Reading Progress:

Antibodies Persist with Natural Immunity to SARS-CoV-2

by Oct 11, 2021Health Freedom4 comments

A Department of Defense personnel holds a vial of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (DOD photo licensed under CC BY 2.0)
Contrary to the CDC’s public messaging, studies have shown that natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is durable, including persistent antibodies.

Reading Time: ( Word Count: )

()

This is the sixth of an extensive series of articles about natural immunity to SARS‑CoV‑2 and how it compares to the immunity induced by COVID‑19 vaccines. Links to each installment of the series will be compiled on this overview page as they are published. I highly recommend that you be sure to have read prior installments to get the most out of this one.

In the previous article in this series, we saw how, contrary to fearmongering media reports throughout the summer and fall of 2020, a loss of antibodies following recovery from an infection with SARS‑CoV‑2, the coronavirus that causes COVID‑19, does not mean loss of immunity. In this article, we will look briefly at how, furthermore, most people who recover from infection do have persistent circulating antibodies.

While it is normal for antibodies to wane after reaching a peak level shortly after infection, contrary to some early findings that served as the basis for the alarmist headlines, many other studies have showed that the decline plateaus, with long-term persistence IgG antibodies capable of neutralizing SARS‑CoV‑2 before it can enter and replicate inside of host cells.

As we saw in the prior article, the scientific community understood that the claim of rapidly waning immunity that was making headlines was, in the words of immunologist Scott Hensley, “silly”. The headlines were poles apart from what scientists were really learning about immunity to SARS‑CoV‑2.

The mainstream media sources propagating the false claim of rapidly lost immunity were demonstrably cherry-picking studies whose findings could be spun to engender fear while ignoring research that didn’t align with the adopted political agenda of manufacturing consent for the authoritarian lockdown measures and their mass vaccination endgame.

As an example of the ignored research, a study by researchers from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, that was published on the preprint server medRxiv on July 17, 2020, found that “the vast majority of infected individuals with mild-to-moderate COVID‑19” not only “experience robust IgG antibody responses against the spike protein” but continue to have antibody levels that “are stable for at least a period approximating three months”.[1]

In a study published at medRxiv on July 24, a team of Chinese researchers followed recovered patients for a period of six months and found that IgG antibodies against both the spike and nucleocapsid proteins “showed an intermediate contraction phase but stabilized at relatively high levels over the six months observation period”, indicating “sustained humoral immunity”.[2]

Humoral immunity refers specifically to protection offered by circulating antibodies, distinct from cellular immunity, which involves T cell responses, as we touched on in the previous article in this series and will delve more deeply into in future installments.

“In contrast to other reports, we conclude that immunity is durable for at least several months after SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Researchers from the University of Arizona observed in a study published at medRxiv on August 16 that antibodies against the SARS‑CoV-2 spike protein appeared to wane less rapidly than antibodies against the nucleocapsid protein and persisted for the duration of the follow-up period, indicating that humoral immunity “is durable for at least several months after SARS‑CoV‑2 infection.”[3]

As noted in the prior installment, the New York Times was not among the media outlets running fearmongering headlines falsely equating antibodies with immunity and claiming that loss of antibodies therefore meant loss of immunity. At least in part to allay fears that vaccines would not be able to induce long-lasting protection, the Times rightly noted that waning antibodies didn’t equal loss of immunity and, moreover, that reports of disappearing antibodies were mistaken.

Providing an antidote to that persistent alarmist claim of lost immunity, the Times on August 16 acknowledged that studies were showing “encouraging signs of strong, lasting immunity, even in people who developed only mild symptoms of COVID‑19”. In addition to antibodies, “immune cells called B cells and T cells that are capable of recognizing the virus” appeared “to persist for months after infections have resolved—an encouraging echo of the body’s enduring response to other viruses.”[4]

Artistic rendering of antibodies in the bloodstream (image by swiftsciencewriting, licensed under Pixabay license)
Artistic rendering of antibodies in the bloodstream (image by swiftsciencewriting, licensed under Pixabay License)

The study by University of Arizona researchers was peer-reviewed and published in the journal Immunity on October 13. As they concluded, contrary to findings that served as the basis for the fearmongering, “neutralizing antibodies are stably produced for at least 5–7 months after SARS‑CoV‑2 infection.”

