The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Karl Haemers Archive
CDC: Vaxxed and Unvaxxed on Equal Footing
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

On August 19th, in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), among the most shocking statements ever made by any government agency in US history was issued by the CDC. In its “Summary of Guidance for Minimizing the Impact of COVID-19 on Individual Persons, Communities, and Health Care Systems — United States, August (19) 2022,” the CDC stated:

CDC’s COVID-19 prevention recommendations no longer differentiate based on a person’s vaccination status because breakthrough infections occur, though they are generally mild, and persons who have had COVID-19 but are not vaccinated have some degree of protection against severe illness from their previous infection.

Stating at this point that the recommendations for vaccinated and unvaccinated people are the same may be among the most shocking statement ever made in US history, given the absolute frenzy the CDC made of the urgency to get vaccinated over the last year and a half. It started inflicting covid vaccines on the elderly and “immune compromised,” then urged vaccines for pregnant “people,” adolescents, and eventually even children as young as five.

Lives and careers and health and families were destroyed when unvaccinated people were expelled from their jobs, prevented from entering public places, refused the right to travel, excluded from family gatherings, demonized as unpatriotic “anti-vaxxers,” and other tyrannies over their lives. But now the CDC is saying the vaccinated and unvaccinated are to be treated the same!

Why? The CDC gives 2 reasons: we are seeing “breakthrough” cases, essentially meaning the vaccines do not work to prevent infection—which the CDC has indirectly already said whenever it claims the vaccines only reduce symptoms—and that unvaccinated people who have had covid already and recovered have “some degree” of natural immunity.

“Breakthrough Cases”
This is astonishing. Let us see the first reason again:

“breakthrough infections occur, though they are generally mild…”

Under section “Vaccine Breakthrough Infections,” CDC says:

COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing severe disease, hospitalization, and death. However, since vaccines are not 100% effective at preventing infection, some people who are up to date with the recommended vaccines will still get COVID-19. This is called a breakthrough infection. When people who are vaccinated develop symptoms of COVID-19, they tend to experience less severe symptoms than people who are unvaccinated.

This clearly claims that vaccinated and unvaccinated people experience different symptoms. But now the CDC is admitting that they have no different recommendations for vaccinated people than unvaccinated because unvaxxed people may have recovered and now have natural immunity. Vaccinated and unvaccinated people are considered the same now, according to the CDC. And one reason is, breakthrough cases!

The entire public health and governmental media apparatus has recently been featuring “Breakthrough Cases” in our faces, with such prominent examples as (supposedly) fully boosted Biden and Fauci, and now even the Jewish CEO of Pfizer, Albert Bourla. Are we seeing enough “breakthrough cases” that it appears there never was anything to “break through,” in the form of vaccine-induced protection? What barrier to infection is there to “break through”? Perhaps nothing. As we will see, the CDC mostly asserts that vaccines reduce symptoms, not that they prevent contracting or transmitting disease. This is just one of the many internal walk-backs of the CDC.

The CDC’s “Covid Data Tracker” has a section which asks “Want more information on Covid-19 vaccine breakthrough cases?” I answered yes, and clicked the link to see what data the CDC provides on breakthrough cases on its page “The Possibility of Covid-19 After Vaccination: Breakthrough Infections.” The answer was none. I only got a generic explanation of what a breakthrough case means, and recommendations to get more vaccines. It included another direct condemnation of the “effectiveness” of vaccines themselves: “People who get vaccine breakthrough infections can spread COVID-19 to other people.”


CDC monitors reported vaccine breakthrough infections to better understand patterns of COVID-19 among people who are vaccinated and unvaccinated. The latest rates of COVID-19 cases and deaths by vaccination status are available on the CDC COVID Data Tracker.

The Tracker cycles back to the first page, where no real data on breakthrough cases is provided. The numbers and percentages of breakthrough cases remains cryptic.

Naturally Acquired Immunity

The 2nd reason the CDC gives for why vaccinated and unvaccinated people are now issued the same recommendations is this:

Persons who have had COVID-19 but are not vaccinated have some degree of protection against severe illness from their previous infection.

Recall that in July 2021, the Jewish CDC Director Rochelle Walensky used the phrase “a pandemic of the unvaccinated” in her news conference speech. All mainstream media reported on this and magnified the message that we were afflicted with a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.” Choose WebMD, CNN, ABC, CNN, Yahoo! News and more, here. They all say almost exactly the same thing.

The following statement or similar was included in almost all main media reports: “White House COVID-19 coordinator Jeff Zients (Jewish) said four states accounted for 40% of new cases last week—one in five coming from Florida.” Florida was targeted for defamation because Governor Ron Desantis was defying CDC recommendations and rejecting covid lockdown policies, mask and vaccine mandates.

Earlier in the covid timeline, the World Health Organization (WHO) actually changed the definition of “Herd Immunity” to exclude naturally immune people through natural exposure, and retained only the vaccine-induced immunity contribution to herd immunity. On June 9th 2020, the WHO defined Herd Immunity on its “Corona Virus Disease (COVID-19): Serology” page as: “the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.” By November 13th, on essentially the same page (now further titled “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Serology, antibodies and immunity“), the WHO declared “‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached.” WHO defended the change of definition with this line: “Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.”

