Categories
2021 COVID-19 Vaccine

Staying Alive

If anything is sacred, the human body is sacred.

― Walt Whitman

How should we define victory in the war on the pandemic?  My vision may surprise you.  I think our objective should be not dying.  Death rates should be our success metric, and the preservation of our institutions and freedoms our goal.  We can accomplish this by making smart individual decisions, not sweeping collective ones.  We cannot allow our society to be fractured into camps of the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

The universal vaccination mandates sweeping across our nation now are more dangerous than the current wave of SARS-CoV-2 infections.  Don’t believe me?  Check out the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.  Deaths from COVID-19 are at their lowest levels since the pandemic began.  Yet on pain of job loss, we are pushing vaccines into the arms of our young who have the most to lose and least to gain.

Don’t get me wrong.  Vaccination is an important tool in our effort to save people from dying of COVID-19.  Those at greatest risk—the old, the obese, the diabetics—should strongly consider vaccination for their own safety.  Vaccines also reduce the spread of COVID-19 within a community.  When vaccines became available in late December, community infection rates declined as vaccination rates went up.  But that doesn’t mean that vaccination is in the best interest of every individual.

Wait, I hear you say, we must vaccinate everybody to contain breakthrough and stop the spread of the virus.  Especially hospital workers—I want to know that people taking care of me are vaccinated so they won’t make me sick.  Nice theory, but where’s the data that supports the idea that vaccinated people can’t make you sick, that vaccines contain breakthrough and stop the spread of the disease?  I’ve looked; I can’t find it.  If you have it, please share it with me.

I see data that supports the opposite theory.  In last Friday’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the CDC reported a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in a highly vaccinated community.  Some were shocked to learn that three-quarters of these cases occurred in fully vaccinated individuals, that the viral loads between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals were identical, and that four out of five patients sick enough to be hospitalized were fully vaccinated.  This report supports one of the points made last week: vaccination doesn’t prevent COVID-19.  Breakthrough cases occur, and the vaccinated can spread the virus.  Universal vaccination will fail as a containment strategy.

But, you persist, we have to vaccinate everybody before new variants emerge that will be even more dangerous.  After all, you say, 90% of the virus in the reported outbreak were delta variant.  True, this outbreak was mostly delta variant, but delta variant is now the dominant variant in the U. S. because of its higher transmissibility, just like alpha variant replaced original SARS-CoV-2 earlier in the year.  Where is the evidence that universal vaccination prevents formation of more dangerous variants?  Again, I’ve looked, and I don’t find it.  If you have it, please share it with me.

Infectious disease orthodoxy says the opposite.  Indiscriminate use of anti-biologic agents pressure pathogens to mutate, increasing their virulence.  Doctors are reprimanded for treating viral illnesses with antibacterial agents (“antibiotics”) because they have potential for more harm than good.  The same is true for vaccines designed to prevent infections by viruses that easily mutate. That’s one reason we don’t have vaccines for the common cold—the target moves too quickly, and infection is not that dangerous to most people.  Universal vaccination will fail to prevent emergence of variants.

If universal vaccination becomes our objective in the war against the pandemic, deaths may increase, surges may continue, and more dangerous variants may emerge, but won’t we feel good about our vaccination rates?  The pandemic has an enemy; it’s not the unvaccinated.

There is another way.  Allow doctors to make individualized decisions for treatment and vaccination in the best interest of each patient.  If we do all we can to help those at risk, deaths will continue to go down.  The virus may never go away, but we can learn to live with it.  We can also preserve our institutions and freedoms, and we can stop dividing people.  We can stay alive.

Categories
2021 COVID-19 Science Vaccine

A Pandemic of the Unvaccinated?

During a White House press briefing last week, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the director of the CDC, declared, “This is becoming a pandemic of the unvaccinated.”  She continued, “And our biggest concern is that we are going to continue to see preventable cases, hospitalizations, and, sadly, deaths among the unvaccinated.”  Is there a rational basis to allow our war against the pandemic to devolve into a fight between vaccinated and unvaccinated citizens?  In this blog, I will use data found at the CDC’s website to outline what we know and what we don’t about vaccinations, infections, disease, and death.

What we know:

  • SARS-CoV-2 infections have increased recently.  It’s easy to see this point from the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.  Play with the graph a little.  By clicking any of the boxes (sex, age, ethnicity) under “Cases” on the upper left, you’ll see case trends of the entire pandemic.  Pass your cursor along the horizontal axis, and you’ll see the rate of cases each week of the pandemic.  The number of cases bumped up in the first two weeks of July.  But the recent increase is not yet close to levels of the surge last winter.   
  • Deaths from COVID-19 are still going down.  Using the same graph, click on any of the boxes under “Deaths” on the upper right.  The last week deaths increased was May 8, and then only by a little bit.  There has not been a spike in COVID deaths since the winter surge.  Even as infections increased recently, deaths have not.
  • Risk of death from COVID-19 increases with age.  Now look specifically at deaths by age.  Move your cursor along the horizontal axis and pay attention to the death rate as age increases.  It’s the old who die from COVID-19, not the young.   
  • Vaccination rates are highest among those at greatest risk of death from COVID-19.  Now study another chart from the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.  Notice that in increasing age groups, more and more people are at least partially vaccinated, more than 90% among 65–74 year-olds.  The old, who have the greatest risk of death from COVID-19, also have the highest vaccination rates.  
  • Vaccination does not prevent COVID-19.  Breakthrough cases occur, and vaccinated individuals can spread the disease.  This last point is well known by everyone who follows Texas politics.
  • Community vaccination rates correlate with reduction in COVID-19 spread.  For this point, study the CDC’s vaccination vs. covid heat map, showing lower rates of COVID-19 where vaccination rates are higher and vice versa.  This is the data Dr. Walensky points to when saying “This is becoming a pandemic of the unvaccinated.”  However, unless she has private data not on the website, I do not see a similar correlation between deaths or even hospitalizations.  Death rates continue to decline, even among the unvaccinated.

There are some things we don’t know, and we don’t know them because we don’t yet have good data.  For example, the CDC tracks COVID-19 deaths by sex, age, and ethnicity, but not by vaccination status.  That information would be very helpful to individuals deciding whether to take a vaccine.  So would age-adjusted vaccine complication rates.  The absence of such data makes it difficult-to-impossible for young people to determine their personal risk-benefit ratios for vaccination.  The VAERS website is good for its intended purpose as a reporting site for adverse events, but the data must be mined and analyzed to be meaningful.  

Good data is simply hard to come by.  Last week, Sir Patrick Vallance said in a press conference that 60% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the UK are fully vaccinated.  Later, he tweeted a correction, saying exactly the opposite.  The trouble is that it’s impossible to validate either statement with reliable, publicly available data.  

Science is a process, not a product.  For science to work, conventional wisdom must be questioned.  It is always okay to ask, “Why should I believe this?”  Dissent is a natural byproduct of science.  But dogmatism, coercion, ridicule, hyperbole, and fearmongering have no place among real scientists.  Not even the director of the CDC.

Categories
2021 COVID-19 Vaccine

A New Vaccine Warning: Guillain-Barré Syndrome

Last week, the FDA added a new statement to the Janssen vaccine Factsheet for Healthcare Providers, warning of an increased incidence of Guillain-Barré Syndrome among vaccine recipients. This warning was issued after cases in India and the United Kingdom were published in the Annals of Neurology.  Although the warning only applies to the Janssen vaccine, at least one case has also been reported following Pfizer vaccination.

