Discover more from Covid1984’s Newsletter
FACT CHECK (False!): You Need A COVID-19 Vaccine If You Previously Had COVID-19
It is medical malpractice to give someone who has recovered from COVID-19 a vaccine
Last week I saw one of the most frustrating videos I had seen in a long time. A bunch of talking heads on a sports network were lambasting Cam Newton because he would not take the COVID-19 jab and he had to sit out on protocol because he was not vaccinated. The thing is, everyone knows Cam Newton had a nasty case of COVID-19 last year and had trouble recovering. Yet they are acting like people who have the jab are going to be less likely to catch COVID-19, and they literally are penalizing Cam for not getting the jab even though he undoubtedly has better immunity than every single person who had the jab but did not have a case of COVID-19.
It is really freaking amazing that this is what the world has come to. Two years ago if someone told you you had to get a measles vaccine less than a year after recovering from a bad case of the measles, any doctor or immunologist who was honest would have told you that is medical malpractice. You do not give unnecessary treatments that might lead to an adverse event - and make no mistake every drug or vaccine you take has some probability greater than zero of an adverse event. It might not be high, but it exists.
People who have had COVID-19 do not need to be vaccinated. Let’s start with the evidence based medicine standard before we get into the science of immunology.
When the vaccine companies conducted their registration studies, they specifically excluded anyone who showed evidence of being exposed to COVID-19. They even went as far as to make people take antibody tests to exclude people who had existing antibodies to COVID-19.
Why do you think they did this? Because they know science. People who have had COVID-19 have antibody memory cells to the COVID-19 spike protein. They are thus highly unlikely to get COVID-19, so including them in the study would lower the efficacy rate.
Since they were not included in the study, we have ZERO evidence of safety or efficacy in people with prior COVID-19 exposure. Given that people given the second dose of the vaccine had a much more severe reaction than those given the first dose, we also have reason to believe the side effects would be much higher when giving it to people with existing COVID-19 exposure. Any vaccination of someone with prior COVID-19 is completely off label with no scientific basis. That is medically indisputable, and to give such person a COVID-19 vaccine without these studies and our current knowledge of immunology is medical malpractice.
And just in case you think I am being melodramatic about this, a man who had tested positive for COVID-19 in December 2020 made the mistake of getting a jab on January 21 and then died just hours afterwards! This guy won a Darwin award by blindly listening to his completely incompetent health care “professional.” I mean what moron of a physician thinks someone needs a COVID-19 vaccine a month after having COVID-19?
But Someone Told Me Vaccines Give You Better Immunity
If you believe this, then I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you. Let’s just look at this problem at face.
When you are infected by a virus naturally, it infects multiple parts of your body. If comes in through the mucous membranes or the gut where you have different types of lymphocytes exposed to the antigen in addition to the lymphocytes in your blood vessels that the typical vaccine is exposed to. Thus, a wider portion of your immune system is exposed to the antigen.
And with a vaccine, you are getting one antigen, the spike protein. With a natural infection your body is being exposed to multiple different epitopes (binding sites) on the entire virus particle. In addition, digests for every single protein in that virus, not just the spike protein, are presented to your Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) to invoke a strong T cell response. The only vaccine that creates a similar broad spectrum response is a live attenuated virus vaccine (with the downside they might not be attenuated enough). The novel vaccines introduced this year, can stimulate such a T cell response, but only for the spike protein itself, not all the other proteins broken down when you have the entire virus in your cells.
Finally when you have the disease, you have cells dying all over your body stimulating a massive cytokine reaction that is needed to prime the immune system. Most vaccines can only simulate this by using toxic chemicals call adjuvants to generate cell damage, and it is never as thorough as the natural response. Nothing beats the real thing.
This was very well accepted in immunology up until the COVID-19 disinformation crisis. You literally had these vaccine makers telling people that they could generate higher in vitro responses versus serum from people who had the vaccine. But they forget to admit that like comparing apples and oranges, as I believe one member on the FDA panel pointed out to them on the December 10 meeting. Remember, someone with a natural infection is generating a response to different epitopes of the virus which the people with the vaccine are not even exposed to. Some of those epitopes will generate better binding antibodies than others. Titers will also be much higher in the days closest to a real infection, so the serum samples would need to be closely matched in terms of time from onset of disease/antigen challenge.
When people do not understand science, it is possible for drug manufacturers to successfully spin crap this way.
Scientifically there is just no way a vaccine can generate a better immune response than a natural infection if that vaccine targets the same strain of virus the person was exposed to.
And just last week, we got some clinical evidence of the obvious. It was an observational study that compared people who had prior exposure to COVID-19 versus people who had not that had been vaccinated. There was a 13.06 fold increased risk of getting COVID-19 when exposed to the Delta variant amongst the vaccinated and it was highly statistically significant (confidence intervals well above 0). And this is what you would expect since when exposed to a different variant, people exposed to the whole virus were more likely to have a response to other targets than the just original spike protein the vaxxed patients received.
How about that? Science actually works!
Interestingly enough, they did test people who did have COVID-19 and were given a dose of a vaccine they saw an decreased risk, it was to a much lesser extent so that it was not statistically significant.
Individuals who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 seem to gain additional protection from a subsequent single-dose vaccine regimen. Though this finding corresponds to previous reports, we could not demonstrate significance in our cohort.
I would also not that even if it was, this was not a prospective randomized study. It was a retrospective observational study, which is fraught with problems, such as not knowing if the investigators tested several data sets until they found one which worked or systemic mismatches in the arms of the study (i.e. people who are not vaccinated might be more health conscious and thus live healthier lives, or vice versa). Studies like this are useful for forming hypotheses in the absence of randomized trials, but you need prospective randomized trials to prove anything, particularly in ascertaining adverse events and safety analysis in given populations. Even the 13-fold increase does not show proof of anything; it is only a piece of evidence in support of a hypothesis in the absence of definitive studies.
But it does agree with what we know scientifically about immunology, and the results are not unexpected. For scientific data to show evidence of safety and efficacy, you need prospective randomized studies with proper controls. That is real science.
They then stated the obvious:
The advantageous protection afforded by natural immunity that this analysis demonstrates could be explained by the more extensive immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 proteins than that generated by the anti-spike protein immune activation conferred by the vaccine.
Common Sense Needs To Prevail
I think the NFL should seriously rethink its policy in favoring people who have been vaccinated over people who had the disease, acting like the latter are Typhoid Mary’s when the situation is more likely reversed! To this day no one has even proved that vaccinated individuals are prevented from spreading the disease in an unsymptomatic state, something that I have heard several times by even mainstream big pharma loving scientists.
You do not need measles boosters every six months, whether you get the vaccine or not. You do not need polio boosters every six months. Why should someone who has had the COVID-19 need a booster 6 - 12 months after having the disease?
Anyone with half a brain should be able to smell the unscientific BS. The only reason you would need a vaccine is if another strain of the virus broke out, a strain that was different from the strain that you had. You have memory lymphocytes that protect you against the old strain, but they do not protect you against new strains if they have mutated sufficiently enough.
But you would need a brand new vaccine crafted for the new strain for it to then be useful! A COVID-19 vaccine that was developed in the Spring of 2020 is not going to give you any better protection than the COVID-19 infection you got that spring, or in Cam Newton’s case, nearly half a year later. His antibodies should better reflect more recent strains than old vaccine and give him broader protection against the virus since his body encountered every single viral protein, not just the spike protein. This is a simple consequence of antigenic drift and the reason no single vaccine is going to eliminate COVID-19.
When the industry has new vaccines to directly address new variants like the Delta variant, it can make an argument for using those in previously exposed individuals. However, even then, it can only happen when they do randomized trials demonstrating safety and efficacy in these same individuals. Anything else is, quite frankly, unscientific. The burden of scientific proof of safety and efficacy lies with the drug manufacturer. They should not just expect us to take it off label with no studies or small studies with surrogate endpoints (like most flu virus studies).
Update (8/31/2021): Well it appears that Cam Newton has been cut from the New England Patriots. As someone suggested on the video below, it might be because of the vaccinated versus vaccinated protocols:
For some reason, I don’t know why, my mind just goes to Covid and maybe if you need your backup to be available and with protocols if someone hasn’t been vaccinated maybe you need someone who could be more reliable and can’t miss five days.you need your backup to always be available
The idea that Cam Newton lost the starting job is not as shocking as the fact he was actually cut! I mean, you are one injury away from needing a good backup, and Cam was clearly better than the next two options. I concur with the idea these stupid protocols likely had something to do with it, and I cannot say I am shocked. The COVID Nazis have taken over much of the world.
I hope Cam Newton can find a good attorney to file a lawsuit against the National Football League for discrimination against someone who had COVID-19 and had not been vaccinated and for which vaccination had not even been tested in the clinical trials. If this is what it appears to be, this is a travesty of justice, and it looks like the corporate establishment wanted to make an example of those who will not sheepishly comply with the experimental jab. Cam Newton was less of a risk to everyone in that locker than every single person who had not had COVID-19 and been jabbed. That he should be put in these protocols is absurd!
I hope the New England Patriots lose every single game this year, and I hope the NFL goes bankrupt along with every other company that is violating the rights of its employees.