In a series of tweets, Berenson wrote that based on the study’s findings, no more booster shots should go into any arms. (Related: Here’s more proof that covid injections cause AIDS.)

“Boosters need to be halted immediately. HALTED. IMMEDIATELY. Stack coming,” Berenson wrote, Stack referring to his Substack blog. “There’s a new paper. It’s bad. How bad? I’ve shown it to two physicians so far. One said he ‘had a seizure’ reading it. The other said something worse.”

The study comes from China, which is where many believe the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) originated. It shows that after the fourth injection – meaning the two primary jabs and two subsequent booster shots – a person’s immune system is pretty much shot.

A summary of the study explains that, despite being unleashed all around the world under Operation Warp Speed, covid injections have no known efficacy and their “potential adverse effects remain largely unknown.” This in and of itself suggests that nobody should be getting these injections.

Since many already have, researchers decided to compare the humoral and cellular immune responses of an extended course of recombinant receptor binding domain, or RBD, vaccine boosters in a mouse model. Here is what they found:

“Multiple vaccine boosters after the conventional vaccination course significantly decreased RBD-specific antibody titers and serum neutralizing efficacy against the Delta and Omicron variants, and profoundly impaired CD4+ and CD8+T cell activation and increased PD-1 and LAG-3 expressions in these T cells.”

“Mechanistically, we confirmed that extended vaccination with RBD boosters overturned the protective immune memories by promoting adaptive immune tolerance. Our findings demonstrate potential risks with the continuous use of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine boosters, providing immediate implications for the global COVID-19 vaccination enhancement strategies.”

Getting “vaccinated” for covid means permanently destroying your immune system

An unvaccinated immune system, just as a little background, is programmed to innately ward off diseases via innate immunity. Upon natural exposure to a pathogen, natural immunity learns to adapt, creating an appropriate level of adaptive immunity.

What covid jabs do, based on these findings, is damage natural immune function. They interfere with the innate-adaptive immune balance, leaving the host more prone to infection – which goes against everything we have been told by the “authorities” about these shots.

The damage caused by covid injections extends far past just antibodies, which function as the immune system’s front-line defense against viruses and bacteria. T-cells, which serve as a backup to antibodies, also become damaged – seemingly without any ability to repair.

The study was published without much fanfare on Dec. 22, 2022, in the peer-reviewed journal iScience. It unequivocally shows, as Berenson is reporting, that covid boosters – and really all covid shots – are a death sentence for one’s immune system.

“We found that the protective effects from the humoral immunity and cellular immunity established by the conventional immunization were both profoundly impaired during the extended vaccination course,” the study’s authors admitted.

Even though mice were used as test subjects instead of humans, the researchers added that the animals were genetically altered “to model accurately the human response to the coronavirus,” bearing “profound similarities with humans in response to SARS-CoV-2 infections.”

“We ‘conspiracy theorists’ knew this years ago,” wrote a commenter about the revelations contained in this new paper.

“Imagine the profits the medical and big pharma industries are going to rake in when everyone has a disease or cancer,” wrote another.

Want to learn more about the dangers and ineffectiveness of vaccines? Visit VaccineDamage.news.

Sources for this article include:

• TheGatewayPundit.com
• NaturalNews.com
• NATURAL NEWS

This dysregulation means that over time the “fully vaccinated” will lose their generalized immunity and no longer be able to ward off coronaviruses of any kind, including the common cold. (Related: Mass “vaccination” for covid has led to a massive spike in AIDS.)

With each subsequent infection, someone who got all his covid shots will become increasingly more prone to illness. Conversely, those with natural immunity will become less prone to infection because their immune systems function properly and continually learn how to fight mutating disease.

Since most people are fully injected, covid infections will continue – and on average, their severity over time will increase, which would not have been the case had nobody ever gotten jabbed.

“People will take longer to get better once they’re infected,” explains Alex Berenson. “Hospitalizations and deaths will rise. The health-care system will come under worsening strain.”

“Oh, and some people may suffer nasty autoimmune side effects too, including pancreatitis, kidney disease, and even aneurysms.”

If newer, deadlier covid “strains” appear, the fully vaccinated are to blame

A few marginalized voices warned about this in the past. They said that releasing a vaccine in the middle of a pandemic was a very bad idea, and one that would make eradicating the scourge that much harder, if not impossible.

