Covid Aftershocks: 'The Science™'--in 2020--Discovers that Infection, not 'Vaccination', Affords Long-Term Protective Immunity
As per a 2021 paper out of Covidistan, the 'Pandemic™' narrative spins seemingly out of control
These days, it seems that there is yet another once-libellous ‘conspiracy theory’ about the WHO-declared, so-called ‘Pandemic™’ coming true every day.
Today, we’ll take a closer look at yet another study—from the U of Innsbruck, Austria—that ‘discovered’ (ahem) the following:
As expected, the antiviral immune response ‘behaves in a textbook manner by developing protective immunity after infection with SARS-CoV-2’.
This is another nail in the ‘OMG, this is exceptionally dangerous and we’ve never seen anything like it’ narrative, however a Branch Covidian would like to spin it.
About the political and media spin, the study authors have this to say:
The issue of immunity and antibodies must be corrected in public opinion, after it was presented very controversially by various news media.
As always, I shall provide you with ‘more’ content so you may judge for yourself; thus follows, first, the press release by the U of Innsbruck, followed by select quotes from the paper, and a few bottom lines by me.
All non-English content comes to you in my translation and emphases added by me.
Corona Antibody Studies Prove Constant and Lasting [Natural] Immunity
Via the Austrian Press Agency, 9 Dec. 2020 [source]
A study carried out at Innsbruck University Hospital concludes that corona survivors manifest lasting long-term immunity. These results are in line with international findings. Furthermore, there is no reason to worry about a repeat infection, mutations, or transmission by immune cells, explained study leader Florian Deisenhammer in an APA interview.
This has consequences for everyday practice, for example, when working in exposed areas or when vaccinating. The study was initiated by the Neurology Laboratory and conducted in cooperation with the Department of Psychiatry II and the Institute of Virology. ‘The 29 study participants were on average 44 years old and had all contracted Covid-19 in March [2020]’, said Deisenhammer, head of the neuroimmunology research group at the Medical University of Innsbruck, describing the study population. Antibodies levels were analysed in all study participants at three points in time, two to eight weeks, three months, and six months after the onset of symptoms. However, the comparatively small patient group must be taken into account. Even though the results are in line with several international studies, further larger studies will be necessary to further consolidate the findings, the neuroimmunologist admitted [playing it safe in Dec. 2020].
Antibodies could be detected in all participants at all time points, and after six months also the neutralising antibodies that are so important for the immune response, which speaks for a ‘constant, lasting, and targeted long-term immunity’. ‘All elements of protective immunity’ were present, reported study architect Deisenhammer.
The Immune System on the Hunt for Criminals [sigh]
The expert explained that a distinction must be made between immunity and antibodies. The body’s immune defence can be imagined as a kind of ‘manhunt’:
The virus, the ‘bad guy’, is registered by the immune system as foreign and dangerous [non-self]. All the typical characteristics of the virus are then recognised and stored. The body stores this data for life in so-called ‘memory cells’.
Immunity therefore remains for life, emphasised Deisenhammer. The severity of the symptoms plays a minor role in this. Even those study participants who only had mild symptoms are now immune, Deisenhammer referred to the Innsbruck study.
The situation is different with the antibodies; here the physician drew a comparison with soldiers who organise themselves into hundreds of ‘special units’ (clones) in groups in order to then attack a specific location of the virus. ‘We are dealing with a completely normal immune response here’, Deisenhammer stated, ‘the antibodies basically remain present even after a corona infection, but the measurability could decrease’. Even if antibodies decrease over time, they reactivate very quickly via the memory cells when they come into contact with the virus again.
Corona antibody tests would also only be able to detect some of the hundreds of ‘clusters’. Around 59 test systems are currently registered with the American authorities [a timely reminder about one of the key drivers of the Covid panic], each of which detects different of these groups, thus seriously impairing comparability.
Consistency with International Findings
Deisenhammer reported that the results of the Innsbruck antibody study are essentially in line with the findings of international studies, which have often analysed large populations. For example, studies in Iceland and New York also came to the same conclusion, in which cases were followed up for up to five months. A very recent publication from China also demonstrated stable immunity six to seven months after a Covid-19 infection. In Austria, a study by Danube Private University Krems with participants from Weißenkirchen (Krems district) came to practically identical results.
