23 ms·

George Mason professor wins Covid antibody lawsuit as vaccine exemption

107 points by SQL2219 5y ago

Treblemaker 5y ago
Disappointing, given the evidence that "natural" immunity has been shown to be less effective at producing neutralizing antibodies than many of the vaccines that are available[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01377-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01377-8
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  Could you point at the part of this paper that summarizes this result? I'm not seeing any comparison in this paper between the neutralizing response of a vaccination vs natural infection.
  - Treblemaker 5y ago
    The data is in the tables, summarized in Figure 1: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01377-8/figures/1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01377-8/figures/1
- pengaru 5y ago
  "You get a broader immune response after being infected with the virus than vaccination. Whether you've had Moderna or Pfizer or Oxford-AstraZeneca, your body is learning to spot just one thing - the spike protein. This is the critical part of the virus to make antibodies to, and the results - by keeping most out of hospital - have been spectacular. But having the other 28 proteins to target too, would give T-cells far more to go at." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58270098 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58270098
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- criticaltinker 5y ago
  > given the evidence that "natural" immunity has been shown to be less effective at producing neutralizing antibodies than many of the vaccines that are available Down-voted because this is misinformation. First of all the citation you provided does not support your claim at all. Second, a large body of literature suggests that vaccination and natural infection induce a robust and durable immune response that is mostly similar [1][2], but slightly different. One of the primary differences is that natural infection induces an immune response that includes nucleocapsid protein antibodies, whereas vaccination with the current spike protein focused mRNA vaccines does not [3]. Another significant difference is that vaccination induces an immune response that is more highly targeted toward the spike protein RBD compared to natural infection [4]. There is absolutely no scientific consensus that vaccination offers better protection than natural infection, or vice-versa. None of the papers cited in either of our comments make that claim. [1] Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-3791(21)00203-2 https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-37... [2] Rapid induction of antigen-specific CD4+ T cells is associated with coordinated humoral and cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(21)00308-3 https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(21)00308-3 [3] Distinct SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses Elicited by Natural Infection and mRNA Vaccination https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.15.440089v4 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.15.440089v4 [4] Antibodies elicited by mRNA-1273 vaccination bind more broadly to the receptor binding domain than do those from SARS-CoV-2 infection https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/
  - Treblemaker 5y ago
    Thank you for the other references. > Down voted because this is misinformation I would hope you might agree that term is better reserved for bullshit conspiracy theories and not peer reviewed research published in one of the most cited journals in the world. > the citation you provided does not support your claim Upon re-reading the paper I still find that my claim is supported. "Although antiviral T and B cell memory certainly contribute some degree of protection, strong evidence of a protective role for neutralizing serum antibodies exists. For example, passive transfer of neutralizing antibodies can prevent severe SARS-CoV-2 infection in multiple animal models,12,13 and Regeneron has recently reported similar data in humans14. We therefore focus our studies on in vitro virus neutralization titers reported in studies of vaccinated and convalescent cohorts" "To compare neutralization titers across studies, we determined the mean and standard deviation (on a log scale) of the neutralization titer in published data from seven vaccine studies (mRNA-1273, NVX-CoV2373, BNT162b2, rAd26-S+rAd5-S, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, Ad26.COV2.S and CoronaVac) and one convalescent study3,16,17,18,19,20,21,22" " This model assumes that there is a protective neutralization level, T, above which individuals will be protected from infection and below which individuals will be susceptible. The protective efficacies observed in phase 3 clinical trials of vaccinated individuals (and another large cohort study of convalescent individuals1; " [data shows higher level of neutralizing antibodies from four of the vaccines compared with convalescent studies] It is possible -- even likely -- that I have misunderstood the paper. And both you and the paper I cited agree that more research is needed to establish the correlation between levels of neutralizing antibodies and protection from infection and disease. But my claim was _about_ the levels of neutralizing antibodies and as I understand it that claim is supported by the paper.
sunkenvicar 5y ago
18 months into the pandemic we have a rapidly evolving virus, waning vaccine efficacy, and breakthrough infections common enough to warrant a third booster dose. It would be silly to risk altering one’s broad-based, naturally acquired immunity by taking an unnecessary vaccine dose. Just like no one got a chickenpox vaccine after contracting the disease there is no need to get a COVID vaccine after contracting the disease.
- gizmo686 5y ago
  The CDC reccomends that adults over 50 who might have had chicken pox get the Shingrix (Shingles) vaccine. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/shingles/public/shingrix/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/shingles/public/shingrix/in...
  - stmfreak 5y ago
    The CDC has been a fountain of bad science during this past year. Some of us wonder about the veracity of all their prior recommendations now.
    - datameta 5y ago
      Your reaction is unfortunately playing right into the established disinformation campaign from when Putin was whispering into Trump's ear.
    - Grimm1 5y ago
      What examples of bad science?
    - loxias 5y ago
      What bad science? I think they get a "A" for science and a "D-" for communication and social "science".
    - javagram 5y ago
      You can always check overseas scientists’ recommendations as a cross check. Looks like the UK NHS recommends the shingles vaccine for all 70-79 year olds for instance. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/shingles-vaccination/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/shingles-vaccinat... France recommends for ages 65 to 74 https://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/french-national-health-authority-recommends-routine-vaccination-with-zostavax-to-protect-seniors-against-shingles-236331421.html https://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/french-national-h...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
criticaltinker 5y ago
I vouched for OP - it is a factual description of a relevant current event that is pertinent to civil liberties. IMO the presented argument is valid and well supported scientifically and legally. It will be very interesting to see if this sets any precedent for other institutions. > GMU and other universities must stop ignoring science and cease forcing mandatory vaccines on even those with naturally acquired immunity > Strangely, despite solid scientific evidence, GMU continues to refuse to recognize that Covid-19 vaccination is medically unnecessary for ALL students, faculty, and staff with naturally acquired immunity demonstrated with antibody testing. > NCLA filed Professor Zywicki’s complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia on August 3, 2021, challenging GMU’s “reopening policy.” > The policy, announced June 28, requires all faculty and staff members, including those who can demonstrate natural immunity through recovery from a prior Covid-19 infection, to disclose their vaccination status as “a prerequisite for eligibility for any merit pay increases,” unless they obtain a religious or medical exemption. > On July 22, GMU emailed the policy to students and employees and threatened disciplinary action—including termination of employment—against any who do not comply with the vaccine mandate. > Prof. Zywicki’s immunologist, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, has advised him that, based on his personal health and immunity status, it is medically unnecessary to get a Covid-19 vaccine—and that it violates medical ethics to order unnecessary procedures. > As a result of the exemption it granted, GMU is permitting Prof. Zywicki to remain unvaccinated for medical reasons. > "Nevertheless, NCLA remains dismayed by GMU’s refusal — along with many other public and private universities and other employers — to recognize that the science establishes beyond any doubt that natural immunity is as robust or more so than vaccine immunity.”
- thurn 5y ago
  I'm not precisely sure this where the article's text contains a well-supported legal argument about why the mandate is unconstitutional -- in fact I don't believe there's any discussion at all of the relevant statutes & case law? A link to the decision itself would probably provide more of that information.
  - inter_netuser 5y ago
    seems the university simply granted a medical exemption, and was not ordered by the court to do so? GMU maintained their policy that everyone must be vaccinated regardless of their antibody status. Seems really strange.
ampgt 5y ago
How did we get to a point where we think it’s OK to tell someone what they should do with their body? For the record: I am vaccinated and I always encourage others to do so. But what is the difference between someone choosing to not vaccinate “because of their religion” and just choosing not to vaccinate? Why is one of those OK and the other isn’t?
- fatbird 5y ago
  We aren't out warring on "no shirts, no shoes, no service" mandates in private businesses, but somehow mandating a vaccine for a pandemic disease that kills is a gross infringement on our bodily autonomy? Religious exemptions for vaccinations shouldn't be allowed either.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    You can take your shirt and shoes back off once you leave a business. A better comparison would be businesses that banned certain hairstyles or tattoos.
    - fatbird 5y ago
      In fact, you are, in the US, allowed to refuse service to someone based on their tattoos or hairstyle [0]. The only prohibition in general on refusing service is to protected classes such as race or sex. So now we can refuse service to someone with a tattoo we dislike, but not because they're unvaccinated? We don't deserve to survive as a species if we're that fucking dumb. [0] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AHnJsxssHRkJ:https://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2013/08/legal-to-refuse-service-over-tattoos.html+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AHnJsx...
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        In a lot of states, hairstyle is considered a protected class these days.
  - 5y ago
playcache 5y ago
sanity prevails.
PostThisTooFast 5y ago
Lowlife trash being celebrated. MURICA
recursive4 5y ago
The article does not explicitly note that GMU is a public university, an important detail. If it were private, such a determination would be unfounded on the principal that two entities have the right to enter into a transaction strictly upon mutually and exclusively amenable terms.
Proven 5y ago
Shame on GMU for going full nazi on own employee!
JohnMunsch 5y ago
"New Civil Liberties Alliance" That's hysterical. We're going to be trying to present ourselves like we're similar to the ACLU, but you know, the bigoted and science ignorant version. I wonder how Conservapedia is doing these days.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- quetzlbazaar 5y ago
  In this case, I would argue (like the NCLA) that it is George Mason University that was being "science ignorant". Presumably the underlying thing they are trying to optimize for by requiring their employees to be vaccinated is immunity against COVID amongst their faculty, which is perhaps reasonable, and vaccination is an effective way to achieve this. But it is also possible to acquire immunity by having had COVID and recovered from it; and in this case the litigant had even definitively demonstrated that they had antibodies.
javagram 5y ago
I support vaccine mandates (best way to move society past the pandemic), but an exemption for those with healthy immune systems who can prove via an antibody test or previous positive Covid-19 PCR test that they have naturally developed COVID antibodies after surviving an infection makes sense to me. In the 19th century, yellow fever survivors were considered to be “acclimated citizens” who were more eligible for jobs, because the employer didn’t have to worry about them catching and dying of yellow fever. The position has historic precedence and seems to stand up, according to current scientists’ analysis of immunity after covid-19 infection being 80% or greater, similar to the J&J vaccine.
- selimthegrim 5y ago
  This created immense social divisions in cities like New Orleans, and opponents of "immunity passports" are wary of this.
  - javagram 5y ago
    That’s true, but it’s because at the time the only way to become acclimated was to catch yellow fever, which meant running a substantial risk of dying or severe disease. In the 21st century we have safe vaccines so if someone is not “acclimated” or immune to a virus, they can gain the status easily via a free and safe vaccine. This removes the problems. In any case, the discussion here is not about immunity passports themselves. It’s about whether only a vaccine should count, or if proof of natural infection should also count as equivalent to a vaccine record.

