If, after recovering fully from a very unpleasant bout of covid (sans vax), I were to find I did not develop antigen specific antibodies (in the blood, not the mucosa), my conclusion would NOT be: "I should get 'vaxxed' to be protected in the future". Rather, it would be "oh, I guess my immune system saw fit to deal with this virus without the need for such antibodies."
There obsession with antigen-specific antibodies coursing through the bloodstream is a-scientifically myopic.
Exactly. In this case the authors are not measuring antibodies directly but whether the blood inhibits infection of Vero cells (implying "good (neutralizing) antibodies"). Maybe that would be interesting in a vaccine trial (since it's not like you can hope for anything better), but in real infection the mucosal response (tissue-resident memory T and B Cells and IgA antibodies) is much more relevant to "immunity."
"To measure immunity to this virus, we must measure reinfections, the same way it has been done since the concept of immunity was first observed. Anything else is a false idol."
I applaud this statement. It always feels to me like incredibly convoluted studies are designed to obfuscate. (And some, like this, to be inexpensive, compared to something like an RCT involving thousands of people.)
Right, I love it when the plasma samples are so inconsistent. "Samples between 12 vaccinated donors, and then a weird trash bag that we found in a closet were compared." Neutralization assays are the science equivalent of posting "first" in a comment thread.
Never underestimate the ability of journalists to not know how to read a paper. It always goes that one journalist may have made an earnest attempt, reports on a finding (albeit in an incomplete or narrative-driven manner) and then other journalists dive into this one article like a vulture on a dead deer. You can clearly tell how many journalists are actually citing other journalists by how they word their articles.
Anyways, it may be likely that the less severe nature of Omicron may be at play here if we believe the argument more severe cases of prior variants led to greater immunity. But like you said, we just need more information, and it does no good when journalists report on studies as if any study is the definitive study. Also, isn't Ars Technica a, well, tech website?
RE severity - Perhaps, but given that so many of the unvaccinated naive Omicron infections were rated as moderate (and the authors used the higher neutralization result when there was more than one sample per patient), we would have to suppose that many of the unvaccinated previously-infected were severe. Unfortunately this is the one piece of patient information missing in the appendix. It seems more conservative to bet that severe outcomes were rare and there is some inherent difference in how antigenic the older spike is compared to BA.1. This might be a good thing IRL, even if the Vero cells don't think so.
Now, for *me* to ding Mole's argument on the basis of the outlet publishing it would really be throwing glass stones (*edit: coffee hasn't sunk in yet), haha. I give her credit for seeming to do her own leg work; she puts out high quality bs, maybe even Gorski-level.
Yeah I honestly wish researchers put more effort into stratifying their data. It seems to make a world of difference when you look at some of these assays and you see some poor soul who doesn't produce any immune response to anything- isn't that something pretty important to look into??? But I think this is partially done with the intent to obfuscate the overall message. I would like to know about that antigenic difference but I guess we'll need more information.
I should be hesitant to make such quick judgements, but I can't help myself with how journalists present information. It doesn't help that the subheader was "vaccines ftw" seriously? How old are these people?
It seems that a majority of modern Westerners sincerely believe they would be dead if not for medicine, and that their children won't make it through childhood if not medically protected from inherent flaws. So for them it's "obvious" that nature is kaput.
The evidence of "rubbish" is the high numbers of vaxed people who get sick anyway. Only morons or zealots would imagine the vax produces any benefits. Even worse are the indications vax actually degrades immune response. We're dealing with a cult.
ARS technica lacking understanding of natural immunity impugning natural immunity based on a sliver of natural immunity's function appearing to have failed in a study they probably do not understand either. Blergh.
I am impressed you manage to read such drivel and then write about it. I cannot even.
I think Mole understands the study. Which makes it even worse. She comes across as disingenuous rather than clueless. Her other post from October even throws in a “antibodies aren’t immunity” disclaimer while hawking antibody assay results that had already been rendered obsolete by real world vax failure.
