https://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/cdc-finally-admits-natural-immunity-is...




(Natural News) After several months, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finally admitted that natural immunity is more effective against the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) than vaccines. This contradicts its earlier claim that immunity induced by the COVID-19 vaccines is better.


The public health agency made this admission in the Jan. 28, 2022 edition of its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), initially published last Jan. 19. It showed that natural immunity was at least three times as effective as COVID-19 vaccines in preventing people from being infected and hospitalized. The CDC’s findings applied to the B16172 delta variant known to cause breakthrough infections.

“Before delta became the predominant variant in June [2021], case rates were higher among persons who survived a previous infection than persons who were vaccinated alone. By early October, persons who survived a previous infection had lower case rates than [vaccinated] persons,” said the MMWR.


The report also noted that natural immunity was higher during the delta variant’s predominant period. It cited the delta strain’s ability to evade immunity and waning vaccine immunity over time as the reasons for this.


The MMWR referenced a CDC study that examined four categories of people in California and New York between May and November 2021. It looked at unvaccinated and vaccinated people who survived a bout with COVID-19, and both groups who had never contracted SARS-CoV-2.

Unvaccinated, naturally immune people had infection rates almost 15 to 30 times lower than those without any immunity whatsoever. Those who got injected with the COVID-19 vaccine with no prior SARS-CoV-2 expo .


Splice in


Those who got injected with the COVID-19 vaccine with no prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure only had around 4.5 to 6.2 percent lower infections than those without any immunity whatsoever.

Similar results were found when it comes to hospitalizations, with naturally immune people two to six times less likely to be hospitalized than those with immunity stemming from the COVID-19 shots. (Related: CDC admits natural immunity offers better protection than experimental COVID jabs.)

I fumbled and cut that sentence up.

Lost that article, if it shows up I'll pop the link in.

For now

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/321674

Vaccine has "no significance regarding severe illness," says Prof. Yaakov Jerris

"After several months, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finally admitted that natural immunity is more effective against the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) than vaccines. This contradicts its earlier claim that immunity induced by the COVID-19 vaccines is better."

 If you choose to ignore the actual ratios of the study and when it was performed - this is true.  If you use the actual study, and the information in it, this is false.

 But when did we start using the actual source information instead of the words of someone that tells us what we want to be true?  


 But lets just say for the sake of argument that the information is correct and has remain unchanged.  "The CDC says"  Again, the CDC released this information.  

 So in this case it's ok to use CDC information.

 But if the information from the CDC says vaccines + Boosters are more effective - then all the sudden the CDC can't be trusted and are liars.

 Why is the CDC a trusted source on one day, but liars the next?  Might it be because we are only willing to accept information that says things we like?  Yes.  Yes, that is why a source is wrong, and also somehow right.

Eegore wrote on 02/06/22 at 23:12:56:

Simply because,
      one day,
  the CDC Lies,
and one  day they don't.