The CDC Finally Admits That Natural Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 Is Superior to the Immunity Induced by COVID-19 Vaccines…but holds onto its other lies

Thank goodness for Jeremy Hammond, who can call out the CDC on their lies and withholding of data.  The NY Times added to his reportage 10 days later.

As Apoorva Mandavilli wrote in the NY Times 2 days ago,

But the C.D.C. has been routinely collecting information since the Covid vaccines were first rolled out last year, according to a federal official familiar with the effort. The agency has been reluctant to make those figures public, the official said, because they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective.

Ms. Nordlund [the CDC’s spokesperson] confirmed that as one of the reasons [why CDC has withheld the facts from the public–Nass].

You just can’t make this stuff up.  Below, Jeremy fills out the story with historical context.  Please go to the link to read his entire report. 

In October 2020, two months before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first granted emergency use authorization for COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, who went on to become director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) under the Biden administration, claimed that vaccines would be needed to achieve herd immunity because “there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection”.

That was a lie.

At the time Walensky made that bold statement, studies had already shown that, in addition to effective cellular immune responses, neutralizing antibodies induced by infection were persistent in the blood of almost all people who recovered. Additionally, it was known that infection induced memory responses, with indications of the induction of long-lived bone marrow plasma cells—a known immunologic marker of long-term immunity—that could rapidly churn out more antibodies in the event of reexposure to SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.

The claim that the vaccines would confer herd immunity by stopping infection and transmission and thereby bring the pandemic to an end proved to be a false promise. The induced sterilizing immunity, or ability of circulating antibodies to stop infection, wanes rapidly so that fully vaccinated people can become infected and spread the virus to others.

Walensky herself publicly admitted this in August 2021 after CDC researchers had learned that 74% of COVID-19 cases in a large outbreak in Massachusetts were fully vaccinated people and that the amount of virus shed by vaccinated people was just as high as that of the unvaccinated, suggesting equal contagiousness. (It was this finding that prompted the CDC to reverse its mask guidance, shifting from telling fully vaccinated people that they no longer needed to wear a mask to telling them that they needed to mask up once again.)

After the FDA issued emergency use authorization for COVID-19 vaccines in December 2020, the CDC claimed that the available evidence indicated that natural immunity was short-lived.

That, again, was a demonstrable lie.

That falsehood was eventually removed from the CDC’s website only to be replaced with a recommendation for people who’ve recovered from infection to still get vaccinated on the grounds that the duration of natural immunity remained unknown.

Thus, while no longer outright lying, the CDC continued to deceive the public by deliberately withholding the fact that studies had shown that infection was likely to induce long-term immunity.

“…there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection…”

Indeed, in May 2021, scientists confirmed that infection induced differentiation of memory B cells into long-lived bone marrow plasma cells, an immunological marker of long-term immunity. Yet the CDC persisted in its deceitful message that even people who already recovered from infection needed to get fully vaccinated on the implicit grounds that natural immunity might be short-lived.

Then, in August 2021, the CDC went even further by explicitly claiming that the evidence suggested that “people get better protection by being fully vaccinated compared with having had COVID-19.”

That was yet another outright lie, even more egregious than the CDC’s earlier disinformation.

In fact, by that time, studies had overwhelmingly shown natural immunity to be both broader and more durable than the immunity induced by vaccines….

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
1 Comment
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
TheCovidPilot
9 months ago

A big part of the problem is that many people think that science is produced by the CDC when actually science is a conversation about data, methods, and ideas. And using methods to gather data.

Science isn’t about textbooks or what “authorized public health agencies” say. Anyone who puts in the work to read and understand can participate. Credentials aren’t required, although they help with credibility among those who haven’t done the work.

Two preeminent Scottish physicists, William Thompson and James Clerk Maxwell, didn’t have degrees in physics. Nor did Sir Isaac Newton. But they all put in the work. And they all contributed to the conversation in physics.

Anyone who has put in the work can tell if someone else has put in the work or not. A lot of people with MD after their names haven’t put in the work wrt the various aspects of covid.

The CDC presumes to speak about masking. One of the aspects of masking dynamics–droplet capture–is studied by people working in the physics of fluids. There was a leading edge article published in Nature about this in Jan. 2022 (Xu, et. al.). So questions about masking dynamics are still leading edge. So how could the CDC have spoken authoritatively about masking back in 2020? Did the CDC rely at all on NIOSH, the organization that governs masking under the CDC? Did NIOSH tell the CDC that this novel use of masks to capture virus and droplets was leading edge? Did the people making the decisions even know that they were out of field?

I see nonsense mask review articles (calling them low-quality would be an abuse of low-quality articles) published in JAMA and other journals. A bunch of doctors who hadn’t done the work and didn’t know anything about mask dynamics were speaking out of field. I commented on their article about that fact and my comment somehow was never approved.

Lol @ the Center for Disinformation Communication.

Scroll to Top