Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Scientists Challenge Health Officials on Vaccinating People Who Already Had COVID

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Scientists Challenge Health Officials on Vaccinating People Who Already Had COVID

    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...inating-covid/

    04/05/21
    Big PharmaViews

    Scientists Challenge Health Officials on Vaccinating People Who Already Had COVID

    Scientists warn vaccinating people who already COVID could potentially cause harm, or even death.
    By Megan Redshaw

    Since the first COVID-19 vaccine received Emergency Use Authorization in the U.S., some physicians and scientists have challenged the recommendation by U.S. health agencies that people who have already had COVID and as a result acquired natural immunity still get the vaccine.
    Some experts say the science to support vaccinating those primed with COVID doesn’t exist and there’s a potential risk of harm, including death, in vaccinating those who’ve already had the disease or were recently infected.

    In December 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices issued a report authored by 15 scientists that falsely claimed a Pfizer study proved the vaccine was highly effective or showed “Consistent high efficacy” for people who’d already had coronavirus — “SARS-CoV 2.”

    Award-winning scientist and Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) called out the CDC when he found that vaccine studies showed no benefit to people who had coronavirus and that getting vaccinated didn’t change their odds of getting reinfected.

    The CDC claimed “the COVID vaccine would save your life or save you from suffering, even if you’ve already had the virus and recovered, which has not been demonstrated in either the Pfizer or Moderna trials,” Massie said in an interview with Full Measure.

    Massie contacted officials at the CDC about the misinformation. They acknowledged it was false, but instead of correcting it, tried to rephrase their mistake. Massie and other scientists said the new wording still wrongly implies vaccines work in people who previously had COVID.

    “And instead of fixing it, they proposed repeating it and just phrasing their mistake differently. So, at that point, right now I consider it a lie. I think the CDC is lying about the efficacy of the vaccine based on the Pfizer trials, for those who have already had the coronavirus,” Massie said.

    The CDC recommends people get vaccinated even if they’ve already had COVID, as experts do not know how long “you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID, and it is possible — although rare — that you could be infected with the virus that causes COVID again.”
    On Feb. 23, Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), published a blog post stating that people who’ve had COVID still needed the vaccine, while referencing a study that suggested they didn’t.

    Citing a pre-print published on medRxiv, Collins wrote that the immune response to the first vaccine dose in a person who’s already had COVID is equal to, or in some cases better, than the response to the second dose in a person who hasn’t had COVID. He said the “results raise the possibility that one dose might be enough for someone who’s been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and already generated antibodies against the virus.”

    Yet, Collins made the case that people who have already had COVID would have a robust antibody response when later exposed to the virus — whether that’s through natural exposure or via the spike protein from a COVID vaccine.

    To better understand immune memory of SARS-CoV-2, researchers led by Drs. Daniela Weiskopf, Alessandro Sette and Shane Crotty from the La Jolla Institute for Immunology analyzed immune cells and antibodies from nearly 200 people who had been exposed to COVID and recovered.
    The results, published in Science, showed the immune systems of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID had durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection. Previous studies showed that natural infection induced a strong response, but this study showed that response lasted, Weiskoph said.

    Another study in Nature assessed the lasting immunogenic effect of T-cell reactivity to SARS and SARS-2. Data showed that natural immunity was very robust — and likely more robust than any immunity derived from a vaccine.

    Increased risk of vaccine injury in those with previous infection

    On March 19, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency authorization for a new test to detect COVID infections — one that stands apart from the hundreds already authorized, reported STAT.

    Developed by Seattle-based Adaptive Biotechnologies in partnership with Microsoft, the new test, called T-Detect COVID, looks for signals of past infections in the body’s adaptive immune system — specifically, the T cells that help the body remember what its viral enemies look like.
    Adaptive’s approach involves mapping antigens to their matching receptors on the surface of T cells, which would help scientists unlock information to help diagnose past COVID infections.

    Dr. Dara Udo, urgent and immediate care physician at Westchester Medical Group, received the COVID vaccine a year after having the disease and had a very strong immune response very similar to what she experienced while having COVID.

    In an opinion piece published by The Hill, Udo explained that infection from any organism, including COVID, activates several different arms of the immune system, some in more robust ways than others and that this underlying activation due to infection or exposure, combined with a vaccination, could lead to overstimulation of the immune response.

    Udo thought this might explain the symptoms she had, as well as her frontline colleagues who had high rates of COVID antibodies (known as seroprevalence) prior to becoming vaccinated.

    “For high-risk, vulnerable groups, emerging data suggest that seroprevalence of COVID-19 infection is likely higher than tested and reported. Therefore, a natural question arises of whether there may be a smarter way to administer the vaccines in high seroprevalent groups,” Udo wrote.

    Udo called for an intentional, well-planned approach to avoid eliciting adverse immune responses in those who had COVID and subsequently get vaccinated.
    Udo suggested a person already “COVID-primed” may be better off with a one-dose rather than a two-dose vaccine, or that the vaccine administered should be dependent on whether the person already had COVID. For example, someone who is “COVID-naive” might do better with a vaccine like Pfizer or Moderna, while the COVID-primed might need a less robust immune response from the one-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

    In order to implement this protocol, rigorous, effective and efficient antibody prescreening tools to identify these individuals would be required, Udo said.
    Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, an accomplished surgeon, patient safety advocate and staunch supporter of the new COVID vaccines, has written several letters to the FDA urging the agency to require pre-screening for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins in order to reduce COVID vaccine injuries and deaths.

    According to Noorchasm, it is scientifically established that once a person is naturally infected by a virus, antigens from that virus persist in the body for a long time after viral replication has stopped and clinical signs of infection have resolved. When a vaccine reactivates an immune response in a recently infected person, the tissues harboring the persisting viral antigen are targeted, inflamed and damaged by the immune response.

    “In the case of SARS-CoV-2, we know that the virus naturally infects the heart, the inner lining of blood vessels, the lungs and the brain,” explained Noorchasm. “So, these are likely to be some of the critical organs that will contain persistent viral antigens in the recently infected — and, following reactivation of the immune system by a vaccine, these tissues can be expected to be targeted and damaged.”

    Colleen Kelley is an associate professor of infectious diseases at Emory University School of Medicine and principal investigator for Moderna and Novavax phase 3 vaccine clinical trials in Atlanta. In an interview with Huffington Post, Kelley said there have been reported cases in which those who previously had the virus endured harsher side effects after they received their vaccines.

    “Anecdotally, it does appear that people who may have had COVID-19 before their vaccine do tend to have those longer duration of symptoms,” Kelley added. “But we’re still gathering additional scientific data to really support this.”

    In a public submission to the FDA, J. Patrick Whelan M.D. Ph.D., expressed similar concern that COVID vaccines aimed at creating immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could have the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in a way that does not currently appear to be assessed in safety trials of these potential drugs.

    Based on several studies, Whelan said it appeared that the viral spike protein in the SARS-CoV02 vaccines is also one of the key agents causing damage to distant organs that may include the brain, heart, lung and kidney.

    “Before any of these vaccines are approved for widespread use in humans, it is important to assess in vaccinated subjects the effects of vaccination on the heart,” wrote Whelan. “As important as it is to quickly arrest the spread of the virus by immunizing the population, it would be vastly worse if hundreds of millions of people were to suffer long-lasting or even permanent damage to their brain or heart microvasculature as a result of failing to appreciate in the short-term an unintended effect of full-length spike protein-based vaccines on these other organs.”

    At the very minimum, Noorchasm said in a letter to FDA officials, “Pfizer and Moderna should “institute clear recommendations to clinicians that they delay immunization in any recently convalescent patients, as well as, any known symptomatic or asymptomatic carriers — and to actively screen as many patients with high cardiovascular risk as is reasonably possible, in order to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2, prior to vaccinating them.”

