Half Of Americans Have Natural Immunity

JonDouglas

JonDouglas

Senior Member
Location
New England
The full title of the article is: Johns Hopkins Prof: Half Of Americans Have Natural Immunity; Dismissing It Is ‘Biggest failure Of Medical Leadership. Below is a snippet.

Dr. Marty Makary made the comments during a recent interview, noting that “natural immunity works” and it is wrong to vilify those who don’t want the vaccine because they have already recovered from the virus.​
​
Makary criticised “the most slow, reactionary, political CDC in American history” for not clearly communicating the scientific facts about natural immunity compared to the kind of immunity developed through vaccines. “There is more data on natural immunity than there is on vaccinated immunity, because natural immunity has been around longer,” Makary emphasised. “We are not seeing reinfections, and when they do happen, they’re rare. Their symptoms are mild or are asymptomatic,” the professor added.​
​
“Please, ignore the CDC guidance,” he urged, adding “Live a normal life, unless you are unvaccinated and did not have the infection, in which case you need to be careful. We’ve got to start respecting people who choose not to get the vaccine instead of demonizing them,” Makary further asserted.​
​
More at source.​
​
This is another data point and one we are beginning to hear more of.
 

A friend sent me this, looking for a comment. I will post the essence of what he sent, which is something to think about and omit my return comments to him as they might be seen as inflamatory by the thin-skinned..

Previous Infection Superior To Vaccine For Protection? Is there any real data (not lab-based) demonstrating an expected immune response for people who have been previously infected compared to vaccinated people? As a matter of fact, there is. A UK study with over 25,000 participants published in The Lancet on April 17 showed that having had a previous infection “reduced the incidence of reinfection by at least 84%.”​
​
Even more convincing, an Israeli study with over 6 million participants directly compared the risk of infection (or reinfection) of people who had been vaccinated with that of people who had not been vaccinated but who had survived a COVID infection. They found that the risk of infection for both groups was equivalent:​
​
Vaccination was highly effective with overall estimated efficacy for documented infection of 92·8% (CI:[92·6, 93·0]); hospitalization 94·2% (CI:[93·6, 94·7]); severe illness 94·4% (CI:[93·6, 95·0]); and death 93·7% (CI:[92·5, 94·7]). Similarly, the overall estimated level of protection from prior SARS-CoV-2 infection for documented infection is 94·8% (CI:[94·4, 95·1]); hospitalization 94·1% (CI:[91·9, 95·7]); and severe illness 96·4% (CI:[92·5, 98·3]).​
Click to expand...
​
It is unbelievable that this information is not more widespread: A careful study involving over 6 million participants clearly demonstrated that having had a previous infection is equivalent to the Pfizer vaccine in preventing future COVID infections.​
​
OK, so maybe having survived COVID provides good immunity, but why not just get the shot anyway – as a booster or an insurance policy? The advisability of getting the shot depends on the risk. The CDC says that vaccines are safe and effective and that serious safety problems are rare. These conclusions are based on the Phase 1/2/3 clinical vaccine safety trials. For COVID survivors, the problem with the clinical trial results is that COVID survivors were specifically excluded from the safety trials. News reports, though, highlight that side effects are more common in COVID survivors.​

Some damning stuff here if above is accurate.
 
Nathan said:
@Jon Douglas, Your preoccupation with the "anti" agenda will eventually(if it has not already)consume your intelllectual ability to distinguish reality from fantasy.
Click to expand...
Are you breathing your own exhaust again, Nathan? It seems when I post stuff you don't like, you take the denigration approach. Putting people down doesn't serve you well. At least try something other than this shopworn old Alinsky tactic.

PS: Did you see the Fauci memo I posted from the FOIA? One might think he's a bit of a phony Tony.
 
Nathan said:
@Jon Douglas, Your preoccupation with the "anti" agenda will eventually(if it has not already)consume your intelllectual ability to distinguish reality from fantasy.
Click to expand...

I haven't read enough of @JonDouglas 's threads to know whether or not your judgement is factual, but I do know that natural immunity is as protective as that of vaccines. I don't understand how sound science in this thread is 'fantasy' in your thinking? From the get go, I thought vaccines should've been given first to people who hadn't yet had symptomatic Covid-19.
 
JonDouglas said:
Are you breathing your own exhaust again, Nathan? It seems when I post stuff you don't like, you take the denigration approach. Putting people down doesn't serve you well. At least try something other than this shopworn old Alinsky tactic.

PS: Did you see the Fauci memo I posted from the FOIA? One might think he's a bit of a phony Tony.
Click to expand...
Oh my, you DO so love to portray yourself as the victim. tsk tsk. "breathing your own exhaust again"...a new insult, I love it, was getting tired of the "panties in a bunch" thing, so unoriginal.
 
