A Johns Hopkins professor got tired of watching the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as the National Institutes of Health, proceed with their Covid response policies for two years now as if natural immunity doesn’t exist. Now, Dr. Marty Makary is doing something about it. He is launching his own study.
My Johns Hopkins research team is leading a long-term study of natural immunity because the NIH and CDC are not doing it. They have $50 billion and 30,000 employees and yet can't seen to conduct one of the most important studies we need done to inform the public.
— Marty Makary MD, MPH (@MartyMakary) October 27, 2021
“The NIH should be doing a long-term study of natural immunity instead of torturing thousands of beagle puppies, including cutting their voice box to avoid barking sounds (sick),” he said. “All taxpayer funded. All our health agencies need fresh new leadership.”
“My Johns Hopkins research team is leading a long-term study of natural immunity because the NIH and CDC are not doing it,” he added. “They have $50 billion and 30,000 employees and yet can’t seen to conduct one of the most important studies we need done to inform the public.”
Makary also said that his research team intends to get started on the new study within the next few weeks.
As people continue to ask if natural immunity is durable, public health officials continue to say ‘we don’t know’,” he said. “Well study it! Our health agencies continue to fail us time and time again. In the next several weeks, we’ll find out the results of our Hopkins study.”
While Makary seeks to fill the natural immunity study void in the U.S., Reuters reported studies that further corroborate that natural immunity is superior protection against Covid-19 than vaccinated immunity. It reported bluntly “secondary immune response stronger after infection than vaccination.”
In COVID-19 survivors, important components of the body’s immune response called memory B cells continue to evolve and get stronger for at least several months, producing highly potent antibodies that can neutralize new variants of the virus, a new study has found.
By comparison, vaccine-induced memory B cells are less robust, evolving for only a few weeks and never ‘learning’ to protect against variants, researchers reported in a paper published on Thursday in Nature.
COVID-19 vaccines do induce more antibodies than the immune system does after a coronavirus infection. But the immune system response to infection appears to outshine its response to vaccines when it comes to memory B cells. Regardless of whether antibodies are induced by infection or vaccine, their levels drop within six months in many people. But memory B cells stand ready to produce new antibodies if the body encounters the virus.
Prior to this study, there had been little data on how vaccine-induced B cells compare to infection-induced B cells.
Earlier, an Israeli study came to similar conclusions.
“This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity,” an Israeli study said.
The CDC’s figures estimated that at least 120 million Americans had been infected with Covid-19 by the end of May, thus possessing superior natural immunity. That figure can be projected to be at least 160 million currently, due to the Delta variant wave and the CDC’s estimate there are at least four Covid infections for every case reported.
Meanwhile, an FDA advisory panel voted Tuesday to authorize Covid vaccinations for children as young as five years old. Children under 18 have literally a 99.99995% survival rate, and are believed to be among the most prevalent age groups possessing natural immunity to Covid. It will be important to get this U.S. data to push back against potential school vaccine mandates, whether for parents seeking exemptions or in court.
"*" indicates required fields
OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion.