Natural Immunity

[nett]

There are plenty of hints out that the "science" is not as settled as they want you to think, but you have to actually be open to new thoughts, not just swallowing whatever the mainstream narrative is.

Lancet study about booster not being scientifically justified, two FDA director was resigned named on the study

Yes, that's a good study. Did you read it?

I have. It questions the need for booster shots, saying that vaccines are very effective at preventing hospitalization and death due to Covid-19, citing various studies to back that conclusion. It's a very good literature review done by two FDA officials who are resigning precisely because they think there is not sufficient evidence to question the effectiveness of vaccines and require booster shots for the general population. Here's one quote from it:

Although vaccines are less effective against asymptomatic disease or against transmission than against severe disease, even in populations with fairly high vaccination rates the unvaccinated are still the major drivers of transmission and are themselves at the highest risk of serious disease.

Unfortunately, if you combine the research in Israel, and what their experts have said with this study, you get a complete picture of vaccines that do not work as they were hoped to.

I've never questioned the short term efficacy of the vaccines, but in Israel Pfizer waned to 16% efficacy in 6 months. That's a big problem.

[nett]

Most of us are not researchers, most of us do not have experience looking at all the research in a field. MN is rarely a place where we can have the kind of focused discussion that is needed to discuss research intelligently. I have done plenty of work in a research environment, it requires a different kind of discussion than we have here.

I am curious why you might suggest that things are not discussed intelligently here, or, more specifically, what you might suggest be done different.

Good question.

To me, an intelligent discussion of anything this complicated needs a way to stay on one topic at a time, focusing on the evidence together wherever it leads, not committing to a given out come at the beginning, not approaching it as a contest between "sides". I think it's best to focus on what is true, not on labeling the people.

We have a lot of "I proved this to you but you didn't listen, you don't seem to mind misinformation, you're twisting this, you didn't prove anything" that isn't backed up by solid facts - the person speaking is acting like his own debate judge, but also attacking character. That's getting personal and ugly without adding light to the conversation. We have a lot of playing to the audience. That keeps changing the subject and making the discussion more heated. Sometimes it seems designed to do so, there's a grab bag of rhetorical tricks people use.

Citations of peer reviewed research, rather than news articles perhaps?

I would certainly prefer that. And even checking to see if a given article is peer-reviewed before saying it is. But also, whenever someone cites a study to support a conclusion that is the opposite of the author's conclusion, that should be at least stated up front.

At this stage, studies are still showing different results, a lot of papers are being published before they are peer-reviewed, and the whole topic has been politicized and polarized. For this kind of topic, literature reviews or overviews of the studies that have been done from scientific journals or experts is a really good starting point.

I am unsure why you feel more qualified to discuss up & coming content more than any other person here, or what specifically you feel should be done differently.

I don't think anyone here is an expert with adequate time to look at all the research and summarize it.

There are experts who do that for a living. Agencies like the CDC, FDA, and NIH have overviews, respected journals like Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, BMJ, etc. have literature reviews, medical organizations have "standards of care" based on the latest research, etc.

But just about anything traditionally seen as a reliable source of medical information is being attacked. Things normally considered questionable sources of medical information are being exalted. During a pandemic, I find that concerning.

There is currently a disagree between those agencies that you so revere, and the experts who resigned over science not being followed. So which do you go with?

I see you're expertly staying away from my assertion that you refuse to acknowledge the superiority of natural immunity. How long are you going to ignore it?

[Josh]

I don't think anyone here is an expert with adequate time to look at all the research and summarize it.

There are experts who do that for a living. Agencies like the CDC, FDA, and NIH have overviews, respected journals like Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, BMJ, etc. have literature reviews, medical organizations have "standards of care" based on the latest research, etc.

But just about anything traditionally seen as a reliable source of medical information is being attacked. Things normally considered questionable sources of medical information are being exalted. During a pandemic, I find that concerning.

