Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 12, 2022 - Epoch Times

23:30

CDC Report: Natural Immunity was 6X Stronger Than Vaccination During the Delta Wave | Facts Matter

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good evening.
	Two days ago, the CDC published a new, rather bombshell study, which found that despite the fact that it's almost never talked about in public, the protection from natural immunity was better than the protection from the COVID vaccines in shielding people against the Delta variant of the virus.
	Meanwhile, while I was down in Texas, I had the opportunity to speak with Mr.
	Josh Hammer, who is the opinion editor of Newsweek, and we discussed the true impact that big tech monopolies are having on America's public discourse, as well as real solutions that can be implemented to rein them in.
	Let's go through it all together.
	This is your daily Facts Matter update, and I'm your host, Roman, from the Epoch Times.
	And now let's begin today's discussion by talking about natural immunity.
	According to a new study, which was just published in, of all places, the CDC itself, they found that the protection from natural immunity was better than the protection from the COVID vaccines alone in protecting people against the Delta variant of the virus.
	Now let me just highlight that for a quick moment because it is rather impactful.
	Two days ago, the CDC, on their own website, they published this study here, which found that if you had a prior COVID infection, meaning that if you had the natural antibodies to COVID, then you were better protected against the Delta variant of the virus than if you were simply vaccinated.
	And just like that, what was once referred to as a conspiracy theory, well, it can now be found on the CDC's own website.
	Regardless, let's go through their findings together.
	What the researchers in this study did was that they analyzed the health records from two states, from California as well as from New York, that were entered specifically between the dates of May 30th and November 20th of last year, of 2021.
	And the reason that that time period is so significant is because it covers squarely the period of time right before the Delta variant was the most prevalent variant in those two states, We're good to go.
	And so what the researchers did after isolating these health records was that they separated these COVID patients into four different groups.
	And those groups were, one, unvaccinated with no previous COVID diagnosis, meaning that those individuals had no protection against the virus.
	Then you had the unvaccinated with a previous COVID infection.
	This group was the one that only had the natural antibodies.
	Then you had the third group, which was vaccinated with no prior COVID infection, meaning that this was the group that only had the vaccine.
	And then lastly, you had the group that was vaccinated with a prior COVID infection, meaning that that last group had both the vaccine as well as natural antibodies.
	And when the researchers looked at the data, they found that the people who had not received a COVID vaccine, but were previously infected, meaning the people who had exclusively natural immunity, well, they were much less likely to test positive for the Delta variant of the virus when compared to the people who were exclusively vaccinated.
	Meaning, when you compare the people who were vaccinated without the natural antibodies compared to the people who were not vaccinated but had the natural antibodies, well, this group was much less likely to get the Delta strain of the virus.
	Here's specifically what the researchers wrote in their conclusion.
	"These results suggest that vaccination protects against COVID-19 and related hospitalization, and that surviving a previous infection protects against a reinfection.
	Importantly, infection-derived protection was greater after the highly transmissible Delta variant became predominant, coinciding with the early declining of vaccine-induced immunity in many persons." Now, in terms of the data that's actually presented in this study, well, it's a little I'll throw it up on screen.
	The tables in this study are a little bit hard to read because instead of giving us the hard numbers, the researchers instead presented what is known as a hazard ratio.
	And so in this case, the higher that those numbers are, the more protection that that particular group has.
	As an example, if we stop right there on the line for November 14th, what those numbers mean is that compared to someone who has no protection against the virus at all, meaning no vaccine or no natural antibodies, someone who's vaccinated is 7.3 times better protected.
	Someone who has natural antibodies is 25 times more protected.
	And then lastly, someone who has both been vaccinated and has the natural antibodies is And what's interesting is that just like the researchers mentioned in that statement we read just a moment ago, when you go down the table of data for yourself, you can notice that over time, specifically during the time period when the Delta variant of the virus becomes more and more widespread, the people who have natural immunity begin to stand out from the pack.
	And so, for instance, if we look at the New York case data, you'll see that in late May, early June, those who were exclusively vaccinated seem to be better protected than those who had natural antibodies.
	However, if you continue to scroll all the way down and take a look at the New York case data by mid-November, it actually completely shifted.
	Because by that point, you can see that the natural antibodies provide 22.6 times more protection compared to the vaccines 4.8 times.
	And likewise, you can see the same type of effect in regards to the hospitalizations as well.
	In fact, take a look at this chart here.
