Boosting with new bivalent mRNA vaccines targeting both the BA.4–BA.5 variant and the D614G strain did not elicit a discernibly superior virus-neutralizing peak antibody response as compared with boosting with the original monovalent vaccines.
Why did the strategy for significantly increasing BA.4 and BA.5 neutralizing antibodies using a bivalent vaccine fail? The most likely explanation is imprinting. The immune systems of people immunized with the bivalent vaccine, all of whom had previously been vaccinated, were primed to respond to the ancestral strain of SARS-CoV-2. They therefore probably responded to epitopes shared by BA.4 and BA.5 and the ancestral strain, rather than to new epitopes on BA.4 and BA.5. This effect could possibly be moderated by immunizing people either with BA.4 and BA.5 mRNA alone or with a greater quantity of BA.4 and BA.5 mRNA. Evidence in support of these strategies can be found in Pfizer–BioNTech’s data regarding its BA.1-containing bivalent vaccine, which showed that BA.1-specific neutralizing-antibody responses were greater in persons who were injected with a monovalent vaccine containing 30 μg or 60 μg of BA.1 mRNA or a bivalent vaccine containing 30 μg of BA.1 mRNA and 30 μg of ancestral-strain mRNA than in those who received a bivalent vaccine containing 15 μg of each type of mRNA.
On November 22, 2022, the CDC published data on the effectiveness of the BA.4 and BA.5 mRNA vaccines for preventing symptomatic infection within 2 months after receipt of the booster dose. For people who had received a monovalent vaccine 2 to 3 months earlier, the extra protection associated with the bivalent booster dose ranged from 28 to 31%. For those who had received a monovalent vaccine more than 8 months earlier, the extra protection ranged from 43 to 56%.5 Given the results of previous studies, it’s likely that this moderate increase in protection against probably generally mild disease will be short lived. As of November 15, 2022, only about 10% of the population for whom the bivalent vaccine had been recommended had received it.5 By December 2022, the BA.4 strain was no longer circulating, and BA.5 accounted for less than 25% of circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains, having been partially replaced by more immune-evasive strains, such as BQ.1, BQ.1.1, BF.7, XBB, and XBB.1.
Eighty-four women completed the study, providing 504 breast milk samples. Women were a mean (SD) age of 34 (4) years and infants 10.32 (7.3) months (Table).
Mean levels of anti–SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA antibodies in the breast milk increased rapidly and were significantly elevated at 2 weeks after the first vaccine (2.05 ratio; P < .001), when 61.8% of samples tested positive, increasing to 86.1% at week 4 (1 week after the second vaccine). Mean levels remained elevated for the duration of follow-up, and at week six, 65.7% of samples tested positive. Anti–SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG antibodies remained low for the first 3 weeks, with an increase at week 4 (20.5 U/mL; P = .004), when 91.7% of samples tested positive, increasing to 97% at weeks 5 and 6 (Figure).
https://blog.wenxuecity.com/myblog/73054/202201/20429.html
这都是免疫接种的常识啊，无数教训得来的。这类生物体最基本的免疫反应，不会因为换了个抗原制备方法而改变。
咋就那么信疫苗公司的忽悠、和政客们的嘴脸呢
更可怕的是
https://blog.wenxuecity.com/myblog/73054/202209/7739.html
ps
新闻报道
Data Doesn’t Support New COVID-19 Booster Shots for Most, Says Vaccine Experthttps://time.com/6246525/bivalent-booster-not-very-effective-paul-offit/
上面报道源自最近刚发表的文章
Antibody Response to Omicron BA.4–BA.5 Bivalent Boosterhttps://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2213907
…………
Boosting with new bivalent mRNA vaccines targeting both the BA.4–BA.5 variant and the D614G strain did not elicit a discernibly superior virus-neutralizing peak antibody response as compared with boosting with the original monovalent vaccines.
…………
Bivalent Covid-19 Vaccines — A Cautionary Talehttps://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2215780
……………
Why did the strategy for significantly increasing BA.4 and BA.5 neutralizing antibodies using a bivalent vaccine fail? The most likely explanation is imprinting. The immune systems of people immunized with the bivalent vaccine, all of whom had previously been vaccinated, were primed to respond to the ancestral strain of SARS-CoV-2. They therefore probably responded to epitopes shared by BA.4 and BA.5 and the ancestral strain, rather than to new epitopes on BA.4 and BA.5. This effect could possibly be moderated by immunizing people either with BA.4 and BA.5 mRNA alone or with a greater quantity of BA.4 and BA.5 mRNA. Evidence in support of these strategies can be found in Pfizer–BioNTech’s data regarding its BA.1-containing bivalent vaccine, which showed that BA.1-specific neutralizing-antibody responses were greater in persons who were injected with a monovalent vaccine containing 30 μg or 60 μg of BA.1 mRNA or a bivalent vaccine containing 30 μg of BA.1 mRNA and 30 μg of ancestral-strain mRNA than in those who received a bivalent vaccine containing 15 μg of each type of mRNA.
On November 22, 2022, the CDC published data on the effectiveness of the BA.4 and BA.5 mRNA vaccines for preventing symptomatic infection within 2 months after receipt of the booster dose. For people who had received a monovalent vaccine 2 to 3 months earlier, the extra protection associated with the bivalent booster dose ranged from 28 to 31%. For those who had received a monovalent vaccine more than 8 months earlier, the extra protection ranged from 43 to 56%.5 Given the results of previous studies, it’s likely that this moderate increase in protection against probably generally mild disease will be short lived. As of November 15, 2022, only about 10% of the population for whom the bivalent vaccine had been recommended had received it.5 By December 2022, the BA.4 strain was no longer circulating, and BA.5 accounted for less than 25% of circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains, having been partially replaced by more immune-evasive strains, such as BQ.1, BQ.1.1, BF.7, XBB, and XBB.1.
………
的几率就会大幅增加， 那么阴谋论就确实成立。
任何新冠疫苗都不能诱导出 IgA, 而是诱导出后者。
IgA：御敌于国门之外
IgG：敌人入侵之后予以掩杀
T+B：强大的后备队
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778766
ResultsEighty-four women completed the study, providing 504 breast milk samples. Women were a mean (SD) age of 34 (4) years and infants 10.32 (7.3) months (Table).
Mean levels of anti–SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA antibodies in the breast milk increased rapidly and were significantly elevated at 2 weeks after the first vaccine (2.05 ratio; P < .001), when 61.8% of samples tested positive, increasing to 86.1% at week 4 (1 week after the second vaccine). Mean levels remained elevated for the duration of follow-up, and at week six, 65.7% of samples tested positive. Anti–SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG antibodies remained low for the first 3 weeks, with an increase at week 4 (20.5 U/mL; P = .004), when 91.7% of samples tested positive, increasing to 97% at weeks 5 and 6 (Figure).