    On March 19, 32-year-old Benjamin Goodman died after receiving Johnson & Johnson’s experimental COVID vaccine. According to a Facebook post by his step-mother, Goodman knew his family’s difficult history with vaccines but got vaccinated at a pop-up vaccine site at a local Walgreen’s because people were pushing the travel pass.

    Goodman felt ill, experienced a headache, woke up with a fever and chills at 1 a.m., went into cardiac arrest at 4 a.m. and was declared dead two hours later. Like many others, Goodman had not been tested to see if he had previously had COVID or was recently infected.

    Noorchasm sent a third communication to the FDA warning that deaths like Goodman’s could have been prevented, and that there will be more deaths unless people are screened before being vaccinated. As The Defender reported earlier this month, Noorchashm believes that a #ScreenB4Vaccine campaign could save millions from vaccine injuries.

    “We are deploying this defensive weapon [the COVID vaccine] wildly indiscriminately in the midst of a pandemic outbreak, while many are ‘the recently infected.’ It is my professional opinion as an immunologist and physician that this indiscriminate vaccination is a clear and present danger to a subset of the already infected,” Noorchasm told The Defender.

    The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense.

    © 04/05/21 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
    _____________________________________________

    Ask Congress to Investigate COVID Origins and Government Response to Pandemic H.R. 834

    “‘i love myself.’ the quietest. simplest. most powerful. revolution ever.” ---- nayyirah waheed

    (My posts are not intended as advice or professional assessments of any kind.)
    Never forget Excalibur.

  • #2
    All of the people in this article against vaccination seem to have nothing to do with vaccines, immunology or virology which begs the question why should we take them seriously when what data there is backs the opposite case?

    Comment


    • Emily
      Emily commented
      Editing a comment
      To be clear, the article is not 'against vaccination.' It is raising questions about a subset of the COVID-19 vaccination policy. I don't agree with your assessment of the backgrounds of the scientists raising the questions, but we are all individuals here and can easily research this for ourselves.

    • JJackson
      JJackson commented
      Editing a comment
      Emily the main quotes against giving patients who had previously had Covid come from
      Massie - a politician
      Noorchashm - a urologist
      Whelan - "Expert on Catholic bioethics, religion and politics, as well as abortion, contraception and stem cell research"

      From Wikipedia
      "Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. is an American anti-vaccine advocate, conspiracy theorist, author, and environmental lawyer. He is the chairman of Children's Health Defense, an anti-vaccine advocacy group."

      As the only one I knew was Kennedy, as mainstay of the anti-vaccine campaign, I looked them all up before I posted.

      The point of all prime boost vaccine platforms is the second shot increases the immunity created by the first. All the vaccines first shot, and natural infection, seem to give good protection the second shot, or first after natural infection, should enhance the length of protection for most people and provide robust protection in anyone whose immune system did not produce a strong response first time around. If they change their argument to 'there is no need to give the second shot to anyone who has already had covid plus one shot as a boost' but gave that shot to someone who had neither then I would be supporting their position. The CDC and science we have so far seems to support that position, if it changes then so will I.

    • Emily
      Emily commented
      Editing a comment
      JJackson, you have the wrong Noorchashm. This is the one in the article above (and he is very pro-vaccine).
      https://www.drugwatch.com/contributo...an-noorchashm/

      Bachelor of Arts, University of Pennsylvania, School of Arts and Sciences (Biology/Chemistry)
      Graduate Degree, University of Pennsylvania, Biomedical Graduate Studies (Immunology)
      Doctor of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, School of Medicine (Medicine)

      Regarding RFK, Jr., Wiki is poor source of accurate information about any controversial person. I'm surprised you don't know that.

      As for Whelan, there is more:
      Volunteer Assistant Clinical Professor of Microbiology and Immunology
      Member, Academic Advisory Board, Institute for Advanced Catholic Studies at USC
      President, Los Angeles Pediatrics Society

      Massie does have science background. So what if he is a politician, too?
      https://massie.house.gov/about/

      I'm glad you are at least considering a one shot boost to people who have had COVID already. Noorchashm may have discussed that but he'd probably still be concerned about timing and immune status. He seems like a nice person so perhaps you could contact him.
      https://noorchashm.medium.com/the-sa...e-d8a9b0bb7cbd

  • #3
    Nous sommes dans un dossier politique et non scientifique, donc on ne peut écrire ou ?

    En France, on droit à ceci :

    https://modelisation-covid19.pasteur...s/vaccination/

    sans un mot sur le facteur E

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herden...izienzfaktor_E

    pourriez vous nous éclairer en respectant les règles de ce lieu, donc pas de politique, mais que de la science ?


    Vous ètes modérateur senior, et vos écrits m'importent ...


    Comment


    • Emily
      Emily commented
      Editing a comment
      Not sure if I understand the politics reference if that is translating properly.
      I certainly like the idea of this test mentioned in the article. What do you think?
      https://www.fda.gov/news-events/pres...ect-covid-test

    • bertrand789
      bertrand789 commented
      Editing a comment
      Emily, il y a des publications qui me mettent en rage . Heureusement, quand cela est, je viens déguster tes apports ... Puisqu'un an aprés, il est souhaitable de comparer les actions des politiques de santé mises en oeuvre ici ou là, ce n'est pas simple. Surtout , quand certains ne veulent pas par principe reconnaître leurs erreurs ...

    • JJackson
      JJackson commented
      Editing a comment
      Betrand my point is this is not science based but is supporting an agenda counter to the science.

  • #4
    Hat tip to Mary's post in the Scientific Library.

    More data:
    https://flutrackers.com/forum/forum/...rt-study-siren

    Interpretation

    A previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 84% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed 7 months following primary infection. This time period is the minimum probable effect because seroconversions were not included. This study shows that previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces effective immunity to future infections in most individuals.

    _____________________________________________

    Ask Congress to Investigate COVID Origins and Government Response to Pandemic H.R. 834

    “‘i love myself.’ the quietest. simplest. most powerful. revolution ever.” ---- nayyirah waheed

    (My posts are not intended as advice or professional assessments of any kind.)
    Never forget Excalibur.

    Comment


    • #5
      Je souhaiterai faire évoluer mes questions. Si l'on considère que les communautés Amish ne sont pas isolées du monde: quand une communauté est atteinte, il se passe quoi, notamment vis à vis de la pyramide des ages et sexes ?

      En particulier, combien vont à l'Hôpital ?

      Ensuite quand un variant particulier revient, c'est quel variant et cela se passe comment , pour les communautés qui acceptent le vaccin et celles qui ne le veulent pas ?

      Comment


      • #6
        Those are good questions, bertrand. (I'm relying on this for transaltion: https://www.deepl.com/translator)
        I don't think we know what could happen when people of any immune status, (natural or from the various vaccines), encounter variants.
        _____________________________________________

        Ask Congress to Investigate COVID Origins and Government Response to Pandemic H.R. 834

        “‘i love myself.’ the quietest. simplest. most powerful. revolution ever.” ---- nayyirah waheed

        (My posts are not intended as advice or professional assessments of any kind.)
        Never forget Excalibur.

        Comment


        • Emily
          Emily commented
          Editing a comment
          I think New Zealand might be effectively isolated from the COVID world right now. If they can stay that way until they get most of the population vaccinated, they could be a comparison group to a population like the Amish that had been heavily exposed to the natural virus. Since virus evolution and population immune health are never stationary, I don't think we could generalize the outcomes. It would just be a point in time observation.

