Policymakers ignoring natural immunity to covid in favor of “vaccine” immunity

 Friday, July 09, 2021 by: Arsenio Toledo

Tags: badhealth, badmedicine, badscience, coronavirus, coronavirus vaccines, covid-19, herd immunity, immune system, immunity, infection, natural immunity, vaccine immunity, vaccines

1,870VIEWS

 (Natural News) When government officials and public health experts alike discuss herd immunity with regards to the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19), they usually talk about vaccinating as many people as possible. But as they push for vaccinations as the only way to achieve herd immunity against the coronavirus, there is one aspect they are willfully neglecting: natural immunity.

When a person gets infected with COVID-19 and recovers, that person has already defeated the infection and therefore already has natural immunity. This coronavirus survivor already has an immune system that is prepared to fight against future potential COVID-19 infections for the rest of his life. This means people with natural immunity do not need a vaccine.

Multiple studies show natural immunity good at preventing COVID-19

The idea that people with natural immunity do not need to get vaccinated against COVID-19 is supported by multiple studies. (Related: Rand Paul exposes total fraud, deception of Fauci and the CDC, who deliberately ignore NATURAL immunity.)

In May, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a scientific update stating that people who have recovered from prior COVID-19 infections have developed a strong protective immune response.

The WHO summarized its update by stating that within four weeks of infection, 90 to 99 percent of people who have recovered from the coronavirus can develop detectable neutralizing antibodies that can prevent any future infections. The WHO’s report said the immune system had “durable memories” of the virus up to eight months after the initial infection.

Another study published in the journal Nature in late May found that most people who were infected with the coronavirus had immunological memory of the disease in their bone marrow. This strongly suggests that people who have recovered from COVID-19 are still able to produce antibodies against it a year out.

A second study published in BioRxic found that cells known as “memory B” can fend off COVID-19 for at least 12 months after infection. This finding meshes well with the prior findings of the WHO and the study published in Nature. Memory B cells have been found to rapidly reproduce and generate coronavirus antibodies once it interacts with it again.

A third study from the Cleveland Clinic found that natural immunity to the coronavirus may be “as good as being vaccinated.” The researchers in this study followed more than 52,000 employees of the clinic for five months. Over 1,300 of the employees had prior COVID-19 infections and remained unvaccinated.

The researchers found that not a single one of the more than 1,300 employees with prior infections were reinfected during the five months that they were monitored. They concluded that people with laboratory-confirmed and symptomatic coronavirus infections are unlikely to benefit from vaccinations.

People with natural immunity could be discriminated against if they aren’t treated the same as vaccinated individuals

Dr. Jeffrey Klausner and Dr. Noah Kojima, writing for Medpage Today, noted that public health policymakers are ignoring “the complexities of the human immune system” in favor of maintaining discussions of supposed immunity from vaccinations.

“If SARS-CoV-2 immunity is similar to other severe coronavirus infections like SARS-CoV-1 immunity, that protection could last at least 17 years.” they wrote. “However, tests to measure cellular immunity are complex and expensive, making them hard to get and preventing their use in routine medical practice or in public health surveys of the population.”

If people with natural immunity against COVID-19 continue to be excluded from discussions regarding herd immunity, it could lead to disastrous consequences. Jon Sanders, writing for the American Institute for Economic Research, surmised that unvaccinated individuals with natural immunity could be discriminated against.

“People with natural immunity could be kept from employment, education, travel, normal commerce and who knows what other things if they don’t submit to a vaccine they don’t need in order to fulfill a headcount that confuses a means with the end,” wrote Sanders.

Klausner and Kojima recommend that moving forward, public health policymakers should include natural immunity as evidence of immunity “equal to that of vaccination.”

“That immunity should be given the same societal status as vaccine-induced immunity. Such a policy will greatly reduce anxiety and increase access to travel, events, family visits and more.”

This kind of policy focus will allow people who have recovered from COVID-19 access to the same privileges currently being enjoyed by vaccinated individuals.

Learn more about natural immunity to coronavirus at Pandemic.news.

Sources include:

WakingTimes.com

MedpageToday.com

NYPost.com

WKYC.com

 

WHY IS THERE SUCH RELUCTANCE TO DISCUSS NATURAL IMMUNITY?

July 7, 2021

Jon Sanders, AIER

Waking Times

If you’re among those of us who aren’t tribally invested in Covid politics but would like good information about when life will resume as normal, chances are you’re interested in herd immunity. You’re likely not interested in having to rely on the Internet Archive for good information on herd immunity. Alas, it’s become a go-to place for retrieving, as it were, previously published information on herd immunity that became inconvenient post-vaccine and then virtually Memory-Holed.

Over the past 15 months, the litany of Experts’ True Facts and Science regarding various aspects of SARS-CoV-2 has changed more often than the starting lineup of a bad minor league ball club. Covid-19 is spread by droplets, especially from asymptomatic people, until one day it was airborne all along and people who weren’t sick in all likelihood weren’t even sick. Stay at home, you’re safer indoors, even stay away from parks and beaches; well, actually, outdoors is the place to be. Masks don’t work against viruses and are actually unhealthy to wear if you’re not sick, then suddenly they did work and without one you might as well be shooting people. Everyone knows and PolitiFact verified that the virus couldn’t have been created in the prominent infectious disease lab doing gain-of-function research on coronaviruses in bats coincidentally at Covid Ground Zero until, one day, PolitiFact had to retract the entire “Pants on Fire!” article. And so forth.

Unfortunately, information about herd immunity has also not been immune to this kind of meddling. Until recent months, people readily understood that active immunity came about either by natural immunity or vaccine-induced immunity. Natural immunity comes from battling and defeating an actual infection, then having your immune system primed for the rest of your life to fight it off if it ever shows up again. This immunity is achieved at a sometimes very high personal price.

Vaccine-induced immunity is to prime your immune system with a weaker, non-threatening form of the invading infection, so that it’s ready to fight off the real thing should you ever encounter it, and without your having first to risk severe illness or death.

Those interested in herd immunity in itself likely don’t have a moral or political preference for one form of immunity to the exclusion of the other. Immunity is immunity, regardless of whether a particular person has it naturally or by a vaccine. All immunity contributes to herd immunity.

Others, however, are much less circumspect. They seem to have forgotten the ultimate goal of the public campaign for people to receive vaccination against Covid-19. It’s not to be vaccinated; it’s to have immunity. People with natural immunity — i.e., people whose immune systems have faced Covid-19 and won — don’t need a vaccine.

They do, however, need to be considered in any good-faith discussion of herd immunity. There are two prongs to herd immunity, as we used to all know, and those with natural immunity are the prong that’s being ignored. It’s not just mere oversight, however. Fostering such ignorance can lead to several bad outcomes:

§  People with natural immunity could be kept from employment, education, travel, normal commerce, and who knows what other things if they don’t submit to a vaccine they don’t need in order to fulfill a head count that confuses a means with the end

§  The nation could already be at herd immunity while governors and health bureaucrats continue to exert extreme emergency powers, harming people’s liberties and livelihoods

§  People already terrified of Covid — including especially those who’ve already had it — would continue to live in fear, avoiding human interaction and worrying beyond all reason

§  People could come to distrust even sound advice from experts about important matters, as they witness and grow to expect how what “the experts” counsel diverges from what they know to be wise counsel while it conforms to and amplifies the temporary needs of the political class

·  Those of us wanting good information certainly don’t want any of those outcomes. But others seem perfectly fine to risk them. They include not only elected officials, members of the media, political talking heads, self-important bureaucrats, and their wide-eyed acolytes harassing shoppers, but strangely also highly prominent health organizations.

For example, late last year Jeffrey Tucker showed that the World Health Organization (WHO) suddenly, and “for reasons unknown,” changed its definition of “herd immunity.” Using screenshots from a cached version on the Internet Archive, Tucker showed how the WHO altered its definition in such a way as to erase completely the role of natural immunity. Before, the WHO rightly said it “happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.” The WHO’s change stated that it happens “if a threshold of vaccination is reached.” Not long after Tucker’s piece appeared, the WHO restored natural immunity to its definition.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), seemingly apropos of nothing, on May 19 issued a “safety communication” to warn that FDA-authorized SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests “should not be used to evaluate immunity or protection from COVID-19 at any time.” The FDA’s concern appears to be that taking an antibody test too soon after receiving a vaccination may fail to show vaccine-induced antibodies, but why preclude its use for “identifying people with an adaptive immune response to SARS-CoV-2 from a recent or prior infection?” Especially after stating outright that “Antibody tests can play an important role in identifying individuals who may have been exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and may have developed an adaptive immune response.”

Then there is the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director, Dr. Anthony Fauci, that ubiquitous font of fatuous guidance. He had told people that herd immunity would be at 60 to 70 percent immunity, and then he started publicly cinching those numbers up: 75 percent, 80 percent, 85 percent, even 90 percent (as if Covid-19 were as infectious as measles). He is quoted in the New York Times admitting to doing so deliberately to affect people’s behavior:

“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.“

Now — or better put, as of this writing — Fauci has taken to arguing herd immunity is a “mystical elusive number,” a distracting “endgame,” and therefore not worth considering. Only vaccinations are worth counting. As he put it recently, “We don’t want to get too hung up on reaching this endgame of herd immunity because every day that you put 2 million to 3 million vaccinations into people [it] makes society be more and more protected.”

While composing an article about natural immunity and herd immunity for my home state of North Carolina, I happened to notice that the Mayo Clinic had removed a compelling factoid about natural immunity. It’s something I had quoted in an earlier discussion of the matter and wanted to revisit it.

 

Here’s what the Mayo Clinic once wanted people to know in its page on “Herd Immunity and COVID-19” with respect to natural immunity: “[T]hose who survived the 1918 flu (influenza) pandemic were later immune to infection with the H1N1 flu, a subtype of influenza A.” The Mayo Clinic pointed out that H1N1 was during the 2009-10 flu season, which would be 92 years later. That finding attested to just how powerful and long-lived natural immunity could be.

As can be seen from the Internet Archive, however, sometime after April 14 the Mayo Clinic removed that compelling historical aside:

The Mayo Clinic also reoriented its page to feature vaccination over “the natural infection method” (method?) and added a section on “the outlook for achieving herd immunity in the U.S.” This new section stated that “it’s not clear if or when the U.S. will achieve herd immunity” but encouraged people nonetheless that “the FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective at protecting against severe illness requiring hospitalization and death … allowing people to better be able to live with the virus.”

Why, from people who know better, is there so much interest in downplaying or erasing natural immunity?

Is it because it’s hard to quantify how many people have natural immunity? Is it out of a mix of good intentions and worry, that discussing natural immunity would somehow discourage (“nudge,” in Fauci’s term) people from getting vaccines who otherwise would? Is it simple oversight, being so focused on vaccinations that they just plain forgot about natural immunity? Or is something else at work?

Whatever the reason, it’s keeping Americans in the dark about how many people have active immunity from Covid-19. It’s keeping people needlessly fearful and suspicious of each other. It’s empowering executive overreach. Worst of all, it’s tempting people to consider government and business restrictions on the unvaccinated, regardless of their actual immunity.

 

About the Author

Jon Sanders is an economist and the senior fellow of regulatory studies and research editor at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Jon researches a broad range of areas, including energy and electricity policy, occupational licensing, red tape and overregulation, alcohol policy, executive orders and overreach, poverty and opportunity, cronyism and other public-choice problems, emerging ideas and economic growth, and other issues as they arise.

 

The Telegraph: Covid’s “derde golf” zal een massale dood zien onder de GEVACCINEERDEN

april 9, 2021    42        50805

Er komt een “derde golf” van het Coronavirus onze kant op. En degenen die erdoor zullen worden getroffen, zijn de “gevaccineerden” die hebben toegestemd om zich te laten injecteren met experimentele gentherapiecocktails die hen vatbaarder hebben gemaakt voor ziekte en dood.     

Begraven in een rapport samengesteld door de Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modeling (SPI-M), is een bekentenis dat de meeste mensen die zullen sterven tijdens de zogenaamde derde golf, de al volledig gevaccineerden zullen zijn tegen het Coronavirus.

Screenshot The Telegraph

 

“De heropleving van zowel het aantal ziekenhuisopnames als het aantal sterfgevallen wordt gedomineerd door degenen die twee doses van het vaccin hebben ontvangen, die respectievelijk ongeveer 60 en 70 procent van de golf uitmaken”, onthult het rapport.

“Dit kan worden toegeschreven aan de hoge niveaus van vaccinatie in de meest risicovolle leeftijdsgroep”, legt het verslag verder uit.

Ja, dat heb je goed gelezen. De sterfgevallen van de derde golf zullen voornamelijk vallen onder de mensen die gevaccineerd zijn.

De redenering van de groep is dat ongeveer 10 procent van de 50-plussers die worden gevaccineerd geen bescherming van het vaccin zullen genieten, dit op basis van een veronderstelde 90 procent “werkzaamheid”. Deze 10 procent komt neer op ongeveer 2,9 miljoen mensen.

De ene analist voorspelt ongeveer 40.000 sterfgevallen, terwijl een ander dichter bij de 60.000 sterfgevallen zit. Hoe dan ook, dit is een groot aantal doden als gevolg van een ‘vaccin’ dat op zichzelf volkomen overbodig is, aangezien het Covidvirus zelf niet eens zo’n hoog risico vormt.

Terwijl één op de 200 mensen zou zijn gestorven tijdens de “eerste golf” – en we weten dat dit drastisch overdreven was – voorspellen deskundigen dat maar liefst één op de 70 mensen zal sterven tijdens de derde golf, en dat allemaal dankzij het vaccin.

In de zomer zijn er over de hele linie minder infecties, maar wacht maar tot de herfst en winter

Nadat zij kritiek hadden gekregen omdat zij te “pessimistisch” zouden zijn geweest, hebben sommige modelleurs sindsdien een rooskleuriger beeld geschetst van hoe het met iedereen die is gevaccineerd wel goed zal komen. Dit geeft de mensen een goed gevoel en zal dus waarschijnlijk het narratief zijn dat voorwaarts wordt bestendigd.

Maar als mensen dood neervallen, zullen ze dan het verband leggen met de vaccinaties, of krijgen de niet-gevaccineerden gewoon weer de schuld? Het medisch establishment lijkt altijd een manier te hebben om iets anders de schuld te geven dan de ware oorzaak.

Toch voorspellen niet alle bronnen mooie resultaten voor de gevaccineerden. Eén analist zegt dat de controversiële AstraZeneca-injectie “infecties” na twee doses slechts met ongeveer 31% zal verminderen. Anderen zeggen dat de injecties iets beter zouden kunnen presteren met ongeveer 63-65 procent.

AstraZeneca claimt ondertussen een werkzaamheid van 94 procent en negeert daarbij de hordes ontvangers van de prik die doodvallen door bloedstolsels als gevolg van de injectie.

Het seizoensgebonden aspect moet ook in overweging worden genomen, aangezien een grotere blootstelling aan zonlicht en andere factoren over het algemeen minder ziekte betekenen tijdens de warmere maanden. Wacht maar tot de herfst en winter, wanneer de seizoensziekten zich beginnen te “verspreiden” en elke gevaccineerde persoon wiens lichaam is voorbereid om onnatuurlijk te reageren op blootstelling aan ziekteverwekkers, zijn of haar immuunsysteem in overdrive ziet gaan.