As they explained, it was a known fact of immunology that even “exceptionally durable” humoral responses “begin with an initial wave of short-lived plasma cells that decline quickly and are progressively replaced by a smaller number of longer-lived antibody-secreting plasma cells.” Claims about “the rapid loss of immunity to SARS‑CoV‑2” were “premature and inconsistent with the data”.

Indeed, they added, despite nearly 30 million cases of COVID‑19 since December 2019, there had been only around ten documented and confirmed cases of reinfections.[5]

“Given these lessons, conclusions about the rapid loss of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 are premature and inconsistent with the data we presented here. Indeed, of nearly 30 million cases to date since December 2019, there have been only ~10 documented and confirmed cases of re-infections.”

In a study published on October 29, 2020, in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers from Iceland reported their finding that, while some single-immunoglobulin (Ig) assays showed diminution of IgG antibodies, the use of two pan-Ig assays showed that over 90 percent of infected individuals developed detectable IgG antibodies that at four months of follow-up were persisting “with no decrease”.[6]

Despite such advances in our understanding of immunity to SARS‑CoV‑2, the false claim still persisted in media headlines that people who recovered from COVID‑19 were rapidly losing their natural immunity. Here are some examples of the persistent deceitful fearmongering:

  • “COVID‑19 immunity ‘declines sharply’ a month after hospital discharge” — BBC Science Focus Magazine, September 11, 2020[7]
  • “Doctor says COVID‑19 immunity wanes after 3 months” — MSN, October 16, 2020[8]
  • “British study shows evidence of waning immunity to Covid‑19” — CNN, October 26, 2020[9]
  • “UK study finds evidence of waning antibody immunity to COVID‑19 over time” — Reuters, October 26, 2020[10]
  • “Study Shows Covid‑19 Antibodies Waning Over Time, Suggesting Immunity Might Wear Off” — Wall Street Journal, October 26, 2020[11]
  • “Covid: Antibodies ‘fall rapidly after infection’” — BBC, October 27, 2020[12]
  • “Study: Covid‑19 Immunity May Wear Off After Infection” — Forbes, October 27, 2020[13]
  • “COVID‑19 immunity may only last a few months after infection, study indicates” — MarketWatch, October 27, 2020[14]
  • “COVID Immunity Might Wear Off, Large Study Finds” — Kaiser Health News, October 27, 2020[15]

Naturally, this political propaganda—not to be confused with journalism—served the function of instilling fear into the public, which was necessary to manufacture consent for the continued lockdown measures and their mass vaccination endgame.

An alarmist CNN headline falsely claiming that waning antibodies meant loss of immunity to SARS-CoV-2
An alarmist CNN headline falsely claiming that waning antibodies meant loss of immunity to SARS-CoV-2

Once again, a key source for the false claim about rapidly waning immunity to SARS‑CoV‑2 was Imperial College London. As discussed in part four of this series, this was the same institution that collaborated with the World Health Organization (WHO) in producing the influential model in March 2020 advocating implementation and continuance of strict lockdown measures until a vaccine could be rapidly developed and fast-tracked through the governmental regulatory process. This was the same institution that in April 2020 also secured millions in British taxpayers’ money to fast-track development of a COVID‑19 vaccine.

Ignoring findings of other studies that put the lie to their fearmongering, the media could rely on researchers from Imperial College London to provide them with the supposed “science” that was needed to serve the adopted political agenda. “Immunity is waning quite rapidly,” Helen Ward, a professor at the institution, lied to the media.[16]

The head of the Department of Infectious Disease at Imperial College London, Wendy Barclay, similarly propagated the false claim that “the balance of evidence” showed that natural immunity was not durable. It appeared, she deceived, “as if immunity declines away at the same rate as antibodies decline away, and that this is an indication of waning immunity at the population level.”

At the same time, Barclay reassured the public that the rapid loss of natural immunity did not mean that the vaccines that were then undergoing clinical trials would not be effective. “A good vaccine”, she asserted, “may well be better than natural immunity.”[17]

Imperial College London (Photo by Christine Matthews, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0)
Imperial College London (Photo by Christine Matthews, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0)

Thus, well before any COVID‑19 vaccines had been authorized for emergency use by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the idea was being driven into the public mind that natural immunity was insufficient; it was weak and short-lived and inferior to the immunity that could be attained through vaccine technology.

The real science, as opposed to the false characterizations of “the science” portrayed by government officials and the media, continued to show precisely the opposite. The evidence was rather strong and growing that infection induced typical immune responses that could be reasonably expected to confer long-lasting protection against COVID‑19.

