by Wilton Alston and Dr Shibrah Jamil

Belief is a beautiful armor. But makes for the heaviest sword. Like punching underwater, you never can hit who you’re trying for.
~ John Mayer, “Belief”


It’s not the responsibility of the unvaccinated to protect the vaccinated, that’s the vaccine’s job.
~ Unknown

What does immunity mean? Is getting vaccinated the same thing as acquiring immunity? The COVID-19 Pandemic has seen  these terms redefined in defiance of the basic tenets of established immunology. Using terms such as vaccinated, immune, susceptible and non-susceptible interchangeably implies that these long-standing concepts retain their original meaning. For example, the idea that vaccines result in immunity and thereby provide protection[1] against infection. Yet this is precisely where the COVID-19 vaccine(s), as currently promoted by public health officials and politicians, assisted by the media, fall short.

At a glance:

  1. Prior to 2015, vaccination meant that one obtained immunity from a disease and could no longer acquire that disease. At the very least, it meant acquisition of the disease was unlikely.
  2. In that context, it could be argued that an individual’s immunity provides a positive effect on those around him. However, without immunity, an individual’s vaccination status provides no protection to anyone else.
  3. The published and documented performance of the COVID-19 vaccines places them (at best) firmly in the “protection without immunity” camp. That is, the current mRNA vaccines may provide some protection for the recipient alone, and then only from “serious” illness and only for a limited time.
  4. As such, mandating the vaccines and blaming those who refuse to take them for continued disease prevalence is misguided, and clearly intended only to increase vaccine update, not protect society.


The following Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definitions[2] are pertinent when discussing immunity, immunization, vaccine, and vaccination (Note that these are the current definitions — these definitions have changed over the years, apparently in response to the need to promote widespread vaccination).

Immunity:  Protection against a disease. There are two types of immunity, passive and active. Immunity is indicated by the presence of antibodies in the blood and can usually be determined with a laboratory test.

Active Immunity:  The production of antibodies against a specific disease by the immune system. Active immunity can be acquired in two ways, either by contracting the disease or through vaccination. Active immunity is usually permanent, meaning an individual is protected from the disease for the duration of their lives.

Passive Immunity:  Protection against disease through antibodies produced by another human being or animal. Passive immunity is effective, but protection is generally limited and diminishes over time (usually a few weeks or months). For example, maternal antibodies are passed to the infant prior to birth. These antibodies temporarily protect the baby for the first 4-6 months of life.

Immunization:  The process of being made immune or resistant to an infectious disease, typically by the administration of a vaccine. It implies an immune response was elicited.

Vaccine:  A suspension of live (usually attenuated) or inactivated microorganisms (e.g. bacteria or viruses) or fractions thereof administered to induce immunity and prevent infectious diseases and their sequelae.

Vaccination:  The physical act of administering any vaccine or toxoid.

So then, vaccination is receiving the vaccine. Immunization is developing immunity to the pathogen subsequent to and as a direct result of receiving the vaccine. They could be considered the same, but only if vaccination results in immunization. The figure below is an idealized model of the path to immunity for an individual.

Figure 1:  Idealized Routes to Immunity, Pre-COVID

Of the three ways to attain immunity only one involves vaccination. The goal is to move as many people as possible into the immune group, but the necessity of vaccination must be considered in the context of the other two routes to immunity. 

If a substantial number of people are already immune to the pathogen, the necessity to vaccinate is reduced. One example that showcases this is the Diamond Princess[3] cruise ship. Data from the ship  indicates that up to 80% of people have prior immunity from exposure to closely related coronaviruses[4] and thus only a small section of the population[5] is at risk of serious illness from SARS-CoV-2, negating the need for vaccination in these people. Similarly, if a substantial number of people are immune due to sickness and recovery, the necessity to vaccinate is further reduced.

To provide immunity, a vaccine must induce a response that prevents infection following  subsequent exposure to the virus. The version of immunity provided by the COVID-19 vaccines does not meet this criterion. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky[6] said in an interview, “They [the vaccines] continue to work well for Delta, with regard to severe illness and death — they prevent it. But what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.” Neither were the vaccines properly tested to determine if they produce this type of immunity[7]. Initial studies, under which EUA was granted, explicitly stated the endpoint measures were PCR test positivity[8] accompanied by at least one from a list of COVID-19 symptoms. 

Peter Doshi, Dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, writing in “Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us”, puts it bluntly[9]:

Ideally, you want an antiviral vaccine to do two things . . . first, reduce the likelihood you will get severely ill and go to the hospital, and two, prevent infection and therefore interrupt disease transmission. Yet the current phase III trials are not actually set up to prove either. None of the trials currently underway are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.

