"There is no data!": the response of the US medical authorities about those who have been

A new scandal surrounding forced vaccination against coronavirus is heating up in the United States. It is caused by the extremely strange response of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to a request from lawyers about the degree of public danger from unvaccinated citizens who had previously been ill with COVID–19.

It turned out that this federal agency under the American Department of Health does not keep any statistics of this kind. And thus actually leaves no chance for people who have recently received natural immunity from covid to refuse vaccination.

Today, the Western medical community is inclined to believe that the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus will remain with humanity forever, and "booster" vaccinations will turn into an "integral part of the protection" of the world's population. In turn, the White House insists on vaccinating all American civil servants and all doctors, as well as contractors doing business with the government - without making exceptions for those who have already had covid.

The position is understandable, but it requires strict scientific evidence and statistical confirmation. Instead, the CDC's discouraging response gives corona-sceptics abundant food for thought that something is wrong with the coronavirus, as with the endless vaccination against it.

"We are being deceived"

On September 2, the American law firm Siri & Glimstad LLP addressed the CDC with another request on behalf of the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN)— one of the largest anti-vaccination groups in the United States, founded back in 2016, before any coronavirus.

Let's make a reservation right away that ICAN is considered by the current American authorities and global media to be a peddler of misinformation about the pandemic and is ruthlessly blocked on social networks, which does not prevent it from actively promoting its ideas and enjoying the support of philanthropists. And last year, this NGO even received a loan from the Donald Trump administration as part of the federal salary support program.

So, in its request, Siri & Glimstad, continuing the correspondence with the CDC that has been going on since May, asked officials to provide a document that would record at least one case of how:

1. A person has never been vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine.

2. Infected with coronavirus, then recovered, after which they became infected again.

3. And passed the SARS-CoV-2 virus to another person.

Simply put, the covid dissidents wanted to get documentary confirmation from the official authorities of the United States that a person who has been ill with COVID, having become infected again, becomes dangerous to others. The presence of such a document would mean that those who have received immunity naturally lose it sooner or later and therefore should be vaccinated - say, six months after infection.

Let's make one more reservation. The request to the CDC was sent within the framework of the American Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This regulation, which came into force back in 1967, obliges the executive authorities to disclose to any US citizen all the unclassified information requested by them. If the department has the requested information, but hides it, then a citizen or, as in our case, a law firm may demand to provide it forcibly, through the court.

Thus, the CDC could not simply dismiss Siri & Glimstad's letter in the spirit of "We are too lazy to answer”, "Who are you?" or "Come back tomorrow." As a result, after carefully considering the answer, they sent a stunning formal reply on November 5:

"A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request. The CDC Emergency Operations Center (EOC) conveyed that this information is not collected."

Thus, the US federal government has given COVID-dissidents a strong trump card in their fight against forced vaccination, which they did not fail to take advantage of. And while doctors around the world are arguing about which immunity is stronger — natural or vaccine - skeptics now have new grounds to say: "We are being deceived”.

"How so?” they say perplexedly. “For the last few days you have been telling us that the vaccine does not save you from infection. You insist that immunity from vaccination is decreasing every day. You acknowledge that a vaccinated person may be a carrier of the virus, and require them to wear a mask. At the same time, you remove all kinds of restrictions from the vaccinated, but leave them for those who have been ill and received immunity naturally. Although they are no worse protected from COVID than vaccinated ones."

Such logic of the behaviour of officials would be somehow justified if they had statistics of infections through newly ill unvaccinated citizens, skeptics add. But these figures simply do not exist — no one even thought of collecting them! And how can we trust the authorities here?

Doctors versus doctors

Of course, the leaders of the US healthcare system, as well as medical authorities in other countries of the world, do not agree with the reasoning of dissidents. They base their position on scientific studies proving that citizens who have been ill, but not vaccinated, have a significantly higher risk of re-contracting coronavirus than vaccinated ones. However, this argument does not seem convincing to everyone.

At the same time, in their previous, September response to lawyers from Siri & Glimstad, the CDC, referring to similar studies, were forced to quote their own disclaimer from the report of August 6, 2021:

“Although such laboratory evidence continues to suggest that vaccination provides improved neutralisation of SARS-CoV-2 variants, limited evidence in real-world settings to date corroborates the findings that vaccination can provide improved protection for previously infected persons.”

In turn, COVID dissidents also resort to medical research, and they look no less impressive. For example, the updated page of the Texas Institute for Social and Economic Research in Brownstone provides a list of 129 scientific papers proving that natural immunity is as or more resistant to coronavirus than acquired through vaccination.

In particular, a June preprint in the online scientific publication medRxiv, based on an out-of-grant study of more than 52,000 employees of the Cleveland healthcare system, showed that those who have had coronavirus do not benefit from vaccination and that it is necessary to vaccinate not them, but those who have not been ill at all.

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

Another preprint on the same resource, prepared in August this year by Israeli doctors, is accompanied by the following conclusion:

"Natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalisation caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.”

It turns out that the scientific community has still not really decided whether to vaccinate those who have already been ill and, if so, when exactly. Moreover, all the new evidence suggests that vaccinations not only carry a number of risks for patients, but also are not effective enough in themselves to stop the pandemic. However, this does not prevent the authorities of Western countries from forcing compulsory vaccination even among the owners of naturally obtained antibodies.

Such promiscuity, multiplied by the lack of elementary statistics, makes corona-sceptics more and more confident to assert that universal vaccination is not aimed at defeating COVID-19 at all. At best, we are talking about multibillion-dollar profits of vaccine manufacturers thanks to endless vaccinations. At worst, it is about the complete reformatting of the world economy and total control over humanity through all new viral waves.