Rochelle Walensky, who replaced Robert Redfield as Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in January 2021, was among those actively participating in the willful deception about natural immunity being weak and short-lived. Her name was among those that appeared on a commentary published in The Lancet on October 15, 2020, that advocated continuance of the authoritarian lockdown measures until herd immunity could be achieved through mass vaccination.

Falsely purporting to present an “evidence-based consensus” on what was known about immunity to SARS‑CoV‑2, Walensky and her coauthors blatantly lied that “there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection”. Suggesting that natural immunity was short-lived, they asserted that “the consequence of waning immunity” would be continued transmission of the virus. They argued that therefore herd immunity could only be achieved through mass vaccination.

“Furthermore, there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection, and the endemic transmission that would be the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future.”

The supposedly authoritative message they thus delivered to the public was that the vaccines undergoing clinical trials would confer immunity that, unlike natural immunity, would be long-lasting and would effectively prevent transmission of SARS‑CoV‑2.[18]

As has already become clear, however, the vaccines have failed to live up to that promise.

Setting aside the false claims of professional propagandists masquerading as scientists, the true scientific consensus—a point of basic immunology—was that waning antibodies did not mean loss of immunity. At the time Walensky was endorsing the claim that there was “no evidence” that natural immunity would be durable, studies had in fact already shown that, in addition to cellular immune responses, neutralizing antibodies induced by infection were persistent, which indicated induction of immunologic memory and long-lived plasma cells that could rapidly churn out more antibodies upon reexposure to the coronavirus.

Under Walensky’s directorship, as discussed in part three of this series, the CDC has persisted in the false claim that natural immunity is inadequate and inferior and that therefore everyone who has already recovered from infection still needs to get fully vaccinated. Since August 2021, the CDC has been explicitly claiming that the immunity conferred by vaccines is superior to natural immunity.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky (Public Domain)
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky (Public Domain)

Since Walensky and her co-conspirators lied in October 2020 that there was no evidence that natural immunity would be durable, the scientific evidence proving its durability has continued to mount, including continued findings that neutralizing antibodies persist in the blood of most people who recover from infection with SARS‑CoV‑2.

The research team from Icahn School of Medicine showed in a study published in Science on October 28 that “the vast majority of infected individuals with mild-to-moderate COVID‑19 experience robust immunoglobulin G [IgG] antibody responses against the viral spike protein.” Furthermore, antibody titers were “relatively stable for at least a period of about 5 months”, and “anti-spike binding titers significantly correlate with neutralization” of SARS‑CoV‑2 in lab studies.

Furthermore, in patients with an initially low titer, antibody levels were observed to increase from about one month to three months post-infection. The authors concluded that “the sustained antibody titers observed here over time are likely produced by long-lived plasma cells in the bone marrow.”[19] (Emphasis added.)

“The initial serum antibody titer was likely produced by plasmablasts, and … the sustained antibody titers observed here over time are likely produced by long-lived plasma cells in the bone marrow.”

Researchers from Rockefeller University showed in a study published at the preprint server bioRxiv on November 5, 2020, that antibodies to the receptor binding domain of the spike protein and neutralization activity in plasma samples, after a normal decline from peak levels, “remain detectable 6 months after infection with SARS‑CoV‑2 in the majority of individuals.”[20]

Researchers from the La Jolla Institute for Immunology found in a study published in bioRxiv on November 16 that anti-spike IgG antibody levels “were durable, with modest declines in titers at 6 to 8 months” after symptom onset.[21]

Thus, by the time the first vaccine was authorized for emergency use in December 2020 and the CDC began telling people who had already recovered from infection with SARS‑CoV‑2 that they, too, needed to get fully vaccinated on the implicit grounds that natural immunity was weak and short-lived, the scientific evidence had already accumulated that immunity conferred by infection was strong and likely to be long-lasting, with differentiation of B cells into long-lived bone marrow plasma cells that could churn out effective neutralizing antibodies in the event of reexposure to the coronavirus.

The scientific evidence contradicting the CDC’s public messaging has since continued to mount.

The study by Rockefeller University researchers was peer-reviewed and published in Nature on January 18, 2021. In addition to showing that titers of neutralizing antibodies “remain measurable in most individuals” more than six months post-infection, they found that the memory B cell response evolved during that time to be able to produce “antibodies with increased neutralizing breadth and potency.” (Emphasis added.)