	The solid blue line, it represents the people who have no protection at all.
	And as you can see, they were the ones who were most at risk of getting hospitalized.
	However, when you look at the bottom of the chart, you will see that the people who are at the lowest risk of getting hospitalized are actually those who have either both natural immunity and the vaccine, or those who just have the natural immunity.
	And according to this data, the people who exclusively have natural immunity, they actually seem to be more protected than those who exclusively have the vaccine.
	Although the data does show that individuals who have both are protected the most.
	Here's in fact how the researchers summed up their findings in this study.
	Quote, During May through November of 2021, case and hospitalization rates were highest among persons who were unvaccinated without a previous diagnosis.
	Before Delta became the predominant variant in June, case rates were higher among persons who survived a previous infection than persons who were vaccinated alone.
	By early October, persons who survived a previous infection had lower case rates than persons who were vaccinated alone.
	Now, this is not the first such conclusion that has been reached in a study of this sort.
	However, if you have been paying attention to the narrative around natural immunity and the vaccine, well, then you know that this is a far cry from what is typically heard on either the media outlets, from government bureaucrats, from the pharmaceutical companies, or from the politicians who almost never acknowledge natural immunity, at least publicly.
	And as just one high-profile example of that, well, just a few days ago, Mr.
	Novak Djokovic, he was deported from Australia because he was not vaccinated despite the fact that he had COVID previously.
	However, the Australian government, they did not recognize his natural immunity as being legitimate, and so they did not allow him to stay.
	They kicked him out of the country and did not let him compete in the Australian Open.
	And by the way, just as a very small aside, after Mr.
	Novak Djokovic left the country, after he was deported, it was the case that all of the Australia Open contestants were fully vaccinated.
	However, despite that fact, shortly after the tournament began, they started to see pockets of COVID outbreaks among the players.
	Regardless, before we head back to America and discuss what this new study could mean for our COVID policies, I would like to take a super quick moment and introduce a sponsor of today's episode.
	And I'd like to start doing that by having you zoom in on this coin right here.
	This right here is an American Walking Liberty one ounce gold coin.
	And typically, I order at least one of these from our sponsor, American Heart for Gold, every single month.
	The reason I do so is because, I mean, as you likely know, the inflation rate in this country is the highest that it's been in, what, the last 40 years now.
	Everything such as the price of gas, Food, lumber, housing, everything is going through the roof and the money printers are not seemingly being turned off and therefore likewise the inflation rate will continue to increase.
	However, I don't give any financial advice but what I would recommend is that you do what I do which is buy physical gold and silver which can be delivered directly to your doorstep Or deposited directly into your IRA account or your 401k account.
	Frankly, they make the entire process super simple.
	And so with just a single phone call to American Heart for Gold, you can get the process started.
	They have super friendly staff.
	And the best part is that to our viewers, the viewers of Facts Matter, they will give you up to $1,500 worth of free silver on your first order.
	All you have to do is give them a call.
	So give him a call.
	It's 866-242-2352.
	That's 866-242-2352.
	Or you can just text the word Roman to 65532.
	American Hartford Gold, thank you so much for sponsoring this episode.
	Now, Roman in the studio, back to you.
	Regardless, though, getting back to this study here from the CDC, the researchers summed up their findings rather succinctly by saying this, quote, COVID-19 vaccination protects against infection with SARS-CoV-2-associated severe illness and death.
	Among those who survive, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection also confers protection against severe outcomes in the event of reinfection.
	Although it is worth noting that the emergence of the Omicron variant happened after the cutoff date for all the data that's published in this study, And so that is not included within these pages.
	Regardless, though, after this study was published, we here at the Epoch Times, we had a chance to get a comment from Dr.
	Jeffrey Klossner, who is a clinical professor of medicine over at the University of Southern California, and he suggested that this study presents an excellent opportunity for America to actually update our policy regarding natural immunity.
	Here's specifically what he told us.
	The findings strongly support the need to update our vaccination policy, work and school requirements with those who can demonstrate they have natural immunity being given equal access as those who are vaccinated.
	Vaccination is a much, much safer pathway to immunity than getting infected.
	But in an otherwise healthy person who has recovered, they should have confidence that they have protection against severe disease, hospitalization, and death.
	However, as of right now, as of this moment, very few organizations offer caveats to their vaccine mandates if the person is naturally immune.
