What Is The Big Pharma "Con Job" Theory

When NIAID was refused patents for mRNA "Vaccines"! What Did They Do?

How to Create a Pandemic. The Next Big Idea.

Con Job Definition - noun informal. an act or instance of duping or swindling. an act or instance of lying or talking glibly to convince others or get one's way.

When Dr. Kory testified before the U.S. Senate on December 8, 2020, the message was clear: Ivermectin might well be able to bring the COVID-19 virus to a spectacular halt. Studies were cited that should have convinced experts and laymen alike. Dr. Kory's testimony appeared on YouTube, but—no surprise—it was soon removed by the platform for being "dangerous and misleading". So why did the pharmaceutical industry, the NIH, CDC, NIAID and FDA ignore Dr. Kory?

Everyone knows why, or at least the obvious reason why: a cheap, safe and effective treatment would torpedo Big Pharma's plans to make $$$illions from their rushed-to-market experimental mRNA treatments. The problem, not buried in the fine print, but nonetheless not widely trumpeted at the time: An Emergency Use Authorization for a medical product, such as the EUA sought by Big Pharma for mRNA gene therapy, cannot be granted if there exists a viable and safe treatment for the disease that the experimental product has targeted:

"FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products...when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives."

There it is: Ivermectin accepted as a treatment, no EUA for mRNA, no Big Bucks for Big Pharma. As a truly humanitarian gesture, the Senate Committee could have insisted, or at least recommended that an EUA be immediately issued for Ivermectin, but nooooo. A behind-the-scenes eight-hundred-pound gorilla effect?

If one refers back to a 2004 article in the New York Review of Books by Marcia Angell, formerly editor of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, (New York Review of Books JULY 15, 2004 ISSUE) we clearly see a few key facts about Big Pharma that provide important background for understanding the present Big Pharma Phiasco. (Bold type emphasis added in the following excerpt.)

"Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very far from its original high purpose of discovering and producing useful new drugs. Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself.

"What does the eight-hundred-pound gorilla do? Anything it wants to.

"What’s true of the eight-hundred-pound gorilla is true of the colossus that is the pharmaceutical industry. It is used to doing pretty much what it wants to do. The watershed year was 1980. Before then, it was a good business, but afterward, it was a stupendous one. From 1960 to 1980, prescription drug sales were fairly static as a percent of US gross domestic product, but from 1980 to 2000, they tripled. They now stand at more than $200 billion a year. Of the many events that contributed to the industry’s great and good fortune, none had to do with the quality of the drugs the companies were selling.

"As their profits skyrocketed during the 1980s and 1990s, so did the political power of drug companies. By 1990, the industry had assumed its present contours as a business with unprecedented control over its own fortunes. For example, if it didn’t like something about the FDA, the federal agency that is supposed to regulate the industry, it could change it through direct pressure or through its friends in Congress.

"When I say this is a profitable industry, I mean really profitable. It is difficult to conceive of how awash in money big pharma is. Drug industry expenditures for research and development, while large, were consistently far less than profits. For the top ten companies, they amounted to only 11 percent of sales in 1990, rising slightly to 14 percent in 2000. The biggest single item in the budget is neither R&D nor even profits but something usually called “marketing and administration”—a name that varies slightly from company to company. In 1990, a staggering 36 percent of sales revenues went into this category, and that proportion remained about the same for over a decade. Note that this is two and a half times the expenditures for R&D.

"[But] the industry [now] faces ... problems. It happens that, by chance, some of the top- selling drugs—with combined sales of around $35 billion a year—are scheduled to go off patent within a few years of one another. This drop over the cliff began in 2001, with the expiration of Eli Lilly’s patent on its blockbuster antidepressant Prozac. In the same year, AstraZeneca lost its patent on Prilosec, the original “purple pill” for heartburn, which at its peak brought in a stunning $6 billion a year. Bristol-Myers Squibb lost its best-selling diabetes drug, Glucophage. The unusual cluster of expirations will continue for another couple of years. While it represents a huge loss to the industry as a whole, for some companies it’s a disaster. Schering-Plough’s blockbuster allergy drug, Claritin, brought in fully a third of that company’s revenues before its patent expired in 2002. Claritin is now sold over the counter for much less than its prescription price. So far, the company has been unable to make up for the loss by trying to switch Claritin users to Clarinex—a drug that is virtually identical but has the advantage of still being on patent.

"Even worse is the fact that there are very few drugs in the pipeline ready to take the place of blockbusters going off patent. In fact, that is the biggest problem facing the industry today, and its darkest secret. All the public relations about innovation is meant to obscure precisely this fact. The stream of new drugs has slowed to a trickle, and few of them are innovative in any sense of that word. Instead, the great majority are variations of oldies but goodies—“me- too” drugs.

"Of the seventy-eight drugs approved by the FDA in 2002, only seventeen contained new active ingredients, and only seven of these were classified by the FDA as improvements over older drugs. The other seventy-one drugs approved that year were variations of old drugs or deemed no better than drugs already on the market. In other words, they were me-too drugs. Seven of seventy-eight is not much of a yield. Furthermore, of those seven, not one came from a major US drug company.

"For the first time, in just a few short years, the gigantic pharmaceutical industry is finding itself in serious difficulty. It is facing, as one industry spokesman put it, “a perfect storm.” To be sure, profits are still beyond anything most other industries could hope for, but they have recently fallen, and for some companies they fell a lot. And that is what matters to investors...

"...Nevertheless, the industry keeps promising a bright new day. It bases its reassurances on the notion that the mapping of the human genome and the accompanying burst in genetic research will yield a cornucopia of important new drugs.

"The industry is also being hit with a tidal wave of government investigations and civil and criminal lawsuits. The litany of charges includes illegally overcharging Medicaid and Medicare, paying kickbacks to doctors, engaging in anticompetitive practices, colluding with generic companies to keep generic drugs off the market, illegally promoting drugs for unapproved uses, engaging in misleading direct-to-consumer advertising, and, of course, covering up evidence. Some of the settlements have been huge. TAP Pharmaceuticals, for instance, paid $875 million to settle civil and criminal charges of Medicaid and Medicare fraud in the marketing of its prostate cancer drug, Lupron. All of these efforts could be summed up as increasingly desperate marketing and patent games, activities that always skirted the edge of legality but now are sometimes well on the other side.

"How is the pharmaceutical industry responding to its difficulties? One could hope drug companies would decide to make some changes—trim their prices, or at least make them more equitable, and put more of their money into trying to discover genuinely innovative drugs, instead of just talking about it. But that is not what is happening. Instead, drug companies are doing more of what got them into this situation. They are marketing their me-too drugs even more relentlessly. They are pushing even harder to extend their monopolies on top-selling drugs. And they are pouring more money into lobbying and political campaigns. As for innovation, they are still waiting for Godot.

"This is an industry that in some ways is like the Wizard of Oz—still full of bluster but now being exposed as something far different from its image. Instead of being an engine of innovation, it is a vast marketing machine. Instead of being a free market success story, it lives off government-funded research and monopoly rights. Yet this industry occupies an essential role in the American health care system, and it performs a valuable function, if not in discovering important new drugs at least in developing them and bringing them to market. But big pharma is extravagantly rewarded for its relatively modest functions. We get nowhere near our money’s worth.

"Clearly, the pharmaceutical industry is due for fundamental reform. Reform will have to extend beyond the industry to the agencies and institutions it has co-opted, including the FDA and the medical profession and its teaching centers." [end of excerpt, posted without permission under the "Fair Use" rulings regarding the 1976 Copyright Act for NON-profit academic, research, and general information purposes.]

And clearly, the evidence so diligently exposed by Marcia Angell demonstrates that the pharmaceutical industry—even by the turn of the century—had itself become a systemic chronic disease typical of the capitalist extreme, needing a cure that the patient resists at every turn for there is only one way to cure such a disease. "Reform"? It is a lesson as old as capitalism itself: when an industry grows and grows beyond all reasonable bounds, acquires the means to control its future through big money, bribes, kickbacks, dirty tricks, cheating, murder, crimes against humanity ...and then unforseen circumstances begin to erode the cash-flow.... I need hardly say what the cure is.

All that exposed in 2004! What, then, is the situation today?

Let's go back to the original topic here: already in the early years of the century the pharmaceutical industry was in trouble, looking for "new ways" to keep the big bucks flowing. And now we see Dr. David Martin's patent research evidence, showing that Big Pharma was patenting everything they could dream up, why not? They all surely have big teams of patent lawyers et al., and who knows, if they came to own every conceivable new idea from medical—especially genetic—research, it might all fall into place. "It"?

Patents for mRNA technology, COVID viruses and modifications such as "gain-of-function"—as revealed by Dr. David Martin—were amassed by Big Pharma through the Noughties and Teenies, including patents on the spike protein itself, and eventually arrived to the attempt to patent a general-purpose accepted-by-all remedy for avoiding seasonal flu if not the entire range of such possible viruses. As Marcia Angell notes, vaccines, whether they be classic ones, or the new mRNA techolgy-based injections (technically they are not "vaccines"), remain one of the biggest money-makers for Big Pharma. So we can deduce the mRNA technique was supposed to finally save the industry and restore growth and profitability.

But, disaster!, Tony Fauci and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) were refused patents for mRNA "vaccines"! Oh dear me! What to do?  

Read the Fauci Dossier

Tony and his Big Pharma pals were enraged they couldn’t get a patent on an all-purpose-general-use-mRNA-flu-shot, to be accepted by all good little boys and girls the world over so they wouldn't get the sniffles for Christmas and give a possibly fatal dose to grandma. A "remedy" not only for the sniffles and grandma but for big pharma too—the key to continue to maintain/expand their profits with a new, (patented) revolutionary miracle technique. So the light-bulb pops above Tony’s head as in a Beavis & Butthead classic, “Hey Beavis! Those fart-knockers won't give us a patent? Let’s INTRODUCE the disease we need to get such a vaccine launched. Yeah! he-he-he, huh-huh-huh. Cool!"

My reference here might be thought crude and insulting, but while there are surely many very clever people involved in the Big Pharma Phiasco, scientists, directors, politicians, et al., there appear to be few, if any, who might be thought of as wise. Under the circumstances, the clever be damned.

Now, it seems settled that the research that led to COVID-19 was bioweapon-oriented. But that does not prove it was released (also a near-certainty) intentionally as a bioweapon. That may have happened a little later, as a side-line of the big-money project when Big Pharma chatted with the Pentagon, and it was thought a cool idea to infect some Iranian leaders. Primarily, COVID was released so that Fauci, NIAID & Big Pharma could then demand an EUA and get eventual patents on all such mRNA treatments. But for COVID these people had research indicating they knew the spike protein that was generated by the injection did not remain localized but spread to many organs in the body. What if that should cause "spike protein disease"? It was probably thought that the problem would be minor, and if enough pressure and propaganda be applied, success in "vaccinating the world" could still be achieved, and collateral damage ignored. Unfortunately the spike protein complication resulted in a great many deaths and serious injuries, far, far outnumbering such negative outcomes which in previous incidences of introduction of vaccines, were sufficient to immediately force a withdrawal of the product from further testing.

But the push for world vaccination continues, with such force that one begins, or rather continues to wonder why. Some see a conspiracy to reduce world population. I'd need at least some extensive whistleblower hard data before I'd credit the long list of perpetrators as being that competent, to have planned this thing from the get-go. So far I have to see the whole thing as a Colossal Con Job for Big Bucks turned into a Colossal SNAFU for which the perps are trying very hard to cover their dorsal protuberances. The whole affair is typical of very clever but very unwise participants. Indeed, as a sequel to The Sting, it has been a rip-roaring success, one that you should be embarrassed for having fallen for. As a plan to reduce population, that's strictly sci-fi. If that's the case, the SNAFU is even bigger since the populations dying off most successfully seem to be we Westerners. But Indians, Mexicans, S. Americans... citizens of nations and regions taking the Ivermectin/HCQ route? Apparently they would be the preponderant survivors.

So now that everyone knows we have been mightily deceived, wouldn't there be some better course of action for Big Pharma, the NIH, CDC, NIAID and FDA that could admit error, preserve profit, avoid criminal charges, avoid all sorts of horrible (for Big Pharma) outcomes, and actually benefit society by combining everything we surely now know....

Well, since there is not the least hint from them that they know we know they have been caught out, perhaps we are in store for the next big thing—oh so clever!—whether dreamed up well in advance, or perhaps just recently appearing on the drawing boards: the next medical product that will seal the fate of humanity in partnership with an ever-expanding BIG PHARMA presence and profits-spree. If spike protein has caused problems, why not introduce (after a maximum have been mRNA'd of course) a spike protein cleaner-upper, a scavenger of spike protein residues in the body that will solve all the residual post-vaccination and post-COVID-19 disease problems. Come one, come all! One dose of this miracle oil will Hoover up all harmful COVID residues! Take a third mortgage on your house if necessary! Is such a drug possible? If so, you can bet your bottom dollar on it being even more expensive than Remdesivir, and available only for the privileged, the heavily insured, and third mortgagees.

As Yogi Berra once quipped, "Predictions are hard to make, especially about the future". However, I would certainly be surprised if the Big Pharma Phiasco is not destined for several more entertaining chapters. Be ready. Don't participate ! Stay well !!

Military Documents About Gain of Function Contradict Fauci Testimony Under Oath

Military Documents About Gain of Function Contradict Fauci Testimony Under Oath. 

Military documents state that EcoHealth Alliance approached DARPA in March 2018 seeking funding to conduct gain of function research of bat borne coronaviruses. The proposal, named Project Defuse, was rejected by DARPA over safety concerns and the notion that it violates the gain of function research moratorium.

REJECTION OF DEFUSE PROJECT PROPOSAL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: DEFUSE

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT PREventing EMerging Pathogenic Threats(PREEMPT)

U.S. Marine Corp Major Joseph Murphy's Report to Inspector General of DoD

The main report regarding the EcoHealth Alliance proposal leaked on the internet a couple of months ago, it has remained unverified until now. Project Veritas has obtained a separate report to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, written by U.S. Marine Corp Major, Joseph Murphy, a former DARPA Fellow.

“The proposal does not mention or assess potential risks of Gain of Function (GoF) research,” a direct quote from the DARPA rejection letter.

Project Veritas has obtained startling never-before-seen documents regarding the origins of COVID-19, gain of function research, vaccines, potential treatments which have been suppressed, and the government’s effort to conceal all of this.

The documents in question stem from a report at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, better known as DARPA, which were hidden in a top secret shared drive.

DARPA is an agency under the U.S. Department of Defense in charge of facilitating research in technology with potential military applications.

Project Veritas has obtained a separate report to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense written by U.S. Marine Corp Major, Joseph Murphy, a former DARPA Fellow.

The report states that EcoHealth Alliance approached DARPA in March 2018, seeking funding to conduct gain of function research of bat borne coronaviruses. The proposal, named Project Defuse, was rejected by DARPA over safety concerns and the notion that it violates the basis gain of function research moratorium.

According to the documents, NIAID, under the direction of Dr. Fauci, went ahead with the research in Wuhan, China and at several sites across the U.S.

Dr. Fauci has repeatedly maintained, under oath, that the NIH and NAIAD have not been involved in gain of function research with the EcoHealth Alliance program. But according to the documents obtained by Project Veritas which outline why EcoHealth Alliance’s proposal was rejected, DARPA certainly classified the research as gain of function. 

“The proposal does not mention or assess potential risks of Gain of Function (GoF) research,” a direct quote from the DARPA rejection letter.

Major Murphy’s report goes on to detail great concern over the COVID-19 gain of function program, the concealment of documents, the suppression of potential curatives, like Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, and the mRNA vaccines.

Project Veritas reached out to DARPA for comment regarding the hidden documents and spoke with the Chief of Communications, Jared Adams, who said, “It doesn’t sound normal to me,” when asked about the way the documents were shrouded in secrecy. “If something resides in a classified setting, then it should be appropriately marked,” Adams said. “I’m not at all familiar with unmarked documents that reside in a classified space, no.”

In a video breaking this story published on Monday night, Project Veritas CEO, James O’Keefe, asked a foundational question to DARPA:

“Who at DARPA made the decision to bury the original report? They could have raised red flags to the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress, which may have prevented this entire pandemic that has led to the deaths of 5.4 million people worldwide and caused much pain and suffering to many millions more.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci has not yet responded to a request for comment on this story.

NIH Deleted "Gain-Of-Function Research" on Website After Whistleblower

 

Fauci ignores responsibility wants to argue semantics. The dude is insane. The arrogance of career people like Fauci is chilling. How is he not being trialed for crimes against humanity?

For those that don’t know - this is how they defined “gain-of-function” on their website until at least October 19th, 2021. It looks like this section was deleted, and the page was edited, immediately after the NIH whistleblower came out "NIH confirmed that EcoHealth violated the terms of their grant".  

46% of Americans want Fauci to resign. 

“NIH confirmed that EcoHealth violated the terms of their grant by concealing data on dangerous C.Virus experiments in Wuhan. Even worse, NIH Dir. Collins & Dr. Fauci potentially misled the Committee & the Amer. people about its knowledge of this cover-up"https://t.co/D6xtbhUNHk

— Robert W Malone, MD (@RWMaloneMD) October 21, 2021 

NIH removes definition of Gain of Function from website pic.twitter.com/fS5XgBrbbw

— Kathie (@TheCrimsonWorm) November 2, 2021

🚨🚨🚨
Foia News.
Here is NIH’s response as to why it removed the definition of “Gain of Function” from it’s website. pic.twitter.com/8r0OH1TMhl

— FoiaFan (@15poundstogo) November 2, 2021

Rand Paul Grills FRAUDci on Gain-of-Function Research

You've changed the definition of Gain-Of-Function to try to cover your ass 

I gave Fauci another chance today to come clean about the NIH's involvement in gain-of-function research and he chose to lie instead.

His failures to do anything to help us get to the bottom of why the pandemic happened is why I believe he should resign. https://t.co/8swITZSlBH

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) November 4, 2021

 

NIH States EcoHealth Alliance Violated Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant AI110964

 

“NIH confirmed that EcoHealth violated the terms of their grant by concealing data on dangerous C.Virus experiments in Wuhan. Even worse, NIH Dir. Collins & Dr. Fauci potentially misled the Committee & the Amer. people about its knowledge of this cover-up"https://t.co/D6xtbhUNHk

— Robert W Malone, MD (@RWMaloneMD) October 21, 2021

This is Fauci throwing Peter Daszak under the bus, in case that is not clear to you.  I predict that this is going to get really ugly now.

- Fauci funded gain-of-function research

- Wuhan lab was doing GOF research

- COVID came out of Wuhan lab

- CCP covered it up 

- Fauci lied to congress

Fauci committed perjury. 

“Dr Death” must face a war crimes tribunal immediately. NIH corrects untruthful assertions by NIH Director Collins and NIAID Director Fauci that NIH had not funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan.

NIH states that EcoHealth Alliance violated Terms and Conditions of NIH grant AI110964.

Fauci committed perjury.

“Dr Death” must face a war crimes tribunal immediately. https://t.co/b4ZWXG4JY7

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) October 21, 2021

NIH corrects untruthful assertions by NIH Director Collins and NIAID Director Fauci that NIH had not funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan.

NIH states that EcoHealth Alliance violated Terms and Conditions of NIH grant AI110964. pic.twitter.com/cFOtJlRoWl

— Richard H. Ebright (@R_H_Ebright) October 20, 2021

“This is a pattern that Senator Paul has been doing now at multiple hearings, based on no reality … I have never lied, certainly not before Congress. Case closed.”

— Dr. Fauci ends back-and-forth with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). pic.twitter.com/WjGjQUFE0d

— The Recount (@therecount) July 20, 2021

1,300 COVID vaccine-related injury claims are now pending before an obscure government tribunal

If you want to follow these cases and others please subscribe to this Subreddit "Tribunals" (Just Banned) 

Federal tribunals in the United States are those tribunals established by the federal government of the United States for the purpose of resolving disputes involving or arising under federal laws, including questions about the constitutionality of such laws.

Tribunals are often confused with courts. Tribunals are a part of the administrative system whereas courts, in general, are the creation of the judiciary which is entirely a separate organ. Both the courts and tribunals operate independently of each other. Although their objectives are the same yet there are major differences that establish them as separate bodies.

Tribunals are established under administrative law, which is an offshoot of decentralization of government authorities. Decentralization has resulted in the increased number of departments that have maximized the responsibility of government. Hence, these departments are given the authority to look after their disputes independently without any interference of courts except when the decisions are challenged in their legality.

Just like any court, a tribunal has a permanent establishment. There’s a bench of adjudicators who are responsible to pronounce a just and fair decision in favor of the aggrieved party. As compared to a court, the proceedings of a tribunal are less formal and speedy. The courts are expected to be rigid in their functions because they’re directed to do so as per the rules and code of conduct. Their performance is reported to the higher courts that initiate misconduct proceedings in absence of obedience to proper conduct. In tribunals, the adjudicators are selected from the organization or the department itself. The department makes its own sets of rules and they’re relatively flexible and informal.

The tribunal decisions are binding upon the parties. However, they’re appealable or challengeable in the court, provided the law under which the tribunal is established provides for the opportunity of appeal to the higher courts.

Reuters Story

As the Biden administration puts the final touches on an emergency COVID-19 vaccine mandate for companies with 100 or more employees, a crucial piece seems to be missing for the unlucky few who experience serious side effects: meaningful legal recourse.

More than 1,300 COVID vaccine-related injury claims are now pending before an obscure government tribunal, which to date has decided only two such cases, one involving swelling of the tongue and throat following the jab, the other alleging long-lasting, severe shoulder pain.

In both instances, the government, which requires claimants to prove their injuries are “the direct result” of a COVID-19 vaccine, denied compensation.

It’s a steep burden of proof. Lawyers tell me the vaccine is so new that there’s virtually no definitive research on injury causation to cite.  THIS IS A BLATANT LIE BY REUTERS. 

All you have to do is look at the Vaers database and see these stories about side effects. 

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of all litigants under what's known as the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program have not succeeded. According to program data, 29 claims have been paid for injuries stemming from other vaccines since the tribunal’s inception in 2010. (Ten additional claims won approval but no compensation.) The other 455 claims – 92% – were denied or otherwise deemed ineligible for review.

For those who prevailed, the median award was $5,677, according to my calculations, spanning from a low of $31 to a high of $2.3 million, for a person who contracted Guillain-Barre Syndrome after receiving the H1N1 influenza vaccine.

There is no provision for damages based on pain and suffering.

For people like Jessica McFadden, who said she developed life-threatening blood clots after receiving Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine in April, legal options are unclear. She's not optimistic about her odds of recovering her losses, and it's certain she won't be able to recover any pain and suffering damages under the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program.

McFadden, 44, said she was previously healthy and needed two emergency surgeries to remove massive clots in her lungs, heart and left leg. She spent nine days in the hospital, racking up $489,153 in medical bills, she said. Her insurance will cover most, but not all of the tab, she said, and she estimates she'll pay up to $7,000 out of pocket.

She emailed me a photo of extracted clots, which she said were removed during an agonizing procedure performed while she was conscious. They are thick and ropy, like nightcrawlers on a surgical tray.

McFadden, who said she has returned to work but is still taking blood thinners, has not spoken publicly of her ordeal until now. “I’m not an anti-vaxxer. I understand the need for the vaccine,” she said. “I was just trying to do the right thing.”

To be clear, an experience like McFadden described is extremely rare. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May said that out of 8.7 million people who had gotten the J&J jab, only 28 suffered the complication known as thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome. Per the CDC, there is a "plausible causal association" between the vaccine and the blood clots.

Johnson & Johnson in a statement said, “The safety and well-being of the people who use our products is our number one priority.”

To McFadden, the issue is not that COVID-19 vaccines are bad or that no one should get them. Rather, she said, what’s important is how we care for people “when something catastrophic happens” as a result, especially now that vaccine mandates are becoming so widespread.

For decades, vaccine makers have been shielded from product liability lawsuits thanks to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The law was passed after pharmaceutical companies were hit with lawsuits over a brain injury known as pertussis vaccine encephalopathy and threatened to quit making the DPT (diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus) vaccine altogether.

Under the 1986 law, people who claim to have been injured by DPT, hepatitis, influenza and other common shots bring their cases in a special, no-fault tribunal, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, known colloquially as “vaccine court.” Payouts (including attorneys’ fees) are funded by a 75-cent tax per vaccine.

The forum is far from perfect, but over the years, it has awarded more than $4 billion to injured claimants.

But that’s not where the COVID-19 vaccine injury cases are being decided.

In March 2020, then-Health and Human Services secretary Alex Azar issued a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005 providing liability immunity for medical countermeasures related to the novel coronavirus. Injury claims would be handled by the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, which is run by the Health Resources and Services Administration and is geared toward public health emergencies.

Coverage for claimants is limited: Lost wages up to $50,000 a year and out-of-pocket medical expenses. If the person died,

his or her next-of-kin can seek death benefits up to $370,376.

A spokeswoman for HRSA declined my request for an interview but explained in an email how the process works.

First, the person claiming an injury submits a request for a benefits form and relevant medical records. For COVID-19 vaccine injuries, the claims already include a veritable Merck Manual of maladies, everything from dizziness to deafness to death, according to HRSA data.

The form is “reviewed by CICP medical staff,” who decide whether the requester is eligible for program benefits.

If requesters don’t like the decision, they can ask for reconsideration by “a qualified panel, independent of the program.” The panel makes a recommendation to the associate administrator of the Health Systems Bureau of HRSA, whose decision on the payout is final.

You might notice a few things are missing, like an independent judge, a chance to present one's case in person, damages for pain and suffering and the right to appeal beyond the agency.

Vaccine court has all these features. CICP has none.

But this is where the COVID-19 vaccine cases are relegated, at least for now. Per the steps laid out in the 1986 vaccine law, for the COVID-19 vaccine to move to vaccine court, the CDC must first recommend the shots for routine administration to children. Then Congress must pass a law adding the 75-cent tax on each COVID-19 vaccine given, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services must move the vaccines to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

All of this could take years.

Legislation is pending in Congress that would expedite the process (as well as upping vaccine court damages, extending the statute of limitations from three years to five and adding more special masters), but it has yet to gain traction.

Spokespeople for the bill’s sponsors in the House of Representatives – Texas Democrat Lloyd Doggett, and Republicans Fred Upton of Michigan and Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania – did not respond to requests for comment.

In the meantime, people like McFadden face a strict one-year deadline from the date of vaccination to file a claim with the CICP. But it’s not clear if filing in the CICP would preclude her from later moving her case to vaccine court, should that become an option.

She told me that she's waiting until early next year to decide how to proceed.

List of Studies Showing Natural Immunity ‘Equal’ or ‘Superior’ to Jab

We should not force COVID vaccines on anyone when the evidence shows that naturally acquired immunity is equal to or more robust and superior to existing vaccines. Instead, we should respect the right of the bodily integrity of individuals to decide for themselves.

Public health officials and the medical establishment with the help of the politicized media are misleading the public with assertions that the COVID-19 shots provide greater protection than natural immunity.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, for example, was deceptive in her October 2020 published LANCET statement that “there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection” and that “the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future.”

Immunology and virology 101 have taught us over a century that natural immunity confers protection against a respiratory virus’s outer coat proteins, and not just one, e.g., the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein.

There is even strong evidence for the persistence of antibodies. Even the CDC recognizes natural immunity for chickenpox and measles, mumps and rubella, but not for COVID-19.

The vaccinated are showing viral loads (very high) similar to the unvaccinated, and the vaccinated are as infectious. Riemersma et al. also report Wisconsin data that corroborate how the vaccinated individuals who get infected with the Delta variant can potentially (and are) transmit(ting) SARS-CoV-2 to others (potentially to the vaccinated and unvaccinated).

This troubling situation of the vaccinated being infectious and transmitting the virus emerged in seminal nosocomial outbreak papers by Chau et al. (HCWs in Vietnam), the Finland hospital outbreak (spread among HCWs and patients), and the Israel hospital outbreak (spread among HCWs and patients).

These studies also revealed that the personal protective equipment (PPE) and masks were essentially ineffective in the healthcare setting. Again, the Marek’s disease in chickens and the vaccination situation explains what we are potentially facing with these leaky vaccines (increased transmission, faster transmission, and more ‘hotter’ variants).

Moreover, existing immunity should be assessed before any vaccination, via an accurate, dependable and reliable antibody test (or T cell immunity test) or be based on documentation of prior infection (a previous positive PCR or antigen test). Such would be evidence of immunity that is equal to that of vaccination and the immunity should be provided the same societal status as any vaccine-induced immunity.

This will function to mitigate the societal anxiety with these forced vaccine mandates and societal upheaval due to job loss, denial of societal privileges etc. Tearing apart the vaccinated and the unvaccinated in a society — separating them — is not medically or scientifically supportable.

The Brownstone Institute previously documented 30 studies on natural immunity as it relates to COVID-19.

This follow-up chart is the most updated and comprehensive library list of 81 of the highest-quality, complete, most robust scientific studies and evidence reports/position statements on natural immunity as compared to the COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity and allows you to draw your own conclusion.

Co-authors:

Dr. Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D. (Yale School of Public Health)

Dr. Howard Tenenbaum, Ph.D. ( Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto)

Dr. Ramin Oskoui, M.D. (Foxhall Cardiology, Washington)

Dr. Peter McCullough, M.D. (Truth for Health Foundation, Texas)

Dr. Parvez Dara, M.D. (consultant, Medical Hematologist and Oncologist)

Study / report title, author, and year published	Predominant finding on natural immunity
1) Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals, Shrestha, 2021	“Cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was examined among 52,238 employees in an American healthcare system. “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. “Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study. Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination…”
2) SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls, Le Bert, 2020	“Studied T cell responses against the structural (nucleocapsid (N) protein) and non-structural (NSP7 and NSP13 of ORF1) regions of SARS-CoV-2 in individuals convalescing from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (n = 36). “In all of these individuals, we found CD4 and CD8 T cells that recognized multiple regions of the N protein … showed that patients (n = 23) who recovered from SARS possess long-lasting memory T cells that are reactive to the N protein of SARS-CoV 17 years after the outbreak of SARS in 2003; these T cells displayed robust cross-reactivity to the N protein of SARS-CoV-2.”
3) Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections,Gazit, 2021	“A retrospective observational study comparing three groups: “(1) SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals who received a two-dose regimen of the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine, (2) previously infected individuals who have not been vaccinated and (3) previously infected and single-dose vaccinated individuals, found para a 13 fold increased risk of breakthrough Delta infections in double vaccinated persons, and a 27 fold increased risk for symptomatic breakthrough infection in the double vaccinated relative to the natural immunity recovered persons … “ … the risk of hospitalization was 8 times higher in the double vaccinated (para) … this analysis demonstrated that natural immunity affords longer-lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization due to the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.”
4) Highly functional virus-specific cellular immune response in asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, Le Bert, 2021	“Studied SARS-CoV-2–specific T cells in a cohort of asymptomatic (n = 85) and symptomatic (n = 75) COVID-19 patients after seroconversion … “thus, asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2–infected individuals are not characterized by weak antiviral immunity; on the contrary, they mount a highly functional virus-specific cellular immune response.”
5) Large-scale study of antibody titer decay following BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine or SARS-CoV-2 infection, Israel, 2021	“A total of 2,653 individuals fully vaccinated by two doses of vaccine during the study period and 4,361 convalescent patients were included. “Higher SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody titers were observed in vaccinated individuals (median 1581 AU/mL IQR [533.8-5644.6]) after the second vaccination, than in convalescent individuals (median 355.3 AU/mL IQR [141.2-998.7]; p<0.001). “In vaccinated subjects, antibody titers decreased by up to 40% each subsequent month while in convalescents they decreased by less than 5% per month … “this study demonstrates individuals who received the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine have different kinetics of antibody levels compared to patients who had been infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, with higher initial levels but a much faster exponential decrease in the first group.”
6) SARS-CoV-2 re-infection risk in Austria, Pilz, 2021	Researchers recorded: “40 tentative re-infections in 14, 840 COVID-19 survivors of the first wave (0.27%) and 253 581 infections in 8, 885, 640 individuals of the remaining general population (2.85%) translating into an odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of 0.09 (0.07 to 0.13)…relatively low re-infection rate of SARS-CoV-2 in Austria. “Protection against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection is comparable with the highest available estimates on vaccine efficacies.” Additionally, hospitalization in only five out of 14,840 (0.03%) people and death in one out of 14,840 (0.01%) (tentative re-infection).
7) mRNA vaccine-induced SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells recognize B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants but differ in longevity and homing properties depending on prior infection status, Neidleman, 2021	“Spike-specific T cells from convalescent vaccinees differed strikingly from those of infection-naïve vaccinees, with phenotypic features suggesting superior long-term persistence and ability to home to the respiratory tract including the nasopharynx. “These results provide reassurance that vaccine-elicited T cells respond robustly to the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants, confirm that convalescents may not need a second vaccine dose.”
8) Good news: Mild COVID-19 induces lasting antibody protection, Bhandari, 2021	“Months after recovering from mild cases of COVID-19, people still have immune cells in their body pumping out antibodies against the virus that causes COVID-19, according to a study from researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. “Such cells could persist for a lifetime, churning out antibodies all the while. “The findings, published May 24 in the journal Nature, suggest that mild cases of COVID-19 leave those infected with lasting antibody protection and that repeated bouts of illness are likely to be uncommon.”
9) Robust neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 infection persist for months, Wajnberg, 2021	“Neutralizing antibody titers against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein persisted for at least 5 months after infection. “Although continued monitoring of this cohort will be needed to confirm the longevity and potency of this response, these preliminary results suggest that the chance of reinfection may be lower than is currently feared.”
10) Evolution of antibody immunity to SARS-CoV-2, Gaebler, 2020	“Concurrently, neutralizing activity in plasma decreases by five-fold in pseudo-type virus assays. In contrast, the number of RBD-specific memory B cells is unchanged. “Memory B cells display clonal turnover after 6.2 months, and the antibodies they express have greater somatic hypermutation, increased potency and resistance to RBD mutations, indicative of continued evolution of the humoral response … “we conclude that the memory B cell response to SARS-CoV-2 evolves between 1.3 and 6.2 months after infection in a manner that is consistent with antigen persistence.”
11) Persistence of neutralizing antibodies a year after SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans, Haveri, 2021	“Assessed the persistence of serum antibodies following WT SARS-CoV-2 infection at 8 and 13 months after diagnosis in 367 individuals … “found that NAb against the WT virus persisted in 89% and S-IgG in 97% of subjects for at least 13 months after infection.”
12) Quantifying the risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 reinfection over time, Murchu, 2021	“Eleven large cohort studies were identified that estimated the risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 reinfection over time, including three that enrolled healthcare workers and two that enrolled residents and staff of elderly care homes. “Across studies, the total number of PCR‐positive or antibody‐positive participants at baseline was 615,777, and the maximum duration of follow‐up was more than 10 months in three studies. “Reinfection was an uncommon event (absolute rate 0%–1.1%), with no study reporting an increase in the risk of reinfection over time.”
13) Natural immunity to COVID is powerful. Policymakers seem afraid to say so, Makary, 2021	Makary writes “it’s okay to have an incorrect scientific hypothesis. But when new data proves it wrong, you have to adapt. “Unfortunately, many elected leaders and public health officials have held on far too long to the hypothesis that natural immunity offers unreliable protection against covid-19 — a contention that is being rapidly debunked by science. “More than 15 studies have demonstrated the power of immunity acquired by previously having the virus. “A 700,000-person study from Israel two weeks ago found that those who had experienced prior infections were 27 times less likely to get a second symptomatic covid infection than those who were vaccinated. “This affirmed a June Cleveland Clinic study of health-care workers (who are often exposed to the virus), in which none who had previously tested positive for the coronavirus got reinfected. “The study authors concluded that ‘individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from covid-19 vaccination.’ “And in May, a Washington University study found that even a mild covid infection resulted in long-lasting immunity.”
14) SARS-CoV-2 elicits robust adaptive immune responses regardless of disease severity, Nielsen, 2021	“203 recovered SARS-CoV-2 infected patients in Denmark between April 3rd and July 9th, 2020, at least 14 days after COVID-19 symptom recovery … “report broad serological profiles within the cohort, detecting antibody binding to other human coronaviruses … the viral surface spike protein was identified as the dominant target for both neutralizing antibodies and CD8+ T-cell responses. “Overall, the majority of patients had robust adaptive immune responses, regardless of their disease severity.”
15) Protection of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection is similar to that of BNT162b2 vaccine protection: A three-month nationwide experience from Israel, Goldberg, 2021	“Analyze an updated individual-level database of the entire population of Israel to assess the protection efficacy of both prior infection and vaccination in preventing subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization with COVID-19, severe disease, and death due to COVID-19 … “vaccination was highly effective with overall estimated efficacy for documented infection of 92·8% (CI:[92·6, 93·0]); hospitalization 94·2% (CI:[93·6, 94·7]); severe illness 94·4% (CI:[93·6, 95·0]); and death 93·7% (CI:[92·5, 94·7]). “Similarly, the overall estimated level of protection from prior SARS-CoV-2 infection for documented infection is 94·8% (CI: [94·4, 95·1]); hospitalization 94·1% (CI: [91·9, 95·7]); and severe illness 96·4% (CI: [92·5, 98·3])…results question the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals.”
16) Incidence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 infection among previously infected or vaccinated employees, Kojima, 2021	“Employees were divided into three groups: (1) SARS-CoV-2 naïve and unvaccinated, (2) previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and (3) vaccinated. “Person-days were measured from the date of the employee first test and truncated at the end of the observation period. SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as two positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests in a 30-day period … “4313, 254 and 739 employee records for groups 1, 2, and 3 … previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 were associated with decreased risk for infection or re-infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a routinely screened workforce. “There was no difference in the infection incidence between vaccinated individuals and individuals with previous infection.”
17) Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine — but vaccination remains vital, Wadman, 2021	“Israelis who had an infection were more protected against the Delta coronavirus variant than those who had an already highly effective COVID-19 vaccine … “the newly released data show people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection were much less likely than never-infected, vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19.”
18) One-year sustained cellular and humoral immunities of COVID-19 convalescents, Zhang, 2021	“A systematic antigen-specific immune evaluation in 101 COVID-19 convalescents; SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG antibodies, and also NAb can persist among over 95% COVID-19 convalescents from 6 months to 12 months after disease onset. “At least 19/71 (26%) of COVID-19 convalescents (double-positive in ELISA and MCLIA) had detectable circulating IgM antibody against SARS-CoV-2 at 12m post-disease onset. “Notably, the percentages of convalescents with positive SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell responses (at least one of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen S1, S2, M and N protein) were 71/76 (93%) and 67/73 (92%) at 6m and 12m, respectively.”
19) Functional SARS-CoV-2-Specific Immune Memory Persists after Mild COVID-19, Rodda, 2021	“Recovered individuals developed SARS-CoV-2-specific immunoglobulin (IgG) antibodies, neutralizing plasma, and memory B and memory T cells that persisted for at least 3 months. “Our data further reveal that SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG memory B cells increased over time. “Additionally, SARS-CoV-2-specific memory lymphocytes exhibited characteristics associated with potent antiviral function: memory T cells secreted cytokines and expanded upon antigen re-encounter, whereas memory B cells expressed receptors capable of neutralizing virus when expressed as monoclonal antibodies. “Therefore, mild COVID-19 elicits memory lymphocytes that persist and display functional hallmarks of antiviral immunity.”
20) Discrete Immune Response Signature to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination Versus Infection, Ivanova, 2021	“Performed multimodal single-cell sequencing on peripheral blood of patients with acute COVID-19 and healthy volunteers before and after receiving the SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine to compare the immune responses elicited by the virus and by this vaccine … “both infection and vaccination induced robust innate and adaptive immune responses, our analysis revealed significant qualitative differences between the two types of immune challenges. “In COVID-19 patients, immune responses were characterized by a highly augmented interferon response which was largely absent in vaccine recipients. “ Increased interferon signaling likely contributed to the observed dramatic upregulation of cytotoxic genes in the peripheral T cells and innate-like lymphocytes in patients but not in immunized subjects. “Analysis of B and T cell receptor repertoires revealed that while the majority of clonal B and T cells in COVID-19 patients were effector cells, in vaccine recipients clonally expanded cells were primarily circulating memory cells … “we observed the presence of cytotoxic CD4 T cells in COVID-19 patients that were largely absent in healthy volunteers following immunization. “While hyper-activation of inflammatory responses and cytotoxic cells may contribute to immunopathology in severe illness, in mild and moderate disease, these features are indicative of protective immune responses and resolution of infection.”
21) SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans, Turner, 2021	“Bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) are a persistent and essential source of protective antibodies … “durable serum antibody titres are maintained by long-lived plasma cells — non-replicating, antigen-specific plasma cells that are detected in the bone marrow long after the clearance of the antigen … “S-binding BMPCs are quiescent, which suggests that they are part of a stable compartment. “Consistently, circulating resting memory B cells directed against SARS-CoV-2 S were detected in the convalescent individuals. “Overall, our results indicate that mild infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces robust antigen-specific, long-lived humoral immune memory in humans … “overall, our data provide strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans robustly establishes the two arms of humoral immune memory: long-lived bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) and memory B-cells.”
22) SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of antibody-positive compared with antibody-negative health-care workers in England: a large, multicentre, prospective cohort study (SIREN), Jane Hall, 2021	“The SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation study… 30 625 participants were enrolled into the study … “a previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 84% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed 7 months following primary infection. “This time period is the minimum probable effect because seroconversions were not included. This study shows that previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces effective immunity to future infections in most individuals.”
23) Pandemic peak SARS-CoV-2 infection and seroconversion rates in London frontline health-care workers, Houlihan, 2020	“Enrolled 200 patient-facing HCWs between March 26 and April 8, 2020 … represents a 13% infection rate (i.e. 14 of 112 HCWs) within the 1 month of follow-up in those with no evidence of antibodies or viral shedding at enrolment. “By contrast, of 33 HCWs who tested positive by serology but tested negative by RT-PCR at enrolment, 32 remained negative by RT-PCR through follow-up, and one tested positive by RT-PCR on days 8 and 13 after enrolment.”
24) Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 are associated with protection against reinfection, Lumley, 2021	“Critical to understand whether infection with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) protects from subsequent reinfection … “12219 HCWs participated…prior SARS-CoV-2 infection that generated antibody responses offered protection from reinfection for most people in the six months following infection.”
25) Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells, Cohen, 2021	“Evaluate 254 COVID-19 patients longitudinally up to 8 months and find durable broad-based immune responses. “SARS-CoV-2 spike binding and neutralizing antibodies exhibit a bi-phasic decay with an extended half-life of >200 days suggesting the generation of longer-lived plasma cells … “most recovered COVID-19 patients mount broad, durable immunity after infection, spike IgG+ memory B cells increase and persist post-infection, durable polyfunctional CD4 and CD8 T cells recognize distinct viral epitope regions.”
26) Single-cell profiling of T and B cell repertoires following SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine, Sureshchandra, 2021	“Used single-cell RNA sequencing and functional assays to compare humoral and cellular responses to two doses of mRNA vaccine with responses observed in convalescent individuals with asymptomatic disease … “natural infection induced expansion of larger CD8 T cell clones occupied distinct clusters, likely due to the recognition of a broader set of viral epitopes presented by the virus not seen in the mRNA vaccine.”
27) SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positivity protects against reinfection for at least seven months with 95% efficacy, Abu-Raddad, 2021	“SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positive persons from April 16 to December 31, 2020, with a PCR-positive swab ≥14 days after the first-positive antibody test were investigated for evidence of reinfection, 43,044 antibody-positive persons who were followed for a median of 16.3 weeks … reinfection is rare in the young and international population of Qatar. “Natural infection appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection with an efficacy ~95% for at least seven months.”
28) Orthogonal SARS-CoV-2 Serological Assays Enable Surveillance of Low-Prevalence Communities and Reveal Durable Humoral Immunity, Ripperger, 2020	“Conducted a serological study to define correlates of immunity against SARS-CoV-2. “Compared to those with mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases, individuals with severe disease exhibited elevated virus-neutralizing titers and antibodies against the nucleocapsid (N) and the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein…neutralizing and spike-specific antibody production persists for at least 5–7 months … “nucleocapsid antibodies frequently become undetectable by 5–7 months.”
29) Anti-spike antibody response to natural SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population, Wei, 2021	“In the general population using representative data from 7,256 United Kingdom COVID-19 infection survey participants who had positive swab SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests from 26-April-2020 to 14-June-2021 … “we estimated antibody levels associated with protection against reinfection likely last 1.5-2 years on average, with levels associated with protection from severe infection present for several years. “These estimates could inform planning for vaccination booster strategies.”
30) Antibody Status and Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Health Care Workers, Lumley, 2021	“12,541 health care workers participated and had anti-spike IgG measured; 11,364 were followed up after negative antibody results and 1265 after positive results, including 88 in whom seroconversion occurred during follow-up … “a total of 223 anti-spike–seronegative health care workers had a positive PCR test (1.09 per 10,000 days at risk), 100 during screening while they were asymptomatic and 123 while symptomatic, whereas 2 anti-spike–seropositive health care workers had a positive PCR test … “the presence of anti-spike or anti-nucleocapsid IgG antibodies was associated with a substantially reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in the ensuing 6 months.”
31) Researchers find long-lived immunity to 1918 pandemic virus, CIDRAP, 2008 and the actual 2008 NATURE journal publication by Yu	“A study of the blood of older people who survived the 1918 influenza pandemic reveals that antibodies to the strain have lasted a lifetime and can perhaps be engineered to protect future generations against similar strains … “the group collected blood samples from 32 pandemic survivors aged 91 to 101 … the people recruited for the study were 2 to 12 years old in 1918 and many recalled sick family members in their households, which suggests they were directly exposed to the virus, the authors report. “The group found that 100% of the subjects had serum-neutralizing activity against the 1918 virus and 94% showed serologic reactivity to the 1918 hemagglutinin. The investigators generated B lymphoblastic cell lines from the peripheral blood mononuclear cells of eight subjects. “Transformed cells from the blood of 7 of the 8 donors yielded secreting antibodies that bound the 1918 hemagglutinin.” “Yu: ‘here we show that of the 32 individuals tested that were born in or before 1915, each showed seroreactivity with the 1918 virus, nearly 90 years after the pandemic. Seven of the eight donor samples tested had circulating B cells that secreted antibodies that bound the 1918 HA. “We isolated B cells from subjects and generated five monoclonal antibodies that showed potent neutralizing activity against 1918 virus from three separate donors. These antibodies also cross-reacted with the genetically similar HA of a 1930 swine H1N1 influenza strain.’”
32) Live virus neutralization testing in convalescent patients and subjects vaccinated against 19A, 20B, 20I/501Y.V1 and 20H/501Y.V2 isolates of SARS-CoV-2, Gonzalez, 2021	“No significant difference was observed between the 20B and 19A isolates for HCWs with mild COVID-19 and critical patients. However, a significant decrease in neutralization ability was found for 20I/501Y.V1 in comparison with 19A isolate for critical patients and HCWs 6-months post-infection. “Concerning 20H/501Y.V2, all populations had a significant reduction in neutralizing antibody titres in comparison with the 19A isolate. “ Interestingly, a significant difference in neutralization capacity was observed for vaccinated HCWs between the two variants whereas it was not significant for the convalescent groups … “the reduced neutralizing response observed towards the 20H/501Y.V2 in comparison with the 19A and 20I/501Y.V1 isolates in fully immunized subjects with the BNT162b2 vaccine is a striking finding of the study.”
33) Differential effects of the second SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose on T cell immunity in naïve and COVID-19 recovered individuals, Camara, 2021	“Characterized SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific humoral and cellular immunity in naïve and previously infected individuals during full BNT162b2 vaccination …results demonstrate that the second dose increases both the humoral and cellular immunity in naïve individuals. “On the contrary, the second BNT162b2 vaccine dose results in a reduction of cellular immunity in COVID-19 recovered individuals.”
34) Op-Ed: Quit Ignoring Natural COVID Immunity, Klausner, 2021	“Epidemiologists estimate over 160 million people worldwide have recovered from COVID-19. Those who have recovered have an astonishingly low frequency of repeat infection, disease, or death.”
35) Association of SARS-CoV-2 Seropositive Antibody Test With Risk of Future Infection, Harvey, 2021	“To evaluate evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection based on diagnostic nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) among patients with positive vs negative test results for antibodies in an observational descriptive cohort study of clinical laboratory and linked claims data … “the cohort included 3 257 478 unique patients with an index antibody test … patients with positive antibody test results were initially more likely to have positive NAAT results, consistent with prolonged RNA shedding, but became markedly less likely to have positive NAAT results over time, suggesting that seropositivity is associated with protection from infection.”
36) SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity and subsequent infection risk in healthy young adults: a prospective cohort study, Letizia, 2021	“Investigated the risk of subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection among young adults (CHARM marine study) seropositive for a previous infection … enrolled 3249 participants, of whom 3168 (98%) continued into the 2-week quarantine period. 3076 (95%) participants … “Among 189 seropositive participants, 19 (10%) had at least one positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 during the 6-week follow-up (1·1 cases per person-year). In contrast, 1079 (48%) of 2247 seronegative participants tested positive (6·2 cases per person-year). The incidence rate ratio was 0·18 (95% CI 0·11–0·28; p<0·001) … “infected seropositive participants had viral loads that were about 10-times lower than those of infected seronegative participants (ORF1ab gene cycle threshold difference 3·95 [95% CI 1·23–6·67]; p=0·004).”
37) Associations of Vaccination and of Prior Infection With Positive PCR Test Results for SARS-CoV-2 in Airline Passengers Arriving in Qatar, Bertollini, 2021	“Of 9,180 individuals with no record of vaccination but with a record of prior infection at least 90 days before the PCR test (group 3), 7694 could be matched to individuals with no record of vaccination or prior infection (group 2), among whom PCR positivity was 1.01% (95% CI, 0.80%-1.26%) and 3.81% (95% CI, 3.39%-4.26%), respectively. The relative risk for PCR positivity was 0.22 (95% CI, 0.17-0.28) for vaccinated individuals and 0.26 (95% CI, 0.21-0.34) for individuals with prior infection compared with no record of vaccination or prior infection.”
38) Natural immunity against COVID-19 significantly reduces the risk of reinfection: findings from a cohort of sero-survey participants, Mishra, 2021	“Followed up with a subsample of our previous sero-survey participants to assess whether natural immunity against SARS-CoV-2 was associated with a reduced risk of re-infection (India) … “out of the 2238 participants, 1170 were sero-positive and 1068 were seronegative for antibody against COVID-19. “Our survey found that only 3 individuals in the sero-positive group got infected with COVID-19 whereas 127 individuals reported contracting the infection the sero-negative group … “from the 3 sero-positives re-infected with COVID-19, one had hospitalization, but did not require oxygen support or critical care … “development of antibody following natural infection not only protects against re-infection by the virus to a great extent, but also safeguards against progression to severe COVID-19 disease.”
39) Lasting immunity found after recovery from COVID-19, NIH, 2021	“The researchers found durable immune responses in the majority of people studied. Antibodies against the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, which the virus uses to get inside cells, were found in 98% of participants one month after symptom onset. “As seen in previous studies, the number of antibodies ranged widely between individuals. “But, promisingly, their levels remained fairly stable over time, declining only modestly at 6 to 8 months after infection … virus-specific B cells increased over time. “People had more memory B cells six months after symptom onset than at one month afterward… levels of T cells for the virus also remained high after infection. “Six months after symptom onset, 92% of participants had CD4+ T cells that recognized the virus… 95% of the people had at least 3 out of 5 immune-system components that could recognize SARS-CoV-2 up to 8 months after infection.”
40) SARS-CoV-2 Natural Antibody Response Persists for at Least 12 Months in a Nationwide Study From the Faroe Islands, Petersen, 2021	“The seropositive rate in the convalescent individuals was above 95% at all sampling time points for both assays and remained stable over time; that is, almost all convalescent individuals developed antibodies … “results show that SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persisted at least 12 months after symptom onset and maybe even longer, indicating that COVID-19-convalescent individuals may be protected from reinfection.”
41) SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell memory is sustained in COVID-19 convalescent patients for 10 months with successful development of stem cell-like memory T cells, Jung, 2021	“ex vivo assays to evaluate SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses in COVID-19 convalescent patients up to 317 days post-symptom onset (DPSO), and find that memory T cell responses are maintained during the study period regardless of the severity of COVID-19. “In particular, we observe sustained polyfunctionality and proliferation capacity of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells. Among SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells detected by activation-induced markers, the proportion of stem cell-like memory T (TSCM) cells is increased, peaking at approximately 120 DPSO.”
42) Immune Memory in Mild COVID-19 Patients and Unexposed Donors Reveals Persistent T Cell Responses After SARS-CoV-2 Infection, Ansari, 2021	“Analyzed 42 unexposed healthy donors and 28 mild COVID-19 subjects up to 5 months from the recovery for SARS-CoV-2 specific immunological memory. “Using HLA class II predicted peptide mega pools, we identified SARS-CoV-2 cross-reactive CD4+ T cells in around 66% of the unexposed individuals. Moreover, we found detectable immune memory in mild COVID-19 patients several months after recovery in the crucial arms of protective adaptive immunity; CD4+ T cells and B cells, with a minimal contribution from CD8+ T cells. “Interestingly, the persistent immune memory in COVID-19 patients is predominantly targeted towards the Spike glycoprotein of the SARS-CoV-2. This study provides the evidence of both high magnitude pre-existing and persistent immune memory in Indian population.”
43) COVID-19 natural immunity, WHO, 2021	“Current evidence points to most individuals developing strong protective immune responses following natural infection with SARSCoV-2. “Within 4 weeks following infection, 90-99% of individuals infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus develop detectable neutralizing antibodies. “The strength and duration of the immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 are not completely understood and currently available data suggests that it varies by age and the severity of symptoms. “Available scientific data suggests that in most people immune responses remain robust and protective against reinfection for at least 6-8 months after infection (the longest follow up with strong scientific evidence is currently approximately 8 months).”
44) Antibody Evolution after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccination, Cho, 2021	“We conclude that memory antibodies selected over time by natural infection have greater potency and breadth than antibodies elicited by vaccination … “boosting vaccinated individuals with currently available mRNA vaccines would produce a quantitative increase in plasma neutralizing activity but not the qualitative advantage against variants obtained by vaccinating convalescent individuals.”
45) Humoral Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 in Iceland, Gudbjartsson, 2020	“Measured antibodies in serum samples from 30,576 persons in Iceland … of the 1797 persons who had recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection, 1107 of the 1215 who were tested (91.1%) were seropositive… “results indicate risk of death from infection was 0.3% and that antiviral antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 did not decline within 4 months after diagnosis (para).”
46)  Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for up to 8 months after infection, Dan, 2021	“Analyzed multiple compartments of circulating immune memory to SARS-CoV-2 in 254 samples from 188 COVID-19 cases, including 43 samples at ≥ 6 months post-infection … IgG to the Spike protein was relatively stable over 6+ months. “Spike-specific memory B cells were more abundant at 6 months than at 1 month post symptom onset.”
47) The prevalence of adaptive immunity to COVID-19 and reinfection after recovery – a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 011 447 individuals, Chivese, 2021	“Fifty-four studies, from 18 countries, with a total of 12 011 447 individuals, followed up to 8 months after recovery, were included. “At 6-8 months after recovery, the prevalence of detectable SARS-CoV-2 specific immunological memory remained high; IgG – 90.4% … pooled prevalence of reinfection was 0.2% (95%CI 0.0 – 0.7, I2 = 98.8, 9 studies). Individuals who recovered from COVID-19 had an 81% reduction in odds of a reinfection (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.1 – 0.3, I2 = 90.5%, 5 studies).”
48) Reinfection Rates among Patients who Previously Tested Positive for COVID-19: a Retrospective Cohort Study, Sheehan, 2021	“Retrospective cohort study of one multi-hospital health system included 150,325 patients tested for COVID-19 infection … prior infection in patients with COVID-19 was highly protective against reinfection and symptomatic disease. “This protection increased over time, suggesting that viral shedding or ongoing immune response may persist beyond 90 days and may not represent true reinfection.”
49) Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection 1 Year After Primary Infection in a Population in Lombardy, Italy, Vitale, 2020	“The study results suggest that reinfections are rare events and patients who have recovered from COVID-19 have a lower risk of reinfection. “Natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 appears to confer a protective effect for at least a year, which is similar to the protection reported in recent vaccine studies.”
50) Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with protection against symptomatic reinfection, Hanrath, 2021	“We observed no symptomatic reinfections in a cohort of healthcare workers … this apparent immunity to re-infection was maintained for at least 6 months … “test positivity rates were 0% (0/128 [95% CI: 0–2.9]) in those with previous infection compared to 13.7% (290/2115 [95% CI: 12.3–15.2]) in those without (P<0.0001 χ2 test).”
51) mRNA vaccine-induced T cells respond identically to SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern but differ in longevity and homing properties depending on prior infection status, Neidleman, 2021	“In infection-naïve individuals, the second dose boosted the quantity and altered the phenotypic properties of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells, while in convalescents the second dose changed neither. “Spike-specific T cells from convalescent vaccinees differed strikingly from those of infection-naïve vaccinees, with phenotypic features suggesting superior long-term persistence and ability to home to the respiratory tract including the nasopharynx.”
52) Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals, Grifoni, 2020	“Using HLA class I and II predicted peptide ‘megapools,’ circulating SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ and CD4+ T cells were identified in ∼70% and 100% of COVID-19 convalescent patients, respectively. CD4+ T cell responses to spike, the main target of most vaccine efforts, were robust and correlated with the magnitude of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA titers. “The M, spike, and N proteins each accounted for 11%–27% of the total CD4+ response, with additional responses commonly targeting nsp3, nsp4, ORF3a, and ORF8, among others. For CD8+ T cells, spike and M were recognized, with at least eight SARS-CoV-2 ORFs targeted.”
53) NIH Director’s Blog: Immune T Cells May Offer Lasting Protection Against COVID-19, Collins, 2021	“Much of the study on the immune response to SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19, has focused on the production of antibodies. “But, in fact, immune cells known as memory T cells also play an important role in the ability of our immune systems to protect us against many viral infections, including — it now appears — COVID-19.An intriguing new study of these memory T cells suggests they might protect some people newly infected with SARS-CoV-2 by remembering past encounters with other human coronaviruses. “This might potentially explain why some people seem to fend off the virus and may be less susceptible to becoming severely ill with COVID-19.”
54) Ultrapotent antibodies against diverse and highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants, Wang, 2021	“Our study demonstrates that convalescent subjects previously infected with ancestral variant SARS-CoV-2 produce antibodies that cross-neutralize emerging VOCs with high potency … potent against 23 variants, including variants of concern.”
55) Why COVID-19 Vaccines Should Not Be Required for All Americans, Makary, 2021	“Requiring the vaccine in people who are already immune with natural immunity has no scientific support. While vaccinating those people may be beneficial — and it’s a reasonable hypothesis that vaccination may bolster the longevity of their immunity — to argue dogmatically that they must get vaccinated has zero clinical outcome data to back it. “As a matter of fact, we have data to the contrary: A Cleveland Clinic study found that vaccinating people with natural immunity did not add to their level of protection.”
56) Protracted yet coordinated differentiation of long-lived SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells during COVID-19 convalescence, Ma, 2021	“Screened 21 well-characterized, longitudinally-sampled convalescent donors that recovered from mild COVID-19 … following a typical case of mild COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cells not only persist but continuously differentiate in a coordinated fashion well into convalescence, into a state characteristic of long-lived, self-renewing memory.”
57) Decrease in Measles Virus-Specific CD4 T Cell Memory in Vaccinated Subjects, Naniche, 2004	“Characterized the profiles of measles vaccine (MV) vaccine-induced antigen-specific T cells over time since vaccination. “In a cross-sectional study of healthy subjects with a history of MV vaccination, we found that MV-specific CD4 and CD8 T cells could be detected up to 34 years after vaccination. “The levels of MV-specific CD8 T cells and MV-specific IgG remained stable, whereas the level of MV-specific CD4 T cells decreased significantly in subjects who had been vaccinated >21 years earlier.”
58) Remembrance of Things Past: Long-Term B Cell Memory After Infection and Vaccination, Palm, 2019	“The success of vaccines is dependent on the generation and maintenance of immunological memory. The immune system can remember previously encountered pathogens, and memory B and T cells are critical in secondary responses to infection. “Studies in mice have helped to understand how different memory B cell populations are generated following antigen exposure and how affinity for the antigen is determinant to B cell fate … “upon re-exposure to an antigen the memory recall response will be faster, stronger, and more specific than a naïve response. “Protective memory depends first on circulating antibodies secreted by LLPCs. When these are not sufficient for immediate pathogen neutralization and elimination, memory B cells are recalled.”
59) SARS-CoV-2 specific memory B-cells from individuals with diverse disease severities recognize SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, Lyski, 2021	“Examined the magnitude, breadth and durability of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies in two distinct B-cell compartments: long-lived plasma cell-derived antibodies in the plasma, and peripheral memory B-cells along with their associated antibody profiles elicited after in vitro stimulation. “We found that magnitude varied amongst individuals, but was the highest in hospitalized subjects. Variants of concern (VoC) -RBD-reactive antibodies were found in the plasma of 72% of samples in this investigation, and VoC-RBD-reactive memory B-cells were found in all but 1 subject at a single time-point. “This finding, that VoC-RBD-reactive MBCs are present in the peripheral blood of all subjects including those that experienced asymptomatic or mild disease, provides a reason for optimism regarding the capacity of vaccination, prior infection, and/or both, to limit disease severity and transmission of variants of concern as they continue to arise and circulate.”
60) Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 generates T-cell memory in the absence of a detectable viral infection, Wang, 2021	“T-cell immunity is important for recovery from COVID-19 and provides heightened immunity for re-infection. However, little is known about the SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell immunity in virus-exposed individuals … “report virus-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell memory in recovered COVID-19 patients and close contacts … close contacts are able to gain T-cell immunity against SARS-CoV-2 despite lacking a detectable infection.”
61) CD8+ T-Cell Responses in COVID-19 Convalescent Individuals Target Conserved Epitopes From Multiple Prominent SARS-CoV-2 Circulating Variants, Redd, 2021and Lee, 2021	“The CD4 and CD8 responses generated after natural infection are equally robust, showing activity against multiple ‘epitopes’ (little segments) of the spike protein of the virus. “For instance, CD8 cells responds to 52 epitopes and CD4 cells respond to 57 epitopes across the spike protein, so that a few mutations in the variants cannot knock out such a robust and in-breadth T cell response … “only 1 mutation found in Beta variant-spike overlapped with a previously identified epitope (1/52), suggesting that virtually all anti-SARS-CoV-2 CD8+ T-cell responses should recognize these newly described variants.”
62) Exposure to common cold coronaviruses can teach the immune system to recognize SARS-CoV-2,La Jolla, Crotty and Sette, 2020	“Exposure to common cold coronaviruses can teach the immune system to recognize SARS-CoV-2”
63) Selective and cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes in unexposed humans, Mateus, 2020	“Found that the pre-existing reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 comes from memory T cells and that cross-reactive T cells can specifically recognize a SARS-CoV-2 epitope as well as the homologous epitope from a common cold coronavirus. “These findings underline the importance of determining the impacts of pre-existing immune memory in COVID-19 disease severity.”
64) Longitudinal observation of antibody responses for 14 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, Dehgani-Mobaraki, 2021	“Better understanding of antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection might provide valuable insights into the future implementation of vaccination policies. “Longitudinal analysis of IgG antibody titers was carried out in 32 recovered COVID-19 patients based in the Umbria region of Italy for 14 months after Mild and Moderately-Severe infection … “study findings are consistent with recent studies reporting antibody persistency suggesting that induced SARS-CoV-2 immunity through natural infection, might be very efficacious against re-infection (>90%) and could persist for more than six months. “Our study followed up patients up to 14 months demonstrating the presence of anti-S-RBD IgG in 96.8% of recovered COVID-19 subjects.”
65) Humoral and circulating follicular helper T cell responses in recovered patients with COVID-19, Juno, 2020	“Characterized humoral and circulating follicular helper T cell (cTFH) immunity against spike in recovered patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). “We found that S-specific antibodies, memory B cells and cTFH are consistently elicited after SARS-CoV-2 infection, demarking robust humoral immunity and positively associated with plasma neutralizing activity.”
66) Convergent antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in convalescent individuals, Robbiani, 2020	“149 COVID-19-convalescent individuals…antibody sequencing revealed the expansion of clones of RBD-specific memory B cells that expressed closely related antibodies in different individuals. “Despite low plasma titres, antibodies to three distinct epitopes on the RBD neutralized the virus with half-maximal inhibitory concentrations (IC50 values) as low as 2 ng ml−1.”
67) Rapid generation of durable B cell memory to SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid proteins in COVID-19 and convalescence, Hartley, 2020	“COVID-19 patients rapidly generate B cell memory to both the spike and nucleocapsid antigens following SARS-CoV-2 infection … RBD- and NCP-specific IgG and Bmem cells were detected in all 25 patients with a history of COVID-19.”
68) Had COVID? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime, Callaway, 2021	“People who recover from mild COVID-19 have bone-marrow cells that can churn out antibodies for decades … the study provides evidence that immunity triggered by SARS-CoV-2 infection will be extraordinarily long-lasting.”
69) A majority of uninfected adults show preexisting antibody reactivity against SARS-CoV-2, Majdoubi, 2021	In greater Vancouver Canada, “using a highly sensitive multiplex assay and positive/negative thresholds established in infants in whom maternal antibodies have waned, we determined that more than 90% of uninfected adults showed antibody reactivity against the spike protein, receptor-binding domain (RBD), N-terminal domain (NTD), or the nucleocapsid (N) protein from SARS-CoV-2.”
70) SARS-CoV-2-reactive T cells in healthy donors and patients with COVID-19, Braun, 2020	“The results indicate that spike-protein cross-reactive T cells are present, which were probably generated during previous encounters with endemic coronaviruses.”
71) Naturally enhanced neutralizing breadth against SARS-CoV-2 one year after infection, Wang, 2021	“A cohort of 63 individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 assessed at 1.3, 6.2 and 12 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection … the data suggest that immunity in convalescent individuals will be very long lasting.”
72) One Year after Mild COVID-19: The Majority of Patients Maintain Specific Immunity, But One in Four Still Suffer from Long-Term Symptoms, Rank, 2021	“Long-lasting immunological memory against SARS-CoV-2 after mild COVID-19.”
73) IDSA, 2021	“Immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection can persist for at least 11 months … “natural infection (as determined by a prior positive antibody or PCR-test result) can confer protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
74) Assessment of protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 among 4 million PCR-tested individuals in Denmark in 2020: a population-level observational study, Holm Hansen, 2021	Denmark, “during the first surge (ie, before June, 2020), 533 381 people were tested, of whom 11 727 (2·20%) were PCR positive, and 525 339 were eligible for follow-up in the second surge, of whom 11 068 (2·11%) had tested positive during the first surge. “Among eligible PCR-positive individuals from the first surge of the epidemic, 72 (0·65% [95% CI 0·51–0·82]) tested positive again during the second surge compared with 16 819 (3·27% [3·22–3·32]) of 514 271 who tested negative during the first surge (adjusted RR 0·195 [95% CI 0·155–0·246]).”
75) Antigen-Specific Adaptive Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in Acute COVID-19 and Associations with Age and Disease Severity, Moderbacher, 2020	“Adaptive immune responses limit COVID-19 disease severity…multiple coordinated arms of adaptive immunity control better than partial responses … “completed a combined examination of all three branches of adaptive immunity at the level of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell and neutralizing antibody responses in acute and convalescent subjects. SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells were each associated with milder disease. “Coordinated SARS-CoV-2-specific adaptive immune responses were associated with milder disease, suggesting roles for both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in protective immunity in COVID-19.”
76) Detection of SARS-CoV-2-Specific Humoral and Cellular Immunity in COVID-19 Convalescent Individuals, Ni, 2020	“Collected blood from COVID-19 patients who have recently become virus-free, and therefore were discharged, and detected SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral and cellular immunity in eight newly discharged patients. “Follow-up analysis on another cohort of six patients 2 weeks post discharge also revealed high titers of immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies. “In all 14 patients tested, 13 displayed serum-neutralizing activities in a pseudotype entry assay. Notably, there was a strong correlation between neutralization antibody titers and the numbers of virus-specific T cells.”
77) Robust SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell immunity is maintained at 6 months following primary infection, Zuo, 2020	“Analysed the magnitude and phenotype of the SARS-CoV-2 cellular immune response in 100 donors at six months following primary infection and related this to the profile of antibody level against spike, nucleoprotein and RBD over the previous six months. “T-cell immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 were present by ELISPOT and/or ICS analysis in all donors and are characterised by predominant CD4+ T cell responses with strong IL-2 cytokine expression … “functional SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell responses are retained at six months following infection.”
78) Negligible impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants on CD4+ and CD8+ T cell reactivity in COVID-19 exposed donors and vaccinees, Tarke, 2021	“Performed a comprehensive analysis of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses from COVID-19 convalescent subjects recognizing the ancestral strain, compared to variant lineages B.1.1.7, B.1.351, P.1, and CAL.20C as well as recipients of the Moderna (mRNA-1273) or Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccines … “the sequences of the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes are not affected by the mutations found in the variants analyzed. “Overall, the results demonstrate that CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses in convalescent COVID-19 subjects or COVID-19 mRNA vaccinees are not substantially affected by mutations.”
79) A 1 to 1000 SARS-CoV-2 reinfection proportion in members of a large healthcare provider in Israel: a preliminary report, Perez, 2021	Israel, “out of 149,735 individuals with a documented positive PCR test between March 2020 and January 2021, 154 had two positive PCR tests at least 100 days apart, reflecting a reinfection proportion of 1 per 1000.”
80) Persistence and decay of human antibody responses to the receptor binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in COVID-19 patients, Iyer, 2020	“Measured plasma and/or serum antibody responses to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2 in 343 North American patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 (of which 93% required hospitalization) up to 122 days after symptom onset and compared them to responses in 1548 individuals whose blood samples were obtained prior to the pandemic … “IgG antibodies persisted at detectable levels in patients beyond 90 days after symptom onset, and seroreversion was only observed in a small percentage of individuals. “The concentration of these anti-RBD IgG antibodies was also highly correlated with pseudovirus NAb titers, which also demonstrated minimal decay. The observation that IgG and neutralizing antibody responses persist is encouraging, and suggests the development of robust systemic immune memory in individuals with severe infection.”
81) A population-based analysis of the longevity of SARS-CoV-2 antibody seropositivity in the United States, Alfego, 2021	“To track population-based SARS-CoV-2 antibody seropositivity duration across the United States using observational data from a national clinical laboratory registry of patients tested by nucleic acid amplification (NAAT) and serologic assays … “specimens from 39,086 individuals with confirmed positive COVID-19 … both S and N SARS-CoV-2 antibody results offer an encouraging view of how long humans may have protective antibodies against COVID-19, with curve smoothing showing population seropositivity reaching 90% within three weeks, regardless of whether the assay detects N or S-antibodies. “Most importantly, this level of seropositivity was sustained with little decay through ten months after initial positive PCR.”