Ain't it interesting that China does not use "One Trick Pony" vaccines that only create "immunity" to the S-protein? China only uses inactivated virus vaccines. These are supposedly less effective, but I bet they prime the immune system to recognize the N protein too, and perhaps others as well.
Now what happens in places where most people only have S-protein immunity when the S-protein changes enough to escape that immunity? Remember, the S-protein is what's constantly changing with these "variants", while the N-protein is much more stable...
Valneva has an inactivated whole virus vaccine which will not cause disease. It is based on the same (traditional) technology like the flu vaccine. I expect the side effects to be minimal too. The clinical trail is going well and shows high VE. Hopefully it will be widely available for general population within months.
Thanks. I'm interested in inactivated virus vaccines, and wasn't aware of this. Why do I feel like the FDA has become such a big-pharma puppet that eventual approval here will be unlikely no matter what? Still hopeful.
The more time that passes and the deeper one looks during that passage of time, the more the vaccines looks like, well, in scientific terms, complete clusterf*cks. Of course, when one mandates, via mass vaccination, a vaccine based upon a technology that has never been successfully used before, and that has only been half-ass tested for a few months, this cannot be a surprise, correct? To quote one of my role models, John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!" At least those Moderna dudes broke into the Forbes 400. Yahtzee!
Yeah... And there seems to be a newer dis-information assault about the mRNA tech... Something about it having been around a decade or so... Do you know about that? I think I remember reading that it was being tested for around a decade or so?
Yes, many prior attempts. As people below note, there have been many trials but scrapped due to disappointing results. Isn't it wonderful that Moderna (and others) hit upon the perfect solution, got all the bugs out, just in time for the start of the Pandemic, and despite many prior failures, managed to produce a "safe and effective" mRNA "vaccine" only requiring several weeks' testing with test subjects selected for their health? 🤣
I have only a superficial knowledge of the prior products*, but one worrisome aspect they had (e.g. the anti-cancer mRNA products) was that with repeated doses they quickly wore down the patient's immune system. Are we going to see the same problems with what may become bi-annual boosters? 😟
*This is an educated way of saying "I'm talking out my ass here, but..." 😉
To be clear, intended to convey that the technology had never been successfully used for this purpose, which is different than how long it had been on the drawing board. It had certainly never been approved, although one might argue if approval *automatically* means it accomplishes the intended or stated goal.
There was a video clip going around from before the scamdemic. Fauci and some other discussing vaccines and how the current versions at the time needed to be grown in eggs and took too long. They needed a disruptive event to fast track the mRNA tech. And lo and behold, they got it.
Might as well get this off my chest, since you have opened the box... Dr. Fauci is an evil piece of shit. Kary Mullis described him as a person who didn't know anything about anything. I have little doubt that is true. However, he is absolutely world-class at using bureaucracy and politics for self-aggrandizement and enrichment.
Good observation that this OAS also ties into questions of ADE. My biggest concern is that anyone trying to publish on this will have a hard time because of the political need to make the vaccines into holy saviors. I don't know if we will ever get the truth at this point, but nice to see that some things can still get published and those of us with the literacy to read these things will ask the hard questions.
> Does vaxx following natural infection damage the humoral immunity created by
> infection?
Based on papers I have read, it appears that vaccination doesn't reduce natural immunity. The Rockefeller U paper hints a vaccine is essentially a booster.
That said, I haven't seen a compelling argument why you would take
a vaccine booster (following natural infection), because you can get "booster"
just by living daily live (and be exposed to virus in the wild).
Well, you take a booster *after* natural infection for much the same reason that ignited this dumpster fire initially, because Pfizer said so. #Rimshot
The paper raises discusses antibodies and B (memory) cells obtained via natural infection and vaccines. And the conclusion regarding boosters is interesting.
It confirms a lot of concerns discussed here before.
"Safety and humoral responses to BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination of SARS-CoV-2 previously infected and naive populations" Safety and humoral responses to BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination of SARS-CoV-2 previously infected and naive populations" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-96129-6
I recommend revisiting Del Bigtree's first report on the warnings of Geert Vanden Bossche. It sounds to me as if this phenomenon is similar to what the virologist was sounding the alarm about back in March.
