So what happened to people that got the C-19 , and now have the antibodies ?

This forum is to discuss general things concerning TSOI.
trader32176
Posts: 3538
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 5:22 am

Re: So what happened to people that got the C-19 , and now have the antibodies ?

Post by trader32176 »

'You Sir, Are The One Ignoring Science ': Sen. Rand Paul

WASHINGTON
'You Sir, Are The One Ignoring Science': Rand Paul Battles Becerra Over COVID-19 Rules

"the vast preponderance of scientific studies - dozens and dozens, show robust long- lasting immunity after Covid infection"



trader32176
Posts: 3538
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 5:22 am

Re: So what happened to people that got the C-19 , and now have the antibodies ?

Post by trader32176 »

Op-Ed: Quit Ignoring Natural COVID Immunity
— Antibody testing and proof of prior infection can allow more people to return to normal

by Jeffrey Klausner, MD, MPH, and Noah Kojima, MD May 28, 2021


https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectious ... id19/92836


Epidemiologists estimate over 160 million people worldwide have recovered from COVID-19. Those who have recovered have an astonishingly low frequency of repeat infection, disease, or death. That immunity from prior infection protects many people now where vaccines are not yet available.

Earlier this month the World Health Organization released a scientific update stating that most people who have recovered from COVID-19 develop a strong protective immune response. Importantly, they summarize that within 4 weeks of infection, 90% to 99% of people who recover from COVID-19 develop detectable neutralizing antibodies. Furthermore, they conclude -- given the limited amount of time to observe cases -- that the immune response remains strong for at least 6 to 8 months after infection.

This update echoes what the NIH reported in January 2021: The immune response of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID-19 had durable memories of the virus up to 8 months after infection. The NIH went further to state that those findings "provide hope" that people who get vaccinated will develop similar lasting immunity.

So why are we so focused on vaccine-induced immunity -- in our goals to reach herd immunity, our gatekeeping on travel, public or private events, or mask use -- while ignoring natural immunity? Shouldn't those who have natural immunity also be able to return to "normal" activities?

Numerous scientists have found that there is a decreased risk of re-infection and extremely low rates of hospitalization and death due to repeat infection. The range of reduction of re-infection from COVID-19 was between 82% to 95% among six studies that encompassed nearly 1 million people conducted in the U.S., the U.K., Denmark, Austria, Qatar, and among U.S. Marines. The study in Austria also found that the frequency of re-infection from COVID-19 caused hospitalization in only five out of 14,840 (0.03%) people and death in one out of 14,840 (0.01%).

In addition, newer U.S. data, released after the January NIH announcement, found protective antibodies lasting up to 10 months following infection.

As public health policymakers reduce the discussion of immunity to vaccination status, largely ignored are the complexities of the human immune system. There are multiple highly encouraging research reports showing that blood cells in our body, so called "B cells and T cells," contribute to the cellular immunity after COVID-19. If SARS-CoV-2 immunity is similar to other severe coronavirus infections like SARS-CoV-1 immunity, that protection could last at least 17 years. However, tests to measure cellular immunity are complex and expensive, making them hard to get and preventing their use in routine medical practice or in public health surveys of the population.

The FDA has authorized numerous antibody tests. As with any test, they require financial costs and time to obtain results, and there are important differences in the performance of each test in terms of what the positive antibodies actually represent. A critical distinction is that some tests only detect antibodies found after natural infection, "N" antibodies, and some cannot differentiate between natural or vaccine-induced antibodies, "S" antibodies. Doctors and patients should beware of this and ask which antibodies the tests actually measure.

Last week, on May 19, the FDA issued a public safety communication stating that while SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests play an important role in identifying people who have been exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and may have developed an adaptive immune response, antibody tests should not be used to determine immunity or protection against COVID-19. Huh?

While it is important to note that message, it is confusing. The FDA presented no data in their warning and left those alerted uncertain about why antibody testing should not be used to determine immunity or protection against COVID-19. The FDA statement went on to say that antibody tests should be used by those experienced with antibody testing. Not helpful.

Like many aspects of the Federal Government's response to COVID-19, the FDA's comment lags behind the science. Given that 90% to 99% of people who recover from COVID-19 develop detectable neutralizing antibodies, doctors can use the correct test to inform people of their risk. We can counsel patients that those who have recovered from COVID-19 have a strong protective immunity, protecting them from repeat infection, disease, hospitalization, and death. In fact, that protection is similar to or better than vaccine-induced immunity. Putting that together, people who have recovered from prior infection or those with detectable antibodies should be considered protected, similarly to someone who is vaccinated.