Another interesting op-ed from MedPage Today: Quit Ignoring Natural COVID Immunity by Jeffrey Klausner, MD, MPH, and Noah Kojima, MD

Epidemiologists estimate over 160 million people worldwide have recovered from COVID-19. Those who have recovered have an astonishingly low frequency of repeat infection, disease, or death. That immunity from prior infection protects many people now where vaccines are not yet available.​
​
Earlier this month the World Health Organization released a scientific update stating that most people who have recovered from COVID-19 develop a strong protective immune response. Importantly, they summarize that within 4 weeks of infection, 90% to 99% of people who recover from COVID-19 develop detectable neutralizing antibodies. Furthermore, they conclude -- given the limited amount of time to observe cases -- that the immune response remains strong for at least 6 to 8 months after infection.​
- - - - - - - - - - ​
Moving forward, policymakers should include natural immunity as determined by an accurate and reliable antibody test or the documentation of prior infection (previous positive PCR or antigen test), as evidence of immunity equal to that of vaccination. That immunity should be given the same societal status as vaccine-inducted immunity. Such a policy will greatly reduce anxiety and increase access to travel, events, family visits, and more. The updated policy will allow those who have recovered to celebrate their recovery by informing them of their immunity, allowing them to safely discard their masks, show their faces, and join the legions of those vaccinated.​
​
In my opinion, "natural" immunity may be the best vaccine - if, when and where it is appropriate. As always, people should always have a choice of what's put into their bodies and accept the consequences for the decisions they make. It should be expected that vaccine makers and those who hold their stock might vigorously object to these ideas.
 
Last edited:
AnnieA said:
I haven't read enough of @JonDouglas 's threads to know whether or not your judgement is factual, but I do know that natural immunity is as protective as that of vaccines. I don't understand how sound science in this thread is 'fantasy' in your thinking? From the get go, I thought vaccines should've been given first to people who hadn't yet had symptomatic Covid-19.
Click to expand...
This is an issue in more ways than one. Some theories out there that those that just had the virus asymptomatically could be some of those showing adverse reactions because there are so many antibodies in the system. So over reaction by the immune system could be things like blood clots or heart trouble.

Also wouldn't those who were asymptomatic throw off the statistics either way. They could add to adverse reaction stats as they could add to effectiness stats being they already had antibodies in their system. Are the natural antibodies or vaccine preventing an infection? -with any disease.
 
JonDouglas, you never answered my question as to whether you personally have received the vaccine.

If you have (answered my question), and the answer is buried in the lengthy quotes you seem to love to copy and paste, I've missed it. So, apologetically, I'll ask again. Did you get the vaccine?
 
Sunny said:
JonDouglas, you never answered my question as to whether you personally have received the vaccine.

If you have (answered my question), and the answer is buried in the lengthy quotes you seem to love to copy and paste, I've missed it. So, apologetically, I'll ask again. Did you get the vaccine?
Click to expand...
Sorry but I am mot your research aide. If you're that interested, dig for it. I did answer the question and the rationale behind it several times.
 
There is another related (to covid) article in the Front Line Covid Critical Care (physicians) Alliance entitled Prevention and Treatment Protocols for COVID-19

​
The I-MASS Protocol was created for generalized distribution during mass outbreaks and in low-resource countries. To achieve maximal impact as well as ease of deployment with the lowest burden of required elements, the I-MASS treatment approach is centered on the fewest, core, high impact elements such as the drug Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic medicine that is on the WHO’s list of essential medicines, has been given 3.7 billion times around the globe, and has won the Nobel prize in 2015 for its global and historic impacts in eradicating endemic parasitic infections in many parts of the world.​
​
Ivermectin has proven to be highly potent against COVID-19. It has shown antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties in observational and randomized controlled studies conducted throughout the world. Practitioners and Health Ministries who have adopted Ivermectin in treatment protocols report significant reductions in time to recovery, hospitalizations, and death. The use of Ivermectin as prophylaxis and prevention has also been proven in studies to reduce the spread of infection and offer protection to high-risk individuals.​
​
Also included in the protocol are Vitamin D3, Melatonin, Aspirin, a multivitamin, a thermometer, and an antiseptic mouthwash. The evidence for supporting the other vitamins and medicine can be found here: https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/medical-evidence-and-optional-medicines/.​
​
The FLCCC peer-reviewed paper summarizing this data has been published in the American Journal of Therapeutics: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/.​
​
Further supportive information can also be found here: https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/.​
​
Additional treatment protocols for COVID-19, including for hospitalized patients, can be found at https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/.​
​
Support for Ivermectin in the use of prophylaxis can be found here: https://scivisionpub.com/pdfs/ivermectin-as-prophylaxis-against-covid19-retrospective-cases-evaluati…​
​
Disclaimer: The safety of Ivermectin in pregnancy has not been established. Particularly the use in the 1st trimester should be discussed with your doctor beforehand.​
​
Some people may want to know about this.
 
WhatInThe said:
This is an issue in more ways than one. Some theories out there that those that just had the virus asymptomatically could be some of those showing adverse reactions because there are so many antibodies in the system. So over reaction by the immune system could be things like blood clots or heart trouble.

Also wouldn't those who were asymptomatic throw off the statistics either way. They could add to adverse reaction stats as they could add to effectiness stats being they already had antibodies in their system. Are the natural antibodies or vaccine preventing an infection? -with any disease.
Click to expand...

Somes case studies show asymptomatic cases produced less antibodies if any at all. This research shows asymptomatic cases or very mild cases lose antibodies even when they do produce them.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/3/20-4543_article

That's why I specified 'symptomatic' in the post above. If you have studies backing your quote above, I'm interested in reading them.
 
JonDouglas said:
Sorry but I am mot your research aide. If you're that interested, dig for it. I did answer the question and the rationale behind it several times.
Click to expand...

Oh, for Pete's sake. She said she hadn't seen whether or not you got the vaccine and why. Why not just answer the question?

It's totally okay if you didn't. Your body, your choice. You're not endangering anyone by not getting it since vaccinated people can still get milder cases and are infectious when they do.
 
AnnieA said:
Oh, for Pete's sake. She said she hadn't seen whether or not you got the vaccine and why. Why not just answer the question? It's totally okay if you didn't. Your body, your choice.
Click to expand...
I don't respond that much to people who have a habit of stalking and pestering like her and Nathan. You may not like what I am about to say but you should have asked, "Why aren't you answering?" instead of getting a little huffy about it. Ready, fire, aim?
 
AnnieA said:
Somes case studies show asymptomatic cases produced less antibodies if any at all. This research shows asymptomatic cases or very mild cases lose antibodies even when they do produce them.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/3/20-4543_article

That's why I specified 'symptomatic' in the post above. If you have studies backing your quote above, I'm interested in reading them.
Click to expand...
"This research shows asymptomatic cases or very mild cases lose antibodies even when they do produce them."

Does that include some who have been vaccinated? That might explain breakthrough cases.
 
AnnieA said:
Somes case studies show asymptomatic cases produced less antibodies if any at all. This research shows asymptomatic cases or very mild cases lose antibodies even when they do produce them.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/3/20-4543_article

That's why I specified 'symptomatic' in the post above. If you have studies backing your quote above, I'm interested in reading them.
Click to expand...
Those with adverse reactions to vaccine might have had previous virus infection

https://noorchashm.medium.com/j-js-...he-adversely-affected-women-have-cdde4bdbb090

A study of health care workers who previously had virus had a higher antibody response to virus than vaccinated(University of Maryland Medical School)

https://hartfordhealthcare.org/about-us/news-press/news-detail?articleId=32846&publicid=728

When mentioning the studies they don't note the level or severity of infection.
 
There is still a lot that the scientists and medical experts do not know about this virus. I had a mild case of COVID and I thought it best to get the two injections of Pfizer. Now we find out that if a person has had this virus, they do not need to take the vaccine. I guess it pays to wait. But the good news is that because I only had a mild case of the virus, it was best to take the vaccine.

I have been reading the newly released e-mails that were sent and received by Dr. Fauci. Interesting, to say the least. Not being a medical professional, I do have trouble interpreting some of the dialogue contained in the e-mails, however, one that I found to be very interesting came from a medical professional in Britain suggesting to Fauci that the some of the features of the genome looked engineered. If this is true, someone or some group will have a lot to explain. Again, we don't know if this is true or not. The person's name that sent the e-mail is Kristian Andersen.

In another e-mail, it appears that Dr. Fauci may have lied when he stated to Congress that he never had any hand in "gain of function" research. And once again, we don't know if this is true or not. As we all have learned, e-mails can be very misinterpreted at times. So for now, my opinion would be to give Dr. Fauci the benefit of doubt until prover otherwise.
 
AnnieA said:
Oh, for Pete's sake. She said she hadn't seen whether or not you got the vaccine and why. Why not just answer the question?

It's totally okay if you didn't. Your body, your choice. You're not endangering anyone by not getting it since vaccinated people can still get milder cases and are infectious when they do.
Click to expand...
I don't want to enter the fray but I would like to remind everyone of the Hippa violation. No one should pressure anyone to answer the question if they have had the vaccination because it's private medical information protected by Hippa. Why would anyone want that information anyway? To pass judgement? It's not like anyone is going to be in contact with him here in SF.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top