Shots give COVID-19 survivors big immune boost, studies show

If you were unable to understand the article that is no reason to assume the same from everybody else, and you can do much worse than trusting the experts with the science, and that would be trusting nameless people on the internet that say the opposite even if they could not understand what they want to talk about.

C'mon man! The government spent good tax money on those doses. If you don't get yours, then it looks bad on all of us. Don't worry about the science, you don't even understand it. The experts said it's fine. You'll get your fReEdOmS bACk~~~

Quite the opposite was found by Dr. David Bauer, Group Leader in the RNA Virus Replication Laboratory of the Francis Crick Institute, London, England.

Except that it is not, why try to completely misrepresent the quote as if it was talking about differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated people? is it that actual true information proves the opposite of what you believe so you feel it is justified to try to deceive people?

https://www.crick.ac.uk/news/2021-06-03_pfizer-biontech-vaccine-recipients-have-lower-antibody-levels-targeting-the-delta-variant-first-discovered-in-india

The actual quote means lower level against the delta variant in comparison with the original virus, in no way it is talking about differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

Once you give up with trying to argument and you use lies and deception you are actually accepting you are wrong.

Quite the opposite was found by Dr. David Bauer, Group Leader in the RNA Virus Replication Laboratory of the Francis Crick Institute, London, England. Dr. Bauer said, “the key message from our finding is that recipients of the Pfizer vaccine—those who have had 2 doses—have about 5-to-6-fold lower amounts of neutralizing antibodies. Those are the ‘gold standard’ private security antibodies of your immune system that block the virus from getting into your cells in the first place.” 

In other words, people who have 2 doses of this will have only 20%—or even less—of their immune system antibodies remaining.

How about all those who either through ignorance or wickedness or some pseudo scientific (and therefore unscientific) reason or whatever are using mis- and disinformation to persuade all people of all age groups to get these risky experimental vaccines?

If you mean correcting the false information that antivaxxer groups are trying to push to exaggerate the risks of vaccines and pretend some people are perfectly immune to COVID that would mean the whole scientific community in general. Which would make the opposite side the pseudoscientific group.

It would be very easy to link to official communications from well respected institutions to contradict actual disinformation, but if you can't find anything and instead have to link to youtube videos, blogs that present no data and only opinions or what seriously discredited people have to say about it, then you should think about it for a minute and think how come the scientists in general are not against it? maybe you could realize what is actually the disinformation.

@Bradley

How about all those who either through ignorance or wickedness or some pseudo scientific (and therefore unscientific) reason or whatever are using mis- and disinformation to persuade all people of all age groups to get these risky experimental vaccines?

It seems the regular shill here, and a few others, are opting to follow 'medically trained professionals', I'll go with that, if ALL of those professionals ... not just the institutionally dependent ones ... are given an equal voice.

Anybody that subject himself to the rigors of scientific discussion is given an equal voice, those that instead try to use lies and manipulated information to make their points are shunned as it should be, because there is no value on including false information in a discussion, nobody forces anybody to argue from disinformation so anybody that chooses to do so and gets ignored because of that reason is simply suffering from the consequences of his own actions. Being glad that false information is presented also talks a lot about what is the real interest of the people doing it, and it is not helping against the pandemic, but instead promote distrust in science for completely personal and invalid reasons.

There is no evidence that medication is being suppressed, the simple dexamethasone is enough example to disprove this irrational conspiracy theory, a cheap, safe, easily accesible drug was quickly recognized as effective at preventing complications without being suppressed in any way. Something that according to the conspiracy should be impossible, so either dexamethasone has never been used or the conspiracy is false, its easy to see which option is correct.

Not being able to understand that vaccination of a target population comes AFTER the clinical trials and not before (and therefore there is no contradiction to not recommend this vaccination until trials can prove safety) is another terribly bad argument, it completely depends on not understanding the situation (or pretend not being able to do it) and therefore do not apply for anybody that actually gets informed. Like an appeal from ignorance except that it use lack of capacity instead of lack of data.

