Vaccine immunity better than natural immunity - newest study

Discussion in 'Coronavirus Pandemic Discussions' started by CenterField, Oct 29, 2021.

PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening. We urge you to seek reliable alternate sources to verify information you read in this forum.

  1. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    19,104
    Likes Received:
    11,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And this technique is destroying the subsequent ability of repeated vaccinees to benefit from more influenza vaccinations. Every flu shot you get decreases the efficacy of next years shot.

    By the time a person is elderly the efficacy of flu shots for them is very low if they have a lifetime of annual flu shots. And you weren’t told this, were you?

    You are supporting a system that is withholding the information from you about annual influenza shots destroying the ability of a flu shot to benefit you when you are aged and need protection the most. Good luck with that…
     
    Melb_muser and CKW like this.
  2. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,882
    Likes Received:
    8,404
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Like I recently showed to you, the CDC does have this information in their website.
    And it's not as clear-cut.
    It seems like the effect is more pronounced when last year's antigen is identical or very close to this year's antigen, and much less pronounced when the virus mutates more (the concept is called antigenic distance). When the antigen is too close, last year's antigen can cause what is called antibody interference, blunting the effect of this year's shot. But when they differ significantly, not necessarily.

    And there are solutions.

    One, vaccination every other year. Another one, higher-dose vaccines for the elderly.

    You showed me a metanalysis. This paper cautions against using metanalyses for this, given seasonal variations:

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28562111/
     
  3. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    19,104
    Likes Received:
    11,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If I can find the complete study from your link I’ll look it over later. But I wouldn’t hang my hat on an abstract of a study from 2017 as evidence a study published in 2021 is invalid.

    I’ve showed data from individual studies and meta analysis. If we can’t accept either I’m not sure what to say…
     
  4. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,882
    Likes Received:
    8,404
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is a button for the full-text on the right side of the page, right next to the title. Here is another link to the full text:

    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14760584.2017.1334554

    I don't see why being from 2017 means it is not as good as a study from 2021 - the flu is a disease that has been with us for millennia and flu shot campaigns have been with us for decades; it's not four years that will make such a huge difference. Loss of efficacy of the flu vaccine is a topic that has been studied since the 70's. If we were talking Covid, then yes, 4 years would make a huge difference, but the flu?

    Meta-analyses are great but they make sense when they pull together apples and apples. If they pool together apples and oranges, they can foster more confusion than clarification. The word of caution here is that the immunogenicity of the influenza vaccine varies too much from season to season (you know, from practically zero to 80%) to be a good subject for a meta-analysis. You can find a year when efficacy seems to drop precipitously, but then you can also find a year when it is great. So what do you make of a study that focuses on the bad year and attributes the drop to people having had the vaccine the year before, versus a study that focuses on the good year and this effect doesn't seem to be there, and then the two studies get opposite conclusions?

    If you don't carefully verify the behavior of the main strains circulating that year and how much antigenic drift existed as compared to the previous year's vaccine, you won't really sort it all out. So if you simply do a meta-analyses that pools together the stats from different studies, without looking carefully into the root cause of those stats, you can end up with the wrong conclusion.

    They did not imply that meta-analyses are invalid. They simply caution against taking them at face value without digging further to look into the variables, given the huge variability of both the virus itself, and the vaccines. So, it is a topic that is not very favorable to receiving the meta-analysis treatment.

    So, they say this in the full text:

    "Interpretation is limited by the short time frame, limited number of studies, and high heterogeneity in some VE estimates. Pooling of VE estimates across multiple seasons can mask important differences at the individual season level, and studies conducted since 2009 are inadequate to guide program or policy recommendations at this time."

    And this:

    "Most analyses of repeated vaccination were conducted as a secondary analysis, and the precision of the estimates was low. In addition to the small number of studies and small sample sizes by vaccination group, there was heterogeneity in study design, patient population, study setting, vaccination type and ascertainment, age groups, and seasons."

    That is, apples and oranges...

    "Studies conducted in only three or four seasons are inadequate to understand repeated vaccination effects that may be positive, negative, or neutral for any given season, subtype, or population subgroup."