Public statements by the CDC make it clear that the COVID-19 vaccine(s) do not provide immunity to SARS-Cov-2 or prevent transmission of COVID-19 if one acquires it. Furthermore, due to the large number of COVID-recovered[10] individuals, a reasonably high number of people already have immunity and thus have no need to be vaccinated

Official documents from organizations such as the FDA provide answers to key questions about the performance of the Pfizer vaccine; for example, the following can be found on their FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) page[11], as of the publish date of this article[12]:

Question:  What data did FDA evaluate to support Emergency Use Authorization of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine in individuals 12 through 15 years of age?

Answer:  The effectiveness data to support the EUA in adolescents in this age group is based on immunogenicity and an analysis of COVID-19 cases. … An analysis of cases of COVID-19 occurring among participants 12 through 15 years of age seven days after the second dose was also conducted. In this analysis, among participants without evidence of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2, no cases of COVID-19 occurred among 1,005 vaccine recipients and 16 cases of COVID-19 occurred among 978 placebo recipients; the vaccine was 100% effective in preventing COVID-19. At this time, there are limited data to address whether the vaccine can prevent transmission of the virus from person to person. In addition, at this time data are not available to determine how long the vaccine will provide protection. (Emphasis added.)

Question: If a person has received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine or Comirnaty, will the vaccine protect against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from individuals who are infected despite vaccination?

Answer:  Most vaccines that protect from viral illnesses also reduce transmission of the virus that causes the disease by those who are vaccinated. While it is hoped this will be the case, the scientific community does not yet know if the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine will reduce such transmission.

According to these official statements from the governmental body that approved the vaccine for widespread use, there is limited data to determine if the vaccine prevents transmission. Furthermore, the length of that protection – the durability of the immunity – is also unknown. Using the CDC definitions, it is clear that the COVID-19 vaccine(s) neither meet the definition of vaccines nor confer the protection expected from a vaccine. They do not make the recipient immune, nor do they prevent the recipient from subsequently passing the infection on to someone else. At best then, the COVID-19 vaccine(s) results in a situation modeled in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2:  Actual Routes to Vaccinated versus Routes to Immunity

As such, “the pandemic of the unvaccinated”, is a media construct used by politicians to achieve an end goal of 100% vaccine compliance, regardless of vaccine performance. Some might argue that “no vaccine is 100% sterilizing,” and thus COVID-19 vaccine(s) are no different to previous vaccines in that respect. Even if that were true, it does not justify mandates, given that immunity – as defined by the CDC- can be obtained via other routes without the additional dangers inherent in the experimental, poorly-tested vaccines[13] based on novel gene therapy. What if neither vaccination nor sickness and recovery result in perfect immunity? The model below depicts such a situation.

Figure 3:  Imperfect Routes to Immunity

In this model neither case–vaccination versus sickness and recovery–results in full, sterilizing, durable immunity. Several studies indicate people who have recovered are no worse off[14] than those who have been vaccinated, and may actually be better off.  Studies also show that people with naturally-acquired immunity do not benefit[15] further from vaccination. As recently as September 12, 2021, statistics out of the UK[16] indicate worse outcomes in vaccinated individuals[17] compared to those who are fully unvaccinated, i.e., have received no injections at all. Of the total deaths recorded in the UK for the Delta variant for the September 17, 2021 Technical Briefing, 28.4% were unvaccinated, 6.5% were partially vaccinated, and 63.5% were fully vaccinated[18], with 1.6% having unknown vaccination status. Studies have confirmed that the vaccinated still have viral loads[19,20] similar to the unvaccinated.

Against this backdrop, what justification is there for mandating vaccines for anyone, and particularly for those who have recovered? The “vaccination spin cycle,” as depicted in Figure 2 and Figure 3, is being celebrated at the cost of attacking those who are already immune. Individuals who are not immune to SARS-CoV-2 are only a risk to themselves and pose no risk to those who are immune, or who should be immune, given their inoculation with a vaccine! Is there any logical basis or scientific theory for the vaccinated to blame the unvaccinated for anything? Aside from the human tendency to look for a scapegoat, which is heavily promoted by the mainstream media, we see none. “Blame the unvaccinated” is the current day equivalent to segregation, categorizing people as either “vaccinated” or “unvaccinated”. As pointed out in the Lancet by a commentator from Germany:

It is therefore wrong and dangerous to speak of a pandemic of the unvaccinated. Historically, both the USA and Germany have engendered negative experiences by stigmatising parts of the population for their skin colour or religion. I call on high-level officials and scientists to stop the inappropriate stigmatisation of unvaccinated people, who include our patients, colleagues, and other fellow citizens, and to put extra effort into bringing society together.

Does vaccination increase the number of people with immunity? And if so, how long does a person keep that immunity? Years of immunological research, depicted in Figures 1 and 2 above, indicate that the immunity obtained via natural routes, either via non-susceptibility or via exposure and recovery, is more durable than the immunity obtained via vaccination. In the case of a leaky vaccine, i.e., one that allows both infection and transmission post-vaccination, these benefits are completely lost. Even more worrying, the existing COVID-19 mRNA vaccine(s) may create a class of “almost-but-not-quite-immunity,” that does not provide durable protection from acquisition or transmission, while requiring routine, repeated booster shots, forever.

For argument’s sake, let us assume – despite all the data and official documentation to the contrary – that the COVID-19 vaccinations provide durable, sterilizing protection. In that case once a person is  vaccinated, they have to believe they are protected. How then, can the unvaccinated pose a danger?

Simply put, there are but two options:

  1. The vaccine(s) work, so the vaccinated person is safe and does not need to worry about the unvaccinated.
  2. The vaccine(s) do not work, so the vaccinated and unvaccinated are essentially at the same level of risk.

We should also remember that non-vaccinated persons, naturally immune or not, present no danger[21] to anyone if not sick. Prior to the current pandemic, had you ever wondered if the guy standing next you was vaccinated against the flu? Or, for that matter, any other disease?  In the end, it is neither the unvaccinated nor the vaccinated who are the reason for this never-ending global crisis. It is inept leadership deploying ineffective, poorly thought-out short-term strategies with no consideration of long-term consequences. The focus instead should be for SARS-CoV-2 to be treated much like we do other common Corona Viruses, especially in view of the evolution into milder strains which is usual, expected, and appears to be happening with this virus. In the absence of elimination (which is impossible) it will surely become a virus that is so widely prevalent that it poses little  threat to anyone. The current approach, and the narratives that support it seem to be aimed at achieving exactly the opposite.



[1] According to some sources, such as Timeline | History of Vaccines, vaccination dates back to 1796.
[2] Glossary.
[3] Diamond Princess Mysteries – Watts Up With That?
[4] Cross-reactive CD4+ T cells enhance SARS-CoV-2 immune responses upon infection and vaccination | medRxiv
[5] Eurosurveillance | Descriptive study of COVID-19 outbreak among passengers and crew on Diamond Princess cruise ship, Yokohama Port, Japan, 20 January to 9 February 2020
[6] Fully vaccinated people who get a Covid-19 breakthrough infection can transmit the virus, CDC chief says – CNN
[7] Peter Doshi: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—let’s be cautious and first see the full data – The BMJ
[8] Table 1 Reported COVID-19 vaccine efficacy data from phase III trials (
[9] Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us | The BMJ
[10] Covid-19: Do many people have pre-existing immunity?
[11] Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Frequently Asked Questions | FDA
[12] The FDA (and CDC) have been somewhat aggressive in modifying their websites as the political winds change, so it is possible that these words will be modified from what is shown above by the time this article is published or at some point thereafter!
[13] Peter Doshi: Pfizer and Moderna’s “95% effective” vaccines—we need more details and the raw data – The BMJ
[14] Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals | medRxiv
[15] Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections | medRxiv
[16] SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation (
[17] an epidemic of the vaccinated – by el gato malo – bad cattitude (
[18] In this case, “fully-vaccinated” means greater than 14 days post dose 2 of multi-dose vaccine.
[19] Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Infections, Including COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Infections, Associated with Large Public Gatherings — Barnstable County, Massachusetts, July 2021 | MMWR (
[20] Shedding of Infectious SARS-CoV-2 Despite Vaccination
[21] Position Paper The Science And The Ethics Regarding The Risk Posed By Non-Vaccinated Individuals


The post Is the ‘Pandemic of the Unvaccinated’ a Media Construct? appeared first on PANDA.


Some of the posts we share are controversial and we do not necessarily agree with them in the whole extend. Sometimes we agree with the content or part of it but we do not agree with the narration or language. Nevertheless we find them somehow interesting, valuable and/or informative or we share them, because we strongly believe in freedom of speech, free press and journalism. We strongly encourage you to have a critical approach to all the content, do your own research and analysis to build your own opinion.

We would be glad to have your feedback.

Buy Me A Coffee

Source: PANDA Read the original article here: