The debate over the covid pandemic is reminiscent of deaf dialogue. Everyone shouts and no one listens, everyone waves their own “scientifically proven” truth. At the same time, it is seldom taken as a fact that scientific progress is nothing more than constantly filling gaps in our knowledge and subsequently correcting the mistakes we make.
This is fully true of the new areas of research to which SARS-CoV-2 research undoubtedly belongs. It’s hard to find the truth that would be worth carving in stone. There is a danger that we will immediately “re-cut” it and then again and again. The ancient Greeks were well aware of the transience of many scientific truths when they recommended, “Do not swear by the teacher’s words.”
That is why it is worth mentioning an interesting study by Canadian scientists led by Joelle Pelletier and Jean-Francois Masson of the Université de Montreal published in the Scientific Journal. Ice cream may not like its results. But it does not accompany them from the world.
Masson and Pelletier were interested in how the immunity of people who underwent covid and subsequently were vaccinated developed. The volunteers who received Pfizer BioNTech or AstraZeneca after the infection had significantly higher antibody levels than those who had the infection but were not vaccinated.
Vaccine-induced antibodies have also been shown to be effective against the delta variant. It did not occur in the Canadian province of Quebec at the time of sampling in 2020, so a higher response to this variant of the virus is due to vaccination. The response was higher in people over 50 years of age.
Better response after the sixties
“Everyone who was infected produced antibodies, but older people produced more than adults under the age of 50,” says Masson. “In addition, antibodies were present in their bloodstream 16 weeks after diagnosis.”
Although the antibodies produced after infection with the original coronavirus strain responded to the SARS-CoV-2 variants that appeared in the following waves, specifically against the beta variant from South Africa, the delta variant from India and the gamma variant from Brazil. However, the reactivity of these antibodies with the new coronavirus variants was weakened. Infection-only antibodies showed a one-third to one-half efficacy over newer coronavirus variants.
“What surprised us the most was the fact that antibodies produced by naturally infected individuals aged 50 and over provided a higher degree of protection than antibodies produced by adults under the age of 50,” says Joelle Pelletier. “We found this by measuring the ability of the antibodies to block the coronavirus spike-protein delta interaction with the ACE-2 receptor on human cells. That’s the way we get infected. We did not observe the same phenomenon with other coronavirus variants.“
Masson adds: “When someone who has had a mild case of covid is vaccinated, the level of antibodies in their blood doubles compared to an unvaccinated person who has been infected with the virus. The antibodies generated after vaccination are also better able to prevent the viral spike protein from interacting with the ACE-2 receptor on human cells. “
“Even more interesting, we have samples from an individual under the age of 49 who did not produce an antibody after infection that inhibited the interaction of the viral spike protein with the human ACE-2 receptor. However, after vaccination, these antibodies formed. This suggests that vaccination increases protection against the delta variant even among people previously infected with the native strain. “
What with this?
One possibility is to wave your hand over the Canadian study because it contains far too “uncomfortable truths.” We can continue to say that young people have immunity after infection at such a level that it is unnecessary for them to be vaccinated. On the contrary, we can look through the fingers at seniors who have forum immunity and others are restricted in their rights when implementing anti-cancer measures.
There is no doubt that many people deal with the finding of Canadians in this way. But in science, knowledge that doesn’t fit into the mainstream is often much more important than results that fit into it. Yes, “uncomfortable truths” may turn out to be a mistake, but they can also reveal that supporters of the mainstream camp remain mistaken.
Science is not democratic. The majority is not automatically right there and cannot be voted on. And those who shout the loudest in the dialogue of the deaf do not have it at all.
Even if humanity voted “as is the case with coronavirus” in the global referendum, the result of the vote will be completely indifferent to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, and under the influence of the referendum, not even an atom will change. If we want to deal with a pandemic, we have no choice but to patiently reveal what this microscopic creature can do and what it does with us. And accept those research results that we don’t like.