• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * - 1 votes

Vaccine Booster Strategies - Mixing and matching different vaccines?

coronavirus

  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Daniel Cooper

  • Member, Moderator
  • 2,634 posts
  • 631
  • Location:USA

Posted 08 September 2021 - 01:37 PM


For those of us who got the vaccine, how many are planning on taking the booster?

 

I am planning on doing so. According to the 8 month guideline, I would be due next month.

 

I initially had the two dose Pfizer vaccine. It seems to be somewhat less effective than the Moderna with respect to the delta variant, and perhaps even less effective than the J&J on this variant.

 

I'm considering getting a different booster than the Pfizer - either Moderna or J&J on the idea that you might get a somewhat more broad based immunity due to each vaccine using a slightly different version of the spike protein.  This might give you a bit better results as variants continue to evolve. Of course, I've said "might" twice in a row there so take that idea for what it's worth.

 

Thoughts?

 

I'm curious how the booster program (if there is a formal program) will be implemented. Will they try to enforce people to get a booster using the same vaccine as they initially received?  If I walked into a pharmacy today giving the J&J would they simply give it to me? Or in the US is there some sort of database that is checked for vaccine status before giving the shot?  In other words, is the fact that I got Pfizer on my permanent record? 

 

My initial thought is to get the J&J as a booster as this one seems most different from the Pfizer and Moderna.  Certainly the delivery vehicles are different - modified adenovirus versus mRNA, but perhaps thing of real importance is the sequences they ended up using for the spike protein.



#2 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,152 posts
  • 968
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 08 September 2021 - 09:51 PM

The idea of "better coverage" from an alternate booster is intriguing, & I'm wondering if side effects and inflammation might be reduced, kicking your immune system with a different format vaccine, rather than the one your body has already seen.  I've read the third mRNA jab produces 11 times the antibodies compared to the second.  Is auto-immune inflammation also 11 times higher?  

 

There hasn't been a lot of testing done on mix-&-match.  Will you get the best of both worlds?  Or the worst?.  

 

I actually sought out the J&J to avoid the mRNA / lipid nanoparticle jabs.  Still don't much like what I've read about the lipid nono's getting into everything (including the brain?). 

 

I'm hoping for a J&J booster when my time comes, but if I was going to mix-&-match, I'd want a few million test subjects and a few months time before I get in line.  

 

How much you want to bet Big Pharma is working behind the scenes, to herd us down a cattle chute into the booster jab they want us to get.  Less freedom, less choice, & more coercion seems to be the "New Way" of pandemic management.  


  • Agree x 2
  • Good Point x 1
  • Disagree x 1
  • like x 1

#3 lancebr

  • Guest
  • 440 posts
  • 196
  • Location:USA

Posted 08 September 2021 - 11:10 PM

Hopefully there will be another choice soon with the Novavax vaccine.

 

 

They are supposedly getting ready to apply for full approval so hopefully will be out soon:

 

https://www.wdef.com...-full-approval/

 

 

They are even testing a combo vaccine with the Covid and Flu vaccines together:

 

https://wtop.com/bus...-covid-vaccine/


Edited by lancebr, 08 September 2021 - 11:12 PM.

  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Cheerful x 1

#4 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 1,036 posts
  • 627
  • Location:United States

Posted 09 September 2021 - 04:09 AM

Im not on the Vax train, but no way I would do another shot without a reformulation.  

 

With the right precautions, blood cleansers/thinner of some type, I think the J&J is probably pretty safe, would like to see some more animal testing to confirm.

 

Are Mono antibodies an option where you are at?



#5 Daniel Cooper

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Moderator
  • 2,634 posts
  • 631
  • Location:USA

Posted 09 September 2021 - 02:01 PM

Im not on the Vax train, but no way I would do another shot without a reformulation.  

 

With the right precautions, blood cleansers/thinner of some type, I think the J&J is probably pretty safe, would like to see some more animal testing to confirm.

 

Are Mono antibodies an option where you are at?

 

A reformulation for the new variants?  I'm not sure that is necessary. If you look at the response to these vaccines with respect to (for instance) the Delta variant, I think a fair amount of the reduced effectiveness may be due to simply waning immunity as time passes. It took some time for Delta to show up, so comparing the initial effectiveness of the various vaccines versus the Alpha and Delta variants is comparing apples to oranges. 

 

In any case, I do not believe that a reformulation targeted at the later variants is on the near term horizon.

 

What pushed me over the fence on getting the booster is that I have a friend from college, same age as myself, no significant comorbidities, who now lays in a hospital bed on a ventilator with covid. A bit of a contrarian, he declined the vaccine in spite of having a degree in and practicing veterinary medicine.

 

Yes, monoclonal antibodies are widely available here in the US and are available in several clinics near to me.  Here's a helpful hint on monoclonal antibodies - do not wait until you get very sick to get them, specifically do not wait until you are headed to the hospital.

 

Two reasons:

 

1.) Monoclonal antibodies clearly work better the earlier in the disease progression they are given.

 

2.) Current CDC/NIAID guidelines in the US are to NOT administer monoclonal antibodies to hospitalized patients. So once you are in the hospital, it is VERY difficult to get access to these therapies.

 

That second reason is particularly galling. Yes, monoclonal antibodies will clearly be less effective if you wait to administer them until a patient is hospitalized - but it's unlikely they are completely ineffective at this stage. Many covid patients in the hospital end up on the knife's edge - they could go either way between recovery and mortality. Something that could nudge these patients in the right direction could be the difference between life and death in many cases. But, our central government seems to want to insert itself at every opportunity when it comes to this highly politicalized pandemic. I could understand this stance if monoclonal antibodies were in short supply which was probably the case early on, but does not appear to be the situation at present.

