18 Comments

Criminal. May it be so and prosecuted accordingly.

Expand full comment

Dr. Lyons-Weiler, your substack is kicking butt, I can't keep up! Thank you!

Expand full comment

New study out and pcr results totally flawed. If so.... how can any vaccine effectiveness data even be reliable as well? Idk.

Expand full comment

Scientists employing logical fallacies like this is a huge red flag they approach their research with a view towards securing further funding.

Expand full comment
Nov 2, 2022·edited Nov 2, 2022

Some data suggests neg efficacy against infection from the get go...

Not though against severe disease that I aware of

Expand full comment

So, where in the body is the viral infection found? Where in the body are the vaccine antibodies found? The virus is found in the airways. Is that where the vaccine-induced antibodies are found?

Expand full comment

You harvest bias by planting the seeds six feet apart, then covering them with paper diapers so they cannot breathe, then give them a PCR test to make sure their bias isn't spreading and lastly call in the New York Times to take photos of the corn growing in the adjacent field.

Expand full comment

Hello.

This is a great look at a study analysis (or re-analysis).

Original Antigenic Sin was mentioned, and while I have heard of it, I'm not confident in my knowledge of Original Antigenic Sin--specifically as it pertains to the spike-specific vaccines.

That's why I'd like to ask this audience whether I my understanding is correct.

So, here goes:

1. We know that the virus mutates--and specifically, when the virus mutates, it's the spike protein that mutates. That's why we have variants.

2. My understanding is that while the spike mutates, the rest of the virus (the capsid, etc.) remains unchanged.

3. With natural exposure or infection, your body gets exposed to the whole virus (spike, capsid, etc.), and therefore, can develop immunity to the whole virus.

4. With natural exposure or infection, the immunity your body creates is a whole-virus immunity (vs. these spike vaccines that stimulate a spike-limited "immune response"), so that if there's a variant (a different spike than the one you were originally exposed to), your body can still be immune to that new variant, because your whole-virus immunity recognizes the other pieces of the variant (such as the capsid).

5. However, with the spike-specific vaccines, your body gets exposed only to the spike/variant, not the capsid or other components.

6. Original Antigenic Sin, as I understand it, says that if your body is exposed to something, its immune responses are biased to that variant.

7. The mRNA spike-specific vaccines aren't SARS-CoV-2 whole-virus or attenuated vaccines, but rather, spike- or variant-specific.

8. Thus, with spike-specific vaccination, the antibodies your body creates are spike/or variant-specific. That means that if the virus mutates, it can possibly escape the vaccinal antibodies, because the vaccinal antibodies are specific only to the spike they're designed for.

9. I heard that the vaccinal antibodies compete against, and may even outcompete the body's antibodies. If this is true, then there's a chance of being infected by a different variant than the one a person was vaccinated for.

10. Some may ask, "Well, doesn't Original Antigenic Sin also affect natural immunity?"

To which I'd reply, "Well, with natural immunity, your body has immunity to the whole virus, so that even if a spike changes, your body can still mount a good, protective immune response."

Is my understanding of Original Antigenic Sin, as well as the role it plays with spike-specific vaccination, correct?

Expand full comment

In my understanding most of what you wrote is correct. The only thing I would expand on is OAS can occur with a traditional vaccine as well, where the immune system is stimulated by a whole vaccine virus. When the vaccine does not provide sterilizing immunity (like the pertussis or flu vaccines), there is risk of oas. It's the sterilizing immunity that makes the difference in oas.

The fact that the mutations on the spike protein with each varient limits vaccine induced protection is another phenomenon. This is just related to basic immunology, as you point out in #4. So this, combined with OAS, is two strikes of bad news for those taking these injections.

The only thing I would add is JJ Cuoey points to another possibility re mutations. Coronaviruses are always around. There's a group of coronaviruses that already exist (a swarm) that are similar to sars cov2. They don't normally bother us because our collective natural immune systems works good enough against them. Until a large number of people's immune systems are damaged, or exhibiting oas. Now those background coronaviruses can infect more people, and can multiply more in their bodies. This increases the number of hosts that have high viral loads and symptoms, and thus increases spread to others. (Or something like that, sorry JJ if I'm misrepresenting this, but I think it's at least close).

Take good care. 💕

Expand full comment

Thanks, Nova123!

Expand full comment

Actually, I asked the original author the exact same question, and he replied in the comments of the original post: https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2022/11/02/yet-another-study-showing-negative-covid-19-vaccine-effectiveness/#respond

Expand full comment

Good idea going straight to the source. You got a lot of "corrects" on your points. 😎

Expand full comment

The shills defending the covid vaccines can never get their story straight about negative effectiveness. They keep changing it - a sign of PR and marketing. One slogan fails to capture the audience's attention? Try another.

When the first findings were coming out about it, around Dec 2021 [1], the shill defense was that the negative effectiveness was explained by "super-spreader" events. There was no support for that, anywhere in the paper covered in [1]. But eventually the shills gave that up.

Next, the shills tried to say it was due to different risk behaviors of the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated. Again, there was absolutely no support for this explanation, and it doesn't even make any sense. I thought the unvaccinated were the frenzied plague rats going everywhere they weren't supposed to be? And again, this explanation for negative effectiveness was DROPPED. Which goes to show you, all of these are churned out rationalizations to explain away the fact that these bad injectables simply ruin one's immune system.

Then they tried to say it was because of testing rate differences. Again, this was dropped - I never see any shill using this defense anymore. The unvaccinated had to test for their jobs daily/weekly, had to test to go to events, had to test to use the toilet practically.

Now, in the article you cover, it looks like the covid vaccine shills have moved on to yet another BS explanation. It's "harvesting bias" now. Ahahaha. As you already explained in your reply to Xu, this rationalization misses the mark, yet again.

Really, the shills will try everything they can to avoid admitting these products do the OPPOSITE of what they were purported to do. They don't protect you from getting covid. They make you more likely to get sick! What an incredible product. You pay to get the exact opposite outcome of what you wanted, in fact, you get the least desirable outcome. What an amazing invention, you've got to hand it to them for their creativity and audacity.

[1]https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/new-study-shows-vaccines-must-be

Expand full comment

Come on. When 5 leeches don't work, the recipe has always been: 10 leeches!

Expand full comment

They're all completely beholden to their ideology. Merely implying that VE may be overstated identifies one as a heretic to their belief system, hence her lack of response to the 2nd mail. She didn't want to be seen communicating with non-believers, lest her superiors might consider that as associating with heretics. Even worse, her own belief system might have to be called into question, and then what? Much easier and safer (safe and effective?) to buy into the facile explanations of "if the data doesn't support the doxa, then the data is obviously at fault" and "if the gasoline didn't put out the fire, then we obviously need more gasoline!".

Expand full comment

Thank you, great breakdown of that study. I read something else about the preprint showing less validity in the original study. How they came to each conclusion is a little over my head, so I was hoping someone more knowledgeable would help clarify those differences for all of us. 👍🏽🙏

Expand full comment