Congress gave the National Cancer Institute at NIH $300 million to study Covid immunity. What they found was that those who recovered had strong immunity

From Norman Sharpless, the NCI Director

“Using real-world data from more than 3 million people, NCI researchers and our collaborators have found that people who have had evidence of a prior infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, appear to have some degree of protection against being reinfected with the virus.

Exit DisclaimThis finding may explain why reinfection appears to be relatively rare and helps to confirm what many have hoped would be the case since the emergence of the virus.

Some may wonder why NCI is conducting research on COVID-19. Earlier this year, Congress appropriated $306 million to NCI in emergency funding to study the immune response to SARS-CoV-2. This project is one of many in this area that NCI has taken on at the request of Congress.

The NCI research team, which I was a part of, was led by Lynne Penberthy, M.D., M.P.H., associate director of NCI’s Surveillance Research Program. Working with two health care data analytics companies (HealthVerity and Aetion) and commercial labs (Quest and LabCorp), we obtained serology (antibody) testing results for more than 3 million people, representing more than 50% of the commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests conducted in the United States. Nearly 12% of these tests were antibody positive; most of the remaining tests were negative (less than 1% were inconclusive). 

The research team then looked at what fraction of individuals in each group went on to later develop a positive result on a nucleic acid (PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2, which may indicate a new infection. We found that, 90 or more days after the initial antibody test, people who had been antibody-negative had evidence of infection (a positive PCR test) at about 10 times the rate of people who had been antibody-positive.

This protective effect is strong and comparable to the protection afforded by effective SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, although developing protection from vaccination is much safer than from natural infection. This finding suggests that people who have a positive antibody test result using widely available assays have substantial immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and are at lower risk for future infection…”

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

The opening sentence seems clearly designed to diminish the content of the article, presumably since the author was part of the NCI team. I believe the Congress wanted an independent evaluation of the full extent of how our human immune system, developed over millions of years, handles Covid 19. I do not believe the objective was to compare the human immune system to the Gates/Fauci/Pharma mRNA/ADE/blood-clot generating approach.

Be that as it may, the author then throws up the false premise that an antibody test measures the entirety of the human immune system – which is completely inaccurate and designed to deceive the reader. An antibody, in and of itself, does not even begin to capture the complex biological forces that together represent the intricate mechanisms of the human immune system. The reality is the human immune system has innate complexity that cannot be measured, among other features. The innate immune system is your "generic", it works against any infection. It's the first line of defense. If it can't totally clear an infection, then the adaptive immune system comes into play, makes antibodies, and then the antibodies clear the infection.

That a man-made gene-editing vaccine can use a synthetic antigen to cause the body to make an antibody, in no way, shape, or form has equivalency to the power of naturally generated immunity. That even some medical people fail to grasp this concept is as mind boggling as it is disturbing. Next, the author attempts to deceive the reader yet again, first by stating in a purjoritive way you can get a positive PCR test even if you have natural antibodies – and next stating that the protective effect of natural immunity is “comparable” to people who are vaccinated, and further its actually “safer” to get the vaccine then to develop natural immunity. (PCR will pick up dead viral fragments of killed by natural immunity – a good thing.)

The natural immune system attacks invaders at the site of the invasion. For instance, respiratory viruses enter through you lungs. Your natural immune system attacks them there. The author who falsely equates natural and vaccine immunity, and further states the vaccine process is safer, needs to explain how injecting 1 Billion mRNA units into your muscle, which then begins circulating in your entire blood system stops an invader in your lungs.

It is the height of insanity to attempt to vaccinate an entire population for a virus with a o.15% IFR. It is medical fraud to do so with no safety testing even though mRNA vaccines are known to cause ADE. It is criminal to inject someone with a vaccine without informed consent, because the manufacturers lied, and WHO/FDA/CDC/NIAID/NIH covered up for the lie.

The key question here is what the f$$K in in these vaccines, and what really is Mr. Gates’ true end-game?

Anonymous
Anonymous
1 year ago

I don't trust ANY medical agency connected with the government. Not one. PCR testing has been used as a weapon to jail us in our own homes by over-amplifying samples more than 40 cycles to inflate positive results and scaring millions of people into submission. Now the CDC is turning down the PCR amplification cycles to ≤28, as they test the efficacy of the vaccine.

https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-cdc-issues-guidance-for-evaluating-post-vaccination-covid-tests-at-a-lower-standard

These so-called scientists are cheating to get their desired results. That is NOT science. No way am I taking a vaccine based on their lies. And shame on doctors and nurses (my profession) that continue to coerce people into this massive experiment, and worse: denying people early at-home treatment.

History will not be kind to them.

Anonymous
Anonymous
1 year ago

I agree with everything said by the previous commentator, but I do think Kory and team are purposefully walking a fine line in trying to get their information out to the broader medical community. It took them four months post peer review just to get this out.. so I imagine if not for the at least neutral statements regarding vax it may have never seen the light of day.

Regarding the end game.. I think it's vaccine tyranny as the ultimate global control mechanism. Once on the vaccine train, with your delicate innate immunity now hobbled by these highly specific monster antibodies that were hammered into you like a vampire killing spike, you will become dependent on variant updates or… well… die. The unvaccinated will be blamed. Most will believe the propaganda. How to we fight against this? We need to organize…

Meryl Nass, M.D.
Meryl Nass, M.D.
1 year ago

review c19study.com

The data for ivermectin are so incredibly good. The data on HCQ are very good. Ivermectin is first choice, sometimes both are used

Scroll to Top