Prof Jeffrey S Morris Profile picture
Aug 24, 2021 14 tweets 4 min read Read on X
New medRXiv paper by UPenn group led by John Wherry looking at immune markers 6m after vaccination.

Partially explains waning vaccine efficacy vs. infection, more durable vaccine efficacy vs. severe disease, and is relevant to current booster policy.

biorxiv.org/content/10.110…
Paper measured immune markers (antibodies, T-cells, B-cells) from 61 individuals vaccinated with Pfizer/Moderna at 6 time points, from pre-vax to 6m post-vax.

16 were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and 45 SARS-CoV-2 naïve, and analysis was stratified by previous infection.
The key results were:
1.Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) decreased over time
2.Memory B cells (Bcells) increased over time and did not wane
3.Helper T cells (T4) and Killer T cells (T8) dynamic described
Antibody levels (for spike/receptor binding domain) spiked after vaccination, & declined 10x in 6m, but remained above baseline levels for previous infected.

This reduction of circulating antibodies might explain the waning efficacy vs. asymptomatic/mild symptomatic disease.
Here are the levels for all individuals. We see heterogeneity, with some having much higher levels than others.

When we say "immunity is waning" we must remember it is waning for SOME, not all.
But antibodies always wane. Long term protection comes from memory B & T cells.

Memory B-cells rapidly generate new Abs when later exposed to the virus.

These continued to increase, not decline, in 6m after vax (blue) and had similar levels in previously infected at 6m (red)
Here are the individual levels. Again note the heterogeneity but most maintain high B-cell levels.
People worry about immune escape in Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351), and Delta (B.1.517.2+)

They measured B-cell binding as % of wild type (D614G).

B-cells bound well for all variants, with little immune escape for Alpha, the most for Beta, and intermediate levels for Delta.
Looking at 6m values for individuals, we see most had strong binding (~90% for Alpha, 75% Delta, 60% Beta) but a subset clearly had less protection. Heterogeneity.

Also note that at 6m, vaccinated and previously infected (vaccinated or not) had similar levels of B-cell binding
They have other interesting results looking at T-cells and looking deeper into various aspects of the immune response – this paper is much worth reading.
In summary, we see mRNA vaccines induce strong multi-modal immune response, including high Nabs as well as memory B/T cells

After 6m, most notably Abs & T cells decline the most, & might help explain increased breakthrough infections, while memory B cells remain strong.
It is possible that the “waning immunity” is not a total loss of immune protection, but rather a delay of immune response, with reduction of circulating Nabs requiring generation of new ones by B-cells (and may only affect a subset of people)
@UnrollHelper
please unroll!
Here is detailed 🧵from@one of the authors:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Prof Jeffrey S Morris

Prof Jeffrey S Morris Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jsm2334

May 2
In this thread I will make some comments on the recently published paper in Cureus entitled "Increased age-adjusted cancer mortality after the third mRNA lipid nanoparticle vaccine dose during the covid-19 pandemic"

The title is extremely misleading, given their data do not show an increase in age adjusted cancer mortality, and the paper provides no evidence relating the cancer mortality trends to the 3rd doses of mRNA vaccines given in the country outside of simple post hoc arguments based on the fact they were given in 2022.

Their paper shows that the age-adjusted cancer mortality remains stable and in fact slightly decreases, but it decreases at a slower rate than predicted by linearly extrapolating pre-pandemic decreases in cancer mortality from 2010-2019.

They don't provide any evidence that the vaccinated or those receiving 3rd dose boosters are at any higher risk of cancer death than those of similar age/co-morbidity status who didn't, or otherwise provide any evidence that vaccination is responsible for the arrest of the pre-pandemic decreasing trend and not any one of the many other factors greatly impacting life in Japan during the pandemic.

While the paper summarizes a large and important data set and does some nice things (like compute age-adjusted rates), the general conclusions they make, and certainly the conclusions that people are representing about the paper on social media, are not supported by the data.

cureus.com/articles/19627…
First, some positives.

This paper analyzes a large data set of population-level cancer death rates in a large country, Japan, and this type of large data set is valuable for assessing trends during the pandemic.

The authors duly recognize that changing age distributions over time impact the cancer incidence and death rates, so compute age-adjusted cancer mortality estimates which is the right approach to assess changes over time.

They also looked at subgroup analyses by cancer type and age, which provide useful breakdowns in smaller groups that can shed light on the trends.
However, the paper does not show a total increase in age-adjusted cancer death rate in Japan during the pandemic, and certainly not from 2021 to 2022 when "3rd doses" were given, in spite of what its title implies.

