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.
"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.)
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?
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.
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:)
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.
"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.)
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?
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.
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:)
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.