Big Pharmedia is doing everything possible to cast doubt on the effectiveness - and sometimes even the existence - of natural immunity, the protection granted by our immune system upon recovering from an infection. The agenda is clear - keep people in fear of Covid, and believing the "vaccines" are the only solution. Here is a breakdown of a major CBC article on the topic today.
At least this one admits the existence of natural immunity
This particular article, thankfully, does not attempt to claim that natural immunity doesn't exist. I've seen that too many times. "Natural immunity is a right wing conspiracy theory" is a mantra I've read increasingly in comment sections. Re-writing history (or in this case, re-writing science) is an extremely diabolical tactic only done by psychopaths and tyrants. Aside from referring to it as "so-called natural immunity", the article's main strategy is to cast doubt on how protective and durable natural immunity to Covid is, rather than claiming it isn't real.
Which is good, because now I don't have to bust out my 1990s college Biology textbook, and actually physically show you the pages where it discusses immunity obtained naturally by recovering from viruses. It's all there, and unlike most online sources of information, it hasn't been edited since it was printed. It's still exactly the same information, the same diagrams, the same references. Natural immunity is not a conspiracy theory. Anyone who suggests this can immediately be relegated to the same status as those who claim contagious illness doesn't exist at all, or that the Earth isn't spherical. These people are shills, hustlers, and/or idiots.
Everybody has heard of chickenpox, the illness caused by the varicella zoster virus. Symptoms are milder in younger people. For generations, parents held "chickenpox parties" to spread the virus among their children, generating natural immunity which prevented them from getting it later on. While there are some complexities, the bottom line is that long before vaccines were invented, humans were beating viruses naturally, and obtaining immunity naturally.
Yes, we suffered at the hands of viruses and other contagious pathogens, there is no doubt about that. We all have at least one great-grandparent who died of tuberculosis ("consumption"), for example. But at the same time, for millions of years our ancestors have had the ability to defend against infections, evolving complex systems to recognize them if we encountered them again. It can't save every individual from every threat they encounter, but the overall strategy is a good one - despite hundreds of pandemics over thousands of years, we are still here. Natural immunity is a very real and important part of the picture.
What's in a name?
Sometimes, wording doesn't matter too much. Even sometimes in big mainstream media articles, getting something a little wrong here and there isn't a big deal, as it doesn't affect the intended message getting through. But in this article, which is specifically attempting to teach the public about this topic and to dispel misinformation, getting things like definitions correct actually matters, otherwise it just contributes to more misinformation. They would never do that on purpose, would they? It surely must have been an accident. Allow me to debunk this "error", then.
"Acquired immunity, also known as natural immunity..."
Wrong. Acquired (aka adaptive) immunity includes natural immunity, but also unnatural immunity, such as the protection granted by vaccines. In this case, natural acquired immunity is recovery from the virus, and unnatural acquired immunity is generated by a pharmaceutical product.
Saying acquired immunity and natural immunity are the same thing is akin to saying apples and fruit are the same thing. Good enough for a 3-year-old, but it doesn't fly in a national front page feature.
"Acquired immunity is the protection that a person develops to a disease after being infected."
Or after taking a vaccine! Are their writers really that ignorant about this topic? If so, they have no business being assigned to the article. The danger of Covid misinformation is mind boggling, said Dr. Fauzi this week right there on CBC. But through plausible deniability, the corporate media can spread misinfo identifiable to anyone who took a high school biology class. Not that they can be held to account, but if they could, they would just claim it was a typo or misunderstanding, not an attempt to mislead.
Extremely mixed messages
The article focuses on question of effectiveness, alternately claiming that it may be reasonably good, but it may be almost useless, and concludes that injection with a Pfizer or Moderna product is necessary even for those with natural immunity.
"If someone has had a prior infection, they of course should be able to mount an immune response that can protect them for a certain amount of time."
"What goes beyond the bounds of legitimate debate is the idea being suggested by some scientists that acquired [they mean natural] immunity from infection should be considered as effective as vaccination."
So natural immunity exists, but don't you dare suggest it outperforms what can be had from a syringe.
"Many scientists say vaccination is still essential for those who have contracted Covid. A study by the CDC found unvaccinated people previously infected with Covid were more likely to be reinfected than those who were fully vaccinated after previously contracting the virus. The combination of prior infection and vaccination - hybrid immunity - may offer the best protection."
So vaccination after infection marginally increases the level of protection, according to a single study by known liars? Consider me unimpressed (especially considering the plethora of reputable scientists from all around the world that have reached the opposite conclusion).
"The level of natural immunity is quite varied between different people, and that protection varies depending on the severity of their prior illness. It appears the more sick you are, the higher the levels of your antibodies. But the majority of infections are either asymptomatic or mild, so we wouldn't expect the majority of these people to have a lot of antibodies."
This is something that needs a lot more research, in my opinion. How large is the difference between antibody levels in people that had asymptomatic Covid compared to people who were seriously ill? And how much does that matter? We know that antibody levels are only one measure of immunity (B and T cells being two others).
My anecdotal and observed experience is that the sicker you get from Covid, the stronger and more durable (long-lasting) your natural immunity will be. As for myself, I was sick in Feb-Apr 2020 and recovered. Then, despite not isolating, not masking, and not being vaccinated, I had no Covid symptoms for a year and a half. In the past few weeks, I had a very mild and brief sore throat, which resolved with some quercitin and vitamins. It corresponded with a wave of Delta variant going around my area. I'm now back to normal again, no Covid symptoms of any kind. I believe my natural immunity was penetrated by the latest mutation going around, but thanks to my previous infection, I beat it quickly, and I'm now protected from further infection. I know others who got sick back at the start and still haven't had it again. So the studies that say natural immunity lasts 16 months or longer appear to be pretty close to my real-world observations.
But like I said, we need a lot more research. Claiming "the science is settled" on this is absurd. And not merely because science is NEVER settled. Also because so little has been done - most of it by big pharma and the government with massive conflicts of interest.
"Canada and the US do not count previous infection as part of an individual's vaccination status. Other experts say we need to consider natural immunity as equal to vaccination. In Israel, a person who has recovered from Covid-19 is considered fully vaccinated".
"An Israeli study found people who were double vaccinated were six times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated who had been previously infected."
Dr. Fauzi responded "you may be protected, but you may not be protected forever".
Oooh, good one. Is that all you got, puppy torturer? Because we now know that natural immunity lasts much longer than any protection granted by the "vaccines". Natural immunity is broader AND more durable. Checkmate.
The "vaccines" are strictly inferior (and have unwanted effects including death)
Yet we have people like the loser Noam Chomsky announcing people who don't get injected should remove themselves from society and be left to starve. His message of hatred, discrimination, and segregation was uplifted and amplified by the corporate media.
Imagine still believing this is about the health and safety of the people?
Yesterday, BC fired 6000+ nurses, doctors, paramedics, and other healthcare professionals for not being injected with a Covid "vaccine". Today, surgeries and tests are being postponed and cancelled across the province, as a sudden lack of staff is causing a collapse of the system. People's health will suffer and many will die because of today's decision, which was entirely preventable.
It's not about our health and safety.
It's about controlling us in every possible way.
DRutter
