Had a glance at it earlier. Hard to tell the recomb from regular BA.1 in most of the graphs. But it's definitely plausible that non-spike mutations make a huge difference in virulence; that's the whole mechanism behind the OPV attenuation (5'UTR secondary structure mutations).
Oct 15, 2022·edited Oct 15, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey
To 8. "why they push this":
One reason seams to be that they are in preparation of granting any "mRNA" platform product, of which there are many in the pipeline, auto-approval, "cuz tech framework is 'established'" (and it doesn't matter what you encode, like, a killer protein or some harmless thing, it's the same, right ?!), and politicians seem retarded/corrupt enough to wave it through, like so many other things.
This must be a "remember 1986 child vax act? If we got away with that, what won't we get away with? Well... let's try!" thing...
And that... was already alluded to in this 2019 clip, right before C19 was officially announced as a thing:
Pay close attention to the wording, the overall frame, and the part between the lines.
It seems like "they" planned to basically abolish proper medical testing of pharma products.
Well. For pharma companies who can affort to license this tech, and have enough high tech gear to do it. I imagine only the big corporations will be able to.
Making everyone who does things the old way not economically viable - because they will still have to do all this pesky testing, as "not 'established' magic mRNA platform". Whereas the others don't need to spend the money on years long testing.
That's also a way to crush the competition and leave only a few huge players on the field, I guess.
And unleashing untested crap on the populace as the new normal for the foreseeable future will decimate it some more also. They manage to still sweep the extent of the spikejuice harms under the rug and gaslight the populace, and I don't see why they won't continue that way. It's aleady beyond unbelievable.
I think another answer to number eight is the deployment of future mRNA vaccines basef on the theory of it. If something ails you, an mRNA vaccine can be developed quickly based on genetic information to fix you. It theoretically could be a great repetitive profit source, similar to drugs that pharma changes a tiny bit and re-releases. Except this mRNA vaccine is likely to kill all the people willing to engage in this profiteering exercise.
It's hard to think that would have helped them much with the school closures. And thousands and thousands were already full-scale addicted to Roblox to begin with.
It came up in the replies to the Watch the Water doc as well, and it doesn't seem like the point had occurred to them while making the film. I can only imagine the look on Ardis and Peters' faces when they first heard the question.
'I have theorized that the OAS was an attractive explanation for the failure to develop a universal flu vaccine. The attraction was that there was some “flaw” in the immune system to blame vaccine failure for, instead of saying the flaw is duh, vaccines can’t stave off a respiratory infection forever. If you say that you don’t get money to keep trying to improve the product.'
With tongue only partly in cheek, I find this to be the most compelling argument of all.
Oct 14, 2022·edited Oct 14, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey
You nailed it! Chimichangas are very disappointing.
Oh and your answer to #8! The gang of medicine men/policy thugs is populated by people who don't realize failure is possible! Yeah, I think I vote for that.
My explanation for most things is that ‘the default setting of humans is to do the wrong thing’ - from observations of history!
On a different note, can Brian do a video with slides to show why he thinks OAS is not real. I thought the problem with Dengue was an example ( infection with one strain earlier in life can make infection with a different strain much worse later on). I did read his article at the time but sometimes difficult concepts are better explained in person with a few diagrams!
I don't think slides would help, at least not for me. My problem is that I have trouble ignoring the history of research on OAS, and that distracts me from the current question of what it is and whether it is happening (of course that is my problem, and I don't expect someone else to solve it).
What I am gathering is that ADE means that the antibodies from a prior infection actually help new versions of a virus enter cells. And that OAS means that a prior infection prevents your body from making fresh antibodies to a new version of the virus; it has committed itself too much to the first version. And that imprinting means that your body has become accustomed to the original virus and so doesn't get excited and won't bother to attack the first (or similar subsequent) variants. Yes, I know this is simpleminded; okay I am simpleminded.
People are catching covid over and over and over again now, once a month, and maybe with the numerous new variants they will catch it even more often. Is that normal? I thought that people would catch the flu once a year, and colds a few times. If covid could happen once a month or more now, I just don't see how something like OAS wouldn't happen. The body doesn't have infinite resources. How can it keep making new antibodies that many times? Won't it eventually just give up and keep making old ones instead?
1 Chronic infections is better a consequence of and inevitable outcome of (positive feedback loop) tolerance to spike (https://unglossed.substack.com/p/boosting-tolerance-igg4). If you throw an antigen at the immune system over and over, it has little choice but to tolerate it otherwise inflammation and cell-killing will burn the house (body) down. So the mRNA shots do this from probably the very first injection due to using breakdown-resistant pseudo-U; and multiple injections only make it worse; and then infections just speed up the treadmill. But neither this nor any other form of immune suppression is "OAS." (Anymore than literal AIDS is OAS.)
2 "Imprinting" is an obscure and normally 100% beneficial quality of the immune system which if it were renamed today should be called "immune plasticity." Existing memory B Cells to originally encountered strains are not any more set-in-stone than the immune "system" as a whole. The B Cell pool from an original infection is like a giant basketball team; when the opponent switches up tactics (antigens), they can reshuffle players from the back bench to the front, and these players can further modify their moves a bit to better reply to the new challenge (additional Somatic Hyper-Mutation modifying the B Cell receptor and corresponding antibody molecule).
So all of this is great - no need to start a new immune response from scratch. "Imprinting" = "Plasticity." Any discussion of "imprinting" that isn't referring to B Cell remodeling as opposed to naive B Cell de novo response doesn't have a grasp on what "imprinting" actually means; but this includes lots of published researchers (same as for "OAS").
But if it's a truly novel variant, like a different H1N1 group (classic 1918/swine compared to a later era, for example), then the "backbench" is usually going to be stem-directed and truly novel, i.e. non-imprinted B Cells / antibodies directed against the HA (flu spike protein) head will appear in the months after infection. This is what has been found in the case of flu* but so far doesn't seem to be overtaking imprinting for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection responses. (*per my own synthesis of results in flu studies reviewed on my OAS table https://unglossed.substack.com/p/oas-review-timeline-2 , I haven't published a summary of this specific point yet).
Thank you for responding; I had meant to say tolerance (not imprinting)(my last biology class was in 1982). I do think this is a lot for human bodies to deal with, whether or not they are vaccinated. It is a lot to have a chronic infection that you can't clear (due to tolerance), and it is a lot to be bombarded with variant after variant after variant.
Dengue is Antibody Dependent Enhancement. It is cited as an “example” of OAS because there are no actual, real-world examples. But no one can say a concrete thing about Dengue ADE that addresses or validates any of the claims of OAS, they are totally different things.
That evidence-laundering looks one way in the bio literature and another way in the substack realm; in the latter it’s usually [Red Scare ladies voice]: “OAS means your immune system gets *‘locked in’* to the original antibody response and *can’t update* for new variants, like a *one trick pony.* It’s been *totally proven* like a million times like with *Dengue,* where the original antibody response helps a variant virus get into more cells.” - Ok, so that’s simple substitution fallacy. “Original antibodies help virus” does not validate the claim “can’t make variant antibodies.” So the claim is not validated. It’s actually farcical to imagine that humans can’t make antibodies to variants and that there would be any evidence of this. The evidence is we’d all be dead.
Good attempts, but one seems as confused as the other. That's probably a good thing as it shows a decent level of honesty and of openness, which has sadly been missing. I like to think I'm quite hardy, and stoic, but I've had flu a couple of times at either end of my years (I'm 71) and both times it was absolutely shocking. I repeat, shocking. I also (...seemingly) had PCR covid, but with no serious respiratory issues in Nov/Dec 2021, and it was a very odd (unique?) kinda illness, but very, very diff to flu, or any other virus I may have had (I also had a shocker of an upper and lower respiratory bug in Dec/Jan 2017/18 that really floored me). Anyway, I think the whole SAR's imbroglio has been totally confused/mangled by assorted, and specious, rank opportunism, and even more so with weasel-like quisling fact-checkers all the way down.
Here are my answers. I am a psychiatrist and used to be a proponent of evidence based medicine before I realised that all evidence can be faked, except perhaps for what happens in front of one’s own eyes:
1. Yes viruses are real.
2. Yes a Frankenstein Coronavirus emerged in late 2019 and it was manufactured in a lab.
3. I don’t know since OAS is too far out of my area of expertise.
4. Any going astray was sinister in intent and thus part of the experiment.
5. A vaccine was not necessary because the fatality rates were always based on lies, from the collapsing people in Wuhan to the refrigerated trucks in NYC.
6. I am Portuguese and I like pasteis de Belem.
7. Yes herd cull, it can’t be denied when looking at worldwide excess mortality figures.
8. They are all WEF puppets, all the cabinets are penetrated.
9. I used to trust, then I believed that Covid had exposed the corruption in the MIIC/ Pharma and now I understand that science and medicine is built on a stinking heap of idolatrous dung.
10. In medicine, there is always pressure to skew results and diagnoses and treatments according to the prevailing winds.
Bonus takeaway: fortify with Vitamin D, C and zinc and prayer because great evil is afoot and so many cannot or will not see it. There is a great, dark conspiracy of satanists and they are squirming with glee at the fear, death and injury they have unleashed. Name it and banish it.
"Science and medicine built on a stinking heap of idolatrous dung"... I'm a physicist and I have to agree with this. Watching string theory cop huge piles of research funding for what's a useless pile of metaphysical fairy tales, that made me realize an awful lot of "science" could be summarized in two page articles for "People" magazine.
You said it Zade. Have you ever seen Dr. Dean Radin summarize his (many) versions of the double slit vs meditator experiment? As far as I am concerned he has once again proved what many of the original quantum physicists believed, namely that our consciousness does interact with the universe at a very deep level. Many worlds theorists be damned.
Puh-leeze. Chimichangas. First, anything fried is better than anything not fried. Second, well we don’t need a second do we? That answer discredits everything else you’ve written. I can’t take you seriously about anything. Was this all just farce?
Oct 14, 2022·edited Oct 14, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey
Very good succinct answers and an excellent recap. Without really disagreeing, I wanted to add a couple of my pedantic, repetitive insights.
I hate the “are viruses real?” question because I think it’s a misapprehension of some of the critiques of what is conventionally thought of as viral theory. As you said, part of the term is simply a convention for invisible things that make you sick. As to the particular microbes that we view under magnification, there’s always been a bit of a chicken or the egg going on, meaning are they a cause of disease or effect? If they’re the latter, then the cause of disease is still unknown (or even smaller!) Regardless, this debate is somewhat missing the actual philosophical quandary, which is trying to fight disease or taking a more holistic approach in maximizing your overall health (“terrain theory”). The former seems to be much more lucrative and more amenable to our culture… most would rather take a shot or pill than exercise and eat well. However, that said, I don’t think that this has to be an either/or situation and there’s merit to treatment as much as prevention. I mean, what’s done is done sometimes, and I’m not sure we’d be living in a better world where if you got sick, your doctor was just like “well, I told you so!”
