Reading Progress:

A Chronicle of Statements about Natural Immunity Once Deemed Misinformation But Now Admittedly True

by Feb 21, 2022Articles, Health Freedom4 comments

A computer model of SARS-CoV-2 (Image: US Department of State/Public Domain)
Here is a record of statements about natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 once deemed misinformation but now admittedly true.

Reading Time: ( Word Count: )

()

Introduction

As I detail in my most recently published article, the mainstream media are now trying to gaslight us to whitewash the fact that the “public health” establishment, with the media’s help, had from the start been blatantly lying about the protectiveness of natural immunity relative to the immunity induced by COVID-19 vaccines.

The old propaganda narrative was that natural immunity is weak, short-lived, and inferior to that induced by the vaccines. The vaccines, we were told, would also offer superior protection against so-called “variants of concern”. It was only vaccines, we were told, that could confer sufficient protection to reach herd immunity.

A Guardian article misinforms about natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2
An alarmist Guardian headline falsely claiming that an initial rapid waning of antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 infection meant people were losing their immunity.

Then, just last month, CDC researchers published a study admitting that natural immunity offered better protection against the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.

So, the new propaganda narrative is that the CDC’s position has changed because the science has changed.

The truth, however, is that the science hasn’t changed at all. Sure, we are always acquiring knew scientific knowledge, but when it comes to the knowledge of natural immunity, it isn’t the case that the science has changed. Rather, it is simply the case that the evidence continues to accumulate confirming what we had already long known: that natural immunity is robust, broad, durable, and superior to the immune responses induced by vaccination.

As anyone who’s been following my work since the start of the pandemic knows, I have consistently combatted false propaganda claims about natural immunity, maintaining that the vaccines would not induce the same type of strong immunity.

According to the new propaganda narrative, I must have just made a lucky guess. If this narrative is to be believed, censorship of posts of mine on social media was not entirely unreasonable because the science at the time had said that I was wrong, and there was simply no evidentiary basis to support my position until very recently when the science suddenly changed and overturned previously held beliefs.

So, after publishing that article yesterday, which uses a lying NPR article as a case study in media deception, I thought I’d go back through my archive of articles, interviews, and exclusive subscriber-only content delivered in my newsletters to review what I was saying when.

I invite you to compare what I was saying the whole time with what you kept hearing from “public health” authorities and the mainstream media. If you conclude that my newsletter subscribers had the advantage of acquiring empowering knowledge, grounded firmly in facts, logic, and wisdom, I further invite you to join them by signing up for my free newsletter here.

So, following is a chronicle of some of the key claims I was making that we are supposed to believe were just unsupported lucky guesses; assertions that were contradicted by the scientific evidence the time, but which we only now know with the benefit of hindsight and advancement of scientific knowledge to have been correct. For the record:

Newsletter, March 19, 2020

“It would be beneficial for the population if those of us who aren’t at high risk were to become infected and to develop immunity. In time, herd immunity would naturally develop, which would serve to protect those at highest risk over the long-term.”

Newsletter, March 26, 2020

“I would argue that instead of radical measures that might be doing far more harm than good both in terms of economic damage and lives lost and that attempt to halt transmission, what we need to be doing is cocooning those at high risk while the rest of us who have none of the risk factors associated with severe disease go about our lives in a socially responsible manner and help build population immunity. . . .

“Taking deliberative action to destroy the economy based on the vain hope that 18 months or so down the road, a safe and effective vaccine will exist is absolutely insane.

“Then there is the threat that, if they do develop a vaccine, it will be forced upon us in violation of the right to informed consent and despite the absence of long-termrandomizedclinical trials comparing health outcomes between vaccinees and a placebo-control group. This possibility given the current political climate is a real and present danger to all of us.

“Taking action to prevent the development of herd immunity is the wrong thing to do and only sets the stage for endless cycles of outbreak and lockdown. There is no getting around the need for a large segment of the population to become infected and acquire immunity, which is precisely what will save the most lives in the long run.

Newsletter, April 6, 2020

“There’s one specific point I’d like to make in this newsletter, which is that the authoritarian measures governments have been implementing to address the epidemic are dangerous and, I would argue, are causing far more harm than good. . . .

“I won’t get into the reasons why that is sheer lunacy. It suffices to point out that what policymakers are doing right now in places around the globe where people are under orders to stay in their homes is causing immeasurable harm to the economy that will also come at an immeasurable cost in human lives and rests on the vain hope that a vaccine will soon exist that (a) can be mass produced and globally distributed, (b) is effective at conferring as robust an immunity as infection otherwise would, and (c) is safe.”

Newsletter, April 17, 2020

“I discuss [in this video] how their only exit strategy is faith the vaccine technology, whereas we need policies that are not faith-based. We need to be developing population immunity because that is precisely what will save the most lives at the least long-term cost.”

Interview, September 12, 2020

Points of discussion from my interview with Kyle Ramos of the Slightly Sophisticated podcast:

“How sensible policies would have protected those at highest risk while allowing younger, healthy people at low risk to go about their lives and keep the economy rolling, and how lockdown measures essentially did the opposite . . .

“How the original justification for the lockdown measures shifted so that the measures continue despite the original justification no longer holding . . .”

Interview, September 14, 2020

Points of discussion from my interview with Marc Clair of the Lions of Liberty podcast:

“How sensible policies would have protected those at highest risk while letting those at low risk get on with their lives and keep the economy rolling, and how lockdown policies essentially did the opposite . . .

“How lockdown advocates failed to consider the economic consequences, which must be measured not just in dollars but also in worsened health and lost lives . . .

“How the endgame of lockdown from the start was always mass vaccination, and why placing faith in vaccines to save us is totally irrational . . .

“What we know about immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and why the media claims that infection might not confer immunity were always fearmongering nonsense . . .

“How any COVID-19 vaccine rushed to market will not have gone through randomized, placebo-controlled trials comparing long-term health outcomes, including mortality, between vaccinated and unvaccinated people, and why that should alarm everyone”

Newsletter, November 5, 2020

“A little while back, a group of scientists issued the ‘Great Barrington Declaration’, which outlined a strategy for minimizing COVID-19 deaths by isolating those at highest risk while those at low risk get on with their lives and build up population immunity. Once a high enough proportion of the population has immunity through exposure, the transmission rate will be reduced to the point where those at highest risk could also then come out of isolation. That is precisely the case I have been making publicly since March. . . .

“For another example of that cognitive dissonance, they argue that we can’t aim for population immunity because we don’t know how long immunity conferred by infection will last. Never mind all the evidence suggesting long-term immune memory, and never mind the fact that, by comparison, we have absolutely no data on how long any immunity that might be conferred by a vaccine would last! . . .

“While this cross-protective immunity [from prior infection with common cold coronaviruses], unlike antibody immunity, might not prevent infection, studies have also shown that, with COVID-19, cell-mediated immunity plays an even greater role than antibody immunity—and individuals who have a strong cell-mediated response are more likely to have mild illness or be completely asymptomatic.”

Newsletter, January 12, 2021

“There’s agreement that building population immunity is the key to ending the pandemic. The disagreements are about how to get there.

“The apologists for mass vaccination with the still-experimental (not yet FDA approved) COVID-19 vaccines argue that natural herd immunity is practically infeasible and that the vaccines are required to create this immunity. . . .

“Now that Pfizer and Moderna each have an mRNA vaccine with FDA emergency use authorization, the media have been going on about how, now, we can start building the vaccine-conferred herd immunity necessary to bring the pandemic to an end. There’s just one problem with this argument: we do not yet have data to determine whether the vaccines prevent transmission.

“This is not controversial. You can read media reports about it. You can read it in the BMJ and other journals. Anthony Fauci has acknowledged it. The WHO’s chief scientist has acknowledged it.

“Yet, many if not most articles about the vaccines carry on as though the vaccines have been scientifically demonstrated to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2. It is just assumed that this will prove to be the case despite the total absence of scientific evidence to support the assumption.”

Newsletter, January 19, 2021

“When the Great Barrington Declaration was published expressing the view of many scientists that the authoritarian lockdown measures do far more harm than good, its authors were attacked by pro-lockdown scientists for believing the ‘pseudoscience’ that the COVID-19 epidemic will end when the population achieves natural herd immunity.

“Never mind that natural herd immunity is such basic epidemiology that it’s built in as an assumption in the lockdowners’ own models.

“For example, Neil Ferguson and his team at Imperial College London, in their influential and panic-inducing March estimate, projected that lockdown measures would prolong the epidemic by inhibiting the development of population immunity. . . .

“The concept of ‘focused protection’ espoused in the Great Barrington Declaration is really simple: the way to minimize deaths from SARS-CoV-2 is to protect those who are at highest risk of dying from the disease; lockdown measures are unsustainable because they cause far more harm than good over the long term; and therefore the best long-term strategy is to allow those at low risk to go about their business in a socially responsible manner, a side-effect of which will be the attainment of natural herd immunity. . . .

“They [lockdown advocates] argue that mass vaccination is the only feasible solution because there is ‘a lack of evidence supporting [natural] herd immunity’, which they describe as a ‘hypothetical possibility’ only that is ‘not borne out by the evidence.’

“But that is an utterly stupid and hypocritical thing to say. For one, again, natural herd immunity is basic epidemiology, a known phenomenon with respiratory viral illnesses. Also, the solution they propose—vaccine-conferred herd immunity—is itself only a hypothetical possibility that is not borne out by the evidence.

“Specifically, no COVID-19 vaccines have yet been evaluated for long-term safety and effectiveness, and we do not know whether they will be effective at preventing transmission. Consequently, their argument that mass vaccination is the only feasible way to achieve herd immunity is not a scientific statement but an expression of faith.

Newsletter, February 4, 2021

“But, as Peter Doshi in The BMJ has pointed out, the Phase 3 trials still underway were not designed to determine whether the vaccines reduce the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, or death. Nor were they designed to determine whether the vaccines prevent transmission, although, of course, public health officials and the mainstream media go on declaring that the vaccines will give us ‘herd immunity’, and they are never fact-checked by the faux ‘fact-checkers’ who know that this is misleading. (See what I mean here.)”

Newsletter, February 5, 2021

“A perfect example [of the hypocrisy of ‘fact checkers’ refusing to correct the incessant lies from the government and mainstream media] is the constant messaging we’re getting from government officials, the media, health care providers, and medical professionals that—hooray!—now that the COVID-19 vaccines are here, we’ll be on our way to herd immunity.

“How many times have you heard that claim made since Pfizer’s and Moderna’s vaccines were granted emergency use authorization by the FDA?

Never mind the fact that we have absolutely no data from clinical trials demonstrating that these vaccines prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2. . . .

But when was the last time you saw Facebook censoring a mainstream media article for falsely asserting as though proven fact that the vaccines will confer herd immunity?

Interview, February 18, 2021

Points of discussion from my interview with Evan McDermod of The Fifth Dimension podcast:

“How the advocates of ‘lockdown’ measures as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic never bothered to consider the costs of the policy they were advocating . . .

“How the explicitly stated endgame of the lockdowns has always been mass vaccination . . .

“Why we can anticipate the threat of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination”

Interview, February 24, 2021

Points of discussion from my interview with Wayne Rohde:

“How the vaccine religion is also evident in the cognitive dissonance displayed by vaccine advocates declaring, on one hand, that the vaccine will confer herd immunity while, on the other, telling people that they still need to wear a mask after they are vaccinated . . .

“Why antibodies do not equal immunity and the importance of cellular immunity with SARS-CoV-2 . . .

“Why vaccines do not confer an immunity equivalent to that conferred by infection”

Newsletter, March 2, 2021

“In this Twitter post, I show how another provider here in Michigan, Munson Healthcare, is trying to persuade people to get vaccinated on the grounds that the experimental vaccines will confer ‘Community “Herd” Immunity’.

“I point out that this is a lie because Munson is claiming to know that the vaccines prevent transmission when the FDA itself emphasizes that there is an absence of data showing this to be true.

“I also emailed Munson requesting that the cease lying to the public, acknowledge the truth that we do not yet have scientific evidence that the vaccines prevent transmission, and properly inform patients of this reality so they can make an informed choice rather than being persuaded to get the shots on the basis of a lie.

“Naturally, my voice of reason was ignored and they go on lying.”

Interview, March 8, 2021

Points of discussion from my interview with James Jenneman of the Blackbird podcast:

“How the endgame and exit strategy of the authoritarian lockdown measures has from the start been mass vaccination, with the implication being that vaccine mandates or ‘immunity passports’ represent an imminent threat to our health and our freedom . . .

“How the lockdown measures have done nothing to protect those at highest risk from COVID-19 and are also discriminatory against the underprivileged lower-income members of society”

Interview, March 10, 2021

Points of discussion from my interview with Nate the Voluntaryist:

“How sensible measures to reduce transmission would not have required shutting down the economy and would have been more effective at protecting those at highest risk . . .

“How the Michigan state government is lying to the public that the COVID-19 vaccines have been approved using the same process used to approve every other licensed vaccine despite the FDA itself emphasizing that there are no FDA-approved vaccines for COVID-19 . . .