Denk aan cytokinestormen zoals deze wereld nog nooit heeft gezien, resulterend in massale ziekte en dood.

Sla de prik over en leef gewoon je leven

Zelfs de voorstanders van vaccinatie beginnen toe te geven dat de natuurlijke immuunrespons van mensen kan worden toegeschreven aan dalende infectiecijfers, zelfs zonder de inentingen. Tegelijkertijd pushen ze ze als een manier om de R-rate laag te houden, ondanks het feit dat velen verwachten dat die zal stijgen door de massale injectiecampagnes.

“… het is de moeite waard in gedachten te houden dat een aanzienlijk deel van deze ongevaccineerde mensen al immuniteit zal hebben van een eerdere infectie, of op zijn minst enige natuurlijke immuniteit van een ander Coronavirus”, wijst een bron aan die anders vaccinatie lijkt te steunen.

Aan de andere kant worden de trieste modellen die toegeven dat vaccinaties tot meer sterfgevallen zullen leiden ook gebruikt om te suggereren dat de lockdowns en restricties moeten blijven bestaan, wat volgens dezelfde geciteerde bron hierboven niet het geval zou moeten zijn.

Bronnen:
The Telegraph.co.uk
Fos-Sa.org
NaturalNews.com
Vaccines.news

“Doorgaan met het baseren van beleid op modellen die al verouderd zijn tegen de tijd dat ze worden gepresenteerd kan geen verstandige manier zijn om beslissingen te nemen over de vrijheid van de natie”, betoogt het.

“Het is tijd om verder te gaan – voorzichtig, maar vastberaden – met het vrijgeven van beperkingen op basis van gegevens, niet op data, en zeker niet op modellen”.

U kunt de volledige analyse lezen onder deze link.

COVID-19 VACCIN DOSSIER

 

 

Majority of physicians decline COVID-19 shots, according to a new survey

The survey also showed that 54 percent of physician respondents were aware of patients suffering a 'significant adverse reaction.'

Tue Jul 6, 2021 - 9:14 am EST

·          

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

July 6, 2021 (AAPS) – Of the 700 physicians responding to an internet survey by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), nearly 60 percent said they were not “fully vaccinated” against COVID-19.

This contrasts with the claim by the American Medical Association that 96 percent of practicing physicians are fully vaccinated. This was based on 300 respondents.

Neither survey represents a random sample of all American physicians, but the AAPS survey shows that physician support for the mass injection campaign is far from unanimous.

“It is wrong to call a person who declines a shot an ‘anti-vaxxer,’” states AAPS executive director Jane Orient, M.D. “Virtually no physicians are ‘anti-antibiotics’ or ‘anti-surgery,’ whereas all are opposed to treatments that they think are unnecessary, more likely to harm than to benefit an individual patient, or inadequately tested.”

The AAPS survey also showed that 54 percent of physician respondents were aware of patients suffering a “significant adverse reaction.” Of the unvaccinated physicians, 80 percent said “I believe risk of shots exceeds risk of disease,” and 30% said “I already had COVID.”

 

Other reasons for declining the shot included

unknown long-term effects,

use of aborted fetal tissue,

“it’s experimental,”

availability of effective early treatment, and

reports of deaths and blood clots.

Of 560 practicing physicians, 56 percent said they offered early treatment  for COVID.

Nonphysicians were also invited to participate in the survey. Of some 5,300 total participants, 2,548 volunteered comments about associated adverse effects of which they were aware.

These included

death,

amputation,

paralysis,

stillbirth,

menstrual irregularities,

blindness,

seizures,

and heart issues.

Onderkant formulier

“Causality is not proven. However, many of these episodes might have resulted in a huge product liability or malpractice award if they had occurred after a new drug,” stated Dr. Orient. “Purveyors of these COVID products are protected against lawsuits.”            

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has represented physicians in all specialties since 1943. Its motto is omnia pro aegroto, everything for the patient.

Reprinted with permission from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons