The vaccines do not produce saliva antibodies, so do not protect agains oral infection. They likely do not produce antibodies against other mucosal infection paths. So the vaccines allow infection, but with reduce virulence due to pre-existing serum antibodies/T-cells. This means that vaccinated and not previously-infected people can cause the evolution of new variants as described.
"Interpretation: The mRNA BNT162b2 vaccination elicits a strong systemic immune response by drastically boosting neutralizing antibodies development in serum, but not in saliva, indicating that at least oral mucosal immunity is poorly activated by this vaccination protocol, thus failing in limiting virus acquisition upon its entry through this route."
I am a retired endocrinologist and have been alarmed by the politicization of science--the roots of which are the commodification of health care (or lack thereof).
I have wondered about surrogate measures, like antibody response, to tout the success of a vaccine. This article below reports that researchers have identified biomarkers that could predict vaccine success.
Scientists identify long-sought marker for COVID vaccine success: Knowing which signatures in the blood predict protection against COVID-19 could speed the development of new vaccines
Miles Davenport, an immunologist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, notes that there was no significant difference in the neutralizing antibody responses of breakthrough infections and controls. This could occur if young people at greater risk of infection — because they have more social contacts, for example — also had higher antibody levels. The Oxford team accounted for this overlap in their model by estimating participants’ risk of infection. However, Davenport says that it's a challenge to identify protective antibody levels based on estimated risk, rather than observed differences in antibody levels — which would have been possible only if there were clear differences between breakthroughs and controls...
Dull says it’s important to move carefully when determining and applying correlates of protection to COVID-19 vaccines. If vaccines approved on the basis of a biomarker turn out to perform poorly in the real world, it could undermine immunization efforts.
Biomarkers include methylated DNA which modifies the function of the genes and affects gene expression and are attributed to biological weathering, a concept that is taking a little tarnish off evolutionary ideas first proposed by Jean Baptiste Lamarck in the early 19th Century.
See this research as an example:
Economic hardship and biological weathering: The epigenetics of aging in a U.S. sample of black women
And one might postulate that methylated DNA could be the origin of many other biomarkers that cells do or do not make--those very markers that the researchers of the Nature article are seeking to speed the development of new vaccines.
Let's say those researchers determine biomarkers do in fact predict vaccine success. What if those very biomarkers are not seen in poor, or sick or elderly people--you know, those very people who have had a lot of stressors that create methylated DNA and "biological weathering"?
Those very people may be the ones most prone to the spike receptor's unlocking of their up-regulated ACE receptors, integral to humans' neuro-endocrine survival--but vulnerable to upheaval during cytokine storms.
Darwin's ideas, coupled with the prosperity gospel (also known as the “health and wealth gospel” or by its most popular brand, the “Word of Faith” movement) ensures depopulation of the most vulnerable, ensuring the fittest (aka as those with more money to buy our "excellent" healthcare) to survive.
I wondered how Australia could have possibly have had an outbreak of the delta variant, since it had effectively closed off its borders. And how could a country known for keeping COVID cases low through its brutal lockdown measures suddenly get a surge in the delta variant after a vaccination program?
And as it turns out, the origin of how it got there is a mystery, or at least a mystery to the experts:
The vaccines do not produce saliva antibodies, so do not protect agains oral infection. They likely do not produce antibodies against other mucosal infection paths. So the vaccines allow infection, but with reduce virulence due to pre-existing serum antibodies/T-cells. This means that vaccinated and not previously-infected people can cause the evolution of new variants as described.
"Interpretation: The mRNA BNT162b2 vaccination elicits a strong systemic immune response by drastically boosting neutralizing antibodies development in serum, but not in saliva, indicating that at least oral mucosal immunity is poorly activated by this vaccination protocol, thus failing in limiting virus acquisition upon its entry through this route."
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3871718
I am a retired endocrinologist and have been alarmed by the politicization of science--the roots of which are the commodification of health care (or lack thereof).
I have wondered about surrogate measures, like antibody response, to tout the success of a vaccine. This article below reports that researchers have identified biomarkers that could predict vaccine success.
From Nature, 01, July 2021:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01778-2
Scientists identify long-sought marker for COVID vaccine success: Knowing which signatures in the blood predict protection against COVID-19 could speed the development of new vaccines
Miles Davenport, an immunologist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, notes that there was no significant difference in the neutralizing antibody responses of breakthrough infections and controls. This could occur if young people at greater risk of infection — because they have more social contacts, for example — also had higher antibody levels. The Oxford team accounted for this overlap in their model by estimating participants’ risk of infection. However, Davenport says that it's a challenge to identify protective antibody levels based on estimated risk, rather than observed differences in antibody levels — which would have been possible only if there were clear differences between breakthroughs and controls...
Dull says it’s important to move carefully when determining and applying correlates of protection to COVID-19 vaccines. If vaccines approved on the basis of a biomarker turn out to perform poorly in the real world, it could undermine immunization efforts.
Biomarkers include methylated DNA which modifies the function of the genes and affects gene expression and are attributed to biological weathering, a concept that is taking a little tarnish off evolutionary ideas first proposed by Jean Baptiste Lamarck in the early 19th Century.
See this research as an example:
Economic hardship and biological weathering: The epigenetics of aging in a U.S. sample of black women
https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=psychology_pubs
And one might postulate that methylated DNA could be the origin of many other biomarkers that cells do or do not make--those very markers that the researchers of the Nature article are seeking to speed the development of new vaccines.
Let's say those researchers determine biomarkers do in fact predict vaccine success. What if those very biomarkers are not seen in poor, or sick or elderly people--you know, those very people who have had a lot of stressors that create methylated DNA and "biological weathering"?
Those very people may be the ones most prone to the spike receptor's unlocking of their up-regulated ACE receptors, integral to humans' neuro-endocrine survival--but vulnerable to upheaval during cytokine storms.
Darwin's ideas, coupled with the prosperity gospel (also known as the “health and wealth gospel” or by its most popular brand, the “Word of Faith” movement) ensures depopulation of the most vulnerable, ensuring the fittest (aka as those with more money to buy our "excellent" healthcare) to survive.
I wondered how Australia could have possibly have had an outbreak of the delta variant, since it had effectively closed off its borders. And how could a country known for keeping COVID cases low through its brutal lockdown measures suddenly get a surge in the delta variant after a vaccination program?
And as it turns out, the origin of how it got there is a mystery, or at least a mystery to the experts:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jun/04/where-did-australias-first-cases-of-the-delta-variant-come-from-and-how-infectious-is-it