I became a legend in my own (brief) lunchtime on 'right wing' Twitter and by writing blog articles sceptical of the consensus narrative on global warming aka climate change aka the climate crisis (much more scary). Twitter took down my account because I said nasty things about very nasty people, but mainly because I had an awful habit of telling the truth. I now tweet as @JaneDryden4. Nowadays, I mainly focus on being sceptical of the rigidly enforced government narrative on Covid and of the absurd and immensely damaging 'non pharmaceutical interventions' imposed upon us to supposedly control a 'pandemic', restrictions originally inspired not by science, but by Communist China (where the virus was probably made). Covid and climate change are intimately connected I believe. Now not merely sceptical of these twin consensus narratives I am genuinely terrified by the direction in which we appear to be headed. Will speak out for as long as I can, and reject being experimented upon with lethal 'gene therapies' until the day I die (which might be sooner than I planned courtesy of globalist fascists).
Born and grew up in London, on a council estate. Proud of my traditional working class background. University educated. Strong science background but not an 'expert' in anything. Keen on communicating science. Fiercely independent minded and (almost) immune to group-think, hence horrified by the mass brainwashing exercise that has been so spectacularly successful since March 2020.
I love dogs, especially German Shepherds and have rescued them for years. Passionate opponent of all forms of cruelty to innocent animals. Vegetarian long before it became 'woke', simply because I did not want to contribute in any way to the abuses I saw happening in the commercial meat industry. Now firmly opposed to the 'become vegan to save the planet' BS ideological narrative, in fact all things 'Green'.
Oh no, not Matt. One of my favourite climate sceptical thinkers has succumbed to the Cult of the Vackseen. What can I say? I’m deeply disappointed and disillusioned. Even if not always agreeing with Matt, I’ve defended his way of thinking against attacks from the more hysterical members of the Climate Cult, as here. I’ve respected his rationalism, even if not always sharing his optimism. But what have we got here?
Matt is a scientist. Where is his rationale for getting boosted? Where is his rationale and evidence to justify getting boosted with a totally different ‘vaccine’ from his first two jabs? Which manufacturer is he going to blame if it turns out that the intense reaction he suffered is the start of something more ominous? Is he healthy? I presume so. So why would he even contemplate getting ‘boosted’ when the advice from the WHO is that they are not recommended for healthy adults?
He’s written lots about the lab origin of the original Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 virus and believes that the furin cleavage site on the spike protein was modified via gain of function research, effectively making it a man-made bioweapon. Matt just admitted that he had a third dose of mRNA ‘vaccine’ this time, which tells his cells to manufacture these man-made spike proteins in their trillions and Moderna has three times the mRNA of Pfizer even, so it generates a lot of toxic, hyper-inflammatory antigens – and he wonders why the extraordinarily intense fever? Just the jab working – he hopes.
That’s optimism for you, but it ain’t rational. Yet another sceptic bites the dust.
Our American friends might not appreciate the subtle headline above, most likely because they are unaware of the highly successful and much loved UK comedy series ‘Only Fools and Horses’. Del Boy and Trigger are both characters in that sitcom.
I use the headline mockingly, to illustrate the absurdity of UK mainstream ‘news’. This isn’t news. it’s not ‘newly discovered’. It’s not really ground-breaking scientific research. In fact, it’s been known about for years, even before the advent of the Covid-19 ‘vaccines’. I wrote about it here.
The BBC and the rest of the MSM here in the UK are making a big deal about it. This is the BBC headline:
Covid: Trigger of rare blood clots with AstraZeneca jab found by scientists
Shouts at you. Makes you think that some new and exciting scientific discovery has happened. It hasn’t. They may have uncovered more details about the mechanism involved. That’s it basically. All that’s happened is that Del Boy has discovered that Trigger has replaced the handle on his old broom.
The BBC say:
Scientists believe they have found “the trigger” that leads to extremely rare blood clots after the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid vaccine.
They think this kicks off a chain reaction, involving the immune system, that can culminate in dangerous clots.
It also started a scientific detective hunt to figure out what was going on and if it could be prevented. The Cardiff team were given emergency government funding to find the answers.
Ooh, really? A real life detective hunt!
The researchers thought the adenovirus might be linked to the rare clots occurring in some people.
They did? Why’s that I wonder? Could it have something to do with the fact that adenovirus vectors were implicated in blood clotting years ago? Surely not! I wrote about this very topic in the reference above:
The issue has been known about for at least 15 years, so there’s no excuse for the manufacturers to claim that such an adverse effect was unforeseen – it wasn’t. Here for instance:
Thrombocytopenia has been consistently reported following the administration of adenoviral gene transfer vectors. The mechanism underlying this phenomenon is currently unknown.
Thrombocytopenia is a major adverse effect of high dose systemic administration of adenoviral (Ad) gene therapy vectors. While a previous report did not find platelet activation by Ad , recent studies have shown that Ad may activate platelets  and binds in vivo to murine thrombocytes resulting in hepatic sequestration . Ad-induced thrombocytopenia has been shown to be dose-dependent, saturable and reversible , compatible with a ligand-receptor mechanism. Recently, binding of Ad to platelet was indirectly suggested following interference of platelet adhesion to fibronectin after incubation with Ad . In this study we developed a direct flow cytometry assay to quantitatively analyze Ad attachment to human platelets in vitro and to characterize their interaction.
So any claims of ‘new discovery’ by the press are total bullshit and moreover they conceal the fact that the manufacturers of the Oxford/AZ chimp virus ‘vaccine’ must have known from the word go that their product carried a significant risk of inducing blood clots.
They even knew a lot about the mechanism of the binding of the adenovirus to platelets way back in 2009 and this scientific study describes it in detail, which sounds suspiciously similar to the mechanism ‘newly discovered’ by Del Boy scientists today – though I’m not an expert judge in that respect. The point is, scientists knew that adenoviral vectors were a potential problem 10 years before the Covid ‘vaccines’ appeared on the scene. Just how gullible and stupid do the main stream press think we are?
There is no vaccine that you put into your muscle that can ever protect you against an infection of the respiratory tract.
That’s it. Simple. The ‘vaccines’ do not prevent infection and they never have. They can’t. Here’s why, according to Dr. Bhakdi.
There are two types of neutralising antibodies. Neutralising antibodies are those which prevent the virus from entering the host cell by recognising the receptor region on the spike – the receptor binding domain (RBD). They are found in two distinct places in the body: in the blood/lymphatic system and the mucosal linings, and they are produced by the lymphocytes (killer white blood cells). The neutralising antibodies in the blood protect the vital organs from being invaded by a foreign virus. There are also neutralising antibodies produced locally in the mucus membranes of the nose, mouth and gastro-intestinal tract and these directly prevent viruses travelling beyond that point to the lungs and other organs.
Now, these two immune systems – the mucosal and the blood – are functionally distinct and very rarely interact. The ‘vaccines’, injected into the muscle, only stimulate the production of neutralising antibodies in the blood and the lymph. They do not, they cannot produce antibodies targeting virus in the respiratory and intestinal tracts. SARS-CoV-2 is an airborne respiratory virus . . . . . go figure, as they say.
‘Vaccination’ is not going to neutralise the SARS-CoV-2 virus at the main point of entry into the body (the nose and the mouth). Nor, for the record, is a flimsy piece of cheap fabric made in China, despite being made a legal requirement by Mr Fascist Shiny Bonce and Mr Fascist Blonde Mop Head. Take home message: the ‘vaccines’ are not going to prevent transmission or infection. Period. They may protect against serious disease (for a few months at least) in some vulnerable individuals by preventing viral entry into the cells of the vital organs. That’s it though.
But hey, don’t take my word for it. Don’t even take world-renowned expert Dr. Bhakdi’s word for it, because you never know, he might be a secret tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist looking for nefarious ways to undermine the ‘vaccines’.
So yes, we look for confirmation of what Dr. Bhakdi says in the literature. And we find it. [Cue: sharp intake of breath by the ‘fact-checkers’]
Within the immune system, a series of anatomically distinct compartments can be distinguished, each of which is specially adapted to generate a response to pathogens present in a particular set of body tissues.
Two key features define these compartments. The first is that immune responses induced within one compartment are largely confined in expression to that particular compartment. The second is that lymphocytes are restricted to particular compartments by expression of homing receptors that are bound by ligands, known as addressins, that are specifically expressed within the tissues of the compartment.
So, it’s true, the mucosal immune system is functionally distinct from the immune system of the blood and furthermore, the lymphocytes which produce the neutralising antibodies in those separate compartments are confined to that location.
Although the COVID-19 pandemic has been ongoing now for several months, very little attention has been given to mucosal immunity in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Yet this virus primarily infects the mucosal surfaces of the respiratory tract (and possibly also the digestive tract) at least until advanced stages of the disease when viral RNA may become detectable in the circulation (1). The virus may also be acquired through the mouth, and at the conjunctival surface of the eye whence it drains into the nasal passages through the lacrimal duct. This means that its interactions with the immune system, during both inductive and effector phases, must first occur predominantly if not exclusively at the respiratory and oral mucosae. This has profound implications for the outcomes and should guide our approach to investigating and comprehending adaptive immunity in COVID-19 disease, including its diagnosis, treatment, and effective vaccine development. In terms of both the deployment of immune cells and the production of immunoglobulins, the mucosal immune system is by far the largest component of the entire immune system, having evolved to provide protection at the main sites of infectious threat: the mucosae (2). Secretory IgA (SIgA) is produced in quantities far exceeding those of all other immunoglobulin isotypes combined (3).
Exactly what Dr Bhakdi said. If you’re still not convinced though:
Almost all efforts at vaccine development against COVID-19 focus on systemic injection, which predominantly induces circulatory IgG antibodies and, potentially, cytotoxic T cells (18). These routes are poorly effective at generating mucosal immune responses, which can only be induced by mucosal routes of immunization, including through the NALT in the URT.
Finally, we have this information sheet released by the World Heath organisation, dated 3rd September 2021. The WHO talk about infection-induced immunity, how it “lasts many months” and “is multi-faceted and generates antibodies against the spike protein plus other non-structural proteins (Nucleoprotein (N), Matrix protein (M), Envelope protein (E)).” Also how it “induces systemic immunity and mucosal immunity”.
The ‘vaccines’ induce only systemic immunity and even that against only the narrow spike region. So the all important first line of defence against infection, the mucosal immune system, is only stimulated by natural infection. They don’t tell you that, do they? The vaccine creationists and the natural immunity deniers would have you believe that you have to get jabbed every 3 months with an mRNA booster in order to be protected from Covid. But the former is exactly what the WHO was saying a few months ago.
It gets more damning. The WHO say:
Current COVID 19 vaccines induce systemic immunity only and no mucosal immunity.
Current intramuscular COVID-19 vaccines do not induce mucosal immunity. They do not induce the same multifaceted immune response as a natural infection but do protect from severe disease.
The WHO confirms what Bhakdi was saying. The ‘vaccines’ don’t work. They are non-sterilising. They don’t prevent infection. They are nothing more than a prophylactic against severe disease and in that respect they are only potentially useful in that section of the populace which is vulnerable to serious disease (a small minority). The mass vaccination campaign is thus a fraud and a very dangerous experiment on humanity expedited for financial and political gain.
On the subject of boosters, the WHO is unequivocal:
Third doses should be prioritized for the vulnerable: those most at-risk populations when there is evidence of waning immunity against severe disease and death. They are not for the fit and healthy.
Jabhead just authorised the rollout of boosters for all adults and a second myocarditis-inducing dose for non-vulnerable children to supposedly protect against the new threat of Omicron (aka the Moronic variant). That is both moronic and deeply malign, from a politician allegedly employed to work in our best interests, given what the actual science says.