I'm really appreciating your perspective and offers of that with links.... Some of the articles by el gato and Alex B are more alarming but leave me without direction. So please keep it up!
If in God you trust, and if vaccines are suspect, why do you then take them?
Why not just live in the body you have as it is. Take all the good stuff (CoQ10, Zn, Vits C & D etc) and remain unvaccinated. Then you can remain true to yourself.
We've reached the absurd and tragic point where someone who is forced to get the vaccine *may* be better off going out and exposing themselves to the actual COVID virus a few weeks before the forced jab.
I'm not advocating that, as there are all sorts of variables in play. But it is apparent that such an action *could* be a good idea for *some* people. But the fact that it's worth considering getting the disease on purpose to avoid suffering worse harm from the cure speaks volumes concerning the level of insanity and evil we have descended to.
Fortunately I'm not a prime candidate to be "forced" to take the jab (short of further dystopian changes in my government...). No matter, my biggest worry for the mRNA jabs are not their intended effect (produce S-protein) rather the nasty side effects, some already known and who knows what long-term? The more I read, the less I can see why any sane person would take the risk.
I found egyppius description of OAS easier to comprehend;
"…Original Antigenic Sin — the phenomenon, long observed in the antibody response to influenza infections, that initial exposure to a pathogen (or a spike protein) shapes all subsequent immune responses to mutated, recombined or reassorted instances of that pathogen"
-Fun seeing my favourite. substackers cross referencing one another.!
This is known as "fixes that fail", and anyone worth their salt knows that intervening in a complex adaptive system is fraught with these challenges and treads very carefully. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixes_that_fail
"the S antibodies trained by the vaccines are not responsive to the virus. they are responsive to the effects of the virus once it infects cells and causes them to express the S protein on their surface."
Wait, I don't think that's right. The spike proteins are initially on the surface of the virus envelope, and are what allow the thing to attach to cells.
The S protein is a prominent feature on the surface of the virus (the little poky out things in the pictures called "spikes"), that binds to the ACE2 receptor on a host cell and then folds down to shove the virion against the cell membrane to fuse.
The vaccines target S specifically because they thought that it would (a) tend to block binding by getting in the way and (b) the spike needs to efficiently bind to ACE2 so maybe the spike tends to be conserved (at least the RBD or receptor binding domain). And, at least (a) is generally true, and the reason that vaccines work at all.
This doesn't explain why the vaccine is non-sterilizing. The theory is that has to do with not stopping replication in the mucosal system, which may be a fundamental flaw in the vaccine design (producing only antibodies in the blood).
It means that people infected post vaccination will not have as complete antibody coverage as people who were not vaccinated, and may be more susceptible to variants that better escape the S protein coverage.
It's not clear though, whether this means that a person infected post vaccination will actually be more likely to get infected again. Infection produces a much broader response than vaccination itself, which only produces antibodies. Whatever produces sterility in the mucosal system probably also works post vaccination.
The problem arises if you have a variant that escapes the S antibodies, and manages to break through the mucosal system protection, you will have no antibody coverage if you didn't produce N antibodies and the S antibodies are no longer helpful. Or worse, if the S antibodies are enhancing.
So in summary, for people infected post vaccination, and then challenged again:
1. many people will stop the infection in the mucosal system (if their immunity from the first infection is sterilizing)
2. if the infection takes hold anyway, you are relying on only S abs for protection
3. a variant that escapes neutralizing S abs, and possibly is enhanced by other binding S abs, would not be attenuated by the N abs that would usually be present in unvaccinated convalescents. this could be a real bad problem
Another interesting question I'd love to know the answer to: Does vaccination of a convelescent REMOVE their N antibody protection?
This would be consistent with the idea that the shots may be initially sterilizing, but perhaps that the immunity fades as the antibodies fade over time. It is very difficult to quantify the protective effect of the shots given the public data we have - we see ample evidence of "breakthrough infections" but it's rarely easy to find out how long ago the shots were given. It's also hard to quantify whether there were asymptomatic infections that went unnoticed.
