Rebutting a silly claim.
My point is mostly that the vaccine affects immune response to future infections, whether that be by not producing anti- N abs or producing fewer of them.
As for Whitaker he clearly states “ All Delta infections in our dataset were symptomatic, while 20/279 Alpha infections were asymptomatic”
Maybe you should read it again.
Your a jerk so our discussion is over
So you are saying that the sort of people who would donate blood are less likely as a whole to catch covid?
I think the self-selection you hint to at the end is more simple. It is the same property that explained so many differences between "vaccinated" and "non vaccinated" as well. Certain social, political and economic groups behaved dramatically different during the last two years. Because they wanted and importantly could. Certain groups worked from home more than others - again because they could and wanted. Others could not and/or had no interest.
Mathew Crawford based on a CDC study shows that vaccinated were less likely to die in a car accident or homicide. The Dutch in official COVODI death research reluctantly observed that vaccinated were less likely to die in non-COVID related causes. Etc. Health/social/economic factors and behaviour matter.
So certain groups were less infected, but these groups were also the ones that were more frequent vaccinated. More left leaning, more towards desk jobs, more towards upper economic social circles, healthier, etc. Hence one reason why vaccines showed efficacy in Q2-Q3 2021 and saw it dropping later.
But hence why blood donors also had low N-antibodies. They were less infected as they are not a random selection of people from society. They oversample from the hyper-vaccinated / stay-at-home groups.
Omicron changed everything as everybody gets infected. There is no escape. And somewhere in the first half of 2022 also the behaviour changed in these isolating groups. They stopped isolating and got infected as catch up as they had less natural immunity. (Hence also why we see negative efficacy in the double/triple jabs in some studies.)
Alex also misinterpreted the Moderna study, which is a big reason he believes the vaccinated don't produce N-antibodies. You've written about that too, and based on that I cannot blame him as he in essence followed the Moderna conclusions (graph B) and not the raw data (graph A) which showed Moderna was wrong in its conclusions based on their own data.
Alex has many strengths, but he seems to be sometimes a bit too much "output" and not enough "feedback".
Thank you for your reply‼️ Hopefully, that is one of many risks we can remove from the list‼️
Are you of the opinion that ADE will not occur in the vaccinated❓❓❓https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B-ve5hZmSnc&t=4s
I know definitively that there are unvaccinated blood donors in the U.K., going every 3 months!
Giving blood is not weird - it’s good for you if you carry the genes predisposing to haemochromatosis and probably for a fair few other reasons too ( which I can’t remember now)!
The vaccinated generate fewer n-abs which probably mean they are less protective and for a shorter period.
Also this study from the Moderna trial (pre-Omicron/Delta) show the vaxxed were less likely to produce N-abs
"For newer readers, who may not remember why they subscribed and may not understand why they are reading anti- “The Official Anti-Covid-vaccine Narrative” dissent in an anti-Covid-vaccine journal, here is the timeline of events:"
LOL, it can get confusing these days when people on the same general side disagree. There is room in Team Reality for some debate over finer scientific points, so long as we remember who the true enemy is. Evil is evil, scientific error in good will is something else.
Berenson has his issues, with his obstinacy about IVM being the biggest one for me. Still, I will forever respect and appreciate him for being an early prominent voice against the worst of the pandemic madness. He was there at a time we all needed that badly.
I've mentioned this several times as a point of contention, but Alex Berenson was one of the first people to argue that the lack of N antibodies was an indication of OAS. After that, many people seized upon Alex's work and used it as an example of OAS, thus leading to a consensus that OAS is in fact occurring.
Then when people such as yourself made comments refuting such claims, it became an issue of existence over substance. Everyone was suggesting that OAS is a thing, so clearly it's a thing (to put it one way). And thus the false notion that the N antibodies had any association to OAS was strangely born and continued to be perpetrated.
I'll say that was a reminder that many people may not read studies to take a deeper look. It was generally accepted that was what was happening and now we have OAS running around going through more iterations that the COVID variants themselves.
From what I can tell, and as you mentioned here, Alex never appeared to have corrected for that initial mistake, but now is building off of it which should raise some criticisms, so thanks for at least providing some pushback.
Excellent analysis. Thanks.
You didn't comment on the Indian data, and thus didn't address a big part of Berenson's point, his belief that the more "traditional" vaccines elicited a different immune response than the mRNA vaccines. Even if the blood donor data is junk, in your opinion, isn't it of some interest that there would be this striking difference between the Indian data and British data?
'anti- “The Official Anti-Covid-vaccine Narrative” dissent in an anti-Covid-vaccine journal'
I think of you as our devil's advocate. Keeping us honest. From a dictionary: 'One who debates from a view which he or she may not actually hold, usually to determine its validity or simply for the sake of argument.' It's a valuable role.
It's kind of discouraging that so many on Team Skeptic expect everybody to hew to an identical narrative. That's one of the things we criticize about Team Mainstream Narrative, after all.
Not being a paid subscriber, I can't comment on Berenson's article, so I will inflict my sarcasm on you. He quotes some paper or other: 'Researchers [said?] that mice which produced both anti-N and anti-S antibodies had “better viral control [than those that had anti-S antibodies alone], including against the Omicron variant.”'
At the risk of sounding stupid, am I the only one who thinks this is so patently obvious that it doesn't need saying? It's the reason why I initially became an mRNA vax skeptic, because natural immunity gives you *both* (and other good stuff besides), and PTB were claiming the spike-based vaccines had better protection.
YES - such Alex Berenson nonsense! I never understood how he made such a big deal about blood donors (and people gobbled it up). Your last sentence... that’s literally all that’s needed to solve the great mystery. 🤦♀️
'Alex Berenson (who, thank God, seems to have finally discovered that not just his iPhone can be used to generate screen-captures for blogs, any actual computer can do it too)'
Har! I've complained about that forever. Plus he needs to put some sort of a border around his images because it's hard to tell them from the text or from each other.