So practical info: Someone decides to get into a convo about how PPL who have recovered from COVID do not have good immunity after because they lack antibodies, Ask them if they want their bodies to be in attack mode exhausting itself from a non existent predator and have to get re-injected constantly to have those antibodies (that do nothing until Covid hits). or do they want T cell immunity that lasts at least 15 years. MERS/ARS bone marrow testing for T cells and found those that contracted it 15 years ago still have those t-cells (t cells are what matter).
CUZZZZ dopes believe antibodies are the good sorta bomb. Best acquaint them with a truth bomb. They will sit there with a blank stare, but they will shut up. And that my friends is a win.
Hi Gato, Great post as always but I have to take issue with one part of your analysis: You say that the study shows -
"having had covid and then getting vaccinated makes you MUCH less likely to get covid in the future."
Actually, it shows "that having covid and then getting vaccinated can mean you are :
1. one of 9899 persons (Pfizer) and 4316 (Moderna)
who will get covid again quickly, even before you get to your second dose.
2. you will be one of 9624 (Pfizer) or 5027 (Moderna)
participants who'll have covid positive antibodies quickly after your first dose (suggesting latent re-infection),
3. you can be one 21 (Pfizer) or 10 (Moderna)
dead 'before the start of follow up'
4. or be one of 8 (Pfizer)/1(Moderna) who "had no ascertained death date"
5. Or be the lucky ones who who made it through the purifying selection to be considered for breakthrough re-infection study.
6. " This makes you MUCH less likely to get covid in the future."
7. But if you do get re-infected, you'd have the pleasure of being in a cohort with re-infection case fatality rate of 5-15% across vaccine arms.
8. But you were lucky to get the safe and effective vaccine that allowed you to be one of the lucky lucky breakthroughs in the cohort of ~130. 15000 of your competitors were left out as they got reinfected at dose 1 and another 15000 with latent covid. Lucky You!"
I think this is really really disgusting what they are doing by focusing attention on the 150 reinfections (not controlled or adjusted for ) and ignoring the fact that about 30,000 people who had an infection before were RE-INFECTED within a short span of a dose. The total that were dead or dropped dead without a date is 3.5x higher than the ones who made it to the follow up stage.
So we are misleading people who were infected before or might be infected right now, by telling them they are much less likely to be re-infected if they were vaccinated. That's just not true. That's not what any study has ever shown. Every single one that I've seen has people who were infected before have worse outcomes after getting vaccinated. Pfizer's double blind trial included. https://almostwrong.substack.com/p/what-if-the-negative-105-vaccine
The truth is, they've used their marketing and terminology to fool everyone into focusing on a narrow definition they invented called "Breakthrough". Yes, one could say that using a very strict definition of a breakthrough case where a cabal of experts update the meaning of the word "vaccinated" every week with additional doses, gaps, subjective takes on when one is "fully protected"...you are less likely to get Covid after vaccine. That's no different than saying, " Real Covid is the best booster, you won't get re-infected" while ignoring all the people who died.
If only we could come up with something as clever as a "breakthrough", but analogue to the moment in time thats most pertinent to pandemic and personal safety : The days right after you are exposed to the Covid Vaccine. We need to come up with an informative and catchy name for this period because it's the most decisive period of the intervention. People live or die, get infected or reinfected, shed variants at record rates in the first week of a vaccine. Mass vaccinations create mini-outbreaks that sustain itself if enough of the pathogenic variants reach the newly vaccinated or unvaccinated.
Just as they have the mantra about 2+ 14 days, we should have our own that focuses on this period 0-10 DPI (days post injection).
Call it sentinel case, call it enhanced acquisition phase, call it Depleted zone, call it variant shedding and selection phase, ultra vulnerable phase, Early vaccine breakthrough, vaccine failure. Call it something. The problem is we DON'T have a name and they do.
I prefer "Re-activation" case because it's my guess about most of the infections in the first 3-5 days. It's the precipitation of a latent asymptomatic infection that occurred only because someone fiddled with the immune system enough to wipe out the benign variants instantly and give the resistant pathogenic strains inside reservoirs a free run.
Completely off the topic, but .... I have seen no discussion of the branch covidian approval of "mix and match" boosters. I understand that they have no apparent interest in comparing the vaxxes but should some interest develop in the future this will make it very difficult if not impossible.
Mess indeed. These wild cats published a free publicity piece for big Pharma. Absolutely no value. I’m willing to bet the conclusion was…(cat long yawn and stretch) more people need to be vaccinated…
Many thanks for this breakdown, much appreciated. Is it one being used for the ‘already have natural immunity? Well still take a couple if shots as that’s even better ‘cos here’s a study….(for the short term) ….?
I can see the study's value to the powers that be: an argument that you should still get vaccinated even if you had a prior infection.
Personally, I'm interested in the opposite question. Having been (reluctantly) vaccinated last spring, I'm wondering if I should be hanging out in bars or going to movies, to acquire a natural booster. No way am I getting a booster shot.
If things go awry, we might be using vaccine status as a proxy for comorbidites soon.
So practical info: Someone decides to get into a convo about how PPL who have recovered from COVID do not have good immunity after because they lack antibodies, Ask them if they want their bodies to be in attack mode exhausting itself from a non existent predator and have to get re-injected constantly to have those antibodies (that do nothing until Covid hits). or do they want T cell immunity that lasts at least 15 years. MERS/ARS bone marrow testing for T cells and found those that contracted it 15 years ago still have those t-cells (t cells are what matter).