It’s also interesting that vaccines themselves sort of fall into both categories of prevention and attack. They’re like the “preemptive strike to maintain the peace” of medical science and probably deserve as much scrutiny as similar military actions would.
My second point is my common refrain regarding conspiracies and more specifically the always nebulous “they”. Are “they” trying to depopulate? I’m sure some are. Thinning the herd has always been popular in elite circles, just look back to England in the 15th/16th century and you’ll find that part of the push for colonizing the “New World” was to get rid of some of the riff-raff. I have no doubt this sentiment still exists amongst the rich and powerful and is a driving force behind some of the pandemic measures, climate change, and what have you. But this is where we need to be hyper specific because when I look at companies like Pfizer, I struggle to find the profit motive in killing their potential customers (or even limiting future customers by sterilization l). I believe for the most part, they’ve taken the actions they have simply because they’re profitable and they could. That probably even applies to the selection of the mRNA platform itself. It was quick, relatively easy, and possible and the only safety goal was to make sure any damage wasn’t abundantly apparent. And to my eye, they’ve succeeded at that… thus far, anyway. You can sell a cigarette for personal consumption but not anthrax. And you’d be a pretty bad business if you wanted to.
Beyond that, it gets really complicated. Even taking an entity like the WEF… how sure can anyone be that their members are some sort of hivemind? Or even an individual like Bill Gates, is he an evil mastermind or a misguided true believer with lots of people in his ear?
So in the end, it is a depopulation agenda and it isn’t. Most events of this scale can be parsed down to a singular cause or motivation. And as such, they can’t be solved by pulling back a curtain to reveal the Wizard behind the controls.
You state about companies like Pfizer: "I believe for the most part, they’ve taken the actions they have simply because they’re profitable and they could. That probably even applies to the selection of the mRNA platform itself. It was quick, relatively easy, and possible and the only safety goal was to make sure any damage wasn’t abundantly apparent. And to my eye, they’ve succeeded at that… thus far, anyway."
How are you able to say the following given all of the research and testimony on mRNA shots?
To be clear, I don’t think the jabs are safe. But it’s also apparent that they don’t harm, let alone kill, anywhere close to the majority, or even sizable minority, of people who take them. It’s possible for something to be orders of magnitude more dangerous than any prior vaccine while still being almost unnoticeable to someone who hasn’t spent the time and effort to look at the available data. Even at the very high end of estimates, the jabs kill one out of a 5,000, serious adverse effects may be one out of a 1,000. That’s simply not noticeable to the average person. It’s absolutely horrific but meets my “not abundantly apparent” standard.
We don't yet know if they kill the majority of those who take them. It's early days. Regarding depopulation and eugenics, that is such an interesting discourse since the late 18th, 19th century, and they were also thinking about people owning nothing - each new cohort was supposed to start afresh with no possessions regardless of parents' accumulated wealth: it was not to be inherited so that each cohort would have equal chances of success for poor and rich "herrenmenschen" alike, to establish a "social aristocracy", based on fitness and personal merit. Therefore I really feel that the entire ideology and ensuing policies of WEF and DoD DARPA, match currents in the Malthusian, and social Darwinist, and related eugenics discourse. A mere continuation.
It reminds me of the biolab Morgellons days, when the boards were suddenly infiltrated by new users trying to disrupt / discredit the science talk with 'alien' talk. The alien (then snake venom) distraction strategies were briefly tried during this ordeal as well but apparently deemed not to be effective enough.
Hey Brian, it’s great that you took the time to respond to Sage. Much appreciated!
Looking at all of this zoomed out, it seems to me that OAS as a label kind of got thrown around a bit loosely. By your research, the historical background does seem pretty dodgy and sketchy. It seems like OAS — which you’ve shown in its science-history context — got conflated with “antigenic priming” and “immunologic priming”.
So just to clarify: Do you think there’s evidence of some kind of priming going on? What would you call it?
I think these questions people have are fairly common now: Why are all the jabbed people around me getting sick with the same thing over and over? Why are my unjabbed friends and family seemingly unaffected?
I look at what’s happening and ask:
Doesn’t this indicate we are observing a phenomena that seems to point to a degree of some sort of immunological imprinting? Why wouldn’t repeated injections, with ongoing (endless?) internal production of the antigen spike, and corresponding antibody production and immune system training (targeting the spike, not the *whole virus*)—why wouldn’t this lead to a kind of imprinting, whatever we call it?
OAS is thrown loosely because it was formulated obscurely. It is a Rorschach.
"Priming" isn't overwhelmingly compelling, but the evidence seems to be tilting as of the summer BA.5 era. I think the "priming" is that the injected are in the long term more vulnerable to harms from viral spike protein due to tolerance or to a "cracks in the hull" mechanism. Igor Chudov predicted that "with Covid" deaths are now actually tolerance-induced spike protein harms and this is a plausible manifestation of "priming" https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/boosters-now-promote-covid-deaths - this riffs off of the evidence for tolerance covered in my post https://unglossed.substack.com/p/boosting-tolerance-igg4
"Imprinting" refers to the claims regarding non-specificity for variant flu antibodies. As I write, the actual Francis and co. serum absorption results totally falsify imprinting as an axiom. But it might happen sometimes, and might be a factor for the mRNA spike protein transfections due to super-high antigen doses. And so it does seem like "imprinting" could be at play for the transfected - https://unglossed.substack.com/p/the-actual-imprinting-study - which means that even if their memory B Cell pool can remodel upon exposure to variants like the Omicron siblings, they will still be stuck with IgG4-class B Cells / antibodies that promote tolerance.
I'm sure you've seen this preprint already: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.09.15.507787v3 ("Imprinted SARS-CoV-2 humoral immunity induces convergent Omicron RBD evolution"). The authors observed "immune imprinting, or so-called 'original antigenic sin'” (line 140). Apparently, they are conflating the two concepts? Or, perhaps they are throwing the OAS term around loosely??
Notwithstanding the authors terminology, there does seem to be evidence mounting that the B Cell pool, thanks to repeated exposure to the wuhan spike antigen via multiple injections, will primarily produce antibodies designed to target the original wuhan spike antigen when the immune system encounters a new variant (even though they can remodel/adapt to it).
If correct, this "immune imprinting" and its fallout (whether production of nonneutralizing abs or spike tolerant IgG4 abs) becomes an issue only if the B cells are called upon to combat a variant. In other words, if one's innate immune system (perhaps with some help from nonspecific IgM abs) can clear a variant quickly--not allowing it to stick around long enough for the production of IgG abs--then the individual shouldn't have to worry about things like ADE, spike tolerance, etc. Only when the innate arm has failed to clear the virus does "immune imprinting" (which could lead to more severe disease) become a problem. Correct?
I have been working through it! From the supplemental it looks like they went with mAb phenotyping and used nice long time-points before draws so it will be an interesting one, especially given that it involves inactivated vax. But mAb phenotyping-based "imprinting" doesn't mean there are no antibodies to variants, it only means that the "how" for those variant antibodies is "reshuffled / remodeled old memory B Cells" rather than "recruited naive B Cells." Caveat that this take is literally based on just fishing through the supplemental.
So "imprinting" is and is not "OAS" in that Francis pivots from "childhood antibodies higher" to "new antibodies absorbed by first virus" in 1956 so he essentially "claims this new land imprinting for the queen OAS."
And, I think (based upon my observations) people (like Berenson) conflate the two concepts and conclude that vaccinated people are stuck in a doom loop of never being able to produce novel antibodies (like the N antibody) to variants. But, the reality is they can.
Oct 14, 2022·edited Oct 14, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey
Thanks for responding.
“Priming” could be applicable in the sense that the hyperactive antibody response to endogenous spike production overstimulates B cell activity (may be related upstream to observed altered T-cell production and function); and this interaction gets repeated with repeated doses, priming or training a certain response.
With “imprinting”, I’m not sure any of the flu papers is applicable. At that time, there hadn’t been repeated mass injections of the public during a ‘pandemic’. There were no mRNA shots, no bio-engineered spike proteins. Reality hadn’t yet been exposed to induced endogenous antigenic spike protein production delivered via lipid nano particles.
Maybe we need a better descriptor. Up until now labels have been tossed around trying to find a known anchor point, but perhaps this is somewhat uncharted territory?
If we are in uncharted territory (and we are), then labels should be new. What I am dealing with is alleged established “immunology 101” - myths which get tossed around on substack under the guise of being “well-observed.” This makes a reference to *past science* and specifically, misrepresents the same. So I think you want my approach to OAS to head in a forward direction; but I am showing misrepresentation of the past.
I hear where you’re coming from. I think it’s very useful to understand historical context and misrepresentation—I learned a lot by reading your articles on the subject. Thank you for that.
OAS as a concept has been latched onto by more than a few (some quite noteworthy) indicating that there is either controversy or misunderstanding of the label. I think it’s actually predictable that people would use older labels in attempting to describe new things—happens all the time—sometimes maliciously, sometimes not. “Vaccine” for example: clearly being misapplied, redefined maliciously; and also operating out of a historical context built out of what should be regarded as myth.
My question wasn’t intended to get you to change what you do, just trying to get clarity. I think it’s very important that we use accurate descriptors, especially ones that increase understanding, rather than potentially mislead.
I would offer that it’s important to go the next step: If there’s a label that’s being used in an unhelpful manner, what would be more accurate? The casual reader may view phrases like, “OAS is a myth”, and come away thinking there is no priming/imprinting phenomena at all. But we acknowledge there is something there.
Hope that makes sense, and thank you again for your response.
"Did US Scientists Just Create ... FrankenVariant... with Projected *80% Mortality*?"
https://ashmedai.substack.com/p/did-us-scientists-just-create-an
Had a glance at it earlier. Hard to tell the recomb from regular BA.1 in most of the graphs. But it's definitely plausible that non-spike mutations make a huge difference in virulence; that's the whole mechanism behind the OPV attenuation (5'UTR secondary structure mutations).
I just wonder what's going on in the heads of people playing with that stuff like it was some fun computer game...
To 8. "why they push this":
One reason seams to be that they are in preparation of granting any "mRNA" platform product, of which there are many in the pipeline, auto-approval, "cuz tech framework is 'established'" (and it doesn't matter what you encode, like, a killer protein or some harmless thing, it's the same, right ?!), and politicians seem retarded/corrupt enough to wave it through, like so many other things.
This must be a "remember 1986 child vax act? If we got away with that, what won't we get away with? Well... let's try!" thing...
And that... was already alluded to in this 2019 clip, right before C19 was officially announced as a thing:
https://odysee.com/@fauci:f/Universal-Flu-Vaccine.-C-SPAN,-October-29,-2019:3
Pay close attention to the wording, the overall frame, and the part between the lines.
It seems like "they" planned to basically abolish proper medical testing of pharma products.
Well. For pharma companies who can affort to license this tech, and have enough high tech gear to do it. I imagine only the big corporations will be able to.
Making everyone who does things the old way not economically viable - because they will still have to do all this pesky testing, as "not 'established' magic mRNA platform". Whereas the others don't need to spend the money on years long testing.
That's also a way to crush the competition and leave only a few huge players on the field, I guess.
And unleashing untested crap on the populace as the new normal for the foreseeable future will decimate it some more also. They manage to still sweep the extent of the spikejuice harms under the rug and gaslight the populace, and I don't see why they won't continue that way. It's aleady beyond unbelievable.
When we're all numbered and linked by every metric, will they mandate individualised injections?
indeed; paving the way for Immunitarianism
Go Brian! 🍻
I think another answer to number eight is the deployment of future mRNA vaccines basef on the theory of it. If something ails you, an mRNA vaccine can be developed quickly based on genetic information to fix you. It theoretically could be a great repetitive profit source, similar to drugs that pharma changes a tiny bit and re-releases. Except this mRNA vaccine is likely to kill all the people willing to engage in this profiteering exercise.
You always come up with some gems in your writing Brian. This one is so simple.. it was always right under our noses;
"And that last point is especially why any non-virus theories for what we call “Covid-19” don’t pan out. Then why aren’t the kids affected?"
Exactly.. if it was always just a matter of 5G activated chemtrail particles enhanced by poor nutrition, why not the kids too? Duh.
Not necessarily. I’m not a 5G believer, by the way, but it could be 5G affects kids less. Maybe they spend significantly less time on devices.
It's hard to think that would have helped them much with the school closures. And thousands and thousands were already full-scale addicted to Roblox to begin with.
It came up in the replies to the Watch the Water doc as well, and it doesn't seem like the point had occurred to them while making the film. I can only imagine the look on Ardis and Peters' faces when they first heard the question.
A great piece, thank you.
Thanks!
'I have theorized that the OAS was an attractive explanation for the failure to develop a universal flu vaccine. The attraction was that there was some “flaw” in the immune system to blame vaccine failure for, instead of saying the flaw is duh, vaccines can’t stave off a respiratory infection forever. If you say that you don’t get money to keep trying to improve the product.'
With tongue only partly in cheek, I find this to be the most compelling argument of all.
Thank you for this well written, easy to understand, piece. Clarifies many fuzzy areas for me.
Thanks - glad to hear it!
You nailed it! Chimichangas are very disappointing.
Oh and your answer to #8! The gang of medicine men/policy thugs is populated by people who don't realize failure is possible! Yeah, I think I vote for that.
(I feel like I'm being asked to rate burgers vs. pbjs. Like how is there a debate here? But again, maybe I just haven't been to the right spots.)
My explanation for most things is that ‘the default setting of humans is to do the wrong thing’ - from observations of history!
On a different note, can Brian do a video with slides to show why he thinks OAS is not real. I thought the problem with Dengue was an example ( infection with one strain earlier in life can make infection with a different strain much worse later on). I did read his article at the time but sometimes difficult concepts are better explained in person with a few diagrams!
I don't think slides would help, at least not for me. My problem is that I have trouble ignoring the history of research on OAS, and that distracts me from the current question of what it is and whether it is happening (of course that is my problem, and I don't expect someone else to solve it).
What I am gathering is that ADE means that the antibodies from a prior infection actually help new versions of a virus enter cells. And that OAS means that a prior infection prevents your body from making fresh antibodies to a new version of the virus; it has committed itself too much to the first version. And that imprinting means that your body has become accustomed to the original virus and so doesn't get excited and won't bother to attack the first (or similar subsequent) variants. Yes, I know this is simpleminded; okay I am simpleminded.
People are catching covid over and over and over again now, once a month, and maybe with the numerous new variants they will catch it even more often. Is that normal? I thought that people would catch the flu once a year, and colds a few times. If covid could happen once a month or more now, I just don't see how something like OAS wouldn't happen. The body doesn't have infinite resources. How can it keep making new antibodies that many times? Won't it eventually just give up and keep making old ones instead?
To work backward -
1 Chronic infections is better a consequence of and inevitable outcome of (positive feedback loop) tolerance to spike (https://unglossed.substack.com/p/boosting-tolerance-igg4). If you throw an antigen at the immune system over and over, it has little choice but to tolerate it otherwise inflammation and cell-killing will burn the house (body) down. So the mRNA shots do this from probably the very first injection due to using breakdown-resistant pseudo-U; and multiple injections only make it worse; and then infections just speed up the treadmill. But neither this nor any other form of immune suppression is "OAS." (Anymore than literal AIDS is OAS.)
2 "Imprinting" is an obscure and normally 100% beneficial quality of the immune system which if it were renamed today should be called "immune plasticity." Existing memory B Cells to originally encountered strains are not any more set-in-stone than the immune "system" as a whole. The B Cell pool from an original infection is like a giant basketball team; when the opponent switches up tactics (antigens), they can reshuffle players from the back bench to the front, and these players can further modify their moves a bit to better reply to the new challenge (additional Somatic Hyper-Mutation modifying the B Cell receptor and corresponding antibody molecule).
So all of this is great - no need to start a new immune response from scratch. "Imprinting" = "Plasticity." Any discussion of "imprinting" that isn't referring to B Cell remodeling as opposed to naive B Cell de novo response doesn't have a grasp on what "imprinting" actually means; but this includes lots of published researchers (same as for "OAS").
But if it's a truly novel variant, like a different H1N1 group (classic 1918/swine compared to a later era, for example), then the "backbench" is usually going to be stem-directed and truly novel, i.e. non-imprinted B Cells / antibodies directed against the HA (flu spike protein) head will appear in the months after infection. This is what has been found in the case of flu* but so far doesn't seem to be overtaking imprinting for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection responses. (*per my own synthesis of results in flu studies reviewed on my OAS table https://unglossed.substack.com/p/oas-review-timeline-2 , I haven't published a summary of this specific point yet).
Thank you for responding; I had meant to say tolerance (not imprinting)(my last biology class was in 1982). I do think this is a lot for human bodies to deal with, whether or not they are vaccinated. It is a lot to have a chronic infection that you can't clear (due to tolerance), and it is a lot to be bombarded with variant after variant after variant.
Dengue is Antibody Dependent Enhancement. It is cited as an “example” of OAS because there are no actual, real-world examples. But no one can say a concrete thing about Dengue ADE that addresses or validates any of the claims of OAS, they are totally different things.
That evidence-laundering looks one way in the bio literature and another way in the substack realm; in the latter it’s usually [Red Scare ladies voice]: “OAS means your immune system gets *‘locked in’* to the original antibody response and *can’t update* for new variants, like a *one trick pony.* It’s been *totally proven* like a million times like with *Dengue,* where the original antibody response helps a variant virus get into more cells.” - Ok, so that’s simple substitution fallacy. “Original antibodies help virus” does not validate the claim “can’t make variant antibodies.” So the claim is not validated. It’s actually farcical to imagine that humans can’t make antibodies to variants and that there would be any evidence of this. The evidence is we’d all be dead.
I’ve been thinking about a video format.
Good attempts, but one seems as confused as the other. That's probably a good thing as it shows a decent level of honesty and of openness, which has sadly been missing. I like to think I'm quite hardy, and stoic, but I've had flu a couple of times at either end of my years (I'm 71) and both times it was absolutely shocking. I repeat, shocking. I also (...seemingly) had PCR covid, but with no serious respiratory issues in Nov/Dec 2021, and it was a very odd (unique?) kinda illness, but very, very diff to flu, or any other virus I may have had (I also had a shocker of an upper and lower respiratory bug in Dec/Jan 2017/18 that really floored me). Anyway, I think the whole SAR's imbroglio has been totally confused/mangled by assorted, and specious, rank opportunism, and even more so with weasel-like quisling fact-checkers all the way down.
I agree..sars cov2 is like flu with an added twist. Similar--but not quite the same.
Here are my answers. I am a psychiatrist and used to be a proponent of evidence based medicine before I realised that all evidence can be faked, except perhaps for what happens in front of one’s own eyes:
1. Yes viruses are real.
2. Yes a Frankenstein Coronavirus emerged in late 2019 and it was manufactured in a lab.
3. I don’t know since OAS is too far out of my area of expertise.
4. Any going astray was sinister in intent and thus part of the experiment.
5. A vaccine was not necessary because the fatality rates were always based on lies, from the collapsing people in Wuhan to the refrigerated trucks in NYC.
6. I am Portuguese and I like pasteis de Belem.
7. Yes herd cull, it can’t be denied when looking at worldwide excess mortality figures.
8. They are all WEF puppets, all the cabinets are penetrated.
9. I used to trust, then I believed that Covid had exposed the corruption in the MIIC/ Pharma and now I understand that science and medicine is built on a stinking heap of idolatrous dung.
10. In medicine, there is always pressure to skew results and diagnoses and treatments according to the prevailing winds.
Bonus takeaway: fortify with Vitamin D, C and zinc and prayer because great evil is afoot and so many cannot or will not see it. There is a great, dark conspiracy of satanists and they are squirming with glee at the fear, death and injury they have unleashed. Name it and banish it.
"Science and medicine built on a stinking heap of idolatrous dung"... I'm a physicist and I have to agree with this. Watching string theory cop huge piles of research funding for what's a useless pile of metaphysical fairy tales, that made me realize an awful lot of "science" could be summarized in two page articles for "People" magazine.
You said it Zade. Have you ever seen Dr. Dean Radin summarize his (many) versions of the double slit vs meditator experiment? As far as I am concerned he has once again proved what many of the original quantum physicists believed, namely that our consciousness does interact with the universe at a very deep level. Many worlds theorists be damned.
Sad isn’t it to see such corruption and it starts with silencing the discourse.
Puh-leeze. Chimichangas. First, anything fried is better than anything not fried. Second, well we don’t need a second do we? That answer discredits everything else you’ve written. I can’t take you seriously about anything. Was this all just farce?
Very good succinct answers and an excellent recap. Without really disagreeing, I wanted to add a couple of my pedantic, repetitive insights.
I hate the “are viruses real?” question because I think it’s a misapprehension of some of the critiques of what is conventionally thought of as viral theory. As you said, part of the term is simply a convention for invisible things that make you sick. As to the particular microbes that we view under magnification, there’s always been a bit of a chicken or the egg going on, meaning are they a cause of disease or effect? If they’re the latter, then the cause of disease is still unknown (or even smaller!) Regardless, this debate is somewhat missing the actual philosophical quandary, which is trying to fight disease or taking a more holistic approach in maximizing your overall health (“terrain theory”). The former seems to be much more lucrative and more amenable to our culture… most would rather take a shot or pill than exercise and eat well. However, that said, I don’t think that this has to be an either/or situation and there’s merit to treatment as much as prevention. I mean, what’s done is done sometimes, and I’m not sure we’d be living in a better world where if you got sick, your doctor was just like “well, I told you so!”
It’s also interesting that vaccines themselves sort of fall into both categories of prevention and attack. They’re like the “preemptive strike to maintain the peace” of medical science and probably deserve as much scrutiny as similar military actions would.
My second point is my common refrain regarding conspiracies and more specifically the always nebulous “they”. Are “they” trying to depopulate? I’m sure some are. Thinning the herd has always been popular in elite circles, just look back to England in the 15th/16th century and you’ll find that part of the push for colonizing the “New World” was to get rid of some of the riff-raff. I have no doubt this sentiment still exists amongst the rich and powerful and is a driving force behind some of the pandemic measures, climate change, and what have you. But this is where we need to be hyper specific because when I look at companies like Pfizer, I struggle to find the profit motive in killing their potential customers (or even limiting future customers by sterilization l). I believe for the most part, they’ve taken the actions they have simply because they’re profitable and they could. That probably even applies to the selection of the mRNA platform itself. It was quick, relatively easy, and possible and the only safety goal was to make sure any damage wasn’t abundantly apparent. And to my eye, they’ve succeeded at that… thus far, anyway. You can sell a cigarette for personal consumption but not anthrax. And you’d be a pretty bad business if you wanted to.
Beyond that, it gets really complicated. Even taking an entity like the WEF… how sure can anyone be that their members are some sort of hivemind? Or even an individual like Bill Gates, is he an evil mastermind or a misguided true believer with lots of people in his ear?
So in the end, it is a depopulation agenda and it isn’t. Most events of this scale can be parsed down to a singular cause or motivation. And as such, they can’t be solved by pulling back a curtain to reveal the Wizard behind the controls.
You state about companies like Pfizer: "I believe for the most part, they’ve taken the actions they have simply because they’re profitable and they could. That probably even applies to the selection of the mRNA platform itself. It was quick, relatively easy, and possible and the only safety goal was to make sure any damage wasn’t abundantly apparent. And to my eye, they’ve succeeded at that… thus far, anyway."
How are you able to say the following given all of the research and testimony on mRNA shots?
https://wmcresearch.substack.com/p/the-spike-protein-the-amyloid-cascade
https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/we-now-have-clear-proof-the-vaccine
https://usawatchdog.com/hell-no-to-any-cv19-vax-lt-col-theresa-long-md/
https://leemuller.substack.com/p/no-we-should-not-all-get-vaccinated
Plus, the facebook group Died Suddenly News of more than 300,000 members with daily reports of safety issues, which gets removed.
To be clear, I don’t think the jabs are safe. But it’s also apparent that they don’t harm, let alone kill, anywhere close to the majority, or even sizable minority, of people who take them. It’s possible for something to be orders of magnitude more dangerous than any prior vaccine while still being almost unnoticeable to someone who hasn’t spent the time and effort to look at the available data. Even at the very high end of estimates, the jabs kill one out of a 5,000, serious adverse effects may be one out of a 1,000. That’s simply not noticeable to the average person. It’s absolutely horrific but meets my “not abundantly apparent” standard.
We don't yet know if they kill the majority of those who take them. It's early days. Regarding depopulation and eugenics, that is such an interesting discourse since the late 18th, 19th century, and they were also thinking about people owning nothing - each new cohort was supposed to start afresh with no possessions regardless of parents' accumulated wealth: it was not to be inherited so that each cohort would have equal chances of success for poor and rich "herrenmenschen" alike, to establish a "social aristocracy", based on fitness and personal merit. Therefore I really feel that the entire ideology and ensuing policies of WEF and DoD DARPA, match currents in the Malthusian, and social Darwinist, and related eugenics discourse. A mere continuation.
all this talk about viruses ...
It reminds me of the biolab Morgellons days, when the boards were suddenly infiltrated by new users trying to disrupt / discredit the science talk with 'alien' talk. The alien (then snake venom) distraction strategies were briefly tried during this ordeal as well but apparently deemed not to be effective enough.
Hey Brian, it’s great that you took the time to respond to Sage. Much appreciated!
Looking at all of this zoomed out, it seems to me that OAS as a label kind of got thrown around a bit loosely. By your research, the historical background does seem pretty dodgy and sketchy. It seems like OAS — which you’ve shown in its science-history context — got conflated with “antigenic priming” and “immunologic priming”.
So just to clarify: Do you think there’s evidence of some kind of priming going on? What would you call it?
I think these questions people have are fairly common now: Why are all the jabbed people around me getting sick with the same thing over and over? Why are my unjabbed friends and family seemingly unaffected?
I look at what’s happening and ask:
Doesn’t this indicate we are observing a phenomena that seems to point to a degree of some sort of immunological imprinting? Why wouldn’t repeated injections, with ongoing (endless?) internal production of the antigen spike, and corresponding antibody production and immune system training (targeting the spike, not the *whole virus*)—why wouldn’t this lead to a kind of imprinting, whatever we call it?
What’s your take on it?
Thanks in advance!
OAS is thrown loosely because it was formulated obscurely. It is a Rorschach.
"Priming" isn't overwhelmingly compelling, but the evidence seems to be tilting as of the summer BA.5 era. I think the "priming" is that the injected are in the long term more vulnerable to harms from viral spike protein due to tolerance or to a "cracks in the hull" mechanism. Igor Chudov predicted that "with Covid" deaths are now actually tolerance-induced spike protein harms and this is a plausible manifestation of "priming" https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/boosters-now-promote-covid-deaths - this riffs off of the evidence for tolerance covered in my post https://unglossed.substack.com/p/boosting-tolerance-igg4
"Imprinting" refers to the claims regarding non-specificity for variant flu antibodies. As I write, the actual Francis and co. serum absorption results totally falsify imprinting as an axiom. But it might happen sometimes, and might be a factor for the mRNA spike protein transfections due to super-high antigen doses. And so it does seem like "imprinting" could be at play for the transfected - https://unglossed.substack.com/p/the-actual-imprinting-study - which means that even if their memory B Cell pool can remodel upon exposure to variants like the Omicron siblings, they will still be stuck with IgG4-class B Cells / antibodies that promote tolerance.
I'm sure you've seen this preprint already: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.09.15.507787v3 ("Imprinted SARS-CoV-2 humoral immunity induces convergent Omicron RBD evolution"). The authors observed "immune imprinting, or so-called 'original antigenic sin'” (line 140). Apparently, they are conflating the two concepts? Or, perhaps they are throwing the OAS term around loosely??
Notwithstanding the authors terminology, there does seem to be evidence mounting that the B Cell pool, thanks to repeated exposure to the wuhan spike antigen via multiple injections, will primarily produce antibodies designed to target the original wuhan spike antigen when the immune system encounters a new variant (even though they can remodel/adapt to it).
If correct, this "immune imprinting" and its fallout (whether production of nonneutralizing abs or spike tolerant IgG4 abs) becomes an issue only if the B cells are called upon to combat a variant. In other words, if one's innate immune system (perhaps with some help from nonspecific IgM abs) can clear a variant quickly--not allowing it to stick around long enough for the production of IgG abs--then the individual shouldn't have to worry about things like ADE, spike tolerance, etc. Only when the innate arm has failed to clear the virus does "immune imprinting" (which could lead to more severe disease) become a problem. Correct?
I have been working through it! From the supplemental it looks like they went with mAb phenotyping and used nice long time-points before draws so it will be an interesting one, especially given that it involves inactivated vax. But mAb phenotyping-based "imprinting" doesn't mean there are no antibodies to variants, it only means that the "how" for those variant antibodies is "reshuffled / remodeled old memory B Cells" rather than "recruited naive B Cells." Caveat that this take is literally based on just fishing through the supplemental.
So "imprinting" is and is not "OAS" in that Francis pivots from "childhood antibodies higher" to "new antibodies absorbed by first virus" in 1956 so he essentially "claims this new land imprinting for the queen OAS."
Right!
And, I think (based upon my observations) people (like Berenson) conflate the two concepts and conclude that vaccinated people are stuck in a doom loop of never being able to produce novel antibodies (like the N antibody) to variants. But, the reality is they can.
Thanks for responding.
“Priming” could be applicable in the sense that the hyperactive antibody response to endogenous spike production overstimulates B cell activity (may be related upstream to observed altered T-cell production and function); and this interaction gets repeated with repeated doses, priming or training a certain response.
With “imprinting”, I’m not sure any of the flu papers is applicable. At that time, there hadn’t been repeated mass injections of the public during a ‘pandemic’. There were no mRNA shots, no bio-engineered spike proteins. Reality hadn’t yet been exposed to induced endogenous antigenic spike protein production delivered via lipid nano particles.
Maybe we need a better descriptor. Up until now labels have been tossed around trying to find a known anchor point, but perhaps this is somewhat uncharted territory?
If we are in uncharted territory (and we are), then labels should be new. What I am dealing with is alleged established “immunology 101” - myths which get tossed around on substack under the guise of being “well-observed.” This makes a reference to *past science* and specifically, misrepresents the same. So I think you want my approach to OAS to head in a forward direction; but I am showing misrepresentation of the past.
I hear where you’re coming from. I think it’s very useful to understand historical context and misrepresentation—I learned a lot by reading your articles on the subject. Thank you for that.
OAS as a concept has been latched onto by more than a few (some quite noteworthy) indicating that there is either controversy or misunderstanding of the label. I think it’s actually predictable that people would use older labels in attempting to describe new things—happens all the time—sometimes maliciously, sometimes not. “Vaccine” for example: clearly being misapplied, redefined maliciously; and also operating out of a historical context built out of what should be regarded as myth.
My question wasn’t intended to get you to change what you do, just trying to get clarity. I think it’s very important that we use accurate descriptors, especially ones that increase understanding, rather than potentially mislead.
I would offer that it’s important to go the next step: If there’s a label that’s being used in an unhelpful manner, what would be more accurate? The casual reader may view phrases like, “OAS is a myth”, and come away thinking there is no priming/imprinting phenomena at all. But we acknowledge there is something there.
Hope that makes sense, and thank you again for your response.
Excellent article~thank you!