The barebones of COVID: do you agree with this?

[Jam]

It's clearly not a good idea, but don't know if it will be "particularly deadly."

One of the big flaws in Vanden Bossche's argument is that there is "high infection rates," and cites the "Delta Variant." But that data is based on either eyeball diagnosis, symptom diagnosis (100% of which overlap with the common cold and flu), or the easily manipulated and flawed PCR test, which has been shown to spit out 97% false positives (or higher) at current cycle usage. So is there "high" infection rates, with this "Novel Corona Virus?" Or, the Delta Airlines Variant? Or the Lambada variant, or Omegatron variant? Truly, it's unknown. But, people don't seem to be getting sick at any rate more than normal.

I don't think anyone should take the demonvax, and I certainly don't think it should be pushed on children, but the predictions here involve mechanisms that rest on seriously flawed data in the first place.

SARS-CoV-2 is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make in this thread, and which I quoted in my previous post... the one you just quoted. SARS-CoV-2 isn't a problem for children at all, as it probably doesn't even exist in the real world, and if it does, is only dangerous to very sick people with multiple comorbidities, not children.

The real problem, beyond the usual problems associated with traditional vaccines, is that injecting children (whose immune systems are mostly coronavirus-naive) with these gene therapies could mean that their immune systems may be primed, for many years, or even life, to produce the same old extremely narrow antibodies against the Wuhan spike protein whenever they come into contact with any coronavirus. This is called original antigenic sin, and is well-documented in the literature. Obviously, disregard these considerations if the shots are really just saline, LOL. It has been proven that there is cross-reactivity between SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and other coronaviruses and vice-versa.

Furthermore, these gene therapies also acutely incapacitate the immune system, as has also been proven in multiple studies, for weeks if not months, so good luck with *any* other viral (or other) infection. Finally, there are also long-term consequences to the immune system, which are unknown for now, but could potentially last for many many years given that children normally still have most of their lives ahead (instead of behind) them.

 

[ThinPicking]

SARS-CoV-2 is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make in this thread, and which I quoted in my previous post... the one you just quoted. SARS-CoV-2 isn't a problem for children at all, as it probably doesn't even exist in the real world, and if it does, is only dangerous to very sick people with multiple comorbidities, not children.

The real problem, beyond the usual problems associated with traditional vaccines, is that injecting children (whose immune systems are mostly coronavirus-naive) with these gene therapies could mean that their immune systems may be primed, for many years, or even life, to produce the same old extremely narrow antibodies against the Wuhan spike protein whenever they come into contact with any coronavirus. This is called original antigenic sin, and is well-documented in the literature. Obviously, disregard these considerations if the shots are really just saline, LOL. It has been proven that there is cross-reactivity between SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and other coronaviruses and vice-versa.

Furthermore, these gene therapies also acutely incapacitate the immune system, as has also been proven in multiple studies, for weeks if not months, so good luck with *any* other viral (or other) infection. Finally, there are also long-term consequences to the immune system, which are unknown for now, but could potentially last for many many years given that children normally still have most of their lives ahead (instead of behind) them.

This weird little narrative can potentially be used in future to spin ever deeper levels of deception in to this. The reality is you've no way of knowing the difference between simple poison and the ***t you just said.

 

[tankasnowgod]

The real problem, beyond the usual problems associated with traditional vaccines, is that injecting children (whose immune systems are mostly coronavirus-naive) with these gene therapies could mean that their immune systems may be primed, for many years, or even life, to produce the same old extremely narrow antibodies against the Wuhan spike protein whenever they come into contact with any coronavirus. This is called original antigenic sin, and is well-documented in the literature. Obviously, disregard these considerations if the shots are really just saline, LOL.

But, as I pointed out before, even a 5 year old child (the youngest eligible for these shots) will still have had several colds, and likely somewhere between 20-40 other vaccines (including flu shots). What is "original" about this shot, after all those other colds and shots? It's called "Original Antigenic Sin," not ""27th or So Exposure To Viruses Or Vaccines Antigenic Sin." Even the passage I quoted earlier specified it was talking about the very first exposure to a cold virus in life, not something five years down the line or more.

The antibody of childhood is largely a response to … 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 virus are acquired. But … 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 explanation stresses over and over the very first infection. Why would this apply to a five year old, who has had several colds and vaccines and flu shots? It doesn't say "The first few," or "The first infections" or "Infections in the first ten years of life." It refers to the first one only.

