Here Are The 3 Biggest Findings In Florida’s Grand Jury Report On Covid ‘Wrongdoing’
A new grand jury report contains damning information about how the 'expert' class did not, in fact, 'follow the science' on Covid.
People with natural immunity to COVID-19 have better protection against the respiratory disease than those who received mRNA vaccines, according to a new study.
A group of researchers from Estonia took a pool of 329,496 adults between Feb. 26, 2020, and June 25, 2021.
The analysis was based on data from 246,113 individuals who qualified as one of four categories. The scientists categorized the individuals as those with no immunity against COVID, those with natural immunity from previously being infected, those who had vaccine-induced immunity, and those who had both natural immunity and who were vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.
"Natural immunity conferred substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization," the authors of the study wrote. "Our study showed that natural immunity offers stronger and longer-lasting protection against infection, symptoms, and hospitalization compared to vaccine-induced immunity."
The Epoch Times reported, "People who received a vaccine were nearly five times as likely as the naturally immune to test positive for COVID-19 during the Delta era and 1.1 times as likely to test positive for COVID-19 during the Omicron era, researchers in Estonia found."
Individuals who were vaccinated against COVID were seven times as likely to be hospitalized during the Delta variant era, and two times when the Omicron variant was spreading, according to the outlet.
The study declared that hospitalization due to COVID was "extremely rare" for those with hybrid immunity. The researchers discovered that hybrid immunity had "substantially lower rates of reinfection" than those with natural immunity. However, the protection was diminished during the Omicron period.
The Estonian researchers noted, "Studies on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines suggest that protection against SARS-CoV-2 decreases over time, waning considerably after six months."
The authors concluded, "Our findings suggest that the risk of infection (and of developing severe disease) is affected not only by age and comorbidities but also by personal history of immunity-conferring events and by the viral variant responsible for the epidemic. Therefore, personalized risk-based vaccination strategies could be both effective and cost-effective."
The study was published on Nov. 21 in Scientific Reports – a peer-reviewed journal that is part of the Nature Portfolio and covers natural sciences, psychology, medicine, and engineering.
In February, a study was published that declared that natural immunity provides "at least as high, if not higher" levels of protection against COVID-19 as two doses of an mRNA vaccine. The research analyzing 65 studies from 19 different countries was published in The Lancet – one of the oldest and most respected medical journals in the world.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Natural immunity provides "at least as high, if not higher" levels of protection against COVID-19 as two doses of an mRNA vaccine, according to a study published in The Lancet – one of the oldest and most respected medical journals in the world.
The research analyzed 65 studies from 19 different countries to determine the level of protection from past infection against "subsequent re-infection, symptomatic COVID-19 disease, and severe disease."
The study noted, "Our meta-analyses showed that protection from past infection and any symptomatic disease was high for ancestral, alpha, beta, and delta variants, but was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant."
"Although protection from re-infection from all variants wanes over time, our analysis of the available data suggests that the level of protection afforded by previous infection is at least as high, if not higher than that provided by two-dose vaccination using high-quality mRNA vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech)," the authors of the study wrote.
"Furthermore, although protection from past infection wanes over time, the level of protection against re-infection, symptomatic disease, and severe disease appears to be at least as durable, if not more so, than that provided by two-dose vaccination with the mRNA vaccines for ancestral, alpha, delta, and omicron BA.1 variants, which is also seen from studies directly comparing natural immunity to vaccine-induced protection," the authors said.
"Protection from past infection against re-infection from pre-omicron variants was very high and remained high even after 40 weeks," the study found, adding that natural immunity diminished the risk of hospitalization and death from COVID-19 by 88% for at least 10 months.
The authors added that there were "risks of severe morbidity and mortality associated with the initial infection."
Dr. Christopher Murray, the director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington and senior study author, stated, "This is really good news, in the sense that protection against severe disease and death after infection is really quite sustained at 10 months."
"There's quite a long sustained protection against severe disease and death, almost 90% at 10 months," Murray said. "It is much better than I had expected, and that's a good thing for the world, right? Given that most of the world has had omicron. It means there's an awful lot of immunity out there."
Murray added, "The safest way to get immunity is vaccination."
The study advised, "The immunity conferred by past infection should be weighed alongside protection from vaccination when assessing future disease burden from COVID-19, providing guidance on when individuals should be vaccinated, and designing policies that mandate vaccination for workers or restrict access, on the basis of immune status, to settings where the risk of transmission is high, such as travel and high-occupancy indoor settings."
In May 2021, Dr. Anthony Fauci said, "The issue of vaccines actually, at least with regard to SARS-CoV-2, can do better than nature."
The next month, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) slammed Fauci and the CDC for not admitting the benefits of natural immunity.
"One of the biggest scandals during this whole pandemic is the coverup that's been committed by Dr. Fauci and the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] — especially the CDC — about the effectiveness of immunity that's conferred after a natural infection, after you've recovered from [COVID], they've completely ignored that," Massie declared. "They want everybody to get vaccinated, even those who don't need [to be] vaccinated."
According to the CDC, only 16% of Americans are vaccinated with a COVID-19 booster shot.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up!
A CNN medical analyst who promoted lockdowns and vaccination requirements and at one stage claimed "we can't trust the unvaccinated" has taken to the pages of the Washington Post to confirm claims that were up until recently derided as misinformation.
The so-called health expert now admits that natural immunity is optimal and that those who are vaccinated but had not previously caught COVID-19 are more susceptible to infection.
While some may be happy to see these long-censored claims printed in the Washington Post, others have suggested that what is missing from these public confirmations is an apology.
Leana Wen is an emergency doctor and professor of health policy and management at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health. She was previously president of Planned Parenthood and has also served as a medical analyst on CNN.
On Dec. 9, Wen wrote an op-ed in the Post calling for an end to the vaccine mandate for members of the military.
Wen also suggested that "businesses, universities, schools and other entities that were once justified in implementing these requirements should consider removing them, too."
The CNN analyst appeared to defend stances she had taken earlier in the pandemic, claiming that "when the coronavirus vaccines were first made available, there was a compelling case for requiring them."
However, Wen noted that things and standards changed when the Omicron variant turned up.
Wen said that research has shown that vaccines' "effectiveness in reducing infection against the omicron subvariants is low and not lasting."
She cited a recent study in "Nature Communications," which found that "effectiveness against infection was about 50 percent in the first three months after vaccination but declined to around 10 percent or below thereafter."
In a study published in the "New England Journal of Medicine," Wen noted researchers found "that there was no difference in infection rates between people who received two doses of the vaccine six months earlier and those who remained unvaccinated."
Wen further noted in her piece, which would likely have been censored online earlier this year, that the new bivalent booster targeting Omicron is not particularly effective against infection.
Potentially running afoul of the mRNA vaccines' most outspoken champions, like Dr. Anthony Fauci, Wen claimed that public health officials must be up front that the coronavirus vaccine is not equivalent to far more effective real vaccines, such as those used to treat polio or measles.
"Young, healthy people, most of whom already had covid, are very unlikely to become severely ill, and there is little, if any, lasting difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated people’s likelihood of infecting others," wrote Wen.
In another shibboleth-violating op-ed published Dec. 18, Wen stated, "Abundant research shows natural immunity conveys excellent protection against covid. One Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study found that vaccinated people who never had covid were at least three times as likely to be infected as unvaccinated people with prior infection."
She also cited a Lancet study that found "that those who were vaccinated but never had covid were four times as likely to have severe illness resulting in hospitalization or death compared to the unvaccinated who recovered from it."
The piece points out that an Israeli study published in the "New England Journal of Medicine" compared a group of vaccinated people who had never had COVID-19 and a group of people who had not been vaccinated but had been previously infected with COVID-19.
It turns out that the first group had "twice the number of infections as the second" just two months after their shots, and after six months, the "first group's infection rate was nearly three times higher than the second's."
Although Wen had previously supported vaccinating children, she cited CDC analysis indicating that over 90% of adolescents have contracted the virus, meaning they likely benefit from the natural immunity touted earlier in the piece.
After questioning the utility and good of vaccine mandates, Wen highlighted the dangers they pose — which were previously unacknowledgeable on social media.
Wen referenced two sets of statistics, one from the CDC and the second from a Canadian database; the first showing that there are 39 myocarditis cases per million second doses among males 18 to 24 and the second showing that there are 22 cases for every 100,000 doses for men ages 18 to 29.
Wen has ostensibly come a long way in her thinking in a short period of time.
In July 2021, Wen spoke to Democracy Now! bemoaning vaccine hesitancy and claiming that "we know that we can't trust the unvaccinated."
When the Delta variant turned up, Wen told CNN that "it needs to be hard for people to remain unvaccinated."
\u201cCNN medical contributor Leana Wen says that life needs to be "hard" for unvaccinated Americans!\n\nWhat a tyrannical monster! \n\n\u201d— Luke Rudkowski (@Luke Rudkowski) 1626032537
The health policy professor suggested to CNN's Chris Cuomo that societal reopening must be tied to vaccination status.