Actually it occurs to me the UK data might be able to provide some insight here due to their rapid vaccine rollout in age tranches.. matching that up to infections broken out by age. Eyeballing this question it seems plausible if you look at the case rate increases being reported weekly, and how they march weekly from older to younger age groups.
All this could have been determined in the phase 3 trials, but it seems the trials were (probably intentionally) not designed to answer these questions - the participants were not frequently tested and only serious symptomatic cases were documented.
Add to this the confounding fact of Delta being apparently more virulent in the mucosal system, which had not spread widely at the time of the trials. Though even this might be more related to Delta's escape of the vaccine induced NTD abs.
I wondered that, too. I know that the S protein adopts multiple conformations depending on exactly where it is and what it's doing. Those conformations have been important to the creation of mAbs for therapy (like the now useless bamlan). I haven't to this point seen anyone investigate the difference between the polyclonal antibodies that bind to the spike protein on virions and those that would bind the protein when it is expressed on a cell surface or on an extracellular vesicle. However, there are experts on spike protein conformations, like Jason McClellan, who just put out this paper on expression and characterization of Spike proteins https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34611365/
Also, when a "real" virus has taken over a cell to do its procreation thing, the entire virus gets assembled (actually a whole bunch of them!) Precisely how and when they appear outside or on the surface of the factory cell, I am unsure. Pretty sure each virus has to leave the cell fully assembled, though.
That’s the process for training the immune system with the mRNA vax, but the statement is “[the S antibodies] are responsive to the effects of the *virus* once it infects cells and causes them to express the S protein on their surface.”
Antibodies are supposed to prevent the virus from entering a cell. Once in the cell T-bodies are supposed to see he abnormality and kill the cell creating inflammation.
Ok well somebody at the UK Health Organization thought to test N Antibody levels. Who was that? Can they be tracked down and get an interview with this doctor about what prompted them to do that and what they think of the findings? Can someone file an FOIA style request for the actual raw data and also see for how many weeks has this been done now?
i would guess probably not. (but it's hard to say)
order matters here. if you already have b cells for S and for N antibodies, then the vaccine seems like it would not eliminate the N, but i'm not sure it has been studied.
My take would be of course your not screwed. The immunologists don't even have clear understanding of how the innate and adaptive systems work despite their cocky tinkering and one sided inventions. The body, is built to adapt, evolve and survive. Stay as proactively healthy as you can, get outside often and try not to get caught up in the stress of all the c19.
Figure 6 and Figure 7 on page 25 might suggest that you're better off than those who were vaxxed and then became infected. Compare the 30-39 and 40-49 age groups in both figures. Those who were seropositive for N antibodies when they donated blood have much higher S antibodies. It blows the vaxx immunity is better argument out of the water. While we can't know who was vaxxed and who was not, the UK is highly vaxxed. IMO, many of the people represented in Figure 7 data must have been vaxxed. There doesn't seem to be evidence of impairment to the S antibody. Of course, it would be better if people studied this question.
My stepmom got Covid last November 2020(serious case for 3 weeks), got vaccinated in August 2021. Just shy of 2 weeks post-second dose, she got Covid again.
While I have no data on this, I can say the only people I know that have had Covid 2x had it and then were vaccinated. But, every time it was they were naturally immune, got the first shot, got covid.
Let me get this straight: Not only the mRNA-vaccine gives you your own cute little spike protein poison factory but even the immune response learned from the fighting against that spiky protein factory is an old trick pony and worthless against new mutants! That is just ace! Do I even get a free T-shirt?!
Reason 1,753,890 that shit is getting nowhere near me.
I read his post, thanks for taking it deeper, very concerning.
Rush in and mess with nature you might get some Fauci’d on your face
LOL that's grosser than poop!!
Ain't it interesting that China does not use "One Trick Pony" vaccines that only create "immunity" to the S-protein? China only uses inactivated virus vaccines. These are supposedly less effective, but I bet they prime the immune system to recognize the N protein too, and perhaps others as well.
Now what happens in places where most people only have S-protein immunity when the S-protein changes enough to escape that immunity? Remember, the S-protein is what's constantly changing with these "variants", while the N-protein is much more stable...
I believe the whole virus coronavirus vaccines attempted in the past were associated with ADE.
I'm still a bit in the dark about all that ADE stuff...
This article by Dr. Doug Corrigan explains it well.
https://sciencewithdrdoug.com/2020/08/01/is-a-coronavirus-vaccine-a-ticking-time-bomb/
Excellent! Thanks for sharing. Seems ADE & OAS are leading contenders for what's driving the vaccinated to have worse outcomes.
Valneva has an inactivated whole virus vaccine which will not cause disease. It is based on the same (traditional) technology like the flu vaccine. I expect the side effects to be minimal too. The clinical trail is going well and shows high VE. Hopefully it will be widely available for general population within months.
Novavax uses the same tech.. ie inactive virus
Novavax is a protein vaxx. It does not use the whole virus.
Exactly and I want an inactivated whole-virus vax if I get one
No options in the US or Europe at this time.
Right - watching and waiting
Thanks. I'm interested in inactivated virus vaccines, and wasn't aware of this. Why do I feel like the FDA has become such a big-pharma puppet that eventual approval here will be unlikely no matter what? Still hopeful.
Where?
The more time that passes and the deeper one looks during that passage of time, the more the vaccines looks like, well, in scientific terms, complete clusterf*cks. Of course, when one mandates, via mass vaccination, a vaccine based upon a technology that has never been successfully used before, and that has only been half-ass tested for a few months, this cannot be a surprise, correct? To quote one of my role models, John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!" At least those Moderna dudes broke into the Forbes 400. Yahtzee!
Yeah... And there seems to be a newer dis-information assault about the mRNA tech... Something about it having been around a decade or so... Do you know about that? I think I remember reading that it was being tested for around a decade or so?
Yes, many prior attempts. As people below note, there have been many trials but scrapped due to disappointing results. Isn't it wonderful that Moderna (and others) hit upon the perfect solution, got all the bugs out, just in time for the start of the Pandemic, and despite many prior failures, managed to produce a "safe and effective" mRNA "vaccine" only requiring several weeks' testing with test subjects selected for their health? 🤣
I have only a superficial knowledge of the prior products*, but one worrisome aspect they had (e.g. the anti-cancer mRNA products) was that with repeated doses they quickly wore down the patient's immune system. Are we going to see the same problems with what may become bi-annual boosters? 😟
*This is an educated way of saying "I'm talking out my ass here, but..." 😉
When your looking down the barrel of cancer you'll take your chances
To be clear, intended to convey that the technology had never been successfully used for this purpose, which is different than how long it had been on the drawing board. It had certainly never been approved, although one might argue if approval *automatically* means it accomplishes the intended or stated goal.
It was used. On animals. Unsuccessfully.
So...same as now.
I can see that they are going to attempt to use the current shitshow as "proof" that the technology is safe and effective.
There is no doubt--absolutely NONE--that they will make that attempt. They will, in all likelihood, succeed too.
There was a video clip going around from before the scamdemic. Fauci and some other discussing vaccines and how the current versions at the time needed to be grown in eggs and took too long. They needed a disruptive event to fast track the mRNA tech. And lo and behold, they got it.
Might as well get this off my chest, since you have opened the box... Dr. Fauci is an evil piece of shit. Kary Mullis described him as a person who didn't know anything about anything. I have little doubt that is true. However, he is absolutely world-class at using bureaucracy and politics for self-aggrandizement and enrichment.
It was being tested for delivery of therapeutic drugs, such as for cancer. I don't think any of them were approved.
Most of us here still don't approve of them! 😺
I don't think so either...
There have been some studies done already on this (some published in April 2021),
so any serious public health official should have been at least aware about the
possibility. Since no authority raised a concern about vaccinating recovered,
you wonder what's really going on.
1. "SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Response in Persons with Past Natural Infection"
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2103825
2. "Neutralizing Antibody Response of Vaccinees to SARS-CoV-2 Variants"
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/5/517
3. "Limited protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and virus transmission after mRNA vaccination"
https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(21)00320-0/fulltext
Just like with so many other SARS-CoV-2 studies and papers, one needs to be careful
with conclusions.
