"My hunch is that boosting will not drive escape pressure. To suppose that it will invites a paradox: First, it requires asserting that the original Covid vaccine roll-out was responsible for the rapid changes to the spike protein that led to Delta, via escape pressure. Then, it requires asserting that Delta is not capable of escaping the vintage-2020 antibodies stimulated by the Covid vaccines at all."
There isn't necessarily a paradox. There would be a paradox if it was only one set of antibodies produced to which delta has now escaped from. However a research paper out of Japan I believe had looked at the possibility for ADE to develop and noted that 4 mutations in delta would be sufficient to produce the changes required for the virus to escape the neutralising antibodies whilst retaining the increased affinity that delta's spike protein shows for the non-neutralizing antibodies (which in turn could act as facilitating/enhancing antibodies). In that study if I remember it correctly, they noted that around the world delta plus strains had in some cases independently developed 3 of the 4 mutations that they demonstrated experimentally would afford delta complete immune escape from neutralising antibodies.
I'll have to find that paper again (and when I do I'll post the link here) but I recall that there were at least 3 different antibodies (all neutralizing) investigated just for the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein and that the non-terminal domain (NTD) of the spike protein also had at least 2 antibodies produced to it (one a neutralising and one non-neutralizing). So in essence we are really talking about how delta responds to maybe 3 or 4 vintage RBD antibodies, some of which still have an effect on it whilst the others either have reduced effects or no effects.
In such a scenario, boosting those specific antibodies (which is what the boosters would be intended to do) alongside the NTD antibodies should provide an environment wherein delta virions encounter them more including the still those RBD antibodies that are still effective. In turn this will mean that when a delta variant that might have 3 of those 4 mutations the team investigated eventually develops the fourth mutation by random chance inside the body of a person that is only producing the various spike protein antibodies (and none of the nucleocapsid antibodies) then this new delta variant (let's call it Delta 4+) can now become the dominant strain in that person and be shed. Just as delta then rapidly became the dominant variant, delta 4+ would likely become THE dominant variant in an environment where everyone was getting those specific RBD antibodies boosted.
The process would probably take longer than what happened for the original delta strain and the delta + variants that have various combinations of 4 mutations seemingly necessary for immune escape, but logically it could and likely would happen.
Only after that would further booster shots no longer drive immune escape since the delta 4+ would have completely escapes all of the neutralising RBD and NTD antibodies.
Topol was well known for jamming stents in coronary arteries that didn't need it - and he so much as admitted his mistakes after he made millions being a shill for stent companies. Now he is remaking himself as a global health pioneer - whatever.
To look at any data that the CDC is putting out and try to make any sense of it - is almost impossible. First of all - we dont have all cause mortality. When doing comparisons between vaxxed and unvaxed groups - we need to know what's happening there. Second, we can't draw any conclusions because we just dont know what percent of the vaxed are Covid recovered. Even if its a low amount say 20% - that would reduce the vaccine efficacy by a significant amount. Third - the vaccine group and the untaxed group are so different - you almost cannot compare them.
The problem with ALL of this data is that a lot of it is simply BS in some basic respects. First: Officials here in the US made an active choice NOT to test for antibodies to covid. We have no idea how many people truly have natural immunity or not.
As for the unvaccinated dying much more than the vaccinated from covid. I have always granted that the vaccines can possibly provide short-term protection from worst outcomes. They may still be a worthwhile risk for the elderly. HOWEVER, we haven't done a Freakonomics analysis on this.
Are there other reasons unvaccinated people may be dying more? Do they tend to have conditions or issues like lower vitamin D (i.e., blacks and hispanics tend to vaccinate less in general and have less vitamin D typically)? Plus a lot of the unvaccinated deaths are counted from when the vaccines were just starting up in usage and/or include people recently but not "fully" vaxxed.
So...I'm just not sure if the net is a win here for the vaccine, especially since they wear off and have HUGE adverse reaction rates compared to all other vaccines in history...except perhaps smallpox, where the adverse reactions may be worth the risk due to the highly deadly nature of the disease.
That's a truckload of assumptions you make in the last paragraph. And it is never clear to me why you disagree with el gato about the "worry window". There may not be any studies, but the stats seem to support his assertion. You, on the other hand, make wild assertions and leaps of logic but with very little evidence.
