Israel's Yinon Bar-On et al.'s NEJM study on the 4th Pfizer dose (2nd booster) and a recent CDC study on the Waning 2-Dose and 3-Dose Effectiveness of mRNA Vaccines in Periods of Delta and Omicron

by Paul Alexander

leaves you to ask "what the hell is Fauci saying when he calls for a 4th shot (2nd booster)? Does this knucklehead inept technocrat not understand immune imprinting using non-neutralizing VAXX"??

Dear Dr. Fauci, as you run around in search of your step stool, let me clue you and your incompetent research group at NIAID into something that you SHOULD have known and why you are going to cause significant risk to the population. I will italicize it for you Dr. Fauci so that you may follow, and I will even bold it for you:

The COVID gene injection was built upon and based on the initial Wuhan legacy strain. This strain is long gone and has been long gone a while now. Yet the idiots at NIH and CDC and NIAID who work with you Dr. Fauci, know this and still pretend. Yet these idiots want to give a 4th dose of the very same thing that prior failed.

Because the initial vaccine was based on the Wuhan strain, then vaccinal antibodies (Abs) that are induced will be targeting the Wuhan strain of the virus. This is the doctrine of the ‘Original antigenic sin’ (OAS) and immune FIXATION or imprinting, priming, or prejudicing of the immune response. It becomes ‘fixated’ on the initial prime or exposure. It is elegantly simple. I however call this ‘mortal antigenic sin’ as the prejudice is life-long and cannot be fixed or ‘absolved’ as in original sin. So if the current dominant sub-variant is omicron sub-variant clades BA.4 and mainly now BA.5, then the vaccinal Abs cannot hit it and as such, cannot sterilize (neutralize) the virus. There is immune escape due to the multiple mutations on the spike so much so that we argue that BA.5 is sufficiently different that it is not even omicron or COVID virus. One can argue this. Thus the massive immune ‘rechallenge’ and it may be presenting as an entirely ‘novel’ pathogen. Purists can have a field day on that but back to the point at hand.

If you go and boost with the Wuhan strain vaccine (the one we are using now), then you will be calling up Wuhan vaccinal Abs based on initial fixation or immune imprinting, OAS. The immune system is prejudiced to respond to the initial prime or exposure and recall those Abs, be it via vaccine or natural virus exposure and infection.

Thus, with omicron BA.5 dominating, there will be immune escape. Thus there will be no stoppage of infection, viral replication, or transmission. The current COVID vaccine just cannot work and you the vaccinee, is trapped in a booster treadmill and cannot get off. Very importantly, the recalled vaccinal Abs to Wuhan, because they cannot neutralize the virus (the spike) as are an immunological mismatch, we have found though ‘will still bind’ to the spike antigen binding sites. Remember, the mRNA induced vaccinal Abs cannot neutralize the virus but in binding to the antigen spike, and based on research by Yahi et al, Liu et al. and others, this binding increases infectiousness of the virus to the vaccinated person (s). Yes, the COVID non-neutralizing vaccine is causing the vaccinated person to become infected. There is not only immune imprinting and thus recall of the wrong vaccinal Abs, but also increased infectiousness.

Alarmingly, we have also been trying to warn that in young children, in the unique window of opportunity (time wise) when the innate antibodies are trained and thus function to instruct their innate immune system, if you vaccinate them with these COVID vaccines, you will subvert and prevent the binding of the innate Abs to the viruses etc. In this prevention, the innate Abs in children cannot train and this will leave them susceptible to a range of glycosylated viruses and auto-immune disease and even cancers.

a.     An important component of the innate immune system is “innate antibodies” (“natural antibodies”).  Children are born with these innate antibodies, which   are present in high concentration during early childhood and wane thereafter.

b.     Innate antibodies are nonspecific---meaning that they are capable of binding to and neutralizing many different viruses.

c.      By binding to viruses, innate antibodies play a major role in educating the innate immune system to recognize and appropriately attack viruses (and other foreign, “non-self” entities).

