Good news about long term immunity from vaccine

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: putnam6
How is the immune response of those vaccinated VS those who have had COVID but no vaccine at the 6-month mark?

The CDC never cared about how well the "natural immunity response" worked.

Even to this day, their website says, "Someone contracting Covid-19 twice is very rare".

No actual studies that I'm aware of.

Natural immunity doesn't generate a profit for medical providers, or provide opportunity for scientists to test and vary their vaccine concoction.

Look at how natural immunity protects us once and for all with the 'flu.

About 51% of Americans get a Flu shot every year, so I don't think there is much natural immunity.

Spot on!

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

never before used vaccines that uses technology that can change human genes, and which for some strange reason has to be in extremely cold temps before being used?

And obviously a vaccine you have absolutely no knowledge of.

"Never before used" is kind of accurate. mRNA is a new process to introduce spike proteins (that's the proteins the virus uses to attach itself to cells, located on the ends of those little spikes on the virus) into the body. That part, using spike proteins, is not new... several vaccines in long-term use now do not use the entire virus, but only the spike proteins. After all, it's these spike proteins that the antibodies target.

The new part is the process by which the spike proteins are introduced into the body. In a normal vaccine they are introduced directly. In an mRNA vaccine, the body itself produces the spike proteins, which the immunity cells then recognize as a foreign invader and produce antibodies for. It's just one more step in the process. The advantage is that, once one has the mRNA template, an mRNA vaccine can be produced much, much faster than a normal vaccine. With a normal vaccine, those spike proteins or weakened/dead viruses have to be grown in a laboratory and then incorporated into the vaccine, and that takes time; they can only grow so fast. With mRNA, the RNA strands can be manufactured much faster, so the vaccine can be produced in large quantities much faster.

"Technology that can change human genes" is just flat out wrong. RNA is not DNA. It's similar, yes, but it is not encoded the same nor is it incorporated into our cells. That little "m" in front stands for "messenger." Within our cells, proteins are produced (which is what a cell does to maintain life) from mRNA, not from DNA. The DNA is protected inside the nucleus, and only used to produce the various mRNA strands as needed. The mRNA then exits the nucleus and is used to produce the proteins. Once used, the mRNA falls apart... it is pretty darn fragile. A single strand of mRNA is used one time and one time only to produce a single protein. If more of that protein is needed, more mRNA is produced in the nucleus.

When a virus infects a cell, it introduces mRNA into that cell to create the proteins necessary to make more virii. Soon enough mRNA leads to enough virii inside the cell to destroy it, and when the dead cell breaks apart it releases all these new virii. And even with all this mRNA being injected, it still doesn't change our DNA!

A decent analogy is the old sci-fi film "Alien." The Alien infects a crewmember and injects them with a baby alien. Soon the baby alien develops and bursts through the crewmember's belly. Only a virus injects enough mRNA to make not one, but hundreds of other virii.

The mRNA vaccine works the same way, but with a major difference: not enough mRNA is ingested by each cell to destroy the cell. The MRA is encapsulated in fatty material that the cell will normally ingest. The mRNA then instructs the cell to make the spike protein. Since the spike protein is a foreign substance to the cell, it is then released (along with cytokines to alert the immune system to a foreign invader) and the immune system responds by making antibodies for the spike proteins.

At no time does any mRNA come into contact with the DNA. Even if it did, the mRNA cannot change the DNA... it just don't work that way. If it did, a cold would change one's DNA, and we all know thta's ridiculous. So is your claim.

"For some strange reason has to be in extremely cold temps before being used" is an answer to your previous incorrect statement. It has to be extremely cold because otherwise the mRNA will break down so easily! It's supposed to break down easily... all mRNA breaks down easily, be it from the DNA, a virus, or an mRNA vaccine. It's not strange at all if one understands anything about how an mRNA vaccine works.

Now, are there some concerns? Sure! Will that spike protein interact with any other body functions? Not that we know, but possible. Will the produced antibodies affect anything besides the virus? Maybe, always a possibility, but so far they don't seem to. Are the produced proteins correct to cause the body to produce the correct antibodies? I would hope this was already verified... seems to be a no-brainer to do so.

