Why The Vaccinated Should be Terrified That the WHO Is Recommending a Third Jab

The best reason for considering a third jab is because you believe Antibody-Dependent Enhancement is actually happening with COVID-19 vaccines

Today the criminally corrupt arm of the Chinese Communist Party World Health Organization (WHO) officially backed giving people a third COVID-19 jab despite no prospective randomized clinical proving safety and efficacy in that use scenario. Evidence based medicine? The WHO no longer needs that.

One point that I have brought up several times on this blog is that never before in history (at least to my knowledge) have people been told to get vaccines less than a year away from their prior vaccines. Antibody titers will definitely drop in the months subsequent to an infection, but there will still be memory cells available for a while to start ramping titers back up again if the same infection is encountered. You should not need to maintain super high antibody titers to ward off infection.

Now it is quite possible that the novel vaccines do not have as durable a response and do not work as expected. It would be nice of Pfizer actually continued the randomized trials beyond 4.5 months in order to demonstrate how durable the response actually is in the real world. However, given what we know about the immune system and diseases, there is a greater likelihood that the response is not durable due to antigenic drift and not the immune system memory cells dwindling to such a level that they can no longer prevent infections.

If the former is the case, that would lead to breakthrough cases that happend in both the recently vaccinated and those vaccinated 6 months ago. Spread of the virus as new variants like the Delta variant arises would also increase, which is consistent with what we are seeing.

But generally speaking, an additional dose of the same vaccine should not really help you that much against the same variant because you have memory cells that should be able to rapidly ramp titers back up as with any disease you have B-cell immunity to. The vaccine may or may not protect you against a new varient, depending on the mutations. But if it does not protect you, another dose should not provide additiona protection, unless….

Enter Antibody-Dependent Enhancement

Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) is a theory of why certain diseases such as dengue fever strike harder the second time around when a person previously exposed to one variant encounters another. According to the theory when the antibodies that were generated by the prior infection, they bind more weakly. Here antibody titers matter. If you have a significant number of antibody titers, the weakly binding titers can actually neutralize the infection. So you are better off acquiring the varient closer to the prior infection or immunization.

However if titers fall to a certain “peak enhancement titer,” the weakly binding antibodies are not strong enough to get rid of the infection, but are strong enough to actually aid the virus because Fcg receptors bind to the anitbody-virus complex and actually help the virus enter into cells. The immune response from the prior infection actually “enhances” the ability of the virus to infect the body. If you have a disease such as dengue where ADE is hypothesized to be in operation (pathogenic priming definitely happens with dengue, whether ADE is the mechanism is still a matter of debate; but it is seemingly the best hypothesis we have) vaccinating a person will actually increase his or her risk of getting a variant of the disease once their antibody titers have fallen into this “peak enhancement titer” range. If antibodies later dip below this range, the binding is not significant enough to enhance viral infection.

A recent study from 2017 is one of the best confirmations of the “peak enhancement titer” theory and ADE in dengue. It it the authors specifically call out the risk of vaccinations resulting in these peak enhancement titers and thus putting patients at risk of more severe disease:

Thus, we have established that antibody titer does predict enhancement of severe dengue disease in humans…

With recent evidence of possible vaccine-enhanced dengue disease (10), this assumption is being revisited. A vaccine that induces antibody titers at or near the peak enhancement titer may place vaccinated individuals at greater risk of severe dengue than if they had never been vaccinated (11).

Source: Antibody-dependent enhancement of severe dengue disease in humans, Science. 2017; 358(6365): 929–932.

We know that prior efforts to produce a coronavirus vaccine have all resulted in pathogenic priming similar to what you see in dengue fever. Whether ADE is the reason is unknown. However it is highly possible. And if pathogenic priming is present with SARS and MERS, it is reasonable to believe that could have been seen in with SARS-CoV-2 if we had bothered to wait to do the relevant animal studies. And we would have to do those studies with sufficient numbers of variants to test the hypothesis. That is hard to do in year one of a new pandemic when genetic diversity is not going to be nearly as robust as with a mature disease.

If scientists believe that pathogenic priming is happening with the COVID-19 Delta outbreak, and there is reason to believe it is as we watch huge outbreaks in the countries with the highest levels of vaccinations, then what would you potentially do to prevent it?

You would try to push antibody titers temporarily above the “peak enhancement titer” even if it was a mismatched vaccine. And this would require vaccinations over and over and over again to prevent the titers from dipping into the peak enhancement region.

Does this sound like what they are proposing now? Scared yet?

In contrast, if you were not worried about pathogenic priming, then you just let antibody titers be jacked up to higher levels naturally when the patient encounters the new virus and the memory cells activate activate as a result. Since there is no pathogenic priming in the initial response, you do not have to pre-emptively intervene with a third jab to prevent ADE, and you just let your immune system do its job as it normally would do when presented with an antigen it recognizes.

There are some obvious problems with this approach with the keep jabbing and pray approach. The biggest is that it has not been scientifically validated. ADE is just a theory, and we certainly are not sure if it is what is happening with COVID-19. Another mechanism of pathogenic priming could be in effect, and there is a chance that this strategy makes it worse.

Additionally, even if ADE is in effect, you have no idea what that peak enhancement titer might be for each individual’s mismatched antibodies. Everyone is unique. Maybe the person’s titers have fallen well below the peak enhancment titer, and a new vaccination puts them at risk of boosting them back into this range or above it only to later fall into the danger zone again. These individuals would have then been better off not getting revaccinated.

We just do not know!

This is why you need clinical data before embarking on any protocol like this. This is why we should have done animal studies on multiple virus variants and then long term studies (at least 2 years) in a limited number of humans before rolling this out experimental vaccine out to hundreds of millions of people.

I do not think history will be kind to public health officials who turned much of the world’s population into guinea pigs.

That is not to even mention that with each vaccine additional vaccine you have a risk of a severe side effect, including the 41.6% increases risk of severe adverse outcome with the Pfizer vaccine as demonstrated in their own clinical trials. We have no idea what happens with third, fourth, and fifth jabs! We do know the reaction to the second jab was worse than the first. And we have no way from the study design of isolating the differential causality in terms of severe adverse events (SAEs) from the second to the first jab. We just have the reactogenicity substudy showing us the 7-day reaction to the second jab was worse. For all we know, the second jab could be disproportionately responsible for SAEs. And then it is possible a third jab could even make it worse!

We should seriously slow down and do the proper randomized trials to completion before making a potentially bad situation even worse.