Featured Image

(LifeSiteNews) — Most of us know by now — despite the efforts of the legacy media and the Biden administration to hide the fact — that the China virus poses virtually zero risk to kids. The vast majority of children who contract it will come down with no more than the sniffles, if they show any symptoms at all.

Even better, once they are exposed to it, their immune systems will ever after be alert not only for the original invader, but for nearly all of the variants that it spins off over time. This robust immunity will probably last their entire lives. After all, the survivors of the much more deadly Spanish Flu of 1918–19 came away with life-long immunity.

But the wonderful process by which the human body produces natural immunity to a novel virus it has never encountered before will be short-circuited if they get an mRNA jab.

It will be committing what is called the “original antigenic sin.”

The Original Antigenic Sin

It turns out that the human immune system is not capable of an infinite number of responses to an infinite number of viruses. Rather, the strongest response to influenza viruses is produced by the body’s first exposure to the disease, which usually occurs in childhood.

But it is not only that subsequent immune responses to the influenza are weaker, which they are. That would be concerning enough. The problem is that the first childhood infection primes the immune system to respond to subsequent infections with antibodies to the original strain. The “original antigenic sin,” in other words, causes the immune response to miss the target.

The authors of a 2005 Nature Medicine article define the “original antigenic sin” as follows: “After exposure to a new but cross-reacting antigenic variant, such individuals may respond by producing antibodies that are primarily directed at antigens characterizing influenza viruses encountered during earlier epidemics.”

In other words, their bodies are producing antibodies to the variant they were first exposed to in childhood, rather than to the variant that is currently circulating in the population and to which they have now been exposed.

Think about that in the context of the China Virus. This is a novel coronavirus that no one on the planet has ever before encountered. Nor are they fully exposed to it when they are vaccinated with the mRNA vaccine, only to its spike protein.

Once that spike protein mutates, as it already has in the Delta variant, the body has no other epitopes — parts of the virus — that it immediately recognizes and can use produce appropriate antibodies. So what does it do? It produces antibodies for the original China Virus’ spike protein, because that’s what it has been programmed to do.

This misallocation of the body’s immune resources, as we might call it, seems to mute the development of the kind of robust, long-lasting immunity that results from a natural infection. This is why, in the U.K., the “fully vaccinated are suffering far higher rates of infection than the unvaccinated, and it is getting worse by the day.”

Since the vaccines may attenuate the body’s immune response to other variants, the mass vaccination campaign of countries around the world may lead to repeated waves of infection — each of which will be met by a frantic and ultimately futile attempt to give everyone booster shots — which at best will offer only temporary and limited protection until the next variant comes along.

Many, perhaps most, of those resisting the jab have already recovered from bouts of the China Virus, enjoy herd immunity, and realize that the mRNA vaccine has nothing whatsoever to offer them but an endless series of booster shots.

The best real-life illustration of Original Antigenic Sin comes from the effort to develop a vaccine for dengue fever, which people get from the bite of an infected mosquito. There are four main variants of the dengue virus, and the original vaccine only covered one of them. Subsequent boosters for the other variants proved ineffective because it only triggered “the immunological footprint of the first vaccination.”

But it’s even worse than that, as the authors conclude:

Original antigenic sin has the advantage that a response can be rapidly mobilized from memory. However, the downside is that in some cases, such as dengue, the response is dominated by inferior-quality antibody. ….

Once a response has been established, it is unlikely that repeat boosting will be able to change its scope, meaning that balanced responses against the four virus serotypes will need to be established with the first vaccine dose.

The danger that may arise from the mRNA vaccines is not only that they confer narrow immunity to a specific variant, but that they may undermine our immune system’s response to future variants, leading to longer and more severe infections.

The risk/reward ratio is upside down

Any drug or vaccine that is swallowed or injected into the body is going to produce side effects. If one is suffering from a disease, especially one with serious symptoms, side effects don’t matter so much. I’m willing to take acetaminophen to relieve a headache even though I know that continually taking the drug over long periods of time may cause liver damage. The immediate benefit outweighs the possible short- or long-term cost.

But the calculations are very different with a vaccine. In this case you are giving a healthy person — you can’t vaccinate those who are already ill — something that produces no immediate benefit. Should they one day be exposed to the disease being targeted by the vaccine, the hope is that the vaccine will either reduce their risk of catching it, or reduce the severity of their symptoms if they do. Then again, they may never encounter the disease, in which case the lifetime benefit is effectively zero.

Since the benefits that people derive from a vaccine is much smaller than that which people derive from a drug for an existing condition, the risk of side effects from the vaccine has to be much, much smaller as well.

In the case of the highly infectious China Virus, the odds are that everyone — including the vaccinated, as the CDC now admits — is eventually going to contract the disease. Since the kids will survive it just fine, the “reward” part of the risk/reward ratio is effectively nil. As in zero, zilch, nada.

Not so the “risk” part, given that there is a small, but quantifiable, danger that children will develop myocarditis and other health problems in consequence.

So why in the world is the FDA saying that it is a good idea to vaccinate all children in the U.S. from 5 to 11 years of age?

There is another, potentially more serious problem with giving kids an mRNA jab that at best offers a few months of protection against a variant that is already dying out. Namely, it may cripple their body’s immune response to future coronaviruses that it would otherwise handily vanquish.

Finally, there is a benefit to society as a whole from letting the highly adaptable immune systems of children take on and defeat the virus.

The brilliant Alex Berenson sums it up best: “The most dangerous things to do, at this point, would be [to] vaccinate children. The virus is not a threat to them, and if they are infected by the new forms of SARS-2 that are sure to emerge every winter, we will begin to establish — through them and the as yet unvaccinated — the layered immunity that is the only way of coming to terms with SARS-2 in the longer term.”

So take your kids out of public school, if you have to. Move to a state that has banned vaccination mandates, as Florida has, if you have to. Home school, if you have to.

Do whatever it takes, but protect your children from these vax mongers who are putting power and profits ahead of the best interests of children. And the rest of us.

Featured Image

Steven Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute and an internationally recognised authority on China and population issues. He was the first American social scientist allowed to do fieldwork in Communist China (1979-80), where he witnessed women being forcibly aborted and sterilized under the new “one-child-policy”.   Mosher’s groundbreaking reports on these barbaric practices led to his termination from Stanford University.  A pro-choice atheist at the time, the soul-searching that followed this experience led him to reconsider his convictions and become a practicing, pro-life Roman Catholic.

Mosher has testified two dozen times before the US Congress as an expert in world population, China and human rights. He is a frequent guest on Fox News, NewsMax and other television shows, well as being a regular guest on talk radio shows across the nation.

He is the author of a dozen books on China, including the best-selling A Mother’s Ordeal: One woman’s Fight Against China’s One-Child-Policy. His latest books are Bully of Asia (2022) about the threat that the Chinese Communist Party poses to the U.S. and the world, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Pandemics. (2022).

Articles by Steve have also appeared in The New York Post, The Wall Street Journal, Reader’s Digest, The New Republic, The Washington Post, National Review, Reason, The Asian Wall Street Journal, Freedom Review, Linacre Quarterly, Catholic World Report, Human Life Review, First Things, and numerous other publications.

Steven Mosher lives in Florida with his wife, Vera, and a constant steam of children and grandchildren.