Thursday, August 26, 2021 by: Ethan Huff
Tags: badhealth, badmedicine, conspiracy, COVID, Dangerous Medicine, Delta Variant, infections, outbreak, Plandemic, propaganda, sheeple, superbugs, truth, United Kingdom, vaccinated, Vaccine deaths
21KVIEWS
(Natural News) The government of the United Kingdom has released new
data showing that the vast
majority of “delta variant” deaths are occurring among people who got “fully
vaccinated” for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19).
Only one
third of all deaths supposedly caused by the delta variant are occurring in
people who did not get the jab, which clearly shows that “Operation Warp Speed”
is an utter failure – assuming that “saving lives” was the goal, anyway.
From February
1 through August 2, the U.K. recorded 742 deaths allegedly caused by the delta
variant. Of these, 402 were fully vaccinated while 79 had received just one
shot. The remaining 253 cases were unvaccinated.
You can view
the official government report outlining the data at this
link.
“If you get
covid having been vaccinated, according to this data, you are much more likely
to die than if you were not vaccinated!” writes Chris Waldburger on his
Substack.
“Obviously
some allowance must be made for more elderly people being vaccinated, but not
enough to change the bottom line: This vaccine is not nearly as effective as
advertised.”
Covid vaccinations must stop in the best interest of public health
In every
country where Fauci Flu shot uptake is high, including
in Israel, deaths and
hospitalizations are soaring.
A whopping 60
percent of all new hospitalizations in Israel are “fully vaccinated” patients
who are now being told by their government that they need a third “booster”
shot in order to stay “safe” against vaccine-caused mutations.
“The powers
that be will not admit there is something terribly wrong,” Waldburger adds,
calling for “a complete recalibration of global policy” as “the only moral
option” here.
“They will
not acknowledge the clear science that people with natural immunity, and the
young and healthy, do not need to take the risks of these injections.”
Waldburger
also explains that natural immunity, meaning real immunity, is
the best way to go. Vaccine-induced “immunity,” if you can even call it that,
lasts for only a very short time at best. At worst, it destroys natural
immunity forever, leaving a person prone to a lifetime of disease.
You can learn more about
natural immunity and why it is superior to vaccine-induced “immunity.”
How many more new “variants” will emerge from the booster shots?
Now that this
is becoming widely apparent with Wuhan Flu shots, governments around the world
are ramping up the booster shot propaganda, claiming that a semi-annual
injection is necessary for the “fully vaccinated” to stay “immune” to disease.
This makes no
sense, of course, as the first two jabs clearly did nothing to promote immunity
while leaving the injected prone to disease. The apparent hope, however, is
that the injected will turn off their brains and just obey the orders.
Once the
booster shot campaign really gets going and additional needles are plunged into
arms, we expect a slew of new “variants,” likely even more deadly than the
last, which will drive calls for a fourth booster, and so on and so forth,
forever.
The plan
would seem to be to so destroy people’s immune systems with these shots that
they are forever reliant upon Big Pharma and the government to give them their
next hit of “immunity” every six months or so.
“The truth is
probably that the 253 unvaccinated deaths were from other causes, not covid or
delta,” speculated one commenter at Chris Waldburger’s blog.
“Historians
will look back and call this the malignant hypochondria era,” wrote another.
“So there really is something going around that’s far more pernicious than
Covid-19.”
Chinese Virus
injections are a death sentence. To keep up with the latest, visit ChemicalViolence.com.
Sources for
this article include:
Natural immunity vs
Covid-19 vaccine-induced immunity – Marc Girardot of PANDA
Covid-19 brought about an age of
misinformation like never before. With this, the responsibility of journalists
to provide informed, well-researched and objective news to the public has never
been of more paramount importance. This article by Marc Girardot, a member
of PANDA, is loaded with hyperlinks – each of which provide
the source of those facts asserted in the article. The links and pictures are
an integral part of this article, which takes a deep dive into the issue of
natural immunity and Covid-19 vaccination. This article is not and should not
be construed as ‘anti-vax’. Rather, it provides evidence of natural immunity.
It is impeccably researched and well worth reading. And spontaneously endorsed
by Prof Michael Levitt, the only living South African Nobel Prize winning
scientist (see below). – Nadya Swart
LINK: https://www.biznews.com/health/2021/06/28/covid-19-vaccine-immunity
Should people who have recovered from COVID take a vaccine?
Epidemiology, immunology and the clinical
data all say
a clear “No!”. There is no good reason to vaccinate the recovered.
By Marc Girardot*
A British friend, recovered from COVID, decided to
get vaccinated despite being naturally immune. This is the email he recently
sent me:
“Marc I suffered a mild stroke on Wednesday 8 days
after taking the Astrazeneca 2nd dose. Since I am a marathon runner I am a very
‘rare case’. I don’t smoke, have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, family
history or come into any of the risk categories for blood clots…
You did warn me against taking the second dose and
I wished I’d heeded your advice. I’ve taken a totally unnecessary risk with my
life and I bitterly regret doing it.”
Contrary to most, Tony was informed; he had been
told about the power of natural immunity, about the long – if not lifelong –
duration of immunity, of the risk inherent to any medical procedure (yes,
vaccination is a medical procedure!), as well as of the rising levels of
adverse events. He admitted he hadn’t imagined it could happen to him…
Though it is hard to assess precisely the actual severity and breadth of
vaccine-related adverse events, it is very clear that vaccination against
COVID-19 isn’t as harmless as pharmaceuticals, mainstream media, academia, health authorities
and the medical community have been saying. And, in contrast to high risk
individuals who are still susceptible, recovered people have no real benefit to
balance the additional risks of vaccination.
For over a year, mainstream media, health
authorities as well as many “experts” have been downplaying the power of the
immune system, dismissing natural immunity and proclaiming that immunity to COVID-19
was short-lived. Simultaneously, vaccines have been portrayed as
the silver bullet to this crisis, an incidental procedure with no risk
whatsoever. The data shows a different picture and many are coming forward, to challenge the official narrative. We will demonstrate
that this is a fallacy.
The human immune system is one of the most sophisticated achievements of
evolution. The survival of our species has depended on it for millenia. And
today, we are still very much relying on it. For the record, 99% of
people infected with SARS-CoV-2 recover without treatment. Only 1% of
SARS-CoV-2 patients, who did not receive early home-based treatment, end
up hospitalised. In other words, the immune system overwhelmingly
protects. Even vaccines depend entirely on the immune system: vaccines
essentially teach our immune systems what viral markers to be prepared for,
they are not cures per se. Without a functional immune system, there can
be no effective vaccine.
On the waning immunity fallacy
Once recovered, the immune response recedes,
notably via a decrease in antibodies. It is not only natural; it is
indispensable to restore the body to a normal balanced state. Just as a
permanent state of fever would be harmful, a high number of targetless
antibodies or T-cells constantly circulating throughout the body could create
serious complications such as autoimmune diseases. Taking an evolutionary perspective, only those
whose antibody and T-cells count waned post-infection survived. So, a dropping
number of antibodies and T-cells is reassuring, even healthy.
But this decrease in T-cells and antibodies doesn’t
mean at all that immunity is gone. It means the immune system has adapted to
the new situation, and is now just on sentinel mode: Memory B- and
T-cells, circulating in the blood and resident in tissues, act as vigilant and effective sentinels for decades:
·
survivors of
the Spanish Flu epidemic were tested for their immunity to the 1918 influenza
virus 90 years after, and still demonstrated immunity;
·
people
recovered from the 2003 SARS infection demonstrated robust T-Cell
responses seventeen years later;
·
the
wide-spread prevalence of high
cross-immunity –
gained from past common cold infections – further demonstrates the resilience of natural
immunity for coronaviruses.
Indeed, all recent studies show the specific anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunity remains effective – possibly for a lifetime. Our immune system is a modular platform, it can combine in an infinite
number of ways to address a multitude of threats in a variety of contexts. As
such, it is neutral to the viral threats it faces. In other words, there is
absolutely no reason to believe that those recovered from Covid-19 would lose
their immunity over the years, or even the decades to come.
On the
reinfection fallacy
You might have also heard of people becoming
reinfected by SARS-CoV-2. Indeed, immunity, natural or vaccine-induced, isn’t
the impenetrable shield described by many. Essentially harmless and
asymptomatic reinfections do take place. That is, in fact, the very mechanism
by which adaptive immunity is triggered.
However, symptomatic reinfections are very rare. Like an army which adapts its response to the size and the progression
of its enemy forces, adaptive immunity provides a specific, rapid and
resource-optimised response. As such, reinfections are mostly asymptomatic and recovered patients are protected from severe disease.
In fact, innocuous reinfections can play a positive
public health role as continuous immune updates of the population. They can help a seamless
and progressive adaptation to emerging new variants and strains. And indeed a
recent study showed that couples with children were more frequently
asymptomatic than couples without, most likely because children acted as
natural and harmless immunisation vehicles. The likely reason high density
countries all have very low death tolls is that they have asymptomatic
reinfections that regularly and widely update the immunity of the population.
On the variant fallacy
As demonstrated by the low numbers of reinfections
mentioned above, but also by multiple studies, so far variants have not escaped acquired
immunity. Just as
Americans can speak and interact seamlessly in England, unhindered by a few
word variants, natural or vaccine-induced immunity is unhindered by variants, possibly more so than vaccine-induced
immunity. There is ample evidence of the sophistication and breadth of the
human immune system, and it is clear that its arsenal cannot be evaded by a few
minor changes in the genes of the virus.
Across the world (countries: Canada, Ecuador,
Gabon, Germany, India, Singapore, Sweden, UK, USA, Tanzania, Zambia), multiple
studies demonstrate high-levels
of pre-existing cross-reactive T-cells and antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. In other words,
many were already largely immune via other coronaviruses. This is the likely
explanation for the unexpectedly high level of asymptomatics during the
pandemic. More importantly, this demonstrates that even with large genetic
differences, prior immunity to related coronaviruses is sufficient to avoid
severe Covid. Therefore, it is quite evident [that] variants are not a concern
for the general population who have already recovered.
On the vaccine
better-than-the-natural-immunity fallacy
You might have heard people stating that vaccines
provide better protection than natural immunity. That’s an interesting way of
bending reality. How can a vaccine be more effective at immunisation than the
disease it is trying to mimic?
Theoretically, there are several reasons explaining
why natural immunity is better than vaccine-induced immunity:
·
Fewer immune
targets: mRNA/DNA vaccines present
only a fraction of the virus genetic code (5-10%). For example, they don’t
utilise ORF1 highly immunogenic epitopes. Therefore, the immune system will recruit a smaller number of T-cells
tapping into a narrower repertoire, consequently with a less effective response. The logic:
Imagine you lose a number of key players for a football tournament – you might
still win, but it will be harder.
·
Longer immune
trigger time: The smaller
number of epitope targets also means that the alarm to the immune system will
be delayed. This is a key driver of success in the COVID-19 battle. The wider
the target repertoire, the faster the encounter between dendritic cells and
identifiable antigens. The logic: Like a party you go to, you can start
partying much faster when you have ten friends there than when you have only
one. They are just easier to find.
·
Inappropriate
delivery location: The
intramuscular delivery of current vaccines unfortunately doesn’t mimic viral
penetration and propagation at all. Coronaviruses don’t enter the body via
muscles. They do so via the respiratory tract, often infecting cell to
cell. Contrary to muscle-delivered vaccines, natural immunity places a
strong sentinel force of memory resident cells at the portals of entry and shuts the body entrance to the virus
preemptively. From an evolutionary standpoint, this makes perfect sense. The logic: It’s much easier to stop an army coming
through a narrow gorge than on the beaches of Normandy.
Recent research confirms this logic. One
comparative study in Israel found the protection from severe
disease to be 96·4% for Covid-19 recovered individuals but 94.4% for vaccinated
ones, and concluded “Our results
question the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals.” Another reference comparative study by a team at New York University highlighted a faster, wider and
more impactful humoral and cytotoxic reaction in recovered immunity
versus vaccine-induced.
There is ample evidence that vaccinating people
recovered from COVID doesn’t bring any benefit. It quite possibly does the
opposite, because of the risk of building tolerance to elements of the virus translating into reduced immune potency.
On the vaccine innocuity
fallacy
Without denigrating the incredible contribution of
vaccines to modern medicine and public health, one needs to acknowledge that
vaccines are a medical procedure. As such, vaccines should never be considered
lightly. They are neither neutral, nor trivial, all the more so when they are
injected into billions of people.
In their very nature, vaccines tinker with the
sophisticated balance of one’s immune system. That in itself demands respecting
rigid safety protocols. Though we have made considerable progress in our
understanding of immunology, we are still very far from understanding its
intricacies and subtleties, especially when it comes to novel mRNA and DNA
technologies.
Because of the risk of anaphylactic shock, auto-immune diseases, unforeseen
interactions, design flaws, deficient quality protocols, over-dosage, and so on
– vaccines have traditionally been strictly regulated.
History teaches us to be watchful with vaccines, from the botched inactivation
of polio vaccines that ended infecting 40,000 kids with polio in 1955, to the 1976 swine flu vaccine which caused 450 to develop Guillain-Barré
syndrome, to the more recent vaccine-induced outbreak of polio in Sudan. The recent rejection by Brazilian health authorities of the
Barhat’s Covaxin is a clear reminder of how rigorous and independent our health
authorities need to be if vaccines are to promote, not hinder, public health.
After 6 months of vaccination and a year of
research, a number of red signals should be alerting the would-be vaccinated
and health authorities:
1. Wandering nanoparticles: The lipid nanoparticles, the carriers of the
mRNA, were supposed to remain in the muscle, but ended up broadly distributed
throughout the body, notably in the ovaries, the liver and possibly the bone marrow.
2. Anaphylactic PEG: A number of concerns had been raised regarding the novel use
of PEG adjuvant. Notably, prior research had raised the risk
of cardiac anaphylaxis at second injection.
3. Sensitive locations: ACE-2 receptors susceptible to binding to the spike
protein are highly expressed in the endothelial cells of highly sensitive
areas, such as the brain, the heart, the lungs, the liver and both male and
female reproductive systems.
4. Toxic circulating spikes: The spike proteins induced by mRNA/DNA vaccines have been shown to be pathogenic, and highly inflammatory, notably because of
the similarity of a spike sequence to that of Staphylococcal Enterotoxin B. It has also been found to be directly causing blood clots through platelet activation. One researcher said, “Our findings show that the
SARS-CoV-2 spike protein causes lung injury even without the presence of an
intact virus”.
5. BBB disruption: A recent study highlights the risk of disruption of the blood-brain barrier, a fundamental filter mechanism to protect the
brain. The spike protein has also been found to cross the BBB and create inflammation in the brain.
6. High adverse events: Even though most likely under-reported, the overall number of serious adverse events
versus other traditional vaccines remains very high. The 6,000+ deaths seen [in the US] in six months exceed all the
vaccine-related deaths in 30 years. This is quite disquieting, and tends to
confirm the aforementioned alarms.
7. Children more at risk: The Covid-19 vaccines seem to be more harmful to
children and teens, notably with a growing number of myocarditis events. The fact that vaccine doses are not
adjusted for body weight is notably a cause for concern given the discovery of
circulating nanoparticles and spike toxicity.
These are essentially just the short-term effects
of these novel vaccines. There is no long-term clinical data regarding the
implications of these vaccines, notably regarding autoreactive antibodies
(antibodies that target one’s own body creating autoimmune diseases).
To conclude, we question why anyone healthy and
recovered from COVID-19 would want or be advised to take any risk – even the
most remote – in getting vaccinated given that:
·
those who have
recovered from COVID-19 enjoy robust immunity;
·
natural immunity
duration is decades-long, probably lifelong;
·
natural
immunity effectiveness is better than vaccine-induced;
·
variants are
not an immunological concern, presenting no risk of immune escape;
·
vaccines are
medical interventions which should never be taken lightly, especially when
still experimental;
·
there is no
benefit for COVID-19 recovered; and
·
COVID-19
vaccines are obviously not as safe as stated initially by the manufacturers.
Marc Girardot is a member of PANDA and Senior
Advisor in Biotech & Automotive/INSEAD MBA.
Read Also:
·
‘We
are entering very dark times’ – Nick Hudson on censorship; FMF award
·
Contribution
of PANDA recognised by FMF – a credible alternative
·
Why
I motivated for PANDA to receive an award – Professor Robert Vivian
(Visited 164,811 times, 22,267 visits today)
