The mRNA Vaccines Bias The Immune System In Favor Of Creating Tolerance To High Virus Load - Rather Than Initiating An Immune Response Which Gets Rid Of The Virus
The mRNA Vaccines Bias The Immune System In Favor Of Creating Tolerance To High Virus Load - Rather Than Initiating An Immune Response Which Gets Rid Of The Virus
And this has consequences (as seen below), in prolonged infections, resultant organ damage, and the possibility of getting repeat infections with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, as well as other viruses...
Are you intentionally trying to mislead people. The New England Journal of Medicine correspondents article this seems to be based on specifically states in their findings.
“ There were no appreciable between-group differences in the time to PCR conversion or culture conversion according to vaccination status”
Or are you trying to communicate some other conclusion?
Look at charts D and E here: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2202092, note that we don't see time elapsed since vax or booster, apparently for immune tolerance - the preponderance of IgG4 response as compared to IgG3 - it takes 120 days more or less for that to set in. And "appreciable" is in the eye of the beholder, only in a very few areas were the results not appreciably different - i.e. essentially the same - a superimposed line segment on a graph for example. In any case, the performance for the vaccines should be at least equivalent to natural immunity - and should frankly be better by two or three days, and in most cases the performance is worse, including some percentage of cases where the vaccinated experienced very slow drop in virus load, indicating partial vax failure
We also don't see cycle count or what primers were used - while delta varies by about 10 base pairs from wild type, omicron varies by about 40, so if they're using wild type primers, they may not catch all of the omicron cases.
If you read the supplementary appendix, you could acquire such information.
If you want to argue that the paper didn’t have much statistical power they plainly say that in the paper. Coming to a conclusion which is contrary to the paper based on the paper seems nonsensical.
Where in the paper do you find information on IgG3 or IgG4?
Your siding up a correspondence to the editor as evidence, and then contradicting the findings of that paper?
Did you look at the hazard ratio confidence intervals? Do you think they did the math wrong or something? I don’t understand how you come to a different conclusions with those numbers?
Are you intentionally trying to mislead people. The New England Journal of Medicine correspondents article this seems to be based on specifically states in their findings.
“ There were no appreciable between-group differences in the time to PCR conversion or culture conversion according to vaccination status”
Or are you trying to communicate some other conclusion?
Look at charts D and E here: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2202092, note that we don't see time elapsed since vax or booster, apparently for immune tolerance - the preponderance of IgG4 response as compared to IgG3 - it takes 120 days more or less for that to set in. And "appreciable" is in the eye of the beholder, only in a very few areas were the results not appreciably different - i.e. essentially the same - a superimposed line segment on a graph for example. In any case, the performance for the vaccines should be at least equivalent to natural immunity - and should frankly be better by two or three days, and in most cases the performance is worse, including some percentage of cases where the vaccinated experienced very slow drop in virus load, indicating partial vax failure
We also don't see cycle count or what primers were used - while delta varies by about 10 base pairs from wild type, omicron varies by about 40, so if they're using wild type primers, they may not catch all of the omicron cases.
If you read the supplementary appendix, you could acquire such information.
If you want to argue that the paper didn’t have much statistical power they plainly say that in the paper. Coming to a conclusion which is contrary to the paper based on the paper seems nonsensical.
Where in the paper do you find information on IgG3 or IgG4?
Your siding up a correspondence to the editor as evidence, and then contradicting the findings of that paper?
Did you look at the hazard ratio confidence intervals? Do you think they did the math wrong or something? I don’t understand how you come to a different conclusions with those numbers?
I know it's a lot of work, but you have to read the references, i.e. https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/booster-caused-immune-tolerance-explains - and I appended an excerpt from this paper, too.