Bootstrap,

I think the problem here is that you seem to me to have appointed yourself an arbiter of declaring who is and isn't experts, and critiquing whether other people's research or expertise is good enough.

Likewise, I think you feel you can make calls about which "sources" or "research" are reliable or not. But what exactly makes you more worthy or qualified to do this than, say, me, or anyone else? There is no agreement here on MN about which sources to use.

You say phrases like "things normally considered questionable sources". Questionable by who?

[Bootstrap]

I feel like I've posted this 100 times, but here is it again.

Conclusions: Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.

The conclusion also says this:

COVID-19 did not occur in anyone over the five months of the study among 2579 individuals previously infected with COVID-19, including 1359 who did not take the vaccine.

That does not show one to be superior to the other. In this particular setting, Employees of the Cleveland Clinic Health System probably took a lot of other precautions as well.

You still won't even admit that natural immunity is vastly superior to vaccinated, which is now settled science. It doesn't appear you have any interest in the truth, instead you seem to have an interest in a narrative. i don't really care about narratives.

Settled science? Which scientific journals or associations or agencies are making that claim? Many of the papers we are looking at are not even peer-reviewed yet. We are seeing different results in different studies. But I think this much is settled science: if you have not been vaccinated and have not had a confirmed case of Covid-19, vaccines will greatly reduce your risk of hospitalization and death.

It doesn't appear you have any interest in the truth, instead you seem to have an interest in a narrative. i don't really care about narratives.

Then stop promoting narratives and one-liners and give direct answers to the questions and responses I have given.

I'm headed off for vacation, won't be online much for the rest of the week. See you next week.

[Josh]

But I think this much is settled science: if you have not been vaccinated and have not had a confirmed case of Covid-19, vaccines will greatly reduce your risk of hospitalization and death.

Not even this is settled science; I'll pass on a vaccine that resulted in 1/3 of a nursing home being dead a week later.

There is no "settled science" about this vaccine yet. It hasn't even existed for a year and that's not long enough to establish safety. The only thing that can be definitively stated is that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines reduce one's chance of being hospitalised with COVID-19 symptoms for a few months after being vaccinated. That's all.

[ken_sylvania]

The conclusion also says this:

COVID-19 did not occur in anyone over the five months of the study among 2579 individuals previously infected with COVID-19, including 1359 who did not take the vaccine.

That does not show one to be superior to the other. In this particular setting, Employees of the Cleveland Clinic Health System probably took a lot of other precautions as well.

You're correct, in fact that particular quote says nothing whatsoever about the topic at hand. For a quote that actually does address the topic, the study says this:

Of the 2154 SARS-CoV-2 infections during the study period, 2139 (99.3%) occurred among those not previously infected who remained unvaccinated or were waiting to get vaccinated, and 15 (0.7%) occurred among those not previously infected who were vaccinated. Not one of the 2579 previously infected subjects had a SARS-CoV-2 infection, including 1359 who remained unvaccinated throughout the duration of the study.

Most infections occurred among those who were neither vaccinated nor previously infected. The remaining 15 infections occurred exclusively among individuals who were vaccinated. There were no infections at all among anyone who had previously had COVID.

It may be that the difference is considered statistically insignificant - I'm not enough of a statics guy to know. But I do know the difference between zero and fifteen. Zero cases is not equal to fifteen cases.

[nett]

The conclusion also says this:

COVID-19 did not occur in anyone over the five months of the study among 2579 individuals previously infected with COVID-19, including 1359 who did not take the vaccine.

That does not show one to be superior to the other. In this particular setting, Employees of the Cleveland Clinic Health System probably took a lot of other precautions as well.

You're correct, in fact that particular quote says nothing whatsoever about the topic at hand. For a quote that actually does address the topic, the study says this:

Of the 2154 SARS-CoV-2 infections during the study period, 2139 (99.3%) occurred among those not previously infected who remained unvaccinated or were waiting to get vaccinated, and 15 (0.7%) occurred among those not previously infected who were vaccinated. Not one of the 2579 previously infected subjects had a SARS-CoV-2 infection, including 1359 who remained unvaccinated throughout the duration of the study.