Moving forward, policymakers should include natural immunity as determined by an accurate and reliable antibody test or the documentation of prior infection (previous positive PCR or antigen test), as evidence of immunity equal to that of vaccination. That immunity should be given the same societal status as vaccine-inducted immunity. Such a policy will greatly reduce anxiety and increase access to travel, events, family visits, and more. The updated policy will allow those who have recovered to celebrate their recovery by informing them of their immunity, allowing them to safely discard their masks, show their faces, and join the legions of those vaccinated.

Jeffrey Klausner, MD, MPH, is a clinical professor of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine in Los Angeles, and a former CDC medical officer. Noah Kojima, MD, is an internal medicine resident at University of California Los Angeles.
trader32176
Posts: 3538
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 5:22 am

Re: So what happened to people that got the C-19 , and now have the antibodies ?

Post by trader32176 »

STUDY: Natural immunity 13 times more effective than vaccines at stopping “delta” variant

8/31/21

https://chemicalviolence.com/2021-08-31 ... delta.html#


New research of out Israel shows that the best immunity is natural immunity, and those who rely on it instead of artificial vaccine “immunity” are at least 1,300 percent better protected against the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19).

Described by Bloomberg as “the largest real-world analysis comparing natural immunity – gained from an earlier infection – to the protection provided by one of the most potent vaccines currently in use,” the paper by Israeli scientists found that getting jabbed for Chinese Germs massively increases one’s risk of testing “positive” and developing symptoms.

“Fully vaccinated” people are 13 times more likely to contract the Wuhan Flu compared to unvaccinated people, and are 27 times more likely than the unvaccinated to get sick as opposed to just testing “positive” without any symptoms.

According to investigative journalist Alex Berenson, these incredible findings “end any debate over vaccines [versus] natural immunity,” proving once and for all that God-given immunity is always preferable to Big Pharma’s fake “immunity” from a syringe.

“The new analysis relies on the database of Maccabi Healthcare Services, which enrolls about 2.5 million Israelis,” reported Science magazine. “The study, led by Tal Patalon and Sivan Gazit at KSM, the system’s research and innovation arm, found in two analyses that people who were vaccinated in January and February were, in June, July, and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who were previously infected with the coronavirus.”

“In one analysis,” Science further revealed, “comparing more than 32,000 people in the health system, the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher.”

If you already had “covid,” you now have antibodies to protect you against reinfection


Even though U.S. authorities refuse to admit it, “catching” the Chinese Virus and recovering from it leaves a person with antibodies that will protect them against reinfection. The same cannot be said of those who take the injections.

Since vaccine-induced “immunity” does not work and certainly does not last, the “fully vaccinated” must receive “booster” shots in order to stay “safe.” These boosters, we are now being told, could become a semi-annual routine for those who took the first two jabs.

Those who took no jabs, on the other hand, have lasting protection against Fauci Flu infection. They also will not be spreading around infection to others like the vaccinated are doing as they “shed” the contents of the vaccine vials onto others.

This is being widely seen in Israel, which is mostly vaccinated. Israelis are filling up hospitals, thanks to the jabs, as their immune systems are now shot. Vaccinated Israelis continue to test positive for the “delta” variant, even though no such test even exists.

What is probably happening is that the “fully vaccinated” are developing serious adverse events from the jabs they received and are now flooding the health care system with their diseased bodies, which is placing enormous strain on the doctors and nurses who are tasked with trying to care for them.

What this means, of course, is that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Tony Fauci, and other phony health authorities flat-out lied to the world when they claimed that Donald Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed” injections provide 90 percent protection against the China Flu.

“The PCR test can’t differentiate between the variants or typical influenza,” noted one commenter at Zero Hedge. “I doubt they are doing further testing on even a fraction of the cases to prove what’s infecting people.”

“They are being told if it’s a positive test then it’s delta. This is all crap.”
trader32176
Posts: 3538
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 5:22 am

Re: So what happened to people that got the C-19 , and now have the antibodies ?

Post by trader32176 »

Natural infection versus vaccination: Differences in COVID antibody responses emerge

10/7/21


https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/930912


Hope for a future without fear of COVID-19 comes down to circulating antibodies and memory B cells. Unlike circulating antibodies, which peak soon after vaccination or infection only to fade a few months later, memory B cells can stick around to prevent severe disease for decades. And they evolve over time, learning to produce successively more potent “memory antibodies” that are better at neutralizing the virus and more capable of adapting to variants.

