Posted on 12/13/2021 8:41:36 AM PST by george76
At the end of August, a study was published showing that natural immunity provides much better protection against infection than the Pfizer vaccine. It was described by UCL’s Francois Balloux as “a bit of a bombshell”.
Subsequent studies have compared natural and vaccine-induced immunity at the cellular level. One found that infection-induced antibodies “exhibited superior stability and cross-variant neutralisation breadth” than vaccine-induced antibodies, suggesting that people who’d already been infected had better immunity against the then-novel Delta variant.
However, as I noted in my write-up of the “bombshell” study, its findings still needed to be replicated. After all, certain datasets or methods of analysis can sometimes yield quirky results, which don’t survive independent empirical tests.
Encouragingly, the findings now have been replicated – by another team of Israeli researchers, using a different dataset.
In the latest study, Yair Goldberg and colleagues tracked all the individuals in their dataset (of people in Israel) who had tested positive or received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine before 1st July, 2021. They then compared the number of infections in previously infected versus vaccinated individuals from August to September of 2021.
The researchers also examined the number of infections among those with so-called ‘hybrid immunity’ – i.e., previously infected individuals who got vaccinated.
For each of the three groups, they counted the number of infections and the number of days ‘at risk’ (i.e., the total number of people multiplied by the number of days on which they were ‘at risk’ of becoming infected). Adjustments were made for age, sex, ethnicity, calendar week and a measure of risk exposure.
Results are shown in the chart below. Each bar corresponds to the infection rate per 100,000 ‘risk days’. The reason the researchers used ‘risk days’, rather than just ‘people’, is that the composition of each group changed over time. For example, some previously infected people chose to get vaccinated.
...
Notice that the labels for the horizontal bars are not the same for each group. Since we want to compare apples with apples, look at the bars labelled “Recovered 6–8 months” and “Vaccinated 6–8 months”.
This comparison shows that, 6–8 months after the corresponding event, infection rates were more than six times higher among vaccinated individuals – 89 per 100,000 versus only 14 per 100,000 among previously infected individuals.
The chart also shows that infection rates were lower still among those with hybrid immunity, which is consistent with what the earlier study found. However, the difference between the hybrid group and the recovered group was relatively small. For example, infection rates at 6–8 months were only 20% higher in the recovered group.
Goldberg and colleagues’ study confirms that natural immunity does wane, though much more slowly than vaccine-induced immunity. Anyone claiming the contrary now has to contend with not one, but two, high quality studies.
Natural immunity works better than a rushed out cocktail of crap that was rubberstamped through clinical trials with the data illegally hidden from the public? Who would have thought. Maybe ice is cold. Maybe fire is hot. What a bombshell!
Natural immunity does not make any money for Big Pharma, Bill Gates, Fauci ( Mengele ), and ..
Didn’t the actual Science predict this?
“Another Study Finds That Natural Immunity Protects Better Against Infection Than the Pfizer Vaccine”
Another clue for the clueless
The study awaits peer review and scientific research study duplication.
" You have to look for it,.. in order to find it"
george76 wrote: “Natural immunity does not make any money for Big Pharma, Bill Gates, Fauci ( Mengele ), and ..”
Well, actually it does. In order to get ‘natural immunity’ you have to become infected. Infected means treatments. Treatments make more money for ‘big pharma’ than vaccines. Gates and Fauci have nothing to do with this.
https://www.amazon.com/Real-Anthony-Fauci-Democracy-Childrens/dp/1510766804
All thinking people really need to read it.
Yeah I think Dr. Robert Malone’s discussions about antibody-dependent enhancement, the 1000’s percent increased cardiac incidents in professional European soccer players and drips and drabs of stats including VARS about vaccine injured are enough to give me pause.
“The Real Antony Fauci” by Bobby Kennedy is indeed jaw-dropping, especially what was done to discredit hydoxy and ivermectin in the studies he oversaw.
I had to delete Bill O’Reilly’s podcast over this this AM as he thinks a 100% vaxxed population would be nirvana. What the heck is wrong with him?
Why is this not the commonly accepted truth? It is exactly the actual truth. We have government and media telling us what we are allowed to think.
Old traditional, real science expected this. The new “science” that is the new religion for the “educated” still doubts this is possible. These are the same fools that believe a mask will stop a virus and that their “vaccines” which last months or weeks at best are really vaccines instead of very bad therapeutics.
BOR is a spinning nincompoop who’s NOT looking out for you.
Only if it’s government approved poisons.
Gates and Fauci have nothing to do with this.
BWAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not necessarily.
Asymptomatic, Mild and even some moderate infections do not require "treatments" prescribed by a health care provider or administered at a hospital/clinic. Those infections make up the bulk of infections.
Arena Pharmaceuticals has treatments for thrombosis and heart attacks, and clinical trials for immunity issues. Pfizer wants to buy Arena Pharmaceuticals. That way they get $$$ going and coming.
metmom wrote: “Only if it’s government approved poisons.”
Calling the vaccines ‘poisons’ only proves my point that many who post here are ‘anti-vaxxers’.
You do realize that all of the points raised against these vaccines are nothing more than ‘golden oldies’ that have been used to attack vaccines since the 1700’s?
And I did not fail to notice how you evaded responding the the main point of the post.
Where was the Goldberg study published?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.