Contagion spreading among the vaccinated

[eikelbijter]

Please educate me as to what he said and does he recommend people not vaccinate?
If not back to the original point. An overwhelming majority of Doctors world wide recommend being vaccinated.

He equates getting a vaccine after having been infected with measurable antibodies to getting a protective tent while having a nuclear bunker. To me that sounds like a not so subtle hint that vaccination is NOT necessary in SOME cases.

Why is it only all or nothing with you guys? That's exactly the only problem I have with this whole nonsense, the EVERYBODY needs to get the vaccine part. I feel like I'm in grade school again.....

 

[eikelbijter]

If you're obsessed with credentials, I AM a doctor and what abj13 he said is spot on accurate. You have demonstrate your lack of the necessary understanding to interpret scientific literature

One more thing, if you're concerned about misinformation spreading, and I hope you are, why didn't you call out Zorba on his giant blunder of taking numbers about the IFR from a study that confuses the CFR and the IFR? His suggestion of an IFR of between 1 and 2 percent is WILDLY incorrect isn't it?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

He equates getting a vaccine after having been infected with measurable antibodies to getting a protective tent while having a nuclear bunker. To me that sounds like a not so subtle hint that vaccination is NOT necessary in SOME cases.

Why is it only all or nothing with you guys? That's exactly the only problem I have with this whole nonsense, the EVERYBODY needs to get the vaccine part. I feel like I'm in grade school again.....

I don’t agree with that interpretation especially since he then states regular antibody testing. However I’ll run with for the very few is feels it is okay to skip vaccination. Everyone else shouldn’t skip.
Back to the original point an overwhelming amount of Doctors world wide this doctor included recommend people be vaccinated.

 

[eikelbijter]

I don’t agree with that interpretation especially since he then states regular antibody testing. However I’ll run with for the very few is feels it is okay to skip vaccination. Everyone else shouldn’t skip.
Back to the original point an overwhelming amount of Doctors world wide this doctor included recommend people be vaccinated.

If we try to interpret what he says a little more accurately, I believe he means that people who are WORRIED should test regularly to see if they have detectable antibodies. And believe me, that's not "a few" like you say, it's MANY who have been infected that have plenty of immunity. He also says that he doesn't know of a SINGLE disease against which a vaccine provides better protection than natural infection. Before you accuse me of believing that, I don't KNOW if that's how it is, but he seems like a very reasonable, uncorrupted, smart doctor.

Just like you guys did to me OVER AND OVER, he has been accused inappropriately by many of being anti-vax, he's had death threats.

Edit: with the bolded sentence I meant "a single disease against which a vaccine provides better future protection than having had a natural infection"

 

[eikelbijter]

Here's another very interesting discussion about immunity after Covid, brought by a VERY fair doctor based on a peer reviewed study.

"Lifelong Protection After COVID Infection (Study) A peer-reviewed and accepted study shows that we develop long-lived bone marrow resident plasma blasts in quiescent state to provide a potentially lifelong cover against SARS-COV-2. Let’s discuss this fascinating work. "

 

[Fanatical Meat]

If we try to interpret what he says a little more accurately, I believe he means that people who are WORRIED should test regularly to see if they have detectable antibodies. And believe me, that's is not "a few" like you say, it's MANY who have been infected that have plenty of immunity. He also says that he doesn't know of a SINGLE disease against which a vaccine provides better protection than natural infection. Before you accuse me of believing that, I don't KNOW if that's how it is, but he seems like a very reasonable, uncorrupted, smart doctor.

Just like you guys did to me OVER AND OVER, he has been accused inappropriately by many of being anti-vax, he's had death threats.

That may be true however the data that we have as of now is natural recovery from COVID last three to six months for the majority tested then fades fast.
This could change but as of now that is what’s known. We all have someone close to us who is at risk. I do not want to chance my chemo treatment friend or elderly neighbor or elderly parents or overweight guys I see at Saturday breakfast group with maybe I am protected.
Anyone making that choice as of now is selfish. They aren’t willing to take a manageable risk or deal with minor discomfort to protect others. That is selfish.
We do know vaccines give strong immune response for six or more months and that response indicates stronger protection than natural recovery.

 

[abj13]

He also says that he doesn't know of a SINGLE disease against which a vaccine provides better protection than natural infection. Before you accuse me of believing that, I don't KNOW if that's how it is, but he seems like a very reasonable, uncorrupted, smart doctor.

You've already agreed with a statement on here demonstrating the limitations of his knowledge. You said it yourself, you would rather be vaccinated against HPV or rabies rather than be naturally infected by those viruses. The fact you want to label him as "uncorrupted" and "smart" despite what you've said in this thread demonstrates a confirmation bias.

