COVID Variant That Beats Our Immunity Is Finally Here

Authors: David Axe Updated Oct. 16, 2022

A new subvariant of the novel-coronavirus called XBB dramatically announced itself earlier this week, in Singapore. New COVID-19 cases more than doubled in a day, from 4,700 on Monday to 11,700 on Tuesday—and XBB is almost certainly why. The same subvariant just appeared in Hong Kong, too.

A highly mutated descendant of the Omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that drove a record wave of infections starting around a year ago, XBB is in many ways the worst form of the virus so far. It’s more contagious than any previous variant or subvariant. It also evades the antibodies from monoclonal therapies, potentially rendering a whole category of drugs ineffective as COVID treatments.

“It is likely the most immune-evasive and poses problems for current monoclonal antibody-based treatments and prevention strategy,” Amesh Adalja, a public-health expert at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told The Daily Beast.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that the new “bivalent” vaccine boosters from Pfizer and Moderna seem to work just fine against XBB, even though the original vaccines are less effective against XBB. They won’t prevent all infections and reinfections, but they should significantly reduce the chance of severe infection potentially leading to hospitalization or death. “Even with immune-evasive variants, vaccine protection against what matters most—severe disease—remains intact,” Adalja said.

As the novel-coronavirus evolves to become more contagious and more resistant to certain types of drugs, keeping current on your boosters is “the most impactful thing you can do in preparation for what might come,” Peter Hotez, an expert in vaccine development at Baylor College, told The Daily Beast.

Scientists first identified XBB in August. It’s one of several major subvariants that have evolved from the basic Omicron variant, piling on more and more mutations on key parts of the virus—especially the spike protein, the part of the virus that helps it grab onto and infect our cells.

XBB has at least seven new mutations along the spike. Mutations that, taken together, make the subvariant harder for our immune systems to recognize—and thus more likely to evade our antibodies and enter our cells to cause infection.

This accumulation of mutations isn’t surprising. Changes along the spike protein have characterized most of the major new variants and subvariants of SARS-CoV-2 as the pandemic grinds toward its fourth year.

What is surprising is how much competition XBB has as it fights to become the next dominant form of the novel-coronavirus. Several other Omicron subvariants are also in circulation. All of them are highly evolved. Many of them actually share a subset of key mutations, especially on the spike.

So while XBB appears to be gaining traction in Asia, a close cousin of XBB called BQ.1.1 is spreading fast in Europe and some U.S. states. There are others in contention, too, including BA.2.75.2. Hotez calls these viral cousins the “Scrabble” subvariants, a nod to the classic word game and the jumble of scientific designations of closely related viruses.

The Scrabble variants are indicative of what scientists call “convergent evolution.” That is, separate viral sublineages that are picking up more and more of the same mutations. It’s as though Omicron’s children are all separately learning how to be a better virus than their parent, and becoming more like each other in the process.

Immune-escape is the common quality. At least two of the Scrabble subvariants—XBB and BQ.1.1—are pretty much unrecognizable to existing antibody therapies and somewhat less recognizable to the antibodies produced by the prime doses of the leading messenger-RNA vaccines.

In evading some of our therapies and, to a lesser extent, our original vaccines, XBB and its cousins are showing us where the novel-coronavirus is heading, genetically speaking. The current surge in infections in places like Singapore is a preview of a potential global surge, this coming winter or spring, as XBB or one of its relatives becomes dominant everywhere.

It’s possible to mitigate the worst outcomes. Natural antibodies from past infection are still the best and most durable antibodies. They don’t last forever. But while they do last—a few months or potentially a whole year—the chance of catching a bad case of COVID is pretty low.

So if you had an earlier form of Omicron—say, during the wave of infections that started last Thanksgiving and peaked around February—you might still have good antibodies for a few months. More than enough time to reinforce those fading natural antibodies with a dose of the latest mRNA boosters.

Pfizer and Moderna formulated these new boosters to include some genetic instructions specifically for attacking the BA.5 subvariant of Omicron, which is still the dominant form of SARS-CoV-2 but is disappearing fast as XBB and the other Scrabble subvariants outcompete it.

The bivalent boosters should work pretty well against forms of the virus that are closely related to BA.5, including the Scrabbles. “That is because one of the two components [in the boosters] induces an immune response to BA.5, and most of the new Scrabble variants look more BA.5 like than [the] original China lineage,” Hotez told The Daily Beast.

The implication, of course, is that we’re eventually going to need another new booster in order to keep pace with the fast-evolving virus. Sure, the bivalent boosters work against BA.5 and BA.5’s immediate descendants. But what about the next generation of Omicron subvariants, the one after XBB and its cousins?

More and more health officials are coming around to the idea of an annual COVID booster. U.S. president Joe Biden even endorsed the idea in a statement last month. “As the virus continues to change, we will now be able to update our vaccines annually to target the dominant variant,” Biden said. “Just like your annual flu shot, you should get it sometime between Labor Day and Halloween.”

But one booster a year might not be enough if, as some epidemiologists fear, natural antibodies fade faster and the novel-coronavirus mutates at an accelerating rate. One concern, if it turns out we need twice-a-year new boosters, is whether industry can develop fresh jabs fast enough and health agencies can swiftly approve them.

