Now they discover they fucked up

Army Spc. Angel Laureano holds a vial of the COVID-19 vaccine, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md., Dec. 14, 2020. (DoD photo by Lisa Ferdinando)

I’m really tired of discussing SARS-COV-2, I try to think more about other things, but I feel kind of forced to address this study, as it illustrates what me and others have been warning about for so long. They looked at people who had gotten three doses of science-juice and now received either a regular booster, or a new fun bivalent booster. Well, guess what they found? I’ll walk you through the study:

We evaluated humoral and cellular immune responses in 15 individuals who received the
original monovalent mRNA boosters and in 18 individuals who received the bivalent mRNA
boosters (Table S1). Participants had a median of 3 (range 2-4) prior COVID-19 vaccine doses,
and 33% had documented SARS-CoV-2 infection during the Omicron surge, although it is likely
that the majority of participants had hybrid immunity prior to boosting given the high prevalence
and limited severity of Omicron infection.

So here you see what they did, they looked at the response of people with 3 shots on average and some infections. Some then got the original shot, while others got the new shot.

Spike-specific CD8+ and CD4+ T cell responses increased only modestly following monovalent and bivalent mRNA boosting. Median BA.5 CD8+ T cell responses increased from 0.027% to 0.048% following monovalent mRNA boosting and from 0.024% to 0.046% following bivalent mRNA boosting (Fig. 1C, 1D). Median BA.5 CD4+ T cell responses increased from 0.060% to 0.130% following monovalent mRNA boosting and from 0.051% to 0.072% following bivalent mRNA boosting (Fig. 1E, 1F). Median BA.5 memory B cell responses were 0.079% following monovalent mRNA boosting and 0.091% following bivalent mRNA boosting (Fig. S4).

Congratulations, now you see the problem. There’s no increased T cell recruitment following the bivalent booster versus the original booster. You can’t meaningfully adjust the response to new variants anymore.

NAb titers were comparable following monovalent and bivalent mRNA boosters, with a modest and
nonsignificant trend favoring the bivalent booster by a factor of 1.3. These findings are consistent with data recently reported for a BA.1-containing bivalent mRNA booster4

In other words, these findings are validated by a previous study that looked at the BA.1 booster, rather than the BA.5 booster as in this study. No matter which booster you deploy, it doesn’t matter, as the immune system no longer manages to adjust its immune response to take the evolution of this virus into consideration.

Our findings suggest that immune imprinting by prior antigenic exposure may pose a greater challenge than currently appreciated for inducing robust immunity to SARS-CoV-2 variants.

So maybe you should not have shot people up with four shots of the exact same extinct Spike protein?

“But there was a trend favoring the booster by a factor of 1.3! Maybe it kind works?”

Nope sorry. See the T cell data. But more importantly, look at the neutralizing antibody response for the different variants. You actually see a greater relative increase for the original Wuhan version with the bivalent booster, than for BA.5!

You can say “well BA.5 is 30% higher post-Boost on the bivalent than on the monovalent”, BUT WA.1/2020 IS AT LEAST 90% HIGHER IN THE BIVALENT GROUP. The monovalent booster actually looks better at shifting the antibody repertoire towards BA.5 than the bivalent one.

There’s no way to spin these results as suggesting anything other than a very nasty strong original antigenic sin mechanism that’s now making it impossible to adjust people’s immune response to novel variants of this virus. The body can no longer learn new tricks, it just deploys the same old tricks the virus is evolving to overcome.

So get this straight: Not just is the booster completely mismatched for the variants that are now going to circulate. No my friends, it’s worse than that. The booster can’t even induce a proper immune response against the variant it contains. If you could somehow deploy an XBB/BQ.1.1 booster today with magic, these results suggest it wouldn’t matter, as people’s immune system no longer adjusts to deploy a better immune response. Rather, through vaccines and breakthrough infections we’re just recalling the relatively poorly neutralizing antibodies from Wuhan, with BA.5 having evolved to avoid the most strongly neutralizing ones. Then with BQ.1.1 and the others now emerging, you see variants that avoid (almost) all neutralizing antibodies.

Note, this is the second study coming out now saying this. Here’s another study released a bit earlier, that found these same results. These authors wrote:

Boosting with a new bivalent mRNA vaccine targeting both BA.4/BA.5 and an ancestral SARS76 CoV-2 strain did not elicit a discernibly superior virus-neutralizing antibody responses compared boosting with an original monovalent vaccine. These findings may be indicative of immunological imprinting, although follow-up studies are needed to determine if the antibody responses will deviate in time, including the impact of a second bivalent booster.

So in conclusion, we can say they fixated the population’s immune response on an extinct version of the virus and now they’re left with no clear way to make it “unstuck”. They’re considering giving people another bivalent booster, hoping that this will meaningfully shift the antibody response (don’t count on it).

The first dose of vaccine they were going to give people should have been designed with the consideration in the back of their heads that this virus isn’t going away and will evolve in response to these vaccines. But that didn’t happen. It’s all short-termism, trying to get through the next winter unscathed without considering what it means for the winter after that.


  1. Radagast and Geert Vanden Bossche have both made predictions over the years as this disaster has unfolded. They both have been incredibly accurate in their explanations and predictions. There seems to be a lull in the mainstream conversation at this point however there is this ominous black cloud on the horizon that a few of us can see. This winter will not end well.

    • Geert is now predicting catastrophe this winter. He’s talking about hospital collapse leading to possible civilizational collapse. I’ve found him to be quite guarded in his word selection, and with his track record thus far this has me considering stocking up on canned food and ammo.

  2. Just found your blog, It’s very good. I have read this as an assumption on other sites, but I like the study’s that you linked that document it. I look forward to your next post, and I am enjoying going thru your past posts. Thanks from the US.

  3. Who is “they”?
    Fauci? He’ll be comfortably retired before any blowback. Connected politicians all have golden parachutes. The people actually behind this, pushing it? We don’t even know most of their names for sure, and they are likely in secure locations and have been for decades.

    What if, and it’s a big ‘if’, what if those behind it didn’t fuck up and everything is going according to plan? After all, they’ve been saying since the late 60’s or so that the human population needs to be reduced to 500m.

    Research on pest control shows that simply killing individuals w/i a population has little long-term effect on population. What is needed is something that screws with the target species reproductive system.

    “The beef of this tip is that, in addition to the mRNA code for S spike, the vaccine vials will contain additional mRNA that codes both for a mutant version of CYP19A1 and a mutant version of CDKN1B. Both these mutant proteins are implicated in the female infertility issues.”

    There isn’t going to be some mass awakening if we just post 1 more fact about covid. There won’t be a mass uprising if we just post 1 more screed. What we need are local and state leaders to begin the process of hardening up for whatever comes next. Work towards local and state power, political and otherwise, then use it to fend off federal overreach by any means necessary.

  4. I don’t blame you for still posting about the hoax. I would be lying if I said I didn’t still lie awake thinking about that awful year. We’re all still reliving it, we probably always will.

    I cannot believe what pussies american conservatives turned out to be.

    “Thank God for the second amendment! They may have locked us in our houses and destroyed our businesses and gotten us all laid off, but if they go one step further and turn off our electricity, we’ll make them regret it! >:(”

    I appreciate your posts even when you feel like you’re beating a dead horse, because I know I’m not the only one stuck in the past on this one. Sometimes being stuck in the past is fully justified.

  5. Ever since the omicron boosters shambled onto the scene, there’s one thing that I haven’t seen discussed: at least some (I don’t know if it’s most or all) countries are only offering the new booster to people who have already had at least two shots of the O.G. mRNA juice. As I understand it, if a vax naive person presented themselves for Pfizer/Moderna gene therapy today, they’ll have to get at least two Wuhan shots before being blessed with the bivalent omicron dose. This baffles me.

    It’s hard to bring up, because I don’t want to validate the mRNA nightmare in general. And of course, there are relatively few people who have kept clear of the vax this far, but are now beating down the door to get the new version. But there will be some: for example, a young person who has steered clear up to now, but wants to attend a university with a vax mandate.

    Why should such people get multiple shots coding for a long-extinct spike protein before getting the one that is at least closer to the currently circulating virus?

    This question had already been bugging me, but these studies bring home that this policy may really cause concrete and lasting harm to people who are only now, for whatever reason, seeking to put this stuff in their bodies. Why give up the limited benefit the bivalent booster offers by first getting antigen-fixated with the old formulation? (This on top of the fact that the new shots are bivalent, including both Wuhan and omicron, which is another thing I don’t quite get. But why aggravate the situation by multiple pure Wuhan shots first?)

    I don’t even see how this policy helps the companies’ profits. Wouldn’t they want all the old stuff thrown out, so that the new victims will have to be provided with a full course of freshly purchased bivalent injections?

    Is it just a fierce determination by the establishment to get every single thing about covid as wrong as possible, or is there at least some plausible basis for this policy?

    • Thanks, excellent point.

      It’s completely bizarre.

      It’s the equivalent of asking people to get the past three years of flu shots, before they’re allowed to get this year’s flu shot.

      The only explanation I can think of is that they’re afraid some study would show a broader antibody response in people who only got the bivalent booster, which would make it undeniable that these past 3-4 shots screwed everything up.

      • There’s another explanation of course: They know their bivalent booster is junk and they don’t want people to get it, but they feel kind of forced to release it.

        If they already know that the unvaccinated wouldn’t benefit from this bivalent booster either, then perhaps they would want to protect such people from their own naive belief that this will work.

        • Just fyi, John Paul (who writes the hiddencomplexity substack) covered this many months ago. In essence, no bivalent shots will work, as the Omicron spike has mutated so much that it will NOT elicit much neutralizing antibodies on it’s own. So they’re kinda forced to include the old extinct Wuhan virus spike as part of the package, to induce the immune system to start producing antibodies, and then in the meantime, get a muted reaction to the Omicron spike. Otherwise they would get next to no reaction in terms of antibody count.

      • Thanks for the response. That might be it.

        Relatedly, my own theory for why the new shot includes extinct Wuhan as well as some version of omicron is that they need an explanation other than antigenic fixation for why people who get injected with it show anti-Wuhan antibodies.

      • They don’t want people to be able to repent, and decide they were wrong, and just take the new vax. They want to punish them first. That will teach other people not to hesitate in the future when they are told to do something. The don’t want people to think they can disobey with impunity.

        Or, they are going to put out a bioweapon variant whose lethality is somehow dependent on a person’s having taken the original vaccine.

    • With one simple shift in your paradigm, everything drops into place.
      Most people don’t like it, you seem smarter than most so I will share. Make just this 1 simple change, and it will all make sense, I swear:

      They want us all dead.

  6. This is why there is going to be a scourge of biologists and other scientists turning up with gunshot wounds to the face.
    They knew. They all knew. These are smart people, they couldn’t NOT know. Anyone who works on this stuff knew. My 12th grade AP Bio mind knew. They did it anyways.
    A few brave souls like Dr. Malone, etc. stood up, and paid the price, too. Now those who laid down their morals at the altar of greed will reap the whirlwind, and I will smile knowing the universe is a little closer to balanced as their heads explode into a cloud of red mist.

  7. Yes, I think studies such as the above show both why you shouldn’t get the original wuhan juice first, and why they insist that you do. Very soon, someone would study how wuhan+bivalent compare to bivalent only, and the result would lead to awkward questions.

    The main thing that remains unanswered is how the 100% unjuiced-but-recovered compare to the juiced (with or without the bivalent booster) with regard to actual clinical outcomes. Will a previous infection also cause any meaningful antigenic imprinting in the absence of an mRNA injection? To what extent does an infection improve upon the immune response in the jabbed?
    Ultimately: how big of a screw up is this? This is what we need answers to.

  8. >Will a previous infection also cause any meaningful antigenic imprinting in the absence of an mRNA injection?

    What we see is that after natural infection, breadth of the response continues increasing for a very long time, at least a year if I remember correctly.

    Tragically this doesn’t happen in the vaxxed, as the second shot arrests the broadening that was taking place. Hence why Monica Gandhi came out about a year too late once everyone already had these shots, insisting that the gap between shot 1 and 2 needs to be increased.

  9. Since the mono at least worked a little better than the bivalent on 4 & 5, maybe these pricks think the bivalent will somehow work on the new BBQ stains, or Rintra’s favorite the 2.075, or whatever it’s called. (I wish they’d go back to giving these things catchy names, rather than these Hip-Hop like Rapcronyms.)

Leave a Reply

The patients in the mental ward have had their daily dose of xanax and calmed down it seems, so most of your comments should be automatically posted again. Try not to annoy me with your low IQ low status white male theories about the Nazi gas chambers being fake or CO2 being harmless plant food and we can all get along. Have fun!

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.