Study: Past Infection Is Best Immunity; Rand Paul Was Right

Study: Past Infection Is Best Immunity rand paul speaks in a hearing room Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. (Greg Nash/Getty Images)

By Eric Mack | Tuesday, 08 June 2021 06:41 PM

A new study suggests the COVID-19 vaccines offer previously infected patients with no greater immunity than they already have, a claim frequently made by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., an ophthalmologist.

The study found 99.3% of all COVID-19 infections in the test group came in unvaccinated patients who were not previously infected with the virus. The remaining .07% infections occurred in vaccinated patients who were not previously infected.

"The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection remained almost zero among previously infected unvaccinated subjects, previously infected subjects who were vaccinated, and previously uninfected subjects who were vaccinated, compared with a steady increase in cumulative incidence among previously uninfected subjects who remained unvaccinated," the researchers wrote.

"Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study."

Sen. Paul hailed the findings Tuesday on Twitter:

"Great news! Cleveland clinic study of 52,238 employees shows unvaccinated people who have had COVID 19 have no difference in re-infection rate than people who had COVID 19 and who took the vaccine."

"Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before," the study concluded.

Paul noted the findings should allow world health officials to help root out the virus by focusing in on vaccinating the never-infected areas, tweeting:

"This information frees up millions of doses of vaccines for those not yet infected in places with vaccine shortages like India."

Paul has told Newsmax in past appearances he is declining to be vaccinated because he believes he already carries enough immunity from his past COVID-19 infection from over a year ago.

Paul hailed the finding from the study, too, tweeting:

"The immune response to natural infection is highly likely to provide protective immunity even against the SARS-CoV-2 variants…

Continuing in an ensuing tweet:

"Thus, recovered COVID-19 patients are likely to better defend against the variants than persons who have not been infected but have been immunized with spike-containing vaccines only."

Paul has been one of the most vocal critics of Dr. Anthony Fauci and other health officials pushing lockdowns, denying the potential of a Wuhan Institute of Virology lab leak, denying the virus might resulted from gain-of-function research, and denying U.S. taxpayer dollars helped fund dangerous coronavirus bat research in Wuhan, China.

Paul's highly publicized decision not to get vaccinated faced a skeptical Courier Journal fact check late last month.

"So, when I go out to the media and say that I, as a recovered COVID patient, will not get a vaccine that is not proven to help me nor proved I even need — the science deniers, bureaucrats and media typically go nuts," Paul wrote in the paper a day before the fact check.

Coincidentally, Paul had the facts correct in his original piece, and the fact-check a day later did not.

"But facts are facts," Paul continued. "I'm no more likely to get or transmit COVID than someone who is vaccinated.

"We know this. Doctors know this. Scientists who design vaccines know this. Vaccines are created to attempt to replicate the immunity we get from having been infected with a disease.

"I want all the science deniers to read that again. Vaccines are a replacement for natural immunity. They aren't necessarily better. In fact, natural immunity from measles confers lifelong immunity and the vaccine immunity wanes over a few decades.

"I choose to follow the science with COVID, rather than submit to fear-mongering."

Original Article