# Half Of Americans Have Natural Immunity



## JonDouglas (May 27, 2021)

The full title of the article is:  *Johns Hopkins Prof: Half Of Americans Have Natural Immunity; Dismissing It Is ‘Biggest failure Of Medical Leadership**. * Below is a snippet.

_Dr. Marty Makary made the comments during a recent interview, noting that “natural immunity works” and it is wrong to vilify those who don’t want the vaccine because they have already recovered from the virus._​​_Makary criticised “the most slow, reactionary, political CDC in American history” for not clearly communicating the scientific facts about natural immunity compared to the kind of immunity developed through vaccines.  “There is more data on natural immunity than there is on vaccinated immunity, because natural immunity has been around longer,” Makary emphasised.  “We are not seeing reinfections, and when they do happen, they’re rare. Their symptoms are mild or are asymptomatic,” the professor added._​​_“Please, ignore the CDC guidance,” he urged, adding “Live a normal life, unless you are unvaccinated and did not have the infection, in which case you need to be careful.  We’ve got to start respecting people who choose not to get the vaccine instead of demonizing them,” Makary further asserted._​​More at source.​​This is another data point and one we are beginning to hear more of.


----------



## WhatInThe (May 27, 2021)

For the most part it's those with comorbidities that wind up showing symptoms/physically affected. This would help explain why many other are asymptomatic.


----------



## win231 (May 27, 2021)

That professor is speaking the truth.  Maybe others will follow.


----------



## JonDouglas (Jun 2, 2021)

A friend sent me this, looking for a comment.  I will post the essence of what he sent, which is something to think about and omit my return comments to him as they might be seen as inflamatory by the thin-skinned..

*Previous Infection Superior To Vaccine For Protection?*_    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._​
Some damning stuff here if above is accurate.


----------



## Nathan (Jun 2, 2021)

@Jon Douglas, Your preoccupation with the "anti" agenda will eventually(if it has not already)consume your intelllectual ability to distinguish reality from fantasy.


----------



## JonDouglas (Jun 2, 2021)

Nathan said:


> @Jon Douglas, Your preoccupation with the "anti" agenda will eventually(if it has not already)consume your intelllectual ability to distinguish reality from fantasy.


Are you breathing your own exhaust again, Nathan?  It seems when I post stuff you don't like, you take the denigration approach.   Putting people down doesn't serve you well.  At least try something other than this shopworn old Alinsky tactic.

PS:  Did you see the Fauci memo I posted from the FOIA?  One might think he's a bit of a phony Tony.


----------



## AnnieA (Jun 2, 2021)

Nathan said:


> @Jon Douglas, Your preoccupation with the "anti" agenda will eventually(if it has not already)consume your intelllectual ability to distinguish reality from fantasy.



I haven't read enough of @JonDouglas 's threads to know whether or not your judgement is factual, but I do know that natural immunity is as protective as that of vaccines. I don't understand how sound science in this thread is 'fantasy' in your thinking?   From the get go, I thought vaccines should've been given first to people who hadn't yet had symptomatic Covid-19.


----------



## Nathan (Jun 2, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> Are you breathing your own exhaust again, Nathan?  It seems when I post stuff you don't like, you take the denigration approach.   Putting people down doesn't serve you well.  At least try something other than this shopworn old Alinsky tactic.
> 
> PS:  Did you see the Fauci memo I posted from the FOIA?  One might think he's a bit of a phony Tony.


Oh my, you DO so love to portray yourself as the victim.   tsk tsk.   "breathing your own exhaust again"...a new insult, I love it, was getting tired of the "panties in a bunch" thing, so unoriginal.


----------



## win231 (Jun 2, 2021)

Nathan said:


> @Jon Douglas, Your preoccupation with the "anti" agenda will eventually(if it has not already)consume your intelllectual ability to distinguish reality from fantasy.


Your preoccupation with the "Pro" agenda has already done that to you.


----------



## Nathan (Jun 2, 2021)

win231 said:


> Your preoccupation with the "Pro" agenda has already done that to you.


**Laughing at the absurdity**

Well now it's looks like JonDouglas has someone to hold hands with.


----------



## AnnieA (Jun 2, 2021)

I really hate polarization.


----------



## C'est Moi (Jun 2, 2021)

When people have no valid counterpoint, the fallback is name calling and bluster.


----------



## chic (Jun 3, 2021)

AnnieA said:


> I really hate polarization.


