Immunity is the constant negotiation of closeness and distance and thus testifies to being able to encounter one another without falling ill. Whereby falling ill only indicates that there is an imbalance in the ability to meet each other and thus the viral influence is necessary.
Scratch that, I was thinking of the more recent polymerase T Cell study - I never saw the one in that Alexander post before (except I think it's in some of the Couey slides, not sure)...
Yes, I’ve been using that study in discussion elsewhere to argue that cross-immunity is real (contra “OAS”). I should have included it in a footnote in my last post, as well - !
Well, you forgot #0: 4 is true automatically, because published researchers all agree to say so in absence of evidence.
That's quite a bit of work! Too bad substack doesn't have a print-out version of whole threads based on 15 minute snapshots or whatever. Obviously they have to throttle new reads with so many resources devoted to pushing updates. Creates a very noisy environment.
I didn't want to address OAS again before a lot more catch-up on mid 20th century influenza research.
The Lin et al. study literally refutes OAS in plain sight - Figure 5. So does the Goldberg et al. - 4-8 month vaxxed+recovered do better than 4-8 month vaxxed. Comparing them to the naive+recovered is setting the OAS goalpost at the 1 yard line. It probably makes for tedious reading for me to "counter" what is only a figment of the imagination more than once a month, but maybe I will toss off a post.
I am reading lots about immunology and finding it fascinating.
As an example our HLA-A/B/C genes code for class I MHC proteins and some of them may not be very good at presenting SCV2 antigens. In fact Hidden Markov Respecter posted about this - the only study I have seen that mentions it: https://hiddenmarkov.substack.com/p/an-open-call-for-assistance
This is one possibility for the lack of protection afforded by vaccines, but has not been discussed anywhere that OAS alarmism is being discussed.
Maybe it's irrelevant in the scheme of things, I don't know anywhere near enough about it to say, but that leads me to something else I am finding. I get the feeling that even the experts don't know a lot about this stuff. I've read bits and pieces here and there and what I read never seems definitive.
I will take a look. I tried to form a hot take in advance, and came up with nothing.
The vaccines do not plausibly induce migration of new, epitope-trained T Cells to the GI / respiratory tract, so they certainly can't *improve* innate mucosal immunity sensitivity to I MHC-presented SC2 proteins, which already might recognize the more universal coronavirus polymerase - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04186-8. But we don't really know if (naive) innate mucosal immunity depends on cross-immunity to coronavirus; it's just a guess. It could all be Natural Killer cells, and T Cell recognition of polymerase is incidental, not instrumental to seronegative suppressed infection. In that case, the vaccines still can't equal a proper post-infection immune response, which probably does improve mucosal immunity (even after antibodies fade) via migration of new epitope-trained T Cells.
"The best chance of skirting such a crisis lies in the possibility that inconsistencies in manufacture and cold chain essentially resulted in most recipients receiving little or no viable product."
This is the most poignant comment regarding a "pandemic" that not only shut down the world out of fear, but revealed just how little we could trust the entire medical establishment.
Essentially, our best hope is that you suck so badly at your jobs that you couldn't even deliver your experimental poison effectively.
The problem being, of course, that in reality smallpox cannot cause "massive loss of [per-capita] civilian life," so it can't actually deliver the government "command and control at all institutional levels." So, a SARS was needed...
Someone, anyone- please show me the data that indicates that the 'vaccines' offer protection from severe disease, hospitalization and death. What is that being based on? Simply the antibody production against the spike protein? It is the last hold out argument from those in favor of mass vaccination and it drives me nuts. There are so many factors (Vitamin D levels, comorbidities, age, genetics, etc.) that determine one's susceptibility to severe disease that all vaccinated cannot be compared, even less able to compare vax to unvax. Even the CDC admits there could be 40% asymptomatic spread, even more of the population who are so minimally symptomatic that they cannot distinguish between the virus and allergies. So for all of those folks (and those infected and recovered prior to vaccination), let's just say 80% of the population, the jab makes no difference in their level of protection because their response was always going to be unnoticeable or minimal. All of those who participated in the clinical trials, who weren't in the most vulnerable categories, were all jabbed, thus destroying the control group which could have shown long term effectiveness on preventing severe outcomes. It is unethical and morally unimaginable to have a vulnerable group to experiment on- so we do not have the data. What am I missing?
