Posted on 02/13/2022 8:07:24 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Some of us are old enough to remember when Dr. Anthony Fauci told the nation that “herd immunity” may require 90% of Americans to receive COVID-19 vaccinations. First, that is a complete revision of the meaning of herd immunity since it is not a static concept. Second, while it may have been a legitimate goal to achieve near-zero COVID-19, all it meant was that 90% of the population needed to have an effective immune response to COVID-19. To date, Fauci, the CDC, and the rest of the health agency bureaucrats have defined this response as having detectable circulating antibodies.
If that is the case, why is no one talking about two seroprevalence studies on the CDC website? At a minimum, they raise questions about the public health response, the current pandemic statistics, and the immune response individuals have to a COVID infection after receiving the vaccines. The two studies measure detectable antibodies in the population nationwide.
The first is the commercial laboratory study constructed to detect people who have recovered from an infection. To be considered antibody-positive after recovery, a person needed to be positive for N, or nucleocapsid, antibodies as well as the S, or spike protein, antibody. The second is the blood donor study, which looked at people who recovered and those with vaccinated immunity. That study used the presence of the N antibody to differentiate between the recovered and the vaccinated.
According to the commercial lab study, between 33.1% and 34% of the population have circulating antibodies following a COVID infection as of 12/26/2021.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
The interesting part of the analysis is that the levels of immunity are cumulative. Yet the CDC clings to the idea that there is no data to support durable immunity longer than 90 days. Travel to the U.S. requires a negative test within a day of departure or proof of recovery from a confirmed case of COVID in the last 90 days. Yet the estimates for the acquired immunity never decline in the study.
Source: CDC COVID Data Tracker
I’m not sure what point this author is trying to make.
The unfortunate thing is we used to believe that once most of the population was either infected or vaccinated, herd immunity would be achieved and the pandemic would be at an end.
What we have learned this last year is that neither infection nor vaccines provide long lasting immunity. It is likely the virus will be permanently present in our population.
A boost or an infection will protect for awhile, and have a long lasting decrease in symptoms.
She’s making several points it seems, but a clear one is the CDC still claims recovered immunity wanes after 90 days, which is apparently now proven to be BS.
My 13 month old natural immunity protected me from my fully vaxxed wife, who coughed her COVID on me every night for a week. I took 4 COVID tests during her sickness & “quarantine” and passed all 4.
It appears I didn’t need to be vaccinated or wear a mask this whole time and COVID was over for me in December 2020.
Here’s a “wrinkle” for you .... if you have a “naive” immune system, no jabs, & are COVID-recovered, you have a durable natural immunity that recognizes much more of the virus than just the spike protein.
If you are jabbed and subsequently get COVID, does this give you the same ‘natural’ immunity that those with a naive (unjabbed) immune system get when COVID-recovered?
It looks like the answer is NO ....
The story of N-antibodies and why they are so important
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-story-of-n-antibodies-and-why
A couple of excerpts (see whole article for ‘live’ links):
In its Week 42 “COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report” (published 21 October 2021), the UK Department of Health admits on page 23 that “recent observations from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data that N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination.”
What does this mean? It means that the vaccine interferes with the body’s ability to make antibodies after infection against other parts of the virus.
In particular, vaccinated people do not appear to form antibodies against the nucleocapsid protein, the envelope of the virus, which is an important part of the response in unvaccinated people. The observation may explain why the vaccines actually produce negative efficacy as was shown in the Denmark study, for example.
This is why Professor Bhargava voiced her concerns in her blog on November 3, 2021:
“New studies from the British Health Ministry suggests that COVID vaccines might interfere with the ability of our immune system to produce antibodies against other parts of the virus, crucial aspect for developing cross protection”
The data agrees with her: it is showing the vaccines are producing negative efficacy and making our bodies more susceptible to being infected with other diseases including cancers and shingles (see Incriminating Evidence for references).
She also said in that same article, “Ideally, no one should be tested unless they have symptoms.”
After a Covid infection, antibodies are present for at least 20 months according to Johns Hopkins.
“She’s making several points it seems, but a clear one is the CDC still claims recovered immunity wanes after 90 days, which is apparently now proven to be BS.”
Has it? As time goes by the number of reinfections has rapidly increased.
Immunity gradually fades. After 90 days you still may have 90% protection, and after a year 50%.
The main advice is that after 90 days a vaccine becomes useful to restore full protection.
“N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination.”
What does this mean? It means that the vaccine interferes with the body’s ability to make antibodies after infection against other parts of the virus.”
Nonsense. What this means is that if you get Covid after being vaccinated you are likely to have a mild infection that generates a smaller immune response.
Not according to the blood donor study estimates presented in this writing.
My understanding is the re-infection rates are among those vaccinated individuals, not those covid-recovered. reflecting more on the efficacy of the vaccines.
Because the jabs don’t work, the solution is more jabs.
What was the definition of insanity, again?
And from Johns Hopkins:
As of 12 February 2022, ( 5,802,000 "global Covid deaths" according to Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center / 7,922,649,789 "global" population ) x 100 = 0.073 percent mortality rate
99.927% surviveable. Run! Hide! Lockdown! Panic! Particpate in human experimentation without truly informed consent!
Typical bureaucratic problem-solving methodology.
“ What we have learned this last year is that neither infection nor vaccines provide long lasting immunity.”
Not true regarding infection. My antibodies are higher now than they were in August and October of 2021. I had Covid in January 2021. Natural immunity is both broad and long-lasting.
Not vaccinated, never will be. I am 71yo.
JFMI, how did you obtain the antibody test?
Are you going to get your shingles vaccine, or are you also going to assume your Chicken Pox antibodies won’t decline as you age?
Actually this should cause people to have even more confidence in natural Covid immunity alone. Chickenpox antibodies last from 10 to 20 years.
Interestingly, if you are exposed to chickenpox as an adult your immunity to shingles is greatly enhanced.
Antibodies in the blood don’t do any good for a disease that hits the lungs (and gastro).
Sure they do. All viruses behave in basically the same manner - they corrupt host cells which the immune system then identifies and attacks. Doesn’t matter which types of cells are vulnerable. Blood is just the vehicle that transports the antibodies the immune system creates.
Wrong there, buddy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.