‘There are a number of consequences to be drawn from the accumulating data’, concluded Deisenhammer. Firstly, ‘the issue of immunity and antibodies must be corrected in public opinion, after it was presented very controversially by various news media’. As expected, the antiviral immune response ‘behaves according to the textbook by developing protective immunity after infection with SARS-CoV-2’.
No Need to Worry About New Infections
According to Deisenhammer, those who have recovered must not be not worried about contracting the Covid-19 virus again. ‘The exceptions prove the rule, but the exceptions are not the rule’, he said, adding that the media were nevertheless emphasising the exceptions, with the ‘regular’ occurring too infrequently. There was no reason to doubt [natural] immunity. All recent cases of Covid-19 that he is aware of were reactivations of the virus and therefore not genuine new cases.
Deisenhammer is equally critical of the discussion about possible mutations of the virus. Mutations do exist, as the virus has ‘a certain evolutionary pressure’ to persist. They are also ‘host-specific’, so mutations in humans must be distinguished from those in animal groups. However, it is ‘highly unlikely’ that the immune response cannot withstand a mutated form of the coronavirus, the doctor reassured.
Transmission to Fellow Humans ‘Unlikely’
There was also talk in the media of a possible transmission of the virus from people who are already immune to others. Deisenhammer denied this: ‘This is unlikely, as the incubation period is a few days. The virus must first be incubated by the host and only then can it be passed on.’ However, the immune response would prevent this process.
Apart from the public discourse, there are also implications in the (preventive) medical field. Antiviral antibody diagnostics, explained Deisenhammer, ‘are part of routine clinical diagnostics in order to detect immunity to a wide range of viruses’. The same applies to determining vaccination protection. ‘It would make sense for those who want to be vaccinated to first be tested for existing antibodies’, Deisenhammer clarified, ‘as a rule, from an immunisation point of view, the disease that has been contracted is much more effective than a vaccination’. This would save the Republic ‘a lot of money and capacity’ when it comes to immunisation.
In conclusion, Deisenhammer appealed for the SARS-CoV-2 immunity status to be implemented in practice in future. For example, local ‘herd immunity’ should be assumed in larger clusters such as in Ischgl, in distribution centres, or in the meatpacking industry. In situations where recent negative PCR results are required, the much more sustainable [read: cheaper] antibody result should also be accepted. Furthermore, [naturally] immune persons are ‘particularly safe to use in exposed areas’. A follow-up antibody test is recommended every three to six months for the time being.
From the Study by Deisenhammer et al. (2021)
Entitled, ‘6-month SARS-CoV-2 antibody persistency in a Tyrolian COVID-19 cohort’, it appeared in the Wiener klinische Wochenschrift no. 7-8 (2021). Since this is an open-access paper, I have omitted the references.
The SARS-CoV‑2 infection induces an immune response with activation of the innate and adaptive immune system leading to viral clearance and spontaneous recovery in the majority of nonfatal cases. Virus-specific T and B cells evolve and consequently virus-specific antibodies are produced by plasma cells usually some days up to a few weeks after infection depending on the immunoglobulin (Ig) subclass…
The durability of the antibody response remains to be determined although short-term follow-up studies revealed stable antibody titers post-COVID-19 infection in symptomatic as well as asymptomatic cases.
This article presents 6 months follow-up SARS-CoV‑2 antibody results in a prospective Tyrolian cohort.
Study population
We identified a COVID-19 cluster at a grammar school in March 2020. Teachers who reported typical symptoms and/or had a positive SARS-CoV‑2 PCR test result as well as their partners and other household members were included. Furthermore, the layout of the school’s staffroom was assessed and colleagues who fulfilled contact criteria (i.e. sharing a desk with a COVID-19 case and regular presence in school during the week before shut-down on 15 March 2020) were also invited for antibody testing. Students attending classes of affected teachers were directly asked if COVID-19 has been diagnosed. Also, we inquired at the school’s directorate and Tyrolean health authorities if any affected students were reported. The school hosts roughly 700 students from 9th to 13th form, i.e. the typical age ranges from 15 to 19 years. The authors’ work environment (University Hospital Innsbruck) was screened including relatives of hospital staff members were included.
