"The amount of antibodies against corona in the blood of blood donors who have been vaccinated has been about halved in just over two months." Sanquin says this based on research among 2200 blood donors.
Sanquin thus confirms the previous studies from, among others, Qatar, Sweden and Israel, which showed that the protection of the vaccine decreases over time.
It is true that the amount of antibodies in the blood always decreases, and that this does not necessarily mean that there is no protection against the virus at all. Previous PIENTER research showed that the antibodies themselves have become better and therefore fewer antibodies are needed for the same protective effect: https://www.rivm.nl/nieuws/antistoffen-sars-cov-2-blijven-minstens-200-dagen-in-bloed-aantoonbaar.
However, the studies mentioned show that protection against infection by vaccination will quickly become (almost) nil after 6 to 7 months.
The accompanying graph shows the decline in protection against becoming seriously ill or a fatal outcome. This is an average; It is precisely in the elderly or otherwise vulnerable that protection decreases faster. For those who need it most, the protection disappears the fastest.
"The longer the vaccination has been, the fewer antibodies people have. The fewest antibodies are found in people in their sixties. This probably has to do with the fact that they have been vaccinated with AstraZeneca."
Remarkable, to say the least, because on the basis of which research data was AstraZeneca admitted to the market? Vaccine critics, nowadays also referred to as anti-vaxxers according to the definition of some dictionaries, have previously wondered whether it is such a good idea to allow a vaccine on the market if the research data that has been collected is only based on a limited period of time. If it turns out that AstraZeneca is losing its effect quickly, will we continue to use AstraZeneca in the Netherlands or will we switch to the brand with the longest duration of operation? And which brand is that?
"Of the people with antibodies, Sanquin can also see who has the antibodies of a vaccine and who has had the disease. " With a vaccine you only have antibodies against one part of the virus, if you have had the disease you also have antibodies against other parts of the virus. The number of antibodies therefore decreases more slowly," says Hans Zaaijer, researcher at Sanquin.
This statement is striking. Not because of the content, because this has been known for a long time. Pierre Capel, among others, has regularly pointed this out in interviews and in his vlogs. However, naming this fact quickly earned you the predicate 'wappie' and that sharing this information on social media could earn you a suspension. But Hans Zaaijer's statement is in many studies have already shown.
"Antibodies were found in 97 percent of the donors examined. That was about 95 percent in the previous survey. In that group, a distinction can therefore also be made between people who have had the disease and people who have only had the vaccine. It is impossible to say whether people who have had the vaccine and then became infected have more or less antibodies than people who have become infected unvaccinated."
Sanquin cannot say whether you have more antibodies if you have been vaccinated and then infected or whether you have become infected without being vaccinated. So it could well be that vaccinating for antibodies offers no advantage at all over not vaccinating if you have been infected. Top virologist Professor Drosten has in any case advised the vaccinated to become infected with the corona virus for better protection: https://www.heute.at/s/star-virologe-drosten-empfiehlt-geimpften-corona-infektion-100161615
We don't know at all how thin the ice can get before you sink through it
Hans Zaaijer, Sanquin
"Booster shots should boost the amount of antibodies. Zaaijer cannot say to what point it should be supplemented; It is not known at what amount of antibodies people are still sufficiently protected. 'We don't know at all how thin the ice can get before you fall through it,' says Zaaijer.
We don't know at all how many antibodies people need to have to be sufficiently protected! In other words: we are actually just guessing. No one knows at the moment how many boosters are still needed. Whether it works and for how long is impossible to say, because there is no benchmark, no target value or target value for the antibodies. Claims by vaccine manufacturers that 1 booster is enough, or that two are needed and for how much time should be boosted or turbocharged, are therefore based on quicksand. Rutte would say: we are sailing in the fog, with 50% of the knowledge.
A standard rule in immunology is that antibodies are not the be-all and end-all. There are several defense mechanisms. As for the effect of these vaccines on trained white blood cells, memory cells and immune cells that can destroy infected cells (the 'killer T-cells'), the future will have to tell, when we see how the immune system reacts to new, known or very similar infections.
According to Zaaijer, with all these uncertainties, we must now ask ourselves the question: "Is this still safe? As long as everyone has antibodies, you'll probably be fine. But that amount of antibodies continues to drop considerably. We are not the only ones who wonder whether this is still safe, which is why the booster programs have also been started."
Zaaijer asks an interesting question here, but looks for the answer in the wrong direction. Instead of just randomly boostering to keep the amount of antibodies high (for how long and how high this should be done is a mystery), it seems more useful to ask: how good is this vaccine and at what cost or safety issues do we keep injecting everyone with boosters and turbo boosters? Is anyone wondering if boostering is good for your immune system? At least 1 vaccinologist is very concerned about this: Geert VandenBossche. In the videos below, he explains why vaccination makes other mechanisms of the immune system less effective:
Earlier, the analysts of the Eucalyptic Society also bowed out. on this topic. An overview worth reading.
