The new vaccines problem
I wish they just stopped trying to jab our way out of this
This will sound and read somewhat long-winded, but context matters, especially in matters of this nature. As of now, it has been close to 3 years since I and many, many others spoke out against the use of the Spike Protein as a vaccine target, leaving aside my personal observations and musings, was a terrible idea, to say the least.
During a short period of a few months, I covered what I now call the “variant mill”, the psychotic fixation and tracking of each variant, a work that is in fact important but was used by public health and government for the usual psychological “nudging” bullshit, alas given the evidence I proposed it would make more sense to use other proteins besides the S as vaccine targets. I was aware of the possible risks given what we knew back at the time, but on paper sounded like a good idea.
As of November 2022, I wrote the following, where you can read and revisit many of my observations.
I will not bother my readers by linking to a dozen different substack, but at this point, all my previous writing stand “the test of time”, as many if not the majority came to pass, or are coming to pass right now. Regardless of the evidence, observation, large-scale data, data analysis, and use of AI, we get this.
Combination of Recombinant Proteins S1/N and RBD/N as Potential Vaccine Candidates
The nucleocapsid (N) protein, Spike protein S1 domain, and receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike surface glycoproteins were expressed and purified in a mammalian expression system, taking into consideration the posttranscriptional modifications and structural characteristics. The immunogenicity of these combined proteins was evaluated in a murine model. Immunization combining S1 or RBD with the N protein induced higher levels of IgG antibodies, increased the percentage of neutralization, and elevated the production of cytokines TNF-α, IFN-γ, and IL-2 compared to the administration of a single antigen.Furthermore, sera from immunized mice recognized alpha and beta variants of SARS-CoV-2, which supports ongoing clinical results on partial protection in vaccinated populations, despite mutations. This study identifies potential antigens for second-generation COVID-19 vaccines
The most egregious choice here wasn’t merely the choice of the initial pairing of protein, using S1 and RBD arguably the most toxic segments of the Spike Protein (easy immunogenic targets as a whole though, makes your selling points quite easier), but adding the N together. In case you didn’t get this one, the N protein has sections that mimic Multiple Sclerosis proteins, which theoretically (more like observationally at this point) can accelerate the development or outright induce MS. The N and M protein by itself possess the potential to induce autoimmune reactions by molecular mimicry but a lot of other dynamics come into play in regards to this. But the paper above is just a proposal to use other proteins and their potential as vaccine targets.
As a final note on this subject, I would like to remind you that boosting people with RBD vaccines literally leads to immune tolerance.
The following one is the “actual problem”.
I do not see any reason, in particular, to dissect every line of this paper as I usually did, since there isn’t anything novel to dissect unlike the recent paper on Spike in the brain, but a few highlights give us enough information.
Also to be abundantly clear, they are not using the entire proteins per the first highlights itself, but immunogenic segments, but as I wrote many times lately, a lot of the dynamics are contextual, here no less, while not using the entire proteins to abrogate any potential harmful effect from the get-go of generating the protein inside many different cells, immunogenic segments can and will have potent non-canonical, not forecasted effects. The FCS is an immunogenic segment, NTD, and the RBD, and all of these are heavily implicated in many of the pathogenic effects of the virus and Spike. Here are the segments.
Some of these are problematic by being (vaguely) similar in sequence (the letters) to segments of tau protein, while others are segments that are dominant for specific CD8 activity and can impact viral evolution under certain conditions. While avoiding the obvious mistake of using the entire protein, it is still using the same (algorithmic-based) approach of finding whatever the computer lights like a Christmas tree and using it because it is easier to elicit an immune response. I will soon refer back to this peculiar made by the "very smart people” in Pfizer’s R&D.
If you read the substack linked at the start of this one, you will find Pfizer has been developing this specific vaccine using other proteins from SARS-CoV-2 for quite a while. The following was my entire commentary on the news article talking about the potential new mRNA vaccine.
Pfizer's new vaccine candidate will be using a method they should have done since the start if they were not lazy, moronic, and arrogant. They will use some, or parts of other proteins that are not from the Spike. The part that makes me scratch my head is the “proprietary target prioritization platform if this is the same platform/algorithm-based model that came up with using the Spike Protein… well, regardless, if this was any other moment or company I would say we need to wait for the data, but being Pfizer, known to game most of its trials, and such botched first attempt, my gut instinct tells me this will backfire.
This is also a Hail Mary attempting to “overwrite” the aforementioned immune imprinting, hoping this will finally give broad and durable immunity. Fascinating that they are now using T cell and even mentioning them, since Kariko, the “mind” behind this garbage of technology stated in interviews, multiple times “I don’t think T cells are that important”.
And the following section clearly demonstrates that my “Hail Mary” observation was correct.
Using both formulations, the original and the new one generates the same levels of Spike response as using just the first one. The staggering second highlight is the one that should grab your attention, administring both formulations, they had a diminished response towards N and M proteins, with no mention to ORF1ab responses. These tests were done in “naive” rats, in simple terms, never infected rats, which is impossible to replicate among the human population since either you got vaccinated and infected, or just infected, so almost the entire human population has immunity to the Spike and other parts of the virus (the many Omicron variants seroconverted a huge portion of the vaccinated towards immunity against the other viral proteins, to what degree time will tell).
The authors state if you are infected or previously vaccinated, and get the new jab, you maintain the S immune response and develop a response towards the other proteins cited here. This points towards Original Antigenic Sin maintained towards the Spike and spread towards ORF, N, and M. A recipe for a disaster of biblical proportions. And I will explain why, one explanation vaguely, the other with scientific evidence.
I have scoured this paper over a dozen times to be abundantly sure of any hint if Pfizer did, or did not fix a very specific issue their mRNA platform possesses, an issue that is compounded by using the Spike Protein, and by the antibody levels in the graphics provided, and a few unintended hints left by the authors, they did not. Meaning the antibody class shift will go from just the Spike to the other proteins used here (IgG class switch to IgG4).
The second issue is the “re-challenge” using specific variants to infect the mice, which were Wild Type (what I call Wuhan Original -WIV trademark pending-) and Delta. Two completely extinct variants, at various points the least 6 months many experts stated one could easily rename Omicron and its sub-variants as “SARS-CoV-3” because of how distinct and distant Omicron is from Delta and anything before, and all the current Omicron sub-variants are also fairly distinct. So, in the end, the are fixating on the population in either dead sequences or…
Enhanced Evasion of Neutralizing Antibody Response by Omicron XBB.1.5, CH.1.1 and CA.3.1 Variants
Omicron subvariants continuingly challenge current vaccination strategies.Here we demonstrate nearly complete escape of XBB.1.5, CH.1.1 and CA.3.1 variants from neutralizing antibodies stimulated by three doses of mRNA vaccine or by BA.4/5 wave infection, but neutralization is rescued by a BA.5-containing bivalent booster. CH.1.1 and CA.3.1 show strong immune escape from monoclonal antibody S309. Additionally, XBB.1.5, CH.1.1, and CA.3.1 spike proteins exhibit increased fusogenicity and enhanced processing compared to BA.2. Homology modeling reveals the key roles of G252V and F486P in the neutralization resistance of XBB.1.5, with F486P also enhancing receptor binding. Further, K444T/M and L452R in CH.1.1 and CA.3.1 likely drive escape from class II neutralizing antibodies, whereas R346T and G339H mutations could confer the strong neutralization resistance of these two subvariants to S309-like antibodies.Overall, our results support the need for administration of the bivalent mRNA vaccine and continued surveillance of Omicron subvariants.
For readers who want to track and understand what each specific mutation does, and the impact single mutations have on the overall dynamic of the virus, both infectivity and pathogenesis, this paper is good, if you ignore the vaccine salesman pitch embedded in almost every other paragraph.
Overall the conclusion of the research is “simple”, XBB subvariants have strong immune escape (not exactly news) from antibodies from 3 doses vaccinated, but the bivalent booster gives temporary protection, while CH.1.1 and CA.3.1 completely evade the antibodies of all vaccines, akin to evading everything. They propose, since it has yet to be tested and verified, that some of the mutations present in other variants and now present in the current Omicron variants got their ACE2 binding back, the loss of this dynamic on early Omicron variants is argued to be the reason for its loss pathogenicity and less cell to cell fusion, also known as syncytia formation, an effect that has been associated and proposed to be involved in the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2.
Early Omicron variants had lower fusogenicity and shifted viral tropism (they stuck in the upper airways rather than going for the lungs) and the new variants with particular mutations are getting some of these abilities back. Here is something for your consideration.
Notably, it has also been recently demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 infection before the fourth dose of bivalent vaccine can induce higher nAb titers against Omicron subvariants compared to those who had infection before the fourth dose of monovalent vaccine , which seems to support that an infection with an omicron subvariant before a BA.5 vaccine boost could help overcome immune imprinting.
If you have been a long-term reader of mine, most of this will sound vaguely similar or one of those “wait a minute” moments, because literally 1 year ago I wrote an extensive substack with my observations and where I thought the wind would shift, or rather how the pandemic would “evolve”, if you read the entire substack below, I stick to what I wrote to this day.
But now we have researchers voicing why the breakthrough incentive has been pushed too hard because they hope breakthroughs can help overwrite the immune imprinting from the vaccines. With all the information here is where the problems reside, in a deep cave, ignored by ivory towers.
Using the entire proteins have substantial and detrimental physiological effects as vaccines
The new Pfizer mRNA isn’t much better than the old one, or possessing higher neutralization
Pfizer’s new mRNA will cause imprinting and fixation on other proteins
Imprinting + lower neutralization + breakthrough infections = mutations
Mutating dominant “epitopes” will most certainly lead to viral evolution and generate even higher immune evasion, and this time it is not evading B cells but T Cells, and if a highly evasive variant capable of evading T cells emerges, we as a society will be in trouble, because we will lose the ability to properly clear the virus, to properly deal with the viral infection, and most certainly this can lead to higher lethality.
At this point, the body will have very few options to deal with the viral infection, and all the viral fragments are abundantly present inside any infected. And everything described here is even worse among the vaccinated. There are other dynamics that come into the equation as to using other proteins, you could theoretically expect an even higher degree of disease acceleration, and even disease creation, accelerated evolution of other pathogens is also in the roadmap with the presence of Spike alone, Spike + other proteins, and you have quite the pestilent mix. Since this substack is already long, I will leave the autoimmunity aspect as the next piece.
My closing remarks on the substack linked above, The Road Ahead, are still valid, I don’t see any reason for anxiety or panic, but as the authors of the immune evasion paper stated, attention (not much for the most part for the majority of people). Take care of your health, enough supplementation of antioxidants after each infection, a few other supplements to support immune health, obligatory low-carbohydrate diet, and most people will be just fine (as long as they stop using garbage-tier vaccines).
As always, if you chose to support this Substack in any form you see fit, I am grateful to you ! And you who share it too =) !
Great article! Thank you very much for all of the work that you do!
Survival of the fittest only the strong survive are phrases that come to mind after reading all your work. It’s almost as if they’re intentionally weeding out the weakest.