There’s an even bigger question, however. “The more important factor is just having folks get a more recent booster,” James Lawler, an infectious disease expert at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, told The Daily Beast.

Even if a new booster is available every six months or so, will enough people get it to make a difference in the overall rates of severe illness and death? Booster uptake is declining globally, but especially in the United States, where just 10 percent of people have gotten the bivalent booster since federal regulators approved them in August.

XBB is a nasty little subvariant. But it’s not the final word on COVID. The novel-coronavirus will keep mutating, and finding new ways to evade our antibodies, whether or not many people are paying attention.

The virus isn’t done with us. Which means we can’t be done with it. Get boosted. And be prepared to get boosted again in 2023.

Adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines and measures to prevent them

Authors: Kenji Yamamoto  Virology Journal volume 19, Article number: 100 (2022) 

Abstract

Recently, The Lancet published a study on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the waning of immunity with time. The study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated individuals. According to European Medicines Agency recommendations, frequent COVID-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible. The decrease in immunity can be caused by several factors such as N1-methylpseudouridine, the spike protein, lipid nanoparticles, antibody-dependent enhancement, and the original antigenic stimulus. These clinical alterations may explain the association reported between COVID-19 vaccination and shingles. As a safety measure, further booster vaccinations should be discontinued. In addition, the date of vaccination should be recorded in the medical record of patients. Several practical measures to prevent a decrease in immunity have been reported. These include limiting the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including acetaminophen to maintain deep body temperature, appropriate use of antibiotics, smoking cessation, stress control, and limiting the use of lipid emulsions, including propofol, which may cause perioperative immunosuppression. In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccination is a major risk factor for infections in critically ill patients.

Dear Editor,

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has led to the widespread use of genetic vaccines, including mRNA and viral vector vaccines. In addition, booster vaccines have been used, but their effectiveness against the highly mutated spike protein of Omicron strains is limited. Recently, The Lancet published a study on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the waning of immunity with time [1]. The study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among unvaccinated individuals. These findings were more pronounced in older adults and individuals with pre-existing conditions. According to the European Medicines Agency’s recommendations, frequent COVID-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible [2]. Several countries, including Israel, Chile, and Sweden, are offering the fourth dose to only older adults and other groups rather than to all individuals [3].

The decrease in immunity is caused by several factors. First, N1-methylpseudouridine is used as a substitute for uracil in the genetic code. The modified protein may induce the activation of regulatory T cells, resulting in decreased cellular immunity [4]. Thereby, the spike proteins do not immediately decay following the administration of mRNA vaccines. The spike proteins present on exosomes circulate throughout the body for more than 4 months [5]. In addition, in vivo studies have shown that lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) accumulate in the liver, spleen, adrenal glands, and ovaries [6], and that LNP-encapsulated mRNA is highly inflammatory [7]. Newly generated antibodies of the spike protein damage the cells and tissues that are primed to produce spike proteins [8], and vascular endothelial cells are damaged by spike proteins in the bloodstream [9]; this may damage the immune system organs such as the adrenal gland. Additionally, antibody-dependent enhancement may occur, wherein infection-enhancing antibodies attenuate the effect of neutralizing antibodies in preventing infection [10]. The original antigenic sin [11], that is, the residual immune memory of the Wuhan-type vaccine may prevent the vaccine from being sufficiently effective against variant strains. These mechanisms may also be involved in the exacerbation of COVID-19.

Some studies suggest a link between COVID-19 vaccines and reactivation of the virus that causes shingles [1213]. This condition is sometimes referred to as vaccine-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome [14]. Since December 2021, besides COVID-19, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Okamura Memorial Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan (hereinafter referred to as “the institute”) has encountered cases of infections that are difficult to control. For example, there were several cases of suspected infections due to inflammation after open-heart surgery, which could not be controlled even after several weeks of use of multiple antibiotics. The patients showed signs of being immunocompromised, and there were a few deaths. The risk of infection may increase. Various medical algorithms for evaluating postoperative prognosis may have to be revised in the future. The media have so far concealed the adverse events of vaccine administration, such as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), owing to biased propaganda. The institute encounters many cases in which this cause is recognized. These situations have occurred in waves; however, they are yet to be resolved despite the measures implemented to routinely screen patients admitted for surgery for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) antibodies. Four HIT antibody-positive cases have been confirmed at the institute since the start of vaccination; this frequency of HIT antibody-positive cases has rarely been observed before. Fatal cases due to VITT following the administration of COVID-19 vaccines have also been reported [15].

As a safety measure, further booster vaccinations should be discontinued. In addition, the date of vaccination and the time since the last vaccination should be recorded in the medical record of patients. Owing to the lack of awareness of this disease group among physicians and general public in Japan, a history of COVID-19 vaccination is often not documented, as it is in the case of influenza vaccination. The time elapsed since the last COVID-19 vaccination may need to be considered when invasive procedures are required. Several practical measures that can be implemented to prevent a decrease in immunity have been reported [16]. These include limiting the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including acetaminophen, to maintain deep body temperature, appropriate use of antibiotics, smoking cessation, stress control, and limiting the use of lipid emulsions, including propofol, which may cause perioperative immunosuppression [17].

