Vaccine-Induced Tolerance to Spike Protein ...

.. Explains "Protection from Severe Disease" and Endless Reinfections

In the last section of my post from yesterday, I asked, why doesn’t Paxlovid work for vaccinated people.

We exposed Paxlovid as Snake Oil. We Won

Try to stop and think for a minute. Ask yourself a question: why, exactly, is Paxlovid not working in the vaccinated?

The problem is not with Paxlovid, it is the same medication as given to the unvaccinated. The problem is with the immune systems of the vaccinated. The vaccinated cannot clear Covid, while replication is temporarily paused by Paxlovid. The unvaccinated can. Why?

It is a question that I would like to explore, as it may be key to multiple reinfections of the vaccinated, as well as to “less severe disease” that the vaccinated are having, while simultaneously having higher viral loads.

Both phenomena are explained by lack of immune reaction to Sars-Cov-2 from deprogrammed immune systems that were unset and imprinted by several mRNA spike protein transfections.

Part of “severe disease” comes from cytokine storms, caused by an overreaction of immune systems. Well, if immune systems are deprogrammed, they will not overreact — not even react properly — and will not clear the virus either. They will not prevent reinfections, as well.

A Twitter user @SimonBuresch, who saw my substack post, provided a link to a very interesting anonymous write-up from Sep 2021. I am quoting it verbatim below, because it is a very interesting thought that explains ALMOST everything we are seeing. It is also notable for WHEN it was posted, which was almost a year ago.

However, before you read the quoted article, I must point out that this anonymous explanation may easily be not quite correct and things must be much worse than “Mark L” is hypothesizing.

Specifically, it may be that mRNA vaccination unsets the entire immunity and makes people more vulnerable to Covid, as well as to non-Covid “vaccinated people illnesses” that they seem to get more easily, such as the notorious “Australian Flu” that makes people bedridden for 10 days. (normally flu clears easily in 3-4 days). I have noticed those “vaccinated people illnesses” in some of my acquaintances. This does not even bring up “monkeypox” or “Crimean Congo” or other exotics. I consider that worse possibility, sometimes described as VAIDS, to be more likely. In addition, “protection from severe disease” also did not prove as durable. More on this later.

That said, I feel that I must present that interesting theory. It will stimulate my readers’ intellect and Mark L likely asked the right questions. It explains that Covid vaccines create a tolerance to spike protein, and because of it, the vaccinated do not have severe illness, but also cannot clear the virus and cannot acquire immunity. (the bigger question, of course, is whether the boosted can acquire immunity to anything else besides Covid. Nobody answered that or even asked.) Again, please consider the piece below critically, but appreciate the originality of Mark L’s thought from Sep 2021.

The text below was NOT written by me.

mRNA Vaccines Elicit Immune Tolerance to Spike Protein

Date: 2021-09-07 05:00 pm (UTC)

From: (Anonymous)

Something strange is clearly going on with regard to the vaccines, aside from the high risk of adverse effects. Despite evidence that they provide protection against symptomatic infection and severe illness, many countries with the highest vaccination rates have the highest illness and hospitalization rates, and the current wave of infection is both much stronger than would be expected in the northern hemisphere summer and also failing to drop off rapidly after a peak as occurred with past waves and the first Delta wave in India. In Israel, where a booster campaign is well underway, positive cases continued to rise even as hospitalizations leveled off, and the case rate is now among the highest of any country on Earth.


Over the past few days I have developed a hypothesis that could help to explain:

• High disease prevalence in regions with high uptake of genetic vaccines.

• Increasing disease prevalence following widespread booster vaccination in Israel.

• High ratios of unvaccinated to vaccinated hospital patients.

• Much better vaccine protection against severe illness than against infection.

• Maintained vaccine protection against severe illness over time despite waning immunity.

• Inferior vaccine protection against infection compared to natural immunity, despite comparable levels of neutralizing antibodies and T/B-cell activation.

• Higher rates of asymptomatic infection among vaccinated people despite limited testing.

• Political refusal to test asymptomatic vaccinated people for infection under most circumstances.

