![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="48" height="48"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
2nd study of bivalent BA.5 booster replicates the 1st (Ho Lab, yesterday)
No significant difference (~1.3x) in BA.5 neutralizing antibodies compared with the original ancestral (monovalent) booster, by
biorxiv.org/content/10.110
![Image](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="680" height="381"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Thread
Conversation
Replying to
Same imprinting concern:
"Our findings suggest that immune imprinting by prior antigenic exposure may pose a greater challenge than currently appreciated for inducing robust immunity to #SARSCoV2 variants."
26
120
436
Thread from yesterday on the 1st study report and putting these new results in context
Quote Tweet
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="24" height="24"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Eric Topol
@EricTopol
New on the bivalent BA.5 vaccine booster immune response in people
No better neutralizing antibody response to BA.5 than the original vaccine (WT)
biorxiv.org/content/10.110
Show this thread
![Image](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="680" height="427"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
11
36
187
What does this mean for those of us who got the bivalent boost in the last month?
15
3
28
We gotta keep wearing masks if we want to infection, I think?
2
10
Show replies
In terms of neutralization, that's what it suggests. Disease severity and longer-term protection may be a different story but unknown yet.
1
1
12
Show replies
ayni sonucu gosteren bu son iki arastirmanin Turkiyeye yeni asi gelmediginden telaslanan insanlar icin guzelce anlatilmasi faydali olmaz mi?
2
1
1
3
Show replies
is it again an "outlier" study ? 
But again, it does not undermine the benefit of the BA.5 booster which allows a rapid 
of NAbs to restore max protection now.
The only info is, whatever the booster don't wait just because it's not BA.5
But again, it does not undermine the benefit of the BA.5 booster which allows a rapid of NAbs to restore max protection now.
The only info is, whatever the booster don't wait just because it's not BA.52
2
21
Show replies
Show replies
So what are y saying? I am scheduled for the bivalent boost tomorrow. Is it pointless?
3
1
Quote Tweet
Claude-Alexandre GUSTAVE
@C_A_Gustave
Replying to @EricTopol and @BarouchLab
@think_fungus is it again an "outlier" study ?
But again, it does not undermine the benefit of the BA.5 booster which allows a rapid of NAbs to restore max protection now.
The only info is, whatever the booster don't wait just because it's not BA.5
But again, it does not undermine the benefit of the BA.5 booster which allows a rapid of NAbs to restore max protection now.
The only info is, whatever the booster don't wait just because it's not BA.51
Are we creeping closer to a variant that will escape the only neutralizing antibodies we can make? Will there be any solution if this happens or are we at the mercy of the Variant Evolution God now?
3
18
99% sure we are at the mercy of the Variant Evolution God.
2
1
27
Show replies
What is your opinion on Peter C. Gøtzsche?
From cochrane institute? I know not enough about him, but i find his criticism regarding covid vaccines absolutely baseless.
![Image](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="446" height="680"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Show replies
genuine ques: can someone explain the rationale for including the original WT in the bivalent booster?
5
1
35
None, as far as I'm concerned, and wrote about months ago
erictopol.substack.com/p/the-imminent
![Image](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="1200" height="325"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
5
8
142
Show replies
I thought the breadth of B cells tho don’t show so quickly - may need to wait up to 6 months?
2
3
They do. This paper and the one Topol tweeted about yesterday aren't going to survive peer review. Blasting these preprints as solid truth is pretty deceitful IMO.
2
4
Show replies
Do we have some data like this for the bivalent boosters with BA.1 that are used in Europe? The human data from Clinical studies from Moderna and Pfizer for this bivalent BA.1 boosters were better.
1
8
And do we care so much about exact antibody titers for a variant that's on its way out. I want to know about efficacy, especially facing up to BQ.1 and 1.1
1
1
Show replies
it does not
why we need more competent decisions
instead of aimlessly on leaderlessly foundering
we need accountability
we need results
3
"the estimated incidence of myocarditis was 2.13 cases per 100,000 persons; the highest incidence was among male patients between the ages of 16 and 29 years. Most cases of myocarditis were mild or moderate in severity."
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="359" height="159"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
1
3
6
Show replies
![Image](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="496" height="680"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
So what? the hope is that it’s not more effective when you get it but more effective the longer the time since you got it? (I.e. the waning period is more gradual or overall less big?)
I will not be holding my breath, especially since new variants that are already leaving BA.5
1
1
3
Show replies
New to Twitter?
Sign up now to get your own personalized timeline!
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="120" height="84"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="240" height="135"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)