It's no longer theoretical that antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) is a concern for the vaccinated.
The enhancing antibodies recognize both the Wuhan strain and Delta variants. ADE of Delta variants is a potential risk for current vaccines.
Vaccine formulations lacking ADE epitope are suggested, but the majority of people are already vaccinated with problematic formulations.
IMO this is too strongly worded and doesn't paint an accurate picture. First of all, ADE is a concern for anyone infected by a virus, whether through vaccination or natural infection. Second, there is substantial literature showing that immune responses can still be protective even in the presence of ADE [1]. Third, OP uses a molecular modelling approach which places it mostly in the realm of theory and far from conclusive clinical evidence.
Some quotes from [1] to support my point:
> It is clear that after many years, and considerable attention, the understanding of ADE of disease after either vaccination or administration of antiviral antibodies is insufficient to confidently predict that a given immune intervention for a viral infection will have negative outcomes in humans.
> Despite the importance that such information would have in the COVID-19 pandemic, in vitro assays do not predict ADE of disease.
> Most animal models of vaccines and antibody interventions show protection, whereas those that suggest potential ADE of disease are not definitive and the precise mechanisms have not been defined.
> Although ADE is a concern, it is also clear that antibodies are a fundamentally important component of protective immunity to all of the pathogens discussed here
> Even when vaccine formulations such as formalin inactivation have shown disease enhancement, neutralizing antibodies with optimized properties have been protective.
[1] A perspective on potential antibody-dependent enhancement of SARS-CoV-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2538-8
An interesting fact: concern about ADE is a significant reason all the vaccines target the spike protein rather than any of the others, such as N (nucleoprotein).
If the author updated the article to include the paper I linked, he could no longer make this claim:
"...and (so far) no sign of ADE even with the variant strains in different parts of the world. We have things to worry about in this pandemic, but as far as I can tell today, antibody-dependent enhancement does not seem to be one of them. I understand why people would worry about it, and want to avoid it. But if you’re coming across reports that say that it’s a real problem right now and that you should avoid getting vaccinated because of it, well, I just don’t see it. Some of that is well-intentioned caution, and some of it is probably flat-out anti-vaccine scaremongering. Anyone with different data or different impressions, well, that’s why the comments are open around here!"
I'ld be curious to see how the author would update the article based on what we see from the molecular modeling in the paper that broke this week.
That's a false equivalency. Immunity in the unvaccinated but previously infected is broad. The immune system reacted to all parts of the virus, and the variants the unvaccinated were infected with are diverse. In the vaccinated the immunity is narrow, only to the spike protein section of the original Wuhan strain.
It's a reasonable suggestion that the vaccinated are at greater risk of ADE (with very narrow immunity to the original strain's spike protein only) than those infected naturally from a later variant of the entire virus.
Also, the data shows rising COVID cases in areas with more vaccination. I haven't heard a rational explanation for this phenomenon beyond political spin.
It seems quite a few vaccinated people get COVID-19 but it seems very few get seriously ill. The protective effect seems to outweigh any infection-enhancing effect.
You need to skate where the puck is going. If you look at the data coming out of Israel, which is ahead of everyone else on the curve with vaccinations (and also releases data without manipulating it first, unlike the US - which uses exponentially looser rules for diagnosing COVID in the unvaccinated versus the vaccinated), you get a very different story.
https://www.visiontimes.com/2021/08/08/israel-hospital-vacci...
Wait two months and the US and other countries will be where Israel is today.
The risk with ADE increases as antibody levels from the vaccinations wane. That's happening now.
...
> She said, “If we treat them early – early is the ticket – with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, 80% of the people will not have to go to the hospital.”
I was under the impression that neither invermectin or hydroxychloroquine has been demonstrated to be effective. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.18.21252037v...
However you feel about vaccines being foisted on us by the devil, that article looks pretty shaky to me as a source of public health advice.
This gave me a chuckle and did not inspire confidence.
It's not only reasonable to hypothesize this is about control, to me it's irrational to think otherwise at this point.
Here is a meta analysis of 63 (so far) randomized double blind trials: https://ivmmeta.com/
This is a fake meta-analysis.
The most important study that weighted in IVM favor was bogus and was retracted some days ago.
Are you claiming that Ivermectin isn't effective as a repurposed outpatient therapy for COVID-19?
I agree the source isn't great, but it's hard finding information that hasn't been spun by tech companies at this point. It's worth watching the data coming out of Israel.
The CDC changed their guidance with PCR testing so a "breakthrough case" (i.e. a vaccinated person testing positive for COVID) is defined as 28 cycles or fewer, but gave no guidance about changing the PCR cycle count for unvaccinated (which remains in the 35-40 range most places).
This means it takes thousands of times less material to make an unvaccinated person a COVID "case" than a vaccinated person.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/bre...
They constantly stealth-edit the page, so it's helpful to look at archived versions here: https://archive.is/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/hea...
Here's an article about it: https://washingtonwatch.org/caught-red-handed-cdc-changes-te...