by Ryan McMaken
editor at the Mises Institute
Both the Mayo Clinic website and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, for example, insist that "research has not yet shown" that people who have recovered from Covid have any sort of reliable protection.
Moreover, the CDC page points to a single study from Kentucky claiming that people with natural immunity are more than twice as likely to contract Covid again, compared to people who have been vaccinated.
This narrative is reflected in the fact that the Biden administration's vaccine mandates are a one-size-fits-all policy insisting that virtually all adults, regardless of whether or not they've already had the disease, receive a Covid vaccine.
The official position is apparently this:
So get a vaccine. No exceptions!
Health technocrats have repeatedly insisted that "the science" points unambiguously toward everyone receiving a vaccine, even to the point of pushing vaccines for children.
All this in spite of the fact the risk to children from Covid is far less than the risk a dozen common daily risks, such as riding in an automobile.
The regime has attached itself closely to a vaccinate-everybody-no-matter-what policy, and a sudden u-turn would be politically problematic. So it's no wonder there's so little interest in the topic.
Indeed, in a September 10 interview, senior Covid technocrat Anthony Fauci claimed that the matter of natural immunity was not even being discussed at government health agencies.
Fauci's response suggested that the facts of natural immunity warranted discussion at some point in the future.
But the comment certainly fit the dominant regime narrative nonetheless:
Everyone should just get vaccinated:
Maybe someday they'll get to talking about it.
But some physicians aren't as obsessed with pushing vaccine mandates as Anthony Fauci, and the evidence in favor of natural immunity is becoming so undeniable that even mainstream publications are starting to admit it.
In an op-ed for the Washington Post last week, Marty Makary of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine argues that the medical profession has hurt its credibility in pretending that natural immunity is virtually irrelevant to the Covid equation.
Moreover, the dogmatic "get vaccinated" position constitutes a lack of honesty about the data.
Rather, Makary concludes:
And what are these studies?
The policy bias in favor of vaccines ignores many other facts as well, such as the relative risks of vaccines, especially for the young:
And yet, the authors note this fact doesn't appear to be a part of any policy discussion at all:
This problem is reflected in the Biden administration's drive for booster shots - announced in mid-August - even before there was any clinical research on booster shots at all.
Even by mid-September, as one hospital's chief medical officer put it,
But those sorts of details don't trouble federal "public health" officials, and the Biden administration quickly moved toward pushing booster shots for everyone.
This Is Why There Should Be No Mandatory Medical Treatment
Of course, mandating vaccines - like mandating any medical treatment - would still be immoral even if we could list a dozen studies suggesting boosters are a boon and that natural immunity is no good.
Unfortunately, that's exactly how many advocates for repressive Covid policies think the world should work.
For these people, policy is just a matter of adding up the number of studies "proving" their side is right, and then claiming this justifies forcing mandatory medications on millions of human beings.
(It never works in reverse, of course. The fact that there's a lot of evidence - as Makary points out - against vaccines for those who have natural immunity, the dominant narrative is nonetheless that vaccines are "necessary" and "worth it" for everybody, always and everywhere.)
In the real world, however, many medications - including these new vaccines - come with risks that must be weighed against potential benefits.
These decisions can only be made at the individual level, where patients must make their own decisions about what substances to put into their own bodies.
In other words, blanket policies proclaiming,
...contradicts the realities of the uncertainties and varying risk levels that affect individuals.
The facts of uncertainty and informed consent were once considered a mainstay of medical ethics - and of any political ideology that actually respects self-determination and basic human rights.
Unfortunately, the philosophy of "public health" appears to be uninterested in such trivialities.
At this point, it would be embarrassing for the regime to admit what actual scientific inquiry has shown:
The regime doesn't like to be embarrassed, and neither do the countless doctors and nurses who have long toed the regime's political line.
So expect more of the same...