First they came for the old folk, then they came for adults over 50, then people in their 40s, 30s, 20s and teens. Then they came for the kids. But it wasn’t enough. There were too many ‘anti-vaxxer refuseniks’ who held out heroically, often at great personal and emotional cost, against the extreme coercion and the threats and didn’t get jabbed. They are the great unwashed, the unclean Unjabbed who, for personal, health or ideological reasons, decided not to partake in a mass human trial of experimental ‘vaccines’. Now they are coming for those Unjabbed of all ages. Why? Because they constitute the Control Group against which the performance of the ‘vaccines’ can be measured, weighed and perhaps found to be wanting.
This is not really surprising. As it has become increasingly obvious that the Covid jabs are not living up to initial expectations, that they are failing to stop transmission, perhaps even enhancing transmission, that they are injuring and even killing people and that there is now a worrying trend of jabbed people dying at a greater rate from all causes than are unjabbed people, the unholy alliance of Big Pharma and fascist governments have become increasingly desperate to get every living person jabbed in order to prevent any unfavourable comparison being drawn between those jabbed and those unjabbed. Pfizer and Moderna set the precedent in this respect, when they eliminated their control groups in the initial phase 3 trials, thereby precluding any longer term comparisons between those jabbed and those not, which might have revealed the ‘vaccines’ to be less ‘safe and effective’ than they claimed. It appears they are now trying the same tactic at the population level trials. I warned as early as July this year that this was their intention:
Those who did not comply from the beginning of COVID Mania serve to pose the biggest threat to the power of these maniacal politicians. That’s why they’re attacking us so ferociously. The political elite pretend as if they care about COVID, but it’s not the virus that is keeping them up at night. It’s those pesky individuals who refuse to bend the knee – those are the ones in the crosshairs. The control group is the biggest threat to the people in power. They simply can’t survive the political ramifications of a control group outperforming the citizens living under the weight of destructive COVID Mania mandates and societal edicts.
How do you eliminate a control group in lots of countries consisting of millions of people? Via extreme – very extreme – measures. The pressure to get jabbed has been absolutely relentless and now government and the media are deliberately whipping up a frenzy of hatred and hysteria against the unjabbed, demonising them as the spreaders of disease and the sole reason why lockdowns are still necessary, convincing a gullible jabbed public that their freedoms are not being returned because of those nasty ‘anti-vaxxers’. This is of course complete anti-scientific, counterfactual bullshit, pure propaganda, but it is working, to a limited extent. However, many double-jabbed people see the trick and the unjabbed appear to be unmoved by this latest onslaught, so Austria has gone full fascist dictatorship and, to widespread dismay and horror, announced the first compulsory vaccination policy in the ‘democratic’ West. The disturbing historical comparison has not gone unnoticed. Germany looks set to follow suit. The silence from other world leaders is deafening. In refusing to condemn Austria, our very own Boris Alexander de Pfeffel Johnson fails to live up even to the ‘jaw jaw’ of Chamberlain, much less the ‘war war’ of Churchill, his alleged hero.
If Austria manages to pull off this heist and forcefully jab or else imprison the remaining third of its population who have thus far been reluctant to get jabbed, then it will have completely eliminated the control group, consisting of all unjabbed individuals over the age of 12. For good measure, they’ll also target those aged 5 or over. Other countries will be eager to follow suit. In the UK, under Section 45E of the Public Health Act 1984, it is currently illegal to require a person to undergo any medical treatment, including vaccination, even in the event of a public health crisis.
The Coronavirus Act 2020 does not alter this. So the Johnson regime will have to drastically change the law or equally drastically make life so unbearably miserable for the unjabbed that they eventually succumb to risking their lives and health in order to be able to enjoy, at least for a brief period (until the next requirement to be injected with a third, fourth or even fifth dose of poison), the ‘freedoms’ granted to them in return for obedience. I think that may be a very big ask in Britain, despite the very successful public brainwashing propaganda campaign. Too many people – both jabbed and unjabbed – are waking up to the scam.
You can’t make this up anymore; you just can’t. This is so bizarre, it’s like Alice in Wonderland meets the Twilight Zone.
The UKHSA are gnashing their teeth over what their own raw data reveals; that in all double-jabbed people over the age of 30, the infection rate of SARS-CoV-2 virus, according to PCR testing, significantly exceeds that of the unjabbed and in people over 40, the rate of infection in the jabbed is more than twice that of the unjabbed, except for the over 80s. This has proved deeply embarrassing for the UK government and now they are desperately attempting to explain away their inconvenient data as due to confounding factors rather than it being inherently due to the administration of the ‘vaccines’. Eugyppius has kindly provided a graph of the differences in infection rates, which the UKHSA has failed to provide itself in their latest report, presumably because their last graph went viral on social media for all the world to see that the ‘vaccines’ weren’t working.
So here’s what the UKHSA say in defence of their claim that the raw data on infection rates in the jabbed vs. unjabbed is not a good estimate of the actual effectiveness of the ‘vaccines’.
Let’s just reiterate those excuses and go through them one by one:
people who are fully vaccinated may be more health conscious and therefore more likely to get tested for COVID-19.
people who are fully vaccinated may engage in more social interactions because of their vaccination status, and therefore may have greater exposure to circulating COVID-19 infection
people who are unvaccinated may have had past COVID-19 infection prior to the 4-week reporting period in the tables above, thereby artificially reducing the COVID-19 case rate in this population group, and making comparisons between the 2 groups less valid
Why on earth would the jabbed be more ‘health conscious’? The unjabbed might be even more health conscious, in that they decided not to risk their health by subjecting themselves to an experimental and demonstrably dangerous ‘vaccine’. The unjabbed might indeed be less likely to get tested, but positive test rate is per 100k, so the sample is smaller, but that doesn’t explain why the positive test rate should also be smaller.
The jabbed are more gregarious! They put themselves about a bit more and so are more likely to get infected! But at the same time they’re supposedly more health conscious, therefore presumably they would be less likely in that case to expose themselves to a deadly virus which is doing the rounds in pubs, clubs, theatres, cinemas, restaurants and shops – and they’re more likely to wear masks and we all know how effective these are in preventing infections. Also, it’s pretty obvious from comments on social media that the jabbed are still quite fearful, not at all convinced that they are immune from catching a deadly virus and it is in fact the unjabbed who are a lot more relaxed about their risk of getting a bad cold. Good grief. This is just hilarious from the UKHSA.