 

So, if you are sick with covid and see yourself trending downward, go get the antibodies.  If you are headed to the hospital with covid and cam possibly make it happen, visit a private clinic on the way there and get a monoclonal infusion because chances are you won't be getting one once admitted.


  • Informative x 2

#6 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 1,036 posts
  • 627
  • Location:United States

Posted 09 September 2021 - 04:18 PM

What pushed me over the fence on getting the booster is that I have a friend from college, same age as myself, no significant comorbidities, who now lays in a hospital bed on a ventilator with covid. A bit of a contrarian, he declined the vaccine in spite of having a degree in and practicing veterinary medicine.

 

I wish we got more information like this, my wife recently found out she was extremely low vitamin D(even though have it readily available, she says she isnt a pill popper!)

Did he take a multivitamin(D, zinc, selenium)

Did he do any kind of anti-viral like IVM, HCQ, EGCG, Quecetin, gargle iodine(or Betadine mouth wash), or inhaled Budesonide

 

I understand not taking the vaccine, but should be taking some kind of precaution.

 

 

I have 3 co-workers 55ish, overweight, took a few days to get over it, but they never went to the hospital.  They waited till sick to start vitamins and really didnt do much except C, D, and zinc.


Edited by Gal220, 09 September 2021 - 04:18 PM.

  • Good Point x 2
  • Off-Topic x 1
  • Informative x 1

#7 Daniel Cooper

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Moderator
  • 2,634 posts
  • 631
  • Location:USA

Posted 09 September 2021 - 05:06 PM

 

Did he do any kind of anti-viral like IVM, HCQ, EGCG, Quecetin, gargle iodine(or Betadine mouth wash), or inhaled Budesonide

 

 

We haven't kept in touch in recent years so I don't know. I would ask but alas, he's in an induced coma on a ventilator. 

 

I did hear just awhile ago than they had reduced the oxygen they are pushing from 100% to 80%, so I would assume that's a step in the right direction.


  • Off-Topic x 1

#8 lancebr

  • Guest
  • 440 posts
  • 196
  • Location:USA

Posted 09 September 2021 - 06:15 PM

I wish we got more information like this, my wife recently found out she was extremely low vitamin D(even though have it readily available, she says she isnt a pill popper!)

Did he take a multivitamin(D, zinc, selenium)

Did he do any kind of anti-viral like IVM, HCQ, EGCG, Quecetin, gargle iodine(or Betadine mouth wash), or inhaled Budesonide

 

I understand not taking the vaccine, but should be taking some kind of precaution.

 

 

I have 3 co-workers 55ish, overweight, took a few days to get over it, but they never went to the hospital.  They waited till sick to start vitamins and really didnt do much except C, D, and zinc.

 

Your 3 co-workers...do you know if they were vaxxed or un-vaxxed?

 

 

I have been on the fence about the J&J vaccine for a while, but just get scared off of any of the vaccines when I read forums like the following:

 

https://vestibular.o...e-side-effects/

 

Over 500 pages of people who have had some serious side effects from the different vaccines, and some of those side effects don't seem

to be going away. It seems like many of the people who have posted their side effects either wish they never took the vaccines or have no plan

to ever take a booster shot.


Edited by lancebr, 09 September 2021 - 06:22 PM.

  • Informative x 4
  • like x 1

#9 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 237 posts
  • 162
  • Location:USA

Posted 10 September 2021 - 01:01 AM

A reformulation for the new variants?  I'm not sure that is necessary. If you look at the response to these vaccines with respect to (for instance) the Delta variant, I think a fair amount of the reduced effectiveness may be due to simply waning immunity as time passes. It took some time for Delta to show up, so comparing the initial effectiveness of the various vaccines versus the Alpha and Delta variants is comparing apples to oranges. 

 

In any case, I do not believe that a reformulation targeted at the later variants is on the near term horizon.

 

 

Yes, it does not seem that new vaccines directed to the variants are in the pipeline. I don’t understand why not. Both the mRNA and adenovirus platforms are amenable to modification: just paste in a new sequence.

 

I do think that reformulated vaccines (or new vaccines, however you want to look at it) are necessary. I don’t think the problem of breakthrough infections is a matter of waning immunity. It is happening because the antibodies raised against the Wuhan strain bind but fail to neutralize variant spike proteins.

 

our data suggest that the balance between neutralizing and facilitating antibodies in vaccinated individuals is in favor of neutralization for the original Wuhan/D614G strain. However, in the case of the Delta variant, neutralizing antibodies have a decreased affinity for the spike protein, whereas facilitating antibodies display a strikingly increased affinity. Thus, ADE may be a concern for people receiving vaccines based on the original Wuhan strain spike sequence (either mRNA or viral vectors).”

 

If immunizing with Wuhan strain spike protein leads to enhancing antibodies for Delta (or subsequent strains), then why would we keep doing it? So far, vaccination is still protective against severe disease, but the trend is that the situation will not last.

 

So, right now, I don’t think I will get a booster if the booster is just more of the same.


  • Good Point x 1
  • Informative x 1
  • Agree x 1

#10 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 1,036 posts
  • 627
  • Location:United States

Posted 10 September 2021 - 04:05 AM

Your 3 co-workers...do you know if they were vaxxed or un-vaxxed?

 

 

I have been on the fence about the J&J vaccine for a while, but just get scared off of any of the vaccines when I read forums like the following:

 

https://vestibular.o...e-side-effects/

 

Over 500 pages of people who have had some serious side effects from the different vaccines, and some of those side effects don't seem

to be going away. It seems like many of the people who have posted their side effects either wish they never took the vaccines or have no plan

to ever take a booster shot.

 

No vaccine, 2 of them occurred before it came out. This last one, both he and wife, 55ish and overweight.  None of them went to the hospital.

 

However 55 is still in the 99.9%+ survivability range(but considered high risk with weight issues), that shifts above 70.

 

I think current FLCCC protocol is sufficient( I wouldnt even do IVM unless exposure or symptoms) with the anti-viral mouth wash/gargle, almost as good as H202 nebulizing. 

 

Still amazing to me no more effort was made into making these safer, many countries limited AZ to over 60 which put them in a vaccine crunch. Its much cheaper and easier to store, crazy they didnt come up with something,

Doctors even stated it was easy to treat, IF you got to the hospital in time, but no outpatient prevention?  I havent seen the numbers from Japan yet, presumably much less injury with their natto consumption.


Edited by Gal220, 10 September 2021 - 04:10 AM.

  • Good Point x 2

#11 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 762 posts
  • -211

Posted 10 September 2021 - 02:32 PM

Yes, it does not seem that new vaccines directed to the variants are in the pipeline. I don’t understand why not. Both the mRNA and adenovirus platforms are amenable to modification: just paste in a new sequence.

 

 

 

I suspect it's a regulatory issue. If they change the vaccine they may need to treat it as a whole knew vaccine and go through trials and testing and paperwork and get approval etc. On the other hand the flu vaccine is different every year but the technology that it's  based on is different. But that is just my suspicion, I have not heard any corroboration on my hypothesis. 

 

After writing this I saw this:

 

"While Pfizer and BioNTech believe a third dose of BNT162b2 has the potential to preserve the highest levels of protective efficacy against all currently tested variants including Delta, the companies are remaining vigilant and are developing an updated version of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine that targets the full spike protein of the Delta variant. The first batch of the mRNA for the trial has already been manufactured at BioNTech’s facility in Mainz, Germany. The Companies anticipate the clinical studies to begin in August, subject to regulatory approvals."


Edited by geo12the, 10 September 2021 - 03:01 PM.

  • Informative x 2

#12 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 237 posts
  • 162
  • Location:USA

Posted 10 September 2021 - 05:15 PM

I suspect it's a regulatory issue. If they change the vaccine they may need to treat it as a whole knew vaccine and go through trials and testing and paperwork and get approval etc. On the other hand the flu vaccine is different every year but the technology that it's  based on is different. But that is just my suspicion, I have not heard any corroboration on my hypothesis. 

 

After writing this I saw this:

 

"While Pfizer and BioNTech believe a third dose of BNT162b2 has the potential to preserve the highest levels of protective efficacy against all currently tested variants including Delta, the companies are remaining vigilant and are developing an updated version of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine that targets the full spike protein of the Delta variant. The first batch of the mRNA for the trial has already been manufactured at BioNTech’s facility in Mainz, Germany. The Companies anticipate the clinical studies to begin in August, subject to regulatory approvals."

You are probably right about the regulatory issue. It seems that a modified vaccine with only a few changes in the coding sequences would qualify as a “biosimilar”, which would facilitate approval, but I don’t know.

 

Nice find re Pfizer planning on Delta-specfic vaccines. I don’t see anything about them at clinicaltrials.gov yet.

 

Everyone interested in the original question of this forum should check out clinicaltrials.gov. Limit the search to Covid-19 vaccine. There are a number of trials planned or in progress addressed to this very question. There are also trials of inactivated virus vaccines, and vaccines using just viral protein- not mRNA or an expression vector, and protocols that mix different types of vaccines. So, better strategies are in the pipeline.


Edited by DanCG, 10 September 2021 - 05:16 PM.

  • Informative x 2

#13 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 11 September 2021 - 09:38 AM

Just wondering if anyone is concerned about the data coming out of the UK and Israel and a few other spots in the world, that the "vaccinated" are more likely to catch COVID, more likely to be hospitalized, and more likely to die.

 

https://www.cnbc.com...has-surged.html Seychelles has a big outbreak - nearly everyone is vaccinated.

 

Same thing in Gibralter: https://bigleaguepol...impression=true

 

The protection is lower than what was "sold" by the vaccine makers. https://www.news-med...accination.aspx

 

In the UK, the vaccinated are more likely to catch COVID and die, but the number of people dying is much less than the previous wave: https://alexberenson...aths-in-britain

 

I never had the time to look into the original Pfizer and Moderna papers touting the effectiveness of the "vaccines", but it appears the media might have been tricked with the relative vs. absolute risk reduction stats. Look at figure 2 in the paper here. It looks like the study concluded that your absolute risk reduction with the "vaccines" is only about 1%. Maybe I am missing something? Feel free to point out the mistake or misinterpretation if I missed something.

 

 


  • Informative x 3
  • Good Point x 1
  • WellResearched x 1
  • like x 1

#14 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,837 posts
  • 720
  • Location:Austria

Posted 11 September 2021 - 11:01 AM

It looks like the study concluded that your absolute risk reduction with the "vaccines" is only about 1%. Maybe I am missing something? Feel free to point out the mistake or misinterpretation if I missed something.

 

Pointed out that insignificant low approximately 1% absolute risk reduction according to the original vaccine trials many, many months ago. Wasn't taken serious and already ridiculed then. Alledgedly absolute risk reduction seems irrelevant when it comes to vaccines, to some.


Edited by pamojja, 11 September 2021 - 11:02 AM.

  • Ill informed x 1
  • like x 1

#15 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 1,036 posts
  • 627
  • Location:United States

Posted 12 September 2021 - 01:19 AM

Just wondering if anyone is concerned about the data coming out of the UK and Israel and a few other spots in the world, that the "vaccinated" are more likely to catch COVID, more likely to be hospitalized, and more likely to die.

