@marcveld
Professor of Immunology 🇳🇱 🇬🇧 Lisbon, 🇵🇹 #Immunology Time for Science, not silence https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=7vG1jLIAAAAJ&hl=en https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1478-9562 threads.net/@marc_veld mastodon.online/@marc_veld
Forget SkinTok: the real science of skincare and why it matters for your health
Skip the complicated regimens and expensive products seen on social media. The science of skin is deep but the recommendations are simple.
Preprint server removes study attributing increased infant mortality to vaccines
The paper, posted at Preprints.org last December, was written by Karl Jablonowski and Brian Hooker of Children’s Health Defense.
retractionwatch.com/...
It is unsettling to watch the United States drift toward greater danger while much of the country barely reacts. Warnings are everywhere, yet national institutions respond with little more than a murmur. What looks calm may simply be people growing used to the risk.
1/4
The US fighting a religious war, for their religion? The minister for "war" has religious beliefs for war, and uses it as an excuse to go to war.
Helping the iranian people, callling them to overthrow their government (while staying inside), "help is comming", well, forget about all that.
Who would have thought?
This nonscientific story is still circulating; that SARS-CoV-2 causes "accumulative" damage and does not contribute to immunity. Topped up by "not seasonal".
The science contribution is by @helenp-h.bsky.social and Michael Baker
www.rnz.co.nz/life/w...
1/10
In 2026, after this paper has been highlighted and explained at nausea, you can of course bring it up again to claim "cumulative damage". But that would be a bit silly.
For those at the back.
Let´s do this one once more. A much (purposely) misinterpreted paper.
(from Twitter, Jan 2023)
Gezondheidsraad past adviesleeftijd voor coronaprik aan van 60+ naar 70+
De Gezondheidsraad adviseert om de coronaprik komend en volgend najaar aan te bieden aan zeventigplussers en medische risicogroepen. Eerder gold dat advies ook voor 60+.
www.nu.nl/coronaviru...
1/3
As with most infections;
- the acute risk of disease is lower for reinfection than 1st infection.
- those infected, after the acute phase, seem less in need of hospitalisation in time compared with 1st infection.
This is how it generally works.
All this seems at odds with the interpretation that multiple infections cause one to be more vulnerable (a first infection can, and during the acute phase this is certainly possible, for all infections). It is in agreement with the many studies as in the metaanalysis and later.
But, the risks associated with reinfection seem more likely to be acute, compared to first infection. This can also be seen in the supplementary tables. The excess burden from reinfection starts out higher than the no-reinfection burden, but then drops.
The risk is highest shortly after infection. Which makes sense: yet there is an increase risk op complications for a longer time: especially in cohorts like used here.
What this article shows is that the health risks arising from reinfections are not zero. That is important information, but it does not show that another SARS-COV-2 infection is worse than the previous one.
There have been many studies that compare 2nd infections, a recent meta-analysis shows a -80% reduction in disease:
thelancet.com/journals/lan...
In graphics, it looks like this
Source and discussion: x.com/MichaelSFuhr...
This you can see from supplemental figure 2, which is applicable to figures 1-4.
Situation 1 - infected on day 1 assessed days 90-180
Compared to situation 2 - infected on day 1, re-infected in days 90-180.
The comparison done:
1 - days 90-180
2 - days +1 after reinfection
Independent of what people interpret, and not included in the preprint, the authors (had to) make it very clear that their study should not and cannot be used to compare the risk of reinfection with that of a first infection.
In addition, the authors equate hospitalisation with COVID-19 infection. But that is not so clear. In the setting used, the infection could be the result of the hospitalisation, thereby overstating the infection effect. IHR ~10%! Or it could be this specific cohort.
The hospital setting: If you have more C19 infections and all are diagnosed with a PCR test or antigen on your record, then you have more symptoms than someone going through the reinfection at home; anyway, PCR in the hospital = more chance to be/be included in the hospital.
In addition, the cohort is old (60 years old), 90% male, very low vaccination status, and is also more vulnerable (much immunocompromised, although there is some correction).
Re-infections hit vulnerable people worse, so they are worse off than people who have not been re-infected.
This study predates Omicron (ended April 6, 2022, after 6 months follow-up), which bypasses more antibodies, and reinfections are tilted towards the more vulnerable.
A Delta breakthrough does not imply the same consequences or selection bias as an Omicron breakthrough
Is it possible to get damage from repeated infections? Yes, with every infection. So, prevention is always better. But, in the long run often not possible and practical.
What the article shows is that measuring just after a re-infection is worse than not having that re-infection. Not more!
In 2026, after this paper has been highlighted and explained at nausea, you can of course bring it up again to claim "cumulative damage". But that would be a bit silly.
For those at the back.
Let´s do this one once more. A much (purposely) misinterpreted paper.
(from Twitter, Jan 2023)
That is the problem, unless you can tell me what the paper actually investigates (do read the warning in the discussion as well).
molecular on the side of SARS-CoV-2, and epidemiological, shows why this would be different for this respiratory virus. The answer is: it is not different, and SARS-CoV-2 shows a seasonal pattern. This is shown here in a sentinel cohort and by wastewater assessments.
10/10
With the delay of infections, population immunity and mucosal immunity are not synchronised, which in large part impacts wave frequency. Like all respiratory viruses, there is a frequency, with largely a once a year peak. The same counts for SARS-CoV-2, unless strong data,
9/10
The downward trend shows immunity, in which infections do play an important role, delayed in NZ due to excellent initial containment measures, reducing the impact of the virus. None of this means you should purposely get infected, or reasonable precautions shouldn´t be taken
8/10
You can, of course, make claims of immunity failing (not) and try to cause panic, "everyone must act", but the data does not support this at all. No, SARS-CoV-2 will not disappear soon; yes, it will make victims, like all the other infections.
www.rnz.co.nz/news/n...
7/10
What we see all over the world is how the establishment of immunity protects us. Of course, we have gained (and lost) one virus: SARS-CoV-2, which will, like all the others, contribute to annual deaths, especially in the elderly (80+).
6/10
Anyone making such a claim of "accumulative" damage has to substantiate it by showing how this works in a biological system, showing evidence of it happening at a large scale, and providing evidence of a molecular mechanism that sets SC2 apart from all the other pathogens
5/10