Vaccination produces greater amounts of circulating antibodies than natural infection. But a new study suggests that not all memory B cells are created equal. While vaccination gives rise to memory B cells that evolve over a few weeks, natural infection births memory B cells that continue to evolve over several months, producing highly potent antibodies adept at eliminating even viral variants.

The findings highlight an advantage bestowed by natural infection rather than vaccination, but the authors caution that the benefits of stronger memory B cells do not outweigh the risk of disability and death from COVID-19.

“While a natural infection may induce maturation of antibodies with broader activity than a vaccine does—a natural infection can also kill you,” says Michel C. Nussenzweig, the Zanvil A. Cohn and Ralph M. Steinman professor and head of Rockefeller’s Laboratory of Molecular Immunology. “A vaccine won’t do that and, in fact, protects against the risk of serious illness or death from infection.”

Your body on COVID-19

When any virus enters the body, immune cells immediately churn out hordes of circulating antibodies. Foot soldiers of the immune system, these antibodies burn bright but decay at variable rates depending on the vaccine or infection—they may protect us for months or years but then dwindle in number, allowing possible reinfection.

The immune system has a backup plan: an elite cadre of memory B cells that outlive circulating antibodies to produce so-called memory antibodies that provide long-term protection. Studies suggest that memory B cells for smallpox last at least 60 years after vaccination; those for Spanish flu, nearly a century. And while memory B cells don’t necessarily block reinfection, they can prevent severe disease.

Recent studies have suggested that within five months of receiving a vaccine or recovering from a natural infection, some of us no longer retain sufficient circulating antibodies to keep the novel coronavirus at bay, but our memory B cells stand vigilant. Until now, however, scientists did not know whether the vaccines could be expected to provide the sort of robust memory B cell response seen after natural infection.

The convalescent advantage


Nussenzweig and colleagues resolved to tease out any differences in memory B cell evolution by comparing blood samples from convalescent COVID-19 patients to those from mRNA-vaccinated individuals who had never suffered natural infection.

Vaccination and natural infection elicited similar numbers of memory B cells. Memory B cells rapidly evolved between the first and second dose of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, producing increasingly potent memory antibodies. But after two months, progress stalled. The memory B cells were present in large numbers and expressed potent antibodies, but the antibodies were not getting any stronger. Also, although some of these antibodies were able to neutralize Delta and other variants, there was no overall improvement in breadth.

With convalescent patients, on the other hand, memory B cells continued to evolve and improve up to one year after infection. More potent and more broadly neutralizing memory antibodies were coming out with every memory B cell update.

To boost or not to boost


There are several potential reasons that memory B cells produced by natural infection might be expected to outperform those produced by mRNA vaccines, the researchers say.

It is possible that the body responds differently to viruses that enter through the respiratory tract than those that are injected into our upper arms. Or perhaps an intact virus goads the immune system in a way that the lone spike protein represented by the vaccines simply cannot. Then again, maybe it’s that the virus persists in the naturally infected for weeks, giving the body more time to mount a robust response. The vaccine, on the other hand, is flushed out of the body mere days after triggering the desired immune response.

Regardless of the cause, the implications are clear. We can expect memory B cells to undergo limited volleys of evolution in response to mRNA vaccines, a finding that may have significant implications for the design and rollout of booster shots. A booster with the currently available mRNA vaccine would be expected to engage memory cells to produce circulating antibodies that are strongly protective against the original virus and somewhat less so against the variants, Nussenzweig says.

“When to administer the booster depends on the object of boosting,” he says. “If the goal is to prevent infection, then boosting will need to be done after 6 to 18 months depending on the immune status of the individual. If the goal is to prevent serious disease boosting may not be necessary for years.”

Journal


Nature

DOI

10.1038/s41586-021-04060-7

Article Title

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain antibody evolution after mRNA vaccination
trader32176
Posts: 3538
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 5:22 am

Re: So what happened to people that got the C-19 , and now have the antibodies ?

Post by trader32176 »

How long does natural immunity produced by SARS-CoV-2 infection last?

10/12/21


https://www.news-medical.net/news/20211 ... -last.aspx


Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) – caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has posed a global health emergency. The longevity of immunity to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) after natural infection may have significant implications for the durability of vaccine-induced immunity.

