What's Up With Monoclonals?
Way back in September, Lifesite ran a story on the potential dangers from treatment with monoclonal antibodies. If you’ll recall, not only Ron DeSantis but prominent medical authorities were pushing this treatment hard—including many of the early treatment proponents. Here’s the link:
‘Not a lot of people have been given REGEN-COV,’ a fact sheet for a top monoclonal antibody treatment states. ‘Serious and unexpected side effects may happen.’
The FDA has now withdrawn Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for monoclonal antibodies. The official story is that these medications are ineffective against Omicron. Well, they’re “less” effective than against earlier variants. Or, in the alternative, they’re “highly unlikely” to help.
OK, but the same could be said about the “vaccines”—certainly as regards Ominous Omicron. So what’s up? If they’re “less” likely or even “highly unlikely” to help, maybe they’re worth a try. Maybe at a steeply discounted price, right?
Here’s what the article at Lifesite said back in September:
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for REGEN-COV in November, before widening the EUA earlier this year. REGEN-COV, which consists of two lab-created proteins that mimic the body’s immune response, is authorized for the unvaccinated and for vaccinated people deemed “high risk” following exposure to COVID-19 or before serious illness.
Demand for Regeneron’s monoclonal antibodies has surged across the United States in recent weeks, as COVID-19 vaccines increasingly fail to prevent transmission, hospitalizations, and deaths.
Florida has opened at least 21 monoclonal antibody sites in recent weeks, Gov. Ron DeSantis has said, and more than 40,000 Floridians have reportedly received the treatment. Texas has also opened more than a dozen antibody sites.
REGEN-COV, however, may expose patients to unknown, potentially life-threatening complications, according to a patient fact sheet released by Regeneron.
The document warns of allergic reactions that may be “severe or life threatening,” as well as the possibility of “worsening symptoms after treatment,” some of which “have required hospitalization.”
“These are not all the possible side effects of REGEN-COV,” the fact sheet adds. “Not a lot of people have been given REGEN-COV. Serious and unexpected side effects may happen. REGEN-COV is still being studied so it is possible that all of the risks are not known at this time.”
Regeneron’s antibody cocktail, moreover, “could interfere with your body’s own ability to fight off a future infection of SARS-CoV-2. Similarly, REGEN-COV may reduce your body’s immune response to a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2. Specific studies have not been conducted to address these possible risks.”
[And etc. There’s more.]
I hope you didn’t gloss over that last part. Regeneron “could interfere with your body’s own ability to fight off a future infection of SARS-CoV-2.” Well, that would be a bad thing. In the past, it was usually said that, as regards infection, with Covid you’d be one and done. It turns out, however, that that’s not the case with Ominous Omicron—in the case of OO you can be reinfected. And with Omicron now everywhere, and if monoclonals really do interfere with your ability to fight off reinfection, it’s easy enough to see why the FDA would yank monoclonals.
Why not yank the injections, too? After all, it sure sounds like the monoclonals are basically mimicking the action of the ‘vaccines’, which are also ineffective against Omicron. One explanation would be that a helluva lot more people have been injected than have had monoclonals—pulling the vaccines would create a much bigger public stir and raise a lot more questions.
Is there something bigger going on? What do the authorities really know? Are they hiding something from us?
Karl Denninger offers so thoughts that address those questions:
As you can tell from the title, KD is talking about the injections, primarily. However he does also get into monoclonals.
He starts out by reminding us that VEI was always a known risk when the injection mania got underway. Most readers will remember scientists like Geerd Vanden Bossche or Michael Yeadon warning that vaccinating into the face of a pandemic was extremely risky—it practically guaranteed increasing the virus’ rate of mutation as well as the distinct possibility of increasing the risk presented by the virus.
That’s exactly what has happened with Omicron. While Omicron is much milder that earlier variants, it does present some notable new features: It appears to escape entirely from the current crop of ‘vaccines’, and it can reinfect. But here’s the important point, which KD also emphasizes: Nobody actually know how Omicron will develop, although it’s a cert that it will. Is there a chance that it will become more dangerous? Fortunately, while that is an actual possibility, it’s unlikely. But that’s not the end of the story, because Omicron will likely be reinfecting—already is, in fact—people whose immune systems have been weakened by repeated injections. And also by the use of monoclonals.
That may be the biggest risk of all for those people because, mild though Omicron may be, it may hit such people like a ton of bricks. What’s that you say? You say you’ve seen articles stating that “breakthrough” cases greatly outnumber infections of the unvaxxed purebloods—including hospitalizations and deaths? Yes, that is likely to be a result of the now well established “vaccine ineffectiveness” being reported from Denmark, Israel, and elsewhere. However, reinfection of those who have had monoclonal treatment is also a real possibility, which could account for the FDA action if early concerns have proved real—that the monoclonals can reduce resistance in the case of reinfection.
So, with that background, here are some brief excerpts from KD’s post today:
... there's a reason we usually need five years to qualify a jab, and this sort of risk is part of it. Viral mutation is a constant thing and it takes time to know whether the pattern suggests trouble. If it does you stop during the trials until you sort it out, ...
[When] Omicron showed up ... the data almost immediately showed negative effectiveness in those who were jabbed. ... being jabbed made it more likely that you'd get infected rather than less.
If you think about that for a minute it has a number of implications and all of them are nasty. VEI in any form can lead to wildly-elevated rates of severe disease and death ...
This same negative impact has not been seen in people who were previously infected; ... prior infection remains partially protective against Omicron and significantly attenuates the virus, unlike vaccination. ... you're likely to not even recognize it as anything different than a cold.
There is pre-existing evidence (all the way back to the fall, before Omicron) that being jabbed may inhibit induction of natural immunity if you get the virus after you take the shots. Whether that's temporary or permanent we have no idea but it showed up in the data, ...
Please note—that’s exactly what we’re seeing now. Previously injected people—usually with multiple injections to their credit—catching Ominous Omicron.
Note that the Federal Government has just pulled the EUAs for monoclonals. These are drugs that are, effectively, the "final product in the body" of being jabbed. They know damn well what the risk is -- not just that the drugs are worthless against Omicron but could end up boosting the infection, making it worse. ...
Its possible that the negative effectiveness of the jabs will wear off. That would be excellent but it will only wear off if people stop taking jabs. If you keep trying to play for another month or two of "protection" that is followed by six months of enhanced infectivity you are eventually going to lose on that dice roll ...
Anyone who tells you they know any, much less all of these things and thus can compute this out and make a recommendation based on a reasoned evaluation is lying. ...
We can't go back and un-jab those who did it. If what happened turns out to be a permanent enhancement in infective risk and the short straw comes up in evolution there's nothing anyone can do about it now. This could easily prove, as I warned might happen, to be the most-stupid public-health set of actions and worst public-health disaster in human history.
You have to be insane to deliberately expand that risk pool given the warning signal we have on the table today until all of the above questions can be answered with certainty, and there is just no way to do that other than time …
Maybe it’s just my imagination, but it appears to me that in the past several weeks we’ve seen an attenuation of the vax mandate rhetoric. The regime jumped off the cliff on this one so they can’t walk it back, can’t disown what they did. But we seem to be hearing more of how we’ll get back to normal by Spring—without mention of mandates. It’s as if they’re hoping against hope that this will wind down quietly. Or am I too optimistic?