5 Filters

ICAN puts down unanswerable case to CDC that natural immunity is much stronger than vaccine immunity

#1

In keeping with the principle of starting a fight that you can win, ICAN have demanded that those with prior covid infection be afforded the same ‘freedoms’ as vaccinated individuals.

I say unanswerable, because CDC hasn’t been able to answer it, comprised as it is of 60 studies demonstrating the strength and duration of disease-acquired immunity versus its poor imitator.

It’s possible the CDC may be holding their fire for the court case ICAN threatens to bring, but all they could muster so far was a solitary and hardly relevant town study comparing vaxxed and unvaxxed immunity in people who had already had Covid-19.

Below is ICAN’s circular which updates on the situation.

ED

When the CDC chose to lift restrictions on the vaccinated, ICAN went to work. Through its attorneys, it formally demanded that the CDC also (at the least) lift restrictions on the naturally immune. It provided the CDC with over 60 studies reflecting that natural immunity is more durable and robust than vaccine immunity. The CDC’s response is shameful. It fails to address any of these studies, collectively involving millions of people, and instead cites a single irrelevant study of a few hundred people that does not even involve comparing vaccine versus natural immunity!

As reflected in ICAN’s formal exchange with the CDC, the available data and studies reflect as follows regarding the current virus causing most COVID-19 in the United States:

1226×462 43.4 KB

And here is the full story. In May, the CDC revised its recommendations for fully vaccinated people, lessening certain restrictions. This same guidance, however, made no mention of those who have already recovered from COVID-19.

Immediately after the CDC revised its recommendations, ICAN, through its attorneys, demanded that the CDC immediately include those who have recovered from COVID-19 in the same category as those fully vaccinated. ICAN’s demand was based on a robust body of science.

The CDC responded with a ridiculous form response thanking us for our “interest in” COVID-19. Our attorneys therefore submitted the letter as a formal petition to the CDC on July 6, 2021, to which the CDC is required by law to thoroughly respond.

In September, after even more studies had come out evidencing the robust and durable nature of natural immunity (and the waning efficacy of the vaccines), and having not yet received a response from the CDC (as they were busy cooking up the Kentucky study), our attorneys supplemented the Citizen Petition with 56 additional studies supporting that natural immunity is, in fact, superior to vaccine immunity.

Months after ICAN first contacted the CDC regarding natural immunity and submitted the petition, the CDC responded that it, “find[s] no basis to further modify the current CDC recommendation in this area until the science warrants it.” The CDC’s conclusion relied on one single study of Kentucky residents and ignored each of the 60+ studies ICAN submitted it the CDC!

ICAN’s attorneys have now submitted a reply to the CDC. In that reply, the attorneys explain that the Kentucky study, a retrospective study of only a few hundred people, is irrelevant as to whether it is appropriate for the CDC to lift restrictions on the naturally immune because the study did not compare naturally immune individuals with vaccinated individuals. Instead, it compared the naturally immune to the naturally immune with subsequent vaccination.

Even if vaccinating the naturally immune may improve immunity (which robust studies of millions of people show is not true, as detailed in our reply), it does not change the fact that natural immunity, alone, is better than vaccine immunity. Hence, if the CDC is going to lift restrictions on the vaccine immune, it is downright authoritarian to not do so for the naturally immune.

This letter exchange with the CDC represents the most comprehensive analysis of the current state of the science regarding natural versus vaccine immunity. We trust that you will not only appreciate reading and learning from this letter exchange with the CDC, but you will also enjoy it.

As for next steps, if the CDC does not, as it likes to put it, “follow the science” and lift restrictions on the naturally immune, we will be taking the CDC to court on this issue, that is federal court as well as the court of public opinion. And we look forward to doing so.

To share this legal update, please use this link: https://www.icandecide.org/ican_press/ican-eviscerates-cdc-in-formal-exchange-regarding-natural-immunity/

2 Likes
#2

The weighty attachment is here at the link: https://www.icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Reply-to-CDC-Re-Natural-Immunity-v-Vaccine-Immunity.pdf

I recommend the statement of expert opinion by Peter McCullough, starting below (I left out his statement of credentials for the court).

It’s a good place to seek reassurance about things that you hear in the MSM that you thought weren’t true.

Eg
McCullough states that there aren’t any confirmed Covid-19 reinfections, the small number of such reports probably arise from initial false positives.
Also, no one who had Sars-Cov1 (which in simple terms is 80% of Sars-Cov2) has caught Covid-19.
And among those who have been vaccinated, those who had previously had covid-19 had higher rates of vaccine reactions.

Rather than a direct challenge to the whole covid narrative, this is a shot across the bows which looks like weakening it, and that looks hard to fend off.

ED

Opinion

  1. It is my opinion that SARS-CoV-2 causes an infection in humans that results in
    robust, complete, and durable immunity. It is also my opinion that that natural immunity is
    superior to vaccination-induced immunity for the reasons explained below, including because the
    CDC has recorded >10,000 breakthrough cases in fully vaccinated individuals. I have reviewed
    the available preprint and published medical literature on the topic and have formed my opinions
    based on these reports.

  2. SARS-CoV-2 is at least 80% homologous to SARS-CoV-1 at the epitopes that
    would be recognized by host defenses that confer immunity.3 The major antigen in SARS-CoV-
    2 is the nucleocapsid and this has >90% homology to SARS-CoV-1. The immunity to SARS-
    CoV-1 has been lifelong over the observation period thus far in humans which is 17 years
    reflecting the duration of immunity that is likely from SARS-CoV-2.4
    DD, McKinnon JE, O’Neill WW, Zervos M, Risch HA. Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient
    Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection. Am J Med. 2021 Jan;134(1):16-22. doi:
    10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.07.003. Epub 2020 Aug 7. PMID: 32771461; PMCID: PMC7410805 available at
    Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection - PubMed McCullough PA, Alexander PE, Armstrong R, Arvinte C, Bain AF,
    Bartlett RP, Berkowitz RL, Berry AC, Borody TJ, Brewer JH, Brufsky AM, Clarke T, Derwand R, Eck A, Eck J,
    Eisner RA, Fareed GC, Farella A, Fonseca SNS, Geyer CE Jr, Gonnering RS, Graves KE, Gross KBV, Hazan S,
    Held KS, Hight HT, Immanuel S, Jacobs MM, Ladapo JA, Lee LH, Littell J, Lozano I, Mangat HS, Marble B,
    McKinnon JE, Merritt LD, Orient JM, Oskoui R, Pompan DC, Procter BC, Prodromos C, Rajter JC, Rajter JJ, Ram
    CVS, Rios SS, Risch HA, Robb MJA, Rutherford M, Scholz M, Singleton MM, Tumlin JA, Tyson BM, Urso RG,
    Victory K, Vliet EL, Wax CM, Wolkoff AG, Wooll V, Zelenko V. Multifaceted highly targeted sequential
    multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2020
    Dec 30;21(4):517-530. doi: 10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.264. PMID: 33387997 available at
    Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) - PubMed.
    3 See Xu J, Zhao S, Teng T, et al. Systematic Comparison of Two Animal-to-Human Transmitted Human
    Coronaviruses: SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV. Viruses. 2020;12(2):244. Published 2020 Feb 22.
    doi:10.3390/v12020244 available at Systematic Comparison of Two Animal-to-Human Transmitted Human Coronaviruses: SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV - PubMed.
    4 See Le Bert N, Tan AT, Kunasegaran K, Tham CYL, Hafezi M, Chia A, Chng MHY, Lin M, Tan N, Linster M,
    Chia WN, Chen MI, Wang LF, Ooi EE, Kalimuddin S, Tambyah PA, Low JG, Tan YJ, Bertoletti A. SARS-CoV-2-
    specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls. Nature. 2020
    Aug;584(7821):457-462. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2550-z. Epub 2020 Jul 15. PMID: 32668444 available at
    4

  3. Natural immunity that develops after infection with SARS-CoV-2 is conferred by
    antibodies to the nucleocapsid and to the spike protein, as well as T-helper cells, natural killer
    cells, B-cells, and innate immunity.5 This robust host defense system is far more extensive than
    the limited library of antibodies to the spike protein that are generated in response to the
    currently available COVID-19 investigational vaccines which have demonstrated immunity
    lasting only a few months at this time. This results in more protective immunity for those who
    have had a natural infection as compared to those who have been vaccinated.

  4. After the natural SARS-CoV-2 infection, even in cases where antibody responses
    have not meet the threshold for being “reactive” in the ~100 commercial assays, there is
    scientific evidence that cellular based immunity is present.6 Thus, there is ample evidence to
    suggest the clinical infection alone, without either antibody or cellular based testing afterwards,
    is sufficient to identify an individual who is no longer susceptible to COVID-19.7 Specifically,
    in such an individual, there is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 can be acquired, carried, or
    transmitted to another individual.

  5. There are no published, credible reports of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 in
    humans. In the case published by Zucman and colleagues, a patient is described as having a
    positive nasal PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 but no symptoms and then months later having
    COVID-19 syndrome requiring hospitalization. It is my interpretation that rare cases such as
    this, in the absence of antigen and whole genome sequencing, represent a false positive nasal
    PCR test on one occasion and a single COVID-19 syndrome on a separate occasion.8 Similarly,
    SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls - PubMed Zuo J, Dowell AC, Pearce H, Verma K, Long HM, Begum J, Aiano F,
    Amin-Chowdhury Z, Hallis B, Stapley L, Borrow R, Linley E, Ahmad S, Parker B, Horsley A, Amirthalingam G,
    Brown K, Ramsay ME, Ladhani S, Moss P. Robust SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity is maintained at 6
    months following primary infection. Nat Immunol. 2021 May;22(5):620-626. doi: 10.1038/s41590-021-00902-8.
    Epub 2021 Mar 5. PMID: 33674800; PMCID: PMC7610739 available at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-
    021-00902-8.
    5 See Zuo J, Dowell AC, Pearce H, Verma K, Long HM, Begum J, Aiano F, Amin-Chowdhury Z, Hallis B, Stapley
    L, Borrow R, Linley E, Ahmad S, Parker B, Horsley A, Amirthalingam G, Brown K, Ramsay ME, Ladhani S, Moss
    P. Robust SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity is maintained at 6 months following primary infection. Nat
    Immunol. 2021 May;22(5):620-626. doi: 10.1038/s41590-021-00902-8. Epub 2021 Mar 5. PMID: 33674800;
    PMCID: PMC7610739 available at Robust SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity is maintained at 6 months following primary infection | Nature Immunology.
    6 See Schwarzkopf S, Krawczyk A, Knop D, Klump H, Heinold A, Heinemann FM, Thümmler L, Temme C, Breyer
    M, Witzke O, Dittmer U, Lenz V, Horn PA, Lindemann M. Cellular Immunity in COVID-19 Convalescents with
    PCR-Confirmed Infection but with Undetectable SARS-CoV-2-Specific IgG. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021 Jan;27(1). doi:
    10.3201/2701.203772. Epub 2020 Oct 15. PMID: 33058753 available at
    Cellular Immunity in COVID-19 Convalescents with PCR-Confirmed Infection but with Undetectable SARS-CoV-2-Specific IgG - PubMed.
    7 See Schulien I, Kemming J, Oberhardt V, Wild K, Seidel LM, Killmer S, Sagar, Daul F, Salvat Lago M, Decker A,
    Luxenburger H, Binder B, Bettinger D, Sogukpinar O, Rieg S, Panning M, Huzly D, Schwemmle M, Kochs G,
    Waller CF, Nieters A, Duerschmied D, Emmerich F, Mei HE, Schulz AR, Llewellyn-Lacey S, Price DA, Boettler T,
    Bengsch B, Thimme R, Hofmann M, Neumann-Haefelin C. Characterization of pre-existing and induced SARS-
    CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells. Nat Med. 2021 Jan;27(1):78-85. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-01143-2. Epub 2020 Nov

  6. PMID: 33184509 available at Characterization of pre-existing and induced SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8 + T cells - PubMed.
    8 See Zucman N, Uhel F, Descamps D, Roux D, Ricard JD. Severe reinfection with South African SARS-CoV-2
    variant 501Y.V2: A case report. Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Feb 10:ciab129. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab129. Epub ahead of
    5
    Severaj et al. have reported 1 case of their own and 34 others in the literature with a similar
    profile with misinterpretation of a false positive PCR leading doctors to believe a second
    infection was possible.9 None of these cases of “reinfection” was confirmed by antigen and
    whole genome sequencing to confirm the actual presence of the SARS-CoV-2 in the setting of a
    clinical infection on two or more occasions in the same patient.

  7. At the current number of estimate cases in the world being 164 million, if
    reinfection was possible in 1% of individuals, the world would have observed 1.6 million second
    and third cases with many requiring hospitalization and coming to clinical attention.10 In fact, no
    such large volume of recurrent cases has come to clinical attention in any region of the world.

