1504 replies to this topic

[HBRU]

Yes NZ data important. Vaccine in itself (without prior Covid infections) was ok, helpful. The opposite: forcing vaccines on people that already had plenty of COVID immunity was sure bad.

[Hip]

Yes NZ data important. Vaccine in itself (without prior Covid infections) was ok, helpful. The opposite: forcing vaccines on people that already had plenty of COVID immunity was sure bad.

 

There's no such thing as long-term COVID immunity, that's why people who catch COVID can catch it again 4 months later. 

 

Normally with viruses, once you have caught a virus, you are immune from catching it again for decades. But with coronavirus, immunity only lasts months, not decades. 

 

So neither natural immunity or vaccine immunity gives any long term protection.

 

This is one of the most unfortunate features of coronavirus, a feature you don't find in other viruses. 

[joesixpack]

There's no such thing as long-term COVID immunity, that's why people who catch COVID can catch it again 4 months later. 

 

Normally with viruses, once you have caught a virus, you are immune from catching it again for decades. But with coronavirus, immunity only lasts months, not decades. 

 

So neither natural immunity or vaccine immunity gives any long term protection.

 

This is one of the most unfortunate features of coronavirus, a feature you don't find in other viruses. 

So what is the point of a two month vaccine?

[Daniel Cooper]

This is one of the most unfortunate features of coronavirus, a feature you don't find in other viruses. 

 

You also see it in rhinoviruses which cause the common colds that aren't caused by coronaviruses, which is the majority of them.

 

I guess the most meaningful statement is that these viruses that we don't build long term immunity against (coronaviruses, rhinoviruses, etc.) don't typically cause serious illness.

 

Fortunately as covid-19 has adapted to it's host it's lethality (which was generally only an issue in certain susceptible populations) has significantly diminished.

[Hip]

So what is the point of a two month vaccine?

 

Isn't that completely obvious? To save lives, of course.

 

Vaccine immunity dwindles after about 4 months or so, so this is why the elderly and vulnerable are advised to get vaccinated every 6 months. In the UK, such people are contacted by the NHS every 6 months, to remind them to get vaccinated. 

 

It would be great if one vaccine provided long term immunity that lasted decades; but we have to work with the situation that we are in.  

[Hip]

You also see it in rhinoviruses which cause the common colds that aren't caused by coronaviruses, which is the majority of them.

 

I don't know how long rhinovirus immunity lasts; I assume it would last for decades, like most viruses, but don't have any info. There are around 100 serotypes of rhinovirus, and that is a reason why catching rhinovirus once will not protect you from the next rhinovirus serotype which comes along.

 

As with every viral infection we catch, there is a titanic effort by the immune system to create antibodies which can neutralise the virus. It takes several days for the immune system to come up with the right antibody formula to disable the virus you have caught. 

 

But once the right antibody is created by out B cells, those B cells will remember that antibody formula, and will be ready to immediately deploy it the next time you encounter the same virus. 

 

 

I guess the most meaningful statement is that these viruses that we don't build long term immunity against (coronaviruses, rhinoviruses, etc.) don't typically cause serious illness.

That's not the reason coronaviruses don't induce long-term immunity. I've posted the reason more than once on these COVID threads: it's to do with some unique dynamics of the protein components of the spike, that allow the virus to evade immunity. 

 

 

 

 

 

By the way, the new JN.1 COVID variant in circulation now has some new symptoms: anxiety and insomnia. See this article. 

 

So if you already suffer from anxiety and insomnia, this might be one you try to avoid. 

 

Edited by Hip, 03 January 2024 - 05:35 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

Isn't that completely obvious? To save lives, of course.

 

Vaccine immunity dwindles after about 4 months or so, so this is why the elderly and vulnerable are advised to get vaccinated every 6 months. In the UK, such people are contacted by the NHS every 6 months, to remind them to get vaccinated. 

 

It would be great if one vaccine provided long term immunity that lasted decades; but we have to work with the situation that we are in.  

 

Benefit must always be balanced with risk.  Hope you'll agree the COVID vaccines are not zero risk options, and it remains to be seen whether cumulative risk increases overall with time.  

 

And how risky is omicron realistically.  Yes, I know there are still deaths being reported, but I haven't see the details on who is actually dying.  I recall someone reporting the average age of COVID deaths was over 80, and well past the patients life expectancy at birth; and this was pre-omicron.  I can only imagine what kind of patient is dying from omicron today.  

