Political commentator Kim Iversen says conventional science has always favored natural immunity when it comes to longer lasting and stronger protection against infection — so why are we now “suddenly rejecting science by forcing vaccines on absolutely everyone?”
A bombshell new study shows natural immunity to COVID provides 13 times more protection against the Delta variant versus vaccination alone.
But as political commentator Kim Iversen points out on The Hill’s “Rising,” these new findings aren’t really “bombshell” at all.
Conventional science, she says, has always shown that past infection provides “robust immunity” against future reinfections.
“Why suddenly, after over 100 years of recognizing previous infection as a robust form of immunity,” Iversen asks, “are we suddenly rejecting science by forcing vaccines on absolutely everyone?”
In the largest real-world observational study, conducted in Israel — one of the most highly vaccinated countries in the world — scientists followed 700,000 people, splitting them into three groups: vaccinated people who received two doses of the Pfizer jab, unvaccinated people who recovered from COVID, and individuals who both recovered from the virus and received one dose the Pfizer vaccine.
Natural immunity appears to confer longer lasting + stronger protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization from the Delta variant compared to Pfizer-BioNTech’s two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.
The study found natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization.
“The researchers hypothesize that it’s because of B and T cell memory,” Iversen explained. “And the fact that people who recovered from the virus are exposed to the entire virus, not just the spike protein that the vaccines expose the body to.”