In the last few days researchers from the Vaccine Research Center at the US NIH released a paper for peer review on the performance of a new mRNA vaccine targeting Omicron variant, delivered as a ‘booster’ after two doses of mRNA vaccine targeting the original Wuhan strain (ie, the current type of covid vaccine).
Everything related to "science" in the success that is OPERATION COVIDIUS is a flaw.
A simple observation of reality for the cattle farm Portugal (where the "experts" say "after one year we can say that the vaccines are a success!"):
Today, Feb 10th, we have 91,22% of the cattle inoculated with 2 doses, and 55,09% with 3 doses.
If we consider in this scenario that death occurs on the severely ill (no reason to consider that death occurs on a mild case or even on the asymptomatic) the real life evidence (this naturally excludes the pharma studies made in-house) shows that these inoculations aren't "highly effective at reducing severe illness" [and death]!
Official data for the cattle farm Portugal:
From 17Mar2020 to 26Dec2020 (285 days) WITHOUT "vaccine": average daily deaths with PCR tag "COVID-19" - 23
From 27Dec2020 to 07Oct2021 (also 285 days) WITH "vaccine": average daily deaths with PCR tag "COVID-19" - 40
So for the same period of time we can see that the introduction of the "vaccine" caused more deaths, which means caused more severe illness.
And if we continue to follow the count not even more days can do the trick!
From 27Dec2020 to 04Feb2022 (405 days!) WITH "vaccine": average daily deaths with PCR tag "COVID-19" - 34
So unless the "vaccine success" is being viewed from the "culling the cattle" perspective, it clearly does't look that the above statement is adequate.
But DO KEEP taking experimental mRNA spew just to be able to travel by plane and go to restaurants and so on! Really smart!
"The CDC says that the “COVID-19 vaccines do not change or interact with your DNA in any way,” claiming that all of the ingredients in both mRNA and viral vector COVID-19 vaccines (administered in the United States) are discarded from the body once antibodies are produced."
“Our COVID-19 vaccine does not alter the DNA sequence of a human cell,” a Pfizer spokesperson told
Well, read this FUNNY study:
Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line
Received: 18 January 2022 / Revised: 19 February 2022 / Accepted: 23 February 2022 / Published: 25 February 2022
Our results indicate a fast up-take of BNT162b2 into human liver cell line Huh7, leading to changes in LINE-1 expression and distribution. We also show that BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA in as fast as 6 h upon BNT162b2 exposure.
I appreciate the author's hypothesis that the disease caused by the novel coronavirus was, in fact, spreading widely around the world months before the alleged "birth" of the pandemic (in Wuhan in late December 2019). It might be too late, but I've long thought it would be fascinating and important to conduct a study of people who believe they had COVID before March 2020. Such a study would focus on individuals who had an illness that included most of the Covid symptoms, who went to a doctor because of this, and who tested "negative" for influenza. How many of this group (which is actually massive in number) later tested positive for COVID with a PCR test? If this positive rate is significantly lower than the population at large, this finding would suggest that these individuals likely DID have COVID when they think they did and likely developed natural immunity. For what it's worth, I would be in this hypothetical study group as I am convinced I had COVID in January 2020 (and I have never tested positive for COVID since). It is telling (to me) that such a study has never been conducted or proposed. The reason for this, in my opinion, is that researchers probably know what such a study would find: Many of these people DID have COVID before mid-March 2020.
I also note from reading a few of the author's posts, your correct comment that Covid antibodies fade or wane (or are undetectable via antibody tests) in many people within 60 to 80 days of likely infection. To me, this is a crucial point when considering the possibility that this virus may have been spreading widely in the population well before mid-March 2020. I actually have come to believe that antibody results were suppressed (or discredited or not administered in large numbers) to DEFLATE/reduce the number of "likely cases" in the world. This is the opposite of the PCR test results, which have been used to INFLATE case numbers. I also wonder if the "cutoff values" on these antibody tests might have been manipulated to show fewer "confirmed" cases, and if certain antibody tests/labs were not "certified" to protect the narrative that this virus had not begun to spread widely in the world until around early March 2020.
Here are two articles on "early spread" I wrote that show at least 16 Americans who had COVID symptoms before the Wuhan Outbreak. All 16 later tested positive for COVID antibodies. An important if ignored study of archived Red Cross blood also found that 2 percent of blood samples taken in mid-December 2019 from blood donors in three U.S. states (California, Washington and Oregon) tested positive for COVID antibodies. If these antibodies were present in mid-December, most of these blood donors probably had been infected by the virus in November 2019. I also wonder why it took so long to perform and report on the findings of this study and why this is the only study of archived blood.
