This week U.S. News & World Report, reporting on a new study, published an article, “’Breakthrough’ Infections After COVID Vaccine Can Help Prevent Future Illness.”

Let’s pause and read that again: Breakthrough infections … after COVID-19 vaccine … can help prevent future illness.

If you get the disease the vaccine was supposed to prevent, it can help prevent you from getting the disease the vaccine was supposed to prevent … again.

Is this supposed to be good news?

The author of the U.S. News & World Report article hits us with this opener:

“It’s very frustrating to get a COVID-19 vaccine and then wind up catching the virus anyway.”

Yes, one might say that. He goes on:

“But these breakthrough infections actually do you a world of good, providing a powerful boost to your existing vaccine-induced immune protection, a new study reports.”

Ahhh … now we know who the target audience is: vaccinated people who got COVID-19 despite being “protected” — a new and rapidly growing demographic who may finally be scratching their heads wondering if they had been bamboozled by a relentless messaging campaign to advise/urge/coerce them into accepting an experimental therapy with no long-term safety or efficacy profile.

How best to placate them?

Step 1: Don’t mention the misleading messaging throughout the pandemic

Despite initially promising complete protection against infection through vaccination, our public health agencies were soon forced to retract their assurances when observational data indicated that the mRNA “vaccines” weren’t preventing infection or transmission.

Nevertheless, the White House continued to churn out propaganda about certain demise for those who refused the jab. As recently as December 2021, Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 coordinator, issued this warning:

“For the unvaccinated, you’re looking at a winter of severe illness and death for yourselves, your families and the hospitals you may soon overwhelm.”

Ten months later, the possibility of “severe illness and death” is now apparently something that can “actually do you a world of good.”

How quickly things can change.

Step 2: Don’t mention any of the harm that was done

Though authorities were allowed to backtrack on their position, those people who believed the empty promises will never be able to return the synthetic spike protein mRNA-infused lipid nanoparticles for a full refund. Once jabbed, always jabbed.

No harm no foul, right?

That depends on if you happen to be one of the quarter-million people, according to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, who reported a serious adverse reaction to the “vaccine” — or the countless others who have chosen not to report their injuries.

Step 3: Offer speculation as fact

The article reported on a study done at the Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) School of Medicine in Portland, Oregon, that compared the antibody levels in fully vaccinated individuals who got COVID-19 with boosted people who managed to escape the disease.

According to U.S. News & World Report:

“People infected after getting a basic two-dose COVID vaccination experienced an immune response equal in power and effectiveness to receiving a third booster, researchers reported recently in the journal Med.

“This boost is particularly potent for older folks, whose waning immune systems tend to produce shorter-lasting responses to the COVID vaccine, said Dr. Marcel Curlin [who led the study].

We know that immune responses after vaccination decline significantly with age, Curlin said. Whats very interesting is that if youve had a natural infection, that age drop-off does not occur anymore. It gets erased.’”

Let’s summarize:

  • Suffering a vaccine failure (breakthrough infection) is as good as getting a booster.
  • Getting COVID-19 (if you survive it) is particularly good for the elderly in terms of future protection.
  • The elderly have shorter-lasting responses to the COVID-19 vaccine.
  • In the elderly, getting COVID-19 is better than getting boosted because protection lasts longer.

So, back to the initial question: are breakthrough infections a good thing?

Of course not. Curlin does remind us, “We would never advocate trying to get COVID to prevent COVID.”

We may be able to excuse Curlin and U.S. News & World Report for their sanguine approach to vaccine failures. The fact remains that it is unclear whether vaccinated individuals are less likely to contract COVID-19 than those who aren’t.

Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) continues to maintain that the vaccinated have protection against infection, this fact is not corroborated by data from outside the U.S. that demonstrate the opposite.

In that sense, the intense pressure to accept vaccination may have resulted (or will result) in more people getting COVID-19. Whether or not this actually results in fewer repeat infections is still left to be seen.

The OHSU study examined only the antibody responses following breakthrough infections and boosters. The researchers did not measure the risk of repeated infections.

The CDC’s position on antibody levels has not changed since October 2021: “Data are presently insufficient to determine an antibody titer threshold that indicates when an individual is protected from infection.”

If antibody levels are not a correlate for protection, how can anyone conclude that breakthrough infections will be protective against future infections based on antibody levels alone? You can’t.

Step 4: Do not mention the unvaccinated

Most importantly, there was no unvaccinated group in the OHSU study. Comparisons were made only between the fully vaccinated and the boosted.

Original antigenic sin, the priming of the immune system to respond with a specific antibody through vaccination — which impedes the immune system’s versatility at every future exposure to a virus — is a real thing.

This is especially concerning because new variants are emerging regularly and frequently.

Original antigenic sin applies only to those who were vaccinated before contracting COVID-19.

In other words, even though a breakthrough infection may offer added protection equivalent to a booster, evidence demonstrates that this “benefit” will not be as robust as natural immunity obtained from exposure prior to vaccination.

Once jabbed, always jabbed — another point that should never be mentioned in polite company.

Is the U.S. News & World Report article a candid examination of new scientific evidence? Or is it more propaganda designed to reassure those with vaccine remorse?