Natural immunity versus vaccine induced immunity for COVID-19: does the CDC, the NIH, and the FDA understand the available science?
I say no. They, the CDC, NIH, and FDA do not understand it at all and it is sobering for one would think they are the one set of bureaucrats and technocrats and so called ‘scientists’ who should. They either do not read the data or science on natural versus vaccine immunity in relation to COVID-19, or they do not understand the science, as well as they are just blinded to it due to their biases and politicized posture. So let me help them here by showcasing the existing evidence. What does the existing academic science show regarding naturally acquired exposure immunity compared to vaccine conferred immunity as it pertains to COVID-19?
There are six studies I think sets the stage for the core thesis that natural immunity is far superior and long-lasting than vaccine-induced immunity in COVID-19 (here and here and here and here and here and here). These six studies support what I think are the core 34 studies and reports that show natural immunity reigns supreme over the COVID-19 vaccine immunity (here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). It is worth mentioning that the search for these underpinning studies was not systematic and was meant rather, as a means to quickly gather evidence to assess the potency of natural immunity in this COVID emergency. It is therefore likely that given the search was not exhaustive, then it may have missed some additional (and important) published research. The reader must bear this in mind in any interpretation. I however feel that the presented uncovered research is robust enough to support the conclusion.