For those interested, here are two stories I wrote that I think provide copious and convincing evidence that Americans in multiple states had already been infected by this virus by December 2019. I'd note that every mainstream media publication I submitted my first article to rejected it - with no reasons offered or with no request to see more of the medical evidence I offered to provide. I also think the mainstream press has intentionally chosen to NOT seriously investigate this hypothesis.
My partner and I had potential covid in late Oct/early Nov 2019. It manifested as a bad flu.
We remain unvaccinated and not only have we not been sick again until January 2022 (when we had very mild omicron), but I suspect we have had repeated exposures over the previous 2 years (for example, my then-housemate came down with covid in March 2020).
My partner was also enrolled in then ONS infection survey between August 2020 to September 2021 which meant she was tested once a month with a PCR and had to answer questions, for example around number of close contacts, compliance with mask-wearing, etc. All her test results came back negative during this time.
The Govt had the opportunity to include questions in the survey about prior history with respiratory illness, but they never did. They could have also rolled out an antibody survey early on, but instead the antibody blood tests were only added to the survey in September 2021 (when my partner dropped out).
Evidence / biology supporting your last paragraph?
Certainly not in this paper. Both boosted groups did fine in viral challenge vs unvaxxed controls. The Omicron booster was not “ less and less effective.” It was literally as / more effective - though in reality it’s nonsensical to make any conclusions about the impact of the boosters with only 8 subjects and no vaxxed and not boosted controls. Two of the subjects had overperforming neutralizing results before boost. Which booster did they get? This is remedial study interpretation fail.
I'd note that the study didn't really investigate the effectiveness of the vaccines -- the majority was of the IgG antibody response, which is presumed to correlate to protection, but I don't see how this would be causation.
They did find that there was protection offered in the lungs against viral infection, but this would likely have been due to IgA antibodies which are known to exist and be effective, but also wane rapidly with protection lost by about 60 days or so. It is unfortunate that they didn't investigate the protection at a time point further from boosting (6 weeks would be a start -- I note that they used the 6 week point for their assessment of the impact of the first two doses on the immune response).
I've spent a lot of time researching antibody test results as I try to find "evidence" that this virus was spreading widely before March 2020. Millions of people probably suspect they had COVID in, say, November or December 2019 or January 2020. Many of these people did later get antibody tests to see if they could "confirm" their hunch. However, most of these people did not receive these antibody tests until some time in April or, more likely, in May 2020. This is because such antibody tests were not widely administered until these dates. Well, most (perhaps 95-percent or more) of these antibody tests were "negative." However, I don't think these test results "prove" these people did not have COVID as the tests occurred four to six months after these people had their Covid-like symptoms. Per my research, IgG antibodies are undetectable in the vast majority of people two to three months after exposure. While the vast majority of these antibody tests appear to have been "negative," this is not the case with everyone who got these tests. As my research shows, at least 16 people (based on published media accounts) did test positive for antibodies. Some of these people have tested positive multiple times. Brandie McCain has tested positive at least three times and still had high titer levels more than 14 months after she was sick with COVID symptoms. I've never seen a story that reports the percentage of antibody tests administered in labs or doctor's offices in April or May that were positive. I suspect that the percentage is much higher than the public thinks.
That's a fair point. The problem is we just don't know.
Maybe once the spike proteins in the virus evolve away from the vaccine protein then the OAS will decline and the body will form a new immune response to the new protein and immunity will be maintained.
Or maybe the OAS will continue and the immune response in the vaccinated will become less and less efficacious against newer variants.
I guess we'll find out in time.
It is just a shame that we're using the health of the world's population to undertake this experiment in immune science.
I thought the paper was the evidence... if I understand correctly it claims that challenge with Omicron's mRNA produces the same response in memory cells as challenge with the vaccine strain, which should not be the case given how different Omicron is - Omicron may to some extent still be neutralised by a flood of imperfectly matched anybodies but we'll have to wait and see what happens when future strains of Omicron diverge further from the (possibly) imprinted memory cell response. And anyway the study is in monkeys, so there's that too. But the fact that an Omicron specific vaccine is no more effective against Omicron than the vaccine developed 2 years ago to a very different strain is not nothing.
Wow, good spot. I thought the same when I read a report about the article but didn't actually see the wording in the report itself!
https://nakedemperor.substack.com/
Off topic slightly but this paper deals with the proven effects on the immune system of the mrna jabs. OAS
Please send to all and sundry - especially "experts" of mrna jabs are good, persuasion.
https://www.authorea.com/users/455597/articles/552937-innate-immune-suppression-by-sars-cov-2-mrna-vaccinations-the-role-of-g-quadruplexes-exosomes-and-micrornas
You will see that OAS is only one of the delights in store....