Guillain-Barré Syndrome is a condition in which the immune system attacks peripheral nerves, the nerves responsible for sending signals for motion and sensation between the body and the brain, resulting in pain and weakness, and in severe cases, paralysis and death.  Although most people recover, symptoms may linger for a long time.  Guillain-Barré Syndrome is triggered by various conditions that cause inflammation, including infection, surgery, trauma, and cancer.  Rarely influenza and childhood vaccines have been associated with Guillain-Barré Syndrome.

Guillain-Barré Syndrome was identified as a complication of COVID-19 early in the pandemic.  Subsequent studies demonstrate that these cases are “not due to a direct attack of the virus, but rather to an immunological reaction to the virus.”  Now we learn this long-recognized complication of COVID-19 can also be an adverse effect of a COVID vaccine.

The warning for Guillain-Barré Syndrome is the third FDA statement of an immune mediated vaccine complication, adding to the precautions previously issued for myocarditis and clotting disorders.  Interestingly, myocarditis and clotting disorders have also been recognized as complications of COVID-19. 

It’s becoming increasingly clear that COVID-19 has two separate disease pathways.  The first is the direct effect of the virus.  The second is the response of our immune system to the virus.  Vaccines intentionally stimulate this immune response.  Is it surprising that adverse vaccine effects overlap with COVID-19?  Expect more examples of autoimmune complications of COVID vaccines.

Categories
2021 COVID-19 Vaccine

COVID and Autoimmune Disease

Some individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2 experience brain damage.  Although it sounds like science fiction, “COVID brain fog” describes a very real condition in which infected patients experience memory loss, strokes, and other nervous system lesions.  How can this happen?

In an article published last week in Nature, Michael Marshall, a free-lance science journalist from the U.K., describes the current areas of research into the causes of this condition.  One possible mechanism is autoimmune disease.

The immune system’s job is to protect the body from agents of disease (“pathogens”) without damaging the body’s own cells.  Like the military guarding the border of a sovereign nation, the constituents of the immune system carry lethal weapons meant to destroy an invading enemy.  But what if the military can’t tell the difference between friend and foe?  Those lethal weapons might be unleashed on its own people, and the citizens of that nation would be at risk of harm from their own government.  Let’s say for example that the U.S. learned all its enemies wear red hats.  If the army was ordered to seek and destroy anyone wearing a red hat, many innocent Americans unwittingly wearing red hats could be killed in an effect to stamp out a threat to our nation.  

The immune system works by learning something about the pathogens that threaten the body—not the color hats they wear, but the shape and composition of molecules on the invaders.  When the shape and composition of those molecules are similar enough to the shape and composition of molecules on the cells in our own body, the immune system can’t tell the difference, and it attacks us.  That’s autoimmune disease.

Autoimmune disease is highly individualized.  Although we lump these diseases into categories ranging from lupus to rheumatoid arthritis, each person with an autoimmune disease has a disease that’s uniquely his or her own.  There’s a lot of overlap, but no two individuals have exactly the same disease manifestations.  

There are many examples of autoimmune disease targeting specific organs.  Hashimoto’s thyroiditis is a disease in which the immune system targets the thyroid gland.  In Crohn’s disease the immune system targets the cells of the gastrointestinal tract.  Multiple sclerosis is an autoimmune disease of the central nervous system.   COVID brain fog may also be, at least in part, an autoimmune disease of the central nervous system in which an immune system primed to destroy SARS-CoV-2 causes collateral damage to the brain.

If that’s the case, we have yet another reason to avoid COVID-19.  But we may also want to avoid stimulating the immune system to fight SARS-CoV-2, which is precisely the goal of a COVID vaccination.  We know that everyone who has had COVID-19 develops antibodies to the viral spike protein.  We also know that everyone who has received a COVID vaccine develops antibodies to the same viral spike protein.  What if these are the autoantibodies associated with COVID brain fog?

Although there is no proof this is the case, there is evidence suggesting that the idea is plausible.  Last week, we learned that vaccines may cause myocarditis and pericarditis, essentially an autoimmune disease affecting the heart.  VITT, a condition in which vaccination causes blood clots, is also immune mediated.  We must consider the possibility that stimulation of immunity against viral spike proteins causes autoimmune disease in some vaccine recipients.

As we connect more dots, an image emerges from the haze of the pandemic.  As the picture becomes clearer, will we have the courage to believe what we see?

Categories
2021 Science Vaccine

More Vaccine Complications

We have warned of the dangers of unforeseen consequences inherent in medical therapies and procedures that have not been thoroughly tested.  All COVID vaccines are in this category since they are only available in the U.S. are under Emergency Use Authorization.  None has been approved by the FDA.  

Information about vaccine complications is slowly emerging.  First, we learned of the 10x higher incidence of anaphylaxis from mRNA vaccines compared to other vaccine types.  Then we learned of a new clotting disorder caused by vaccine called VITT.   Last week, the FDA required a new statement in Pfizer and Moderna Factsheets for Healthcare Providers warning that certain cardiac disorders, including myocarditis and pericarditis, may be caused by mRNA vaccines.  

In the pathology world, adding “-itis” to the end of a word simply means inflammation.  So, myocarditis is inflammation of muscle (“myo-”) of the heart (“card”), and pericarditis is inflammation of the sac around (“peri-”) the heart.  By themselves these words are vague and do not say what that inflammation means to a person.  Myocarditis can be mild and go away on its own, or it can be severe and cause the heart to stop beating.  Similarly, mild pericarditis is a common finding in many disease processes, but pericarditis can become so severe that it restricts the movement of the heart, a condition called “cardiac tamponade” which can be deadly. 

These vaccine complications tend to occur in young people who receive mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna, but not Janssen), especially when there is an underlying cardiac condition.  The trouble is that this vaccine complication may be the first sign of an underlying cardiac condition, since “in this younger population, coronary events are less likely to be a source of these symptoms.”  Does this make the vaccine unsafe for adolescents and young adults?  The CDC says no; I’m not so sure.  

It’s noteworthy that none of these complications—not anaphylaxis, not VITT, and not inflammatory heart conditions—were included in data submitted to FDA for initial authorization.  We are learning as we go. Quite literally, if you take a COVID vaccine, you are part of a study of the long-term effects of that vaccine on humans.  There may be compelling reasons for a person to take a vaccine, ranging from personal health benefits to scientific altruism.  But just as compelling may be the reasons a person chooses not to take a vaccine.  We should not coerce these decisions, we should not ridicule these decisions, and we should not penalize individuals for these decisions.  

We simply don’t know all the long-term consequences of the COVID vaccines.  But if history is any guide, there will be unintended consequences that may make the “smart people” of today look foolish in the future.

Categories
2021 COVID-19 Testing Vaccine

Which Vaccine Causes the Greatest Antibody Response?

It’s not even close.  In terms of generating the highest S-antibody response, Moderna is the clear winner.  Pfizer comes in second, and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) finishes in last place.  Here’s the data that backs this up.

The same volunteers we tested to figure out antibodies after vaccination and disease were separated by vaccine type and evidence of infection.  Evidence of infection includes either a positive SARS-CoV-2 test during the pandemic or the unexpected presence of N-antibodies.  We did not count two individuals who had only one dose of mRNA vaccine, nor did we include people who had both vaccine and infection.  Then we measured the antibody levels of the individuals in each group.  Here’s what we found:

VaccineLowHighAverage
Moderna8.49.18.7
Pfizer4.27.66.2
Janssen1.43.92.6

Clearly, Moderna vaccine stimulates the highest antibody response.  Then we graphed the antibody response caused by vaccine compared to the immune response of infection.

Chart, box and whisker chart

Description automatically generated

Previous infection is better than the Janssen vaccine and nearly as good as the Pfizer vaccine.  If we eliminate those overachieving Moderna people, we get a chart that looks like this:

Immunity SourceLowHighAverage
Pfizer or Janssen1.47.66.2
COVID1.28.44.3

Graphically, the data looks like this:

Chart, box and whisker chart

Description automatically generated

It’s nearly identical. 

Let me summarize the findings and restate the question that’s been puzzling me for weeks.  Two of the three vaccines authorized in the U.S. stimulate S-antibody levels that are no better than SARS-CoV-2 infection.  Yet the CDC still insists that infected individuals be vaccinated with any of the three authorized vaccines, even if the person starts out with S-antibody levels at least as high as the expected levels resulting from vaccination.  Why?

Let me be clear.  I’m not asking whether a person who has not had COVID should be vaccinated.  That’s a legitimate question that deserves more than knee-jerk consideration, but it’s not the question I’m asking here.  I’m asking why vaccination is in the best interest of a person who has already been infected?  Maybe the answer is obvious to you; if so, please help me understand.  It doesn’t make sense to me.

Last time, I asked you to consider that the answer may be in the prioritization of population health over individual health.  This time I ask you to consider something else.  When things don’t make sense to me, I have a snarky, cynical side that asks, “Who’s profiting?”  

Something to think about.

Categories
2021 COVID-19 Science

The Delta Variant

The Delta Variant is one of several new strains of SARS-CoV-2 recently added the variant zoo.  Why has this new variant received so much attention lately, and why are we referring to variants with Greek letters now?  

The CDC still groups variants into categories of High ConsequenceConcern, and Interest.  Thankfully, there are still no Variants of High Consequence.  The WHO has assigned Greek letters to certain variants to aid in communication.  The Delta Variant, B.1.671.2, is a new entry on the list of Variants of Concern.  Three cousins of the Delta Variant, B.1.671, B.1.671.1 and B.1.671.3 are now on the Variants of Interest list.  All these new strains originated in India.

What makes Delta different? It’s the first addition to the Variant of Concern list since April, and it’s prevalence in the U.S.is increasing.  Although it’s not nearly as prevalent as the Alpha Variant, aka the U.K. Variant, B.1.1.7 which we first learned about last December, some reports suggest that the Delta Variant is even more easily transmitted, meaning that it may soon replace the Alpha Variant as the most common form in the U.S.  The Delta Variant shows some resistance to treatments, although not more than other variants.  It does not escape detection by tests, and S-antibodies, either from disease or vaccine, seem to provide immune protection.  The Delta Variant is just the ‘new kid on the block’; we need to take this in stride.

I’ve updated variant reference tables, sorted by U.S. prevalence.

Variants of Concern
VariantWHO LabelFirst DetectionCurrent U.S. PrevalenceIncreased TransmissionIncreased SeverityReduced Detection by TestsResistance to Treatment
B.1.1.7AlphaUK69.7%50%  
P.1GammaJapan/Brasil8.4%   
B.1.617.2DeltaIndia2.7%140%  
B.1.351BetaSouth Africa0.7%50%  
B.1.429EpsilonCalifornia0.6%20%  
B.1.427EpsilonCalifornia0.4%20%  
Variants of Interest
VariantWHO LabelFirst DetectionCurrent U.S. PrevalenceIncreased TransmissionIncreased SeverityReduced Detection by TestsResistance to Treatment
B.1.526IotaNew York5.0%   
B.1.526.1 New York2.5%   
B.1.525EtaUK/Nigeria0.1%   
B.1.617.1KappaIndia0.1%   
P.2ZetaBrazil0.0%   
B.1.617 India0.0%   
B.1.617.3 India0.0%   
Categories
2021 COVID-19 Science Testing Vaccine

Vaccinate the Previously Infected? A Risk without Benefit

Vaccination of the previously infected is a risk without benefit because there’s no significant difference between S-antibody levels stimulated by SARS-CoV-2 infection when compared with vaccine.  

Using the same group of volunteers from our study to determine antibody types stimulated by vaccine and/or COVID, we measured the level of S-antibodies in the people who had them.  To make the comparison fair we did not consider the people who were both vaccinated and infected; instead, we only counted people who were vaccinated but had no evidence of disease, and we compared them to unvaccinated people with evidence of infection.  Here’s what we found:

IndividualsLowHighAverage
Vaccine171.49.16.6
COVID81.28.34.2

There were 17 people vaccinated without disease.  Their S-antibody levels ranged from 1.4 to 9.1 with an average of 6.6.  There were 8 unvaccinated individuals with evidence of infection.  That evidence could with be a positive SARS-CoV-2 test sometime during the pandemic, a positive N-antibody test, or both.  Their S-antibody levels ranged from 1.2 to 8.3 with an average of 4.2.  Any level above 1 is considered positive.

Graphically, the data looks like this:

Give a slight edge to vaccine, but really the difference between the two groups is negligible.  The COVID group includes a couple who previously had asymptomatic infections, implying that even asymptomatic infections cause the formation of S-antibodies just like vaccines.

Which causes us to return to the question we asked in early May.  Why vaccinate COVID survivors?  I still see no evidence for doing so, but there are reasons for not vaccinating previously infected people.  Our study includes two previously infected people who took the first dose of an mRNA vaccine and experienced vaccine complications so severe that they couldn’t take the second dose.  One of the two developed a debilitating condition that has not yet resolved and may persist for life.  Through June 7, 2021, VAERS received 5,208 reports of death associated with vaccine administration in the U.S.  Clearly the vaccine did not cause every reported death, but just as clearly, the vaccine death rate is greater than zero.  Death is the most serious of complications.  There are more common but less serious complications that range from inconvenience to discomfort to debilitation.  If there is no benefit, why take a risk?  That’s why my advice is that previously infected people should not be vaccinated without a compelling personal indication. 

Some researchers are beginning to agree with me.  As early as February, a study subsequently published in Nature suggested that a second dose of mRNA vaccine is unnecessary for people previously infected by SARS-CoV-2.  More recently, a pre-publication report of a study conducted at the Cleveland Clinic concludes that vaccinating individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infections has no benefit.

So why does the CDC still adamantly insist that COVID-19 survivors be vaccinated?  The answer lies in perspective.  The vaccination rate in a community is the single greatest factor in controlling the spread of disease and achieving the goal of herd immunity, which has already been reached in many parts of the country.  If you prioritize the good of the population over the good of any individual, then you advocate for universal vaccination even when the vaccine has no benefit, or worse yet, may cause harm to individuals.

That is not my focus as a physician.  My focus is the individual, the patient in front of me.  Health care is not a commodity that can be mass-produced without hurting individuals.  I have urged that vaccine decisions be made individually, not collectively, and I continue to do so.  I believe that the people with greatest risk of unnecessary harm from vaccine are the previously infected and the young.

The suggestion that even asymptomatic infections cause the formation of S-antibodies has implications in the ongoing debate regarding the vaccination of children, the group most likely to have asymptomatic infection.  During this debate, we must first resolve whether our priority is the population as a whole or the individual boys and girls subject to vaccination.  We may reach different conclusions depending on the priority we choose.

Here’s an idea.  Why not check S-antibody levels before vaccination?  Something to think about.

Categories
2021 COVID-19 Science

THE PANDEMIC IS OVER

What gives a Texas pathologist practicing in a suburban community the right to declare THE PANDEMIC IS OVER in screaming headlines?  Shouldn’t such a pronouncement come from an official institution like the NIH or the CDC or the WHO or a prestigious university?   Read on, I’ll tell you.

The graph of the number of positive tests resulted each week by the laboratory where I practice gives you a fair image of the pandemic in my community:

There were two waves, a small one last summer and a bigger one in the winter.  But since the end of February, the number of positive tests has been low and constant.  Positive tests have not disappeared, but the rate of positives is not changing.  Search for rates in your community, and I bet you’ll find a similar graph.

Recall that epidemic means an increasing number of cases in a community, and that pandemic means an epidemic all over the world.  From the graphs it’s obvious that the number of cases is not changing, and it hasn’t been for several months.  If there’s no epidemic in my community and there’s no epidemic in your community, then there’s no more pandemic.  The pandemic is over.

The graphs also tell us that the virus is still here, and probably will be for a long time, maybe forever.  Epidemiologists call this the endemic rate—the rate of disease that is always present in a population.  People will still get sick, and some may even die, but it’s no longer an epidemic.  We reached herd immunity more quickly than many “experts” predicted.   

So now what?  We have to learn to live with the virus. Know your immunity status.  If you are not immune, continue COVID precautions if you wish to avoid contracting the virus.  The pandemic may be over, but the virus and its variants will be with us for a long time. 

Categories
2021 COVID-19 Science Testing Vaccine

Antibodies after Vaccination and Disease

Last time, we built a mental model of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and used that model to make predictions of antibody test results.  This time we will see how that model squares against real-world observations.

Here’s the table we created last time:

InfectedUninfected
VaccinatedS+ N+S+ N-
UnvaccinatedS+ N+S- N-

With their permission, I tested more than 40 individuals who fit into one of the four categories.  Here’s what I found:

InfectedUninfected
Vaccinated4 S+ N+
7 S+ N-
17 S+ N-
3 S+ N+
Unvaccinated4 S+ N+
2 S+ N-
4 S- N-
2 S+ N+

Previously Infected and Vaccinated.  There were eleven people in this category, but only 4 had both the S- and N-antibodies that our model predicted.  Surprisingly, nearly two thirds of the people in this group lacked N-antibodies.  This is not what our model predicted.  It seems some people may not form N-antibodies.  Let’s keep looking.    

Previously Infected but Unvaccinated.  There were six people in this category.  Four had both S-antibodies and N-antibodies, but two had only S-antibodies.  Again, we’re missing some of the N-antibodies predicted by our model.  What’s going on here?  I’ll offer some speculations later.  

Vaccinated without Known Infection.  There were twenty people in this category, and all but three of these individuals had the expected S+ N- antibody pattern.  All outliers were S+ N+, suggesting they had asymptomatic infections sometime during the pandemic.  Is this suggestion reasonable?  I think so.   During the pandemic we tested healthy patients before elective surgeries and found a significant number of asymptomatic infections, so we know this can happen.

Unvaccinated without Known Infection.  There were initially five people in this category, and they had neither S nor N antibodies detected in their blood.  Except for one person.  She was surprised to learn she of a silent previous infection based on the finding of both S and N antibodies in her blood.  Subsequent testing of her husband, who also is unvaccinated without previously known infection, found S and N antibodies in his blood too, bringing the total number of people in this group to six with two outliers.  

We can summarize what we’ve learned as follows:

  • Both SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccine stimulate the production of S-antibodies, 100% of the time in this study.
  • A significant number of people, about 20% in this group, had silent SARS-CoV-2 infections during the pandemic.
  • SARS-CoV-2 infection does not seem to stimulate the production of N-antibodies consistently.  This is a pesky observation that does not fit our model.

Could it be that N-antibody production relates to the severity of disease?  Probably not since quite a few of the S+ N+ individuals in this study had asymptomatic infections.  Could it be that variant viruses cause N-antibody negative infections?  Or is the N-antibody test not very good?  All are possible, but, as we’ve said so many times since the outbreak of the pandemic, we really don’t know for sure.   What we can say is that tests for “COVID antibodies” are more complicated than they seem at first glance.  Laboratories should clearly label the antibodies measured when reporting SARS-CoV-2 antibody results.

How do the antibody levels caused by disease compare with the antibody levels caused by vaccine?  And which vaccine provides the best immune response?  We will examine these questions next time.