Connect with us

Government

Subpoenas Issued In Georgia Ballot-Trafficking Investigation

Subpoenas Issued In Georgia Ballot-Trafficking Investigation

Authored by Steven Kovac via The Epoch Times,

Georgia election officials last…

Published

on

Subpoenas Issued In Georgia Ballot-Trafficking Investigation

Authored by Steven Kovac via The Epoch Times,

Georgia election officials last week issued subpoenas to obtain the identities of individuals and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who may have engaged in the crime of ballot trafficking.

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger holds a press conference on the status of ballot counting in Atlanta, Ga., on Nov. 6, 2020. (Jessica McGowan/Getty Images)

The offenses are alleged to have occurred in both the 2020 presidential election and the December 2020 U.S. Senate runoff election in Georgia.

Recipients of the subpoenas are the election watchdog organization True the Vote (TTV), the group’s founder Catherine Engelbrecht, and the research contractors that worked on the 15-month investigation into illegal vote trafficking in Georgia and a half-dozen other swing states.

“We presented our data a year ago to Governor Kemp (a Republican) and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. They covered it up for seven months,” alleged Engelbrecht in an April 30 television interview on Real America’s Voice.

“The GBI told us they had no jurisdiction,” Engelbrecht said.

“We gave our data to the FBI in Atlanta. No response for seven months,” she said.

“We filed a full complaint with the Georgia Secretary of State in November of 2021. We heard nothing for six months. Finally, we got the subpoenas.”

True The Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht in an interview with Facts Matter, in April 2022, in a still from the video. (The Epoch Times)

In January 2022 Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, announced that an investigation into TTV’s allegations was underway.

An investigative team from TTV used cell phone tracking, geo-fencing, and video footage to show that 242 mules collected thousands of absentee ballots from voters and made 5,668 stops at drop boxes in the metro Atlanta area in late 2020.

The data is supplemented by statements from a whistleblower who also shed light on a number of NGOs orchestrating and funding the unlawful effort.

Ballot harvesting was outlawed in Georgia in 2019.

The evidence provided by TTV is the basis of Dinesh D’Dsouza’s new movie “2000 Mules”, which is scheduled to debut the first week of May at theaters nationwide and on streaming services.

Ballot trafficking is the act of a third-party intermediary, called a “mule,” collecting an unlimited number of absentee ballots from voters and depositing them in ballot drop boxes for money.

Ballot trafficking and ballot harvesting eliminate any documented chain of custody for the ballots and the practice makes official oversight of the handling of the ballots impossible.

The elections in Georgia figure prominently in D’Souza’s latest documentary film, but the scope of the problem of ballot trafficking affects all of the battleground states.

OPSEC Group’s Gregg Phillips conducted the geospatial investigation into ballot trafficking featured in Dinesh D’Souza’s “2000 Mules” documentary to be released next week. (Screenshot/”2000 Mules”)

In addition to the 242 mules uncovered in Georgia, Engelbrecht said that TTV has documented the actions of 202 mules in Maricopa County, Arizona; more than 100 in Milwaukee, 500 in Wayne County, Michigan; and 1,000 in Philadelphia.

TTV recently announced that at least 137,500 absentee ballots were cast through unlawful vote trafficking throughout several of Wisconsin’s largest cities in the 2020 election.

Joe Biden won Wisconsin by 21,000 votes.

Gregg Phillips, a cyber expert working with TTV, estimates that 4.8 million votes were trafficked nationally based on studies conducted by his group in Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Michigan.

“The numbers are staggering. In order to stay in power, officials in these states engaged in an absolute subversion of the election process. Fraud has been institutionalized,” alleged Engelbrecht.

Engelbrecht believes politics may be playing a role in the recent issuing of the Georgia subpoenas.

“It wasn’t until the Trump rally held in Georgia (on March 26) that we saw some movement from the GBI,” she said.

U.S. President Donald Trump at a rally at the Banks County Dragway in Commerce, Georgia, on March 26, 2022. (Megan Varner/Getty Images)

The subpoenas were issued just weeks ahead of the May 24 primary, where Raffensperger is facing a stiff challenge from Republican Congressman Jody Hice, a vocal critic of Raffensperger’s conducting of the 2020 elections.

Raffensperger provoked the ire of some Georgia Republicans when he administered the mailing out of absentee ballot applications to every registered voter in the state of Georgia in 2020.