You follow up your request for evidence that the vaccines protect against severe outcomes with a strong argument for why it doesn't matter in terms of a mass vax campaign. If severe outcomes are rare overall and super-rare for most people, it's incredibly unlikely that even a 100% effective vaccine will "prevent" the outcome for any individual recipient - that recipient would have to win the bad luck lottery to "need" protection to begin with. This is already true for all vaccines, including polio.
But it does matter in terms of boosters. If the vaccines already stay effective against severe outcomes past 4 months, boosters are pointless. The UK data continues to suggest this is the case, but it's hard to know if the per-100k denominators are reliable. I think the Israel data from late July, after infection efficacy was 0, was the best demo of durable sever outcome efficacy. I verified the denominators with some rough math in this case, and it seemed reliable https://unglossed.substack.com/p/midsummer-maladies#footnote-anchor-14 - Note that the dashboard now has redefined partially vaccinated to be exclusive to double-dosed after 6 months (but not triple-dosed), and there is still a strong signal for severe outcome efficacy despite low infection efficacy.
Circulating IgG antibodies from mRNA transfection do not prevent infection after a few months (when levels are really high, there is IgG absorption from blood to the mucosa, plausibly inhibiting infection) - but they do plausibly tamp down on harms from viremia. This new study finds that viremia is one of the most reliable indicators of severe outcomes https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abj5629 - I haven't analyzed it yet, so I'm just reporting the top-line findings. Virus in blood is bad. Antibodies in blood protect against the "bad." This is a plausible mechanism for durable severe outcome efficacy despite transient infection efficacy, and again demonstrates that boosters are not needed; and that protecting against the "bad" of virus in blood by putting mRNA for spike in blood in anyone to begin with is extremely dumb.
We did two things that are extremely dumb. 1. Thinking that telling our bodies to produce the spike protein would be perfectly safe, and 2. Thinking that a vaccine for a coronavirus was suddenly going to work right when we needed it to.
I doubt the vaccines prevent infection too - they are they wrong end of the immune system to be effective at the mucosal barrier where infection occurs.
Any apparent effectiveness is simply a person's innate immunity doing what it always would have.
The judiciary is defunct if the judiciary issues verdicts and the executive ignores them, and is allowed to. They are, and are allowed to defy the courts by support of the corrupt propaganda media. This will devolve until the people stop using the corrupt propaganda media. Just The News reports this morning several countries are warning about myocarditis risks from mrna vax, and twit has declared that information harmful. That shows desperation tactics that gives hope that the end is near. One way or another. If twit collapses, the government does too. Whether they go out with a whimper or a bang remains to be seen.
I've been waiting for the moment of "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time." This has been the progression of the covid charade. Thankfully, we do appear to be approaching the last part of that in which fewer and fewer people are being fooled at this point.
I think people like Merkel and Johnson were prepared to just follow the existing pandemic plans and let the virus "virus". Then they appeared to be "nobbled". I would really like to know what coercion they were subjected to.
Immunity is the constant negotiation of closeness and distance and thus testifies to being able to encounter one another without falling ill. Whereby falling ill only indicates that there is an imbalance in the ability to meet each other and thus the viral influence is necessary.
Enclosed something worth reading:
https://palexander.substack.com/p/close-contacts-are-able-to-gain-t
Scratch that, I was thinking of the more recent polymerase T Cell study - I never saw the one in that Alexander post before (except I think it's in some of the Couey slides, not sure)...
Yes, I’ve been using that study in discussion elsewhere to argue that cross-immunity is real (contra “OAS”). I should have included it in a footnote in my last post, as well - !
Wayyy OT but absent a form of direct contact... are you thinking of doing an OAS rejoinder post to balance the alarmist views found elsewhere?
One curiosity I find myself considering is the thought process that surely occurred, whereby certain authors
1. listed all possible mechanisms for the observed data
2. ranked them based on likelihood
3. sourced studies or similar to support the mechanism likelihood
4. chose OAS
appears to be missing. We went straight to 4. and expressed our alarm.
Well, you forgot #0: 4 is true automatically, because published researchers all agree to say so in absence of evidence.
That's quite a bit of work! Too bad substack doesn't have a print-out version of whole threads based on 15 minute snapshots or whatever. Obviously they have to throttle new reads with so many resources devoted to pushing updates. Creates a very noisy environment.
I didn't want to address OAS again before a lot more catch-up on mid 20th century influenza research.
The Lin et al. study literally refutes OAS in plain sight - Figure 5. So does the Goldberg et al. - 4-8 month vaxxed+recovered do better than 4-8 month vaxxed. Comparing them to the naive+recovered is setting the OAS goalpost at the 1 yard line. It probably makes for tedious reading for me to "counter" what is only a figment of the imagination more than once a month, but maybe I will toss off a post.
This dependence on OAS feels like CO2 being the automatic reason for climate change.
I am reading lots about immunology and finding it fascinating.
As an example our HLA-A/B/C genes code for class I MHC proteins and some of them may not be very good at presenting SCV2 antigens. In fact Hidden Markov Respecter posted about this - the only study I have seen that mentions it: https://hiddenmarkov.substack.com/p/an-open-call-for-assistance
This is one possibility for the lack of protection afforded by vaccines, but has not been discussed anywhere that OAS alarmism is being discussed.
Maybe it's irrelevant in the scheme of things, I don't know anywhere near enough about it to say, but that leads me to something else I am finding. I get the feeling that even the experts don't know a lot about this stuff. I've read bits and pieces here and there and what I read never seems definitive.
I will take a look. I tried to form a hot take in advance, and came up with nothing.
The vaccines do not plausibly induce migration of new, epitope-trained T Cells to the GI / respiratory tract, so they certainly can't *improve* innate mucosal immunity sensitivity to I MHC-presented SC2 proteins, which already might recognize the more universal coronavirus polymerase - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04186-8. But we don't really know if (naive) innate mucosal immunity depends on cross-immunity to coronavirus; it's just a guess. It could all be Natural Killer cells, and T Cell recognition of polymerase is incidental, not instrumental to seronegative suppressed infection. In that case, the vaccines still can't equal a proper post-infection immune response, which probably does improve mucosal immunity (even after antibodies fade) via migration of new epitope-trained T Cells.
"Besides the first one being real?"
PPS. I expand all comments on other articles now and search for "mow" so i can read certain authors' comments. You are a witty fucker.
"The best chance of skirting such a crisis lies in the possibility that inconsistencies in manufacture and cold chain essentially resulted in most recipients receiving little or no viable product."
This is the most poignant comment regarding a "pandemic" that not only shut down the world out of fear, but revealed just how little we could trust the entire medical establishment.
Essentially, our best hope is that you suck so badly at your jobs that you couldn't even deliver your experimental poison effectively.
A million Major Kong's shrugging and saying, "Eh, I don't get paid enough for this..."
You know what "Dark Winter" means, right?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dark_Winter
The problem being, of course, that in reality smallpox cannot cause "massive loss of [per-capita] civilian life," so it can't actually deliver the government "command and control at all institutional levels." So, a SARS was needed...
Someone, anyone- please show me the data that indicates that the 'vaccines' offer protection from severe disease, hospitalization and death. What is that being based on? Simply the antibody production against the spike protein? It is the last hold out argument from those in favor of mass vaccination and it drives me nuts. There are so many factors (Vitamin D levels, comorbidities, age, genetics, etc.) that determine one's susceptibility to severe disease that all vaccinated cannot be compared, even less able to compare vax to unvax. Even the CDC admits there could be 40% asymptomatic spread, even more of the population who are so minimally symptomatic that they cannot distinguish between the virus and allergies. So for all of those folks (and those infected and recovered prior to vaccination), let's just say 80% of the population, the jab makes no difference in their level of protection because their response was always going to be unnoticeable or minimal. All of those who participated in the clinical trials, who weren't in the most vulnerable categories, were all jabbed, thus destroying the control group which could have shown long term effectiveness on preventing severe outcomes. It is unethical and morally unimaginable to have a vulnerable group to experiment on- so we do not have the data. What am I missing?
"the myth of asymptomatic Covid transmission" https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/debunked-the-myth-of-asymptomatic-covid-transmission/
MP Desmond Swayne to Sajid Javid- "How many of those who've tested positive in the UK are ill?" https://twitter.com/DesmondSwayne/status/1467921831197872139
You follow up your request for evidence that the vaccines protect against severe outcomes with a strong argument for why it doesn't matter in terms of a mass vax campaign. If severe outcomes are rare overall and super-rare for most people, it's incredibly unlikely that even a 100% effective vaccine will "prevent" the outcome for any individual recipient - that recipient would have to win the bad luck lottery to "need" protection to begin with. This is already true for all vaccines, including polio.
But it does matter in terms of boosters. If the vaccines already stay effective against severe outcomes past 4 months, boosters are pointless. The UK data continues to suggest this is the case, but it's hard to know if the per-100k denominators are reliable. I think the Israel data from late July, after infection efficacy was 0, was the best demo of durable sever outcome efficacy. I verified the denominators with some rough math in this case, and it seemed reliable https://unglossed.substack.com/p/midsummer-maladies#footnote-anchor-14 - Note that the dashboard now has redefined partially vaccinated to be exclusive to double-dosed after 6 months (but not triple-dosed), and there is still a strong signal for severe outcome efficacy despite low infection efficacy.
Circulating IgG antibodies from mRNA transfection do not prevent infection after a few months (when levels are really high, there is IgG absorption from blood to the mucosa, plausibly inhibiting infection) - but they do plausibly tamp down on harms from viremia. This new study finds that viremia is one of the most reliable indicators of severe outcomes https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abj5629 - I haven't analyzed it yet, so I'm just reporting the top-line findings. Virus in blood is bad. Antibodies in blood protect against the "bad." This is a plausible mechanism for durable severe outcome efficacy despite transient infection efficacy, and again demonstrates that boosters are not needed; and that protecting against the "bad" of virus in blood by putting mRNA for spike in blood in anyone to begin with is extremely dumb.
We did two things that are extremely dumb. 1. Thinking that telling our bodies to produce the spike protein would be perfectly safe, and 2. Thinking that a vaccine for a coronavirus was suddenly going to work right when we needed it to.
I doubt the vaccines prevent infection too - they are they wrong end of the immune system to be effective at the mucosal barrier where infection occurs.
Any apparent effectiveness is simply a person's innate immunity doing what it always would have.
The judiciary is defunct if the judiciary issues verdicts and the executive ignores them, and is allowed to. They are, and are allowed to defy the courts by support of the corrupt propaganda media. This will devolve until the people stop using the corrupt propaganda media. Just The News reports this morning several countries are warning about myocarditis risks from mrna vax, and twit has declared that information harmful. That shows desperation tactics that gives hope that the end is near. One way or another. If twit collapses, the government does too. Whether they go out with a whimper or a bang remains to be seen.
I've been waiting for the moment of "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time." This has been the progression of the covid charade. Thankfully, we do appear to be approaching the last part of that in which fewer and fewer people are being fooled at this point.
What started as a battle against the pandemic to protect the people has transformed into a battle against the people to protect the pandemic.
At least it feels that way anyway.
More like the latter was the true nature from the start, but now is making itself explicit.
I think people like Merkel and Johnson were prepared to just follow the existing pandemic plans and let the virus "virus". Then they appeared to be "nobbled". I would really like to know what coercion they were subjected to.