Bivalent booster failure, low & failed vaccine effectiveness, viral immune escape, original antigenic sin & immune imprinting/fixation & antibody-dependent enhancement of infection (ADEI); 3 studies

I remind you of these three (3) recent studies that show the failure of the bivalent booster (comprised of the initial legacy Wuhan strain & BA.5 spike)

Make no mistake, this is original antigenic sin (OAS) (I call it mortal antigenic sin due to immune priming or fixation or prejudicing to wards the initial prime or exposure).

We are seeing in the body of research that risk of COVID infection escalates based on the number of shots you receive.

Once again as a reminder, a mass vaccination roll-out into a pandemic (in the midst of an ongoing pandemic) across all age groups and with ‘rapid’ mass vaccination at that, while there is massive infectious pressure (circulating virus trying to infect the population) and using a non-neutralizing vaccine whereby the virus has become largely resistant to the vaccine induced antibodies (now antibodies are non-sterilizing, non-neutralizing so does not stop infection, replication, or transmission), then selection pressure (natural selection) will select for the most ‘fittest’ infectious variants that would become enriched in the environment and now become the new dominant variants e.g. BQ.1.1 now replaces BA.5. There is original antigenic sin (OAS and I call it ‘mortal’ antigenic sin as the fixation cannot be reversed and prejudices the sub-optimal antibody response ‘life-long’) (immune priming and imprinting based on the initial prime or exposure), viral immune escape, and antibody-dependent enhancement of infection (ADEI) and disease (ADED).

This what these studies show. Viral immune escape and OAS operating at full speed. The recall is always to the initial prime.

I will provide the references and also the prior substacks and leave this with you yet the situation is straightforward:

Sub-variants BQ.1.1 and BQ.1 account for near 70% of the variants and BA.5 has declined to 11%. XBB is at 4.7% (CDC data); how then, would the bi-valent booster work? Rochelle, here's your answer!

Study 1 for consideration within this prior substack:

We told them this, Vanden Bossche, Yeadon, Alexander, McCullough, Oskoui, Trozzi, Tenenbaum, Risch et al., we did! "Alarming antibody evasion properties of rising SARS-CoV-2 BQ and XBB subvariants"

Study 2 for consideration within this prior substack:

COVID Bivalent booster vaccine effectiveness (VE) 'FAILS' again & Shrestha et al. shows us this: "Effectiveness of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine"; VE of 30% (95% CI 20-39%)

Study 3 for consideration within this prior substack:

see study by Kurhade et al. challenging utility of mRNA bivalent booster: "Low neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2.75.2, BQ.1.1, and XBB.1 by parental mRNA vaccine or a BA.5-bivalent booster"