12
Comments (21)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
0
Homopratensis2 0 points ago +2 / -2

The picture is of an optical microscope and text references slides, which are used on optical microscopes, which happen to be useless for seeing viruses.

I am not doing PCR tests. Those are, as you may know, prone to very high false positive errors, especially if the thermocycle number is over 30 or so. Recently the CDC issued guidance to use 28 cycles.

The antibody tests are a solid phase type assay and can bind 4 subunits of the spike protein. We also have a test that binds the nucleocapsid, the presence of which distinguishes vaccine immunity from natural. Only natural immunity shows anti-nucleocapsid antibodies. Natural immunity may be better for this reason.

Since you know everything already I'm sure you have nothing to gain from long winded post.

1
axolotl_peyotl 1 point ago +1 / -0

The antibody tests are a solid phase type assay

FDA reverses itself, rejects COVID antibody test results: "Results from SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests should NOT be used to evaluate immunity or protection from COVID-19 at any time, esp. after the person received a COVID-19 vaccination."

2
Homopratensis2 2 points ago +2 / -0

They've flopped back and forth. The simple truth is there is no other practical way to establish immunity. Like re-defining herd immunity as only a very as a certain number of vaccinated people, the not using antibody tests for establishing immunity makes it so those who got covid and recovered can't use that to assert immunity.

Ironically this is after a year of doing antibody testing to established convalescent plasma donors...and plasma therapy worked somewhat.

1
v8power 1 point ago +1 / -0

Only natural immunity shows anti-nucleocapsid antibodies. Natural immunity may be better for this reason.

The mRNA "vaccines" are "tuned" to the COVID spike protein, so perhaps that explains a higher effectiveness than natural immunity right now, but I have a hypothesis that this greater effectiveness might be short term and the natural immunity is better long term due to a possibly better ability to respond to mutations. Is that your feeling/understanding?