That means a massive proportion of people are now made more vulnerable. And they have used this scam-upon-scam to reimpose their measures. If we don't wake up, they will carry on until many more will die, more restrictions, ad nauseam!
No. It found that your chances of getting infected by any of the (3) later variants INCREASES AFTER getting VACCINATED: "We find evidence for an increased risk of infection by the Beta (B.1.351), Gamma (P.1), or Delta (B.1.617.2) variants compared to the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant after vaccination." AND it found that no such increased risk exists for the UNvaccinated: " In contrast to vaccine-induced immunity, no increased risk for reinfection with Beta, Gamma or Delta variants relative to Alpha variant was found in individuals with infection-induced immunity."
In other words, if you had Alpha you have a much better chance of avoiding the mutations than if you get vaxxed.
There is the finding that naive immunity did not differ from already once infected immunity where as the vaccinated immunity did not differ from the unvaccinated immunity although the tendency is very clear: vaxxed immunity is less effective in all comparisons. That means the study did not only falsify that vaccine immunity against infection is stable over time but also falsified that unvaccinated immunity is worse in preventing infection. Now you could come up with confounders like age, and collinearity of calendar time to vaxx status and vaxxed/unvaxxed ratios but they actually corrected and interpolated for these factors. The conclusion that immunity was taken away is not legit because it was not the question here but the signs are quite strong since this study adds up to existing data in regards to cross-immunity and the infection numbers. e.g. since testing of vaxxed and unvaxxed became somehow equivalent in Germany again, there are exponenrial rising numbers in the vaxxed but not in the unvaxxed. So that we have a linear grow curve since a couple of weeks. In Berlin at Charite university hospital they found that nurses with cross-immunity had significantly less often bad sickness after infection. And there are many studies that have shown cross-immunity in vitro. All in all, we have to admit that the crisis is more severe than last year in infections terms despite high percentages of vaccination.
False. What they found is that is you're vaccinated certain strains inject you more easily than others. They did not compare infection likelihood between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. The compared infection likelihood of different within vaccinated groups.
"In contrast to vaccine-induced immunity, no increased risk for reinfection with Beta, Gamma or Delta variants relative to Alpha variant was found in individuals with infection-induced immunity."
I HOPE that those people foolish enough to take the vaxx after getting the vid are similarly protected, but I've seen some evidence that may not be the case.
Yeah, I wonder. Can the vaxx override what the natural immune system has established? Does the body get "re-set" to the new standard? I would love to see some study of this particular population.
I had a Dr make a similar claim when I asked about the Shingles vax. Told me that since I had Chicken Pox as a child, the vax would only interfere with the natural immunity I still had. He rec'd getting an antibody test at 30 yrs post CP infection, and only consider the vax if it comes back negative.
I misread your earlier quote, I thought you were discussing vaxxed then infected. With that said for the latter. Here are a few of the mechanisms that concern me: 1. the lipid nanoparticles accumulate in the bone marrow and can defined wreak havoc on much of the immune system; 2. antibody exhaustion; 3. no vaccine ever created the protein used to infect their cells with their cellular machinery.
Which brings me to my fundamental question. Does programming peoples cells to create the protein which is toxic actually confer immunity to a virus which produces that protein?
I think the answer is no. What it probably does is gets those to develop the disease to be removed to create this ‘efficacy’ by survivor bias and sets the survivors up for more severe reactions from programmed autoimmunity which could take months to years to fully manifest.
Which claim is contradicted? This seems pretty clear: “We find evidence for an increased risk of infection by the Beta (B.1.351), Gamma (P.1), or Delta (B.1.617.2) variants compared to the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant after vaccination. … In contrast to vaccine-induced immunity, no increased risk for reinfection with Beta, Gamma or Delta variants relative to Alpha variant was found in individuals with infection-induced immunity.“
"We find evidence for an increased risk of infection by the Beta (B.1.351), Gamma (P.1), or Delta (B.1.617.2) variants **compared to the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant after vaccination**." They weren't comparing likelihood of infection between vaccinated and unvaccinated, they were comparing likelihood of infection of the different strains among vaccination groups.
