The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
Although another two studies were nonhuman primates were given either a high dose or low dose vaccine against SARS-CoV-1, they did have protection against the virus and did not develop antibody-dependent enhancement. So it's not always the case.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
These studies were done with the original SARS virus back in 2003 or 2002, what we now call SARS-CoV-1. When vaccines were made for that virus and injected into some animals, they did cause antibody-dependent enhancement. That was not the case with all studies and all vaccines for the SARS-CoV-1. So it was sort of an inconsistent data.