Variant chasing - it's like trying to dig your way out of a hole. Dig up, stupid!
Evidence that 'boosting' in current COVID-19 context is pointless immunologically, and dangerous, due to original antigenic sin (antigenic/immune imprinting) - see 'swine flu'
A paper was published one month ago today (on June 14, 2022) in Science entitled: “Immune boosting by B.1.1.529 (Omicron) depends on previous SARS-CoV-2 exposure”. They examined T and B cell responses of triple COVID-19 biological product injected Health Care Workers (HCW) with a variety of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination histories as demonstrated in the following graphic.
To me, the following is probably the most important sentence in this paper.
Thus, B.1.1.529 (Omicron) infection can boost binding and nAb responses against itself and other Variants of Concern (VOC) in triple-vaccinated previously uninfected infection naïve HCW, but not in the context of immune imprinting following prior Wuhan Hu-1 infection. Immune imprinting by prior Wuhan Hu-1 infection completely abrogated any enhanced nAb responses against B.1.1.529 (Omicron) and other VOC.
This means that due to Original Antigenic Sin (I will return to this) or ‘immune imprinting’, if you’ve been exposed to the original SARS-nCoV-2 (Wuhan Hu-1, so-called), then no matter how many times you get exposed to new ‘variants’ of SARS-nCoV-2 (such as Omicron ‘variants’) or similarly, how many times you inject yourself with some new version of these COVID-19 frankensteined products, you will not mount neutralizing antibody (or T cell responses) against these newer ‘variants’.
Weeeeeeeee’ll dig our way out!
The biggest problem with this paper, to me, is the lack of a control group that represents natural immunity - ie: individuals who were NOT injected (like for real not injected, not this within 14 days of first shot crap) and who had previous infection/exposure to Wuhan Hu-1, alpha, delta and the Omicrons. I bet any money that conclusion that they reach
In summary, these studies have shown that the high global prevalence of B.1.1.529 (Omicron) infections and reinfections likely reflects considerable subversion of immune recognition at both the B, T cell, antibody binding and nAb level, although with considerable differential modulation through immune imprinting. Some imprinted combinations, such as infection during the Wuhan Hu-1 and Omicron waves, confer particularly impaired responses.
in this hypothetical control group would be different in that no subversion of immune recognition at both the B, T cell and antibody binding and nAb level would occur due to unimpaired responses induced by original antigenic sin induced by the injections. So basically, the injections and whatever is in them, are causing immune ‘damage’.
On Original Antigenic Sin
There were a group of researchers back in the mid-1950s who were doing influenza vaccine research and from their work, they eventually penned this ‘doctrine’ (hilarious that they referred to it this way) called Original Antigenic Sin (OAS).1 2 3
OAS describes a situation where the first encounter with a pathogen, like a virus, dictates the subsequent immunological responses thereafter whereby the original primed B cell memory perpetually dominates at the expense of the development of new memory B cells (and neutralizing antibodies (nAbs)) against new viral epitopes or variants.
Does OAS truly exist outside of vaccination? Personally, I don’t think it does. In the case where one has a well-trained and/or strong cell-based innate immune response (like NK cells), OAS may never arise. Ever. In my discussion with Geert VB on this question, he suggested that OAS outside of the vaccination context could be expected to occur ONLY under ‘natural and abnormally high infectious pressure’, as would be the case in one living in unhygienic conditions or an unhealthy lifestyle, for example.
As part of the Harvey Society Lectures4, one Richard E. Shope published an article entitled: “THE INFLUENZAS OF SWINE AND MAN” in 1936 and it is a truly fascinating read. Isn’t that a fantastic title too? He discusses the etiological agents responsible for the 1918 human influenza and the ‘swine influenza’ of the same year. He hypothesizes that the disease state associated with swine influenza requires the synergism of a bacterium known as H. influenzae suis and the virus: the presence of both were essential to severe disease causation! He and colleagues established ferret and mouse models of infection and suggested that there were two distinct viruses for humans and pigs, and that it was likely that the swine virus may have been representative of the 1918 human type. He goes on to postulate that since pigs and humans respond the same way immunologically to the virus/bacteria combo plate, then it is also possible that the type of bacteria on that human combo plate may dictate the severity of human influenza pandemics.
What I find really interesting is the following quote.
Unless one wishes to ascribe a non-specific character to the swine virus-neutralizing antibodies in human sera, the conclusion that this unknown human virus was indeed swine influenza virus, or a closely related agent, is inescapable.
What about antigenic shift? This is when you throw two viruses in a pig (or a he/she/it/pangolin) and get something new and terrible. Just kidding. Sort of. Pigs are actually wonderful melting pots for antigenic shift to occur in, to potentially generate new pandemic viruses, especially influenza viruses! More recently, instead of the 1918 influenza pandemic being attributed to antigenic shift as originally thought, apparently, it’s being attributed to antigenic drift from an avian influenza virus.5 No wait, these guys show it wasn’t only from a birdy.6 So where did it arise from? Or rather, from whom? I vote for piggy as mixing pot intermediate. Just as a reminder, antigenic shift is when you sew two viral coats together to make a new viral coat unrecognizable from the original two coats, and antigenic drift is when you bedazzle your viral coat.
For a more virus-y schematic of antigenic shift and drift, see the following.
Shope writes that there is a possibility of non-specific neutralizing antibodies at play serving to neutralize the piggy virus in humans as an explanation for the presence of swine virus-neutralizing antibodies. This is interesting. I am intrigued with this idea of ascribing a non-specific character to the virus-neutralizing antibodies in human sera.
By the way, Shope wrote that he thinks it’s really important to keep looking at the synergistic relationship between the bacteria and viruses to induce species-specific diseases, AND I ENTIRELY AGREE.
I think it would be a mistake, at this time, to focus all of our attention on this new virus and to neglect further study of the bacteriology of influenza.
By the way, guess what? We’ve completely neglected further study of the bacteriology of influenza and all focus seems to have turned to ‘vaccines’. How ridiculous.
As an important side note, a paper entitled: “Spike-Dependent Opsonization Indicates Both Dose-Dependent Inhibition of Phagocytosis and That Non-Neutralizing Antibodies Can Confer Protection to SARS-CoV-2” published in January 2022, shows that protection against SARS-nCoV-2 can be achieved via non-neutralizing antibodies.
“Our results indicate that non-neutralising antibodies [could confer protection to SARS-CoV-2 infection by mediating phagocytosis]. This would mean that we have broader protection from antibodies than previously thought, making us less vulnerable to mutations of the virus. It warrants further investigation”, says Pontus Nordenfelt who led the study and is a researcher at Lund University.7
Also, and incredibly importantly, lets not forget about Natural Killer cells (NK cells) that comprise the non-specific innate branch of the immune response! I plan to dedicate a whole article to our most precious NK cells soon!
So to summarize the ‘Science’ once again - Science the journal, not Fauci - this article shows the boosters are not only BS as far as protective immunity goes, but potentially dangerous with regard to lack of capable immune responses to new variants. Go the natural immunity route and don’t get injected for optimal protection. Leave your immune system alone. Trust me. You’ll be happy you did.
And on that note, I will leave you with a message from Geert Vanden Bossche. I had a lovely email exchange with him about whether or not true OAS can exist outside the context of vaccination and he reminded me to say the following:
…any spike-based booster vaccine will lead – more than any wild virus could ever do – to a dramatic recall of ‘old’ Abs (OAS) which – given the high infection rate and the antigenic ‘shift’ [potential] of the virus (thanks to huge immune pressure!) – will dramatically increase the rate of antibody-dependent enhancement of infection. So, it’s not just that this crap is useless, it’s extremely dangerous!
Geert Vanden Bossche
I will have to write a Substack about antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) soon.
Francis, T. (1960). On the Doctrine of Original Antigenic Sin. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 104(6), 572–578. http://www.jstor.org/stable/985534.
Fred M. Davenport, Albert V. Hennessy; A SEROLOGIC RECAPITULATION OF PAST EXPERIENCES WITH INFLUENZA A; ANTIBODY RESPONSE TO MONOVALENT VACCINE . J Exp Med 1 July 1956; 104 (1): 85–97. doi: https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.104.1.85
Davenport, F.M., Hennessy, A.V., & Francis, T. (1953). EPIDEMIOLOGIC AND IMMUNOLOGIC SIGNIFICANCE OF AGE DISTRIBUTION OF ANTIBODY TO ANTIGENIC VARIANTS OF INFLUENZA VIRUS. The Journal of Experimental Medicine, 98, 641 - 656.
The Rockefeller University, "Richard E. Shope, 1936" (1936). Harvey Society Lectures. 21.
Johnson, Niall P. A. S. and Juergen Mueller. "Updating the Accounts: Global Mortality of the 1918-1920 "Spanish" Influenza Pandemic." Bulletin of the History of Medicine, vol. 76 no. 1, 2002, p. 105-115. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/bhm.2002.0022.
Fanning TG, Slemons RD, Reid AH, Janczewski TA, Dean J, Taubenberger JK. 1917 avian influenza virus sequences suggest that the 1918 pandemic virus did not acquire its hemagglutinin directly from birds. J Virol. 2002;76(15):7860-7862. doi:10.1128/jvi.76.15.7860-7862.2002.
Bahnan W, Wrighton S, Sundwall M, et al. Spike-Dependent Opsonization Indicates Both Dose-Dependent Inhibition of Phagocytosis and That Non-Neutralizing Antibodies Can Confer Protection to SARS-CoV-2. Front Immunol. 2022;12. Accessed January 18, 2022. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2021.808932.
Oh by the way, watch this! https://www.redvoicemedia.com/2022/07/original-antigenic-sin-the-highly-jabbed-are-breeding-variants-and-perpetuating-an-endless-pandemic-video/ref/6/
Boosters may be useless immunologically, but that was never their purpose; they are very useful for boosting Pfizer's profits and for birth control and removing useless biscuit eaters from the planet.