We are now witnessing the consequences of Operation Warp Speed in real time, and Berenson says that in a worst-case scenario, a more dangerous SARS-CoV-2 variant could appear “that our weakened immune systems cannot clear” – “our,” in this context, being people who got jabbed.

“We know much less about the immune system than we pretend, and even less about how these specific changes might affect people in the long run,” he writes.

The way natural immunity works – meaning unvaccinated immunity – is that the body produces antibodies against “antigens,” in this case coronavirus. These antibodies neutralize antigens by keeping them out of cells, as well as recruit other parts of the immune system to destroy them.

A fully jabbed immune system, conversely, does not perform this process correctly because the shots tell it to start producing incorrect antibody ratios. The aforementioned paper reveals that the body overproduces IgG4, “which doesn’t try very hard to destroy the invaders,” Berenson says.

“That process accelerates sharply in people who have received a booster, a third shot,” he adds.

While an overabundance of IgG4 can still offer some protection against coronaviruses, it is inadequate depending on how the virus mutates. A vaccine-damaged immune system will constantly be bombarded with newer invading strains that it does not know how to fight, resulting in increased illness and possible death.

The fully jabbed still have T-cells, Berenson says, which function as “a final line of defense.” These do not match up very well against Omicron (Moronic), though.

“At this point, the long- and medium-term downsides clearly outweigh whatever short-term increase in antibodies boosters provide,” Berenson says about the injections.

Berenson does not subscribe to the notion that the immune destruction caused by covid jabs affects other health conditions like the flu and other viruses. In other words, he believes that the fully injected will still have enough functioning to ward off those – though many others disagree.

Either way, continuing to administer covid shots to people is a fool’s errand – especially for recipients as they no longer need an excuse to just say no to these experimental and deadly drugs.

Want to learn more about covid injections? Visit ChemicalViolence.com. Leave a comment on our End Medical Tyranny Substack.

Sources for this article include:

• AlexBerenson.substack.com
• NaturalNews.com
• NATURAL NEWS

• Since December 2021, four large systematic meta-analyses have been published, looking at either vitamin D levels, supplementation or both. In all cases, the data consistently show that low vitamin D levels raise your risk of COVID while higher baseline levels and/or supplementation lowers all risks by 1.5 to three times
• In the first of these four meta-analyses, the odds of developing COVID-19 among those with deficient or insufficient vitamin D levels were 1.46 times higher than those with sufficient vitamin D. Their risk of severe disease was also 1.9 times higher, and their risk of death 2.07 times higher
• In the second study, the odds of ICU admission based on vitamin D status were 2.63 times higher among those with severe vitamin D deficiency, 2.16 times higher among those with deficiency, and 2.83 times higher among those with insufficient levels. Mortality was also much higher in all patients with low levels
• In the third analysis, only 12.19% of COVID patients who received vitamin D required ICU admission, compared to 26.27% of those who did not get vitamin D
• The fourth and most recent analysis found “significant associations of vitamin D supplementation with COVID-19, encompassing risks of disease worsening and mortality,” especially in seasons characterized by vitamin D deficiency and in patients with mild to moderate infection

At this point, there is simply no question that vitamin D optimization is a crucial component of COVID-19 prevention and treatment. In addition to the many studies published during 2020 and 2021, since December 2021, four large systematic meta-analyses^1,2 have been published, looking at either vitamin D levels, supplementation or both.

In all cases, the data consistently show that low vitamin D levels raises your risk of COVID while higher baseline levels and/or supplementation lowers all risks by 1.5 to three times.

Therapeutic Role of Vitamin D in COVID

In the first of these four meta-analyses, “Prognostic and Therapeutic Role of Vitamin D in COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,”³ published December 11, 2021, the researchers sought to determine “the association between vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency and susceptibility to COVID-19, its severity, mortality and role of vitamin D in its treatment.”

A total of 72 observational studies, covering 1,976,099 patients, met the criteria for inclusion. Compared to those with sufficient vitamin D, the odds of developing COVID-19 among those with deficient or insufficient vitamin D levels were 1.46 times higher.

Their risk of severe disease was also 1.9 times higher, and their risk of death 2.07 times higher. One potential drawback was that all studies ranked “high” for risk of bias. The studies also differed in their definitions of severe illness and vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency, making absolute comparisons difficult. That said, the authors concluded:⁴

“Multiple observational studies involving nearly two million adults suggest vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency increases susceptibility to COVID-19 and severe COVID-19, although with a high risk of bias and heterogeneity. Association with mortality was less robust.”

Vitamin D Status and Clinical Outcomes

In the second study, “Vitamin D Status and SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 Clinical Outcomes,”⁵ published December 22, 2021, the researchers assessed “whether vitamin D status is associated with the COVID-19 severity, defined as ARDS requiring admission to intensive care unit (ICU) or mortality (primary endpoints) and with the susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19-related hospitalization (secondary endpoints).”

Here, they included 54 observational studies (1,403,715 patients) that measured the association between vitamin D status and risk of COVID infection, hospitalization, ICU admission and death during hospitalization. The measures for vitamin D status were as follows:

• Insufficiency — less than 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL)
• Deficiency — less than 50 nmol/L (20 ng/mL)
• Severe deficiency — less than 25 nmol/L (10 ng/mL)

Seventeen studies reported the association between vitamin D status and SARS-CoV-2 infection; nine reported the association with COVID-19 related hospitalization, 27 reported COVID-19-related ICU admission, and 35 reported COVID-19 related mortality. In summary, the odds of ICU admission based on vitamin D status were as follows:

• Severe deficiency — 2.63 times higher
• Deficiency — 2.16 times higher
• Insufficiency — 2.83 times higher

Those with severe deficiency were also 1.68 times more likely to test positive; those with deficiency were 1.83 times more likely to test positive; and those with insufficiency were 1.49 times more likely to test positive. In conclusion, the authors stated:⁶

“Patients with low vitamin D levels present an increased risk of ARDS requiring admission to intensive care unit (ICU) or mortality due to SARS-CoV-2 infection and a higher susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection and related hospitalization.”

The Effect of Vitamin D Supplementation

The third study, “The Effect of Vitamin D Supplementation on Mortality and Intensive Care Unit Admission of COVID-19 Patients. A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression,”⁷ was published in May 2022.

Six studies, involving 860 patients, had data on ICU admission. Of those 860 patients, 369 received vitamin D supplementation and 491 did not, and the effect of vitamin D supplementation was found to be quite significant — 12.19% of patients who received vitamin D required ICU admission, compared to 26.27% of those who did not get vitamin D.

The data in all six studies strongly favored vitamin D. The ideal dose, however, remains uncertain, as no linear relationship between dose and odds ratio of ICU admission was observed.

Vitamin D and SARS-CoV-2 Infection, Severity and Mortality

The fourth and most recent study, “Vitamin D and SARS-CoV-2 Infection, Severity and Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,”⁸ was published July 6, 2022, in PLOS ONE.

Here, they looked at COVID-19 in relation both to baseline vitamin D status and supplementation. Thirty-eight studies — including two randomized controlled trials — were included that had risk estimates for at least one endpoint (risk of infection, severity and/or mortality). In all, data on vitamin D status was available for 205,565 patients and 2,022 who were given vitamin D supplementation. According to the authors:⁹

“Random effects models showed that supplementation was associated with a significant lower risk of both COVID-19 severe disease (SRR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20-0.72, 6 studies) and mortality (SRR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17-0.70, 8 studies).

There were no statistically significant dose differences between studies: summary estimates with regular doses remain statistically significant, suggesting that higher doses are not necessary. For patients on vitamin D supplementation, a greater reduction in mortality risk emerged in older individuals and at higher latitudes.

Regarding the quality of studies, assessed using the New Castle-Ottawa quality scale, the analysis revealed in most cases no statistically significant differences between low, medium or high quality studies.

We found significant associations of vitamin D supplementation with COVID-19, encompassing risks of disease worsening and mortality, especially in seasons characterized by 25OHD deficiency and with not severe patients.”