The hypothesis is that genetic vaccines are inducing partial immune tolerance to spike protein, likely through a regulatory T-cell response. If any commenters know immunologists or vaccinologists, I would be very interested to hear their thoughts with regard to this idea.

Tolerance is the collective term for a variety of mechanisms used by the human immune system to prevent autoimmunity. Primary tolerance occurs during immune cell development in the bone marrow, and acts to weed out developing immune cells that generate autoreactive antibodies or other autoimmune responses. Secondary tolerance, which is the main focus here, acts to mitigate the effects of autoreactive responses that are already in existence. One of the mechanisms of secondary tolerance is the development of regulatory T-cells, which act to tone down immune responses to particular antigens.


Viruses can exploit tolerance in order to evade the immune system, and this notably occurs with HIV. The viral envelope protein is sufficiently similar in form to a human protein (histone H2A) that an effective antibody response is blocked by tolerance mechanisms, and people with certain autoimmune conditions compromising these tolerance mechanisms actually mount a more effective antibody response against HIV. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0952791516301522)


Increasing tolerance to a pathogen can paradoxically decrease severe disease, when severe disease involves an immune overreaction/cytokine storm rather than actual viral tissue damage. Such is the case with most cases of severe Covid-19 that lead to hospitalization and death. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33391477/) However, this protective effect comes with trade-offs. When coronavirus-family infections were studied in mice, regulatory T-cells prevented severe immunogenic illness but increased the risk of viral persistence and chronic infection. Furthermore, regulatory T-cell activation can non-specifically dampen immune response to other pathogens, leading to increased incidence of secondary infections. (https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/4/5/833/htm)

The main biochemical difference between genetic vaccines and conventional vaccines is that the former present protein antigens to the immune system on the surface of human cells, while the latter present antigens on inactivated viruses or other inert injected particles. Furthermore, when genetic vaccines “infect” a large number of muscle cells, or vessel wall cells, or heart cells, causing them to produce spike protein, the immune system creates conflicting signals. The generated antibodies say “kill that foreign object!” while the self-recognition systems say “that thing just showed up on a bunch of our cells, must be OK!” For this reason, we might expect genetic vaccines to be more likely to induce anti-autoimmunity tolerance mechanisms.

Interestingly, there is an mRNA vaccine in development that is specifically designed to induce tolerance as a treatment for autoimmune disease through activation of regulatory T-cells. The Nature paper describing that work curiously includes the following paragraph: “Sahin and colleagues have clearly demonstrated the potential of RNA lipoplex vaccines to deliver a non-inflammatory form of an mRNA vaccine encoding a self antigen to prevent and limit autoimmune disease in mice. It is noteworthy that m1Ψ-containing mRNA is also used for the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, indicating that the pro- versus anti-inflammatory nature of m1Ψ mRNA vaccines can be modulated depending on the specific antigen and specific encapsulating lipid formulation. In the case of the BNT162b2 vaccine for COVID-19, the antigen is a foreign protein formulated in an immunostimulatory lipid nanoparticle. In the present study, the antigen is a self protein delivered in a non-immunogenic lipoplex formulation, and an extra mRNA purification step removes any residual immunostimulatory molecules. This method allows antigen presentation in the absence of inflammation and co-stimulation, preferential expansion of pre-existing T(reg) cells, and possibly also their de novo development.” (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-021-00880-0)



In other words, they claim that the immune response to an mRNA vaccine can be switched between tolerance and immunity by choosing a self or foreign protein and selecting a pro- or anti-inflammatory lipid formulation for the encapsulation. I highly doubt that it’s that simple, and I strongly suspect that unintentional induction of partial tolerance is a likely side effect of any genetic vaccine.



Conveniently, in the case of Covid-19, it turns out that tolerance is protective against severe disease, and indeed some treatment efforts have focused specifically on enhancing immune tolerance (https://journals.ekb.eg/article_92759.html). However, immune tolerance may also be associated with prolonged virus shedding (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30273-X/fulltext). If the genetic vaccines do indeed induce partial immune tolerance, that could help to explain their impressive efficacy against the sort of immune overreaction that leads to hospitalization and death, while also explaining their comparative weakness in preventing infection and transmission of the virus. If “long covid” is, as many scientists suspect, partially induced by autoreactive antibodies, then it would also make sense that genetic vaccines could reduce or eliminate those symptoms by inducing tolerance. This could help to explain the phenomenon that vaccination sometimes alleviates long covid, and also reduces the incidence of long covid in breakthrough infections.