Or could it just possibly be that there is no 'the' voice of science*

If all the scientific and medical institutions of the world coincide on something there is definitely a consensus, some people are unable to accept it (because it runs contrary to the beliefs that these people use to get their sense of self-value) other people are unable to understand it and confuse complementary conclusions as opposite, but the consensus is there, clear for anybody wiling to have an open mind instead of being married to a religious belief.

Less than nothing...

That's what the Pfizer vaccine does, according to a large Pfizer-funded study:

If you need to use easily debunked false information to defend your point you are implicitly accepting you have no actual argument to do it, feeling the need to use disinformation evidence that your interest is not in having a real discussion, just deceive people into making the same mistake as you did.

https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-joe-biden-health-business-coronavirus-pandemic-0b47352c810ae1579ca5cd9e52963aa1

Terribly sorry but vaccines reduce the possibility of complications and deaths between vaccinated people above any reasonable doubt, and trying to use false information to "disprove it" talks more about the people that use the lies than about the vaccines.

Like that recent breakthrough in Massachusetts recently reported by the CDC:

That originated which variant? none? that is exactly the point. Thanks to prove this irrational argument as false so completely.

Yes, insufficient immunity. That is why many vaccine experts say that we should never do large scale vaccinations during a pandemic. 

What has this to do with anything? vaccinated people are not in any kind of disadvantage over naturally infected people in the speed or degree of immune response, in reality it is the opposite. That would mean that NOT vaccinating would be much more likely to result in insufficient immunity, that is why the people that baselessly try to misrepresent the situation are not being listened to, their arguments are not only empty of any evidence that would support them, they are also actually contradicted by the evidence collected.

The variants that are "spreading on unvaccinated populations" were likely created in vaccinated (but not yet fully immune) people

That is just an imaginary belief of yours not supported by any evidence, and as such can be discarded without losing anything of value from the discussion. Unless of course you can actually bring a scientific reference to support it...

It seems the regular shill here, and a few others, are opting to follow 'medically trained professionals', I'll go with that, if ALL of those professionals ... not just the institutionally dependent ones ... are given an equal voice.

With all of the good evidence of repurposed medications that are suppressed ... I am glad Ego Sum brought up that Phizer study. According to the CDC, the single highest comorbidity with the virus correlated deaths is obesity, and surprisingly high on the list is stress and emotional instability. Yet the Phizer study conveniently omitted those two from the variables. And the age bracket ... 18 to 65? Is this the best 'science' that 33 Billion dollars earnings in the 2nd quarter can afford?

Now one voice, representing 'the' science of the U.K. has opted to NOT vaccinate children and the young under the age of 18.

Hmmm ... but another voice, the 'I am science Fauci' of the U.S. is pushing for studies proving the vaccines are safe and effective for children younger than 2. And I won't even go into the b.s. of the efficacy of lockdowns and masking of healthy populations.

That's odd. Two different government policies claiming to be 'the' definitive voice of science, but with opposing views?

Or could it just possibly be that there is no 'the' voice of science ... and it is a necessarily messy problem-solving heuristics. Nothing more ... other than authoritarians who would make a new religion of 'scientism' with the one true god. Mammon.

Then how come the variants have appeared during wide spreading on unvaccinated populations while the same has not happened on vaccinated ones?

Like that recent breakthrough in Massachusetts recently reported by the CDC:

From the hundreds of infected: "Five were hospitalized; as of July 27, no deaths were reported. One hospitalized patient (age range = 50–59 years) was not vaccinated and had multiple underlying medical conditions. Four additional, fully vaccinated patients aged 20–70 years were also hospitalized, two of whom had underlying medical conditions."

how do you respond to the evidence that variants are correlated with insufficient immunity that leaves patients with extremely long infections that facilitate the selection of mutations that render the immunity ineffective?

Yes, insufficient immunity. That is why many vaccine experts say that we should never do large scale vaccinations during a pandemic. People do not instantaneously become immune upon injection, it takes time, and during this time variants are selected for.

The variants that are "spreading on unvaccinated populations" were likely created in vaccinated (but not yet fully immune) people.

This is good news.

Less than nothing...

That's what the Pfizer vaccine does, according to a large Pfizer-funded study:

The highly-anticipated Pfizer’s safety and efficacy study of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is finally out. After six months of monitoring over 45,000 patients, the study found that there were 15 deaths in the vaccine group and 14 deaths in the unvaccinated placebo group.

In other words, more vaccinated people died from the virus than the unvaccinated. According to the study, there were no deaths among 12‒15-year-old participants. The study not only demonstrates the lack of efficacy in the most important group but also highlights the extremely low fatality rate of Covid-19 in most of the 45,000 participants.

And before the Vaccine Pushers jump on the claim that there were more vaccinated participants than unvaccinated, there were 21,926 vaccinated and 21,921 unvaccinated participants. That means the chance of dying is 1 in 1,462 for the vaccinated and 1 in 1,565 for the unvaccinated.

The Pfizer vaccine doesn't even reduce the risk of death, which is the last thing the Vaxx Pushers are still trying to claim it does.

Of course, this was before ADE and the Delta variant were combining to endanger the vaccinated, so "less than nothing" is the current best case scenario for the vaccines.

You would have to be completely ignorant of how mutations work to not see the obvious lies in this MSM spin.

Unfortunately that applies much more to your own opinion,

Those who remain unvaccinated are not responsible for the coronavirus mutating. That is utter BS and shameless blame-shifting.

Then how come the variants have appeared during wide spreading on unvaccinated populations while the same has not happened on vaccinated ones? how do you respond to the evidence that variants are correlated with insufficient immunity that leaves patients with extremely long infections that facilitate the selection of mutations that render the immunity ineffective?

. What's happening with the vaccines is similar to the consequence of not taking all your prescribed antibiotics and killing off all the bacteria infecting you. 

This makes no sense because the situation is the opposite, which people have longer infections? the ones vaccinated that course with short, often asymptomatic infections, or those that complicate and have to spend days or weeks hospitalized? the vaccines help making sure the immune response neutralizes the viruses opportunely before replication lead to complications and longer infection periods, as well as variants.

The vulnerability is the nightmare ADE scenario first laid out back in February 2020

Not really because close to two years after the infection began affecting humans there is no proof the ADE happens, not for the natural infection and not for vaccines either, mostly because you need more than one serotype for ADE to happen and because there is no need for antibodies to facilitate the infection of target cells that is already extremely efficient for SARS-CoV-2, the data right now is perfectly clear, the people that are more likely to develop complications or die from infection with the variants are the unvaccinated, this is enough to prove your theory as mistaken.

Before saying that the experts that have worked with infectious diseases for decades as "ignorant" you should first make sure your own knowledge is not so full of holes, why don't you try first to support anything you say with scientific references, that can let you realize when your beliefs are wrong (since you will not find any reference that support them).

So much blah. Time to stop the hysteria and start the much vaunted "living with the virus"

So this one study shows that recovered people are twice as likely to get reinfected if unvaccinated. But the reinfection rates are extremely low to start off with; lower than the infection rate (for Delta) for vaccinated people who were not previously infected

It is not valid to compare rates between widely different populations, unless you have a number for the rates of infection on vaccinated people in 2020 this is just trying disinformation.

The benefits from getting vaccinate according to this study is to lower in half the chances of getting reinfected, there is no risk associated with the vaccines (as in not present also in unvaccinated people) that comes close to this so your personal opinion that contradicts the article can be safely discarded.

You may feel unnecessary to lower very important risks from a secondary infection with only a tiny fraction of risks coming from a vaccine, but that is just your own personal, subjective opinion, the people in charge of public health do concur that this is completely justified based on data such as presented in the article.

The fact the 50% of the people with COVID have already been vaccinated, should be a wake up call for people that the vaccines have completely failed. 

The main purpose from the vaccines is to reduce the risks of important complications and death, they have been extremely successful doing it, your imaginary goals are irrelevant people are much better being vaccinated than not, even if they had the infection before. Trying to deceive people into thinking otherwise even with clear evidence such as the one presented in the article is just disinformation.

They are different from just about every other type of disease, which is why no vaccine has ever been able to eradicate respiratory viruses compared to the smallpox virus which had no animal origin.

That is no problem because your position is just a strawman, the purpose of vaccines against respiratory infections is not to eradicate them but to control the risk from them to much more manageable levels and that is routinely done with diseases like whooping cough or influenza.

We haven't even managed to develop a vaccine for the common cold.

A vaccine with what purpose? to lower the risk from getting a cold to what? the infection already brings no significant increase of risk for life, reducing it even more makes no sense, specially because you would need to sidestep the broadly neutralizing immune response that is the origin of such short lived protection.

You would have to be completely ignorant of how mutations work to not see the obvious lies in this MSM spin. Let's count the lies, deceptions, and misrepresentations:

Covid-19 is not mutating in the unvaxxed population any more than any other virus. It spreads freely there, subject to the natural immunities conveyed on a) those who have full immunity because they already had the disease and b) those who have partial immunity due to related coronaviruses and rhinoviruses.

Those who remain unvaccinated are not responsible for the coronavirus mutating. That is utter BS and shameless blame-shifting.

The giveaway is here: "particularly in protecting you from severe disease". What's happening with the vaccines is similar to the consequence of not taking all your prescribed antibiotics and killing off all the bacteria infecting you. Fauci admits the vaccines are non-sterilizing, which means it is mutating in the vaccinated population.

The vulnerability is the nightmare ADE scenario first laid out back in February 2020, the most serious of which which would result in the death of every single vaccinated individual. Fortunately, it appears a lesser scenario is in store, which is why the Vaccine pushers are already pushing boosters on those who are vaccinated, as it is the vaccinated who will likely be most at risk from the mutated variants.

That variant WILL evade the negligible protection of the vaccine, because it is the vaccine itself that has created the vulnerability. That's what "Antibody Dependent Enhancement" essentially means.

That simply is not possible with respiratory viruses. They are different from just about every other type of disease, which is why no vaccine has ever been able to eradicate respiratory viruses compared to the smallpox virus which had no animal origin.

We haven't even managed to develop a vaccine for the common cold.

The fact the 50% of the people with COVID have already been vaccinated, should be a wake up call for people that the vaccines have completely failed. Gates dream (since he owns stock in all these "vaccine" companies) that the whole world should get vaccinated to stop the spread of this virus AND that it will eliminate COVID forever once everyone is vaccinated, is now a complete joke. That simply is not possible with respiratory viruses. They are different from just about every other type of disease, which is why no vaccine has ever been able to eradicate respiratory viruses compared to the smallpox virus which had no animal origin.

So this one study shows that recovered people are twice as likely to get reinfected if unvaccinated. But the reinfection rates are extremely low to start off with; lower than the infection rate (for Delta) for vaccinated people who were not previously infected.

Recovered people will halve a tiny number by getting the vax. The benefits are probably not greater than the risks. I have older relatives in Europe who survived Covid without any problems, but suffered tremendously when they later got the vaccine.

If one has already recovered from Covid19, they will be better prepared to handle any future reinfection than their first infection even without the vaccine. No need to take any unnecessary risks with these experimental vaccines.

ps. Just remembered another reason for the justification of such 'science'. If natural antibodies are ... as earlier reported ... safer, more effective, longer lasting, and for ALL age groups ... that negates one of the reasons why EVERYONE needs a vaccine passport ... which I suspect can and will be used for purposes other than public health.

Repeating false information do not make it true, this is still false. There is no reference that actually says this, beginning because it is impossible for natural antibodies to be "safer" if the condition for them to be developed is getting the infection, which is much more risky than getting vaccinated. That is enough to prove this as completely untrue.

Why is this not the case in Israel?

Because of the completely different vaccination rate, which makes your mischaracterization invalid. If you have most of your population vaccinated it is not surprising it will make most of the percentage of anything you want to measure.

As soon as valid research and govt. data (see Ireland's own data through Ivor Cummins), shows that while the Delta variant is more contagious, it is less severe than the original Alpha variant.

