by Dr. Amy Cerato and Dr. Eric Snyder
On Friday, January 7th, 2022 the U.S Supreme Court listened to Nat. Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Dept. of Labor oral arguments regarding the legality of federal vaccine mandates. If you listen to the audio found here, you will learn that a few of our U.S. Supreme Court Justices made ridiculous statements and claims (without any documented correction from the legal counsel). For example, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said “We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in — in serious condition and many on ventilators.” Apparently, no one informed the Justice that ventilators are the wrong protocol as they exhibit negative efficacy. Furthermore, our own CDC provides data on total hospitalizations for ages 0-17 from August 1, 2020, to January 8th, 2022. As you can see in the figure below—-there have been 85,369 TOTAL hospitalizations of children/adolescents testing positive for Covid-19 over the past 17 months (0-17). Is anyone else concerned by the fact that our highest court in the land (we know it is technically the basketball court that resides above the chambers) allows such statements to be said without a rebuttal?
Justice Kagan stated that “the best way to prevent spread is for people to get vaccinated and to prevent dangerous illness and death is for people to get vaccinated. The second best is to wear masks.” Justice Kagan, please see the United Kingdoms ‘Covid-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report – 2022 – Week 1’ which shows that the vast majority of Covid-19 cases between December 6th, 2021 and January 2nd, 2022 were the vaccinated population which accounted for 7 in 10 Covid-19 cases, 6 in 10 Covid-19 hospitalizations and 8 in every 10 Covid-19 deaths. If Justice Kagan needs data on mask use, we kindly ask her to check out Chapter 4 on Ignite Liberty. If she really wants protection in the public, we would all need a 3M series 7000 model with a P100 particulate filter. We believe it is fair to ask the following question of Justice Kagan:
If vaccination prevents the spread, dangerous illness, and death, then why are the pharmaceutical companies given legal liability protections for their mRNA gene therapies under the emergency use authorization?”
Here are just a few more memorable comments. Justice Sotomayor said, “Counsel, those numbers show that Omicron is as deadly and causes as much serious disease in the unvaccinated as Delta did.” This comment does not warrant a rebuttal as it is not even close. Justice Breyer stated that,
and you heard references, studies, I mean, they – they vary, but some of them say that the hospitalization is 90 percent or maybe 60 percent or maybe 80 percent, but a big percent, filled up yesterday or the day before with people who are not vaccinated, okay?”
When you go to work tomorrow, contact your county health officer or local hospital and ask them to review Kyle Beattie’s research looking at 145 countries and the causal impact of vaccinations. The study found a 38% increase in Covid-19 cases per million among the vaccinated and a 31% increase in Covid-19 deaths per million among the vaccinated. The research is sound, and the conclusions are sickening as many of our friends and family members were not provided appropriate informed consent prior to inoculation. The fact that there is even a court case in our supreme court discussing the idea of the federal government mandating these mRNA gene therapies should concern every single American.
We have no idea where these Justices are receiving their data. What we do know is that a few of the Justices were brazenly attempting to justify predetermined conclusions that the OSHA mandate for private businesses and CMS mandate for health care workers should be enforced. The Solicitor General Prelogar added to the unfounded statements including “there would be no basis to think that these FDA-approved and authorized vaccines are not safe and effective,” “and one of the risks that OSHA was guarding against here was the risk that unvaccinated workers posed to other workers because they are so much more likely to transmit this deadly disease to ….their vaccinated and other unvaccinated workers.” Have these people NOT seen the case numbers from Omicron? The majority are in the VACCINATED population. Thankfully Justice Alito took Prelogar to town for those specific statements, but it remains unconscionable that inaccurate statements were being made to justify mandates when we should be focusing on helping Americans regardless of vaccination status with early treatment and therapeutics.
The Supreme Court decision was rendered on Thursday, January 13, 2022 that the OSHA mandate for private businesses should be stayed, while litigation over its legality continues in the lower courts, but that the CMS mandate for health care works can take effect nationwide.
When Supreme Court Justices lie openly and brazenly about one of the most pivotal cases in American history, we may be in for darker days ahead. It is as if a few of these judges have been given their marching orders, which is to cite and spew non-factual evidence. I wonder if they have the same friend group as Harvard Professor Charles Lieber or the Harvard University faculty members publishing false data in “The Lancet” (our top medical journal in the world) bashing certain therapeutic treatments for Covid-19, and then retracting the article two months later after the media and government officials had already convinced the world that the medication was bad news. These people are clearly at the top of the intellectual hierarchy; how dare a few Oklahomans question their competency. Do not worry. This type of behavior exists across both political spectrums. Please see the recently released case with another Ivy League graduate Alan Dershowitz (who we are to entrust with U.S. Constitutional opinions). The case was recently unsealed but people need to read these documents.
