Immunity acquired through disease
Posted On 18/02/2021
We owe our immune system to the fact that mankind still exists in the face of the countless microscopic pathogens. In the course of evolution, it has protected us from these external pathogens, permanently and often even completely unnoticed, and it still does today.
Our immune system can be divided into three main parts.
First of all, there is the important protection in the form of a natural “barrier” which is supposed to protect us against external pathogens: our skin as well as the mucous membrane with all its antimicrobial products and properties (defensin, lysozymes, acid-base balance …). This immunity is completely unspecific and does not require any “memory” of previous contact with the pathogen.
Then there is the innate immune system. This system is permanently active and attacks everything that appears to be foreign to the body. Accordingly, it distinguishes between the body’s own and that which is foreign to the body. As with the natural barrier system, our cells do not need any previous contact with an “intruder” in order to become active.
The final immune barrier is the specific or adaptive immune system. It can be divided into two parts:
The first, called TH1, represents the so-called cellular system. It recognizes whether the structure of your own cell has been changed, e.g. by viruses. It is also used in the fight against degenerate or changed cells, e.g. in the context of tumors. This system, on the other hand, requires prior contact in order to become active quickly. So it’s specific to a disease or a virus. As soon as it detects an infected cell, it secretes toxic substances into that cell.
The second part is represented by the antibody-producing system called TH2. It neutralizes the virus by attaching itself to it. The virus can no longer penetrate the cell. This system is very specific and as soon as the structure changes, there is a risk that the antibodies will no longer or only slightly adhere to the structure. In the case of a vaccination, only one type of antibody is produced, whereas in the case of a disease, several antibodies are produced at the same time. This has the advantage that if an antibody type is e.g. the S-protein of SARS-CoV-2 no longer recognizes, other antibodies, z. B. against the N protein, it can continue to bind. Mutations in several viral structures would be necessary to completely lose immunity.
Which part of the immune system is most active during an illness, i.e. Th1 or Th2, is very individual.
Although rarely, it is possible that the body does not produce antibodies, but only reacts with a cellular immune response. This immunity can definitely be measured and proven in a laboratory, an option that is rarely used in practice.
In the case of Covid-19, it is very possible that the barrier immune system as well as the innate immune system are already attacking the virus so effectively that the body does not have to produce large amounts of antibodies, which seems to be the case in reality.
Ineffective innate immunity has been strongly associated with a lack of control of primary SARS-CoV-2 infection and a high risk of fatal COVID-19, accompanied by innate cell immunopathology. Neutralizing antibodies have generally not correlated with lessened COVID-19 disease severity, which was also observed for Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome (MERS), caused by MERS-CoV
Excerpt from an article in Science1
Why should one not be able to assume with this virus that the body, once it has mastered it perfectly, will also be able to cope with a new virus (mutation) the second time, as the current figures do also seem to confirm?
It would look completely different, of course, if the virus were to change its aggressiveness significantly. Unfortunately, there is not enough observation time for SARS-CoV-2. However, in nature, doesn’t selection usually go in the direction of greater infectiousness than increased aggressiveness of the virus?
Because: Viruses generally tend to be more easily transmissible with their mutations, as it will survive better. However, if it becomes more aggressive, its own chance of survival is reduced, as it kills its host.
The healthier a person, the better their immune system
However, the situation may be different if a person’s health or immune system has deteriorated, e.g. B. through immunosuppressive treatment, severe stress or poor lifestyle and diet.
In studies, antibodies, especially anti-S protein, are measured to assess immunity related to Covid-19. If their number decreases, it is claimed that the immune system can no longer recognize the virus.
However, there are other antibodies and the cellular immune system can remain very active. It is therefore wrong to claim that if the antibodies decline, the person will be vulnerable again unless the cellular immune system or other antibodies have been carefully checked.1
Substantial immune memory is generated after COVID-19, involving all four major types of immune memory. About 95% of subjects retained immune memory at ~6 months after infection. Circulating antibody titers were not predictive of T cell memory. Thus, simple serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies do not reflect the richness and durability of immune memory to SARS-CoV-2. This work expands our understanding of immune memory in humans. These results have implications for protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 and recurrent COVID-19.
This can be confirmed by the following numbers:
In September 2020 (9 months after the start of the pandemic), the journal The Lancet documented only 4 cases of relapses in 4 million infections.2
Last year (as of February 13, 2021) 49 (seriously documented) relapses of 100,000,000 cases were recorded. And this despite the fact that many of them had a significant decrease in their antibodies.3 4
With the statement of confirmed cases, one may ask the question: What is a confirmed relapse in Covid-19?
Actually, a distinction should always be made between recurrence and normal immunological function.
The antibody determination can be used for the first contact. This test is sensitive and specific enough to prove contact. This is also done with the proof of vaccination effectiveness.
But is afterwards “only” a positive PCR test an indication of a relapse even though one has no symptoms?
👉 In a person who has had chickenpox once and visits a patient who has acute chickenpox, you will find “massive” PCR positive virus particles everywhere, on the skin, nose, eyes. But if this person remains symptom-free, it is not a relapse!
The increase in antibody titer cannot be proof in the symptomless person either, because this is a normal immunological reaction to a second contact.
In the event of a relapse, the patient MUST have symptoms, even if they are mild.
In the vaccination studies, a relapse is in fact a positive PCR test plus symptoms. But is that really enough?
👉 Can you have a positive test in winter, be symptom-free from Covid-19, but just happen to have the flu?
Shouldn’t one rather use the following criteria to determine a recurrence?
- Either Covid-19 specific features: clinical (loss of taste), radiological (e.g. scanner), or
- typical blood changes (coagulopathy, leucopenia, ferritins very increased);
If atypical “flu-like” symptoms are present with a positive test, all other viral infections should be ruled out with a PCR test.
Back to the study in The Lancet
Of these 49 cases, there are actually only 8 cases in which the second disease was more severe than the first.
There were also 2 deaths in these repetitions, but these are cases with a special history. To document this, the death of an 89-year-old Dutch patient was used as an example:
She was a leukemia patient who survived the first Covid-19 illness. The second time she was admitted to the hospital and was released back home a few days later. So it can be assumed that she was the road to recovery. A few days later she received the continuation of her chemotherapy and a few days later the patient died.
Did she die from the virus or from a decrease in her immunity to a surviving virus? And what would have happened if chemotherapy had been postponed for a week?
“She was released after 5 days; apart from persistent fatigue, her symptoms had completely subsided. Two days after a new chemotherapy treatment, 59 days after the first coronavirus disease began in 2019, the patient developed a fever, cough and dyspnoea. Upon admission, her oxygen saturation was 90% with a breathing rate of 40 breaths per minute. On the 8th day the patient’s condition worsened and she died 2 weeks later.”
A little numbers game …
… to show how you can use numbers to prove or convey something.
This example does not entirely correspond to reality, because we are comparing a well-controlled study (that of 40,000 volunteers as part of the vaccination study) with observations (empirical observations based on the statistically recorded data about Covid-19 disease and documented relapses). The numbers are rounded for the sake of simplicity.
- Cases of illness: 50 cases of relapses out of 110,000,000, ie 1 case out of 2,200,000 over 1 year
- The Pfizer vaccine: The vaccination report documents 9 relapses cases out of 20,000 vaccinated persons, ie 1 case out of 2000 and this over a period of only one month (measured one week after the second vaccination).
The disease itself (respectively the immune response) protects 1000 times better over a ten times longer period.
Even if you take all cases, including those that are not properly documented (they are referred to as possible secondary infections), there are 11,000 cases out of 110 million. That is still 5 times better than the vaccine protection!
- As for major relapses, there are 8 cases in 110,000,000, i.e. 1 in 14 million in 1 year.
- The Pfizer vaccination report documented a major relapse of 20,000 severe cases after 1 month.
The disease itself (respectively the immune response) protects 700 times better than the vaccine.
ONE COULD ALSO PUT IT IN THE WORDS OF JOHANN WOLFGANG VON GOETHE:
“… nature is not at all amused; she is always true, always serious, always severe; she is always right, and the errors and mistakes are always man’s.”Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Nature is always right …
In view of these numbers – if you have retained the ability to always think outside the box – you can certainly ask yourself whether it is really necessary to vaccinate people who have already been through the disease and their immune systems has therefore successfully dealt with it.
Even if there are billions of Euros to be earned in the context of this vaccination and the companies concerned, their lobbyists and therefore all the associated beneficiaries logically have no great interest in this natural condition, we should never forget that our immune system has developed an extremely sophisticated system over millions of years, which can obviously function better than a foreign substance, the long-term effects of which are also currently completely unknown
So instead of worrying about special rights for vaccinated people, would it not make more sense, given these numbers, medical and historical findings, to discuss special rights for those people whose immune system has already responded successfully to the virus?
All one would have to do would be a blood analysis that evaluates the current state of the immune system in detail and only based on this analysis to make a decision for or against a foreign substance.
This article was written in German and French and translated into English.