Raffensperger maintains the 2020 elections in Georgia were conducted legally and fairly.

He also has spoken against the suggested decertification of the state’s 2020 presidential election results due to alleged cheating by Democrats.

Hice has been an outspoken advocate for decertification and for more robust election reform in Georgia.

According to a recent poll by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the University of Georgia, Hice, who has the endorsement of former President Donald Trump, is in a statistical tie with Raffensperger.

In the four-person race, Raffensperger is polling at 28 percent and Hice has 26 percent, with 37 percent undecided.

The remaining 8 percent is divided between the other two Republican candidates.

Mail-in Voting Bodes Ill for Republicans

One hundred fifty-nine million people voted in the 2020 presidential election.

According to the United States Elections Project, in that election, 101 million people voted early in some way—35.8 million people voted early in person, and 65.6 million cast mail-in ballots.

As of November 23, 2020, there were 26.6 million absentee ballots that were still outstanding.

Across the country, the percentage of mail-in votes cast broke in favor of Democrats in 2020 by huge margins.

For example, in Georgia Biden got 65 percent of the absentee votes to 34 percent for Trump.

In Pennsylvania Biden received 76 percent of the absentee votes to 23 percent for Trump.

15.4 million, or 87 percent of the votes cast in California, were cast somewhere other than a traditional polling place, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Biden defeated Trump in California by over five million votes.

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp speaks during a press conference in Atlanta, Ga., on Aug. 10, 2020. (Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images)

Through a process she calls “lawfare,” Engelbrecht said Democrat-dominated states have steadily worked to change state election laws in order to dramatically increase the use of mail-in voting even prior to the pandemic.

She voiced her displeasure with the incumbent Republicans seeking reelection that are presiding over the upcoming midterm elections in Georgia, including Kemp, Raffensperger, and Attorney General Chris Carr.

“They have publicly torched our data. They have done whatever they could to delegitimize our work,” alleged Engelbrecht.

“A state official has tried to intimidate our contractors by warning them that there may be no more state contracts,” she said.

“It’s either fix 2020 or we have no hope for 2022,” she added.

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/03/2022 - 18:45

Read More

Continue Reading

International

The investment case for copper miners – elevated prices are firmly supported by supply bottlenecks

A combination of the Covid pandemic disrupting production and supply chains across the globe and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine almost a year…
The post…

Published

on

A combination of the Covid pandemic disrupting production and supply chains across the globe and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine almost a year ago has led to significant volatility in commodity prices in recent years. Copper prices have been no exception, shooting up 127.66% from a low of $2.17 in mid-March 2020 to an all time record high of $4.94 on February 28 2022.

They subsequently dropped almost 35% between that high and a recent low last July before climbing over 30% against since. It’s been a rollercoaster couple of years for copper, which is used for everything from electronics to equipment manufacturing, building construction, infrastructure and transport.

Copper prices – 10 year chart

Source: MacroTrends

Why are copper prices rising as the economy slows?

Ordinarily, a backdrop of the highest inflation levels in decades, rapidly rising interest rates, geopolitical challenges and a Covid hangover degrading near-term global growth prospects would be expected to weigh on the price of copper and other industrial commodities. But over the past 3 months the price of copper has risen by over 20% as the world economy has deteriorated and demand outlook dwindled.

The recent surge in the price of copper is partly the result of a softer dollar and the end of China’s zero-Covid policy leading to market optimism demand for the metal and other industrial commodities will rise again. However, it’s mainly down to a supply squeeze that has in large part been due to temporary factors such as weather conditions and labour challenges reducing the output of currently active mines.

But while those issues will abate, supply tightness appears baked in for copper for several years to come as a result of underinvestment in new mines and extending current projects. There have been very few significant new copper deposit discoveries in recent years and that is expected to lead to a disconnect between supply and forecast demand over the next several years.

Electric vehicles and renewable energy infrastructure should see demand for copper rise significantly over coming years. Cyclical industries like construction should also bounce back as the global economy recovers from its current downturn, recovering to at least previous levels, on top of new demand resulting from electrification.

Based on current mining output and known new discoveries and miner pipelines, the evidence suggests copper supply will remain tight for years into the future. With that in mind, which copper miners could be worth a closer look from investors?