Neither of the two above excuses explain the difference in infection rates across the cohorts, nor do they explain why the difference between jabbed and unjabbed infection rates is growing weekly and working its way progressively into younger cohorts. But the last excuse is the real side-splitter.
The infection rate in the unjabbed may be artificially reduced by natural infection-acquired immunity in that cohort! What? I’m afraid I’m going to have to go full Cathy Newman here:
So what the UKHSA are saying is that natural, long lasting infection acquired immunity in the unjabbed has resulted in them being less susceptible to re-infection with Covid!
Er, yes, that is indeed what tends to happen when people become infected, recover and thereby acquire long-lasting, effective, broad spectrum, robust natural immunity. Humans and animals have been doing this for hundreds of thousands of years before the God-men of Pfizer appeared on the scene.
But somehow, this does not apply to the jabbed. However, there is no reason to suppose that the jabbed were not equally exposed to natural infection with Covid. That being the case, they would also be less likely to be re-infected with the virus . . . . . . unless . . . . . unless, getting jabbed meant that your natural immune defences were somehow depressed thereafter, thus explaining the alleged ‘confounding’ factor as to why the jabbed were more likely to test positive compared to the unjabbed. But then in that case, it’s not a confounding factor is it? Because what it means is that the ‘vaccines’ themselves are making it biologically more likely to get re-infected with the virus on account of the fact that they screw up your natural immune response! Most likely, this is because they have primed the immune system to produce antibodies against now extinct spike variants and also because they suppress the nucleocapsid antibody response.
So in seeking to provide an explantion as to why the data only apparently show the ‘vaccines’ dont work, but in actual fact they do work really (honest guv), the UKHSA have actually provided the explanation for why the ‘vaccines’ don’t work! PMSL, ROFL, LMAO etc. etc.
Take it from a little place I call the British government. Which admitted today, in its newest vaccine surveillance report, that:
“N antibody levels appear to be lower in people who acquire infection following two doses of vaccination.” (Page 23)
What’s this mean? Several things, all bad. We know the vaccines do not stop infection or transmission of the virus (in fact, the report shows elsewhere that vaccinated adults are now being infected at much HIGHER rates than the unvaccinated).
What the British are saying is they are now finding the vaccine interferes with your body’s innate ability after infection to produce antibodies against not just the spike protein but other pieces of the virus. Specifically, vaccinated people don’t seem to be producing antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, the shell of the virus, which are a crucial part of the response in unvaccinated people.
This means vaccinated people will be far more vulnerable to mutations in the spike protein EVEN AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN INFECTED AND RECOVERED ONCE (or more than once, probably).
It also means the virus is likely to select for mutations that go in exactly that direction, because those will essentially give it an enormous vulnerable population to infect. And it probably is still more evidence the vaccines may interfere with the development of robust long-term immunity post-infection.
Aside from that, everything is fine.
Alex might be right about these things. From the paucity of the information provided from UKHSA Report 42, it’s not immediately obvious, but it’s certainly concerning.
So, as usual, in order to try to get a clearer picture of what this might mean, I go to the source. The seroprevalence data comes from blood donors and they measure levels of S (spike) antibodies and N (nucleocapsid) antibodies.
The results presented here are based on testing samples with Roche nucleoprotein (N) and Roche spike (S) antibody assays. Nucleoprotein (Roche N) assays only detect post-infection antibodies, whereas spike (Roche S) assays will detect both post-infection antibodies and vaccine-induced antibodies. Thus, changes in seropositivity for the Roche N assay reflect the effect of natural infection. Increases in seropositivity as measured by S antibody reflect both infection and vaccination.
That seems to be fairly clear. Level of N-antibodies exclusively record exposure to natural infection whereas S antibody levels record both natural exposure to the virus and immunisation and apparently, it’s impossible to discriminate which is which. So the presence of N-type antibodies is our only reliable guide to exposure to the wild virus. What we don’t know is what constitutes an ‘infection’, whether the presence (or not) of antibodies is a reliable guide to an actual, symptomatic infection whereby the person infected becomes a potential transmitter because of the presence of an actively replicating virus coupled with a sufficiently high viral load present in the nasal cavities. With high viral load, double-jabbed pre or even asymptomatic superspreaders of delta now being a thing, the picture gets complicated. Here is what the report authors say about national prevalence:
Overall population weighted (by age group, sex and NHS region) antibody prevalence among blood donors aged 17 years and older in England was 18.7% (95% CI 17.7% to 19.8%) using the Roche N assay and 98.0% (95% CI 97.7% to 98.3%) using the Roche S assay for the period 16 August to 10 October (weeks 33 to 40 2021). 1,334 out of 7,384 were Roche N positive and 14,815 out of 15,081 samples were Roche S positive. This compares with 14.9% (95% CI 14.1% to 15.8%) Roche N seropositivity and 92.3% (95% CI 91.9% to 92.7%) Roche S seropositivity for the period of 24 May to 13 August 2021 (weeks 21 to 32 2021).
Here are two of the graphs for prevalence:
What is immediately clear is that the sharp rise in spike antibodies is almost certainly related to the vaccine rollout beginning in December 2020. The rise in N-Abs is much more gradual and is probably a reflection of gradually increasing prevalence, especially in the younger age groups, who are far less likely to suffer from noticeable symptomatic infections, but may nevertheless contract a very mild form of the virus, enough for their immune systems to generate antibodies against the virus shell. This suggests that the prevalence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been increasing, but not at an alarming rate, although there has been a fairly sustained increase in natural infections in people under 40 since about week 23. Here is what the authors have to say about the Roche antibody level serum tests in blood donors:
Roche S seropositivity in blood donors has plateaued and is now over 96% across all age groups. Seropositivity estimates for S antibody in blood donors are likely to be higher than would be expected in the general population and this probably reflects the fact that donors are more likely to be vaccinated. Seropositivity estimates for N antibody will underestimate the proportion of the population previously infected due to (i) blood donors are potentially less likely to be exposed to natural infection than age matched individuals in the general population (ii) waning of the N antibody response over time and (iii) recent observations from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data that N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination. Vaccination has made an important contribution to the overall Roche S increases observed since the roll out of the vaccination programme, initially amongst individuals aged 50 years and above who were prioritised for vaccination as part of the phase 1 programme and more recently in younger adults as part of phase 2 of the vaccination programme.
