一色いろは @wzqtparor@fedibird.com

https://www.pixiv.net/artworks/114448823

Truth Matters. 🤣🤣🤣

https://www.pixiv.net/artworks/119882038

In the secretly recorded call with Rep. Thomas Massie, CDC officials were caught downplaying the effectiveness of natural immunity while pushing COVID-19 vaccinations for everyone, regardless of prior infection. Here’s how the conversation reveals their misleading stance:

1. Admitting Natural Immunity Works: The CDC officials were forced to admit that natural immunity from prior COVID-19 infection provides significant protection, something that was already clear from various studies. Despite this, the agency continued to push for universal vaccination, raising questions about their motivations.

2. Pushing Vaccination Despite Strong Natural Immunity: Even after acknowledging that recovered individuals had substantial immunity, the CDC still insisted they should get vaccinated. Their justification for this was weak, relying on the claim that vaccination could create a more "consistent" immune response — a questionable argument given the strength of natural immunity already shown in the data.

3. Hiding Uncertainty: CDC officials also admitted that the data on how long natural immunity lasts was still evolving, yet they continued to downplay it in favor of pushing vaccines. This creates the impression that they were not being fully transparent with the public, instead prioritizing a one-size-fits-all approach over informing people about the protective benefits of natural immunity.

4. Promoting Vaccination Without Strong Evidence: Despite admitting that natural immunity provided solid protection, CDC representatives stuck to their blanket recommendation for vaccination, appearing to ignore the science in favor of a broad vaccine rollout. Their insistence seemed more about maintaining control over public health messaging than following the evolving science.

In essence, the call revealed the CDC was pushing vaccination even for those who arguably didn't need it, raising concerns that their guidance was driven more by an agenda to promote vaccines than by a commitment to honest, science-based public health advice.