Health officials downplayed data on natural immunity, misrepresented study, never updated findings
Senior health officials responsible for the pandemic response mischaracterized an early study on COVID immunity, downplayed natural immunity data and never updated messaging about natural immunity vs. vaccination because it would be “too costly” not to.
When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in August 2021 that vaccines offered greater protection than a previous COVID-19 infection, officials cited a study that never included any such conclusion.
In fact, the study that CDC guidance was based upon only focused on the effects of vaccination following a COVID-19 infection, meaning in those that had already developed antibodies to the virus. Instead, the CDC touted it as data supporting vaccination without mentioning prior infections, a serious flaw in medical "science."
Nonetheless, the message that vaccines provided superior protection became a common refrain regarding all protection from COVID. Newly released documents from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit show that documents reveal that senior health officials received new information shortly after their August 2021 declaration about an early pandemic study from Israel that came to an entirely different conclusion.
That study presented data showing that natural immunity from a previous infection might be a longer-lasting protection against reinfection with COVID-19 than vaccination. Yet, it was not included in any updated public messaging: the necessity of vaccination became the law of the land in many regards, whether for those previously infected or not.
Communications between senior officials responsible for the pandemic response were obtained by watchdog organization Protect the Public’s Trust through a FOIA request. The documents produced under the law show a focus on internal discussions about an Israeli vaccine study that contradicts claims the health agency made earlier that month about the results of a similar U.S.-based study. Both studies addressed positive aspects of natural immunity as a health approach.
And yet, both "natural immunity" studies were buried.
Fauci and Collins knew, but said nothing
The internal communications between senior officials, including Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins, seem to show that the COVID-19 response team recognized that the Israel-based study found natural antibodies from a previous coronavirus infection provided longer-lasting protection against reinfection than a vaccine dose, which contradicted what officials claimed earlier that month: that vaccines provide better protection than those natural antibodies.
Protect the Public’s Trust previously filed a complaint in October 2021 alleging scientific integrity violations by the health officials for misrepresenting the findings of that earlier U.S. study, failing to highlight the distinction between patients who had been previously exposed to the COVID virus and those who hadn't.
“This is yet another example of government health officials advancing a narrative at the expense of the public’s trust. It also validates the scientific integrity complaint we filed regarding the Kentucky study CDC and NIH touted. Even evidence that partially supported their agenda had to be twisted and misreported, while contrary evidence was simply suppressed,” Michael Chamberlain, Director of Protect the Public’s Trust, told Just the News.
“They admitted among themselves that infection-induced immunity may have provided better protection, but decided that leveling with the public came at ‘too great a cost,’” he continued. “The real cost came in the damage to the nation's faith in this institution, which may take decades to recover, if ever.”
The misleading press release: "Better protection" for whom?
Protect the Public’s Trust submitted a FOIA request targeting an August 6, 2021 press release announcing the findings of a COVID-19 vaccine study conducted in Kentucky earlier that year. “New CDC Study: Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection,” the press release proclaimed.
Several days later, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins echoed that conclusion in an interview with Fox News. “Yes… I can say that…definitively say…the vaccine provides better protection than the antibodies that you get from actually having had COVID-19,” the official told host Bret Baier.
Collins was hiding the ball. The Kentucky study cited by Collins did not conclude broadly that “vaccines were better for providing immunity.” In fact, it looked specifically at the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing reinfection for people who had already tested positive for COVID-19 in the past, according to the body of the press release published by the CDC. It only concluded that “among people who have had COVID-19 previously, getting fully vaccinated provides additional protection against reinfection.”
Therefore, Protect the Public’s Trust says, both the CDC and Collins misrepresented the results of that study by touting its misleading headline, but ignoring the actual findings.
Collins could not be reached for comment. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Fauci, for his part, was given a full presidential pardon by Joe Biden on January 19, Biden's last day in office.
New, convincing evidence arrives at CDC but ignored
Later that month, senior officials became aware of an Israeli study that compared the efficacy of vaccination to natural antibodies produced from a prior COVID-19 infection that appeared to contradict the CDC's public claims.
The study found that “natural immunity confers longer-lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused” by the latest variant of COVID-19 at the time, opposite to what CDC officials had claimed.
“Do you have thoughts on this recent study from Israel? And how this fits with the recent MMWR findings (Kentucky study showing higher risk of reinfection in the unvaccinated compared to risk of infection in the vaccinated)?” Vivek Murthy, the U.S. Surgeon General, asked senior health leaders in an August 27, 2021 email, the records show.
“The data as reported in the news article look rather impressive despite the caveat that it is a retrospective study and the testing was voluntary,” Fauci, then-head of the NIAID, replied.
“It very well may be that people who have had an asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic infection (upper airway only) will not have greater post-infection protection against subsequent infection than those who get fully vaccinated. However, it is conceivable and possibly likely that those who have had a serious systemic infection develop a high level of immunity that even surpasses that of full vaccination,” said Fauci.
You can see the email in the FOIA production below:
File
Collins seemed to immediately recognize the implications of the Israeli study, which he called “puzzling,” the records show. “Most of us have been saying up until now that vaccines are actually better for providing immunity – what does the overall synthesis of the data now say?” he wrote to Fauci, Murthy and other officials.
Protect the Public’s Trust says that this new evidence validates its October 2021 complaint and shows that senior officials appeared to suppress any evidence contrary to their public directives.
The CDC’s John Brooks conducted an extensive review of the Israeli study in response to Collins’ questions and gave it favorable marks, praising its statistical analysis and design. He also noted that the study provided strong evidence that natural immunity lasts longer and may provide more protection than initial vaccine doses over time. Brooks could not be reached for comment.
Ultimately, he concluded that “Vaccine effectiveness from 2-dose mRNA vaccine may wane earlier than infection-induced immunity, which may persist longer and in this way may also provide better protection, at least up to about 6 months or so,” according to the email record.
Keeping the public message the same: Get the shot or be shamed
This conclusion calls into question the official line that both the CDC and Collins were touting. Ultimately, however, Brooks did not think that health officials should promote this new information because he believed it would come at “too great a cost” to inform the public.
Despite the Israeli study findings, “we want to avoid infection-induced immunity; it comes at too great a cost and vaccination is safe,” Brooks wrote to his colleagues in the assessment.
Indeed, it appears none of the officials involved in that chain changed their public messaging at all about the effectiveness of vaccines when compared to natural immunity moving forward.
Months later, the CDC continued to suggest that vaccines were more effective, or at least more likely, than natural immunity to protect against COVID-19 infection. A science brief published by the CDC in October 2021 cast doubt on the findings of “observational cohort studies” like the one conducted in Israel.
“The body of evidence for infection-induced immunity is more limited than that for vaccine-induced immunity in terms of the quality of evidence,” those guidelines said, despite officials approving the quality of the Israeli study.