Science and handling a new virus evolve as evidences are revealed over time. In early stage of pandemic, masks are less important with low transmission in community. Now every top public health organization in the world recommends mask wearing. In current update, Center for disease control says vaccinated people can go maskless outdoors except in crowds. Masks are still recommended indoors in crowded spaces.
Who are these people wearing two masks with nobody around? I mean, if nobody is around, how would you know what they are wearing. This is what we call a narrative. It's something one creates.
If I weren't already staunchly pro-vaccination, the vaccine zealots would turn me against the COVID shot. The proof that they're practicing religion and not science is their refusal to acknowledge the great heaping hunks of immunity a person gets from natural infection.
Obviously, you don't want to contract COVID just to get all that boffo immunity, but lots of people have already been infected, so why can't we count them the same as vaccinated?
The current research -- and that's all we have for the vaccines, too -- indicates that natural immunity is not as good as vaccine immunity -- it's better! Study after study keeps finding that the previously infected have stronger, broader and longer-lasting immunity than people who've received the vaccine.
When the vaccinated, with their pipsqueak immunity, stop browbeating the already-infected, I'll believe this is something other than a cult.
Why is the only proof of virtue -- I mean, "Trusting the Science(TM) -- a vaccination card and not a positive COVID test? Why don't sports teams, concert halls and foreign countries accept proof of prior infection the same way they accept proof of vaccination?
Nope. Your prior infection is no good here! We are accepting ONLY vaccination cards.
Whatever that impulse is based on, it's not "science."
Despite earlier reports showing that antibodies declined rapidly after infection, in May of this year, scientists at the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, released a study showing that "robust" antibodies were still present at least 11 months after infection. (France accepts proof of prior infection not older than six months. If they trust the science, they'll soon be accepting prior infection for a year.)
Then in June, the Cleveland Clinic produced a gigantic, perfectly controlled study finding that people who'd already had COVID received no benefit from vaccination.
The clinic had tested its 52,238 employees throughout 2020. At one point or another, 2,579 tested positive. By mid-December, 46% of the recovered COVID patients had taken the vaccine, but more than half (54%) had not.
Five months later, none of the previously infected had been re-infected -- including the 1,359 who did not take the vaccine. (Among clinic employees who were vaccinated, but not previously infected, 15 got COVID.)
The authors concluded: "Our study ... provid[es] direct evidence that vaccination does not add protection to those who were previously infected."
Great news, right?
NO! This was terrible news for the vaccination Karens! Their position is: Everyone must get the vaccine. Even if you live alone on a mountaintop and eat leaves and beetles to survive, even if you're a burbling infant, even if you've had COVID, YOU MUST GET THE VACCINATION!
In short order, the Cleveland Clinic was bullied into submission. The authors of the report issued what sounded like a retraction, but, on closer examination, was just a lot of airy nonsense.
E.g.: "This is still a new virus and more research is needed. ..."
Duh. Same for the studies showing how fantastic the COVID vaccines are.
"It is important to keep in mind that this study was conducted in a population that was younger and healthier than the general population. ..."
This study SUCKS. It only applies to the entire working-age population of the U.S.!
"In addition, we do not know how long the immune system will protect itself against re-infection after COVID-19. ..."
Ditto for the vaccine.
"It is safe to receive the COVID-19 vaccine even if you have previously tested positive ..."
Presumably, it's also "safe" to use Gwyneth Paltrow's healing crystals if you have previously tested positive. The question is: Do you need to?
" ... and we recommend all those who are eligible receive it."
Perhaps, someday, there will be a study establishing that the previously infected should get the vaccine, but your study didn't, Cleveland Clinic. Everyone knows you're only telling the previously infected to get vaccinated so the loons will leave you alone.
Just this week, a study out of the Emory University Vaccine Center, led by "world renowned immunologist" (as he is known) Rafi Ahmed, found "durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection." And get this: The researchers also found that a natural COVID infection protects against a range of other coronaviruses, too.
What's so impressive about these studies is that they are going against the woke mob. After a year of seeing scientists and scientific journals irredeemably corrupted, any study that won't be cited in Teen Vogue carries extra credibility. Worse, the results support Sen. Rand Paul! Nobody's going to lie about that.
This isn't just a matter of policy not catching up to the science. The vaccine Karens positively disdain the previously infected. Instead of being treated like the superhumans that they are, recovered COVID patients are scorned, treated like smokers or AIDS victims. (No, sorry -- the latter were revered as "angels.") We're simultaneously told that COVID is WILDLY contagious and ... it's your own damn fault for not wearing a mask, socially distancing or getting a vaccine.
The dismissal of people who've developed their own antibodies springs from the same totalitarian mindset of gun control activists: You cannot protect yourself! Your body cannot protect you! Only the government can protect you. Or, as Mussolini said: "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State."
This abject refusal to acknowledge the existence of natural immunity proves that the vaccine Karens don't care about the health of their fellow human beings. They just want to boss us around.
Immunity response to infection varies widely from person to person. India council of medical research found anti-bodies detected in population survey don't guarantee immunity against reinfection. Vaccine passports are easier to implement than measuring whether people have enough covid immunity. Unclear how anti-body levels change in the long term and whether they still offer any protection. Anti-bodies from infections may be less effective against new variants than anti-bodies from vaccines according to University of Pennsylvania study. Stronger immunity depends on the virus. Some vaccines produce stronger immunity than the virus.
Cleveland clinic encourages those previously infected to get vaccines. Their research showing no benefit for the infected hasn't been peer reviewed and further study is needed. However other studies show previously infected people can benefit significantly from vaccination. Stronger and longer lasting immunity plus broader immunity against diverse viruses. Getting a vaccine is safer and provides more consistent protection than natural infection. Risks of serious illness, virus spread, death and long term effects outweigh benefits of natural immunity.
Maybe this will help you understand more the issue:
The purpose of the current vaccination drive is to provide protection from Sars_Cov_2 that causes Covid-19. However, in the second wave, many such cases have come up in which people have contracted the virus a few weeks after taking both doses of vaccines. A few of them have died also.
Though a vaccine helps produce antibodies in advance to fight against the virus yet every individual doesn’t develop the same amount of it after vaccination.
Doctors say that the amount of antibodies that vaccination will produce in an individual depends on his or her immune system. The quantity of antibody is measured by its titer value and a higher titer value means more antibody in a person.
Now the question is, “Is there a benchmark for antibody level beyond which the virus will not cause any infection?”
Unfortunately, vaccine scientists and infectious disease experts say that a higher titer value doesn’t always guarantee complete protection and that’s the reason even a fully vaccinated person contracts the disease.
Let’s understand why it is so?
Sars_Cov_2 virus is a non-cellular microscopic organism that can multiply in a living cell. It has a spike protein protruding from its surface. This spike protein has a receptor-binding domain (RBD).
On the other hand, human beings have ACE2 receptors in some of their cells. These cells are found in the nose and other body parts like the heart, kidney, lungs, etc. The spike protein’s RBD gets attached to the ACE2 receptor and that’s how Sars_Cov_2 enters the human body.
Experts say that only those antibodies that are specific to RBD can help provide protection. These antibodies cannot be measured through a titer score.
They say that titer measures a general antibody that our body produces against any antigen.
Let’s understand how the body reacts to natural infection.
According to experts, when Sars_Cov_2 infects a human being, the body develops the first antibody, Immunoglobulin M or IgM, to fight against the virus.
Between 5 to 10 days of illness, the body develops four other antibodies – (a) Immunoglobulin G, (b) neutralizing antibody, (c) anti-spike antibody, and (d) RBD specific antibody.
“One needs to understand the main antibody which prevents the Covid infection, is the RBD specific antibody. The second in importance is neutralizing antibodies which protect from the virus," Dr Samrat D Shah, internal medicine specialist and honorary internist to the Governor of Maharashtra, said.
He adds, “So if you develop antibodies towards RBD, it gives you more immunity as compared to other antibodies. It cannot be measured through titer value. Very few laboratories have just recently started doing RBD specific antibody tests.”
Doctors and researchers say that three to six months after natural infection, an individual loses all-natural antibodies. However, despite that, the cases of reinfection are very few and far between.
“B cells and T cells in the human body memorize the antigen and the moment the same virus infects the body, they make antibodies specific to target the virus. That’s why reinfection is very low and even if it occurs, the severity is not as high as it was during the first infection,” Noted epidemiologist Dr Jayaprakash Muliyil said.
Outlook recently published research by Gyaneshwar Chaubey, a professor of genetics at Banaras Hindu University (BHU) whose pilot study on 20 volunteers showed that the first dose of coronavirus vaccine helps develop antibodies among Covid-19 recovered persons faster compared to those people who never contracted the virus.
Prof Chaubey‘s study is consistent with the views of many noted epidemiologists and doctors who believe that an individual memory a cell can immediately activate an antibody specific to target the antigen.
That’s why a section of the experts is not in favour of vaccinating the Covid-19 recovered population. Many experts say that natural antibodies are better than vaccine-acquired antibodies.
Based on their anecdotal experiences, they say that when people get vaccinated, they don’t develop all four antibodies discussed above.
“I can say based on my experience that vaccines don’t help develop RBD-specific antibodies. That’s why people remain vulnerable to infection,” Dr Shah said.
He added, “Let’s take for example an individual who takes the Covishield vaccine. It makes anti-spike antibodies that prevent the spike protein to enter and bind to the ACE2. But the strength of the binding is dependent on RBD specific antibodies, not the anti-spike.”
Dr Shah says that if an individual acquires high anti spike antibodies but doesn’t get RBD-specific antibody, he remains susceptible to get the infection.
Dr. Syamal Roy, a noted immunologist, who retired as Head of the Department of Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, Kolkata seconds Dr Shah that its RBD specific antibodies that can stop ACE2 receptor to bind with spike protein.
“I think it is still a subject of research whether vaccine produces RBD specific antibodies or not. Since there is no study in this regard, it is difficult for me to answer,” Dr Roy said.
Dr Muliyil, who also supports the superiority of natural antibody over a vaccine-acquired antibody, says that human response to a virus is very complicated as it triggers a whole lot of immune response to sterilize the body.
He says that the virus enters the body through the throat which has tonsils, adenoids, and a lot of other glands and defence mechanisms.
“When a vaccine is given intra-muscular, those particular glands are not specifically activated. So, when the virus comes and sits on your throat, it doesn’t respond furiously immediately,” Dr Muliyil said.
He added, “A person may develop a mild infection but since the vaccine makes the body respond adequately, serious illness or death is very rare.”
New Lancet Study Destroys the CDC's Justification for School Mask Mandates
The Lancet, a world-renown medical journal, is out with a new study debunking a highly-cited CDC study that was used to support mask mandates in schools.
Specifically, the study not only replicates the CDC study, which found a “negative association” between masks and pediatric cases of Covid-19, it also extends the study to include more districts over a longer period of time. In the end, the new study had nearly “six times as much data as the original study.”
“Replicating the CDC study shows similar results; however, incorporating a larger sample and longer period showed no significant relationship between mask mandates and case rates,” the study finds. “These results persisted when using regression methods to control for differences across districts. Interpretation: School districts that choose to mandate masks are likely to be systematically different from those that do not in multiple, often unobserved, ways. We failed to establish a relationship between school masking and pediatric cases using the same methods but a larger, more nationally diverse population over a longer interval. Our study demonstrates that observational studies of interventions with small to moderate effect sizes are prone to bias caused by selection and omitted variables. Randomized studies can more reliably inform public health policy.”
Marty Makary, MD
"This study demonstrates how the CDC was cherry-picking data to support their school mask dogma. The article states that CDC's MMWR journal rejected publishing this re-analysis. Most likely because it exposed the CDCs salami-slicing of data & use of science as political propaganda"
"Brilliant re-analysis of the data the CDC used justify school masking. This new elegant study, using a larger population & longer study period, found that school masking was NOT associated with pediatric case rates. "
Scott Balsitis, MD
"Important Lancet paper: replicates a CDC study claiming student masking is effective, but the conclusion doesn't hold if expanded to a larger, more thorough analysis. Consistent trend: the higher quality the study, the more the mask benefit disappears."
New Study: Mask Mandates Associated With INCREASED Covid Death Rate
A bombshell new medical journal report comparing Covid-19 fatality rates across Kansas counties during the height of the pandemic alleged that mask mandates could be associated with higher death rates from the virus.
From The National Pulse:
The observational study– “The Foegen Effect: A Mechanism by Which Facemasks Contribute to the COVID-19 Case Fatality Rate” – was published in Medicine in February 2022, authoredby German doctor Zacharias Fögen.
The paper analyzed “whether mandatory mask use influenced the case fatality rate in Kansas” during the time period of August 1st, 2020 to October 15th. Kansas was used for comparison because the state allowed each of its 105 counties to decide whether or not to implement mask mandates, with 81 counties deciding against the measure.
“The most important finding from this study is that contrary to the accepted thought that fewer people are dying because infection rates are reduced by masks, this was not the case,” summarized the paper.
“Results from this study strongly suggest that mask mandates actually caused about 1.5 times the number of deaths or ~50% more deaths compared to no mask mandates.”
The paper went on to theorize that the so-called "Foegen effect," whereby hypercondensed droplets caught by masks are re-inhaled and introduced deeper into the respiratory tract, could be responsible for the increased mortality rate. The possibility was echoed by Dr. Aaron Kheriaty while discussing the study during a Saturday night appearanceon Fox News' "Unfiltered" with Dan Bongino:
"There is emerging evidence, a study out of Kansas recently that suggested that the case fatality rate with Covid is higher where there are mask mandates," Kheriaty said. "Once you get infected, if you are wearing a mask, this study suggested that your chance of having a bad outcome, of dying from Covid was higher. And that probably has to do with rebreathing these kind of condensed droplets that have a lot of virus in them."
While several recent reports, including this University of Louisville study, have shown mask mandates to have had no discernable effect on Covid-19 case rates through the pandemic, the possibility that widespread and prolonged mask usage could actually have negative consequences has largely been ignored by researchers until recently.
In April, a peer-reviewed study comparingmask usage across Europe during the pandemic found no negative correlations between mask usage and Covid-19 cases and deaths and even admitted to have found a "moderate positive correlation between mask usage and deaths in Western Europe" which "suggests that the universal use of masks may have had harmful unintended consequences."
Of course, those of us with a lick of common sense and the ability to follow evolving data knew this the entire time. Still, it's nice to see the research finally beginning to catch up!
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