	Now, there are a few notable examples, such as the Spectrum Health Hospital System over in Michigan, which now recognizes natural immunity.
	And there's also, of course, the NCAA, which recently updated their definition of being, quote-unquote, fully vaccinated to actually include people who have natural antibodies from a prior COVID infection.
	However, as I'm sure you've noticed, those cases are very few and far between.
	They are the outliers, not the mainstream.
	For the most part, being naturally immune does not make you immune from the vaccine mandates.
	And instead, it instead often throws you into the fringes of the internet, since many platforms actually outright censor the discussion of the topic.
	One obvious example of that would be Instagram, where the hashtag naturalimmunity is actually disabled, meaning you're not allowed to tag your post with it.
	And so, for instance, if you would like to share this CDC study over on Instagram, and you'd like to tag it with the hashtag naturalimmunity so that people can actually find it, Well, you can.
	Or rather, you can, but nobody will see it.
	Because when you click on it, well, here's what it says.
	This hashtag is hidden.
	Posts for natural immunity have been limited because the community has reported some content that may not meet Instagram's community guidelines.
	That is, of course, very cool.
	Regardless though, it appears that the tide might be shifting, especially with this new study, which was published on Wednesday in the CDC's own Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
	And the reason that's so significant is because within that publication itself, here's what it says.
	The content published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report constitutes the official voice of its parent, CDC. And so who knows, maybe knowledge like this will go mainstream in the very near future.
	Only time will tell.
	Regardless, if you'd like to read this report for yourself in its entirety, I'll throw a link to it.
	It'll be down there in the description box below this video for you to check out.
	And all I ask in return is that you take a super quick moment to smash, smash, smash that like button for the YouTube algorithm.
	And now let's move on over and talk about big tech monopolies.
	While I was down in Texas, I had the opportunity to speak with Mr.
	Josh Hammer, who is the opinion editor of Newsweek, and we discussed the true impact that these big tech monopolies are having on America's public discourse, as well as some real-world solutions that can be implemented in order to rein them in.
	Take a look.
	Can you please introduce yourself and a little bit about what you do?
	So, I'm a conservative editor.
	I write a weekly syndicated column.
	I wear a lot of side hats, so I'm a research fellow at...
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Not a whole lot of time for sleep, to be honest with you, but I'm just trying to do one man's job, just trying to make a little bit of an impact on the world is what I'm trying to do.
	I've done several pieces and several in-depth pieces on big tech censorship, and when I do, oftentimes I can use some research and some great statements that are made by the Internet Accountability Project.
	Can you introduce to maybe the people watching who are not familiar with that organization what it's about?
	Sure.
	So IAP.org is our website.
	Internet Accountability Project is a small kind of anti-big tech group that was founded two or three years ago.
	I think probably just honestly two years ago.
	I don't remember the exact month or whatever.
	But it was founded by my good friend Mike Davis.
	Mike, like me, is a lawyer by training.
	He clerked for then Judge Neil Gorsuch on the 10th Circuit and then for Justice Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.
	And what Mike basically saw is, especially kind of over the past two, two and a half years, Big tech is out of control.
	They are just completely, increasingly out of control.
	And what they're doing is they're not even hiding at this point.
	For a little while there, you know, back when James Damore at Google kind of had that memo, that was in 2017 when he basically got canceled.
	That was kind of like the tip of the spear.
	But over the past couple of years, what's happening with Twitter, the Parler episode was kind of like the lowest of all low points.
	I mean, what happened with Apple, Google, and Amazon, from my perspective, just nakedly colluding to just nuke out of existence this startup social media platform So what Mike, my friend, saw was he saw that there was a void.
	There was a niche that had to be filled.
	There was no kind of conservative voice to try to get conservatives and Republicans, elected officials ideally, comfortable with actually using state power to rein in these unaccountable oligarchs.
	And that is what they are.
	They are oligarchs.
	Literally, the five biggest companies in the United States on the stock exchange by market cap, by sheer size, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft.
	Not in that order, necessarily.
	But those are the five biggest.
	They are all the same industry.
	They're all technology.
	And, you know, they can change their terms of service on a whim with no accountability and just shadow ban or just nuke whoever they want to nuke.
	So IAP exists.
	We talk about Section 230 reform, antitrust, common carry regulation.
	We're just there trying to encourage elected officials and just write commentary, submit kind of legal briefs, things of that nature, any way that we can help kind of shift the conversation on the right.