So one group (vaxxed) have an increased risk and the other group (unvaxxed) does not. How is that not an advantage for the unvaxxed?
At the very least it shows that there is no advantage to being vaxxed for the variants which is what one would expect given the over specificity of the vax to just the original (alpha) spike protein.
It doesn't show "an increased risk" of infection. It showed that if infected it's more likely to be with a variant. We don't know from this study the overall odds of infection of each group.
Read it again: “In contrast to vaccine-induced immunity, no increased risk for reinfection with Beta, Gamma or Delta variants relative to Alpha variant was found in individuals with infection-induced immunity.”
So what? The unvaccinated are just as likely to catch all strains, that doesn't mean they are less likely to catch covid than vaccinated. The study didn't compare rush of infection in vaccinated vs unvaccinated.
So what? The unvaccinated are just as likely to catch all strains, that doesn't mean they are less likely to catch covid than vaccinated. The study didn't compare rush of infection in vaccinated vs unvaccinated."
If you believe that, can you therefore explain the benefit of getting vaxxed?
Okay, so you are just willfully missing the point then. It matters because naturally acquired immunity In unvaccinated is better than vaccine induced immunity.
1) "Vaccination has proven to be highly effective against COVID-19, especially against hospitalization and death and reduces the secondary attack rate within household"
2) "vaccination is preferred over infection to protect individuals against severe disease"
3) "these analyses [ie - this study] do not aim to determine the probability of getting infected after vaccination or previous infection"
==========
The study says that vaccines are better against the Beta variant compared to the other variants. It does not say that vaccines are not effective, or that vaccines reduce the capabilities of the immune system, or that it is better to be unvaccinated than to be vaccinated.
The authors stress that it is better to be vaccinated.
You said: "The authors stress that it is better to be vaccinated". The broadness of that claim puts it in the column of faith-based pronouncement. Relative risk changes per circumstances (age, comorbidities). All is a guess per individual. Once can never say with certainty whether a particular person will or would have done better had they accepted/declined a Covid vaccine.
Then why is the doctor in Belgium saying ALL of the hospitalized there in his hospital and in the ICU are vaccinated? He said ALL . Israel too do this is just more lies
Because of the way cases are now defined, who cares about case numbers. The important thing is hospitalizations and deaths. And even their definitions can be suspect, especially here in the US.
Only infection has ever conferred critical and fatal outcome protection with coronaviruses through history. There are no exceptions. Not only have all previous attempts ended in failure several have resulted in vaccine-enhanced disease ripping through the vaccinated test subjects on re-challenge with several of those trials ending in the death of all or nearly all test subjects -- which were fortunately animals and not humans. This time around we have performed a mass experiment with zero evidence over a period of years to demonstrate that what has happened 100% of the time in the past will not happen again.
It appears we're losing that bet -- a loss that, on the basis of history, we had every reason to believe would happen and yet instead of every single firm manufacturing this crap being an instant zero several are being rewarded. What the hell sort of rampant, outrageous stupidity is that?
While the data is not yet in there is reason to believe, given the mutations described in this newest "variant", that the vaccinated may be ****ed as the mutations may confer full evasion and yet the binding antibodies you get from being jabbed are still there. If that pans out here comes the exact same thing that has repeatedly happened with coronavirus vaccine attempts except this time we were dumb enough to mass-vaccinate humans rather than a handful of cats.
Is there a comprehensible to the layman explanation of why they might think that presenting a fraction of 'the enemy' to the immune system might make the immune system better prepared to meet the enemy than presentation of the real enemy would make it?
By which I mean to refer to the respective immune systems of (a) a survivor after vaccine and (b) a survivor after non vaccine.
It seems to me you'd quite naturally expect a poorer overall performance from the imitation than the real thing.
And the role of the first 'phase' of the immune system could use some explanation to us laypeople, I think.
vaccines so to speak 'hurdle over it' . i.e. it is that early stage where the greatest damage is done, is it not, while the body is preparing it's specific antibodies or whatever?
Proffering these pretenders effectively make an immune system already at 'phase 2' when the enemy turns up. ('phase three' in my little scheme is the phase after the attack).
Now what I mean about the 'need for explanation' is what is the full nature of this first phase and is it notionally prejudiced at all by this proffering of a pretender?
