Natural infection still offers best protection [covid]

What does offer protection? Natural infection. The Cleveland Clinic did find that natural immunity lessens over time, as new, more immune-evading variants become prominent, but recent natural infection offered good protection. The graph below shows the likelihood of getting infected depending on if or when you were infected with COVID previously.

bivalent covid infection

Those with no previous history of COVID infection had the highest risk of infection during the study period. Day zero was September 12, 2022, which was when the bivalent booster began being offered to Cleveland Clinic employees.

Those who had previously been infected during the pre-Delta and Delta phases of the pandemic had the next-highest risk. Those with the lowest risk of infection (meaning they had the greatest protection) were those who had previously been infected during the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 wave (the most recent wave), followed by those who’d been sick during the earlier BA.1/BA.2 wave.

Pfizer Pressured Twitter to Censor Critiques

Despite all the evidence showing the COVID shots are decimating populations around the world, Pfizer is hell-bent on keeping the booster train running. As previously reported, Pfizer quadrupled the price of its COVID jab in the wake of it being added to the U.S. childhood, adolescent and adult vaccine schedules.

Pfizer had forecasted expected revenues, and when demand for never-ending boosters started to drop off, they simply jacked up the unit price to make up the difference. The COVID shots are the company’s most profitable product to date, and it apparently doesn’t matter that they’re killing the user base. That should tell you something.

No criticism of any kind is permissible, as it might impact Pfizer’s bottom line. To protect its interests, Pfizer has even pressured social media companies to censor views on its behalf, including science-based opinions shared by actual scientists, researchers and even a former U.S. Food and Drug Administration chief. Evidence of this is found in the Twitter files released by Elon Musk. As reported by investigative journalist Alex Berenson:25

“August 27, 2021, Dr. Scott Gottlieb — a Pfizer director with over 550,000 Twitter followers — saw a tweet he didn’t like, a tweet that might hurt sales of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccines.

The tweet explained correctly that natural immunity after COVID infection was superior to vaccine protection. It called on the White House to ‘follow the science’ and exempt people with natural immunity from upcoming vaccine mandates.

It came not from an ‘anti-vaxxer’ like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., but from Dr. Brett Giroir, a physician who had briefly followed Gottlieb as the head of the Food and Drug Administration. Further, the tweet actually encouraged people who did not have natural immunity to ‘Get vaccinated!’ No matter …

Gottlieb was a senior board member at Pfizer, which depended on mRNA jabs for almost half its $81 billion in sales in 2021. Pfizer paid Gottlieb $365,000 for his work that year. Gottlieb stepped in, emailing Todd O’Boyle, a top lobbyist in Twitter’s Washington office who was also Twitter’s point of contact with the White House.

The post was ‘corrosive,’ Gottlieb wrote. He worried it would ‘end up going viral and driving news coverage’ … Through Jira, an internal system Twitter used for managing complaints, O’Boyle forwarded Gottlieb’s email to the Twitter ‘Strategic Response’ team …

‘Please see this report from the former FDA commissioner,’ O’Boyle wrote — failing to mention that Gottlieb was a Pfizer board member with a financial interest in pushing mRNA shots. A Strategic Response analyst quickly found the tweet did not violate any of the company’s misinformation rules.

Yet Twitter wound up flagging Giroir’s tweet anyway, putting a misleading tag on it and preventing almost anyone from seeing it. It remains tagged even though several large studies26,27 have confirmed the truth of Giroir’s words.”

When in Doubt, Blame ‘Dangerous’ Ideas

Gottlieb also asked Twitter to remove a post by Justin Hart that said “Sticks and stones may break my bones but a viral pathogen with a child mortality rate of <>0% has cost our children nearly three years of schooling.”

That time, to their credit, Twitter’s Strategic Response Team couldn’t identify a “crime” for which they might justify its removal. Gottlieb was also a central instigator for Twitter’s banning of Berenson. According to Berenson:28

“Gottlieb’s action was part of a larger conspiracy that included the Biden White House and Andrew Slavitt, working publicly and privately to pressure Twitter until it had no choice but to ban me. I will have more to say about my own case and will be suing the White House, Slavitt, Gottlieb, and Pfizer shortly.”

When confronted about his behind-the-scenes correspondence with Twitter during an interview with CNBC host Joe Kernan, Gottlieb claimed he only asked Twitter to censor certain posts because he was concerned they might result in “physical threats” against vaccine advocates. He actually welcomes “respectful debate and dialogue,” he claimed.

Yet as Berenson notes, there was no insinuation of threat in Giroir’s tweet, or Hart’s for that matter. What’s more, in his email about Giroir’s tweet to O’Boyle, the only concern he raised was that it might drive news coverage in an unwanted direction.

Leave a Reply