She said, "We need to start looking at the choice to remain unvaccinated the same as we look at driving while intoxicated. ... You have the option to not get vaccinated if you want, but then you can't go out in public."
Wen also stressed that mobility rights and other human liberties should be tied to vaccination status.
"There are privileges associated with being an American. That if you wish to have these privileges, you need to get vaccinated. Travel, and having the right to travel in our state, it’s not a constitutional right as far as I know to board a plane," she told CNN on another occasion.
\u201c.@DrLeanaWen: \u201cThere are privileges associated with being an American. That if you wish to have these privileges, you need to get vaccinated. Travel, and having the right to travel in our state, it\u2019s not a constitutional right as far as I know to board a plane."\u201d— Tom Elliott (@Tom Elliott) 1631292960
In response to Wen's recent op-eds, New York art dealer Eli Klein expressed his surprise that the "Washington Post finally published the truth about natural immunity."
\u201cWow, the Washington Post finally published the truth about natural immunity in a piece by Leana Wen. \n\n\u201c\u2026vaccinated people who never had covid were at least three times as likely to be infected as unvaccinated people with prior infection.\u201d\u201d— Eli Klein (@Eli Klein) 1671544247
Joel Petlin, superintendent of the Kiryas Joel School District, tweeted, "The media coverage of COVID-19 research on natural immunity has evolved from being banned on Twitter to being embraced by the same *experts* who applauded the original bans. The only thing missing is the apologies and the commitment to not repeat the outrageous past mistakes."
Revolver News suggested that Wen's admissions are "too little too late. Dr. Wen and her ilk conspired with the FBI and Big Tech to suppress these very facts that we needed to make sound decisions about how to respond to a novel pathogen. Their totalitarian streak cost us our freedom of movement, freedom of association, and our bodily autonomy."
Sen. Rand Paul confronted Dr. Anthony Fauci on Wednesday over comments he once made boasting about the superiority of natural immunity over vaccines.
During a Senate hearing on monkeypox, Paul played a video of Fauci saying in 2004 that "the most potent vaccination is getting infected yourself.
The remark was made during a taping of C-SPAN's "The Washington Journal" when a caller asked Fauci whether she should get a flu shot after having already been infected with influenza for two weeks.
"If she got the flu for 14 days, she’s as protected as anybody can be, because the best vaccination is getting infected yourself," Fauci said at the time. "If she really has the flu, she definitely doesn’t need a flu vaccine."
When the C-SPAN host asked Fauci whether she should get the flu shot, Fauci explained, "She doesn't need it because the most potent vaccination is getting infected yourself."
\u201cFauci, in 2004: \u201cIf she got the flu for 14 days, she\u2019s as protected as anybody can be, because the best vaccination is getting infected yourself. If she really has the flu, she definitely doesn\u2019t need a flu vaccine \u2026 the most potent vaccination is getting infected yourself\u201d\u201d— Tom Elliott (@Tom Elliott) 1648811889
In light of Fauci's previous remarks, Paul questioned Fauci over why he continues to push COVID-19 vaccine booster shots, including for children, despite, according to Paul, the fact that most children have COVID antibodies.
"When we look at this we wonder why you seem to really embrace basic immunology back in 2004 and how you, or why you, seem to reject it now," Paul noted.
Fauci responded that he does not reject "basic immunology" and has never denied "there is importance in the protection following infection." He proceeded to assert the importance of vaccination after infection for an "added, extra boost." He then claimed his comments from 2004 were "really taken out of context."
But Paul quickly checked him.
"Actually, words don't lie," Paul interjected, hammering Fauci for repeatedly advising that children receive COVID boosters while not taking into account natural immunity.
"So what you're doing is denying the very fundamental premise of immunology that previous infection does provide some sort of immunity," Paul added.
"If you ignore whether they've been infected, you're ignoring a vaccine basically, so you're ignoring a variable," Paul went on to say. "You decry and people decry 'vaccine hesitancy'— it's coming from the gobbledygook that you give us. You're not paying attention to the science!"
Fauci, however, again denied that he ignores basic immunology. Paul responded that not including previous infection in government guidance on vaccines is akin to ignoring the importance of natural immunity.
Last May, for example, Fauci promoted studies showing that immunity from COVID vaccines is stronger than what "nature" provides.
"The issue of vaccines actually, at least with regard to SARS-CoV-2, can do better than nature," Fauci said at the time.
Complete exchange between Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci at Monkeypox hearing www.youtube.com