Vaccine immunity better than natural immunity - newest study

That is OK - I think of it as evolution in action

 

There is actually more “evolution in action” in hybrid or natural immunity because of higher rates of and longer duration antibody affinity/memory B cell affinity maturation. Affinity maturation is the only evolutionary mechanism known to operate on a molecule in an organism’s own body. How cool is that!?

I’m not opposed to boosters for some demographics at this time, but we are operating on assumptions at this point with little data except boosters increase neutralizing antibodies. We don’t know if T cell exhaustion will be a factor in 6 month interval vaccinations. We don’t know if antibody affinity maturation will be suppressed with successive vaccinations like it is with influenza. We are just assuming without evidence there will not be negative consequences down the road. And we are going down this road knowing we have a passive vaccine that can protect the immunocompromised better than vaccines we are using now—and we know it can’t cause T cell exhaustion or decreased affinity maturation in the future.

Again, I’m not opposed to boosters today for some demographics, but I think we are way out on a limb without a lot of evidence for being here.

 

No, you're just plain wrong. The other conflicts were for covid-19 vaccine TRIALS, and additional disclosures don't even concern Covid-19 vaccine makers. The phases I, II, and III trials had multiple centers involved, and they have ALL concluded already. ALL of the above disclosures, when they apply to vaccine studies, are for PAST studies, so yes, you ARE distorting things because the funding was not for THIS study.

If you were just able to read, you'd see on the first page of the study, the phrase FUNDED BY THE CDC. So, you should take back your slanderous accusation that this study was funded by vaccine makers.

And again, the tiny percentage of corrupt data show that I'm not the only one with integrity. Integrity in the scientific field is the norm, not the exception. But of course, an utterly misinformed person like you (who has issued a number of blunders related to the fields of medicine and medical science, like your ABSURD idea that doctors would misinterpret vaccine side effects as Covid-19 symptoms) wouldn't know that.

You also wouldn't know that the section of a study that has disclosures of potential conflicts of interest doesn't typically address the CURRENT STUDY's funding, because that is reported elsewhere. These are two different disclosures/concepts.

If this study had been funded by Pfizer or AstraZeneca, the first page footnote would have said "Funded by the CDC, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca." Well, you don't see that there, do you?

Again, if YOU have some integrity, please respond to this in the only way a person with integrity would respond:

"Oops, my bad. I stand corrected. I take back my slanderous accusation that this study was funded by vaccine makers."

The ball is on your side of the field. I'm waiting.

 

I pointed out in post #10 how there could be other reasons for the outcome of this study, rather than vaccine immunity really being better than natural immunity.

 

You might not be so familiar with the biology or science of this sort of thing, but usually in this situation we would expect natural immunity to be more effective.
The reason is the virus has many different surface proteins to which the body's immune system responds to, whereas the vaccine only consists of one of those protein markers.

 

we already knew this as the vaccine target the spikes

 

Only one of the three spikes.

 

Uh, what? I'm not "so familiar with the biology or science" although I'm an MD/PhD with 41 years of experience in medical research, Virology, and Immunology? LOL this is the funniest thing I've ever heard.

Do you actually think I ignore what this virus is made of? I've described its various proteins in several posts here. For your information, there are 29 viral proteins for this coronavirus.

What YOU don't know, is that the very reason why vaccine immunity has shown in some studies (not all, but the majority of them) superiority over natural immunity yielded by natural infection, is precisely the fact that the vaccine immunity zooms into the receptor-binding domain of the virus' spike protein, which is the virus' Achilles heel.

There are two broad types of antibodies against the coronavirus: those that we call neutralizing antibodies, and those that we call binding antibodies. The neutralizing antibodies are the IgG against the RBD of the spike protein, which are generated by the vaccines. Binding antibodies can attach to several other proteins, like the N (nucleocapside), the M (membrane), the E (envelope) and various other non-essential, non-structural proteins, even the ones not displayed on the surface of the virus, because when an infected cell is killed by T-cells, fragments of all viral proteins are thrown into the extra-cellular space. Simply biding to these proteins does not mean that the virus gets disabled, unlike biding to the RBD of the spike (although binding antibodies do play a role in the immune mechanisms; just, a role that is less important and less decisive than the role played by neutralizing antibodies).