"Beth has a bachelor’s degree in biology and world music from the College of William and Mary and a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill."
Having read her bio, I would tend to agree.
That leaves disingenuousness or consensus following. I wonder if ARS Technica were in a media pool receiving covid relief funding...
That's funny I had to see her bio twice to recognize the college I flunked out of, haha. I've been vaguely incorrectly remembering it as "Williamsburg" for a decade or so. I'm sure they don't need a bribe to come up with "vaccines FTW." The whole staff probably pretends they're receiving a BioShock plasmid when they get transfected at the local CVS.
It doesn't even seem like there has been much imbalance in pursuit / recruitment for the "S" at any time in recent history, anyway - though obviously a massive skew in acknowledgement. But I bet it would be much harder to power a critical-theory-style attack based solely on the "TEM" part. Inaccurate portrayal of a glass ceiling in science seems like an intentional feature of the term, which was only invented in the 90s afaik.
They are really clutching at straws.. both this one and the natural origin studies seem like poor efforts to prop up a dying narrative. Ignoring T cell immunity as usual.
Mar 25, 2022·edited Mar 25, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey
Thank you for this post, which is a better analysis with more references than this NEJM 'correspondence'. Can you send them your summary for a publication?? It is extremely important to read the 'experimental procedure' of how they treat the plasma of the real human beings!!! First to use no white blood cells which are the KEY to the immune response, is the FRAUD No1.
Then on top of it heating the plasma for 30 minutes at 56 °C, that's a condition at which every human is DEAD => FRAUD No 2. To take the viruses grown in some medium with 2% fetal calf serum, instead of anything human, in particular the apparently infected volunteers, that's equally a fraud, No 3. Now taking GMO monkey cells and let these cow grown viruses plus the dead serum to multiply in it, is a complete mixup, fraud no 4. And then performing 'staining' using serum from a completely unrelated 'convalescent patient' and 'goat anti-human IgG secondary antibody' is the tip of these frauds, No 5, with big letters. This entire correspondence is literally like the RIP Robin Williams on a Saturday night show, with humans, cows, monkey's and anti-human goats, all in one pot! DR. Judy Mikovits is always right! Plandemic I and II please:)
Right, there is so much distortion built in to the design. I especially wondered if the staining was less sensitive for BA.1 and this led to the use of a lower cell count for 50% benchmark. But as the Covid-vaccinated served as positive controls, I didn’t want to attack the assay too much, beyond the fact that with no longitudinal samples in the vaxxed there was no way to perceive the impact of BA.1 infection on that group!
Mar 25, 2022·edited Mar 25, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey
Thank you for the response. Need some time to research this.. Will be back. Oh with that goat anti-human secondary antibody, I couldn't but get this association:
Hard to say. The "subscription / software update" model for endless boosters seems to have stalled, so the depopulation agenda remains the only coherent explanation.
The hardest thing will be to digest the fact, that these injections can or will cause HIV, once everyone realizes that, I'm not sure what will happen to Fauci. He better retire on the moon...
I believe the “real” Study is the one perpetrated on the Austrian people by the government’s vaccine mandate. Time will tell on that one. Cohort numbers = entire population. Control group? None unless they didn’t mandate children?
If, after recovering fully from a very unpleasant bout of covid (sans vax), I were to find I did not develop antigen specific antibodies (in the blood, not the mucosa), my conclusion would NOT be: "I should get 'vaxxed' to be protected in the future". Rather, it would be "oh, I guess my immune system saw fit to deal with this virus without the need for such antibodies."
There obsession with antigen-specific antibodies coursing through the bloodstream is a-scientifically myopic.
Exactly. In this case the authors are not measuring antibodies directly but whether the blood inhibits infection of Vero cells (implying "good (neutralizing) antibodies"). Maybe that would be interesting in a vaccine trial (since it's not like you can hope for anything better), but in real infection the mucosal response (tissue-resident memory T and B Cells and IgA antibodies) is much more relevant to "immunity."
