mRNA vaccines induce higher long-term IgG4 response versus adenovirus vaccines
frontiersin.org
frontiersin.org
I've noticed that there is a lot of anti-vax stuff surfacing on Twitter recently though (thanks Elon!), so maybe that is where the OP's comment is coming from. For example:
https://twitter.com/KariLake/status/1614876088081211392
and the correct response (from Aug 2021):
https://twitter.com/BadVaccineTakes/status/14258035022746296...
Also, I know zero people personally who've been seeiously affected by COVID. However,I personally know one pro vaccine person who was hospitalized by a heart attack immediately after his third shot.
To date there has only been a single prospective study on post vaccination myocarditis: https://www.mdpi.com/2414-6366/7/8/196
The study estimates that risk of myocarditis is much, much higher than previously reported. We simply don't have the data because reporting has not been stringent and no one is doing the appropriate research: https://youtu.be/2mWZY6vmdBM
"The clinical presentation of myopericarditis after vaccination was usually mild and temporary, with all cases fully recovering within 14 days."
And as for your example, there are two things to keep in mind:
1) "Data" is not the plural of "anecdote", so saying you don't know anyone who's been seriously affected by COVID isn't very clear. How many people do you know who have had it? How do you know they weren't seriously affected by COVID? Were they related, or were they random individuals? Sampling error is a real thing.
2) Correlation does not equal causation. One person hospitalized with a heart attack after his third shot could be due to lots of things, including random chance or a hidden heart condition that was just pushed over the edge by his body's immune response to the vaccine.
If you're a male under 40 years old your risk of myocarditis is higher from the vaccines. Not to mention, if you don't have co-morbidities, your risk of death from COVID is quite low. It's a simple cost benefit analysis, really. According to a linked study (ahajournals.org link), risk of cardiac related issues from vaccine for males under 40, like myself, is 1/10000 or 0.0001. Risk of cardiac related issues from covid-19 for males under 40 is about 0.0000016, so about a factor of 6 lower risk. Additionally, as we know from more recent studies, especially with the Kraken XBB variant, vaccines offer virtually no protection and almost everyone will get infected. So we can code probability of infection post-vaccination and post-natural infection as equal for the sake of simplicity. Additionally, there is a growing body of research discussing reinfection issues during a subsequent infection by vaccination status, and the latest numbers I extracted from the paper are coded below. In summary, for me, a 32 year old male, we get the following risks profiles:
vaccine risk = P(problem | vaccine, male under 40, no comorbidities) * P(covid | vaccine immunity) * P(problem second infection | vaccine immunity) vaccine risk = 0.0001 * 0.95 * 0.51 vaccine risk = 0.000004845
natural immunity risk = P(problem | covid-19, male under 40, no comorbidities) * P(covid | natural immunity) * P(problem second infection | natural immunity) natural immunity risk = 0.0000016 * 0.95 * 0.47 natural immunity risk = 0.00000007144
vaccine risk vs. natural risk
Vaccine 67X more risky than natural route (FOR ME)
Myocarditis risk vaccines vs. natural immunity males under 40: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.1...
XBB 1.5 Kraken likelihood of infection: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36580913/
Serious issues associated with subsequent infection by vaccination status: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5...
The sample size of the study was far too small to estimate risk of serious illness, and, if you took the time to read the study, you would know that already. The point was to estimate the overall risk of myocarditis using a prospective study and compare it to contemporary estimates, and, unsurprisingly, the study showed that the risk may be much, much higher than currently reported.
> "Data" is not the plural of "anecdote
Thanks for the unneeded lecture! Notice that I:
1) supplied a study with data to back up my anecdote.
2) pointed out that there is actually a dearth of high-quality data which would prevent anyone from concluding anything in either direction based on data alone.
3) The prospective study I linked already addressed correlation versus causation.
It looks to me like, when you see scientific evidence that contradicts your current biases, you reach for some very weak tools to try to justify ignoring the evidence. That's not surprising, frankly. Most people are that way.