CUZZZZ dopes believe antibodies are the good sorta bomb. Best acquaint them with a truth bomb. They will sit there with a blank stare, but they will shut up. And that my friends is a win.
This and that one from the CDC. Why, oh why, does it seem like they are pushing the vaccines especially hard to the naturally immune lately?
Could it be because Dr. Kheriaty and similar cases are challenging them into desperation?
Hi Gato, Great post as always but I have to take issue with one part of your analysis: You say that the study shows -
"having had covid and then getting vaccinated makes you MUCH less likely to get covid in the future."
Actually, it shows "that having covid and then getting vaccinated can mean you are :
1. one of 9899 persons (Pfizer) and 4316 (Moderna)
who will get covid again quickly, even before you get to your second dose.
2. you will be one of 9624 (Pfizer) or 5027 (Moderna)
participants who'll have covid positive antibodies quickly after your first dose (suggesting latent re-infection),
3. you can be one 21 (Pfizer) or 10 (Moderna)
dead 'before the start of follow up'
4. or be one of 8 (Pfizer)/1(Moderna) who "had no ascertained death date"
5. Or be the lucky ones who who made it through the purifying selection to be considered for breakthrough re-infection study.
6. " This makes you MUCH less likely to get covid in the future."
7. But if you do get re-infected, you'd have the pleasure of being in a cohort with re-infection case fatality rate of 5-15% across vaccine arms.
8. But you were lucky to get the safe and effective vaccine that allowed you to be one of the lucky lucky breakthroughs in the cohort of ~130. 15000 of your competitors were left out as they got reinfected at dose 1 and another 15000 with latent covid. Lucky You!"
I think this is really really disgusting what they are doing by focusing attention on the 150 reinfections (not controlled or adjusted for ) and ignoring the fact that about 30,000 people who had an infection before were RE-INFECTED within a short span of a dose. The total that were dead or dropped dead without a date is 3.5x higher than the ones who made it to the follow up stage.
So we are misleading people who were infected before or might be infected right now, by telling them they are much less likely to be re-infected if they were vaccinated. That's just not true. That's not what any study has ever shown. Every single one that I've seen has people who were infected before have worse outcomes after getting vaccinated. Pfizer's double blind trial included. https://almostwrong.substack.com/p/what-if-the-negative-105-vaccine
The truth is, they've used their marketing and terminology to fool everyone into focusing on a narrow definition they invented called "Breakthrough". Yes, one could say that using a very strict definition of a breakthrough case where a cabal of experts update the meaning of the word "vaccinated" every week with additional doses, gaps, subjective takes on when one is "fully protected"...you are less likely to get Covid after vaccine. That's no different than saying, " Real Covid is the best booster, you won't get re-infected" while ignoring all the people who died.
If only we could come up with something as clever as a "breakthrough", but analogue to the moment in time thats most pertinent to pandemic and personal safety : The days right after you are exposed to the Covid Vaccine. We need to come up with an informative and catchy name for this period because it's the most decisive period of the intervention. People live or die, get infected or reinfected, shed variants at record rates in the first week of a vaccine. Mass vaccinations create mini-outbreaks that sustain itself if enough of the pathogenic variants reach the newly vaccinated or unvaccinated.
Just as they have the mantra about 2+ 14 days, we should have our own that focuses on this period 0-10 DPI (days post injection).
Call it sentinel case, call it enhanced acquisition phase, call it Depleted zone, call it variant shedding and selection phase, ultra vulnerable phase, Early vaccine breakthrough, vaccine failure. Call it something. The problem is we DON'T have a name and they do.
I prefer "Re-activation" case because it's my guess about most of the infections in the first 3-5 days. It's the precipitation of a latent asymptomatic infection that occurred only because someone fiddled with the immune system enough to wipe out the benign variants instantly and give the resistant pathogenic strains inside reservoirs a free run.
It's getting play because it can be contorted with very little effort to say what everyone involved wants it to say.
"God-Emperor Super Great, Studies Show"
Do you suppose they get 'brownie points' from the vaccine makers to do studies like this?
I had no idea the Qatari are so unhealthy!
Completely off the topic, but .... I have seen no discussion of the branch covidian approval of "mix and match" boosters. I understand that they have no apparent interest in comparing the vaxxes but should some interest develop in the future this will make it very difficult if not impossible.
Thanks cat. I really appreciate a window of sanity amongst the darkness of madness.
Thanks for this heads-up! To cross-polinate the substacks (promise to stop it now!), here’s what helps breakthroughs right off the bat:
https://live2fightanotherday.substack.com/p/falling-into-place-like-dominoes
Seen some Twitter blue ticks claiming to be doctors comment on this study as ultimate proof of vaccine efficacy... *le sigh*
Mess indeed. These wild cats published a free publicity piece for big Pharma. Absolutely no value. I’m willing to bet the conclusion was…(cat long yawn and stretch) more people need to be vaccinated…
Many thanks for this breakdown, much appreciated. Is it one being used for the ‘already have natural immunity? Well still take a couple if shots as that’s even better ‘cos here’s a study….(for the short term) ….?
The study is how the disembodied masturbate.
But I saw a news headline today that said the vax is four times better than natural immunity! Four Times!!!!!
I can see the study's value to the powers that be: an argument that you should still get vaccinated even if you had a prior infection.
Personally, I'm interested in the opposite question. Having been (reluctantly) vaccinated last spring, I'm wondering if I should be hanging out in bars or going to movies, to acquire a natural booster. No way am I getting a booster shot.