Researchers already knew that many vaccinated people do not gain antibodies to the entire coronavirus after they are infected with Covid.
Unvaccinated people nearly always gain antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, which covers the virus’s core of RNA, as well as its spike protein, which allows the virus to attack our cells. Vaccinated people often lack those anti-nucleocapsid antibodies and only have spike protein antibodies.
The researchers examined the development of anti-nucleocapsid antibodies in people who had been part of Moderna’s clinical trial and were infected with Covid. As they expected, the scientists found that the vaccinated people were far less likely to develop the anti-nucleocapsid antibodies. Only 40 percent of people who received the shots had antibodies, compared to 93 percent of those who did not.
But they then went a step further. Because the infected people had been in the trial, their viral loads had been precisely measured when they were found to have Covid. So the researchers were able to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated people who had the same amounts of virus in their blood.
Once again, they found that unvaccinated people were far more likely to develop anti-nucleocapsid antibodies than the jabbed. An unvaccinated person with a mild infection had a 71 percent chance of mounting an immune response that included those antibodies. A vaccinated person had about a 15 percent chance.
The chart that should worry the vaccinated: the yellow line shows the odds that an unvaccinated person will develop anti-nucleocapsid antibodies to Sars-Cov-2, stratified by viral load. The blue line shows the same odds for a person who received an mRNA shot.
An unvaccinated person has an almost 60 percent chance of developing antibodies even with an extremely mild infection; a vaccinated person needs almost 100,000 times as much virus in his blood to have the same chance.
Plus:
Possible mechanism behind mysterious COVID-19 symptoms
(1) https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/covid-19-vaccines-kids-under-5-paul-offit-md
ReplyDeleteDr. Offit expects full approval of a Covid19 vaccine for children 6mo to 5yo by mid-June to early-July. "So that's the good news?" Offit is asked by Unger. "Yes," he replies.
Later, the interview between the two upper echelon physicians goes along these lines,
"Dr. Offit: Well, this is the fastest vaccine ever made. I mean, the virus was isolated and sequenced in January of 2020 and 11 months later, we'd completed two large clinical trials. Pfizer, 40,000, Moderna, 30,000. You can't make a vaccine faster than that. I mean, you do have to go through a series of stages. The hardest for young children is the phase one stage, which is to say dose and dose-ranging. You have to figure out what dose to give, what interval of dose between doses and how many doses to give. And so you need to because you want to make sure you're getting a consistent, high level of neutralizing antibodies that you think is going to be associated with protection against illness.
"I think the biggest challenge here is going to be to remember, that the vaccines that are being given, whether it's Pfizer or Moderna are against that original strain, the original recipe vaccine, if you will, against the ancestral strain. But these studies are being done when Omicron and BA.2 are circulating and protection at least against mild disease with the ancestral strain is not as good with those variants. And you already saw that with the Moderna trial, where you've looked at top-line data where sort of for the six months to two-year-old child protective efficacy was around 51%. For the three, four and five-year-old child, protective efficacy was 37% against mild illness. Now, the good news is that when you look, for example, at the five to 11-year-old child, I mean there, the study was done when Delta was predominant. That vaccine was 91% effective against mild illness but when it got out there and it's been out there since early November and now Omicron is the most common. And then BA.2 is the most common and these sub variants of BA.2 are common.
"The efficacy definitely dropped off against mild disease but was still good against serious illness. You would have to assume that what you're seeing then with these less than six-year-old data where protective efficacy is likely not to be as good against mild illness that it would also be highly protective against serious illness because that's been the story. I mean, ever since the first variant came out of China, the so-called D614G strain that was replaced by Alpha, that was replaced by Delta. That's now replaced Omicron ... I mean the Omicron, the line that was crossed with Omicron is it's more immune evasive and that's for mild illness. But those original vaccines have always been protective against serious illness, which is really the goal of these vaccines.
"Unger: And you kind of just outlined, I guess, what I would consider the complication set. One is there's a lot of different regimens to test right now. And then you're doing that in a shifting environment where you've got new variants. Is there any other kind of complicating factor? Are those pretty much the main features there?
Dr. Offit: Well, you're right. I mean, it's like you're building the plane while it's still in the air. And I think you do learn as you go, I mean, there's invariably a human price paid for knowledge. That's true for any medical innovation ever."
This is the sort of thing giving me the chronic sense I need professional psychiatric help.
ReplyDeleteHow could I be so pretentious as to believe I know better than either of these two eminent physicians with proven track records, in positions of real authority?
"Is there any other kind of complicating factor?"
Offit does not specifically answer this question by giving detailed answers about any of the other complicating factors out there even I would be able to touch upon. Instead, he makes the, for me shocking, admission,
"Well, you're right. I mean, it's like you're building the plane while it's still in the air. And I think you do learn as you go, I mean, there's invariably a human price paid for knowledge. That's true for any medical innovation ever."
For me, this is Offit confessing he is functioning in pure crisis mode and not thinking very clearly. I read it as a statement only a hysteric would make.
