150 Plus Research Studies Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to Covid-19: Documented, Linked, and Quoted
On The Hill’s “Rising,” journalist and political commentator Kim Iversen shared revelations from the latest batch of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine documents, released April 1 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
The latest batch of Pfizer documents, released April 1, confirm Pfizer knew natural immunity was as effective as the company’s COVID-19 vaccine at preventing severe illness.
On Monday’s segment of The Hill’s “Rising,” journalist and political commentator Kim Iversen said the documents also revealed the vaccine could not be verified as safe for pregnant women or women who wanted to bear children, and that myocarditis was a known adverse reaction to the vaccine.
The documents were part of the court-ordered release of 340,000 pages of documentation submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by Pfizer in its application for Emergency Use Authorization of its vaccine.
In response to a Freedom of Information Act request in August 2021, from Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, the FDA initially sought to delay full release of the documents for 75 years, but a federal judge mandated their release within eight months.
The FDA released 11,000 pages on April 1.
Adverse effects on younger subjects
The clinical data also show Pfizer was aware of now well-documented issues of more severe reactions among younger subjects.
“Another revelation from the documents was that adverse reactions were more frequent and more severe in younger groups.
“The document reads, ‘reactogenicity and adverse events were generally milder and less frequent in participants in the older group [55 and over] compared with [the] younger group and overall tended to increase with increasing vaccine dose.’”
Iversen cited data from the Lancet showing 16-year-olds have a 99.993% chance of surviving COVID; 30-year-olds a 99.943% chance of surviving; and 50-year-olds a 99.572% chance.
“Only with the 60-and-older group,” Iversen summarized, “is there a drop below 99% survival rates.”
‘UK Gov. Report’, Fully Vaccinated Account For 9 In Every 10 Covid-19 Deaths In England
Those Recovered From COVID Are Best Protected
On March 1, the scientific journal Clinical Infectious Diseases published a peer-reviewed article titled “Risk of reinfection after seroconversion to SARS-CoV-2: A population-based propensity-score matched cohort study.” This Swiss study “observed a 94% reduction in the hazard of being infected among SARS-CoV-2 seropositive participants, when compared to seronegative controls, >8 months after serology assessment.”
This level of protection (natural immunity) from SARS-CoV-2 infection (94 percent) is comparable to that of the Pfizer vaccine but lasts longer (eight months and counting).
In a peer-reviewed article published in the journal Science Immunology on Jan. 25, scientists from Oregon Health & Science University showed in raw data that antibodies derived from previous COVID-19 infection are at least 10 times more potent than that generated by vaccination alone. They still concluded, however, that “Vaccination is highly effective at preventing the most severe outcomes from COVID-19 and should be provided regardless of previous infection status and age.” I’m confused by their conclusion, but happy to see the raw data.
Similarly, in my Feb. 5 article “Pandemic Lessons Learned: Scientific Debate Silenced, With Deadly Consequences,” I wrote: “Now, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control admits in a report released on Jan. 28 that natural immunity against COVID-19 is superior to any of the available vaccine regimens.”
A reader commented that she “looked all over the CDC site and could find no such info. … Now who’s being ‘subjective’?”
The reader was right. I should have explained in my article that the conclusion I drew was not a direct quote but rather my own summary based on the CDC’s raw data.
The CDC’s Jan. 28 report included the following chart but neglected to provide a summary comparing protection between vaccinated people without natural immunity and unvaccinated people who recovered from COVID and now have natural immunity.
It seems that it’s necessary to dive a little deeper into the data to elaborate my point, as the authors of the report did not conclude the very obvious. Please bear with me.
The above CDC chart shows data from California on protection against COVID-19 collected from four groups of people between May 30, 2021, and Nov. 20, 2021:
1) The unvaccinated, with no previous COVID-19 diagnosis (top solid line)
2) The vaccinated, with no previous COVID-19 diagnosis (broken line below the solid line)
3) The unvaccinated, with previous diagnosis
4) The vaccinated, with previous diagnosis
It is obvious that the lines representing 3) and 4) are superimposing on one another, indicating that vaccination had virtually no impact on protection when a person has recovered from COVID-19 infection, meaning natural immunity dominates protection over vaccination to a level that made vaccination irrelevant.