To date, when comparing the advantages and disadvantages of mRNA vaccines, vaccination has been commonly recommended. As the COVID-19 pandemic becomes better controlled, vaccine sequelae are likely to become more apparent. It has been hypothesized that there will be an increase in cardiovascular diseases, especially acute coronary syndromes, caused by the spike proteins in genetic vaccines [1819]. Besides the risk of infections owing to lowered immune functions, there is a possible risk of unknown organ damage caused by the vaccine that has remained hidden without apparent clinical presentations, mainly in the circulatory system. Therefore, careful risk assessments prior to surgery and invasive medical procedures are essential. Randomized controlled trials are further needed to confirm these clinical observations.

In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccination is a major risk factor for infections in critically ill patients.

References

  1. Nordström P, Ballin M, Nordström A. Risk of infection, hospitalisation, and death up to 9 months after a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine: a retrospective, total population cohort study in Sweden. Lancet. 2022;399:814–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00089-7.Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
  2. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Interim public health considerations for the provision of additional COVID-19 vaccine doses. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/covid-19-public-health-considerations-additional-vaccine-doses. Accessed 4 May 2022.
  3. Mallapaty S. Fourth dose of COVID vaccine offers only slight boost against Omicron infection. Nature. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/D41586-022-00486-9.Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  4. Krienke C, Kolb L, Diken E, Streuber M, Kirchhoff S, Bukur T, et al. A noninflammatory mRNA vaccine for treatment of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis. Science. 2021;371:145–53. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay3638.CAS Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  5. Bansal S, Perincheri S, Fleming T, Poulson C, Tiffany B, Bremner RM, et al. Cutting edge: circulating exosomes with COVID spike protein are induced by BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) vaccination prior to development of antibodies: a novel mechanism for immune activation by mRNA vaccines. J Immunol. 2021;207:2405–10. https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.2100637.CAS Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  6. BNT162b2 Module 2.4. Nonclinical Overview. FDA-CBER-2021-4379-0000681 JW-v-HHS-prod-3-02418.pdf (judicialwatch.org) Access 6 May 2022.
  7. Ndeupen S, Qin Z, Jacobsen S, Bouteau A, Estanbouli H, Igyártó BZ. The mRNA-LNP platform’s lipid nanoparticle component used in preclinical vaccine studies is highly inflammatory. Science. 2021;24:103479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.103479.CAS Article Google Scholar 
  8. Yamamoto K. Risk of heparinoid use in cosmetics and moisturizers in individuals vaccinated against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Thromb J. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12959-021-00320-8.Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
  9. Lei Y, Zhang J, Schiavon CR, He M, Chen L, Shen H, et al. SARS-CoV-2 spike protein impairs endothelial function via downregulation of ACE 2. Circ Res. 2021;128:1323–6. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318902.CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
  10. Liu Y, Soh WT, Kishikawa JI, Hirose M, Nakayama EE, Li S, et al. An infectivity-enhancing site on the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein targeted by antibodies. Cell. 2021;184:3452-66.e18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.05.032.CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
  11. Cho A, Muecksch F, Schaefer-Babajew D, Wang Z, Finkin S, Gaebler C, et al. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain antibody evolution after mRNA vaccination. Nature. 2021;600:517–22. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04060-7.CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
  12. Desai HD, Sharma K, Shah A, Patoliya J, Patil A, Hooshanginezhad Z, et al. Can SARS-CoV-2 vaccine increase the risk of reactivation of Varicella zoster. Systematic review. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2021;20:3350–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.14521.Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
  13. Barda N, Dagan N, Ben-Shlomo Y, Kepten E, Waxman J, Ohana R, et al. Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 v in a nationwide setting. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:1078–90. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMOA2110475.CAS Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  14. Seneff S, Nigh G, Kyriakopoulos AM, McCullough PA. Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: the role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs. Food Chem Toxicol. 2022;164:113008. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FCT.2022.113008.CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
  15. Lee EJ, Cines DB, Gernsheimer T, Kessler C, Michel M, Tarantino MD, et al. Thrombocytopenia following Pfizer and Moderna SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Am J Hematol. 2021;96:534–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/AJH.26132.CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar 
  16. Yamamoto K. Five important preventive measures against the exacerbation of coronavirus disease. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2021;53:358–9. https://doi.org/10.5114/ait.2021.108581.Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  17. Yamamoto K. Risk of propofol use for sedation in COVID-19 patient. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2020;52:354–5. https://doi.org/10.5114/ait.2020.100477.Article PubMed Google Scholar 
  18. Gundry SR. Observational findings of PULS cardiac test findings for inflammatory markers in patients receiving mRNA vaccines. Circulation. 2021;144(suppl_1):A10712–A10712. https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712.Article Google Scholar 
  19. Lai FTT, Li X, Peng K, Huang L, Ip P, Tong X, et al. Carditis After COVID-19 vaccination with a messenger RNA vaccine and an inactivated virus vaccine: a case-control study. Ann Intern Med. 2022;175:362–70. https://doi.org/10.7326/M21-3700.Article PubMed Google Scholar 

More people are catching coronavirus a second time, heightening long COVID risk, experts say

Authors: Rong-Gong Lin II, Luke Money Mon, August 1, 2022  LA Times

Emerging evidence suggests that catching the coronavirus a second time can heighten long-term health risks, a worrisome development as the circulation of increasingly contagious Omicron subvariants leads to greater numbers of Californians being reinfected.