As they concluded, “The observation that memory B cell responses do not decay after 6.2 months, but instead continue to evolve, is strongly suggestive that individuals who are infected with SARS‑CoV‑2 could mount a rapid and effective response to the virus upon re-exposure.”[22]

“We conclude that memory B cells that evolved during the observation period express antibodies with increased neutralizing potency and breadth.”

We will examine the memory responses induced by infection with SARS‑CoV‑2 in more depth in a future installment in this series. Our primary purpose here, though, is to show that the whole basis for the claim that natural immunity is short-lived was false. To this day, studies have continued to find persistence of neutralizing IgG antibodies in most individuals who recover from infection.

A review published in Oxford Open Immunology on February 23 noted that, while initial reports indicated disappearance of antibodies shortly after the acute phase of infection, “more extended cross-sectional data showed that the virus-specific humoral and cellular immunity are, after an initial contraction phase, remarkably stable for at least 6–8 months after infection.”[23]

“Although initial analyses had shown loss of detectable virus-specific antibodies in a proportion of individuals,” noted the authors of a study published in Nature Immunology on March 5, highly sensitive tests “can demonstrate detectable antibodies for at least 6–7 months in most people.”[24]

The previously mentioned study by Chinese researchers was peer-reviewed and published in Nature Communications on March 22. Examining antibody responses for a period of 6 months in 349 COVID‑19 patients “who were among the first to be infected world-wide”, they confirmed that after an intermediate contraction phase, IgG antibodies against both the spike and nucleocapsid proteins “stabilize at relatively high levels over the 6 month observation period”. The “sustained humoral immunity in recovered patients who had symptomatic COVID‑19” suggested that “prolonged immunity” was induced by infection with the coronavirus.[25]

With more than a year having passed since the COVID‑19 pandemic was declared, the cumulative data showed “that the spike-specific antibodies” induced with natural immunity “plateau over time”, noted researchers from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in a study published at medRxiv on April 27.

“The importance of these observations is that following recovery, neutralizing antibodies may persist, albeit at low levels, and may act as the first line of defense against future encounters of SARS-CoV-2 and possibly related human coronaviruses.”

Titled “Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS‑CoV‑2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells”, the study showed not only that IgG antibodies were durable for more than eight months, but also that “the bi-phasic decay curve suggests the generation of longer lived plasma cells producing antibody to the SARS‑CoV‑2 spike protein.” The data suggested that “following recovery, neutralizing antibodies may persist, albeit at low levels, and may act as the first line of defense against future encounters of SARS‑CoV‑2 and possibly related human coronaviruses.”[26]

“Studies at the start of the pandemic suggesting a short-lived SARS‑CoV‑2 antibody response brought about widespread concern,” observed the authors of a study published at bioRxiv on April 29, “but follow-up studies now suggest that infected individuals exhibit a prolonged and evolving humoral response.”[27] (Emphasis added.)

The study by researchers from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center was published in Cell Reports Medicine on July 14. The authors reiterated that most patients who recovered from COVID‑19 showed immune responses consistent with “long-lived immunity” to SARS‑CoV‑2, including persistence of neutralizing antibodies for the duration of follow-up, which was over eight months.[28]

Israeli researchers in a study published at medRxiv on September 21, 2021, compared the decay rate of antibodies against the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein for people who had recovered from COVID‑19 and people without prior infection who had received the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine. Antibody measurements from blood samples of both groups were also compared with measurements from negative controls using blood samples collected from people prior to the COVID‑19 pandemic.

A Department of Defense personnel holds a vial of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (DOD photo licensed under CC BY 2.0)
A Department of Defense personnel holds a vial of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (DOD photo licensed under CC BY 2.0)

In individuals whose immune systems were primed by vaccination, the decay of RBD-binding IgG antibodies “was found to be fast”, and at an average of 185 days since vaccination, “the antibody levels in 100% of individuals reached the threshold of the negative controls.”

By contrast, in individuals whose immune systems were primed by infection, at fourteen months since the onset of COVID-19 symptoms, over 80 percent still had measurable IgG antibodies against the RBD.

“We found a significantly faster decay in naïve vaccinees compared to recovered patients suggesting that the serological memory following natural infection is more robust compared to vaccination.”

As the authors stated, the “significantly faster decay in naïve vaccinees compared to recovered patients” suggested that “the serological memory following natural infection is more robust compared to vaccination.”

“The ideal vaccine”, they wrote, “should induce a robust immune response that is similar to the response following natural infection.” This was “the basic idea behind vaccine science”. However, their data indicated that the mRNA vaccines were failing to live up to that ideal.