So, when the natural virus enters the circulation, the body makes antibodies against everything... which dilutes the immune response. You get just a fraction of the immune response, directed towards the RBD of the spike protein (which is what matters).

With the vaccines, the ENTIRETY of the immune response is directed to what matters, the RBD of the spike protein. The plasma cells are fully engaged in making the ONE kind of antibody that actually strongly disables the virus. There is a reason why we picked the S protein to be the target of the mRNA vaccines. It's because it's the most efficient way to attack the virus. mRNA vaccines can be engineered to attack any viral protein. We could have made them for various others... we didn't, for a reason.

This is easily seen if you consider the full inactivated virus vaccines like the one made by Sinovac, called CoronaVac.

Well, that vaccine introduces the WHOLE virus to the organism. So, people who receive the CoronaVac make antibodies against several viral proteins (fortunately, including the S protein).

Guess what? Immunogenicity generated by the CoronaVac is INFERIOR to the one generated by the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA vaccines. It avoids infection in smaller percentage of the vaccinated subjects, than what the mRNA vaccines can accomplish.

Why? Because the immune system of recipients of the CoronaVac is, so to speak, distracted with multiple proteins and only a fraction of it zooms into the S protein, while for the recipients of mRNA vaccines, all of the response is focused on what matters.

Let's think, for simplification sake, that you look into ten antibodies that the person who had the natural infection or an inactivated whole virus vaccine gets.

2 of them are against the N protein - they have some minor role in disabling the virus
2 of them are against the S protein - strongly disable the virus
2 of them are against the M protein - don't disable the virus except in the most indirect way through cellular immunity
2 of them are against the E protein - don't disable the virus except in the most indirect way through cellular immunity
2 of them are against fragments of any of the other 25 proteins - don't disable the virus

Then, you look at the antibodies of a person vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine

All 10 of them are against the S protein. All 10 are of the kind that strongly disables the virus. These are the ones you want.

10>2.

Get it?

Next time, see if you make a bit less ridiculous assertion, that a medical scientist with 41 years of experience is unfamiliar with the science.

 

No, you just think you did.

 

Yes, but that's fine, because we're in the middle of a dangerous pandemic, so we must act a bit ahead of the evidence. If we were to sit on our fingers waiting for all the evidence to develop, months, even years from now, a lot of people who can be saved, would die.

 

which makes the key worthless, which is the point

 

Yes, that’s why I’m ok with boosters at this point. I haven’t done the math (I hate math) on the risk difference between a young fit person going for hybrid immunity now or continuing to booster for the foreseeable future. I’m thinking as superior as hybrid immunity is, the overall risk would be less to have a natural infection that boosts antibodies and elicits B and T cell maturation than repeated boosters that temporarily increase neutralizing antibodies. If we would give the severely immunocompromised passive vaccination with monoclonal antibodies and less compromised boosters I believe everyone else would be better off long term to have hybrid immunity.

It’s probably purely academic because hybrid immunity will be what happens long term anyway over time.

 

I think this virus is dangerous enough to vital organs, with relatively frequent sequelae that will impact on quality of life, life expectancy, and productivity (thus also hurting the economy for years to come) that for now it is justified to try to avoid it at all costs. You know, maybe we'll get some frequent boosters for one or two years, then we'll have other very efficient ways to counter it, like oral antivirals and more available/utilized monoclonal antibodies, as well as broad spectrum second generation vaccines done over different platforms, to avoid the loss of efficacy. I have no problem with the booster route now, because I'm hopeful that we're gaining sufficient time to come up with more permanent solutions. There's a gambit in this, for sure, but I think it's a justified one, because for now, the vaccines are our most efficient tool, so I think they are the way to go in the short run.

 

There isn’t enough evidence to pursue another route. Except on monoclonal antibodies. Boosters for the immunocompromised is ridiculous (not the most efficient tool) when we have a better option—if disease avoidance really is the goal. It’s decisions like boostering people we know don’t benefit much from it with another better option available left unused that turns me off to the mass repeated vaccination campaign. It shows we still aren’t serious about individual health.

On the plus side, I see they are finally telling people home transmission is driving the pandemic. (Duh). If we would have acted on this kind of evidence all along instead of completely ignoring it I'd have more faith in the “let’s do what we think works now” approach. We have consistently avoided mitigations all along that would have saved lives and internal organs. The idea boosters should be the go to when obvious other solutions have been (and still are) avoided bothers me. If health of the individual and society IS in fact the goal we should not focus on one unproven mitigation at the expense of other proven ones. I just don’t like the optics. There have been too many wrong choices by the bureaucratic public health institutions to inspire faith in this choice.

/rant off. You know I’m not blaming you.

 

But the monoclonal antibodies ARE available. Basically everybody smart enough to apply for them (given the right indication) is able to get them, for free. They are underutilized, so there is no scarcity. Why more people aren't aware of them, is mindboggling, and part of the HORRIBLE lack of public health announcements/campaigns, which I've been complaining about forever and ever. Certainly if any patient of mine is high risk and shows up with an initial infection, I tell him/her "let's get a monoclonal antibody infusion" and I write a script and send the patient to the nearest infusion center (where the patient gets the infusion for free).

I just recently had a 68-year-old lady, very frail, with a number of medical conditions, who showed up positive. We immediately infused her. She didn't even have a single symptom. Her co-morbid profile would certainly result in a very severe Covid-19 case if we hadn't immediately infused her. Now they've been approved for post-contact prophylaxis too. The one thing that is missing (and it shouldn't be) is their use for plain prophylaxis even before contact, especially for the immunocompromised who won't respond well to the basic vaccination AND to boosters (at least a significant percentage of them). I fully agree with you that this indication should be there too. It isn't, simply for political reasons, that the authorities (wrongly, in another one of their multiple blunders) believe that if approved this way, they'd undermine the vaccines. So what, if they did? They'd catch a number of people who don't want the vaccines, and this would enhance the overall protection for the bulk of the population. Part of it must be a cost calculation too, since an infusion of monoclonal antibodies costs a lot more than a dose of the vaccine.

Not implementing widespread use of monoclonal antibodies for prophylactic use is one of the multiple mistakes our authorities have made in this pandemic.

 

I am very happy monoclonal antibodies are available post exposure. It’s a step in the right direction. But we seem to be in agreement it would be much better to allow immunocompromised individuals to get them before exposure or a positive test. This would cut their risk of death and sequelae substantially.

I’ve pondered the cost angle, but in the long run the expensive hospitalizations of immunocompromised individuals for Covid and subsequent treatment of sequelae in the future make a $2000 investment look pretty attractive to me. This is the first time I’ve seen the political “left” opposed to healthcare spending to save dollars long term. It’s amusing but sad.

Maybe the powers that be will come around. They finally stopped recommending against quality masks. There’s hope they will see the light on this one eventually as well. In the meantime I’m glad you are making people aware of monoclonal antibodies and their value.

 

If vaccinated immunity is so great then why do we need booster shot after booster shot after booster shot? We're already talking about fourth shots. How long before they decide we need one every six months?

 

I'm curious what people are seeing in their own pandemic micro world and how it compares to the multitude of studies popping upl

For me I'm not seeing people who recovered from COVID getting it again. I'm seeing vaccinated people who never had COVID contracting COVID. And the seriously ill seem to be mostly unvaccinated people.

 

Which is an illogical and purely emotional response.

The chance of death is negligible. The vaccine won't necessarily absolutely save you from death if you were going to die from it.

And on top of that there may be unknown side effects from repeated injection that cannot easily be measured, as we would expect from a constantly heightened immune response. It's the type of thing that's really not good for general overall health, especially as you age.

Imagine if I have a 0.4% chance of death and I refuse to take something that might lower that chance from 0.4% to 0.2%, and then you claim it's somehow "evolution in action". Do you see how nonsensical that actually sounds?

 

I think their idea of a booster is to run out and get reinfected…..and sick for two weeks.

 

That’s your choice. The “ rest of your life” maybe the next time you get infected. No one is dying from the booster. But it’s more important to talk tough and die early. Fine.

 

Well, it has been measured. The same people have been taking flu shots for decades using this same vaccine protocol which has been around since the middle 1980s.

 

In two days there will be a study that says natural immunity is better.

The thing you should focus on is if you get this virus it most likely is not going to kill you unless you're suffering from stage 4 cancer, if you have some sort of advanced emphysema a serious heart condition so forth.

 

Or odds are greatly in my favor that I don't die from any of this and people get upset because of it.

Lol

 

Who’s upset that you don’t get a shot. We’re only upset when unvaccinated people don’t inform us so we can leave.