Good observation that this OAS also ties into questions of ADE. My biggest concern is that anyone trying to publish on this will have a hard time because of the political need to make the vaccines into holy saviors. I don't know if we will ever get the truth at this point, but nice to see that some things can still get published and those of us with the literacy to read these things will ask the hard questions.
It's a complex subject to begin with even when you try to do honest research.
And now you add the extra pressure for the experiment/study to go certain way...
There are two questions:
Does vaxx following natural infection damage the humoral immunity created by infection?
Does vaxx before breakthrough infection impair the formation of humoral immunity?
> Does vaxx following natural infection damage the humoral immunity created by
> infection?
Based on papers I have read, it appears that vaccination doesn't reduce natural immunity. The Rockefeller U paper hints a vaccine is essentially a booster.
That said, I haven't seen a compelling argument why you would take
a vaccine booster (following natural infection), because you can get "booster"
just by living daily live (and be exposed to virus in the wild).
Well, you take a booster *after* natural infection for much the same reason that ignited this dumpster fire initially, because Pfizer said so. #Rimshot
One recent paper in Nature discusses some of these issues:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04060-7
The paper raises discusses antibodies and B (memory) cells obtained via natural infection and vaccines. And the conclusion regarding boosters is interesting.
It confirms a lot of concerns discussed here before.
Don't know if these are of any relevance-
"Previous COVID-19 infection but not Long-COVID is associated with increased adverse events following BNT162b2/Pfizer vaccination" https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.15.21252192v1
"Safety and humoral responses to BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination of SARS-CoV-2 previously infected and naive populations" Safety and humoral responses to BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination of SARS-CoV-2 previously infected and naive populations" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-96129-6
"Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections" https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1
"Vaccine side-effects and SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination in users of the COVID Symptom Study app in the UK: a prospective observational study" https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00224-3/fulltext
Karl Denninger also called this out by reading between the lines in the prior report. His analysis: https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=243905
Excellent labeling of the graph.
It's since moved to: https://market-ticker.org/post=243976
I recommend revisiting Del Bigtree's first report on the warnings of Geert Vanden Bossche. It sounds to me as if this phenomenon is similar to what the virologist was sounding the alarm about back in March.
https://thehighwire.com/videos/a-coming-covid-catastrophe/
I keep thinking that too. Mr. VB (I think of that meaning 'virus buster'!! He forecasted this.
Based on a comprehensive review of "original antigenic sin" (source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28479213/), I think the problem is that
we have vaccinated with the original (Wuhan) strain. The virus has now
mutated (Alpha, Delta, whatever), but the antibodies for the original virus are
recalled when body encounters the virus (either original or any variant).
But as I mentioned in another reply, if natural infection occurred before
vaccination, it's not so clear if this applies (since you had the real thing before
outdated strain vaccine was applied).
The "original antigenic sin" is also one of the reasons why repeated vaccination for flu
doesn't produce desired effect (and it actually blunts effectiveness):
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28479213/
(and therefore may also be a reason why boosters will just have the opposite
effect in the long run).
...excellent explanation! Kudos.
I'm really appreciating your perspective and offers of that with links.... Some of the articles by el gato and Alex B are more alarming but leave me without direction. So please keep it up!
It's often hard to cut through the fog data, papers/reports. But true science has
always been a very messy business and hopefully we'll be able to get a better
understanding and right the ship. Hang in there.
i am vaxxed, i continue to take quercetin, zinc, lots vit d and c. a friend recommends chaga mushroom tea for others who have been vacced to cleanse.
in God we trust, vaxxes are suspect.
keep your immune system healthy!
If in God you trust, and if vaccines are suspect, why do you then take them?
Why not just live in the body you have as it is. Take all the good stuff (CoQ10, Zn, Vits C & D etc) and remain unvaccinated. Then you can remain true to yourself.
when the observed data imposes a change of conclusion i changed my mind.
a lot of it is losing trust in the management running the usa.
Ahhhhh, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Enjoy your vitamins! :-)
I've heard pine needle tea as well.
Why did you get the shot? You didn't mention melatonin, which I take as well.