“How public health officials refuse to consider the opportunity costs of vaccination resulting from the superior immunity conferred by infection and the phenomenon of ‘original antigenic sin’ . . .

“Why equating a high level of antibodies with ‘immunity’ to SARS-CoV-2 is scientifically invalid . . .

“How trying to prevent people at low risk from COVID-19 from acquiring natural immunity through mass vaccination could result in prolonging and worsening the outcomes of the pandemic . . .

“How health care providers are, like government officials, lying to the public about the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines but the mainstream media ‘fact checkers’ never fact check misinformation that serves the political agenda of achieving high vaccine uptake . . .

“How the authoritarian lockdown measures and their mass vaccination endgame are faith-based regimes driven not by science but dogma, and why we must resist the cult for the sake of the future of humanity”

Interview, March 12, 2021

Points of discussion from my interview with Bernadette Pajer of An Informed Life Radio:

“How the censorship of truth has gotten out of control, such as Facebook declaring that if you say that COVID-19 vaccines ‘are not approved’, your post will be removed, even though the FDA’s own fact sheets for recipients informs that they remain ‘unapproved’ pharmaceutical products . . .

“How there are opportunity costs to vaccination due to the superior immunity conferred by natural infection and health benefits of pathogenic challenge, and how policymakers refuse to take the opportunity costs or ‘non-specific effects’ of vaccines into consideration . . .

“How government officials, the media, and even lockdown-advocating scientists have blatantly and hypocritically lied to the public by claiming that the waning of antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 infection means that they rapidly lose their immunity . . .

“How the government is stupidly telling people with natural immunity that they still need to get vaccinated on the basis of the same false claim that ‘antibodies’ equal ‘immunity’”

Interview, April 17, 2021

Points of discussion from my interview on the Alternative Views podcast:

“Why there is a high probability that the immunity conferred by COVID-19 vaccines is inferior to the natural immunity conferred by infection . . .

“How natural herd immunity is such a basic phenomenon in epidemiology that it’s built into the lockdown advocates’ own models”

Interview, April 30, 2021

Points of discussion from my interview with Nate the Voluntaryist:

“How the phenomenon of ‘original antigenic sin’ might be a relevant concern for COVID-19 vaccines . . .

“Why the likelihood of a SARS-CoV-2 variant emerging that could escape natural immunity is less than the likelihood of one escaping vaccine-conferred immunity, and the potential consequences if the latter occurs  . . .

“Why the recommendation by public health authorities that anyone who already has natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 should still get vaccinated is logically absurd”

Interview, May 3, 2021

Points of discussion from my interview with Janean Strong from Keepin it Real with Janean:

“How natural immunity differs from vaccine-conferred immunity so that vaccination comes at the cost of the lost opportunity to develop the superior immunity conferred by infection . . .

“How the phenomenon of ‘original antigenic sin’ must also be taken into consideration, such as how this relates to the opportunity costs of getting an annual flu shot . . .

“Why we can expect the immunity conferred by COVID-19 vaccines to be inferior to that conferred by infection and the relevance of this to the SARS-CoV-2 ‘variants of concern’ that have emerged . . .

“The importance of natural herd immunity as opposed to trying to reach herd immunity through mass vaccination”

Interview, May 13, 2021

Points of discussion from my interview with Rachel Kennerly of the Just Add Liberty podcast:

“Why the differences between natural immunity and vaccine-conferred immunity are especially important to understand when it comes to the topic of the SARS-CoV-2 ‘variants of concern’ . . .

“Why the opportunity cost of vaccination—the lost opportunity for potentially acquiring natural immunity—must be taken into consideration because serious population-level harms could occur even if the vaccines were as safe and effective as the propagandists claim . . .

“How mass vaccination, instead of helping us move toward herd immunity, could possibly end up impeding it . . .

“How vaccines can put selective pressure on viruses and bacteria to evolve to escape vaccine-conferred immunity, and the theoretical risk of evolutionary pressure from mass vaccination resulting in the emergence of an even more virulent strain . . .

“What you need to know about ‘original antigenic sin’ . . .

“Why the argument we are hearing for why people with natural immunity should get a COVID-19 vaccine anyway makes absolutely no sense . . .

“Why all the media reports last year claiming that natural immunity wanes very quickly were spreading unscientific nonsense”

Interview, May 18, 2021

Points of discussion from my interview with Yohan Tengra of Anarchy for Freedom India:

“How policymakers fail to consider the opportunity costs of vaccination, such as those related to the differences between infection-conferred and vaccine-conferred immunity . . .

“The problem of ‘original antigenic sin’ . . .

“How, contrary to the public messaging, mass vaccination could end up impeding the development of herd immunity . . .

“Why the public messaging that ‘antibodies = immunity’ is false, and why cellular immune responses appear to be even more important for the development of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 . . .

“How mass vaccination can put evolutionary pressure on pathogens to evolve to escape vaccine-conferred immunity, such as has been seen with pertussis bacteria evolving to lack pertactin, a key antigen component of the acellular pertussis vaccine . . .

“How one of the positive developments from the pandemic has been an increased knowledge among the general population about such things as the phenomenon of natural herd immunity and how immunity is not all about antibodies . . .

“How the myopic focus on vaccines as a one-size-fits-all solution to infectious disease comes at the opportunity cost of lost research opportunities to better understand why a minority of people are at high risk with a dysfunctional immune response and to develop more targeted interventions to treat or prevent disease in those specific subpopulations”

Interview, May 25, 2021

Points of discussion from my interview with Peter R. Quinones:

“How the authoritarian lockdown measures were originally sold to the public on the false pretext that they would be strictly temporary (‘two weeks to flatten the curve’), when the truth was that the intent was to keep lockdown measures in place in furtherance of the endgame of mass vaccination . . .

“How natural immunity is superior to the immunity conferred by COVID-19 vaccines”

Newsletter, June 9, 2021

“All last summer, as lockdown measures persisted after having been sold to the public as strictly temporary measures (‘two weeks to flatten the curve’), we kept seeing news reports claiming that immunity to SARS-CoV-2 waned rapidly, which claims were accompanied by declarations of faith that vaccines, once developed, would solve that problem.

“I hadn’t written any articles about it, but I brought it up in interviews, pointing out how this was a lie based on the observation of waning antibodies. I explained that antibodies are neither always sufficient nor even necessary for immunity, and that waning of antibodies is normal and expected and does not indicate the loss of immunity.

“Now that vaccines have been rolled out under FDA emergency use authorization, we are being bombarded with messages that people who have recovered from infection, too, should get the shot.

“I have been meaning to do an article discussing what we know about natural immunity, and how it compares with vaccine-conferred immunity, for some time. Then just yesterday, I read an article in the New York Times proclaiming that it is a ‘myth’ that people with natural immunity don’t need to get the vaccine.

“The first argument the author offered is a now-familiar one, repeated elsewhere ad nauseum: we don’t know how long natural immunity lasts, and it ‘may wane over time.’

“That is technically true, but in this context, it is also highly deceptive. We won’t know how long it lasts for certain until more time has passed. However, scientists can make educated guesses based on current observations.

“Observation one is that, still, at 15 months since COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic, cases of reinfection remain rare, and immunity remains strong in the vast majority of previously infected individuals.

“Observation two is that T cell immunity is very important, and some people who clear the infection do so without ever even developing a detectable antibody titer. In fact, a higher titer is associated with more severe disease. And studies suggest that cellular immunity will be long-lasting, as with SARS: people who recovered from that infection were found to still have T cell immunity to it 17 years later.

“Observation three is that the immune system has an evolving response over time and develops immune memory. While antibody titers wane over the first few months since infection, they stabilize over time, particularly IgG antibodies, which are the ‘neutralizing’ antibodies that attack the virus before it has a chance to infect cells.

“After some time, memory B cells are formed so that, even if antibodies wane to an undetectable level, the body would be able to quickly reproduce them as needed in the event of re-exposure, without having to go through the process of learning how to fight the virus all over again.

“The argument that since we don’t know the duration of natural immunity, therefore previously infected people should still get the vaccine, is a non sequitur fallacy: the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

“Of course, we also do not know the duration of vaccine-conferred immunity! But that fact is never mentioned when you see this idiotic argument made by ‘public health’ officials, mainstream ‘health science’ journalists, and even doctors and scientists who certainly know better.

“We know a lot more about natural immunity than the immunity conferred by the vaccine! They never mention that. Notably, the author of this particular Times article, an ‘infectious disease epidemiologist’, declined to mention that vaccine-conferred immunity, too, ‘may wane over time’—and maybe much faster than any waning that might occur with natural infection!

“This professional propagandist masquerading as a scientist took it even further, though, boldly declaring that ‘Vaccines offer more durable, reliable and better protection against variants.’

“That is a bald-faced lie. Notably, she provided no source to support that claim. This is understandable since the totality of evidence we have to date indicates precisely the opposite: natural immunity confers a more robust response that is more likely to offer cross-protection to any variants that are currently circulating or might emerge.

“I called out the liar on Twitter with the following:

“‘Dr @syramadad, why are you spreading this #VaccineMisinformation in the pages of the New York Times? Natural immunity confers more durable, reliable protection against variants. Happy to explain why to you and to provide the studies.’

“I have as yet received no response from her.”

Newsletter, July 14, 2021

“Yesterday on Twitter, former CDC director Tom Frieden said this:

“‘It’s clear that the immunity you get from a Covid infection is not as strong as the immunity you get from vaccination. Vaccines give you higher antibody levels and stronger protection—including against the Delta strain.’

“That is a blatant lie. . . .

“First of all, Frieden is equating ‘antibodies’ with ‘immunity’. He knows this is a false equivalence. The scientific community understands that antibodies are neither always sufficient nor even necessary for immunity. They’ve understood that since at least the 1960s.

“With SARS-CoV-2, cellular immune responses are even more important than antibodies. For example, as with measles, people who have a deficiency in humoral immunity and can’t produce antibodies still typically recover normally and come away with long-term immunity, while people who develop a high level of neutralizing antibodies in their blood can still get severe COVID-19 and die.

“In fact, higher antibody titers are associated with more severe disease! The truth is that a low level of circulating antibodies or no detectable antibodies at all are an indication that the individual has very effective immunity.

“And people who recover from infection just fine without a high antibody titer develop immunologic memory so that if they are ever exposed to SARS-CoV-2 again, they will be able to rapidly mount a very robust and effective response.

“That’s why reinfection still remains such a rare phenomenon! (Duh!)

“Frieden is not only pretending as though antibodies equal immunity, he is also pretending as though immune memory does not exist with natural immunity. He knows better!

“He likewise knows that it is a non sequitur fallacy to leap to the conclusion that natural immunity disappears from the finding that blood samples from naturally immune people show low levels of neutralizing activity from antibodies. He knows that’s a fallacy because he knows that T and B cell memory is still there ready to issue rapid recall responses.

“Ah, but what about this claim that vaccines confer stronger protection against variants, like the Delta variant they’ve been so worked up about lately?

“Well, that’s a blatant lie, too. It’s not hard to understand why. It’s rather intuitive.

“While the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are mRNA technology and Johnson & Johnson’s uses a ‘vector’ delivery, they all aim at getting the body’s own cells to produce the spike protein of the original Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2 (which is now extinct except in laboratories!)

“So, when people get a COVID-19 vaccine, they are developing immune responses only to the spike protein and various epitopes of that protein, such as in the ‘receptor binding domain’.

“By contrast, with natural immunity, people develop immune responses to the whole virus, which includes other proteins such as the nucleocapsid and multitudes more epitopes, or parts that the immune system learns to recognize and mount a response to.

“This includes both cellular and humoral responses. Helper T cells coordinate the immune response, killer T cells destroy infected cells, and B cells produce antibodies as necessary. (In some people, again, the immune system never even needs to produce significant amounts of antibodies to be able to clear the infection.)

“Vaccines induce immune responses only to the one part of the virus that is most likely to undergo mutation to escape the neutralization of antibodies.

“Natural immunity induces immune responses not only to the spike protein but also to other parts of the virus that are more conserved among variants.

“Consequently, natural immunity offers superior protection against variants.

“Notice that you will never see people claiming that natural immunity is insufficient against variants explaining how natural immunity is much more robust and diverse, even though they understand this perfectly well!

“And, when your intellectual opponents try to circle back to it, remember that the finding of low neutralizing activity in blood samples from people with natural immunity does not mean that their immunity is lost or inferior!”

Newsletter, July 16, 2021

Millions of people who have already recovered from infection with SARS-CoV-2 have natural immunity but are being told that their immunity is inadequate and they still need to accept a risk-carrying experimental pharmaceutical product to be protected—and to be able to exercise their freedom.

“Yes, even those who are already immune are being discriminated against and coerced into vaccinating!

“This is horrific, but it is also an incredible opportunity. The liars and tyrants have greatly overplayed their hand. They are too arrogant and maddened by their own power. We can get all of these naturally immune people to join the health freedom movement by demonstrating to them how the claim that they still need to get vaccinated because natural immunity is inadequate is totally false.

“The more they lie, the more power they give to us with which to awaken the masses to reality. Let’s seize it.”

Newsletter, July 19, 2021

“Just because scientists do not yet know how long natural immunity lasts does not mean people with natural immunity need to get vaccinated. After all, people with natural immunity are already immune (this is tautological), and so vaccination is unnecessary in order for them to gain immunity (also tautological).

“That fact that the CDC is using such an idiotic logical fallacy as its chief argument to get naturally immune people to accept vaccination strongly suggests that the CDC is totally incompetent to be making these types of recommendations to the public. . . .

“The propaganda narrative that natural immunity might be short-lived isn’t new. In fact, it got its start months before the vaccines were even available.

“Back in March 2020, when the lockdown measures were first implemented, I foresaw that these measures would be used to force a vaccine on us. (This was not some mystical prophetic power; rather, mass vaccination was literally the stated endgame of the lockdowns.)

“So, when the propaganda started rolling out that I knew was intended to manufacture consent for the planned mass vaccination, I was documenting it. . . .

“I’m certainly no scientific expert, but you don’t have to have a PhD in immunology to see the deception. Everyone who knows even the basics of how our immune system functions knows that it is completely normal for antibodies to reach a peak after infection and to thereafter wane over time. . . .

“It was as obvious back in the summer of last year as it is now that this kind of reporting wasn’t about educating the public but was about deliberately deceiving the public to (a) scare them into consenting to the authoritarian lockdown measures and (b) to scare them into believing that natural immunity wanes rapidly and therefore that herd immunity could never be achieved without mass vaccination. . . .

“To claim that waning antibodies equaled loss of immunity was one thing. However, by last fall, it had already been shown that early reports of disappearing antibodies in large proportions of previously infected people were mistaken.”

Newsletter, July 23, 2021

“While whenever discussions about immunity occur in the mainstream media, the focus is always about antibodies circulating in the blood, or humoral immunity. But this is just one branch of the immune system. There is also cellular immunity, which is broader.

“There are ‘helper’ CD4+ T cells that coordinate the immune response, including the development of B cells that churn out virus-specific antibodies. There are also ‘killer’ CD8+ T cells that are involved in clearing an infection by destroying infected cells.

“With SARS-CoV-2, as with many other viruses, the immune system learns and remembers how to fight off infection. There is both T cell and B cell immunologic memory.

“This is why a declining antibody titer is no cause for concern: memory B cells differentiate into plasma cells that that take up long-term residence in the bone marrow, where they remain ready to be called upon to rapidly ramp up production of virus-specific antibodies in the event of reexposure.

“That this long-term memory exists for SARS-CoV-2 has long since been established by scientific research.”

Newsletter, July 27, 2021

“In previous newsletters, I’ve explained why the CDC’s argument that people with natural immunity still need to get a COVID-19 vaccine because scientists don’t know how long natural immunity lasts is a deliberate deception.

“In short, it communicates that the available scientific evidence indicates that natural immunity may be weak and short-lived. In fact, we know that it is robust, broad, and likely to endure for many years—probably decades, if not a lifetime.

“The second argument that the CDC uses to support its recommendation is that ‘Studies have shown that in people who have recovered from COVID‑19, vaccination provides a strong boost in protection.’

“But is that true? Is there scientific evidence to support that?

“Well, what the CDC is referring to are studies showing that people who had recovered from infection with SARS-CoV-2 and later received a vaccine showed a dramatic increase in the level of antibodies circulating in their blood.

“That is the supposed proof of a ‘boost in protection’.

“The deception here builds upon the deception of the first argument that antibodies equal immunity and waning antibodies equal loss of immunity. With this second argument, the implicit logic is that more antibodies equals better immunity.

“The CDC reveals its own deception here by acknowledging elsewhere on its website that the correlates of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 have not been defined. In other words, scientists do not yet firmly understand which markers of immunity correlate to strong protection against disease.

“It has not been shown that the higher antibody titer seen in naturally immune people after they get vaccinated results in a ‘boost in protection’.

“By suggesting otherwise, the CDC is blatantly lying.

“The conclusion that vaccines induce even stronger protection than natural immunity alone is a non sequitur fallacy: it doesn’t logically follow from the premise that vaccination results in an increased antibody titer.

“If the CDC was honest, it would explain cellular immunity to the public. Instead, all we hear about when it comes to public relations messaging about the vaccines is antibodies, antibodies, antibodies!

“As I discussed in prior newsletters, cellular immune responses are even more important than humoral, or antibody, immunity

“This is illustrated by the fact that people who develop no detectable antibodies are able to quickly clear infection while developing only mild symptoms or no symptoms at all, whereas people who develop a high antibody titer yet have deficiencies in cellular immunity still die from COVID-19.

“In fact, a high antibody titer following infection with SARS-CoV-2 is strongly associated with severe COVID-19.

“To put it another way, people whose immune systems perform very well to efficiently clear the infection develop fewer antibodies—or never develop any detectable level of antibodies at all.

“The CDC conveniently leaves that part out of the ‘information’ it presents since to tell the truth would be counterproductive to its purpose, which is to achieve the political goal of high vaccine uptake.”

Newsletter, July 29, 2021

“In my recent newsletters, I’ve focused on the CDC’s recommendation that people who’ve recovered from a SARS-CoV-2 infection still need to get a COVID-19 vaccine to have protective immunity.

“That position is premised on the preposterous liethat natural immunity is insufficient and inferior to the immunity induced by the vaccines.

This is it! This is our opportunity to overcome the skepticism of even the most fervent believers in ‘public health’ officials and to prove to the world once and for all, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the CDC deliberately lies to serve the pharmaceutical industry—and in doing so threatens people’s lives with unnecessary risk-carrying pharmaceutical interventions.

“This has to be exposed. . . .

“The next point I want to emphasize is that the vaccines do not induce the same immune responses as infection.

“Briefly, without getting too much into the details, both the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) and the vector vaccine (Johnson & Johnson) work by injecting genetic instructions into the body that enter the cells and induce them to produce the spike protein of the original Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2—which is now extinct outside of laboratories.

“Hence, the immune responses induced by vaccination only include responses to the spike protein, whereas infection induces immune responses to the whole virus.

“Importantly, T cell responses appear to focus at least equally, if not predominantly, on the nucleocapsid and membrane proteins.

“The route of exposure is important, too. Infection occurs through the respiratory tract, and induction of mucosal immunity in the tract lining is important for limiting transmissibility of the virus from an infected individual.

“Scientists from the start anticipated that getting a shot in the arm would not induce strong mucosal immunity, both because of the narrow focus on the spike and because vaccines largely bypass innate immune defenses and do not induce the same adaptive immune responses due to the differing route of delivery.

“Tellingly, as I’ve reported on my social media . . . , the CDC just updated its public health guidance for fully vaccinated individuals to tell them that they need to start wearing masks again when in public indoor settings.”

Newsletter, August 31, 2021

“The CDC seems to be becoming increasingly bold in its willingness to blatantly lie to the public in order to manufacture consent for COVID-19 vaccines.

“As my regular newsletter readers know, for the past several months, I have been working on a major exposé to combat and thoroughly debunk the propaganda narrative that natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is insufficient and that therefore even individuals who’ve already recovered from infection still need to get vaccinated.

“So, the claim that vaccine-induced immunity is superior to natural immunity is not new. It’s been a consistent them in the mainstream narrative.

“However, the CDC this month has taken the deception to all new heights by explicitly proclaiming that vaccine-conferred immunity is superior to natural immunity. Here it is verbatim:

“‘Evidence is emerging that people get better protection by being fully vaccinated compared with having had COVID-19. One study showed that unvaccinated people who already had COVID-19 are more than 2 times as likely than fully vaccinated people to get COVID-19 again.’

“The claim that scientific evidence is starting to show that vaccines provide even better protection than natural immunity is a bald-faced lie. There is not a single shred of scientific evidence to support that conclusion. The totality of data clearly show that natural immunity is superior.

“But what about this study the CDC cites to support its bold claim? Surely, it must provide some supporting evidence, right?

“Nope! Not the tiniest little bit of evidence to support the CDC’s claim is provided by that study.

“As the CDC characterizes it, you would think that the study compared the risk of reinfection among individuals whose immune systems were primed by an earlier infection with the risk of ‘breakthrough’ infection among individuals whose immune systems were primed by vaccination.

“But that’s not what the study was about at all. It simply was not a study comparing risk of reinfection among people with natural immunity and risk of ‘breakthrough’ infection among fully vaccinated people.

“And since this wasn’t what was studied, logically, the study cannot possibly have shown that vaccinated individuals had a lower risk of infection than naturally immune individuals.

“We could get into the actual purpose and findings of the study, but that isn’t even necessary to debunk the CDC’s bald-faced lie: it is sufficient to observe that the study does not support the claim for which the CDC is citing it.

“To be clear: the study did not find that ‘people get better protection by being fully vaccinated compared with having had COVID-19’; it did not find that ‘unvaccinated people who already had COVID-19 are more than 2 times as likely than fully vaccinated people to get COVID-19 again’.

“The fact that the CDC is willing to lie so brazenly is staggering. Of course, this lie is easily debunked. Any journalist worthy of the job description could debunk it in two minutes, the same way I’ve just done. They wouldn’t even have to read the whole study as I did; it’s sufficient just to read the abstract to see that the CDC is falsely characterizing the purpose and findings of the study.

“But you won’t see Facebook ‘fact check’ articles calling out the CDC for so brazenly lying. You won’t see Health Feedback, or FactCheck.org, or the Poynter Institute, or the New York Times, or the Washington Post, or Reuters, or AP, etc., fact-checking the CDC’s claim.”

Article, September 2, 2021

The Superiority of Natural Immunity to SARS-CoV-2: Introduction

“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, but that is a lie.”

Article, September 7, 2021

The Official Ignorance of Natural Immunity to SARS-CoV-2

“To push the political agenda of mass vaccination, the public health establishment has deceitfully ignored natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2.”

Interview, September 8, 2021

Points of discussion from my interview with Seth Simmons of the Close Minded Podcast:

“How one positive outcome from the COVID-19 pandemic is a growing public skepticism toward public health authorities and growing public knowledge about things like the existence of natural herd immunity and how immunity is about much more than just antibodies . . .

“What we know and don’t know about the phenomena of ‘original antigenic sin’, ‘linked epitope suppression’, and ‘antibody dependent enhancement’ and the COVID-19 vaccines . . .

“How natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to induce long-lived immunologic memory so that if previously infected individuals are ever re-exposed to the virus, their immune systems will be able to mount an effective response to prevent or rapidly clear a reinfection, but how we don’t yet know whether vaccines will induce the same robust immunologic memory . . .

“Why natural immunity is much broader than vaccine-conferred immunity and so will be more protective against existing variants and any mutated versions of SARS-CoV-2 that might emerge in the future . . .”

Interview, September 11, 2021

Points of discussion from my interview with Bretigne Shaffer on the What Then Must We Do? podcast:

“How one positive outcome from the governmental responses to the COVID-19 pandemic has been an increased awareness about the untrustworthiness of public health authorities and the seriousness of the threat to our health freedom . . .

“The potential problem of ‘original antigenic sin’ and why superior natural immunity should be understood as an opportunity cost of vaccination . . .”

Article, September 13, 2021

The Lie That Natural Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 Is Weak and Short-Lived

“To push their mass vaccination agenda, public health authorities have been lying that natural immunity may be short-lived when science tells us otherwise.”

Article, September 14, 2021

The Origins of the Lie That Natural Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 Wanes Rapidly

“The foundations for the false propaganda narrative that natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 affords insufficient protection were being laid while the COVID-19 vaccines were still under development.”

Interview, September 22, 2021

Points of discussion from my interview with Q Abolitionist and Gumbo on the Unshackled Liberty podcast

“How the CDC is now lying that the immunity conferred by COVID-19 vaccines is superior to natural immunity.

“Why the phenomenon of ‘original antigenic sin’ is a concern for COVID-19 vaccines that urgently warrants research, but how the scientific community at large has turned a blind eye to the possibility.”

Article, September 30, 2021

Waning Antibodies ≠ Loss of Natural Immunity to SARS-CoV-2

“Early false claims about rapidly lost natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 have served as the foundation for the persistent deception that superior immunity is conferred by vaccines.”

Article, October 11, 2021

Antibodies Persist with Natural Immunity to SARS-CoV-2

“Contrary to the CDC’s public messaging, studies have shown that natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is durable, including persistent antibodies.”

Interview, October 12, 2021

Points of discussion from my interview with Bernadette Pajer of An Informed Life Radio:

“How the official ignorance of natural immunity illustrates how public vaccine policy is not about public health but about power, control, and profits for the pharmaceutical industry. . .

“How it is demonstrable that public health officials are deliberately lying about what science tells us about natural immunity. . .

“How the vaccine propaganda began while the vaccines were still under development with false claims in fearmongering media headlines that natural immunity wanes rapidly. . .

“How scientists propagating the message that antibodies equal immunity and therefore loss of circulating antibodies equals loss of immunity knew that this was false. . .

“Why natural immunity must be considered an opportunity cost of vaccination. . . 

“What ‘original antigenic sin’ is and why everyone should be aware of the potential for this phenomenon before deciding to get a COVID-19 vaccine. . .

“How mass vaccination could actually impede the development of herd immunity. . .

“How mass vaccination could put evolutionary pressure on SARS-COV-2 resulting in the emergence of an ‘escape variant’ (not unlike how the pertussis vaccine has resulted in the emergence of strains lacking a key antigen component of the vaccine). . .

“How the public health establishment and media have propagated the claim that more antibodies equal better immunity, even though a high level of antibodies is actually associated with more severe COVID-19 (independently from age). . .

“How antibodies are neither sufficient not even necessary for immunity to SARS-CoV-2 (just as with measles). . .

“How the public health establishment has propagated the claim that vaccines offer better protection against variants based on studies that completely ignore the role of cellular immunity as well as immunologic memory. . .

“How the CDC lies by omission by persisting in saying that people who’ve recovered from infection still need to get vaccinated because scientists don’t know how long natural immunity lasts, withholding the fact that studies have shown that infection induces recognized markers of very long-lived immunologic memory. . .”

Interview, October 18, 2021

Points of discussion from my interview with James Jenneman of the Blackbird podcast:

“How the public health establishment has proven its lack of trustworthiness once again by clearly placing the political goal of achieving a high vaccination rate over public health, as illustrated by the official ignorance of the superiority of natural immunity to SARS‑CoV‑2. . . 

“How the COVID-19 vaccines have a very narrow immunological focus, whereas natural immunity involves a much broader repertoire of immune responses against the coronavirus. . .

“Why natural immunity offers superior protection against ‘variants of concern’ including the Delta variant. . .

“What ‘original antigenic sin’ is and why it is important to understand to be able to make an informed choice about whether to get a COVID-19 vaccine. . .

“Why natural immunity must be considered as an opportunity cost of vaccination. . .

“How the promise that the vaccines would enable the development of herd immunity have proven false, with studies indicating that the effectiveness against infection wanes rapidly and that fully vaccinated individuals who become infected with SARS‑CoV‑2 are just as contagious as unvaccinated individuals. . .”

Newsletter, October 27, 2021

Yup, I’m the one who, two months ago, confronted Wadman about her false claim in Science magazine. You can read the whole exchange on Twitter here (click through my retweeted post for the full thread).

“In solidarity with the CDC’s misinformative public messaging, though, Wadman tried to spin another finding of that Israeli study to maintain the assertion that people with natural immunity should still get vaccinated. But I busted her. Here is what her article originally stated (bold emphasis added):

“‘The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and then received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected against reinfection than those who once had the virus and were still unvaccinated.’

“That was a lie. . . .”

Newsletter, October 28, 2021

“On that note, today, someone on Twitter alerted me to a tweet from the Georgia Department of Public Health claiming that ‘Unvaccinated people who recover from COVID-19 are more than 2x as likely to get COVID-19 again compared to those who are vaccinated.’

The GA DPH linked to a CDC press release with a headline boldly proclaiming that ‘Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection’.

“So, I posted a thread thoroughly debunking that bald-faced lie.”

Article, November 5, 2021

Antibodies Are More Durable with Natural Immunity Than with Vaccination

“By the CDC’s own logic, we must conclude that natural immunity offers more durable protection against SARS-CoV-2 than COVID-19 vaccines.”

Interview, November 18, 2021

Points of discussion from my interview with Nate the Voluntaryist:

“Why the claim that vaccine-induced immunity is more protective against SARS-CoV-2 variants than natural immunity is totally false (which explains why the ‘public health’ officials and propagandists seem to have stopped making that claim). . .

“Why the whole basis for that false claim was logically fallacious from the start, and why logic and reason told us from the start that it wouldn’t be true, as has now been proven with the Delta variant. . .

“Why natural immunity, contrary to the CDC’s demonstrably false claim, is long-lived and far superior to that induced by COVID-19 vaccines. . .

“Why the claim that vaccination confers a significant benefit even for people with pre-existing natural immunity is also based on a logical fallacy (which explains why a large study by Israeli researchers found no such benefit). . .

“How to believe the CDC’s blatant lie that vaccines confer superior immunity would require us to completely ignore what the scientific literature actually tells us about it. . .

“How ridiculous ‘public health’ officials have gradually walked back from their original promise that COVID-19 vaccines would induce immunity that is superior to that induced by infection and would end the pandemic by conferring herd immunity . . .

“How studies have shown that people with pre-existing natural immunity are at higher risk of adverse events from getting a COVID-19 vaccine. . .

“Why natural immunity must be considered an opportunity cost of mass vaccination (and what that means). . .

“What ‘original antigenic sin’ is and why everyone needs to know about this immunological phenomenon before any kind of informed choice can be made about whether to get a COVID-19 vaccine (and how data from the UK have suggested that original antigenic sin is occurring). . .

“How the fact that politicians are trying to coerce people who are already naturally immune to get fully vaccinated proves that they are not primarily concerned with public health but with power, control, and profits for the pharmaceutical industry. . .

“How the CDC can’t find any studies to support its claim that vaccines confer protection superior to natural immunity so it has to make up its own (and how those two studies weren’t even designed to compare the effectiveness of natural versus vaccine-induced immunity). . .

“How the ‘fact checkers’ are now mindlessly regurgitating the claim from the CDC that natural immunity is ‘short-lived’ and inferior to that induced by vaccines, thereby expecting us to completely ignore literally all of the non-CDC-originating scientific literature.”

Article, November 29, 2021

Fact Checking the ‘Fact Checkers’ on Natural Immunity to SARS-CoV-2

“The ‘fact checkers’ are ridiculously telling us that we must completely ignore the scientific literature and instead accept the CDC’s proclamations as gospel truth.”

Article, December 18, 2021

Fact Check: Does Natural Immunity Offer “Little” Protection Against Omicron?

“The New York Times curiously tells us that 75% effectiveness from natural immunity against the Omicron variant is ‘little’ protection while 33% effectiveness from vaccination ‘raises hope’.”

Article, January 10, 2022

NY Times Finally Acknowledges ‘Original Antigenic Sin’

“The New York Times refreshingly acknowledges this theoretical risk of COVID-19 vaccines but fails to adequately explain its significance.”

Article, January 14, 2022

The Real Reason Why Omicron Is a ‘Variant of Concern’

“The Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant is alarming to ‘public health’ authorities because it fully exposes the failure of COVID-19 vaccines to live up to their promises.”

Interview, January 21, 2022

Points of discussion from my interview with Brett Hawes of the Holistic Health Masterclass podcast:

“How policymakers and ‘public health’ officials have necessarily shifted the goalposts for the vaccines since their original promise that mass vaccination would be the path to herd immunity proved to be false. . .

“How propaganda claims about rapidly waning natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 were used to manufacture consent for the political agenda of mass vaccination, which was always the endgame of authoritarian lockdown measures. . .

“How we’re told that even people who’ve recovered from infection need to get vaccinated to boost antibody levels even though a high level of antibodies in people who become infected is associated with more severe disease. . .

“How infection with SARS-CoV-2 results in induction of long-lived immunological memory so that the immune system is capable of rapidly ramping up production of neutralizing antibodies as necessary in the event of reexposure. . .

“How the COVID-19 vaccines have a very narrow immunological focus in comparison to the much broader repertoire of immune responses associated with natural immunity. . .

“What ‘original antigenic sin’ is and how we are now seeing evidence that COVID-19 vaccines—but not natural infections—have this detrimental effect on the immune system. . .

“What ‘antibody dependent enhancement’ is and why this is also a legitimate concern about COVID-19 vaccines. . .

“Why people whose immune system were primed by vaccination may be forever dependent on ‘booster’ shots to maintain protection against COVID-19. . .

“How studies are finding that being fully vaccinated has negative effectiveness against the Omicron variant, which is evidence for original antigenic sin (or antibody dependent enhancement, or both). . .

“How the New York Times repeatedly claimed that natural immunity offers little to no protection against infection with the Omicron variant by citing a study that showed that natural immunity continues to offer a high level of protection, particularly when compared to the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. . .

“How propagandists are exhibiting cognitive dissonance by delivering the message that natural exogenous boosting (‘reinfection’) is bad but vaccine failure (‘breakthrough’ infection) is good and results in ‘super immunity’ (meaning an increase in antibody levels). . .

“How the CDC’s claim that vaccines induce superior immunity contrasts with the view among scientists that new vaccines need to be developed to more closely mimic the immune responses associated with natural immunity. . .

“Why repeated ‘booster’ shots are an insane solution to the problem. . .

“How authoritarian lockdown measures only serve to delay the inevitable, if they have any effect at all, and worsen outcomes in the long run. . .

“Why one effect of mass vaccination may have been to impede the development of herd immunity. . .

“What ‘opportunity cost’ means and why we must consider natural immunity to be an opportunity cost of vaccination. . .

“How studies show that people who recover from infection are at a higher risk for adverse events from COVID-19 vaccines.”

Article, February 10, 2022

The CDC Finally Admits That Natural Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 Is Superior to the Immunity Induced by COVID-19 Vaccines

“After long lying that natural immunity is weak and inferior, the CDC has finally admitted it offers better protection than COVID-19 vaccines.”

Article, February 15, 2022

NPR Whitewashes the CDC’s Lies about Natural Immunity

“The media want us to believe that the CDC’s position on natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 has changed because the science has changed, but that isn’t true.”

Conclusion

I rest my case. To conclude, the science has not changed. From the start, the official proclamations from government officials, mindlessly parroted by individuals and institutions within the medical establishment, were always directly contradicted by what we knew from the scientific literature.

Join those who were aware of the truth the whole time, having received the empowering knowledge required to see through the lies and deceptions from the “public health” establishment and mainstream media:

Subscribe to my newsletter now!

Rate This Content:

Average rating / 5. Vote count:

What do you think?

I encourage you to share your thoughts! Please respect the rules.

  • Ashok T Jaisinghani says:

    💥💥 I suffered from COVID-19 type of FLU in August 2019. On 9 August 2019, I first got diarrhea, which led to dehydration, mild fever, low BP, drastic loss of appetite, headache, cold, FLU, sore throat, dry hacking cough with breathing problem, insomnia and extreme weakness. I lost about 5.5 kg of my body weight in 7 days! With Nutrition Therapy, I cured myself of the COVID-19 type of FLU in about 7 days. Even though I am 79 years now, I have NOT suffered from any cold or FLU in the last 2 and a half years.
    🔥Many people think I must be CRAZY because I have NOT got myself VACCINATED. Now why should I risk getting even any mild form of COVID-19 FLU, fever, headache and body pains, which COVID Vaccines are known to cause? Strangely, I have NOT suffered from any cold or FLU in the last 2 and a half years, even though I used to get them once or twice every year before August 2019!! Can others believe this?

    • Given the timing, I think it is unlikely it was SARS-CoV-2. I’ve seen estimates that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating in the human population as early as November 2019 but know of no evidence that it was around as early as August. That said, they also weren’t looking for it so I’m open to the possibility it had been circulating for a while before it was first detected in Wuhan. It always astonishes me that so-called “public health” officials never advise people about proper nutrition for functional immunity; it’s always only about getting shots, as though our immune systems were worthless without stimulation from pharmaceutical products.

  • Ashok T Jaisinghani says:

    🔥What happens to the Chromosomes of White Cells when they Die? Why are the Medical Scientists and Doctors of Allopathy avoiding the answer to this important question? The Chromosomes cannot just disappear from the body by any MAGIC!
    🔥🔥According to the GENERAL THEORY on VIRUSES, many types of viruses are hidden in the chromosomes of the cells of ALL Humans.
    The viruses are generated and released when the cells get attacked by the toxic chemicals from adulterated and contaminated foods and drinks and the drugs containing harmful ADDITIVES and preservatives. The toxic chemicals that kill the cells can generate / produce the different viruses from the fragments of the disintegrating chromosomes of the dead cells.
    So the CORONA viruses of the 2019 Pandemic can be produced from the cells of the sick people’s own bodies. Wearing MASKS, maintaining Social Distancing and VACCINATIONS are NOT going to PREVENT the diseases of the PANDEMIC. To avoid the diseases, we must identify and avoid the consumption of TOXIC substances and harmful additives used in the adulterated and contaminated foods, drinks, narcotics and other drugs.
    Viruses can also be sythesized from amino acids and peptides in the intestines.

    – Ashok T Jaisinghani.

    • So the CORONA viruses of the 2019 Pandemic can be produced from the cells of the sick people’s own bodies.

      All viruses utilize the host’s own cells to replicate. SARS-CoV-2 does not originate from within the cells of an infected person. The person must first have an external exposure to the virus to become infected in the first place.

  • >
    Share via
    Copy link