False conclusion born from obvious bias, unless you examine only unvaccinated people you can't argue that Delta is less severe, because obviously you are taking in account infections on people that are well protected against complications and deaths, this "mistake" is too obvious to be made unless it is on purpose.

the Harvard VAERS study showing as few as 10% of self reported side effects are reported

With the obvious caveat that the less severe the side effect the more likely to be underreported, and since VAERS only gains meaning after being compared with unvaccinated population (else you could be worried about something that may be happening MORE frequently in unvaccinated people) you have also to take into account that unvaccinated people are also less likely to report adverse effects (who do you think would report a transient cefalea to their doctor, someone vaccinated in the same week or someone just living their daily life?)

evidence of wide-spread and systematic suppression of information regarding vaccine-related side effects or deaths

If the information is false, or misleading (like the example you are giving with the VAERS mischaracterization) there is nothing wrong with suppressing it, after all it would be insane to think you should give the same space to lies and misinformation just to "balance" precise and well documented information.

If your whole argument is based on the excuse of a conspiracy to produce only the information that you don't like, while giving a free pass to anything that is in line with your bias that means you have no argument, unless you provide evidence of this supposed conspiracy the only logical conclusion is to listen to the side that have more and better evidence to prove their point, following the scientific method.

ps. Just remembered another reason for the justification of such 'science'. If natural antibodies are ... as earlier reported ... safer, more effective, longer lasting, and for ALL age groups ... that negates one of the reasons why EVERYONE needs a vaccine passport ... which I suspect can and will be used for purposes other than public health.

I am reminded of the first film adaptation of Frank Herbert's sci-fi classic, 'Dune' ... and the disgustingly evil Baron Vladimir Harkonnen, the planetary governor of the planet Giedi Prime. For reasons one can only guess, a disgusting 'tradition' on the planet was to have everyone installed with an easily removable heart plug.

The following is an excerpt from a fan page ... and I dare say it is relevant to the article above and the ongoing health crisis, if only metaphorically.

''A heart plug was a medically implanted device seen in David Lynch's 1984 film version of Dune. Presumably used on human Slaves or enemies the Harkonnens wished to torture to death, it was a small object sewed into the chest of the victim, seemingly over the heart. When a small tab in the center of the plug was pulled out, the victim's blood would flow out through the opening and the victim would bleed to death.

The heart plug was never explained in the film and does not appear in the Frank Herbert novels. It is implied to be a controlling device that carried the threat of instant death if removed. However, the Baron Harkonnen himself also had a heart plug. Given this fact, it has been speculated that the heart plug may be part an internal body filtering system essential for living on the heavily polluted world of Giedi Prime.''

Kind of expected this.

1 — As soon as valid research and govt. data (see Ireland's own data through Ivor Cummins), shows that while the Delta variant is more contagious, it is less severe than the original Alpha variant. Today's same issue of JT says 84 people died at home from the virus (still no distinction between causation and correlation between the virus and death) within the last 6 months. But I am confident in saying that multiples of that number died from suicide, heart disease, strokes, or cancer ... though the healthy public is not being locked down or masked for those deaths. . Still, some financially incentivized institution will be trotted out to claim the Delta variant is more deadly, and for perverse incentives.

2 — Likewise, when data about the safety of vaccines is more than questionable —

• the Harvard VAERS study showing as few as 10% of self reported side effects are reported, and even then, once a report of a minor side effect is filed, there is no way to report increasing lethality associated with the initial report

• evidence of wide-spread and systematic suppression of information regarding vaccine-related side effects or deaths

— counter evidence will be conveniently funded ... uh ... I mean found, and spread by official media outlets and social media.

3 — When natural antibodies are reported to have a longer lasting and more wide ranging positive effect on countering emerging variants, counter evidence will again be funded-found to support the more profitable alternative of experimental treatments given in regular 'booster' shots ... an equivalence of the rentier model for software ... hence the counterintuitive need for regular booster shots.

The writers of such articles are depending on the reader to not have access to the original data, and not be capable of critiquing dodgy experimental design. Just take their word for it. And both the media and Big Pharma have nothing but truth and our public health as their highest priorities. Not power and profits. Believe that, and meet me around the back. I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Caveat Emptor.