Still another variant; possibly more infectious than Delta

Maybe. We'll see. The influenza virus has too many subtypes from the glycoproteins hemagglutinin and neuraminidase in its spikes, and they keep changing season to season. But there is indeed research on finding a broad spectrum vaccine for the influenza virus.

 

I doubt they will redo the influenza virus vaccine, that is a money maker, why go back and change it now

the only reason they did it this time, as this was a race to get the government money to give a shot to almost everyone during a pandemic

the fact so many other companies did it too means they had to share that money, but had they been the only ones, that would of been huge

 

Yes, I do. I have posted it, even started a thread about it. Hang on, I'll fetch the link to that thread. OK here you go:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...f-all-covid-survivors-have-long-covid.593324/

'And I have no idea what you're talking about "negative" coverage in scientific journals. We don't write anything negative or positive in scientific papers. We write what we find in our trials and surveys and meta-analyses. It is what it is. It is often the press or the lay public who put a negative or positive spin on what we write. Science is neutral. At least, good science is, while junk science is biased.

 

Of course if there is a better influenza virus vaccine in a different platform, it will be researched and if effective and approved, it will be produced and distributed. This is a competitive market. Pharma companies won't shy away from making a vaccine just because another company makes another vaccine and makes money out of it.

What you are saying would be akin to say "the Diabetes medicine Metformin is a money maker so they won't go back and change the treatment for diabetes and get new drugs." There are dozens of diabetes drugs other than Metformin in the market.

Sorry but what you're saying makes no sense.

That's what Pharma companies do, they engage in R&D all the time to try and find new things they can patent, sell, and hopefully steal market share from competitors. Companies never stop their R&D because a competitor already has a product. So if they find a better flu vaccine that will beat the existing ones, of course they'll jump on it.

 

I doubt it, but you never know

 

The evidence is in conflict with your opinion. We most certainly do know what parts of the virus natural immunity “targets”.

Natural infection induces immune response to all subunits of the spike protein. Vaccines do as well, but elicit higher titers of a couple of the more important ones for initial neutralization, including the receptor binding domain. (Of course we are learning this higher titer is temporary with vaccination.)

Natural infection also elicits response to the nucleocapsid protein whereas it’s unlikely the vaccines can, especially the mRNA ones since they do not code for ribosomes to build that antigen. Furthermore, there is now some evidence antibodies to the S2 subunit (natural infection produces high titers of antibodies to S2) may be very important in protecting against variants because this portion of the S protein does not mutate as much as the RBD subunit.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne...iffers-from-natural-SARS-CoV-2-infection.aspx

However, antibody titers are not the whole story. We now know memory B cell formation against RBD is occurring and long lived in recovered Covid cases.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.abf8891

So even when first wave antibody titers decrease after recovery to the RBD, memory B cells targeting RBD ensure a rapid response to reinfection, severely limiting the chance of a mutation of concern being transmitted to another individual.

We also now have confirmed memory B cells from natural infection are superior to those from vaccination.
https://www.rockefeller.edu/news/30...fferences-in-covid-antibody-responses-emerge/

I just don’t see any evidence for your claims vaccination is better at reducing variants of concern than natural immunity. Of course those with no immunity are statistically more likely to produce a variant of concern.

 

The point was vaccines do not create mutations. The mutations are natural. They occur with or without a vaccine. With viruses they occur constantly. It is how evolution works. The weak mutations disappear and the strong ones survive. Natural selection. The vaccine either motivates the production of the right antibodies or not. If they are the right ones, they will overcome of virus. If not, the virus will continue to reproduce until the immune system can come up with the right antibodies. The cause of the mutations was not with the vaccines. They were natural. You give more power to vaccines than they deserve. They only provide for the development of antibodies. That's it.

 

Me too.

Turn off your TV set, and go outside of a liberal controlled city/county, and it will instantly be over.

More fear mongering.

... as many as the Democrat Party needs...

You COULD try prescribing IVERMECTIN, eh? You COULD try NATURAL IMMUNITY (then herd immunity), eh?

No, we don't need any of that stuff. Instead, we NEED to do what the Amish Community did, which is to allow the virus to "rapidly make its rounds" throughout the community, WHILE LIVING LIFE PER NORMAL (they still went to church and still spread the communion cup around to everybody and everything), and then they quickly achieved herd immunity and COVID is no longer an issue there. BAM! Spread and done.

Tyrannical mandates are driving me much crazier than any scamdemic. Be like the Amish. Turn off your TV. You will be MUCH happier.

 

Let's add in a few more of their lies, to see just how the goalposts have shifted (and will continue to shift):

** Just two weeks of mask wearing to "flatten the curve".
** Just another two weeks of mask wearing...
** Just wear the masks until a vaccine comes out...
** Just the vaccinated can take their masks off now...
** Just kidding, the vaccinated need to put their masks back on...
** Just the availability of a vaccine will return us to normal
** Just 60% of people need to get jabbed to return to normal
** Just 70%...
** Just 80%...
** Just 90%...
** Just 100%...
** Just get the vaccine if you feel like it.
** Just get the vaccine.
** Just get the booster if you feel like it.
** Just get the booster.

** Just get the COVID Pass.

** Just stop using gas powered equipment.
** Just stop driving gas powered vehicles.
** Just stop eating red meat.
** Just stop eating meat.
** Just be an organ donor if you feel like it
** Just be an organ donor.
** Just undergo kidney transplant surgery.
** Just undergo lung transplant surgery.
** Just undergo gastric bypass surgery.

How far will the "justs" continue to go??

How many "justs" will people continue to believe will "finally return us back to normal" before we "JUST" get so damn sick of it that we forcefully demand the tyranny to end and to be reversed?? When will people learn that we absolutely cannot in any way/shape/form comply our way out of tyranny??

Even better yet, when will the left quit lying?

 

Targeting only one of the spikes allows the others to mutate to change the way it infects.

 

Hospitals have plenty of resources, IF they don't fire a large chunk of their staff for not receiving an injection.

... and hospitals firing a large chunk of their "trained personnel" for not wishing to receive an injection helps HOW, exactly??

Maybe we should be treating people with ivermectin, actually healing them, instead of putting them on ventilators and causing them to die in order to receive "COVID money"??

If people actually cared one single iota about health, then they would start with the root cause of most health issues that are prevalent in the former USA today, and that would be the piss poor "Western" "balanced" diet that government and "nutrition experts" keep peddling to the masses. We'd solve MOST ALL of our widespread health issues IF we would instead be eating a diet much closer to the carnivore diet, which is what our bodies are actually designed to handle, and IF we'd only eat ONE meal a day (maybe two max) instead of eating three meals a day plus continuously snacking throughout the day.

F covid fear mongering... Where the true health "pandemic" lies is in people eating piss poor "balanced" "Western" diets and sitting in front of their TV and CPU screens instead of actually DOING SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE with their lives.

It is COMPLETELY about controlling peoples lives.

It is NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST IOTA about peoples health and well-being. If it were, then all the information that I have mentioned above would be at the very forefront of such discussions, not vaccine mandates and passports and segregating/dividing people into two classes (a "clean" vaccinated class and a "heathen & unclean" unvaccinated class). Democrats LOVE segregation, hatred, racism, bigotry, and division. Those things are all prevalent throughout their entire history of existing as a political party.

And those resources will be much better managed now that we're firing a sizable chunk of our trained healthcare workers because they won't receive a jab??

That's the promoted idea, anyway...

 

It targets only one of the spike proteins, not all of them. It does not work like natural immunity and does not create immunity memory like natural immunity does.

 

natural immunity can target any part of the virus, the vaccine targets the spikes - that is why the vaccine is better at handling the variants

now if you're talking the flu vaccine, that is much like natural immunity

 

correct, and as long as that spike doesn't change, it's still an effective vaccine

if it does change, it may not be able to enter our cells anymore as the key may no longer work

 

I just posted peer reviewed studies showing natural immunity targets every bit of the spikes the vaccines do. And parts of the virus the vaccine doesn’t. And the B cell maturation to fight variants from natural immunity is superior to that from vaccination. These are facts.

Of course you are welcome to cite research to the contrary to support your so far unsubstantiated opinion, but you won’t because you know no such evidence exists.

 

which is why if it mutates a little the natural immunity is no longer valid

the vaccine is better at handling the variants

 

No. Natural immunity to influenza is much better than immunity from vaccination. Where do you get your information?

 

Nope. I just posted peer reviewed studies showing the exact opposite. LOL

Where do you get your information that you think it is more valid than peer reviewed studies? Just curious.

 

does natural immunity to influenza protect you against the variants?

 

Yes it does.

 

Sure. Much better at protecting against new strains than current vaccines.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867418303106

And.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24090-z

 

I agree with everything you said, except for the last phrase. While there's been studies showing that the natural immunity is superior to the vaccine-induced immunity, there are ALSO studies showing that the vaccine immunity is superior to the natural immunity or at least equal. I've posted both kinds here (including in a dedicated thread). This issue is not settled given that studies go both ways. As usual in science, not all studies conclude the same thing, and then we vie for further evidence with larger studies and/or meta-analyses.

Here is a recent one saying it's equal (I've quoted more in the past, some with the vaccines beating natural immunity):
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ccinationontestingpositiveintheuk/october2021

• Two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines provided a similar level of protection to prior natural infection when the Delta variant was dominant.

The main problem with the studies showing that natural immunity is better than vaccine immunity is that not a single one I've seen, takes into account booster shots, which as you know greatly multiply neutralizing antibodies against the RBD. For how long, we don't know either. Also, we now know that mixing brands enhances immunity. So I'd like to see the studies touting natural immunity to be repeated, against 2 doses of the vaccines + a booster with a different brand/platform.

So if the Pfizer and AstraZeneca, which are now showing to be weaker than Moderna, only two doses at least equal natural immunity, can you imagine how they'd fare with a booster of the opposite platform (mRNA vs. adenovirus vector)? We do know that the enhancement is 10-11 times, thus one would conclude that this strategy beats natural immunity.

Say, two Modernas + 1 J&J booster... very likely to beat natural immunity. Adjuvanted adenovirus vector vaccines stimulate cell immunity too.

As in many items about this novel disease, science on it is not settled yet.

But as usual, your understanding of immunology is superior to most people's, here.

 

My claim was not about total protective immunity in that post but memory B cell maturation specifically. I have never seen any evidence vaccine induced memory B cell maturation after vaccination is equivalent to natural infection. It can’t be because the mechanism of B cell maturation depends on longer duration of present antigen than mRNA vaccines provide.

In total protective immunity I’m still unconvinced natural immunity wins. But it looks more and more like it will each day. Initial protection from vaccination is superior but wanes so much over a 5 month period without continuous boosters it quickly becomes less efficacious than natural immunity. Yes, there is a chance boosters may help longevity of protection but I don’t think they will solve the B cell maturation problem. I will be happy to be proven wrong if any study ever comes out.

The study you link to is a good one I’ve looked over but not in detail enough to know the time periods after vaccination/infection the data was collected. Immunogenicity studies show natural infection protection lasting 8-15 months compared to 5-6 months for two doses of vaccine. But as you say not conclusive at this point.

 

Adenovirus vector vaccines do provide B cell immunity.

Here:
https://www.jnj.com/johnson-johnson...:text=Mature B-cells produce antibodies,1.617.

"Data from the study conducted in collaboration with Dan Barouch, M.D., Ph.D., et al. of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center suggest maturation of B-cell response without further boosting."

And this, with only one dose, which I think was a mistake by J&J. Presumably the response is much better with two, and J&J should have proposed their vaccine as a 2-shot one.

The vaccines themselves don't last for long in the body... but the S proteins they teach the cell to manufacture, stay longer.

I'm not aware of a direct comparison between the adenovirus vector vaccines and the natural infection regarding B cell maturation. But do remember how lousy the immunogenicity from the whole inactivated virus vaccines is (CoronaVac), which is some measure of a hint on this (still, not a perfect one of course, because the natural virus replicates while the inactivated one obviously doesn't so effectively the natural infection provides, as a way of speaking, a bigger dose of the antigens. But they do have the same antigens.

This debate is a bit academic for me... because the people who tout the natural immunity against re-infection as compared to breakthrough infection among the vaccinated, conveniently forget that to achieve the natural immunity you have to be unvaccinated and acquire the virus first! Dangerous situation!

So, we're comparing apples and oranges in a sense: protection against 2 bouts of the virus (natural infection + reinfection) versus protection against 1 bout of the virus (breakthrough infection).

So, er, to be protected, someone needs to FIRST catch the real, wild, dangerous virus??? Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather have the second situation (some risk of breakthrough infection which is almost always milder anyway).

EVEN if the immunogenicity of the vaccines is ultimately shown to be a bit worse than that yielded by the natural infection, this virus is dangerous enough literally to life and limb (and organ) that vaccination is STILL a better strategy.

 

Interesting. I wasn’t aware of that data on J&J. I wonder if antigen from vector vaccines is more likely to end up in the gut or possibly other mucosal membranes or something compared to mRNA vaccine antigen.

Well we have good immunogenicity data on natural infection vs. mRNA vaccines and mRNA vaccines are still showing higher real world efficacy than vectors, correct? To be honest I haven’t kept up with the vector vaccines as much as the mRNA ones.

No disagreement there. Vaccination certainly makes the what now looks like inevitable infection more survivable. That’s indisputable. I’ve just always been bothered by the dismissal of natural infection immunity from the very start. It’s constantly misrepresented. I still say we should be thankful those who have it do have it, not continually misrepresent it’s value to the individual and society. I don’t think we have to diminish it’s value to make vaccination more appealing. I think it’s always been counterproductive to do so and still is. That’s just my opinion.