So my overall sense of outrage/injury makes me want every study to "prove" that the vax is creating exactly what was predicted by warnings of Geert Van den Bossche. Only because in real world examples the denial of vaccine injury are pervasive. We recently had a patient 30 year old woman came in to the psyche unit with severe depression r/t new onset migraines and tinnitus, tremors, severe paroxysmal tachycardia...onset 3 days after 2nd vaccine. No previous issues at all. Looking through the chart, my daughter who works as a CNA offered the possible explanation of vaccine injury and was shot down. (even though her NP quietly admitted she could be right). Meanwhile every test imaginable was done to find out what was going on. Of course they found nothing so discharge was planned, she was started on antidepressants and before she left the physicians encouraged her to take the booster. She declined. So anyway I love the deep science even though I usually have to read these studies several times to understand, even remotely, what is being said. Back to my first statement, you, and a couple other science type stacks, keep me HONEST.
Brian I recognize that you have devoted a lot of time simplifying these ideas for me. I would love to know what you think about Geert and his ideas, the VAERS reports, sudden deaths, collapse of athletes ect. I realize there is a difference subjective/objective but the ongoing denial of anything but the "safe and effective" vaccine narrative continues to perpetuate vaccine injury INJURY.
When I began this journey I diligently read all the most current studies from journals about covid immunity of the infected. The studies, month after month post covid onset all found "broad and durable" immunity. Then the vaccine came along and suddenly, even though the "broad and durable" immunity was still acknowledged..." by almost everybody (except that idiot at the NIH leading the country in worship hymns to himself) "BUT, you should get the vaccine as additional protection, because we don't know how long natural immunity will last".
I'm probably going to have a heart attack because of my continuous head spinning frustration, but at least they won't be able to attribute it to a "coincidence" post vaccine.
Right, since it turns out to be just as hard to prove that the Covid vaccines are unsafe as "safe" (1/1000000 side effects turns out to look the same as 1/10, due to bias and noise in the data), all either side can do is assert one thing or the other and wait for time to tell. So then our side falls into the trap of trying to prove ineffective vs "effective," when the data supports the vax here (even if this is an effect of bias, it's still a strong signal).
In reality the vax is probably hugely unsafe and pretty effective, and so our side will just have to wait for time to prove us right. There's no rushing it. But I worry as I've said before that by promising readers that proof of negative efficacy is around the corner, a lot of readers end up going on to get the vax or boosters after they get disillusioned. Which is why I stick to the "harder" argument about the risks. In the end I think a 1/10 or higher AE rate is going to pan out, and so what we see in VAERS is just the tip of an iceberg the size of half the Earth.
Vanden Bossche makes plausible predictions, but none of them have actually come to pass. Essentially he's a modeler, and he adjusts his models in response to new facts, but so far still hasn't called the game correctly. Maybe he will yet. A recent Nature study appears to refute his latest ADE speculation but I haven't finished reading it.
Are you referring to this Nature study: https://rdcu.be/cKYi6 "FcγR-mediated SARS-CoV-2 infection of monocytes activates inflammation"?
If so, I think this study not only opens the door for Bossch's ADE speculation but may end up being the actual mechanism which causes severe illness in the vaccinated (whose immune systems have been repeatedly primed to respond to the original spike protein) when they are exposed to future Covid variants. The study states:
"Our findings, which implicate opsonizing antibodies in monocyte
infection and inflammasome activation, suggest that antibodies
may contribute to deleterious immune reactions associated with
severe disease. FcγR-mediated monocyte infection is an example of
antibody-mediated enhancement (ADE) of infection."
If I'm understanding this study correctly, the lack of antibodies is not what is causing the severe inflammation (leading to severe disease and death); rather its too many antibodies. In other words, the reason why individuals experience severe illness and death from Covid is not because their adaptive immune system did not produce enough antibodies, but because it produced too many antibodies--antibodies which enhanced the infection of monocytes (and consequential inflammation). Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.
If ADE of monocytes can occur with antibodies produced by infection, then it seems to me that ADE of monocytes can also occur when the blood is robust with existing spike antibodies (from the vaccine) AND then supplemented with additional antibodies produced in response to a future Covid variant infection. That's way too many IgG antibodies floating around, thus increasing the odds that some (or a significant portion) may end up being non-neutralizing (thus actually enhancing infection).
