Believe These Scientists?
Project Veritas nails Pfizer with multiple interviews from their scientists. Short findings: the vaccines are not as effective as natural immunity; the money is so huge as to be corrupting to the culture in Pfizer; and vax-induced heart attacks are a big enough concern that they're conducting an internal study that might result in the vaccine being pulled from the market.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
"Natural immunity better"
The Pfizer/Moderna vaxes (*) stimulate antibodies against the "horn" proteins. It's plausible that in a natural infection many of us might generate antibodies to some of the other virus proteins as well, and to that extent the natural immunity would be "better." Some antibodies might be longer-lasting than others, which complicates predictions. And there's sure to be variation in individual responses, maybe even with blood type (https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210526/Intensity-and-duration-of-SARS-CoV-2-immunity-may-depend-on-ABO-blood-group.aspx#:~:text=To%20protect%20the%20global%20population,months%20of%20symptom%20onset.) (The study is low statistics)
"better" depends on details: Is the antibody against horn protein more effective than its cousin that latches onto something else? Does the machinery to generate one last longer than the machinery to generate the other? Which is more versatile against a mutated virus?
OTOH, natural immunity to coronavirii isn't famous for lasting a long time.
I'm scheduled for a booster next week.
(*) I used to work with VAX's back in the day
It's plausible that in a natural infection many of us might generate antibodies to some of the other virus proteins as well, and to that extent the natural immunity would be "better."
Yes, that's the claim at least one of them is making. This undercover journalist was apparently something of a honey trap, getting these young scientifically-minded men to talk to a (presumably attractive) woman over drinks and dinner. She found it easy to get their words flowing.
In vino veritas, but many men will lie to women in order to impress them in those circumstances. On the other hand, it's not clear that lying would be impressive here; what they're trying to impress her with is their insider knowledge.
If we had an honest investigative service, this would be the sort of thing that would call for an investigation. Since we don't, journalism like this is the best we can currently hope to encounter.
what they're trying to impress her with is their insider knowledge.
Or at least their claimed insider knowledge. In today's environment, knocking the establishment is a way to impress, regardless of the truth or its lack of the knock.
Eric Hines
The problem with natural immunity is that you have to get the disease first in order to get that immunity to any significant degree....Yeah, there is some immunity that you may get from having had related diseases, but nothing to count on.
"
"better" depends on details: Is the antibody against horn protein more effective than its cousin that latches onto something else? Does the machinery to generate one last longer than the machinery to generate the other? Which is more versatile against a mutated virus?
OTOH, natural immunity to coronavirii isn't famous for lasting a long time.
"
Apparently natural immunity has a wider spread- develops antibodies to the viral core (N protein?) as well as the spike protein. IIRC, this vaccine approach was tried in animal trials in prior research and killed all the animals. So they concentrated on the spike protein, not realizing it, in itself, was a threat.
The appearance of natural immunity not lasting a long time, may be due to extremely high levels of false positives in the earlier testing- if someone tests (falsely) positive with a PCR test run at high CT levels, then later, when checking for antibodies, of course they will not show them, never having been infected in the first place.
I went to look for a reference, and found https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851497/ from 2007 WRT SARS, in which the half-life of the antibodies was about 2 years, as measured by optical density of antibodies.
That's a little higher than the value I ran across earlier.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15970096/ is just an abstract, but claims to have measured decreases in SARS antibodies over 6 months. This, again, is a pre-COVID coronavirus.
I don't especially believe them, no. They are speaking from theory and I would rather see research. They may be right, and they are at least plausible. But that's not enough.
Post a Comment