As the authors further stated:

Based on the results we hypothesize that the antibody longitudinal kinetics in recovered COVID‑19 patients differs from the kinetics in naïve vaccinees due to fundamental differences between the mechanisms involved in the activation of the adaptive immune arm. While natural infection involves a full systemic activation including the innate immune arm, mRNA-vaccination may circumvent a full systemic activation. This circumference, in the case of mRNA-vaccine, could affect the ability of the immune system to maintain sufficient levels of long-lived plasma cells that supports the continuance of the antibody reservoir over time. In the case of COVID‑19 recovered patients, it was demonstrated by Turner et al. that long-lived plasma cells persist over time, and this may explain the slower decay rate we detected in the recovered patient cohort.[29]

On May 17, 2021, the CDC quietly admitted on a webpage titled “Interim Guidelines for COVID‑19 Antibody Testing” that studies had shown that 90 to 95 percent of people develop detectable IgG antibodies, that IgG antibodies against both the spike and nucleocapsid proteins “persist for at least several months in most persons”, and that these antibodies “may persist for months and possibly years.”[30]

Yet, in its public relations messaging that the public was continually being bombarded with by the mainstream medical and media establishments, the CDC persisted in deceiving previously infected people into the belief that vaccination was immediately required for them “because experts do not yet know how long you are protected” with natural immunity.

To this day, the CDC maintains that people with natural immunity should still get fully vaccinated on the grounds that “Research has not yet shown how long you are protected from getting COVID‑19 again after you recover from COVID‑19.”

While it is technically true that scientists do not yet know how long natural immunity lasts, the CDC’s messaging is deceitful because the reason it remains unknown is that studies have demonstrated persistence of natural immunity for as long as observations have been made. The CDC is lying by omission, communicating the false message that science suggests that natural immunity might be weak and short-lived by deliberately withholding the fact that the scientific evidence indicates that natural immunity will likely be very long-lived, persisting for decades if not a lifetime.

The CDC goes even further in its deception by claiming that evidence indicates “that people get better protection by being fully vaccinated compared with having had COVID‑19.”[31] (The bold emphasis is the CDC’s.)

That is a blatant lie. As we will continue to explore in detail in future installments of this series, the accumulating scientific evidence continues to show precisely the opposite of what the CDC claims.


[1] Ania Wajnberg et al., “SARS-CoV-2 infection induces robust, neutralizing antibody responses that are stable for at least three months”, medRxiv, July 17, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.14.20151126.

[2] Jun Wu et al., “SARS-CoV-2 infection induces sustained humoral immune responses in convalescent patients following symptomatic COVID‑19”, medRxiv, July 24, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.21.20159178.

[3] Tyler J. Ripperger et al., “Detection, prevalence, and duration of humoral responses to SARS-CoV-2 under conditions of limited population exposure”, medRxiv, August 16, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.14.20174490.

[4] Katherine J. Wu, “Scientists See Signs of Lasting Immunity to Covid-19, Even After Mild Infections”, New York Times, August 16, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/16/health/coronavirus-immunity-antibodies.html.

[5] Tyler J. Ripperger et al., “Orthogonal SARS-CoV-2 Serological Assays Enable Surveillance of Low-Prevalence Communities and Reveal Durable Humoral Immunity”, Immunity, October 13, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2020.10.004.

[6] Daniel F. Gudbjartsson et al., “Humoral Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 in Iceland”, New England Journal of Medicine, October 29, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2026116.

[7] Sara Rigby, “COVID‑19 immunity ‘declines sharply’ a month after hospital discharge”, BBC Science Focus Magazine, September 11, 2020, https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/covid-19-immunity-declines-sharply-a-month-after-hospital-discharge/.

[8] “Doctor says COVID‑19 immunity wants after 3 months”, MSN.com, October 16, 2020, https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/doctor-says-covid-19-immunity-wanes-after-3-months/ar-BB1a6ykY.

[9] Jen Christensen, “British study shows evidence of waning immunity to Covid-19”, CNN, October 26, 2020, https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/26/health/covid-19-immunity-wanes-large-study-finds/index.html.

[10] Alistair Smout, “UK study finds evidence of waning antibody immunity to COVID‑19 over time”, Reuters, October 26, 2020, https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-britain-antibody/uk-study-finds-evidence-of-waning-antibody-immunity-to-covid-19-over-time-idUSKBN27C005.

[11] Stephen Fidler, “Study Shows Covid‑19 Antibodies Waning Over Time, Suggesting Immunity Might Wear Off”, Wall Street Journal, October 26, 2020, https://www.wsj.com/articles/study-shows-covid-19-antibodies-waning-over-time-suggesting-immunity-may-wear-off-11603757012.

[12] James Gallagher, “Covid: Antibodies ‘fall rapidly after infection’”, BBC, October 27, 2020, https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54696873.

[13] Robert Hart, “Study: Covid‑19 Immunity May Wear Off After Infection”, Forbes, October 27, 2020, https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2020/10/27/study-covid-19-immunity-may-wear-off-after-infection/.

[14] Lina Saigol, “COVID‑19 immunity may only last a few months after infection, study indicates”, MarketWatch, October 27, 2020, https://www.marketwatch.com/story/covid-19-immunity-may-only-lasts-a-few-months-after-infection-study-indicates-11603807362.

[15] “COVID Immunity Might Wear Off, Large Study Finds”, Kaiser Health News, October 27, 2020, https://khn.org/morning-breakout/covid-immunity-might-wear-off-large-study-finds/.

[16] Gallagher, “Covid: Antibodies ‘fall rapidly after infection’”, previously cited.

[17] Smout, “UK study finds evidence of waning antibody immunity”, previously cited.

[18] Nisreen A Alwan et al., “Scientific consensus on the COVID‑19 pandemic: we need to act now”, The Lancet, October 31, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32153-X.

[19] Ania Wajnberg et al., “Robust neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 infection persist for months”, Science, October 28, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd7728.

[20] Christian Gaebler et al., “Evolution of Antibody Immunity to SARS-CoV-2”, bioRxiv, November 5, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.03.367391.

[21] Jennifer M. Dan et al., “Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for greater than six months after infection”, bioRxiv, November 16, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.15.383323.

[22] Christian Gaebler et al., “Evolution of antibody immunity to SARS-CoV-2”, Nature, January 18, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03207-w.

[23] Antonio Bertoletti et al., “The T-cell response to SARS-CoV-2: kinetic and quantitative aspects and the case for their protective role”, Oxford Open Immunology, February 23, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfimm/iqab006.

[24] Jianmin Zuo et al., “Robust SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity is maintained at 6 months following primary infection”, Nature Immunology, March 5, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41590-021-00902-8.

[25] Jun Wu et al., “SARS-CoV-2 infection induces sustained humoral immune responses in convalescent patients following symptomatic COVID‑19”, Nature Communications, March 22, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22034-1.

[26] Kristen W. Cohen, “Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells”, medRxiv, April 27, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.19.21255739.

[27] Tongcui Ma et al., “Protracted yet coordinated differentiation of long-lived SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells during COVID‑19 convalescence”, bioRxiv, April 29, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.28.441880.

[28] Kristen W. Cohen, “Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS‑CoV‑2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells”, Cell Reports Medicine, July 14, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100354.

[29] T. Eyran et al., “The longitudinal kinetics of antibodies in COVID‑19 recovered patients over 14 months”, medRxiv, September 21, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.16.21263693.

[30] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Interim Guidelines for COVID‑19 Antibody Testing”, CDC.gov, updated March 17, 2021, accessed on July 8, 2021, and archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20210708165447/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/resources/antibody-tests-guidelines.html.

[31] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Frequently Asked Questions about COVID‑19 Vaccination”, CDC.gov, updated October 4, 2021, accessed on October 7, 2021, and archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20211007184326/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html.

Rate This Content:

Average rating / 5. Vote count:

What do you think?

I encourage you to share your thoughts! Please respect the rules.

  • Keith Atteberry says:

    So what do you suggest for someone who has been vaccinated ( 2 shots), now that I see the evidence that natural immunity is the way to go. Keith A.

    • Hopefully, if you are reexposed, the phenomenon of original antigenic sin will not occur, and you’ll get a natural booster that will broaden and expand your immunity, so that you’ll effective have the equivalent of natural immunity,. Essentially, an overwriting of the immunity conferred by the vaccine. Unfortunately, I regret to have to say, I’ve seen some data indicating that there may be an original antigenic sin phenomenon, whereby once vaccination trains the immune system to respond a certain way, it will continue to respond that way in future exposures. However, it’s far from certain. There aren’t any studies specifically looking at this.

  • Michael says:

    Don’t forget about the people with 18+ years of natural immunity from the 2003 sars.

  • >
    Share via
    Copy link