omi-boosters do not confer new immune response.

replication of that which was known is becoming ever more permissible to speak about.

science is about method. it is not an institution to be deferred to, it is a set of practices to be followed.

1. assess data.

2. generate hypotheses.

3. isolate variables to find valid means of testing your ideas.

4. and run tests to see of your notions have predictive power.

5. if the tests show promise, release the results

but this is not the finish line, it’s the STARTING line.

“peer review,” perhaps the most misused and misunderstood term and process in all of modern science, is not the finish line either. it’s just a part of step 5 above where folks help check your work, verify valid methods and data handling, and decide that what you found is interesting enough to warrant public discussion.

it does not mean “true.” it does not mean “fact checked” or even “valid.” even when done properly (and this is far from the case most of the time these days) peer review is just the last step before the real rigorous science starts.

you publish and now EVERYONE gets to have a look. twitter and substack have gutted more peer reviewed studies than you can count over the last 3 years. from exposing the surgisphere fraud that fished in 2 top journals and the whole mediasphere to 200 kinds of covid vaxx and masking nonsense, the ivory towers of “the science” have been whittled down to toothpicks.

and that, my friends, is NOT a malfunction.

that is science working as intended because the most important part of science is eliminating that which is not true and lacks forward predictive power.

the beating heart of scientific method lies in falsification.

conversely, the lifeblood of scientific truth lies in replication for that is the only true means by which hypotheses and theories move toward being laws.

try it again.

and again.

repeat the experiment. add new wrinkles.

test and test and test until you have seen the same results so many times that they become robust and trustworthy.

then and only then can one be said to have found “a truth.” (at least until someone comes along and finds an exception)

this is not rocket science, it’s simple, well established process.

we just stopped doing it for a while and got carried away on media substituting soundbite for scientific method.

this is not science

and this is why work currently emerging is so interesting: because the research that so many have done over these last 2 years is now showing predictive power and getting replicated at top institutions who, alas, tend to follow more than lead in terms of breaking new ground on discovery.

the nature of these institutions is deeply conservative and risk averse. grants, tenure, reputation, sinecure, publication, conference invitation are all gatekept with utmost fervor and so, if you step too far outside the acceptable lines and threaten narrative (especially in the age of government and corporate gold giving) you get blackballed and bounced out.

but those dams break as tides turn and so today we see the replication of the very work that was verboten not so very long ago.

you may remember certain internet felines opining quite volubly about severe immune imprinting from leaky vaccines driving escape variants and preventing novel response.

a summary of years of yowling and a “simple direct question” are outlined in this piece from september as the obvious failings of the mouse booster were laid out:

a simple, direct question about omicron boosters

the question was as follows:

why would anyone accept a titers reading in mouse data as a sign of clinical efficacy in a purportedly variant specific vaccine booster when the titers being measured were not only already elicited by by the previous vaccine that was known not only not to stop omicron but to outright advantage it and to cause significant and durable antigenic fixation?

and now we start to get answers.

boom. (LINK)

behind this somewhat dry and innocuous title is a real bombshell. that’s sort of how you can tell it’s going to be a counter-narrative position intended for scientists and not loud public broadcast. it’s technical talk, not overwrought claims about “we found the gene that causes internet obnoxiousness!”

but what it’s saying is quite impactful:

3-5 weeks post vaccination with the “new bivalent vaccine” that is supposed to confer superior resistance to new omicron strains (cuz, alleged mouse antibody data) do not produce more or better neutralizing antibody titers than the old vaccine. they do, however, get LESS response vs three older strains.

this implies a number of things:

1. there is no point to getting a bivalent vaccine. it has no advantages and seems to work less well than previous on other antibody elicitation

2. this is a bang on validation of the “antigenic fixation” model which is now seeing repeated replication of result in prediction. once you are dosed with the first vaxx, new vaxxes (and presumably new viruses) fail to elicit new response. you just get more of the old one. this is the road to OAS/ADE.

note that once vaxxed, not even getting actual covid elicits novel antibodies.

(though we would really want to see a comparison to titer levels in the unvaxxed, an obvious and oddly omitted study arm that really ought to be used as baseline. those of a conspiratorial bent might go so far as to wonder whether the consistent failure to include such a study arm is for fear of what it would show and what that would imply about long term vaccine damage to covid resistance)

but this very much replicates this:

there was no novel response from variant specific boosters in primates. and now we see the same in humans. the “mouse data” was always paltry and perhaps inapt. this makes it look ever more so.

(and note that this is still all proxy data. it’s just measures of antibody expression. whether those antibodies actually work to stop or mitigate covid in any clinical sense is not known and appears highly dubious given past data on immune escape/being vaccine advantaged vs omicron)

and new data emerging now showing relative risk of contracting covid to be in excess of 3X that of the unvaxxed. (graphic from longtime gatopal™ ethical skeptic)

and this likely undercounts the magnitude of the issue as the CDC suppresses/miscalculates the numbers and overstates the “unvaxxed” by missing the jab records in EPIX data.

this is immune fixation and vaccine advantaged virus.

because that’s what leaky vaccines do and the sort of thing that spike oriented mRNA jabs were obvious candidates to cause. and herd antigenic fixation may be a horrendously dangerous thing of which we are only just starting to see the first ill effects.

this could be a nastier winter for the old and vaxxed than many suspect.

in bellweather NY, overall covid hospitalizations are up about 25% from the same time last year, but more telling, it’s being driven almost entirely by the 70+ age cohort whose rate has more than doubled from a year ago.

this is EXACTLY where you would expect to see antigenic fixation manifest: in those whose general immune systems are weakest and who rely most on antibody response. their bodies are pumping out gasoline to fight covidian fires.

and the signal is getting awfully blatant (and persistent).

perhaps this is why even the sorts of researchers who for years would have lost grants and grad students for even uttering such ideas are now saying such things aloud: (bold mine)

Boosting with a new bivalent mRNA vaccine targeting both BA.4/BA.5 and an ancestral SARSCoV-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.

for those who do not read a lot of these, it’s always a bit of a kabuki dance, so let me translate: when you say a thing like “these findings may indicate X but more studies are needed” what you are saying is “we’re pretty sure this is a thing and we’d like money to study it.” you’re basically calling your shot on future research and putting a stake in the ground.

and so that which was once known settled science with 100 years of evidentiary support but came to be called conspiracy theory, then speculative theory, then censored, then sidestepped is now stepping once more into the center of the discussion where it always belonged.

the suppression of scientific canon and scientific method is what landed us here in the worlds largest open label trial for a drug that is clearly failing.

the EU is increasingly jumping ship and saying “no more” and contra-indicating these products for the young and healthy (likely as a step to ending them altogether).

the public has had it. even in the US where authorities are still pushing this dangerous junk science as if the FDA and CDC were boiler-room brokers jamming a penny stock scam no one is getting the new booster.

too many failed claims and false promises.

and science is going the heal with it. the deviation into demagoguery over data is winding down (at least for now and in this case).

but do not lose the lesson.

it applies in 100 others places as well: science by talking point is deeply dangerous.

free inquiry and replication is all.

recapture the enlightenment or once more be benighted.