New study suggests: Mild or moderate Covid 19 infection, yields better protection than vaccines...

This is important.

The study followed the subjects over an 8 month period.

Their findings, yet to be peer reviewed, are than because the anti bodies after infection does not only ttarget the spike protein, but also other parts, it is nlt only very durable anti bodies, which plateau after 8 months, but enough to be woken again.
They will also give some protection against variants...

Their study also hints at age playing a factor, meaning, maybe we shouldnt have mass vaccinated everyone. Just those at risk... like so many of us thought before it all began.

Good news!

Have a read

Medrxiv

a reply to: flice

Let's see.

The vaccine produces spike protein to train your immune response.


Having the virus trains your body to have an immune response to the whole virus. And of course, the virus produces the same spike proteins as the vaccine.


I wonder which is better

Do masks work this week?

Just paid for an antibody test to see where I stand, got sick last spring and it nagged me for weeks.

If I have the antibodies I at least have a medical argument to avoid the jab, if not I guess I'm allergic to the SE in the spring.

I read your post wrong...

But yeah, thats more or less what they found.
The variants might have changed but where the vaccine falls short the natural anti bodies seem to carry the info to adress them as well and provide a less severe outcome.

Alone the fact that the natural ones are there after 8 months, but the vaccine fails after 6.... come on.

We have been duped.

a reply to: Irishhaf

How much do the Antibody tests cost where you are? i was thinking of doing one as well.

a reply to: HawkEyi
Well since this all is paid by tax payers at the federal level and since it is a so called emergency...... one would expect antibody tests given as a second opinion alternative to false sense of security in benefits of unproven ineffective experimental inoculation.

a reply to: HawkEyi

I had one of those tests at a regular doctors visit. They took an extra sample vial during the blood test. They sent it off and it took about a week to get the results. It was positive for covid antibodies. They did not charge extra for the test. That visit was the usual cost, alittle over $200 without insurance.

a reply to: HawkEyi

With insurance 35 dollars without I want to say they listed it around 120.

a reply to: flice

gin and tonics are gonna become legendary in approach to fighting upper respiratory illnesses...
The trick will be to treat it like the medicine it is

originally posted by: flice
This is important.

The study followed the subjects over an 8 month period.

Their findings, yet to be peer reviewed, are than because the anti bodies after infection does not only ttarget the spike protein, but also other parts, it is nlt only very durable anti bodies, which plateau after 8 months, but enough to be woken again.
[snipped]

Medrxiv

OK, I read the article. It doesn't suggest anything like what your OP states. The study began in Spring of 2020, before any vaccines were ever released. It showed that a COVID infection produces antibodies that last at least 8 months and probably longer, actually. That's not a surprise. The study made no comparison whatsoever with the efficacy or longevity of vaccination produced antibodies, because it would have been physically impossible to do so. Apparently, you made up the suggestion that infection produces "better" protection than vaccines on the basis of no evidence.

originally posted by: infolurker

Let's see.

The vaccine produces spike protein to train your immune response.


Having the virus trains your body to have an immune response to the whole virus. And of course, the virus produces the same spike proteins as the vaccine.


I wonder which is better

Do masks work this week?

As we move into variants it seems either might work about the same as the body triggers on the protein of the varant, but many say the vaccine has an edge with variants compared with just antibodies from the virus. I think the key is not to get the virus or any vartant in the form of a nuevo virus, and to have the body already standing by on the first go with the virus...right?

a reply to: flice

Another study no one hears!

originally posted by: infolurker

Having the virus trains your body to have an immune response to the whole virus. And of course, the virus produces the same spike proteins as the vaccine.

I think it's the juniper, well at least that is what I'm rolling with...

originally posted by: 1947boomer

OK, I read the article. It doesn't suggest anything like what your OP states. The study began in Spring of 2020, before any vaccines were ever released. It showed that a COVID infection produces antibodies that last at least 8 months and probably longer, actually. That's not a surprise. The study made no comparison whatsoever with the efficacy or longevity of vaccination produced antibodies, because it would have been physically impossible to do so. Apparently, you made up the suggestion that infection produces "better" protection than vaccines on the basis of no evidence.

I found the same style of assumption using other studies that people tend to throw around with their narrative and when you look at the study it doesn't even match up or make any sense as to what they are suggesting it might be saying.

There was one floating around saying the vaccine could have all these additional negative side effects, and that was the narrative being pushed. When I looked at the actual study it was done before Phase 1 human testing and was suggesting there might be a possibility of extra negative side effects that should be addressed on the acceptance form.

So the actual study was only about that maybe the normal Clinical trials acceptance form needs to be more customized, and it had zero to do with a study of additional side effects of any kind, but boy it was touted as a study of all these additional negative side effects...lol

a reply to: 1947boomer

You have not kept up with the ‘vax’ news? It only lasts 6 months before it becomes less than 50% effective.

a reply to: 1947boomer

Speaking of reading...

OK, I read the article. It doesn't suggest anything like what your OP states. The study began in Spring of 2020, before any vaccines were ever released.

I suggest you read a little deeper and click on the Info/History tab.

Version 1 of this was published in April 27, 2021.

Version 2 of this study was published June 18, 2021.

So your entire premise is incorrect.

As it always is on this subject.

Then lets bring this one in from august 2021 as well.

Its funny how they try to bend it that the vaccines are good. But in fact it shows that being infected yields better protection than both Pfizer and Moderna......

August 2021 study...infection is more protective

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: infolurker

Let's see.

The vaccine produces spike protein to train your immune response.


Having the virus trains your body to have an immune response to the whole virus. And of course, the virus produces the same spike proteins as the vaccine.


I wonder which is better

Do masks work this week?

As we move into variants it seems either might work about the same as the body triggers on the protein of the varant, but many say the vaccine has an edge with variants compared with just antibodies from the virus. I think the key is not to get the virus or any vartant in the form of a nuevo virus, and to have the body already standing by on the first go with the virus...right?

Noone says that... link to proof and their source.

Otherwise you are just divulging bull# for others who also dont care to go into the studies, to generate an unfunded opinion from.

originally posted by: flice

Noone says that... link to proof and their source.

Otherwise you are just divulging bull# for others who also dont care to go into the studies, to generate an unfunded opinion from.

It took me like 20 seconds to find this below and wasn't my main point which you didn't address at all "I think the key is not to get the virus or any vartant in the form of a nuevo virus, and to have the body already standing by on the first go with the virus...right?"

In their new study, published in the journal Science Translational Medicine, Bloom, Greaney, and colleagues looked again to the thousands of possible RBD variants to understand how antibodies might be expected to hit their targets there [1]. This time, they wanted to explore any differences between RBD-directed antibodies based on how they were acquired.

Again, they turned to deep mutational scanning. First, they created libraries of all 3,800 possible RBD single amino acid mutants and exposed the libraries to samples taken from vaccinated individuals and unvaccinated individuals who’d been previously infected. All vaccinated individuals had received two doses of the Moderna mRNA vaccine. This vaccine works by prompting a person’s cells to produce the spike protein, thereby launching an immune response and the production of antibodies.

By closely examining the results, the researchers uncovered important differences between acquired immunity in people who’d been vaccinated and unvaccinated people who’d been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. Specifically, antibodies elicited by the mRNA vaccine were more focused to the RBD compared to antibodies elicited by an infection, which more often targeted other portions of the spike protein. Importantly, the vaccine-elicited antibodies targeted a broader range of places on the RBD than those elicited by natural infection.

These findings suggest that natural immunity and vaccine-generated immunity to SARS-CoV-2 will differ in how they recognize new viral variants. What’s more, antibodies acquired with the help of a vaccine may be more likely to target new SARS-CoV-2 variants potently, even when the variants carry new mutations in the RBD.

It’s not entirely clear why these differences in vaccine- and infection-elicited antibody responses exist. In both cases, RBD-directed antibodies are acquired from the immune system’s recognition and response to viral spike proteins. The Seattle team suggests these differences may arise because the vaccine presents the viral protein in slightly different conformations.

Also, it’s possible that mRNA delivery may change the way antigens are presented to the immune system, leading to differences in the antibodies that get produced. A third difference is that natural infection only exposes the body to the virus in the respiratory tract (unless the illness is very severe), while the vaccine is delivered to muscle, where the immune system may have an even better chance of seeing it and responding vigorously.

Doc

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: flice

Noone says that... link to proof and their source.

Otherwise you are just divulging bull# for others who also dont care to go into the studies, to generate an unfunded opinion from.

It took me like 20 seconds to find this below and wasn't my main point which you didn't address at all "I think the key is not to get the virus or any vartant in the form of a nuevo virus, and to have the body already standing by on the first go with the virus...right?"

In their new study, published in the journal Science Translational Medicine, Bloom, Greaney, and colleagues looked again to the thousands of possible RBD variants to understand how antibodies might be expected to hit their targets there [1]. This time, they wanted to explore any differences between RBD-directed antibodies based on how they were acquired.

Again, they turned to deep mutational scanning. First, they created libraries of all 3,800 possible RBD single amino acid mutants and exposed the libraries to samples taken from vaccinated individuals and unvaccinated individuals who’d been previously infected. All vaccinated individuals had received two doses of the Moderna mRNA vaccine. This vaccine works by prompting a person’s cells to produce the spike protein, thereby launching an immune response and the production of antibodies.

By closely examining the results, the researchers uncovered important differences between acquired immunity in people who’d been vaccinated and unvaccinated people who’d been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. Specifically, antibodies elicited by the mRNA vaccine were more focused to the RBD compared to antibodies elicited by an infection, which more often targeted other portions of the spike protein. Importantly, the vaccine-elicited antibodies targeted a broader range of places on the RBD than those elicited by natural infection.

These findings suggest that natural immunity and vaccine-generated immunity to SARS-CoV-2 will differ in how they recognize new viral variants. What’s more, antibodies acquired with the help of a vaccine may be more likely to target new SARS-CoV-2 variants potently, even when the variants carry new mutations in the RBD.

It’s not entirely clear why these differences in vaccine- and infection-elicited antibody responses exist. In both cases, RBD-directed antibodies are acquired from the immune system’s recognition and response to viral spike proteins. The Seattle team suggests these differences may arise because the vaccine presents the viral protein in slightly different conformations.

Also, it’s possible that mRNA delivery may change the way antigens are presented to the immune system, leading to differences in the antibodies that get produced. A third difference is that natural infection only exposes the body to the virus in the respiratory tract (unless the illness is very severe), while the vaccine is delivered to muscle, where the immune system may have an even better chance of seeing it and responding vigorously.

Doc

So your referenced study states that the 'vaccine' causes a better antibody reaction in parts of the body that cannot get covid unless it is a really severe case, the muscles. It is airborne, there is no need to attack it from the muscles when the lungs are where it starts and both the 'vax' and recovered immunity do that. Also several studies prove that recovered imunity lasts longer than 'vax' immunity.

It also states that the 'vax' antibodies attack more and different parts of the covid virus than the recovered antibodies. They say this is better but again it doesn't last as long. This may be the reason for so much information about the delta variant being found more in 'vaxed' infections. The 'vax' antibodies might be less effective because the delta avoids its particular attacks.