MEDICAL TERMINOLOGY 5) LINKED EPITOPE SUPPRESSION, a mechanism of Vaccine Failure per Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society 2019
MEDICAL TERMINOLOGY 5) LINKED EPITOPE SUPPRESSION, a mechanism of Vaccine Failure per Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society 2019
Is this the explanation for the consistent paradox that “more injections = more infections” as reported in European Journal of Epidemiology, Lancet Regional Health Europe, Newsweek?
Is linked epitope suppression the explanation for the consistent paradox that “more injections = more infections” as reported in European Journal of Epidemiology 2021Sep, Lancet Regional Health Europe 2021Dec, Newsweek 2021Nov?
INTRODUCTION: LINKED EPITOPE SUPPRESSION is a complex concept and takes a bit of effort to grasp; in this context, I am describing a form of relative (primary) vaccine failure wherein a weaker (but safer) vaccine resulted in supposedly less disease prevention. The data presented in the main source of this information (Cherry, 2019) is selective, indifferent to the deaths and injuries caused by vaccines, and enthusiastically self-serving for supporters of the vaccine paradigm.
The first entry in this series focusing on MEDICAL TERMINOLOGY defined and gave examples of each of the following:
primary vaccine failure = the vaccine does not work
secondary vaccine failure = blame the patient for the vaccine not working
breakthrough infections = vaccine does not prevent infections
negative vaccine efficacy = vaccine actually makes infections worse
This current entry focuses on 5) LINKED EPITOPE SUPPRESSION as a mechanism of vaccine failure, particularly as noted with the pertussis vaccine. My best in-a-nutshell definition of linked epitope suppression is as follows:
“In the context of the ‘relative failure’ of the acellular pertussis vaccine, LINKED EPITOPE SUPPRESSION results from the advantage of memory B cells (primed to a previous antigen group) which outcompete naïve B cells that encounter a related but different/novel antigen group in the real-world infection.
In this case, the weaker vaccine with fewer antigens (~4 compared against >3000) results in a weaker immune response (driven by memory B cells) which outcompetes a new immune response to a real infection.
The resulting immune response is relatively weaker or “suppressed” because the larger and more aggressive population of immune cells is providing an overall weaker immune response which was previously directed toward a small and less inflammatory group of antigens—those are the ‘linked epitopes’.“ DrV
That's a good and reasonable definition without being either too complicated nor too superficial. It is a complicated concept to grasp; so don’t feel bad if you have to read it a few times, even if you’ve formally studied Immunology. You can see additional information below, including the original source (Cherry, 2019) of that particular contextualized definition.
Here is my highlighted PDF with my comments; if you don’t want my blistering commentary on the author’s self-serving selective ignorance of American history (giving all the credit to disease eradication to vaccines while overlooking THE NEW DEAL, plumbing, electricity, refrigeration, THE END OF WORLD WAR 2 and better nutrition) and his condescending remarks and disregard for the deaths and injuries caused by vaccines, then you can access a fresh PDF at the publisher’s site.
If you want more information, context, definitions, and understanding, then keep reading the section below!
RELEVANCE TO TODAY’S PANDEMIC: What if the rushed Cv19 vaccines are causing a relatively suppressed immune response to the “novel coronavirus”? This would be an excellent explanation for the observation that “more injections = more infections” as has been repeatedly documented throughout the world, as I have already reviewed in the following posts:
More details, definitions, and explanations follow:
Hereafter, I will provide more Immunology definitions and then conclude with a critique of the 2019 review by Dr James D Cherry titled "The 112-Year Odyssey of Pertussis and Pertussis Vaccines: Mistakes Made and Implications for the Future" published in Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society; link to the full text is provided below.
Necessary Terminology
In order to discuss anything related to Immunology and vaccine Pharmacology, we first have to understand the essential vocabulary and concepts of these fields:
Antigen: abbreviation for “ANTIbody GENerating” = anything that can generate an immune response characterized by production of antibodies; keep in mind that some antibodies are destructive/attacking while others can be protective/preserving—a very novice/sophomoric mistake in Immunology is to think that all antibodies are destructive/attacking because some actually protect the substance to/against which the antibodies are formed
Immunogen: abbreviation for “IMMUNe response GENerating”
Antibody/immunoglobulin classes and subclasses: Antibodies are categorized into five classes noted by five letters (G,A,M,E,D), each with its own location and/or function; further, within each class we might find subclasses, such as IgG1 and IgG4 with different activities; note again that injected vaccines produce IgM and IgG response but without the mucosal protection provided by IgA antibodies and thus injected vaccines fail to reduce transmission and mucosal viral load
Epitope (also called antigenic determinant): the specific and exact region of an antigen to which the antibody binds; whereas an antigenic protein might have 100 amino acid sequences, the precise immunogenic epitope/determinant might have only 7-10 amino acids
Tolerance: an immune response characterized by *active* acceptance or ignoring of an antigen or epitope; this in fact characterizes the vast majority of immune responses because —quite obviously via simple observation— the millions of epitopes to which we are exposed every day including our own tissues and proteins, our food, and our microbiota/microbiome do not induce a destructive/attacking/inflammatory response but rather a tolerant and accepting immune response
Anergy: an immune response characterized by *passive* acceptance or ignoring of an antigen or epitope; this occurs with advanced age and nutritional deficiency when the immune system does not have the fuel or gumption to attack an antigen/immunogen that it might otherwise attack; it is akin to having a functioning car motor that simply does not have enough fuel: correct the deficiency and the system will function again
Aggressive/destructive immune responses (concept): most immune responses do not lead to destruction of the target but rather tolerance toward that target; this is why the simplistic idea of “protective antibodies” induced by vaccines is scientifically inaccurate unless accompanied by evidence of a generalized protective response, as the presence of antibodies does not ensure the presence of a defensive immune response
Tolerant/ignorant immune responses (concept): As I stated above, the most common type of immune response is a nil, indifferent, and actively tolerant immune response that does exactly nothing. Proof of this is provided in the simple observation that we aren’t all exploding with inflammatory immune responses against the millions of epitopes that we are exposed to every day in our own tissues, our food, and our microbiome.
Tolerant and protective antibodies: Many IgA antibodies are actually protective and permissive rather than defensive and destructive; for example: IgA antibodies protect beneficial gut bacteria. Similarly, the IgG subclass of IgG4 antibodies are protective and anti-inflammatory, as noted for decades, for example:
"IgG4 plays a protective role in allergy by acting as a blocking antibody, and inhibiting mast cell degranulation, but a deleterious role in malignant melanoma, by impeding IgG1-mediated anti-tumor immunity." Immunol Rev. 2015 Nov; 268(1): 139–159
"In the context of IgE-mediated allergy, the appearance of IgG4 antibodies is usually associated with a decrease in symptoms. This is likely to be due, at least in part, to an allergen-blocking effect at the mast cell level and/or at the level of the antigen-presenting cell (preventing IgE-facilitated activation of T cells). In addition, the favourable association reflects the enhanced production of IL-10 and other anti-inflammatory cytokines, which drive the production of IgG4." Clin Exp Allergy 2009 Apr;39(4):469-77
Not all antibodies are “protective”, regardless of what the vaccine salespeople want you to think, submit to, and buy: Every day in the news, the drug-pushers talk about “protective antibodies” without having any idea whatsoever that 1) most immune responses are tolerating rather than attacking, and that 2) some antibody responses actually serve to protect the targeted antigen. What if the assumed “protective antibodies” are actually protecting the virus and thereby contributing to more illness and more transmission of the virus?
Critique of this focal-point article
Publication: Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (2019)
Source: Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society
Author and credentials: James D. Cherry, MD, MSc is a Distinguished Research Professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and UCLA Mattel Children's Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases. Dr. Chery received his MD degree from the University of Vermont in 1957 and his MSc degree in Epidemiology from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in 1983. He received his pediatric residency training at Boston City Hospital and Kings County Hospital and his infectious diseases fellowship training at the Thorndike Memorial Laboratory, Harvard Medical Service at Boston City Hospital. Following his infectious diseases fellowship training, Dr. Cherry established one of the first formal pediatric infectious disease fellowship programs in the world in 1963 at the University of Wisconsin.
Permalink: DOI: 10.1093/jpids/piz005 with free access
Errors and biases in this publication: Dr Cherry shows callous disregard for the children injured by the whole-cell pertussis vaccine and the parents who have had to suffer loss of their children or decades of caring for injured children, most commonly at their own expense and with the denial of the medical profession. Cherry even goes so far as to label these medical victims as “antivaccine activist groups” instead of demonstrating any emotional awareness or social competence regarding the massive loss and suffering inflicted on these innocent people at the hands of these medical protocols and paradigms. Instead of acknowledging the objective reality of the inflicted injures including vaccine-triggered “encephalopathy and death” he attempts to minimize these occurrences by labeling them as “alleged.” Furthermore, he repeatedly acknowledges that the acellular vaccine actually increased susceptibility to the illness that it was supposedly designed to protect against; he plainly states, "Since 1997, the DTaP vaccination policy has created a cohort of people (the number of which is expanding yearly) who are more susceptible to repeated clinical illness with B pertussis infection than are DTwP-vaccinated children.” He also states “Because of linked-epitope suppression, all children who were primed by DTaP vaccines will be more susceptible to pertussis throughout their lifetimes, and there is no easy way to decrease this increased lifetime susceptibility.” Yet, despite his ability to perceive that children were injured and killed by this intervention and that it produced the exact opposite clinical outcome than what was expected, he appears to hold injured and dead children along with their parents and defenders in contempt. As would be expected from a vaccine proponent, Dr Cherry attributes downward trends in disease prevalence to vaccination, upward trends to trends in disease prevalence to parents of injured children, while he completely ignores historical trends in education, sanitation, nutrition or major events such as world wars. Remarkably, Dr Cherry states that many cases of “pertussis in adults were misdiagnosed” and “thought to be cough-variant asthma, gastrointestinal reflux, or a respiratory viral infection”; apparently the benign nature of these illnesses (that warrant little or no treatment) did not sober Dr Cherry from his infatuation with the vaccine paradigm. Further and clearer evidence of his vaccination intoxication (in addition to his admitting that the disease is commonly very mild) is his observation that “pertussis is endemic in adolescents and adults” (0.5-5% annually per his data) in which case 1) most infections/colonizations are asymptomatic or very mildly symptomatic, and 2) host factors such as immunosuppression due to nutrient deficiency are more definitive than are the pathologic properties of the microbe itself, in which case host defense should be the target of attention rather than a microbe-focused intervention such as vaccination. Throughout the second and third pages of his article, Dr Cherry repeatedly notes the mild manner of the infection (“mild illness was clearly overlooked”) and how easy it is to ignore or misdiagnose; none of his own observations were able to enlighten his consciousness to the fact that the microbe is mild and opportunistic and that host defense (or lack thereof) was obviously of greater importance.