Yu et al: 'mRNA vaccine-induced antibodies more effective than natural immunity in neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 & its high affinity variants'; conclusion is wrong, its not quantity thats key, its QUALITY
Yu et al: 'mRNA vaccine-induced antibodies more effective than natural immunity in neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 & its high affinity variants'; conclusion is wrong, its not quantity thats key, its QUALITY
Reported their data indicating that mRNA vaccination may generate more neutralizing RBD antibodies than natural immunity; potential need to maintain high RBD antibody levels; I say WRONG!
Go out to your car. Put the key in the ignition but do not crank it. Pump the gas 50-100 times. Then try to start the car. Oops you flooded it. If you do manage to start the car, it will sputter and destroy the valves. Repeat the flooding process. Try to start the car again. Now the car is ruined. I am sorry to oversimplify but I am in a reductionist mood this morning. I know we are not cars, but that is the mentality of people we are trying to reach.
Makes sense. I get the picture. It is not oversimplification but summarizes what happens when the immune system is insulted too many times. I guess I will have to expect more bad news from the insurance companies.....for 2022.
I think the whole 'experiment' took place in test tubes...so has no relation to the way an immune system in a human body behaves. This paper is a non starter.
This is correct but largely misses the real point. What is really key is mucosal immunity and IgA abs. That's the real reason why NI>vax. Recall that it was predicted that NI would not be robust v Delta because neutralization from abs fell. But as we know, NI was equally protective against Delta (as shown in the Netherlands study). Mainly because of mucosal immunity.
Not only that but a natural infection in the case of Sars cov2 exposes the immune system to functionally-constrained proteins (the ones on the inside that do not mutate much - else the virus can no longer replicate). This has implications for long term immune system recognition of variants. If the immune system is trained by 'vaccine' to only focus on the structural proteins or even only to a subset of those, such as the spike, then when new variants emerge with mutations of these, the immune system will recall the old vaccine-induced antibodies overriding the innate system's more generalized antibodies or it will have to start from scratch. That might be okay with a milder variant but not if a nastier one comes along. The myopic focus on the quantity of antigen- specific antibodies is poor immunological science at best. And that is without discussing the innate and adaptive immune system modulations these transfections appear to have. Who knows how that is going to be in the long run.
I just wonder if Yu et al even reads GVB. For anything expanding their knowledge or education from this expert. If they disagree, they should explain why. For a non medical person GVB articles are difficult to understand but if one has the letter MD after his name maybe he will understand.???
I was going to make some quick quip, but this is outrageous. Something I would have expected from maybe a year ago, but from this month? "This information would help to determine the need to vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2 in those with natural immunity" Unbelievable. They cracked it here with this study. mRNA vaccines produce more antibodies. Repeated dosing damaging and reduced protection without. You have to ask, what did these researchers feel they would gain by putting out this study?
"It further suggests a potential need to maintain high RBD antibody levels to control the more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants."
As with most of these papers, there is always seems to be a pro-vaccine or pro-booster plug. Makes me wonder if it is obligatory. In this case, the need to maintain high antibody levels equates to the need for multiple booster shots. It reminded me of the following Substack article by Marc Girardot:
No one would ever accept permanent fever... So, why accept permanently high antibodies? It's a "Death Zone"!
Go out to your car. Put the key in the ignition but do not crank it. Pump the gas 50-100 times. Then try to start the car. Oops you flooded it. If you do manage to start the car, it will sputter and destroy the valves. Repeat the flooding process. Try to start the car again. Now the car is ruined. I am sorry to oversimplify but I am in a reductionist mood this morning. I know we are not cars, but that is the mentality of people we are trying to reach.
Makes sense. I get the picture. It is not oversimplification but summarizes what happens when the immune system is insulted too many times. I guess I will have to expect more bad news from the insurance companies.....for 2022.
I think the whole 'experiment' took place in test tubes...so has no relation to the way an immune system in a human body behaves. This paper is a non starter.
Yup ~ in vitro.
This is correct but largely misses the real point. What is really key is mucosal immunity and IgA abs. That's the real reason why NI>vax. Recall that it was predicted that NI would not be robust v Delta because neutralization from abs fell. But as we know, NI was equally protective against Delta (as shown in the Netherlands study). Mainly because of mucosal immunity.
Not only that but a natural infection in the case of Sars cov2 exposes the immune system to functionally-constrained proteins (the ones on the inside that do not mutate much - else the virus can no longer replicate). This has implications for long term immune system recognition of variants. If the immune system is trained by 'vaccine' to only focus on the structural proteins or even only to a subset of those, such as the spike, then when new variants emerge with mutations of these, the immune system will recall the old vaccine-induced antibodies overriding the innate system's more generalized antibodies or it will have to start from scratch. That might be okay with a milder variant but not if a nastier one comes along. The myopic focus on the quantity of antigen- specific antibodies is poor immunological science at best. And that is without discussing the innate and adaptive immune system modulations these transfections appear to have. Who knows how that is going to be in the long run.
Yep. Quality is all that matters. The "but mah titers" crowd are wrong at every turn.
https://jestre.substack.com/p/natural-immunity-is-better-in-every?utm_source=url
I just wonder if Yu et al even reads GVB. For anything expanding their knowledge or education from this expert. If they disagree, they should explain why. For a non medical person GVB articles are difficult to understand but if one has the letter MD after his name maybe he will understand.???
I was going to make some quick quip, but this is outrageous. Something I would have expected from maybe a year ago, but from this month? "This information would help to determine the need to vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2 in those with natural immunity" Unbelievable. They cracked it here with this study. mRNA vaccines produce more antibodies. Repeated dosing damaging and reduced protection without. You have to ask, what did these researchers feel they would gain by putting out this study?
Their paper feeds a hungry beast - big pharma. They will be rewarded for their contribution by the beast.
"It further suggests a potential need to maintain high RBD antibody levels to control the more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants."
As with most of these papers, there is always seems to be a pro-vaccine or pro-booster plug. Makes me wonder if it is obligatory. In this case, the need to maintain high antibody levels equates to the need for multiple booster shots. It reminded me of the following Substack article by Marc Girardot:
No one would ever accept permanent fever... So, why accept permanently high antibodies? It's a "Death Zone"!
https://covidmythbuster.substack.com/p/no-one-would-ever-accept-permanent?utm_source=url
GVB has been my Guru from the start. So glad I found him in 3-20. I have been exceptionally well informed and I do not consent.
I am of the view that these research projects are designed to arrive at 'conclusions' intended to mislead.
Keep up the heroic fight Dr Alexander.
PS Geert Vanden Bossche is both a genius and a hero - though he would be uncomfortable with such praise.
Note the authors' names:
Yunkai Yu, Dominic Esposito, Zhigang Kang, Jianming Lu, Alan T. Remaley, Valeria De Giorgi, Leonard N. Chen, Kamille West & Liang Cao
Surprised that Eric Ching-Ding was not listed among the authors.
I rest my case.
I remember some other ching authors claimed their "study' showed that vaccine injuries were in all the head of the people.
This is being covered in detail during the www.grand-jury.net trial
Someone once compared having constantly high AB levels to always having a fever. It’s like these people never heard of B/T memory cells