An Israeli study published in Nature Communications on November 7, 2022, provides yet further evidence of the superiority of natural immunity over the immunity induced by COVID‑19 vaccines, indicating that the natural immune are considerably less likely to contribute to the spread of SARS‑CoV‑2 than vaccinated people.
Throughout the pandemic, studies have used cycle threshold (Ct) values from PCR tests as a surrogate measure of “viral load”. While not a perfect correlation, a higher number of cycles required to reach the threshold of positivity indicates a smaller amount of viral RNA present in the sample, whereas a smaller Ct value indicates a greater amount of viral RNA.
Titled “Viral load dynamics of SARS‑CoV‑2 Delta and Omicron variants following multiple vaccine doses and previous infection”, the authors conclude that “while recent vaccination reduces Omicron viral load, its effect wanes rapidly”, whereas “a significantly slower waning rate is demonstrated for recovered COVID‑19 individuals.” Consequently, in contrast to natural immunity, vaccination has a “relatively small effect on transmissibility of Omicron” using Ct values as a proxy measure of viral load.
The authors note the curiosity that, while studies had examined how Ct values with the Omicron variant change with time since vaccination, “the waning effect of infection-induced protection has not been thoroughly analyzed before in terms of Ct and infectivity.” They therefore set out to compare Ct levels for both Delta and Omicron variants of individuals who received two, three, or four doses of COVID‑19 vaccine with those of unvaccinated individuals who had acquired natural immunity from infection.
They report that with the Delta variant, the protection afforded by two doses “wanes rapidly”, with Ct values reaching “a level similar to that of the unvaccinated by day 70.” While a third dose resulted in initially higher Ct values (although not statistically significantly higher), “once again rapid waning follows, and by day 70 Ct reaches the baseline level of the unvaccinated.”
With the Omicron variant, two doses resulted in Ct values that were not significantly different from the unvaccinated. A booster dose resulted in a reduction in viral load similar to that of the naturally immune, but this effect was short-lived, with viral load suggesting equal contagiousness as the unvaccinated by day 70.
The analysis of a second booster shot was limited to individuals over age sixty since it was mainly older adults who had received a fourth dose in Israel. The results for this age group showed no significant difference in viral load for two or three doses compared with unvaccinated individuals. The fourth dose managed to reduce viral load to a level similar to that of naturally immune older people, but we can anticipate that protection, too, wanes rapidly. While they only had data for initial viral loads and did not report values over time, the authors indicated their anticipation of similar rapid waning by stating that the result for the fourth dose indicates “at least a short-term vaccine effectiveness” in reducing Ct level.
Citing a study published in June 2022 in the New England Journal of Medicine, the authors of the more recent study note that while the protection afforded by natural immunity, too, wanes over time, it does so at “a rate that is slower than that of vaccine-derived protection.”
As they report, in contrast to “the rapid waning observed for vaccinated individuals”, viral load levels “remain low well beyond 18 months, and does not reach the baseline level of the unvaccinated even after extended periods of time”.
The authors conclude that, given the “short-lived sterilizing immunity” conferred by the vaccines, which refers specifically to immune protection against infection and transmission as opposed to protection against severe disease, the “false reassurance” that COVID‑19 vaccines will prevent people from spreading the virus “may deem vaccine campaigns as counterproductive”.
Indeed, contrary to attempts by mainstream media “fact checkers” to gaslight us, COVID-19 vaccines were initially sold to the public based on the lie that two doses would confer durable sterilizing immunity and thereby end the pandemic by ushering in herd immunity.
Given the “demonstrated short-lived immunity and rapid waning” of vaccine-induced immunity, the authors suggested that booster campaigns should focus on “high-risk groups only”.
Coupled with other studies demonstrating the ineffectiveness of COVID‑19 vaccines and confirming that the immunological phenomenon of “original antigenic sin” is a real problem with these products, this study adds to the growing body of evidence that the global mass vaccination campaign has been counterproductive.
Policymakers have simply failed to consider that natural immunity is an opportunity cost of vaccination. They have failed to see that by preventing people who are at low risk of severe COVID‑19 from acquiring natural immunity, their policies have served only to prolong the pandemic and worsen outcomes in the long run, rendering vaccinated individuals more susceptible to COVID‑19 likely throughout their lifetimes relative to unvaccinated individuals with natural immunity.
This outcome was predictable. Indeed, I had been publicly warning about this possibility since very early into the mass vaccination campaign. The blindness of the “public health” establishment to the need to consider natural immunity as an opportunity cost of vaccination is a perfect illustration of institutionalized myopia, which is not limited to these particular products but extends to all pharmaceutical products known as “vaccines”.