The more interesting question is with 800,000 covid deaths, why don't we have 800,000 excess deaths? Apparently most of those would have checked out anyway. Certainly, its more complex than that, but the simplest answer is often pretty close. If we can get 800,000 flu deaths and remain on track for a normal death year, it becomes clear this was nothing to worry about.
I keep going back to the question of 'Why did we choose to go with mRNA technology based 'vaccines' rather than our traditional inactivated or dead whole virus method?' We had decades of research on coronaviruses and influenza to understand that nothing could actually inoculate us against rapidly mutating aerosolized viruses. If life saving measures were the goal, we'd have attempted vaccines similar to the influenza model. We would have embraced, and allowed off label use, of any medication showing promise. Rather, we chose a novel technology on a novel virus and denied the right to try early treatments. This could not have been for anything but money (greed). The NIH and Moderna had the sequence ready to go. Big Pharma gets tax payer funded, liability free research for mRNA technology on billions of people. All of this to determine the true downfalls of mRNA technology and its limitations in application. The anti-virals are an equal, money making scam. They know damn well Remdesivir is dangerous, especially for people sick enough to be admitted. They know damn well that Molnupiravir is dangerous and they'll push it anyway. Pfizer ripping off Ivermectin to develop Paxlovid is, atleast, potentionally capable of actually helping people (unless they put unnecessary toxic ingredients in it).
I don't think the evidence truly exists to suggest that these 'vaccines' are remotely effective at reducing severe symptoms and death. There are too many variables at play. Big Pharma destroyed their control groups at 2 months. We know that the data is manipulated, often flat out false at times. There is every incentive to continue pushing some hope with the vaccines. I am going with- they do not work in any capacity, the long term harms are coming and humanity has shown the absolute worst sides.
Your final line “around 40,000 unvaccinated Americans between ages 45 and 74 have been killed by American hospitals since the summer, via suppression of effective therapeutics and deliberate use of Remdesivir and ventilators.” is what I think is super important. They are STILL &#@!^? killing people by censoring *EFFECTIVE* EARLY TREATMENT. Fortunately word continues to spread through independent media.
I have been wondering if the main danger from SARS-Cov-2 is its spike protein. Is it possible that the high excess deaths in the US in both 2020 and 2021 were caused by spike exposure? In 2020, from covid cases that were not immediately fatal, but caused latent injury, and in 2021 from covid cases plus vaccine-induced spike. 2021 excess deaths are much higher than 2020, which reflects much higher spike exposure from vaccines, plus ongoing spike exposure from infections.
Excess deaths are higher for many causes, over and above covid attribution. But most of these deaths (heart, neurologic, diabetes, unintentional, kidney) could plausibly be due to latent spike injury. Data for 2020 at https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778234
I agree that hospital treatment contributes to excess deaths, but not sure we can back this out, given the wide variety of injury that's possible from spike (and that we see from VAERS).
The worst failing in our 2020 covid response was delaying treatment until hospitalization. Early treatment will almost always reduce spike exposure, and thus reduce overall excess death rates, not to mention reduced deaths from covid directly.
"Delta has remained dominant, at this point settling down from “flavor of the month” to “flavor of the half-year.”"
I was under the impression that this is what we would expect, given Alpha(?? original strain)-specific vaccines are still being rolled out and delta is the evolutionary step caused by that roll out. No attempt is being made to combat Delta, so it's experiencing no evolutionary pressure to escape. Boosters are still original strain specific too.
IMO if / when they bring in the delta- killer, we will see another dominant strain. And I've written it down too, so we can return to this and test my hypothesis :D
In Australia, vaccine is being rolled out and cases were exploding at the start.
I only just started reading this article, but are you keeping in mind we are hitting summer now, that our weather is getting warmer and we thus spend more time outside - coinciding with a lock down end?
More UV = More vit D = less cases. Vaccine is immaterial, as shown in the first 2 waves we had.
If anything, our current wave should match or be smaller than the first two, but it's not. This seems to indicate that vaccine = increased cases, not decreased.
What do you think of this?
https://trialsitenews.com/the-original-antigenic-sin-covid-19-vaccination-and-sub-optimal-initial-immune-priming-deranges-the-antibody-cytotoxic-t-cell-immune-response/
It's written quite well with respecht to bio-logical context.