 

 

Just lock down again, wait for the next reformulated shot, wash, repeat.  Our beloved health agencies got it figured out..

 

Those numbers by Alex arent being reported widely, just check out Dr John Campbell on YT to see.

 

 

The mandates and communist in our own country are what bother me.


Edited by Gal220, 12 September 2021 - 01:19 AM.

  • WellResearched x 2
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • Agree x 1
  • Cheerful x 1
  • like x 1

#16 smithx

  • Guest
  • 1,433 posts
  • 451

Posted 03 October 2021 - 03:18 AM

Relative Risk Reduction is the reduced risk compared to the control group over the duration of the study period.

Absolute Risk Reduction takes into account how much risk there was to the control group overall.

 

For example, if we have a a control group of 1000 people and a treatment group of 1000 people, and 10 people in the control group get sick and they all die, but no one gets sick or dies in the treatment group, the relative risk reduction for the treatment is 100% but the absolute risk reduction is only 0.1% because 10 is 0.1% of 1000.

 

In other words, if you're confident there's a low probability that you'll ever get covid-19, then there's clearly no reason to get vaccinated.

If you think you might be exposed to COVID-19, then it makes sense to compare the likely outcome you'd have if you are or are not vaccinated. And that is much closer to the relative risk reduction.

 

See: https://www.ncbi.nlm...books/NBK63647/

 

 


  • Informative x 2

#17 smithx

  • Guest
  • 1,433 posts
  • 451

Posted 03 October 2021 - 05:37 AM

Sorry my math was wrong. The absolute risk would have been 1% in the example of the previous message, not 0.1%.


  • like x 1

#18 Daniel Cooper

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Moderator
  • 2,634 posts
  • 631
  • Location:USA

Posted 19 October 2021 - 10:33 PM

For what it's worth, my college friend died on a ventilator about 2 weeks ago. I think he was on the vent for about a month. There were occasional signs he was improving then he suddenly started going down hill fast.

 

Very weird virus. I've known people my (and his) age that got covid and only knew because they were subject to routine testing - no noticeable symptoms. I know another man that got covid at 84 and only felt like he had a cold for a few days.  And yet, my friend was in his mid fifties, not overweight and from all outward appearances completely healthy. It took him about 2 weeks to progress from getting covid to being admitted to a hospital, once in the hospital it took him about 4 days to progress to a ventilator, then four weeks to succumb.

 

 

 

  


Edited by Daniel Cooper, 19 October 2021 - 10:35 PM.

  • Informative x 1
  • like x 1

#19 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 762 posts
  • -211

Posted 20 October 2021 - 04:02 AM

For what it's worth, my college friend died on a ventilator about 2 weeks ago. I think he was on the vent for about a month. There were occasional signs he was improving then he suddenly started going down hill fast.

 

Very weird virus. I've known people my (and his) age that got covid and only knew because they were subject to routine testing - no noticeable symptoms. I know another man that got covid at 84 and only felt like he had a cold for a few days.  And yet, my friend was in his mid fifties, not overweight and from all outward appearances completely healthy. It took him about 2 weeks to progress from getting covid to being admitted to a hospital, once in the hospital it took him about 4 days to progress to a ventilator, then four weeks to succumb.

 

Very sorry about your friend. I have a colleague friend who got COVID last year and recovered but now she has altered smell perception. Human sweat smells like meat and meat smells like brown sugar and all sorts of weird stuff like that.


I will get the booster as soon as I can. I will get Moderna because it seems like its the most effective.



#20 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 22 October 2021 - 05:50 PM

For what it's worth, my college friend died on a ventilator about 2 weeks ago. I think he was on the vent for about a month. There were occasional signs he was improving then he suddenly started going down hill fast.

 

Very weird virus. I've known people my (and his) age that got covid and only knew because they were subject to routine testing - no noticeable symptoms. I know another man that got covid at 84 and only felt like he had a cold for a few days.  And yet, my friend was in his mid fifties, not overweight and from all outward appearances completely healthy. It took him about 2 weeks to progress from getting covid to being admitted to a hospital, once in the hospital it took him about 4 days to progress to a ventilator, then four weeks to succumb.

 

Sorry to hear about that. Thankfully it is very rare for healthy younger people to suffer such a fate. There is some question as to whether or not standard US hospital care for COVID patients does anything good at all. Therapists who have dealt with pneumonia-type conditions in the past claim that current COVID care is bizarre and could be leading to more deaths.

 

I am suspicious about US guidelines from the CDC, NIH, and FDA, considering recent resignations of top officials (feeling political pressure to ignore the data), and considering other countries placing restrictions on the use of mRNA vaccines.


  • Agree x 3
  • Ill informed x 2

#21 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,152 posts
  • 968
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 30 December 2021 - 04:37 PM

Looks like the J&J jab IS effective against omicron after all.  

 

https://www.dailymai...-era-study.html

 

I know there are strong feelings about ALL the COVID jabs here, but for those who wish or must get one, it looks like the J&J works just as well as the mRNA jabs, without the lipid nanos and cardiac side effects.  Yes, you’ll still get spike proteins floating around, but at a substantially lower peak level than you get with the mRNA jabs.

I did the J&J compromise back in April, and again in November (even though they were saying J&J was useless against omicron), simply to keep peace in the family.  Had no side effects whatsoever from either jab.  If you’ve simply got to get jabbed, but would like to escape the lipid nanos & cardiac risk, I really think J&J is the way to go.

