We’ve been told from the beginning of the general availability of the COVID vaccines that all of the vaccines are safe and effective. Dr. Fauci repeatedly discouraged people from trying to comparison shop, saying that everyone should just take whichever one is being offered. If that’s all true, why do we keep seeing contradictory headlines like this one? Yet another study has been completed on the efficacy of the various vaccines. This one took place at a large hospital system in Belgium and the metric they looked at was the relative levels of antibodies found in patients after receiving each of the vaccines. When they compared Pfizer and Moderna, it turns out that the race wasn’t even close. Patients receiving the Moderna vaccine had literally more than twice as many antibodies as those who received the two doses of Pfizer. (Bloomberg)

Moderna Inc.’s Covid vaccine generated more than double the antibodies of a similar shot made by Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE in research directly comparing immune responses to the inoculations.

A study of almost 2,500 workers at a major Belgium hospital system found antibody levels among individuals who hadn’t been infected with the coronavirus before getting two doses of the Moderna vaccine averaged 2,881 units per milliliter, compared with 1,108 units/mL in an equivalent group who got two jabs of the Pfizer shot.

I’ll just remind everyone once again that I’m not a doctor and have received no medical training whatsoever in this field. But with that said, this really sounds like a simple question of math, doesn’t it? If one vaccine produces nearly three times as many antibodies as another, doesn’t that mean that it’s working better and is offering more protection? And if not, then why would you invest the time and money in doing the study?

Of course, if this leads you to opt for the Moderna vaccine, you might want to check and see where it was manufactured. That dose, in some cases, comes with even more added bonuses, such as metal flakes in the vials. But if yours wan’t manufactured in Spain you’re probably okay.

A quick check with the University of Michigan Health System reveals that the relative level of antibodies in your system can be predictive. “If your immune system makes low levels of antibodies, you may have a greater chance of developing repeated infections.” Since they’re putting it in layman’s terms, that would seem to imply that a higher volume of antibodies results in a lower risk of infection. I’m happy to have some doctors weigh in on this, but it really does sound as if not all vaccines are created equal.

But at the same time that this study was released, Yale was putting out a paper saying that all of the approved vaccines offer “strong protection” and they still list both Moderna and Pfizer as offering 95% efficacy.

Is it any wonder that people keep asking questions and having issues with this subject? The government is out there cracking the whip on the FDA to approve booster shots and browbeating the pharmaceutical companies to approve vaccines for younger children. But at the very same time, the experts we’re supposed to be relying on for this information put out conflicting reports on a weekly basis. Perhaps the media could put a pause on hammering people for “spreading misinformation” by simply asking questions and instead focus on getting these so-called experts to come to some sort of consensus. But I suppose that would be too much to ask, huh?