        • bertrand789
          bertrand789 commented
          Editing a comment
          there are many communities, including religious communities, and then many islands. Iceland has done a lot of work, but there are many more ...

          I wanted to suggest looking in relation to a social group. You have a lot ...

        • Emily
          Emily commented
          Editing a comment
          Is this the kind of research in Iceland that you are thinking of, bertrand?
          https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2006100

      • #7
        bump this

        Comment


        • #8
          https://thehill.com/opinion/healthca...e-best-outcome
          COVID vaccines: Are you 'primed' for the best outcome?
          By Dr. Dara E. Udo, opinion contributor — 03/24/21 10:45 AM EDT The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

          As I rolled over in my sweat-drenched sheets, head throbbing, eyes heavy and feeling nauseated, I could pinpoint every aching muscle in my body. The combination of symptoms was all too familiar. Though drastically less severe, it was eerily similar to being sick from COVID-19 roughly a year prior. This time, however, my symptoms occurred after receiving the vaccine the day before. Several fellow health care workers had reported parallel experiences following their vaccinations — some after their first dose and others after their second.

          The scientist in me wondered whether these reactions might be related to preexisting, yet unchecked, COVID-19 antibody levels. As I lay there unable to sleep, in what was likely a fever-induced delirium, it dawned on me that, for certain groups, there might be a smarter way to get vaccinated.

          Infection from any organism, including COVID-19, activates several different arms of the immune system, some in more robust ways than others. This underlying activation due to infection or exposure, in synergy with a vaccination, could lead to overstimulation of the immune response. This might explain the symptoms that not only I had, but also many frontline colleagues. We represent a group with high rates of COVID-19 antibodies (known as seroprevalence) even prior to becoming vaccinated.

          Given known hesitation in certain populations to receive the novel vaccinations, an adverse reaction of any kind might deter large numbers of individuals from receiving the shot. For high-risk, vulnerable groups, emerging data suggest that seroprevalence of COVID-19 infection is likely higher than tested and reported. Therefore, a natural question arises of whether there may be a smarter way to administer the vaccines in high seroprevalent groups. An intentional, well-planned approach to avoid eliciting adverse immune responses and still achieve herd immunity could accomplish the dual goals of vaccinating those at greatest risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and ending mass suffering, both medical and economic, related to the virus...
          _____________________________________________

          Ask Congress to Investigate COVID Origins and Government Response to Pandemic H.R. 834

          “‘i love myself.’ the quietest. simplest. most powerful. revolution ever.” ---- nayyirah waheed

          (My posts are not intended as advice or professional assessments of any kind.)
          Never forget Excalibur.

          Comment


          • #9
            I wonder if the mucosal route is not less at risk in the event of contamination. In any case this text: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...2lS6E.linkedin

            is not respectful of the scientific approach, because they are or all the mucous vaccines under development, Finnish example?

            It is not up to a structure like the O.M.S. to verify whether the solution of two intramusculars then one mucous membrane is the relevant strategy, especially in all countries with a young population.

            Finally, for poor populations the oral vitamin D and covid vaccine, is not the solution?

            Comment


            • Emily
              Emily commented
              Editing a comment
              Is this what you are thinking?
              https://www.europeanpharmaceuticalre...-for-covid-19/
              "Academy Professor Ylä-Hettuala, who is also chairman of Rokote Laboratories Finland’s board of directors, explained: “Vaccines injected intramuscularly produce IgG antibodies in the bloodstream, but nasal vaccines also produce an IgA response that protects mucous membranes. We assume that this can also prevent those who have received the vaccine from transmitting the virus.”"

            • bertrand789
              bertrand789 commented
              Editing a comment
              yes,

            • Emily
              Emily commented
              Editing a comment
              Excellent. I'm glad they are looking at that though fortunately I have not heard any suspicions that the COVID vaccine are transmitting the virus. This deserves its own thread. I'll start one.

          • #10
            bump this

            Comment

            Working...
            X