 

We also have treatments now, and utilizing treatment over endless boosters at this point in the game might reduce the cumulative risk of multiple vaccinations over time.  

 

As always...  Treat early for best results!  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 03 January 2024 - 05:37 PM.

[zen]

I don't know how long rhinovirus immunity lasts; I assume it would last for decades, like most viruses, but don't have any info. There are around 100 serotypes of rhinovirus, and that is a reason why catching rhinovirus once will not protect you from the next rhinovirus serotype which comes along.

 

That's not the reason coronaviruses don't induce long-term immunity. I've posted the reason more than once on these COVID threads: it's to do with some unique dynamics of the protein components of the spike, that allow the virus to evade immunity. 

 

 

 

By the way, the new JN.1 COVID variant in circulation now has some new symptoms: anxiety and insomnia. See this article. 

 

So if you already suffer from anxiety and insomnia, this might be one you try to avoid. 

 

Covid mRNA jabs do not prevent infection, so your point is moot.
The technology is unsafe and should be withdrawn from the market.
https://twitter.com/...548301474312676

Edited by zen, 03 January 2024 - 05:46 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

 

That's not the reason coronaviruses don't induce long-term immunity. I've posted the reason more than once on these COVID threads: it's to do with some unique dynamics of the protein components of the spike, that allow the virus to evade immunity. 

 

 

I never said that the reason that coronaviruses don't induce long term immunity is because they don't cause serious illness.

 

The reason we don't typically care about our ability to develop long term immunity to coronaviruses is because they don't typically cause serious illness.

 

And my caring about covid-19 is rapidly diminishing as the virus has become much less problematic.

 

It's here. We will all periodically get re-infected. Our lingering immunity and the fact that the virus continues to evolve to less lethal forms means that the overwhelming majority of people will not get seriously ill from it. It will increasingly become a nuisance. Which is where I'm at wrt to covid-19 right now.

 

We can protest all we want. Your mask isn't going to keep you from getting it. Unless you want to lock yourself away and have no quality of life you will be catching it from time to time.

 

Even the current vaccines aren't going to stop you from getting it. Even if you re-boost twice a year. In fact, re-vaccinating with the same or nearly the same vaccine repeatedly runs the risk of training your immune system to ignore it.

 

I just don't see any strategy around this. So I have long since moved into the "acceptance" phase of this thing. We can piss and moan and gripe and complain, but that's where we're at.

 

Unless you want to lock yourself inside your home, this is the reality.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 03 January 2024 - 07:11 PM.

[Hip]

Unless you want to lock yourself inside your home, this is the reality.

The ability of SARS-CoV-2 to cause lifelong ME/CFS remains, in spite of the fact that most people seem to be ignoring COVID these days. 

 

I don't blame people for wanting to get on with their lives unimpeded by COVID considerations. But their ignoring COVID risks does not make those risks go away.

 

The weaker and more transmissible variants of COVID are less likely to cause ME/CFS, but the fact they are more transmissible means that they will infect you more often, and so you have more opportunities for ME/CFS to develop. Each time you catch COVID, you have a certain risk of developing ME/CFS.

 

If you already have ME/CFS, then catching COVID can be devastating, as it can make you illness much worse. According to a survey, about 1 in 3 ME/CFS patients who catch COVID get permanently worse. 

 

 

Not to mention the fact that in the UK, about 50 people still die every day of COVID, but the media no longer covers this.

Edited by Hip, 03 January 2024 - 07:23 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but the end of the day I don't know what to do about it.

 

Maybe masks offer a marginal benefit. Maybe not. But after looking at all the studies I think you're nibbling about the margins. I don't think you will make a big different in your risks.

 

Same with the vaccines. After looking at the data, I think you are reaching diminishing returns. Maybe the vaccines were useful early on when the virus was more lethal, particularly if you were in the at risk demographics. But now, when we know that the vaccines offers such a limited window of immunity it's not encouraging. And it is a real phenomena - you keep taking the same vaccine over and over and you run the run the risk of teaching the immune system to ignore what you keep presenting it.

 

So even if I accept everything you say as true, I'm not sure exactly what you do about it. I suppose you can keep masking if you want so long as you understand that you're probably only getting a slight benefit at best. The vaccines on the other hand - even discounting all the questions about their safety (and I can't decide out how much of that is valid or not) - if you keep taking it over and over again the amount and duration of immunity it confers will continue to decline.

 

We just don't seem to have any great tools to prevent you from catching this virus. Not today. Maybe anti-viral therapies are the way to go. Don't know. I just know that I reached my "worrying about this" saturation point some time back. Continuing to worry about this just isn't going to improve any outcomes that I can see.

[joesixpack]

Covid mRNA jabs do not prevent infection, so your point is moot.
The technology is unsafe and should be withdrawn from the market.
https://twitter.com/...548301474312676

I agree. The Emergency Use Authorization should be withdrawn because Paxlovid is considered an effective treatment for Covid. An experimental vaccine is not supposed to be granted an EUA, unless there is no effective treatment.

 

This means that the "authorities" can stop demonizing Ivermectin and Hydroxychloriquine, and allow access to those drugs as well.

[Hip]

Regarding Trump's favourite miracle drug hydroxychloroquine: a new study from France suggests that giving hospitalised COVID patients the unproven treatment of hydroxychloroquine may have led to 17,000 deaths. 

 

They state the toxicity of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID was partially due to cardiac side effects, such as abnormal heart rhythms. 

 

[Dorian Grey]

Regarding Trump's favourite miracle drug hydroxychloroquine: a new study from France suggests that giving hospitalised COVID patients the unproven treatment of hydroxychloroquine may have led to 17,000 deaths. 

 

They state the toxicity of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID was partially due to cardiac side effects, such as abnormal heart rhythms. 

 

Oh no!  Surgisphere has come back from the dead!  

 

"According to the researchers from Lyon, France, and Quebec, Canada, providers still prescribed hydroxychloroquine to some patients hospitalized with COVID-19".

 

If they were giving it to some, but not others, is it possible they were giving it to the sickest patients, as a Hail Mary? Is it unusual to see your sickest patients die more often?

 

If this is true, it might be a new world record as on page 36 of The cardiotoxicity of antimalarials

 

https://cdn.who.int/...2&download=true

 

(WHO 2016) states: "Despite hundreds of millions of doses administered in the treatment of malaria, there have been no reports of sudden unexplained death associated with quinine, chloroquine or amodiaquine, although each drug causes QT/QTc interval prolongation".

 

Let's keep in mind chloroquine is considered a more toxic member of the quinine/chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine family of drugs.  Sudden cardiac deaths?  ABSOLUTE ZERO in all recorded history of use.  

 

Not too shabby a safety record if you ask me!  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 05 January 2024 - 06:59 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Some of you may have seen this article from "Politico": Hydroxychloroquine could have caused 17,000 deaths during COVID, study finds.

 

Politico's article refers to this study: "Deaths induced by compassionate use of hydroxychloroquine during the first COVID-19 wave: an estimate"

 

I took a brief look at the study and found a contradiction in study-design-inclusion criteria: 

 

The study asserts in section 2.2.1: "From Pubmed, we selected studies according to the following inclusion criteria:" and they go on to list the criteria. One of the criteria the authors list is "study size ≥ 500 patients to avoid centre effect".

 

The authors state: "We retrieved 7848 articles using the previously mentioned search terms. After reviewing titles, abstracts, and some full texts, we selected 44 studies totalizing 98406 patients (Fig. 1)."

 

In the study, under section "3.1. Study characteristics", it is stated that: "The median number of patients included in each study was 1109 (range 348–15111), including 20% admitted to the ICU (range 0–68).". (That sentence makes no sense. There wasn't a median of 1109 patients for each study. The authors should have just stated that the number of patients in the studies ranged from 348-15111 and left it at that, if true. See below.)

 

 

A range of "348-15111", with a lower bound of 348, seemingly indicates a violation of the minimum study-size criterion of  ≥500.

 

I wrote an email to one of the authors requesting clarification and received an automatic response:

 

 

 "

From:jean-christophe.lega@chu-lyon.fr

To:    (deleted)

 

Thu, Jan 4 at 8:03 PM

 

En mon absence (retour 8 décembre), vous pouvez contacter mon secrétériat au 04 78 86 12 31.

Très cordialement.

I will be out of office and will not have regular access to my mailbox during this period."

