The New England Journal of Medicine has published a new study proving once-and-for-all that natural immunity is real and it is more effective than vaccinated immunity alone.
Natural immunity “protection was higher than that conferred after the same time had elapsed since receipt of a second dose of vaccine among previously uninfected persons,” the study concluded.
A comparison of the three cohorts can be seen in the chart below. It shows that the unvaccinated cohort with natural immunity had comparable re-infection rates with those who had hybrid immunity. Natural immunity was far superior to vaccinated immunity alone.
“The number of cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection per 100,000 person-days at risk (adjusted rate) increased with the time that had elapsed since vaccination with BNT162b2 or since previous infection,” the study explains. “Among unvaccinated persons who had recovered from infection, this rate increased from 10.5 among those who had been infected 4 to less than 6 months previously to 30.2 among those who had been infected 1 year or more previously.”
“Among persons who had received a single dose of vaccine after previous infection, the adjusted rate was low (3.7) among those who had been vaccinated less than 2 months previously but increased to 11.6 among those who had been vaccinated at least 6 months previously,” the study continues, confirming that vaccinated immunity wanes rapidly. “Among previously uninfected persons who had received two doses of vaccine, the adjusted rate increased from 21.1 among those who had been vaccinated less than 2 months previously to 88.9 among those who had been vaccinated at least 6 months previously.”
“Infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) provides natural immunity against reinfection,” the study added, noting the “waning of the immunity provided by” Pfizer’s shots.
The study’s authors Yair Goldberg, Ph.D., Micha Mandel, Ph.D., Yinon M. Bar-On, M.Sc., Omri Bodenheimer, M.Sc., Laurence S. Freedman, Ph.D., Nachman Ash, M.D., Sharon Alroy-Preis, M.D., Amit Huppert, Ph.D., and Ron Milo, Ph.D. discussed the meaning of the findings.
“In findings that were consistent with those of other studies, after several months, persons with hybrid immunity were better protected against reinfection than uninfected persons who had previously received two doses of vaccine (the two-dose cohort),” the authors stated. “Furthermore, we found that a single dose of the vaccine administered to a previously infected person or a booster dose administered to an uninfected person who had received two doses of vaccine restored the level of protection to the level in the early months after recovery or vaccination. The timing of vaccination after infection affects the protection.We did not have enough data to evaluate the level of protection as a function of time between infection and vaccination, while taking the waning effect into account.”
“The results reported here are in line with those of a study conducted by an Israeli health maintenance organization,” the authors added. “That study showed that previously infected persons with or without one vaccine dose have better protection than uninfected persons who have received two doses of vaccine 3 to less than 8 months after the last immunity-conferring event. Our data on hospitalized patients who had severe Covid-19 did not contain enough cases for a definitive analysis but did not appear to support the findings in a recent report that suggested that vaccinated persons are more protected than previously infected persons 3 to less than 6 months after an immunity-conferring event.”
The Epoch Times gathered feedback from physicians on the meaning of the study’s findings.
“CDC seroprevalence data shows that 58 percent of the public has already been infected across all age groups (75 percent of pediatric population). For those with immunity from natural infection, the risk of hospitalization and death upon reinfection is exceedingly low,” Dr. Sanjay Verma told The Epoch Times.
“Therefore, continued disregard for immunity from natural infection is not only contrary to all the published science, it’s an egregious affront to medical ethics,” he continued.
“Throughout the pandemic, public health experts have ignored and even disparaged immunity after natural infection, exclusively emphasizing immunity from COVID vaccines. Many people have been unethically forced into unemployment from vaccine mandates that did not accommodate immunity from natural infection. Repeated studies have shown that immunity after COVID infection is comparable or even better than immunity after COVID vaccination,” Verma added.
One of the biggest mysteries of the Covid-19 pandemic is why public health experts ignored natural immunity. Americans were repeatedly urged to get vaccinated, and millions of people lost their jobs despite having natural immunity and vaccines failing to stop the spread. Whether the reason politics, corruption, or both, the public health sector’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic has been completely unacceptable.
Dr. Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins University announced the study in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“Natural immunity wins again,” Dr. Makary tweeted, referring to the new study.
Natural Immunity wins again. New England Journal Study: Natural immunity “protection was higher than that conferred after the same time had elapsed since receipt of a second dose of vaccine among previously uninfected persons.” https://t.co/aEFHKfXQUi
— Marty Makary MD, MPH (@MartyMakary) June 12, 2022
If only this news would have been admitted years ago, like Dr. Anthony Fauci did prior to the Covid pandemic.
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Discussion about this post