	Towards a more anti-big techs approach, that's what we're there for.
	So one of the biggest issues that I can tell from big tech giants is the way that, of course, they can control people's view of events, right?
	They can control the narrative specifically and the way people have access to information and therefore how they perceive the world, but specifically about the election.
	I remember that after the 2020 election, there was a poll conducted which showed that out of the people who voted for Joe Biden, Some really large number, I believe it was something like 36% said that they would have changed their vote if they knew about the Hunter Biden story, which was suppressed by big tech and by the media, but largely by big tech.
	Can you speak a little bit about that aspect of it?
	So it's funny you mention that.
	So what Twitter and Facebook did to the New York Post for the Hunter Biden story was literally why I joined IAP. We released a press statement at the time.
	That was why I joined.
	I publicly referred to it as big techs.
	Pearl Harbor attack.
	That was like their full frontal assault.
	The Parler thing, obviously, was about two and a half months after that, so that kind of came on the heels of what Twitter and Facebook did to the New York Post.
	Look, I publish the New York Post all the time.
	The op-ed editor there, the guy who has the same job as me, Saurabh Amari, is a very good friend of mine.
	I love the New York Post.
	I grew up in the New York area.
	I grew up reading the Post all the time.
	It's the nation's fourth largest newspaper by circulation and the oldest continually operating newspaper.
	It's found by Alexander Hamilton.
	Found by Alexander Hamilton.
	So if Facebook and Twitter, on the precipice, on the eve of a monumentally important election, can deprive the nation's oldest continually operating newspaper of access to their own social media accounts, for factually reporting a story that to this day has not been challenged, That's tyranny.
	I mean, Josh Hawley, from my perspective, is right to call it tyranny.
	His new book, The Tyranny of Big Tech.
	And that is the tyranny, more specifically, of unaccountable actors.
	That's what makes it even more dangerous.
	You know, if you have kind of tyranny emerging from a congressional wing of one party or from the administration, then you always have the check of the ballot box.
	But what is our check when it comes to big tech?
	Well, it comes in the form of, like, Section 230 immunity, which we haven't, you know, we haven't reformed that yet.
	It comes by way of antitrust, which, you know, I personally believe needs to be more rigorously enforced.
	We should not be for antitrust amnesty the same way we're not for immigration amnesty.
	And all sorts of other kind of creative solutions.
	But what happened to the New York Post last October was appalling.
	Any red-heart American patriot should have been completely ashamed of that.
	Yeah, and the point you mentioned, I feel like, is really at the heart of it, is the accountability.
	Because, you know, I believe even at the, it was a congressional hearing, maybe it was at the Senate, but the president of Twitter, he was sitting there and he said, oh, it was a mistake, and I believe that he said that it was fixed and they can now share it or something like that.
	And I remember it wasn't the case.
	They came out and they said, no, it's still blocked.
	But there just doesn't seem to be any accountability.
	And any time you have a specific example of what looks like, obviously, an overreach of their power, like this New York Post story, they say, well, this particular one was a mistake.
	We shouldn't have done it.
	We reeled it back after we figured it out.
	We'll do better next time.
	But it's true.
	There's no actual accountability.
	What do you believe is the solution for this?
	Is it what you said, Section 230 reform?
	Should they be treated like utilities or what?
	So I've called for an all-of-the-above strategy.
	So we can go point by point here.
	So when it comes to Section 230 in particular, there's a provision of Section 230 called the so-called Good Samaritan provision.
	And what that does is it allows big tech to censor content that is not just lewd, lascivious.
	Because remember, Section 230 was actually originally passed as part of a broader anti-pornography, anti-sexual exploitation initiative.
	So originally, the purpose of Section 230...
	Was to get these platforms immunity from censoring, you know, people posting, like, nude photos and stuff like that.
	Like, horrible stuff like that.
	But there's a provision at the tail end, so it basically provides these platforms immunity to delete lewd, lascivious, and then there's a phrase called otherwise objectionable.
	Now, the way the courts have interpreted that is basically it gives them full reign.
	They can take down anything that is quote-unquote otherwise objectionable, which, who gets to define that?
	Well, the courts have said that tech platforms do.
	I think that's wrong as a matter of law.
	I'm a lawyer.
	So looking at the actual statute, I don't think that's actually what that text means.
	That's how the courts are interpreted.
	But I would recommend kind of policy reform.
	I think Marco Rubio has a brand new bill that's actually really promising.
	He would basically delete otherwise objectionable in its entirety and insert various other hard forms, very restrictive.
	So that's one way of doing it.
	And the other two kind of broad ways of reining in big tech, you have antitrust and common carrier regulation.
	The right remedy kind of depends on the specific platform and all that.
	Antitrust, in particular, I have argued, and I'm only going to continue to argue, I think is the right remedy for a company like Google or Amazon, which operates with legitimate monopoly power in various spaces.
	In Amazon, for instance, they have a legitimate monopoly in e-books.
	They are committing textbook antitrust violations as far as prioritizing their own internal product lines and algorithms over their external marketplace.
	Google does a lot of similar behavior.
	I mean, they have a 90% market share in search, so that's literally a monopoly.
	Facebook and Twitter, especially Facebook, I think the solution is probably closer to common carrier regulation.
	Treat them like you would treat UPS or FedEx.
	Treat them like you would treat the cable company or the phone company.
	Basically, what that means is that in exchange for various legal immunities, so you can't be sued for certain things, Then you would have to have a non-discriminatory principle.
	So you would have to basically not shadow ban or not ban anyone that is posting content that, let's say, would otherwise be First Amendment free speech protected content.
	So it has to be all of the above.
	We can't just kind of focus in on one of these tools.
	I think all of them have to be on the table.
	Oh, that's fascinating.
	And, yeah, that's interesting that you mention that because there was a lawsuit just recently dismissed, I believe, at the appellate level because the plaintiffs were arguing that Facebook held a monopoly, but the judge said that there's no way to really prove that they hold a monopoly because there's so many different options that you can go to.
	So, yeah, I feel like the way you describe this is probably the way to go.
	Yeah, the FTC threw that out, that particular lawsuit.
	Oh, that was the FTC. Yeah, that's right.
	They'll have a chance to re-plead.
	They'll have a chance to kind of put their facts out there again.
	Now, a lot of this specifically, you know, whether a company is actually a monopolist in part depends on how you define the market, right?
	So the judge was not persuaded by how the lawyers there define the market.
	The reality is like 77% or 78% of American adults have a Facebook account.
	That's a crazy number.
	I mean, Facebook is our public square.
	Businesses, like small businesses, when they launched there, they're relying on Yelp, obviously, but they're also relying on Facebook.
	They're relying on Facebook advertising.
	We've gotten to the point where it is just deeply irresponsible, given Facebook's importance, to not regulate them.
	And here's the thing, from a broader perspective here, I'm a conservative again.
	No one likes over-regulation.
	Over-regulation tends to stifle innovation.
	It tends to crowd out entrepreneurship.
	Jeff Bezos, back in the mid-'90s, found that Amazon out of his garage.
	The issue is that when you get to these companies' stature, again, we're talking here about the five largest corporations in America by market cap.
	Facebook, 78% of all U.S. adults.
	Google, 90% roughly market share in search.
	These are astronomical figures.
	And we are effectively delegating our own sovereignty over the public square.
	This is the public square.
	We are delegating our own regulation, our own control over the public square.
	To these woke, unaccountable, Zuckerberg, Dorsey, kind of like dorky oligarchs.
	We shouldn't be doing that.
	We need to kind of reclaim our self-government from these unaccountable technocrats.
	That's how I view it at least.
	Now, it's worth mentioning that that was just a portion of the full interview.
	If you would like to watch the full thing in its entirety, you can do so over on Epic TV, which is our no-censorship video platform, where you can watch not only that interview, but all other types of phenomenal content as well.
	I'll throw a link to it.
	It'll be right there at the very top of the description box.
	Hope you click on it.
	Hope you check it out.
	Hope you subscribe.
	And I hope that you join us on this journey of exploring this beautiful, beautiful world through honest journalism that is based in truth and tradition.
	Now, lastly, if you haven't already, smash, smash, smash that like button for the YouTube algorithm.
	Subscribe to this YouTube channel if you haven't already in order to give this type of honest news content delivered directly into your YouTube feed while YouTube still allows it.
	Also, consider hitting that notification bell so you can actually be notified of any new videos as we release them.
	And then lastly, if you happen to have a Telegram account, consider following us at factsmatter underscore roman.
	We'll publish the links to all of our episodes there, so in case anything ever does actually happen here on YouTube, well, you can always find the links to our episodes on Telegram.
	And then, until next time, I'm your host, Roman from The Epic Times.

▲