Furthermore, these gene therapies also acutely incapacitate the immune system, as has been proven in multiple studies, for weeks if not months, so good luck with *any* other viral (or other) infection. Finally, there are also long-term consequences to the immune system, which are unknown for now, but could potentially last for many many years given that children normally still have most of their lives ahead (instead of behind) them.

I don't disagree with this, it's a big reason why I would never take one of these shots under any circumstances. Too poorly tested, long term effects unknown.

 

[Jam]

But, as I pointed out before, even a 5 year old child (the youngest eligible for these shots) will still have had several colds, and likely somewhere between 20-40 other vaccines (including flu shots). What is "original" about this shot, after all those other colds and shots? It's called "Original Antigenic Sin," not ""27th or So Exposure To Viruses Or Vaccines Antigenic Sin." Even the passage I quoted earlier specified it was talking about the very first exposure to a cold virus in life, not something five years down the line or more.


The explanation stresses over and over the very first infection. Why would this apply to a five year old, who has had several colds and vaccines and flu shots? It doesn't say "The first few," or "The first infections" or "Infections in the first ten years of life." It refers to the first one only.


I don't disagree with this, it's a big reason why I would never take one of these shots under any circumstances. Too poorly tested, long term effects unknown.

The problem is that most children don't immediately develop antibodies to coronaviruses (or other respiratory viruses) until a bit later in life, as children mostly rely on their innate immune systems to clear viral infections.

 

[tankasnowgod]

The problem is that most children don't immediately develop antibodies to coronaviruses (or other respiratory viruses) until a bit later in life, as children mostly rely on their innate immune systems to clear viral infections.

So, now you are arguing against the very doctrine that you cited?

So, when does the "original" infection take place then, if it's not the first one after birth? Seven years old? Ten? Somewhere in the teens? After their 18th Birthday, when viruses recognize them as adults, like the government does?

And if this is true, why wouldn't their "innate immune system" just clear the toxic vaccine as well?

 

[Jam]

So, now you are arguing against the very doctrine that you cited?

So, when does the "original" infection take place then, if it's not the first one after birth? Seven years old? Ten? Somewhere in the teens? After their 18th Birthday, when viruses recognize them as adults, like the government does?

And if this is true, why wouldn't their "innate immune system" just clear the toxic vaccine as well?

So, since children normally clear respiratory viral infections via a powerful "first responder" innate immune response, these viruses rarely make it past the mucosa to create more severe infection. Later in life, or immediately following an infection, or in a pandemic (it is very arguable that we have been in a real one the past 2 years), when innate immunity is suppressed, an adaptive immune response is required and the antibodies generated by the adaptive immune system used to clear virus, after a period of time, migrate to the bone marrow to be recalled upon subsequent infection. When you inject viral antigens into a child, or inject a substance that makes the child's cells produce said antigen, you are (obviously) bypassing innate immunity and triggering adaptive immunity to generate antibodies, which are then "memorized" into the bone marrow.

 

[ThinPicking]

in a pandemic (it is very arguable that we have been in a real one the past 2 years)

lol

 

[tankasnowgod]

So, since children normally clear respiratory viral infections via a powerful "first responder" innate immune response, these viruses rarely make it past the mucosa to create more severe infection.

So, which infection counts as the first one?

Later in life, or immediately following an infection, or in a pandemic (it is very arguable that we have been in a real one the past 2 years)

Obviously, we haven't. Even the official inflated numbers of 5.3 Million deaths worldwide aren't a "Pandemic." They would fit nicely within the 16 Million or so expected respiratory disease deaths. There is nothing out of the ordinary health wise going on.

, when innate immunity is suppressed, an adaptive immune response is required and the antibodies generated by the adaptive immune system used to clear virus, after a period of time, migrate to the bone marrow to be recalled upon subsequent infection. When you inject viral antigens into a child, or inject a substance that makes the child's cells produce said antigen, you are (obviously) bypassing innate immunity and triggering adaptive immunity to generate antibodies, which are then "memorized" into the bone marrow.

Okay...... but then, why would this shot be unique? Any five year old who gets it has likely had 20-40 previous vaccines, including flu shots. And they start at birth. Here is the CDC schedule-

Immunization Schedules for 18 & Younger

View and print CDC recommended immunization schedules.

www.cdc.gov

So why would this doctrine apply?

 

[Jam]

So, which infection counts as the first one?

Obviously, we haven't. Even the official inflated numbers of 5.3 Million deaths worldwide aren't a "Pandemic." They would fit nicely within the 16 Million or so expected respiratory disease deaths. There is nothing out of the ordinary health wise going on.

Okay...... but then, why would this shot be unique? Any five year old who gets it has likely had 20-40 previous vaccines, including flu shots. And they start at birth. Here is the CDC schedule-

Immunization Schedules for 18 & Younger

View and print CDC recommended immunization schedules.

www.cdc.gov

So why would this doctrine apply?

The first infection that breaks through innate immunity is the one that counts, and this usually happens either later in life, if infected immediately (less than a month or so) following a previous infection (when innate immunity is suppressed by the adaptive immune system), or when directly injecting an antigen or antigen-producing therapy into the body (thus bypassing innate immunity directly).

So, most children don't have memorized antibodies to any coronavirus. By injecting them with the gene therapies, you are artificially forcing them to generate (very narrowly focused) antibodies to the Wuhan spike protein. They are then memorized, and due to original antigenic sin, these non-functional antibodies (which only work against the original Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 virus, if it even exists outside of a computer model) will then be recalled every single time any type of coronavirus makes it past the innate immune system, which, for a period of time after injection, is suppressed by the shots, and subsequently, can be suppressed for any number of reasons.

Original antigenic sin is really only relevant to highly mutable respiratory RNA/DNA viruses such as most coronaviruses, influenzas, RSV, etc, which is why a successful vaccine targeting such viruses has never been developed that didn't kill trial participants, animal or human.

All of the other childhood vaccines on the CDC schedule are targeting static viruses that don't mutate (to any significant extent).

 

[ThinPicking]

Wuhan spike protein

 

[tankasnowgod]

The first infection that breaks through innate immunity is the one that counts, and this usually happens either later in life, if infected immediately (less than a month or so) following a previous infection (when innate immunity is suppressed by the adaptive immune system), or when directly injecting an antigen or antigen-producing therapy into the body (thus bypassing innate immunity directly).

So, most children don't have memorized antibodies to any coronavirus. By injecting them with the gene therapies, you are artificially forcing them to generate (very narrowly focused) antibodies to the Wuhan spike protein. They are then memorized, and due to original antigenic sin, these non-functional antibodies (which only work against the original Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 virus, if it even exists outside of a computer model) will then be recalled every single time any type of coronavirus makes it past the innate immune system, which, for a period of time after injection, is suppressed by the shots, and subsequently, can be suppressed for any number of reasons.

Original antigenic sin is really only relevant to highly mutable respiratory RNA/DNA viruses such as most coronaviruses, influenzas, RSV, etc, which is why a successful vaccine targeting such viruses has never been developed that didn't kill trial participants, animal or human.

All of the other childhood vaccines on the CDC schedule are targeting static viruses that don't mutate (to any significant extent).

Hmmm, sounds like you are twisting and turning this theory so that you it fits the narrative you want it to fit.

All other colds and flus that a five year old had previously don't count, because, well, they don't count.

The other vaccines (other than the flu shots) don't count because they are static viruses that don't mutate (which seems dubious. Why do these viruses not "mutate," but others do?)

But even granting both of those conditions..... you clearly overlooked that an annual flu shot (or two) is on the CDC schedule, starting at six months old. And flu shots usually contain 3-4 strains that are thought to "mutate." So, even in this scenario, this would still be something like the 15-40th exposure. So, again, how could "Original Antigenic Sin" possibly apply?

 

[Jam]

Hmmm, sounds like you are twisting and turning this theory so that you it fits the narrative you want it to fit.

All other colds and flus that a five year old had previously don't count, because, well, they don't count.

The other vaccines (other than the flu shots) don't count because they are static viruses that don't mutate (which seems dubious. Why do these viruses not "mutate," but others do?)

But even granting both of those conditions..... you clearly overlooked that an annual flu shot (or two) is on the CDC schedule, starting at six months old. And flu shots usually contain 3-4 strains that are thought to "mutate." So, even in this scenario, this would still be something like the 15-40th exposure. So, again, how could "Original Antigenic Sin" possibly apply?

I'm not twisting anything, this is my understanding of immunology.

The flu shots have not ever been proven to work. At best, they do nothing, but in reality, they probably cause damaging immune reactions if you happen to get infected with the "wrong" strain (a different strain than the one you were vaccinated against). However, in stark contrast to the COVID shots, the flu shots give you antibodies to a good portion of the specific strain they vaccinate you against, while with the COVID shots, you produce antibodies to only a miniscule portion of the whole virus, the spike protein.

Thus, with the flu, your immune system still recognizes that it is a flu virus, even if slightly different. With the COVID shots and no prior immunity, you are ****88.

 

[tankasnowgod]

I'm not twisting anything, this is my understanding of immunology.

The flu shots have not ever been proven to work.

Well, neither have the Covid shots. The flu shots at least had regular approval and decades of use behind them. Not 2-6 months interim data, EUA authorization, and about 1 year of use.

At best, they do nothing, but in reality, they probably cause damaging immune reactions if you happen to get infected with the "wrong" strain (a different strain than the one you were vaccinated against). However, in stark contrast to the COVID shots, the flu shots give you antibodies to a good portion of the specific strain they vaccinate you against, while with the COVID shots, you produce antibodies to only a miniscule portion of the whole virus, the spike protein.

Really? Where is the proof of this? Specifically, for the Covid shots? These are the most poorly tested and rushed to market drugs in history. The clinical trials didn't even test for any sort of "Antibodies," they got EAU approval (based on 2 month interim data) with the claim that they reduced testing positive for Covid by 95% (using Relative Risk Reduction).

Do the shots even cause cells to produce the "Spike Protein," as has been claimed? If they do, does this only produce "specific" antibodies? I know this is the "official mechanism of action," but where is the proof any of this happens?

The only studies I have seen where they tested the effects of the Covid shots where very small (less than 20 participants, total), and all in healthcare workers, who may probably have greater occupational exposure to any "virus" going around, even more so than the general public.

Thus, with the flu, your immune system still recognizes that it is a flu virus, even if slightly different. With the COVID shots and no prior immunity, you are ****88.

Again, the last part is speculation.

 

[AlaskaJono]

There is this fellow Eugyppius on substack who I read the other day regarding Original Antigenic Sin. Great explanation.

eugyppius: a plague chronicle

We are witnessing an unprecedented, comprehensive failure of policy, medicine and science. The world will never be the same.Click to read eugyppius: a plague chronicle, a Substack publication with tens of thousands of readers.

eugyppius.substack.com

"Original Antigenic Sin is a real phenomenon. It seems not only to permanently influence the immune response to the spike protein itself, but also to inhibit the development of antibodies to other SARS-2 proteins. A worst case scenario, would be a future spike mutation that entirely escapes the anti-spike antibodies elicited by our vaccines. In this case, it seems possible that many vaccinated people will be stuck with permanently suboptimal immune responses. If Omicron is indeed circulating primarily among the vaccinated, as some data suggests, this would seem to be one possibly reason why. These concerns are particularly acute in the case of children, who may well be exposed to the risk of very serious illness in the future, if vaccination permanently misdirects their immune system."

@Jam Therefore it seems the Original Antigen of the Sin can be from 'vaccine shots' or the wild type that we encounter through daily living. Either one of these can be the original antigens that then train the body in a way to respond. I am not sure who to trust to do the science, but... that is my understanding anyway. The real argument seems to be if the spike protein in the shots is what primes peeps' antibody systems, then when confronted by the mutated or wild coronavirus, the antibodies try to do their job, but it is ineffective. This in fact can lead to ADE as well. (Check Gato Malo Dec 13th article and post commentary. ****)

 

[Jam]

Well, neither have the Covid shots. The flu shots at least had regular approval and decades of use behind them. Not 2-6 months interim data, EUA authorization, and about 1 year of use.

You confuse "working" with "effective". The flu shots just aren't proven to be effective at all, but they are definitely not saline are do illicit an immune response.

Really? Where is the proof of this? Specifically, for the Covid shots? These are the most poorly tested and rushed to market drugs in history. The clinical trials didn't even test for any sort of "Antibodies," they got EAU approval (based on 2 month interim data) with the claim that they reduced testing positive for Covid by 95% (using Relative Risk Reduction).