Earlier in the pandemic, it was assumed that getting infected afforded some degree of lasting protection, for perhaps a few months.

As the coronavirus mutates, though, that’s no longer a given. And each individual infection carries the risk not only for acute illness but the potential to develop long COVID.

“The additive risk is really not trivial, not insignificant. It’s really substantial,” said Dr. Ziyad Al-Aly, clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis and chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs Saint Louis Healthcare System.

According to a preprint study examining U.S. veterans, of which Al-Aly was the lead author, getting infected twice or more “contributes to additional risks of all-cause mortality, hospitalization and adverse health outcomes” in various organ systems, and can additionally worsen risk for diabetes, fatigue and mental health disorders.

“Reinfection absolutely adds risk,” Al-Aly said. The study suggested that, compared with those infected only once, individuals who caught the coronavirus a second time were at 2½ times greater risk of developing heart or lung disease and blood clotting issues. Subsequent infections also were associated with a higher risk of potentially serious health problems, as well as death from COVID-19.

It’s possible that a repeat coronavirus infection will leave someone just fine, which is what happens to most people, Al-Aly said. “But you might be one of the unlucky ones and … get some really serious health problem with an infection.”

Los Angeles County Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer recently cited Al-Aly’s pre-print study as rationale for wearing masks in indoor public settings to avoid reinfection.

“They also saw that those with repeat infections had a higher risk of gastrointestinal, kidney, mental health, musculoskeletal and neurologic disorders, as well as diabetes,” Ferrer said of the study. “Moreover, the risk of developing a long-term health problem increased further with each reinfection. The risk of having long-term health conditions was three times higher for those infected compared to those who were uninfected.”

Older viruses, such as those that cause measles and chickenpox, are quite stable — meaning that the vaccinations are highly effective and surviving either illness typically confers lifelong immunity.

Not so with the coronavirus, which has mutated wildly since the pandemic began. Someone who got infected with the variant that dominated California in late 2020, for instance, was vulnerable to catching the Delta variant the following summer. And those who survived Delta faced the risk of catching the later Omicron variant.

But the reinfection landscape has been upended even further as California has been walloped with a family of increasingly transmissible Omicron subvariants. The most recent of those, BA.5, has shown particular proficiency for reinfection — with the ability to target even those who survived an earlier Omicron case mere weeks before.

“This concept of building immunity, it really only works if you’re encountering the same beast again and again and again,” Al-Aly said. But in the world of COVID-19, BA.5 is actually a “very different beast” than earlier variants.

It’s possible that the acute phase of a second bout of COVID-19 could be milder than the first. But a subsequent attack can still leave more extensive cumulative damage to the body than if there had been only one infection.

Think of coronavirus infections like earthquake sequences: It’s possible an aftershock could be less severe than the first temblor but cumulatively could add more damage. And just because your home is still standing after one quake doesn’t mean you shouldn’t explore ways to make it seismically safer.

“Part of the reason why things, for many people, feel like they’re not so bad right now is because we are being very aggressive in countering the virus with vaccines, with treatments,” Dr. Ashish Jha, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, said during a healthcare summit hosted by the Hill. “If we took our foot off the pedal, we’re going to see this virus come back in a way that’s much more dangerous. So we’ve got to stay on that front footing and continue fighting this thing.”

As it relates specifically to long COVID — a condition in which symptoms can persist months or even years after an initial infection — getting vaccinated and boosted likely reduces risk, but studies differ as to the degree of protection.

“I think having some preexisting immunity — whether it’s natural or from a vaccine — appears to reduce your risk of long COVID, but it’s still there. It’s not zero,” said Dr. Steven Deeks, a professor of medicine at UC San Francisco and principal investigator of the Long-term Impact of Infection With Novel Coronavirus, or LIINC, study.

Another report, observing triple-vaccinated Italian healthcare workers who weren’t hospitalized for COVID-19, found that two or three doses of vaccine were associated with a lower prevalence of long COVID.

A separate report suggested that even adults who had received a booster dose still have to consider the risk of long COVID. A British report said that, during the initial Omicron wave, about 1 in every 25 triple-vaccinated adults self-reported having long COVID three to four months after their first infection.

Still, some clinicians say that long COVID sufferers tend to be either unvaccinated or missing their boosters.

“The number of patients I’m seeing who were vaccinated and boosted who are coming in with long COVID is very low,” said Dr. Nisha Viswanathan, director of the UCLA Health Long COVID Program.

Long COVID also doesn’t prevent you from becoming infected with the coronavirus again. Viswanathan said she’s had patients who have seen their long COVID symptoms improve, then get sickened with another bout of COVID-19, and then see long COVID signs return.

The best way to prevent long COVID is to not get COVID-19. Many officials and experts cite non-pharmaceutical interventions such as masking as key tools, since vaccinations reduce, but do not entirely eliminate, the risk.

Masking is not a terrible thing to ask of people, especially in probably the places that are the most crowded, and the places that maybe are the highest risk of transmission,” Viswanathan said. Taking activities outside is also safer than being unmasked indoors.

