Previous Infection is Superior to Vaccine for COVID Protection

Millions of Americans have been infected with COVID and survived. We must examine the important question of whether they are now immune to the disease or whether it is advisable for them to receive injections of one of the Emergency-Use-Authorized shots – Pfizer, Moderna, or Jansen (Johnson & Johnson).

In a news briefing on May 5, Dr. Anthony Fauci highlighted three recent studies addressing immune response with and without vaccination (Reynolds et al, Leier et al, Stamatatos et al.) and declared, “We need to get vaccinated because vaccines are highly efficacious. They are better than the traditional response you get from natural infection.” The net conclusion of the studies he cited was that, based on antibody response, vaccinated people who had a previous infection are more protected from future COVID infection than both people vaccinated but not previously infected and people who are unvaccinated but previously infected.

As these declarations of virus protection and vaccine efficacy were based on antibody response, it would make sense to check current immunity status by having antibody levels checked, but that is not what is happening. According to the CDC,

Antibody testing is not currently recommended to assess for immunity to COVID-19 following COVID-19 vaccination or to assess the need for vaccination in an unvaccinated person. Since vaccines induce antibodies to specific viral protein targets, post-vaccination serologic test results will be negative in persons without history of previous natural infection if the test used does not detect antibodies induced by the vaccine.

In other words, even though scientists typically make conclusions about potential immune response based on antibodies in the lab, checking for antibodies in the real world – in your body – is not a valid way to detect your immune status. Also, the reference to “antibodies induced by the vaccine” seems to indicate that people who have been previously infected may have a broader immune response than vaccine recipients who were not previously infected.

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]).

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.

As of May 21, the CDC’s own Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) lists 262,521 reports of adverse events. Here are some of the events associated with COVID vaccination included in these reports: 4,406 deaths; 14,986 hospitalizations; 6,494 blood clots and strokes; 1,598 heart attacks; and 511 miscarriages. Since previously infected people were excluded from the safety trials, we have no comprehensive safety data for them. With the clinical trial safety data for vaccination of never-infected showing very minimal adverse effects, it is possible that serious adverse effects such as heart attack, stroke, and death occur far more frequently in previously infected than in never-infected people. Maybe many, if not most of the deaths, heart attacks, and strokes reported to VAERS were in previously infected vaccine recipients. If so, what is the likelihood of an adverse event for a previously infected person? We just don’t know.

Here is what we do know: Serious studies in the UK and Israel show that a previous infection reduces the infection risk to a level equivalent to the vaccine. No large-scale studies document the safety of the vaccine for previously infected people, and anecdotal evidence indicates a higher risk of complications for COVID survivors compared to non-infected. If you are a COVID survivor and feel pressure to “just get the shot” so that you will not be a second-class citizen, think about this:

1. The vaccine manufacturers have been indemnified and have zero liability for any harm or death that may come to you from the vaccine.
2. OSHA has announced they won’t hold employers liable for vaccine-related injuries if they mandate them for their employees.
3. The complete burden of liability falls on you, the vaccine recipient, which you acknowledge in an informed consent declaration.

A portion of Walgreen’s consent form is here:

. . . I understand the risks and benefits associated with the above vaccine(s) and have received, read and/or had explained to me the EUA Fact Sheet on the vaccine(s) I have elected to receive. I also acknowledge that I have had a chance to ask questions and that such questions were answered to my satisfaction . . . On behalf of the patient, the patient’s heirs and personal representatives, I hereby release and hold harmless each applicable Provider, its staff, agents, successors, divisions, affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, contractors and employees from any and all liabilities or claims whether known or unknown arising out of, in connection with, or in any way related to the administration of the vaccine(s) listed above . . .

By signing the consent form, you declare that you know the risks and benefits and that you personally assume all responsibility for the effects of the vaccine. Evidence presented in this article indicates that for previously infected people, there are real risks from being injected with the vaccine, and the benefits, if any, are minimal. This may not be part of the “conventional wisdom” but it is echoed by respected doctors such as Florian Krammer from Cedars Sinai, Marty Makary from Johns Hopkins, and in a very thorough manner by respected Dr. Peter McCullough in this video. Beware of people insisting you, “get the shot” without addressing the safety vs. efficacy for your particular health history. They do not have your best interests at heart. They are not responsible for you and your family – you are.

Cassandra Chambers is a pseudonym.

*** This article has been archived for your research. The original version from American Thinker can be found here ***