"Their.."
"To measure immunity to this virus, we must measure reinfections, the same way it has been done since the concept of immunity was first observed. Anything else is a false idol."
I applaud this statement. It always feels to me like incredibly convoluted studies are designed to obfuscate. (And some, like this, to be inexpensive, compared to something like an RCT involving thousands of people.)
Right, I love it when the plasma samples are so inconsistent. "Samples between 12 vaccinated donors, and then a weird trash bag that we found in a closet were compared." Neutralization assays are the science equivalent of posting "first" in a comment thread.
Never underestimate the ability of journalists to not know how to read a paper. It always goes that one journalist may have made an earnest attempt, reports on a finding (albeit in an incomplete or narrative-driven manner) and then other journalists dive into this one article like a vulture on a dead deer. You can clearly tell how many journalists are actually citing other journalists by how they word their articles.
Anyways, it may be likely that the less severe nature of Omicron may be at play here if we believe the argument more severe cases of prior variants led to greater immunity. But like you said, we just need more information, and it does no good when journalists report on studies as if any study is the definitive study. Also, isn't Ars Technica a, well, tech website?
RE severity - Perhaps, but given that so many of the unvaccinated naive Omicron infections were rated as moderate (and the authors used the higher neutralization result when there was more than one sample per patient), we would have to suppose that many of the unvaccinated previously-infected were severe. Unfortunately this is the one piece of patient information missing in the appendix. It seems more conservative to bet that severe outcomes were rare and there is some inherent difference in how antigenic the older spike is compared to BA.1. This might be a good thing IRL, even if the Vero cells don't think so.
Now, for *me* to ding Mole's argument on the basis of the outlet publishing it would really be throwing glass stones (*edit: coffee hasn't sunk in yet), haha. I give her credit for seeming to do her own leg work; she puts out high quality bs, maybe even Gorski-level.
Yeah I honestly wish researchers put more effort into stratifying their data. It seems to make a world of difference when you look at some of these assays and you see some poor soul who doesn't produce any immune response to anything- isn't that something pretty important to look into??? But I think this is partially done with the intent to obfuscate the overall message. I would like to know about that antigenic difference but I guess we'll need more information.
I should be hesitant to make such quick judgements, but I can't help myself with how journalists present information. It doesn't help that the subheader was "vaccines ftw" seriously? How old are these people?
I'm just disappointed they didn't go with "Nature Fail," if we're doing 2009 throwbacks.
It does feel a little insulting to tell Mother Nature that millions of years of evolution will be superseded by a few decades of modern day research.
It seems that a majority of modern Westerners sincerely believe they would be dead if not for medicine, and that their children won't make it through childhood if not medically protected from inherent flaws. So for them it's "obvious" that nature is kaput.
The evidence of "rubbish" is the high numbers of vaxed people who get sick anyway. Only morons or zealots would imagine the vax produces any benefits. Even worse are the indications vax actually degrades immune response. We're dealing with a cult.
I think you're missing the big picture, which is "Can everyone's blood protect Vero cells or not?" That's obviously the main goal.
As you said, not revelatory.
ARS technica lacking understanding of natural immunity impugning natural immunity based on a sliver of natural immunity's function appearing to have failed in a study they probably do not understand either. Blergh.
I am impressed you manage to read such drivel and then write about it. I cannot even.
I think Mole understands the study. Which makes it even worse. She comes across as disingenuous rather than clueless. Her other post from October even throws in a “antibodies aren’t immunity” disclaimer while hawking antibody assay results that had already been rendered obsolete by real world vax failure.
"Beth has a bachelor’s degree in biology and world music from the College of William and Mary and a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill."
Having read her bio, I would tend to agree.
That leaves disingenuousness or consensus following. I wonder if ARS Technica were in a media pool receiving covid relief funding...