Some of Viswanathan’s patients have downplayed the risk of COVID-19, commenting how it’s become a mild illness, and adding they don’t see the point of taking precautions. But, she said, better knowledge about long COVID and its disabling effects would help people understand the importance of masking and getting vaccinated and boosted.

A UCLA study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, of which Viswanathan was a co-author, found that of 1,038 patients with symptomatic COVID-19 between April 2020 and February 2021, nearly 30% developed long COVID. The most common symptoms were fatigue and shortness of breath among hospitalized patients.

While many are weary of COVID-19 preventive measures after nearly two and a half years, they remain important, said Dr. Anne Foster, vice president and chief clinical strategy officer for the University of California Health system.

The burden of long COVID following this wave is unknown. The official case tallies are likely vast undercounts, given that so many at-home tests are being used, and that could suggest that the burden of long COVID in subsequent months will be hard to predict, Foster said.

“I know everyone has moved on and people are going back to the way things were, and I sort of get it,” Deeks said. “But people do need to be aware that there is this additional risk that’s not going away and they might adjust their lives accordingly.

“But everyone’s going to figure this out on their own.”

Duration of Shedding of Culturable Virus in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (BA.1) Infection

Authors: Julie Boucau, Ph.D. Caitlin Marino, B.S. Ragon Institute, Cambridge, MA

James Regan, B.S. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA Rockib Uddin, B.S.
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA Manish C. Choudhary, Ph.D.
James P. Flynn, B.S. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA Geoffrey Chen, B.A.
Ashley M. Stuckwisch, B.S. Josh Mathews, A.B. May Y. Liew, B.A. Arshdeep Singh, B.S.
Taryn Lipiner, M.P.H. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA Autumn Kittilson, B.S. Meghan Melberg, B.S. Yijia Li, M.D. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MARebecca F. Gilbert, B.A. Zahra Reynolds, M.P.H. Surabhi L. Iyer, B.A. Grace C.Chamberlin, B.A. Tammy D. Vyas, B.S. Marcia B. Goldberg, M.D.Jatin M. Vyas, M.D., Ph.D.Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MAJonathan Z. Li, M.D.Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA Jacob E. Lemieux, M.D., D.Phil. Mark J. Siedner, M.D., M.P.H.Amy K. Barczak, M.D.Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA

July 21, 2022 N Engl J Med 2022; 387:275-277 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc2202092

The B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has a shorter incubation period and a higher transmission rate than previous variants.1,2 Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended shortening the strict isolation period for infected persons in non–health care settings from 10 days to 5 days after symptom onset or after the initial positive test, followed by 5 days of masking.3 However, the viral decay kinetics of the omicron variant and the duration of shedding of culturable virus have not been well characterized.

We used longitudinal sampling of nasal swabs for determination of viral load, sequencing, and viral culture in outpatients with newly diagnosed coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19).4 From July 2021 through January 2022, we enrolled 66 participants, including 32 with samples that were sequenced and identified as the B.1.617.2 (delta) variant and 34 with samples that were sequenced and identified as the omicron subvariant BA.1, inclusive of sublineages. Participants who received Covid-19–specific therapies were excluded; all but 1 participant had symptomatic infection. This study was approved by the institutional review board and the institutional biosafety committee at Mass General Brigham, and informed consent was obtained from all the participants. Figure 1.Viral Decay and Time to Negative Viral Culture.

The characteristics of the participants were similar in the two variant groups except that more participants with omicron infection had received a booster vaccine than had those with delta infection (35% vs. 3%) (Tables S1 and S2 in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this letter at NEJM.org). In an analysis in which a Cox proportional-hazards model that adjusted for age, sex, and vaccination status was used, the number of days from an initial positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) assay to a negative PCR assay (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 1.15) and the number of days from an initial positive PCR assay to culture conversion (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.37) were similar in the two variant groups (Figure 1A through 1C and S1 through S3, and Tables S3 through S5). The median time from the initial positive PCR assay to culture conversion was 4 days (interquartile range, 3 to 5) in the delta group and 5 days (interquartile range, 3 to 9) in the omicron group; the median time from symptom onset or the initial positive PCR assay, whichever was earlier, to culture conversion was 6 days (interquartile range, 4 to 7) and 8 days (interquartile range, 5 to 10), respectively. There were no appreciable between-group differences in the time to PCR conversion or culture conversion according to vaccination status, although the sample size was quite small, which led to imprecision in the estimates (Figure 1D and 1E).

In this longitudinal cohort of participants, most of whom had symptomatic, nonsevere Covid-19 infection, the viral decay kinetics were similar with omicron infection and delta infection. Although vaccination has been shown to reduce the incidence of infection and the severity of disease, we did not find large differences in the median duration of viral shedding among participants who were unvaccinated, those who were vaccinated but not boosted, and those who were vaccinated and boosted.

Our results should be interpreted within the context of a small sample size, which limits precision, and the possibility of residual confounding in comparisons according to variant, vaccination status, and the time period of infection. Although culture positivity has been proposed as a possible proxy for infectiousness,5 additional studies are needed to correlate viral-culture positivity with confirmed transmission in order to inform isolation periods. Our data suggest that some persons who are infected with the omicron and delta SARS-CoV-2 variants shed culturable virus more than 5 days after symptom onset or an initial positive test.

