CDC Kentucky Study - Reduced Risk Of Reinfection with Vaccines Compared To Natural Infection

Please read and agree to the disclaimer before watching this video.
. CDC Kentucky Study - Reduced Risk Of Reinfection with Vaccines Compared To Natural Infection

CDC has posted a retrospective study that observed the reinfection in previously infected and then vaccinated vs. previously infected and not vaccinated individuals. According to the authors the likelihood of a reinfection is 2.3 times if you are infected and not vaccinated. Let's review the study.

References

#drbeen #koolbeens #COVID

Disclaimer:
This video is not intended to provide assessment, diagnosis, treatment, or medical advice; it also does not constitute provision of healthcare services. The content provided in this video is for informational and educational purposes only.
Please consult with a physician or healthcare professional regarding any medical or mental health related diagnosis or treatment. No information in this video should ever be considered as a substitute for advice from a healthcare professional. ...

Disclaimer:
This video is not intended to provide assessment, diagnosis, treatment, or medical advice; it also does not constitute provision of healthcare services. The content provided in this video is for informational and educational purposes only.
Please consult with a physician or healthcare professional regarding any medical or mental health related diagnosis or treatment. No information in this video should ever be considered as a substitute for advice from a healthcare professional. ...
Disclaimer:
This video is not intended to provide assessment, diagnosis, treatment, or medical advice; it also does not constitute provision of healthcare services. The content provided in this video is for informational and educational purposes only.
Please consult with a physician or healthcare professional regarding any medical or mental health related diagnosis or treatment. No information in this video should ever be considered as a substitute for advice from a healthcare professional.

[clockdoc]

It’s amazing how much scientific gymnastics is being put into creating a reason for people who have been previously infected to be vaccinated. It should at least be optional for this group.

[DJLiquidSmooth]

Great stuff, I'm gonna mention this on a show. You are one of the few doctors seeming to just present the data honestly. Appreciate what you do.

[pege]

There is a reason why they published it, and we all know why.

[pieinsky]

Without the data on hospitalisations and death, this study is quite meaningless.

[midrash]

In other words, the vaccinated person is reinfected but he has the antibodies present to fight off the infection. But the unvaccinated person has to first give his natural immune system time to rev up the antibodies. During that time he will test positive. But after his antibodies have performed he will test negative. The vaccinated person already has the antibodies working and therefore will fight the infection immediately and test negative. If the study had waited for the unvaccinated person's antibodies to present, then they would have fought off the infection and he would have tested negative also. Therefore the time periods are deliberately selected so that the natural immune system period required to produce the antibodies is ignored and not taken into account. Antibodies are not yet present when the unvaccinated person is tested.

[chloem]

This is like telling us formulas are better and safer than breast milk.

[bolderbolder]

So vaccines and boosters keep my system in a continuous state of fighting infection. Never at rest. How does my body sustain constant “fighting”introduced by the vaccine boosters? My natural system rests and rebuilds. I would like to see a study on long term effects of natural immune system resting between infection as opposed to constant vaccine boosters introduced to my system. Which is more sustainable? Only the future will tell us - if some of us stay unvaccinated. Many countries around the world are not getting the vaccine, so this will be interesting in a few years. Who is healthier? What is cumulative effects from constant vaccines?

[guapodesperado]

Wow, if I authored that study and saw Mobeen tear it up like that, I would hang my head in shame and drop out of research altogether. My guess is the authors got grant kick-backs quite sufficient enough to buy the loyalty of any less than ethical scholar though.

[westyw.]

This channel is such a Godsend for the average person to be unmindf*d.

[jasonk]

I read that and it was crap! Total crap! And they wander why we question their method and intent!

[frankdooley]

Once he stated the CDC put the study out there that was it. Thumbs up and closed off the video. We know what there agenda is, same as here in Ireland.

[thomass]

Drbeen, you are awesome. Makes perfect sense.

[The_Seeker_of_Truth]

It's also worth noting that they're not comparing natural immunity to vaccine immunity. They're only comparing (poorly) natural immunity to natural + vaccine immunity. Considering the vaccination rates at the time of the study were probably rather low, there may have only been 20% of the people who were vaccinated which further invalidates the study. Even if it was valid, the overall effect is small. If you only have a 6% chance of getting reinfected, and getting vax'd on top of that reduces it to 3% (for the time after the immunity is boosted from the vax), that's not a big deal. Written the other way it'd be efficacy of 94% vs 97%.

[trilliumlane]

Dr. Been, that was extraordinary! I listened to public radio this morning and was outraged hearing the information being presented along the lines of the study.

[Sparkeycarp]

You make more sense than anything I have heard from any where else.

[The_Seeker_of_Truth]

What we really need is a large pool of data showing number of infections, vaccination status at time of infection, whether it was a reinfection, what strain (if known), severity of each case (original and reinfection), and whether the patient was immunocompromised.

[craigryan]

Thank for your analysis. Making the flaws apparent is very useful.

[zapphoddbubbahbrox]

Nice catch and nice explanation. Thanks!

[bonniehayes]

That study bothered me from the outset. Thank you for pointing out the flaws.Dr.Mobeen, your design makes sense to me. I have to read 100s of studies a year but am not a trained investigator. I have learned sooo much from you.

[mindofown]

Excellent analysis and hypothesis generation, you must be clever! Ps, I agree with your analysis. I wouldnt have thought about it myself, but when you explain it it sounds very intuitive.