Antofagasta

Antofagasta

One of the world’s biggest copper miners, FTSE 100 constituent Antofagasta’s activities are mainly concentrated in Chile. While it also produces gold and silver like most copper miners (the metals are typically found in close proximity to each other), Antofagasta’s valuation is most influenced by copper prices and tracks them relatively closely.

The miner is also expected to increase its copper output over the next several years so will be even more tied to the metal’s price trends than now. Antofagasta published a Q4 production update earlier this month, revealing that it exceeded its revised full-year target of producing 646,200 tonnes of copper. It aims to produce between 670,000-710,000 tonnes in the current year, despite rising global inflation that has increased input costs. The net cash costs per pound, however, are expected to stay similar to last year’s.

If the company goes ahead with a proposed second concentrator at its Centinela operation, its annual production could reach 900,000 tonnes by 2026. In the first half of last year the miner had a net-debt-to-equity ratio of 5% and operating profits 64 times higher than net interest costs. The means the company is in the financial position to expand production as part of its five-year plan and absorb potential disruptions or delays to capital investments.

But after a 53% rise in the Antofagasta share price over the past six months, does it still represent the kind of value that should tempt investors to take a closer look? The Telegraph’s Questor investment column thinks it does based on the miner’s long term prospects and a price-to-earnings ratio of just 15 that offers a good safety margin with the FTSE 100 close to its all time high.

BHP Group

BHP Group

Headquartered in Australia with a dual listing in London BHP is one of the world’s biggest miners and was last year the second largest copper producer behind the Chilean state-owned miner Codelco. It’s not as pure a play on copper prices as Antofagasta because it also produces larges quantities of iron ore, nickel, coking and energy goal and gold amongst its metals and minerals portfolio.

But copper prices are very important to BHP and it is investing in increasing its output. Its dominant market position and the volume of its output means it will benefit if prices do hit record levels in 2023 as some analysts predict. However, with share price gains of 25% in the past 6 months and a potential hit to iron ore demand if the global economy struggles for a period, upside at the current valuation is questionable.

Southern Copper

Southern Copper

NYSE-listed Southern Copper is another relatively pure play on copper, though it does also produce smallish quantities of other metals and minerals. Its mines are located across Central and South America, in Mexico, Peru, Argentina, Ecuador and Chile.

The companies gross profits have have rising in recent years from $3.79 billion in 2019 to $7.15 billion in 2021. That’s expected to have dropped for 2022 when full year accounts are released but due to investment in expanding existing projects which should allow it to increase production, and profits, in the long term.

Basically, if the copper price stays strong over the next several years, Southern Copper could prove a wise investment. But it is very closely tied to copper prices so vulnerable to any negative turn the market for the commodity might take.

Investors convinced of the prospects for copper prices in the medium to long term might also consider copper ETFs, which build in some diversity across miners. The biggest is the U.S.-traded Global X Copper Miners ETF.

The post The investment case for copper miners – elevated prices are firmly supported by supply bottlenecks first appeared on Trading and Investment News.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Growing Number Of Doctors Say They Won’t Get COVID-19 Booster Shots

Growing Number Of Doctors Say They Won’t Get COVID-19 Booster Shots

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A…

Published

on

Growing Number Of Doctors Say They Won’t Get COVID-19 Booster Shots

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A growing number of doctors say that they will not get COVID-19 vaccine boosters, citing a lack of clinical trial evidence.

I have taken my last COVID vaccine without RCT level evidence it will reduce my risk of severe disease,” Dr. Todd Lee, an infectious disease expert at McGill University, wrote on Twitter.

A vial of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is seen in a file photograph. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Lee was pointing to the lack of randomized clinical trial (RCT) results for the updated boosters, which were cleared in the United States and Canada in the fall of 2022 primarily based on data from experiments with mice.

Lee, who has received three vaccine doses, noted that he was infected with the Omicron virus variant—the vaccines provide little protection against infection—and described himself as a healthy male in his 40s.

Dr. Vinay Prasad, a professor of epidemiology and biostatics at the University of California, San Francisco, also said he wouldn’t take any additional shots until clinical trial data become available.

“I took at least 1 dose against my will. It was unethical and scientifically bankrupt,” he said.

Allison Krug, an epidemiologist who co-authored a study that found teenage boys were more likely to suffer heart inflammation after COVID-19 vaccination than COVID-19 infection, recounted explaining to her doctor why she was refusing a booster and said her doctor agreed with her position.

