The CDC mission statement states: “The CDC enhances the health security of our nation. “The CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats.” The organization also pledges to the American people that “it will base all public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data that is open and objective.” Well, COVID-19 has been the biggest threat to the nation’s health in the last two years. It has had a huge impact on the lives of every American. During these two years, thousands of scientists and researchers in the field of health care have studied COVID and have accumulated a huge amount of information about the disease. We now gradually realized that the most effective force that would eventually end the pandemic is natural immunity. Even Bill Gates has admitted that “the virus itself, especially the variant called Omicron, is a type of vaccine.” With the rapid spread of Omicron and many asymptomatic infections, millions of people have developed natural immunity, which leads COVID-19 from its pandemic stage to its endemicity. With an annual budget of $ 15.4 billion, one would think that the CDC would have done a good job of providing taxpayers with data on COVID-19. If cutting-edge research is very difficult for the CDC, they should at least have provided the public with basic surveillance data, such as: Who was infected with SARS-CoV-2, when, what variant and what were the symptoms? Who was vaccinated, with which vaccine, when and when were there side effects? Who was vaccinated, infected, when and when did they recover? Who has never been vaccinated or infected (never tested or tested positive)? The CDC Weekly Morbidity and Mortality Report (MMWR), published on January 28, presented some very interesting information from California and New York, comparing COVID-19 immunity from four groups of people, indicating that natural immunity alone provides the best protection. Since then, I’ve been looking forward to more data, as there are 48 other states, even for California and New York, important data like this should be updated monthly, if not weekly. To my surprise and disappointment, I have not been able to find any other data on natural immunity from the MMWR since January 28th. I’m sure they have the data — they just do not want to share it with us. I start to wonder if CDC means Data Control Center.

Those who have recovered from COVID are better protected

On March 1, the scientific journal Clinical Infectious Diseases published an peer-reviewed article entitled “Risk of re-infection after seroconversion to SARS-CoV-2: A population-based cohort study.” This Swiss study “observed a 94% reduction in the risk of infection among HIV-positive participants in SARS-CoV-2, compared with HIV-negative controls,> 8 months after serological evaluation”. This level of protection (natural immunity) against SARS-CoV-2 infection (94 percent) is comparable to that of the Pfizer vaccine, but lasts longer (eight months and continuously). In a peer-reviewed article published in the journal Science Immunology Jan. 25, scientists at the University of Oregon Health & Science showed in raw data that antibodies from a previous COVID-19 infection are at least 10 times more potent than those produced alone. from vaccination. . However, they concluded that “vaccination is extremely effective in preventing the most serious outcomes of COVID-19 and should be provided regardless of previous infection status and age.” I’m confused by their conclusion, but I’m glad to see the raw data. Similarly, in my February 5 article, “Pandemic Courses: Scientific Debate Silenced, with Deadly Consequences,” I wrote: 19 is superior to any of the available vaccine regimens. “ One reader commented that “she searched the entire CDC website and could not find such information. Ώρα Now who is “subjective”? “ The reader was right. I should have explained in my article that the conclusion I drew was not a direct excerpt but rather my own summary based on raw CDC data. The CDC report on January 28 included the following chart, but failed to provide a summary comparing protection between vaccinated immunocompromised individuals and non-vaccinated individuals who have recovered from COVID and are now physically immune. It seems necessary to dive a little deeper into the data to develop my point of view, as the authors of the report did not come to the very obvious. Please bear with me. The above CDC chart shows data from California on COVID-19 protection collected by four groups of people between May 30, 2021 and November 20, 2021:

  1. Unvaccinated, without prior diagnosis COVID-19 (upper solid line) 2) Vaccinated, without prior diagnosis COVID-19 (broken line below the solid line) 3) Unvaccinated, with prior diagnosis4) Vaccinated, with previous diagnosis It is obvious that the lines representing 3) and 4) are superimposed on each other, indicating that the vaccine had virtually no effect on protection when a person has recovered from COVID-19 infection, which means that the natural immunity dominates protection against vaccination at a level that made vaccination irrelevant. Although the biggest difference is between those who have not been vaccinated without a previous infection and all the others, the second biggest difference, however, is between “Vaccinated without prior diagnosis of COVID-19” (vaccine immunity) and “Unvaccinated, previously COVID” -19 diagnostic line (natural immunity), with the natural immunity line having a much lower “risk rate”, which means better protection. The report also revealed similar findings for the state of New York.

Does the CDC censor data on natural immunity?

The CDC MMWR is a weekly report. The chart above is part of the report for the last week of January and was only for two of the 50 states, California and New York. When I wrote my article on February 5, I thought that maybe it was a benign omission that the CDC did not come to the obvious conclusion. Surely more data would come from the CDC in February and March, I thought, as they would teach us a lot more about natural immunity. However, it has not been implemented. As of January 28, 10 MMWR reports have been published on the CDC website, a total of 29 articles. They cover topics ranging from vaccination by geographical location, confidence in vaccination based on sexual orientation, isolation strategy for fully vaccinated NFL players and so on. So far, the January 28 report was the only one that included “unvaccinated, with a prior diagnosis” in the data, and that is unfortunate. All other reports were to confirm the conclusion that the vaccines are effective, with almost nothing for natural immunity. The following is a screenshot of the MMWR website: For example, one of the latest CDC reports, released on March 18, includes the following chart: Here, hospitalization data were designed against 1) unvaccinated individuals, 2) vaccinated without a booster, 3) vaccinated with a booster. There is no information on people who have recovered from COVID-19. In other words, information about natural immunity is censored. According to the CDC, the United States had about 80 million cases of COVID-19. The vast majority of patients recovered from the disease. This vast majority of the US population now enjoys natural immunity. This is also true of Canada and many other parts of the world. The CDC seems to avoid anything related to natural immunity. But why? The CDC may look like Bill Gates, who told the Munich Security Conference last month: “Unfortunately, the virus itself, especially the variant called Omicron, is a type of vaccine. That is, it creates immunity for both B and T cells. What he meant was that it would be sad if natural immunity, not vaccines, were the ones that beat COVID-19. Let the CDC and Mr Gates grieve. The rest of us are ready to move on with our lives. Republished by EpochTimes. Read the series of Dr. Joe Wang about pandemic lessons here.

Joe Wang, Ph.D., was the lead scientist for Sanofi Pasteur’s SARS vaccine project in 2003. He is now president of New Tang Dynasty TV (Canada), a media contributor to The Epoch Times. READ MORE

READ MORE