Public and Global Health authorities continue to convince people to get jabbed despite the abundance of breakthrough infections. Their short-sighted rhetoric focuses on an alleged advantage offered by vaccines to protect people against severe disease (which doesn’t even apply when one considers the many unvaccinated subjects that are naturally protected against mild or moderate disease—thanks to their innate immunity—and are therefore also protected against severe disease). As breakthrough infections accumulate, immune escape variants will only become more and more prevalent.
I'd like to ask again. I'm vaxxed at this point. Is there more harm in continuing to boost for me as an individual or should I let my acquired immunity wane with the hope that my innate immunity will take hold & give me better protection moving forward?
Boosting with the original strain is a complete farce. You are better of using Ivermectin and other prophylactic substances to avoid falling sick. Better to let a natural challenge with a current strain "boost" you, while your vaccinal antibodies still provide protection.
How about boosting with a reformulation though? I get that Geert is looking at this from a public policy point of view, but it would be great to see what we could do as individuals.
In simple terms, if you're unvaxxed, what should you do?
From a public policy perspective. What about as an individual? If I have acquired antibodies from vaxxing that prevent my innate immunity from kicking in, then is the better course for me to keep boosting as it doesn't seem like my innate immunity will help me?
So get off the treadmill & hope the innate immunity can handle the next variant? And also hope your acquired vax immunity is not strong enough to interfere with your innate immunity?
(this is a replacement reply...'cause I made typos that misconveyed my meaning...original deleted)
I think Geert mentioned this in interview with Bret Weinstein some months ago. It's been awhile, but IIRC, you get more or less "one chance" to vaccinate on a specific virus or viral antigen. Here, C-19 vax makers like BioNTech, Moderna, Janssen, AstraZenica, chose the spike (S) protein from the original Wuhan strain. So your Ab response is against *that* protein. When challenged with a similar protein (the spikes off a new variant, __or a new vax__ patterned after the spike of said variant), the immune system of the previously vaxxed person simply recalls the Ab it had earlier constructed for the original challenge (the spike induced by the original vax).
So, again IIRC what Geert said to Bret, a reformulated vax will cause you just recall the antibody design your immune system generated when challenged with the initial vax. And therefore, your immune system won't have learned anything new to use in combating that new variant.
I don't think that process is 100%, though (this is me speaking for myself, not interpreting anything Geert might have said). I think if your immune system continues to be faced with ongoing new variant virus particles popping out of infected cells because the original Abs didn't control it, *eventually* your immune system would say, "hey, this isn't working, back to the drawing board boys, let's design a new antibody". But, by that time, your infection could be really large in terms of the cells compromised, so one might expect illness induced to be much higher before your body mounts an effective response.
Now a reformulated vax wouldn't be virus, that could keep replicating to induce that "hey, this isn't working guys!" signal to the immune system. Because the production of S protein by cells taking up the vax is self-limiting, the immune system may not see enough new antigen to realize that it's recalled Abs pattern is not effective. It may therefore not get the "training" the new vax hoped to provide, especially if the original Abs are just good enough to ultimately clear away the new-vax-induced spikes.
In a previously vaxxed person, I would anticipate receipt of a reformulated vax to raise the risk of adverse events (on the logic that new induced spike can't be cleared as well by recalled Abs), and have a lower efficacy, or no significant efficacy.
In a previously *unvaxxed* person, I would anticipate receipt of a reformulated vax to produce effects roughly identical to what the recently vaxxed population experienced: good initial efficacy, rapid waning of that protection, with risk of adverse events, susceptibility to incubation/transmission/infection of yet newer variants.
So, this is one of the dangers of issuing "leaky vax" to people. Antigenic sin is a real sin indeed. Boosters won't help once variants evolve escape differences. Reformulations *might* help (more for those still "never vaxxed"), but the chance for success there (among prior vaxxed) is probably worse than what was faced with the original vaxes, and they also might expose you to additional vaxing risks in the bargain. You're between a rock and a hard place. Refusing further vaxxing means you're at greater risk of infection...but refusing is the only way to get off the bad road you were lead down, toward a possible road where your recall of mal-adapted Abs becomes attenuated, and your natural response is one day restored.
