by Dr. Amy Cerato and Dr. Eric Snyder
On December 11, 2021 Tulane University Basketball temporarily shut down due to a Covid-19 outbreak on the team. Three days later, on December 14, 2021 the Chicago Bulls postponed their next two games due to a Covid-19 outbreak among players. The evening prior, the NHL’s Blackhawk game versus the Flames was postponed as well as two other NHL games due to players testing positive. As a result of these recent outbreaks and the CDC’s publication on November 29th encouraging the need to boost, the NFL decided to release additional medical requirements. A league memo distributed on December 14th, 2021 will require all NFL Tier 1 and Tier 2 staff who were previously vaccinated to receive a booster shot by no later than December 27th, 2021.
Does anyone in the NFL think it may not be advantageous to require booster shots given that prior inoculations did not block infection, transmissibility, or severity of disease (insert “C’Mon Man” voice)? Did the world not witness Manchester United player Victor Lindelof, French player Martin Terrier, and Napoli midfielder Piotr Zielinki, all being taken out of soccer matches for breathing problems/chest pain around the same time that these other professional league games were postponed? Croatian, Marin Cacic (23 yrs. old), Algerian, Soufaine Lokar (30 years old) and Omani Makhlid Al Raqadi (29 years old), were all professional soccer players who passed away from cardiac arrest in the past week. Let’s be clear, we are talking about young, fit, world class endurance athletes holding their chest in pain and/or having heart attacks over a two-week period. Where is ESPN with their coverage? What about sports talk radio in Oklahoma? These are just a few examples, if you want more evidence from the athletics world, this database on athletes has now tracked 412 cardiac arrests and 242 deaths. Is it not peculiar to anyone how major sports writers are not talking about these individuals?
What about the recent announcements by the state of California to reinstate and extend an indoor mask policy through February 15th regardless of vaccination status? How will Hollywood, NFL players, and other elites comply with the continued Covid-19 tyranny during Super Bowl Sunday this year? What a great event it would be if American athletes stood up against tyranny much like they have in the past when they infuriated the Fuhrer. Their action would actually help crush the curve instead of crushing our country. With every day that passes, it becomes clearer that the consciousness of America will awaken, as what is being done does not feel natural. In fact, allowing what is natural to help us manage Covid-19 would have been our best option to stop this worldwide event. Our natural immunity coupled with therapeutics are the combination needed to win the game.
Natural vs Vaccinated Immunity
Evolutionary biology has proven that natural immunity to certain diseases can last a lifetime. In order to appreciate this biological truth and have confidence in our body’s ability to continually fight disease or its transmutative variants, it is important to have background knowledge of how our immune systems function. The human body consists of innate and adaptive immune systems. The first line of defense is our bodies’ physical barriers (e.g., skin, hair, ear wax, tears, sweat, and mucous membranes). If a pathogen breaches our physical barriers, the innate immune system (which also consists of chemical barriers, complement chemicals, and inflammatory responses) quickly activates, recognizes the pathogen, and launches an attack. Innate immune responses are predicated on speed and containment and their existence is built-in to our body. They are relied upon to control the threat while waiting on the adaptive immune system to arrive to deconstruct the intruder.
Adaptive immunity varies from innate as its existence is predicated on exposure to pathogens/unknown biological agents. The adaptive immune system builds proteins and cells designed specifically to respond to a particular pathogen and is able to customize proteins and cellular receptors to “keep pace with the diversity and evolutionary speed of the microbial world.” (Harper 2021, page 38). These proteins are called antibodies, which consist of T-cells and B-cells.
Antibodies are manufactured by B cells that get their name because they mature in the bone marrow. T-cells are antibodies that mature in the thymus, a lymphoid gland located behind the breastbone but in front of the heart. Since viruses spend their time inside our cells causing issues, the immune system needs a way to view from the outside-in to know when our cells have been compromised. In simplistic terms, our cells display these intruders on receptors that bind to T-cells. The T-cells activate the alarm, summon, and attack to destroy the infectious pathogen within the cells. To learn more about innate and adaptive immune systems, see the video here.
The functioning of our innate and adaptive immune system is critical to our overall health. Any alteration to the immune system’s biological functions can result in inflammatory responses. There are times when these responses can cause harm rather than healing. A cytokine storm is an example of how an inflammatory response can result in serious complications among Covid-19 patients. This video by Dr. Berg does an excellent job explaining what occurs during a cytokine storm and why vitamin d is advantageous as a supplement for Covid-19.
Much like our own form of government that has a system of checks and balances, our immune systems also check and balance each other. If for some reason our immune responses get out of whack, the body can fight against itself instead of the pathogenic intruder (think civil war). However, if the innate immune system is able to maintain control long enough for the adaptive system to respond to a pathogen, the chances of viral clearance are optimal for recovery (think peace and prosperity). It is clear that our adaptive systems remarkable ability to recall prior infection is a benefit as the memory retention of B and T-Cells that were effective against particular pathogens allow the adaptive response to spring to action more quickly if a pathogen returns.
But what if we inject something into the body that reprograms our immune response? Unfortunately, there is evidence to suggest that this may be what is happening when we inject an individual with a mRNA vaccine. The mRNA injectable products have been known to cause dysregulation of the adaptive and innate immune systems. Some experts have argued that these findings provide very good reasons as to why we are seeing resurgence of latent virtual infections and other adverse events reported in VAERS (US), Eudravigilance (Europe), and Vigiaccess (World Health Organization).
Whether through natural infection or the mRNA shot, spike proteins will enter the body and embed themselves into monocytes and other cells with ACE2 receptors. In doing so, the spike proteins can cause serious micro-clotting issues. After a natural infection, researchers have found that the spike protein is recoverable in human monocytes for up to 15 months. This means that our bodies can be free of the spike protein by 15 months – maybe sooner if early treatment protocols were used and an individual clears the infection quickly. After vaccination, people have measurable amounts of S1 and S2 proteins in their monocytes for up to a year and then supposedly they clear, but research on this topic is ongoing as this is an experimental technology in humans.
While the spike proteins from the infection are present in the body, they can continue to cause problems including the dysregulation of the innate immune system, the subsequent induction of a hyper-inflamed environment and other thrombotic events. One study found S1 protein free floating in post-vaccinated individual’s plasma for up to 29 days. The S1 protein presence in the monocytes (in both natural infection and vaccination) and free-floating in plasma (after vaccination) means that this full-length spike could continue to damage cells all over the body for months, if not years. We will discuss this in more detail in a later chapter on vaccine safety, but it is important to understand that if booster vaccinations are provided every six months (or more frequently), the spike protein may never leave the body. While the effect of progressive accumulation of the spike protein on organ injury is unknown at this time, this video provides details from fifteen autopsies performed on individuals who died after vaccination (Dr. Arne Burkhardt discusses his autopsy results from 21:30-50:00) and concludes that 90% of the deaths were directly caused by the mRNA injection. The video includes incredible light microscopy slides of lymphocytic infiltration and accumulation in organs detailing vaccine induced auto-immune pathologies. If you prefer to read the summary of the autopsy results, please see this short report.
It is critical that individuals understand the distinct difference between natural immunity and gene therapy induced immunity. Assuming an individual’s immune system is working as designed, when contracting SARS-CoV-2 naturally, the body’s immune response will generate 50 non-structural and 4 structural proteins (antibodies including the spike (S), envelope (E), membrane (M), nucleocapsid (N)), which the virus uses to manipulate the response (See Table 1 below). Our adaptive immune system also generates T- and B-cell responses.
|Non-Structural Proteins||Structural Proteins|
|Vaccination (mRNA Gene Therapy)||0||1|
With natural immunity, a person has exposure to many different proteins, which is why natural immunity is fundamentally different from vaccinated immunity. Natural immunity is more robust and stands the test of time, with the ability to recognize variants of the virus using the diversity of proteins generated through infection. Vaccinated immunity, however, drives everyone toward primarily having an immune response against the spike protein and once escape mutants (variants) from the spike are generated, the virus can infect a person again and again. This could be why we are seeing such high seasonal caseloads in areas with high vaccination rates (more on this in a later chapter when we talk exclusively about vaccine efficacy, variants and breakthrough cases). One thing we know for certain, the virus has evolved, and will continue to evolve as the CDC now recognizes the following variants of concern: Delta B.1.617.2 and Omicron B.1.1.529.