Most infections occurred among those who were neither vaccinated nor previously infected. The remaining 15 infections occurred exclusively among individuals who were vaccinated. There were no infections at all among anyone who had previously had COVID.

It may be that the difference is considered statistically insignificant - I'm not enough of a statics guy to know. But I do know the difference between zero and fifteen. Zero cases is not equal to fifteen cases.

With that sample size, any instance above 5 would be statistically significant. 15 infections among the vaccinated population is very significant.

That study (along with many others), conclusively shows natural immunity to be vastly more protective than vaccination. Bootstrap's refusal to acknowledge this has been odd, but his latest post is stranger still.

This is now the 2nd person I've run into here who shows a devotion to a stale narrative that manifests as blindness to reality.

I'm really not sure how to proceed with a meaningful conversation. We now have many studies that all show the same thing contrary to previous narrative, and no one in the mainstream is even bothering to make an attempt at rebuttal. Bootstrap is now on an island all his own, with an odd devotion to the prior mainstream narrative.

[nett]

I feel like I've posted this 100 times, but here is it again.

Conclusions: Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.

The conclusion also says this:

COVID-19 did not occur in anyone over the five months of the study among 2579 individuals previously infected with COVID-19, including 1359 who did not take the vaccine.

That does not show one to be superior to the other. In this particular setting, Employees of the Cleveland Clinic Health System probably took a lot of other precautions as well.

15 of the vaccinated subjects who were not previously infected tested positive for COVID.

15 is greater than 0, which means this study demonstrates natural immunity to be VASTLY superior to vaccination alone. Your inability to acknowledge this is bizarre.

I seems to me that you're deeply devoted to a stale narrative, if that is the case, It would be best for me to disengage as this has become a waste of my time.

You still won't even admit that natural immunity is vastly superior to vaccinated, which is now settled science. It doesn't appear you have any interest in the truth, instead you seem to have an interest in a narrative. i don't really care about narratives.

Settled science? Which scientific journals or associations or agencies are making that claim? Many of the papers we are looking at are not even peer-reviewed yet. We are seeing different results in different studies. But I think this much is settled science: if you have not been vaccinated and have not had a confirmed case of Covid-19, vaccines will greatly reduce your risk of hospitalization and death.

Those goalposts that you continually move around must be getting heavy. Here's a simple suggestion that you love to ask of others, but apparently are unable to do yourself, scroll to the top of this page, read the topic, and then stick to it. those who have not had a confirmed case of COVID are IRRELEVANT to this conversation.

I've presented a lot of studies showing superior natural immunity, ranging from the clinic's finding of infinitely better protection (0/15), to the Israel studies that found 27x protection against infection, and 13x protected against severe symptoms.

Please me to a single one of these studies that is "seeing different results"

It doesn't appear you have any interest in the truth, instead you seem to have an interest in a narrative. i don't really care about narratives.

Then stop promoting narratives and one-liners and give direct answers to the questions and responses I have given.

I'm headed off for vacation, won't be online much for the rest of the week. See you next week.

Have fun. Hopefully you're planning to take precautions consistent with your stances on COVID here.

[Laurell]

Thanks for your response, Boot. Always happy to have a civil discussion.

To me, an intelligent discussion of anything this complicated needs a way to stay on one topic at a time, focusing on the evidence together wherever it leads, not committing to a given out come at the beginning, not approaching it as a contest between "sides". I think it's best to focus on what is true, not on labeling the people.

We have a lot of "I proved this to you but you didn't listen, you don't seem to mind misinformation, you're twisting this, you didn't prove anything" that isn't backed up by solid facts - the person speaking is acting like his own debate judge, but also attacking character. That's getting personal and ugly without adding light to the conversation. We have a lot of playing to the audience. That keeps changing the subject and making the discussion more heated. Sometimes it seems designed to do so, there's a grab bag of rhetorical tricks people use.

I don't think you are wrong here in what you are saying, but looking at the whole context of things, I doubt know that many people here come to MN for dissemination of findings. Aside from formal debates, it seems to be consistent with human conversation to drift all around the place in talking (or maybe as a woman I just consider that normal but it drives men nuts ). In the age of the internet, arguments are now between armchair experts, with victory going to who can Google the fastest or one-up in some kind of way, when, in actuality, it's going to come down to who trusts what sources, which brings me to my next point--

Citations of peer reviewed research, rather than news articles perhaps?

I would certainly prefer that. And even checking to see if a given article is peer-reviewed before saying it is. But also, whenever someone cites a study to support a conclusion that is the opposite of the author's conclusion, that should be at least stated up front.

At this stage, studies are still showing different results, a lot of papers are being published before they are peer-reviewed, and the whole topic has been politicized and polarized. For this kind of topic, literature reviews or overviews of the studies that have been done from scientific journals or experts is a really good starting point.

This is a perfect example the point I want to make: it comes down to who we trust. You are more comfortable with the idea of scientific journals or expert opinions, which I think is probably the general consensus of most people in the west. I am suspicious of essentially any source, anywhere, and think everyone has an agenda or a bias. Keep in mind, scientific journals and experts told us that tar cigarettes were safe, sugar is not harmful, and that opiates are not addictive. Years later, we come to find out their bias painted their publications. If there is one thing I have learned from the extensive courses in statistics, it's that you can "massage the numbers" a number of ways to say whatever you want. I once did a study that had almost no findings at all, but for the manuscript, figured out how to narrate the the findings in a significant and meaningful way. (I didn't send it that way for publication because I felt it would be unethical, but it was just eye-opening the extent that you can really make research say what ever you want it to say).

I don't think anyone here is an expert with adequate time to look at all the research and summarize it.

There are experts who do that for a living. Agencies like the CDC, FDA, and NIH have overviews, respected journals like Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Science, Nature, BMJ, etc. have literature reviews, medical organizations have "standards of care" based on the latest research, etc.

But just about anything traditionally seen as a reliable source of medical information is being attacked. Things normally considered questionable sources of medical information are being exalted. During a pandemic, I find that concerning.

I agree with you that no one here is an expert, but I would also argue that the experts are not as expert as you might expect. I worked for the state government for the greater part of a decade, and got to a position where I was only a few levels of reporting away from the governor. I got to see first hand how "experts" made decisions, state-wide policies, and state initiatives. It was incredibly eye opening because I learned that a lot of the "experts" were people who were far removed from reality because they have been in "expert positions" for too long to be relevant. I can't imagine that large government organizations would be demonstrably different.

To add to that, you mentioned the "standard of care," which is actually kind of a joke to many medical professionals. The standard of care is often years and years behind the latest research-- for example, we are still recommending low fat, high carb diets to people despite a large body of evidence that says otherwise AND the knowledge that most of the low fat, high carb research was funded by sugar lobbyists. It would be truly laughable if it wasn't causing so much harm to so many people.... which leads to me to my suspicion of the current medical recommendations.

All of this is to say that I don't know there is any one, or even set, of experts or sources that we can trust. Dialoguing about it in a public forum such as MN can be helpful for those of us without strongly formed opinions, because it gives us a chance to see two strong biases (i.e. Ken vs Josh), and factor it in to formulation of our own opinion.

[justme]

All of this is to say that I don't know there is any one, or even set, of experts or sources that we can trust. Dialoguing about it in a public forum such as MN can be helpful for those of us without strongly formed opinions, because it gives us a chance to see two strong biases (i.e. Ken vs Josh), and factor it in to formulation of our own opinion.

like i posted elsewhere just a few minutes ago, i'm learning things that i didn't know, prior to this.