CDC Claims on Vaccination and Natural Immunity Made Without Seeing Underlying Data: FOIA Document

Commentary

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) now admits in a new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) response that it recommended COVID-19 vaccines for people who had recovered from COVID-19 despite the fact that CDC subject matter experts did not have access to the underlying data.
The shocking revelation came in response to a FOIA request for information on the CDC’s claim, first made on Oct. 29, 2021, that unvaccinated people with prior infection were five times more likely to contract COVID-19 than vaccinated people.

The CDC’s claim was based on a CDC study published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report on November 9, 2021. The study’s conflicts-of-interest section noted that several of the study’s authors were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Merck, Sanofi, and GlaxoSmithKline. At least four of the listed pharmaceutical firms were involved in the production and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.
Given that the conflict-of-interest disclosures were made at the time the study was published, the CDC would have been aware of the increased scrutiny placed on its findings. This, however, does not appear to have occurred. Notably, the CDC made a public statement about unvaccinated COVID-19 survivors being five times more likely to be reinfected on the same day the study was published as a preprint. There would have been no time for review.
Following that, a lawyer who specializes in FOIA requests made a formal request for the study’s data. The CDC responded last week by admitting that it did not have this data. The data, according to the CDC, was held by a “external partner organization and was maintained by a contractor.” The CDC also admitted that “CDC subject matter experts did not receive copies of the raw data prior to contract termination.”

To put it another way, the CDC recommended vaccination for people who already had COVID-19 without ever seeing or having access to the underlying data. Furthermore, because that data is no longer available, neither the CDC nor the general public will ever know what it said.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) had previously raised concerns about the CDC’s study. He went on to say that the study’s authors had conflicts of interest. Mr. Massie’s concerns have now been confirmed, and exacerbated, by the fact that the CDC never reviewed or audited the study.

The CDC’s failure to thoroughly review the study before making broad public recommendations is exacerbated by the fact that the emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 vaccines specifically excluded people who had previously been infected with COVID-19.
According to Pfizer’s emergency use authorization, “available data are insufficient to determine whether such individuals could benefit from vaccination.” The emergency use authorization granted to Moderna acknowledged that its vaccine study “was not designed to assess the benefit in individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.” Similar language was used in Johnson and Johnson’s emergency use authorization.
When it was pointed out in 2021 that the emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 vaccines did not account for people who had already been infected with the disease, Twitter (now known as X) promptly labeled this fact as false.
Natural immunity, which means that the human body remembers how to fight off diseases with which it has previously been infected, has been known since ancient Greek times. When the plague swept through ancient Athens in 430 B.C., Thucydides observed that those who had previously been afflicted were not becoming ill. He went on to say that “the same man was never attacked twice-never at least fatally.” However, when COVID-19 emerged, the CDC appears to have ignored 2,500 years of medical knowledge. The CDC did this, as we now know, without accessing or analyzing the underlying data.
The latest CDC revelations will be the subject of an upcoming episode of “Truth Over News” on EpochTV on November 15.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of The Epoch Times.