Bivalent booster has FAILED and new study shows this, simple, yet potent original antigenic sin; "Antibody responses to Omicron BA.4/BA.5 bivalent mRNA vaccine booster shot", Wang et al. PRE-PRINT

Those with 3 shots alone and then infection seemed to have higher antibody levels than those with boosters (see extreme two right sided graphs); bivalent boosters yields the lowest antibody response

Wang et al.: Antibody responses to Omicron BA.4/BA.5 bivalent mRNA vaccine booster shot

The first real question is, who made the decision to include the Wuhan spike as part of the new bivalent booster when the Wuhan spike is gone near 2 years now? The recall antibodies will be to the Wuhan spike that does not exist. Omicron BA4 and BA 5 is dominant. So why? Was it designed to fail? To keep this booster treadmill insanity going?

By looking at the graphs below, those with the 3 shots alone and then infection seemed to have higher antibody levels than those with boosters (see A extreme left compared to two right sided graphs).

It appears on these graphs (row A) that the bivalent boosters yields the lowest antibody responses and someone should tell that to POTUS Biden.

If you also look closely at the lower left side of each graph, at all 4, you see the antibody levels (antibody surge) for the D614G initial strain (Wuhan and some initial mutation) much more elevated and this makes complete sense given the potent role of original antigenic sin (mortal antigenic sin) with immune fixation, immune priming, prejudicing of the immune response based on the initial prime or exposure. Bottom line, the new bivalent boosters are near dead on arrival (DOA), does not work effectively. It is done and there will be re-infections and we fear antibody dependent enhancement of disease.

We must pray that our prediction of more infectious variants (due to mounting immune selection pressure) do not emerge whereby a sub-variant is also highly virulent/lethal due to the sub-optimal immune pressure placed on viral virulence (non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies placing pressure on the N-terminal domain (viral virulence); this can lead to the virus (variants) overcoming the pressure and selecting for variants that cause severe disease in the lower distal lung. The present enhanced infectiousness (URT) we are seeing in the vaccinee can also evolve to enhanced severe illness (LRT) if selected variants can overcome the present blocking (via non-neutralizing vaccinal antibodies) of severe illness in the lower lung.

“At ~3-5 weeks post booster shot, individuals who received a fourth vaccine dose with a bivalent mRNA vaccine targeting BA.4/BA.5 had similar neutralizing antibody titers as those receiving a fourth monovalent mRNA vaccine against all SARS-CoV-2 variants tested, including BA.4/BA.5.”

The graphs (the 2 right-sided graphs) basically show that the new bivalent is useless. Adds nothing and actually by my visual interpretation, appears to confer far less protection.

(see top graphs, row A, the extreme right 2 graphs, 4 shots vs 3 shots plus bivalent booster)

“Those who received a fourth monovalent vaccine (2 initial doses plus 2 boosters) dose had a slightly higher neutralizing antibody titers than those who received the bivalent vaccine against three related sarbecoviruses: SARS-CoV, GD-Pangolin, and WIV1.” (see top graphs, row A, the extreme right 2 graphs, 4 shots vs 3 shots plus bivalent booster)

“When given as a fourth dose, a bivalent mRNA vaccine targeting Omicron BA.4/BA.5 and an ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain did not induce superior neutralizing antibody responses in humans, at the time period tested, compared to the original monovalent vaccine formulation.” This is classic original antigenic sin with immune fixation and priming to the initial prime or exposure (vaccine or infection). The antibody titer response to the original strain is clearly greater. (see top graphs, row A, the extreme right 2 graphs, 4 shots vs 3 shots plus bivalent booster)