The actual effectiveness, as defined by case rates by vaccine status, have been strongly negative for a long time. Around a year now. Vaccinated people catch COVID a lot more often than unvaccinated people do.
The reason they claim effectiveness is they use an adjustment procedure to try and correct for "bias". The procedure dates from before COVID. It breaks if people can volunteer to get tested, by making the vaccines look more effective. They don't care because it turns bad news into good news.
Also they classify people as vaccinated weeks after someone gets the shot. Negative consequences from the shot are then assigned to the unvaccinated cohort. Again they shouldn't use stats that way but they do.
Real effectiveness is negative.
Your whole comment reeks BS. I don't see any plausible explanation for _negative_ effectiveness. And you don't link any data to support your point.
You don't have to believe me. Maybe you'll believe Dr Fauci:
https://youtu.be/uagsb4wii3E?t=3401
so when you have that many people in a trial
56:41 not only are you looking to see if it works but you're constantly keeping your eye
56:47 on safety to make sure that a vaccine actually doesn't enhance disease
So now we established that my comment doesn't reek of BS, here's data on covid vaxx negative efficacy:
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/theres-something-antigeni...
https://dailysceptic.org/tag/negative-efficacy/
Follow the white rabbit but don't use search engines. Searching the obvious queries on both google and duckduckgo gives back CDC propaganda and none of the results actually discuss negative efficacy. The extent of the coverup is pathetic.
"Unknown" also tends to get grouped in with "unvaccinated", skewing it even more.
"The spike protein in this vaccine is produced in insect cells; the Matrix M-adjuvant contains saponin extracts from the bark of the Soapbark tree that is native to Chile."
Is this you? <https://i.redd.it/08qwj2r4kyw61.jpg>
My Tourette's after the vaccine was absolutely miserable. Then I get harassed for having a non-visible exception.
Covid vaccines are not for everyone. Good luck finding a doctor who will tell you the truth though.
Yes, my comment was also an anecdote and therefore also not data. This comment is exactly what I was trying to show - anecdotes don't give a full or unbiased picture.
We didn't have a case until intentionally opening border restrictions once vaccines had been distributed, and once we did we were masking long after people forgot about them in the US, so my window to get infected has been quite a bit shorter than most. I don't think I would have been exposed to Delta or earlier dominant strains at all, but it's true I could have had a silent Omicron infection.
Asymptomatic infection is kind of a moot point though because it isn't going to generate the robust immune response of a 'real' infection, my point being since I don't have the well rounded immunity conferred by infection + vaccination I have plenty to gain from continuing to boost (not that infection obviates the need for boosters to maintain immunity after a few months).
Btw, no, you do not hang on to persistent SARS-CoV-2 infection and spread it for life unless you are severely immunocompromised.
In the former case, having a firm policy to get vaccination rates over the critical threshold to halt spread has a reasonable justification: we literally can’t do that without you.
A lot was missing from the original trials as well. No study of impact on transmission, no routine testing to detect asymptomatic cases.
Most vaccines are neutralizing meaning that it primes your immune system so well that you couldn't possibly get sick. It seems that these new vaccines, for whatever reason, doesn't elicit the same benefits that we're used to seeing from traditional vaccines.
If memory serves, the subsequent data suggested that we could have reached herd immunity with something like 90% vaccination rates against the original strain. Delta and especially Omicron put paid to that, however, and closed any chance of most people being able to avoid infection.
Researchers did eventually do that, after the vaccines had all been approved and people forced to take them. They found there's no difference in viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. So reducing symptoms is now the consensus position on what they do, but that could easily have been known from the start.
When the efficacy of the vaccines was so high for preventing serious cases, it would have been a medical ethics problem to delay getting them out to the public while trying to get better data on spread.
When that kind of data did come out later, it showed strong effects — unfortunately, as noted this was against Alpha and Delta was already chipping away at efficacy:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02054-z
> Two studies1,2 from Israel, posted as preprints on 16 July, find that two doses of the vaccine made by pharmaceutical company Pfizer, based in New York City, and biotechnology company BioNTech, based in Mainz, Germany, are 81% effective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections. And vaccinated people who do get infected are up to 78% less likely to spread the virus to household members than are unvaccinated people. Overall, this adds up to very high protection against transmission, say researchers.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2116597
> Before the emergence of the B.1.617.2 (delta) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), vaccination reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from vaccinated persons who became infected, potentially by reducing viral loads. Although vaccination still lowers the risk of infection, similar viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated persons who are infected with the delta variant call into question the degree to which vaccination prevents transmission.
Not on infectiousness or spread, that's the whole point we're making here.
"When the efficacy of the vaccines was so high for preventing serious cases"
They claimed based on trial data 95% efficacy against infection, not just serious cases. That wasn't accurate.
"it would have been a medical ethics problem to delay getting them out to the public while trying to get better data on spread"
They had many months. Regardless even if this wasn't the case, it's easy: make them available and then don't impose any requirements or passporting until such data is available. They didn't do this.
You appear to classify literally any criticism of any process or happening to do with vaccines as "antivax talking points" even though they're precise and specific to this event. Do you realize that for vaccines to be safe and effective, you need a whole lot of people who are willing to be "antivax" in the regulators, pharma companies, doctors surgeries and more? The only reason anyone believes in vaccine safety at all is the assumption of lots of people who will yell stop at the slightest hint of problems. It's clear that this assumption is wrong and the people most afraid of being classed as "anti-vaxxers" are the very people meant to be watching out for safety problems.
The thing is, they’re not precise or specific. You keep repeating vague claims which are contradicted by the scientific evidence. If you’re not anti-vax you should ask whether you’re getting these points from people who are, or whether your belief about how science works is shared by actual scientists. For example, it is a complete falsehood that ‘you need a whole lot of people who are willing to be "antivax" in the regulators, pharma companies, doctors surgeries and more’ — critical review is a core part of the scientific process, nowhere more true than for new drugs and vaccines, but that’s not antivax — that’s scientists doing their jobs. The problem with antivax thinking isn’t that it’s skeptical but that it’s based on unwillingness to follow or accept the scientific process.
There are no campaign for a 3rd booster in my country, and it doesn't look like they are planning to so far (which is an entirely different story).
I have to read a bit more to evaluate if it's safe or not before I act on my plan.
To be clear, I had: first dose: 2 MRNA shots, then a first booster then a second booster. Planning to get a 3rd.
> they’re safe and effective against severe cases
How is that safe and effective? You want to argue you're better off being vaccinated vs unvaccinated, you make that argument. Nobody gets to call it safe and effective anymore, the data says it's not true.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/23/vaccinate...
Edit: post limited, so I’m going to dump this here and not further engage in refuting such inane idiocy:
> Full dose vaccination reduced the need for ICU admission by 49.7% (95% CI = 17-70) and mortality by 56.5% (95% CI = 20-77).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36129790/
EVERY study shows that vaccination is extremely effective in reducing hospitalization and mortality.
Think of it this way: the odds of a soldier dying if shot are 10% if they’re wearing a bulletproof vest and 80% if not. There’s a battle and afterwards they realize that 20 dead soldiers were wearing body armor and 10 were not. Does that mean armor was bad? To answer that question, you have to know how many there were in both groups: if it was 50:50 that would support questioning the value of those vests but if it was 90:10, the reverse would be true.
The article you linked is well worth reading as it explains this and several other confounds for analysis, namely the higher likelihood for high risk people to get vaccinated even though their failing immune systems still leave them at elevated risk (a vaccinated 80 year old’s risk goes down to a level similar to a 50 year old, not a 20 year old), and the fact that waning immune response and new variants mean that we really need to avoid thinking of vaccination for COVID as a lifetime boolean toggle – someone who got a single dose 2 years ago has a different status than someone fully vaccinated with a bivalent booster.
You're making the argument that you're better off with the vaccine than without it, and depending on your demographic cohort this is generally true (young males excluded). That's the question you answered, but it's not relevant to the question I asked. How can you call it safe and effective when most people dying are vaccinated? That's not very safe or effective.
The polio vaccine is safe and effective. MMR vaccine is safe and effective. This shit is neither.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#covidnet-hospitali...
> In November 2022, compared to adults ages 18 years and older who received an updated COVID-19 bivalent booster dose, monthly rates of COVID-19-associated hospitalizations were 16.0x Higher in Unvaccinated and 2.7x Higher in Vaccinated Adults without an updated booster.
Most people have the Polio vaccine, more even than the Covid vaccine. Yet thousands of people aren't regularly dying from polio in the US despite being vaccinated. Same goes for MMR, and the other vaccines we all got.
So the polio vaccine is "Safe and effective". The MMR vaccine is "safe and effective". See the difference?
As far as "effective" goes, how many people with either of those vaccines still get Polio, mumps, measles, rubella?
So Polio, MMR etc are "safe and effective" vaccines. Do you see the difference?
As always, 4chan is one step ahead <https://i.redd.it/08qwj2r4kyw61.jpg>
But now the answer occurs to me: that's what Omicron and Krakus are doing, too. By now we've all been infected and reinfected, giving us all the value a killed-virus vaccine would have.
You get the RNA vaccine, then mild Omicron that doesn't kill, then mild Krakus that doesn't kill; and then you're as well protected as by getting the killed-virus vaccine, which just takes too long to create.
So maybe the real question posed by this study is, does a subsequent infection by Omicron reverse the toleration induced over time by the RNA?
My understanding is that they're not quite as good as mRNA in terms of efficacy (though I haven't looked this up in some time.)
So it seems the shots convert short term but temporary unpleasantness into long term serious problems - at which point, of course, they will be classed as not vaccine related because they didn't happen immediately.
As such the social implications of this discovery are more of the same. The population will continue to be split into camps that think all vaccines are perfect and reject any link with bad outcomes as not proven, denied by public health so it must be false. Public health bodies will continue refusing to break down incidence data by vaccine status, or will do so in fudged ways by redefining what "vaccinated" means. Other people will observe long term disparate outcomes between people who had lots of shots and others who had none, but if they try to speak about what they see they'll be shut down, told it's just anecdotes and not data and maybe fired. Polarization will continue to spiral.
Overall: this finding is bad, and the long term implications are bad.
" Discussion
Our study shows that the mRNA-containing LNP vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 induce high anti-S1 IgG and IgA levels in the blood as well as in the saliva, but these Ig levels steadily decrease over time and approach levels that are comparable to the long-term levels induced by two immunizations with the adenovirus-based vaccine AZD1222. In the long run, such pronounced anti-S1 IgG and (s)IgA reductions in the saliva likely reflect the declining protection against infection and from spreading in the respiratory tract of naïve individuals (16, 17). On the other hand, the observed stronger anti-S1 (s)IgA response in the saliva of previously infected vaccinees – likely generated by re-activation of infection-induced local (s)IgA+ memory B cells – might explain their recently described higher protection from infection and spreading "
These sections indicate that natural immunity is more effective at preventing infection and spread of COVID-19 than vaccines.
"In summary, the data indicate that the high initial mRNA vaccine-induced anti-S1 IgG(1) and IgA responses decrease over time and approach levels induced with the adenovirus-based vaccine up to day 270. Higher and more stable anti-S1 (s)IgA levels in the saliva of pre-infected vaccinees might explain their higher protection from infection and spread of SARS-CoV-2.
Intriguingly, the mRNA vaccines, and in particular the mRNA-1273 vaccine, induced increasing long-term anti-S1 serum IgG4 levels in naïve individuals with hitherto unclear influences on the fight against the pathogen. Naïve individuals vaccinated with the adenovirus-based vaccine did not show such long-term anti-S1 IgG4 response at least after two vaccinations until day 270. "