 

The email response indicates a December 8 return. So, I'm not sure what the status of my email is. But, if I get a response I'll post it here.

The study used 44 studies for meta-analysis. I took a look at the first study mentioned in "3.1 Study characteristics", which was done in Turkey and is study citation [16]:

"F. Altuntas, N. Ata, T.N. Yigenoglu, et al.

COVID-19 in hematopoietic cell transplant recipients

Bone Marrow Transpl., 56 (4) (2021), pp. 952-955"

 

There were not 500 patients in that study.  And, out of the 32 HCT recipients (what the study is supposedly about) only 24 received HCQ.

 

 

I suspect that "Politico" has published an article without having been able to break the "confirmation bias" barrier to do a neutral analysis--the first sentence after the title of the article is: "Former US President Donald Trump said: ‘What do you have to lose? Take it.’"

So, unless I get a cogent response from the study author that I emailed, the study is binned by me as garbage, or to put it in French: "garbage".

 

PS-- I suspect that someone, in their posting, has shot from the Hip without having read the study in question.

 

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 05 January 2024 - 08:01 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

Speaking of hospital deaths...  https://www.naturaln...s-pandemic.html

 

Nurse confirms that COVID-19 hospital protocols and vaccines killed numerous patients during pandemic

 

"Gail Macrae, a nurse with Kaiser Permanente Santa Rosa, recently sat down with Steve Kirsch to share the horrors she saw during the pandemic, and one of the most upsetting things she mentioned was the fact that so many people died from the treatment protocols that the CDC forced hospitals and doctors to adhere to.

 

Kirsch reports that both Macrae and an ICU doctor he spoke to after the interview estimated that roughly 90 percent of those who died were actually killed by the COVID-19 treatment protocols rather than the virus itself.

 

This figure was backed up by Dr. Paul Marik, an experienced physician and former professor of medicine who is the chairperson of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance. He told Kirsch that he felt 90 percent was a fair estimate. Dr. Marik worked in the ICU during the pandemic and had a very high success rate of saving patients with COVID; he reports saving nearly 100 percent of them with his own protocol. However, after being instructed by superiors to switch to the “hospital protocol” in accordance with guidance by the CDC, seven out of his next seven patients passed away, including a 22-year-old. He resigned from his position because the hospital would not allow him to save patients’ lives."

[Gal220]

Regarding Trump's favourite miracle drug hydroxychloroquine: a new study from France suggests that giving hospitalised COVID patients the unproven treatment of hydroxychloroquine may have led to 17,000 deaths. 

 

They state the toxicity of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID was partially due to cardiac side effects, such as abnormal heart rhythms. 

 

HCQ + ionic zinc was only effective as an antiviral the first couple of days, the virus has burned itself out by the time you are in the hospital

 

Of course doctors who treated with it early didnt have their patients go into the hospital...

 

video testimonies, many in poor health

Link1

 

Book

Link2

 

More from Dr. Fareed

Link3

 

“millions of lives could have been saved, if we had adopted Zelenko's protocol by the end of April 2020. If we had done so then, by the end of summer 2020, it would have been evident that the epidemic curves are crashed, and we could have gone back to normal from September 2020 and onwards, at the latest.”

[DanCG]

HCQ + ionic zinc was only effective as an antiviral the first couple of days, the virus has burned itself out by the time you are in the hospital

 

Of course doctors who treated with it early didnt have their patients go into the hospital...

 

video testimonies, many in poor health

Link1

 

Book

Link2

 

More from Dr. Fareed

Link3

 

“millions of lives could have been saved, if we had adopted Zelenko's protocol by the end of April 2020. If we had done so then, by the end of summer 2020, it would have been evident that the epidemic curves are crashed, and we could have gone back to normal from September 2020 and onwards, at the latest.”

Funny how when studies show that a vaccinated population had worse outcomes than an unvaccinated one, vaccine defenders will say, without evidence, that the vaccinated population was sicker or more vulnerable at the onset. Then when HCQ or Ivermectin were given demonstrably too late to already very sick people and the treatment did not rescue them, the same people are quick to say these treatments don’t work.

 

[Daniel Cooper]

Regarding Trump's favourite miracle drug hydroxychloroquine: a new study from France suggests that giving hospitalised COVID patients the unproven treatment of hydroxychloroquine may have led to 17,000 deaths. 

