COVID-19 Experimental Vaccines: Much Stronger Responses and Side Effects Given to Those Who Already Had COVID
Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it
— Lloyd Chambers
re: Vaccine Safety: “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported”
Should you get a COVID vaccine? Probably, if you are at high risk—basic risk management. Lots of things in life are like that—place your bet based on a judgment call, weighing risks like hospitalization or death or Long-Haul COVID against vaccine side effects.
All the vaccines are experimental, needing special licensing approvals. Think on that a moment: this is one giant guinea pig experiment conducted on a scale never before seen in history. Of course, it’s not just the vaccine—governments are putting children’s physical and mental health on the line in an “all in” poker strategy where half of the “science” is bluffing.
What exactly does “permanent disability” after a COVID vaccination mean and why is no one clarifying?
If you are not at high risk it’s a tougher call. Particularly since the virus is mutating so fast. The smart move is is getting sun exposure for Vitamin D and other benefits of photobiomodulation, and by eating a nutrient-dense diet free of added sugars and excess carbohydrates, and considering magnesium supplementation. Make yourself stronger, so no matter what happens, you’ll come out of the gauntlet in better shape.
Big Pharma stands to gain $40 billion or more in profits with no financial liability*. The idea that they are doing totally objective science or that politics is not a part of it is pretty funny. But hopefully it is mostly right and will net-out as highly beneficial for all and the lack of any credible side-effect tracking / unintended consequences won’t be one massive train wreck a year from now.
* I’ve never been a fan of windfall profit taxes, but why isn’t some politician asking these companies to “give back” to those most hurt by COVID, say 50% of their profits?
Robust spike antibody responses and increased reactogenicity in seropositive individuals after a single dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine
Jan 29, 2021
...Should individuals who already had a SARS-CoV-2 infection receive one or two shots of the currently authorized mRNA vaccines. In this short report, we show that the antibody response to the first vaccine dose in individuals with pre-existing immunity is equal to or even exceeds the titers found in naïve individuals after the second dose. We also show that the reactogenicity is significantly higher in individuals who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the past. Changing the policy to give these individuals only one dose of vaccine would not negatively impact on their antibody titers, spare them from unnecessary pain and free up many urgently needed vaccine doses.
...individuals with pre-existing immunity also experience more severe reactogenicity after the first doses compared to naïve individuals. This begs the question if individuals with pre-existing immunity should even receive a second dose of vaccine.
...antibody titers of vaccinees with pre- existing immunity are not only 10-20 times higher than those of naïve vaccines at the same time points (p <0.0001, two tailed Mann Whitney test), but also exceed the median antibody titers measured in naïve individuals after the second vaccine dose by more than 10-fold...
These findings suggest that a single dose of mRNA vaccine elicits very rapid immune responses in seropositive individuals with post-vaccine antibody titers that are comparable to or exceed titers found in naïve individuals who received two vaccinations. We also noted that vaccine reactogenicity after the first dose is substantially more pronounced in individuals with pre-existing immunity akin to side-effects 2,3 reported for the second dose in the phase III vaccine trials vaccine dose serving as boost in naturally infected individuals providing a rationale for updating vaccine recommendations to considering a single vaccine dose to be sufficient to reach immunity.
Using quantitative serological assays that measure antibodies to the spike protein could be used to screen 4,5 expanding limited vaccine supply but also limit the reactogenicity experienced by COVID-19 survivors.
Conflict of interest statement
The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai has filed patent applications relating to SARS-CoV-2 serological assays and NDV-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines...
WIND: with a p-value of .0001, that is a very high confidence in the results. Too bad the group was not larger, but the truth is that the far larger vaccine studies hardly do better, in that they fail to include more than a tiny proportion of subjects that contracted COVID prior and/or after—and we’re basing public policy on those studies. The apparent conflict of interest is perhaps tolerable, because if you’re in the field you’re in the field and hopefully filing patents regularly. But why hasn’t the CDC funded independent studies a month ago? Incompetence as usual.
Why don’t we hear such issues explicitly addressed? These and many more:
- Is there scientific evidence with high statistical validity (p=0.0001) that the vaccine has any meaningful value for those who have already had COVID? Particularly when weighed against the side effects (which are not tracked worth a damn).
- What exactly does “permanent disability” after a COVID vaccination mean? Who pays for those acquiring a “permanent disability”? (Answer: they’re SOL).
- Is there a robust ethical arguments that the vaccine be offered to or required of those who have already had COVID?
- Is there any ethical and scientific justification for giving the vaccine for low-risk individuals?
- Is there any ethical and scientific justification for giving the vaccine to children?
- Is there independent scientific evidence with high statistical validity (p=0.0001) that the vaccine really does beat COVID out in the wild, inlcuding emerging mutations?