The house of cards that is the “safe and effective” narrative surrounding the (toxic and deadly and definitely ineffective) mRNA COVID-19 inoculations continues to collapse.

On Thursday, a study

Infection-acquired immunity cut the risk of hospitalization and death from a Covid reinfection by 88% for at least 10 months, the study found.

In other words, natural immunity is still a “thing”. Even “The Science™” has given up trying to deny it.

Corporate media, of course, refuses to let go of a main theme in the Pandemic Panic Narrative, reiterating that “experts”—including the study’s own lead author Dr. Christopher Murray—claim that the mRNA inoculations are “better”….because COVID.

Still, experts stress that vaccination is the preferable route to immunity, given the risks of Covid, particularly in unvaccinated people. 

“The problem of saying ‘I’m gonna get infected to get immunity’ is you might be one of those people that end up in the hospital or die,” Murray said. “Why would you take the risk when you can get immunity through vaccination quite safely?” 

The answer, of course, is that infection with COVID does not come with the myriad safety signals (actually danger signals) that the mRNA inoculations do, and about which the CDC and FDA lied through their teeth in an effort to conceal.

All Facts Matter

The CDC Lied

The latest reveal from the CDC’s own data respositories quickly reduces to simply this: the CDC lied. They lied about doing safety monitoring. They lied about the safety of the mRNA inoculations, that there were no safety signals. There were safety signals in abundance and the CDC either refused to look for them or simply ignored them…

Read more

3 months ago · 18 likes · 3 comments · Peter Nayland Kust

Still, even Dr. Murray felt compelled to admit that the study’s findings were good news for anyone who has had COVID in the past (i.e., most of humanity at this point).

“This is really good news, in the sense that protection against severe disease and death after infection is really quite sustained at 10 months,” said the senior study author, Dr. Christopher Murray, the director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington. 

The findings may be a small silver lining to the explosive omicron outbreak of last winter. With so many people infected, many most likely still benefit from that protection against severe disease, Murray said. 

The study also validates what is immediately apparent just from the epidemiological data following the “Omicron” wave of infections: most people catch COVID, recover, and move on with their lives.

While the Case Fatality Rate

We should be mindful here that the Infection Fatality Rate

We must also remember that, among COVID-19 deaths, even the CDC has acknowledged the outsized role various co-morbidities (heart disease, diabetes, morbid obesity) have played in COVID-19 mortality: over 94% of COVID-19 deaths had an average of 4 co-morbid conditions.

Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The number of deaths that mention one or more of the conditions indicated is shown for all deaths involving COVID-19 and by age groups. For over 5% of these deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 4.0 additional conditions or causes per death. For data on deaths involving COVID-19 by time-period, jurisdiction, and other health conditions

For people who are young and even just relatively healthy, the risk from COVID-19 is minimal, making the inoculations fundamentally unnecessary, even if they were not themselves toxic and deadly.

What makes this latest study showing the reality of natural immunity particularly relevant is its scope as a meta-review of multiple studies—some 65 of them, to be precise:

We identified 65 studies from 19 different countries (Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Czechia, Denmark, France, India, Italy, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Qatar, Scotland, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA; figure 1A). A total of 30 studies included information on time since infection (figure 1B); 18 of those studies explicitly analysed protection as a function of time since infection. For the remaining 13 studies, we were able to identify the average time since infection for the study population.

Given this study’s conclusions, one point especially should be highlighted here: there are at least 65 separate studies in 19 countries on 4 continents showing the efficacy and relevance of natural immunity against COVID-19.

Moreover, the study found not just that natural immunity was “as good as” the inoculations, but that it was arguably better (emphasis mine).