You can't build a plane while it is in the air. It would be pure madness to take off in a plane only partially built, if you could even get a partially-built plane off the ground in the first place.
I do understand this plane analogy is only a manner of speaking, an intended analogy and thus not meant to be taken literally. However, if you take off in a partially-built plane, before you've taken off you have to consider-- at least consider-- the plane may crash. If the plane crashes, it may very well cause more damage and death than if more time had been spent on the ground getting it ready for flight.
In other words, "Do no harm." The Hippocratic oath.
I also understand there are always difficult questions and trade-offs between acting very quickly within a condition of uncertainty, and potentially wasting valuable time to collect more information, to reduce the uncertainty, as people suffer and die.
Have these eminent physicians truly weighed reward/ risk? Remember: we're talking about vaccinating 6mo to 5yo children. How do I, some weird demented autodidact calculate that risk?
Reward? None. I say none because there's no evidence this age group is seriously endangered by Covid19 infection. (Do you agree? Are we idiots or fools for believing children are not endangered? Is that misinformation we've gullibly swallowed-- or does all data indicate the truth of this? If the latter, how can these M.D.'s high in the chain of command not know?)
Risk? Potentially immense. I am personally very close to dropping the "potentially" part of that. There are good reasons for predicting the immature immune systems of children will be disrupted and function at less than the capacity they would function WITHOUT vaccination. For the whole life of these children! Eventually a so-called "variant" is going to come along with a high IFR, and wham.
Thus, as I see it, the reward/risk doesn't pencil out-- At all. I need a whiskey. I will go for a long walk instead.
"And I think you do learn as you go, I mean, there's invariably a human price paid for knowledge. That's true for any medical innovation ever."
ReplyDeleteYou learn through controlled clinical trials. You don't learn by turning the human population of planet earth into lab rats. There's a human price paid for knowledge, yeah. There are also human prices excessive to knowledge gained. That's codified:
"Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code#:~:text=Proper%20preparations%20should%20be%20made,only%20by%20scientifically%20qualified%20persons.
God help us.
Is the whole human race about to participate in a trial of Bill Gates's next money spinner, an experimental monkeypox vaccine?
DeleteI thought you were joking about the "monkeypox" bit.
DeleteHuman Guinea Pigs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Henry_Pappworth
"The publication of Human Guinea Pigs, which examined unethical medical research practices, exposed the subject to a wider audience and led to Pappworth's becoming persona non grata within the medical establishment for much of his career, but ultimately helped lead to stricter codes of practice for human experimentation."
Pappworth's book was published in 1967, not 1937.
The problem, as I see it, are the ethical practices of the medical community. Physicians and hospitals are by and large unquestioned, examined, or investigated, but simply assumed to be impeccable. They aren't.
Medical doctors have more accountability than lawyers, but not by a whole lot. It is a problem of accountability. The reason medical doctors are more accountable than lawyers is because medical doctors can be called into account by lawyers, but lawyers are only called into account by other lawyers. (There is often a large financial incentive for lawyers to call medical doctors to account, too.)
It took longer for Bill Gates to get legal immunity for his vaccine than it did for pharma to put the final touches on the experimental vaccine. Bill has the legal immunity to use the human race as guinea pigs. It will be as if Pappworth and the Nuremberg Code per permissible medical experiments never existed.
Apparently monkey pox is not highly contagious. It will be interesting, therefore, to see if the current outbreaks nevertheless lead to a pandemic. If so, we can be sure the virus has, like Covid, been weaponized.
DeleteThe book looks worth reading. What particularly interested me was naming the spike protein as the weaponized element of the virus...As the blurb puts it,
Delete"The key to proving and understanding this bioweapon is its spike protein. The very same spike protein now being made in millions of people after the COVID vaccines are injected into them. These vaccines are nothing more than the genetic code of this bioweapon."
I'm on the edge of my seat. It won't be much longer now we're going to find out what's in store for humanity.
The vaccine is the bioweapon.
ReplyDeleteLook at this.
The "pandemic" originated in China.
We got scared out of our pants as the Chinese released a media barrage of horrifying imagery of "the bubonic plague, 2.0".
We got pandemicked, panicked by the pandemic. We lost our cool.
Out of the blue we decided we should inject ourselves with mRNA to cause our cells to make spike protein. Wow, that was really brilliant. It was fancy and clever-- what more could an advanced industrialized civilization wish for in the face of an emergency?
The Chinese -- get this-- didn't use mRNA vaccines. They used more tried and true vaccine technologies. Google it if you don't believe me.
We didn't rely on our "tried-and-true" democratic traditions to vet how we might respond to this challenge. In the face of crisis and emergency-- that didn't matter. It wasn't up to snuff. When the chips were down, democracy just couldn't come up with the goods. This was near unanimous.
That, and our unwillingness to come up with a workable compromise between our religious traditions and reasonable precautions meant we betrayed both our sacred and secular ideals.
China called it. They deserve to win.