"A hyperinflammatory syndrome reminiscent of toxic shock syndrome (TSS) is observed in severe COVID-19 patients, including children with Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C). TSS is typically caused by pathogenic superantigens stimulating excessive activation of the adaptive immune system. We show that SARS-CoV-2 spike contains sequence and structure motifs highly similar to those of a bacterial superantigen and may directly bind T cell receptors. We further report a skewed T cell receptor repertoire in COVID-19 patients with severe hyperinflammation, in support of such a superantigenic effect. Notably, the superantigen-like motif is not present in other SARS family coronaviruses, which may explain the unique potential for SARS-CoV-2 to cause both MIS-C and the cytokine storm observed in adult COVID-19."
More foreign people not using English correctly. SARS-CoV-2 suppresses immune response, Covid-19 is a problem of immune suppression. MIS-C in kids is separate and too rare to even bother discussing.
Given all that, what of this "superantigen"? Just nonsense. The spike protein is a protein. It isn't magic.
Thus, through a combination of mathematics, ecological modeling, and advanced immunological techniques we were able to discover that by erasing immune memory, measles once was partially responsible for ~50% of childhood infectious disease deaths."
I have not yet read the paper but I wonder if they did any follow ups to see whether there was a difference in disease prevalence between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. That is, did the reduced Abs actually cause a problem?
Right, Measles hacks away at memory B Cells. But I feel this is probably a net benefit or at least a benefit whenever it is not a detriment - lowered auto-immunity.
Please can you summarise your overall opinion on the vaccines?
I know several people who got infected ( mildly) within 2-4 weeks of a booster, therefore isn’t this study missing all those people if they don’t start counting until day 28?
Do the vaccines increase the likelihood of catching covid within the first month? I think yes.
Do the vaccines decrease likelihood of catching covid between ~ 1-4 months? I think they are neutral for infection but am happy to be corrected. Isn’t it difficult to tell because surely it depends on whether there was a wave occurring at time of ‘testing’ the theory?
Do the vaccines have any effect beyond 4-ish months? I think not.
At what point in these scenarios do you believe there may be ‘severe-efficacy’ ie. they are justified in saying ‘ but it would have been so much worse without a vaccine’! ?
I know you’ve written posts in the past about all this and I’ve read them all, but I read a lot and remember a little and I’m currently on holiday too! Thanks!
Every pre-Omicron study in adults showed severe efficacy. So did the Israel dashboard. When a comparison can be made between infection and severe efficacy, severe efficacy is typically there when infection efficacy isn't. Such as in my go-to example Horne, et al.*, three different "waves" of 2021-vaxxed cohorts, you see vaxxed/unvaxxed infection appear to go to 1 at 6 months but severe and death ratios still at .2. So this is exactly what I say should be asked for in the "true severe efficacy" model and was the basis for my use of .2 (There was a similar ratio with the Israel dashboard as soon as they started reporting hospitalizations in August 2021 and through to the rest of the year).
Everything after spring 2022 is conjecture - there is no more unvaccinated control group because unvaxxed all have natural immunity. You can't measure anything without a yardstick.
But sustained severe efficacy just makes sense on a biological basis for multiple reasons; this is why I have never believed boosters are useful (and obviously they muddy up the data including by creating a fresh illusion of pseudo-severe efficacy by comparison with the non-boosted who are at the same time having their first infections). The (multiple) biological basis for sustained severe efficacy is discussed here https://unglossed.substack.com/p/efficacy-by-procrastination
Anecdotes aside, there has never been any evidence that shots increase infections short-term except a handful of studies from winter 20/21 that have unverified unvaccinated denominators. I think the clearest disproval of this is England initial roll-out because you wouldn't be missing the cases in the age brackets (but you are) - https://unglossed.substack.com/p/the-worry-window-is-not-real-post-b23
That's part of what I like about your work Brian. You don't hold any science to be sacred, to not be challenged or called out for poor quality or method. Which is Exactly as it should be. $#!%%@ science should be called put WHERE EVER it is found, so we can all do, be better.😉
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2010722117
"A hyperinflammatory syndrome reminiscent of toxic shock syndrome (TSS) is observed in severe COVID-19 patients, including children with Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C). TSS is typically caused by pathogenic superantigens stimulating excessive activation of the adaptive immune system. We show that SARS-CoV-2 spike contains sequence and structure motifs highly similar to those of a bacterial superantigen and may directly bind T cell receptors. We further report a skewed T cell receptor repertoire in COVID-19 patients with severe hyperinflammation, in support of such a superantigenic effect. Notably, the superantigen-like motif is not present in other SARS family coronaviruses, which may explain the unique potential for SARS-CoV-2 to cause both MIS-C and the cytokine storm observed in adult COVID-19."
More foreign people not using English correctly. SARS-CoV-2 suppresses immune response, Covid-19 is a problem of immune suppression. MIS-C in kids is separate and too rare to even bother discussing.
Given all that, what of this "superantigen"? Just nonsense. The spike protein is a protein. It isn't magic.
Peripherally related in that Big-Pharma may be creating scare-stories about measles ...
Measles virus infection diminishes preexisting antibodies that offer protection from other pathogens
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aay6485
On twitter one of the authors claims:
"
Michael Mina
@michaelmina_lab
·
Sep 6, 2021
Thus, through a combination of mathematics, ecological modeling, and advanced immunological techniques we were able to discover that by erasing immune memory, measles once was partially responsible for ~50% of childhood infectious disease deaths."
I have not yet read the paper but I wonder if they did any follow ups to see whether there was a difference in disease prevalence between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. That is, did the reduced Abs actually cause a problem?
Right, Measles hacks away at memory B Cells. But I feel this is probably a net benefit or at least a benefit whenever it is not a detriment - lowered auto-immunity.
Please can you summarise your overall opinion on the vaccines?
I know several people who got infected ( mildly) within 2-4 weeks of a booster, therefore isn’t this study missing all those people if they don’t start counting until day 28?
Do the vaccines increase the likelihood of catching covid within the first month? I think yes.
Do the vaccines decrease likelihood of catching covid between ~ 1-4 months? I think they are neutral for infection but am happy to be corrected. Isn’t it difficult to tell because surely it depends on whether there was a wave occurring at time of ‘testing’ the theory?
Do the vaccines have any effect beyond 4-ish months? I think not.
At what point in these scenarios do you believe there may be ‘severe-efficacy’ ie. they are justified in saying ‘ but it would have been so much worse without a vaccine’! ?
I know you’ve written posts in the past about all this and I’ve read them all, but I read a lot and remember a little and I’m currently on holiday too! Thanks!
Every pre-Omicron study in adults showed severe efficacy. So did the Israel dashboard. When a comparison can be made between infection and severe efficacy, severe efficacy is typically there when infection efficacy isn't. Such as in my go-to example Horne, et al.*, three different "waves" of 2021-vaxxed cohorts, you see vaxxed/unvaxxed infection appear to go to 1 at 6 months but severe and death ratios still at .2. So this is exactly what I say should be asked for in the "true severe efficacy" model and was the basis for my use of .2 (There was a similar ratio with the Israel dashboard as soon as they started reporting hospitalizations in August 2021 and through to the rest of the year).
Everything after spring 2022 is conjecture - there is no more unvaccinated control group because unvaxxed all have natural immunity. You can't measure anything without a yardstick.
But sustained severe efficacy just makes sense on a biological basis for multiple reasons; this is why I have never believed boosters are useful (and obviously they muddy up the data including by creating a fresh illusion of pseudo-severe efficacy by comparison with the non-boosted who are at the same time having their first infections). The (multiple) biological basis for sustained severe efficacy is discussed here https://unglossed.substack.com/p/efficacy-by-procrastination
Anecdotes aside, there has never been any evidence that shots increase infections short-term except a handful of studies from winter 20/21 that have unverified unvaccinated denominators. I think the clearest disproval of this is England initial roll-out because you wouldn't be missing the cases in the age brackets (but you are) - https://unglossed.substack.com/p/the-worry-window-is-not-real-post-b23
*eta missing link https://unglossed.substack.com/p/tasd-contents-on-severe-efficacy#footnote-2-102680564
That's part of what I like about your work Brian. You don't hold any science to be sacred, to not be challenged or called out for poor quality or method. Which is Exactly as it should be. $#!%%@ science should be called put WHERE EVER it is found, so we can all do, be better.😉
#wearescience #setthebarhigher #sacredcowsbegone
Yup! 👍🏽
Thanks!