CDC study claims that — mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are more than 5 times more protective than natural immunity

30 October 2021

Hmm

I wonder whose tentacles of monetary influence massaged the methodology and conclusions of the following CDC — vaccine versus natural immunity — COVID-19 study?

Here, broken into its essential elements for clarity — my addition in bracketed italics:

Among COVID-19–like illness hospitalizations

among adults aged ≥18 years

whose previous infection or vaccination occurred 90–179 days earlier,

the adjusted odds of

laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among unvaccinated adults with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection

were 5.49-fold higher

than

the odds among fully vaccinated recipients of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine

who had no previous documented [SARS-CoV-2] infection . . . .

© 2021 Bozio CH, Grannis SJ, Naleway AL et al., Laboratory-Confirmed COVID-19 Among Adults Hospitalized with COVID-19–Like Illness with Infection-Induced or mRNA Vaccine-Induced SARS-CoV-2 Immunity — Nine States, January–September 2021, MMWR , Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7044e1 (29 October 2021)

An earlier Israeli study found the reverse of the CDC's finding

Its authors said that:

SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold . . . increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021.

The increased risk was significant . . . for symptomatic disease as well.

When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold . . . increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold . . . increased risk for symptomatic disease.

SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.

© 2021 Sivan Gazit, Roei Shlezinger, Galit Perez, Roni Lotan, Asaf Peretz, Amir Ben-Tov, Dani Cohen, Khitam Muhsen, Gabriel Chodick and Tal Patalon, Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections, medRxiv, doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415 (25 August 2021)

Note that the Israeli study only investigated the effects of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Moderna's mRNA COVID vaccine was not assessed.

Of these differences in findings, the CDC's authors observed . . .

. . . rather unpersuasively (in either direction) that:

[T]hese findings differ from those of a retrospective records-based cohort study in Israel, which did not find higher protection for vaccinated adults compared with those with previous infection during a period of Delta variant circulation.

This variation is possibly related to differences in the outcome of interest and restrictions on the timing of vaccination.

The Israeli cohort study assessed any positive SARS-CoV-2 test result, whereas this study examined laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among hospitalized patients.

The Israeli cohort study also only examined vaccinations that had occurred 6 months earlier, so the benefit of more recent vaccination was not examined.

In other words, one's findings will (according to the CDC) differ dramatically depending on what arbitrary distinctions one makes in setting up methodology.

The CDC's hypothesis (about the difference between the two studies) hints at what I consider to be the debatable stupidity of being satisfied with a vaccine that wanes — perhaps into non-protection — perhaps every 6 months.

The CDC seems to take it for granted that we will be 'boostering' ourselves — in perpetuity and possibly at least twice annually — against a virus that kills or debilitates proportionately 'no one' healthy.

What should we make of the CDC's counter-intuitive finding?

I use 'counterintuitive' to suggest that natural immunity should, hypothetically, be as — or more — protective than these mRNA spike protein vaccines:

given (presumably) that the human body will be reacting to many more elements of the attacked SARS-CoV-2 viral components

than when compared with

the body's vaccine-prompted exposure to the mRNA vaccines' spike-protein-only assemblage.

In my (possibly crude) estimation, the United States' current attempt to ignore natural immunity has the most probably occurring biology backwards. This reversal is almost certainly due to a combination of group-think and rampaging avarice among Big Pharma and Government.

When and where collecting boatloads of money is involved — objectivity (pretty close to always) flees the United States.

Recall Dr. Sebastian Rushworth's cautionary observation . . .

. . . regarding medical group-think:

It’s hard to maintain faith in science when it is so willfully distorted to accord with a political agenda, and when many doctors and scientists so happily go along with what is handed down from on high.

Below is a prominent example of typically American medical herd behavior

Consider the otherwise admirable and nationally prominent pediatrician, Dr. Paul Offit.

Offit is (among many other things) co-inventor of a rotavirus vaccine, a Food and Drug Administration vaccine adviser, as well as a professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins medical school.

Perhaps because of his immersion in the American Establishment, Dr. Offit recently dismissed a question (from a fellow physician) about using ivermectin in the COVID context:

Talk to your large animal veterinarian to see if ivermectin is right for you.

People who won't get a vaccine are perfectly willing to take hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, which can be harmful.

And certainly, there is no evidence that it's helpful.

Notice that Offit mischaracterizes ivermectin as solely (by implication) a large animal veterinary medication. When, in fact, ivermectin is predominantly a human medication that possesses exemplary anti-parasitic (and lab-demonstrated anti-viral) attributes. Try taking ivermectin out of Africa and see the resulting uproar.

Furthermore — and contrary to Offit's reflexively delivered Party Line bullshit — ivermectin is one of the planet's long-demonstrated safer medications. Casually impugning it, as Offit did, demonstrates an intellectually inexcusable (and apparently deliberate) lack of contextual accuracy on his part.

Last, Offit — who evidently is too busy to read medical literature outside that delivered by the corporate-owned US mainstream — additionally mischaracterizes easily accessed evidence that — in objective fact — does generate enough tentative support to test and arguably even empirically use ivermectin in early COVID treatment.

In short, Offit comes across — to those who have read and considered the pertinent literature — and especially to many of those working in the COVID arena in poverty-stricken regions — as a too firmly opinionated, evidence-defying and propagandizing in-this-context ignoramus.

With admirable credentials, of course.

My negative characterization of Offit's attack on objectivity also applies to most of the American medical environment.

In the United States — and much of the 'developed' world — if the Big Pharma-dominated party line says so, it is so.

Ergo, Dr. Rushworth's observation about the Establishment's lack of scientific objectivity.

The moral? — Credentials lie all the time

Self-interested, overly confident, complacently unaware, and often ignorant folk populate our Elites — just as often as they do the Rabble to which most of us belong.

As a result, objectively delivered science, medicine and public health (in the United States) are almost dead.

See, for instance, one perspective on this trend, as it was demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic:

Vinay Prasad, Will Science Survive COVID19? — A Scientist Reflects, YouTube (21 September 2021) (26:35 in duration)

PeteFree.com

CDC study claims that — mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are more than 5 times more protective than natural immunity