Seems to me instinctively that it would be.
What I understand of original antigenic sin grows out of this.
Can anyone provide a link perhaps to where these things are discussed in layman's terms?
Vanden Bossche's (and others like Bhakdi and Yeadon) concerns and predictions seem tp be unfolding. All that's missing is the mass death episode he worries about but he does seem to have predicted how mass vaccinations would play out.
Solution - twice weekly boosters for the first 8 weeks! What a mess. When those with the most knowledge, wisdom, and integrity aren't listened to ... Bless you for all you do and understand and warn of, and understand solutions for ...
" Some limitations of our study need to be addressed. Asymptomatic or mild cases with low viral load are less likely to be identified and only detectable infections can be sequenced and included. In addition, sequencing is more successful in samples with low to medium Ct values (high to medium viral load). If infection with Beta, Gamma or Delta leads to lower Ct values than Alpha and Ct values are higher for infections after vaccination30–32, this could have led to an overestimation of the studied association. Another limitation is that prior infections could go undetected, especially if occurred during the first wave when there was no mass scale testing capacity. This could lead to an underestimation of cases with a previous infection, as we do not directly measure pre-existing infection-induced immunity."
This graph is really great. You can see how delta hit with a bang. The fully vaccinated got delta just as their vaccines wore off. The Naive had been through several waves and were very likely not all that naive. The previous infected- no telling how long ago or how recent was their previous infection. And how long ago were the partially vaxed vaxed?
" Some limitations of our study need to be addressed. Asymptomatic or mild cases with low viral load are less likely to be identified and only detectable infections can be sequenced and included. In addition, sequencing is more successful in samples with low to medium Ct values (high to medium viral load). If infection with Beta, Gamma or Delta leads to lower Ct values than Alpha and Ct values are higher for infections after vaccination30–32, this could have led to an overestimation of the studied association. Another limitation is that prior infections could go undetected, especially if occurred during the first wave when there was no mass scale testing capacity. This could lead to an underestimation of cases with a previous infection, as we do not directly measure pre-existing infection-induced immunity."
This graph in the article is really great. You can see how delta hit with a bang. The fully vaccinated got delta just as their vaccines wore off. The Naive had been through several waves and were very likely not all that naive. The previous infected- no telling how long ago or how recent was their previous infection. And how long ago were the partially vaxed vaxed?
James Lyons-Weiler has a PhD in ecology not anything medical. He is not a medical doctor and he has been anti vaxx from the beginning of this so he is not a reliable source. I found the above when searching for the original Netherlands data which is nowhere to be found.
That means a massive proportion of people are now made more vulnerable. And they have used this scam-upon-scam to reimpose their measures. If we don't wake up, they will carry on until many more will die, more restrictions, ad nauseam!
We need to look at the bigger picture now.
No, that's not what that means at all. All they found was that the Delta variant infects vaccinated people more easily than the other variants.
No. It found that your chances of getting infected by any of the (3) later variants INCREASES AFTER getting VACCINATED: "We find evidence for an increased risk of infection by the Beta (B.1.351), Gamma (P.1), or Delta (B.1.617.2) variants compared to the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant after vaccination." AND it found that no such increased risk exists for the UNvaccinated: " In contrast to vaccine-induced immunity, no increased risk for reinfection with Beta, Gamma or Delta variants relative to Alpha variant was found in individuals with infection-induced immunity."
In other words, if you had Alpha you have a much better chance of avoiding the mutations than if you get vaxxed.
Basically, both of you are wrong.
There is the finding that naive immunity did not differ from already once infected immunity where as the vaccinated immunity did not differ from the unvaccinated immunity although the tendency is very clear: vaxxed immunity is less effective in all comparisons. That means the study did not only falsify that vaccine immunity against infection is stable over time but also falsified that unvaccinated immunity is worse in preventing infection. Now you could come up with confounders like age, and collinearity of calendar time to vaxx status and vaxxed/unvaxxed ratios but they actually corrected and interpolated for these factors. The conclusion that immunity was taken away is not legit because it was not the question here but the signs are quite strong since this study adds up to existing data in regards to cross-immunity and the infection numbers. e.g. since testing of vaxxed and unvaxxed became somehow equivalent in Germany again, there are exponenrial rising numbers in the vaxxed but not in the unvaxxed. So that we have a linear grow curve since a couple of weeks. In Berlin at Charite university hospital they found that nurses with cross-immunity had significantly less often bad sickness after infection. And there are many studies that have shown cross-immunity in vitro. All in all, we have to admit that the crisis is more severe than last year in infections terms despite high percentages of vaccination.
False. What they found is that is you're vaccinated certain strains inject you more easily than others. They did not compare infection likelihood between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. The compared infection likelihood of different within vaccinated groups.
"In contrast to vaccine-induced immunity, no increased risk for reinfection with Beta, Gamma or Delta variants relative to Alpha variant was found in individuals with infection-induced immunity."
That doesn't contradict anything I've said.
It's a direct contradiction to your claim "They did not compare infection likelihood between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups."
The latest published data showed that Delta was basically the same as Alpha in terms of infectiousness.
My concern is over people's being taken in and the govts' responses and people being fooled; not what they claimed about anything re rowuhan.
Lessons: DON'T believe what "they" tell you. And be cautious of "studies".
Is there any significance inherent in the number of authors for studies? Sort of like a built-in peer review if there's more than 2-3? Just curious.
Want to read this one, hope I can understand it well enough to get the gist.
Thanks for the heads up, appreciate it.
Have read the confusion between first + last being principal before, found it interesting.
Appreciate the reply. Thank you.
https://www.science.org/content/article/why-scientific-journal-authorship-makes-absolutely-no-sense-et-al
Thanks!
I HOPE that those people foolish enough to take the vaxx after getting the vid are similarly protected, but I've seen some evidence that may not be the case.
Antigenic sin is almost guaranteed for this group.
Yeah, I wonder. Can the vaxx override what the natural immune system has established? Does the body get "re-set" to the new standard? I would love to see some study of this particular population.
I had a Dr make a similar claim when I asked about the Shingles vax. Told me that since I had Chicken Pox as a child, the vax would only interfere with the natural immunity I still had. He rec'd getting an antibody test at 30 yrs post CP infection, and only consider the vax if it comes back negative.
I misread your earlier quote, I thought you were discussing vaxxed then infected. With that said for the latter. Here are a few of the mechanisms that concern me: 1. the lipid nanoparticles accumulate in the bone marrow and can defined wreak havoc on much of the immune system; 2. antibody exhaustion; 3. no vaccine ever created the protein used to infect their cells with their cellular machinery.
Which brings me to my fundamental question. Does programming peoples cells to create the protein which is toxic actually confer immunity to a virus which produces that protein?
I think the answer is no. What it probably does is gets those to develop the disease to be removed to create this ‘efficacy’ by survivor bias and sets the survivors up for more severe reactions from programmed autoimmunity which could take months to years to fully manifest.
No, vaccination does not 'override' existing immunity (no matter what caused it): https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/science.abh1282?adobe_mc=MCMID%3D36967350582614598053560954199480954916%7CMCORGID%3D242B6472541199F70A4C98A6%2540AdobeOrg%7CTS%3D1638621296, https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/science.abg9175?adobe_mc=MCMID%3D36967350582614598053560954199480954916%7CMCORGID%3D242B6472541199F70A4C98A6%2540AdobeOrg%7CTS%3D1638545206.
Don't forget to get your 'Xi' boosters...
Check mate!
No, that's not what the study shows and the abstract you quoted clearly contradicts your claims.
Which claim is contradicted? This seems pretty clear: “We find evidence for an increased risk of infection by the Beta (B.1.351), Gamma (P.1), or Delta (B.1.617.2) variants compared to the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant after vaccination. … In contrast to vaccine-induced immunity, no increased risk for reinfection with Beta, Gamma or Delta variants relative to Alpha variant was found in individuals with infection-induced immunity.“
"We find evidence for an increased risk of infection by the Beta (B.1.351), Gamma (P.1), or Delta (B.1.617.2) variants **compared to the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant after vaccination**." They weren't comparing likelihood of infection between vaccinated and unvaccinated, they were comparing likelihood of infection of the different strains among vaccination groups.