New England Journal of Medicine: “Conspiracy Theory” confirmed

The America First Report breaks the story: July 12, 2022

Several recent studies have indicated the Covid-19 vaccines actually increase the risk of contracting the disease over time, but these studies have been ignored or even debunked by corporate media and Big Pharma for months. Now, they’ll have to contend with a new study published in the highly respected New England Journal of Medicine.

This study was huge in scale, sifting through data collected from over 100,000 people infected by the Omicron variant. It lends credibility to the statistical significance of the findings, which are absolutely startling. Here are the key points:

  • Those who have been “fully vaccinated” with two shots from Moderna or Pfizer are more likely to contract Covid-19 than those who have not been vaccinated at all
  • Booster shots offer protection approximately equal to natural immunity, but the benefits wane after 2-5 months
  • Natural immunity lasts for at least 300-days, which is the length of the study; it likely lasts much longer

This jibes with the current narrative coming from Big Pharma and their minions in government and corporate media that the jabs are supposed to mitigate the effects. But even that claim has been called into question as recent studies indicate the vaccinated may be dying even more than the unvaccinated. According to The Exposé:

The Government of Canada has confirmed that the vaccinated population account for 4 in every 5 Covid-19 deaths to have occurred across the country since the middle of February 2022, and 70% of those deaths have been among the triple vaccinated population.

Despite the scope of the study and the credibility of the source, it will not receive any attention from corporate media. It is imperative that our readers get the word out because this is an absolute narrative-buster for Big Pharma. Now more than ever, we must alert the people of the truth because we are on the verge of seeing millions of children under the age of five-years-old injected.

Children do not readily acquire this pathogen, spread to other children, spread to adults, take it home, get severely ill, or die from it. It is that simple. We know children tend not to transmit Covid-19 virus and that the concept of asymptomatic spread has been questioned severely, particularly for children.

Children, if infected, just do not spread Covid-19 to others readily, either to other children, other adults in their families or otherwise, nor to their teachers. This was demonstrated elegantly in a study performed in the French Alps. The pediatric literature is clear science on this. Overwhelming data shows that the SARS-CoV-2-associated burden of severe disease or death in children and adolescents is very low (statistically zero).

Swedish data by Ludvigsson reported on the 1,951,905 children in Sweden (as of December 31, 2020) who were 1 to 16 years of age who attended school with largely no lockdowns or masks. They found zero (0) deaths. “Despite Sweden’s having kept schools and preschools open, we found a low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.”

recent German study (collating evidence from three sources 1) a national seroprevalence study (the SARSCoV-2 KIDS study), 2) the German statutory notification system and 3) a nationwide registry on children and adolescents hospitalized with either SARS-CoV-2 or Pediatric Inflammatory Multisystem Syndrome (PIMS-TS)) reported that there were zero (0) deaths in children 5 to 18 years old across the period of study.

Governments and public health officials have driven this pandemic of fear and propaganda. But parents willing to assess this purely from a benefit versus risk position might ask themselves: ‘If my child has little if any risk, near zero risk of severe sequelae or death, and thus no benefit from the vaccine, yet there could be potential harms and as yet unknown harms from the vaccine (as already reported in adults who have received the vaccines), then why would I subject my child to such a vaccine?

Because the life of your child (or yourself) is a price the purveyors of this genocide are entirely willing to pay in exchange for a nice, fat paycheck.

Comport yourselves accordingly.

Study: Natural Immunity Is 97 Percent Effective Against Severe COVID After 14 Months

Authors: Susan Berry, PhD | Star News Jul 15, 2022

A study has found that natural immunity following COVID infection provides protection against severe illness that is superior to that imparted by the COVID vaccines.

In a preprint article published at MedRxiv, Qatar researchers revealed they found people who survived COVID-19 infection, and were not vaccinated, had outstanding protection against severe COVID disease or death from COVID.

“Effectiveness of primary infection against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 reinfection was 97.3% … irrespective of the variant of primary infection or reinfection, and with no evidence for waning,” the researchers noted. “Similar results were found in sub-group analyses for those ≥50 years of age.”

The study, which was conducted on the total population of Qatar, set out to answer three questions:

  • 1) When infected with a pre-Omicron variant, how long does protection persist against reinfection with pre-Omicron variants?
  • 2) When infected with a pre-Omicron variant, how long does protection persist against reinfection with an Omicron subvariant?
  • 3) When infected with any variant, how long does protection persist against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19?

“Despite waning protection against reinfection, strikingly, there was no evidence for waning of protection against severe COVID-19 at reinfection,” the researchers found. “This remained ∼100%, even 14 months after the primary infection, with no appreciable effect for Omicron immune evasion in reducing it.”

Just days after the release of the study, White House COVID-19 Advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted it is “clear from the data” the COVID vaccines government health officials have been pushing do not actually work well in preventing the infection.

“One of the things that’s clear from the data,” Fauci told Fox News host Neil Cavuto of Your World Tuesdayis that the vaccines, “because of the high degree of transmissibility of this virus – don’t protect overly well, as it were, against infection.”

But Fauci then quickly moved on from his admission to assert the vaccines still “protect quite well against severe disease leading to hospitalization and death”:

And I believe that’s the reason, Neil, why at my age, being vaccinated and boosted, even though it didn’t protect me against infection, I feel confident that it made a major role in protecting me from progressing to severe disease. And that’s very likely why I had a relatively mild course.

“So, my message to people who seem confused because people who are vaccinated get infected – the answer is if you weren’t vaccinated, the likelihood [is] you would have had [a] more severe course than you did have when you were vaccinated,” he said.

Fauci insisted “we’re certainly not over” the pandemic, and asserted many Americans are not making use of the “available interventions,” namely, the COVID vaccines:

Let me give you an example. 67% of the people in this country are vaccinated. We rank very low among developed and developing nations in the proportion that are vaccinated of those who were vaccinated. Only about half of them have gotten their first boost. Again, we’ve got to do better than that. We’re giving the virus the opportunity to continue to spread in our community. And if we do simple things, which are not disruptive in any major way, vaccination, boosting, testing, for example, if you’re going to go to a function, you want to get tested to make sure you’re negative so that if you are infected and you have minimal symptoms, you don’t spread it.

“Those are relatively easy things to do, Neil, and yet we’re not doing enough of it,” Fauci complained.

The confusing narrative is addressed in a new soon-to-be-released film.

Vaccine Choice Canada provides links to several trailers to Uninformed Consent, a documentary that investigates the COVID-19 narrative people continue to hear from government officials in many countries.

The exclusive worldwide premiere of Uninformed Consent, will take place one night only on July 23. Viewers will also have the opportunity to participate in an interactive Q & A with the creators, producers, and doctors behind the documentary.

“This film explores our recent loss of human rights while weaving in the devastating impact of mandates and the deeply powerful story of one man’s loss,” Vaccine Choice Canada writes. “Hear the truth from doctors and scientists unafraid to stand up against Big Pharma and the Elite Class who profit from these mandates

New Study Contradicts ‘Experts’ – Shows Unvaccinated Adults Found “No increase in Myocarditis and Pericarditis” Following COVID Infection

Authors:  Jim Hoft July 8, 2022 Gateway Pundit

A new study from Israel reveals that there was “no increase in the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis” in unvaccinated adults who had COVID-19 infection.

This contradicts the findings of earlier studies that suggested there may be a connection between cardiac inflammation and coronavirus infections.

In a study published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine, the researchers concluded that there is “no increase in the incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis in COVID-19 recovered patients compared to uninfected matched controls.”

“Myocarditis and pericarditis are potential post-acute cardiac sequelae of COVID-19 infection, arising from adaptive immune responses,” the study stated. “We aimed to study the incidence of post-acute COVID-19 myocarditis and pericarditis.”

A total of 787,968 Clalit Health Services adult members were included in the study between March 2020 and January 2021. Out of that total, 196,992 adults were found to be infected with the COVID-19 virus (16,632 adults with previous vaccination were excluded from the group).

The control cohort of 590,976 adults with no Covid were age- and sex-matched, according to the study (5 adults with previous vaccination were excluded from the group).

“Nine post-COVID-19 patients developed myocarditis (0.0046%), and eleven patients were diagnosed with pericarditis (0.0056%). In the control cohort, 27 patients had myocarditis (0.0046%) and 52 had pericarditis (0.0088%),” the study stated.

“In the current large population study of subjects, who were not vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, we observed no increase in the incidence of myocarditis or pericarditis from day 10 after positive SARS-CoV-2.”

The researchers went on and stated, “Multivariable analysis did show male sex as associated with a higher risk of developing myocarditis or pericarditis, regardless of previous COVID-19 infection.”

Counties With Highest Vaccination Rates See More COVID-19 Cases Than Least Vaccinated

Authors: Petr Svab April 4, 2022 Updated: April 5, 2022 THE EPOCH TIMES

U.S. counties with the highest rates of vaccination against COVID-19 are currently experiencing more cases than those with the lowest vaccination rates, according to data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The 500 counties where 62 to 95 percent of the population has been vaccinated detected more than 75 cases per 100,000 residents on average in the past week. Meanwhile, the 500 counties where 11 to 40 percent of the population has been vaccinated averaged about 58 cases per 100,000 residents.

The data is skewed by the fact that the CDC suppresses figures for counties with very low numbers of detected cases (one to nine) for privacy purposes. The Epoch Times calculated the average case rates by assuming the counties with the suppressed numbers had five cases each on average.

The least vaccinated counties tended to be much smaller, averaging less than 20,000 in population. The most vaccinated counties had an average population of over 330,000. More populous counties, however, weren’t more likely to have higher case rates.

Even when comparing counties of similar population, the ones with the most vaccinations tended to have higher case rates than those that reported the least vaccinations.

Among counties with populations of 1 million or more, the 10 most vaccinated had a case rate more than 27 percent higher than the 10 least vaccinated. In counties with populations of 500,000 to 1 million, the 10 most vaccinated had a case rate almost 19 percent higher than the 10 least vaccinated.

In counties with populations of 200,000 to 500,000, the 10 most vaccinated had case rates around 55 percent higher than the 10 least vaccinated.

The difference was more than 200 percent for counties with populations of 100,000 to 200,000.

For counties with smaller populations, the comparison becomes increasingly difficult because so much of the data is suppressed.

Another problem is that the prevalence of testing for COVID-19 infections isn’t uniform. A county may have a low case number on paper because its residents are tested less often.