I am unvaxxed, but if I were in your place, I would stop playing with the novel vaxes. It's a risk...but the early evidence of omicron's virulence is looking good. So you get omicron one day, but you experience more of a cold-type illness, rather than the sort of COVID we've been scared about for nearly 2 years now. Honestly, IMO, there's no great choice for someone in your position. Boosterism probably won't help (immune escape), reformulation may not either (antigenic sin), and going without in the face of known efficacy falloff seems like complete heresy (given what you see/hear in the MSM).
For the record, I've tried to live my life as normally as possible, without fear...I wash/sanitize my hands a bit more, but that's about it. I've been to plenty of family gathers, including Thanksgiving '21, despite some family refusing due to their own COVID concerns. So far as I know, I have yet to contract COVID. Unvaxxed and still fully susceptible, as least as far as the prevailing official wisdom goes. I'm actually hopeful that omicron and its successors win in terms of being able to outcompete more leathal variants, and produce as modest and cold-like of symptoms as possible. If that happens, if I *do* finally catch COVID, by then it'll actually be as close to a *nothing burger* as one would wish for. And...I didn't mess ill-advisedly with my existing immune system, nor risk the serious adverse events of the existing vaccines.
If the vaccines were sterilizing immunizations as most of the oldest ones appear to be, rather than temporary therapies, as these have proven to be, it'd be a whole different story for me: I'd have got my poke. It's just that here, prior to learning what we now know about these vaxxes, my Spidey-sense was tingling. I wasn't convinced these would be sterilizing, based to a great degree on the lengthy body and time of research previously done on coronavirus vaccines, ALL without sufficient success to bring an effective product to market UNTIL, miraculously, *this* pandemic. I just didn't believe it. I think time is proving my own intuition correct. It's an intuition shared by many, lay and expert alike.
But fear is a powerful motivator...
You should discuss all this with competent medical professionals. And good luck...many want to keep being real doctors, but struggle under the administrative tyrannies of the corporate managements who employ them. They've made financial decisions and commitments based on expected earnings, and suddenly face the prospect of censure or termination that would leave them at risk. Therefore they may not be willing to advise you fully for fear of putting themselves in peril with their supervisors. You could ask your practitioner about that as well, to get a weighting on how you should treat their "official" advice.
As someone with vaxxed family I'm now worried about, I *do* wish you the best of health! Gook luck in your choice!
Thank you so much for taking the time to write this. I really believe this is the most clarifying response I've received on or off this board.
My wife & I got vaxxed because my wife was undergoing chemo at the time & her medical team advised to get it to protect her during treatment.
She just had a follow-up visit & I asked her oncologist if she should get the booster. Oncologist gave an emphatic, "Yes" I pushed back mildly & said, "Will the booster help with new variants?" She said, "Probably not" Then, I said, "Well, how about we wait for a reformulation?" She said, "That's a good idea" LOL
So, I said, "You guys are not really sure what to do?" She said, "It's very tricky."
My take: Most doctors will push the orthodox position, but with any push back - if they have integrity - will admit that they're not really sure about the proper course of action.
From your comment & much else that I've read, we'll definitely hold off on the booster. We may look at a reformulation. It depends on how things unfold.
I was already told by my son that I can't see their newborn (expected in January) if I don't get the booster. Hard to fight the orthodoxy :(
From a purely selfish perspective, I'm looking to see what my best chance for survival is now that I'm already vaxxed.
I get that if I continue to receive boosters that it causes more mutations to the population as a whole. But will reformulations help me now that my innate immunity will not? Trying to hold on until there is a better path.
His initial opening comment was (paraphrasing lightly, see above @8:53): a vaccine is not like a drug, it's like installing a software program that cannot be erased.
940,000+ adverse events, 20,000+ deaths. They are not even acknowledging much less fixing the issue vaccine not sticking in the injection site. That is all before whether or not the booster is harmful to your immune system. Get off the booster treadmill as early as you can.