Although the biggest difference lies between the unvaccinated with no previous infection and everyone else, the second biggest difference, however, is between the “Vaccinated, no previous COVID-19 diagnosis” line (vaccine immunity) and the “Unvaccinated, previous COVID-19 diagnosis” line (natural immunity), with the natural immunity line having a much lower “hazard rate,” meaning better protection.
The report also revealed similar findings for New York state.
Is CDC Censoring Data on Natural Immunity?
The CDC’s MMWR is a weekly report. The chart above is part of the report for the last week of January, and it was for only two of the 50 states, California and New York. When I was writing my Feb. 5 article, I thought that maybe it was a benign omission that the CDC did not conclude the obvious. For sure, more data would be coming from the CDC in February and March, I thought, as it would teach us so much more about natural immunity.
However, it hasn’t materialized. Since Jan. 28, there have been 10 MMWR reports published on the CDC website, totaling 29 articles in all. They cover topics ranging from vaccination by geographic locations, to vaccine confidence by sexual orientation, to isolation strategy for fully vaccinated NFL players, and so on. So far, the Jan. 28 report was the only one that included “unvaccinated, with previous diagnosis” in the data, and that’s unfortunate. All the other reports were to re-enforce the conclusion that vaccines are effective, with almost nothing about natural immunity. Here is a screenshot of the MMWR website:
For example, one of CDC’s latest reports, published on March 18, includes the following chart:
Here, hospitalization data was plotted against 1) unvaccinated people, 2) vaccinated without a booster, 3) vaccinated with a booster. There is no information about people who had recovered from COVID-19. In other words, information on natural immunity is censored.
According to the CDC’s own information, the United States has had about 80 million COVID-19 cases. The vast majority of patients recovered from the disease. This huge part of the U.S. population now enjoys natural immunity. This is also true for Canada and many other parts of the world.
It seems that the CDC is avoiding anything and everything related to natural immunity. But why?
Maybe the CDC is like Bill Gates, who said at the Munich Security Conference last month: “Sadly, the virus itself, particularly the variant called Omicron, is a type of vaccine. That is, it creates both B-cell and T-cell immunity.” What he meant was it would be a sad thing if it is natural immunity, not Big Pharma’s vaccines, that defeat COVID-19.
Let the CDC and Mr. Gates feel sad. The rest of us are ready to move on with our lives.
Read Dr. Joe Wang’s series on Pandemic Lessons Learned here.
Judge Rejects FDA’s 75 Year Delay On Vax Data, Cuts To Just 8 Months
Pfizer’s very own study showed those prior infected were protected from severe disease aka NATURAL immunity (with or without evidence of prior infection); these beasts at Pfizer knew about natural imm
If these beasts at the pharma, Pfizer and Moderna etc. were given liability protection (PREP… PREP Act Immunity from Liability for COVID-19 Vaccinators) by Alex Azar early 2020, did they not breach the terms of the agreement to report adverse events etc.? Does this not negate or moot the liability protection and allow us to strip these CEO’s and scientists and companies of everything? and imprison many?
These beasts have risked the lives of our police and military who I fear many will be harmed and may die in short, medium, and long course. I plan to tell you why in a next post.
But let us focus on the subject at hand today. New Pfizer document dump…the 2nd…huge enormous consequences!
First, Phil Kerpen is smart, I don’t always agree with his views but he is wicked smart. I like his balance here. I like lots of what he says.
Pfizer reference we are talking about. I did not wish to talk about FOX for to me FOX is the same as CNN, but Tucker and Laura do a great job, still. Praise to her here.
