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
My understanding is that N-antibody are adaptive antibodies that specifically target protiens on the spherical portion of the virus (non-spike protiens). My guess is that the adaptive response in the vaccinated to the Spike (S-antibodies) is out competing or using adaptive immune resources such that the vaccinated produce fewer N-anitbodies than would an unvaccinated individual. My understanding is the N antigens dont evolve as rapidly as do the S spike antigen so that presumably the N-antibody protection (assuming nuetralizing) would provide more "protection" for previously infected unvaccinated in fighting subsequent infection by a different variant with altered spike protiens as compared to vaccinated person with lesser N antibodies.
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?
The Ignorant - I am going to take a stab at your question, just to exercise my attempts to hypothesize on this myself.
**What follows is my speculation**
1. Natural immunity will involve -- improvement of the efficacy of the innate IgM antibodies produced by B1 cells - and very likely improvement of Natural Killer cells efficacy at taking out the virally-infected cells. Vaccination will improve NEITHER of these aspects of our immune response.
2. Natural immunity will involve stimulation of multiple types of B and T cells, which will result in multiple memory cells producing antibodies to multiple areas on the spike protein (among other parts of the virus). Overall, this results in more types of antibodies and memory cells involved in the efforts, leading to -
3. Multiple types of WBC involvement will likely result in them sort of "goosing" each other to remain vigilant and therefore longer-lasting memory cells.
4. I know the jury is out, but I think that T cell involvement with natural immunity is more robust, with a healthier balance between activation of different types of T cells. Again, more variety probably helps these various T cells continue to remind one another of the possible threat and keep memory cells alive longer.
5. IgA response. Natural immunity will result in wonderful memory cells that produce IgA antibodies onto our respiratory and other mucous membranes. This provides yet more prongs of memory cells and durable immunity. This also leads to -
6. Sterilizing immunity. Between IgA antibodies preventing attachment of the viruses to the cells, and innate antibodies being trained to go after SARS-CoV-2, the naturally immune will not let the virus back in again down the road. The vaccinated must rely only on IgG antibodies in the bloodstream - that means the virus can still make these people sick, and I think it ALSO means that they don't get opportunity to "remind" their memory cells of the threat, since they only see it rarely if it gets into the blood. Those with memory cells on the mucous membranes will hopefully get annual or bi-annual "reminders" when they encounter the virus in winter seasons, etc.
7. I wonder .... if natural immunity involves memory cells that are just overall better situated in the body or particular lymph nodes and therefore produce more durable and long-lasting defenses.
8. Last, just to bring in more of Geert's favorite topic, innate immunity may actually turn out to be a much bigger player in the long-lasting immunity against respiratory viruses. The mysteries there are somewhat profound. Vaccination doesn't play much with innate immunity - it tries to go straight to antigen-specific antibody production.
Thank you very much! I appreciate. It looks like the short duration 'protection' mechanism for the vaccine is not completely understood, doesn't it? Why it was decided to continue with the booster doesn't make much sense, does it?
I would also prefer a scientist who does not say to the student: you are dumb, go to the library and read before wasting my time. More preferred form of communication is to say: thank you for your interest in science, but the knowledge you demonstrated suggests your understanding about the subject matter is wrong, because.... It is much better to confront the topic, instead of a person dealing with the topic, I believe.
Dr.Bossche’s description of suppression is too wide. M. Binkhorst saw this mistake, refuted sphere of argument beyond the valid borders and attribute the mistake to the argument in substance. Innate Abs are outcompeted by (Ag)-specific Abs with regard to the specific antigen only. With regard to other antigens innate Abs are not suppressed by the specific vaccinal Abs, therefore, the problem with suppression (specialis derogat generali) is natural process, of which you should be concerned with regard to SC2 because of viral evolution and subsequent vaccinal immune escape.
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
My understanding is that N-antibody are adaptive antibodies that specifically target protiens on the spherical portion of the virus (non-spike protiens). My guess is that the adaptive response in the vaccinated to the Spike (S-antibodies) is out competing or using adaptive immune resources such that the vaccinated produce fewer N-anitbodies than would an unvaccinated individual. My understanding is the N antigens dont evolve as rapidly as do the S spike antigen so that presumably the N-antibody protection (assuming nuetralizing) would provide more "protection" for previously infected unvaccinated in fighting subsequent infection by a different variant with altered spike protiens as compared to vaccinated person with lesser N antibodies.
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?
The Ignorant - I am going to take a stab at your question, just to exercise my attempts to hypothesize on this myself.
**What follows is my speculation**
1. Natural immunity will involve -- improvement of the efficacy of the innate IgM antibodies produced by B1 cells - and very likely improvement of Natural Killer cells efficacy at taking out the virally-infected cells. Vaccination will improve NEITHER of these aspects of our immune response.
2. Natural immunity will involve stimulation of multiple types of B and T cells, which will result in multiple memory cells producing antibodies to multiple areas on the spike protein (among other parts of the virus). Overall, this results in more types of antibodies and memory cells involved in the efforts, leading to -
3. Multiple types of WBC involvement will likely result in them sort of "goosing" each other to remain vigilant and therefore longer-lasting memory cells.
4. I know the jury is out, but I think that T cell involvement with natural immunity is more robust, with a healthier balance between activation of different types of T cells. Again, more variety probably helps these various T cells continue to remind one another of the possible threat and keep memory cells alive longer.
5. IgA response. Natural immunity will result in wonderful memory cells that produce IgA antibodies onto our respiratory and other mucous membranes. This provides yet more prongs of memory cells and durable immunity. This also leads to -
6. Sterilizing immunity. Between IgA antibodies preventing attachment of the viruses to the cells, and innate antibodies being trained to go after SARS-CoV-2, the naturally immune will not let the virus back in again down the road. The vaccinated must rely only on IgG antibodies in the bloodstream - that means the virus can still make these people sick, and I think it ALSO means that they don't get opportunity to "remind" their memory cells of the threat, since they only see it rarely if it gets into the blood. Those with memory cells on the mucous membranes will hopefully get annual or bi-annual "reminders" when they encounter the virus in winter seasons, etc.
7. I wonder .... if natural immunity involves memory cells that are just overall better situated in the body or particular lymph nodes and therefore produce more durable and long-lasting defenses.
8. Last, just to bring in more of Geert's favorite topic, innate immunity may actually turn out to be a much bigger player in the long-lasting immunity against respiratory viruses. The mysteries there are somewhat profound. Vaccination doesn't play much with innate immunity - it tries to go straight to antigen-specific antibody production.
Thank you very much! I appreciate. It looks like the short duration 'protection' mechanism for the vaccine is not completely understood, doesn't it? Why it was decided to continue with the booster doesn't make much sense, does it?
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.
I would also prefer a scientist who does not say to the student: you are dumb, go to the library and read before wasting my time. More preferred form of communication is to say: thank you for your interest in science, but the knowledge you demonstrated suggests your understanding about the subject matter is wrong, because.... It is much better to confront the topic, instead of a person dealing with the topic, I believe.
Dr.Bossche’s description of suppression is too wide. M. Binkhorst saw this mistake, refuted sphere of argument beyond the valid borders and attribute the mistake to the argument in substance. Innate Abs are outcompeted by (Ag)-specific Abs with regard to the specific antigen only. With regard to other antigens innate Abs are not suppressed by the specific vaccinal Abs, therefore, the problem with suppression (specialis derogat generali) is natural process, of which you should be concerned with regard to SC2 because of viral evolution and subsequent vaccinal immune escape.