There is growing suspicion that the trigger for many of the most serious of adverse events post-vaccination is that vaccine unintentionally entered the blood circulation. It's thought that the current normalized practice of *not* aspirating the needle to check for blood, during the injection, is a driver of this. Aspiration was a technique normally taught to nurses giving vaccines intended to be intra-muscular. At least in the USA, the CDC some time ago published guidance that this technique is not required for deltoid injections, due to the low probability of finding a blood vessel with your needle. In reviewing anecdotes, I've gotten the sense that this option has slowly translated into a de-facto procedural mandate in the modern era to deliberately *not* aspirate, even if requested by a patient. It seems like the policy may have its origins in making it easier for lesser-trained staff (your Wal-Mart/Walgreens vaccine providers) to become qualified to deliver the shots (this, all pre-pandemic).
The safest way to take these novel vaccines is to insist the clinician aspirate the needle after it's been inserted, inspect for blood, and if blood is seen, do *not* let go of the plunger, but maintain backpressure while simultaneously withdrawing the needle again, and disposing of that dose entirely. Then, you have the option to try again. Only if no blood is seen, should you push the plunger in.
According to anecdotes I've seen, a telltale of inappropriate entry into circulation is a report by the patient of a metallic taste in their mouth within a few seconds of pushing the vaccine.
Geert “ I am truly afraid that these dynamics will eventually allow for the natural selection of individuals with uncompromised innate immunity while eliminating those without it.” He’s saying nature is going to select against the vaccinated. Against, it
Oof...sounds like it. He's a PhD DVM with huge experience IIRC in vaccinating livestock animal populations...so perhaps he's seen this sort of selection in animal vaccinees first hand? Hmm... So, this is where we all cheer for variants that, one immune-escape has been achieved, *also* present less virulence, less risk to producing serious illness to the infected, no matter their vax status. "Let's Go Omicron" ??? (gallows humor)
If that was aimed at me, I think you misunderstand. I hold GVDB in the highest regard. In fact, his experience as a DVM vaccinologist is a key reason why more people should pay attention to him, as he has direct experience with the effects of vaccinating a population of animals with "leaky" vaccines. His experience there is driving his warning for humans who have been (so far) making the same mistake. GVDB is a noble guy, doing humanity a huge service, if only those of us with decision-making power would listen!
I'd like to ask again. I'm vaxxed at this point. Is there more harm in continuing to boost for me as an individual or should I let my acquired immunity wane with the hope that my innate immunity will take hold & give me better protection moving forward?
Thanks in advance for your response.
Boosting with the original strain is a complete farce. You are better of using Ivermectin and other prophylactic substances to avoid falling sick. Better to let a natural challenge with a current strain "boost" you, while your vaccinal antibodies still provide protection.
How about boosting with a reformulation though? I get that Geert is looking at this from a public policy point of view, but it would be great to see what we could do as individuals.
In simple terms, if you're unvaxxed, what should you do?
If you're vaxxed, but not boosted, then what?
Geert is pretty clear in prior essays that boosters are BAD
From a public policy perspective. What about as an individual? If I have acquired antibodies from vaxxing that prevent my innate immunity from kicking in, then is the better course for me to keep boosting as it doesn't seem like my innate immunity will help me?
He said it will further increase the immune pressure of the vaccinal antibodies on your innate immunity.
So get off the treadmill & hope the innate immunity can handle the next variant? And also hope your acquired vax immunity is not strong enough to interfere with your innate immunity?
(this is a replacement reply...'cause I made typos that misconveyed my meaning...original deleted)
I think Geert mentioned this in interview with Bret Weinstein some months ago. It's been awhile, but IIRC, you get more or less "one chance" to vaccinate on a specific virus or viral antigen. Here, C-19 vax makers like BioNTech, Moderna, Janssen, AstraZenica, chose the spike (S) protein from the original Wuhan strain. So your Ab response is against *that* protein. When challenged with a similar protein (the spikes off a new variant, __or a new vax__ patterned after the spike of said variant), the immune system of the previously vaxxed person simply recalls the Ab it had earlier constructed for the original challenge (the spike induced by the original vax).
So, again IIRC what Geert said to Bret, a reformulated vax will cause you just recall the antibody design your immune system generated when challenged with the initial vax. And therefore, your immune system won't have learned anything new to use in combating that new variant.
I don't think that process is 100%, though (this is me speaking for myself, not interpreting anything Geert might have said). I think if your immune system continues to be faced with ongoing new variant virus particles popping out of infected cells because the original Abs didn't control it, *eventually* your immune system would say, "hey, this isn't working, back to the drawing board boys, let's design a new antibody". But, by that time, your infection could be really large in terms of the cells compromised, so one might expect illness induced to be much higher before your body mounts an effective response.