I also am a strong believer that OAS is very involved and will likely lead to endless Covids in the vaxxed. Great find
Everything related to "science" in the success that is OPERATION COVIDIUS is a flaw.
A simple observation of reality for the cattle farm Portugal (where the "experts" say "after one year we can say that the vaccines are a success!"):
Today, Feb 10th, we have 91,22% of the cattle inoculated with 2 doses, and 55,09% with 3 doses.
If we consider in this scenario that death occurs on the severely ill (no reason to consider that death occurs on a mild case or even on the asymptomatic) the real life evidence (this naturally excludes the pharma studies made in-house) shows that these inoculations aren't "highly effective at reducing severe illness" [and death]!
Official data for the cattle farm Portugal:
From 17Mar2020 to 26Dec2020 (285 days) WITHOUT "vaccine": average daily deaths with PCR tag "COVID-19" - 23
From 27Dec2020 to 07Oct2021 (also 285 days) WITH "vaccine": average daily deaths with PCR tag "COVID-19" - 40
So for the same period of time we can see that the introduction of the "vaccine" caused more deaths, which means caused more severe illness.
And if we continue to follow the count not even more days can do the trick!
From 27Dec2020 to 04Feb2022 (405 days!) WITH "vaccine": average daily deaths with PCR tag "COVID-19" - 34
So unless the "vaccine success" is being viewed from the "culling the cattle" perspective, it clearly does't look that the above statement is adequate.
But DO KEEP taking experimental mRNA spew just to be able to travel by plane and go to restaurants and so on! Really smart!
"The CDC says that the “COVID-19 vaccines do not change or interact with your DNA in any way,” claiming that all of the ingredients in both mRNA and viral vector COVID-19 vaccines (administered in the United States) are discarded from the body once antibodies are produced."
“Our COVID-19 vaccine does not alter the DNA sequence of a human cell,” a Pfizer spokesperson told
Well, read this FUNNY study:
Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line
Received: 18 January 2022 / Revised: 19 February 2022 / Accepted: 23 February 2022 / Published: 25 February 2022
Our results indicate a fast up-take of BNT162b2 into human liver cell line Huh7, leading to changes in LINE-1 expression and distribution. We also show that BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA in as fast as 6 h upon BNT162b2 exposure.
https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73/htm
DO NOT FORGET TO GET YOUR MIRACLE mRNA SPEW BOOSTER! And good luck...
I appreciate the author's hypothesis that the disease caused by the novel coronavirus was, in fact, spreading widely around the world months before the alleged "birth" of the pandemic (in Wuhan in late December 2019). It might be too late, but I've long thought it would be fascinating and important to conduct a study of people who believe they had COVID before March 2020. Such a study would focus on individuals who had an illness that included most of the Covid symptoms, who went to a doctor because of this, and who tested "negative" for influenza. How many of this group (which is actually massive in number) later tested positive for COVID with a PCR test? If this positive rate is significantly lower than the population at large, this finding would suggest that these individuals likely DID have COVID when they think they did and likely developed natural immunity. For what it's worth, I would be in this hypothetical study group as I am convinced I had COVID in January 2020 (and I have never tested positive for COVID since). It is telling (to me) that such a study has never been conducted or proposed. The reason for this, in my opinion, is that researchers probably know what such a study would find: Many of these people DID have COVID before mid-March 2020.
I also note from reading a few of the author's posts, your correct comment that Covid antibodies fade or wane (or are undetectable via antibody tests) in many people within 60 to 80 days of likely infection. To me, this is a crucial point when considering the possibility that this virus may have been spreading widely in the population well before mid-March 2020. I actually have come to believe that antibody results were suppressed (or discredited or not administered in large numbers) to DEFLATE/reduce the number of "likely cases" in the world. This is the opposite of the PCR test results, which have been used to INFLATE case numbers. I also wonder if the "cutoff values" on these antibody tests might have been manipulated to show fewer "confirmed" cases, and if certain antibody tests/labs were not "certified" to protect the narrative that this virus had not begun to spread widely in the world until around early March 2020.
Here are two articles on "early spread" I wrote that show at least 16 Americans who had COVID symptoms before the Wuhan Outbreak. All 16 later tested positive for COVID antibodies. An important if ignored study of archived Red Cross blood also found that 2 percent of blood samples taken in mid-December 2019 from blood donors in three U.S. states (California, Washington and Oregon) tested positive for COVID antibodies. If these antibodies were present in mid-December, most of these blood donors probably had been infected by the virus in November 2019. I also wonder why it took so long to perform and report on the findings of this study and why this is the only study of archived blood.
