There are some assumptions or messages in this article that raise red flags. Essentially, they're saying our bodies, our natural biology, is broken, imperfect, flawed, and they can fix it.

Immune imprinting, also known as original antigenic sin, occurs when the body’s original immune response to a virus — either from vaccination or infection — becomes less effective against new variants of the same virus.

No, it doesn't become less effective, it simply isn't as effective at fighting the new strain as it was at fighting the original strain. It can't be less effective at fighting something it's never faught. It's misleading language. If we were less effective at fighting successive variants of the common cold, we'd all be dead before we reached puberty. This language implies that our immune system is broken and actually hurts us.

The Australian-based vaccine candidate, being developed by the Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences (MIPS) in collaboration with the Doherty Institute, aims to tackle the problem by encoding the proteins on the surface of the receptor-binding domain — the tip of the virus ‘spike’.

Again, our body is the problem. Maybe there's a good reason for immune imprinting that we simply don't understand? Maybe, gosh, here's a thought, it serves a purpose? Protects us somehow?

I'll be passing on this new, improved vaccine.

I listened to a long podcast with Gregg Braden today in which he discusses ideas relevant to this.