Why Randomized Controlled Trials Are Not Required

As noted by in a Twitter thread by Karl Pfleger, Ph.D., the data clearly show vitamin D is strongly correlated with all COVID-19 risks, and we do not actually need randomized controlled trials to draw this conclusion:¹⁰

“Most underlying studies are observational, but at the very least knowledge of whether someone supplements D or of their D status is strongly predictive of their COVID risks/outcomes. As I’ve noted previously, RCTs are not required for this conclusion to be sound & unquestionable. This establishes a risk factor & most other well known COVID risks factors are also based entirely on observational data.

The data showing age, above-normal-weight, & comorbidities are significant risk factors is also based entirely on correlation. No RCTs establish these as risk factors but no one questions that they are. VDD [vitamin D deficiency] should be thought of as another comorbidity, just like diabetes.”

Indeed, at this point, the importance of vitamin D in the fight against COVID ought to be common knowledge everywhere, especially in health care circles. Yet the surgeon general of Florida, Joseph Ladapo, is the only public health official who is actually recommending vitamin D optimization for COVID.¹¹

This is crazy, as the effects of vitamin D were evident very early on in the pandemic. I launched an information campaign about vitamin D back in June 2020, which included the release of a downloadable scientific report that detailed the science behind vitamin D. This report, as well as a two-minute COVID risk quiz is available on StopCovidCold.com.

In December 2020, more than 100 doctors, scientists, Ph.D.’s and leading authorities from 33 countries also signed an open letter¹² to the governments and health officials of the world, calling for the use of vitamin D against COVID. Since then, the list of signatories has grown to 220.

The letter recommended taking enough vitamin D to achieve a blood level of at least 30 ng/mL (75 nmol/L), urged testing of all hospitalized COVID-19 patients and adding vitamin D to the treatment protocol for any patient whose level was below 30 ng/mL.

Not only did health agencies roundly ignore this sound advice, but they also publicly tried to discredit the notion that vitamin D could have any benefit at all, and attacked anyone sharing the good news about vitamin D.

As just one example, in the summer of 2020, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a self-proclaimed consumer advocacy group bankrolled by the Rockefeller Foundation, among others, launched a campaign against Mercola.com. The CSPI falsely accused me of “profiteering from the pandemic” by selling nutritional supplements, including vitamin D, while sharing scientific truth about its benefits.

The campaign culminated in a warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in which they warned me to stop talking about vitamin D. I reviewed this censorship attempt in “Why Is Info on COVID and Vitamin D Deficiency Suppressed?”

The fact of the matter is, data show vitamin D supplementation lowers your risk of a positive test, speeds viral clearance, slows the spread of infection, and lowers your risk of severe infection, hospitalization and death, as summarized in “Vitamin D Deficiency and COVID-19 Severity” and many other articles.

Mechanisms Behind Vitamin D

At the end of October 2020, I published my own vitamin D review¹³ in the peer-reviewed journal Nutrients, co-written with William Grant, Ph.D., and Dr. Carol Wagner, both of whom are part of the GrassrootsHealth expert vitamin D panel. You can read the paper for free on the journal’s website.

As noted in that paper, dark skin color, increased age, preexisting chronic conditions and vitamin D deficiency are all features of severe COVID disease and, of these, vitamin D deficiency is the only factor that is readily and easily modifiable.

You may be able to reverse chronic disease, but that typically takes time. Optimizing your vitamin D, on the other hand, can be achieved in just a few weeks, thereby significantly lowering your risk of severe COVID-19.

In our paper, we review several of the mechanisms by which vitamin D can reduce your risk of COVID-19 and other respiratory infections, including but not limited to the following:¹⁴

• Reducing the survival and replication of viruses¹⁵ and inflammatory cytokine production
• Maintaining endothelial integrity — Endothelial dysfunction contributes to vascular inflammation and impaired blood clotting, two hallmarks of severe COVID-19
• Increasing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) concentrations, which prevents the virus from entering cells via the ACE2 receptor — ACE2 is downregulated by SARS-CoV-2 infection, and by increasing ACE2, you also avoid excessive accumulation of angiotensin II, a peptide hormone known to increase the severity of COVID-19

Vitamin D is also an important component of COVID-19 prevention and treatment for the fact that it:

• Boosts your overall immune function by modulating your innate and adaptive immune responses and reduces respiratory distress¹⁶ and improves overall lung function
• Regulates inflammatory cytokine production, which is one of the lethal hallmarks of COVID-19
• Helps produce surfactants in your lungs that aid in fluid clearance¹⁷ and lowers your risk of comorbidities, including obesity,¹⁸ Type 2 diabetes,¹⁹ high blood pressure²⁰ and heart disease²¹

Data from 14 observational studies — summarized in Table 1 of our paper²² — suggest that vitamin D blood levels are inversely correlated with the incidence and/or severity of COVID-19 and, importantly, that the evidence currently available generally satisfies Hill’s criteria for causality in a biological system.²³

Why Sun Exposure Is the Best Way to Optimize Vitamin D

The ideal way to optimize your vitamin D level is by exposing large portions of bare skin to the sun. I take an hour-long walk during solar noon every day, wearing just shorts and a baseball cap, and have not needed oral vitamin D supplementation for over 13 years.

This is not some theoretical obsession I have. I am now beyond convinced that swallowing vitamin D is exponentially inferior to getting it from the sun. I would encourage you to do everything in your power to get it from the sun. And, when you get it from the sun, you should not be swallowing it.

It is important to regularly check your vitamin D levels to see how you are doing with your program. Ideally, your level should be between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL. Mine has been mid-90s this summer with no oral supplementation. Remember, vitamin D is a biomarker for all the good things the sun does for you.

Sun exposure also provides other biological health benefits over and beyond vitamin D production. If the science of sun exposure interests you, check out Dr. Roger Seheult’s MedCram lecture above.

In it, he explains the ins and outs of how sunlight impacts your health. One really important health benefit you can only get from sunlight and not oral supplementation is mitochondrial melatonin production.

The best review of the sun’s effect on melatonin is the February 2020 paper,²⁴ “Melatonin in Mitochondria: Mitigating Clear and Present Dangers,” published in the Physiology journal. It’s written by the best researcher in melatonin, Russel Reiter, Ph.D.

Reiter’s key finding is that 95% of the melatonin your body produces is made inside your mitochondria in response to near-infrared (IR) radiation from the sun or other near IR sources. Only 5% of melatonin is produced in your pineal gland.

Melatonin is a master hormone,²⁵ a potent antioxidant²⁶ and antioxidant recycler,²⁷ and a master regulator of inflammation and cell death.²⁸ These functions are part of what makes melatonin such an important anticancer molecule.²⁹

So, to produce melatonin inside your mitochondria actually makes perfect sense, as your mitochondria desperately need protection from the damage caused by oxidative stress produced in the electron transport chain.

In summary, your mitochondria produce ATP, the energy currency of your cells. A byproduct of this ATP production is reactive oxidative species (ROS), which are responsible for oxidative stress. Excessive amounts of ROS will damage your mitochondria, contributing to suboptimal health, inflammation and chronic health conditions such as diabetes, obesity and thrombosis (blood clots).

The good news is your body has a built-in way to counteract these ROS. Inside your mitochondria, you also have an antioxidant system, and the main antioxidant is melatonin.

Melatonin also upregulates your glutathione pathway, which is another potent antioxidant pathway shown to play an important role in COVID. Like vitamin D, glutathione deficiency is associated with COVID severity. In short, your body is well-designed to address oxidative stress, but you need sun exposure in order for that mechanism to work.

One aspect of sun exposure that Seheult did not mention was that it will also increase your testosterone levels naturally. Most people aren’t aware that the highest hormone concentration in men and women is testosterone. Obviously levels are far lower in women, but testosterone is higher than estrogen in women and it is important for optimal biological function — just one more reason why you want to aim for daily sun exposure on as much skin as possible.

Also remember it is not the sun that is the primary cause of sunburn and skin cancer: It is elevated linoleic acid (LA) in the seeds, nuts and seed oils you consume. LA should only be 1% to 2% of daily calories, and it is over 20% in most people. It takes years to lower your LA levels as it stays in your body for about seven years, so start eliminating it from your diet today.

Guidance for Oral Vitamin D Supplementation

If you do opt for oral supplementation, as an absolute last resort, there are additional considerations to take into account. For example, you need 244% more oral vitamin D if you’re not also taking magnesium and vitamin K2,³⁰ so these three should ideally be taken together. You can learn more about this in “Magnesium and K2 Optimize Your Vitamin D Supplementation.”