The genome of SARS-CoV-2 encodes four major structural proteins – spike protein (S), nucleoprotein (N), membrane protein (M), and envelope protein (E). Generation of neutralizing antibodies that specifically target the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the S protein is essential for controlling SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, circulating antibodies derived from plasma cells dwindle with time, but long-lasting immunological memory may persist in the memory B cells.

Mutations in the S1 subunit may cause changes in the structure of the S protein and RBD and enhance the binding of the virus to the receptor. This may render an increased risk of transmission and severity of the illness along with reduced neutralization capacity by antibodies.

A new study posted to the bioRxiv* preprint server followed the adaptive immune response in convalescent patients from Swedish and Italian cohorts—which had earlier shown long-lasting adaptive immune responses to the G614 strain—for 15 months. Here, specific antibody levels and neutralizing antibody titers were tested against variants of concern (VOCs).

The Study


Overall, 188 serum or plasma samples were collected from 136 COVID-19 patients – 98 from Italy and 38 from Sweden, who had a mild-to-severe disease. Plasma from 108 historical negative controls was also analyzed; plasma anti-RBD and anti-S antibody titers were measured.

The results revealed that at the peak of antibody response, anti-RBD immunoglobulin (Ig)M and IgA were increased in 77% and 85% of convalescent patients, respectively. However, they quickly decreased from 1-3 months and were detected in less than 4.5% and 11% of the patients tested between 6 and 15 months.

While IgM and IgA anti-S proteins were detected in 88% and 90% of convalescent patients at 15-28 days, respectively, but in less than 23% of patients after 6 to 15 months. The half-lives of RBD- and S-specific IgM antibodies were deduced as 55 and 65 days, respectively, and that of RBD- and S-specific IgA antibodies were 56 days and 55 days, respectively.

Meanwhile, plasma IgG antibodies binding to SARS-CoV-2 RBD and S protein increased in 94% of COVID-19 convalescent participants at 15-28 days of symptoms onset. The median titers gradually decreased by less than 4-fold, from the peak of the antibody response, until six months. Thereafter, they remained steady for up to 15 months.

The half-lives of anti-RBD and anti-S IgG antibody responses were 134 and 113 days, respectively, which were shorter in patients with mild or moderate disease than in severe or critical disease. It was also found that the specific IgG antibody titers plateaued after six months.

Furthermore, the plasma RBD and S-specific IgG antibody titers, 14-35 days post one dose of vaccine, were similar to those six months after infection. While responses after the second dose of vaccine corresponded to those observed at the peak of the antibody response in convalescent patients.

It was also found that neutralization susceptibility to antibodies persisted longer in patients who endured severe or critical illness. Between 9 to 15 months after infection, the majority of the samples elicited neutralizing activity against all strains; however, the proportion was lower for the gamma strain.

The findings indicated that the plasma anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response and neutralizing activity decreased for about six months after infection. Although in lower proportions, the neutralizing activity is usually maintained against Beta, Gamma and Delta variants, for up to 15 months post-infection.

Contrastingly, RBD-specific IgG-producing B cells were maintained in relatively high numbers in all patients followed up between 6- and 15-months post-infection. However, the intensity and duration of the B cell response were not dependent on the disease severity.

In addition, a peak in T-cell response was noted between 3 and 6 months after infection, followed by a significant decrease at 12-15 months.

Inference

The sustained persistence of RBD-IgG titer over time suggests the generation of long-lasting plasma cells. In addition, the results indicated that SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG antibodies might be present for a more extended period in some individuals.

Functional neutralizing antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2 – anti-S and anti-RBD are essential for viral neutralization and viral clearance. The degree of protection might depend on the initial immune response to viral sensitization and generation of memory B and T cells. Moreover, circulating memory B and T cells and neutralizing antibodies are present in most convalescent patients for up to 15 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Recent studies demonstrated that Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines were less effective in preventing severe infection or acute disease by the Delta strain than the other strains. In addition, even immunity that has developed during the previous waves of the infection may not be fully protective against reinfection with Delta and other VOCs. Thus, convalescent patients do benefit from vaccination.

Despite rapid and robust immune responses in naturally infected individuals after two doses of vaccination, further studies on the longevity of this immunity are warranted.

*Important Notice

bioRxiv publishes preliminary scientific reports that are not peer-reviewed and, therefore, should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or treated as established information.

Journal reference:


Marcotte, et al. (2021) “Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 up to 15 months after infection”, bioRxiv preprint, Doi: 10.1101/2021.10.08.463699, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 8.463699v1
Post Reply