It is not only that the COVID mRNA technology mRNA vaccines COULD NOT WORK (could not 'mechanically', physically get to the upper respiratory track, respiratory mucosal lining where needed) in the 1st

place, but the original mRNA technology gene injections were designed for the original legacy Wuhan strain; by vaccination NOW, by boosting e.g. BA4, 5 (or whatever), original antigenic sin (OAS)

or immune imprinting, or immune priming or fixation as it is also known, rears its head. More on that later.

Yet you could not expect a vaccine that induces antibodies ‘systemically’ could work to address pathogen localized in the nasal mucosa lining (oral cavity, back of the throat, nasal passages, nose etc.). The vaccine could not have worked, even if you ‘WANTED’ it to.

Consider me a novice and an idiot as I pose these statements and questions. But this is what we faced and do face and this is how it is. In all regards, this COVID mRNA technology vaccine has been a complete disaster and failure, it never worked to protect the uper airways, and harmed and killed. It is one thing to bring something that was a failure out of the gate, but a whole different story if it is deadly. This was COVID mRNA technology gene based mRNA vaccine was and is deadly. Must be stopped completely. No fix. Stopped.

I leave it to the immunologists and vaccinologists to explain how this COVID mRNA vaccine could have ever worked IN THE FIRST PLACE for it is virtually impossible (based on all I know and again, I may be an idiot) for circulatory antibodies (that the vaccine induces) can enter the lung/respiratory compartment (nasal mucosa).

On top of the fact that elderly persons immune systems are immunosenescenced (deterioration of the immune system, brought on by natural age advancement), low, weak, non-funcitonal really and so cannot take the vaccine for their will not be an optimal (vaccinal) immune response. We vaccinate young etc. in a society, and we do so as a prophylaxis (preventive) and we call on them to be either infected naturally and harmlessly to get to HERD immunity to then use those who got infected and recovered, as well as those who could have been vaccinated (so we use natural exposure immunity, vaccine immunity, or a combination of both (note vaccinal ONLY if the pathogen is too lethal to allow exposure and recovery as may be harmed by the exposure)), to then protect the elderly who could not be exposed or could not be vaccinated. Yet for the COVID vaccine, think about this for a moment. The elderly could not mount an effective immune response to the COVID vaccines in the first place (given immunosenescence, their immune systems just could not and the vaccinal antibodies (systemic e.g. circulatory IgGs and Sig A) could not get to the respiratory mucosal linings etc.

Moreover, we had original antigenic sin (OAS), also known as immune imprinting, or priming, or immune fixation, or immune prejudicing, where the recalled (churned out) antibodies to the exposure is to the initial prime or exposure. In other words, no matter what booster etc. you bring, they WILL fail….that sub-variant spike within that ‘updated’ booster you bring, cannot be hit (is missed by, viral immune escape) by the recalled antibodies which via OAS will be to the initial Wuhan legacy strain that you vaccinated initially against (the original vaccine was for the original Wuhan strain spike protein antigen). And so the boosters WILL never work. There will be rapid waning and negative effectiveness. The vaccine itself drives the vaccinated to become more infected. It does NOT work.

We also have the issue of immune tolerance or IgG4 ‘class-switch’ (good research showed this is happening with boosting in COVID) where there is a switch of antibodies towards the IgG4 tolerant ones, where the immune system churns out (and increases) antibodies that ‘tolerate’ the circulating dominant spike protein. In other words, more you boost, more your immune system tolerates and thus more risk of immune escape and thus infection and the pathogen infecting and causing severe illness.

See this key study by Shrestha et al. that show us how the most you boosted, the more risk of becoming infected, with a clear dose-response relationship. The least risk of infection was with no (0) vaccine as seen in the graph:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10234376/