In this study we profiled vaccine-induced polyclonal antibodies as well as plasmablast derived mAbs from individuals who received SARS-CoV-2 spike mRNA vaccine. Polyclonal antibody responses in vaccinees were robust and comparable to or exceeded those seen after natural infection. However, the ratio of binding to neutralizing antibodies after vaccination was greater than that after natural infection and, at the monoclonal level, we found that the majority of vaccine-induced antibodies did not have neutralizing activity.
This is not good. Now we know why the stabs target very high antibody titers -- several times that of natural infection, and the doses were not adjusted down.
I had wondered about that: It makes exactly no sense to target wildly-higher titers than natural infection with a vaccine, yet all of the shots do exactly that. The question was why and now we have the answer: A large percentage of the antibodies produced are not neutralizing, so to get enough that are they cranked up the dose.
This is dangerous -- very dangerous -- because the non-neutralizing antibodies can enhance infection. What we don't know, because we didn't take the time, is whether the decay is linear in both sorts or whether one decays first. But again, this is data we did not have before we mass-stabbed people -- and unfortunately it explains why dosing was set where it was and that fact, and the potential bad side of all those non-neutralizing antibodies, which could lead to SEVERE ADE and kill you down the road was never discussed nor explained by any of the manufacturers.
Let's contemplate a possibility: The manufacturers know this and in fact knew it during Phase I and II testing; they characterized the antibodies produced and that is why they set the dose where they did; they knew that they had to wildly over-produce to get a high enough titer of the neutralizing antibodies or the shots would not work.
Now think about the game that might have been run:
1. You take the shot.
2. You get both protective (good) and non-protective (neutral) or possibly enhancing (very bad), antibodies.
3. The protective antibodies are enough to prevent you from getting seriously sick or dying. We all cheer, and all appears to be well in the world. The results look good -- for a while.
4. Over time the antibody titer wanes. Now you don't have enough neutralizing antibodies but still have some of the bad ones which, if you get infected, make it materially more-likely the infection will kill you.
5. Then in comes the nice pharma dude who tells you to take this booster shot, which by the way isn't free and for which the price goes up every year, irrespective of the side effects which are real and remain (and might kill or seriously disable, and which risk you must accept every year forever into the future), or you're very likely to die because the virus is still out there and all you have are the bad antibodies that make an infection worse. While those too will wane over time it may take years before you're back to where you started before the stab in terms of risk.
Is this plausible? You bet.
They knew damn well that this proportion between neutralizing and non-neutralizing was present right up front. That's why they set the dosing where they did; they had to in order to get a neutralizing titer that was high enough. But that also means they knew it would decay and when it did the non-neutralizing antibodies would still be present to some degree.
Why did the companies not work on getting rid of the non-neutralizing titer? They didn't have to. The EUA didn't require it and further, if they got away with it long enough to get crap-ton of shots in arms there was nothing that could be done about it.
Take the shot once, buy in forever to whatever price they charge and if you don't, and get Covid-19, you die.
Obamacare was all about forcing you to buy health insurance. The penalty for non-compliance with the medical monster and government's scheme was money, which Congress eventually got rid of.
But if this problem proves up to be true the penalty, once you buy in originally (and which is conveniently "free") should you try to refuse to continue later on, irrespective of the price the company charges, is death.
Of course this little problem would have been discovered in a full 5 or 10 year trial where you give someone one shot and then follow them. Inevitably as it wore off a year or two down the road you'd see indications of trouble as some of those people would get the virus naturally and get ridiculously hammered. But not if you go Warp Speed, as you simply don't wait long enough for the antibody titer to wane. Oh, and then they lobby for full licensing on an expedited basis (instead of the usual 5 or 10 year cycle) too. The reason for that is obvious, is it not?
Does this paper prove that? Nope. But could it be possible? You bet.
And these are not quacks folks, or some group of Chinese that might be running a game on us. This paper came out of Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.
If you took the stab or do now you're literally betting your life that they're wrong.
Now do remember that the pharma companies involved all have legal immunity, even if it is later proved they knew this to be the case before they applied for EUA status.
We also found a co-dominance of mAbs targeting the NTD and RBD of SARS-CoV-2 spike and an original antigenic-sin like backboost to seasonal human coronaviruses OC43 and HKU1.
That's really bad too.
OC43 and HKU1 are betacoronaviruses that produce colds and flus in humans; they're considered mild annoyances these days. But one of them, OC43, is believed to have been a serious pandemic flu in the 1890 timeframe. We can't prove it but sequencing, simple time analysis and reports from that time of people dying in the same sort of way as Covid-19 killed people are in the literature. Between those it is a reasonable hypothesis that OC43 was the cause of that, and it was real.
But that means that if there's a boost to the virulence of OC43 it has a proved capacity to kill -- and might again, being potentiated by getting the jabs.
Again: This is one paper, it's a pre-print and not proved. But it is science and not crack-potted assumption.
Shouldn't we have done all of this science before we jabbed a hundred million+ Americans with something that they are now stuck with and, if it proves up to be what's suggested in this study, may well be worse, on balance, than accepting a Covid-19 infection and using cheap drugs to treat it?
