The natural immunity against Coronavirus, the one generated after the illness, and the one generated by the vaccination are explained below by a Romanian doctor established in the USA so that the Romanians understand the differences between these two types of immunity that they can acquire.
"Explanation: Natural immunization would have killed more than 50 million people! Good. I've reached the point where I have to write about immunology. Humoral, to be precise. I'm not an immunologist. Than tangentially and thanks to membership in the American Immunologist Association. But this morning I was taken aback by an informed obersturmfuhrer, who posted a very scientific article from which he understood nothing, and when I gave him the ultimate argument that if he followed the path he proposed, of natural immunization, he would have died. more than 50 million people told me they were people with comorbidities. Poor obersturmfuhrer! That's how the mind takes it. So the immune system has the role of identifying, eliminating and memorizing foreign elements of the body that have entered the internal environment or mucous membranes. One such element is a 30-kilobase virus called sarbecovirus (SARS-CoV-2). It contains many glycoprotein or protein structures that can be recognized by the body's immune effectors, including a strangely shaped glycoprotein that appears in electron microscopy in the form of a crown on top of a stick called a spike glycoprotein. It is encoded by a gene that contains about 1.4 kilobases (ie less than 5% of the viral genome). Is it important? Yes, because, given that nature, even if it is redundant for important functions, does not waste. This means that the spike protein is only a relatively small part of the structure of the virus. So why is it so important that only babies have not heard of it? Because virus-neutralizing antibodies (that is, those that recognize, block, and control the infection) are specifically directed against the spike protein. If we become naturally infected, do we produce other antibodies? Numerous other antibodies, of multiple categories, with multiple functions and against many viral elements (the rest of the proteins encoded by the viral RNA). Is it good to develop them? Of course, yes. How can we produce them? Simple: as we started the discussion, by natural infection with the wild virus. So why not let the disease go free, as the obersturmfuhrer suggested this morning? Well, because until tonight we have 4,741,602 reasons (plus sequelae), and until we all get immunized to stop / limit the circulation of the pandemic virus, we could have about 50,000,000 (obviously all with comorbidities). And then, we prefer the solution compromise: an artificial infection with live attenuated, inactivated viruses (which contain adjuvants that all antivagers complain about), or, more recently, viral subunits, such as mRNA or viral vectors that carry viral subunits in the cell (such as adenovirus). ). They trigger a massive production of neutralizing antibodies that limit the consequences of the natural infection. In addition to specific antibodies (vaccine-induced antibodies specifically recognize the spike protein of the strain after which they were designed), vaccine responses are also multiple: cellular immunity, represented by killer cells that recognize and kill the virus-infected cell; immune memory, represented by memory cells that are trained, expanded, and remain awake so that upon next contact with the virus they instantly trigger anamnestic immunity or nonspecific immunity and respond to the virus with neutralizing antibodies and killer cells. The humoral immune response is antigenic maturation. This phenomenon involves a diversification and consolidation over time of the response in antibodies, antibodies that thus, over time, acquire new functions. Maturation is more important in the case of persistent viruses (which persist either for a long time or forever in the body) than in the case of acute viruses, which are actually present for only a few days. And most importantly, maturation is more effective in the case of natural infections than in the case of vaccine immunization. The reason is obvious: when the immune system is continuously stimulated by the antigen (virus), or more robustly with a diverse set of viral antigens, the immune response is continuous. Even more diverse. The last year and a half has taught us more about coronavirus. Most importantly, it's a weak immunogen. Unlike, say, the flu virus hemagglutinin, which induces huge titers of neutralizing antibodies, spike protein induces reasonable but modest titers. we want it to be metabolized and eliminated over time. Minor securities persist for a long time. Loss rates are dependent on the metabolic processes of each host. But again, among the B cells (those that differentiate to produce antibodies), some have memory and are able to produce antibodies immediately. it enters the body, at least in the mucous membranes. And then several things happen almost at the same time: - He is taken on swabs and diagnosed by the start of shouting out the antivaxies and Professor Astarasoae who is not an antivaxer, but wants good vaccines, that the vaccine does not protect. Huo! Gene therapy! Microchips! We all die! (i.e. only vaccinations, as free Dacians are known to be immortal) , matures and produces antibodies in high titers.– It is also recognized by the T cells that trigger the cellular anamnestic response that kills everything that catches. Are all these important things? Yes. Abstract? Maybe, but nowadays it seems we have to explain to all the people. Why? Because they are critical. He explains why we see the virus in the vaccinated, but still, we see few vaccinated in hospitals and we see even less vaccinated in the cemetery. We pause and draw the line. What have we learned so far? That wild virus-induced immunity is more diverse and potent globally than vaccine-induced immunity. That natural infection is still quite risky because it can kill us or leave us with sequelae the beginning of the pandemic). That the vaccine opens a window into immunity, through which we see only a part of the total, but in much greater safety for individuals. Don't be fooled by shameless lies: vaccines are safe and have very few major side effects. Not all the specialists on the planet have arrived completely insane to tell a blatant lie. After 20 months, if you go back and read, you will see that I was right in many more points than Professor Astărăstoae or Năzdrăvănel. And they laughed so hard and so many times that only if they went to Union Square without a belt and their pants fell off could they laugh out loud. If you want to read more and more loud and detailed , take it from here: OK, now it's time for the quiz, where we test the knowledge gained so far: A study has been posted for almost a month that has puzzled many people. This study reports that vaccinated people (with Pfizer) are at risk of reinfection with the Delta variant 13.06 times higher than those that were immunized by going through the disease, if the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred in January-February. If the infection occurred at any time before January 2021 (ie, March-2020-January 2021) this difference decreased to 5.96 times. Not only is the risk of reinfection higher, but also the risk of it being symptomatic (7.13 times). And, although the differences are much attenuated, even the risk of hospitalization due to reinfection is higher in vaccinated than in those who have gone through the disease. Vaccine-induced neutralizers are more robust than disease-induced neutralizers. I found an article I saw a while ago that reports that the number of deaths from vaccinations is lower than before, and from what continues to be seen in unvaccinated people. to recap: the study shows (1) that disease-induced immunity is more robust than vaccine-induced immunity; (2) disease-induced immunity is lost over time; (3) in both patients, the severe forms and mortality are much lower than in the naive (ie those who have not undergone disease or vaccination). That is, if you look, the study confirms to us in the real world what the theory taught us a few paragraphs above. Considering all these factors, all the journals in which the study was discussed came to the same conclusion: vaccination remains vital. The benefits of vaccination are currently seen in wave 4. Fortunately for them, in wave 4, in civilized countries where the vaccination coverage rate is high and very high, we see a relatively moderate pressure on the system. In this context, I say it with great sadness, our Romania (about which I can say nothing but that it is not vaccinated) will most likely represent the control group and the situation will be out of control in a very short time. Yesterday, RO vaccination asked permission to post the message to a "lady". I had the opportunity to meet with the antivagers again. I confess to you with regret, after all this time, I am impressed to tears by these prominent representatives of individualism in society. My regret is that I don't have a strong enough immune system to stop impressing me. Such as refusing the vaccine offered free of charge by the state. But also to ask the same state to undergo weekly testing, just because they do not feel like making a normal gesture. Who went to school less than we had new breaks, and generally went to NoName University, but consider that if I don't have the Nobel Prize or at least I'm not an Honorary Doctor at Harvard, then I have to shut up when I speak. They. And if I finally tell them that I've been doing this thing for three years and that I know what I'm talking about and they don't, I tell them I'm arrogant. Or, even cooler, if they have a failed postdoctoral experience in which they have possibly published an article, they explain to me very superficially how superficial they are. I also wrote: one of my life principles is that not everyone can offend you. So we're OK. But I wanted to point out once again that we live in full Eugen Ionescu, and, as Otilia wrote the other day, rhinoceros is the order of the day. Naturally, Albrecht Durer-Antivaxer (1515)> Dr. Cristian Apetrei, Romanian Professor of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology in the Infectious Diseases Division of the Department of Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, USA. ”
