Natural Immunity As Good As Or Better Than C-19 JAB

Natural Immunity As Good As Or Better Than COVID-19 Vaccination

New Study from The Lancet

Post by Tyler Durden | Written by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times

Post-infection immunity is similar or even superior to the protection bestowed by COVID-19 vaccines, according to a new study.

Post-infection protection—known widely as natural immunity—was strong and remained significant over time, researchers found. Against the Wuhan, Alpha, and Delta variants, the protection against re-infection was 85 percent at four weeks, 78 percent at 40 weeks, and 55.5 percent at 80 weeks.

That protection dropped more quickly against the Omicron BA.1 subvariant, declining to 36 percent by 40 weeks, and protection against symptomatic disease also waned below 50 percent.

But shielding against severe disease was strong against all strains, including the BA.1 subvariant, researchers found. The naturally immune enjoyed 88.9 percent protection against BA.1 at 40 weeks, which was actually higher than against earlier strains.

“Our analysis found significantly reduced protection against re-infection from the omicron BA.1 variant but that levels of protection against severe disease remained high,” Dr. Stephen Lim of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington’s School of Medicine, and his co-authors, said in the study.

Dr. Brett Giroir, a former Trump administration health official whose post on natural immunity was censored by Twitter on behalf of Pfizer board member Dr. Scott Gottlieb, said the study “demonstrates robustness of natural immunity.”

Dr. Vinay Prasad, an epidemiologist at the University of California, San Francisco who was also not involved in the study, said that the paper made a “compelling case that we can effectively stop boosting average risk individuals (most adults) who have had covid.”

“Vaccine policy should have been different in people with prior illness,” Prasad also said.

Public health officials have repeatedly said that vaccination is better than natural immunity, or that the naturally immune should still get vaccinated despite the protection they have. Some other countries have acknowledged natural immunity by lowering the number of recommended doses for the population.

Comparison to Vaccination

The researchers performed a review and meta-analysis by looking for studies on natural immunity conducted through Sept. 31, 2022. Studies were included if a group of naturally immune, unvaccinated people were compared to unvaccinated people who had not been infected. Studies that also included vaccinated people were included if the research also included unvaccinated and naturally immune people. Studies that only had results for natural immunity in combination with vaccination, or hybrid immunity, were excluded.

Researchers performed a modeling technique called Bayesian meta-regression to reach pooled estimates of protection by time since infection.

In total, 65 studies were included in the meta-analysis from 19 different countries. Just 30, though, included information on time since infection, and a subset of those included information on one or more of the outcomes—re-infection, symptomatic disease, and severe disease—during the BA.1 era.

One of the researchers’ main conclusions was that the study showed that natural immunity “is at least equivalent if not greater than that provided by two-dose mRNA vaccines,” or the Pfizer and Moderna messenger RNA vaccines.

That conclusion was supported by references to just two studies—one unpublished paper and one published paper from Qatar that found natural immunity was more protective than the mRNA vaccines. A graph in the study also showed natural immunity conferring better immunity vaccination against infection, symptomatic disease, and severe disease—including against three vaccine doses, or a primary series and a booster.

The researchers also emphasized that COVID-19 can cause problems, including death, but did not mention side effects from vaccination that can also cause long-term issues, including mortality.

Limitations included the low number of studies that were analyzed for the analysis and the reliance on observational studies.

The study was published by The Lancet. Researchers received funding from several sources, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill Gates, the Microsoft founder, has repeatedly promoted vaccination during the pandemic.

Read more here…

*********

(TLB) published this article as posted by Tyler Durden and written by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times

Header featured image (edited) credit: Grganism/Micro pix/orginal ET article

Emphasis added by (TLB) editors

••••

••••

Stay tuned to …

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB 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.

••••

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.