She called on people to “join the movement to demand appropriate evidence,” pointing to a blog post from Prasad.

“Pay close attention to note this isn’t anti-vaccine sentiment. This is ‘provide [hard] evidence of benefit to justify ongoing use’ which is very different. It is only fair for a 30 billion dollar a year product given to hundreds of millions,” Lee said.

Dr. Mark Silverberg, who founded the Toronto Immune and Digestive Health Institute; Kevin Bass, a medical student; and Dr. Tracy Høeg, an epidemiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, joined Lee and Prasad in stating their opposition to more boosters, at least for now.

Høeg said she did not need clinical trials to know she’s not getting any boosters after receiving a two-dose primary series, adding that she took the second dose “against my will.”

I also had an adverse reaction to dose 1 moderna and, if I could do it again, I would not have had any covid vaccines,” she said on Twitter. “I was glad my parents in their 70s could get covid vaccinated but have yet to see non-confounded data to advise them about the bivalent booster. I would have liked to see an RCT for the bivalent for people their age and for adults with health conditions that put them at risk.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted emergency use authorization to updated boosters, or bivalent shots, from Pfizer and Moderna in August 2022 despite there being no human data.

Observational data suggests the boosters provide little protection against infection and solid shielding against severe illness, at least initially.

Five months after the authorization was granted, no clinical trial data has been made available for the bivalents, which target the Wuhan strain as well as the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants of Omicron. Moderna presented efficacy estimates for a different bivalent, which has never been used in the United States, during a recent meeting. The company estimated the booster increased protection against infection by just 10 percent.

The FDA is preparing to order all Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines be replaced with the bivalents. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which issues recommendations on vaccines, continues advising virtually all Americans to get a primary series and multiple boosters.

Professor Calls for Halt to Messenger RNA Vaccines

A professor, meanwhile, became the latest to call for a halt to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, which are both based on messenger RNA technology.

At this point in time, all COVID mRNA vaccination program[s] should stop immediately,” Retsef Levi, a professor of operations management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said in a video statement. “They should stop because they completely failed to fulfill any of their advertised promise[s] regarding efficacy. And more importantly, they should stop because of the mounting and indisputable evidence that they cause unprecedented level of harm, including the death of young people and children.”

Levi was referring to post-vaccination heart inflammation, or myocarditis. The condition is one of the few that authorities have acknowledged is caused by the messenger RNA vaccines.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Thu, 02/02/2023 - 19:10

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Inside The Secret Government Meeting On COVID-19 Natural Immunity

Inside The Secret Government Meeting On COVID-19 Natural Immunity

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Four of…

Published

on

Inside The Secret Government Meeting On COVID-19 Natural Immunity

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Four of the highest ranking U.S. health officials—including Dr. Anthony Fauci—met in secret to discuss whether or not naturally immune people should be exempt from getting COVID-19 vaccines, The Epoch Times can reveal.

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci during a Senate hearing in Washington on May 17, 2022. (Shawn Thew/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

The officials brought in four outside experts to discuss whether the protection gained after recovering from COVID-19—known as natural immunity—should count as one or more vaccine doses.

“There was interest in several people in the administration in hearing basically the opinions of four immunologists in terms of what we thought about … natural infection as contributing to protection against moderate to severe disease, and to what extent that should influence dosing,” Dr. Paul Offit, one of the experts, told The Epoch Times.

Offit and another expert took the position that the naturally immune need fewer doses. The other two experts argued natural immunity shouldn’t count as anything.

The discussion did not lead to a change in U.S. vaccination policy, which has never acknowledged post-infection protection. Fauci and the other U.S. officials who heard from the experts have repeatedly downplayed that protection, claiming that it is inferior to vaccine-bestowed immunity. Most studies on the subject indicate the opposite.

The meeting, held in October 2021, was briefly discussed before on a podcast. The Epoch Times has independently confirmed the meeting took place, identified all of the participants, and uncovered other key details.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University who did not participate in the meeting, criticized how such a consequential discussion took place behind closed doors with only a few people present.

“It was a really impactful decision that they made in private with a very small number of people involved. And they reached the wrong decision,” Bhattacharya told The Epoch Times.