Booster shot of J&J’s single-dose COVID-19 vaccine is 84% effective at preventing Omicron variant hospitalizations, study finds

A study in nearly 70,000 South African healthcare workers found the extra shot boosted protection
An initial course of inoculation has been shown to offer greatly reduced protection against Omicron
The new study showed that the vaccine’s effectiveness at preventing hospitalization rose from 63% shortly after a booster to 84% 14 days later
Effectiveness reached 85 percent at one to two months post-boost



#22 syr_

  • Guest
  • 500 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Italy
  • NO

Posted 25 January 2022 - 01:18 PM

A reformulation for the new variants?  I'm not sure that is necessary. 

I think it is very much needed, but after '22 summer.

 

I had the same doubts as the OP when I was going to get the booster shot. It seems a third dose of pfizer or moderna being about equivalent in the immune response, which may last only 4 months anyway.

I could not choose JJ or AZ even if I wanted, but I would never get them anyway. Novavax is reserved to first doses in my Country. We'll see which side effects will appear once a few millions people are vaccinated with it.



#23 Alphalifestyle

  • Guest
  • 20 posts
  • 0

Posted 04 February 2022 - 11:52 AM

Looks like the J&J jab IS effective against omicron after all.  

 

https://www.dailymai...-era-study.html

 

I know there are strong feelings about ALL the COVID jabs here, but for those who wish or must get one, it looks like the J&J works just as well as the mRNA jabs, without the lipid nanos and cardiac side effects.  Yes, you’ll still get spike proteins floating around, but at a substantially lower peak level than you get with the mRNA jabs.

I did the J&J compromise back in April, and again in November (even though they were saying J&J was useless against omicron), simply to keep peace in the family.  Had no side effects whatsoever from either jab.  If you’ve simply got to get jabbed, but would like to escape the lipid nanos & cardiac risk, I really think J&J is the way to go.

Booster shot of J&J’s single-dose COVID-19 vaccine is 84% effective at preventing Omicron variant hospitalizations, study finds

A study in nearly 70,000 South African healthcare workers found the extra shot boosted protection
An initial course of inoculation has been shown to offer greatly reduced protection against Omicron
The new study showed that the vaccine’s effectiveness at preventing hospitalization rose from 63% shortly after a booster to 84% 14 days later
Effectiveness reached 85 percent at one to two months post-boost

 

That is very encouraging.

 

As a health concious 35 year old I would not vaccinate against COVID-19 if I had a choice, but because of discrimination at work and in society at large here in Germany I decided in the end to get the Johnson & Johnson vaccination, as I found it less as it seemed less problematic to me in terms of side effects, ingredients and inflammation levels.

 

Now the German gouvernment decided, that people who got the one dose J&J vaccination have to get a second vaccination to still count as fully vaccinated and a third (!) shot to count as "boostered". I was told by my doctor, that I can get a second J&J vaccination, even so he strongly recommends to get a mRNA vaccine to complete my basic immunization. I would be the first patient to do so anyway and he strongly advices against it, because the raise in antibody count after a mRNA shot as a second vaccine was much steeper.

 

Anyway for the third vaccine I would probably still have to get the mRNA vaccine, but maybe also the new Novavax vaccine would be feasible. Anyway he would stronly recommend two mRNA doses after my initial J&J dose as it offers the best protection.

 

 

As I am more interested in reducing the chance of adverse effects like myocarditis or other inflammation related problems I would like to hear you opinion on what could be the safest vaccination schedule with 3 COVID19 vaccines? I see that there are several people here who prefers the J&J vaccine as I do, would you still see a double vaccination with J&J (followed by whatever) as safer compared to a mix & match approach with a mRNA follow up?

 

Any good material on people who got double vaccinated with J&J apart from the study out of South Africa?


  • like x 1

#24 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,152 posts
  • 968
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 04 February 2022 - 03:59 PM

That is very encouraging.

 

As a health concious 35 year old I would not vaccinate against COVID-19 if I had a choice, but because of discrimination at work and in society at large here in Germany I decided in the end to get the Johnson & Johnson vaccination, as I found it less as it seemed less problematic to me in terms of side effects, ingredients and inflammation levels.

 

Now the German gouvernment decided, that people who got the one dose J&J vaccination have to get a second vaccination to still count as fully vaccinated and a third (!) shot to count as "boostered". I was told by my doctor, that I can get a second J&J vaccination, even so he strongly recommends to get a mRNA vaccine to complete my basic immunization. I would be the first patient to do so anyway and he strongly advices against it, because the raise in antibody count after a mRNA shot as a second vaccine was much steeper.

 

Anyway for the third vaccine I would probably still have to get the mRNA vaccine, but maybe also the new Novavax vaccine would be feasible. Anyway he would stronly recommend two mRNA doses after my initial J&J dose as it offers the best protection.

 

 

As I am more interested in reducing the chance of adverse effects like myocarditis or other inflammation related problems I would like to hear you opinion on what could be the safest vaccination schedule with 3 COVID19 vaccines? I see that there are several people here who prefers the J&J vaccine as I do, would you still see a double vaccination with J&J (followed by whatever) as safer compared to a mix & match approach with a mRNA follow up?

 

Any good material on people who got double vaccinated with J&J apart from the study out of South Africa?

 

Israel is one of the most vaccinated places on earth, with 100% mRNA Pfizer.  Most are boosted, and seniors recently got a forth jab.  If you look at their recent Omicron surge, you'll see their infections (new cases) per million are also one of the highest on earth.  See attached OmicronIsrael.pdf

 

From this, I've gathered NONE of the vaccines are now protecting against Omicron infection.  What I do not know is if the mRNA jabs might be superior at protecting against severe disease.  

 

Personally, I avoided the lipid nanos & chose J&J for my original vaccine and boost.  I recently came through Omicron the first week in January (I'm 65 years old with no comorbidities).  My symptoms were so mild, I couldn't believe it was actually COVID.  I was taking hydroxychloroquine with zinc though, on low dose prophylaxis before I got infected, bumped up to therapeutic doses during symptomatic phase.  

 

Don't know if it was my little J&J jab with J&J boost that helped me avoid any major symptoms, or the HCQ, or that Omicron is a nothing-burger regardless of vaccination or therapy.  

 

Doctors look ONLY at antibody levels measured shortly after vaccine administration, and the mRNA jabs do produce higher highs regarding antibodies.  Some have opined this spike in antibodies is remarkably brief (around 6 weeks), so your doc's opinion may be based on this spike that passes in the blink of an eye as far as protection goes.  

 

I wouldn't be afraid to get the Pfizer jab if I had to, but I'll avoid Moderna at all costs (three times the lipid nanos).  I was free to choose, & chose J&J, all the way.  

Attached Files


  • Informative x 1
  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

#25 Alphalifestyle

  • Guest
  • 20 posts
  • 0

Posted 04 February 2022 - 05:12 PM

Israel is one of the most vaccinated places on earth, with 100% mRNA Pfizer.  Most are boosted, and seniors recently got a forth jab.  If you look at their recent Omicron surge, you'll see their infections (new cases) per million are also one of the highest on earth.  See attached OmicronIsrael.pdf

 

From this, I've gathered NONE of the vaccines are now protecting against Omicron infection.  What I do not know is if the mRNA jabs might be superior at protecting against severe disease.  

 

Personally, I avoided the lipid nanos & chose J&J for my original vaccine and boost.  I recently came through Omicron the first week in January (I'm 65 years old with no comorbidities).  My symptoms were so mild, I couldn't believe it was actually COVID.  I was taking hydroxychloroquine with zinc though, on low dose prophylaxis before I got infected, bumped up to therapeutic doses during symptomatic phase.  

 

Don't know if it was my little J&J jab with J&J boost that helped me avoid any major symptoms, or the HCQ, or that Omicron is a nothing-burger regardless of vaccination or therapy.  

 

Doctors look ONLY at antibody levels measured shortly after vaccine administration, and the mRNA jabs do produce higher highs regarding antibodies.  Some have opined this spike in antibodies is remarkably brief (around 6 weeks), so your doc's opinion may be based on this spike that passes in the blink of an eye as far as protection goes.  

 

I wouldn't be afraid to get the Pfizer jab if I had to, but I'll avoid Moderna at all costs (three times the lipid nanos).  I was free to choose, & chose J&J, all the way.  

 

Hi sir, thanks for your input! Great to see that there are actually individuals, who went for the double dose J&J vaccination. Our company physician made me feel really arkward by saying: "Why would you voluntarily take a worse vaccine, when you can have the Biontech vaccine? You would be the only one in the company to go that road." Haha, man probably because I am the only one who actually puts some thoughts in this... anyway I can choose any of the vaccines and I will probably choose the J&J. That being said we have to take a third vaccine in Germany, the one-dose J&J does not count as fully vaccinated anymore, you need 2 vaccines to be fully vaccinated and a third to be counted as boostered, regardless of the vaccine you choose.

 

  • Is there any evidence, that the lipid nano particles are potentially harmful anyway? Will they degrade at some point or can you not get rid of them once in the body? Can you point me to information from were I can infer that there are actually more LNPs in the Moderna vaccine compared to Pfizer? Is that only because Pfizer contains only 30 micrograms of mRNA compared to the 100 micrograms in Moderna or is there 3x the LNPs per microgram?

 

  • Do you know any other studies on people who got the double dose J&J vaccination other than the study from South Africa? I think the company itself stated that the immunization from double dose J&J might be broader and more longer-lasting compared to Biontech. Is there actually any prove / study for that? Was there any other reason besides the absent of LNPs that made you choose J&J over Pfizer for your booster? What makes it safer / superior in your opinion over Pfizer?

 

  • What is your opinion on Novavax? According to my physician I cannot get three J&J shots anyway, so when I am due for my booster (3. vaccine) I have to either take one of the mRNA vaccines or I can potentially take Novavax at that point. Anyway, Novavax also contains nano particles.

 

My biggest fear is to get myocarditis and subsequently permanent heart damage after vaccination, even so that is unlikely as I am 35, but still I am really paranoid about potential heart damage from the vaccine which would make any attempt at longevity void. I also feel almost violated for being forced to take any kind of vaccine only to continue to work and have a normal life, even so the risk of getting seriously ill from Covid in my age group is super small and the actually protection afforded by the vaccine in light of Omicron is highly questionable as Israel shows.


  • Good Point x 1
  • like x 1

#26 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,152 posts
  • 968
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 04 February 2022 - 05:34 PM

Hi sir, thanks for your input! Great to see that there are actually individuals, who went for the double dose J&J vaccination. Our company physician made me feel really arkward by saying: "Why would you voluntarily take a worse vaccine, when you can have the Biontech vaccine? You would be the only one in the company to go that road." Haha, man probably because I am the only one who actually puts some thoughts in this... anyway I can choose any of the vaccines and I will probably choose the J&J. That being said we have to take a third vaccine in Germany, the one-dose J&J does not count as fully vaccinated anymore, you need 2 vaccines to be fully vaccinated and a third to be counted as boostered, regardless of the vaccine you choose.

 

  • Is there any evidence, that the lipid nano particles are potentially harmful anyway? Will they degrade at some point or can you not get rid of them once in the body? Can you point me to information from were I can infer that there are actually more LNPs in the Moderna vaccine compared to Pfizer? Is that only because Pfizer contains only 30 micrograms of mRNA compared to the 100 micrograms in Moderna or is there 3x the LNPs per microgram?