This has been amply proven since around June: First case of postmortem study in a patient vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2

Abstract​

A previously symptomless 86-year-old man received the first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. He died 4 weeks later from acute renal and respiratory failure. Although he did not present with any COVID-19-specific symptoms, he tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 before he died. Spike protein (S1) antigen-binding showed significant levels for immunoglobulin (Ig) G, while nucleocapsid IgG/IgM was not elicited. Acute bronchopneumonia and tubular failure were assigned as the cause of death at autopsy; however, we did not observe any characteristic morphological features of COVID-19. Postmortem molecular mapping by real-time polymerase chain reaction revealed relevant SARS-CoV-2 cycle threshold values in all organs examined (oropharynx, olfactory mucosa, trachea, lungs, heart, kidney and cerebrum) except for the liver and olfactory bulb. These results might suggest that the first vaccination induces immunogenicity but not sterile immunity.

Do the shots even cause cells to produce the "Spike Protein," as has been claimed? If they do, does this only produce "specific" antibodies? I know this is the "official mechanism of action," but where is the proof any of this happens?

See above.

Again, the last part is speculation.

No, it is an educated guess based on solid science. If anyone from the corrupt Scientism cult cared an iota about the precautionary principle, the mass vaccination campaign would have been halted immediately after the first few hundred deaths early this year. Yet, after tens of thousands of deaths (which are underreported by a factor of 4-5x) they are now pushing these gene therapies on children and seducing them on Sesame Street to get the shot. Equally, people like you would do well to eat a bit more humble of that humble pie instead of sticking your head under the sand.

 

[Jam]

There is this fellow Eugyppius on substack who I read the other day regarding Original Antigenic Sin. Great explanation.

eugyppius: a plague chronicle

We are witnessing an unprecedented, comprehensive failure of policy, medicine and science. The world will never be the same.Click to read eugyppius: a plague chronicle, a Substack publication with tens of thousands of readers.

eugyppius.substack.com

"Original Antigenic Sin is a real phenomenon. It seems not only to permanently influence the immune response to the spike protein itself, but also to inhibit the development of antibodies to other SARS-2 proteins. A worst case scenario, would be a future spike mutation that entirely escapes the anti-spike antibodies elicited by our vaccines. In this case, it seems possible that many vaccinated people will be stuck with permanently suboptimal immune responses. If Omicron is indeed circulating primarily among the vaccinated, as some data suggests, this would seem to be one possibly reason why. These concerns are particularly acute in the case of children, who may well be exposed to the risk of very serious illness in the future, if vaccination permanently misdirects their immune system."

@Jam Therefore it seems the Original Antigen of the Sin can be from 'vaccine shots' or the wild type that we encounter through daily living. Either one of these can be the original antigens that then train the body in a way to respond. I am not sure who to trust to do the science, but... that is my understanding anyway. The real argument seems to be if the spike protein in the shots is what primes peeps' antibody systems, then when confronted by the mutated or wild coronavirus, the antibodies try to do their job, but it is ineffective. This in fact can lead to ADE as well. (Check Gato Malo Dec 13th article and post commentary. ****)

Yes, this is exactly what I have been saying. But, since it was recently proven that there is cross-reactivity between SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and regular human coronavirus antibodies, original antigenic sin in children could apply, to an extent that we probably don't know yet, to all coronaviruses.

 

[AlaskaJono]

Also, fresh "Extra Extra Read All About It" from John Rappaport and big barebones Bone: US hospitals: fraud, murder, cash; federal assassination-for-hire program Dec 14 “Attorney Thomas Renz and CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] whistleblowers have calculated a total [federal] payment [to hospitals] of at least $100,000 per [COVID] patient.”

 

[Jam]

Anyhow, I think we're pretty much beating a dead horse here, as even if OAS turns out to be much less of a problem than is feared -- the shots are damaging enough by a long shot without OAS considerations that the mass vaccination campaign should be halted immediately.

 

[ThinPicking]

Anyhow, I think we're pretty much beating a dead horse here, as even if OAS turns out to be much less of a problem than is feared -- the shots are damaging enough by a long shot without OAS considerations that the mass vaccination campaign should be halted immediately.

This guy claims he can argue we've been in a real pandemic for 2 years. He'll believe anything.

 

[Perry Staltic]

This guy claims he can argue we've been in a real pandemic for 2 years. He'll believe anything.

The WHO changed the definition of the word pandemic to mean something completely devoid of practical meaning. Virtually anything can be called a pandemic now, so in terms of what the word used to mean, this hasn't been a real pandemic.