"My hunch is that boosting will not drive escape pressure. To suppose that it will invites a paradox: First, it requires asserting that the original Covid vaccine roll-out was responsible for the rapid changes to the spike protein that led to Delta, via escape pressure. Then, it requires asserting that Delta is not capable of escaping the vintage-2020 antibodies stimulated by the Covid vaccines at all."
There isn't necessarily a paradox. There would be a paradox if it was only one set of antibodies produced to which delta has now escaped from. However a research paper out of Japan I believe had looked at the possibility for ADE to develop and noted that 4 mutations in delta would be sufficient to produce the changes required for the virus to escape the neutralising antibodies whilst retaining the increased affinity that delta's spike protein shows for the non-neutralizing antibodies (which in turn could act as facilitating/enhancing antibodies). In that study if I remember it correctly, they noted that around the world delta plus strains had in some cases independently developed 3 of the 4 mutations that they demonstrated experimentally would afford delta complete immune escape from neutralising antibodies.
I'll have to find that paper again (and when I do I'll post the link here) but I recall that there were at least 3 different antibodies (all neutralizing) investigated just for the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein and that the non-terminal domain (NTD) of the spike protein also had at least 2 antibodies produced to it (one a neutralising and one non-neutralizing). So in essence we are really talking about how delta responds to maybe 3 or 4 vintage RBD antibodies, some of which still have an effect on it whilst the others either have reduced effects or no effects.
In such a scenario, boosting those specific antibodies (which is what the boosters would be intended to do) alongside the NTD antibodies should provide an environment wherein delta virions encounter them more including the still those RBD antibodies that are still effective. In turn this will mean that when a delta variant that might have 3 of those 4 mutations the team investigated eventually develops the fourth mutation by random chance inside the body of a person that is only producing the various spike protein antibodies (and none of the nucleocapsid antibodies) then this new delta variant (let's call it Delta 4+) can now become the dominant strain in that person and be shed. Just as delta then rapidly became the dominant variant, delta 4+ would likely become THE dominant variant in an environment where everyone was getting those specific RBD antibodies boosted.
The process would probably take longer than what happened for the original delta strain and the delta + variants that have various combinations of 4 mutations seemingly necessary for immune escape, but logically it could and likely would happen.
Only after that would further booster shots no longer drive immune escape since the delta 4+ would have completely escapes all of the neutralising RBD and NTD antibodies.
Statistical illusions. https://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2021/11/is-vaccine-efficacy-statistical-illusion.html
Read the link to the John Dee tweet – it's pretty interesting.
Topol was well known for jamming stents in coronary arteries that didn't need it - and he so much as admitted his mistakes after he made millions being a shill for stent companies. Now he is remaking himself as a global health pioneer - whatever.
To look at any data that the CDC is putting out and try to make any sense of it - is almost impossible. First of all - we dont have all cause mortality. When doing comparisons between vaxxed and unvaxed groups - we need to know what's happening there. Second, we can't draw any conclusions because we just dont know what percent of the vaxed are Covid recovered. Even if its a low amount say 20% - that would reduce the vaccine efficacy by a significant amount. Third - the vaccine group and the untaxed group are so different - you almost cannot compare them.
The problem with ALL of this data is that a lot of it is simply BS in some basic respects. First: Officials here in the US made an active choice NOT to test for antibodies to covid. We have no idea how many people truly have natural immunity or not.
As for the unvaccinated dying much more than the vaccinated from covid. I have always granted that the vaccines can possibly provide short-term protection from worst outcomes. They may still be a worthwhile risk for the elderly. HOWEVER, we haven't done a Freakonomics analysis on this.
Are there other reasons unvaccinated people may be dying more? Do they tend to have conditions or issues like lower vitamin D (i.e., blacks and hispanics tend to vaccinate less in general and have less vitamin D typically)? Plus a lot of the unvaccinated deaths are counted from when the vaccines were just starting up in usage and/or include people recently but not "fully" vaxxed.
So...I'm just not sure if the net is a win here for the vaccine, especially since they wear off and have HUGE adverse reaction rates compared to all other vaccines in history...except perhaps smallpox, where the adverse reactions may be worth the risk due to the highly deadly nature of the disease.