An email obtained by The Epoch Times shows Dr. Vivek Murthy contacting colleagues to arrange the meeting. (The Epoch Times)

The Participants

From the government:

  • Fauci, the head of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden until the end of 2022
  • Dr. Vivek Murthy, the U.S. surgeon general
  • Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the head of U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
  • Dr. Francis Collins, head of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, which includes the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, until December 2021
  • Dr. Bechara Choucair, the White House vaccine coordinator until November 2021

From outside the government:

  • Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and an adviser to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on vaccines
  • Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota and a former member of Biden’s COVID-19 advisory board
  • Akiko Iwasaki, professor of immunobiology and molecular, cellular, and developmental biology at Yale University
  • Dr. Peter Hotez, co-director of Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development and dean of the Baylor College of Medicine’s School of Tropical Medicine

Fauci and Murthy decided to hold the meeting, according to emails The Epoch Times obtained.

“Would you be available tonight from 9-9:30 for a call with a few other scientific colleagues on infection-induced immunity? Tony and I just discussed and were hoping to do this sooner rather than later if possible,” Murthy wrote in one missive to Fauci, Walensky, and Collins.

All three quickly said they could make it.

Walensky asked who would be there.

Murthy listed the participants. “I think you know all of them right?” he said.

Walensky said she knew all but one person. “Sounds like a good crew,” she added.

From top left, clockwise: Dr. Vivek Murthy, Dr. Francis Collins, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and Dr. Rochelle Walensky. (Getty Images)

‘Clear Benefit’

During the meeting, Offit put forth his position—that natural immunity should count as two doses.

At the time, the CDC recommended three shots—a two-dose primary series and a booster—for many Americans 18 and older, soon expanding that advice to all adults, even though trials of the boosters only analyzed immunogenicity and efficacy among those without evidence of prior infection.

Research indicated that natural immunity was long-lasting and superior to vaccination. On the other hand, the CDC published a paper in its quasi-journal that concluded vaccination was better.

Osterholm sided with Offit, but thought that having recovered from COVID-19 should only count as a single dose.

“I added my voice at the meeting to count an infection as equivalent to a dose of vaccine! I’ve always believed hybrid immunity likely provides the most protection,” Osterholm told The Epoch Times via email.

Hybrid immunity refers to getting a vaccine after recovering from COVID-19.

Some papers have found vaccination after recovery boosts antibodies, which are believed to be a correlate of protection. Other research has shown that the naturally immune have a higher risk of side effects than those who haven’t recovered from infection. Some experts believe the risk is worth the benefit but others do not.

Hotez and Iwasaki, meanwhile, made the case that natural immunity should not count as any dose—as has been the case in virtually the entire United States since the COVID-19 vaccines were first rolled out.

Iwasaki referred to a British preprint study, soon after published in Nature, that concluded, based on survey data, that the protection from the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines was heightened among people with evidence of prior infection. She also noted a study she worked on that found the naturally immune had higher antibody titers than the vaccinated, but that the vaccinated “reached comparable levels of neutralization responses to the ancestral strain after the second vaccine dose.” The researchers also discovered T cells—thought to protect against severe illness—were boosted by vaccination.

There’s a “clear benefit” to boosting regardless of prior infection, Iwasaki, who has since received more than $2 million in grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), told participants after the meeting in an email obtained by The Epoch Times. Hotez received $789,000 in grants from the NIH in fiscal year 2020, and has received other grants totaling millions in previous years. Offit, who co-invented the rotavirus vaccine, received $3.5 million in NIH grants from 1985 through 2004.

Hotez declined interview requests through a spokesperson. Iwasaki did not respond to requests for comment.

No participants represented experts like Bhattacharya who say that the naturally immune generally don’t need any doses at all.

In an email obtained by The Epoch Times, Akiko Iwasaki wrote to other meeting participants shortly after the meeting ended. (The Epoch Times)

Public Statements

In public, Hotez repeatedly portrayed natural immunity as worse than vaccination, including citing the widely criticized CDC paper, which drew from just two months of testing in a single state.

In one post on Twitter on Oct. 29, 2021, he referred to another CDC study, which concluded that the naturally immune were five times as likely to test positive compared to vaccinated people with no prior infection, and stated: “Still more evidence, this time from @CDCMMWR showing that vaccine-induced immunity is way better than infection and recovery, what some call weirdly ‘natural immunity’. The antivaccine and far right groups go ballistic, but it’s the reality.”