In total 169 persons were screened for SARS-CoV‑2 antibodies…
One of the core weaknesses I see are the definitions of what constitutes a ‘case’, but then again, these days one must not even ‘test positive’ to be counted a Covid-associated death…
Samples
For antibody assay verification we included samples as negative controls that were collected during the year 2020 from a previous unrelated study (historic controls) as well as current samples from potentially COVID-19 exposed persons (mostly hospital staff) who were asymptomatic. Also, 82 subjects who participated in a survey initiated by the Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics from whom blood was collected at a single time point after PCR testing were analyzed.
Negative controls consisted of 187 samples.
Positive controls (46 samples including patients who were not part of the prospective cohort) were taken from confirmed or probable COVID-19 cases with a minimum interval of 2 weeks after symptom onset.
Results
Infection rates in grammar school
The school’s index case (male, 43 years) attended a sports event in a crowded gym (approximately 300 participants) on 7 March 2020 and developed typical COVID-19 disease on 11 March 2020. There was no better explanation for the infection by any other sources. Until 18 March 2020 further 7 out of 80 teachers acquired symptomatic COVID-19, confirmed by SARS-CoV‑2 antibodies during this study, all of whom recovered spontaneously without sequalae resulting in an infection rate of 10% (95% confidence interval, CI 4–19%). Only two teachers were PCR tested during the symptomatic phase. The remainder were either declined by authorities or did not see a doctor because of mildness of symptoms. The average age was 51 years (range 38–46 years) comprising 5 males and 3 females. The typical desk space in the staffroom is 65–80 cm wide and the assigned workplaces of all affected teachers were close to each other (i.e. less than 2 m)…
To the best of our knowledge none of the approximately 700 students were affected until reopening of school in June 2020…
At 6 months follow-up all participants had neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV‑2 antibodies with a median titer of 1:64 ranging from 1:16 to 1:256. Spearman correlation coefficients were 0.68 between neutralizing titers and S1 IgG index, and 0.69 between neutralizing titers and RBD pan-Ig values (p < 0.0001 for both).
Discussion
In the present study we found a persistent anti-SARS-CoV‑2 antibody response over 6 months including neutralizing activity in all participants. The epidemiology in the subcohort of high school teachers as well as in household members followed known patterns with physical vicinity and time of exposure being the driving factors of transfection rates.
We feel that these data are important and reassuring for long-term immunity after COVID-19 disease. There is little doubt that there is protective immunity in convalescent cases. The immune response follows standard patterns of anti-viral protective immunity with neutralizing antibodies in the majority of infected people [go figure…]. The SARS-CoV‑2 specific T‑cells and B‑cells have been demonstrated in patients recovered from COVID-19 as well as SARS-CoV‑2 specific memory cells…
There are a few reports of possible SARS-CoV‑2 reinfection; however, no case occurred in a similar setting to our study population, i.e. reinfection after a reasonably stable phase of convalescence and persisting antibody response. Most of the reported reinfections were most likely reactivations shortly after primary disease onset or had no antibody response after the first event, a notion supported by a recent study on a larger population concluding that reoccurrence of viral RNA after COVID-19 recovery reflects reactivation rather than true reinfection as viral clearance may take up to 3 months after primary infection…
Of course, one can only speculate about the future persistency of antibodies but the kinetics so far seems promising for a long-lasting response which depends on titers as indicated by the strong correlation between baseline and follow-up index values. Also, the curve of decline flattens…
The limitations that need to be mentioned include the relatively low number of study participants; however, this is one of the few prospective cohorts followed for 6 months. Although few studies found an early decline of antibody levels the majority of reports are much in line with our findings. In this respect, one has to consider the many different assays that were used by various investigators and might account for discordant results. Furthermore, our results apply to a largely healthy population aged between 29 and 65 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 disease. Therefore, we cannot speak for children, an older population, immunocompromized, and people with relevant comorbidities who might behave very differently in terms of immunity and duration thereof.
