as we thought. Another is the object CK Vulpeculae, a star that exploded 350 years ago. It's actually much farther away, which means that the explosion was brighter and more energetic, and requires a new explanation, since previous analyses were performed under the assumption it was relatively low energy

The other problem arises when Certain Powers work overtime to suppress assiduous inquiry. Which, is what we have today as well. It's a bad double whammy.

In the interest of full disclosure, my "science isn't math" quote came from a recent post on social sciences, that featured this brilliant give and take involving a Harvard faculty member critical of Charles Murray from the original article, that is worth reprinting - it is with regard to the "certainty of SCIENCE":

"so why should we let someone teach social science that we know to be wrong in our social science courses?"

Because it is possible that you are wrong.
Science is not mathematics. Newtonian physics was wrong. And social science is a further three rungs down in certainty from science.

Your level of certainty and arrogance about what can be said, and probably thought, smacks of religion, and not science. This is a political religion that permeates academia at the moment. And which I am fairly sure you will swear does not infect you, while the rest of us can see the symptoms quite plainly.

Only religions ban heretics from speaking because of the wrong-think they might cause. Real science loves a good heretic. In fact, honestly, the entire goal of science is to be a heretic. To have an idea that no other person ever had. Science is the pretty much the antithesis of your thought-police approach.

And most of academia used to be the antithesis of your thought police approach as well, until the religion of leftism took it over, with the direct help of people like you.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.