Original Antigenic Sin: From BioNTech patent
BioNTech is aware of the problem of immune imprinting (=original antigenic sin) posed by their vaccine.
BioNTech has known about the original antigenic sin at least since February 24, 2023. Despite this, BioNTech did not deter politicians and experts who recommended booster vaccinations.
The original antigenic sin is also known as immune imprinting. According to the original antigenic sin, existing antibodies against a certain strain inhibit the production of specific antibodies against the mutant strain, making it difficult to prevent infection by the mutant strain.
Therefore, the original antigenic sin can be associated with the spread of infection and the onset of severe symptoms in the vaccinated persons. For your informattion, on November 22, 2021, Dr. Arakawa sounded the alarm about the risks of the original antigenic sin posed by the mRNA vaccines.
BioNTech is aware of the problem of immune imprinting posed by their vaccine, and supports the paper “Immune imprinting and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine design (Wheatley et al),” in their patent WO2024/176192A1.
◆Immune imprinting and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine design (Wheatley et al)
◆BioNTech Patent WO2024/176192A1
Application Date (Priority Date): February 24, 2023
Publication Date: August 29, 2024
The lead inventor of this patent is Uğur Şahin, CEO of BioNTech.
Four patent applications having a priority date of February 24, 2023 are set forth in paragraph [0001] of the specification.
Those patent applications are not legally published, but are incorporated into the "Priority documents" of WO2024176192A1, which are available from WIPO. Those patent applications disclose the immune imprinting related to BNT162b2 and form the basis of WO2024176192A1.
(Added on October 10, 2024)
Wheatley et al say, in the abstract of the paper, as follows:
Reformulating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines with variant strains is being pursued to combat the global surge in infections. We hypothesize that this may be suboptimal due to immune imprinting from earlier vaccination or infection with the original SARS-CoV-2 strain. New strategies may be needed to improve efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 variant vaccines.
BioNTech says, in their patent, as follows:
[0003]…The emergence of these novel circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 has raised significant concerns about the temporal efficacy of vaccine interventions.
[0006]…Further discussion of the imprinting phenomenon in the SARS- CoV-2 context can be found in Wheatley et al., Trends Immunol, 2021, the contents of which are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety.
BioNTech's view appears to be significantly different from that of government officials, who have touted the vaccine as “safe and effective.”
BioNTech has tried to overcome the immune imprinting by means of the bivalent vaccine and the other vaccine for specific mutant strains, but those have all failed.
Their solution to the immune imprinting is described, for example, in the Claims 1 and 5 to 8:
BNT162b2 is a platform that encodes the full-length Spike, and this cannot be changed to the RBD or other domain. In this point, BioNTech has a history of failing to develop the BNT162b1 which targets the RBD.
In addition, a rational reason is required to change the full-length Spike to the RBD or other domain, but this would legally go against the "principle of good faith" and the "principle of estoppel," since BioNTech and the government officials have been alleged that the BNT162b2 is "safe and effective." Therefore, they have faced with a dilemma in which they cannot resolve the immune imprinting under the current platform.
(Added on October 10, 2024)
It is too late now to reveal the flaws of the vaccine and discloses the new invention. Many people (around 100 million people in Japan) have already been imprinted with immunity to the Wuhan-type. Some have received multiple doses of the vaccine, while others have already abandoned the vaccination.
Who’s gonna take responsibility for "imprinted immune system which is meaninglessly disturbed"?
What BioNTech should do is to deter politicians and experts who recommend booster vaccinations to prevent further spread of the risk rather than developing new technologies, and to examine the immune status of those who received multiple vaccinations.
The place where BioNTech should express their concerns on the original antigenic sin is not in their patent specification, but in the public.
This directly relates to the public health risks they posed and they will pose.
The following is from the patent specification:
Background
[0003] Since the initial discovery of SARS-CoV-2, a number of variants have arisen around the world. The emergence of these novel circulating variants of SARS-CoV-2 has raised significant concerns about the temporal efficacy of vaccine interventions. The emergence of Omicron (B.1.1.529) variants, which comprise a number of mutations in the S protein, has been of particular concern.
[0004] ･･･In some embodiments, technologies provided herein can partially or fully address and/or overcome an immune imprinting effect.
[0005] Immune imprinting is a phenomenon in which a previous (e.g., initial) exposure to a first strain or variant of an infectious agent (or one or more antigens thereof) impedes development of an immune response against subsequent strains or variants of an infectious agent (e.g., by interfering with generation of antibodies that bind epitopes unique to the subsequent strain or variant). Immune imprinting can be a particular concern for infectious agents that can acquire a high number or density of mutations in neutralization sensitive region (e.g., SARS- CoV-2).
[0006] A schematic illustrating the immune imprinting phenomenon is shown in Fig. 1. Subjects administered a vaccine that delivers a wild-type (WT) antigen produce antibodies and form memory B cells recognizing the WT antigen. As new Variants of Concern (VOC) arise that evade the immune response induced by the first vaccine, VOC-adapted booster shots are developed and administered to subjects. VOCs often evade the immune system by acquiring mutations at neutralization sensitive epitopes (regions prone to mutation shown in different colors in Fig. 1). Subjects exposed to a VOC-adapted vaccine have a predisposition to activate memory B cells that were formed in response to the initial WT vaccine rather than activate naive B cells. As a result, administering a VOC-adapted vaccine induces production of antibodies that recognize both the WT virus and the VOC but few or no antibodies that are specific to the VOC. So long as the VOC retains some neutralization epitopes from the WT virus, a neutralization response against the VOC can still be induced. As new VOCs continue to lose neutralization epitopes from the WT strain, however, the immune response induced by a VOC-adapted vaccine become less and less effective. Further discussion of the imprinting phenomenon in the SARS- CoV-2 context can be found in Wheatley et al., Trends Immunol, 2021, the contents of which are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety. Immune imprinting is expected to be a particular concern for V OC-adapted vaccines that encode an antigen that comprises a number of mutations at neutralization sensitive sites, (e.g., variants that exhibit close to no conserved neutralizing epitopes).
[0007] Immune imprinting can have important implications for vaccine development. As shown in Fig. 2, a single exposure to Omicron BA.l, BA.2, or BA.4/5 variants has not been found to induce neutralization of Omicron XBB. Without wishing to be bound by theory, this failure to cross neutralize the XBB variant may be due to its low retention of neutralizing B-cell epitopes relative to the original Wuhan strain (see Fig. 5(B)). In short, exposure to BA.l, BA.2, and BA.4/5 may be activating memory B cells that recognize epitopes in both Wuhan and these Omicron variants, and not generating immune responses that recognize features that are unique to these variants. If true, these results suggest that variant adapted vaccines may not produce effective immune responses to variants that retain few neutralization epitopes from the original SARS-CoV-2 variant.
Dr. Hiroshi Arakawa, a Japanese molecular biologist based in Italy, said this in Nov. 2021, and in Europe and the United States, Dr. Luc Montagnier, Dr. Geert Bossche, and other doctors have also said this since around 2021. I think the best way to suppress original antigen sin is to not vaccinate against RNA-viruses.
What sense did it make to inject the original Wuhan strain in the middle of a pandemic, exposing immune naïve recipients to an old strain whilst new wild strains were emerging? That’s where omicron came from, which evades our TRMP-SS2 receptors using endocytosis. How do you think the virus learned that trick? Now we are stuck with omicron that directly targets our gut microbiome. Brilliant?