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

If you are in the US near a Kroger, they are $25.
(CV antibody tests)

a reply to: HawkEyi

Here is another article on this subject. www.israelnationalnews.com...

There are about four articles I have read recently on this subject already and they all say about the same thing. I used to bookmark them but they are always popping up in the science sites. I have read others but the new articles bring the months up higher as they go along, institutes tracking this keep updating their research every couple of months. It has to be more than a year of evidence to show that natural immunity protects almost everyone. But only about eight months of vaccine in people's arms when adding the test subjects to the mix, so eight months is as far as it can go to be scientific.

a reply to: flice

You notice how headlines that go against the grain use the word "suggest". Like declaring a finding as a true fact, is a sin.

Here is something else to consider based on natural immunity. Even without many antibodies, T cell immunity can take care of this virus pretty well, as long as it is not overburdened or suppressed I suppose. The last paragraph of this article talks about how it works. scitechdaily.com... -and-lambda/

So, I wonder what percentage of Pfizer and Moderna researchers and execs got their mRNA vaccines. Being that these people have been working with this for a while, I bet most will wait and see how things turn out before getting the jab. They will probably develop their own safer vaccine to fight this disease.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Are you #ing kidding me.... did you this time even read the study ffs?

Their vaccine test group was initially 14 people... later they a subset of 8 to confirm.
And those 14 were chosen because they already had a high response in their immune system.

Their control group of infected people was initially only 34 people.... with a median age of 64.

Ffs, you are either a sheep a or pharma bull# guy.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge

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.

The vax may be less or more depending on the situation, but that still wasn't my point. Getting the vax positions oneself in overcoming the neuvo aspects of the virus. After you get the virus and live or the vac I really don't care as then you have past the neuvo stage of it all. It is also suggested that having both vac and virus antibodies is best, but once again this is getting into the weeds and the reality is we just want people not to have extreme reactions or death due to the neuro aspects of it.

My point that you seem to be focused on was I said "many have suggested the vac is better in dealing with variants than the virus antibodies" My point that it is widely suggest is true, who knows though I'm not an expert, but it seems that is all you cared about in my post.

So let me ask you a question... vac or unvac for first exposure, which is better in any case?

originally posted by: flice

Ffs, you are either a sheep a or pharma bull# guy.

Why are your posts aggressive... You ask me to post and I invested 20 seconds, do you deserve more? 8 million hits on my search, so pick and choose what you want.

You are the type of person that says none is out there and when I show you one example of countless you attack it, but there it is and that is greater than none...lol

originally posted by: rickymouse
So, I wonder what percentage of Pfizer and Moderna researchers and execs got their mRNA vaccines. Being that these people have been working with this for a while, I bet most will wait and see how things turn out before getting the jab. They will probably develop their own safer vaccine to fight this disease.

It's all evaluating risk right? If you are older or high risk to the virus would you say OK lets see how it turns out first? Since 80% plus those who died are in those categories and that isn't counting a rather big number of people who had a hell of a time with the virus and happened to live.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Here is something else to consider based on natural immunity. Even without many antibodies, T cell immunity can take care of this virus pretty well, as long as it is not overburdened or suppressed I suppose. The last paragraph of this article talks about how it works. scitechdaily.com... -and-lambda/

How do you get the T/M cells? That is why they call it a neuvo virus... Kind of late if the virus is kicking your ass before your body gets up to speed if ever to tackle it. When people suffocate on the fluids in their lungs that is 100% the virus killing lung cells. All the vaccine does is kick start the immune process so the virus isn't tearing crap up for a week or two before the body is up to speed, accept it or not.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: beyondknowledge

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.

The vax may be less or more depending on the situation, but that still wasn't my point. Getting the vax positions oneself in overcoming the neuvo aspects of the virus. After you get the virus and live or the vac I really don't care as then you have past the neuvo stage of it all. It is also suggested that having both vac and virus antibodies is best, but once again this is getting into the weeds and the reality is we just want people not to have extreme reactions or death due to the neuro aspects of it.

My point that you seem to be focused on was I said "many have suggested the vac is better in dealing with variants than the virus antibodies" My point that it is widely suggest is true, who knows though I'm not an expert, but it seems that is all you cared about in my post.

So let me ask you a question... vac or unvac for first exposure, which is better in any case?

In my and many other cases the "vac or unvac for first exposure" question is entirely irrelevant as I had the covid many months before the 'vax' was available. A big problem is your, and a lot of others, not recognizing there are three sides to this and not just 'vax' or not. There are probably as many now immune without the 'vax' as with it because they have already had covid. The US government and almost all MSM does not even recognize the ones that have survived and have tests to prove it.

Why should I risk the 'vax' when I am already immune?

Edit: What is your native language and country if I might ask. I am only asking because you are the only one I have ever encountered that calls it "neuvo virus".

a reply to: beyondknowledge

Why should I risk the 'vax' when I am already immune?

No chance of re-infection?
I guess you're fine then.

a reply to: Phage

I will be getting tested for antibodies every six months and will reevaluate to get it or not then based on the results. I will get it if they come up with one that I consider completly safe. I see no need to be forced to get it just for a paper to say I had the 'vax' even if the risk is only very small.

I thank you for being reasonable.

a reply to: beyondknowledge

You aren't forced. Not in this country.

However you may be required to make a choice between not being vaccinated and engaging in other activities in some circumstances.

Life is all about choices.

a reply to: Phage

There has already been several threads and many news articles about some people and organizations in this country wanting to force it on everybody. Can you say absolutly that it will never happen?

a reply to: beyondknowledge

No.

But then, I am not a prophet.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge

In my and many other cases the "vac or unvac for first exposure" question is entirely irrelevant as I had the covid many months before the 'vax' was available. A big problem is your, and a lot of others, not recognizing there are three sides to this and not just 'vax' or not. There are probably as many now immune without the 'vax' as with it because they have already had covid. The US government and almost all MSM does not even recognize the ones that have survived and have tests to prove it.

Why should I risk the 'vax' when I am already immune?

Edit: What is your native language and country if I might ask. I am only asking because you are the only one I have ever encountered that calls it "neuvo virus".

I'm US but lived in EU a good deal...

I'm actually not pro vac for anyone under 40 and healthy... I feel the risk is so little they don't need the vaccine, that could change with a variant though.

So I'm not a 70% or 80% all need to get the vac person. I think a mix of vaccine for high risk and antibodies for low risk is best. I really would love our 100 million kiddies to go to school, no mask, get the sh!t and have their grandparents vacced and we can all move on into herd immunity with a mix.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge

There has already been several threads and many news articles about some people and organizations in this country wanting to force it on everybody. Can you say absolutly that it will never happen?

About 50 million not wanting the vac are actually liberal, so what do you think? lol

Lets say Biden , liberal states all go draconian on this, I can tell you things that hit close to home override ideology, so I'm not saying they would not do it, BUT it would be like the most politically stupid move ever made.

But then look at Australia, lol its bad there as to how the Goverment is handling it...so who know

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: beyondknowledge

You aren't forced. Not in this country.

However you may be required to make a choice between not being vaccinated and engaging in other activities in some circumstances.

Life is all about choices.

Not to the point of exclusion at this level.

This is not choice, its passive aggressive enforcement.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I do agree that the vulnerable to the covid that are able to take the vaccine should have it but each should be evaluated individually.

I am 54, have a heart condition I am working to get over and a history of kidney stones. My age says I should get it but my medical conditions say I am at a higher risk from complications than average people. As I have antibodies, I am not getting it at this time.

I also want everyone to get back to as normal a life as soon as possible but I see a lot of misinformation on both sides slowing this down. Some is from MSM some from the different governments both in the US and other countries. A major problem is the lack of discussion of the information from the governments about what they do and do not know. This, I think, is the biggest cause of the mistrust in the information from them.

The designation 'neuvo virus' just means new virus and nothing more. To some it makes it sound special but it just means less is known about it than other viruses. I am not criticizing you for using it but there is no medical significance I know of.