So far, so expectable, but the ‘real kicker’ is the concluding paragraph:
In practical terms we suggest testing all convalescent cases for antibodies a few weeks after recovery and performing follow-up tests every 3–6 months depending on the titer. Any validated S1 or RBD binding assay should suffice as there is strong evidence that these assays are a surrogate for neutralization. Given the rapidly increasing number of people recovered from COVID-19, sooner rather than later the status of immunity needs to be acknowledged, which can be applied in many different contexts. Firstly, there is no need for vaccination in already immunized persons. Also, scheduling in healthcare deployment, particularly for nurses who are frequently in close contact with patients, could consider immunity and in fact any other professions where deployment plans are needed. In workplaces, where close contact between employees occur, such as distribution centers, vessels, or meat industry knowledge of immunity can be helpful. In fact, in these environments COVID-19 clusters occurred in the past resulting in many immunized people who can now stay together for work with very low risk of new clusters for the time being.
Bottom Lines
Isn’t it awesome what ‘the Science™’ knew back in 2020? I mean, the above-reproduced press release was sent out before the mass-‘vaccination’ campaign launched.
There was ample evidence, as well as some 100 years of practical and clinical experience with what the study calls ‘standard patterns’ of vial behaviour and immune response. One wonders, still, about the sudden ignorance of ‘the Experts™’ about, say, virology and immunology textbooks, their insistence on the modRNA (gene therapy) injections, and the wanton, systematic, and disgusting hate directed at ‘the unvaccinated’.
There were, it is obvious, level-headed voices virtually everywhere, but for reasons that we will have to uncover before too long, ‘the Science™’, all ‘the Experts™’, politicians, and their willing executioners in legacy media all jumped aboard the ‘get vaxxed, asshole’ train.
If this wasn’t so particularly disgusting in Austria, I’d let this topic be; but we must talk about it, still, for the failures—professionally, ethically, and in terms of how legacy media still (!) shills and defends this shit-show—and demand accountability.
Prof. Deisenhammer still has his job, but I do wonder about the delay between him giving the above-related interview on 9 Dec. 2020 and publication in the no. 7-8 (2021), which happens to be well after the mass-‘vaccination’ campaign.
Failure to come to terms with this period, and in particular the continued role in public discourse played by the objectively worst of the worse of politicians, ‘journalists’, and ‘experts™’.
Failure to do so will result in worse things to come.
Lieber Stephan,nach Sichtung der an Zahl beträchtlichen Publikationen findet man Verindungen zu Bayer Healthcare,Novartis etc.Es gäbe noch mehr zu berichten,insbesondere ,dass er ( aus Kenntnis seiner Ergebnisse) aktiv wurde gegen einige Mandate ( Maskenpflicht, Impfung nach erwiesener Genesung von Covid-19 ) der Universitätsleitung/ Klinikleitung.Ich habe ,allerdings mit Zitaten aus der internationalen Literatur, ähnlich wie er jetzt,seinerzeit das Gleiche formuliert- allerdings im Hinblick auf den Zwang,dass alle Studierenden -inbsondere die Neuanfänger -die potentiell tödlichen transfizierenden Injektionen nachweisen mussten.Allerdings nur in der hiesigen Med Uni-nicht hingegen an der Leopold Franzens Universität.Ein Studierender der Med Uni, erlitt eine Myokarditis.Zu seinem Fall habe ich ein “ Pharmakologie Update- mit Fokus auf Myokarditis “ zu Weihnachten 2022 verfasst.Im 2. Absatz findet sich “ Karma oder Weihnachtsmärchen?” in dem dieer besondere Casus kommentiert wird.Ein professoraler Kollege bezeichnete mich als Spinner,nachdem der Student ihn nach möglicher Kausalität ( unter Nennung meines Namens) befragte.Just der erlitt,wie allseits an der Uni bekannt auch eine Myokarditis.
LG
Hartmut
Yes. They plan to continue with the new paradigm. They were able to convince enough people that all the rules had to be changed, that the next onslaught will be quicker. They’ll save on unnecessary propaganda too.