Remember, the most crucial factor when it comes to vitamin D is your blood level, not the dose, as the dose you need is dependent on several individual factors, including your baseline blood level. The level to shoot for is between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL (150 nmol/L to 200 nmol/L); 40 ng/mL should be considered the low-end cutoff.

Before you start oral supplementation, you’ll want to get a baseline measurement. One of the easiest and most cost-effective ways of measuring your vitamin D level is to participate in the GrassrootsHealth’s personalized nutrition project, which includes a vitamin D testing kit.

Once you know what your blood level is, you can assess the dose needed to maintain or improve your level. The chart below can be helpful. Be sure to remeasure your vitamin D level in three to six months, to evaluate how your sun exposure and/or supplement dose is working for you, and adjust accordingly.

• ¹ Google Docs by Karl Pfleger, Ph.D., Meta Analyses List
• ^2, 10 Twitter Karl Pfleger August 11, 2022
• ^3, 4 J. Clin. Endcrinol. Metab. December 11, 2021; dgab892
• ^5, 6 Front. Public Health December 22, 2021; 9: 736665
• ⁷ Diabetes Metab. Res. Rev. May 2022; 38(4): e3517
• ^8, 9 PLOS ONE July 6, 2022; 17(7): e0268396
• ¹¹ Flgov.com December 17, 2021
• ¹² VitaminD4all.com December 7, 2020
• ^13, 14, 22 Nutrients October 31, 2020;12, 3361; DOI: 10.3390/nu12113361
• ¹⁵ Nutrients, 2020;12:988
• ¹⁶ Advances in Pharmacological Sciences 2018; 2018: 8494816
• ¹⁷ ATS Journals October 5, 2010; 183(10)
• ¹⁸ Medicina 2019 Sep; 55(9): 541
• ¹⁹ Diabetes.co.uk January 15, 2019
• ²⁰ The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology September 1, 2014; 2(9): 682-684
• ²¹ Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine 2012 Aug; 14(4): 414–424
• ²³ Nutrients October 31, 2020;12, 3361; DOI: 10.3390/nu12113361, Table 3
• ²⁴ Physiology February 5, 2020 DOI: 10.1152/physiol.00034.2019
• ²⁵ Indian J. Exp Biol. May 1996; 34(5): 391-402
• ²⁶ Frontiers in Pharmacology August 21, 2020 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.01220
• ²⁷ Allergy Research Group, Melatonin, the Antioxidant Recycler
• ²⁸ Cell Death & Disease 2019; 10 article number 317
• ²⁹ Oncotarget June 13, 2017; 8(24): 39896–39921
• ³⁰ GrassrootsHealth Magnesium and Vitamin K2 Combined Important for Vitamin D Levels

A recent preprint study sheds light on why adverse events were detected after a COVID-19 messenger RNA (mRNA) immunization.

The study (read below), coordinated by Thomas Jefferson University researchers, discovered that lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) used to carry mRNA in COVID-19 vaccinations might “inhibit” and “alter” immune responses in mice.

LNPs are lipid shells that surround mRNA to evade degradation and detection by our immune system.

LNPs are not mRNA; they are merely a covering for the mRNA cargo.

The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna utilise LNPs to introduce mRNA spike protein sequences into human cells. Human cells will produce spike proteins after receiving the mRNA sequences, which will then cause an immunological response.

Initially, it was planned for the LNPs to covertly introduce mRNA sequences that would cause the cells to create spike proteins and therefore develop immunity to the COVID-19 virus.

However, numerous researches in mice have now discovered that the LNPs, despite being advertised as harmless and non-toxic, are instead very inflammatory.

These nanoparticles are extremely long-lasting and can stay in the body for 20 to 30 days. They are likely to stay in the body and continue to stimulate the immune system, which will eventually wear out and become non-responsive.

Similar conclusions were also reached by the Thomas Jefferson research. By injecting animals with the identical LNPs found in Pfizer’s vaccines—some mice even received two doses—researchers examined how LNPs influence the immune system.

Immune responses and inflammation in mice are not absolute indicators of what will occur in people. Nevertheless, mice have long been used to assess the efficacy and safety of medications intended for human use; symptoms of immunological dysfunction are a hint of potential health hazards in people.

The researchers discovered that mice given two doses had a weaker immunological response to their second injection than mice given only one dosage.

“The mRNA-LNP (nanoparticle) vaccine platform induces long-term unexpected immunological changes affecting both adaptive immune responses and heterologous protection against infections,” the authors wrote.

Pre-Exposure to mRNA Nanoparticles Reduce Innate Cell Numbers

Mice that received two doses of LNP injections had less innate immune cells, which are the primary immune cells.

By injecting mice with various LNP variants, the authors hoped to learn how the mRNA-sealing LNPs affected the mice.

The mice were divided into three groups, each of which received two injections with various substances.

Most mice received an injection of LNP as the initial injection. The second half received empty LNPs with no mRNA while the first half received LNPs having mRNA sequences.

An injection of salty water was given to the leftover mice. Since injections of salted water are not meant to cause any alterations to the body, these mice serve as the baseline to compare.

Approximately two weeks later, all 3 groups received the same LNP injection carrying influenza protein mRNA sequences (HA). The second injection stimulated their cells to produce HA proteins, resulting in an immunological response. It was hoped that the immunological response would render the mice immune to the influenza virus.

After the second injection, the researchers discovered that all mice had established immunological defenses against the influenza virus.

The researchers found that mice who received two doses of LNPs lost less weight and were more resistant to an influenza illness. Oddly enough, the same mice also responded to the flu vaccine with a less potent immunological response and less activation of immune cells.

According to the authors’ assumption, their “resistance” likely results from an alternate pathway that LNPs have activated rather than from a boosted immune system. This “resistance” may only be applicable to influenza and is not yet known if it will apply to other illnesses.

This is due to the study’s discovery that mice who appeared to be more “resistant” to the flu were in fact more prone to fungus infections.

When the mice were given two doses of the Candida albicans infection, the mice lost more weight and had less success fighting the illness, indicating a change in the innate immune response.

Additional research revealed that these mice had less neutrophils, the most prevalent type of first-responder immune cell.

Neutrophils are responsible for patrolling the body and indiscriminately attacking anything foreign they come across, thus having less of them increases the risk of infection.

The scientists hypothesized that decreased neutrophil counts may have contributed to the fungal outbreak since an unchecked fungal infection, particularly C. albicans, is frequently a symptom of compromised innate or first responder immune response.

LNPs trigger inflammation, and specific inflammatory pathways limit blood cell formation. The scientists hypothesized that the two dosages of LNPs given to these mice induced increased inflammation, resulting in a decrease in blood cell formation and low neutrophil numbers.

Though this is speculative, and it is unknown if the effects in mice would translate to humans, there have been instances of vaccinated people developing severe aplastic anemia, a condition in which the body can no longer produce enough blood cells, especially red blood cells.

There have also been instances of COVID-19 vaccine recipients acquiring rare fungal infections or aggravating pre-existing fungal disorders.

Though major fungal disease does not always indicate a weakened immune system, serious fungal infections “are most common among people with weak immune systems,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Antigen Numbers Reduced in Mice with High Nanoparticle Exposure

There are two types of immune cells: first responders (innate immune cells) and second responders (adaptive immune cells).

When they come upon something strange, the first responders launch an immediate assault. However, their attacks are generic and frequently fail to completely remove illnesses.

As a result, adaptive immune cells, also known as T and B cells, act as our second line of defense.

They become active about a week into the infection and clear infections by launching powerful and targeted attacks.

T and B cells must be supplied with pathogen information in order to activate adaptive immune cells. It could be a portion of the spike protein in the case of Sars-Cov-2.

APCs (antigen-presenting cells), a kind of first-responding cell, deliver virus, bacterium, or infectious particle fragments to adaptive T or B cells. This activates T or B cells, resulting in an adaptive immunological response.

A dendritic cell (APC) activates a T cell by presenting it with an antigen, a harmful or foreign substance.

However, the researchers discovered that mice that received two doses of mRNA LNPs displayed less antigen than mice that received just one dose.

This suggests that less adaptive immune cell activation against influenza proteins was produced.

mRNA Nanoparticles Reduce T and B cell Responses

The T and B cell responses to the flu mRNA vaccination were shown to be less robust in mice that had received two injections of LNP compared to those who had only received one.

