Thank you for drawing attention to this study and commenting on it. It is certainly remarkable. I am a bit confused, though, by your use of the term 'tolerance.' Immune tolerance refers to the lack of a (strong) immune response against a pathogen/antigens. That would mean that one would expect no or only mild symptoms after infection, i.e. no symptoms of ILI. Maybe it would be better to speak of a not-effective/derailed immune response. What would happen in the case of real immune tolerance? Would the virus continue to replicate and wreak havoc? On the other hand, a recent study has found that mice without B and T cells did not suffer much from SC2 infection. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adg5461. I find this quite puzzling.
Thank you. Good points. What I describe in my preprints is the effect of antigen cross-presentation and bystander activation. Analogously, cross-tolerance. This can mean that in some situations, the immune system gets primed to attack off-target antigens, causing an immune overreaction. This is why a dampened immune response may be even helpful - in some situations. This is what the Science article seems to suggest (increased inflammation and pathology as a result of an immune over-reaction). In some circumstances the i.s. may, alternatively, begin to ignore various antigens, specifically related to cellular immunity. This is a natural process, to avoid autoimmune development. What happens when is not an easy decision but, in part, influenced by the extend of additional signals for immune activation. Most of the Covid-mRNA-"vaccine" has focused on the antigen alone, ignoring the requirement for complete immune activation via appropriate co-signaling. When the balance and adequate signaling are off, as seen with the shots, and when those pro-drugs cause the i.s. to target off-target antigens, including self-antigens, this cannot be a good thing. And yes, you are right, when the viral antigens get ignored, you still have the adverse effects of the spike, etc. So, in all, the potential for the worst of both worlds....
"In the years following the COVID-19 pandemic, it is still unclear whether annual COVID booster vaccines are necessary for low-risk populations such as healthcare workers."... oh really, they call the authors scientists? Unfortunately, autism is related to the shots. Basics in protein-engineering are not required to understand that without a virus there is no chance for any efficacy. Even in 2025 the Swiss PDB-Viewer is not able to do a proper visualisation of Pfizer's awfully wrong designed spike-protein 6xra - like big holes in swiss cheese.
I agree. The limited transparency is heart breaking. This is why I am grateful for every beam of light. I truly wish you all the best so you can get your insights published, exactly as you desire to, hopefully with top journals!
Thank you for drawing attention to this study and commenting on it. It is certainly remarkable. I am a bit confused, though, by your use of the term 'tolerance.' Immune tolerance refers to the lack of a (strong) immune response against a pathogen/antigens. That would mean that one would expect no or only mild symptoms after infection, i.e. no symptoms of ILI. Maybe it would be better to speak of a not-effective/derailed immune response. What would happen in the case of real immune tolerance? Would the virus continue to replicate and wreak havoc? On the other hand, a recent study has found that mice without B and T cells did not suffer much from SC2 infection. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adg5461. I find this quite puzzling.
Thank you. Good points. What I describe in my preprints is the effect of antigen cross-presentation and bystander activation. Analogously, cross-tolerance. This can mean that in some situations, the immune system gets primed to attack off-target antigens, causing an immune overreaction. This is why a dampened immune response may be even helpful - in some situations. This is what the Science article seems to suggest (increased inflammation and pathology as a result of an immune over-reaction). In some circumstances the i.s. may, alternatively, begin to ignore various antigens, specifically related to cellular immunity. This is a natural process, to avoid autoimmune development. What happens when is not an easy decision but, in part, influenced by the extend of additional signals for immune activation. Most of the Covid-mRNA-"vaccine" has focused on the antigen alone, ignoring the requirement for complete immune activation via appropriate co-signaling. When the balance and adequate signaling are off, as seen with the shots, and when those pro-drugs cause the i.s. to target off-target antigens, including self-antigens, this cannot be a good thing. And yes, you are right, when the viral antigens get ignored, you still have the adverse effects of the spike, etc. So, in all, the potential for the worst of both worlds....
Thanks for the clarification!
"In the years following the COVID-19 pandemic, it is still unclear whether annual COVID booster vaccines are necessary for low-risk populations such as healthcare workers."... oh really, they call the authors scientists? Unfortunately, autism is related to the shots. Basics in protein-engineering are not required to understand that without a virus there is no chance for any efficacy. Even in 2025 the Swiss PDB-Viewer is not able to do a proper visualisation of Pfizer's awfully wrong designed spike-protein 6xra - like big holes in swiss cheese.
I agree. The limited transparency is heart breaking. This is why I am grateful for every beam of light. I truly wish you all the best so you can get your insights published, exactly as you desire to, hopefully with top journals!