d.     Also, by binding to viruses, innate antibodies teach the innate immune system to distinguish between “non-self” (which it may attack) and “self” (which it should leave alone).

e.     Interference with the binding of innate antibodies to viruses interferes with the education and function of a person’s innate immune system, leaving the person less able to fight off infection and more prone to autoimmune disease (disease due to immune attack waged against “self”---parts of one’s own body).

f.     The COVID vaccines are focused primarily on production of antibodies to the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 (SC-2, for shortvirus, and they primarily rely on these spike-specific “neutralizing antibodies” to fight the virus.

g.     Compared to innate antibodies, the neutralizing vaccinal antibodies bind much more strongly to the SC-2 virus (even after their neutralizing capacity has markedly diminished) and, thereby, outcompete the innate antibodies for attachment to binding sites on SC-2.  That is, the vaccinal antibodies interfere with binding of innate antibodies to the virus. (Innate antibodies, by design, bind only loosely to viruses.) 

h.      This vaccinal interference with the binding of innate antibodies to SC-2 results in impairment of normal education and function of the innate immune system, leaving the vaccinated person less able to fight off infection and more prone to autoimmune disease.

i. Why and how does vaccinal interference with the interaction of innate antibodies with the specific SC-2 virus affect the overall education of the innate immune system, regarding response to other viruses and distinction between non-self and self?  This is very complex but has to do with shared molecular patterns that many viruses have in common and that are also similar to molecular patterns (“self” patterns) on components of the human body.

Israeli study:

Israel study, author Yinon Bar-On et al.: 4th COVID injection protection from Pfizer against Omicron wanes rapidly; Comparing the rate ratio over time since the fourth dose (Figure 2) suggests that the protection against confirmed infection with the omicron variant reaches a maximum in the fourth week after vaccination...these findings suggest that protection against confirmed infection wanes quickly'.

‘Comparing the rate ratio over time since the fourth dose (Figure 2) suggests that the protection against confirmed infection with the omicron variant reaches a maximum in the fourth week after vaccination, after which the rate ratio decreases to approximately 1.1 by the eighth week; these findings suggest that protection against confirmed infection wanes quickly.’

I caution that these types of studies are plagued by confounding (not adequately adjusted for in this study) such as 1) healthy vaccinee bias in which healthier persons seek vaccine 2) persons who get the 4th dose may be behaviorally different from those that get the 3rd 3) underlying co-existing comorbid illnesses may impact the study groups differentially 4) treatment for medical conditions may exist differentially and were not controlled for and may distort the results

NEJM SOURCE

CDC study:

Ferdinands et al.: Waning 2-Dose and 3-Dose Effectiveness of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19–Associated Emergency Department and Urgent Care Encounters and Hospitalizations Among Adults During Periods of Delta and Omicron Variant Predominance — VISION Network, 10 States, August 2021–January 2022

“During the Omicron-predominant period, VE against COVID-19–associated ED/UC encounters was lower overall compared with that during the Delta-predominant period and waned after the second dose, from 69% within 2 months of vaccination to 37% at ≥5 months after vaccination (p<0.001). Protection increased after a third dose, with VE of 87% among those vaccinated within the past 2 months; however, VE after 3 doses declined to 66% among those vaccinated 4–5 months earlier and 31% among those vaccinated ≥5 months earlier"…in a multistate analysis of 241,204 ED/UC encounters and 93,408 hospitalizations among adults with COVID-19–like illness during August 26, 2021–January 22, 2022, estimates of VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were lower during the Omicron-predominant than during the Delta-predominant period, after accounting for both number of vaccine doses received and time since vaccination. During both periods, VE after receipt of a third dose was always higher than VE following a second dose; however, VE waned with increasing time since vaccination.”

CDC SOURCE

Fauci: COVID Booster Loses Potency After 4 Months, Fauci Says 'There May Be the Need' for Fourth Dose

“A fourth dose of the COVID-19 vaccine might be necessary for some Americans. New data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finds that the mRNA shot's protection begins to decline after about four months, according to a study released Friday.”