They suggest that N antibody seropositivity is probably an underestimate because:
(i) blood donors are potentially less likely to be exposed to natural infection than age matched individuals in the general population
(ii) waning of the N antibody response over time
(iii) recent observations from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data that N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination.
I can’t think why (i) might be an issue. With regards to (ii), antibody levels do definitely wane over time after exposure so this might mean that the shape of the curves above is correct, but they should be shifted up a few percent. But (iii) is a bit of a concern. It seems to suggest that with so many now double-jabbed, exposure to the wild virus is eliciting a more muted N-antibody response in those who have been double-jabbed (the majority of adults) compared to those who have resisted the government’s extreme coercion tactics thus far. As N antibody levels are a measure of natural adaptive immunity following exposure to the whole live virus, this might present a serious concern. Will Jones at the Daily Sceptic thinks it could be evidence of Original Antigenic Sin, which I’ve discussed previously.
A further thing revealed for the first time in this week’s surveillance report is that the vaccines may actually hobble the body’s ability to develop the strongest immunity once infected. As noted by Alex Berenson, the report mentions (in passing) that “recent observations from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data” show that “N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following two doses of vaccination”.
There is no elaboration on this, but on the face of it it is a startling admission. It is basically saying that a certain kind of antibody which is not produced by the vaccines but is usually produced by infection (and hence is used by PHE/UKHSA to identify those with antibodies-from-infection) is not produced so well by those who are infected post-vaccination. Insofar as this is true it means the vaccines may actually prevent the immune system from developing the strongest form of protection against reinfection. This phenomenon of the immune system being in some way hobbled by the way it first encounters a pathogen is well-known and is referred to as original antigenic sin.
It might be OAS, but I understood that to be the inability of the immune system to respond effectively to a new variant. So, in the case of the S-directed antibody response elicited by the vaccines, when the vaccinee is exposed to a virus with a significantly changed spike protein, the S-immune response ‘remembered’ by the trained immune system, will not be sufficient to neutralise the new spike antigen, hence the viral variant will be able to ‘escape’ vaccine immunity. What we seem to have with the nucleocapsid protein immune response – unique to natural infection – is that it is being diminished somehow because of vaccination. If that’s the case, it’s not good, not good at all. Why? Because mutated spike variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus undermine the vaccine immune response (based on obsolete spike versions), but in addition to this, the broad spectrum natural immune response (which is much less affected by mutations in the spike) is also being compromised, which means that double and triple-jabbed people may be in for a very bumpy ride if they come into contact with increasingly more altered spike versions of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
The importance of the nucleocapsid immune response is outlined below:
If we group vaccine antibody responses against natural infections, then we see a clear difference (Figure 2).
The data indicates a greater than 2 log increase in nucleocapsid IgG antibody signal after natural infection (median log2 MFI = 8.45) compared to pre-exposure or post-vaccination antibody levels (median log2 MFI = 6.38 and 6.36, respectively).
The following graph shows quite clearly that whereas natural infection elicits both S and N antibodies, vaccination only stimulates S-antibodies and indeed, the J&J vaccine appears to diminish the production of N-type antibodies.
Figure 3. Antibody signatures against full length SARS-CoV-2 proteins and subunit peptides following vaccination or natural infection. Each participant’s pre-vaccine or infection value was subtracted from their post value for each protein or peptide. Cohort values were averaged. Each row indicates a unique peptide or protein. The greater the difference, the more red the color. Blue indicates a decline in antibody binding after the immune event. Values are on Log2 scale. Chart is interactive, use the filter at the top to select specific proteins or peptides to view.
Note that the vaccines, after injection, tend to produce a decline in antibody binding to the nucleocapsid region.
Nucleocapsid is a protein involved in genome packaging and viral assembly. It is not found on the surface of SARS-CoV-2.
S, however, is found on the virus surface, which is the reason it is the dominant immune target after infection.
Due to the greater immune pressure it receives, S protein mutates more rapidly than nucleocapsid. When variants are discussed, the implied variation is in the S protein.
The reduced immune pressure on nucleocapsid helps conserve its sequence and structure, which could mean nucleocapsid antibodies retain effectiveness against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants.
This explains why it is vitally important to preserve N-antibody response and why infection acquired immunity is more robust than narrow spectrum spike-directed vaccine immunity.
This paper has just been published. It’s a preprint so hasn’t been formally peer-reviewed, and that should be borne in mind when analysing its conclusions.
Here we report that the Spike protein from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) binds to the blood coagulation factor fibrinogen and induces structurally abnormal blood clots with heightened proinflammatory activity. SARS-CoV-2 Spike virions enhanced fibrin-mediated microglia activation and induced fibrinogen-dependent lung pathology. COVID-19 patients had fibrin autoantibodies that persisted long after acute infection. Monoclonal antibody 5B8, targeting the cryptic inflammatory fibrin epitope, inhibited thromboinflammation. Our results reveal a procoagulant role for the SARS-CoV-2 Spike and propose fibrin-targeting interventions as a treatment for thromboinflammation in COVID-19.
Persistent life-threatening thrombotic events are a hallmark of COVID-19. Aberrant clots form in multiple organs causing significant morbidity and mortality in COVID-19 patients (1, 2). The high incidence of clotting complications has been attributed to disease severity, inflammation and subsequent hypercoagulable state (3). However, the clinical picture is puzzling because of disproportionate rates of thrombotic events and abnormal clot properties not observed in other inflammatory conditions, such as severe sepsis or different viral respiratory illnesses (4-7).
