A large Israeli study on reinfection rates among individuals with natural immunity v. vaccinated individuals was published on August 25, 2021 (pre-print, pending peer-review). The conclusions across three different models were the same – natural immunity is much more robust than the protection associated with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.
The study populations were large and the conclusions were statistically significant for all three models. The statistical methods employed were proper and the methods of execution were responsible based on my review.
What follows are the first two paragraphs of the Discussion section in the paper:
“This is the largest real-world observational study comparing natural immunity, gained through previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, to vaccine-induced immunity, afforded by the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. Our large cohort, enabled by Israel’s rapid rollout of the mass-vaccination campaign, allowed us to investigate the risk for additional infection – either a breakthrough infection in vaccinated individuals or reinfection in previously infected ones – over a longer period than thus far described.
Our analysis demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant for a symptomatic disease as well.”
And here’s what I believe to be a particularly important comment with respect to an observation made during the follow-up period of the study, again underscoring the magnitude of the difference in reinfection rates, vaccinated v. naturally immune:
“During the follow-up period, 257 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection were recorded, of which 238 occurred in the vaccinated group (breakthrough infections) and 19 in the previously infected group (reinfections). After adjusting for comorbidities, we found a statistically significant 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection as opposed to reinfection (P<0.001). “
The dependent variable here is binary – infected or not infected. There are those that will quibble over trivial aspects of the methods applied in one or more of the models but the impact of these will not approach materiality.
The paper refers to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine as “SARS-CoV-2 – naive”. This warrants a bit of explanation. It is important to note that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines do not result in a typical immune response. The mRNA vaccines do not stimulate the body to respond to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, rather they stimulate the body to produce the S1 and S2 proteins that, in turn, find homes on ACE-2 receptors throughout the body. The body’s response is to these proteins themselves, not the virus, and that is what is meant by the vaccine being “SARS-CoV-2 – naive”. When you stop and think about the therapeutic effect of the mRNA vaccines and the human immune system’s response to a whole-virus infection, the conclusions of this study are intuitively comfortable.
Why haven’t U.S. public health officials studied the same? Perhaps they have and have chosen not to communicate it. All that aside, this analysis of Israeli data has not been promoted by those charged with promoting public health in the U.S., and there is every good reason to call this to peoples’ attention. Objectively speaking, the vaccine represents an increased risk without material benefit for many and that strongly argues against vaccinating those that have recovered from COVID-19.
“SARS-CoV-2 naive vaccinees” means they were vaccinated and not previously infected with COVID-19. It makes no comment about the vaccines themselves.
You left out the third group in this study: “ (3)previously infected and single dose vaccinated individuals.”
And the conclusion:
“Notably, individuals who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.”
If you look at the supplier contract between Pfizer and Israel, you might understand what that statement really represents.
The point to the study and my post is the affirmation of the obvious. The human immune system does a much better job than the mRNA ‘vaccines’ that do not directly challenge the virus.
“The point to the study and my post is the affirmation of the obvious. The human immune system does a much better job than the mRNA ‘vaccines’ that do not directly challenge the virus.”
Excuse me, is Children of God for Life now making medical decisions for people? Some of us DO WANT to be vaccinated but we refuse based on moral conscience and WANT an ETHICAL alternative! How dare you tell us that our “immune system” does a better job! THAT sir, is NOT a determination that you have ANY authority to make for ANY of us.
Liz, if I may. (Jose is traveling today.) I can see how you might have taken it that way, but no, we have repeatedly emphasized that we are not giving medical advice. We provide ethical and doctrinal guidance, and we survey the scientific literature to raise awareness about fetal tissue research. The Israeli study provides information for people making ethical decisions about getting the vaccine, and part of that is an assessment of how much they medically need it in the first place. A lot of people are distraught over the mandates, and Jose hears from them every day. This paper addresses questions he gets. He posted it precisely because we cannot give that information ourselves, although he is eminently qualified to judge statistical analyses.
The way I see it: we are never going to have ethical alternatives for vaccines and a vast majority of other medical advances if we don’t do something to stop fetal tissue research now.
Stacy,
I appreciate your response, however, you just proved the point of my initial post.
“The Israeli study provides information for people making ethical decisions about getting the vaccine, and part of that is an assessment of how much they medically need it in the first place.”