107 points by SQL2219 5y ago

Disappointing, given the evidence that "natural" immunity has been shown to be less effective at producing neutralizing antibodies than many of the vaccines that are available[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01377-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01377-8

bpodgursky 5y ago
Could you point at the part of this paper that summarizes this result? I'm not seeing any comparison in this paper between the neutralizing response of a vaccination vs natural infection.
- Treblemaker 5y ago
  The data is in the tables, summarized in Figure 1: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01377-8/figures/1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01377-8/figures/1
pengaru 5y ago
"You get a broader immune response after being infected with the virus than vaccination. Whether you've had Moderna or Pfizer or Oxford-AstraZeneca, your body is learning to spot just one thing - the spike protein. This is the critical part of the virus to make antibodies to, and the results - by keeping most out of hospital - have been spectacular. But having the other 28 proteins to target too, would give T-cells far more to go at." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58270098 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58270098
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
criticaltinker 5y ago
> given the evidence that "natural" immunity has been shown to be less effective at producing neutralizing antibodies than many of the vaccines that are available Down-voted because this is misinformation. First of all the citation you provided does not support your claim at all. Second, a large body of literature suggests that vaccination and natural infection induce a robust and durable immune response that is mostly similar [1][2], but slightly different. One of the primary differences is that natural infection induces an immune response that includes nucleocapsid protein antibodies, whereas vaccination with the current spike protein focused mRNA vaccines does not [3]. Another significant difference is that vaccination induces an immune response that is more highly targeted toward the spike protein RBD compared to natural infection [4]. There is absolutely no scientific consensus that vaccination offers better protection than natural infection, or vice-versa. None of the papers cited in either of our comments make that claim. [1] Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-3791(21)00203-2 https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-37... [2] Rapid induction of antigen-specific CD4+ T cells is associated with coordinated humoral and cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(21)00308-3 https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(21)00308-3 [3] Distinct SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses Elicited by Natural Infection and mRNA Vaccination https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.15.440089v4 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.15.440089v4 [4] Antibodies elicited by mRNA-1273 vaccination bind more broadly to the receptor binding domain than do those from SARS-CoV-2 infection https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/
- Treblemaker 5y ago
  Thank you for the other references. > Down voted because this is misinformation I would hope you might agree that term is better reserved for bullshit conspiracy theories and not peer reviewed research published in one of the most cited journals in the world. > the citation you provided does not support your claim Upon re-reading the paper I still find that my claim is supported. "Although antiviral T and B cell memory certainly contribute some degree of protection, strong evidence of a protective role for neutralizing serum antibodies exists. For example, passive transfer of neutralizing antibodies can prevent severe SARS-CoV-2 infection in multiple animal models,12,13 and Regeneron has recently reported similar data in humans14. We therefore focus our studies on in vitro virus neutralization titers reported in studies of vaccinated and convalescent cohorts" "To compare neutralization titers across studies, we determined the mean and standard deviation (on a log scale) of the neutralization titer in published data from seven vaccine studies (mRNA-1273, NVX-CoV2373, BNT162b2, rAd26-S+rAd5-S, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, Ad26.COV2.S and CoronaVac) and one convalescent study3,16,17,18,19,20,21,22" " This model assumes that there is a protective neutralization level, T, above which individuals will be protected from infection and below which individuals will be susceptible. The protective efficacies observed in phase 3 clinical trials of vaccinated individuals (and another large cohort study of convalescent individuals1; " [data shows higher level of neutralizing antibodies from four of the vaccines compared with convalescent studies] It is possible -- even likely -- that I have misunderstood the paper. And both you and the paper I cited agree that more research is needed to establish the correlation between levels of neutralizing antibodies and protection from infection and disease. But my claim was _about_ the levels of neutralizing antibodies and as I understand it that claim is supported by the paper.

sunkenvicar 5y ago

18 months into the pandemic we have a rapidly evolving virus, waning vaccine efficacy, and breakthrough infections common enough to warrant a third booster dose. It would be silly to risk altering one’s broad-based, naturally acquired immunity by taking an unnecessary vaccine dose. Just like no one got a chickenpox vaccine after contracting the disease there is no need to get a COVID vaccine after contracting the disease.

gizmo686 5y ago
The CDC reccomends that adults over 50 who might have had chicken pox get the Shingrix (Shingles) vaccine. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/shingles/public/shingrix/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/shingles/public/shingrix/in...
- stmfreak 5y ago
  The CDC has been a fountain of bad science during this past year. Some of us wonder about the veracity of all their prior recommendations now.
  - datameta 5y ago
    Your reaction is unfortunately playing right into the established disinformation campaign from when Putin was whispering into Trump's ear.
  - Grimm1 5y ago
    What examples of bad science?
  - loxias 5y ago
    What bad science? I think they get a "A" for science and a "D-" for communication and social "science".
  - javagram 5y ago
    You can always check overseas scientists’ recommendations as a cross check. Looks like the UK NHS recommends the shingles vaccine for all 70-79 year olds for instance. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/shingles-vaccination/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/shingles-vaccinat... France recommends for ages 65 to 74 https://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/french-national-health-authority-recommends-routine-vaccination-with-zostavax-to-protect-seniors-against-shingles-236331421.html https://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/french-national-h...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

criticaltinker 5y ago

I vouched for OP - it is a factual description of a relevant current event that is pertinent to civil liberties. IMO the presented argument is valid and well supported scientifically and legally. It will be very interesting to see if this sets any precedent for other institutions. > GMU and other universities must stop ignoring science and cease forcing mandatory vaccines on even those with naturally acquired immunity > Strangely, despite solid scientific evidence, GMU continues to refuse to recognize that Covid-19 vaccination is medically unnecessary for ALL students, faculty, and staff with naturally acquired immunity demonstrated with antibody testing. > NCLA filed Professor Zywicki’s complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia on August 3, 2021, challenging GMU’s “reopening policy.” > The policy, announced June 28, requires all faculty and staff members, including those who can demonstrate natural immunity through recovery from a prior Covid-19 infection, to disclose their vaccination status as “a prerequisite for eligibility for any merit pay increases,” unless they obtain a religious or medical exemption. > On July 22, GMU emailed the policy to students and employees and threatened disciplinary action—including termination of employment—against any who do not comply with the vaccine mandate. > Prof. Zywicki’s immunologist, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, has advised him that, based on his personal health and immunity status, it is medically unnecessary to get a Covid-19 vaccine—and that it violates medical ethics to order unnecessary procedures. > As a result of the exemption it granted, GMU is permitting Prof. Zywicki to remain unvaccinated for medical reasons. > "Nevertheless, NCLA remains dismayed by GMU’s refusal — along with many other public and private universities and other employers — to recognize that the science establishes beyond any doubt that natural immunity is as robust or more so than vaccine immunity.”

