I am issuing this response to the recent contribution (Dec 10th 2021) of M. Binkhorst on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/posts/mathijs-binkhorst-750442193_er-zijn-geen-gegronde-redenen-om-aan-te-nemen-activity-6875133149333061632-5zMM). In his poorly formulated Op-ed, which is basically a compilation of resources he compiled from the internet, none of which is relevant criticism of my insights, Binkhorst attempts to make the case for administration of mRNA vaccines to children.
Geert - this article was an absolute delight to read. I think it represents your clearest explanation of the interactions between innate IgM and Ag specific IgG Abs.
One part of your ideas I'm still struggling to follow: for those that have recovered from symptomatic COVID, there seem two possible avenues from repeated exposure: 1) innate antibodies continue to be trained and the unvaxxed enjoy improving sterilizing immunity (as you described in your last paragraph); or 2) repeated exposure unfortunately causes Ag specific anti-spike IgG Abs to outcompete innate Abs and therefore makes the recently recovered less likely to improve their innate training (and thus, they can get symptomatic infection again).
Can you describe these two paths a little more? In your previous writings, I sensed you favor the (not-good) option #2. More recently, I feel perhaps you are leaning toward option #1. I also recognize that it might depend on the individual and either option 1 or 2 could occur, based on other factors.
Valuable article. A lot of knew for me. However, I could not agree with the following point Dr. Bossche mentioned:
- “unprecedented susceptibility of youngsters [..] can only be explained by innate Abs that are being outcompeted by immature, short- lived anti-S Abs that originate from previous, asymptomatic infection, as previously documented.” I would add that the increased susceptibility is due to ability of the virus to attach to the cell surface faster and spending less time in humoral domain, which would explain why naive individuals are more susceptibility to the new variant than wild type. The titer of NAbs was able to cope with the speed of attachment of the wild type virus, but is not sufficient for new variants.
- The problem that the doctors criticised by Dr.Bossche intend to solve is insufficient titer of NAbs and NK to stop the new variants of the SC2. Boosters solve the issue of the low AG-specific Abs titer, but creates problems with non-training/suppression and viral evolution. Some solution is required. Potential solution is simple explanation that new variants can only train the immunity, instead of causing harm. But people rather get an ‘insurance’ in form of prophylactic measure suggested by the physician. Placebo is better than, nothing because the fear factor is removed.
"High case rates in unvaccinated children and youngsters can only be explained by competition of ‘naïve’ (i.e., low affinity) short-lived anti-S Abs that bind with higher affinity to S epitopes than innate IgMs, thereby preventing the latter from protecting against infection."
You seem to be saying here that unvaccinated children have anti-S Abs. Did I understand it right? Can you explain how that could happen?
Check out this important video which names what we are going through. It is a bit of dark humor but there is a truth which must be spoken. https://www.bitchute.com/video/sqTd8LtViqI0/
In the UKHSA reports from which above charts are extracted, week 48 page 40 it makes the comment: "N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination "
Could you explain what this means? As a non expert I take it to mean that vaccination suppresses inate immunity
Maybe off topic but related to covid-19 vaccines. If the process is known, can it be explained in layman terms why a covid-19 vaccine / injection provide short duration 'protection', only for couple of months? Natural immunity offers longer protection. What is different between the two as process and elements?
Geert - this article was an absolute delight to read. I think it represents your clearest explanation of the interactions between innate IgM and Ag specific IgG Abs.
One part of your ideas I'm still struggling to follow: for those that have recovered from symptomatic COVID, there seem two possible avenues from repeated exposure: 1) innate antibodies continue to be trained and the unvaxxed enjoy improving sterilizing immunity (as you described in your last paragraph); or 2) repeated exposure unfortunately causes Ag specific anti-spike IgG Abs to outcompete innate Abs and therefore makes the recently recovered less likely to improve their innate training (and thus, they can get symptomatic infection again).
Can you describe these two paths a little more? In your previous writings, I sensed you favor the (not-good) option #2. More recently, I feel perhaps you are leaning toward option #1. I also recognize that it might depend on the individual and either option 1 or 2 could occur, based on other factors.
Valuable article. A lot of knew for me. However, I could not agree with the following point Dr. Bossche mentioned:
- “unprecedented susceptibility of youngsters [..] can only be explained by innate Abs that are being outcompeted by immature, short- lived anti-S Abs that originate from previous, asymptomatic infection, as previously documented.” I would add that the increased susceptibility is due to ability of the virus to attach to the cell surface faster and spending less time in humoral domain, which would explain why naive individuals are more susceptibility to the new variant than wild type. The titer of NAbs was able to cope with the speed of attachment of the wild type virus, but is not sufficient for new variants.
- “transmission of the Delta variant in the vaccinated part of the population still seems to be blocked to at least some extent”. If you do not take into account asymptomatic spreaders from the vaxxed cohort, then your explanation makes sense. But your explanation is not compatible with (https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00648-4, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00690-3, https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599820982633)
- The problem that the doctors criticised by Dr.Bossche intend to solve is insufficient titer of NAbs and NK to stop the new variants of the SC2. Boosters solve the issue of the low AG-specific Abs titer, but creates problems with non-training/suppression and viral evolution. Some solution is required. Potential solution is simple explanation that new variants can only train the immunity, instead of causing harm. But people rather get an ‘insurance’ in form of prophylactic measure suggested by the physician. Placebo is better than, nothing because the fear factor is removed.
"High case rates in unvaccinated children and youngsters can only be explained by competition of ‘naïve’ (i.e., low affinity) short-lived anti-S Abs that bind with higher affinity to S epitopes than innate IgMs, thereby preventing the latter from protecting against infection."
You seem to be saying here that unvaccinated children have anti-S Abs. Did I understand it right? Can you explain how that could happen?
Check out this important video which names what we are going through. It is a bit of dark humor but there is a truth which must be spoken. https://www.bitchute.com/video/sqTd8LtViqI0/
In the UKHSA reports from which above charts are extracted, week 48 page 40 it makes the comment: "N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination "
Could you explain what this means? As a non expert I take it to mean that vaccination suppresses inate immunity
Maybe off topic but related to covid-19 vaccines. If the process is known, can it be explained in layman terms why a covid-19 vaccine / injection provide short duration 'protection', only for couple of months? Natural immunity offers longer protection. What is different between the two as process and elements?
Mathijs really got under your skin didn't he? Sadly you wear not able to refute any of his arguments but resorted to ad hominem attacks. Pathetic.