The many side effects of the Covid 'vaccine'

[Gwin Ru]

...

... from Jim Stone:

An Italian group tried to get the facts on the Corona vax and discovered that all of the Western vaccines are protected by military intelligence secrecy laws when information about them should be open public access.

To sum it up, a high level group in Italy that had really good backing requested all of the safety documents regarding several different corona shots and that group was told that the documents and studies with regard to safety were a high level military intelligence secret, being held from the public to avoid civil uprising.

Here is a crude translation:

Vaccine, "the security report covered by military secrecy": shock in Italy, what they hide from us

On paper it is written that pharmaceutical companies are obliged to periodically submit reports on the safety of the anti-covid vaccines they produce. There is a determination of Aifa, the national pharmaceutical agency, to establish it. And it was also published in the Official Journal. Too bad these reports on the Pfizer-Biontech, Moderna, Astrazeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines they seem to be a state secret: to date, the two associations of social promotion Idu (human rights instance, of Novara) and Dus (Human rights and health, of Rome) that had requested them have been answered with nothing. Enzo Iapichino, one of the lawyers of the associations that requested access to the documents and then found themselves forced to file a complaint with the Public Prosecutor's Office of Rome against Aifa, the Ministry of Health, the Technical-Scientific Committee, the Higher Institute of Health indicating various hypotheses of crime, from the omission of official acts to the false ideological.

As Iapichino tells Natascia Ronchetti, they have been trying to read those reports since November. The director general of AIFA, "Nicola Magrini replied that the reports on the safety of vaccines are confidential, they are owned by pharmaceutical companies", reveals the lawyer. "Especially that Aifa does not hold the required documentation. Magrini wrote to us to contact Ema, the agency European drug". Which they did, but even there nothing to do. "Ema denied us. Giving three reasons.

First, reports cannot be disclosed so as not to prejudice the decision-making process on unconditional authorization.

Secondly, they fall within the exceptions of their regulations, which relate to public order and military secrecy.

Thirdly, the interest in not affecting the final decision, which concerns precisely the authorisation, prevails over the public interest.

Absurd.

Because in Italy we have entire categories obliged to get vaccinated".

Then there was the Ministry of Health, again Aifa, but to date still no trace of the reports. The Iapichino's conclusion is "that there is a lack of transparency on the part of the institutions. If we talk about vaccine safety reports at this point we assume that they do not have them. If we talk about scientific studies, we assume that they have them. So why don't they make them available?"

So there you have it. A vax that is so "safe and effective" that what it does to people is now a military intelligence secret

[onawah]

I had a very unsettling experience recently of seeing someone who previously seemed to be quite a pleasant, helpful, rather shy but friendly person, transform into someone with a psychotic personality.
(Or maybe he's got multiple personalities, but I suspect it's from the jabs, and I know he's had at least one.)
He's a driver for the public transporation vans in my town which I use fairly often, so I've had encounters and conversations with him frequently.
I'm usually the only passenger, and so we have conversed along the way to getting my errands done.
He was always helpful beyond the call of duty, and went out of his way to see that I was comfortable and at ease.
This last time, he was like a completly different person, and it was very scary.
Like seeing Jekyll transform into Hyde.
Who knew that R. L. Stevenson's novel would be so prophetic?

[waves]

Posted by onawah (here)
I had a very unsettling experince recently of seeing someone who previously seemed to be quite a pleasant, helpful, rather shy but friendly person transform into someone with a psychotic personality.
(Or maybe he's got multiple personalities, but I suspect it's from the jabs, and I know he's had at least one.)
He's a driver for the public transporation vans in my town which I use fairly often, so I've had encounters and conversations with him frequently.
I'm usually the only passenger, and so we have conversed along the way to getting my errands done.
He was always helpful beyond the call of duty, and went out of his way to see that I was comfortable and at ease.
This last time, he was like a completly different person, and it was very scary.
Like seeing Jekyll transform into Hyde.
Who knew that R. L. Stevenson's novel would be so prophetic?

That's very curious, and I already know I don't have to ask if you are just mistaking someone's unusual bad day, you see something else. Can you put into words more specifically what he said or did so 'Hyde-like'/different than his normal? The signs could be very worth us all taking note. Have you already/or do you think you could casually chit chat into asking him if he's jabbed/how long ago? I'd also be curious over time if you notice that it's a permanent change, flips or goes away. Thanks for reporting.

[onawah]

It wasn't anything that he said, because the last time I encountered him, he was uncharacteristically silent during the whole journey.
It was just at the end of the trip, when we had arrived back at my home, he exited the van and stood there just outside his door, grinning at me, before I picked up my shopping bags and carried them up the stairs to my porch.
Which was also uncharacteristic, since he had always before grabbed the bags and taken them up the steps for me before I had a chance to take any up myself.
This time he just stood there watching me struggle (I'm on crutches) and smiling broadly and evilly, with an extremely chilling expression in his eyes.
If I didn't know it was the same guy, I would have thought it was some imposter.
His aura and everything about his demeanor was completely different, and opposite to what he had presented as before.
I know only that he said he was finally jabbed about a year ago for the first time.
If he's had boosters since then I don't know, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me, as I've read that the boosters are much more dangerous.

Posted by waves (here)

Posted by onawah (here)
I had a very unsettling experince recently of seeing someone who previously seemed to be quite a pleasant, helpful, rather shy but friendly person transform into someone with a psychotic personality.
(Or maybe he's got multiple personalities, but I suspect it's from the jabs, and I know he's had at least one.)
He's a driver for the public transporation vans in my town which I use fairly often, so I've had encounters and conversations with him frequently.
I'm usually the only passenger, and so we have conversed along the way to getting my errands done.
He was always helpful beyond the call of duty, and went out of his way to see that I was comfortable and at ease.
This last time, he was like a completly different person, and it was very scary.
Like seeing Jekyll transform into Hyde.
Who knew that R. L. Stevenson's novel would be so prophetic?

That's very curious, and I already know I don't have to ask if you are just mistaking someone's unusual bad day, you see something else. Can you put into words more specifically what he said or did so 'Hyde-like'/different than his normal? The signs could be very worth us all taking note. Have you already/or do you think you could casually chit chat into asking him if he's jabbed/how long ago? I'd also be curious over time if you notice that it's a permanent change, flips or goes away. Thanks for reporting.

[Spiral]

Some very disturbing developments as to what these experimental "treatments" are & what they do, or could do .....

Nanowires are being used for the hybridization of humans. Pharmaceutical companies and world governments are attempting to grow artificial tissue inside humans, using organic matter from cross-species genomics. They appear to be trying to merge humans with electronic devices for internal tracking and remote control.

https://ambassadorlove.wordpress.com...ots-explained/

[onawah]

Sudden Adult Death Syndrome--The Latest Tragedy
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
June 20, 2022
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...rid=1525503637

"STORY AT-A-GLANCE
In recent weeks, media outlets around the world have started highlighting a medical phenomenon called “sudden adult death syndrome,” or SADS, in what appears to be a clear effort to obscure the reality of COVID jab deaths. Sad on steroids indeed
Underlying factors for SADS include undiagnosed myocarditis, inflammatory conditions and other conditions that cause irregularities in the electrical system of the heart, thereby triggering cardiac arrest
While SADS has been known to occur previously, what’s new is the prevalence of this previously rare event. In Australia, the Melbourne Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute is setting up a new SADS registry “to gain more information” about the phenomenon
Data compiled by the International Olympic Committee show 1,101 sudden deaths in athletes under age 35 between 1966 and 2004, giving us an average annual rate of 29, across all sports. Meanwhile, between March 2021 and March 2022 alone — a single year — at least 769 athletes have suffered cardiac arrest, collapse, and/or have died on the field, worldwide
Among EU FIFA (football/soccer ball) athletes, sudden death increased by 420% in 2021. Historically, about five soccer players have died while playing the game each year. Between January and mid-November 2021, 21 FIFA players died from sudden death

In recent weeks, media outlets around the world have started highlighting a medical phenomenon called “sudden adult death syndrome,” or SADS, in what appears to be a clear effort to obscure the reality of COVID jab deaths.

SADS is also short for “sudden arrhythmic death syndrome,”1 which was first identified in 1977. Underlying factors for SADS (both the sudden adult death and sudden arrhythmic versions) include undiagnosed myocarditis, inflammatory conditions and other conditions that cause irregularities in the electrical system of the heart, thereby triggering cardiac arrest.2,3,4 While SADS has been known to occur before, what’s new is the prevalence of this previously rare event.

Historical Prevalence of SADS
According to the British Heart Association, there are about 500 cases of SADS in the U.K. each year.5 The British Office for National Statistics, on the other hand, show far fewer cases.6 The ONS lists a total of 128 cases of SADS (all age groups, whether listed as cardiac-related or unknown) in 2016, 77 cases in 2017, 70 in 2018, 107 in 2019 and 139 cases in 2020.

While data on SADS incidence for 2021 and 2022 are hard to come by, incidence has apparently risen sufficiently enough to cause concern in some countries. Before the pandemic, SADS was the acronym for sudden arrhythmia death syndrome, which was rare and with scant research on it except to mention that it accounted for about 30% of unexpected cardiac deaths among young people.7

But today, it’s no longer rare and SADS is virtually on steroids as the numbers of sudden deaths in young adults pile up around the world. The numbers are so concerning that in Australia, for example, the Melbourne Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute is setting up a new SADS registry “to gain more information” about the phenomenon.8,9

According to a spokesperson, there are approximately 750 SADS cases per year in Australia. In the U.S., the average annual death toll from SADS is said to be around 4,000.10

Since the rollout of the COVID jabs, the news has been chockful of reports of young, healthy and often athletic people dying “for no reason” and doctors claim to be “baffled” by it. Doctors and scientists in Australia are even urging everyone under the age of 40 to get their hearts checked, even if they’re healthy and fit.11

Any thinking person, on the other hand, can clearly see the correlation between the shots, which are now well-known for their ability to cause heart inflammation, and the rise in sudden death among young and healthy people.

Hundreds of Athletes Have Collapsed and Died Post-Jab
Among athletes, sudden death incidence has historically ranged between 1 in 40,000 and 1 in 80,000.12 An analysis13 of deaths among competitive athletes between 1980 and 2006 in the U.S. identified a total of 1,866 cases where an athlete either collapsed from cardiac arrest and/or died suddenly. That’s 1,866 cases occurring over a span of 27 years, giving us an annual average of 69 in the U.S.

Data14 compiled by the International Olympic Committee show 1,101 sudden deaths in athletes under age 35 between 1966 and 2004, giving us an average annual rate of 29 sudden deaths, across all sports. Meanwhile, between March 2021 and March 2022 alone — a single year — at least 769 athletes have suffered cardiac arrest, collapse, and/or have died on the field, worldwide.15

Among EU FIFA (football/soccer ball) athletes, sudden death increased by 420% in 2021.
Good Sciencing, which is keeping a running total of athletic deaths post-jab puts the current number of cardiac arrests at 1,090 and total deaths at 715.16 Several dozen more are pending confirmation that the athlete had in fact received the shot.

Among EU FIFA (football/soccer ball) athletes, sudden death increased by 420% in 2021.17 Historically, about five soccer players have died while playing the game each year. Between January and mid-November 2021, 21 FIFA players died from sudden death.

COVID Jab Clearly Associated With Heart Injury
An opinion piece in Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, published in April 2022, highlights the correlation between COVID jab-induced heart inflammation and sudden cardiac death in athletes:18

“Increased COVID-related SCD [sudden cardiac death] appears to be due, at least in part, to a recent history of infection and/or vaccination that induces inflammatory and immune impairment that injures the heart.