The massive spike in infections during the winter appears to have abated in recent weeks. Detected infections are down to less than 30,000 per day from a high of over 800,000 per day in mid-January, according to CDC data. The seven-day average of currently hospitalized dropped to about 11,000 on April 1, from nearly 150,000 in January.

The most recent wave of COVID-19 has been attributed to the Omicron virus variant, which is more transmissible but less virulent. The variant also seems more capable of overcoming any protection offered by the vaccines, though, according to the CDC, the vaccines still reduce the risk of severe disease.

New data show those who recovered from Covid-19 were less likely than vaccinated to get infected during Delta wave

New data released Wednesday showed that both vaccination and prior infection offered strong protection against infection and hospitalization from Covid-19 during the Delta wave — and that case and hospitalization rates were actually lower among people who had recovered from Covid-19 than among those who had been vaccinated.

The data, released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and health agencies in California and New York, are sure to inflame arguments from those who insist they don’t need to be vaccinated if they can show they’ve recovered from Covid-19. But the data contain many caveats that health officials stressed pointed to the value of vaccination, even on top of prior infection.

For one, the new report was based on data only through November, before the U.S. booster campaign really took off. It also looked at data during the Delta wave and does not account for the surging Omicron variant.

And while research has shown that infection can train the immune system to guard against the coronavirus in different ways than vaccination, Covid-19 also has killed more than 850,000 people in this country, sickened — often severely — millions more, and caused untold cases of long Covid. Serious side effects from the Covid-19 vaccines are extremely rare.

“We know that vaccination remains the safest strategy for protecting against Covid-19,” Benjamin Silk, a CDC epidemiologist, told reporters Wednesday.

The data also confirmed something we’ve known for a long time: Those who weren’t vaccinated and also hadn’t been previously infected were far more likely to be infected and hospitalized than either group.

The new report examined Covid-19 trends among adults in New York and California from May 30 to Nov. 20, 2021.

In early October, after Delta became dominant, infection rates among vaccinated people who hadn’t had Covid were 6.2-fold lower than among unvaccinated people who hadn’t had Covid-19 in California, and 4.5-fold lower in New York. People who previously had Covid-19 but had not been vaccinated had 29-fold (California) and 14.7-fold (New York) lower case rates. Vaccinated people who had also had Covid-19 had the lowest rates, with a 32.5-fold (California) and 19.8-fold (New York) lower infection rate than people who had no protection.

Hospitalization rates in California followed a similar pattern, the report says. (There were no hospitalization data from New York.) In October, hospitalization rates for people who’d been vaccinated but hadn’t had Covid were 19.8-fold lower than among those who hadn’t had Covid-19 or been vaccinated. The rates were 55.3-fold lower among unvaccinated people who’d had Covid-19, and 57.5-fold lower among people who’d been vaccinated and had Covid-19.

Erica Pan, California’s state epidemiologist, said hospitalizations among those who were vaccinated were mostly among older people.

Incidences among people who’d been vaccinated were highest among people who received the Johnson & Johnson shot, followed by the Pfizer-BioNTech and then the Moderna shots, the report said.

“Infection-derived protection was higher after the Delta variant became predominant, a time when vaccine-induced immunity for many persons declined because of immune evasion and immunologic waning,” the report states. Immune evasion refers to how, as the virus evolved, it started to erode the protection elicited by vaccination or an infection from an earlier form of the virus; this happened to some degree with the Delta variant, and to a much larger extent with the Omicron variant.

The new CDC report notes that the analyzed data are from the period before most people had received additional shots. It was only in mid-October, for example, that the government authorized booster shots for people who had received the J&J vaccine, recommending that people get them two months after the original jab of the one-dose shot. Boosters weren’t given the green light for all adults until November.

Fauci Doesn’t Have An Answer To Why Those Who Recovered From Covid Are Required To Take Vaccine

Authors: JORDAN LANCASTER REPORTER September 10, 20214:03 PM E

Dr. Anthony Fauci said Thursday night on CNN that he didn’t have a “firm answer” as to why those who have been previously infected with Covid and have natural immunity are being required to take the vaccine.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN’s Chief Medical Correspondent, pointed out a recent study from Israel that found people with natural immunity from Covid due to a previous infection were much less likely to become infected, be hospitalized, or die from Covid than their counterparts who had never been infected but had received both doses of the Pfizer vaccine. The scientists also found that previously infected people were more protected if they had one dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

Gupta asked if previously infected people should also get the vaccine, and if so, how Fauci plans to make the case for those people to get it.

“You know, that’s a really good point, Sanjay. I don’t have a really firm answer for you on that,” Fauci said. “That’s something that we’re going to have to discuss regarding the durability of the response.”

Fauci also said that the study didn’t discuss how long the immunity lasts. (RELATED: Natural Immunity To COVID-19 May Last More Than A Year After Infection, New Studies Show)

“The one thing the paper from Israel didn’t tell you is whether or not as high as the protection is with natural infection – what’s the durability compared to the durability of a vaccine? So it is conceivable that you got infected, you’re protected, but you may not be protected for an indefinite period of time,” he added. “So I think that is something that we need to sit down and discuss seriously, because you very appropriately pointed out it is an issue, and there could be an argument for saying what you said.”