As can be seen in their own data, the age-adjusted rates were actually stable throughout the pandemic from 2020 to 2021 when the first 2 vaccine doses were given and 2022 when the 3rd doses were given to some, and in fact the age-adjusted cancer death rate actually decreased from 2021 to 2022.

They do show "excess deaths" increased from 2020 to 2021 and then 2022.

So where do these excess cancer deaths come from if not from increasing cancer death rates?Image
Read 9 tweets
Feb 28
Here I will briefly discuss this paper you linked talking about negative effectiveness observed in some subgroups for a small subset of studies

I will first summarize their points, and then go through every study they mention.

It is not a reasonable viewpoint that vaccines have negative effectiveness and make covid risks worse based on the many published studies and data
Here is their overall conclusions: that these rare cases where negative VE is observed is likely causedThey discuss some of these ,biases by confounding bias in settings where true VE is very small such as Omicron vs infection long after vaccination
Image
Image
First they mention negative effectiveness estimates are rare even for omicron - with many studies finding only positive effectiveness, and the cases of negative effectiveness typically only in one of numerous subset analyses with small sample size and few events

They point to these factors and suggest the negative point estimates are likely resulting from biasImage
Read 10 tweets
Jan 31
An Epoch Times article discusses a recent paper by FDA researchers assessing safety of Pfizer and Moderna bivalent boosters given to 8,638,661 and 5,240,178 individuals, respectively, comparing incidence rate of 18 different serious adverse events of special interest (including various cardiovascular events) in data bases from Carelon Research, CVS Health, and Optum.

Out of all 18 events, they only identified safety signals for:
1. anaphylaxis for both vaccines 18-64yr in 1 out of the 3 data bases (but not the other 2), and
2. myocarditis/pericarditis for 18-35yr for Pfizer vaccine in 1 out of the 3 data bases (but not the other 2)
They concluded results were consistent with previous studies and supporting the safety profile for these vaccines

However, the Epoch Times article highlights the following numbers, suggesting they are from this paper:
1. anaphylaxis rate was 74.5 cases per 100k person-years following Pfizer vaccination
2. anaphylaxis rate was 109.4 cases per 100k person-years following Moderna vaccination
3. myo/pericarditis rate was 131.4 cases per 100k person-years
These figures to a novice reader might make one think that the rate of anaphylaxis per person is
1 per 1342 (100,000/74.5) after Pfizer,
1 per 914 (100,000/109.4) after Moderna,
and the rate of myo/pericarditis is
1 per 761 (100,000/131.4) after Pfizer,
which would seem alarmingly high, seemingly contradicting the conclusions of the paper. However, this is completely false.

As I will show in this thread, these figures:
1. were not even reported in the paper, but computed for the Epoch Times article from Table 3.
2. were actually mis-computed from Table 3 in the paper
3. based on rate per person-year is not the most useful summary for incidence after vaccination given the time frame for these events varies from 2 days (anaphylaxis) to 28 or 42 days after vaccination, and easily misconstrued/misinterpreted.

Looking at the paper, what they actually found for incidence was:
1. anaphylaxis from d0-d1 after bivalent vaccine booster occurred at rate between 1/4.3m and 1/430k for Pfizer, and between 1/2.6m and 1/260k for Moderna
2. myo/peri-carditis from d0-d21 after bivalent vaccine booster occurred at rate of 1/27k for Pfizer and 1/29k for Moderna
3. For 5-17yr olds, the myo/peri-carditis rate from d0-d21 after bivalent vaccine booster occured at rate between 1/535k and 1/54k for Pfizer, and <1/50k for Moderna
4. For 18-64yr olds, the myo/peri-carditis rates from d0-d21 after bivalent boosters was 1/53k for Pfizer and 1/55k for Moderna

These are in line with previous literature, and not alarming -- the calculation and inclusion of the rates per person-year in the Epoch article appear to be trying to exaggerate the risk

I'll transparently explain where I get these numbers from in this thread...

theepochtimes.com/health/fda-fin…
First, let's consider the anaphylaxis data. Here is the part of Table 3 containing the number of cases and person-years of follow up for two vaccines for the different age groups.

Privacy rules forbid them from publishing any raw counts <11 in the table, so "<11" means some unknown number between 1 and 10.

Based on that I compute the event rate per 100,000 person years.

For Pfizer, we see that combining age groups, the event rate is between 4.3 and 42.7 anaphlaxis events per 100k person-years

This is significantly lower than the 74.5 per 100k person-years that Epoch put in their article -- not sure where they got that from.

However, this is not a very meaningful measure since this event is only defined at d0-d1 after vaccination, meaning a person is only at risk for 2 days for this event.

It would be more meaningful for us to consider the proportion of individuals who experience anaphylaxis in d0-d1 after the vaccine, i.e. at the individual level, not person-years.Image
To compute the incidence per person, we need to consider the number of individuals given each vaccine in each age group, which was given in Table 2 in the paper: Image
Read 12 tweets
Jan 8
1/n
Annals of Internal Medicine just published our epidemiological study of vaccine effectiveness in children and teens during the delta and omicron waves based on large USA pediatric cohorts accounting for nearly 4% of the USA pediatric population.

The study found strong vaccine effectiveness vs. infection, severe disease, and ICU during the delta wave for adolescents and the omicron wave for children and adolescents, with no evidence of increased risk of cardiac outcomes.

Senior authors are Yong Chen, Christopher Forrest, and Jeffrey S Morris, and Lead authors are Qiong Wu and Jiayi (Jesse) Tong.

#PEDSNet #COVID_19 #COVIDVaccine @ChildrensPhila @UPennDBEI @PennMedicine

acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M2…Image
Image
2/n
Study Data
This study was done using electronic medical records data from PEDSnet, a network of 8 USA pediatric health systems across 23 states and the District of Columbia, capturing nearly 4% of all children and adolescents in the USA, including large primary care systems, including the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, and Nemours Children Health.

This study included a total of 77,392 adolescents (45,007 vaccinated) during the Delta wave, a total of 111,539 children (50,398 vaccinated) and 56,080 adolescents (21,180 vaccinated) during the Omicron wave, with extensive follow up of these cohorts providing the longest follow up among studies of pediatric vaccine effectiveness.Image
3/n
Study Cohorts
For the Delta substudy, we identified adolescents vaccinated between July 1, 2021 and November 30, 2021, and found a matched cohort of unvaccinated individuals, choosing for each an index date such that the distribution of index dates in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals matched (preventing calendar time confounding), and requiring health encounters in the system to avoid healthcare seeking behavior confounding.

For the Omicron substudies, we identified children (age 5 to 11) and adolescents (age 12 to 20) vaccinated between January 1, 2022 and November 30, 2022, again choosing an unvaccinated control cohort with index dates chosen such that vaccinated and unvaccinated distributions matched.

For each individual, we had access to extensive demographic and medical information including vaccination status, COVID-19 outcomes, and various potential confounders that we could take into account.
Read 17 tweets
Jul 21, 2023
@TracyBethHoeg, Duresetti, and @VPrasadMDMPH published a commentary in @NEJM yesterday pointing out unmeasured confounding due to the healthy vaccinee effect (HVE) in a December 2021 @NEJM paper published by a group led by Clalit researcher @ArbelRonen.

They pointed out a 94.8%… https://t.co/KAUrLUtaL4twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Image
The healthy vaccinee effect, or healthy user effect, is a well-known phenomenon that people who follow public health recommendations tend to be healthier in general, and this can manifest in vaccine effectiveness studies as unmeasured confounders beyond those included in the… https://t.co/EJ9J23oqRitwitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Image
This response was published immediately following Hoeg, et al.’s correspondence, and the results of their model is given below.

They found the hazard ratio of non-COVID deaths from boosted to non-boosted after adjusting for the same covariates as the original publication was… https://t.co/6vLhOUHZtttwitter.com/i/web/status/1…
Image
Read 10 tweets
Jul 20, 2023
I have seen many people forwarding this graphic around, claiming that the UK ONS data show that the death rate for vaccinated individuals was much higher than unvaccinated, suggesting vaccines were dangerous and killing people.

This plot is inaccurate and misleading.

In this 🧵, I will demonstrate that the UK ONS data show consistently lower death rates for the ever vaccinated than the unvaccinated throughout the pandemic, for COVID-19 deaths, non-COVID-19 deaths, as well as all cause deaths.

The only way people can spin these data to suggest vaccinated have higher death rates is if they magnify the very small vaccine subgroups and minimize the majority of the vaccinated, as I will show.Image
@Tony48781320 @DuttyMonkey_ Here is the data for 40-49
@SageblogOrg @lucasmelange @goddeketal Btw if you read the report that page came from the answer is clear — did you read the report or just forward this table that someone else posted.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(