An unhealthy lifestyle that may include poor diet or overtraining may likely be a contributing factor. The seeming increased incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis during COVID-19 and in the post-vaccination period, and SCD, poses a serious risk to not only athletes but all others and is a cause for alarm.

As the population ages and the popularity of running, cycling, and other endurance sports increases, the burden of SCD risk can potentially grow as well. A strong focus on both health and fitness should be a loud and clear public health message.”

The Signal That Cannot Be Silenced
In a June 13, 2022, Substack article, Dr. Pierre Kory also commented on this latest effort to explain away COVID jab deaths:19

“I recently posted a deeply referenced compilation20 of evidence detailing the historic humanitarian catastrophe that has slowly unfolded within most advanced health economies across the world. Caused by a global mass vaccination campaign led by the Pharma masters of BMGF/WHO/CDC that illogically (but profitably) targeted a rapidly mutating coronavirus.

They did it with what turned out to be the most toxic protein used therapeutically in the history of medicine. In vials mixed with lipid nano-particles, polyethylene glycol and who knows what else.

I cited studies and reports showing massive increases in cardiovascular deaths and neurologic (and other) disabilities amongst working age adults, beginning in 2021 only.

A disturbing signal screaming from the original clinical trials data,21 VAERS data,22 life insurance data,23 disability data,24 reports of cardiac arrests of professional athletes,25 rises in ambulance calls for cardiac arrests in pre-heart attack age young people,26 and the massive increases in illnesses and data manipulations27 in Department of Defense databases.

As these events become more and more recognized by the average citizen (and occasional journalist), a new pathetic ‘Disinformation Campaign’ was launched in response trying to blame all the young people dying as simply a need for increased awareness of the rare condition called Sudden Adult Death Syndrome (SADS), rather than examples of the legions dying from the vaccines.

The fact checkers also came out in support of this narrative, branding anyone who thinks the vaccines are the cause of SADS as a conspiracy theorist ...

What is nauseating is the tone of purported good intention within these articles, informing folks that if you are related to someone young who died suddenly you should go see a cardiologist to make sure you don’t have an abnormal EKG.

After it turns out normal, they will assuredly tell you to get vaccinated, an absurdity atop a mountain of absurdities caused by our bio-medical-media industrial complex over the past 2+ years.”

Diseases ‘Suppressed by COVID’ Make Comebacks
Media are also trying to write off increases of other diseases as something other than COVID jab-related. “Diseases Suppressed During COVID Are Coming Back in New and Peculiar Ways,” CNBC reported June 10, 2022.28

The article goes on to discuss how viruses other than SARS-CoV-2 are now “rearing their heads in new and unusual ways.” Influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), adenovirus, tuberculosis and monkeypox have all “spiked and exhibited strange behaviors in recent months,” CNBC notes.

No mention is made, however, of the fact that the COVID jab has been linked to vaccine-acquired immunodeficiency (lowered immune function), rendering you more susceptible to infections and chronic diseases of all kinds, including autoimmune diseases.29 MIT research scientist Stephanie Seneff explains the mechanisms for this in “COVID Vaccines and Neurodegenerative Disease.”

The COVID jab has also been shown to activate latent viruses, including hepatitis C,30 cytomegalovirus,31 varicella-zoster32 and herpes viruses.33 Not surprisingly, Moderna is now working on a new vaccine for “latent cytomegalovirus prevention.”34

This is yet another case of a drug company creating a “remedy” against a health problem their own product was responsible for creating in the first place. CNBC, meanwhile, cites “health experts” who attribute lowered immunity to COVID lockdowns, mask wearing and missed childhood vaccinations.35

Amputations of arms, legs, fingers and toes — consequences of post-jab blood clots — are also being written off as something else.36 In this case, media are blaming it on high cholesterol,37 totally ignoring the fact that high cholesterol has been prevalent for decades, and only now are people losing their extremities in shocking numbers.

Spikes in blood clots and strokes, meanwhile, are being blamed on smoking, pregnancy and contraceptives,38 even though blood clots and strokes are among the most common side effects of the COVID jab. Most ridiculous of all, however, is the claim that a “newly-discovered, highly reactive” chemical in the earth’s atmosphere is suspected of triggering heart disease.39

To anyone with half a brain, it’s clear that government authorities and media are doing everything they can to shift blame away from what is the most obvious culprit, namely the COVID shots.

All the diseases and conditions they’re now blaming on everything from cholesterol to mysterious atmospheric chemicals are known side effects of the jab. The elephant in the room is so gigantic, you can’t even get around it anymore. It’s pressing us against the walls.

Nursing Reports From the Frontlines
In his June 13, 2022, Substack article,40 Kory also shares insider information from a senior ICU and ER nurse who suffered blood clotting injuries, spontaneous unstoppable bleeding and cervical lymph node enlargement following her second Pfizer dose.

She filed a report with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which has since vanished. The batch numbers for the shots she received were associated with bad neurological responses and clotting. She also lost her hematologist-oncologist to vaccine injury.

While only in his early 40s, he’s now too injured to practice. “He was a ‘true believer’ and in denial until it was him who was the injured patient,” she told Kory.

The major cancer hospital where she works now have caseloads “in the thousands,” she says, whereas before the average caseload was between 250 and 400 in any given quarter. They don’t even have enough beds or infusion space to treat them all, and radiation treatments are backlogged.

All kinds of cancers are showing up — brain, lymph, stomach, pancreas, blood and even EYE cancers, “especially in younger people recently vaxxed.” Strokes are also “way up” in people with no risk factors or comorbidities. In an email to Kory, she wrote:41

“Ask me anything. I'll tell you inside scoop from the floors and suites. This has to stop. They need to admit the fraud and crime and STOP. The liability must be lifted, mandates ended. They KNOW NOW and many KNEW THEN.

Don't know if you'll even read this, but I follow all of you on substack and Twitter — those not banned yet! — and read ALL the data. I've been a lab rat myself from an issue from a car accident years back — I know the process. So much fraud.”

In a follow-up email, the unnamed nurse continued:

“Lost 4 practitioners to serious side effects of ‘strongly encouraged’ boosters. 2 hospitalized, one in MICU ... All in early 30s to mid-40s. They had no need for boosters ... All had COVID previous, N antibodies fully measurable.”

Cardiac Anomalies Abound
Her colleagues in the cardiac unit also report “many anomalies ... that never existed before,” including massive thrombi that fill the entire artery. Some embalmers have documented this never-before-seen phenomenon.42 They also can barely keep up with the unprecedented number of cardiac arrests. Kory writes:43

“She told me ... that on some night shifts, nurse teams are seeing more cardiac arrests in a single shift than ever before and in unprecedented younger age patients.

On some shifts, they have had so many that the ‘crash carts’ are rolled straight from one arrest to another because pharmacy, especially on night shifts, are not able to re-stock fast enough. This situation has happened maybe once in my whole career, when two arrests happened on the same floor or unit within a short time period.”

And, while medical staff still are not speaking out publicly, the reality of the situation appears to be dawning inside the hospital walls, in private conversations between staff. Even there, however, nurses speak in code for fear of reprisal, referring to COVID jab injuries only as “that issue.”

The nurse pointed out that, now, the vaccination status is clearly marked at the top of the first screen of the patient’s medical record when the shot is suspected or known to be related to the patient’s “mysterious” or “complex” problem. Perhaps this is a sign that the dissociation from reality may be slowly breaking. I sure hope so."

Sources and References
1, 5 BHF.org.uk SADS
2 Cleveland Clinic Sudden Cardiac Arrest
3 BMJ Heart 2006;92:316-320
4 Heart May 2007; 93(5): 547-548
6 ONS.gov.uk SADS 2016-2020
7 Hong Kong Medical Journal 2019
8, 10 Euro News Weekly June 8, 2022
9, 11 Daily Mail Australia June 8, 2022
12 Methodist Debakey Cardiovasclar Journal April-June 2016; 12(2): 76-80
13 Circulation February 16, 2009; 119: 1085-1092
14 European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation December 2006; 13(6): 859-875
15 OAN April 10, 2022
16, 25 Good Sciencing Athlete Deaths
17 Americas Frontline Doctors November 18, 2021
18 Frontiers in Sports and Active Living April 12, 2022
19, 40, 41, 43 Pierre Kory’s Medical Musings Substack June 13, 2022
20 Pierre Kory’s Medical Musings Substack June 6, 2022
21 Trends in Internal Medicine 2021; 1(1): 1-6
22 Science, Public Health Policy and the Law October 2021; 3: 100-129
23 Center Square January 1, 2022
24 FRED Population with Disability
26 Scientific Reports 2022; 12 Article Number 6978
27 The Blaze January 26, 2022
28, 35 CNBC June 10, 2022
29 Clinical Immunology May 2021; 226: 108721
30 Int Med Case Rep J. 2021; 14: 573-576
31 Front. Immunol. January 18, 2022
32 SAGE Open Medical Case Reports February 26, 2022
33 J Med Virol September 2021; 93(9): 5231-5232
34 Contagion Live May 12, 2022
36 The COVID Blog June 10, 2022
37 The US Sun May 22, 2022
38 New York Post May 31, 2022
39 Daily Mail May 27, 2022
42 Steve Kirsch Substack February 12, 2022

[Mike Gorman]

SADS, yes they are promoting this as being a normal part of our lives - completely poker faced, no critical evaluation is provided.
One of the truly brave, principled personalities I have noticed in all of this has been Matt Letissier the amazingly talented soccer player of the U.K,
he was recently sacked from his very successful career for Sky Sports as a commentator/analyst. I know there are many brave, principled people out there, but Matt
is a very mainstream bloke, someone who would influence many viewers because of his stature and merit-based position in sporting culture. Matt deserves our support,
luckily his career has not suffered unduly, he is able to make a good living still; so many have lost their means of income, truly tragic.

[DaveToo]

Posted by Mike Gorman (here)
SADS, yes they are promoting this as being a normal part of our lives - completely poker faced, no critical evaluation is provided.
One of the truly brave, principled personalities I have noticed in all of this has been Matt Letissier the amazingly talented soccer player of the U.K,
he was recently sacked from his very successful career for Sky Sports as a commentator/analyst. I know there are many brave, principled people out there, but Matt
is a very mainstream bloke, someone who would influence many viewers because of his stature and merit-based position in sporting culture. Matt deserves our support,
luckily his career has not suffered unduly, he is able to make a good living still; so many have lost their means of income, truly tragic.

They might just as well call it ABVS.

Anything But the Vaccine Syndrome.

"Oh I see you are suffering from ABVS, poor soul."

[onawah]

‘Original Antigenic Sin’ Is a Real Problem with COVID-19 Vaccines
by Jeremy R. Hammond
Jun 22, 2022
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/..._ehlGa-Z0vaxX8

(I have no talent for understanding detailed medical papers like this one, but it seems like an important work, showing how and why natural immunity works, while vaccines don't. Many hyper links embedded in the article not shown here in the copy.)

"Studies have now confirmed that “original antigenic sin”, or a detrimental fixation on a suboptimal immune response, is a real problem for people who’ve gotten COVID-19 vaccines.
Contents
1 Introduction
2 Scientists Have Known about “Original Antigenic Sin” for Over Half a Century
3 The Role of Pre-Existing Immunity to Common Cold Coronaviruses
4 The Accumulating Evidence of “Original Antigenic Sin” with COVID‑19 Vaccines
5 The Cognitive Dissonance of the “Public Health” Establishment
6 Original Antigenic Sin Helps Explain Negative COVID‑19 Vaccine Effectiveness
7 Conclusion
8 References

There is a phenomenon in immunology known as “original antigenic sin” that studies have now confirmed to be a real problem with COVID‑19 vaccines.

