• Login
  • Register
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In
The Daily Sceptic
No Result
View All Result

‘Original Antigenic Sin’ Mentioned in the New England Journal of Medicine

by Noah Carl
3 May 2022 10:49 AM

Suppose an individual is infected with a novel pathogen, and then sometime later is infected with a related version of the same pathogen. If ‘original antigenic sin’ is present, the individual’s immune system will respond to the antigens carried by the original version of the pathogen, resulting in weaker immunity.

The idea is that, for certain classes of pathogen, the immune system’s response to any particular exposure depends on an individual’s first exposure. If two versions of a pathogen, A and B, are circulating in a population, individuals who were first exposed to A may develop weaker immunity against B, and vice versa.

There is substantial evidence that original antigenic sin applies to influenza: those who gain immunity to one strain of influenza may develop weaker immunity to other strains.

It can also apply to vaccines. As a recent review notes, “if we only immunise to a single strain or epitope, and if that strain/epitope changes over time, then the immune system is unable to mount an accurate secondary response.”

At the end of last year, ‘mainstream’ commentators began discussing the possibility that original antigenic sin applies to the Covid vaccines. If it does, we may have vaccinated millions of young people against a version of Covid that poses little risk to them, at the cost of weakening their immunity to subsequent variants.

Now ‘original antigenic sin’ has been mentioned in the context of Covid vaccines in the pages of the New England Journal of Medicine – the world’s most ‘prestigious’ medical journal.

Noting that boosters are “not risk-free”, the American immunologist Paul Offit writes: “all age groups are at risk for the theoretical problem of an ‘original antigenic sin’ – a decreased ability to respond to a new immunogen because the immune system has locked onto the original immunogen.”

He cites a recent preprint by Matthew Gagne and colleagues, who carried out an experiment on nonhuman primates. They began by giving two groups of primates the Moderna vaccine. After 41 weeks, they gave each group a booster shot. One group received the Moderna vaccine again, while the other group received an Omicron-specific booster.

Finally, both groups were exposed to Covid. The researchers measured memory B cells and found that the Omicron-specific booster “provided no advantage” over the original Moderna vaccine. Indeed, they “did not observe a population of Omicron-only memory B cells before or after the boost that was clearly distinct from background staining”.

This means the Omicron-specific booster did not produce any detectable Omicron-only memory B cells at all, though it did trigger the production of more memory B cells specific to the original SARS-CoV-2 strain. It’s important to note, however, that both boosters did increase memory B cells (and neutralising antibodies) to some extent. (Neither was totally ineffective.)

As Gagne and colleagues note, the fact that memory B cells were no higher in the group that received the Omicron-specific booster “likely stems from the principle of original antigenic sin”. How serious this problem turns out to be will depend on several factors, not least subsequent viral evolution.

Offit writes in the NEJM that it “could limit our ability to respond to a new variant”.

Tags: New England Journal of MedicineOriginal antigenic sinVaccines

Donate

We depend on your donations to keep this site going. Please give what you can.

Donate Today

Comment on this Article

You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.

Sign Up
Previous Post

Looking into their Eyes: Covid Narrative Dissidents in Their Own Words

Next Post

Why Healthcare Settings Should Drop Their Mask Requirements

Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please log in to comment

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

68 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Manjushri
Manjushri
3 years ago

Thank you for referring to Covid as a pathogen and not a virus.

37
-2
David Beaton
David Beaton
3 years ago
Reply to  Manjushri

The spike proteins in the shots are themselves “pathogens” and now ‘officially’ get into the blood stream despite earlier denials.

33
0
John Dee
John Dee
3 years ago
Reply to  David Beaton

If they’re getting into the bloodstream when they’re not meant to, then presumably Border Force must have been tasked with preventing it, following their success on the southern English beaches.

15
0
Marcus Aurelius knew
Marcus Aurelius knew
3 years ago
Reply to  Manjushri

I thought “COVID” was the name given to symptoms which sometimes (apparently not very often) result from having SARS-Cov-2 within your person.

SARS-Cov-2 is a virus, no?

13
0
Squire Western
Squire Western
3 years ago

I was intrigued by the reference to ‘non-human primates’, and was wondering what these might be? Remainers or SNP voters, I imagine – the Morlocks of our world.

48
-2
RedhotScot
RedhotScot
3 years ago
Reply to  Squire Western

🤣

8
0
TheyLiveAndWeLockdown
TheyLiveAndWeLockdown
3 years ago
Reply to  Squire Western

The eloi had fallen furthest…
They’d line up to get jabbed! they were the cattle of morlock-kind

9
0
Star
Star
3 years ago
Reply to  Squire Western

H G Wells was in favour of mass extermination.
What a sophisticated chap.

6
0
John Dee
John Dee
3 years ago
Reply to  Star

Just somewhat ahead of his time: a forerunner of Uncle Klaus?

5
0
Dodgy Geezer
Dodgy Geezer
3 years ago
Reply to  Squire Western

Politicians?

8
0
huxleypiggles
huxleypiggles
3 years ago
Reply to  Squire Western

A bit like non – female women?

0
0
ComeTheRevolution
ComeTheRevolution
3 years ago

Finally, both groups were exposed to Covid.

LOL.

I notice the lying, piece of sh*t, criminal, terrorist, good for nothing, worthless, sinful representatives of nothing anti-culture whose only job seems to be to ruin the lives of the many on behalf of the few, have now passed their treasonous Police Crime and Sentencing Bill. https://off-guardian.org/2022/05/01/this-week-in-the-new-normal-29/

When I go to wikipedia I find that the rationale for introducing this legislation stems from the controlled opposition groups like Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain and BLM.

It opens up with :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police,_Crime,_Sentencing_and_Courts_Act_2022

Since 2019, there have been significant direct action campaigns by pressure groups in the UK. In April and October 2019, large protests were held by Extinction Rebellion, and the Black Lives Matter movement held large protests in the summer of 2020. In Autumn 2021, significant protests were conducted by Insulate Britain.

Is this not classic problem reaction solution. These are all known, proven, controlled opposition groups which are orchestrated by the scumtrollers.

Amnesty International writes:

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/uk-dark-day-civil-liberties-deeply-authoritarian-policing-bill-passed-lords

“This is dark day for civil liberties in the UK. This deeply-authoritarian Bill places profound and significant restrictions on the basic right to peacefully protest and will have a severely detrimental impact on the ability of ordinary people to make their concerns heard.

“Protest is a cherished part of British history – from the anti-slavery movement, to the suffragettes and recent anti-war marches and the Policing Bill is in direct conflict with the values of freedom and liberty that this government claims to uphold.

“This Bill also persecutes traveller communities and will further entrench racism and discrimination in British policing through its huge expansion of stop-and-search powers.

“The Policing Bill is part of a hugely worrying and widespread attack on human rights from across Government which will not only see basic rights reduced across the board, but will also strip people of the means to challenge or contest their treatment.”

We are watching the construction of a pseudo-Communist-technocratic hell on Earth reality being fudged through by deeply untrustworthy despicable lying pieces of dirt masquerading as government. I hate this country. Creepy Orwellian sh*thole that it is. F*ck this country. I f*cking hate it.

81
-1
ComeTheRevolution
ComeTheRevolution
3 years ago
Reply to  ComeTheRevolution

Its now a crime to sleep in the car because of this. I live in my car busking for coins and just about scrape by. I dont claim any benefits. I do not subscribe to this satanic world and I do not wish to participate in it other than via music and raising awareness about the nefarious and criminal and terrorist activity of the scum running this country. This is a total disaster for me. The walls are closing in and hell is being built, yet all there seems to be is an endless supply of braindead morons who think everything these pieces of sh*t do is OK, regardless. And a good for nothing media which covers it all up for them, because there might be an “honour” in it for them. If anyone thinks being rewarded by terrorists and criminals for covering up their crimes and doing them favours is any sort of honour, it isnt. Its on a par with owning a “Jim Fixed It For Me” badge. Being a sir is a badge of shame. Any reward from these scumbags is a badge of shame – theyre criminal terrorist liars, not people of honour and integrity.

73
-1
Star
Star
3 years ago
Reply to  ComeTheRevolution

“The walls are closing in.”

So true.

13
0
TheGreenGoblin
TheGreenGoblin
3 years ago
Reply to  ComeTheRevolution

Sir, this is false. It is not now illegal to sleep in one’s car. It is now illegal if one is causing significant disruption or distress. See the new subsection 60C(4) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/58-02/095/5802095_en_9.html#pt4-l1g82.

Now you’re not planning significant disruption or distress are you?

1
0
Star
Star
3 years ago
Reply to  TheGreenGoblin

What’s the background to that section going into the Act? I haven’t been following this. Any idea who was openly consulted? The NFU?

It sounds as though they’re planning to close cities and stop people trying to escape to the countryside to survive…

5
0
TheGreenGoblin
TheGreenGoblin
3 years ago
Reply to  Star

If I understand you correctly: it is common practice for a new act of parliament to amend previous acts in an effort to keep the legislation organised. It’s all part of the Police, Crime And Sentencing Act being discussed.

This provision has been drafted like this for ages. As another with a penchant for rough sleeping, I’d made sure things weren’t as dire as The Guardian had told me many months ago.

3
0
Think Harder
Think Harder
3 years ago
Reply to  Star

Someone told me the NFU was well captured by the WEF, is it true?
Might explain why the small to medium farmers are upset the Brexit promises have not been kept. I also heard the government was encouraging small farmers to give up. No doubt trying to eradicate independent food supplies!

5
0
ComeTheRevolution
ComeTheRevolution
3 years ago
Reply to  TheGreenGoblin

The Criminally Unjust Bill, another piece of legislation that destroyed once cherished freedom. Thanks for the info, has helped to put my mind at rest

5
0
Think Harder
Think Harder
3 years ago
Reply to  ComeTheRevolution

There has been a steady movement to conformity for 50 years or so. It’s accelerating exponentially now to authoritarianism. The public has taken the attitude of:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

   Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—

   Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

   Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

8
0
David Beaton
David Beaton
3 years ago
Reply to  ComeTheRevolution

Extinction Rebellion , BLM, …Soros funded? …used as the device/ excuse to justify the clamp down on freedom – they are so transparent and we are now so helpless.!

15
0
Star
Star
3 years ago
Reply to  ComeTheRevolution

Britain has such a patrician culture that it is staggering to behold, even for those very few who have lived in it all their lives and sussed what it’s all about.

Below, @DavidB writes

“Strange isn’t it- anyone would think that while ignoring the alarming side effects and the number of deaths after ‘vaccination'( !) they are actually also trying to deliberately weaken the immune systems of the whole population and make people permanently ill – now why ever would they want to do that?”

That question is asked by many in many countries. I mean it practically answers itself, as soon as a person rustles up the self-respect and intellect and common sense to be able to ask it.

But in Britain…….ooohhhh….the royal family…..and don’t ever say that someone who speaks in a posh accent and wears a suit and exudes confidence is a corrupt piece of sh*t…

8
0
DanClarke
DanClarke
3 years ago
Reply to  ComeTheRevolution

Allowing these protests to cause disruption played into their hands, people objected, so they sorted it, for everyone, even those not involved, like the fool at school who gets everyone detention.

4
0
Owens57
Owens57
3 years ago
Reply to  ComeTheRevolution

Where was Amnesty throughout lockdown and no jab no job was being threatened ? – not a peep was heard from them then

Last edited 3 years ago by Owens57
5
0
Paul B
Paul B
3 years ago

What’s the issue here, that people were exposed to the virus via a jab when they might otherwise have not been? It reads like if you caught the first strain then your protection against subsequent strains would be diminished (so the mechanism is the same regardless of natural or synthetic exposure)?

I thought the real issue was the jabs produce an artificial response, blocking the immune system from reacting as it should (with symptoms) there-by destroying our natural defences to any future exposure.

9
0
Mike Oxlong
Mike Oxlong
3 years ago
Reply to  Paul B

It might explain why (as a non-jabee) my second dose of the China flu was worse than the previous one that I got 2 years ago. Both were bad, but the second, recently, was a mofo.

4
0
MikeHaseler
MikeHaseler
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Oxlong

a non-jabee … aka “normal”

3
0
TheGreenGoblin
TheGreenGoblin
3 years ago
Reply to  Paul B

The problem is both. The vax produces an artificial response, and it’s one that may well be regenerated as part of original antigenic sin.

The natural immune response is broader involving a good deal more of the innate immune system. Almost like our bodies have evolved to respond in such a way to a rapidly mutating pathogen.

14
0
TheBluePill
TheBluePill
3 years ago
Reply to  TheGreenGoblin

Yes, it means reinfection with every tiny mutation because you never gain broad immunity. There was existing immunity against SARS-CoV-2 in SARS survivors from nearly 20 years earlier. It looks like that level of immunity is now unachievable in the “vaccinated”.

So the so-called “vaccines” have likely done a tremendous job at making the batflu hysteria continue for as long as is desired.

16
0
ImpObs
ImpObs
3 years ago
Reply to  Paul B

Exposure to the virus emparts the full spectrum of immune system response, to ~29 different epitopes, starting at the site of infection in the mucus membranes.

Exposure to the vax alledgedly emparts only antibody and downstream responses (missing all the upstream immune responses at the site of infection) to a single epitope.

The “blocking” thing applies only to vaccinees, lots of spike antibodies clump around the spike, blocking access to the structural proteins underneath from relevant antibodies (this is only 1 of the problems, there are many more). This is not OAS.

OAS would be when the spike changes, and you only have a response to the original spike/partial response to new spike.

Injecting mRNA to produce a cytotoxic protein anywhere the bloodstream can send it, and all the associated negative outcomes of that, is probably far worse than OAS.

Not to mention the virus is NOT novel, there are at least 4 coronavirus with similar epitopes (sans GoF edited proteins) for which most of us have a degree of immunity already.

Last edited 3 years ago by ImpObs
12
0
Doom Slayer
Doom Slayer
3 years ago
Reply to  Paul B

Impobs beat me to it but ill add my two pence worth anyway.

The jab only induces a response against the spike protein. There are several other proteins that your immune system can work against and this will happen with a natural infection.
The secondary or memory response is controlled by your t cells. When a antigen/virus enters a cell some of its contituent parts are processed and presented to the surface of the cell as glycoprotiens. This is known as the major histocompatibilty complex. These are recognised by the memory t cells produced during the initial exposure. Depending on what type of cell was infected it leads to activation of various other parts of the memory response, including antibodies. With a natural infection all these various virus protiens will be processed and recognised and so give you a more balanced response if one of them mutates.

It was always the case that with a coronovirus with reasonably quick genetic drift you would not be able to vaccinate your way out of it. The point of vaccination is to train your immune system, but because they know it cant be done with sars cov2, unlike with viruses and pathogens which dont mutate much, they seem to think that continually priming your immune system to produce high levels of poorly compatible antibodies etc will keep people ‘protected’. It wont, as we all now know.

16
0
John Dee
John Dee
3 years ago
Reply to  Doom Slayer

It’ll keep the Pharma bank accounts primed, though.

9
0
Sforzesca
Sforzesca
3 years ago
Reply to  John Dee

I agree with your analysis and that of ImpObs above.
It should not be beyond the sheep to understand this, and it is BLOODY IMPORTANT, but the MSM have done a good job at the behest of their masters (Tim Davie, where art thou).
Get the lamp posts ready.

5
0
Maverick87
Maverick87
3 years ago
Reply to  John Dee

Get them boosted now 😉

0
0
RW
RW
3 years ago

As far as I know, original antigenic sin is a concept someone invented to deflect from the failure of a Dengue fever vaccine he had invented: Look, it wasn’t really my fault! Bad nature just didn’t work as I thought it surely must! Opinions of people who repurpose Christian theological terms in this way ought to be disregarded. They’re unlikely to come up with something more substantial than more pseudo-religious babbling.

7
-2
Star
Star
3 years ago
Reply to  RW

It’s a bit annoying, yes. But I’d encourage you to roll with it and accept that some people whose basic critical insights ACCORD with yours may couch some of what they say using notions that you wouldn’t use, and who knows, perhaps they may even waffle and babble a bit…but who’s perfect? And you may even learn something from what they say, and from how they think, and decide to make use of it without buying into their terminology or the exact path they followed to get where they are. If you take that attitude, they are more likely to listen to you too.

We need to avoid being a disparate collection of sandwich-board wearers…

In war you don’t get to choose the exact terrain that you fight on, even if you may get some kind of choice between this terrain and that terrain.

The thing that should be avoided like the plague is when people want to play some kind of specialist role as mediators between other people’s minds and the truth, whether they take the form of representatives, experts with graphs, bloggers, or whatever. ALL of that kind of cr*p should be made unwelcome in the extreme.

That said, although still strongly opposed to ROLES I am not “anti-vanguardist” any more. Frankly we need a f***ing vanguard. I would never have said that until a few years ago. I would have said the opposite. Times have changed.

PS I don’t know whether you have ever looked at the Doukhobors in Canada, especially the Sons of Freedom faction. I don’t share their Christianity, but I deeply admire their courage and their extreme refusal to kowtow to the system with its schools and its cops and its commodity economy.

Last edited 3 years ago by Star
8
-1
RW
RW
3 years ago
Reply to  Star

I didn’t make a statement about any particular religious group, just about people who misuses well-established theological terms to describe decidedly areligious phenomenons. There’s a minefield of connotations here which one ought to strive to avoid.

2
-1
John Dee
John Dee
3 years ago
Reply to  RW

Irreligious? But, wouldn’t God have created viruses? Noah probably marched them in, two by two, along with the beasts of the field.

1
0
RW
RW
3 years ago
Reply to  John Dee

Areligious, ie not religious.

0
0
John Dee
John Dee
3 years ago
Reply to  RW

As opposed to irreligious: ‘neglectful of religion : lacking religious emotions, doctrines, or practices’?

0
0
JaneDoeNL
JaneDoeNL
3 years ago

The animals involved must be relieved to know the drug has already been thoroughly tested in humans before being trialled on the animals…

Also nice to see they acknowledge there may be some long-term unknowns when it comes to the sludge

27
-1
TheyLiveAndWeLockdown
TheyLiveAndWeLockdown
3 years ago
Reply to  JaneDoeNL

comment image

33
-2
Milo
Milo
3 years ago
Reply to  TheyLiveAndWeLockdown

Brilliant meme

3
-1
TheGreenAcres
TheGreenAcres
3 years ago

What I find odd is that AFAIK they have still not tweaked the mRNA code for the Omicron spike. They are ‘vaccinating’ for a spike that was crowded out and replaced many many months ago.

16
0
Rogerborg
Rogerborg
3 years ago
Reply to  TheGreenAcres

Why would that be odd? They’re in the business of shipping units, not of curing or preventing disease. That’s the last thing they want.

20
0
Star
Star
3 years ago
Reply to  TheGreenAcres

What is your source for thinking that the actual SARSCoV2 particles that humans have been infected with over the past several months no longer include any pre-Omicron variants?

1
-1
TheBluePill
TheBluePill
3 years ago
Reply to  TheGreenAcres

A modified vaccine cannot work in the “vaccinated”. That’s the point of the article. They can give a modified vaccine but all they would get is the same original antibody response. I think it was Moderna who confirmed exactly this in a trial for a new (Omicron?) vaccine, which confirmed OAS (I don’t have the link). If they pushed out a new version of the “vaccines” then everyone would see the folly of what has been done.

7
0
MikeHaseler
MikeHaseler
3 years ago
Reply to  TheGreenAcres

More profit to be made if they “vaccinate” with a dud and then have to “vaccinate” again.

1
0
John001
John001
3 years ago
Reply to  MikeHaseler

Plus far more profit if it causes new ‘improved’ diseases which have to be ‘cured’ by new, patented $20,000 per year drugs.

Caveat emptor is now the motto in any interaction with the medical industry.

3
0
CynicalRealist
CynicalRealist
3 years ago

we may have vaccinated millions of young people against a version of Covid that poses little risk to them, at the cost of weakening their immunity to subsequent variants.

ALL version of Covid pose little risk to young people! Even if the clotshots actually worked, there was never any need to give them to anyone outside the small number of people actually at risk of serious illness.

31
0
David Beaton
David Beaton
3 years ago
Reply to  CynicalRealist

They are now even after the babies!

12
0
David Beaton
David Beaton
3 years ago

Strange isn’t it- anyone would think that while ignoring the alarming side effects and the number of deaths after ‘vaccination'( !) they are actually also trying to deliberately weaken the immune systems of the whole population and make people permanently ill – now why ever would they want to do that?

19
0
Rogerborg
Rogerborg
3 years ago

I’d love to see that in their marketing.

not-totally-ineffective.png
18
0
RW
RW
3 years ago
Reply to  Rogerborg

I’d make that Not proven to be totally ineffective. And add some of the usual investment warning weasel wording: Effects aren’t guaranteed to be wholly positive. You may get sick or remain healthy regardless of them or because of them. This vaccination comes with absolutely no express or implied warranty, including, but not limited to, implied warranty of fitness for any particular purpose. In no event shall the manufacturer be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, exemplary or consequential damages.

[Yes, I did copy that from the BSD license :-)]

Last edited 3 years ago by RW
8
0
A passerby
A passerby
3 years ago

Enough is enough, I’m out!

4
0
Star
Star
3 years ago

“If it does, we may have vaccinated millions of young people against a version of Covid that poses little risk to them, at the cost of weakening their immunity to subsequent variants.”

Whoopsadaisy!

How many under 40s have ever fallen ill with Covid, which is to say, with double pneumonia resulting from a SARSCoV2 infection?

Reminder:

  • to reduce population using a pathogen, it’s most cost-effective to target the young, especially females aged 0 to 40;
  • some of the effects of famine can be prepared before actually imposing a famine, such as, above all, a) a widespread “giving up” (let’s face it, very few people have the energy to think about what has really hit them since March 2020 – their spirit has been worn down to an extreme extent), and b) a weakening of family ties;
  • other groups than the young can be targeted in the early stages, to accustom people to the experience of utter weakness and isolation when elderly or disabled (or infant) family members or neighbours are just…whooshed away… (the ban on proper funerals was more important than many realise).
30
0
Milo
Milo
3 years ago
Reply to  Star

Star – so, so true.

6
0
Maverick87
Maverick87
3 years ago

‘It can also apply to vaccines’
I think we are generalising here – there are vaccines and vaccines. The way the AZ one works is quite different to the Pfizer or Moderna.
The article also takes a simplistic view over the immune system which we all know is not that simple!

3
0
John Dee
John Dee
3 years ago
Reply to  Maverick87

The original, proper vaccine (in the previously-accepted definition) for Wu-flu seems to have been the Sinovax one, which was promptly shat upon by the US and the EU since it made profits for the wrong companies.

Last edited 3 years ago by John Dee
1
0
John001
John001
3 years ago
Reply to  John Dee

There are one or two from India, conventional ones again (like Valneva).

0
0
Sforzesca
Sforzesca
3 years ago
Reply to  John001

See ImpObs and Doom Slayer below.
Should be compulsory reading for sheep.

1
0
ozdocabroad
ozdocabroad
3 years ago
Reply to  Maverick87

The AZ inoculation also forces your body into making the spike protein to act as the antigen and stimulate antibody production. It just uses DNA instead of RNA. Apparently DNA is more robust. The DNA itself is not reactive [so they say]. There is no evidence I can find which states when the spike protein will stop being produced. Presumably , like pfizer and moderna, your body will go on producing it, getting it into the bloodstream and allowing it access to every organ, causing so far unknown damage.

0
0
MikeHaseler
MikeHaseler
3 years ago

Not “may” but “have” jabbed them for absolutely no benefit to them (or anyone else but the profits of big pharma)

3
0
dearieme
dearieme
3 years ago

“New England Journal of Medicine – the world’s most ‘prestigious’ medical journal.”

But not the world’s most useful. That honour belongs to the Old England Journal of Medicine – i.e. the Daily Mail.

2
0
John Dee
John Dee
3 years ago
Reply to  dearieme

Did the Mail really pre-date ‘Old Moore’s Almanack’?

0
0
dearieme
dearieme
3 years ago

“Neither was totally ineffective”: meaning ineffective as a promoter of memory B cells.

But might they have been ineffective as a protector from Covid?

4
0
marebobowl
marebobowl
3 years ago

Drs. Paul Alexander and Geert Vanden Bossche have been writing and warning about original antigenic sin for nearly a year now. By the way….curious to know who came up with a “omicron” variant vaxx? The Wuhan vaxx has been used since the start of the vaxx program. Who developed an omicron variant vaxx, when and where??

2
0
epythymy
epythymy
3 years ago

They should have included an unvaccinated group that had previously had covid and seen how their immune systems reacted in comparison… wonder why they didn’t? 👀

1
0

NEWSLETTER

View today’s newsletter

To receive our latest news in the form of a daily email, enter your details here:

DONATE

PODCAST

In Episode 35 of the Sceptic: Andrew Doyle on Labour’s Grooming Gang Shame, Andrew Orlowski on the India-UK Trade Deal and Canada’s Ignored Covid Vaccine Injuries

by Richard Eldred
9 May 2025
5

LISTED ARTICLES

  • Most Read
  • Most Commented
  • Editor’s Picks

Is Britain on the Brink of Civil War?

12 May 2025
by Joe Baron

Disney Re-Releases Snow White – and it Bombs Even Worse Than the First Time

12 May 2025
by Will Jones

News Round-Up

13 May 2025
by Richard Eldred

A Closer Look at ARIA: Britain’s Secretive £800 Million Sun-Dimming Quango

13 May 2025
by Tilak Doshi

The Met Office is Unable to Name the Sites Providing ‘Estimated’ Temperature Data For its 103 Non-Existent Stations

12 May 2025
by Chris Morrison

BBC Presenter Gary Lineker Posts Anti-Israel Video Featuring Rat Emoji – a Known Antisemitic Slur

48

Did Keir Starmer Just Say He Will ‘Take Back Control’?

28

A Closer Look at ARIA: Britain’s Secretive £800 Million Sun-Dimming Quango

26

Female Rugby Player Left With Major Injury After Horror Tackle From Transgender Opponent Asks: “How Was This Allowed to Happen?”

15

News Round-Up

13

It’s Not ‘CSE’. It’s Child Rape

13 May 2025
by Joanna Gray

The NHS No Longer Recognises the Reality of Biological Sex

13 May 2025
by Caroline Ffiske

A Closer Look at ARIA: Britain’s Secretive £800 Million Sun-Dimming Quango

13 May 2025
by Tilak Doshi

Did Keir Starmer Just Say He Will ‘Take Back Control’?

13 May 2025
by James Alexander

Why Are Popes so Soft on Migration?

12 May 2025
by Dr Roger Watson

POSTS BY DATE

May 2022
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  
« Apr   Jun »

SOCIAL LINKS

Free Speech Union
  • Home
  • About us
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy

Facebook

  • X

Instagram

RSS

Subscribe to our newsletter

© Skeptics Ltd.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Articles
  • About
  • Archive
    • ARCHIVE
    • NEWS ROUND-UPS
  • Podcasts
  • Newsletter
  • Premium
  • Donate
  • Log In

© Skeptics Ltd.

wpDiscuz
You are going to send email to

Move Comment
Perfecty
Do you wish to receive notifications of new articles?
Notifications preferences