 

  • Do you know any other studies on people who got the double dose J&J vaccination other than the study from South Africa? I think the company itself stated that the immunization from double dose J&J might be broader and more longer-lasting compared to Biontech. Is there actually any prove / study for that? Was there any other reason besides the absent of LNPs that made you choose J&J over Pfizer for your booster? What makes it safer / superior in your opinion over Pfizer?

 

  • What is your opinion on Novavax? According to my physician I cannot get three J&J shots anyway, so when I am due for my booster (3. vaccine) I have to either take one of the mRNA vaccines or I can potentially take Novavax at that point. Anyway, Novavax also contains nano particles.

 

My biggest fear is to get myocarditis and subsequently permanent heart damage after vaccination, even so that is unlikely as I am 35, but still I am really paranoid about potential heart damage from the vaccine which would make any attempt at longevity void. I also feel almost violated for being forced to take any kind of vaccine only to continue to work and have a normal life, even so the risk of getting seriously ill from Covid in my age group is super small and the actually protection afforded by the vaccine in light of Omicron is highly questionable as Israel shows.

 

In my second post on this page:https://www.longecit...-we-like/page-2

Submitted for your approval...  A German cellular biologist had some very damning opinions on the lipid nanos.

 

http://enformtk.u-ai...chmidt_krueger/

 

A few quotes from this very long piece: 

*VSK: I’m a cell biologist and my specialist field is the functional characterisation and elucidation of proteins, i.e., I understand how proteins are produced, how they are transported in the cell, how they are taken up by cells, how they are metabolised, how intra- and intercellular communication takes place, including within tissue, and how organs interact. This is all very important if one wishes to conduct a risk assessment: how the vaccine functions for example, and the dangers/risks of the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). This technology is not really new: it’s novel as a vaccine, but we have been using these LNPs in research for over 20 years, and we have always been struggling with the problem of toxicity of the lipids and balancing this against their efficacy.

 

The first point is that the BioNTech vaccine that is currently already being used is not highly purified, it contains contaminants of certain components.  The problem that BioNTech had is that in the clinical phase the product, i.e. the RNA, was produced with completely different techniques to how it is being produced now. During the clinical phase they only needed small volumes of vaccine, they were able to use very expensive techniques that delivered highly purified end products. Now that they have entered mass production, that is no longer possible, they have had to switch to lower-cost processes.

 

t the RNA is transcribed from the DNA and then the DNA has to be eliminated, it is digested by enzymes: by DNAses. And if this DNA is not digested well enough, if residues are left, this harbours risks.  BioNTech has admitted that there are DNA contaminants.

 

It was found that the integrity of the RNA always varies in the batches that had been made.  So – the integrity of the RNA means of course the RNA quality. They have found that this is not very high: it was higher for the processes during the clinical phase.   they have found new batches with only 55% RNA integrity, i.e., half of it is basically unviable.  

 

VSK: To come back to Ms. Fischer’s question about the DNA. The problem is that when it contains DNA contaminants, then the situation is: well, with RNA it is relatively unlikely that it can integrate into the host’s cell nucleus. The situation is different with DNA, and especially in this case because you have contaminants of linearised DNA.  

 

the lipid nanoparticles get into all cells, not just the muscle cells – it is an error to believe the latter

 

So it is theoretically possible that this linearised DNA that is in there as a contaminant could integrate into the host’s cell nucleus in a dividing cell, linearised DNA is optimal for integration.

 

The vaccine itself, even if the DNA – that contamination – were not in it – is still a genetic intervention. 

 

there are further contaminants, there is double-stranded RNA for instance. The EMA Committee says it is slight, it is acceptable

 

There are also contaminants with regard to the lipids (30.32). There are two new lipids, they have focused on them. One is ALC-0315, that is the cationic lipid, and the other is ALC-0159, the PEGylated peptide, the PEG component. And they have found that the end product – that there are contaminants in the end product in some batches.

 

The technology of the nanoparticles. I don’t want to completely malign it. It’s a superb technology really. But the problem is that it is still much too early for use in human beings. The toxicity is still too high, that first needs to be eliminated, then it would really be a brilliant technology. There are many scientists working on getting rid of this toxicity, research has been conducted on that for years.

 

the LNPs consist of up to 50% of these cationic lipids: 50% is very high, they are toxic because they have this positive charge. This enables them to enter into interactions with other components of the cell really well, they can also basically interact with negatively charged amino acids. This destroys the proteins which lose their ability to function because they “unfold” as it is called. In principle they can interact with the DNA because the DNA is also negatively charged due to its phosphate groups, creating DNA strand breaks. They can also interact with other lipids because they are also negatively charged, especially the lipids of the cell membrane. E.g. the cell membrane of the mitochondria.  If however these cationic lipids gain entry, it is confirmed in many publications that they destroy this membrane, and this leads to the formation of a large number of oxygen radicals. These oxygen radicals create a lot of damage in the cell. They interact – they alter the amino acids, the cell pours out as many cytokines as it can, the oxygen radicals also attack membranes and create lipid peroxidation.  

 

The questions that arise before something like this comes onto the market are how long it remains in the body, divided up as follows: how long do the lipids remain, How long does the mRNA remain? How are they broken down? What is their distribution in the body?

 

So what is the distribution of the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) in the animal trial?  They injected the whole muscle and watched how the lipids spread out throughout the body, and found that these lipids were in many organs after just 15 minutes.  They found evidence of the cationic lipid in the plasma for 12 days, and evidence of the PEG lipid for 6 days. So they remained for quite some time.  The cationic lipids are exclusively degraded in the cells, only 1% was found in the stool. This means the cells take the full hit of the toxicity.  One can still find 5% of the lipid in the liver after 4 - 6 weeks – that is incredibly long.  

 

cationic lipids have a half life of 20 to 30 days in human beings, and the elimination to 5%, so not really eliminated, takes 4 - 5 months.  That’s a long time.  

 

So why exactly is the liver being damaged? It’s because the liver is the organ that takes up the most lipoproteins. And why does it take up the most? Because one of its functions is to break down cholesterol; I’ve explained that the nanoparticles are bound to ApoE proteins. These make their way directly back to the liver where the cholesterol is broken down, and that’s why the liver comes into contact with a huge amount of this.  With the mice or rats, the damage disappears after 3 weeks: does some small damage remain in the liver, or does it regenerate completely? VSK: Yes, it regenerates completely. The liver is fairly robust.


Long-term studies and studies on possible autoimmune conditions were not conducted.


This mechanism crosses the blood-brain barrier due to the ApoE -mediated transport. So the LNPs can cause damage in the brain.  


RF: How long does one need to hold one’s breath when one has been vaccinated. A lifetime, or does there come a time when you can relax again? VSK: It depends on which damage you are observing. The lipids are there for 4 - 5 months. Damage can arise for as long as the lipids are there.  

 

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

 

I really liked the Novavax option when I first saw it, but read someone was concerned about "prion like structures/proteins" (related to spongiform encephalopathy / mad cow disease) with Novavax.  I never really explored this, as Novavax is not yet available, but put it on a back burner in my mind, should the need for another jab arise.  

 

Don't know if I'd like to be first in line for a new vaccine format.  Would like to see how several million others do for at least 6 months down the road before I'll stick my arm out. 


  • Good Point x 1
  • Informative x 1

#27 smithx

  • Guest
  • 1,433 posts
  • 451

Posted 15 February 2022 - 06:54 AM

The chance of myocarditis from covid-19 infection is at least 4x higher than the chance of getting it from a vaccine.

 

https://www.reuters....udy-2021-12-14/

 

Other studies show an even higher probability from infection.

 

So avoiding the vaccine because of that possible side effect is foolish.

 

 


  • Agree x 2
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#28 aribadabar

  • Guest
  • 860 posts
  • 267
  • Location:Canada
  • NO

Posted 15 February 2022 - 06:31 PM

The chance of myocarditis from covid-19 infection is at least 4x higher than the chance of getting it from a vaccine.

 

https://www.reuters....udy-2021-12-14/

 

Other studies show an even higher probability from infection.

 

So avoiding the vaccine because of that possible side effect is foolish.

 

Nice try at obfuscation and embellishing the risk. Look at the mean age - above 30 ( and most above 40) whereas the vaccine-induced myocarditis is primarily in the 17-30 cohort.


  • Ill informed x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#29 smithx

  • Guest
  • 1,433 posts
  • 451

Posted 16 February 2022 - 02:13 AM

Nice try at obfuscation and embellishing the risk. Look at the mean age - above 30 ( and most above 40) whereas the vaccine-induced myocarditis is primarily in the 17-30 cohort.

 

Any even casual search for the data would find a lot of it. Maintaining that the vaccine is worse than the virus requires being determined to avoid information.

 

Here, for example on the 1st page of a search for <vaccine myocarditis vs covid-19> on duckduckgo:

https://www.physicia...han-vaccination

“We estimate that the absolute number of excess myocarditis events in the 28 days following a first dose of adenovirus or mRNA vaccine is between 1 and 6 per million persons vaccinated, and the excess risk following the second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine is 10 per million,” wrote Martina Patone, PhD, of the University of Oxford, and colleagues. “By contrast, we estimated 40 excess myocarditis events per million in the 28 days following SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

 

 

 

Or this one:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/...wr/mm7035e5.htm (scroll down to the table).
 

After adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, patients with COVID-19 during March 2020–January 2021 had, on average, 15.7 times the risk for myocarditis compared with those without COVID-19 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 14.1–17.2); by age, risk ratios ranged from approximately 7.0 for patients aged 16–39 years to >30.0 for patients aged <16 years or ≥75 years. Overall, myocarditis was uncommon among persons with and without COVID-19; however, COVID-19 was significantly associated with an increased risk for myocarditis, with risk varying by age group. These findings underscore the importance of implementing evidence-based COVID-19 prevention strategies, including vaccination, to reduce the public health impact of COVID-19 and its associated complications.

 

 

 

There are many more, but people who are anti-vax would rather not know about them, apparently.

 

What's not captured in these is that the risk of long term heart complications dramatically increases with COVID-19 infection as well. Along with serious neurological, pulmonary, and kidney issues, among others.


  • Agree x 2
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1

#30 aribadabar

  • Guest
  • 860 posts
  • 267
  • Location:Canada
  • NO

Posted 16 February 2022 - 03:53 AM

What I do know is that  the 12-29 cohort of the general population has not gotten these levels of myocarditis PRIOR to the start of the COVID vaccination: https://www3.nhk.or....ckstories/1813/

 

 

 

 

What's not captured in these is that the risk of long term heart complications dramatically increases with COVID-19 infection as well. Along with serious neurological, pulmonary, and kidney issues, among others.

 

Absolutely the same thing can be said about these complications induced by the vaccine so another red herring.

 

You can drink CDC and FDA Koolaid if you wish but I would not defer to their "impartial expertise" on the subject if I were you: https://youtu.be/6nSXHrmOy8o


  • Well Written x 1
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Agree x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: coronavirus

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users