The CDC and Natural Immunity By Brian Simpson

Earlier, the mainstream media held that natural immunity was a conspiracy theory, something to be covered in another article. According to this narrative, written by Big Pharma, there is nothing beyond the vax. Of course, this is nonsense from the start, as humanity survived before vaccines even existed. To this they will say, maybe, but death rates were high. Yes, but not all things are equal, with public health measures in pre-modernity being below par. But, to refute this argument, modern Africa did better than the manic over-vaxxed West, and was way down on the vax schedule.

In any case, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a strong promoter of the vaxxes, has recently released a study showing that natural immunity is superior to vaccination for most people. The study is titled “Protection from COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection against COVID-19–associated encounters in adults during Delta and Omicron predominance” and published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. Technical details are given by Trial Site, but for our purposes, the CDC study refutes the recent claim by Australian authorities, eager for people to have a fifth jab, that these jabs are superior to being unvaxxed, or not fully vaxxed. Slowly, the Covid ideology is unravelling, but I suppose it will then be time for the next Big Thing, maybe bird flu.

“An important Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study recently showcases what proponents of previous infection-based natural immunity have lamented for a couple years now—natural immunity associated with SARS-CoV-2 natural infection trumps vaccinated immunity across most people. A point raised by critics of the COVID-19 government narrative for a couple years, one that Dr. Anthony Fauci years ago concurred with when it came to influenzas but for some reason, he and the National Institutes of Health nor the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had little interest in investigating. That latter point by itself demonstrates a severe bias and lack of scientific rigor. This recent study titled “Protection from COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection against COVID-19–associated encounters in adults during Delta and Omicron predominance” and published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases validates what critics had said all along!

Led by a CDC COVID-19 Emergency Response Team member and epidemiologist Catherine Bozio, PhD, MPH, as well as corresponding author Edward Stenehjem, MD, MSc affiliated with Salt Lake City’s Intermountain Healthcare Division of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Epidemiology, the study authors report that during the Omicron wave, those individuals studied that were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19, were 76% more protected against COVID-19 related hospitalizations. 

Previous Infection Superior

In fact, Dr. Bozio and team delved into the actual immunity afforded by the mRNA vaccines developed by both Pfizer-BioNTech and Modera. These products offered on 36% protection for persons lacking natural immunity associated with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.

What about durability?

TrialSite has continuously chronicled durability challenges with the current COVID-19 vaccines since the spring of 2021, so going on two years. In this latest CDC-sponsored study the researchers report that those individuals that were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, and thus benefited from natural immunity benefited much more than the mRNA vaccine boosters.

For example, while Omicron variants/subvariants predominated the natural immunity afforded via previous infection at 74% lasted 150 days plus post the infection. However, individuals that received the primary series mRNA vaccination that were also never infected with SARS-CoV-2 benefited from only 39% protection over 149 . s. 

While the third booster jab spiked the protection to 81%, unfortunately due to durability challenges with the vaccines the protection substantially diminished to a mere 31% after the 150th day from the last jab.

Critics Vindicated

Critics of the mainstream COVID-19  response , such as Marty Makary, MD, MPH, Johns Hopkins Univeristy have been pushing the CDC for a couple years now to investigate natural immunity in associated with SARS-COV-2—see the tweet from October 2021 as an example. Tweet / Twitter

“The NIH should be doing a long-term study of natural immunity instead of torturing thousands of beagle puppies, including cutting their voice box to avoid barking sounds (sick). All taxpayer funded. All our health agencies need fresh new leadership.”

Ironically while the CDC shared with the world the limited scientific data available associated with natural immunity, ironically the agency, along with the NIH and FDA were part of the problem. Not funding any research early into the matter.

Dr. Makary and other prominent critics continuously reminded health authorities about the mission-critical important scientific investigational endeavor early on. See a June 2021 tweet from Dr. Makary on the matter. He and others produced the government to invest in this fundamental scientific exercise. What took them so long? What political pressures were involved forcing a focus on novel mRNA vaccines only?

TrialSite published study after study from other parts of the world and even investigations led by Cleveland Clinic earlier in the pandemic evidencing the importance of natural immunity. In that particular study for whatever reason the results so challenged the U.S. government’s narrative at the time that the Cleveland Clinic took the study down. …

Vaccination Considered Important

In this latest CDC-funded study managed by Westat and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals the study authors don’t interpret the results as a negative vaccination but the results do raise the importance of this status [natural immunity] for future research and assessing risk. The study team declares:

Our findings continue to highlight the benefit of staying up-to-date with recommended COVID-19 vaccination schedules, regardless of SARS-CoV-2 infection history. For persons without a documented prior infection, a third dose provided substantial protection compared to unvaccinated persons, and that protection was higher than that conferred from receipt of two mRNA doses alone (relative to unvaccinated persons), particularly during Omicron predominance, as consistent with other literature (5, 7, 24, 29). In addition, during Omicron predominance, a third dose provided additional protection against both COVID-19–associated ED/UC encounters and hospitalizations for previously infected persons compared to unvaccinated and previously uninfected persons. That protection was also similar/higher than the protection conferred from 2-dose mRNA vaccination and prior infection (relative to unvaccinated and previously uninfected persons), also consistent with literature.”



No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Thursday, 13 June 2024

Captcha Image