If vaxxed you have an increased risk of infection by the variants compared to the original.
If unvaxxed you had no increase risk of infections by the variants compared to the original.
Seems like a win for unvaxxed.
The study didn't compare rush of infection if vaccinated compared to risk of infection if unvaccinated.
So one group (vaxxed) have an increased risk and the other group (unvaxxed) does not. How is that not an advantage for the unvaxxed?
At the very least it shows that there is no advantage to being vaxxed for the variants which is what one would expect given the over specificity of the vax to just the original (alpha) spike protein.
It doesn't show "an increased risk" of infection. It showed that if infected it's more likely to be with a variant. We don't know from this study the overall odds of infection of each group.
"At the very least it shows that there is no advantage to being vaxxed for the variants"
Not at all.
Read it again: “In contrast to vaccine-induced immunity, no increased risk for reinfection with Beta, Gamma or Delta variants relative to Alpha variant was found in individuals with infection-induced immunity.”
So what? The unvaccinated are just as likely to catch all strains, that doesn't mean they are less likely to catch covid than vaccinated. The study didn't compare rush of infection in vaccinated vs unvaccinated.
"Andrew4 hr ago
So what? The unvaccinated are just as likely to catch all strains, that doesn't mean they are less likely to catch covid than vaccinated. The study didn't compare rush of infection in vaccinated vs unvaccinated."
If you believe that, can you therefore explain the benefit of getting vaxxed?
Whether or not the vaccine is beneficial is outside the scope of this study since it did not look at vaccine effectiveness.
Okay, so you are just willfully missing the point then. It matters because naturally acquired immunity In unvaccinated is better than vaccine induced immunity.
That was not indicated by this study but if you have data to prove that please submit it.
FROM THE NETHERLANDS STUDY:
1) "Vaccination has proven to be highly effective against COVID-19, especially against hospitalization and death and reduces the secondary attack rate within household"
2) "vaccination is preferred over infection to protect individuals against severe disease"
3) "these analyses [ie - this study] do not aim to determine the probability of getting infected after vaccination or previous infection"
==========
The study says that vaccines are better against the Beta variant compared to the other variants. It does not say that vaccines are not effective, or that vaccines reduce the capabilities of the immune system, or that it is better to be unvaccinated than to be vaccinated.
The authors stress that it is better to be vaccinated.
You said: "The authors stress that it is better to be vaccinated". The broadness of that claim puts it in the column of faith-based pronouncement. Relative risk changes per circumstances (age, comorbidities). All is a guess per individual. Once can never say with certainty whether a particular person will or would have done better had they accepted/declined a Covid vaccine.
They kind of have to say that, don't they?
Then why is the doctor in Belgium saying ALL of the hospitalized there in his hospital and in the ICU are vaccinated? He said ALL . Israel too do this is just more lies
Why? What is the vaccination rate in Belgium?
Because of the way cases are now defined, who cares about case numbers. The important thing is hospitalizations and deaths. And even their definitions can be suspect, especially here in the US.
Check out this article on the new variant and the vaccines crashing and burning.
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=244342
Only infection has ever conferred critical and fatal outcome protection with coronaviruses through history. There are no exceptions. Not only have all previous attempts ended in failure several have resulted in vaccine-enhanced disease ripping through the vaccinated test subjects on re-challenge with several of those trials ending in the death of all or nearly all test subjects -- which were fortunately animals and not humans. This time around we have performed a mass experiment with zero evidence over a period of years to demonstrate that what has happened 100% of the time in the past will not happen again.
It appears we're losing that bet -- a loss that, on the basis of history, we had every reason to believe would happen and yet instead of every single firm manufacturing this crap being an instant zero several are being rewarded. What the hell sort of rampant, outrageous stupidity is that?
While the data is not yet in there is reason to believe, given the mutations described in this newest "variant", that the vaccinated may be ****ed as the mutations may confer full evasion and yet the binding antibodies you get from being jabbed are still there. If that pans out here comes the exact same thing that has repeatedly happened with coronavirus vaccine attempts except this time we were dumb enough to mass-vaccinate humans rather than a handful of cats.
Except MMR may not be so safe after all and it may indeed be linked to autism.
Is there a comprehensible to the layman explanation of why they might think that presenting a fraction of 'the enemy' to the immune system might make the immune system better prepared to meet the enemy than presentation of the real enemy would make it?
By which I mean to refer to the respective immune systems of (a) a survivor after vaccine and (b) a survivor after non vaccine.
It seems to me you'd quite naturally expect a poorer overall performance from the imitation than the real thing.
And the role of the first 'phase' of the immune system could use some explanation to us laypeople, I think.
vaccines so to speak 'hurdle over it' . i.e. it is that early stage where the greatest damage is done, is it not, while the body is preparing it's specific antibodies or whatever?
Proffering these pretenders effectively make an immune system already at 'phase 2' when the enemy turns up. ('phase three' in my little scheme is the phase after the attack).
Now what I mean about the 'need for explanation' is what is the full nature of this first phase and is it notionally prejudiced at all by this proffering of a pretender?
Seems to me instinctively that it would be.
What I understand of original antigenic sin grows out of this.
Can anyone provide a link perhaps to where these things are discussed in layman's terms?
How about this statement,” Interestingly and of concern, individuals who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2—or even just exposed—then vaccinated experienced an expedited decline in antibodies. Henry immediately used this fact to reinforce the importance of vaccination as well as booster.” https://trialsitenews.com/waning-mrna-vaccine-effectiveness-boosters-as-absolute-must-according-to-latest-study/
This is what Geert Vanden Bosche was saying would happen . They found this is a small study in San Francisco breakthrough cases also
Vanden Bossche's (and others like Bhakdi and Yeadon) concerns and predictions seem tp be unfolding. All that's missing is the mass death episode he worries about but he does seem to have predicted how mass vaccinations would play out.
Solution - twice weekly boosters for the first 8 weeks! What a mess. When those with the most knowledge, wisdom, and integrity aren't listened to ... Bless you for all you do and understand and warn of, and understand solutions for ...
where's the link?
From the study "
" Some limitations of our study need to be addressed. Asymptomatic or mild cases with low viral load are less likely to be identified and only detectable infections can be sequenced and included. In addition, sequencing is more successful in samples with low to medium Ct values (high to medium viral load). If infection with Beta, Gamma or Delta leads to lower Ct values than Alpha and Ct values are higher for infections after vaccination30–32, this could have led to an overestimation of the studied association. Another limitation is that prior infections could go undetected, especially if occurred during the first wave when there was no mass scale testing capacity. This could lead to an underestimation of cases with a previous infection, as we do not directly measure pre-existing infection-induced immunity."
This graph is really great. You can see how delta hit with a bang. The fully vaccinated got delta just as their vaccines wore off. The Naive had been through several waves and were very likely not all that naive. The previous infected- no telling how long ago or how recent was their previous infection. And how long ago were the partially vaxed vaxed?
From the article -
" Some limitations of our study need to be addressed. Asymptomatic or mild cases with low viral load are less likely to be identified and only detectable infections can be sequenced and included. In addition, sequencing is more successful in samples with low to medium Ct values (high to medium viral load). If infection with Beta, Gamma or Delta leads to lower Ct values than Alpha and Ct values are higher for infections after vaccination30–32, this could have led to an overestimation of the studied association. Another limitation is that prior infections could go undetected, especially if occurred during the first wave when there was no mass scale testing capacity. This could lead to an underestimation of cases with a previous infection, as we do not directly measure pre-existing infection-induced immunity."
This graph in the article is really great. You can see how delta hit with a bang. The fully vaccinated got delta just as their vaccines wore off. The Naive had been through several waves and were very likely not all that naive. The previous infected- no telling how long ago or how recent was their previous infection. And how long ago were the partially vaxed vaxed?
What is your opinion regarding reinfection (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.11.21266068v2.full.pdf)
https://newsregister.com/article?articleTitle=county-covid-resolution-comes-under-attack-from-residents--1608064026--38914--
James Lyons-Weiler has a PhD in ecology not anything medical. He is not a medical doctor and he has been anti vaxx from the beginning of this so he is not a reliable source. I found the above when searching for the original Netherlands data which is nowhere to be found.