This is an eminently testable hypothesis that can be explored by examining regulatory T-cell responses (or other immune tolerance responses) following vaccination. To date, I can find no evidence that anyone has done this, but I would hope that it will happen in the near future, and the results will be illuminating.

Tolerance is not an on/off phenomenon but rather a wide spectrum ranging from the complete immune acceptance of most of our own proteins to the extreme reactogenicity of a serious peanut or bee sting allergy. Tolerance mechanisms can coexist with immunity mechanisms, such that tolerance begins to become apparent as the level of neutralizing antibodies declines. And to be clear, I am not hypothesizing that the genetic Covid-19 vaccines function by virtue of inducing tolerance. It has been well-demonstrated that they induce a strong neutralizing antibody response. I am instead suggesting that they may *also* be inducing partial tolerance, and that this effect may help to explain strong protection against severe (immune overreaction) disease, high rates of illness transmission in high-vax areas, and possibly also significant declines in immunity after 4-6 months despite continuing high antibody levels.


If indeed the genetic Covid-19 vaccines are inducing partial tolerance, we can make certain predictions:

1. Genetic vaccines will be extremely effective at preventing severe disease, but much less effective in terms of preventing infection. (True)

2. As vaccine immunity wanes, protection against cytokine-storm-type severe disease will be maintained. (Seems to be true)

3. As vaccine immunity wanes, vaccinated people will increasingly carry and spread the virus, and population-level viral prevalence will rise in areas with a high uptake of genetic vaccines. (True) Vaccinated people will be more likely to be asymptomatic carriers. (True, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00460-6/fulltext)

4. This will lead to a significant wave of illness transmission which will disproportionately affect unvaccinated people (who are not protected against severe disease). (True right now across the US and much of the world)

5. Booster shots will further increase tolerance, leading to an increased level of disease prevalence across the population. (True in Israel)

6. As immunity wanes and new antibody-resistant variants emerge, vaccinated people will be more vulnerable to long-term/chronic infection with high viral loads. Due to the protective effects of tolerance this will likely manifest not as typical severe Covid-19 illness (pneumonia, ventilators, cytokine storms, multiorgan failure) but rather as spike protein toxicity. So we should watch for an increase in clotting, strokes, heart attacks, myocarditis, neurological problems, etc. Vaccinated patients dying of these conditions may not be tested for Covid-19 and so likely will not be counted as covid deaths, and the myth of vaccine efficacy may persist based on the original definition of “preventing severe Covid-19 disease” even as we experience a wave of mysterious illness and death. Furthermore, vaccinated people may be more vulnerable to other infections due to regulatory-T-cell mediated general immune suppression. Should ADE develop, with non-neutralizing antibodies facilitating enhanced infection or direct infection of immune cells, tolerance could well lead to further exacerbation. However tolerance could also provide protection against cytokine storm-type reactions and accelerate the evolution of SARS-CoV2 into an endemic human pathogen, so the long-term effect of tolerance is uncertain.

7. Contrary to the shrill claims of the fearful, vaccinated people will present a much greater danger than unvaccinated people in terms of asymptomatic transmission and evolution of new variants.

8. There are likely to be significant differences between the vaccines. In particular, the two-shot series would be expected to induce greater tolerance, and possibly also greater tolerance will be evident in countries with a shorter interval between the two shots. Countries that utilized inactivated-virus vaccines are probably less likely to see tolerance effects, although they may still encounter ADE or other problems down the road.
   

This hypothesis presents a scenario of vaccine failure that first appears as success (because tolerance prevents severe disease), that explains the trends currently observed (unexpectedly high illness rates in high-vax areas), and that potentially portends a troubling future without invoking the still-hypothetical ADE. As with JMG’s original hypothesis, time will tell…

Mark L

---

UPDATE: One of our own, El Gato, published a VERY prophetic article on Sep 16:

the vaccinated superspread hypothesis