Although protection from re-infection from all variants wanes over time, our analysis of the available data suggests that the level of protection afforded by previous infection is at least as high, if not higher than that provided by two-dose vaccination using high-quality mRNA vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech)

This, of course, is not news, as over a year ago I and others discussed a study

All Facts Matter

Stick A Fork In The "Experts", They're Done

This final week of 2021 has seen the complete collapse of the pandemic panic narrative that has been a media staple since early 2020. Every time I begin planning articles moving on to other topics (for the world is much larger than COVID-19), something drops in my inbox highlighting yet another fact failing of that narrative…

Read more

a year ago · 4 likes · 2 comments · Peter Nayland Kust

The study also found that natural immunity is highly impactful even among vaccinated patients.

Individuals with vs without prevaccination COVID-19 diagnosis had a 56% reduced risk for a breakthrough infection (AIRR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.40-0.48).

The study does highlight the degree of difference between the Omicron variants and the ancestral strains—original Wuhan, alpha, beta, and delta. Infection with an ancestral strain provided high levels of against other ancestral strains but substantially less protection against Omicron.

We found that protection against re-infection was high, with a mean pooled estimate greater than 82% for ancestral, alpha, beta, and delta variants (figure 2A; appendix p 9). By comparison, protection by past infection of earlier variants against re-infection by the omicron BA.1 variant was substantially reduced, with a pooled effectiveness of only 45·3% (95% UI 17·3–76·1; figure 2A; appendix p 10). Protection against symptomatic disease mirrored the results for protection against re-infection. The mean pooled protection from re-infection against symptomatic disease was 82% or greater for ancestral, alpha, beta, and delta variants, and was again substantially reduced for the omicron BA.1 variant (pooled estimate of 44·0%, 26·5–65·0; figure 2B; appendix p 11). By contrast, although based on data from 12 studies, protection against severe disease (hospitalisation or death) was universally high, with mean protection of 78% or greater for ancestral, alpha, beta, delta, and omicron BA.1. The ancestral variant had the lowest pooled estimate, at 78·1% (34·4–96·5) protection against severe disease (figure 2C; appendix p 11).

Note that infection with an Omicron subvariant appears to provide substantial protection against infection with other Omicron subvariants. In other words, the “immune escape” fear of so many virologists is little more than the expression of the degree to which Omicron varies from the ancestral strains of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Where there is significant variance, there is naturally going to be less immunity and immune system protection.

In the face of this study showing the effectiveness of natural immunity, even the “experts” are hard pressed to push for more inoculations and recurring boosters.

It may be reasonable for people with healthy immune systems to stretch that out a little bit more, to six months, as the immune response continues to develop, said Deepta Bhattacharya, a professor of immunobiology at the University of Arizona

Dr. Bob Wachter, the chairman of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco gave a similar assessment.

“If you are thinking about getting a booster, it’s a perfectly reasonable call to look at this and say I’ll wait six or eight months before getting my booster,” Wachter said. “That’s a reasonable conclusion from looking at the study.”

Left unsaid, of course, is the inference that, since people with healthy immune systems do not need to rush out and get a booster mRNA inoculation, the very best thing to do is take steps to strengthen the immune system.

All Facts Matter

Vitamin D Is Still The Best Candidate For A COVID-19 "Magic Bullet"

Back in February, I discussed the role vitamin D plays in immune system health, and its very plausible case as a “magic bullet” against COVID-19. There is, of course, nothing magic about vitamin D’s role in building a healthy immune system, which remains the best and most reliable way of fending off COVID-19 (and infectious disease more broadly). Good nu…

Read more

8 months ago · 27 likes · 27 comments · Peter Nayland Kust

Yet even without saying this quiet part out loud, this latest study documenting the efficacy (and really the superiority) of natural immunity vs the mRNA inoculations is yet another data point emphasizing that the best strategy for containing and preventing not just COVID-19 but all infectious respiratory diseases is to encourage people to maintain their good health—have a healthy diet, make sure to get plenty of vitamins C and D as well as Zinc, exercise, et cetera.

Big Pharma brings nothing of substance to the fight against infectious respiratory disease, and never has. Now even “The Science™” admits it.

Tip Jar On Ko-Fi