Ok, I am having trouble reconciling their abstract and their data - could someone double check? They claim "memory antibodies selected over time by natural infection have greater potency ... than antibodies elicited by vaccination."
"memory antibodies obtained from convalescent individuals showed improved neutralizing activity between 1.33 and 6.2 months with IC50 of 171 ng/ml to 116 ng/ml (Fig. 3f)"
BUT
The vaccine-generated neutralizing titers are as follows:
"There was no further improvement in neutralizing activity of the monoclonal antibodies obtained between 2 and 5 months after vaccination (IC50 140 vs. 144 ng/ml, Fig. 3f)."
So the vaxx and natural numbers are essentially a wash as seen in Fig 3f (attached), so why such a strong statement in the abstract (beyond which no antivaxxer is ever going to read)?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Eric makes a lot of sense from a position of a layman. The US public health agencies have totally FUBARed their trust and communication with people.
But from the position of someone with an understanding of the underlying science and drug development pathways, there are enough data to make highly informed inferences on vaccine safety and IVM’s lack of efficacy from first principles.
No trust is required, just the ability to analyze and synthesize data. Those data are distributed worldwide, so unless you think there is a worldwide conspiracy to suppress vaccine dangers and drug repurposing efforts, you can just mine those data to make your own conclusions.
The infection mortality rate in kids is about 0.001%. Yes, that’s quite low but it’s still way higher than 0. Why risk your child’s life? Why risk them getting long Covid symptoms or yet unknown long term symptoms?
Death rate in kids from vaccines? ZERO. No kids have died —
— and in the US they’ve already administered 10.2M doses in kids 5-18 and 14.6 doses in people aged 18-24. How many deaths reported for those age categories? Zero.
Is it obvious yet why we should vaccinate all ages?
Wait a minute. Could it be that the Carvallo study was initially sponsored by this Austrian company selling carrageenan spray? Their investor pitch deck references the Carvallo study and some other studies of their branded carrageenan spray in Argentina.
They also seem to have ran an RCT on just their carrageenan (without IVM) in Argentina. Maybe they ran it and it showed no efficacy and *that* is why Carvallo then said carageenan is irrelevant?
@BetterSkeptics#gtcentry Unsupported claim:
[02:21:25] And then the other place that we have a signal, which I think suggests something we need to worry farther down the road. You tell me, Robert, if I'm on the right track here or not. But the fact that it shows up concentrating
[02:21:40] Bret: Actually that suggests that you could end up with-- And I'm not saying this is gonna happen, but I'm saying we need to look for something like leukemias showing up here, because of their creation in the bone marrow."
As I outlined in detail in another submission, mRNA vaccines carry no oncorisk:
[02:21:40] Bret: I know from other work, that it also seems to show up preferentially in-in, uh, lymph nodes, which raises the question of whether or not, uh, lymphomas might be created.
Lymphomas are a group of blood cancers caused by an oncotransformation of lymphocytes, a subclass of immune system cells which includes T- and B-cells.
For cells to turn cancerous, driver mutations are necessary. Such mutations are usually endogenous
but could also be caused by external factors: radiation or chronic exposure to external carcinogens, e.g. asbestos or cigarette smoke.
Mutations must happen in the DNA of such cells, which is located in the nucleus.