Thread by @jeremyrhammond

You cannot trust "public health" officials because they are willing to DELIBERATELY deceive you in furtherance of their policy goals. Here is a clear example from the Georgia Department of Public Health.
1/25

https://twitter.com/GaDPH/status/1451202013165981698

"Public health" officials want you to believe that the immunity conferred by #COVID19 #vaccines is twice as protective as #NaturalImmunity. Clicking the link, you see the claim "Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection":
cdc.gov/media/releases…
2/25

Elsewhere, @CDCgov likewise explicitly claims that "Evidence is emerging that people get better protection by being fully vaccinated compared with having had COVID-19."
cdc.gov/coronavirus/20…
3/25

However, the claim that #COVID19 #vaccines confer superior immunity to #NaturalImmunity is CATEGORICALLY FALSE. The study being cited to support those statements in fact does NOT support that claim (and mountains of evidence show they are false).
4/25

But the fact that the headline of the @CDCgov press release cited by @GaDPH is FALSE is evident just from the text of the press release itself. In fact, the study did NOT compare the protectiveness of #COVID19 #vaccine-conferred immunity with #NaturalImmunity.
5/25

The study included ZERO subjects whose immune systems were primed by #COVID19 #vaccines! All subject's immune systems were primed by #SARSCoV2 infection. Consequently, the study does NOT support the statements that vaccines confer superior immunity.
cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/7…
6/25

Again, the claim "Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection" is FALSE.

The claim that "people get better protection by being fully vaccinated compared with having had COVID-19" is FALSE.

The study cited to support those statements DOES NOT.
7/25

Contrary to @CDCgov's claim cited by @GaDPH, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows that #NaturalImmunity is vastly superior to the immunity conferred by #COVID19 #vaccines, as I'm documenting in this extensive series of articles:
jeremyrhammond.com/natural-immuni…
8/25

So, moving on, how about the alternative claim that vaccination of people with pre-existing #NaturalImmunity confers double the protective immunity? Again, it is supported by the single @CDCgov study. CDC, of course, has an inherent conflict of interest.
9/25

The @CDCgov has a motive to produce data supporting its policies. Its confirmation bias is evident in its FALSE claim that this study showed that "Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection". It ignores the mountains of evidence to the contrary.
10/25

Nevertheless, we must assess the study on the basis of its merits and flaws, not only the @CDCgov's bias. As its authors acknowledge, "few real-world epidemiologic studies exist to support the benefit of vaccination for previously infected persons". TRUE! (About zero.)
11/25

The authors claim to have found such a benefit, but that claim is problematic. First, "reinfection" was determined on the basis of PCR tests despite it being shown that non-viable #SARSCoV2 RNA fragments can persist for months after infection.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/artic…
12/25

Moreover, there is evidence that #SARSCoV2 RNA can be integrated into human DNA, which researchers have hypothesized could result in positive PCR tests long after clearance of infection.
doi.org/10.1101/2020.1…
doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2…
13/25

The study also did not report cycle threshold (Ct) values for positive PCR test results. Evidently, they did not limit "reinfected" subjects to those whose Ct values were likely to actually indicate presence of viable #SARSCoV2 as opposed to non-infectious RNA fragments.
14/25

The @CDCgov study acknowledges the limitation that they DID NOT CONFIRM that reinfection had occurred in test-positive subjects.
15/25

Even assuming all positive tests truly indicated that reinfection had occurred, the study's finding of increased risk for those who'd remained unvaccinated could be explained by an inherent selection bias: those who got vaccinated might be less likely to get tested.
16/25

Also, the study did not consider symptoms. Setting aside the other problems, positive test results might simply have indicated that individuals were reexposed to the virus, mounted a rapid memory immune response, and eliminated #SARSCoV2 before any significant infection.
17/25

Even if indicative of reinfection, the positive test results might simply indicate that subjects were reexposed to #SARSCoV2 and rapidly mounted an effective immune response that rapidly cleared the infection WITHOUT THE INDIVIDUALS DEVELOPING #COVID19.
18/25

Thus, the @GaDPH's claim that the study showed that "Unvaccinated people who recover from COVID-19 are more than 2x as likely to get COVID-19 again compared to those who are vaccinated" is FALSE.
19/25

To reiterate, the study did NOT show that vaccination of previously infected individuals conferred the benefit of additional protection against CLINICAL DISEASE than #NaturalImmunity alone.
20/25

The study authors state that their findings "suggest that among persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, full vaccination provides additional protection against reinfection". But it could just as well be said...
21/25

...that reexposure to #SARSCoV2 among the unvaccinated subjects provided additional protection! This would have served as a harmless natural "booster" effect, what is known as "exogenous boosting".
22/25

After all, #NaturalImmunity includes immunologic memory: the immune system can rapidly produce antibodies that, along with cellular immunity, can efficiently clear the virus without development of disease.
23/25

Finally, the study authors admit that their findings "cannot be used to infer causation" -- yet inferring causation is precisely what @CDCgov and @GaDPH are doing when they tell you that getting vaccinated will CAUSE you to have greater protection than #NaturalImmunity.
24/25

In sum, the claim from "public health" officials that "Vaccination Offers Higher Protection" than #Naturalimmunity is a blatant lie. For further discussion, see:
jeremyrhammond.com/natural-immuni…
25/25