In brief, what can happen is that an initial viral infection or vaccination can result in an individual’s immune system becoming fixated on generating responses to the original antigen even during subsequent infection with different strains characterized by different epitopes, or molecular structures capable of being recognized and responded to by the immune system. Thus, the immune response to a new strain can result in an inferior immune response in immunologically experienced people relative to the immune response induced by the new strain in immunologically naïve individuals.

Other terms that are sometimes used to describe this phenomenon include “viral interference”, “immune interference”, “antigenic fixation”, and “immune imprinting”.

Of course, the imprinting of an immune response to a virus is not in itself a bad thing. On the contrary, the induction of immunological “memory” to a virus is what provides long-term protection. It is only when a previously primed immune system fails to adequately adapt its responses to a newly infecting strain that the effect can be detrimental.

It is also not necessarily a question of whether original antigenic sin occurs or not; the more relevant question might be to what degree it occurs. For example, it has been observed with both natural immunity to influenza and with flu shots, but since infection induces a broader repertoire of immune responses than vaccination, natural immunity still represents an opportunity cost of vaccination.

In other words, priming the immune system by vaccination comes at the cost of the lost opportunity to prime the immune system by infection, resulting in a fixation of the immune response to subsequent infections with mutated strains that is suboptimal relative to superior natural immunity.

In fact, original antigenic sin has been hypothesized as a mechanism that could explain observations of an increased risk of illness due to the 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) virus, also known as the “swine flu”, among individuals who received the seasonal flu shot.[1]

Policymakers eager to get jabs into arms perpetually fail to consider natural immunity as an opportunity cost of vaccination. I have long been warning that if original antigenic sin turns out to be a problem with COVID‑19 vaccines, the policy aim of achieving a high vaccination rate could result in a prolonging of the pandemic and worsening of mortality outcomes in the long run.[2]

For instance, three months before the first COVID‑19 vaccine received emergency use authorization from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the UN published a written statement to the UN Human Rights Council that I authored on behalf of the non-governmental organization Planetary Association for Clean Energy, Inc. (PACE). Published on September 14, 2020, as General Assembly document A/HRC/45/NGO/43, the document included the following warning about the potential risks of forcing COVID‑19 vaccines on the population:

There are many legitimate concerns about vaccines in addition to their non-specific effects. Policymakers do not consider the opportunity costs of vaccination, such as the superiority of immunity acquired naturally compared to that conferred by vaccination.For example, studies have found that having a flu shot annually could increase the risk of infection with novel influenza strains, as well as with non-influenza viruses, in part due to the lost opportunity to acquire the cross-protective, cell-mediated immunity conferred by infection.

A complementary hypothesis is the phenomenon of “original antigenic sin”, whereby the first experience of the immune system with an antigen determines future responses. Priming the immune system with antigen components of the influenza vaccine could potentially cause a mismatched antibody response to strains that the vaccine is not designed to protect against, thereby increasing the risk of infection as compared to an immune response in which naive T and B cells are instructed to fight off the infecting virus.

This phenomenon might help explain an increased risk of serious dengue infection among Filipino children who received the dengue vaccine and who had not already experienced a prior infection. This finding led the Philippines to the withdrawal of the vaccine, which the government had implemented into its childhood schedule upon the recommendation of WHO, despite earlier data having indicated that the vaccine might cause precisely that outcome.[3]

Unsurprisingly, the phenomenon of original antigenic sin has received scant attention in the mainstream media, which generally do policy advocacy rather than journalism when it comes to the topic of vaccines.

A rare early exception was an article in The Conversation on March 8, 2021, written by Matthew Woodruff, an instructor at the Lowance Center for Human Immunology at Emory University whose research is funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The current COVID‑19 vaccines are designed to elicit an immune response to the spike protein of the original Wuhan strain of SARS‑CoV‑2 (the coronavirus that causes COVID‑19), which is no longer circulating. Woodruff anticipated that attempts to update the vaccines to generate antibodies specific to newer variants of SARS‑CoV‑2 might fail due to original antigenic sin.[4]

Woodruff’s cautionary remarks, like my own, have proven prescient.

Indeed, it has been demonstrated that a booster dose of an mRNA vaccine modified to express the spike protein of the Beta variant still results in generation of neutralizing antibodies more specific to the original Wuhan strain than to the Beta variant. As the authors of a study published in the journal Cell on January 24, 2022, pointed out, this suggests that “some degree of immune imprinting, or preferential responses to the viral variants initially encountered by the immune system, may affect the development of antibodies against new viral variants.”[5]

Similarly, a study comparing the antibody response in macaques from either the Moderna mRNA COVID‑19 vaccine or an updated vaccine designed to induce antibodies specific to the Omicron variant of SARS‑CoV‑2 found no protective advantage of the Omicron-matched vaccine compared to the vaccine designed to induce antibodies to the ancestral Wuhan strain, which is now extinct outside of laboratories.[6]

These findings help to explain why, despite the acknowledgment that the vaccines are much less effective against Omicron, and despite early promises from “public health” officials that the mRNA vaccines could be easily updated to match new variants, there remains no Omicron-specific vaccine.

Since very early into the mass vaccination campaign, there were indications in the scientific literature that original antigenic sin would turn out to be a major obstacle for policymakers intent on getting the population to accept COVID‑19 vaccines. Several recent studies have now confirmed that this is a real problem, with startling implications for the long-term protection of vaccinated individuals.

Scientists Have Known about “Original Antigenic Sin” for Over Half a Century
The first mention of “original antigenic sin” in the medical literature, to my knowledge, was in a paper discussing immunity to influenza titled “On the Doctrine of Original Antigenic Sin”, which was published in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society in 1960. The paper provides a helpful explanation of the phenomenon that is worth reviewing.

First, it is important to understand that an “antigen” is a substance that induces an immune response, and an “antibody” is “a serum protein whose production is stimulated by antigen.” With that understood, the paper observed:

The antibody of childhood is largely a response to the dominant antigen of the virus causing the first Type A influenza infection of the lifetime. As the group grows older and subsequent infections take place, antibodies to additional families of the virus are acquired. But the striking feature is that the antibody which is first established continues to characterize that cohort of the population throughout its life. The antibody forming mechanisms have been highly conditioned by the first stimulus, so that later infections with strains of the same type successively enhance the original antibody to maintain it at the highest level at all times in that age group. The imprint established by the original virus infection governs the antibody response thereafter. This we have called the doctrine of original antigenic sin.

The effect is attributed not merely to continuation of initial antibody levels but to repeated stimulation by persistence of the first dominant antigen as a lesser or secondary component of later Type A strains.[7]

It stands to reason also that the effect may be exacerbated by repeated stimulation from vaccination. If an individual’s first antigenic exposure was either infection with the ancestral strain of SARS‑CoV‑2 or a COVID‑19 vaccine designed to induce antibodies specific to the spike protein of the ancestral strain, and then if the person experiences repeated immunological stimulation with subsequent doses of the vaccine, the anticipated effect would be to more strongly fixate the immune response on the ancestral strain at the opportunity cost of generating a more appropriate immune response to subsequently circulating variants, such as the now-predominant Omicron variants.

The relevant data available to date are consistent with this hypothesis.

The Role of Pre-Existing Immunity to Common Cold Coronaviruses
One observation made early during the COVID‑19 pandemic was that immune responses induced by prior infection with common human coronaviruses that are a cause of the common cold are cross-reactive with SARS‑CoV‑2. An enlightening study published in Nature in November 2021 found that certain individuals who never developed symptoms and never generated a detectable antibody response to SARS‑CoV‑2 nevertheless experienced an “abortive” infection wherein pre-existing T cells induced by prior infection with common cold coronaviruses cross-reacted with SARS‑CoV‑2 and appeared to be sufficient to limit and clear the infection.[8]

Pre-existing immunity from common colds has also been proposed as one of the reasons why children are at such low risk from SARS‑CoV‑2 infection, whereas pre-existing immune responses might contribute to severe disease in the context of “a dysregulated immune response”, as observed more often in elderly people.[9]

Consistent with this idea, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in September 2021 found cases of severe COVID‑19 to be associated with a boost in pre-existing cross-reactive antibodies that poorly neutralized SARS‑CoV‑2.[10]

A study published in Cell Host & Microbe in December 2021 observed that most people have pre-existing antibodies from prior common coronavirus infections and that antibody responses to SARS‑CoV‑2 infection and COVID‑19 vaccination are consistent with a cross-reactive memory response, which could either be beneficial or detrimental.

As noted by the authors, “Imprinting can hinder immunity to a novel virus if pre-existing antibodies against conserved epitopes dominate the immune response but do not neutralize the novel virus.” The pre-existing memory B cells, which are involved in the production of antibodies, “can outcompete B cells specific for novel epitopes and hinder immunity to the novel virus.”

Pre-existing immunity from common colds has also been proposed as one of the reasons why children are at such low risk from SARS‑CoV‑2 infection.
Children tend to be more exposed to common cold coronaviruses than adults, but the immune response of children is biased toward production of IgM antibodies and consistent with “a more adaptable repertoire, which may explain why younger individuals exhibit less disease severity than older individuals.”

Relevantly, the authors noted that cross-reactive antibody responses “showed strikingly distinct patterns in infected versus vaccinated individuals”, and since “the vaccine does not induce a robust IgM response in most individuals, it is currently not known whether IgM antibody levels after vaccination impact vaccine efficacy.”[11]

As noted in a commentary reviewing that study’s findings in JAMA (the primary journal of the American Medical Association), “it will be important to test whether immunity to the vaccine strain negatively influences protection from variants like Omicron that are substantially different.”[12]

The Accumulating Evidence of “Original Antigenic Sin” with COVID‑19 Vaccines
The phenomenon of original antigenic sin has relevance for serological testing intended to determine the prevalence of SARS‑CoV‑2 infection in the population. Because the vaccines are designed to provoke an immune response only to the spike (S) protein of the ancestral strain of SARS‑CoV‑2, the scientific community has turned to antibody tests designed to detect antibodies to the nucleocapsid (N) protein in order to determine whether an individual has experienced a prior infection with the virus.

This is a fairly reliable method of determining whether unvaccinated individuals have previously been infected with SARS‑CoV‑2 since most people who survive infection do produce anti‑N as well as anti‑S antibodies (although the former antibodies tend to wane faster than the latter to undetectable levels, resulting in underestimation of prevalence).

However, anti‑N assays have proven to be unreliable when it comes to determining prior infection in vaccinated individuals.

One of the earliest observations of this problem was a letter to the editor published in the Journal of Infection on August 9, 2021, in which researchers from Ireland observed that individuals who had experienced “breakthrough” infection after vaccination appeared to have an impaired ability to generate anti‑N antibodies.

The letter authors reported their finding that only 26 percent of vaccinated individuals had detectable anti‑N antibodies compared to 82 percent of individuals with naturally acquired immunity. They suggested that this might be explained by early virus neutralization at the mucosal surface of the respiratory tract playing a key role in generation of anti‑N antibodies, which was a reasonable hypothesis since the COVID‑19 vaccines were not designed to induce mucosal immunity.[13]

This design limitation was usefully explained in a review of COVID‑19 vaccines then under development published in Nature on September 23, 2020, three months before the FDA’s first emergency use authorization. As the review author observed:

[I]t is important to note that natural infection induces both mucosal antibody responses (secretary immunoglobulin A (IgA)) and systemic antibody responses (IgG). The upper respiratory tract is thought to be mainly protected by secretory IgA, whereas the lower respiratory tract is thought to be mainly protected by IgG. Vaccines that are administered intramuscularly or intradermally induce mainly IgG, and no secretory IgA. It is therefore possible that most vaccines currently in development induce disease-preventing or disease-attenuating immunity, but not necessarily sterilizing immunity.[14]

In other words, the vaccines might be expected to moderate disease symptoms but would not be expected to prevent infection and transmission of the virus.

(“Sterilizing” immunity refers to protection against infection due to antibodies effectively neutralizing the virus before it has a chance to enter and replicate inside of host cells. Once the virus has gained access to the cells, the immune system has other mechanisms of limiting and clearing the infection.)

This expected inability to prevent infection and transmission, of course, has proven to be the case, with “public health” officials having acknowledged even before the emergence of the Omicron variant that the sterilizing immunity induced by the vaccines is short-lived.

“It is therefore possible that most vaccines currently in development induce disease-preventing or disease-attenuating immunity, but not necessarily sterilizing immunity.”
On October 26, 2021, a study by researchers from Public Health England was published on the preprint server medRxiv similarly finding a lower rate of seroconversion of anti-nucleocapsid antibodies among vaccinated individuals, suggesting that the use of anti‑N assays in seroprevalence studies was “likely to underestimate the proportion of the population who have experienced COVID‑19 in the highly-vaccinated UK population, particularly following the Alpha-variant wave or in younger populations who often experience mild infections, as well as due to waning.”[15]

In addition to a blunted antibody response against the nucleocapsid protein, people whose immune systems are primed by vaccination appear to have impaired cellular immunity relative to those with natural immunity.

A study by researchers in Norway published at medRxiv on January 13 of this year observed that vaccinated people with breakthrough infection produced a lower level of T cells specific to the virus’s membrane and nucleocapsid proteins than seen in people with naturally acquired immunity.

“The importance of T cells”, the authors emphasized, “has been underlined in previous reports as T cells are necessary for rapid and efficient resolution of COVID‑19, for protection against severe COVID‑19 in settings of low antibody levels, and for rapid viral control in the absence of antibodies—aborting infection in healthy individuals.”

In addition to a blunted antibody response against the nucleocapsid protein, people whose immune systems are primed by vaccination appear to have impaired cellular immunity relative to those with natural immunity.
In addition to the reduced ability to generate T cells against the virus, the authors observed a “relative lack of neutralizing antibodies” in Omicron breakthrough infections. It remained unknown, they pointed out, whether immune systems primed by vaccination and then challenged with Omicron would be able to adapt the antibody response to be more specific to this variant.[16]

While a breakthrough infection boosts the immune response to SARS‑CoV‑2 in vaccinated people, as would be expected with an increased number of antigenic exposures, the ability of boosted antibodies to neutralize the virus was only “moderate”, as described by the authors of a study published in Cell on January 19.[17]

Further evidence that antigenic sin might prove to be a problem with vaccination was provided by the aforementioned study published in Cell on January 24, which noted that immune imprinting appeared to be an obstacle to developing variant-specific COVID‑19 vaccines.

The authors noted that while, in immunologically naïve individuals, infection with a SARS‑CoV‑2 variant “elicits variant-specific antibodies”, “prior mRNA vaccination imprints serological responses toward” the original Wuhan strain of the virus “rather than variant antigens.”

Vaccination also generates an immune response biased toward production of IgG antibodies, with comparatively “weak IgM and IgA responses” toward the spike protein. “Unlike infection,” the authors commented, “which stimulates robust but short-lived IgM and IgA responses, vaccination shows a pronounced bias for IgG production even at early time points.”

“Correlates of immunological protection from SARS‑CoV‑2 infection following vaccination or prior infection are still under investigation”, the authors further noted. While they didn’t explicitly say so, this means that just because vaccinated people generate a high level of IgG antibodies that bind to the spike protein of variants—even higher than observed in naturally immune people—does not necessarily mean that vaccinated people have greater protection.[18]

(In fact, a consistent observation in the literature is that a higher level of IgG antibodies is associated with more severe COVID-19, which association exists independently from age, whereas people whose immune systems are highly effective at fighting the virus tend to produce a comparatively low level of antibodies.[19])

Additionally, with natural immunity, the binding of IgG antibodies to the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein of variants, which is the specific part of the protein that enables the virus to enter human cells, was observed to improve over time relative to binding to the ancestral strain, “suggesting evolution of the antibody response through at least 7 weeks post-onset of symptoms”; whereas variant binding ratios in vaccinated people “did not change from day 21 onward.” There was “improvement in variant recognitions over time in the infected patients”, but not so much in vaccinated people.

The study went further, testing the hypothesis that original antigenic sin occurs with vaccination:

To test whether prior exposure to one SARS‑CoV‑2 RBD variant causes imprinting of humoral immunity, we analyzed plasma from individuals vaccinated with Wuhan-Hu-1 [ancestral strain] antigens and subsequently infected with Alpha or Delta variants. Despite breakthrough infection with Alpha or Delta viral variants, the vaccinated individuals showed patterns of IgG binding to viral variant RBDs similar to those of individuals exposed to only Wuhan-Hu-1.

In other words, the study findings suggest that while the immune responses of people with natural immunity are adaptive, resulting in an “updated” antibody response over time that is more specific to a newly infecting variant, the immune system of vaccinated people has an impaired ability to do so and instead persists in generating antibodies specific to the extinct ancestral strain.

There was “improvement in variant recognitions over time in the infected patients”, but not so much in vaccinated people.
Oddly, the authors nevertheless speculated that “antibodies from infection may provide somewhat decreased protection against virus variants compared to comparable concentrations of antibodies stimulated by vaccination.”

That conclusion appears to ignore their observation that correlates of immunity have not yet been established as well as their finding of greater adaptability of the immune response in people with natural immunity, whereas “vaccine-derived imprinting affects subsequent antibody responses stimulated by vaccination as well as infection.”[20]

Importantly, it is also not what is observed in real world data on the effectiveness of vaccine-induced versus natural immunity. Studies have consistently demonstrated that superior protection is conferred by natural immunity. Even CDC researchers have since acknowledged this fact, despite the CDC having previously propagated the disinformation that “people get better protection by being fully vaccinated compared with having had COVID‑19.”[21]

A possible explanation for the inclusion of that obvious non sequitur fallacy in the Cell paper is the fact that the study was funded by the NIH and its subagency the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), under the directorship of Dr. Anthony Fauci.

“[V]accine-derived imprinting affects subsequent antibody responses stimulated by vaccination as well as infection.”
Tangentially, the study authors noted that—contrary to claims from faux “fact checkers” that the mRNA from the vaccines is rapidly eliminated from the body “within days”—vaccine mRNA was found to persist in some cases “for up to two months” following receipt of the second dose.[22]

Similarly, while the ridiculous “fact checkers” have insisted that the spike protein generated by the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is harmless and eliminated from the body “within days”, the study authors observed circulation of spike protein in the blood and persistence of abundant spike antigen in vaccinated individuals two months after receipt of the second dose.[23]

Additionally, numerous studies have shown that the spike protein by itself is pathogenic, which has been hypothesized as a potential mechanism explaining the association of COVID-19 vaccines with an increased risk of myocarditis.[24]

The occurrence of original antigenic sin in vaccinated people was further confirmed by a study whose lead author, Jasmin Quandt, is affiliated with BioNTech, the German company that partnered with Pfizer to produce the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 vaccine. The study, published on the preprint server bioRxiv on April 1, showed that Omicron infection in individuals whose immune system was primed by vaccination results in a boosting of antibodies capable of neutralizing the variant. However, this was not because their immune repertoire was adaptive and expanded to become more specific to the variant.

Instead, it was simply because the spike protein of Omicron, despite numerous mutations, is similar enough to the spike protein of the original Wuhan strain that vaccinees’ fixated immune response to the ancestral strain still managed to recognize the variant.

The authors observed “imprinting of the immune response by previous vaccination” so that Omicron breakthrough infection “primarily expands preformed memory B cells that recognize epitopes shared broadly by different variants, rather than inducing new B cells against strictly Omicron-specific epitopes.” In fact, in contrast to the boost in the memory B cell response “directed against epitopes shared by both Wuhan and Omicron BA.1 SARS‑CoV‑2 variants”, the researchers “could hardly detect only Omicron-RBD-specific” memory B cells.

Naturally, the authors spun their concerning finding of “possible imprinting of the immune response by previous vaccination” into a positive outcome, lauding the ability of vaccinated individuals to still generate immune responses against the Omicron variant.[25]

Federal regulators and “public health” officials are not unaware of the problem of original antigenic sin. Dr. Paul Offit, a member of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), which has made recommendations for the FDA to authorize or approve COVID‑19 vaccines for various populations, wrote a commentary published in the New England Journal of Medicine on April 28 acknowledging this risk.

Astonishingly, Offit admitted that—contrary to how the vaccines were originally sold to the public—it was always “expected” that the protection against symptomatic infection would be short-lived. Studies by Pfizer, he noted, had shown that a booster dose could restore protection against mild illness, but “unfortunately, this protection did not persist for more than a few months.”

Even more remarkably, he acknowledged:

In addition, because boosters are not risk-free, we need to clarify which groups most benefit. For example, boys and men between 16 and 29 years of age are at increased risk for myocarditis caused by mRNA vaccines. And all age groups are at risk for the theoretical problem of an “original antigenic sin”—a decreased ability to respond to a new immunogen because the immune system has locked onto the original immunogen. An example of this phenomenon can be found in a study of nonhuman primates showing that boosting with an omicron-specific variant did not result in higher titers of omicron-specific neutralizing antibodies than did boosting with the ancestral strain. This potential problem could limit our ability to respond to a new variant.[26]

In another study funded by the NIH and NIAID, published at medRxiv on April 19, researchers reexamined data from the clinical trials for Moderna’s COVID‑19 vaccine and confirmed that people whose immune system is primed by the vaccine, which is narrowly focused on eliciting antibodies to the spike protein, have an impaired ability to generate antibodies to other parts of the virus. Whereas antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein were generated in 93 percent of people with lab-confirmed COVID‑19 in the placebo group, the anti‑N antibody seroconversion rate with breakthrough infections among the vaccinated was only 40 percent.

A potential explanation for this was that unvaccinated people experience a higher viral load than vaccinated individuals, resulting in a higher level of antibodies against the N protein. However, after taking this hypothesis into account, they found that “viral copies at the illness visit did not fully explain the large differences” in seropositivity between the vaccine and control groups. In fact, “for any given viral copy number, the odds of anti‑N seropositivity were 13.67 times higher for the placebo arm than the vaccine arm.”

The primary relevance the authors saw in this finding was that “Conclusions about the prevalence and incidence of SARS‑CoV‑2 infection in vaccinated persons based on anti-nucleocapsid antibody assays need to be weighed in the context of these results.” In other words, if studies use anti‑N assays to determine the rate of breakthrough infections among vaccinated individuals, they are likely to underestimate the rate of breakthrough infections.

They offered no comment about how their finding showed that evidence of original antigenic sin was always right there in the clinical trial data that the FDA used as the basis for its emergency use authorization and subsequent licensure of the Moderna vaccine.[27]

“And all age groups are at risk for the theoretical problem of an ‘original antigenic sin’—a decreased ability to respond to a new immunogen because the immune system has locked onto the original immunogen.”
The occurrence of original antigenic sin might help to explain the finding of another recent study that while a booster dose in individuals whose immune systems were primed by vaccination results in protection against the Omicron variant “beyond that afforded by the primary series”, which was “low” to begin with, no such benefit of a booster dose was found in individuals who had acquired natural immunity prior to getting vaccinated.[28]

That could be explained simply because the immunological imprinting from infection enables more broadly adaptive immune responses compared to the antigenic fixation that occurs with people whose imprinting is due to vaccination.

The medical establishment’s cognitive dissonance on this point is startling. To illustrate, we are being told that a reinfection is bad, an outcome to be avoided by getting vaccinated, while fully vaccinated and boosted individuals are being reassured that breakthrough infection is a good thing. The media have reported on studies’ findings that breakthrough infection serves as a natural booster by describing the outcome as “super immunity”.[29]

“We should think about breakthrough infections as essentially equivalent to another dose of vaccine,” immunologist John Wherry told WebMD.[30]

Never mind that we can anticipate from the evidence available to date that an asymptomatic or mild reinfection with Omicron among individuals who had previously acquired natural immunity from infection with another variant of SARS‑CoV‑2 will also serve as an even more effective natural booster. (The sustenance of immunity against disease due to reexposure to previously encountered pathogens is an important phenomenon that is sometimes referred to as “exogenous boosting” in the medical literature.[31])

One notable shortcoming among most studies examining the varying immune responses of individuals based on differing combinations of antigen exposures is failure to control for the time since the last exposure. Whether induced by infection or vaccination, immunity does wane over time, so the duration of potential waning is an important factor to consider.

“Importantly, the CDC study also showed no significant benefit of vaccination for those with pre-existing natural immunity when it came to protection against hospitalization.”
For example, a CDC study showing that natural immunity offered superior protection against the Delta variant compared to being fully vaccinated also claimed that the rate of COVID‑19 diagnosis was lowest among those who got vaccinated after recovering from infection (so-called “hybrid immunity”). However, this could simply be an artifactual finding resulting from the failure of CDC researchers to control for time since last antigen exposure rather than being a true effect of vaccination among those with prior infection. Essentially, by virtue of the study’s design, those who were also vaccinated would be more likely to have had a more recent antigen exposure (i.e., the vaccination).

Importantly, the CDC study also showed no significant benefit of vaccination for those with pre-existing natural immunity when it came to protection against hospitalization.[32]



Uniquely, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine on May 25 took this into consideration and controlled for “time since the last immunity-conferring event”, with findings that once again indicate that the immune imprinting from vaccination impairs the immune response relative to the imprinting that results from infection.

Their results showed that natural immunity still offered significantly better protection even after a full year of potential waning than being fully vaccinated at only two to four months since receipt of the second dose. (The rate of confirmed infection among those with natural immunity was 30.2 [28.5–32.0] per 100,000 person-days at risk at twelve months or more since infection, compared to a rate of 88.9 [88.2–89.5] among the fully vaccinated at two to four months.)

Additionally, the study showed that among those with “hybrid” immunity, those whose immune systems were primed by infection (with subsequent vaccination) were significantly better protected than those whose immune systems were primed by vaccination (with subsequent breakthrough infection). (The rate was 11.6 [10.0–13.5] per 100,000 person days at risk among the former compared to 16.2 [14.0–18.5] among the latter, with no overlap in confidence intervals.)

Importantly, the supposed “super immunity” induced by breakthrough infection in fully vaccinated individuals was not significantly greater than natural immunity alone. At six to eight months since the last immunity-conferring event, which was the longest duration observed for vaccinated individuals, the respective case rates for those with natural immunity, those who got vaccinated after recovering from infection, and those who experienced infection after getting vaccinated had overlapping confidence intervals. (The rates, respectively, were 14.0 [13.3–14.8] per 100,000 person-days at risk, 11.6 [10.0–13.5], and 16.2 [14.0–18.5].)





Humorously, the study authors noted that their findings “did not appear to support” the CDC’s claim that vaccination provides greater protection than natural immunity, which might be due to the CDC’s failure to control for time since last antigen exposure (i.e., comparing the protectiveness of natural immunity after a year or more of potential waning with the protectiveness within just a few months since vaccination, prior to the dramatic waning of immunity observed in vaccinated people by six months out).

The authors chose not to highlight, however, the implication from their data that immunologic priming by vaccination appeared to impair the ability of vaccinated individuals to mount a protective immune response relative to those who were vaccinated after first having acquired natural immunity.[33]

The occurrence of original antigenic sin in vaccinated individuals was again demonstrated in a study published at bioRxiv on June 2 appropriately titled “Imprinted antibody responses against SARS‑CoV‑2 Omicron sublineages”. The authors observed an “immunological imprinting” whereby antibodies derived from plasma cells or memory B cells in vaccinated individuals with an Omicron breakthrough infection were characteristic of a response to the ancestral strain that happened to cross-react with Omicron variants, whereas antibodies in individuals whose acquired immunity came from primary infection with Omicron were specific to the infecting variant.

As the authors bluntly stated, “Omicron breakthrough infections failed to elicit BA.1- or BA.2 RBD-specific antibodies”, which findings “illustrate how immunological imprinting from prior exposure, i.e., ‘original antigenic sin’, can strongly affect the response to antigenically novel antigens.”

Whereas their findings indicated that, due to this immunologic imprinting, “an Omicron-based vaccine might only elicit narrow antibody responses directed towards the vaccine-matched antigen”, Omicron infection in people with pre-existing natural immunity “recalls cross-reactive memory B cells which may further mature over time to enhance their affinity and neutralizing potency against Omicron, but also to broaden their neutralizing activity against past and future variants.”[34]

The mainstream media, of course, naturally spin such findings into good news for vaccinated people—just as the failure of vaccines to protect against infection has been spun as inducing “super immunity”, whereas exogenous boosting among the unvaccinated with natural immunity, regardless of symptoms (or lack thereof), is characterized as a lamentable and indeed condemnable outcome, blamed on a failure of the individuals to adhere to “public health” officials’ recommendations to get vaccinated.

As an example of media spin that would be laughable were it not such a serious matter, Fortune magazine reported on the study by claiming it showed that unvaccinated people who had an Omicron infection “did not have a similarly robust and protective immune response” as vaccinated people with Omicron breakthrough infection—a curious interpretation indeed given the explicit acknowledgment that original antigenic sin is a problem for individuals whose immune systems are primed by vaccination, whereas those with a primary Omicron infection developed effective immune responses specific to the infecting variant, and whereas the immune responses of those with pre-existing immunity from a prior infection were capable of adaptation to the new variant.

The Cognitive Dissonance of the “Public Health” Establishment
Finally, another study published in Science just last week, on June 14, further confirmed that the phenomenon of original antigenic sin is relevant for cellular immunity as well as the antibody response of vaccinated people.

While sterilizing immunity depends on the ability of antibodies to neutralize the virus before it has a chance to infect cells, the authors noted that cellular immunity is critical for limiting and clearing infection and thereby protecting against severe COVID‑19. So, they set out to examine both B cell and T cell responses to Omicron breakthrough infection among triple-vaccinated individuals.

Studies had already demonstrated “that people at this stage in the pandemic carry heterogeneous, immune-imprinted repertoires derived from their distinctive histories of infection and vaccination”, so they further explored “how these differences manifest in differential, cross-recognition of B.1.1.529 (Omicron)” relative to other “variants of concern” and “the extent to which prior encounter with spike antigen through infection and vaccination shapes subsequent immunity” to the Omicron variant “through immune imprinting.”

In keeping with the spin that breakthrough infection induces “super immunity”, the authors remarked that it is possible that Omicron breakthrough infection “may confer a benign, live booster to vaccine immunity”—while omitting any mention that an Omicron infection in people who had previously recovered from infection with an earlier variant can also be generally expected to confer a benign boost to their natural immunity.

Importantly, while attempting to blame the occurrence of original antigenic sin on the immune response to infection, the study authors only examined the immune responses of triple-vaccinated individuals.

Looking at B cell immunity, they found that those who were infected early in the pandemic with the ancestral Wuhan strain showed “a significantly reduced” level of antibodies targeting the receptor binding domain of the respective spike proteins of Beta, Gamma, and Omicron variants, although cross-reactive antibodies against Omicron “were significantly reduced” compared to other variants “irrespective of previous SARS‑CoV‑2 infection history”, as were frequencies of memory B cells against Omicron after receipt of the third dose of vaccine.

Astonishingly, they found that “more than half”—54 percent—of triple-vaccinated individuals “made no T cell response” against the “S1” domain of the Omicron spike protein “irrespective of previous SARS‑CoV‑2 infection history”, which compares with only 8 percent who made no T cell response against the ancestral Wuhan strain.

Looking beyond the spike protein, they found that 42 percent of triple vaccinated people “make no T cell response at all” against mutated Omicron peptides distinguishing this variant from the ancestral strain. (A peptide is a chain of amino acids typically shorter than a protein, either of which can be an epitope, or a molecular region on the surface of an antigen capable of eliciting an immune response.)

Additionally, breakthrough infection with Omicron “produced potent cross-reactive antibody” against earlier variants, “but less so against B.1.1.529 (Omicron) itself.”

Triple vaccinated individuals without Omicron breakthrough infection, by contrast, made no neutralizing antibodies against Omicron by fourteen weeks after the third vaccine dose, “indicating rapid waning” of the neutralizing antibodies induced by the booster shot.

Similarly, fourteen weeks after the third dose, 90 percent of triple-vaccinated individuals with no prior history of infection “showed no cross-reactive T cell immunity” against the Omicron spike protein. None of those with a history of infection with the ancestral strain showed such immunity, indicating that three doses of vaccine were “unable to boost T cell immunity” against Omicron in these individuals.

The effect of original antigenic sin was observed to be greatest among those who were infected with the ancestral strain and then later got fully vaccinated and boosted. Whereas Omicron breakthrough infection was seen to boost binding and neutralizing antibody responses to the Omicron variant in triple vaccinated but previously uninfected individuals, this did not occur in those previously infected with the Wuhan strain.

The authors remarked that “Immune imprinting by prior Wuhan Hu-1 infection completely abrogated any enhanced nAb [neutralizing antibody] responses against B.1.1.529 (Omicron) and other VOC [variants of concern]”.

However, what they really meant is that immune imprinting by prior infection with the ancestral strain followed by three doses of COVID‑19 vaccine completely abrogated the antibody response against other variants.

“Importantly, while attempting to blame the occurrence of original antigenic sin on the immune response to infection, the study authors only examined the immune responses of triple-vaccinated individuals.”
Similarly, they commented that “immune imprinting from prior Wuhan Hu-1 infection resulted in absence of a T cell response” against the S1 domain of the Omicron spike protein, the true meaning of which, of course, is that this immune imprinting was the effect of infection plus three doses of a vaccine designed to elicit an immune response against the spike protein of the ancestral strain.

In another illustration of cognitive dissonance, the authors observed that “functional neutralization by vaccine-primed sera is considerably blunted” against the Omicron variant regardless of prior infection history, which they blamed the effect of immune imprinting from natural infection by stating, “That previous SARS‑CoV‑2 infection history can imprint such a profound, negative impact on subsequent protective immunity is an unexpected consequence of COVID‑19.”

Recall again the observation from over half a century ago that the effect of original antigenic sin is attributable not merely to the initial antigen exposure but also to “repeated stimulation” with the same antigen.

Shockingly, the study authors appear to have completely dismissed the possibility that it may have been the subsequent three-dose vaccination of these individuals that resulted in this immunologic fixation on the spike protein of a variant that is no longer circulating among the human population.

Their implicit claim that three vaccine doses did not exacerbate the problem of original antigenic sin in those with a prior history of infection with the ancestral strain is unsupportable by their data, which did not provide a comparison of the immune responses of unvaccinated individuals with a prior history of infection and who then became infected with Omicron.[35]

As already noted, other studies have indicated that, in most people, a history of prior infection, far from being associated with an impaired immune response to SARS‑CoV‑2, results in a robust immune repertoire characterized by well-coordinated cellular and humoral responses and induction of long-term immunologic memory capable of specific adaptation to newly emerging variants.

The study authors’ effort to avoid pointing out the elephant in the room—the fact that having received three doses of COVID‑19 vaccine would exacerbate the effect of original antigenic sin—is a remarkable testimony to the level of cognitive dissonance required to maintain faith in these pharmaceutical products as a universally necessary medical intervention.

Original Antigenic Sin Helps Explain Negative COVID‑19 Vaccine Effectiveness
The occurrence of original antigenic sin among vaccinated people helps to explain repeated observations of negative vaccine effectiveness over time, as the short-term protective effect of these pharmaceutical products wears off.

As I have previously reported, a study by researchers in Denmark published at medRxiv on December 23, 2021, found a statistically significant negative effectiveness against infection with the Omicron variant among fully vaccinated individuals. Vaccine effectiveness waned rapidly from about 55 percent during the first month to no significant effectiveness after just one month.

Moreover, three months after receipt of the second dose, effectiveness became significantly negative, meaning that fully vaccinated people were more likely than unvaccinated people to become infected with SARS‑CoV‑2.[36]



The authors of the study attributed that finding to differences in behavior between vaccinated and unvaccinated people, which is somewhat plausible considering the policy discrimination against unvaccinated people during the study period. It may be that, while unvaccinated people were restricted from participation in society, vaccinated people were simply more likely to put themselves into situations where there was a high chance of exposure to the virus.

It is also plausible that the finding was at least in part due to the inferiority of vaccine-induced immunity relative to natural immunity and the occurrence of detrimental immune imprinting among the fully vaccinated. This latter interpretation is supported by data from other studies likewise showing negative vaccine effectiveness.

A study by researchers in Canada published at medRxiv on January 1 of this year similarly found that “receipt of 2 doses of COVID‑19 vaccines was not protective against Omicron at any point in time”. While a booster dose provided “some protection in the immediate term”, effectiveness peaked at only 37 percent—and it is known that the protective effect of booster shots wanes rapidly just as with the primary series.

Moreover, among the fully vaccinated and unboosted, statistically significant negative effectiveness was observed after just four months since receipt of the second dose.



While the authors of that study also proposed that this could be an artifact of differences in behavior between vaccinated and unvaccinated people, they acknowledged the possibility that their data was evidence that “antigenic imprinting” by vaccination had a detrimental long-term effect on immunity.[37]

While a booster shot might delay the negative consequences, as the head of the Biological Health Threats and Vaccines Strategy division of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), Marco Caveleri, has warned, “While use of additional boosters can be part of contingency plans, repeated vaccinations within short intervals would not represent a sustainable long-term strategy.”

The EMA official further cautioned, “If we have a strategy in which we give boosters every four months approximately, we will end up potentially having problems with the immune response, and the immune response may end up not being as good as we would like it to be, so we should be careful in not overloading the immune system with repeated immunization.”[38]

A press release from the EMA on January 11 cited preliminary data provided by a UK Health Security Agency technical briefing indicating that a booster dose increased vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization to 90 percent (which was rounded up from the actual figure presented in the briefing of 88 percent).[39]

However, that was the observed effect at only two weeks since administration of the booster, and the same data showed that the effectiveness of the booster dose against symptomatic infection rapidly waned from around 70 percent within two to four weeks after third-dose administration to 45 percent after just two months.

Furthermore, the same dataset revealed that two doses of COVID‑19 vaccine resulted in significantly negative effectiveness against Omicron within six months.
[40]


As I reported earlier this month, studies have also been published showing negative COVID‑19 vaccine effectiveness in children.[41]

A study by researchers from the New York State Department of Health published at medRxiv on February 28 showed rapidly waning vaccine effectiveness against Omicron infection among children. Among adolescents aged twelve to seventeen, effectiveness dropped from 76 percent initially to under 50 percent after just five weeks since receipt of the second dose.

For children aged five to eleven, vaccine effectiveness dropped from 65 percent to just 12 percent after only one month, and thereafter the data indicated significantly negative effectiveness. Within six weeks of the second dose, vaccine effectiveness fell to negative 10 percent, and within seven weeks, it plummeted further to negative 41 percent.



The authors asserted that there was nevertheless “sustained protection against severe disease” among adolescents. However, that description hardly seems appropriate considering the fact that their data showed vaccine effectiveness against severe disease falling from 94 percent to 73 percent after just two months. Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization among younger children lost statistical significance within the same time frame.

The health department researchers relegated their comment about this observed negative effectiveness to a footnote, stating that estimates of negative effectiveness “likely reflect estimator instability and/or residual confounding, as opposed to true relatively-increased risk for those vaccinated.” However, this dismissal is irresponsibly speculative, and this finding could very well indicate a detrimental effect of COVID‑19 vaccines in children.[42]

The data from New York were also published in JAMA on May 13. Gone from this version were the corresponding estimates of vaccine effectiveness, but the reported incident rate ratios presented, which compare the rate of COVID‑19 cases among fully vaccinated children with unvaccinated children, still show negative vaccine effectiveness for children aged five to eleven within six weeks of receipt of the second dose. Within seven weeks, the negative effectiveness reached statistical significance.



Once again, the health department researchers demonstrated reckless disregard for the health of children by dismissing this finding as an artifact, bewilderingly concluding that their findings “support efforts to increase vaccination coverage in children and adolescents”.[43]

This is a useful illustration of how authors’ conclusions frequently are either unsupported or contradicted by their own data. It also illustrates the tendency of “public health” officials to succumb to confirmation bias, accepting data that supports their policy recommendations while willfully ignoring findings that do not, such as this data suggesting that by urging parents to vaccinate their children, they might be ultimately causing these children to be more susceptible to COVID‑19 throughout their lifetimes.

Another illustration of official confirmation bias comes from a separate study by CDC researchers also published in JAMA on May 13. Their data showed that vaccine effectiveness for children aged five to eleven years fell from 60 percent to 29 percent within two months, which was the extent of the observational follow-up for this age group.

Furthermore, the study showed negative vaccine effectiveness for children aged twelve to fifteen years by five months since receipt of the second dose.[44]



Since February, data published on the CDC’s website has also shown a higher rate of COVID‑19 among vaccinated children aged five to eleven than among unvaccinated children. As of this writing, the latest reported figures are a rate of 137 COVID‑19 cases per 100,000 population among unvaccinated children compared to 194 cases per 100,000 population among those who are fully vaccinated.[45]



The CDC’s own data showing that the protection afforded by COVID‑19 vaccines in children rapidly wanes into negative vaccine effectiveness has naturally not prevented the agency from telling parents that they must get their children vaccinated—even though CDC data also indicates that at least 75 percent of children have already had SARS‑CoV‑2 infection, which means that those who weren’t already vaccinated before becoming infected have already acquired the superior protection afforded by natural immunity.

Incidentally, the authors of the study showing that most children have already been infected noted that their estimate was conservative in part “because infections after vaccination might result in lower anti-N titers”—evidence for original antigenic sin conveniently ignored by the CDC apart from its interpretive relevance for seroprevalence.[46]

Conclusion
The COVID‑19 vaccines were rushed through the developmental and regulatory processes with the pre-determined intent among policymakers to mass vaccinate the population. The clinical trials upon which emergency use authorization or licensure is based provided early evidence that the immunological phenomenon of “original antigenic sin” might be a problem with these pharmaceutical products, yet the “public health” establishment willfully blinded itself to this risk and has pushed these products on the population anyway, including now increasingly on children, who were already at very low risk of severe COVID‑19 to begin with and are at even lower risk now that most have already acquired immunity.

Consequently, by recommending parents to vaccinate their children without considering the opportunity cost, policymakers may be responsible for increasing the risk of COVID‑19 throughout their lifetimes. This is a reasonable conclusion to draw based on the data currently available, which consistently show that the vaccines offer only short-term protection, with waning of immunity to statistical insignificance and then to significantly negative effectiveness. We can also anticipate that booster shots will only delay rather than prevent this outcome.

Such observations of negative vaccine effectiveness are also being willfully ignored by public vaccine policy advocates, yet these observations are consistent with studies that have now demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that original antigenic sin is a real problem with these pharmaceutical products.

This also serves as another illustration of how public vaccine policy violates the right to informed consent. Logically, anyone unfamiliar with the term “original antigenic sin” is incapable of exercising truly informed consent when it comes to making a decision about whether or not to get vaccinated. While there have been rare acknowledgements of the risk of this phenomenon in the medical literature, such as by VRBPAC member Paul Offit, the risk has not been communicated to the public via statements from “public health” officials or reports in the mainstream media.

This speaks to intent. Rather than aiming to empower people with the knowledge they need to make a truly informed choice about whether to vaccinate themselves or their children, the “public health” establishment along with the media have chosen to engage in policy advocacy, aiming instead to persuade everyone to get vaccinated by exaggerating the benefits and downplaying or ignoring altogether the risks.

In short, what government officials and agencies like the CDC do is to issue endless propaganda, while the media advocate public vaccine policy rather than doing journalism. As always, what the government and media say science says about vaccines and what the science actually tells us are two completely different things. This is certainly no less true for COVID‑19 vaccines than for other vaccines recommended by the supposed “authorities” who are evidently more concerned with exercising power and control over the population and generating profits for the pharmaceutical industry than in ensuring good public health."

References
[1] Jeremy R. Hammond, “How You’re Being Lied to about the Risks of Getting a Flu Vaccine Annually”, JeremyRHammond.com, January 11, 2019, https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2019/...isk_of_Illness.

[2] Jeremy R. Hammond, “A Chronicle of Statements about Natural Immunity Once Deemed Misinformation But Now Admittedly True”, JeremyRHammond.com, February 21, 2022, https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/...mittedly-true/.

[3] UN General Assembly, “Vaccine Mandates Violate the Right to Informed Consent,” A/HRC/45/NGO/43, September 14, 2020, https://undocs.org/A/HRC/45/NGO/43. Jeremy R. Hammond, “UN Document: COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates Are Not About Public Health”, JeremyRHammond.com, March 2, 2022, https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/...public-health/. I have no affiliation with PACE apart from having been twice invited by the organization to author a written statement to the UN Human Rights Council.

[4] Matthew Woodruff, “Immune interference – why even ‘updated’ vaccines could struggle to keep up with emerging coronavirus strains”, The Conversation, March 8, 2021, https://theconversation.com/immune-i...strains-156465.

[5] Katharina Röltgen et al., “Immune imprinting, breadth of variant recognition, and germinal center response in human SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination”, Cell, January 24, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2022.01.018.

[6] Matthew Gagne et al., “mRNA-1273 or mRNA-Omicron boost in vaccinated macaques elicits similar B cell expansion, neutralizing responses, and protection from Omicron”, Cell, March 24, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2022.03.038.

[7] Thomas Francis, Jr., “On the Doctrine of Original Antigenic Sin”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, December 15, 1960, https://www.jstor.org/stable/985534.

[8] Leo Swadling et al., “Pre-existing polymerase-specific T cells expand in abortive seronegative SARS-CoV-2”, Nature, November 10, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04186-8.

[9] Yanling Liu et al., “SARS-CoV-2-Reactive Mucosal B Cells in the Upper Respiratory Tract of Uninfected Individuals”, Journal of Immunology, November 15, 2021, https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.2100606.

[10] Muriel Aguilar-Bretones et al., “Seasonal coronavirus-specific B cells with limited SARS-CoV-2 cross-reactivity dominate the IgG response in severe COVID-19”, Journal of Clinical Investigation, September 9, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI150613.

[11] Chun-Yang Lin et al., “Pre-existing humoral immunity to human common cold coronaviruses negatively impacts the protective SARS-CoV-2 antibody response”, Cell Host & Microbe, January 12, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2021.12.005.

[12] Jennifer Abbasi, “COVID-19 and the Common Cold—Preexisting Coronavirus Antibodies May Hinder SARS-CoV-2 Immunity”, JAMA, January 26, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.0326.

[13] Niamh Allen et al., “Serological markers of SARS-CoV-2 infection; anti-nucleocapsid antibody positivity may not be the ideal marker of natural infection in vaccinated individuals”, Journal of Infection, October 1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2021.08.012.

[14] Florian Krammer, “SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in development”, Nature, September 23, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2798-3.

[15] Heather J Whitaker et al., “Nucleocapsid antibody positivity as a marker of past SARS-CoV-2 infection in population serosurveillance studies: impact of variant, vaccination, and choice of assay cut-off”, medRxiv, October 26, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.10.25.21264964. A preprint study is one that has not yet undergone the peer-review process.

[16] Hassen Kared et al., “Immunity in Omicron SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough COVID-19 in vaccinated adults”, medRxiv, January 13, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.13.22269213.

[17] Alexandra C. Walls et al., “SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections elicit potent, broad, and durable neutralizing antibody responses”, Cell, January 19, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2022.01.011.

[18] Röltgen et al.

[19] Davide F. Robbiani, “Convergent antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in convalescent individuals”, Nature, June 18, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2456-9. Carlo Cervia et al., “Systemic and mucosal antibody responses specific to SARS-CoV-2 during mild versus severe COVID‑19”, Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, November 19, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2020.10.040. Divij Mathew et al., “Deep immune profiling of COVID‑19 patients reveals distinct immunotypes with therapeutic implications”, Science, September 4, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc8511. Tyler J. Ripperger, “Orthogonal SARS-CoV-2 Serological Assays Enable Surveillance of Low-Prevalence Communities and Reveal Durable Humoral Immunity”, Immunity, October 13, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2020.10.004. Mitchell H. Katz, “Neutralizing Antibodies Against SARS-CoV-2—Important Questions, Unclear Answers”, JAMA Internal Medicine, August 18, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.4624. Carolyn Rydyznski Moderbacher, “Antigen-Specific Adaptive Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in Acute COVID‑19 and Associations with Age and Disease Severity”, September 16, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.09.038. “T Cells Take the Lead in Controlling SARS-CoV-2 and Reducing COVID‑19 Disease Severity”, La Jolla Institute for Immunology, September 16, 2020, https://www.lji.org/news-events/news...ease-severity/. Daniel F. Gudbjartsson et al., “Humoral Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 in Iceland”, New England Journal of Medicine, October 29, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2026116. Jennifer M. Dan et al., “Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for greater than six months after infection”, bioRxiv, November 16, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.15.383323.

[20] Röltgen et al.

[21] Jeremy R. Hammond, “The CDC Finally Admits That Natural Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 Is Superior to the Immunity Induced by COVID-19 Vaccines”, JeremyRHammond.com, February 10, 2022, https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/...d-19-vaccines/.

[22] Röltgen et al. The specific faux “fact check” article quoted is: Ian Le Guillou, editor, “Following COVID-19 vaccination, the spike protein is produced in small quantities in the body without causing harm and is cleared naturally within days”, Health Feedback, May 25, 2022, https://healthfeedback.org/claimrevi...oman-balmakov/.

[23] Röltgen et al. The specific faux “fact check” article quoted is: Ian Le Guillou, editor, “Following COVID-19 vaccination, the spike protein is produced in small quantities in the body without causing harm and is cleared naturally within days”, Health Feedback, May 25, 2022, https://healthfeedback.org/claimrevi...oman-balmakov/.

[24] Tetyana P. Buzhdygan et al., “The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein alters barrier function in 2D static and 3D microfluidic in-vitro models of the human blood–brain barrier”, Neurobiology of Disease, October 11, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbd.2020.105131. (Finds that SARS-CoV-2 spike protein promotes loss of blood-brain barrier integrity and triggers an inflammatory response on brain endothelial cells.) Yuichiro J. Suzuki and Sergiy G. Gychka, “SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Elicits Cell Signaling in Human Host Cells: Implications for Possible Consequences of COVID-19 Vaccines”, Vaccines, January 11, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9010036. (Notes that the pathogenicity of the spike protein is a relevant concern for COVID-19 vaccines.) Yuyang Lei et al., “SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE 2”, Circulation Research, March 31, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318902. (Shows that spike protein alone can damage vascular endothelial cells.) Experimental Biology, “SARS-CoV-2 spike protein alone may cause lung damage”, EurekAlert!, April 27, 2021, https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/490426. Pavel Solopov et al., “Single intratracheal exposure to SARS-CoV-2 S1 spike protein induces acute lung injury in K18-hACE2 transgenic mice”, The FASEB Journal, May 14, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1096/fasebj.2021.35.S1.04183. Alana F. Ogata et al., “Circulating Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Vaccine Antigen Detected in the Plasma of mRNA-1273 Vaccine Recipients”, Clinical Infectious Diseases, May 20, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab465. (Shows that spike protein induced by Moderna’s mRNA COVID-19 vaccine circulate throughout the body.) Roxana Bruno et al., “SARS-CoV-2 mass vaccination: Urgent questions on vaccine safety that demand answers from international health agencies, regulatory authorities, governments and vaccine developers”, Authorea, May 24, 2021, https://doi.org/10.22541/au.162136772.22862058/v2. (Expresses concern that government authorities are minimizing or ignoring concerns about the potential toxicity and pathogenicity of the spike protein induced by vaccination.) Biykem Bozkurt, Ishan Kamat, and Peter J. Hotez, “Myocarditis With COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines”, Circulation, July 20, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056135. (Notes that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines can cause myocarditis and hypothesizes that this may be due to an autoimmune response induced by the presence of the spike protein.) Bruce K. Patterson et al., “Persistence of SARS CoV-2 S1 Protein in CD16+ Monocytes in Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) Up to 15 Months Post-Infection”, bioRxiv, July 26, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.25.449905. (Shows an association between “Long Covid” and persistence of spike protein in the absence of persistence of whole viable virus, again indicating that the spike protein alone is pathogenic.) Hui Jiang and Ya-Fang Mei, “SARS–CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro”, Viruses, October 13, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/v13102056. (Finds that the spike protein can enter the nucleus of cells and inhibit DNA damage repair and notes the relevance of this finding for spike-based COVID-19 vaccines.) Sandhya Bansal et al., “Cutting Edge: Circulating Exosomes with COVID Spike Protein Are Induced by BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) Vaccination prior to Development of Antibodies: A Novel Mechanism for Immune Activation by mRNA Vaccines”, Journal of Immunology, November 15, 2021, https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.2100637. (Finds that spike protein induced by the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine are carried by exosomes and circulate throughout the body, which helps explain the antibody response induced by vaccination.) For further discussion, see: Jeremy R. Hammond, “How ‘Public Health’ Officials Are Lying to Parents about the Myocarditis Risk from COVID-19 Vaccines”, JeremyRHammond.com, December 13, 2021, https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2021/...d-19-vaccines/.

[25] Jasmin Quandt et al., “Omicron breakthrough infection drives cross-variant neutralization and memory B cell formation”, bioRxiv, April 1, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.04.01.486695.

[26] Paul Offit, “Covid-19 Boosters—Where from Here?”, New England Journal of Medicine, April 28, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe2203329.

[27] Dean Follmann et al., “Anti-nucleocapsid antibodies following SARS-CoV-2 infection in the blinded phase of the mRNA-1273 Covid-19 vaccine efficacy clinical trial”, medRxiv, April 19, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.04.18.22271936.

[28] Margaret L. Lind et al., “Effectiveness of Primary and Booster COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination against Omicron Variant SARS-CoV-2 Infection in People with a Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection”, medRxiv, April 25, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.04.19.22274056.

[29] Erik Robinson, “Breakthrough infections generate ‘super immunity’ to COVID-19, study suggests”, OHSU, December 16, 2021, https://news.ohsu.edu/2021/12/16/bre...study-suggests. Bruce Y. Lee, “‘Super Immunity’ From Breakthrough Infection After Covid-19 Vaccination? Here’s What This Study Said”, Forbes, December 18, 2021, https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucele...h=463ddc536a3c. Dani Blum, “I Had Breakthrough Covid. Can I Start Living Like It’s 2019?”, New York Times, January 19, 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/19/w...-immunity.html.

[30] Ralph Ellis, “Omicron Breakthrough Cases Boost Protection, Studies Say”, WebMD, May 17, 2022, https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid...on-studies-say.

[31] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?ter...us+boosting%22.

[32] Tomás M. León et al., “COVID-19 Cases and Hospitalizations by COVID-19 Vaccination Status and Previous COVID-19 Diagnosis — California and New York, May–November 2021”, MMWR, January 19, 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7104e1. For further discussion, see: Hammond, “The CDC Finally Admits That Natural Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 Is Superior to the Immunity Induced by COVID-19 Vaccines”, https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/...d-19-vaccines/.

[33] Yair Goldberg et al., “Protection and Waning of Natural and Hybrid Immunity to SARS-CoV-2”, New England Journal of Medicine, June 9, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2118946.

[34] Young-Jun Park et al., “Imprinted antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron sublineages”, bioRxiv, June 2, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.08.491108.

[35] Catherine J. Reynolds et al., “Immune boosting by B.1.1.529 (Omicron) depends on previous SARS-CoV-2 exposure”, Science, June 14, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abq1841.

[36] Christian Holm Hansen et al., “Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Omicron or Delta variants following a two-dose or booster BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination series: A Danish cohort study”, medRxiv, December 23, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966. Jeremy R. Hammond, “The Real Reason Why Omicron Is a ‘Variant of Concern’”, JeremyRHammond.com, January 14, 2022, https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/...nt-of-concern/.

[37] Sara A. Buchan et al., “Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against Omicron or Delta symptomatic infection and severe outcomes”, medRxiv, January 28, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.30.21268565.

[38] Leah Barkoukis, “Should We Be Boosting Our Way Out of Covid? The European Medicines Agency Is Issuing a Warning”, Townhall, January 12, 2022, https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahba...rning-n2601750.

[39] European Medicines Agency, “Preliminary data indicate COVID-19 vaccines remain effective against severe disease and hospitalisation caused by the Omicron variant Share”, EMA.Europa.eu, January 11, 2022, https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/pr...ospitalisation.

[40] UK Health Security Agency, “SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England: Technical briefing: Update on hospitalisation and vaccine effectiveness for Omicron VOC-21NOV-01 (B.1.1.529)”, Gov.UK, December 31, 2021, https://assets.publishing.service.go...ity_update.pdf. View the parent page here: https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ical-briefings.

[41] Jeremy R. Hammond, “Evidence for Negative COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness in Children”, JeremyRHammond.com, June 10, 2022, https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/...s-in-children/.

[42] Vajeera Dorabawila et al., “Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine among children 5-11 and 12-17 years in New York after the Emergence of the Omicron Variant”, medRxiv, February 28, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.25.22271454.

[43] Vajeera Dorabawila et al., “Risk of Infection and Hospitalization Among Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children and Adolescents in New York After the Emergence of the Omicron Variant”, JAMA, May 13, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.7319.

[44] Katherine E. Fleming-Dutra et al., “Association of Prior BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccination With Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Children and Adolescents During Omicron Predominance”, JAMA, May 13, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.7493.

[45] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Rates of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by Vaccination Status”, CDC.gov, accessed June 10, 2022, https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tra...vaccine-status.

[46] Kristie E.N. Clarke et al., “Seroprevalence of Infection-Induced SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies — United States, September 2021–February 2022”, MMWR, April 26, 2022, http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7117e3.

About the Author
I am an independent journalist and author of several books, including The War on Informed Consent and Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

I expose dangerous state propaganda that serves to manufacture consent for criminal government policies.

The aim of my work is to empower people with the knowledge required to see through the lies and to effectively fight for a brighter future.

Sign up for my free newsletter and follow me on social media

[TomKat]

millions dead so far, more injured:
(video in the article)

20 Million Dead from the Jab, 2.2 Billion Injuries – Analyst Estimates

https://vigilantfox.substack.com/p/2...jab-22-billion

[TomKat]

prominent vax advocate dies:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...asses-away-63/

[Gwin Ru]

...

... people going bonkers: From Jim Stone:

This page is current as of October 30 2022 For the latest page, Click Here. Don't send emails, use this window.

DO NOT DONATE TO THIS WEB SITE

Here is (finally) the real reason why

Five months ago claudia went crazy when her thyroid was removed and then two months later she destroyed the home. I spent two months sleeping under bridges. Then I broke my arm in a bike accident. It was a serious commuted fracture requiring surgery. all of you sent more than enough for that and Claudia spent it. I did not get the surgery despite saying I did to keep things looking normal. I am now trying to fix it myself and hopefully I will regain some use of it. I at least got the length and camber matched to the other arm and the fingers move somewhat but it is still flexible and won't ever be normal.

DO NOT DONATE

Any money you send will not go to the site or to fix my arm. I tried to keep the site looking like nothing was wrong, but it is time to stop doing that.

Yesterday claudia again got a way to destroy my devices and this time I am too weak to replace them. I will just have to try to continue from here without help. The site will be neglected, I have no other choice.

Don't make contact asking how you can help. Because anything you send will not go where you intended no matter what assurances you receive. Nothing lasts forever, including this site. I am surprised the biggest threat it has ever faced came from within. I could handle the technical threats but not this.

Here is what I suspect Jim suspects happened to Claudia down there in Mexico:

[Pam]

Posted by TomKat (here)
prominent vax advocate dies:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...asses-away-63/

“Those of you who think the vaccine kills people can use me as a test. If I die, you were right. If I don’t die, and have no ill effects, you were wrong, and should admit it (at least to yourselves). Better yet, you should admit that you were misled, and tell the world who misled you, so other people can benefit by avoiding those fearmongers.”

I absolutely take no satisfaction in his death, but those words seem ironic. I do acknowledge that I have no certainty of why this healthy looking dude died but he was pretty sure of himself. Pretty confident that it would be the unvaxxed that would need to repent

[Patient]

Posted by Gwin Ru (here)
...

... people going bonkers: From Jim Stone:

This page is current as of October 30 2022 For the latest page, Click Here. Don't send emails, use this window.

DO NOT DONATE TO THIS WEB SITE

Here is (finally) the real reason why

Five months ago claudia went crazy when her thyroid was removed and then two months later she destroyed the home. I spent two months sleeping under bridges. Then I broke my arm in a bike accident. It was a serious commuted fracture requiring surgery. all of you sent more than enough for that and Claudia spent it. I did not get the surgery despite saying I did to keep things looking normal. I am now trying to fix it myself and hopefully I will regain some use of it. I at least got the length and camber matched to the other arm and the fingers move somewhat but it is still flexible and won't ever be normal.

DO NOT DONATE

Any money you send will not go to the site or to fix my arm. I tried to keep the site looking like nothing was wrong, but it is time to stop doing that.

Yesterday claudia again got a way to destroy my devices and this time I am too weak to replace them. I will just have to try to continue from here without help. The site will be neglected, I have no other choice.

Don't make contact asking how you can help. Because anything you send will not go where you intended no matter what assurances you receive. Nothing lasts forever, including this site. I am surprised the biggest threat it has ever faced came from within. I could handle the technical threats but not this.

Here is what I suspect Jim suspects happened to Claudia down there in Mexico:

Yes, so think of those people not getting surgeries because they are aware of this.

This should/will create an underground medical group who will help those who are aware - but when it comes down to it, would you trust them?

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Pam (here)

Posted by TomKat (here)
prominent vax advocate dies:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/10/think-vaccine-kills-people-can-use-test-bodybuilding-icon-author-doug-brignole-passes-away-63

“Those of you who think the vaccine kills people can use me as a test. If I die, you were right. If I don’t die, and have no ill effects, you were wrong, and should admit it (at least to yourselves). Better yet, you should admit that you were misled, and tell the world who misled you, so other people can benefit by avoiding those fearmongers.”

I absolutely take no satisfaction in his death, but those words seem ironic. I do acknowledge that I have no certainty of why this healthy looking dude died but he was pretty sure of himself. Pretty confident that it would be the unvaxxed that would need to repent

Well, these are the grim realities of what really is a kind of all-out war.

And the Darwin Awards (the self-selected elimination of those who unintelligently put themselves in serious danger) do seem to apply here. Meaning, to put it bluntly and unsympathetically, many pro-vaxxers will simply die — very probably, if they've not received a placebo (i.e. saline solution), between now and the end of 2025.

[Pam]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Pam (here)

Posted by TomKat (here)
prominent vax advocate dies:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/10/think-vaccine-kills-people-can-use-test-bodybuilding-icon-author-doug-brignole-passes-away-63

“Those of you who think the vaccine kills people can use me as a test. If I die, you were right. If I don’t die, and have no ill effects, you were wrong, and should admit it (at least to yourselves). Better yet, you should admit that you were misled, and tell the world who misled you, so other people can benefit by avoiding those fearmongers.”

I absolutely take no satisfaction in his death, but those words seem ironic. I do acknowledge that I have no certainty of why this healthy looking dude died but he was pretty sure of himself. Pretty confident that it would be the unvaxxed that would need to repent

Well, these are the grim realities of what really is a kind of all-out war.

And the Darwin Awards (the self-selected elimination of those who unintelligently put themselves in serious danger) do seem to apply here. Meaning, to put it bluntly and unsympathetically, many pro-vaxxers will simply die — very probably, if they've not received a placebo (i.e. saline solution), between now and the end of 2025.

At the end of the day, that is the truth. And we are witnessing it and it is by no means over.

When I went to a grocery store in town, they had a big sign out front. Ten percent of your entire grocery bill would be deducted if you got your flu and Covid vaccines at the pharmacy inside the store and there would be no charge for the vaccines. Now, I realize that some people have health insurance but surely they are not going to pay for ten percent of someones grocery bill. Is it the taxpayer who pay for the "free" shots and the grocery bill deduction? I know they want to keep everyone repeatedly taking these shots but these monetary incentives are odd.

I can only imagine what a stress that is to the body to get 2 shots in one day, particularly if your body is already struggling.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Gwin Ru (here)
...

... people going bonkers: From Jim Stone:

This page is current as of October 30 2022 For the latest page, Click Here. Don't send emails, use this window.

DO NOT DONATE TO THIS WEB SITE

Here is (finally) the real reason why

Five months ago claudia went crazy when her thyroid was removed and then two months later she destroyed the home. I spent two months sleeping under bridges. Then I broke my arm in a bike accident. It was a serious commuted fracture requiring surgery. all of you sent more than enough for that and Claudia spent it. I did not get the surgery despite saying I did to keep things looking normal. I am now trying to fix it myself and hopefully I will regain some use of it. I at least got the length and camber matched to the other arm and the fingers move somewhat but it is still flexible and won't ever be normal.

DO NOT DONATE

Any money you send will not go to the site or to fix my arm. I tried to keep the site looking like nothing was wrong, but it is time to stop doing that.

Yesterday claudia again got a way to destroy my devices and this time I am too weak to replace them. I will just have to try to continue from here without help. The site will be neglected, I have no other choice.

Don't make contact asking how you can help. Because anything you send will not go where you intended no matter what assurances you receive. Nothing lasts forever, including this site. I am surprised the biggest threat it has ever faced came from within. I could handle the technical threats but not this.

Here is what I suspect Jim suspects happened to Claudia down there in Mexico:

Wow!! that is down right sad.. I don't even know what to say.

[avid]

This is exactly what I envisage if I am needing urgent healthcare in any UK hospital now, when they know I am unvaxxed, vindictive murdering poisoning jabs, so hopefully never needing to go to emergency healthcare. However, legally they have to admit these procedures, despite my wishes.
Despicable. Therefore, highly unlikely to go to any emergency and will probably die at home - ah well….

[ulli]

Posted by avid (here)
This is exactly what I envisage if I am needing urgent healthcare in any UK hospital now, when they know I am unvaxxed, vindictive murdering poisoning jabs, so hopefully never needing to go to emergency healthcare. However, legally they have to admit these procedures, despite my wishes.
Despicable. Therefore, highly unlikely to go to any emergency and will probably die at home - ah well….

There’s no place like home, when sick or dying.
The money spent on public healthcare or health insurance is better spent on a private nurse when things get really bad. Hospitals are no longer an option these days.

[avid]

Thanks Ulli, not many of us can afford private nursing, sadly. Have left instructions and keys with my neighbour on what to do. Hopefully, not too unpleasant. Sadly, these things must be addressed, and have prepaid for my undertakers. Annoyingly, Ms Ostrich-head has left loads of paperwork, photos, extraneous clothing around. So, I MUST get rid soonest. Charity shops will greatly benefit. One of my bodycon Jean Paul Gaultier dresses is now worth £700, only worn once. A pathetic life lesson in vanity. Good riddance. Paperwork and shredder ahoy…!

[Patient]

Posted by avid (here)
This is exactly what I envisage if I am needing urgent healthcare in any UK hospital now, when they know I am unvaxxed, vindictive murdering poisoning jabs, so hopefully never needing to go to emergency healthcare. However, legally they have to admit these procedures, despite my wishes.
Despicable. Therefore, highly unlikely to go to any emergency and will probably die at home - ah well….

This is added stress that a parent just doesn't need! I have older kids (young adults) still living at home. Just like many families have older kids at home due to the inflated costs of renting. Anyway, I am always urging them to experience new things - almost anything really to get them outside away from their computers. Dirt biking, trail riding, sports, canoeing, etc., but I am also very concerned about the possibility of them getting hurt and needing emergency care. (Through my life I have a huge medical file of x-rays, scans and a good handful of emergency bone and muscle repairs.)

Arghhh - keeping my fingers crossed as I urge them to do stuff - then lecture them on safety and caution. I must be driving them nuts!