If any credit can be given to the CDC at all, it did not change its own definition of what it terms “Community Immunity,” but retained the definition which included both naturally acquired immunity and vaccine-induced immunity as contributing to Community Immunity.

On November 12th, 2021, almost exactly one year since the WHO definition change, the Los Angeles Times published an article titled “CDC shifts pandemic goals away from reaching herd immunity.” It states: “Now the herd is restless. And experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have set aside herd immunity as a national goal.” The main reasons are given by Dr. Jefferson Jones, “a medical officer on the CDC’s COVID-19 Epidemiology Task Force”:

Vaccines have been quite effective at preventing cases of COVID-19 that lead to severe illness and death, but none has proved reliable at blocking transmission of the virus, Jones noted. Recent evidence has also made clear that the immunity provided by vaccines can wane in a matter of months. The result is that even if vaccination were universal, the coronavirus would probably continue to spread. (bold added)

Here a medical officer on the CDC’s Epidemiology Task Force admits that the covid vaccines do not prevent transmission. Now the CDC is saying that natural immunity is valid, and in the context of this statement by the CDC’s Jones, it appears even more valid than vaccination!

This should enrage hundreds of millions of people in our nation, especially those who got vaccinated thinking they were doing the only thing they could to produce what CDC calls Community Immunity, save their loved ones and end the pandemic. Even more outrageous, those who believe they contracted covid and recovered fine, but were still urged and coerced to get vaccinated, should be apoplectic. The CDC is now essentially admitting that they were wrong and natural immunity is once again acceptable and even preferred. It is unconscionable for the CDC to change its position on naturally acquired immunity, after having pushed vaccines as the only way to stop the pandemic.

Covid Vaccines only reduce symptoms, not prevent transmission

Here are more statements about vaccines—and now also natural acquired immunity—only preventing severe symptoms, from the CDC’s latest MMWR, “official Summary of Guidance for Minimizing the Impact of COVID-19 on Individual Persons, Communities, and Health Care Systems — United States, August (19) 2022”:

“Medically significant illness, death, and health care system strain can be reduced through vaccination and therapeutics to prevent severe illness…”

“high levels of vaccine- and infection-induced immunity…have substantially reduced the risk for medically significant COVID-19 illness (severe acute illness and post–COVID-19 conditions) and associated hospitalization and death.”

“The risk for medically significant illness…is considerably reduced by immunity derived from vaccination, previous infection, or both.”

“CDC recommends a strategic approach to minimizing the impact of COVID-19 on health and society that relies on vaccination and therapeutics to prevent severe illness.”

“Efforts to expand access to vaccination and therapeutics … should be intensified to reduce the risk for medically significant illness and death.”

All these statements refer to the vaccines’ as well as naturally acquired immunity’s ability to reduce severe symptoms and prevent hospitalization and death outcomes. None declare the vaccines are capable of preventing contracting or transmitting disease or viruses.

The following are all from the document’s “Vaccines and Therapeutics to Reduce Medically Significant Illness” section:

COVID-19 vaccines are highly protective against severe illness and death and provide a lesser degree of protection against asymptomatic and mild infection.

It is still talking about protecting from severe outcomes, though the second part of this statement is confusing. It cannot be claiming to reduce harmful outcomes from asymptomatic and mild infections, because there are none. And how do they really know that the vaccines reduce harmful outcomes when you acknowledge that the previously infected-but-unvaccinated are also unlikely to have harmful outcomes?

Receipt of a primary series alone, in the absence of being up to date with vaccination* through receipt of all recommended booster doses, provides minimal protection against infection and transmission (3,6). Being up to date with vaccination provides a transient period of increased protection against infection and transmission after the most recent dose, although protection can wane over time.

This document is the first time the CDC clearly claims vaccination prevents infection and transmission. Protection fades fast, though, and is only significant in double-boosted people for a short time. The first footnote #3 goes to a CDC study of October 2021, titled “Science Brief: SARS-CoV-2 Infection-induced and Vaccine-induced Immunity.” Some key quotes:

“Although comprehensive, it is neither a formal systematic review nor meta-analysis.”

“Data are presently insufficient to determine an antibody titer threshold that indicates when an individual is protected from infection.”

“At this time, there is no FDA-authorized or approved test that providers or the public can use to reliably determine whether a person is protected from infection.”

“Multiple studies have shown that antibody titers correlate with protection at a population level, but protective titers at the individual level remain unknown.”

“There are insufficient data to extend the findings related to infection-induced immunity at this time to persons with very mild or asymptomatic infection or children.”

The CDC admits all that it does not know in its reference document for this footnote. Its original statement in the MMWR is thus poorly supported.

Footnote #6 shows the “Covid Data Tracker,” including the “COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Monthly Update.” This source only includes updates on vaccine effectiveness up to the end of June. It states: “Protection is highest in adults who receive a booster dose.” Then it says: “No new CDC studies were published in June on COVID-19 effectiveness among adults.” As of June, adults administered one dose of the Johnson & Johnson/Janssen vaccine had less than 18% effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection, two weeks to a month after injection. Many other effectiveness rates are displayed in the complex chart, covering many age groups, different vaccines (all for covid), and over different time frames. The CDC emphasized in the title of the chart that these are all “estimates.” Many are under 50% and all are under 100% of course.

Returning to the MMWR from the beginning of this article, we see this statement:

“The rates of COVID-19–associated hospitalization and death are substantially higher among unvaccinated adults than among those who are up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccination, particularly adults aged ≥65 years (5,7)”

I opened the links in the footnotes CDC provides here. The statement is a complete lie if based upon the study CDC cites, because the study says nothing about vaccination rates, only disability rates. It is titled “COVID-19 Cases and Hospitalizations Among Medicare Beneficiaries With and Without Disabilities — United States, January 1, 2020–November 20, 202 1.”

I searched the document for vaccine-related information and found that the study never actually looked at vaccination status of these disabled subjects: “vaccination coverage was not considered in this analysis because of limitations in administrative reporting and data; persons with disabilities are less likely to receive COVID-19 vaccination than are persons without disabilities.” So they are inferring that negative outcomes in this group are partly the result of not being vaccinated, even though they acknowledge this group has many comorbidities, such as diabetes, obesity, etc. Weak.

It was a recommendation to make vaccines accessible to elderly and disabled people to prevent severe illness and death (not prevent infection or transmission). It says nothing—NOTHING!—about unvaccinated people having higher incidence of death and hospitalization. Did CDC think no one would check?

The second footnote here only links back to the same document.

“Emerging evidence suggests that vaccination before infection also provides some protection against post–COVID-19 conditions,† and that vaccination among persons with post–COVID-19 conditions might help reduce their symptoms (8).” Both parts of this statement refer to reducing symptoms or “conditions,” not infection or transmission.

The link here goes to a meta study out of Britain, that examined results of 15 other studies on “The effectiveness of vaccination against long COVID.” It declares in most cases that vaccination improves symptoms of “long covid,” although they note that “All studies were observational, so the results may be from differences other than vaccination, and there was large heterogeneity between studies in the definition of long COVID,” and “there is a risk of bias across all studies due to differences in people who were vaccinated and unvaccinated, the measurement of outcomes, and in the selection of participants.”

Moreover, “it is unclear whether vaccination of previously unvaccinated people with long COVID is more likely to improve or worsen long COVID symptoms,” and “There were, however, some cases in all studies who reported a worsening in symptoms after vaccination.” And “In 3 of the 5 studies reporting on symptom changes following vaccination of people with long COVID, there was a higher proportion of people with long COVID who reported unchanged symptoms following vaccination (up to 70%) than people whose symptoms improved or worsened.”

The results are thus unclear; in some cases, symptoms got worse after vaccination, and the definition of “long COVID” varied among the studies. All we know is that symptoms were either unchanged, worse, or better. And there is no way to be sure that those who got better improved because of the vaccines.

Returning again to the MMWR, the CDC makes two statements using the phrase “irrespective of vaccination status.” “When implemented, screening testing strategies should include all persons, irrespective of vaccination status.” And: “Persons who have had recent confirmed or suspected exposure to an infected person should wear a mask for 10 days around others when indoors in public and should receive testing ≥5 days after exposure (or sooner, if they are symptomatic), irrespective of their vaccination status.”

Just yesterday I heard an ad on the radio. It is recommended to still get boosted with covid vaccines in order to reduce symptoms and relieve our hospital system of patient burden. This ad was paid for by funds from the Dept of Health and Human Services (which includes the CDC). Our tax money is paying for government-issued advertisements on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry to sell more vaccines. The point is: they admit now that the vaccines do not prevent contracting or transmitting disease. The CDC seems to have stopped also saying the opposite, that everyone must get vaccinated to stop the spread. Is this now damage control?

Public trust in the CDC is now so low that only 33% of people 50 and older are double-boosted and less than 4% of children 5 to 11 recommended for vaccination have received a single “booster.” Boosters prove that vaccines are a failed technology.

But despite all that, they just approved a new omicron-specific booster before being “fully tested” on humans. I’m sure that will turn this disaster around. Or maybe not. The old saying that “if you’re in a hole, stop digging” comes to mind.

The CDC contradicts itself so often, public trust in the agency is near absent. With its shocking statement last week that vaccinated and unvaccinated people are issued the same covid prevention recommendations, distrust is turning into active contempt and outrage. Lawsuits are expected against the CDC over this, en masse. Anyone who subjected himself to a covid vaccination based on the CDC’s prior recommendations—which became coercsions–has a strong case now. Even the unvaccinated have strong claims against the CDC.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology, Science • Tags: American Media, Anti-Vaxx, CDC, Coronavirus, Vaccines 
All Comments Hidden • Show  331 Comments • Reply
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
How America was neoconned into World War IV