That same day, the CDC issued a “science brief” that detailed the agency’s position on natural immunity versus the protection from vaccines. The brief, which has never been updated, says that available evidence shows both the vaccinated and naturally immune “have a low risk of subsequent infection for at least 6 months” but that “the body of evidence for infection-induced immunity is more limited than that for vaccine-induced immunity.”

Evidence shows that vaccination after infection, or hybrid immunity, “significantly enhances protection and further reduces risk of reinfection” and is the foundation of the CDC’s recommendations, the agency said.

Several months later, the CDC acknowledged that natural immunity was superior to vaccination against the Delta variant, which was displaced in late 2021 by Omicron. The CDC, which has made misleading representations before on the evidence supporting vaccination of the naturally immune, did not respond to a request for comment regarding whether the agency will ever update the brief.

Iwasaki had initially been open to curbing the number of doses for the naturally immune—”I think this supports the idea of just giving one dose to people who had covid19,” she said in response to one Twitter post in early 2021, which is restricted from view—but later came to argue that each person who is infected has a different immune response, and that the natural immunity, even if strong initially, wanes over time.

Osterholm has knocked people who claim natural immunity is weak or non-existent, but has also claimed that vaccine-bestowed immunity is better. Osterholm also changed the stance he took in the meeting just several months later, saying in February 2022 that “we’ve got to make three doses the actual standard” while also “trying to understand what kind of immunity we get from a previous infection.”

Offit has been the leading critic on the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which advises U.S. regulators on vaccines, over their authorizations of COVID-19 boosters. Offit has said boosters are unnecessary for the young and healthy because they don’t add much to the primary series. He also criticized regulators for authorizing updated shots without consulting the committee and absent clinical data. Two of the top U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials resigned over the booster push. No FDA officials were listed on invitations to the secret meeting on natural immunity.

Fauci and Walensky Downplay Natural Immunity

Fauci and Walensky, two of the most visible U.S. health officials during the pandemic, have repeatedly downplayed natural immunity.

Fauci, who said in an email in March 2020 that he assumed there would be “substantial immunity post infection,” would say later that natural immunity was real but that the durability was uncertain. He noted the studies finding higher antibody levels from hybrid immunity.

In September 2021, months after claiming that vaccinated people “can feel safe that they are not going to get infected,” Fauci said that he did not have “a really firm answer” on whether the naturally immune should get vaccinated.

“It is conceivable that you got infected, you’re protected—but you may not be protected for an indefinite period of time,” Fauci said on CNN when pressed on the issue. “So I think that is something that we need to sit down and discuss seriously.”

After the meeting, Fauci would say that natural immunity and vaccine-bestowed immunity both wane, and that people should get vaccinated regardless of prior infection to boost their protection.

Walensky, before she became CDC director, signed a document called the John Snow Memorandum in response to the Great Barrington Declaration, which Bhattacharya coauthored. The declaration called for focused protection of the elderly and otherwise infirm, stating, “The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk.”

The memorandum, in contrast, said there was “no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection” and supported the harsh lockdown measures that had been imposed in the United States and elsewhere.

In March 2021, after becoming director, Walensky released recommendations that the naturally immune get vaccinated, noting that there was “substantial durability” of protection six months after infection but that “rare cases of reinfection” had been reported.

Walensky hyped the CDC study on natural immunity in August 2021, and the second study in October 2021. But when the third paper came out concluding natural immunity was superior, she did not issue a statement. Walensky later told a blog that the study found natural immunity provided strong protection, “perhaps even more so than those who had been vaccinated and not yet boosted.”

But, because it came before Omicron, she said, “it’s not entirely clear how that protection works in the context of Omicron and boosting.”

Walensky, Murthy, and Collins did not respond to requests for interviews. Fauci, who stepped down from his positions in late 2022, could not be reached.

Murthy and Collins also portrayed natural immunity as inferior. “From the studies about natural immunity, we are seeing more and more data that tells us that while you get some protection from natural infection, it’s not nearly as strong as what you get from the vaccine,” Murthy said on CNN about two months before the meeting. Collins, in a series of blog posts, highlighted the studies showing higher antibody levels after vaccination and urged people to get vaccinated. He also voiced support for vaccine mandates.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Thu, 02/02/2023 - 21:10

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending