A recently published study has found that natural immunity is, in fact, more effective against COVID-19 delta variant than a vaccine.
TIRED OF THE ADS? BECOME A PREMIUM USER TODAY!!
The study showed that people who are vaccinated are 27 times more likely to get a COVID infection that is symptomatic than someone who has developed natural immunity.
Harvard Medical School biostatistician and epidemiologist professor Martin Kulldorff said that this information points to vaccine passports being unscientific as well as discriminatory.
“Prior COVID disease (many working class),” Kulldorff said on Twitter, “provides better immunity than vaccines (many professionals), so vaccine mandates are not only scientific nonsense, they are also discriminatory and unethical.”
In Israel, vaccinated individuals had 27 times higher risk of symptomatic COVID infection compared to those with natural immunity from prior COVID disease [95%CI:13-57, adjusted for time of vaccine/disease]. No COVID deaths in either group.https://t.co/hopImCD1D0
— Martin Kulldorff (@MartinKulldorff) August 25, 2021
MORE NEWS: Joe Biden Cracks A Joke In Response To Question About The Trans Terrorist Nashville School Shooting
On Thursday, the Scientific American reported, “The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a ‘Don’t try this at home’ label.
“The newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19.”
This study is one of 15 showing similar results.
“Among the most fraudulent messages of the CDC's campaign of deceit is to force the vaccine on those with prior infection, who have a greater degree of protection against all versions of the virus than those with any of the vaccines.”
15 studies show…https://t.co/oXaI3L0Y3S
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) August 26, 2021
MORE NEWS: BREAKING!!! Epstein Secrets To Be Revealed? | Reality Rants With Jason Bermas [UNCENSORED 2nd HOUR]
Editor’s Note: The title of this article has been updated due to a previous error in wording.
Join the Discussion
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.
Please!…..review your math and be sure to differentiate ”27 TIMES more likely” from
”27% more effective”. In probability theory, ”27 TIMES more likely” means ”27 x p”, not ”1.27 x p”, the former being 21.3 times the latter—the latter representing ”27% more likely” (which, in any case, is not synonymous with ”27% more effective”, a phrase or inference that I couldn’t find in the original study’s text).
Moreover, the link in the article is to an Israeli study, NOT a Harvard study. Every one of the researchers listed is affiliated with Maccabi Healthcare Services, Tel Aviv. Zero mention of Harvard.
I was going to point out the same thing. 27x is WAY more than 27% (unless the thing in question is 1% or less).
Wrong. Review your facts. Martin Kulldorff is a Doc and prof at Harvard.
And… the inherently misleading inference is the Harvard credential is something special…. when, in fact, it is appearing more and more to be a discredit.
Martin Kulldorff is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a biostatistician and epidemiologist at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
The point being, there is truth to the findings.
Being cynical is illogical
Thanks for your reply. But I could not, on my computer see or find any reference to Martin Kuldorff or Harvard at the link provided at the time I read the article. (As of this writing, that link is unchanged.)
Moreover, I wasn’t being cynical at all. As a lecturer in critical thinking at the graduate school level and with some background in mathematics, I was merely pointing out the non-equivalence of ”27 times. more likely..” and ”27% more effective”, hoping for a clarification and evidence of both or either in the Israeli report to which the article linked.
To the extent that I was otherwise implying anything it would have been to point out that the ”27 times more likely” report would statistically dwarf the ”27% more effective” claim
What’s more, Dr. Kulldorff cited the same Israeli study himself, on Twitter:
”In Israel, vaccinated individuals had 27 times higher risk of symptomatic COVID infection compared to those with natural immunity from prior COVID disease [95%CI:13-57, adjusted for time of vaccine/disease]. No COVID deaths in either group.”
No sign of any claim about ”27% more effective” there either.
Note: Kulldorff”, not ”Kuldorff”…..Sorry for my previous typo.
Calm down. It was a simple error where I pushed % instead of X. It’s gonna be ok!
Leah….No worries: I never was agitated and shaking, but I greatly appreciate your revisions and clarifications. Apart from the typographical conflation of ”%” and ”X”, I was puzzled by the apparent additional conflation of ”more likely” and ”more effective”, given that ”27” seemed coincidentally linked to both.
Your adding the details of Dr. Kulldorff’s involvement in the reporting is very helpful and makes the conclusion of the Israeli study perfectly clear.
Thanks.
PS: I didn’t understand your final comment, “It’s gonna be old.”
For being such a genius I can’t see how you can’t read ok with an exclamation point behind it, not old. You better take it easy with that egg head of yours, you might get a crack in it. By the way, how hard is it to get in to the graduate school at University of Phoenix?
You are absolutely right about the ”ok!” misreading. Please accept my apology for that. Yes, I am indeed visually (although not cognitively) impaired.
Despite that impairment, I felt that the time and effort invested in reading and responding to your article was justified. (It was only after zooming in that I confirmed you were right.)
Very disappointing to see that you remain unconvinced that I wasn’t attacking you.
As for ”egg head” and ”genius”….guilty as charged. in fact, I’ve never been to Phoenix; I was a Ph.D. fellow at Duke, a Woodrow Wilson Fellowship Finalist, and an editor/columnist/feature writer with two global news organizations, when my eyesight was unimpaired.
In any case, I do appreciate the courtesy of your replying, even if startled by the tone.
However, not being a glutton for (undeserved) punishment, I promise I won’t be posting here again.
That should help things ”calm down”.
Another apology for Leah: Because of my visual impairment, I didn’t see that I was replying to ”Joe”, to whom my comments should have primarily (although not exclusively) been addressed.
You are a gentleman, MM. And that is more powerful than any level of intellect.