The central structural component of blood clots, and a key regulator of inflammation in disease, is insoluble fibrin, which is derived from the blood coagulation factor fibrinogen and is deposited in tissues at sites of vascular damage (10, 11). Hypercoagulability in COVID-19 is associated with inflammation and the formation of fibrin clots resistant to degradation despite adequate anticoagulation (3-5).
The high prevalence of thrombotic events with these unique hypercoagulability features suggests an as yet unknown mechanism of abnormal blood clot formation in COVID-19. We set out to determine how blood clots form in COVID-19 and to identify therapies to combat the deleterious effects of abnormal coagulation occurring in acute and convalescent stages of disease. Since hypercoagulability in COVID-19 patients has features distinct from those of other inflammatory diseases, we hypothesized that SARS-CoV-2 directly affects the structural and functional properties of blood clots.
So what we have is a virus which, in a relatively few serious cases, mainly in older people and those with co-morbidities, causes a unique form of pro-inflammatory blood clotting which has not been observed in other respiratory diseases and in fact appears to be a phenomenon new to medicine. It is these structurally abnormal clots which are responsible for many of the fatalities associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
What is causing these ‘structurally abnormal’ blood clots? The authors identify the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein as the culprit, the mechanism which involves the binding of the spike to one of the key ingredients of blood clots, fibrin:
The central structural component of blood clots, and a key regulator of inflammation in disease, is insoluble fibrin, which is derived from the blood coagulation factor fibrinogen and is deposited in tissues at sites of vascular damage (10, 11). Hypercoagulability in COVID-19 is associated with inflammation and the formation of fibrin clots resistant to degradation despite adequate anticoagulation (3-5).
Overall, these results reveal an unanticipated role for SARS-CoV-2 Spike as a fibrinogen binding protein that alone accelerates the formation of abnormal clots with altered structure and increased inflammatory activity.
It’s not the virus causing this damage; it’s the spike protein alone. The biologically engineered spike protein, in all likelihood. Fauci’s biologically engineered spike protein, that is.
The high prevalence of thrombotic events with these unique hypercoagulability features suggests an as yet unknown mechanism of abnormal blood clot formation in COVID-19.
I bet it’s not unknown to Fauci and his co-conspirators who designed this virus and, with the help of the CCP, unleashed it upon an unsuspecting world. You think maybe that’s a tin foil hat too far? I don’t think so. A huge amount of evidence now points to the man-made origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its deliberate or, less likely, unintentional release to create a planned pandemic. You might want to pre-order Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book on Fauci and his role in creating this plandemic and corrupting medical science along the way.
Since hypercoagulability in COVID-19 patients has features distinct from those of other inflammatory diseases, we hypothesized that SARS-CoV-2 directly affects the structural and functional properties of blood clots. Incubation of SARS-CoV-2 recombinant trimeric spike protein (Spike) with healthy donor plasma increased fibrin polymerization (Fig. 1A). Spike strikingly altered the fibrin clot structure resulting in thinner fibers with a rough appearance and increased clot density as shown by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (Fig. 1B, fig. S1),
It’s not just spike proteins building abnormal blood clots which is a problem though, it’s even worse. The spike-induced fibrin accumulation at bodily sites actually causes more inflammation:
Fibrin is deposited locally at sites of vascular damage and is a potent proinflammatory activator and a key inducer of oxidative stress (11, 18). Strikingly, Spike increased fibrin-induced release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in a concentration-dependent manner in bone marrow derived macrophages (BMDMs), while Spike alone did not have an effect (Fig. 1G). These results suggest a role for Spike as an enhancer of fibrin-induced inflammation at sites of vascular damage. Overall, these results reveal an unanticipated role for SARS-CoV-2 Spike as a fibrinogen binding protein that alone accelerates the formation of abnormal clots with altered structure and increased inflammatory activity.
If the SARS-CoV-2 full length spike protein architecture is indeed a product of man, not nature, then it is quite obviously designed to be a lethal bioweapon of particularly fiendish effectiveness.
These results reveal a Spike–fibrinogen-dependent mechanism of clot formation that generates strong inflammatory and oxidative stress responses.
Fibrinogen is causally linked to the activation of macrophages and microglia in autoimmune and inflammatory diseases in the brain and periphery (11, 21). Fibrin is a driver of microglia-induced cognitive dysfunction (22) and is associated with perivascular-activated microglia and macrophages in brains of COVID-19 patients even without signs of infection (12).
Nasty. The authors summarise their findings as follows:
In summary, we find that SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein enhances the formation of highly inflammatory clots that are neutralized by a fibrin-targeting monoclonal antibody. Our data shed new light on the enigmatic coagulopathy found in COVID-19 revealing a causal role for fibrinogen in thromboinflammation – even independent of active viral replication. The high incidence of clotting complications in COVID-19 has been attributed to systemic inflammation (3), vascular damage including abnormal levels of circulating coagulation proteins (1, 26), genetic susceptibility to tissue factor and complement genes (27), and prothrombotic autoantibodies (28). Our findings now show that coagulopathy is not merely a consequence of inflammation. Rather, the interaction of SARS-CoV-2 Spike with fibrinogen and fibrin results in abnormal blood clot formation that in turn drives inflammation. Identification of SARS CoV-2 Spike protein as a fibrinogen binding partner provides a mechanistic basis for the formation of abnormal clots with enhanced inflammatory properties.
A vicious circle. Coagulation is not merely a result of inflammation, it causes inflammation also, a process driven by the presence of the spike protein alone and its peculiar interaction with fibrinogen and fibrin.
Now here’s the kicker. If the SARS-CoV-2 virus with its uniquely pathogenic spike protein is a bioweapon, then so also must be the ‘vaccines’, which cause the cells in our bodies to manufacture SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins in their trillions, and it has been demonstrated conclusively that these spikes find their way into the vascular system and circulate to every organ in the body, even the brain. Go figure, as they say.
GVDB has another post just published entitled ‘The Unforgivable Sin’. I quote:
One wonders how it is possible that while it has now been reported that vaccinated shed and transmit as much virus as unvaccinated people (1), the vaccinated are still protected against severe disease whereas the unvaccinated are said to be unprotected. So, how can one explain that viral shedding and transmission and hence, viral replication no longer seem to be impacted by the vaccine whereas the opposite still applies to the occurrence of (severe) disease?
Considering that vaccinees shed and transmit as much virus as unvaccinated people, how could one even postulate that unvaccinated people are susceptible to severe disease whereas vaccinees are still largely protected from severe disease?
Frankly speaking, this doesn’t make any sense at all. So there must be a ‘small’ detail the current ‘narrative’ overlooked.
It’s a good question, because even though we’re being told that the ‘vaccines’ are less effective in preventing transmission, we’re being assured that they are still proving effective in preventing serious disease. But it’s only older people and those who are immune-compromised who are susceptible to serious disease. So, if the ‘vaccines’ do not prevent transmission of delta, why on earth are we vaccinating children? Even though the ‘vaccines’ are said to be still protective against severe disease, children are not susceptible anyway, because they have very strong innate immunity. Geert picks up on this theme and, in doing so, exposes what might be the true horrific cost of vaccinating children needlessly.
Does anybody realize that protection from (severe) disease in healthy children and youngsters is due to innate Abs (5), even regardless of the possible short-term presence of poorly functional S-directed Abs (which may even contribute to diminishing rather than strengthening their immune defence)? Does anybody realize that this mechanism of protection is fundamentally different from the one protecting vaccinees from severe disease? When present in sufficient concentration, high affinity, antigen-specific Abs readily outcompete low affinity, multi-specific Abs for binding to the same antigen (6). It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that vaccinees experience long-lived functional suppression of their protective, CoV-recognizing innate Abs and are thereby left to rely on their vaccinal S-specific Abs for protection against severe disease (7).
Here Geert is saying that healthy children who have strong innate immunity may occasionally experience a temporary suppression of that immunity if they are rapidly re-exposed to a highly infectious variant. However, if they are jabbed, then this suppression of their innate Abs lasts a lot longer and they are consequently left to rely on the narrowly protective vaccinal Abs generated by the presence of the spike proteins. The current vaccines are developed to protect against the previous dominant variants, Alpha (the ‘Kent variant’) and the one circulating before that, D614G. It is also of note that the so called ‘boosters’ also only protect against these now virtually extinct variants. So, by vaccinating children with these obsolete drugs, we are in effect leaving them open to more serious disease from the delta strain, on account of the fact that their innate immunity will be compromised by the presence of aggressively competing vaccinal antibodies! This brings us back once again to the concept of original antigenic sin which I talked about in a previous post.
As the mechanism of immune defense in vaccinees is totally different from the one at play in unvaccinated individuals, the mantra of mass vaccination stakeholders that vaccination of youngsters and children will provide them with improved protection from contracting severe disease is a textbook example of scientific nonsense. Their irrational, erroneous extrapolations lead people to believe that they should get their children vaccinated whereas there is barely any more catastrophic immune intervention one could think of. In line with the intrinsic functional properties of innate, multi-specific Abs, healthy children and youngsters are NOT ‘naturally’ susceptible to any Sars-CoV-2 lineage but exclusively acquire such susceptibility as a direct consequence of functional suppression of their well-established innate immune capacity due to a rapid re-exposure event or, even much worse and long-lived, due to vaccination. The likelihood of rapid re-exposure to Sars-CoV-2 after previous infection dramatically increases when highly infectious variants expand in prevalence. Such an expansion in prevalence directly results from mass vaccination campaigns as mass vaccination turns vaccinees into an excellent breeding ground for naturally selected S-directed immune escape variants.
So, unless there is any contradiction in the above reasoning and unless somebody could explain how similar viral replication and transmission dynamics in vaccinated as compared to unvaccinated individuals could lead to dissimilar clinical manifestations of infection, we can only conclude that the scenario is the following: Vaccination of children and youngsters is turning off their broadly protective innate immunity in exchange for S-specific vaccinal Abs that are becoming increasingly useless since their neutralizing capacity becomes more and more eroded as a result of enhanced escape of Sars-CoV-2 from neutralizing Abs [NAbs](a trend that has been clearly confirmed by molecular epidemiologists (8)). Resistance to the neutralizing effect of vaccinal Abs that are nevertheless still able to bind Sars-CoV-2 virions and thereby outcompete protective innate Abs is likely to enhance the susceptibility of vaccinees to ADE (Ab-dependent enhancement of disease).
Unless virology and immunology are being rewritten, I cannot imagine how mass vaccination of our youngsters and children will not lead to an even more disastrous outcome of all the scientifically irrational and unjustifiable vaccination efforts. Not only will this dramatically increase the children’s risk to succumb to (accelerated) Covid-19 disease but it will also take away the highly efficient capacity of healthy, unvaccinated people to diminish the dangerous, ever rising viral infectious pressure in the population. By vaccinating our youngsters, children and, even more generally, all people in excellent health, we deprive an important part of the population from its ‘anti-viral’ capacity and instead turn them into a breeding ground for more infectious and increasingly NAb-resistant variants. In other words, mass vaccination of children will inevitably obstruct the process of building herd immunity in the population. While unvaccinated children who contract Covid-19 disease in the vast majority of cases don’t suffer severe disease and contribute to the buildup of herd immunity in the population, mass vaccination campaigns in children will prevent them from contributing to herd immunity, because more infectious viral variants are increasingly escaping from neutralization by vaccinal anti-S Abs and gaining a significant fitness advantage in such an immunological environment.
There can be no doubt that large scale immune interventions which ignore the immune pathogenesis of the disease are recipes for massive disasters.
An absolutely damning indictment of the current obsession with mass vaccination, to the point where governments are threatening those who won’t comply with loss of their job and loss of their freedoms. The execrable Turdeau in Canada has already banned all those unjabbed over the age of 12 from any form of public transport. Australia is threatening to block out the unvaxxed from public life, Biden is intent on creating a sub-class of Americans who refuse the ‘vaccine’ and Wales effectively did just that only a couple of days ago, by farcically voting in vaccine passports. In Lithuania, the unjabbed are basically excluded from society, unable to work, and barely able to feed themselves. Horrendous. From what we now know about the lack of effectiveness of these ‘vaccines’, their risk to personal health and now the very considerable risk to public health in general, this is not just malfeasance in public office, it is palpably evil.
It’s evil because politicians must know the risks they are imposing upon the lives of the people they supposedly serve, because their ‘expert’ scientific advisers must know.
It cannot be that highly knowledgeable vaccinologists don’t understand this clear-cut message. I can only shout at all of them, no matter their international reputation, the number of awards and recognitions they’ve gotten, the number of books they’ve written or high-ranked papers they’ve published in peer-reviewed journals: shame on you for not standing up.
Geert Vanden Bossche, Robert Malone, Dr Peter McCullough, Dr Ryan Cole and dozens of other highly professional and respected physicians and scientists have put their careers and reputation on the line to speak up against the crimes and corruption now so evident in the pacts which governments have signed with Pfizer, Moderna, J&J and AZ. Pacts written in the blood of the people the politicians supposedly serve. These brave few are literally being hunted by the media and by the corrupt professional bodies which formerly supported them as tenured scientists and licensed physicians. Literally, the medical and political establishments are trying to cancel them. Those who have stood up and spoken out are the saints. We know only too well who the sinners are and their sins are very grave indeed.
The medical establishment must be getting utterly desperate. The New England Journal of Medicine, no less, have now taken the bizarre step of actually banning Robert Malone’s IP address so he can’t read their publications! To take such a desperate (and obviously ineffective) token measure, they must feel very threatened by Robert Malone and his brave colleagues who have, in a minority, elected to stand against the increasingly obvious corruption in the medical and scientific profession, in collusion with big Pharma companies, governments and the main stream media who are pushing very hard to try to enforce one narrative on the alleged ‘Covid crisis’ and its alleged ‘solution’.
Apart from the petty and absurd attempts by ‘respected’ scientific journals to restrict access by dissenting scientists, Robet Malone identifies the real problem:
Peter McCullough, a physician colleague of Robert Malone, has also suffered similar attempts to shut him up, but he’s having none of it. This talk by him is simply brilliant.
Vaccines currently are the primary mitigation strategy to combat COVID-19 around the world. For instance, the narrative related to the ongoing surge of new cases in the United States (US) is argued to be driven by areas with low vaccination rates . A similar narrative also has been observed in countries, such as Germany and the United Kingdom . At the same time, Israel that was hailed for its swift and high rates of vaccination has also seen a substantial resurgence in COVID-19 cases .
New Zealand and Australia are giving up on their insane, harmful and counterproductive Zero Covid strategies to instead concentrate on insane, harmful, counterproductive mass vaccination strategies, involving medico-fascistic ‘vaccine’ mandates based upon threats to remove the right to work plus other fundamental human rights which Antipodeans had, up until 2019, taken for granted, as did we all in the West. Can’t for the life of me think why that might be, when just last week the Premier of New South Wales was forced to resign after an investigation which found that she accepted £65m in bribes from AZ and Pfizer to aggressively promote their ‘vaccines’. I’m sure this is just an isolated case and that other states and countries effectively enforcing mandatory vaccination are doing so entirely for the public good, not simply because they were offered huge financial incentives by the WEF/Gates-controlled medical-financial-industrial complex whose immense vested interest in rolling out vaccine passports for the Build Back Better groupies is just a ‘conspiracy theory’.
So anyway, back to this article:
Findings At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days (Fig. 1). In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people. Notably, Israel with over 60% of their population fully vaccinated had the highest COVID-19 cases per 1 million people in the last 7 days. The lack of a meaningful association between percentage population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases is further exemplifed, for instance, by comparison of Iceland and Portugal. Both countries have over 75% of their population fully vaccinated and have more COVID-19 cases per 1 million people than countries such as Vietnam and South Africa that have around 10% of their population fully vaccinated.
Of the top 5 counties that have the highest percentage of population fully vaccinated (99.9–84.3%), the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identifes 4 of them as “High” Transmission counties.
Conversely, of the 57 counties that have been classifed as “low” transmission counties by the CDC, 26.3% (15) have percentage of population fully vaccinated below 20%.
Does that sound to you like mass ‘vaccination’ campaigns are doing any bloody good whatsoever? Does it in fact suggest to you that mass vaccination campaigns might be doing more harm than good? Yes, of course it does, unless you are a brainwashed, hard-core virtue signalling pro-vax neophyte and Covid cultist peddling pseudoscience, or alternatively a scumbag, unhinged, sociopathic politician bribed with the promise of wealth and power beyond your wildest wet dreams – who is also peddling pseudoscience.
Here is how the authors interpret their findings:
The sole reliance on vaccination as a primary strategy to mitigate COVID-19 and its adverse consequences needs to be re-examined, especially considering the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant and the likelihood of future variants. Other pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions may need to be put in place alongside increasing vaccination rates. Such course correction, especially with regards to the policy narrative, becomes paramount with emerging scientifc evidence on real world efectiveness of the vaccines. For instance, in a report released from the Ministry of Health in Israel, the efectiveness of 2 doses of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine against preventing COVID-19 infection was reported to be 39% , substantially lower than the trial efcacy of 96% . It is also emerging that immunity derived from the Pfzer-BioNTech vaccine may not be as strong as immunity acquired through recovery from the COVID-19 virus . A substantial decline in immunity from mRNA vaccines 6-months post immunization has also been reported . Even though vaccinations ofers protection to individuals against severe hospitalization and death, the CDC reported an increase from 0.01 to 9% and 0 to 15.1% (between January to May 2021) in the rates of hospitalizations and deaths, respectively, amongst the fully vaccinated . In summary, even as eforts should be made to encourage populations to get vaccinated it should be done so with humility and respect. Stigmatizing populations can do more harm than good.
“Humility and respect”. Sounds great – in theory.
Rabid Jabid to Care Home sector workers last week: “Get vaccinated or get out”.
The man doesn’t even know the meaning of the phrase. It’s as alien to him as worrying about whether, having lost your job, you can afford to keep the roof over your head, pay the fuel bills or even eat properly.