Is this study evidence for ADE from Covid vaccine? [Answered: NO!]

[BV63]

44 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That seems reasonable but I cannot see anywhere in the statement how 

 

So unless there is somewhere where he said that specifically, it seems to be an erroneous interpretation on your end.

Rather it just says that there are further dangers down the road. I.e. once the resistant variants arrive, we will be at the same stage as we were without the vaccine.

The only argument I can think of is that it is a higher risk to vaccinate if a) the virus remains transmissible even if vaccinated and b) if the circulation of the virus is very high. The argument here is that under these conditions, we may lose the race in creating effective vaccines (the superbug argument).

The issue here is that given the high transmission of the current variants, there likely won't be a time when the virus reservoirs vanishes on its own. I.e. the only way based on that argument would be total lockdown until the virus reservoir is low and then vaccinate.

So take your pick, vaccinate now and risk getting resistant variants or lockdown now and then vaccinate. If someone uses that as an argument to never vaccinate, well, they obviously do not understand the issue at all.

If i understand he says the antibodies from the vaccine outcompete the natural antibodies. So when the virus change those who are vaccinated have a weaker immune system. Hope i understood.

[iNow]

That’s dumb, because it’s the immune system doing the work whether vaccinated or not 

If anything, the immune systems of those vaccinated have been exposed to more variations and so are better prepared for new ones 

Edited July 31, 2021 by iNow

[CharonY]

35 minutes ago, BV63 said:

If i understand he says the antibodies from the vaccine outcompete the natural antibodies. So when the virus change those who are vaccinated have a weaker immune system. Hope i understood.

That is not how the immune system works. Antibodies are antibodies, they are formed in reaction to antigen regardless where they came from. Fundamentally the advantage of the mRNA vaccine is that you can actually rapidly formulate new vaccines based on new variants. So assuming we do proper monitoring of the variants it is more possible to keep up. The use of superbug is a bit silly, as antibiotics resistances has other causes and issues, and developing new antibiotics is vastly more difficult than reformulating a vaccine.

However, if you just hope that there will be eventually immune folks, what you are saying is that you want to kill of a significant proportion of the population and just hope that the survivors do not have lasting damages. And even then we do not know whether the survivors remain immune. There are reports of folks infected multiple times, so there is little evidence (AFAIK) that an infection provides more immunity. If anything, all I read so far point in the opposite direction. And then on top, we do not actually know if previously infected folks are actually immune against the current dominant variants, plus if we let more folks infected, we create more mutants.

So basically all the arguments against vaccines that I can derive from that comment, would be equally if not more true if we let the virus sweep through the population. Or in short, it sounds like a really dumb idea.

[BV63]

You probably have to read it or listen to it yourself instead of trusting me.

Is this wrong? Non specific natural antibodies VS vaccine induced specific antibodies. The vaccine induced also live longer?

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, BV63 said:

You probably have to read it or listen to it yourself instead of trusting me.

Even then, it’s silly horseshit 

19 minutes ago, BV63 said:

Is this wrong?

Exactly 

[BV63]

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

Even then, it’s silly horseshit 

Exactly 

You do not want to explain why you are right and he is wrong?

[exchemist]

5 hours ago, BV63 said:

You do not want to explain why you are right and he is wrong?

There has already been a post, from the resident biology expert, explaining that. There's no need to repeat it. 

[studiot]

6 hours ago, BV63 said:

You do not want to explain why you are right and he is wrong?

 

And you did not address the self contradiction in the text of your first link, although I explained it in detail.

[Phi for All]

8 hours ago, BV63 said:

You do not want to explain why you are right and he is wrong?

This is NOT an example of an argument in good faith. You've been given an explanation, and you seem to be ignoring it while continuing to ask others to explain it to you. Are you here to spread misinformation, or are you here to learn?

[CharonY]

Moreover, if one really wanted to understand something, one should rely at least on peer-reviewed publications. The one OP has a paper (pre-print) as a background, but the main argument against vaccines (which does not appear in the paper) is on a random forum. The other argument presented here is someone's blog. At the same time there are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of peer-reviewed articles looking at effects and issues with the vaccine, which is a rather unprecedented number given the time frame. 

So given the fact that the lit quality might be low, it should make one skeptical if the loud voices are all on social media, blogs etc. rather than somewhere which is not reviewed by at least some folks. In fact there are some papers out there discussing potential risks, but the data has pretty much laid that to rest.

This is why now folks need to conjure some nebulous future issues (as we currently have very little) and disseminate them on social media. This post here so far has already posted more than two less than trustworthy sources under the potential guise of asking questions. This is, unfortunately is how misinformation spreads and kills folks.

[BV63]

I guess you have heard of him.

Basically as i understand he says it was insanity to mass inject people with a "leaky" vaxx during a pandemic.

Because we left the virus to mutate so that resistant variants will have an advantage and become dominant.

He also expects more dangerous variants. As far as i understand he mean non neutralizing antibodies take over when the virus is resistant to neutralizing abs.

The non neutralizing abs protect against severe disease but eventually there may be variants that overcome this immune pressure.

Usually dangerous variants can´t spread well but what about now when so many got the shots?

So he recommends governments implement large antiviral drug campaigns in heavily vaxxed countries.

 

What do you think of his thoughts? The first parts about the danger of mass vaxxing this way seems obvious to me.

An interview with Bossche from April.

https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/videos-and-interviews/deadlier-variants-dr-geert-vanden-bossche-on-what-to-expect-in-the-near-future-and-why

Edited June 13, 2022 by BV63

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, BV63 said:

I guess you have heard of him.

Basically as i understand he says it was insanity to mass inject people with a "leaky" vaxx during a pandemic.

Because we left the virus to mutate so that resistant variants will have an advantage and become dominant.

He also expects more dangerous variants. As far as i understand he mean non neutralizing antibodies take over when the virus is resistant to neutralizing abs.

The non neutralizing abs protect against severe disease but eventually there may be variants that overcome this immune pressure.

Usually dangerous variants can´t spread well but what about now when so many got the shots?

So he recommends governments implement large antiviral drug campaigns in heavily vaxxed countries.

 

What do you think of his thoughts? The first parts about the danger of mass vaxxing this way seems obvious to me.

An interview with Bossche from April.

https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/videos-and-interviews/deadlier-variants-dr-geert-vanden-bossche-on-what-to-expect-in-the-near-future-and-why

Actually, I had never heard of this guy. He seems to be an eccentric Belgian vet with no relevant expertise.

I suggest you stop posting this crap.

[BV63]

52 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Actually, I had never heard of this guy. He seems to be an eccentric Belgian vet with no relevant expertise.

I suggest you stop posting this crap.

I suggest you look at his CV. You obviously have no idea what you are posting and no thoughts about the science.

Why are you not thinking for yourself? Instead you come here to pretend to understand but just post BS.

 

 

 

"Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein

The deployment of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 brings the question of mutational escape from antibody prophylaxis to the forefront. Rapid evolutionary evasion of neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) poses a number of threats to biomedical interventions aimed at bringing the virus under control, namely the risk of reduced vaccinal efficacy over time as resistant variants continue to emerge (which may or may not be rectifiable with annual vaccine updates), the risk of waning effectiveness of natural immunity as a result of evasion of common nAbs, and the risk of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE)."

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250780

 

 

Edited June 13, 2022 by BV63

[BV63]

"COVID vaccines can't keep up with new Omicron subvariants

New subvariants of the Omicron strain of the COVID-19 virus "appear to be even more immune-resistant than the original," Axios reported Wednesday.

The original Omicron strain was known as BA.1, but that's old hat by now. All the cool kids are getting BA.4, or even BA.5. Unfortunately, while the virus has moved on, vaccine makers are stuck in the past."

https://news.yahoo.com/covid-vaccines-cant-keep-omicron-145138040.html

 

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, BV63 said:

I suggest you look at his CV. You obviously have no idea what you are posting and no thoughts about the science.

Why are you not thinking for yourself? Instead you come here to pretend to understand but just post BS.

 

 

 

"Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein

The deployment of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 brings the question of mutational escape from antibody prophylaxis to the forefront. Rapid evolutionary evasion of neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) poses a number of threats to biomedical interventions aimed at bringing the virus under control, namely the risk of reduced vaccinal efficacy over time as resistant variants continue to emerge (which may or may not be rectifiable with annual vaccine updates), the risk of waning effectiveness of natural immunity as a result of evasion of common nAbs, and the risk of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE)."

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250780

 

 

This is trolling. You’ve already posted that article on your other thread, where I read it and replied to you, pointing out it does not say what you claim it says. There is no excuse for you to re-post it and accuse me of not thinking for myself, when I have gone to the trouble of doing that, to help you.

I am reporting you for posting in bad faith. 

1 hour ago, BV63 said:

"COVID vaccines can't keep up with new Omicron subvariants

New subvariants of the Omicron strain of the COVID-19 virus "appear to be even more immune-resistant than the original," Axios reported Wednesday.

The original Omicron strain was known as BA.1, but that's old hat by now. All the cool kids are getting BA.4, or even BA.5. Unfortunately, while the virus has moved on, vaccine makers are stuck in the past."

https://news.yahoo.com/covid-vaccines-cant-keep-omicron-145138040.html

 

The Axios article makes clear that the current vaccines remain very effective at preventing severe disease due to BA 4 and 5 variants. So why do you post it suggesting it says the opposite?

Meanwhile, here is a sane article , by an eminently qualified academic, about the implications of Omicron BA.4 and 5 for a well-vaccinated population (UK): https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/13/rise-covid-cases-what-we-know-so-far

Note that a further booster, using the existing vaccines, is recommended against these variants. So the original vaccines are still effective. 

Edited June 13, 2022 by exchemist

[BV63]

19 minutes ago, exchemist said:

This is trolling. You’ve already posted that article on your other thread, where I read it and replied to you, pointing out it does not say what you claim it says. There is no excuse for you to re-post it and accuse me of not thinking for myself, when I have gone to the trouble of doing that, to help you.

I am reporting you you for posting in bad faith. 

All you wrote then was: "Who says the Covid vaccines damage the immune system? I’ve never read anything to suggest that. Nothing you have posted so far seems to support such a suggestion. "

 

Try again and explain why we should not fear that the world now is a giant gain of function lab instead.

This one seems obvious to me as i wrote. If those other ideas from Bossche (Backed up by studies he says) about immune imprinting and non sterlizing abs are true i was hoping people in here could answer.

 

 

 

 

 

"Harvard Epidemiologist Warns People About “Immune Escape” After New COVID-19 Vaccines.

In response to the many questions that he got regarding all of this, Harvard epidemiologist, immunologist, and physician Michael Mina went to Twitter to elaborate on why there’s also a great need for a contingency plan despite vaccines already reaching the public."

Edited June 13, 2022 by BV63

[exchemist]

17 minutes ago, BV63 said:

All you wrote then was: "Who says the Covid vaccines damage the immune system? I’ve never read anything to suggest that. Nothing you have posted so far seems to support such a suggestion. "

 

Try again and explain why we should not fear that the world now is a giant gain of function lab instead.

This one seems obvious to me as i wrote. If those other ideas from Bossche (Backed up by studies he says) about immune imprinting and non sterlizing abs are true i was hoping people in here could answer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The study in Cell about immune imprinting.

"Additional booster doses may be able to compensate for relatively decreased binding to new viral variant antigens, potentially decreasing the public health impact of antibody response imprinting."

 

So that mean that if infected with a new variant after the shot people produce abs for the old variant??

 

False. I also pointed out what the article actually said.

Vanden Bossche has not published any research since 1995, and what he published before that was veterinary medicine.

I have just amended my previous post to include an article in today’s Guardian about Omicron BA.4 and 5 and the continuing effectiveness of current vaccines at preventing serious disease. 

Suggest you read it and cut out the dishonest antivaxxer crap.

Edited June 13, 2022 by exchemist

[BV63]

30 minutes ago, exchemist said:

False. I also pointed out what the article actually said.

Vanden Bossche has not published any research since 1995, and what he published before that was veterinary medicine.

I have just amended my previous post to include an article in today’s Guardian about Omicron BA.4 and 5 and the continuing effectiveness of current vaccines at preventing serious disease. 

Suggest you read it and cut out the dishonest antivaxxer crap.

That is Bossches major concern and he refer to studies. Suppose this is what you mean. That non sterilizing abs prevent severe disease. Because he believe it is only a matter of time until the virus overcome this immune pressure as well. Called trans-infection if i understood what he meant.

This is Greek to me but perhaps you understand. From Bossches paper.

 

"Natural selection of new, O-glycosylated variants, which I have predicted to rapidly emerge (https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/scientific-blog/predictions-gvb-on-evolution-c-19-pandemic),would allow to overcome binding of both, potentially infection-inhibiting (i.e., neutralizing) Abs directed at theimmuno dominant receptor-binding domain (RBD) and potentially ‘trans infection’-inhibiting ^{(note 2)} (i.e., virulence-mitigating) Abs directed at the conserved antigenic site within the N-terminal domain of S protein (S-NTD). Consequently,O-glycosylation of the S-RBD would overcome population-level immune pressure that results from boosting of vaccine-primed Abs directed at conserved NTD-specific epitopes that cross-protect against severe disease. This is because NTD-associated ‘trans infection’-inhibiting (i.e., virulence mitigating) epitopes will be shielded against their corresponding Abs by the O-glycosites inserted at the predicted O-glycosylation sites of the new variants (New covariants). At the same time, these O-glycosites would also shield RBD-associated infection-inhibiting (i.e., neutralizing) epitopes against their corresponding Abs. Natural selection of the O-glycosylated Newco variants would, therefore, enable SC-2 to effectively counter the growing virus-neutralizing and virulence-mitigating capacity of a highly vaccine-experienced population that is exposed to Omicron, and thereby relieve the pressure on the viral life cycle.

The more Omicron expands in prevalence and the more frequently vaccinees get re-exposed and fall victim to breakthrough infections, the higher the prevalence of both elevated virulence-mitigating anti-S Abs will become.  The higher this prevalence and the higher the anti-S Ab titers, the higher the site occupancy of the predicted O-glycosylation sites will need to be for Newco variants to resist the trans infection-inhibiting immune response of Omicron-infected vaccinees. This is because more densely O-glycosylated variants will more effectively prevent mitigation of viral virulence. Given the population-level immune pressure caused by the exposure of highly vaccinated populations to the highly infectious Omicron, Newco variants will primarily rely on glycosite instead of amino acid mutations in their RBD to gain the required fitness advantage in a landscape of increasing population-level immune pressure on S-NTD.

This already explains why the upcoming Newco variants are likely to evolve to a super variant that is not only highly infectious but also highly virulent and fully resistant to C-19 vaccines, including those that have been adapted to the spike protein of the circulating variant. This is why the authors of this paper are desperately wrong in thinking that tailoring the vaccines to the polypeptide sequence of S on the dominantly circulating variant would have a beneficial effect on the outcome of the mass vaccination program. On the contrary, usage of so-called ‘updated’ vaccines to continue this program will only aggravate the outcome due to further boosting of anti-NTD Ab titers.

Conclusion:In the absence of large scale antiviral prophylaxis, the vicious circle of steadily increasing immune pressure causing steadily rising infection rates will ultimately drive highly vaccinated populations to promote the expansion of a super variant that will likely be featured by full resistance to potentially neutralizing epitopes (due to lack of immunogenicity of these epitopes) combined with a high propensity to cause Ab-dependent enhancement of infection (ADEI; facilitated by the infection-enhancing Abs) and a high propensity for causing ADEI-mediated Ab-dependent enhancement of disease (ADED).This is how the evolutionary dynamics of the virus will unfold and how the end station of this misguided mass vaccination program will look."

‍

Edited June 13, 2022 by BV63

[swansont]

5 hours ago, BV63 said:

I guess you have heard of him.

Basically as i understand he says it was insanity to mass inject people with a "leaky" vaxx during a pandemic.

Because we left the virus to mutate so that resistant variants will have an advantage and become dominant.

He also expects more dangerous variants. As far as i understand he mean non neutralizing antibodies take over when the virus is resistant to neutralizing abs.

The non neutralizing abs protect against severe disease but eventually there may be variants that overcome this immune pressure.

Usually dangerous variants can´t spread well but what about now when so many got the shots?

So he recommends governments implement large antiviral drug campaigns in heavily vaxxed countries.

 

What do you think of his thoughts? The first parts about the danger of mass vaxxing this way seems obvious to me.

An interview with Bossche from April.

https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/videos-and-interviews/deadlier-variants-dr-geert-vanden-bossche-on-what-to-expect-in-the-near-future-and-why

You're going to have to do a better job of explaining what the problem is, because I can't believe that anyone thinks the virus wouldn't mutate in the absence of vaccines, because it did. The alpha variant (identified below as the first "highly publicized" variant, suggesting there were others) showed up in Nov 2020, and the first recipient of a vaccine (other than trials) was the following month. Beta also showed up around that same time.

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-variants-of-concern-omicron

As I understand it, "immune escape " means the virus mutates to where vaccines (or possibly acquired immunity from having the disease) no longer affords protection. So we'd be in the same boat as if there were no vaccine. But more people would be alive, not having succumbed to the disease, relative to the situation where there was no vaccine. Why is this bad?

You also need to explain why "Usually dangerous variants can´t spread well but what about now when so many got the shots?"

Dangerous variants can't "spread well"? What is it about shots that make the virus "spread well"?

[BV63]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You're going to have to do a better job of explaining what the problem is, because I can't believe that anyone thinks the virus wouldn't mutate in the absence of vaccines, because it did. The alpha variant (identified below as the first "highly publicized" variant, suggesting there were others) showed up in Nov 2020, and the first recipient of a vaccine (other than trials) was the following month. Beta also showed up around that same time.

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-variants-of-concern-omicron

As I understand it, "immune escape " means the virus mutates to where vaccines (or possibly acquired immunity from having the disease) no longer affords protection. So we'd be in the same boat as if there were no vaccine. But more people would be alive, not having succumbed to the disease, relative to the situation where there was no vaccine. Why is this bad?

You also need to explain why "Usually dangerous variants can´t spread well but what about now when so many got the shots?"

Dangerous variants can't "spread well"? What is it about shots that make the virus "spread well"?

Basically if i understand Bossche the problem is the narrow protection from the shot + immune imprinting. So when the virus is resistant infections in the vaxxed lead to a boost of non neutralizing abs. It becomes a vicious circle.

Those abs prevent severe disease but eventually the virus will likely mutate to variants that will overcome that immune pressure. More dangerous variants. Guess they can spread easier because the distance between vaxxed is shorter.

 

Edited June 13, 2022 by BV63

[swansont]

34 minutes ago, BV63 said:

Basically if i understand Bossche the problem is the narrow protection from the shot + immune imprinting. So when the virus is resistant infections in the vaxxed lead to a boost of non neutralizing abs. Those abs prevent severe disease but eventually the virus will likely mutate to variants that will overcome that immune pressure. More dangerous variants. Guess they can spread easier because the distance between vaxxed is shorter.

And if you don't have a vaccine, the virus will also mutate, as it has already done in the absence of a vaccine. Again I ask: what is the actual problem? 

What does "the distance between vaxxed is shorter" mean?

!

Moderator Note

Note: similar threads merged

 

[BV63]

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

And if you don't have a vaccine, the virus will also mutate, as it has already done in the absence of a vaccine. Again I ask: what is the actual problem? 

What does "the distance between vaxxed is shorter" mean?

!

Moderator Note

Note: similar threads merged

 

Natural infection gives you a broader protection. With the shot it seems one get more and more non neutralizing abs.

Dangerous variants have no advantage because people isolate etc. But now the distance is closer. Guess that is what Bossche mean when he mention this equilibrium.

Edited June 13, 2022 by BV63

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, BV63 said:

Natural infection gives you a broader protection.

I'm going to need supporting evidence for this. i.e. peer-reviewed literature.

 

edit to add

"A study published in August 2021 indicates that if you had COVID-19 before and are not vaccinated, your risk of getting re-infected is more than two times higher than for those who got vaccinated after having COVID-19."

And other links that indicate vaxxed is better than not being vaxxed, after having the disease

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid-natural-immunity-what-you-need-to-know

[BV63]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

I'm going to need supporting evidence for this. i.e. peer-reviewed literature.

The vaxx induced abs recognize only the S-protein no?

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, BV63 said:

The vaxx induced abs recognize only the S-protein no?

That's not a link to peer-reviewed literature. You've already admitted you're not a scientist, so you have no credibility in making claims