That's a truckload of assumptions you make in the last paragraph. And it is never clear to me why you disagree with el gato about the "worry window". There may not be any studies, but the stats seem to support his assertion. You, on the other hand, make wild assertions and leaps of logic but with very little evidence.
The more interesting question is with 800,000 covid deaths, why don't we have 800,000 excess deaths? Apparently most of those would have checked out anyway. Certainly, its more complex than that, but the simplest answer is often pretty close. If we can get 800,000 flu deaths and remain on track for a normal death year, it becomes clear this was nothing to worry about.
I keep going back to the question of 'Why did we choose to go with mRNA technology based 'vaccines' rather than our traditional inactivated or dead whole virus method?' We had decades of research on coronaviruses and influenza to understand that nothing could actually inoculate us against rapidly mutating aerosolized viruses. If life saving measures were the goal, we'd have attempted vaccines similar to the influenza model. We would have embraced, and allowed off label use, of any medication showing promise. Rather, we chose a novel technology on a novel virus and denied the right to try early treatments. This could not have been for anything but money (greed). The NIH and Moderna had the sequence ready to go. Big Pharma gets tax payer funded, liability free research for mRNA technology on billions of people. All of this to determine the true downfalls of mRNA technology and its limitations in application. The anti-virals are an equal, money making scam. They know damn well Remdesivir is dangerous, especially for people sick enough to be admitted. They know damn well that Molnupiravir is dangerous and they'll push it anyway. Pfizer ripping off Ivermectin to develop Paxlovid is, atleast, potentionally capable of actually helping people (unless they put unnecessary toxic ingredients in it).
I don't think the evidence truly exists to suggest that these 'vaccines' are remotely effective at reducing severe symptoms and death. There are too many variables at play. Big Pharma destroyed their control groups at 2 months. We know that the data is manipulated, often flat out false at times. There is every incentive to continue pushing some hope with the vaccines. I am going with- they do not work in any capacity, the long term harms are coming and humanity has shown the absolute worst sides.
Your final line “around 40,000 unvaccinated Americans between ages 45 and 74 have been killed by American hospitals since the summer, via suppression of effective therapeutics and deliberate use of Remdesivir and ventilators.” is what I think is super important. They are STILL &#@!^? killing people by censoring *EFFECTIVE* EARLY TREATMENT. Fortunately word continues to spread through independent media.
I have been wondering if the main danger from SARS-Cov-2 is its spike protein. Is it possible that the high excess deaths in the US in both 2020 and 2021 were caused by spike exposure? In 2020, from covid cases that were not immediately fatal, but caused latent injury, and in 2021 from covid cases plus vaccine-induced spike. 2021 excess deaths are much higher than 2020, which reflects much higher spike exposure from vaccines, plus ongoing spike exposure from infections.
Excess deaths are higher for many causes, over and above covid attribution. But most of these deaths (heart, neurologic, diabetes, unintentional, kidney) could plausibly be due to latent spike injury. Data for 2020 at https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778234
I agree that hospital treatment contributes to excess deaths, but not sure we can back this out, given the wide variety of injury that's possible from spike (and that we see from VAERS).
The worst failing in our 2020 covid response was delaying treatment until hospitalization. Early treatment will almost always reduce spike exposure, and thus reduce overall excess death rates, not to mention reduced deaths from covid directly.
"Delta has remained dominant, at this point settling down from “flavor of the month” to “flavor of the half-year.”"
I was under the impression that this is what we would expect, given Alpha(?? original strain)-specific vaccines are still being rolled out and delta is the evolutionary step caused by that roll out. No attempt is being made to combat Delta, so it's experiencing no evolutionary pressure to escape. Boosters are still original strain specific too.
IMO if / when they bring in the delta- killer, we will see another dominant strain. And I've written it down too, so we can return to this and test my hypothesis :D
In Australia, vaccine is being rolled out and cases were exploding at the start.
I only just started reading this article, but are you keeping in mind we are hitting summer now, that our weather is getting warmer and we thus spend more time outside - coinciding with a lock down end?
More UV = More vit D = less cases. Vaccine is immaterial, as shown in the first 2 waves we had.
If anything, our current wave should match or be smaller than the first two, but it's not. This seems to indicate that vaccine = increased cases, not decreased.