 

They state the toxicity of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID was partially due to cardiac side effects, such as abnormal heart rhythms. 

 

I saw that. Since I haven't kept up with HCQ - what is the typical dose given in these covid cases and how does that compare with the dose when used as a anti-malarial?

 

As Dorian points out, HCQ has a very long and rather uneventful history as an anti-malarial. 

 

You do wonder if it's patient selection bias (sickest patients getting the HCQ) or I suppose alternatively that people with a covid-19 infection do have some specific susceptibility to this compound as a result of their illness, since HCQ doesn't appear to generate a lot adverse outcomes in its long history of use.

[Hip]

You do wonder if it's patient selection bias (sickest patients getting the HCQ) or I suppose alternatively that people with a covid-19 infection do have some specific susceptibility to this compound as a result of their illness, since HCQ doesn't appear to generate a lot adverse outcomes in its long history of use.

 

I guess it could be that in hospitalised COVID patients, the body is already under immense strain, which might then amplify the toxic effects of HCQ. 

 

Perhaps that's an argument for starting HCQ early, as in the Zelenko protocol, as in the early stage, the body would not be under much strain, and so HCQ might then be better tolerated. Plus starting early generally sounds like it would be a good idea. 

 

 

I've not been following it much lately either, but I seem to remember that with HCQ it has been equivocal: with some studies showing benefit, others showing possible higher risk of death. So you are getting mixed signals from these studies.   

 

I think if any antiviral had solid unequivocal benefits, all the studies would come out positive, and you would not get mixed signals. Once you see mixed signals, you know that even if there are benefits, they are going to be slight. 

Edited by Hip, 06 January 2024 - 03:08 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

I guess it could be that in hospitalised COVID patients, the body is already under immense strain, which might then amplify the toxic effects of HCQ. 

 

Perhaps that's an argument for starting HCQ early, as in the Zelenko protocol, as in the early stage, the body would not be under much strain, and so HCQ might then be better tolerated. Plus starting early generally sounds like it would be a good idea. 

 

 

I've not been following it much lately either, but I seem to remember that with HCQ it has been equivocal: with some studies showing benefit, others showing possible higher risk of death. So you are getting mixed signals from these studies.   

 

I think if any antiviral had solid unequivocal benefits, all the studies would come out positive, and you would not get mixed signals. Once you see mixed signals, you know that even if there are benefits, they are going to be slight. 

 

Mixed signals?  Late treatment trials on hospitalized patients generated a lot of negative noise, but...  

 

Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so when provided early, for COVID-19: a systematic review

 

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/33042552/

 

"HCQ was found to be consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting."

[Hip]

Mixed signals?  Late treatment trials on hospitalized patients generated a lot of negative noise, but...  

 

Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so when provided early, for COVID-19: a systematic review

 

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/33042552/

 

"HCQ was found to be consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting."

 

So what happens if a patient comes to hospital at a later stage of COVID? What happens if they have missed the opportunity to start the antiviral therapy early?

 

Do you then advise not to have hydroxychloroquine, because later stage use of HCQ is associated with an increased risk of death?

[Dorian Grey]

So what happens if a patient comes to hospital at a later stage of COVID? What happens if they have missed the opportunity to start the antiviral therapy early?

 

Do you then advise not to have hydroxychloroquine, because later stage use of HCQ is associated with an increased risk of death?

 

Well, Henry Ford Health System (HFHS) in Southeast Michigan: large six hospital integrated health system had reduced mortality, even with late intervention: 

 

"In this multi-hospital assessment, when controlling for COVID-19 risk factors, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with reduction in COVID-19 associated mortality."

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC7330574/

 

Treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and combination in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

---------------------

 

I really haven't seen any evidence of harm with HCQ, when dosed according to the British Medical Formulary (maximum 600mg/day).  

 

I got more side effects from aspirin than I did with HCQ.  

[Dorian Grey]

Doh!  Looks like Howard Stern finally got COVID, and interestingly got it BAD!  

 

https://www.howardst...over-the-break/

 

“Man, I went through hell … I’ve really never been this sick,”

 

“What a wallop this thing is – can you imagine if we didn’t have the vaccine?”

 

Wait, what?  He got all his jabs, & not only still got COVID, but got knocked on is keister from omicron?  

 

Doesn't say whether he got Paxlovid or not, but I can't believe he'd miss out on this.  