Although, the study asserts that "ADE is not a concern with respect to vaccination," (based on their finding that "Plasma from vaccinated individuals did not promote monocyte infection"), the study does not unequivocally eliminate ADE as a concern for the vaccinated with respect to immune responses against future variants. And, if I understand Bossche correctly, its these future variants which will trigger ADE. Because the innate immune systems of the vaccinated have been suppressed, their immune response will rely almost exclusively on the adaptive arm and its antibodies--and that's when the odds of ADE increase: when the system contains non-neutralizing antibodies which enhance infection and an innate immune system that can't help fight off the infection.
Those are just my thoughts. Maybe I'm wrong. Please correct me if I am.
Right, that's the one. If future variants "recall" the quality of "(vaccine-induced) antibodies will enhance entry" observed in pre-vaccine infection, then that would validate vanden Bossche. But I still have to read the study to form an opinion!
From an intellectual perspective "there is no rushing it" but from a human cost perspective 16 months ago was way too late. Of course you are right though. Those looking for proof and becoming disillusioned may join the ranks of those who are willing to accept the prevailing narrative because it is easier.
Thanks for the quick run down! I've noticed a few people squeezing too much information out of neutralizing antibodies when comparing Ba.1 to Ba.2. Some studies may show a reduction in neutralization by 1.5 which sounds quite scary but we don't know if that means it stops working. In most of these studies the wildtype neutralization tends to drop by a factor in the 30s, which is even more telling. I think this makes it easy for people to interpret major concerns when there is none. And like you said these assays don't tell us much about immunity overall.
There are some places in the US where cases are rising by a lot. Actually, PCR test positivity is on the rise. What does that mean? I don't know. Even when I did PCR testing I never got information about the severity of illness- just that there are X many positive people that were tested. This really is an interesting time where if we stop reporting PCR positivity then would we even know we are still in a pandemic? It's quite the social experiment.
And thanks for that Crawford piece. I just skimmed it a bit (I wonder how he got his post to fit!) and it's interesting that people came out of nowhere to try to smear Paul Marek. I guess some people find this as a way to gain notoriety?
I bet early on that BA.2 wouldn't turn out to escape BA.1 immunity, for now I remain confident in the bet. Where are cases on the rise in the US? Last spring was busier in the East Coast, I speculated later that this was fed by the Canada Alpha wave. The "pandemic" always could have been made to disappear if testing stopped; everyone getting sick from time to time is just how life runs, and doesn't deserve some magic status bestowed by experts who get to divine how to make the magic status go away.
As far as gaining notoriety, it worked. Sheldrick's analysis was highlighted in MedPage Today, incl. solicited commentary. I never make it to MedPage Today. I assume Crawford just ignored the email limit, I always do. This one was about double-length and still arrived in my gmail.
In all honestly there really was no reason to argue against it. Ba.1 and Ba.2 are quite similar in their mutations aside from a few RBD changes. Wildtype is the furthest relative of Omicron and yet we are continuously giving out that spike for this variant with the argument that it would help so even on that heavily flawed metric we may assume that Ba.2 shouldn't be a huge issue.
I am on the East coast. I heard from someone that they are seeing high positivity but we don't know anything of their status so I am still keeping this to the assumption that these are just positive tests with either mild/no symptoms.
The notoriety is all that's needed now. Even if the analysis isn't proper if it can spread around then that's all that matters, which is quite concerning. I guess this is just another fault of news reports taking up reports of an analysis.
Wow, that actually hasn't worked for me recently. I used to brute force my previous posts and it appeared to work but now it doesn't appear to send anything now. I may try again but I also hesitate to have another "13 email" post.
Alaska, Vermont, RI, NY, I forget the others, but hospitalizations and deaths remain low. Less so for NY. I used to get MedPage, even got a couple of comments published on natural immunity early days but bias is so obvious now I unsubscribed.
actually requiring medical care would seem an eminently better proxy for an illness named Severe Acute anything than a useless overamplified PCR test with staggeringly useless level of false positives.
Naturally. The issue is that the media and various pro-vax Science Journalists will quote rates derived from denominators limited in that way in one breath and then rates derived from mass testing in the next, obscuring the difference between merely encountering the virus and showing up to a hospital. Note also that in the "polio epidemic," they didn't have a way to test for asymptomatic infection, and it led to a widespread belief that infection = paralysis.
So my overall sense of outrage/injury makes me want every study to "prove" that the vax is creating exactly what was predicted by warnings of Geert Van den Bossche. Only because in real world examples the denial of vaccine injury are pervasive. We recently had a patient 30 year old woman came in to the psyche unit with severe depression r/t new onset migraines and tinnitus, tremors, severe paroxysmal tachycardia...onset 3 days after 2nd vaccine. No previous issues at all. Looking through the chart, my daughter who works as a CNA offered the possible explanation of vaccine injury and was shot down. (even though her NP quietly admitted she could be right). Meanwhile every test imaginable was done to find out what was going on. Of course they found nothing so discharge was planned, she was started on antidepressants and before she left the physicians encouraged her to take the booster. She declined. So anyway I love the deep science even though I usually have to read these studies several times to understand, even remotely, what is being said. Back to my first statement, you, and a couple other science type stacks, keep me HONEST.
Brian I recognize that you have devoted a lot of time simplifying these ideas for me. I would love to know what you think about Geert and his ideas, the VAERS reports, sudden deaths, collapse of athletes ect. I realize there is a difference subjective/objective but the ongoing denial of anything but the "safe and effective" vaccine narrative continues to perpetuate vaccine injury INJURY.
When I began this journey I diligently read all the most current studies from journals about covid immunity of the infected. The studies, month after month post covid onset all found "broad and durable" immunity. Then the vaccine came along and suddenly, even though the "broad and durable" immunity was still acknowledged..." by almost everybody (except that idiot at the NIH leading the country in worship hymns to himself) "BUT, you should get the vaccine as additional protection, because we don't know how long natural immunity will last".
I'm probably going to have a heart attack because of my continuous head spinning frustration, but at least they won't be able to attribute it to a "coincidence" post vaccine.
Right, since it turns out to be just as hard to prove that the Covid vaccines are unsafe as "safe" (1/1000000 side effects turns out to look the same as 1/10, due to bias and noise in the data), all either side can do is assert one thing or the other and wait for time to tell. So then our side falls into the trap of trying to prove ineffective vs "effective," when the data supports the vax here (even if this is an effect of bias, it's still a strong signal).
In reality the vax is probably hugely unsafe and pretty effective, and so our side will just have to wait for time to prove us right. There's no rushing it. But I worry as I've said before that by promising readers that proof of negative efficacy is around the corner, a lot of readers end up going on to get the vax or boosters after they get disillusioned. Which is why I stick to the "harder" argument about the risks. In the end I think a 1/10 or higher AE rate is going to pan out, and so what we see in VAERS is just the tip of an iceberg the size of half the Earth.
Vanden Bossche makes plausible predictions, but none of them have actually come to pass. Essentially he's a modeler, and he adjusts his models in response to new facts, but so far still hasn't called the game correctly. Maybe he will yet. A recent Nature study appears to refute his latest ADE speculation but I haven't finished reading it.
Brian,
Are you referring to this Nature study: https://rdcu.be/cKYi6 "FcγR-mediated SARS-CoV-2 infection of monocytes activates inflammation"?
If so, I think this study not only opens the door for Bossch's ADE speculation but may end up being the actual mechanism which causes severe illness in the vaccinated (whose immune systems have been repeatedly primed to respond to the original spike protein) when they are exposed to future Covid variants. The study states:
"Our findings, which implicate opsonizing antibodies in monocyte
infection and inflammasome activation, suggest that antibodies
may contribute to deleterious immune reactions associated with
severe disease. FcγR-mediated monocyte infection is an example of
antibody-mediated enhancement (ADE) of infection."
If I'm understanding this study correctly, the lack of antibodies is not what is causing the severe inflammation (leading to severe disease and death); rather its too many antibodies. In other words, the reason why individuals experience severe illness and death from Covid is not because their adaptive immune system did not produce enough antibodies, but because it produced too many antibodies--antibodies which enhanced the infection of monocytes (and consequential inflammation). Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.
If ADE of monocytes can occur with antibodies produced by infection, then it seems to me that ADE of monocytes can also occur when the blood is robust with existing spike antibodies (from the vaccine) AND then supplemented with additional antibodies produced in response to a future Covid variant infection. That's way too many IgG antibodies floating around, thus increasing the odds that some (or a significant portion) may end up being non-neutralizing (thus actually enhancing infection).
Although, the study asserts that "ADE is not a concern with respect to vaccination," (based on their finding that "Plasma from vaccinated individuals did not promote monocyte infection"), the study does not unequivocally eliminate ADE as a concern for the vaccinated with respect to immune responses against future variants. And, if I understand Bossche correctly, its these future variants which will trigger ADE. Because the innate immune systems of the vaccinated have been suppressed, their immune response will rely almost exclusively on the adaptive arm and its antibodies--and that's when the odds of ADE increase: when the system contains non-neutralizing antibodies which enhance infection and an innate immune system that can't help fight off the infection.
Those are just my thoughts. Maybe I'm wrong. Please correct me if I am.
Right, that's the one. If future variants "recall" the quality of "(vaccine-induced) antibodies will enhance entry" observed in pre-vaccine infection, then that would validate vanden Bossche. But I still have to read the study to form an opinion!
I look forward to any analysis you may have to offer. Thanks for all you do!
From an intellectual perspective "there is no rushing it" but from a human cost perspective 16 months ago was way too late. Of course you are right though. Those looking for proof and becoming disillusioned may join the ranks of those who are willing to accept the prevailing narrative because it is easier.
Thanks for the quick run down! I've noticed a few people squeezing too much information out of neutralizing antibodies when comparing Ba.1 to Ba.2. Some studies may show a reduction in neutralization by 1.5 which sounds quite scary but we don't know if that means it stops working. In most of these studies the wildtype neutralization tends to drop by a factor in the 30s, which is even more telling. I think this makes it easy for people to interpret major concerns when there is none. And like you said these assays don't tell us much about immunity overall.
There are some places in the US where cases are rising by a lot. Actually, PCR test positivity is on the rise. What does that mean? I don't know. Even when I did PCR testing I never got information about the severity of illness- just that there are X many positive people that were tested. This really is an interesting time where if we stop reporting PCR positivity then would we even know we are still in a pandemic? It's quite the social experiment.
And thanks for that Crawford piece. I just skimmed it a bit (I wonder how he got his post to fit!) and it's interesting that people came out of nowhere to try to smear Paul Marek. I guess some people find this as a way to gain notoriety?
I bet early on that BA.2 wouldn't turn out to escape BA.1 immunity, for now I remain confident in the bet. Where are cases on the rise in the US? Last spring was busier in the East Coast, I speculated later that this was fed by the Canada Alpha wave. The "pandemic" always could have been made to disappear if testing stopped; everyone getting sick from time to time is just how life runs, and doesn't deserve some magic status bestowed by experts who get to divine how to make the magic status go away.
As far as gaining notoriety, it worked. Sheldrick's analysis was highlighted in MedPage Today, incl. solicited commentary. I never make it to MedPage Today. I assume Crawford just ignored the email limit, I always do. This one was about double-length and still arrived in my gmail.
In all honestly there really was no reason to argue against it. Ba.1 and Ba.2 are quite similar in their mutations aside from a few RBD changes. Wildtype is the furthest relative of Omicron and yet we are continuously giving out that spike for this variant with the argument that it would help so even on that heavily flawed metric we may assume that Ba.2 shouldn't be a huge issue.
I am on the East coast. I heard from someone that they are seeing high positivity but we don't know anything of their status so I am still keeping this to the assumption that these are just positive tests with either mild/no symptoms.
The notoriety is all that's needed now. Even if the analysis isn't proper if it can spread around then that's all that matters, which is quite concerning. I guess this is just another fault of news reports taking up reports of an analysis.
Wow, that actually hasn't worked for me recently. I used to brute force my previous posts and it appeared to work but now it doesn't appear to send anything now. I may try again but I also hesitate to have another "13 email" post.
Alaska, Vermont, RI, NY, I forget the others, but hospitalizations and deaths remain low. Less so for NY. I used to get MedPage, even got a couple of comments published on natural immunity early days but bias is so obvious now I unsubscribed.
or to justify their own bias.
actually requiring medical care would seem an eminently better proxy for an illness named Severe Acute anything than a useless overamplified PCR test with staggeringly useless level of false positives.
Naturally. The issue is that the media and various pro-vax Science Journalists will quote rates derived from denominators limited in that way in one breath and then rates derived from mass testing in the next, obscuring the difference between merely encountering the virus and showing up to a hospital. Note also that in the "polio epidemic," they didn't have a way to test for asymptomatic infection, and it led to a widespread belief that infection = paralysis.