thurn 5y ago
I'm not precisely sure this where the article's text contains a well-supported legal argument about why the mandate is unconstitutional -- in fact I don't believe there's any discussion at all of the relevant statutes & case law? A link to the decision itself would probably provide more of that information.
- inter_netuser 5y ago
  seems the university simply granted a medical exemption, and was not ordered by the court to do so? GMU maintained their policy that everyone must be vaccinated regardless of their antibody status. Seems really strange.

ampgt 5y ago

How did we get to a point where we think it’s OK to tell someone what they should do with their body? For the record: I am vaccinated and I always encourage others to do so. But what is the difference between someone choosing to not vaccinate “because of their religion” and just choosing not to vaccinate? Why is one of those OK and the other isn’t?

fatbird 5y ago
We aren't out warring on "no shirts, no shoes, no service" mandates in private businesses, but somehow mandating a vaccine for a pandemic disease that kills is a gross infringement on our bodily autonomy? Religious exemptions for vaccinations shouldn't be allowed either.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  You can take your shirt and shoes back off once you leave a business. A better comparison would be businesses that banned certain hairstyles or tattoos.
  - fatbird 5y ago
    In fact, you are, in the US, allowed to refuse service to someone based on their tattoos or hairstyle [0]. The only prohibition in general on refusing service is to protected classes such as race or sex. So now we can refuse service to someone with a tattoo we dislike, but not because they're unvaccinated? We don't deserve to survive as a species if we're that fucking dumb. [0] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AHnJsxssHRkJ:https://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2013/08/legal-to-refuse-service-over-tattoos.html+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AHnJsx...
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      In a lot of states, hairstyle is considered a protected class these days.
- 5y ago

playcache 5y ago

sanity prevails.

PostThisTooFast 5y ago

Lowlife trash being celebrated. MURICA

recursive4 5y ago

The article does not explicitly note that GMU is a public university, an important detail. If it were private, such a determination would be unfounded on the principal that two entities have the right to enter into a transaction strictly upon mutually and exclusively amenable terms.

Proven 5y ago

Shame on GMU for going full nazi on own employee!

JohnMunsch 5y ago

"New Civil Liberties Alliance" That's hysterical. We're going to be trying to present ourselves like we're similar to the ACLU, but you know, the bigoted and science ignorant version. I wonder how Conservapedia is doing these days.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
quetzlbazaar 5y ago
In this case, I would argue (like the NCLA) that it is George Mason University that was being "science ignorant". Presumably the underlying thing they are trying to optimize for by requiring their employees to be vaccinated is immunity against COVID amongst their faculty, which is perhaps reasonable, and vaccination is an effective way to achieve this. But it is also possible to acquire immunity by having had COVID and recovered from it; and in this case the litigant had even definitively demonstrated that they had antibodies.

javagram 5y ago

I support vaccine mandates (best way to move society past the pandemic), but an exemption for those with healthy immune systems who can prove via an antibody test or previous positive Covid-19 PCR test that they have naturally developed COVID antibodies after surviving an infection makes sense to me. In the 19th century, yellow fever survivors were considered to be “acclimated citizens” who were more eligible for jobs, because the employer didn’t have to worry about them catching and dying of yellow fever. The position has historic precedence and seems to stand up, according to current scientists’ analysis of immunity after covid-19 infection being 80% or greater, similar to the J&J vaccine.

selimthegrim 5y ago
This created immense social divisions in cities like New Orleans, and opponents of "immunity passports" are wary of this.
- javagram 5y ago
  That’s true, but it’s because at the time the only way to become acclimated was to catch yellow fever, which meant running a substantial risk of dying or severe disease. In the 21st century we have safe vaccines so if someone is not “acclimated” or immune to a virus, they can gain the status easily via a free and safe vaccine. This removes the problems. In any case, the discussion here is not about immunity passports themselves. It’s about whether only a vaccine should count, or if proof of natural infection should also count as equivalent to a vaccine record.