CDC weighs in, comparing recovered immunity to vaccine-induced immunity. I comment on CDC’s assertions

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/vaccine-induced-immunity.html#anchor_1635539757101 

Below is CDC’s executive summary.  My responses are in blue–Nass

Executive Summary

Key findings and considerations for this brief are as follows:

  • Available evidence shows that fully vaccinated individuals and those previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 each have a low risk of subsequent infection for at least 6 months. Really?  A massive VA study (780,000 people) shows otherwise:

  • We report SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness against infection (VE-I) and death (VE-D) by vaccine type (n = 780,225) in the Veterans Health Administration, covering 2.7% of the U.S. population. From February to October 2021, VE-I declined from 87.9% to 48.1%, and the decline was greatest for the Janssen vaccine resulting in a VE-I of 13.1%. Although breakthrough infection increased risk of death, vaccination remained protective against death in persons who became infected during the Delta surge. From July to October 2021, VE-D for age 65 years was 73.0% for Janssen, 81.5% for Moderna, and 84.3% for Pfizer-BioNTech; VE-D for age ≥65 years was 52.2% for Janssen, 75.5% for Moderna, and 70.1% for Pfizer-BioNTech.”   

    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm0620

  • Data are presently insufficient to determine an antibody titer threshold that indicates when an individual is protected from infection. This is the standard answer, but it has not stopped FDA from accepting antibody titers as evidence of immunity from the vaccine manufacturers in all the vaccine clinical trials.
  • At this time, there is no FDA-authorized or approved test that providers or the public can use to reliably determine whether a person is protected from infection. This is true–but WHY has FDA failed to inform the public which tests most  reliably indicate immunity?  Why has it failed to approve tests, when it has had over 18 months, in the middle of a pandemic, to evaluate most of them? 
    • The immunity provided by vaccine and prior infection are both high but not complete (i.e., not 100%). Nothing is ever 100%; CDC says this to try to diminish the close to 100% immunity of the recovered
    • Multiple studies have shown that antibody titers correlate with protection at a population level, but protective titers at the individual level remain unknown. Because that is the way FDA and CDC want it, to prevent individuals from demonstrating they are protected and therefore will not benefit from vaccination.
    • Whereas there is a wide range in antibody titers in response to infection with SARS-CoV-2, completion of a primary vaccine series, especially with mRNA vaccines, typically leads to a more consistent and higher-titer initial antibody response. Briefly yes, but as you already pointed out, antibody levels are not a surrogate for protection, so why focus on them?
    • For certain populations, such as the elderly and immunocompromised, the levels of protection may be decreased following both vaccination and infection. True, but apparently this is a bigger problem with vaccination than recovered immunity
    • Current evidence indicates that the level of protection may not be the same for all viral variants. Duh
    • The body of evidence for infection-induced immunity is more limited than that for vaccine-induced immunity in terms of the quality of evidence (e.g., probable bias towards symptomatic or medically-attended infections) and types of studies (e.g., observational cohort studies, mostly retrospective versus a mix of randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, and cohort studies for vaccine-induced immunity). There are insufficient data to extend the findings related to infection-induced immunity at this time to persons with very mild or asymptomatic infection or children. This is a load of hogwash, as there is very high quality evidence, of many types, supporting the superiority of recovered immunity–and the same is true for virtually every other infection.  CDC tries to reinvent the wheel, using a square rather than a circle.
  • Substantial immunologic evidence and a growing body of epidemiologic evidence indicate that vaccination after infection significantly enhances protection and further reduces risk of reinfection, which lays the foundation for CDC recommendations. This is more hogwash.  The best studies show practically 100% protection after infection and vaccinating the recovered does NOT improve on this.

In this recent official UK publication, it is apparent that after a few months, the vaccinated are at higher risk for COVID than the unvaccinated.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1027511/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-42.pdf

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
5 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Anonymous
1 year ago

Dr. Nass,

Isn't it true that vaccinating those with natural immunity actually REDUCES their immunity, since the mRNA vaccines are known to effectively shut off the innate immune system?

The evidence that confirms the damage to the innate immune system is that so many inoculated people are suddenly coming down with strange, seemingly latent illnesses that appear out of nowhere. Some believe the issue is the immune system is so busy fighting off the vaccine induced synthetic spike proteins that diseases can take root. But recent research by pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole and others, has proven that the vaccine actually "turns off" the innate immune system – which is simply shocking. This effect is what would seem to create an "annuity" for the manufactures by CDC then calling for "boosters".

Dr. Nass, can you confirm that the shutting off of the innate immune system is a real effect of the mRNA vaccine?

Anonymous
Anonymous
1 year ago

Promitheus and his companions sacrificed themselves to rid people of ignorance
But they only added to them suffering from the conscious responsibility of bringing the dream of a free life, but not raising from the darkness of an unfree life

Anonymous
Anonymous
1 year ago

"Duh"….LOL!!

Anonymous
Anonymous
1 year ago

One thing their statement completely failed to address is cell-mediated immunity (CMI), which is probably life-long after natural infection, as it's been shown to be for influenza. I have seen nothing on the CMI response to COVID vaccines. What does that look like?

No matter; it can only be directed against the particular conformation of the spike protein belonging to the now-extinct alpha/Wuhan strain anyway.

That (and antibody-dependent enhancement of disease) is probably why vaccination no longer protects against infection or disease caused by the currently circulating strains – plural.

Tyro
1 year ago

Martin Kulldorff * has published a useful review and comparison of the Israelis study and this one that evaluates their findings and addresses those with reference to the relevant aspects of study design, population, methodology and modeling.

https://brownstone.org/articles/a-review-and-autopsy-of-two-covid-immunity-studies/

His comments on the very odd odds-ratios were especially enlightening, firstly for providing the unadjusted ( & unreported ) odd-ratio of 1.77 that became covariate adjusted to 5.49. But that’s not based on a comparison cohort sampled from the populations local to or representative of the patients in the study, or any background population. It’s derived from the cohort of patients who tested COVID Negative but had COVID-LIKE symptoms.

Which means that the study’s control group is from the same group of hospitalized patients with COVID-LIKE symptoms as the vaccinated vs prior-infected groups – they are only distinguished from the control group by their positive test result. And that makes for a very different study.

from KullDorff…

The problem is that the CDC study answers neither the direct question of whether vaccination or Covid recovery is better at decreasing the risk of subsequent Covid disease, nor whether the vaccine rollout successfully reached the frail. Instead, it asks which of these two has the greater effect size. It answers whether vaccination or Covid recovery is more related to Covid hospitalization or if it is more related to other respiratory type hospitalizations. 

You have to wonder whether Fauci really is trying to kill everybody.

  • Martin Kulldorff is a Harvard biostatistics w/ vaccine epidemiology focus
Scroll to Top