Me too. We should bury our differences and try to help each other out of this mess while we're still human enough to do that.


----------



## JonDouglas (Jun 3, 2021)

Another interesting op-ed from MedPage Today:  *Quit Ignoring Natural COVID Immunity *by Jeffrey Klausner, MD, MPH, and Noah Kojima, MD

_Epidemiologists estimate over 160 million people worldwide have recovered from COVID-19. Those who have recovered have an astonishingly low frequency of repeat infection, disease, or death. That immunity from prior infection protects many people now where vaccines are not yet available._​​_Earlier this month the World Health Organization released a scientific update stating that most people who have recovered from COVID-19 develop a strong protective immune response. Importantly, they summarize that within 4 weeks of infection, 90% to 99% of people who recover from COVID-19 develop detectable neutralizing antibodies. Furthermore, they conclude   --  given the limited amount of time to observe cases  --  that the immune response remains strong for at least 6 to 8 months after infection._​_- - - - - - - - - - _​_Moving forward, policymakers should include natural immunity as determined by an accurate and reliable antibody test or the documentation of prior infection (previous positive PCR or antigen test), as evidence of immunity equal to that of vaccination. That immunity should be given the same societal status as vaccine-inducted immunity. Such a policy will greatly reduce anxiety and increase access to travel, events, family visits, and more. The updated policy will allow those who have recovered to celebrate their recovery by informing them of their immunity, allowing them to safely discard their masks, show their faces, and join the legions of those vaccinated._​​In my opinion, "natural" immunity may be the best vaccine - if, when and where it is appropriate.  As always, people should always have a choice of what's put into their bodies and accept the consequences for the decisions they make.  It should be expected that vaccine makers and those who hold their stock might vigorously object to these ideas.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jun 3, 2021)

AnnieA said:


> I haven't read enough of @JonDouglas 's threads to know whether or not your judgement is factual, but I do know that natural immunity is as protective as that of vaccines. I don't understand how sound science in this thread is 'fantasy' in your thinking?   From the get go, I thought vaccines should've been given first to people who hadn't yet had symptomatic Covid-19.


This is an issue in more ways than one. Some theories out there that those that just had the virus asymptomatically could be some of those showing adverse reactions because there are so many antibodies in the system. So over reaction by the immune system could be things like blood clots or heart trouble.

Also wouldn't those who were asymptomatic throw off the statistics either way. They could add to adverse reaction stats as they could add to effectiness stats being they already had antibodies in their system. Are the natural antibodies or vaccine preventing an infection? -with any disease.


----------



## Sunny (Jun 3, 2021)

JonDouglas, you never answered my question as to whether you personally have received the vaccine.

If you have (answered my question), and the answer is buried in the lengthy quotes you seem to love to copy and paste, I've missed it. So, apologetically, I'll ask again. Did you get the vaccine?


----------



## JonDouglas (Jun 3, 2021)

Sunny said:


> JonDouglas, you never answered my question as to whether you personally have received the vaccine.
> 
> If you have (answered my question), and the answer is buried in the lengthy quotes you seem to love to copy and paste, I've missed it. So, apologetically, I'll ask again. Did you get the vaccine?


Sorry but I am mot your research aide.  If you're that interested, dig for it.  I did answer the question and the rationale behind it several times.


----------



## JonDouglas (Jun 3, 2021)

There is another related (to covid) article in the Front Line Covid Critical Care (physicians) Alliance entitled* Prevention and Treatment Protocols for COVID-19*

