CDC Makes SURPRISING Admission About Unvаccinated Spreading CΟVID After Recovering from Virus

Ever since the first case of CΟVID, scientists and medical professionals have been deceiving the public.

The Center for Disease Control is the United States’ go-to source for such critical advice.

However, these trusted medical professionals have wavered and wobbled on policy mandates so often, no one trusts them anymore. It’s with good reason. One key question about this pandemic centers around the immunity gained by those who have recovered from CΟVID.

No one at the CDC, or within the liberal news media, will discuss it. Anyone wanting to gauge their need for a CΟVID vаccination, based on any degree of natural protection, must dig for data.

As breakthrough cases of CΟVID infiltrate the vаccinated population, another question has arisen. The CDC says that vаccinated and unvаccinated people should keep wearing masks. Their reasoning is that despite being protected from severe medical consequences, vаccinated people can still infect others.

But why is no one willing to openly talk about those who have gained natural CΟVID immunity? Is it possible for someone with natural CΟVID immunity to contract and then spread the virus? A New York attorney is pushing this same question.

In a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) filled in September, this attorney asked for specific documents. He wanted to know if any unvаccinated individual, who had acquired CΟVID immunity from having it, had transmitted SARS CoV-2 to another person when reinfected.

The response that the attorney received from the CDC might surprise you. The CDC said, “A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request. The CDC Emergency Operation Center (EOC) conveyed that this information is not collected.”

The next logical question would seem to be, “why not”? Why is the leading agency for infectious diseases not keeping infection data across all spectrums of the pandemic? Or is it just that the CDC doesn’t warrant any aspect of natural immunity to be of value.

That’s where this whole pandemic gets even creepier. Dr. Anthony Fauci’s denial of gain-of-function research funding at the Wuhan Lab is creepy. The idea of forcing people, especially children, to wear masks even when there isn’t any scientific justification is creepy.

However, maybe the creepiest thing of all, when talking about the messaging by agencies such as the CDC, is the total reluctance to discuss natural immunity. We’ve heard all about “herd immunity”.

But the CDC consistently doubles down on how it’s only acquired via population vаccination percentages. No one will talk openly about the wealth of studies which have shown natural immunity to multiple times more effective than the vаccination.

Why won’t they talk about these valid scientific studies? One reason is Big Pharma. If natural immunity provides more robust protection against CΟVID than the vаccine; that will dip into Big Pharma’s piggy bank.

It’s a total scheme to make money for these crooked big pharmaceutical companies. However, there’s another side to this reluctance to discuss natural immunity. It’s about power and control. It’s about keeping people subjugated and afraid.

If people begin to realize that if they’re healthy, they can get CΟVID and recover. People will begin to live their lives without a fear of reprisal for being one of the “unvаccinated”. When people understand they may not need a vаccination, that’s like thumbing their nose at Joe Biden’s vаccine mandates.

The reluctance and blatant refusal to talk about natural immunity by the CDC is purposeful. If they permit people to know the facts, people will make their own choices. Joe Biden and his liberal socialists will lose their weapon of control, CΟVID.

Dozens of mistakes and pages of misinformation have bled from agencies such as the CDC. When we consider the level of manipulation and control these bureaucratic institutions have wielded, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility this virus was unleashed on purpose.

The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author of the article and not necessarily shared or endorsed by