T and B cells are essential for our immune system’s capacity to eradicate infections since they are the last line of defense.

However, reduced T and B cell activation was observed in mice who received two doses of LNP.

The quantities of antibodies (B cells produce antibodies) against the influenza protein were likewise lower in the double-dosed groups.

The decreased adaptive immune response was systemic, impacting all organs and areas. According to the scientists, this reduction was considerably greater at the injection site, particularly if the mice were administered injections at the same location for both shots.

The group that received only one injection of LNP, on the other hand, exhibited stronger T and B cell responses, as well as more antibodies generated.

The authors discovered that LNP exposure reduced T progenitor cells. Because T progenitor cells mature into activated T cells, fewer progenitors imply fewer T cells and a lower response.

The scientists discovered that removing T progenitor cells before immunization and then reintroducing them after vaccination did not diminish the number of activated T cells. This shows that the LNP lowers the amount of T progenitor cells and, as a result, the T cell response.

“Pre-exposure to mRNA-LNP inhibits T cell responses,” the authors wrote.

The authors speculated that the lowered immunity ought not to be permanent.

They discovered that if an 8-week gap was introduced between the first and second dosages, B cell responses mostly rebounded.

Nonetheless, the authors did not confirm the time required for complete recovery, nor did they confirm whether the mice’s B cell response ever restored.

However, treating mice with adjuvants such aluminum salts or AddaVax reversed the suppressive effects of LNP injections on mice immune cells.

“Inhibition of the adaptive immune responses by pre-exposure to mRNA-LNPs is long-lasting but it is likely to wane with time.”

Immunity Changes from LNPs Can Be Inherited

As previously stated, mice given two doses of LNPs were more resistant to an influenza infection than mice given only one dosage of LNPs.

This was confirmed by the mice’s greater weight maintenance throughout infection, albeit it is unclear if the resistance was due to an immunological response or another mechanism initiated by the LNPs.

Surprisingly, this enhanced defensiveness may be handed down to their kids. The inheritance of influenza resistance is stronger when both parents are vaccinated, and less so when only one parent is inoculated, especially if only the male father is immunized.

The study did not address whether the kids also inherit immunological deficiency, such as a loss in immunity against C. albicans, which was observed in mice given two LNPs dosages.

Implication of the Study and Pressing Questions

The results of the mice study indicate that T and B cell functions temporarily decline in mice, which begs the issue of whether this also happens in people.

Clearing infections and preventing chronic illnesses like cancer depend on the adaptive immune response. According to the study, mice are more susceptible to infections and cancer for a few weeks following two vaccines with the mRNA LNPs.

Although there has not been a study conclusively proving a correlation, similar findings have also been made regarding human observations.

However, an increased prevalence of sickness reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following COVID-19 vaccination implies that patients have less immunity after vaccination.

There have been numerous cases of cancers developing as a result of COVID-19 vaccines.

In the VAERS database, 284 incidences of breast cancer were recorded following COVID-19 immunization, although only 350 cases had been reported in the VAERS database’s whole history.

There were 269 cases of leukemia reported following COVID-19 vaccination, compared to 432 cases throughout VAERS’s whole history.

Furthermore, there have been instances of new onset and recurring shingles following COVID-19 vaccinations. VAERS data shows that 7,559 incidences of shingles have been reported following COVID-19 vaccination.

Throughout the lifetime of VAERS, 28,180 cases of shingles have been documented following any immunization, implying that COVID-19 vaccination accounted for around a quarter of all shingles cases.

According to the CDC, a new diagnosis or recurrence of shingles occurs largely in patients with compromised immune systems and is a symptom of decreased immunity.

Though the mice study shows significant human health consequences, it is unknown whether all of the symptoms and effects reported in mice would occur in humans.

Nonetheless, mounting evidence of severe health effects in humans following COVID-19 vaccination warrants additional investigation. It is also necessary to investigate the overlaps between the health consequences for mice and people.

“Considering the broad exposure of a large proportion of human populations to vaccines based on this novel (mRNA) technology, more studies are warranted to fully understand its overall immunological and physiological effects. Determining this platform’s short and long-term impact on human health would help optimize it to decrease its potentially harmful effects,” the authors concluded.

Article cross-posted from Great Game India.