The Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) “booster” doses, according to one of the most ardent advocates of vaccinations, are inadequate at guarding against the most recent “variants” of illness. This individual is not cool with these shots.
Paul Offit for Profit of Vaccine Education Center and the Children’s Hospital of Philly wrote a viewpoint document for The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) trying to explain why, from a scientific standpoint, COVID boosters are a no-go. This letter was published in an attempt to refute the claims made by other researchers.
If you are familiar with Offit’s past, you might be taken aback by the fact that he is genuinely stepping out to argue for one of them. This is the same individual who, in a now infamous statement, suggested that a newborn baby may have 10,000 vaccination shots all at once and be perfectly healthy.
To put it another way, Offit having the courage to speak out against these boosters indicates that there must be something really wrong with them.
“Researchers from Pfizer–BioNTech & Moderna submitted data on the bivalent vaccines to the FDA’s Vaccines & Related Biological Product Advisory Board (of which I am a member) on June 28, 2022,” Offit said in his report. “I am a member of this committee.” The findings did not live up to expectations.
“The level of neutralizing antibodies towards BA.1 that were achieved with bivalent boosters are still only 1.5 to 1.75 times higher as those produced with monovalent boosters,” the researchers said. Prior experience with the vaccines produced by the firms gave the impression that this variation was not expected to be clinically meaningful.
Don’t bother getting boosted because it serves no use.
Offit claims that COVID variations and subvariants are evolving at such a rapid rate that by the time a brand-new booster injection is released, it is already out of date. When people get these antiquated shots, they are not afforded any additional protection as a result of their actions.
Evidence also implies that the immune system will be in a poorer state after each consecutive booster than it was before receiving the shot. They are responsible, for one thing, for the creation of incorrect antibodies, and they are also responsible for the development of vaccine-induced AIDS.
In his letter, Offit did not discuss any of these topics, but he actually pointed out that the shots do not function as effectively as they are advertised. The regulators came to the conclusion, after analyzing the data at their disposal, that there is “no big variation in neutralizing any SARS-CoV-2 variant” between boosted or non-boosted, which indicates that the injections are completely pointless.
According to the findings of another research, “ZBA.5 [neutralizing-antibody] titers were equal following monovalent or bivalent mRNA boosters.” This indicates that the boosted and the non-boosted had the same level of protection – or lack of protection, depending on your point of view.
According to Offit, the explanation for this phenomenon is more than probably immunological imprinting. This implies, in a nutshell, that the first shot series prepared recipients’ immune systems to fight against the “ancestral” strain of COVID. This was achieved by administering the vaccine in a series of three doses.
“They consequently presumably reacted to epitopes linked by BA.4 or BA.5 or the ancestral strain,” he stated. “Rather than to novel epitopes in BA.4 or BA.5, they probably reacted to epitopes matched by BA.4 and BA.5 as well as the ancestral strain.”
Offit is still an advocate for the use of immunizations, including the first round of mRNA injections developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, and this point has to be made clear. Even when the data suggest that individuals who receive these injections are becoming sick and dying unexpectedly, he continues to assert that they are beneficial.
To put it differently, Offit has not changed his position and become an “anti-vaxxer.” The fact that this is the first occasion we are aware of when he has expressed his opposition to receiving an injection of a vaccination says volumes about the ineffectiveness of the practice.
His letter comes to a close with the following statement: “… I think we must quit trying to prevent only those symptomatic infectious diseases in better and healthier, youngsters by trying to boost them with inoculations comprising mRNA from varieties that could disappear just a few months later.” Despite this, he continues to urge the general public to get vaccinated with the beginning round of shots, which is something that we would not recommend given all that is known today about these potentially lethal injections.