Thread by @nanogenomic

“But scientists make a distinction between antibodies that simply bind to the spike protein and those that prevent infection—so-called neutralizing antibodies. They believe that developing neutralizing antibodies is a crucial step...”
cen.acs.org/pharmaceutical…
@RLCscienceboss 🙏🤟

There are major issues with spike protein vaccines.

I have explained in further detail here.

Meanwhile, @BARDA channels $400M+ into these flawed approaches, while essential technologies to properly vaccinating and creating therapeutics against #SARSCoV2 are held back and not funded.

https://twitter.com/nanogenomic/status/1265457427236831232?s=21

https://t.co/xqBYEF6cne

My sense is that these “neutralizing antibodies” are not even high affinity enough to displace ACE2 from the spike protein of the virus. There is little selection pressure for creating affinity maturation for the neutralizing site when you just throw the spike into the body.

Furthermore, the antibodies that are produced are mostly going to bind to non-neutralizing sites, I sense.

This means that when you get infected, you’ll have an abundance of the wrong antibodies, and then the few correct antibodies won’t be high affinity for the neutralizing site. The other antibodies may occlude that site, preventing further maturation of the right antibodies.