Now a reformulated vax wouldn't be virus, that could keep replicating to induce that "hey, this isn't working guys!" signal to the immune system. Because the production of S protein by cells taking up the vax is self-limiting, the immune system may not see enough new antigen to realize that it's recalled Abs pattern is not effective. It may therefore not get the "training" the new vax hoped to provide, especially if the original Abs are just good enough to ultimately clear away the new-vax-induced spikes.
In a previously vaxxed person, I would anticipate receipt of a reformulated vax to raise the risk of adverse events (on the logic that new induced spike can't be cleared as well by recalled Abs), and have a lower efficacy, or no significant efficacy.
In a previously *unvaxxed* person, I would anticipate receipt of a reformulated vax to produce effects roughly identical to what the recently vaxxed population experienced: good initial efficacy, rapid waning of that protection, with risk of adverse events, susceptibility to incubation/transmission/infection of yet newer variants.
So, this is one of the dangers of issuing "leaky vax" to people. Antigenic sin is a real sin indeed. Boosters won't help once variants evolve escape differences. Reformulations *might* help (more for those still "never vaxxed"), but the chance for success there (among prior vaxxed) is probably worse than what was faced with the original vaxes, and they also might expose you to additional vaxing risks in the bargain. You're between a rock and a hard place. Refusing further vaxxing means you're at greater risk of infection...but refusing is the only way to get off the bad road you were lead down, toward a possible road where your recall of mal-adapted Abs becomes attenuated, and your natural response is one day restored.
I am unvaxxed, but if I were in your place, I would stop playing with the novel vaxes. It's a risk...but the early evidence of omicron's virulence is looking good. So you get omicron one day, but you experience more of a cold-type illness, rather than the sort of COVID we've been scared about for nearly 2 years now. Honestly, IMO, there's no great choice for someone in your position. Boosterism probably won't help (immune escape), reformulation may not either (antigenic sin), and going without in the face of known efficacy falloff seems like complete heresy (given what you see/hear in the MSM).
For the record, I've tried to live my life as normally as possible, without fear...I wash/sanitize my hands a bit more, but that's about it. I've been to plenty of family gathers, including Thanksgiving '21, despite some family refusing due to their own COVID concerns. So far as I know, I have yet to contract COVID. Unvaxxed and still fully susceptible, as least as far as the prevailing official wisdom goes. I'm actually hopeful that omicron and its successors win in terms of being able to outcompete more leathal variants, and produce as modest and cold-like of symptoms as possible. If that happens, if I *do* finally catch COVID, by then it'll actually be as close to a *nothing burger* as one would wish for. And...I didn't mess ill-advisedly with my existing immune system, nor risk the serious adverse events of the existing vaccines.
If the vaccines were sterilizing immunizations as most of the oldest ones appear to be, rather than temporary therapies, as these have proven to be, it'd be a whole different story for me: I'd have got my poke. It's just that here, prior to learning what we now know about these vaxxes, my Spidey-sense was tingling. I wasn't convinced these would be sterilizing, based to a great degree on the lengthy body and time of research previously done on coronavirus vaccines, ALL without sufficient success to bring an effective product to market UNTIL, miraculously, *this* pandemic. I just didn't believe it. I think time is proving my own intuition correct. It's an intuition shared by many, lay and expert alike.
But fear is a powerful motivator...
You should discuss all this with competent medical professionals. And good luck...many want to keep being real doctors, but struggle under the administrative tyrannies of the corporate managements who employ them. They've made financial decisions and commitments based on expected earnings, and suddenly face the prospect of censure or termination that would leave them at risk. Therefore they may not be willing to advise you fully for fear of putting themselves in peril with their supervisors. You could ask your practitioner about that as well, to get a weighting on how you should treat their "official" advice.
As someone with vaxxed family I'm now worried about, I *do* wish you the best of health! Gook luck in your choice!
Thank you so much for taking the time to write this. I really believe this is the most clarifying response I've received on or off this board.
My wife & I got vaxxed because my wife was undergoing chemo at the time & her medical team advised to get it to protect her during treatment.