We've reached the absurd and tragic point where someone who is forced to get the vaccine *may* be better off going out and exposing themselves to the actual COVID virus a few weeks before the forced jab.
I'm not advocating that, as there are all sorts of variables in play. But it is apparent that such an action *could* be a good idea for *some* people. But the fact that it's worth considering getting the disease on purpose to avoid suffering worse harm from the cure speaks volumes concerning the level of insanity and evil we have descended to.
Fortunately I'm not a prime candidate to be "forced" to take the jab (short of further dystopian changes in my government...). No matter, my biggest worry for the mRNA jabs are not their intended effect (produce S-protein) rather the nasty side effects, some already known and who knows what long-term? The more I read, the less I can see why any sane person would take the risk.
I found egyppius description of OAS easier to comprehend;
"…Original Antigenic Sin — the phenomenon, long observed in the antibody response to influenza infections, that initial exposure to a pathogen (or a spike protein) shapes all subsequent immune responses to mutated, recombined or reassorted instances of that pathogen"
-Fun seeing my favourite. substackers cross referencing one another.!
This is known as "fixes that fail", and anyone worth their salt knows that intervening in a complex adaptive system is fraught with these challenges and treads very carefully. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixes_that_fail
"the S antibodies trained by the vaccines are not responsive to the virus. they are responsive to the effects of the virus once it infects cells and causes them to express the S protein on their surface."
Wait, I don't think that's right. The spike proteins are initially on the surface of the virus envelope, and are what allow the thing to attach to cells.
*I believe that he IS wrong about that.*
The S protein is a prominent feature on the surface of the virus (the little poky out things in the pictures called "spikes"), that binds to the ACE2 receptor on a host cell and then folds down to shove the virion against the cell membrane to fuse.
The vaccines target S specifically because they thought that it would (a) tend to block binding by getting in the way and (b) the spike needs to efficiently bind to ACE2 so maybe the spike tends to be conserved (at least the RBD or receptor binding domain). And, at least (a) is generally true, and the reason that vaccines work at all.
This doesn't explain why the vaccine is non-sterilizing. The theory is that has to do with not stopping replication in the mucosal system, which may be a fundamental flaw in the vaccine design (producing only antibodies in the blood).
It means that people infected post vaccination will not have as complete antibody coverage as people who were not vaccinated, and may be more susceptible to variants that better escape the S protein coverage.
It's not clear though, whether this means that a person infected post vaccination will actually be more likely to get infected again. Infection produces a much broader response than vaccination itself, which only produces antibodies. Whatever produces sterility in the mucosal system probably also works post vaccination.
The problem arises if you have a variant that escapes the S antibodies, and manages to break through the mucosal system protection, you will have no antibody coverage if you didn't produce N antibodies and the S antibodies are no longer helpful. Or worse, if the S antibodies are enhancing.
So in summary, for people infected post vaccination, and then challenged again:
1. many people will stop the infection in the mucosal system (if their immunity from the first infection is sterilizing)
2. if the infection takes hold anyway, you are relying on only S abs for protection
3. a variant that escapes neutralizing S abs, and possibly is enhanced by other binding S abs, would not be attenuated by the N abs that would usually be present in unvaccinated convalescents. this could be a real bad problem
Another interesting question I'd love to know the answer to: Does vaccination of a convelescent REMOVE their N antibody protection?
It appears that Pfizer at least does create mucosal neutralizing antibodies; whether they play by the same rules as systemic do as far as OAS goes, I don't know. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2021.744887/full
Thanks for the reference!
This would be consistent with the idea that the shots may be initially sterilizing, but perhaps that the immunity fades as the antibodies fade over time. It is very difficult to quantify the protective effect of the shots given the public data we have - we see ample evidence of "breakthrough infections" but it's rarely easy to find out how long ago the shots were given. It's also hard to quantify whether there were asymptomatic infections that went unnoticed.
Actually it occurs to me the UK data might be able to provide some insight here due to their rapid vaccine rollout in age tranches.. matching that up to infections broken out by age. Eyeballing this question it seems plausible if you look at the case rate increases being reported weekly, and how they march weekly from older to younger age groups.