It should be no surprise to anyone that natural immunity remained strong, against the Delta, with additional information being collected on Omicron. Most of the literature we have compiled reports none to “few” confirmed cases (3 out of 4 million or 0.000075%) of reinfections (with all variants prior to Omicron), and of those re-infections, the symptoms were mild (with ALL variants including Omicron). A confirmed reinfection case requires a seroprevalence test to look for antibodies, T- or B- cells found in the blood/bone marrow in those recovered from a natural infection. Unfortunately, many of the studies discussing reinfections utilize the results of positive PCR tests obtained more than 90- days apart, this can be extremely problematic for all the reasons discussed in Chapter 3. When the PCR test is used for re-infection confirmation, the reinfection rates are typically between 0.4-1%, which is higher than when seroprevalence testing is used. While still a small percentage, reinfection rate is important to accurately determine because it allows individuals to conduct appropriate risk assessments in their lives.
The Importance of Natural Immunity in Achieving Herd Immunity
The CDC’s “altered” (and unscientific) stance on natural immunity was made official in a definitional change at the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2020. Up until sometime between June 9th and November 13th of 2020, during the first months of the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2, our federal regulatory agencies agreed that natural immunity was robust and long-lasting; superior to vaccination immunity. “As early as March 27, 2020, among the few accurate statements Dr. Fauci has made, he declared he was “really confident” in the immunity conferred by prior infection.” For audio of his conversation, click here. Dr. Fauci was confident, because the scientific literature regarding natural immunity is robust.
Natural immunity plays an enormous role in achieving herd immunity; when enough people in a population build up protection against a certain disease, the number of cases drops. In fact, the definition of herd immunity to disease was historically defined as “when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.” Suspiciously, in the period of June 9, 2020 to November 13, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) decided to change their definition of Herd Immunity to exclude mention of previous infection and only mention vaccination. See the highlighted portions of the Figure 1 below for the definitional distinction.
Where did the importance of natural immunity go? With what scientific data did the WHO make this decision?
As if the definitional change to herd immunity is not enough, in a future chapter we will show conclusive proof of definitional changes to the term vaccine. One has to wonder why scientists all over the world accept these linguistic ludicrosities without debate or dissent. As researchers, we take zero issue with individuals vehemently denying the robustness and longevity of natural immunity for Covid-19 if they provide scientifically valid and reliable evidence. The problem is the government entities that are changing the rules mid-game are the same entities that praised natural immunity in a study of 1918 influenza survivors. In 2008, researchers set out to understand if people who survived the 1918 influenza pandemic still retained immunity markers, more than 90 years later.
A study of the blood of older people who survived the 1918 influenza pandemic reveals that antibodies to the strain have lasted a lifetime and can perhaps be engineered to protect future generations against similar strains.The group found that 100% of the subjects had serum-neutralizing activity against the 1918 virus and 94% showed serologic reactivity to the 1918 hemagglutinin. The B cells have been waiting for at least 60 years if not 90 years for that flu to come around again. That’s amazing, because it’s the longest memory anyone’s ever demonstrated.”
To add more fuel to the fire, Dr. Anthony Fauci just so happened to comment on this specific study with the quote below:
Recent studies have projected that immunity lasts several decades; the current study provides proof, ” the AP reported. “This is the mother of all immunological memory here,” he told the AP.
What changed Dr. Fauci’s mind about how strong and long-lived natural immunity was between 2008 and 2020? Why do we continue to marginalize individuals who were previously infected and have natural immunity?
But the study above looked at influenza, not respiratory coronaviruses. Experience with other respiratory tract viruses, including corona viruses, suggests that immunity to specific viral serotypes lasts for many years. When researchers studied SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls, they found that of 23 patients who recovered from SARS in 2003, all had retained memory T-cells induced by that original pathogen still in their systems SEVENTEEN YEARS LATER. We remain befuddled as to why the narrative continues to be “vaccinate regardless of medical history,” when discussing SARS-CoV-2. The longevity and robustness of natural immunity is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of FACT.
Quantitative Proof of Natural Immunity’s Importance
Why has the CDC been incessantly telling the public that natural immunity, for COVID-19, isn’t long-lasting or robust and that even people who have recovered must receive a full vaccination series? You would think that if they were going to force vaccinations on the naturally immune that they would provide data to prove necessity. Mandating a vaccine in the naturally immune populations makes even less sense now that the mild variant, “Omicron may be over 10 times more contagious than the original virus or about 2.8 times as infectious as the Delta variant……. [with] an 88% likelihood to escape current vaccines.” While it has been shown to escape natural immunity as well, albeit at not nearly the rates within the vaccinated and infection naive unvaccinated populations, the reported cases in previously infected individuals have been mild.
Recording the number and severity of reinfections among the previously infected would be especially important given the seriousness of this worldwide event. But the CDC has none. As of November 5, 2021, the CDC reported (seeFigure 2) that it has not been documenting or collecting data on “cases of an individual who: (1) never received a COVID-19 vaccine; (2) was infected with COVID-19 once, recovered, and then later became infected again; and (3) transmitted SARS-CoV-2 to another person when reinfected.” Could it be possible that they purposefully did NOT collect this data for plausible deniability reasons? Their lack of scientific evidence is apparently enough to continue the mass vaccination campaign; even to those who it would differentially harm.
If the government and subsequent individuals who we elect to represent us are truly concerned about the infection and transmission of, and subsequent immunity to, Covid-19, why not require an antibody test and T-cell/B-Cell test? We learned that our innate and adaptive immune systems generate robust antibodies, T- and B-cells after natural infection, so why not document their presence to help better understand infection and transmission rates in a community?
In Oklahoma, you can get your antibodies tested locally. There is also a publicly available T-Detect Test. We want to be clear that the T-Detect tests are under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). They also have direct ties to Bill Gates who seems to be meddling in industries far from the technology sector. Unfortunately, we cannot find any other option available to the public at this time.
Both antibody and T-Detect tests may have been more widely utilized if the public were educated on their value. However, it seems clear that one federal agency (the FDA) does not want Americans to know their antibody levels.
Why? Is it because the current antibody tests are not accurate? Is it because scientists cannot decide what antibody level (U/mL) represents an adequate level of immunity? Medical doctor’s titer blood all the time to assess immunity to a variety of diseases when vaccination records or prior infection cannot be proven/is unknown. There are plenty of published documents providing threshold estimates for immune indicators. These publications can be used to assess whether or not an individual has adequate immunity to prevent future infection. This applies to those with prior infection or vaccination (understanding that the vaccination immunity for Covid-19 only provides immunity to the spike specific antibody). Does this not seem like a more prudent step forward as an alternative to continued vaccinations and boosters? Are we attempting to reach herd immunity and community safety or are we more interested in keeping track of how many vaccines and boosters Big Pharm, through the CDC, can sell?
Surely the scientific medical and research community can determine a representative test and provide recommendations to health care providers? If antibody tests are not our best option to assess immunity to SARS-CoV-2, then what is? In order to begin to better understand this question, the UK has started an antibody surveillance program. The researchers are analyzing differences in how vaccinations create immunity versus how natural infection creates immunity in their population. They periodically test both consenting vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals to assess antibody production. This is a great research study for those who are willing to participate through informed consent. One of the most concerning findings was published in their government Week 42 UK Surveillance Data Report.
As discussed earlier in this chapter, we know that a natural infection produces a diversity of non-structural and structural proteins through our adaptive immune system that can remember and react to future attacks. We also know that vaccination primes our body with only the structural spike specific antibody (S-antibody). If an individual is vaccinated with any of the currently existing Covid-19 vaccines, their body will be taught to respond to and attack the virus using their S-antibodies. Because of this, S-antibodies will be present in a vaccinated person when antibody testing occurs. But what about the presence of structural N-antibodies, short for nucleocapsid protein, that are naturally acquired?
If we track S-antibodies only, we will learn how many people have been vaccinated and those that have had a natural infection. If we track N-antibodies, we see only those who were infected with Covid, recovered, and acquired resistance. The N-antibody is specific to the naturally infected. Regarding this, the UK found that “N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination.” In Figure 3 below, nucleocapsid (N – from natural infection) antibodies are shown in red, Spike (S -from natural infection/vaccination) antibodies are shown in dark blue.
Regarding this ongoing British study, a letter to the editor was written in the Journal of Infection confirming that breakthrough infections in the vaccinated seem to elicit a vastly attenuated antibody response to the N-protein, compared to infections in unvaccinated people. From past experiences with coronaviruses, medical professionals and researchers know that it is the “N” antibodies that are conserved across viral mutations (variants) and thus are critical, over time, to prevent severe outcomes. N-antibodies work faster and are more likely to be sterilizing because they represent the body learning to kill the actual virus. The S-antibodies, trained by the vaccines, are not responsive to the virus, only to the effects of the virus once it infects cells and causes them to express the S-protein on their surface, which is why this “training” doesn’t stop infection, transmission or spread. This difference likely has to do with why natural immunity IS sterilizing and almost always stops future infection and why vaccines do not.
How long this disabling of the “N” antibody production is sustained, nobody knows, but it appears to be entirely suppressed in people who have been vaccinated and then get infected. If being vaccinated prevents you from mounting as strong an N-antibody response, then it may reduce the effectiveness of the immunity acquired from exposure to COVID-19, which is by far, the strongest immunity in the scientific literature.
Does what we are seeing with the production of N- antibodies in a vaccinated individual mean that the vaccine interferes with a body’s innate ability after infection to produce antibodies against not just the spike protein but other pieces of the virus? These N-antibodies seem to be a crucial part of the response in naturally immune folks and may provide evidence as to why the immune responses of the vaccinated are poorer (high numbers of breakthrough cases) because their bodies cannot produce those vital N-antibodies.
Does this mean that vaccinated people will be far more vulnerable to mutations in the spike protein even after they have been infected and recovered?
Does this study provide evidence that vaccines may interfere with the development of robust long-term immunity post-infection?
What if this means that Covid variants NEVER stop “breaking through” in the vaccinated?
Natural immunity provides us a breadth of immunity not available in a vaccine and it primes our immune system to take on each future variant that may evolve in the environment. The method of priming, for example, natural immunity versus vaccinated immunity, is imperative because what our bodies encounter first typically rules the roost. This phenomenon is called Original Antigenic Sin (OAS), a well-studied immune phenomenon. When discussing the importance of natural immunity, we think this concept is significant which is why it will be the start of Part 2 of Chapter 6.
Questions to consider:
- When will professional and amateur athletes realize the seriousness associated with taking experimental mRNA gene therapies (vaccines)?
- Why did the World Health Organization (WHO) change their definition of Herd Immunity to exclude natural infection in mid-2020?
- How are we examining safety or assessing immunity prior to inoculation?
- Why are autopsies not being conducted on additional mRNA gene therapy recipients?
- Why are antibody tests or another type of test used to assess immunity markers not recommended by our government?
- Why would natural immunity not be recognized for SARS-CoV-2 but recognized for a plethora of other diseases?
- Does vaccinating a naturally immune person put them at risk of a serious adverse event or impact their natural immunity?
“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.” – Voltaire