Furthermore, can anyone point to me what is a "good" antibody level and what is a "not good" antibody level for protection against COVID-19? Where is this test that is available to the general public, and what are the cutoffs that have been clinically validated?

 

[Pohemi]

You certainly have not "quoted" me, you've put words in my mouth.

That is an outright lie.
The post quotation system is built into the forum. It isn't rocket science. Maybe tapdance around for another 5 pages of posts.

I've answered MOST of your questions directly and honestly. You keep moving the goal post, arguing things we're not even talking about. It's just a little strange to be lectured by folks who don't even have a proper command of the own language.

More lies and projection. You've answered very little if anything directly, asking you anything and expecting an answer is akin to pulling teeth.

You are no better than the rest of the RWNJ clan here, a bunch of sad and pathetic clowns. Fuck off already and stop wasting oxygen, clown.

 

[eikelbijter]

That is an outright lie.
The post quotation system is built into the forum. It isn't rocket science. Maybe tapdance around for another 5 pages of posts.

More lies and projection. You've answered very little if anything directly, asking you anything and expecting an answer is akin to pulling teeth.

You are no better than the rest of the RWNJ clan here, a bunch of sad and pathetic clowns. Fuck off already and stop wasting oxygen, clown.

OK, you've quoted me AND put words in my mouth. I don't know who RWNJ is but I assure you, I'm not one of them.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ugh. If people who suffered infection are subsequently vaccinated, where's the harm? I can't find it. In that position, I figure it's a no-brainer. Hit me, Doc.

 

[eikelbijter]

That may be true however the data that we have as of now is natural recovery from COVID last three to six months for the majority tested then fades fast.

I believe you are incorrect there, that's based on old data. There is plenty of data that suggests far longer protection. A peer reviewed study from May 26th suggests perhaps for life.

Had COVID? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime

People who recover from mild COVID-19 have bone-marrow cells that can churn out antibodies for decades, although viral variants could dampen some of the protection they offer.

www.nature.com

Just making sure, is Nature a known source of fake news?

"People who recover from mild COVID-19 have bone-marrow cells that can churn out antibodies for decades, although viral variants could dampen some of the protection they offer. "

 

[eikelbijter]

You've already agreed with a statement on here demonstrating the limitations of his knowledge. You said it yourself, you would rather be vaccinated against HPV or rabies rather than be naturally infected by those viruses. The fact you want to label him as "uncorrupted" and "smart" despite what you've said in this thread demonstrates a confirmation bias.

I'm not exactly sure what your first point is there but I wouldn't get an HPV vaccine after having HAD HPV either. I haven't had it as far as I know but I haven't been offered a vaccine against it, but if I did and it worked as well as the Covid one I'd take it in a heartbeat.

EDIT: you know I had only heard about HPV vaccines being given to predominantly young girls, assumed that men wouldn't be eligible. Seems that it's only recommended for young people, up to 26, preferably before having sex. I don't exactly fit in that category, but if I were the 21 year old virgin I was in University I'd take it in a second!

 

[eikelbijter]

Ugh. If people who suffered infection are subsequently vaccinated, where's the harm? I can't find it. In that position, I figure it's a no-brainer. Hit me, Doc.

The harm is, in a county with 10 million residents, 66% of which are probably naturally immune and get an unneeded vaccine, you just spend a SERIOUS amount of money. When you think of the poverty here, families with kids living in a tent under a freeway overpass, folks who can't afford insulin or even healthcare.

We can argue about that 66%, but if we can believe this peer-reviewed study:

Had COVID? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime

People who recover from mild COVID-19 have bone-marrow cells that can churn out antibodies for decades, although viral variants could dampen some of the protection they offer.

www.nature.com

immunity could a LONG time, especially in mild cases/

 

[eikelbijter]

Here's DrBeen discussing this study.

To the doctors here: is this an accurate description?
Again, I really do want to learn.

 

[abj13]

I'm not exactly sure what your first point is there but I wouldn't get an HPV vaccine after having HAD HPV either. I haven't had it as far as I know but I haven't been offered a vaccine against it, but if I did and it worked as well as the Covid one I'd take it in a heartbeat.

EDIT: you know I had only heard about HPV vaccines being given to predominantly young girls, assumed that men wouldn't be eligible. Seems that it's only recommended for young people, up to 26, preferably before having sex. I don't exactly fit in that category, but if I were the 21 year old virgin I was in University I'd take it in a second!

He also says that he doesn't know of a SINGLE disease against which a vaccine provides better protection than natural infection. Before you accuse me of believing that, I don't KNOW if that's how it is, but he seems like a very reasonable, uncorrupted, smart doctor.

So you agree that there are diseases in which a "vaccine provides better protection than natural infection." Why aren't you calling out that doctor for making false claims about not knowing a single disease against which a vaccine provides better protection than natural infection?

 

[abj13]

We can argue about that 66%, but if we can believe this peer-reviewed study:

Had COVID? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime

People who recover from mild COVID-19 have bone-marrow cells that can churn out antibodies for decades, although viral variants could dampen some of the protection they offer.

www.nature.com

immunity could a LONG time, especially in mild cases/

In my original post about this I specifically asked if someone knew a BETTER way to estimate infections rates. Do you know one? From what I understand, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, a T cell response test is a better way than an Antibody test as the latter can wane rather quickly.

Just remember people, this is how fast this person completely contradicts him/herself.

One post citing a Nature article, the body could produce antibodies for a lifetime.

In another post, antibodies "wane rather quickly."

 

[eikelbijter]

Just remember people, this is how fast this person completely contradicts him/herself.

One post citing a Nature article, the body could produce antibodies for a lifetime.

In another post, antibodies "wane rather quickly."

Wow! Did you consider that, after first infection many antibodies are made, then they go down in numbers after 2-3 months, or sometimes more than a year, "wane "if you will, to then be left with a "germinal center" (this is from the video of DrBeen) that can MAKE NEW ONES, perhaps for the rest of your life?

Just to expand on that thought, what I describe is what DrBeen shows. Contrary to what some around here are suggesting, I don't pretend to be an expert in virology or immunity; I AM willing to and trying to learn. If something in that video is incorrect, I'd love to hear.

My suspicion in the "science" of this all, and how it gets mangled in a game of telephone started when I'd read a study that suggested robust antibodies after 6 months, reported as AT LEAST because that's how long they had been infected, which became "no proof of immunity past six months" in the news, which became "immunity might only last 6 months in reporters' minds, which became "after 6 months we're probably not immune anymore" in the people's minds.

I'm not a "fucking moron" and find it quite shocking how all y'all have resulted to such names.

 

[abj13]

Wow! Did you consider that, after first infection many antibodies are made, then they go down in numbers after 2-3 months, or sometimes more than a year, wane if you will, to then be left with a "germinal center" (this is from the video of DrBeen) that can MAKE NEW ONES, perhaps for the rest of your life?

I must have really hit a nerve pointing out your idiotic contradiction.

Ali Ellebedy`s study that is quoted in that news article showed that detectable spike antibodies could be detected 11 months after infection. No special test was needed. They tested antibodies.

Yet you claim that the antibodies wane so much, researchers need a T cell response test to tell if someone was infected. That's what you claimed as your understanding.

But that's the point. You constantly contradict science at the drop of a hat. Antibodies are detectable for a lifetime in one post, but suddenly in another, oh no! The antibodies wane so quickly that scientists need a T cell assay!

 

[eikelbijter]

I must have really hit a nerve pointing out your idiotic contradiction.

Ali Ellebedy`s study that is quoted in that news article showed that detectable spike antibodies could be detected 11 months after infection. No special test was needed. They tested antibodies.

Yet you claim that the antibodies wane so much, researchers need a T cell response test to tell if someone was infected. That's what you claimed as your understanding.

But that's the point. You constantly contradict science at the drop of a hat. Antibodies are detectable for a lifetime in one post, but suddenly in another, oh no! The antibodies wane so quickly that scientists need a T cell assay!

What you don't seem to understand is that your body can make new antibodies against a pathogen from the past.

Nowhere does it say that antibodies are detectable for life. I didn't say it and they didn't say it. What I did say was, and in an earlier post I even talked about my neighbors with detectable antibodies more than a year later, that sometimes they last a long time; in some people they drop off MUCH faster. As a matter of fact, my negative antibody test result said specifically that it does NOT prove I have not been infected. What is so difficult to understand here?

Now as far as T cells go, not only did I say EVERY TIME I TALKED ABOUT IT that if there's a BETTER way I'd love to hear about it to which nobody replied, my understanding is that T cell immunity has a better long term accuracy in assessing previous infection. One more time, I'd love to hear from a real expert what the best way to gauge to attack rate of Covid19 in a population would be.

I do know that because of the vaccinations the presence of antibodies against the S protein are obviously NOT a good measure. I did read somewhere that perhaps the antibodies against the N protein would because they are not made during vaccination.

 

[abj13]

What you don't seem to understand is that your body can make new antibodies against a pathogen from the past.