As for the new vaccines for the various strains, the antibodies attack the proteins used to gain entry into the cells. A variant strain would likely use the same or at least very similar proteins to do so. If that is the case, there will be no need for a new mRNA vaccine for a new strain. However, if they targeted a protein that changes in the new strain, then a new vaccine would be needed. This is likely what is being discussed.

I just got through chewing out RAY1990 for stating that there were no people trying to coerce people unfairly into taking the vaccine and plenty who were trying to coerce people unfairly into not taking it. Now you come in here and prove him right on the latter point? Really? How about trying to get some actual information on what you're talking about before you talk about it?

If you don't want to take the vaccine, then don't. That's your right, and I won't be taking it either. My immunity is strong and my exposure is minimal out here in the woods. Others may choose to take it; the Chinese virus can be fatal to some with weak immune systems, and some people's lives lead to high exposure. That's their right. Put the info out there (the real info, not a bunch of poppycock) and let people decide for themselves.

Your post is a perfect example of what others did that caused us to know so little about this virus. BS belongs in a pasture, not a forum devoted to denying ignorance.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Bravo!!!

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: MrRCflying

This is great news and on the surface appears to have some scientific validity. At least it's not infiltrated with contradictory "truths" that attempt to have us all believing opposing things at the same time.

I want to believe this vaccine works; I really do. If it works, and if there are no bad side effects, I might consider getting it myself at some future point... just not now. What will not convince me to get the vaccine is people demanding that I get it or trying to shame me into getting it. That just strengthens my resolve to not get the shot.

I do not trust people who do that.

TheRedneck

I'm in the same boat. I have no issues with vaccines, and this is speaking from a purely logical and scientific perspective, however when a propaganda machine coupled with greedy corporations, and governments that are the same way push an experimental vaccine, I have an issue with that.

Not to mention those same entities tosses out decades of their own scientific, legal, and ethical protocols, for approval, then rush this vaccine to market scares the heck out of me.

originally posted by: MrRCflying

originally posted by: Rob808

originally posted by: MrRCflying

originally posted by: Rob808

originally posted by: MrRCflying
It seems there may be some good news about the protection provided by the vaccines against Covid. Ongoing testing is showing a strong immune response of 91% at 6 months. There has been a lot of questions as to how long the vaccine produced antibodies may last in the human body, and provide protection against serious disease. 3 months, 6, months, a year, more? Questions still remain as to how much protection from infection the vaccines may give, over just protection from serious disease. That thinking may be changing as well. It seems that not only may the vaccine may protect well against actually catching Covid, if a vaccinated person is positive it may be difficult or impossible for them to spread it to others.

Dr. Scott Hensley is the Associate Professor of Microbiology at University of Pennsylvania. He has a long list of credentials, basically he is an expert in vaccines, influenza, and more.

Dr. Scott Hensley

He fully expects to still see a good immune response in vaccinated people a year from now. That would be a year and a half since vaccination in the test subjects. Meaning more than likely yearly vaccinations against Covid will not be necessary.

Going even beyond that, he says he would not be surprised if this is a vaccine that a person would only need to get once to provide lifelong protection. Similar to the measles vaccine.

"I would not be surprised if we learned a year from now that these vaccines are still producing a strong immune response," Hensley told CNN.

"I would not be surprised if this is a vaccine that we only get once."

That would make the vaccine more akin to vaccines against measles than flu vaccines. Vaccination against measles protects against infection for life in 96% of people.

Link

It looks very encouraging, although we will have to wait to see if further testing confirms this.

You’re encouraged by the fact the vaccine which will require multiple injections only works for 6 months? That’s horrible and boarders on pointless. Your advocating for constant inoculation of experimental drugs that barely work as described and who knows what else they might do.

That is not what it says at all. First, I am advocating nothing. Second, the whole point is that an independent virologist believes that the immune response will last well beyond one year, with the possibility of lifetime protection.

So gaslighting then

Umm... I suggest you just re-read, that is all. The whole thread and links was about the vaccine immune response lasting at least 6 months, with the possibility it may last much longer with no boosters, maybe not ever requiring additional injections. It is up to you, what you believe is right for you, if you want to take it or not. I was simply posting about a new study, and what virologist from UofP thought about it. Take it for what it is.

You can shift the focus pretending it’s about one piece of it “hope”, but the information that’s presented it reflected in my already provided assessment. Perhaps you should reread my original response and be less defensive. Or perhaps you should realize that 6 months of immunity is crap, worthless garbage and there’s zero evidence of anything else beyond a guys hope it could maybe last longer. I’ll repeat, stop gaslighting.

a reply to: MrRCflying

I wonder how many would still be getting them if they understood they are only phase 3 clinical trials lab rats?

Everyone does understand that not a single "vaccine" for covid has been phase 4 approved by the FDA and the FDA has never approved a mRNA vaccine....ever.

These are all under emergency use qualifications.....as in they hope and guess it will be OK but won't really put their name behind it as safe.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


Thank you! That is some great information.

I would just like to clarify a couple of things if I may.

A virus enters the cell nucleus, basically becoming a little virus factory, where they reproduce, and then exit the cell destroying it. Like your "Alien" analogy. Each virus then goes on to invade other cells, repeating the process of replication.

mRNA never enters the nucleus of a cell. It enters the cytoplasm surrounding it. There it instructs the cell to produce a protein that is the same protein seen on the spike receptors of the Covid virus. Once it creates that protein, it is game over for the mRNA, it is destroyed and can never do it again. At no point can the mRNA enter the nucleus. Even if it could, the protein can not self replicate. So there is no destruction of the cell or damage caused. Once the mRNA is all used up in the creation of the protein, it is all over. No more proteins can be produced, and the body will only react to those that were produced. This usually happens within 24-48 hours of vaccination. It is not some ongoing cycle, it can't be.

Once the protein has been created, the body then recognizes it as an invader, and begins to make antibodies to defend against it. That is where the immune response comes from. The body knowing how to deal with this protein, so if it sees it in the future (Covid exposure or infection), it can mount a rapid response. (fire fighters ready to go at a moments notice)

Since the proteins built by the mRNA are exactly the same as on the surface of the spike receptors of Covid, the antibodies produced are exactly the same as you would see if a person had the Covid infection. There is no difference. In that sense, it is no different than getting the infection in the wild.

Variants have about a 0.3% change in the protein. Probably not enough to change how the antibodies interact that much. Research is still ongoing, but it seems the vaccine will be fine with current variants.

mRNA is very fragile, as already explained. It will break down quickly (a day maybe) if not protected. The method to protect the mRNA so it can reach the cell cytoplasm to do it's job is to coat it in a lipid. Think fat, or cholesterol. The lipid itself is quite fragile and can break down quickly at room temperatures. It is much more stable at extremely low temperatures. Thus the need to be frozen at a very low temp.

The vaccine is thawed before use, not injected at low temps. Once thawed however the lipids begin to degrade, and the mRNA will soon follow. So the vile of thawed vaccine must be used within a matter of hours before that degradation can really begin.

So here is where the hope lies. It has been about 17 years since the SARS outbreak. SARS is about 80% similar to Covid, they are both a Corona virus, and share a lot of similarities. Including extremely similar proteins found on the spike receptors.

Tests done on blood samples from SARS survivors 16-17 years after infection show a very high immune response. Meaning the persons body still knows how to produce antibodies and mount a defense against SARS, even after all this time.

With the proteins being so similar, in theory, the same should hold true for Covid antibodies, either created from a natural infection, or an mRNA vaccine. The 6 month study seems to show a high immune response, and looks promising that the response will be high a year to year and a half from now, maybe longer, much, much longer. Why 6 months? Well since we don't have a time machine, 6 months is the longest amount of data available, as the first test subjects were vaccinated that long ago. We can however draw some good inferences from SARS, and say that a 17+ year immune response is a good possibility.

This is information only, as I understand it. I will in no way recommend, or coerce in either direction. The final decision is a personal one.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Good luck with your vaccine. I am assuming you'll be getting it.

Seems I've had the virus, the UK has achieved herd immunity... So probably not.



Ironic I know... Considering the overwhelming evidence I'm a shill for the virus.

On a serious note I have strong beliefs that it's down to the individual what they put in their body, due to that I'm going to have issues with somebody claiming otherwise as you did.

Once you're dead, you are immune to EVERYTHING!!
Ta
Da

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
Good, then this means that those who want the jab can take it and stop being afraid and coercing others into injecting something they don't want.

First stories are coming out about dumb looks on faces when they get told they still have to quarantine, mask up and distance, regardless of the vaccination.

How about those of us that weren't afraid but still got the jab? Is that allowed to happen or am I a crazy lib now?

I will always respect ones opinion on this matter but I will always continue to urge people to get the vaccine. I'm not going to ridicule anyone who decides they don't want to get it. I have worked in the Healthcare industry for 15 years and I have A LOT of trust in the people I work with that have much greater knowledge than I do on this. The misinformation on vaccines in general is astounding.

originally posted by: HawkeyeNation

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
Good, then this means that those who want the jab can take it and stop being afraid and coercing others into injecting something they don't want.

First stories are coming out about dumb looks on faces when they get told they still have to quarantine, mask up and distance, regardless of the vaccination.

How about those of us that weren't afraid but still got the jab? Is that allowed to happen or am I a crazy lib now?

I will always respect ones opinion on this matter but I will always continue to urge people to get the vaccine. I'm not going to ridicule anyone who decides they don't want to get it. I have worked in the Healthcare industry for 15 years and I have A LOT of trust in the people I work with that have much greater knowledge than I do on this. The misinformation on vaccines in general is astounding.

Also, do you know why those of us that have gotten the vaccine are told to still follow those rules? It's to protect people like you who have not gotten it and are at a higher risk to have complications from the virus.

This vaccine isn't necessarily going to prevent it, a lot like the flu shot, but it can prevent you from having severe reactions to the virus which in many cases have lead to hospitalizations and death.

a reply to: RAY1990

Then good luck not getting the vaccine.

My point is that this vaccine, like any vaccine or even any medical treatment, is and should always remain completely and absolutely voluntary. That means no extreme measures to socially force someone to take it... I consider that, if sanctioned by a government, as bad as a law demanding mandatory vaccination. It also means no false narrative supported by lies.

In my defense, I also hit ElectricUniverse above for taking the opposite stance you appeared to. That's just as bad.

We live in a world where people seem to think that what works for them works for everyone. That's just flat out wrong, and it has now gotten to the point that the hysteria over a cold is seriously hurting people. I have said for a while now that more people will die from the hysteria than from the virus, and I seriously believe that. No, wait, I don't believe it; I know it. It's already happening to me. The other night I had some sort of an issue... turned out to be nothing, but as I waited for the paramedics I realized that if I went to the hospital they would likely not let me in. I'm one of those few people who cannot wear a mask without experiencing severe medical problems from it.

So you'll forgive me if this entire situation hits a little too close to home for comfort for me. I'll take on anyone, on either "side," who chooses to either promote false information or imply fake narratives. Enough is enough.

TheRedneck

a reply to: HawkeyeNation

I have worked in the Healthcare industry for 15 years

Would you then mind answering a question for me?

Is it considered good practice to draw blood samples in a hospital parking lot?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

My point is that this vaccine, like any vaccine or even any medical treatment, is and should always remain completely and absolutely voluntary. That means no extreme measures to socially force someone to take it.

I said I have similar beliefs, only the mentally incapable can be forced to take medicine, we have similar laws with similar potentials for abuse.

In my defense, I also hit ElectricUniverse above for taking the opposite stance you appeared to. That's just as bad.

I asked you to elaborate on my apparent stance, I'm happy to drop it. My original post here was pointing out that a statement made by a member was simply not true if ATS is to go by. I brought no case forward for or against the vaccine... I still have not.

So you'll forgive me if this entire situation hits a little too close to home for comfort for me. I'll take on anyone, on either "side," who chooses to either promote false information or imply fake narratives. Enough is enough.

It's unfortunate you misunderstood my position and reason for posting. Yes, mental illness is on the rise and so is suicide. Untimely medical intervention is a huge problem too and something that I've had problems with since this whole thing began.

You judged me wrong though and the only comments I've had regarding the rona here were about a year ago when I was slating government responses and their ill-conceived lockdowns. Brazil variants say it all really, lockdowns whilst still allowing international travel. The costs will be long-term and and harmful to more than just economies.

Your body your choice, if a retired person wants to take ecstasy and enjoy a rave I'm all for it. We're screwed when individual rights are eroded for the needs of the masses and you'll be extremely hard pressed to find me ever negotiating on my principles regarding that. I still have a bitter taste from the thread regarding nationless terrorists. We have a right to a nationality and citizenship.

I'll get the vaccine if I want to get the vaccine Redneck, I know my rights and I'm not under some kid of mental health act. I'll cross the bridge of ostracism if I get to it and I'm extremely weary of that direction as a whole too because cults are lame.

Apologies for explaining myself.

a reply to: HawkeyeNation

Obvious you can do with your body what you want, I won't judge you or anybody for it.

The misinformation on vaccines in general is astounding.

And I have enough from people like you that ALWAYS have the conclude that if someone is against this new, untested vaccination that doesn't even earn the name..... that one must be confused about vaccinations. I am vaccinated against the typical stuff like hepatitis, measles, tetanus and a few others because of travel, so is my daughter.

Just because I am highly critical about this new, untested vaccine, doesn't imply I am misinformed about vaccines.

a reply to: RAY1990

If I misunderstood your intent, please forgive me. However, ATS is not all about "vaccine bad." It is all about conspiracies and examining anything under the sun, though, so some concern over a rapidly-developed vaccine using completely new technology will be warranted here.

If you are looking for the status quo, you are in the wrong place.

TheRedneck

i got vaccinated, got my second dose a week ago. so far so good.

i'll let you know if i grow a second head or melt into a puddle of goo... altho the later may make typing difficult

originally posted by: RenegadeOfTheLight
Exclusive: Former Pfizer VP to AFLDS: ‘Entirely possible this will be used for massive-scale depopulation’
www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com...

“The most likely duration of immunity to a respiratory virus like SARS CoV-2 is multiple years. Why do I say that? We actually have the data for a virus that swept through parts of the world seventeen years ago called SARS, and remember SARS CoV-2 is 80% similar to SARS, so I think that’s the best comparison that anyone can provide.

“The evidence is clear: These very clever cellular immunologists studied all the people they could get hold of who had survived SARS 17 years ago. They took a blood sample, and they tested whether they responded or not to the original SARS and they all did; they all had perfectly normal, robust T cell memory. They were actually also protected against SARS CoV-2, because they’re so similar; it’s cross immunity.

“So, I would say the best data that exists is that immunity should be robust for at least 17 years. I think it’s entirely possible that it is lifelong. The style of the responses of these people’s T cells were the same as if you’ve been vaccinated and then you come back years later to see if that immunity has been retained. So I think the evidence is really strong that the duration of immunity will be multiple years, and possibly lifelong.”

At the outset, Dr. Yeadon said “I’m well aware of the global crimes against humanity being perpetrated against a large proportion of the worlds population.

“I feel great fear, but I’m not deterred from giving expert testimony to multiple groups of able lawyers like Rocco Galati in Canada and Reiner Fuellmich in Germany.

“I have absolutely no doubt that we are in the presence of evil (not a determination I’ve ever made before in a 40-year research career) and dangerous products.

“In the U.K., it’s abundantly clear that the authorities are bent on a course which will result in administering ‘vaccines’ to as many of the population as they can. This is madness, because even if these agents were legitimate, protection is needed only by those at notably elevated risk of death from the virus. In those people, there might even be an argument that the risks are worth bearing. And there definitely are risks which are what I call ‘mechanistic’: inbuilt in the way they work.

“But all the other people, those in good health and younger than 60 years, perhaps a little older, they don’t perish from the virus. In this large group, it’s wholly unethical to administer something novel and for which the potential for unwanted effects after a few months is completely uncharacterized.

Lastly,

“There is no medical rationale for it. Knowing as I do that the design of these ‘vaccines’ results, in the expression in the bodies of recipients, expression of the spike protein, which has adverse biological effects of its own which, in some people, are harmful (initiating blood coagulation and activating the immune ‘complement system’), I’m determined to point out that those not at risk from this virus should not be exposed to the risk of unwanted effects from these agents.”

Bolding mine. My 2 cents, educate yourself and decide what resonates for you personally. No one should be demanding anything of another when it comes to what an individual does or does not do with their own body. Luckily for those who are afraid of others, modern life has become very accommodating to one not needing to leave the "safety" of their home.

I am shocked to read that some health experts feel that getting inoculated can bestow something like 17 years (??) of immune response against COVID. They seem to be basing this off of review of clinical patient data for exposure and tolerance to the SARS virus going back some years? Is this really an apples to apples comparison: finding immune system response for those exposed to SARS after some period of time, and then extrapolating that into the thinking that the COVID vaccine will have efficacy for over a decade? And where the heck does the "17 years" guesstimate come from? They figured the effectiveness would be somewhere between 15 and 20 years and they just split the difference?! How did they reach that conclusion from studying the data on SARS, and is that data even RELEVANT?

I am highly skeptical that these vaccines will bestow immune benefits for that long of time, especially with how rapidly this virus mutates. Ultimately it seems they'll need to take a flu vaccine approach where they build a vaccine cocktail of picking the 3-4 most prevalent virus strains in a season and packing the virus signature into that year's vaccine.

I am curious if people have been factoring this into their calculus (i.e. the potential need to get a COVID shot every year) as they weight whether to jab or not to jab.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

From my post above. I think it answers your questions.

So here is where the hope lies. It has been about 17 years since the SARS outbreak. SARS is about 80% similar to Covid, they are both a Corona virus, and share a lot of similarities. Including extremely similar proteins found on the spike receptors.

Tests done on blood samples from SARS survivors 16-17 years after infection show a very high immune response. Meaning the persons body still knows how to produce antibodies and mount a defense against SARS, even after all this time.

With the proteins being so similar, in theory, the same should hold true for Covid antibodies, either created from a natural infection, or an mRNA vaccine. The 6 month study seems to show a high immune response, and looks promising that the response will be high a year to year and a half from now, maybe longer, much, much longer. Why 6 months? Well since we don't have a time machine, 6 months is the longest amount of data available, as the first test subjects were vaccinated that long ago. We can however draw some good inferences from SARS, and say that a 17+ year immune response is a good possibility.

Unfortunately this Dr. Yandon took a real study, and tried to twist the meaning around. As far as I can see he is trying to do it to benefit his wallet.

a reply to: MrRCflying

Ok, got it: the contention is that this 17 year span is accounting for the period of time since SARS first emerged, and SARS and COVID are highly similar, so if SARS survivors have blood samples that demonstrate positive immune response after say 17 years, then the logical leap is that people inoculated with the COVID vaccine will exhibit similar positive immune response over a comprable length of time.

Notice I said "logical leap".

a. SARS and COVID are something like 80% matching at the genetic level (close but not identical)
b. the study of SARS "survivors" is measuring immune response based on those who had been INFECTED with SARS some years ago, this study is NOT researching folks treated with a vaccine (as is the case with COVID) developed in recent times.. This is a subtle but key difference IMO as I believe the evidence of immune response and antibodies between those actually infected with a virus, and those treated with a vaccine, are probably pretty dissimilar. For instance. for the friends I've known who've become infected with COVID, they were told by doctors to expect antibodies to be present for something like 6-12 months in their system. So how will a vaccine extend on the natural antibody duration that those organically exposed to the virus (versus clinically exposed via vaccine)?
c. we do have a body of research for how potential vaccines reacted to SARS over say the past 15 years, but how pertinent is this research to NOVEL Corona Virus '19?
d. what is the relative mutation rate between SARS and COVID? Which one change more frequently, and to what degree?