>Nowhere in the paper I read that ADE was detected in the vaccined. Vaccine-induced ADE is only evocated as a possibility.
It's literally in the "highlights" of the paper at the top.
"Infection-enhancing antibodies have been detected in symptomatic Covid-19"
From the abstract:
"As the NTD is also targeted by neutralizing antibodies, our data suggest that the balance between neutralizing and facilitating antibodies in vaccinated individuals is in favor of neutralization for the original Wuhan/D614G strain. However, in the case of the Delta variant, neutralizing antibodies have a decreased affinity for the spike protein, whereas facilitating antibodies display a strikingly increased affinity. Thus, ADE may be a concern for people receiving vaccines based on the original Wuhan strain spike sequence (either mRNA or viral vectors)."
First, the line quoted from the highlights section is referring to the 1054 antibody, which was isolated from a patient infected with SARS-CoV-2, as opposed to one produced from vaccine response[1]. Second, the infection enhancing effect was determined in vitro.
So none of that supports the idea that ADE was actually detected in a human, and particularly the idea that vaccine induced ADE has actually been observed.
All that said, if the results of the paper hold up, they may help explain why the efficacy of the vaccines are reduced in the face of the delta variant. That would be extraordinarily useful in formulating better vaccines, so I'm cheering the science along. I'm less cheerful about the cherry-picking to support anti-vaccine narratives.
"In a recent publication, Li et al. (Cell 184 :1-17, 2021) have reported that infection-enhancing antibodies directed against the N-terminal domain (NTD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein facilitate virus infection in vitro, but not in vivo. However, this study was performed with the original Wuhan/D614G strain. Since the Covid-19 pandemic is now dominated with Delta variants, we analyzed the interaction of facilitating antibodies with the NTD of these variants."
I'm sure this post will be taken down shortly, so I wouldn't worry about it.
That's a letter to the editor.. That's an expert opinion and sits at the bottom of the hierachy of scientific evidence.
Furthermore authors seem to be connected to Raoult..