 

The moral to this story?  Everyone gets it eventually, despite whatever precautions you might take.  The vaccines will not protect you from severe disease; and Paxlovid is either not worth bothering with, or will not reduce your symptoms all that much.  

 

Howard & I are the same age, build & health.  I took HCQ and quinine with zinc the first & second time I got COVID, & my illness was a walk in the park.  I literally spent several hours each day of my isolation walking in a park.  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 09 January 2024 - 05:14 PM.

[Mind]

Doh!  Looks like Howard Stern finally got COVID, and interestingly got it BAD!  

 

https://www.howardst...over-the-break/

 

“Man, I went through hell … I’ve really never been this sick,”

 

“What a wallop this thing is – can you imagine if we didn’t have the vaccine?”

 

Wait, what?  He got all his jabs, & not only still got COVID, but got knocked on is keister from omicron?  

 

Doesn't say whether he got Paxlovid or not, but I can't believe he'd miss out on this.  

 

The moral to this story?  Everyone gets it eventually, despite whatever precautions you might take.  The vaccines will not protect you from severe disease; and Paxlovid is either not worth bothering with, or will not reduce your symptoms all that much.  

 

Howard & I are the same age, build & health.  I took HCQ and quinine with zinc the first & second time I got COVID, & my illness was a walk in the park.  I literally spent several hours each day of my isolation walking in a park.  

 

Stern crawled in a hole for the last 4 years, lived his life virtually, missed out on life. He did everything our incompetent public health bureaucrats told him to do and he still got the worst disease of his life. Peer-reviewed evidence would support the fact that Stern got it worse BECAUSE he got so many COVID injections.

[Daniel Cooper]

Stern crawled in a hole for the last 4 years, lived his life virtually, missed out on life. He did everything our incompetent public health bureaucrats told him to do and he still got the worst disease of his life. Peer-reviewed evidence would support the fact that Stern got it worse BECAUSE he got so many COVID injections.

 

It was really interesting watching such an edgy shock jock suddenly start cowering in fear and taking such extreme measures over this virus. He did literally lock himself inside his home for years.  I guess fortunately for him it is a very palatial home, but still the world kept on turning while he became a shut-in. 

[Hip]

Peer-reviewed evidence would support the fact that Stern got it worse BECAUSE he got so many COVID injections.

 

It's nonsense in an N=1 case to equate vaccine status with COVID infection severity. Even the vaccinated can still die of COVID. The severity of infection is largely random, in individual cases. 

 

Stern did not die, or even come close to death, he just had a nasty flu-like illness for a week. Big deal. 

 

At his age, nearly 70, even when fully vaccinated, he has about a 1 in 500 chance of death if he catches COVID, going by these figures.  

 

 

Would anyone book a plane journey with an airline whose aircraft ended up in a catastrophic fatal crash once every 500 flights? Of course not, nobody here would fly with such a dangerous airline. 

 

Yet people here are criticising Stern for trying to avoid a virus which, for his age group, kills 1 in every 500 fully vaccinated people.

Edited by Hip, 10 January 2024 - 12:58 AM.

[zen]

It's nonsense in an N=1 case to equate vaccine status with COVID infection severity. Even the vaccinated can still die of COVID. The severity of infection is largely random, in individual cases. 

 

Stern did not die, or even come close to death, he just had a nasty flu-like illness for a week. Big deal. 

 

At his age, nearly 70, even when fully vaccinated, he has about a 1 in 500 chance of death if he catches COVID, going by these figures.  

 

 

Would anyone book a plane journey with an airline whose aircraft ended up in a catastrophic fatal crash once every 500 flights? Of course not, nobody here would fly with such a dangerous airline. 

 

Yet people here are criticising Stern for trying to avoid a virus which, for his age group, kills 1 in every 500 fully vaccinated people.

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/37243095/

"IgG4 Antibodies Induced by Repeated Vaccination May Generate Immune Tolerance to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein"
...
However, emerging evidence suggests that the reported increase in IgG4 levels detected after repeated vaccination with the mRNA vaccines may not be a protective mechanism; rather, it constitutes an immune tolerance mechanism to the spike protein that could promote unopposed SARS-CoV2 infection and replication by suppressing natural antiviral responses. Increased IgG4 synthesis due to repeated mRNA vaccination with high antigen concentrations may also cause autoimmune diseases, and promote cancer growth and autoimmune myocarditis in susceptible individuals."

[Hip]

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/37243095/

"IgG4 Antibodies Induced by Repeated Vaccination May Generate Immune Tolerance to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein"

 

However, emerging evidence suggests that the reported increase in IgG4 levels detected after repeated vaccination with the mRNA vaccines may not be a protective mechanism; rather, it constitutes an immune tolerance mechanism to the spike protein that could promote unopposed SARS-CoV2 infection and replication by suppressing natural antiviral responses. Increased IgG4 synthesis due to repeated mRNA vaccination with high antigen concentrations may also cause autoimmune diseases, and promote cancer growth and autoimmune myocarditis in susceptible individuals."

 

That study was discussed before on these COVID threads. I initially thought it potentially might be a cause for concern, but I've seen no follow ups or further discussion in scientific circles on this, so I am guessing that researchers do not consider this significant, or they are not quite sure of the significance.

 

Remember that IgG4 is just one of four subclasses of IgG, and in fact is the least abundant of these subclasses. 

 

Furthermore, during an acute viral infection, it is IgM antibodies that fight the virus, not IgG antibodies.

 

So if someone catches COVID, either the first time or a repeat infection, the immune system will mount an IgM response. Once the acute infection is fully under control and completely quelled, and the battle against the virus won, then IgM antibody levels go down, and IgG antibody levels go up, because IgG's role is a long-term caretaker, preventing any viral reactivations. 

 

So as far as I can see, I don't think increased IgG4 levels will affect the immune system's ability to fight COVID. Whether increased IgG4 might have some other adverse effects, that's open to question.

 

 

I just found this 2023 paper about IgG4, and it says:

IgG4 is not commonly part of the antibody response to bacterial or viral infection. The range of situations in which specific IgG4 is or can be a dominant factor is wide and includes responses to allergens, therapeutically administered proteins, autoantigens and helminth infections.

 

So the paper tells us that IgG4 does not participate in the immune response against viruses. 

 

The paper also talks about IgG4 and cancer: because Ig4 has anti-inflammatory effects which dampen the immune response, the paper says some cancers have the ability to induce IgG4, to thwart the immune system when it is trying to fight the cancer. But presumably those induced IgG4 antibodies are ones which target the tumour cells, which I would think has nothing to do with IgG4 that targets SARS-CoV-2. Remember that each antibody has its own target. 

Edited by Hip, 10 January 2024 - 03:01 AM.

[zen]

That study was discussed before on these COVID threads. I initially thought it potentially might be a cause for concern, but I've seen no follow ups or further discussion in scientific circles on this, so I am guessing that researchers do not consider this significant, or they are not quite sure of the significance.

 

Remember that IgG4 is just one of four subclasses of IgG, and in fact is the least abundant of these subclasses. 

 

Furthermore, during an acute viral infection, it is IgM antibodies that fight the virus, not IgG antibodies.

 

So if someone catches COVID, either the first time or a repeat infection, the immune system will mount an IgM response. Once the acute infection is fully under control and completely quelled, and the battle against the virus won, then IgM antibody levels go down, and IgG antibody levels go up, because IgG's role is a long-term caretaker, preventing any viral reactivations. 

 

So as far as I can see, I don't think increased IgG4 levels will affect the immune system's ability to fight COVID. Whether increased IgG4 might have some other adverse effects, that's open to question.

 

 

I just found this 2023 paper about IgG4, and it says:

 

So the paper tells us that IgG4 does not participate in the immune response against viruses. 

 

The paper also talks about IgG4 and cancer: because Ig4 has anti-inflammatory effects which dampen the immune response, the paper says some cancers have the ability to induce IgG4, to thwart the immune system when it is trying to fight the cancer. But presumably those induced IgG4 antibodies are ones which target the tumour cells, which I would think has nothing to do with IgG4 that targets SARS-CoV-2. Remember that each antibody has its own target. 

 

The fact that "IgG4 is not commonly part of the antibody response to bacterial or viral infection." is a good thing because this is not the type of antibodies we want when the body needs to fight of a pathogen.

The fact that IgG4 antibodies are generated as a result of repeated mRNA shots is highly undesirable and proves that the strategy of periodic boosting ad infinitum makes no sense.