She just had a follow-up visit & I asked her oncologist if she should get the booster. Oncologist gave an emphatic, "Yes" I pushed back mildly & said, "Will the booster help with new variants?" She said, "Probably not" Then, I said, "Well, how about we wait for a reformulation?" She said, "That's a good idea" LOL
So, I said, "You guys are not really sure what to do?" She said, "It's very tricky."
My take: Most doctors will push the orthodox position, but with any push back - if they have integrity - will admit that they're not really sure about the proper course of action.
From your comment & much else that I've read, we'll definitely hold off on the booster. We may look at a reformulation. It depends on how things unfold.
I was already told by my son that I can't see their newborn (expected in January) if I don't get the booster. Hard to fight the orthodoxy :(
From a purely selfish perspective, I'm looking to see what my best chance for survival is now that I'm already vaxxed.
I get that if I continue to receive boosters that it causes more mutations to the population as a whole. But will reformulations help me now that my innate immunity will not? Trying to hold on until there is a better path.
(I already replied downthread, but this may also be of help:)
https://rumble.com/vq9aip-the-implication-of-massive-vaccination-during-the-pandemic.html
His initial opening comment was (paraphrasing lightly, see above @8:53): a vaccine is not like a drug, it's like installing a software program that cannot be erased.
940,000+ adverse events, 20,000+ deaths. They are not even acknowledging much less fixing the issue vaccine not sticking in the injection site. That is all before whether or not the booster is harmful to your immune system. Get off the booster treadmill as early as you can.
There is growing suspicion that the trigger for many of the most serious of adverse events post-vaccination is that vaccine unintentionally entered the blood circulation. It's thought that the current normalized practice of *not* aspirating the needle to check for blood, during the injection, is a driver of this. Aspiration was a technique normally taught to nurses giving vaccines intended to be intra-muscular. At least in the USA, the CDC some time ago published guidance that this technique is not required for deltoid injections, due to the low probability of finding a blood vessel with your needle. In reviewing anecdotes, I've gotten the sense that this option has slowly translated into a de-facto procedural mandate in the modern era to deliberately *not* aspirate, even if requested by a patient. It seems like the policy may have its origins in making it easier for lesser-trained staff (your Wal-Mart/Walgreens vaccine providers) to become qualified to deliver the shots (this, all pre-pandemic).
The safest way to take these novel vaccines is to insist the clinician aspirate the needle after it's been inserted, inspect for blood, and if blood is seen, do *not* let go of the plunger, but maintain backpressure while simultaneously withdrawing the needle again, and disposing of that dose entirely. Then, you have the option to try again. Only if no blood is seen, should you push the plunger in.
According to anecdotes I've seen, a telltale of inappropriate entry into circulation is a report by the patient of a metallic taste in their mouth within a few seconds of pushing the vaccine.
https://drjockers.com/vaccine-adjuvants/
You keep answering your own questions pal.
enlighten me please
Latest post answers your question.
The last part of your paragraph is correct. Natural immunity is far superior.
Geert, when you say the vaxxed will be selected against it sounds ominous. Can you be more specific?
Omi-ominous!
Geert “ I am truly afraid that these dynamics will eventually allow for the natural selection of individuals with uncompromised innate immunity while eliminating those without it.” He’s saying nature is going to select against the vaccinated. Against, it
Oof...sounds like it. He's a PhD DVM with huge experience IIRC in vaccinating livestock animal populations...so perhaps he's seen this sort of selection in animal vaccinees first hand? Hmm... So, this is where we all cheer for variants that, one immune-escape has been achieved, *also* present less virulence, less risk to producing serious illness to the infected, no matter their vax status. "Let's Go Omicron" ??? (gallows humor)
Understand, most vaccine reaseach involves DVM's because initial testing for human drugs involves animals.
If that was aimed at me, I think you misunderstand. I hold GVDB in the highest regard. In fact, his experience as a DVM vaccinologist is a key reason why more people should pay attention to him, as he has direct experience with the effects of vaccinating a population of animals with "leaky" vaccines. His experience there is driving his warning for humans who have been (so far) making the same mistake. GVDB is a noble guy, doing humanity a huge service, if only those of us with decision-making power would listen!
Best regards, -A
Thank you Geert!