Negative effectiveness: one possible reason
Negative effectiveness: one possible reason
The dominant theme for OTN of late has been negative effectiveness (the notion that the COVID-19 jabs make COVID-19 infection, and even death, more likely). Some of the evidence for this phenomenon indicates that the effect is dose-dependant. A new study making the rounds on the interwebs may offer one (part of an) explanation as to how this could be happening.
According to these experts, “several months after the second vaccination, SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies were increasingly composed of non-inflammatory IgG4, which were further boosted by a third mRNA vaccination and/or SARS-CoV-2 variant breakthrough infections”, meaning that they found that the proportion of IgG4 antibodies rose with time and further vaccine doses. Apparently aware that IgG4 antibodies may be less useful in fighting off infections, the authors also state that “sera taken after the third vaccination and normalized to the amount of anti-spike antibodies yielded significant lower phagocytic scores than sera from the same donors after two immunizations… antibody-dependent complement deposition on spike-coated microbeads was also significantly reduced after incubation with sera taken after the third vaccination… an increase in IgG4 subclasses might result in longer viral persistence in case of infection”. In typically reserved science speak, the authors conclude that “these findings may have consequences for the choice and timing of vaccination regimens using mRNA vaccines, including future booster immunizations against SARS-CoV-2”. Source.
Okay then.
A little extra: Since the evidence is growing that more doses means less benefit, or rather, more negative benefit, and more doses also means more (other, like cardiovascular) risks, could the ideal number of doses be… zero? Factoring in also the widespread acceptance that natural immunity is (vastly) superior, to say nothing of the benign nature of today’s dominant variants, why are the unjabbinated still being discriminated against?