    ^Damn right...

    "During the other two recent seasons (2011–2012 and 2012–2013) for which non-homologous H3N2 vaccine antigens were used in prior and current seasons, the effects of repeated vaccination were less consistent or pronounced and none showed significant variation by vaccine group."

    I've been telling you, this issue is not settled, and is not clear-cut.

    How could we find more answers? This study says:

    "An increase in basic and applied research is needed over the next decade. Multiseason clinical studies should include both observational (cohort) studies and a randomized clinical trial. These studies should incorporate modern immunological concepts and assays, including HA stalk and NA antibodies, antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, and measures of epitope-specific T and B cell response. The findings from these studies will be important to guide future influenza vaccine policies and recommendations."

    So, again, just like for the Covid studies, some studies focus too much on humoral response and too little on T and B cell response.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2021
  5. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    19,104
    Likes Received:
    11,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks. I found the button for the full text later in the day when I had time to look it over.
    My point is a study published 4 years before another study can’t really comment on the selection criteria, the methods, or conclusions of a study not yet in existence.

    If there are criticisms of the meta analysis I’ve provided I’m open to discussing them. But I’m not sure how self critique by your study’s authors has a lot of relevance to a study that was designed to account for limitations in your study. All studies have limitations. It doesn’t make them irrelevant.
    The object of meta analysis is to smooth out the heterogeneity of individual studies. If all studies were in agreement and had the exact same design a meta analysis would be a complete waste of time.

    The design of the study I presented separated apples from oranges and analyzed data separately based on time period since repeat vaccination began (program maturation), antigenic similarity/dissimilarity, age group, and by pool and type/subtype.

    Your study is cited in the introduction to the study I presented. The current study I presented was designed to build on previous work and answer questions your study’s authors wanted further research done on. Mine includes data not available when yours was published.

    Of course there are limitations to all studies as I said and the study I presented is no different. It also laments heterogeneity of recruitment methods, small sample sizes in some cases, etc. But the authors believe only including test negative design studies of outpatients kept bias to a minimum.

    None of these studies can look into root causes because we don’t even know what they are. We know antibody affinity maturation is involved in year to year VE decline but for long time periods we just don’t know. Animal studies and some studies in kids point to possible T cell involvement. The study I presented included data from vaccination programs dating back to 1963. We can do these studies and see VE is decreasing but we don’t know why. And for this discussion it doesn’t matter. What matters is that in short term and long term analysis VE does decrease. And that it does so in cases where antigenic similarity and antigenic dissimilarity occur.
    All good studies include limitations in the discussion section or in a dedicated limitations section. Meta analysis included. The study I linked to does as well. But it is a unique study that attempted to account for the apples and oranges.
    What’s important to me is consistent VE decreases with increased incidence of annual vaccination. I’m much less concerned about season to season variations.
    But on average, the longer an annual vaccination program has been in effect, the lower the VE in subsequent years. Again, that’s my concern. Not what happened specifically in 2011-2013.
    I believe the study I posted from 2021 is one such study.

    You realize it’s considered unethical to do a randomized controlled trial designed to better answer this question in the US? A crazy catch 22 where we are told we need more randomized controlled trials because current information isn’t adequate to question current policy, but we can’t do any RCT’s BECAUSE of that current policy.

    At the end of the day, what bothers me most about this is the fact policy and recommendations are being made for people who have been kept pretty much in the dark about the whole issue. I understand a large percentage of folks will happily follow the CDC piper into the river—that’s obvious with the N95 mask fiasco. But my point of bringing this up is so people can have information to base their decisions on. I don’t think a young healthy person will make the same decisions on annual influenza vaccination knowing decreased efficacy in the future is observed than they would in the absence of such information. I know I’ve decreased my popularity here on PF by introducing this information. But as I’ve said, that’s not what I’m here for. :)
     
  6. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,882
    Likes Received:
    8,404
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not concerned about your popularity. You're popular to me... LOL. I enjoy having these discussions with you given that you do look at the evidence and you do understand the studies. I confess that I haven't had the time to look closely at the meta-analysis you provided. I'll find some moment to do it. You are right that if they addressed the concerns of this study from 4 years before, then maybe their analysis is valid after all.

    Yes, in the United States, Institutional Review Boards are very strict about studies that would submit the placebo population to added risks. Unfortunately, many research groups get around this limitation by running studies in more complacent countries like those in Sub-Saharan Africa; which in my opinion is even more unethical; these groups are basically exploiting those disadvantaged populations who will willingly engage in risky studies for the small perks they are given to incentivize participation (a practice that is frowned upon by IRBs here).
     
    557 likes this.
  7. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    19,104
    Likes Received:
    11,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The main criticism I have of the 2021 meta analysis is being underpowered in the area of dissimilar antigenic strains.

    The reason I believe there is merit to the idea VE decreases with annual vaccination is not just based on analysis of VE in these studies, but also on evidence increases in vaccination rates in the elderly are not showing up consistently in decreased sickness/mortality data.
    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/486407
    And I’m not sure what to make of this from the AARP. It does seem to be consistent with CDC trends but as you say over short periods of time you can’t make definitive conclusions.
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/feeds....o-2018/older-flu-deaths-rising.html?_amp=true
    In conclusion the data shows me the only way we are keeping population VE rates steady is by vaccination of more individuals each season. If vaccination rates were static we would observe decreasing VE at the population level. Doses distributed in the US have almost doubled since 2010 with no measurable corresponding decrease in symptomatic illness.

    I understand this is raw data not adjusted for confounding metrics like increasing obesity et., but it fits the meta analysis we’ve been looking at as well as modeling studies. I need to look up a modeling study I lost. I believe it was from Canada.
     
  8. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,882
    Likes Received:
    8,404
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You do know about the big elephant in the room, right? Not only we get raw data in these reports without accounting for numerous variables, but also, the CDC does not obtain hard data on flu deaths. They do not require a certified positive result in flu tests and a death certificate showing that the flu was the cause of death. They do ESTIMATES. This is in huge contrast with how Covid-19 deaths are reported and tabulated. Then we get this kind of thing, one source saying that mortality from the flu has increased, another saying that it has decreased.

    We get this in one of your quotes: "Observational studies report that influenza vaccination reduces winter mortality risk from any cause by 50% among the elderly." But then we get this from another one of your quotes: "An AARP Bulletin analysis of government data reveals that deaths attributed to the flu among those 65 and older have spiked in recent years."

    Who knows? It seems like different conclusions are found when researchers look at the data from different angles. This appears to be too messy. I wish the CDC required firm, hard data regarding flu deaths instead of estimates. Of course then we'd have to also include deaths from cardiac events triggered by the flu, which is something that you and I know that is grossly undercounted.

    Another issue is, studies of flu vaccine efficacy may look at different end points. Are they looking at merely infection (Estimated? Real, with positive tests?), or also at degree of severity, and death confirmed to be from the flu?

    Because even if a vaccine loses efficacy to prevent infection, if it still makes the flu less serious and less likely to lead to hospitalization, sequelae, or deaths, then even the vaccine with lowered efficacy did at least partially do its job.

    I've always had the impression that the CDC is in the business of scaring people into accepting the flu shot, and has traditionally overestimated the number of flu deaths, when they issue their estimate for that season. The AARP may be engaged in the same effort. You and I agree that lying to the public is not good, but I am under the strong impression that the CDC exaggerates the risk of flu. But then, it also underestimates it, by not counting as flu deaths, those caused by cardiac events triggered by the flu.

    I think it's a very complex situation, which makes me take with a bit of a ground of salt pretty much all papers on influenza. I think the degree of uncertainty and the number of variables not accounted for, plus the low number of subjects in most studies, not forgetting that this is a virus that mutates a lot and the vaccine against it changes a lot, makes for a muddy picture in terms of relevant conclusions that can be applied to public health programs.

    By comparison, studies on Covid-19 seem to be much more precise, given that the stats on Covid are more reliable than the stats on the flu, because the former are not estimates, but rather, hard data.
     
    Melb_muser likes this.
  9. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    19,104
    Likes Received:
    11,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @CenterField
    Yes I think the reason the CDC can’t acknowledge deaths from cardiovascular events is because it would decrease “faith” in vaccination. As I’ve said before, our current annual vaccination policy is a Ponzi scheme. There is no good way out at this point without either damaging the credibility of the CDC or eroding acceptance of further vaccination, or both.

    Estimates of deaths and infections allow enough wiggle room in reporting to keep the Ponzi operational. We are between a rock and a hard place—admitting to 90-100,000 more annual deaths from cardiovascular events is harmful to vaccination acceptance and VE statistics. Restructuring vaccination policy would at least initially cost lives. Actual reporting of infection and deaths based on PCR testing would be unthinkable in the context of cost and logistics before Covid. Now it’s an option but would take away the cover provided by estimates. Publicizing decreased VE harms vaccine acceptance and credibility. Basically any change of policy has multiple negative consequences nobody wants to face.

    Everyone “in the know” is praying new vaccines will alleviate the problem before the Ponzi fails completely due to lack of vaccine naive candidates. I hope new vaccines will help as well.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2021
    Melb_muser and CenterField like this.
  10. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,882
    Likes Received:
    8,404
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree with all that you said above. Well, the CDC should try to find a way out of this mess, because if what they're worrying about is their credibility, that is thoroughly gone and there is no way to get it back unless they fire everybody who is not a serious career scientist who doesn't get involved in policy or politics or a clerical person not involved in anything; that is, they fire every single person involved in policy and politics, and hire a whole new bunch of people, and start again from scratch. Given that the odds of this happening is virtually a round zero, the CDC will continue to be discredited; which is a sad situation, and not without dire consequences for the health of Americans.

    I had hoped for a reset when the administration changed, but sadly, the new bunch are committing as many blunders as the last bunch.

    This said, like I said before, the CDC is not always wrong, and their advice is not always wrong, even now, even about Covid-19 - as a matter of fact, most of what they say is sound. But they've been wrong and caught lying enough times by now, to destroy public trust.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2021
  11. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,882
    Likes Received:
    8,404
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    After this, you quoted a doctor talking about long-term issues, saying that there are none. I called her a moron.

    But I'm revisiting this issue, and I guess I misunderstood what you said and what that doctor said or answered with a different take, from reading too fast. I meant, there are obvious long-term consequences... of early adverse reactions, which is why I said Guillain-Barré, Transverse Myelitis, TTS, things that can result in permanent damage or death, and I said, nothing more permanent than death. So my interpretation of long-term here was in the sense of permanent. But were you talking about consequences (as in, sequelae), or actually by long-term you mean that there would be a side effect that we don't know of (after, now, 7.31 billion doses being given, over the span of one year) and will manifest unexpectedly months/years after the person got the vaccine? Because if that's what you mean by long-term, then, no, there are no vaccines known to cause absolutely nothing at first for several months, then suddenly result in a new adverse reactions months/years after the vaccine has been administered, without another dose being given. That simply doesn't happen.

    Problems show up early, within two months at most. These problems can have long-term consequences... but problems don't show up months later while not showing up within a couple of months. Sure, of course you could have undiagnosed conditions starting within the first two months and not noticed at first (say, undiagnosed myocarditis that damaged the heart sufficiently to result years later in heart failure), and only later one might notice the damage, but that wouldn't be the same thing, because the diagnostic failure would be either because a doctor didn't think of it and didn't test for it, or the person didn't report the symptoms to a doctor, or the person didn't have access to care, but it wouldn't be a true late adverse reaction. What it would be, is a late consequence of an early adverse reaction, and one that is diagnosable; failure to diagnose/treat it is not the fault of the vaccine.

    See this:

    "consider this fact offered up by Dr. Wesley Long, assistant professor of Clinical Pathology and Genomic Medicine. "In the entire history of vaccines, there's never been a side effect that occurred more than two months after a vaccine was administered," Dr. Long says. "People are worried that some unknown side effect will occur 10 to 15 years down the line, but the truth is, that's never happened."

    https://www.houstonmethodist.org/blog/articles/2021/aug/does-covid-19-affect-male-fertility/

    After that idiot Aaron Rodgers diffused the conspiracy theory that the vaccines cause infertility down the road, I thought it was important to rectify the record on this.

