A recent study making it’s rounds in the MSM purports to show that people who already have natural immunity from a previous infection and get a vaccine on top of that are more protected from reinfection than those who have natural immunity alone. Dr. Mobeen Syed (aka Dr. Been) explains in detail why this study is fundamentally flawed. On its face such claims are absurd to anyone who has an understanding of how the immune system functions.

Here’s the break-down. This is a retrospective study, not a controlled study. This was just researchers looking back at self-reported data in a few databases. The groups observed were as follows:

A. Infected in 2020, vaccinated between May and June 2021, 50/246 had positive PCR test after vaccination during study period.

B. Infected in 2020, not vaccinated between May and June 2021, 179/246 had a positive PCR test during study period.

C. Control, no positive PRC test on record between May and June 2021, 492

Results:

Among case-patients, 20.3% were fully vaccinated  compared with 34.3% of controls (Table 2). Kentucky residents with previous infections who were unvaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection (OR = 2.34; 95% CI = 1.58–3.47) compared with those who were fully vaccinated; partial vaccination was not significantly associated with reinfection (OR = 1.56; 95% CI = 0.81–3.01)

Problems:

Importantly, the groups were not part of a controlled study. This study only looked at people who came in for a PCR test during this timeframe because they wanted one done of their own free will. This leads to the first admitted limitation, vaccinated people are obviously less likely to get themselves tested if they feel ill.

Second, no information on variants was collected

Third, out of state vaccination data was not collected.

Fourth, confounders other than age, sex and date of infection were not considered, such as diabetes or morbid obesity, between groups.

The study itself says it should not be used to infer causation.

Dr. Been adds yet another critical issue on top of these already admitted problems with his analysis. He explains that when you prime the immune system with a vaccine in a person who already has immunological memory from a prior infection, in the period immediately following vaccination, they are unlikely to experience any symptoms at all if they were challenged with a reinfection because the immune system is still in a state where it has active antibodies floating around. As opposed to the unvaccinated group with natural immunity, whose immune systems would take a few days ramp back up, during which time mild symptoms would present leading them to worry about being re-infected. This alone would explain the discrepancy in people who came in for voluntary PCR tests that ended up being positive.

Dr. Been feels the paper should be retracted.