*I-MASS*_ – Prevention & At Home Treatment Mass Distribution Protocol for COVID-19 *(updated June 2, 2021)*_​​_The I-MASS Protocol was created for generalized distribution during mass outbreaks and in low-resource countries. To achieve maximal impact as well as ease of deployment with the lowest burden of required elements, the I-MASS treatment approach is centered on the fewest, core, high impact elements such as the drug Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic medicine that is on the WHO’s list of essential medicines, has been given 3.7 billion times around the globe, and has won the Nobel prize in 2015 for its global and historic impacts in eradicating endemic parasitic infections in many parts of the world._​​_Ivermectin has proven to be highly potent against COVID-19. It has shown antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties in observational and randomized controlled studies conducted throughout the world. Practitioners and Health Ministries who have adopted Ivermectin in treatment protocols report significant reductions in time to recovery, hospitalizations, and death. The use of Ivermectin as prophylaxis and prevention has also been proven in studies to reduce the spread of infection and offer protection to high-risk individuals._​​_Also included in the protocol are Vitamin D3, Melatonin, Aspirin, a multivitamin, a thermometer, and an antiseptic mouthwash. The evidence for supporting the other vitamins and medicine can be found here: https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/medical-evidence-and-optional-medicines/._​​_The FLCCC peer-reviewed paper summarizing this data has been published in the American Journal of Therapeutics: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/._​​_Further supportive information can also be found here: https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/._​​_Additional treatment protocols for COVID-19, including for hospitalized patients, can be found at https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/._​​_Support for Ivermectin in the use of prophylaxis can be found here: https://scivisionpub.com/pdfs/ivermectin-as-prophylaxis-against-covid19-retrospective-cases-evaluati…_​​_*Disclaimer:* The safety of Ivermectin in pregnancy has not been established. Particularly the use in the 1st trimester should be discussed with your doctor beforehand._​​Some people may want to know about this.


----------



## AnnieA (Jun 3, 2021)

WhatInThe said:


> This is an issue in more ways than one. Some theories out there that those that just had the virus asymptomatically could be some of those showing adverse reactions because there are so many antibodies in the system. So over reaction by the immune system could be things like blood clots or heart trouble.
> 
> Also wouldn't those who were asymptomatic throw off the statistics either way. They could add to adverse reaction stats as they could add to effectiness stats being they already had antibodies in their system. Are the natural antibodies or vaccine preventing an infection? -with any disease.



Somes case studies show asymptomatic cases produced less antibodies if any at all.  This research shows asymptomatic cases or very mild cases lose antibodies even when they do produce them.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/3/20-4543_article

That's why I specified 'symptomatic' in the post above.    If you have studies backing your quote above, I'm interested in reading them.


----------



## AnnieA (Jun 3, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> Sorry but I am mot your research aide.  If you're that interested, dig for it.  I did answer the question and the rationale behind it several times.



Oh, for Pete's sake.  She said she hadn't seen whether or not you got the vaccine and why.  Why not just answer the question?  

It's totally okay if you didn't.  Your body, your choice.  You're not endangering anyone by not getting it since vaccinated people can still get milder cases and are infectious when they do.


----------



## JonDouglas (Jun 3, 2021)

AnnieA said:


> Oh, for Pete's sake.  She said she hadn't seen whether or not you got the vaccine and why.  Why not just answer the question?   It's totally okay if you didn't.  Your body, your choice.


I don't respond that much to people who have a habit of stalking and pestering like her and Nathan.  You may not like what I am about to say but you should have asked, "Why aren't you answering?"  instead of getting a little huffy about it.  Ready, fire, aim?


----------



## Becky1951 (Jun 3, 2021)

AnnieA said:


> Somes case studies show asymptomatic cases produced less antibodies if any at all.  This research shows asymptomatic cases or very mild cases lose antibodies even when they do produce them.
> 
> https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/3/20-4543_article
> 
> That's why I specified 'symptomatic' in the post above.    If you have studies backing your quote above, I'm interested in reading them.


"This research shows asymptomatic cases or very mild cases lose antibodies even when they do produce them."

Does that include some who have been vaccinated? That might explain breakthrough cases.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jun 3, 2021)

AnnieA said:


> Somes case studies show asymptomatic cases produced less antibodies if any at all.  This research shows asymptomatic cases or very mild cases lose antibodies even when they do produce them.
> 
> https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/3/20-4543_article
> 
> That's why I specified 'symptomatic' in the post above.    If you have studies backing your quote above, I'm interested in reading them.


Those with adverse reactions to vaccine might have had previous virus infection

https://noorchashm.medium.com/j-js-...he-adversely-affected-women-have-cdde4bdbb090

A study of health care workers who previously had virus had a higher antibody response to virus than vaccinated(University of Maryland Medical School)

https://hartfordhealthcare.org/about-us/news-press/news-detail?articleId=32846&publicid=728

When mentioning the studies they don't note the level or severity of infection.


----------



## Been There (Jun 3, 2021)

There is still a lot that the scientists and medical experts do not know about this virus. I had a mild case of COVID and I thought it best to get the two injections of Pfizer. Now we find out that if a person has had this virus, they do not need to take the vaccine. I guess it pays to wait. But the good news is that because I only had a mild case of the virus, it was best to take the vaccine. 

I have been reading the newly released e-mails that were sent and received by Dr. Fauci. Interesting, to say the least. Not being a medical professional, I do have trouble interpreting some of the dialogue contained in the e-mails, however, one that I found to be very interesting came from a medical professional in Britain suggesting to Fauci that the some of the features of the genome looked engineered. If this is true, someone or some group will have a lot to explain. Again, we don't know if this is true or not. The person's name that sent the e-mail is Kristian Andersen. 

In another e-mail, it appears that Dr. Fauci may have lied when he stated to Congress that he never had any hand in "gain of function" research. And once again, we don't know if this is true or not. As we all have learned, e-mails can be very misinterpreted at times. So for now, my opinion would be to give Dr. Fauci the benefit of doubt until prover otherwise.


----------



## Lara (Jun 3, 2021)

AnnieA said:


> Oh, for Pete's sake.  She said she hadn't seen whether or not you got the vaccine and why.  Why not just answer the question?
> 
> It's totally okay if you didn't.  Your body, your choice.  You're not endangering anyone by not getting it since vaccinated people can still get milder cases and are infectious when they do.


I don't want to enter the fray but I would like to remind everyone of the Hippa violation. No one should pressure anyone to answer the question if they have had the vaccination because it's private medical information protected by Hippa. Why would anyone want that information anyway? To pass judgement? It's not like anyone is going to be in contact with him here in SF.


----------



## win231 (Jun 3, 2021)

Lara said:


> I don't want to enter the fray but I would like to remind everyone of the Hippa violation. No one should pressure anyone to answer the question if they have had the vaccination because it's private medical information protected by Hippa. Why would anyone want that information anyway? To pass judgement? It's not like anyone is going to be in contact with him here in SF.


You said it.  Some people want to know who's vaccinated to pass judgment & also to feel superior.


----------



## StarSong (Jun 3, 2021)

AnnieA said:


> Oh, for Pete's sake.  She said she hadn't seen whether or not you got the vaccine and why.  Why not just answer the question?
> 
> It's totally okay if you didn't.  Your body, your choice.  You're not endangering anyone by not getting it since vaccinated people can still get milder cases and are infectious when they do.


This may explain why he's playing it coy:

By his own words Jon Douglas got the J & J vaccine on April 7th and suffered no serious side effects. Posts #404 & #407. 
Since then he's posted a steady stream of negative articles about Covid vaccines without including the caveat that he opted in favor of a vaccine for himself. 

Because of this and other nonsense, I have him on ignore. Just figured I'd keep the record straight.   
https://www.seniorforums.com/thread...or-vaccination-yet.56876/page-17#post-1691601


----------



## AnnieA (Jun 3, 2021)

Becky1951 said:


> "This research shows asymptomatic cases or very mild cases lose antibodies even when they do produce them."
> 
> Does that include some who have been vaccinated? That might explain breakthrough cases.



It could be but I haven't read that there's research into that yet.  Breakthrough cases can be explained by the fact that some people just do not produce antibodies to vaccines.  The obese and elderly lead that category and unfortunately are at highest risk.  Some people don't produce them who don't fall into the usual categories of poor response.  In dialysis, we were required to get Hep B vaccines and antibody testing; there were a handful of otherwise fit, healthy staff who had gotten all three rounds and showed zero antibodies.


----------



## AnnieA (Jun 3, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> You may not like what I am about to say but you should have asked, "Why aren't you answering?"  instead of getting a little huffy about it.  Ready, fire, aim?



lol... I'm good with huffy.  No fire for that.  About the only thing that'll draw fire is the 'c' word and you don't seem to be the kind of guy who would use that.


----------



## JonDouglas (Jun 3, 2021)

StarSong said:


> This may explain why he's playing it coy:
> 
> By his own words Jon Douglas got the J & J vaccine on April 7th and suffered no serious side effects. Posts #404 & #407.
> Since then he's posted a steady stream of negative articles about Covid vaccines without including the caveat that he opted in favor of a vaccine for himself.
> ...


I appreciate your having me on ignore.  Thanks.  As for being anti-vaccine, you couldn't more wrong.  With all the pro-vaccine information, agenda pushing and virtue signaling going on, I like to point out other viewpoints, especially on potential dangers and the subject of natural.  If I had been negative on vaccination, I wouldn't have gotten it.  We understand that such an approach might be too difficult for some to understand but it is what it is.   I would suggest she who has me ignore might have better things to do than ankle biting those who don't fit in her agenda or mindset.  Oh, in case you're reading this, please put me back on ignore as this message wasn't meant for you.


----------



## Becky1951 (Jun 3, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> I appreciate your having me on ignore.  Thanks.  As for being anti-vaccine, you couldn't more wrong.  With all the pro-vaccine information, agenda pushing and virtue signaling going on, I like to point out other viewpoints, especially on potential dangers and the subject of natural.  If I had been negative on vaccination, I wouldn't have gotten it.  We understand that such an approach might be too difficult for some to understand but it is what it is.   I would suggest she who has me ignore might have better things to do than ankle biting those who don't fit in her agenda or mindset.  Oh, in case you're reading this, please put me back on ignore as this message wasn't meant for you.


To begin with, I was waiting to see how safe the 2 vaccines available were. I was and others waiting were laughed at and called a coward for waiting, told to go hide etc.  Then the J&J vaccine became available, but not near me yet and I was waiting to have more info on it, I trusted the J&J over the other 2. I decided to get the J&J vaccine, then there were some issues with it also. I had an appointment with my Dr. who said she was not comfortable advising me to have any of the vaccines. That took the option off the table for me.  Now all during this time I and others were called names, cowards, ant-vax, non caring, non patriotic etc, and trying to shame others for not getting the vaccine.

I believe everyone has the right to choose for themselves.  I don't understand why it bothers those who were vaccinated to see articles posted here that are information regarding the vaccines. I don't know why they cannot have a discussion without the name calling and innuendos.


----------



## 911 (Jun 3, 2021)

I had a bad time with COVID-19, so I took the vaccine. I guess from what I have been hearing and reading, I may have been able to take a pass, but now I should be more confident of not getting a reinfection knowing that I have many, many antibodies.


----------



## win231 (Jun 3, 2021)

Becky1951 said:


> To begin with, I was waiting to see how safe the 2 vaccines available were. I was and others waiting were laughed at and called a coward for waiting, told to go hide etc.  Then the J&J vaccine became available, but not near me yet and I was waiting to have more info on it, I trusted the J&J over the other 2. I decided to get the J&J vaccine, then there were some issues with it also. I had an appointment with my Dr. who said she was not comfortable advising me to have any of the vaccines. That took the option off the table for me.  Now all during this time I and other were called names, cowards, ant-vax, non caring, non patriotic etc, and trying to shame other for not getting the vaccine.
> 
> I believe everyone has the right to choose for themselves.  I don't understand why it bothers those who were vaccinated to see articles posted here that are information regarding the vaccines. I don't know why they cannot have a discussion without the name calling and innuendos.


By being an intelligent independent thinker, you're unintentionally undermining people's confidence in their choice to get the "Cure-All"
vaccine - _confidence that's weak to begin with._
And many people gain confidence when others make the same decision they made.


----------



## Buckeye (Jun 3, 2021)

Latest numbers from CDC:
Approx 298 million doses administered,  169 million have had a least one dose, and 137 million are fully vaccinated.


----------



## Gaer (Jun 3, 2021)

To ridicule men of sense is the privilege of fools.  
This was/is a strikingly interesting thread.  Must it be necessary to attack the poster?


----------



## IrisSenior (Jun 4, 2021)

The best thing to do if you don't believe what someone posts is to just ignore their posts unless, of course, you like responding and arguing and etc. etc.


----------



## JonDouglas (Jun 4, 2021)

Another related article from Nature:  *Had COVID? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime
*
_Many people who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 will probably make antibodies against the virus for most of their lives. So suggest researchers who have identified long-lived antibody-producing cells in the bone marrow of people who have recovered from COVID-191._​​_The study provides evidence that immunity triggered by SARS-CoV-2 infection will be extraordinarily long-lasting. Adding to the good news, “the implications are that vaccines will have the same durable effect”, says Menno van Zelm, an immunologist at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia._​​_Antibodies — proteins that can recognize and help to inactivate viral particles — are a key immune defence. After a new infection, short-lived cells called plasmablasts are an early source of antibodies._​​_But these cells recede soon after a virus is cleared from the body, and other, longer-lasting cells make antibodies: memory B cells patrol the blood for reinfection, while bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) hide away in bones, trickling out antibodies for decades._​​- - - More at source - - -​​Just another FYI.


----------