For those interested, here are two stories I wrote that I think provide copious and convincing evidence that Americans in multiple states had already been infected by this virus by December 2019. I'd note that every mainstream media publication I submitted my first article to rejected it - with no reasons offered or with no request to see more of the medical evidence I offered to provide. I also think the mainstream press has intentionally chosen to NOT seriously investigate this hypothesis.
https://uncoverdc.com/2020/06/25/an-alabama-man-nearly-died-from-covid-19-the-first-week-in-january/
https://uncoverdc.com/2020/07/13/covid-19-is-a-real-search-for-the-truth-now-taboo/
My partner and I had potential covid in late Oct/early Nov 2019. It manifested as a bad flu.
We remain unvaccinated and not only have we not been sick again until January 2022 (when we had very mild omicron), but I suspect we have had repeated exposures over the previous 2 years (for example, my then-housemate came down with covid in March 2020).
My partner was also enrolled in then ONS infection survey between August 2020 to September 2021 which meant she was tested once a month with a PCR and had to answer questions, for example around number of close contacts, compliance with mask-wearing, etc. All her test results came back negative during this time.
The Govt had the opportunity to include questions in the survey about prior history with respiratory illness, but they never did. They could have also rolled out an antibody survey early on, but instead the antibody blood tests were only added to the survey in September 2021 (when my partner dropped out).
All in all, lots of missed opportunities.
Great post, thank you. 💜
Evidence / biology supporting your last paragraph?
Certainly not in this paper. Both boosted groups did fine in viral challenge vs unvaxxed controls. The Omicron booster was not “ less and less effective.” It was literally as / more effective - though in reality it’s nonsensical to make any conclusions about the impact of the boosters with only 8 subjects and no vaxxed and not boosted controls. Two of the subjects had overperforming neutralizing results before boost. Which booster did they get? This is remedial study interpretation fail.
I'd note that the study didn't really investigate the effectiveness of the vaccines -- the majority was of the IgG antibody response, which is presumed to correlate to protection, but I don't see how this would be causation.
They did find that there was protection offered in the lungs against viral infection, but this would likely have been due to IgA antibodies which are known to exist and be effective, but also wane rapidly with protection lost by about 60 days or so. It is unfortunate that they didn't investigate the protection at a time point further from boosting (6 weeks would be a start -- I note that they used the 6 week point for their assessment of the impact of the first two doses on the immune response).
I've spent a lot of time researching antibody test results as I try to find "evidence" that this virus was spreading widely before March 2020. Millions of people probably suspect they had COVID in, say, November or December 2019 or January 2020. Many of these people did later get antibody tests to see if they could "confirm" their hunch. However, most of these people did not receive these antibody tests until some time in April or, more likely, in May 2020. This is because such antibody tests were not widely administered until these dates. Well, most (perhaps 95-percent or more) of these antibody tests were "negative." However, I don't think these test results "prove" these people did not have COVID as the tests occurred four to six months after these people had their Covid-like symptoms. Per my research, IgG antibodies are undetectable in the vast majority of people two to three months after exposure. While the vast majority of these antibody tests appear to have been "negative," this is not the case with everyone who got these tests. As my research shows, at least 16 people (based on published media accounts) did test positive for antibodies. Some of these people have tested positive multiple times. Brandie McCain has tested positive at least three times and still had high titer levels more than 14 months after she was sick with COVID symptoms. I've never seen a story that reports the percentage of antibody tests administered in labs or doctor's offices in April or May that were positive. I suspect that the percentage is much higher than the public thinks.
That's a fair point. The problem is we just don't know.
Maybe once the spike proteins in the virus evolve away from the vaccine protein then the OAS will decline and the body will form a new immune response to the new protein and immunity will be maintained.
Or maybe the OAS will continue and the immune response in the vaccinated will become less and less efficacious against newer variants.
I guess we'll find out in time.
It is just a shame that we're using the health of the world's population to undertake this experiment in immune science.
I thought the paper was the evidence... if I understand correctly it claims that challenge with Omicron's mRNA produces the same response in memory cells as challenge with the vaccine strain, which should not be the case given how different Omicron is - Omicron may to some extent still be neutralised by a flood of imperfectly matched anybodies but we'll have to wait and see what happens when future strains of Omicron diverge further from the (possibly) imprinted memory cell response. And anyway the study is in monkeys, so there's that too. But the fact that an Omicron specific vaccine is no more effective against Omicron than the vaccine developed 2 years ago to a very different strain is not nothing.