Why Does the CDC Recognize Natural Immunity for Chicken Pox but Not Covid? Is something other than science at play for COVID? CDC and NIH and Fauci and Walensky and Francis Collins are out of touch

To understand the odd guidance coming out of the CDC on COVID-19, consider its contradictory advice on vaccines and immunity as it pertains to diseases other than Covid-19.  The CDC and NIH seem way out of touch with the science and disregard the clear superiority of natural immunity.

The CDC advises on its website titled “Chickenpox Vaccination: What Everyone Should Know” that “People 13 years of age and older who have never had chickenpox or received chickenpox vaccine should get two doses, at least 28 days apart.”

This is reasonable and makes full sense and in this referenced statement, CDC is already alluding to the fact that you need the jab if you “have never had chickenpox.” That means if you have had it, then you do not need the jab. 

Then they go on to further state “You do not need to get the chickenpox vaccine if you have evidence of immunity against the disease.” This means you have had it and recovered, and can show it even via a laboratory test.

Again, this makes sense. All parents know this and have for generations. You do not need a vaccine for measles as an example, if you already had measles and cleared the rash and recovered. If Suzie got measles and then recovered, you send Suzie back to school minus a vaccine for measles. She is now immune! Natural beautiful robust immunity, typically for the rest of her life.  

As expected, we see the same thing outlined by the CDC for the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR). The CDC clearly states no MMR vaccine is needed if “You have laboratory confirmation of past infection or had blood tests that show you are immune to measles, mumps, and rubella.”

Then can CDC Director Rochelle Walensky (and Dr. Anthony Fauci of the NIN/NIAID) explain to us why if we have had COVID-19 and recovered, we still should be forced to have a vaccine for COVID? Can she begin by explaining why the pretense by the CDC that natural immunity does not exist for COVID-19 or is not credible or important, when the best science shows that it is even more superior than the narrow focused ‘spike-specific’ sub-optimal vaccine immunity? 

Fauci was asked the question point blank and said: “I don’t have a really firm answer for you on that.” That’s an irresponsible answer that flies in the face of all known immunological science. 

The massive numbers of persons who have been double-vaccinated and even triple vaccinated in Israel shows that the vaccine is not achieving what exposure and recovery achieves. As Martin Kulldorff writes, “vaccinated individuals had 27 times higher risk of symptomatic COVID infection compared to those with natural immunity from prior COVID disease,” as a summary of the important study. 

We know of persons who recovered from SARS-CoV-1 in 2003 (Le Bert et al. 2020) still have immunity 18 years later. Researchers have even uncovered long-lived immunity to the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic virus, 100 years later. 

What is different for COVID-19? Why the different standard or application of core immunology or virology principles? Some say the guidance on Covid is purely political and has zero to do with science or evidence, just politics.

Logically, we do not layer vaccine immunity on top of robust naturally acquired immunity. Why has the CDC and NIH not allowed serological testing for antibodies or T-cell immunity testing to be used as an indication of COVID immunity, and thus not candidacy for the vaccine? Why does the CDC’s website make sense when it comes to chickenpox, mumps, and rubella but not on Covid-19?