When did I ever make such a statement? That's even more idiotic. If your body didn't constantly produce new antibodies, the old ones would degrade and there would be none remaining in circulation. This is why people with antibody mediated immunodeficiencies need to get injections/infusions of antibodies at regular intervals (or when they antibody levels drop to a sufficient level).

Please quote for all of us where I said they body didn't make new antibodies to pathogens from past infections? Please quote and underline exactly where such a statement was made.

Nowhere does it say that antibodies are detectable for life. I didn't say it and they didn't say it.

What does the title of the article you linked say?

What I did say was, and in an earlier post I even talked about my neighbors with detectable antibodies more than a year later, that sometimes they last a long time; in some people they drop off MUCH faster. As a matter of fact, my negative antibody test result said specifically that it does NOT prove I have not been infected. What is so difficult to understand here?

Once again, you go and contradict Ali Ellebedy`s study. Hmmm.

I did read somewhere that perhaps the antibodies against the N protein would because they are not made during vaccination.

Antibodies to the nucleocapsid cross-react with other seasonal coronaviruses, giving false positive results. I've already mentioned this cross-reactivity multiple times, but apparently you don't actually want to learn from the posts here, and instead offer more and more bad science. Stop claiming you're here to learn, your posts clearly outline you'd rather listen to non-peer reviewed papers that offer 95% confidence intervals of 0 to infinity. That isn't curiosity and objectivity, its just more intellectual dishonesty.

 

[cytg111]

Of course he’s a big YouTube doctor.

He recommends waiting 90 days after recovery and taking periodic (monthly? Not sure) antibody tests then decide.
He recommends all who are at high risk obese, diabetic, copd, elderly, caring for an at risk person and so on consider getting vaccinated.
He also says “or just get vaccinated” in another short video.
This does not sound like a Doctor who recommends Being unvaccinated.

My line of reasoning here
1. CDC or similar is the hub of where all data on the matter subject flows through
2. Greatest minds in the field operates here
3. There is no conspiracy trying to pull one over on me
4. Dude says “He dont know where 90 days comes from” and “as far as I know there is no vaccine”
5. Youtubers have a financial incentive to follow the audience.

So when ie. Fauci says 90 days, I must conclude that that is the best advice given the data right now, from watching Fauci I also believe he will retract or adjust this advice if newer better data is available tommorow.

So follow the quality of the data and the quality of the people parsing the data. Seems logical.

 

[eikelbijter]

Antibodies to the nucleocapsid cross-react with other seasonal coronaviruses, giving false positive results. I've already mentioned this cross-reactivity multiple times, but apparently you don't actually want to learn from the posts here, and instead offer more and more bad science.

You did mention it and I did know that to be the case before you mentioned it. Are there cross-reactive antibodies against the S protein too from other coronaviruses?

So you DO agree that a sufficiently specific, widely administered T cell test would be the best way to estimate the attack rate? If you're really trying to help me learn just saying where I'm wrong is not nearly as helpful as showing what's right!

 

[eikelbijter]

What does the title of the article you linked say?

So wait a second. What you are saying here, and you seem quite informed about this, once you get that germinal center in your system somewhere, you're CONSTANTLY making covid19 antibodies, for the rest of your life? At detectable levels?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I believe you are incorrect there, that's based on old data. There is plenty of data that suggests far longer protection. A peer reviewed study from May 26th suggests perhaps for life.

Had COVID? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime

People who recover from mild COVID-19 have bone-marrow cells that can churn out antibodies for decades, although viral variants could dampen some of the protection they offer.

www.nature.com

Just making sure, is Nature a known source of fake news?

"People who recover from mild COVID-19 have bone-marrow cells that can churn out antibodies for decades, although viral variants could dampen some of the protection they offer. "

It is right in the headline “Probably”.
As of right now someone who recovered from Covid has three to six months of good protection.
That could change but as of right now that is what’s know.
And again with the word “Probably or Maybe” you are a selfish asshole not to get vaccinated to protect friends, neighbors, children and the elderly.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

My line of reasoning here
1. CDC or similar is the hub of where all data on the matter subject flows through
2. Greatest minds in the field operates here
3. There is no conspiracy trying to pull one over on me
4. Dude says “He dont know where 90 days comes from” and “as far as I know there is no vaccine”
5. Youtubers have a financial incentive to follow the audience.

So when ie. Fauci says 90 days, I must conclude that that is the best advice given the data right now, from watching Fauci I also believe he will retract or adjust this advice if newer better data is available tommorow.

So follow the quality of the data and the quality of the people parsing the data. Seems logical.

BTW YouTube Doctor still recommends vaccination