Category: Testing

The immune system is a big complex machine.  Medicine tries to simplify the machine to make it understandable and to manipulate it to our advantage.  That’s why we measure antibody levels in the blood.  The measurement of antibody levels in the blood is called serology.  Serology doesn’t measure the whole immune system, but we do it because it’s easy, and it gives us an idea of what’s going on.  

Your immune system is stimulated by molecular structures that are not native to you.  You could say that your immune system is xenophobic, reacting against foreigners. And your immune system has a long memory.  Once stimulated, these memories allow your immune system to mount a defense quickly should that foreigner ever be encountered again. For many infectious agents, including SARS-CoV-2, this means the formation of antibodies which can be measured in your blood.

When you are infected by the virus, your immune system is exposed to all the molecules that make up that virus.  Your immune system can respond to any of those molecules, including one special molecule: the spike protein.  We need to understand what makes spike protein so special.

Contact between the spike protein on the SARS-CoV-2 virus and a cell inside the nose is the first step in the infection of our bodies by these tiny invaders.  The spike protein is like a key that unlocks the vault, giving the virus access the interior of the cell.  Once inside, the virus hijacks the cell machinery, converting it into a virus manufacturing plant.  Thousands of copies of the virus are pumped out which infect neighboring cells, and the process repeats.

Antibodies to spike protein are special because they are neutralizing antibodies.  Neutralizing antibodies get between the viral key and the cellular portals, acting like putty gumming up the keyholes.  That’s why code for spike protein is the active ingredient in mRNA vaccines, and that’s why we should be able to measure vaccine response with spike protein antibodies.  Other parts of the immune system are activated too, but these work after the virus has entered the body.  At least that’s the theory.

How well does all this work?  Imperfectly.

While vaccination may reduce the risk of future infection, it does not prevent it.  Breakthrough infections occur.  Maybe that’s because neutralization only happens when antibody levels are high enough.  Or maybe neutralizing antibody levels fade within months of vaccination.  Or maybe the small alterations in spike proteins of variants make vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies less effective.  Or maybe it’s a combination of all these ideas.  We really don’t know.

And there’s the point.  We really don’t know.  We certainly don’t know enough to make universal vaccination the sole objective of our pandemic response.  Vaccination is a tool that can be used to keep people alive, but it should not become the primary goal.  Other theories need to be investigated to identify our best hope for survival.

For example, here’s a theory that should be investigated.  Based on what we know about the immune response, natural immunity from COVID-19 should be more durable, more protective, and better for our communities than vaccine.  Why?  Natural immunity exposes the immune system to many different molecules, not just spike protein, making it more likely to sustain emergence of new variants.  More durable immunity generates longer lasting herd immunity, reducing the size of subsequent disease spikes.  At least that’s the theory.

How well does it work?  We don’t really know.  

Although other nations have found wisdom in this theory, the CDC has not permitted us to try it.  Instead, the CDC stubbornly holds on to the universal vaccination idea, even vaccinating COVID survivors regardless of their antibody levels.

So how do we get out of this?  We need data.  We need answers to questions like what antibody levels indicate protective immunity?  How long does natural immunity last?  Is vaccine-induced immunity as protective natural immunity against variants?  Can antibody levels be too high?  What are the optimal antibody levels?  

That’s why I’m excited about the Texas CARES Survey.  This study sponsored by the UT Health Science Center at Houston, with testing by my friends and colleagues at Clinical Pathology Laboratories (CPL), promises to give us large cohort retrospective data on durability and magnitude of antibody responses after disease and/or vaccination, with matching outcomes.  Although the study has met its initial enrollment goals, check back for results and more opportunities to participate.

Why has it taken so long to ask these questions?

Do Vaccination Cards Keep Us Safe?

Before I answer that question, I’d like to tell a personal story.  I took a single dose Janssen vaccine March 15, 2021.  I measured my spike protein antibodies on May 20 to make sure that the vaccine worked; my test was positive with an index level of 1.4.  Last Thursday, August 12, I measured my antibodies again.  They were negative.  I have a vaccination card that I can use to sit in a New York City restaurant, attend a concert at SFJAZZ, live on a university campus, or work at a hospital that has mandated vaccines.  Even if H.R. 4980 becomes law, I will be able to travel on an airplane in the United States.  Yet not even five months since my vaccination, there is no longer evidence of antibody-based immunity in my blood.

My story is another example of the folly of making universal vaccination the primary objective of the pandemic response.  Vaccine mandates by restaurants, employers, airlines, colleges, and entertainment venues are based on the flawed assumption that vaccinated people are safe, clean, and not dangerous to others.  There is undeniable evidence that breakthrough infections occur, that the vaccinated can spread the disease, and that vaccinated individuals can die of the disease.  It’s becoming clear that eradication is no longer possible.  

There is also mounting evidence that vaccines are associated with significant side effects that affect the health and wellbeing of individuals.  Expect more evidence to emerge.  We do not yet know the whole story.

I don’t have all the answers—nobody does.  Our understanding of both the virus and the vaccines are so far from complete that it’s impossible for anyone to make sweeping recommendations, no matter their position, no matter their intelligence.  But there is one thing we know for sure.  Clear objectives drive sound decisions.  Before we can win this war, we must agree on a sensible objective.

Our desired outcome should be keeping as many people alive as possible.  The life, health, and wellbeing of all individuals are paramount.  When we give primacy to vaccination status, we lose sight of our noble objective, and we divide people into uncooperating groups.   To the extent that vaccines further our objective, we should use them.  To the extent that early treatments further this objective, we should use them.  To the extent that therapies and treatment protocols have not been fully studied by science, we should fund studies publicly.  Although we can count on the free market to sponsor research when there’s the prospect of a large profit, wouldn’t it be a shame to overlook regimens that can keep people alive just because there’s no money to be made?  But we should never confuse any of these tools with our primary objective. We must allow people to make choices, and we must allow doctors to make personalized decisions in the best interest of individual patients.

Eradication is no longer possible, but survival is.  We must learn to live with the virus.  Have faith.  Have courage.

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:

	Individuals	Low	High	Average
Vaccine	17	1.4	9.1	6.6
COVID	8	1.2	8.3	4.2

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.