Original antigenic sin

[morticiamarkle]

Who knows what this is, and should we be worried about it in the context of vaccines?

If people don't think it's a concern, would you care to put my mind at rest? I'm seeing a lot about it lately

Thanks

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_sin

The theory is that when a person is first infected with a virus, the body produces antibodies specific to that particular strain of the virus.

When the virus mutates, the body 'remembers' the virus from the previous infection and flings antibodies at the invaders - HOWEVER, the antibodies aren't equipped to deal with the mutation as they are primed to fight the previous infection.

The theory goes that the antibodies flinging themselves at the virus prevents the body from identifying the virus properly and so, the second time the virus hits, the body finds it harder to fight off the infection.

This happens whether it's infection or vaccine.

Well all I can say is I've had COVID twice (original variant and alpha) and the second time was a walk in the park compared to the first.

So the concern is, if your first encounter with SARS is the vaccine, you'll only ever make antibodies to that spike protein.

Which may not be very protective to the actual virus. And when you do get infected with the virus post vaccination, you STILL won't develop any long lasting immunity because your immune system is imprinted with the antibody template from the vaccine.

They've seen that people are vaccinated don't produce antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, after post vaccination viral infection. So they remain vulnerable to repeated infections potentially. For ever.

This is a very bad thing. Why are people not more concerned? Because it's too late, so what the hell?

Or is it just that people don't understand?

*This is a very bad thing. Why are people not more concerned? Because it's too late, so what the hell?

Or is it just that people don't understand?*

I'm not that concerned because I have T cells.

@morticiamarkle

There is a lot of misunderstanding in these posts. This isn't the case at all. Being vaccinated will not lead to you having worse immunity.

All it means is that you have a level of protection before you are inevitably exposed to the virus again - hopefully enough to stop you getting infected, or at least enough to prevent serious illness. These recurrent exposures will boost your already existing immunity

This just another anti-vax rhetoric packaged into a scienc-y looking parcel which has made it's way down onto social media and forums like MN.

This is a very bad thing. Why are people not more concerned? Because it's too late, so what the hell?
Do you not think that if this was a genine concern at least one of the hundreds of virologists/immunolists/vaccine developers would have picked up on it?

They have years of experience and training in their fields, so it's odd you think someone with no expertise would pick up on something that had escaped them.

@morticiamarkle yeah that sounds like a crock of shit tbh.

@Gingernaut

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_antigenic_sin

The theory is that when a person is first infected with a virus, the body produces antibodies specific to that particular strain of the virus.

When the virus mutates, the body 'remembers' the virus from the previous infection and flings antibodies at the invaders - HOWEVER, the antibodies aren't equipped to deal with the mutation as they are primed to fight the previous infection.

The theory goes that the antibodies flinging themselves at the virus prevents the body from identifying the virus properly and so, the second time the virus hits, the body finds it harder to fight off the infection.

This happens whether it's infection or vaccine.

I think this applies only to fast mutating viruses so that it’s pretty much a brand new virus/infection compared to original vaccine or illness.

It’s not really a “sin” but an observation that prior theories that vaccines for certain viruses can give you an immunity boost when tackling different, similar viruses is not necessarily true in practice.

For years, scientists expressed this theory in flu vaccine advertisements...that it protected you from the flu strains in the vaccine (true) but also that if you caught a different strain of flu, you were less likely to be seriously ill or die due to a presumed immunity boost (now found to not always be true).

They found this out with the swine flu in 2009. They did a study on the effect of the annual flu vaccine on recovery from swine flu. They found to their surprise, the opposite of what they expected. Patients who had a history of annual flu vaccines were more likely to be seriously ill with or die from swine flu than patients who had never had the annual flu vaccine.

So it’s not saying vaccines don’t work, they do. They protect you from the specific virus they are vaccinating you against. It’s just saying that vaccines don’t always give you any boost in immunity to other similar but ultimately different viruses which scientists had theorised earlier.

I'm seeing a lot about it lately

Where are you seeing a lot about it @morticiamarkle?

Patients who had a history of annual flu vaccines were more likely to be seriously ill or die from swine flu than patients who had never had an annual flu vaccine

Well that's hardly surprising. People who were offered an annual flu vaccine at the time were precisely those - the over 50s, asthmatics, the immunocompromised- who would be expected to suffer badly from a bout of novel flu again st which they had no protection.

They've seen that people are vaccinated don't produce antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, after post vaccination viral infection.

Totally untrue pro covid bollocks.

I had two vaccines, then covid.
Before covid I had antibody tests which showed I was positive for S antibodies from the vaccine.

After covid I had an antibody test which shows I have S (spike) antobdies from the vaccine and ALSO N antibodies from infection.

I have had these tests since February as part of a research study into antibodies.

@Porcupineintherough

Patients who had a history of annual flu vaccines were more likely to be seriously ill or die from swine flu than patients who had never had an annual flu vaccine

Well that's hardly surprising. People who were offered an annual flu vaccine at the time were precisely those - the over 50s, asthmatics, the immunocompromised- who would be expected to suffer badly from a bout of novel flu again st which they had no protection.

The studies were done in Canada where everyone over 6mos of age is offered the annual flu vaccine. So they were able to match cases with comparable controls (asthmatics, age, sex, etc).

Yes I think we should be concerned about this. Might not
be a problem but seems at least plausible. It would be nice to think virologists and immunologists would look into it with an open mind but sadly they are just as susceptible to cognitive bias as everyone
else and at the moment people perceived to be vaccine critical are not going to get funding.

You forgot to quote this paragraph on page 26

UKHSA and University of Cambridge MRC Biostatistics Unit previously reported on the direct
and indirect impact of the vaccination programme on infections and mortality. Estimates suggest
that 127,500 deaths and 24,144,000 infections have been prevented as a result of the COVID-
19 vaccination programme, up to 24 September

It really doesn't make sense what's happening in UK now, or any other countries, if the vaccine made it worse for you, does it?

Instead of reading and believing all those anti-vaxx stuff, open your eyes and see the truth?

@Yanaji

Where do I begin on this *@leafygreens* states There is a lot of misunderstanding in these posts. This isn't the case at all. Being vaccinated will not lead to you having worse immunity

Do you not think that if this was a genine concern at least one of the hundreds of virologists/immunolists/vaccine developers would have picked up on it?

For your information top scientists of the world have been shouting out that there is a huge problem with these vaccines
Because they speak against the allowed rhetoric they have found themselves silenced, and removed
They have all said vaccines roll out should be Halted immediately
Children should not be vaccinated as covid is a miniscule threat to them and should be left to get natural immunity
In fact they have said vaccines should never have been rolled out in the under 60s unless vulnerable

But governments around the world have bowed to big pharma who's only concern is their profits, not the health of the nation.

For those in any doubt

Last week public health England produced a report titled

COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report Week 42
It's available to download here
t.co/zuWbr33it0

On page 23 there is an alarming paragraph which I quote

(iii) recent observations from UK Health Security Agency
(UKHSA) surveillance data that N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire
infection following 2 doses of vaccination.

This basically means that AOC is happening and vaccinated people may NOT be able to fight off new mutations due to their N antibody being destroyed

The chance of a mutation is higher due to the vaccine rollout and the virus evading that vaccination.

Please also remember that this vaccination and booster hasn't changed from the original.
So every new kid that gets vaccinated is being jabbed against the Alpha variant which is now obsolete as we are on the Delta variant.
So their immunity it to the spike protein of Alpha,

Which top scientists of the world have been saying there is a problem please?

@Yanaji

Ahhh yes the wonderful death and infection case predictions that have been sooooo correct all the way through

Let's gloat about how many people we may have saved and continue to jab the world whilst knowing
That future strains may not be protected by the vaccinated population ever!
Because
(iii) recent observations from UK Health Security Agency
(UKHSA) surveillance data that N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire
infection following 2 doses of vaccination.

PHE have already admitted that variants will come from the vaccinated.
These people are playing with fire all to make big pharma rich

Surely n antibodies are lower because these people also have s antibodies.

In which case what is the total antibody count in people infected after vaccination?

Yanaji

It is true that this has been raised as a theoretical possibility but this is now really old news.

The prevailing thought in the relevant scientific fields is that it isn’t an issue for coronaviruses and there is less room for it to mutate to avoid antibody responses from vaccination.

Here’s a great, balanced, very readable article from an excellent scientific journalist in a reputable publication .

www.statnews.com/2021/04/16/next-generation-covid-19-vaccines-are-supposed-to-be-better-some-experts-worry-they-could-be-worse/

Also, just want to say this is not an all-or-nothing effect. The body can produce some (and this ranges in type and number) antibodies which can give the so-called OAS effect, but this doesn’t prevent the vaccines working.

One of the leading labs studying the concept of OAS has recently published a paper. Here is a quote from the Head of the Lab on Twitter

“Check out our new preprint: SARS-CoV-2 infections elicit higher levels of original antigenic sin antibodies compared to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations”

www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.30.21264363v1

@Yanaji

For your information top scientists of the world have been shouting out that there is a huge problem with these vaccines.Because they speak against the allowed rhetoric they have found themselves silenced, and removed. They have all said vaccines roll out should be Halted immediately

As has been said repeatedly, please name one credible scientist who has said this. By "credible" I mean someone who has actually has expertise in the area, and who's claims are backed up by robust evidence.

The issue isn't that these people say things against "the rherotic", it's that their claims are nonsense. There are plenty of respected scientists who have disagree with various government policies, because they are evidence based.

And I would say they're not exactly being "silenced" or "removed" given that you're spouting all their claims.

In fact they have said vaccines should never have been rolled out in the under 60s unless vulnerable
Again, show me any credible scientist who has made these claims, and the evidence behind them.

This basically means that AOC is happening and vaccinated people may NOT be able to fight off new mutations due to their N antibody being destroyed

I don't really know where to start with this, but your assumptions are completely incorrect. I don't think you understand what you are reading.

Please also remember that this vaccination and booster hasn't changed from the original.So every new kid that gets vaccinated is being jabbed against the Alpha variant which is now obsolete
Again, I don't think you understand what you are posting about. Yes, the best level of immunity would come from a vaccine desgined against the dominant variant, but there is a huge amount of evidence demonstrating efficacy of the vaccines to the current variants. And no it wasn't designed againsnt the alpha variant

We also aren't "jabbing" kids in the UK, teens have been offered it.

I suggest you do some reading that isn't facebook/bitchute/odeseee

^ It is true that this has been raised as a theoretical possibility but this is now really old news.

The prevailing thought in the relevant scientific fields is that it isn’t an issue for coronaviruses and there is less room for it to mutate to avoid antibody responses from vaccination.^

I don't think something published 2 weeks ago is old news by our world beating scientists

The mutation in the vaccinated was brought up in July

1. There are four major risks associated with high numbers of infections. These are an increase in hospitalisations and deaths, more ‘Long-COVID’; workforce absences (including in the NHS); and the increased risk of new variants emerging. The combination of high prevalence and high levels of vaccination creates the conditions in which an immune escape variant is most likely to emerge. The likelihood of this happening is unknown, but such a variant would present a significant risk both in the UK and internationally.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/sage-93-minutes-coronavirus-covid-19-response-7-july-2021/sage-93-minutes-coronavirus-covid-19-response-7-july-2021
Point 9

@Yanaji

^ It is true that this has been raised as a theoretical possibility but this is now really old news.

The prevailing thought in the relevant scientific fields is that it isn’t an issue for coronaviruses and there is less room for it to mutate to avoid antibody responses from vaccination.^

I don't think something published 2 weeks ago is old news by our world beating scientists

The mutation in the vaccinated was brought up in July

1. There are four major risks associated with high numbers of infections. These are an increase in hospitalisations and deaths, more ‘Long-COVID’; workforce absences (including in the NHS); and the increased risk of new variants emerging. The combination of high prevalence and high levels of vaccination creates the conditions in which an immune escape variant is most likely to emerge. The likelihood of this happening is unknown, but such a variant would present a significant risk both in the UK and internationally.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/sage-93-minutes-coronavirus-covid-19-response-7-july-2021/sage-93-minutes-coronavirus-covid-19-response-7-july-2021
Point 9

And that's a completely different point to the one you were originally making..... Point 9 in that document is about the risk of new variants emerging that would be able to escape the immunity that people currently have. Nothing whatsoever to do with vaccines, or our antibody response. You clearly don't understand what you're reading..

You have misunderstood, @Yanaji.

That point is saying that the higher the number of cases (prevalence), the higher the rate of mutation. The rate of mutation of a virus tends to be stable. So say for every 1 in a thousand people who are infected, a viable mutation occurs (totally made up numbers for illustration). If you only have 1000 cases every month, there will only be 1 new viable mutation every month. If you have 10 thousand cases every month, there there will be 10 new viable mutations every month.

If you have a high level of people with immunity from vaccination, they will either not be infected or they will infect less people if they do become infected because the vaccine reduces transmission. So if a variant arises that is different enough that the antibodies from vaccination are unable to recognise or eliminate it, it will be more successful at infecting a large number of people and spreading because it has a greater number of people that it can infect than the variants that people have immunity to and each one of those infected people will infect more people as the vaccine will not reduce transmission. It will quickly become the dominant variant and possibly eradicate the other variants that people have immunity to.

They are saying that higher prevalence means there will be an increase in the number of new variants and high levels of vaccination will result in selection pressure for any variants that the vaccine does not give immunity to, so there is a chance that eventually a variant will come along that the vaccine does not give immunity to. They are not saying that it won't be possible to create a new vaccine to that variant because of original antigenic sin, when the immune system creates ineffective antibodies against the original variant it encountered instead of creating new new antibodies that are effective against the variant the person has been infected with.

@leafyygreens

I'm seeing a lot about it lately

Where are you seeing a lot about it @morticiamarkle?

After the UKHSA mentioned it (obliquely) in their week 42 report.

Biologist & immunologist blogs picked up on it. I heard an analyst ask about it on GSK earnings call yesterday (and get a non answer for his trouble)