All this could have been determined in the phase 3 trials, but it seems the trials were (probably intentionally) not designed to answer these questions - the participants were not frequently tested and only serious symptomatic cases were documented.
Add to this the confounding fact of Delta being apparently more virulent in the mucosal system, which had not spread widely at the time of the trials. Though even this might be more related to Delta's escape of the vaccine induced NTD abs.
BTW excellent new article on OAS here
https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/more-on-original-antigenic-sin-and
excellent explanation, thank you.
I wondered that, too. I know that the S protein adopts multiple conformations depending on exactly where it is and what it's doing. Those conformations have been important to the creation of mAbs for therapy (like the now useless bamlan). I haven't to this point seen anyone investigate the difference between the polyclonal antibodies that bind to the spike protein on virions and those that would bind the protein when it is expressed on a cell surface or on an extracellular vesicle. However, there are experts on spike protein conformations, like Jason McClellan, who just put out this paper on expression and characterization of Spike proteins https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34611365/
Totally over my head, this part...
but I love it anyway
Also, when a "real" virus has taken over a cell to do its procreation thing, the entire virus gets assembled (actually a whole bunch of them!) Precisely how and when they appear outside or on the surface of the factory cell, I am unsure. Pretty sure each virus has to leave the cell fully assembled, though.
That’s the process for training the immune system with the mRNA vax, but the statement is “[the S antibodies] are responsive to the effects of the *virus* once it infects cells and causes them to express the S protein on their surface.”
I don’t think this even happens?
Antibodies are supposed to prevent the virus from entering a cell. Once in the cell T-bodies are supposed to see he abnormality and kill the cell creating inflammation.
Ok well somebody at the UK Health Organization thought to test N Antibody levels. Who was that? Can they be tracked down and get an interview with this doctor about what prompted them to do that and what they think of the findings? Can someone file an FOIA style request for the actual raw data and also see for how many weeks has this been done now?
Great idea, who would be able and willing to do that?
What happens to people that had Covid first and then got vaccinated?
Exactly. I had COVID in January & got the J&J in August. I am screwed?
i would guess probably not. (but it's hard to say)
order matters here. if you already have b cells for S and for N antibodies, then the vaccine seems like it would not eliminate the N, but i'm not sure it has been studied.
My take would be of course your not screwed. The immunologists don't even have clear understanding of how the innate and adaptive systems work despite their cocky tinkering and one sided inventions. The body, is built to adapt, evolve and survive. Stay as proactively healthy as you can, get outside often and try not to get caught up in the stress of all the c19.
Figure 6 and Figure 7 on page 25 might suggest that you're better off than those who were vaxxed and then became infected. Compare the 30-39 and 40-49 age groups in both figures. Those who were seropositive for N antibodies when they donated blood have much higher S antibodies. It blows the vaxx immunity is better argument out of the water. While we can't know who was vaxxed and who was not, the UK is highly vaxxed. IMO, many of the people represented in Figure 7 data must have been vaxxed. There doesn't seem to be evidence of impairment to the S antibody. Of course, it would be better if people studied this question.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1027511/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-42.pdf
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/10/COVID-19-weekly-announced-vaccinations-14-October-2021.pdf
That's what all the comments above do seem to say...
My stepmom got Covid last November 2020(serious case for 3 weeks), got vaccinated in August 2021. Just shy of 2 weeks post-second dose, she got Covid again.
So we know that it doesn't prevent, and anecdotally I read this happening (after shot, reinfection). How's your stepmom? I hope well.
It took her about a week to recover the second time but she’s good now.
Half of my family is on that boat. Hopefully, your body uses the natural immunity.
Based on current understanding, getting a vaccine *after* natural infection doesn't have negative effect. It's essentially a booster.
While I have no data on this, I can say the only people I know that have had Covid 2x had it and then were vaccinated. But, every time it was they were naturally immune, got the first shot, got covid.
Let me get this straight: Not only the mRNA-vaccine gives you your own cute little spike protein poison factory but even the immune response learned from the fighting against that spiky protein factory is an old trick pony and worthless against new mutants! That is just ace! Do I even get a free T-shirt?!