That's funny I had to see her bio twice to recognize the college I flunked out of, haha. I've been vaguely incorrectly remembering it as "Williamsburg" for a decade or so. I'm sure they don't need a bribe to come up with "vaccines FTW." The whole staff probably pretends they're receiving a BioShock plasmid when they get transfected at the local CVS.
"World music" - more I cannot even.
Not even a bit.
I see this often too - lots of "why aren't women in STEM!!!!11" and there the STEM women are, working as "journalists"...
It doesn't even seem like there has been much imbalance in pursuit / recruitment for the "S" at any time in recent history, anyway - though obviously a massive skew in acknowledgement. But I bet it would be much harder to power a critical-theory-style attack based solely on the "TEM" part. Inaccurate portrayal of a glass ceiling in science seems like an intentional feature of the term, which was only invented in the 90s afaik.
They are really clutching at straws.. both this one and the natural origin studies seem like poor efforts to prop up a dying narrative. Ignoring T cell immunity as usual.
Thank you for this post, which is a better analysis with more references than this NEJM 'correspondence'. Can you send them your summary for a publication?? It is extremely important to read the 'experimental procedure' of how they treat the plasma of the real human beings!!! First to use no white blood cells which are the KEY to the immune response, is the FRAUD No1.
Then on top of it heating the plasma for 30 minutes at 56 °C, that's a condition at which every human is DEAD => FRAUD No 2. To take the viruses grown in some medium with 2% fetal calf serum, instead of anything human, in particular the apparently infected volunteers, that's equally a fraud, No 3. Now taking GMO monkey cells and let these cow grown viruses plus the dead serum to multiply in it, is a complete mixup, fraud no 4. And then performing 'staining' using serum from a completely unrelated 'convalescent patient' and 'goat anti-human IgG secondary antibody' is the tip of these frauds, No 5, with big letters. This entire correspondence is literally like the RIP Robin Williams on a Saturday night show, with humans, cows, monkey's and anti-human goats, all in one pot! DR. Judy Mikovits is always right! Plandemic I and II please:)
Noah's ark in a test tube!
Right, there is so much distortion built in to the design. I especially wondered if the staining was less sensitive for BA.1 and this led to the use of a lower cell count for 50% benchmark. But as the Covid-vaccinated served as positive controls, I didn’t want to attack the assay too much, beyond the fact that with no longitudinal samples in the vaxxed there was no way to perceive the impact of BA.1 infection on that group!
Thank you for the response. Need some time to research this.. Will be back. Oh with that goat anti-human secondary antibody, I couldn't but get this association:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/09/us/satanic-temple-suing-netflix-sabrina.html
article titled: "Satanic Temple Sues Over Goat-Headed Statue in ‘Sabrina’ Series"
I always wonder, what is the goal of the elites with the genetically modifying covid injections, an obvious genocide in the first place:
http://www.opensourcetruth.com/1100-increase-in-u-s-military-deaths/
but what else?
Hard to say. The "subscription / software update" model for endless boosters seems to have stalled, so the depopulation agenda remains the only coherent explanation.
the stall is maybe because of the presumable 73,000 law suits pending against the criminals..:
http://www.opensourcetruth.com/millions-will-get-aids-from-vax-by-fall-dr-elizabeth-eads/
The hardest thing will be to digest the fact, that these injections can or will cause HIV, once everyone realizes that, I'm not sure what will happen to Fauci. He better retire on the moon...
I believe the “real” Study is the one perpetrated on the Austrian people by the government’s vaccine mandate. Time will tell on that one. Cohort numbers = entire population. Control group? None unless they didn’t mandate children?
Beth Mole is a true believer. Either that or a willing propagandist.
Probably the latter, but she is shameless enough not to bother with any knowing winks.
Haha - "The unvaccinated 50 year old male reported no symptoms, but I could tell he was just being passive-aggressive."