  8. Raw et al. reported that in 974 individuals who received the BNT162b2/Pfizer
    vaccine, those with a prior history of SARS-CoV-2 or those who had positive antibodies at
    baseline, had a higher rate of vaccine reactions than those who were COVID-19 naive.11

  9. Mathioudakis et al. reported that in 2002 patients who underwent vaccination with
    either mRNA-based, or vector-based COVID-19 vaccines, COVID-recovered patients who were
    needlessly vaccinated had higher rates of vaccine reactions.12

  10. Krammer et al. reported on 231 volunteers for COVID-19 vaccination, 83 of
    whom had positive SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at the time of immunization. The authors found:
    “Vaccine recipients with preexisting immunity experience systemic side effects with a
    significantly higher frequency than antibody naïve vaccines (e.g., fatigue, headache, chills, fever,
    muscle or join pains, in order of decreasing frequency, P < 0.001 for all listed symptoms,
    Fisher’s exact test, two-sided).” (https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.29.21250653).

  11. To my knowledge, there are no studies demonstrating clinical benefit of COVID-
    19 vaccination in COVID-19 survivors or those who have laboratory evidence of prior infection.

print. PMID: 33566076; PMCID: PMC7929064 available at https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-
article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab129/6132402.
9 See Selvaraj V, Herman K, Dapaah-Afriyie K. Severe, Symptomatic Reinfection in a Patient with COVID-19. R I
Med J (2013). 2020 Nov 9;103(10):24-26. PMID: 33172223 available at
Severe, Symptomatic Reinfection in a Patient with COVID-19 - PubMed.
10 See COVID Live Update: 244,061,289 Cases and 4,958,347 Deaths from the Coronavirus - Worldometer.
11 See Previous COVID-19 infection but not Long-COVID is associated with increased adverse events following BNT162b2/Pfizer vaccination | medRxiv.
12 See Self-reported real-world safety and reactogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines: An international vaccine-recipient survey | medRxiv.
6
22. In sum, it is my opinion that SARS-CoV-2 causes an infection in humans that
results in robust, complete, and durable immunity, and is superior to vaccine immunity. There
are no studies demonstrating clinical benefit of COVID-19 vaccination in COVID-19 survivors
and there are three studies demonstrating harm in such individuals. Thus, it is my opinion that
the COVID-19 vaccination is contraindicated in COVID-19 survivors.

I DECLARE UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA THAT THE FOREGOING INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS
DECLARATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

May 28, 2021
_________________________________

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

4 Likes
#3

Sticking my head out the front door once again, with regards immunity, I can offer the following: I believe I had Covid (whatever it is) back in March of 2020. It was terribly mild and a walk in the park compared to the millennium flu which knocked me sideways. None of my family got ill.
My daughter and my partner tested positive over Christmas/New Year 20/21. My son tested positive in July of 2021. It was mild for all. We took no precautions with each other and lived our home life as normal.
When they got ill, I didn’t. There can only be two explanations for this. One, I didn’t have covid that previous March in which case it’s not nearly as contagious as we have been led to believe or two, I did have it and was still immune over a year later. I suspect it was the latter.
In the twenty years between the millennium flu and Covid, I did not have a respiratory infection once and then when I did (covid) it was mild. Make of that what you will, but maybe after twenty years of mutation, my immunity was finally slightly confused!

2 Likes
#4

Less than mild describes what I encountered about the same time last year. It’s only distinguishing feature that made it different from the seasonal colds/flu that fail miserably to make me ill every year was that last year’s pathetic attempt took three days of taking it easy and blitzing with mega-dose C, whereas the ordinary seasonals are always gone overnight under the C barrage.

This year, in the Summer, something odd ran rapidly through a little knot of us here at the boatyard: a neighbour seemed to catch it from a workmate, and his partner and I also, got it. This time it took just two days of blitz, what time it felt to me less than a mild cold. If last year’s attempt was covid, as I assume, was this year’s also? Or something quite different?

Was it delta? If so, why no total immunity as you’d normally expect, delta being, as Mike Yeadon affirms, about one percent genetically different from the original SARS-COV2? (though I’ve no idea how he thinks he can know that with any confidence, what with all the obvious doubt around the - STILL unsubstantiated - assertion that anyone at all has a genuinely purified sample of the alleged pathogen, from which to map an entire genome).

My age during these two entirely minor incidents, fwiw, were 79 and 81 respectively. Still not the least sweat to see them off, even so.

1 Like
#5

PS: do you mean genuine tests, J, or ‘tests’ of the fraudulent kind?

1 Like
#6

Everything is offered on the basis of the official stance; that is, even if we accept the official position, then…

But yes, so much to unpack with regards the PCR test, but I expect most here are familiar with all of that.