They knew there was transient immune suppression. The white blood cells were suppressed for 7 days after the shot and got COVID right away and many got very ill and died…yes, there was real NEGATIVE EFFICACY and the injection was causing people to get infected and get very ill and die…
They lied, they all lied, CDC, NIH, NIAID, Pfizer etc. and Moderna all lied…all these public health officials, our governments whom we trusted, lied and must be held to account legally. We cannot let them out of our grasp in a courtroom. These CDC and NIH beasts and doctors/clinicians who got money for doing this complicit corruption, who lied to their patients, did not tell people who got the vax to stay home and isolate, for their immune system was suppressed and at risk, no no no, so they must be held to account and be jailed if this is true….you NEVER warned anyone to be careful and stay away for 2 weeks as the immune system was suppressed and low….to tell us would have admitted that there was a real issue and you were at risk due to the vaccine as you take the shot…a huge issue…as Risch would say, a ‘non-zero’ issue….
They suffered us, these beasts in our governments, these illogical, irrational, absurd, nonsensical technocrats and lockdown lunatics! these television medical experts, forever preening and talking pure utter nonsense and tripe on COVID. drivel. locked children away for 2 years in windowless rooms even (Quebec)…my view, jail them all! this was no simple slip, wanted to obfuscate for 75 years and hide the data, these are criminals IMO. Is this negligent homicide? or similar? my friend Doug seems to think and I think.
They the CDC and NIH etc. changed the definition of being fully inoculated to the 15th day post shots, these beasts, these criminals…why did they do this? so that the infections and deaths would not be counted and would be accrued as if in the ‘UNVACCINATED’ so Walensky the liar could go out and say its a pandemic of the unvaccinated when she knew she was lying…she knew they were placing the harms and deaths in the unvaccinated to make the vaccinated data look good when they knew the vaccine was ineffective with negative efficacy and harmful. they all were, these crooks…. doctors and scientists and especially those at McMaster U in the evidence-based medicine world (EBM) should hang their heads in shame as they continue to be complicit in a mass corruption to shill vaccines and still trying to deny the effectiveness of early treatment by putting out bogus sub-optimal methods studies…EBM died and they the EBMers killed it…they killed their own field…in want of fame, grant money, keeping their salaries….shameful…all for money…they are whores, money whores, sold out their patients and the public for money. The field of medicine, clinical medicine, is dead. No respect for these people. None.
It is indeed scandalous because CEO Albert Bourla of Pfizer (Bancel of Moderna), FDA, CDC, NIH and FDA, yes the FDA, Hahn et al, must have known this, yet these corrupted people put the data out in a way to lie and mislead policy makers and the public who only sought the truth. They re-arranged the definition of ‘vaccinated’ to accomplish this. These crooks.
More adverse effects and harms for the younger? Duh…yes, we have seen the CVST, we have seen the fatal myocarditis…
I want proper legal inquiries and strip all their money if proven and it looks so based on their own documents and IMO, put many in jail for this malfeasance.
I challenge them, come as a group, bring the entire CDC, NIH, bring Bourla of Pfsier and Bancel, and debate me, talk to me, talk to McCullough, talk to Risch, talk to Trozzi, talk to Bridle, talk to Malone, talk to Oskoui (he said what we are learning now in June 2020 Ingraham Angle about the vaccine and the data, prescient, brilliant), talk to Tenenbaum, talk to Vanden Bossche, yes, come talk to me….anyplace and time, bring all you wish, come talk Theresa Tam and Howard Njoo of Canada’s PHAC and Health Canada, tell us how you made these COVID and vaccine decisions when what we see in the Pfizer document dumps you were hoping would be hidden for 75 years, is that you people are a bunch of either illogical inept incompetent, academically sloppy people, or highly malfeasant. I lean to the latter.
Cases, Cases, Cases…How the “Pandemic” Was Fabricated
Johns Hopkins Analysis Explodes COVID Lockdown Narrative: Little or No Impact Reducing Deaths
Please share this, pass it along,
comment and start a conversation.
The FDA defines severe COVID as a case requiring oxygen support. The CDC defines it as a case requiring hospitalization.
“There were zero cases of severe COVID in the natural immunity group, whether they were vaccinated or not,” Iversen said.
Iversen also said the data showed infection rates of any kind were “statistically identical” among the vaccinated and those with natural immunity.
She said: