On a recent morning news show in Palm Beach, I was asked about a paper by Pascal Irrgang et al. titled Class switch towards non-inflammatory, spike-specific IgG4 antibodies after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination. At the time I’d only read the abstract and was reluctant to comment on it, apart from saying it’s yet another document that calls into question the efficacy of the COVID-19 mRNA gene transfer shots.
To be sure, it’s already as plain as day that these product do NOT prevent infection and transmission of the virus. Deborah Birx and Rochelle Walensky have expressly stated this on national television.
To me, the most notable sentence in Irrgang’s abstract is the following:
Here, we report that several months after the second vaccination, SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies were increasingly composed of non-inflammatory IgG4, which were further boosted by a third mRNA vaccination and/or SARS-CoV-2 variant breakthrough infections. IgG4 antibodies among all spike-specific IgG antibodies rose on average from 0.04% shortly after the second vaccination to 19.27% late after the third vaccination.
The rise of IgG4 antibodies “to 19.27% late after the third vaccination” was completely unexpected, and, as the authors note later in the study:
The IgG4 subclass does not prevail after repeated vaccination with tetanus toxoid or respiratory syncytial virus infection.
I’ll let the immunologists debate about the significance of this finding and limit my commentary to a few basic observations.
1). The paper is further evidence that the developers of the COVID-19 mRNA shots did NOT understand precisely how they would affect the human immune response.
2). The developers of these products had NO IDEA how they would affect the immune response after three shots.
3). The developers of these products cannot know what will happen in the event of lgG4 antibody prevalence because they have never observed it before.
Though the authors do not explicitly state it, the careful reader logically deduces that the dramatic rise of lgG4 antibodies relative to other spike-specific lgG antibodies may impair the immune response to SARS-CoV-2. To be sure, the authors try to downplay this concern—probably because they know the danger of challenging COVID-19 Vaccine Orthodoxy—but their findings are nevertheless inherently a matter of concern.
The Irrgang paper reminded me of the Academy of Projectors on the Island of Legado in Swift’s Gulliver’s Travelers, who perform pointless experiments that benefit no one.
The COVID-19 mRNA gene transfer program is an example of scientists grossly and arrogantly overestimating their understanding of nature. Now we see immunologists stating, in effect:“Gee whiz, we didn’t expect that outcome after receiving three shots of a vaccine that doesn’t prevent infection and transmission.”
This is the equivalent of an automobile brake manufacturer saying, “Gee whiz, we didn’t expect our brakes to fade at that temperature, though we are still confident our brakes are a great product.”
Reposted from the author’s Substack
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.