    The moron known as Aaron Rodgers apparently, of his own confession, gets his scientific facts and his medical information from Joe Rogan, or maybe from Jake from State Farm. What the imbecile known as Aaron Rodgers doesn't know, is that the VIRUS can affect male fertility, but not the vaccines, like the above article demonstrates. So, good luck, Rodgers. You didn't want the vaccine, afraid it would make you infertile (it doesn't), then you got the virus, which can.

    Oh, and you (Rodgers, not 557) were "immunized", right? With homeopathic medications, and ivermectin. Well, it didn't work, did it?
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2021
  12. CKW

    CKW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Messages:
    15,642
    Likes Received:
    3,676
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know we are past this topic now...but why wouldn't hospitals keep data on people who previously had covid, got sick again and ended up in hospital? I would think that data pretty important. So we would have
    1)Non vaccinated with no previous Covid.
    2) Vaccinated
    3) previous Covid no vaccination.
     
  13. ToughTalk

    ToughTalk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2018
    Messages:
    13,666
    Likes Received:
    10,309
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think I could care less at this point about the difference between the efficacy of natural immunity versus the vaccine's immunity.

    if you are not willing to wear one of these;

    upload_2021-11-9_19-19-39.png

    Then you are not doing all you can to keep everyone safe. Which makes you a hypocrit.

    Thanks for playing
     
  14. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    19,104
    Likes Received:
    11,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But it does happen. With influenza vaccines. The decrease in efficacy isn’t magic. It’s the result of a physiological reality. We know it’s partially from a decrease in antibody affinity maturation. We can say that’s not a negative long term consequence but it is. We can say decreasing effectiveness of influenza vaccines from annual vaccination isn’t a long term negative consequence or a side effect, but it is. Just because likely the majority of healthcare providers and nearly 100% of laymen are unaware of this consequence doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Here is my claim.


    Here is what the quoted (by me) professional said.
    "I usually start by saying, first of all, there are no vaccines that we know of that have long term side effects," she said. "So, there are vaccines that we have studied for years and years and years and years and years... when they're approved, they're not known to give long-term side effects.”

    Decreased efficacy (and damage to the immune system, be it decreased ability to differentiate antibodies/B cells or in disruption of normal T cell function) is a long term side effect. In two ways. First it has long term negative effects and second it develops over years, not weeks as other known side effects.

    I would agree that Covid vaccines aren’t causing infertility and the likelihood they will in the future is near zero. But Dr. Long is just plain wrong. It (long term negative consequences developing over long periods of time) is happening with influenza vaccines. People just aren’t being told about it. Maybe physicians aren’t either, I don’t know.

    Do you know where Rogan gets his ideas? I’ve posted about it but not to you directly. It’s Bret Weinstein.



    https://www.wweek.com/news/2021/09/...the-nations-leading-advocates-for-ivermectin/
    This is the guy that has influenced Joe Rogan quite a bit on vaccines and ivermectin.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2021
  15. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,882
    Likes Received:
    8,404
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My friend, it you will extend to loss of vaccine efficacy, the concept of a late adverse reaction, then I'll concede the point and as usual in terms of the points you make, it is a good point, but that's not what we usually talk about when we talk of adverse reactions. You know very well that I don't ignore these effects... neither does the CDC (I linked for you to a page where it is addressed; it's there, for public consumption) and I even added other similar concerns, such as original antigenic sin (a potential problem if we boost and boost with the original spike protein and then the virus develops antigenic drift; a new version of the vaccine adapted to the new spike protein may lose efficacy), and the ever feared ADE, antibody-dependent enhancement.

    Now, we've also extensively discussed that these phenomena have not been seen with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, and no ADE has been described among vaccinated people (who tend to have much milder cases when there is a breakthrough case, rather than more severe ones). They've been seen with vaccines made with a totally different platform (egg-based viral culture, harvested for viruses, and inactivated, to be included whole, or else, cell-based but processed the same way; it is true that the recombinant ones that codify for HA are closer to the mRNA platform) for a virus of a totally different family, the influenza virus. They are not coronaviruses.

    These Covid-19 vaccines contain no viruses. They are synthetic small strands of mRNA codified for one thing, and one thing only: the instruction to make spike proteins. Period, full stop. They are extremely different from flu shots (well, not as different from the recombinant ones, and here I'd like to ask you: is the phenomenon you're concerned about, also happening with recombinant flu shots? I don't know; maybe you do).

    While I understand your concern, I've been telling you that there's been no evidence whatsoever that these phenomena are occurring or will occur with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Much the opposite, what we've observed over and over, is that with subsequent doses of the vaccines, neutralizing antibody production increases. Unlike what happens with the flu shot, the efficacy is not dropping. It is increasing once you boost. So, if the effect you're concerned about starts happening, then let's talk again. So far, I see no evidence, and we've had these vaccines for 1 year (more if you think of the start of phase I trials) and they've been given 7.31 billion times to humans.

    I also told you that I consider the concern a bit misguided in view of this dangerous current pandemic. If the vaccines we're using now, eventually in two or three years result in a loss of efficacy by one of the mechanisms you and I described, well, they'll have saved literally millions of lives until the time when that efficacy wanes, by which point most probably we'll have advanced antivirals that inhibit viral proteases for all variants, and Covid-19 will become a case of the sniffles that won't even require a vaccine. Hell, we already have one, coming out as we speak of the Pfizer pipeline (and one from Merck, a bit less efficacious and with a different mechanism of action - which bodes well for combining the two). We are literally a few months away from having a definitive solution... and you're concerned with loss of VE a few years down the road?

    And frankly, I'm not interested in who fills Joe Rogan's dumb head with junk science. Bret Weinstein, the notorious dark web guy. A mere ex-professor of biology in a minor college. My pedigree is just some 1,000 times deeper and more sophisticated than this moron Weinstein who is definitely not Einstein.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2021
  16. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,882
    Likes Received:
    8,404
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What makes you think that this kind of data doesn't exist? There's been studies addressing these situations, from Israel, the UK, the USA...
     
  17. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    19,104
    Likes Received:
    11,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree decreased efficacy is in a different class than immediate adverse reactions. But my original point included negative consequences developing long term. We have both now quoted professionals claiming no long term side effects. I argue decreased efficacy is definitely a side effect and a long term consequence. If these professionals know about this they need to stop claiming nothing like it exists. That is my point. I have never claimed Covid vaccines will decrease efficacy. I don’t have solid evidence of that. More on that later. I am just tired of the claims all negative effects or consequences happen relatively immediately for all vaccines. It simply isn’t true. If we want two separate classes of side effects then we should report on both specifically, not say things like the public health official I quoted.
    "I usually start by saying, first of all, there are no vaccines that we know of that have long term side effects,"

    No, coronaviruses are not influenza viruses. Yet both have similar sequelae and both are turning out to respond similarly to vaccination. Less antibody affinity maturation and less long lived plasma cells in vaccinees than in convalescents. No, this is not evidence Covid vaccine efficacy will decrease with boosters. It’s evidence we can’t exclude similar outcomes based on the fact influenza and coronavirus are different families.
    mRNA vaccines are essentially subunit vaccines manufactured by your body instead of in a lab. Recombinant vaccines are essentially subunit vaccines where the subunit antigen is “manufactured” in cell lines. So both are subunit antigens being presented to the immune system. I’m not aware of any difference in the actual antigen based on whether it’s produced by a cell line or in a living human but there could be. I’ve never looked into it.

    I know of one study that looked at a very small sample over a two year period that shows decreased antibody affinity maturation in year two for all platforms. Flublok was the recombinant platform in the study.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11296-5


    I haven’t looked to corroborate this finding with other studies, it’s just one I ran across earlier when looking into this.

    At this point my concern is not decreased efficacy of Covid vaccines. I agree it’s not observed at present. My concern is the continued claim (not by you) that there is no long term negative effects from vaccines. My concern is many are using a claim that isn’t true in their arguments against people they see as science deniers or conspiracy theorists. We don’t restore faith in “science” when we do these things. This is a much bigger concern to me than a small percentage loss of efficacy in any vaccine.

    Yes the CDC has a few paragraphs on the subject but nothing on pooled efficacy over time—just short term year to year variations. As I’ve said before I’m not concerned with variation so much as overall decreased efficacy over time.
    I find it amusing because when progressives rail against anti vaxxers they are railing against their own without realizing it. Same with Robert Kennedy targeting anti vax information towards racial minorities and then media and others blaming trumpers for the problem. It’s just amusing to me.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2021
  18. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,882
    Likes Received:
    8,404
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The bottom line is, your concern is valid. However, I'd still say that when people talk of late/delayed adverse reactions, vaccine efficacy is not what they are talking about. If you do want to include this as a late/delayed adverse reaction, I do think you have a point, and maybe people should specify it this way: "we don't see any late/delayed adverse reactions with vaccines beyond a couple of months of administration, when we define adverse reactions as Guillain-Barré, thrombotic events, etc.; when they do occur, they occur early; unless one includes loss of efficacy in the definition of an adverse reaction, in which case, yes, it can happen; however while the latter can happen with the flu vaccine, we haven't seen it yet with the Covid-19 vaccines, although it is not impossible that we will see it in the future; hopefully by then, if it happens, we'll have other solution such as highly effective antivirals to be taken by the mouth."

    I think you'd be satisfied with such statement, wouldn't you? It's something we can agree upon, I think.

    Regarding the issue with progressives and anti-vaxxers, I believe that the anti-vaxxer movement doesn't occur exclusively among conservatives. I think probably there is such thing as a progressive anti-vaxxer, given that the two ideologies are not completely exclusive of each other. I can think of people who are commonly referred to as "tree huggers" and are for "natural" everything who might think "I don't want any artificial chemical of any type in my body; vaccines have chemical preservatives" and these people for example might be against genetically-engineered food crops and vaccines, and be suspicious of big food processing corporations as well as big pharma, as examples, in their minds, of evil capitalist corporations.
     
  19. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    19,104
    Likes Received:
    11,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes I’d be very happy with categorizing and reporting on all known side effects whether they present immediately or over time. How categories are defined doesn’t matter to me either. Just so that somewhere there is admission that there are known long term negative consequences that do not present immediately after vaccination.

    I’m learning a great deal of what I’ve been led to believe about influenza is not based on evidence or simply incorrect. Some of that misinformation, disinformation, and lack of transparency seems to be coloring narratives on Covid and that’s what concerns me.

    Your point about the immediate positive effects of Covid vaccines today in the middle of a pandemic outweighing concerns of decreased efficacy in the future is excellent and merits repetition by me here.
    Agree. Boulder, Colorado has traditionally been one of the most progressive areas in the US. It has also traditionally had some of the highest rates of unvaccinated children in the US. I don’t think anti GMO campaigns have made acceptance of mRNA vaccines any easier for some demographics.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2021
  20. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,882
    Likes Received:
    8,404
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nice, we agree in mostly everything, as it's been the case in our debates (given that we are both science-oriented and facts-oriented, and we both substantiate what we're saying with links to sound references). It's always a pleasure to debate a biological point with you, because you do challenge my knowledge and you do teach me stuff (and catch me in error from time to time, which, I won't be modest; I'll say it: is not an easy task because I'm relatively rarely mistaken), and you also understand perfectly what I throw back at you.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2021
    557 likes this.
  21. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    19,104
    Likes Received:
    11,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes we always come to agreement because we follow evidence. That’s the great/exciting thing about science and what I hope science remains going forward—a solid foundation to build ideas, beliefs, and policies upon.

    Discussing Covid with you has been fun even though the subject is a bit macabre. I’ve learned a lot about human health I wouldn’t have otherwise and have even learned things about disease and immunity that will be advantageous to my business going forward.

    It is great having someone to discuss the nitty gritty details with. Most people in my “real world” outside PF get glassy eyed when details of virology or immunology come up in conversation so discussion with you in these Covid subforums has been very enjoyable for me.
     
    CenterField likes this.

Share This Page