Table of Contents
Introduction
On November 1, I was notified by Facebook that a post of mine had been deleted on the grounds that it didn’t follow “Community Standards”, which prohibit “misinformation” about COVID-19 vaccines. My deleted post consisted of the observation that the “public health” establishment has been claiming that people who’ve recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection still need to get a COVID-19 vaccine because natural immunity is inferior, along with the observation that this claim is false.
I supported my counterclaim by linking to the introductory installment of an ongoing series of fully referenced articles I’m producing to document how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other “public health” authorities have been willfully lying to the public, which is demonstrable by simply contrasting what the authorities have been telling us with what the science has been telling us.
On Twitter on November 9, I observed the social media company telling users that “COVID-19 vaccines are more effective than natural immunity, the CDC and fact-checkers say”. As told by Twitter, the CDC “said that a study showed vaccines offer better protection than natural immunity gained from prior infection, which wanes over time”—thus implying that natural immunity is short-lived while the protection offered by COVID-19 vaccines does not wane over time.
Scrolling down a bit further, I was treated by Twitter to the statement that “COVID-19 vaccines provide stronger and longer-lasting protection than natural immunity, according to the CDC”. (This was truthful enough inasmuch as the CDC does make that claim.)
Twitter followed that immediately with the statement that “Experts caution that having COVID-19 does not guarantee antibodies, while the vaccines have been shown to offer protection against serious infections and death, the AP reported”.
Thus, Twitter presents the AP article as though it represents independent corroboration of the CDC’s claim, as though the AP had examined the scientific literature and determined that the CDC’s claim was indeed a scientifically proven fact.
Twitter is also implicitly claiming that immunity equals antibodies, that vaccination does guarantee protection, and that natural immunity does not offer protection against reinfection leading to hospitalization and death.
The implicit claim that vaccination guarantees protection is contradicted by the manufacturers themselves, who disclose in their product inserts or FDA fact sheets that their respective products “may not protect all vaccine recipients.” (We’ll come to how ridiculous and totally dishonest the rest of Twitter’s claims are, also.)
Scrolling down a bit further, I came to the AP’s “fact check” post, which states, “Posts continue to circulate online falsely claiming that COVID-19 survivors don’t need vaccines because of natural immunity. In fact, protection is variable and not long-lasting, so vaccines are still recommended.”
By juxtaposing the description of natural immunity as “variable and not long-lasting” with the supposedly superior immunity from vaccines, the AP is implicitly claiming that the immunity from vaccines is not variable and is long-lasting.
The truth, of course, is that “variable and not long-lasting” could just as well describe vaccine-induced immunity. The difference is that, with vaccine-induced immunity, the description “not long-lasting” is supported by scientific evidence, whereas the claim that natural immunity is “not long-lasting” is demonstrably false.
The AP’s Twitter post links to its “fact check” article, which proclaims that it is “False” that vaccination is unnecessary for people who already have natural immunity, which is to say that the AP claims that it is a scientifically proven fact that people with natural immunity require vaccination to be protected against COVID-19.
The AP’s conclusion is entirely dependent on its premise that infection induces only “short-term immunity” that rapidly “fades over time”. That premise is false.
Uncensored world renowned doctors, scientists and countless studies done with integrity convey truthfully the high value of natural immunity, it’s lifelong lasting defence, and the uselessness of these experimental injections being incorrectly referred to as “vaccines”.
To attempt to undermine these studies and discredit intellectually superior and honest professionals is to attest to the stupidity, diabolical intent and outright fear-mongering-lies of those pitiful and disgusting individuals.
The censorship speaks volumes as to the legitimacy of the official narratives.
Thx and yes, incredibly detailed with links…now….how to get Joepublic to read / comprehend? (I’ve copied and pasted … )
I think the trick is just to point out to people that the claim that natural immunity is short-lived is contradicted by the preponderance of scientific evidence. As long as their minds are open enough to take a look at the actual science, you can point them to the documentation. And if their minds are so closed they refuse to accept the possibility they are being lied to about what the science says, then they are hopeless and we need to move on to those who can be helped.