It would have been so much more enjoyable for each Supreme Court Justice to go on The Joe Rogan Experience and explain why they are for or against federal vaccine mandates. At least Americans would be able to hear Mr. Rogan challenge them when they blatantly lie to the American people. Joe would bring up videos like that from the January 8th, 2021 Al Wakra Club soccer match against Al Rayyan in Qatar (see video here). He would also state facts, like, in New York state on January 8th, 90,132 new “Covid-19 cases,” the highest one-day increase on record, was reported (this state has the highest vaccination rate among the most populous states in the U.S. and imposed some of the strictest Covid measures).
How many more of our loved ones need to be coerced without true informed consent to make medical decisions before we change the dominant narrative? Oklahomans are continuing to be encouraged by individuals in leadership positions to vaccinate and boost when we now know from a recent study out of Denmark that you will need to boost every 30 days to maintain protection. But do any of these vaccines really provide protection (that information in forthcoming chapters), and is administering them while in a pandemic or endemic a good idea? Have we committed the original antigenic sin?
Original Antigenic Sin (OAS)
This phenomenon was first described in 1960 by Dr. Tomas Francis, in the article “On the Doctrine of Original Antigenic Sin.” Dr. Francis hypothesized that the body will produce effective antibodies against dominant antigens to eliminate an infection but when it encounters the same infection at a later evolved stage with a new dominant antigen, the immune system will still produce the former antibodies against the “first ” infection. Original Antigenic Sin (OAS)has been demonstrated to occur in several infectious diseases in both animals and humans, including human influenza infection and dengue fever.
How does OAS apply to mRNA vaccinations/gene therapy? See the steps below.
(1). Vaccination trains the body to produce only one specific antibody (S-1)
(2). Body is exposed to an evolved form of the virus (i.e., Omicron and Delta)
(3). Body cannot recognize the new variant and produces original S-1 antibodies–not new antibodies
(4). Original antibodies do not respond to the variant well and weaken immune system response.
As individuals are continuously exposed to slightly different variants, the vaccine-induced immunity may continue to produce antibodies against the original target, crowding out more specific, and better-adapted antibodies, which would lead to not only continual infections but potentially more serious outcomes. Dr. Geert Vanden Bosshe, a well-credentialed scientist has a great video that provides further detail on what may be happening with the mRNA gene therapies.
Does OAS occur in all age groups?
In early December, research published in Cell Host and Microbe provided some insight into why children might be spared from severe cases of SARS-CoV-2. The researchers hypothesize that it is a child’s untrained, innate, non-specific immune response that first “primes” their body with mild infection and accurate antibody response, whereas adults with immune systems tightly calibrated to the common human coronavirus, often have more severe symptoms; a classic case of Original Antigenic Sin (OAS). Adults have prior immunity to endemic, human common cold coronaviruses (hCoVs) and this may impact susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. They found that “pre-existing hCoV antibodies hinder SARS-CoV-2 antibody-based immunity following infection.”
Another December 2021 study confirmed that “the magnitude of the adaptive immune response to SARS-CoV-2 is higher in children compared to adults,” with enhanced antibody binding to variants of concern, twice as high and broadly stable spike-specific T cell responses, and overall quantitatively superior antibody responses. This study uses the timing of exposure to four common endemic human coronaviruses (hCoVs) (i.e., two Beta-coronaviruses OC43 and HKU-1, which have 38% and 35% amino acid homology [similarity] with SARS-CoV-2, and the more distantly related two Alpha-coronaviruses NL63 and 229E, each with around 31% homology) to explain the possible difference in the adaptive immune response. Their data showed that “children display a characteristically robust and sustained adaptive immune response against SARS-CoV-2 with substantial cross-reactivity against other hCoVs.”
If pre-existing immunity for the hCoVs can increase the infection and transmission rate, along with the severity of a SARS-CoV-2 infection, it stands to reason that a man-made mRNA vaccine introducing a full-length spike into our immune system could make it harder for individuals to fight off a natural infection. This may be one reason why many countries with high vaccination rates appear to be in an indefinite phase of heightened SARS-CoV-2 transmission. In the UK, 96% of adults have antibodies to the spike protein, mostly acquired by vaccination. Shortly after they concluded their vaccination campaign, cases skyrocketed and have remained high ever since.
There are now studies being published that predicted what the British observed in their antibody research. Why did Public Health Officials not warn Americans about the possibility of OAS? Individuals should be educated on this as they contemplate a decision that will impact them and their families for life. In a Nature (October 2021) published article on receptor binding domains and antibody evolution after vaccination, the researchers found that the mRNA injection has such poor antibody production, longevity, and immunity response that “boosting to prevent infection would likely be needed on a timescale of months.” This never sounded like a good idea to us and it looks like the European Union has finally started to speak out about the dangers of repeated “boosting.”
Another study showed that vaccinated subjects “may not be equally protected against all SARS-CoV-2 lineages [variants]” due to the inability of the Spike protein-induced antibodies to react to even a slightly different form of the virus. While we will discuss this in much greater detail below, it should be reiterated that because the diversity of antibodies produced by natural infection is so great, the majority of the studies published comparing natural immunity with vaccine-induced immunity find that “natural immunity confers longer-lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.”
We will discuss original antigenic sin again in a future chapter when we delve deeper into the reasons behind the variants and why the current mRNA vaccinations are seemingly neither safe nor effective. However, we felt that a structural comparison between natural immunity and vaccinated immunity and what researchers are noticing about the immune response to both was important to discuss herein. In fact, the US government, and the entire COVID-19 global narrative, are wrong on natural immunity and their stance is dangerous. From every shred of scientific data and knowledge of evolutionary biology out there, including first principles, natural immunity is fundamentally superior.
Harm to the Naturally Immune
Why do our medical professionals, workplaces, and government agencies refuse to acknowledge natural immunity while continuing mass inoculation campaigns and subsequent private business, health care worker and federal vaccination mandates? Have researchers analyzed what happens to people with natural immunity, who are then forced to take the shot? Does vaccinating a naturally immune person put them at risk of a serious adverse event or impact their natural immunity? Or to put it another way, do the vaccines possibly harm the superior T-cell immunity built up from prior infection? Many doctors think it does and the FDA guidance document “Vaccines to Prevent C19 EUA” reveals that:
Vaccine safety and COVID-19 outcomes in individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, who might have been asymptomatic, are important to examine because screening for prior infection is unlikely to occur prior to administration of COVID-19 vaccines under EUA.” “A EUA request should include subgroup analyses of safety and efficacy endpoints stratified by prior infection status at study entry, as determined by pre-vaccination serology or medical history.” page 11, d.
Can someone please explain to the American public how we are examining safety or assessing immunity prior to vaccination? Do you realize that our public schools in the United States lined up our children and gave them a shot without testing for prior infection?
Were people who lined up to be vaccinated asked if they had a prior infection? Were they given any sort of informed consent that it was possible that their previous infection may put them at greater risk of an adverse side effect?
Dr. Dan Stock, a functional family medicine physician explained to the Mt. Vernon Community School board in an August 2021 public meeting that people who have recovered from C19 infection have no benefit from vaccination at all, no reduction of symptoms, no reduction in hospitalizations and suffer 2-4 times the rate of side effects if they are subsequently vaccinated. On August 25th, 2021The New England Journal of Medicine published and provided an analysis of data from Israel to evaluate the safety of the mRNA vaccine. They found that vaccination was most strongly associated with an elevated risk of myocarditis and “the risk of this serious adverse event and of many other serious adverse events was substantially increased after a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
JAMA Internal Medicine published data that revealed those with prior infection are associated with 4.4 times increased odds of clinically significant side effects following an mRNA vaccination. The Lancet published a study concluding that “Adverse effects are more frequently reported in younger individuals, women, and among those who previously had COVID-19.” Differential effects of the second SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose on T-cell immunity in naïve and COVID-19 recovered individuals were published and found a reduction in cellular immunity for those with prior infection who take the second shot.
Immunologists from Mount Sinai in New York and Hospital La Paz in Madrid also raised serious concerns. In a shocking discovery after monitoring a group of vaccinated individuals both with and without prior infection, they found,
in individuals with a pre-existing immunity against SARS-CoV-2, the second vaccine dose not only fail to boost humoral immunity but determines a contraction of the spike-specific T cell response.”
They also note that other research has shown,
the second vaccination dose appears to exert a detrimental effect in the overall magnitude of the spike-specific humoral response in COVID-19 recovered individuals.”
These studies correlate with the March 2021, self-reported vaccine recipient survey that showed, “For the first time, our study links prior COVID-19 illness with an increased incidence of vaccination side effects,…” Patrick Whelan, of UCLA, says the “sky-high” antibodies after vaccination in people who were previously infected may have contributed to systemic side effects.
Why would our medical establishment purposely HARM individuals with an intervention with no long-term safety data when we know that naturally immune individuals have superior immunity?
Even people who had mild symptomatic Covid-19 have long-lasting immunity and that is why we should test antibodies for everyone PRIOR to recommending a vaccination.
Why is the government recommending vaccinating EVERYONE regardless of prior infection and why are vaccination MANDATES coming from employers regardless of prior infection?
We should all be demanding an answer to these questions.
Especially when provided with scientifically based discussions on why natural immunity is more robust to vaccination like the op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal from August 16, 2021. Mr. Sagel echoed the clinical data and accurately concluded that a naturally immune person has both internal and mucosal immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Vaccinated immunity only affords internal immunity. So why are we not recognizing natural immunity for those who want to opt-out of receiving the shots? It is staggering how few clinicians, physicians, and nurses recognize natural immunity and advise their patients appropriately.
Norway recently changed their vaccination recommendations for 12-15-year-olds and those 16 or older to reflect the importance of natural immunity. This November 22, 2021, tweet reveals that the Norwegian vaccination policy recommends no vaccinations in 12-15-year-olds and just one dose of vaccine to those 16 and over who have recovered from COVID-19. It would be interesting to know the actual reasoning behind this decision; was it because of the poor safety profile of the vaccinations in young people or was it because they followed the published science and pertaining to the immune system? Whatever the reasoning is, we applaud the Norwegians for acknowledging the power of natural immunity. On January 7, 2022, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) changed its definition of “fully vaccinated” to include “A person who has had a documented COVID-19 infection in the past 90 days is considered the equivalent of “fully vaccinated.” We agree that someone who has had a COVID-19 infection should be considered “fully vaccinated,” but we have no idea where they got the arbitrary 90 day timeframe because the literature we cite show that natural immunity is lifelong. Why not adopt a policy recognizing life-long natural immunity in the United States, or at a minimum in Oklahoma?
In order to provide additional supplemental information, please take the time to watch this series of presentations from the 2021 COVID-19 World Summit held on November 6, 2021. Dr. Malone provides a very interesting discussion on viruses and natural immunity and there are many other doctors and researchers presenting their Covid-19 research. Here is another informative video on long-term natural immunity versus vaccination immunity that deserves a look. Please read/listen with open eyes and heart and make your own informed decisions.
Robustness and Longevity of Natural Immunity
We have more long-term data on the efficacy of convalescent immunity than we do on the safety and efficacy of the mRNA “vaccines.” This article summarizes the 145 studies through December 22, 2021. Acknowledging the scope and scale of the research provided should provide individuals with the data needed to advocate for their health. Those leading us in public policy efforts, especially those concerning vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, vaccination of children, and healthy individuals, should be required to read the studies associated with this chapter. For those who are reading these chapters, demand that your local doctor read these articles. Demand that your doctor read the studies on how vaccination after natural infection is potentially harmful. We all have to begin to speak up in our own way to help our families and our communities.
In terms of reinfection rates among the naturally immune, several studies reported exceptionally low rates. On March 28, 2021, a report out of Manaus, Brazil “found only three confirmed re-infections in the entire state, whose population exceeds four million (0.000075% reinfection rate). Other studies have confirmed that re-infections are rare and usually asymptomatic or mild.” On May 1, 2021, a study of SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positivity showed protection against reinfection for at least seven months with 95% efficacy. The researchers estimated the risk at 0.66 per 10,000 person-weeks and found no evidence of waning immunity over a seven-month follow-up period. The few reinfections that did occur “were less severe than primary infections,” with “only one severe reinfection, two moderate reinfections, and zero critical or fatal reinfections.” Within this study “most reinfections were diagnosed incidentally through random or routine testing, or through contact tracing.”
Within a Review of Medical Virology publication, researchers analyzed 11 cohort studies with over 600,000 total recovered COVID-19 patients. The researchers found that not one of the studies reported an increase in the risk of reinfection over time, suggesting that naturally acquired SARS-CoV-2 immunity does not wane for at least 10 months post-infection. This is a completely different narrative from the mRNA gene therapies which we now know have negative efficacy.
But we have more. In an additional study that followed 52,000 health care workers in the Cleveland Clinic system in Ohio, researchers found that of the 1,359 previously infected and unvaccinated individuals, not one had a re-infection incidence, despite some of these individuals being around COVID positive patients more than the regular population. The authors concluded the following:
Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.”
If we look across the pond for additional data, we can view the important weekly technical report from the UK from August 2021, page 17. The “probable” reinfection rate from those with prior infection was 0.025%, and unlike the vaccine, the trend had NOT worsened with delta. Another study out of the UK confirmed a similar pattern. The findings revealed less than 1% of people who caught Covid and recovered were infected again and were half as likely to suffer symptoms when reinfected. Also, the viral loads present in the nose or throat during a second infection were much less than during the first infection.
But what about the nation where the World Cup will be hosted this summer? A study looking at over 353,326 persons (subtract 87,547 due to having a vaccination status) in the national, federated Qatar database with PCR confirmed infections between February 2020 and April 2021 showed that there were only 1304 reinfections as defined by a PCR-positive swab obtained at least 90 days after the primary infection (reinfection rate of 0.0049%). One of the problems with using the PCR test, as was discussed in Chapter 5, is that there is a high probability of false positives and negatives. This is why physicians and practitioners should ask for additional seroprevalence testing and follow-up with each individual to ask questions about symptoms, etc. However, assuming there were no problems with the PCR testing, a 0.0049% reinfection rate over a two-year period, with all cases being mild, is a positive data point. There were no cases of critical disease at re-infection; there were no cases of death at reinfection. Those reinfections that were recorded were mild and rare because the immune system has been primed from the initial infection.
In Israel, researchers published a preprint article that found that of the 187,549 individuals who recovered from SARS-CoV-2, 894 had a PCR confirmed reinfection (.00476%). In reviewing the participants, the researchers confirmed only one death in the entire country from an individual who had a PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. This individual was over 80 years old. At the time of this publication, the dominant strain was most likely still Alpha.
An additional Israeli study looked at all PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections in more than 5.7 million individuals within the Israeli Ministry of Health database. They note that their results are sensitive to detection bias due to the “different tendencies to perform PCR testing in the study cohorts.” The researchers looked at the reinfections overtime in five cohorts and found clear waning immunity in the Recovered cohort (Figure 4A), the Vaccinated cohort (Figure 4B), and the Hybrid immunity cohorts (Figure 4C) over time, but the rate and magnitude of the waning immunity varied significantly. For example, by 6-8 months, two-dose vaccinated individuals (Figure 4B) had rates of confirmed infections per 100,000 days at a risk of 88.9. This converts to a chance of re-infection of about 3% per month. Whereas a recovered individual (Figure 4A) had a rate of a mere 14 per 100,000 days (0.4%/month probability of re-infection). In addition, the recovered individual’s rate of reinfection did not decrease substantially between 8 and 12 months of initial infection (overlapping range bars). The vaccinated were almost seven times as likely to be infected as people who had natural immunity from an infection 6-8 months before. In terms of the hybrid cohorts (Figure 4C), the recovered then vaccinated had an 11.6/100,000 (0.35%/month) reinfection rate and a vaccinated then recovered had a 17.2/100,000 (0.5%/month) reinfection rate.
This Israeli study is critical as it scientifically proves that a recovered individual had better protection from the virus, more than a year later, than individuals who had been vaccinated for only two months. In addition, providing a single dose or two doses of the vaccination to an already recovered individual does little to lower the rates of infection. These findings connect the narrative associated with the UK data in Part 1 of this Chapter where we showed that a vaccinated individual that subsequently becomes infected does not produce a significant number of N-antibodies; the vaccine seemingly suppresses the ability of the natural immune system’s production of N-antibodies. Is this another sign of Original Antigenic Sin (OAS), where priming the body with an mRNA vaccine may ultimately interfere with the development of lasting immunity?
The number of severe cases among the infected individuals was small in most cohorts, with 1,372/140,478 among the vaccinated (0.1%), 178/5,845 among the Booster individuals (3%), 25/4,391 among the recovered (0.05%), 13/822 among recovered then vaccinated (1.6%), 5/343 among vaccinated then recovered (1.5%).
Re-Infection Rates of Omicron
While the prior research studies above analyzed the variants from the past two years, the most prevalent variant discussed today is Omicron. So how does this variant react to those with prior infection? Analysis of routine surveillance data from South Africa suggests that, in contrast to the Beta and Delta, the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 demonstrates substantial population-level evidence for evasion of immunity from prior infection and vaccinations. However, the risk of hospitalization and death has been low which is something all of us should celebrate.
One reason as to why this variant is reacting differently is because Omicron is so far removed from the original evolutionary structure of SARS-CoV-2. Figure 5 below shows the variants of SARS-CoV-2 over time as a function of the mutations in S1. Notice where Omicron (the red cluster in the upper right) falls. This variant is very different and disconnected from the “natural” family tree of descendants of the original SARS-CoV-2. What’s more, if you look where it branched off from the “family tree,” you see it sprang from an “ancestor” sometime in Spring 2020.
So, how did that happen? How did it suddenly appear in November 2021, when its “forefather” was a version of the virus that was common in mid-2020? Was this variant selected and released because it is less infectious with milder symptomatology?
And where is all the natural variation in between? Why is it not like the other variants, which nestled in the natural-looking spread of gradually mutating descendants? Do you see the gradual wedge shape trend with Alpha, Beta, and Delta as the virus gets more and more diverse over time? The diversity occurs because mutations occur, but Omicron doesn’t show that behavior at all. This is perplexing.
Was human engineering involved in order to make Omicron’s evolution look unnatural? Are there enough silent mutations in Omicron for a natural origin? Without writing an entire book on viral mutations, a short lesson is warranted. There are two types of mutations that occur to virus variants;
- “silent” (S) mutations happen when the virus’s RNA has a change in a nucleotide, which does not cause an amino acid to change. Therefore, a silent mutation does not change anything about how the virus functions.
- “functional” (N) mutation that does cause a change in the resulting amino acid, which does change how the virus functions.
You can see that Omicron has a number of mutations from the phylogenetic tree in the figure, but these mutations are mainly functional, making it a more transmissible yet less virulent strain. If every 3.5 functional (N) mutations create 1 silent (S) mutation and given the fact that there are 33 functional (N) mutations in Omicron, we would expect to see 9-10 silent (S) mutations; but we only have FOUR. With very few silent mutations (which act as a sort of timing device), one could argue that the mutation was frozen for close to a year; meaning there is a high likelihood that it was a variant that came from a laboratory leak. Experts like Jonatan Pallesen are finding that Omicron is based on a variant last seen in mid-2020, and so it doesn’t have a natural evolutionary path. You can find other reputable scientists talking about this topic if you do a search for “silent mutations Omicron.”
What are other theories that could explain Omicron’s divergence from the natural family tree?
- The mutation accumulated in a chronically infected patient
- The mutation accumulated within an overlooked human population
- The mutation occurred in an animal reservoir.
Regardless, the important takeaway is that Omicron is widely different from other variants and follows a strange evolutionary path. This may at least partially explain why it evades vaccination as well as natural immunity. It may also explain why the symptomology from Omicron differs substantially from prior variants which beg the question: Do the vaccines really protect individuals from Omicron?
A recent study by Kwong, et al., found that two doses of COVID-19 vaccines were not protective against Omicron (0% efficacy). Furthermore, 7 days after receiving the 3rd dose of an mRNA gene therapy, the researchers found the shot was 37% effective against Omicron. This paper published on December 23rd, 2021 found that after 90 days, the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines had a negative effect (i.e., vaccinated people were MORE susceptible to Omicron infection –see Figure 7).
Confirming this negative efficacy finding, recent data from Denmark and Ontario indicate that vaccinated individuals have higher rates of Omicron infection than unvaccinated. But what about those with prior infection-induced natural immunity? The findings showed protection or efficacy at about 60% with Omicron. Whereas with prior variants it was greater than 90% (Alpha, etc.). But this is still positive, right? The answer is yes, especially because prior-infection protection against hospitalization or death at reinfection appears robust, regardless of the variant. For the general public, this is critical because Omicron is making vaccine mandates, for a vaccine that is ineffective in preventing infection or transmission, irrational and contrary to the public interest. At this point, there is no scientific rationale to believe mandates will curb the spread of the disease.
Even as Omicron cases exploded in South Africa, hospitalizations and death count barely moved. In fact, they were lower than they had been at almost any point since this worldwide event began. When we look at deaths in Denmark, they appear to be falling as Omicron spreads, reinforcing once more that Omicron is a much milder variant. All current data available imply this is true among vaccinated and unvaccinated alike which should be a point of unity, not divisiveness. What we know to be factual is that the property of the pathogen, not the inoculant, is borne out by the sudden drop in deaths as it propagates. Presuming the infection fatality rates of Omicron remain consistent, this is what humanity should want. It is nature’s way of making a vaccine and as the variant becomes fully endemic, with mild symptoms and side effects, it will become another common cold.
While it remains true that Omicron has been affecting both the unvaccinated and vaccinated, early data reveals it has predominantly affected the vaccinated. We are not saying this because we want to cause angst. We are simply pointing this out because there is not a main media source in the world that is sharing this narrative with individuals. Studies from South Africa, Ontario and Alberta certainly support this truth. Would Americans ever believe the findings of the studies if they only consumed the information from KOCO, CNN, FOX, CDC, NIH, FDA, etc.? Clearly, it is difficult to break the hypnosis. In Ontario, the fully vaccinated now have a higher caseload than the unvaccinated per 100,000 people as well as account for 67% of all non-ICU hospitalizations. We do realize that not all hospitalizations are “from” Covid, but merely “with” Covid, but surely this number invalidates the CDC’s talking point that we are still in a pandemic of the unvaccinated. In Alberta, with active cases (as of January 13, 2022) in all age groups, both with and without pre-existing conditions, the vaccinated have 4.4 to 17.7 times higher caseloads than the unvaccinated (See Table 5 here).
If what we are seeing was simple vaccine escape, it would result in ~0% vaccine efficacy; meaning the vaccine did nothing to protect the individual, and the rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, infection naive, would be the same. But the data actually indicates that the vaccines are making the virus MORE infectious. We can tell that, for example, with data from Denmark that shows a negative efficacy (vaccinated person more at risk of becoming infected than an unvaccinated, infection naive person), with any form of vaccination (Danish national data published Here and Here. Percent vaccinated by date, Our World in Data Here. The outcome? Being fully vaccinated more than doubles your relative chance of contracting Omicron. Being boosted is better, but it still shows negative efficacy to being unvaccinated, infection naive. There would be an even starker contrast if these numbers were compared against reinfection rates of the previously infected individuals (see Figure 9).This same phenomenon using German data can be found here and using UK data during Omicron here.
But what about the narrative that we all hear regarding case rates and hospitalizations? We turn again to the data (see Figure 11) from the UK since week 49. You may be thinking that “these infection case numbers are expected when the population is mostly vaccinated” but if the vaccines worked as vaccines NORMALLY work – this would not be expected.
The UKHSA also provides data on vaccine effectiveness over time (Figure 12). While the boosters do improve efficacy, there is a steep decrease in efficacy over time, and the data stop at 10 weeks post booster. It may be that the booster efficacy fall-off is similar to the primary inoculation course (first two shots) and falls to near nothing at 6 months.
Only time will tell but we want to encourage you to bookmark these UK weekly surveillance reports and periodically check them out as they do a reasonable job presenting data and they are typically 4-6 weeks ahead of the US in terms of trends (i.e., they saw Delta and Omicron first). If you watch our live presentation we have been proven correct in our prediction that the next viral wave in the United States would be 4-6 weeks from November 30th, 2021.
What is so frustrating about this is the fact that we met with government officials, hospital CEOs, superintendents, school board members, and others of influence in an effort to have Oklahoma prepared with early treatment options and physician protections. We admit that we failed at changing the mainstream narrative, but we certainly have the receipts showing conclusive proof of our attempts to inform. It is as if we were recently cast for the Netflix movie release “Don’t Look Up” where Leonardo Decaprio and Jennifer Lawrance tell individuals with 100% certainty that a comet will hit the earth. Just replace the comet with Covid and you have our lives over this past year. Are you happy with how the same individuals that have been leading you the past two years continue to manage the event?
Is it not peculiar that our public health officials continue to encourage individuals to vaccinate and boost, even with high rates of breakthrough infections among the vaccinated (e.g., vaccine failure). This is now proven with Omicron as the chances are probably high of you knowing someone who has had Covid-19 even after accepting two to three mRNA gene therapies. But what if the huge spike in rates for the 50-and-under age group in the UK is CAUSED by boosting? Why would this be the case?
Could it be because we continue to boost in the face of a pandemic wave and the 7-14 days of reduced immunity after boosting actually makes people more susceptible by suppressing their immune systems? We concede that an alternative theory could also be that the high case rates exist simply because Omicron is so evolutionarily different from the original SARS-CoV-2 virus that the mRNA gene therapy shots simply do not generate any immunity. In other words, the shots do not work as advertised. They are NOT effective.
But the conclusion here looks to be that the data are rather consistent across the globe with the Omicron variant. It is a fact that Omicron escapes the inoculations. There is also evidence to suggest that the original antigenic sin (markers of OAS include failure to generate N-protein antibodies) may be occurring among those who have received the shots. It is also clear that the unvaccinated do not have the level of immunity we have seen with prior variants. (60% vs 90%+) But the fact that there is not parity between the rate of reinfection between the vaxxed and unvaccinated is important because we know Omicron resulted in negative efficacy for those who have stopped after the two-shot series as well as those that went ahead with the third dose of mRNA therapeutic. This is a sign that the vaccine is making infections worse either through OAS/antigenic fixation or some other mechanism which is why natural immunity remains a superior public policy choice. This is especially true if your family has access to a physician who is willing to treat early. Natural immunity, and its breadth of adaptive proteins, still provide better protection against infection, transmission, and severe disease, as can be seen by the non-existent number of hospitalizations and deaths among those previously infected but unvaccinated.
Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2–infected individuals are not characterized by weak antiviral immunity; on the contrary, they mount a highly functional virus-specific cellular immune response,”
cytokines, which means that the body was primed to deal with the virus without producing the dangerous inflammatory response that has killed individuals throughout the world.
“SARS-CoV-2-specific memory B and T cells reached a peak at 3-6 months and persisted in the majority of patients up to 15 months.” “The data suggest that antiviral specific immunity, especially memory B cells in COVID-19 convalescent patients, is long-lasting.”
Studies reviewing the presence of memory B and T cells will be continually updated and published as the timeframe to conduct research lengthens (additional months and years to study the participants). As shown above, natural immunity continued to be robust for up to 15 months. This finding is not surprising given our knowledge of how the adaptive immune system has responded to other viruses when re-exposure occurs (flu, etc.). We will continue to follow this research and will update any new findings as we see how our bodies react to a different variant like Omicron.
Comparing Natural Infection Immunity versus Vaccination Immunity
Prior infection status is important to know because the body reacts differently depending on whether or not it was previously infected. As stated before, the fact that we are not determining prior infection status before recommending a vaccination series is problematic. mRNA vaccine-induced T cells respond identically to SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern but differ in longevity and homing properties depending on prior infection status. The findings show that antibodies generated by natural infection have greater potency and breadth than antibodies elicited by vaccination. This is even before getting into the innate cellular immunity which is exponentially greater in those with natural immunity.
Researchers noted differences in spike-specific T cells from convalescent vaccinees compared to infection-naïve vaccinees, that suggested superior long-term persistence and ability to home to the respiratory tract including the nasopharynx. Given that we know the virus spreads through the nasopharynx, the fact that natural infection conveys much stronger mucosal immunity makes it clear that the previously infected are much safer to be around than infection-naive people with the vaccine. The fact that this study artfully couched the choices between vaccinated naive people and vaccinated recovered rather than just plain recovered doesn’t change the fact that it’s the prior infection, not the vaccine, conveying mucosal immunity. In fact, studies now show that infected vaccinated people contain just as much viral load in their nasopharynx as those unvaccinated, a clearly unmistakable conclusion from the virus spreading wildly in many areas with nearly every adult vaccinated.
In a large-scale study of antibody titer decay following mRNA vaccine or SARS-CoV-2 infection, Israeli researchers found that antibodies wane slower among those with prior infection. Previously infected individuals also had more robust T cell and memory B cell immunity, which is more important than antibody levels. “In vaccinated subjects, antibody titers decreased by up to 40% each subsequent month while in convalescents they decreased by less than 5% per month.”
In one of the most publicized reports on natural immunity, this study used a large data set of roughly 700,000 Israelis in three groups: The doubly vaccinated with Pfizer, the previously infected but unvaccinated, and the previously infected with only a single vaccine dose and shows that the vaccinated were ultimately 13x as likely to be infected as those who were infected previously, and 27x more likely to be symptomatic (Delta Dominant).“This analysis demonstrated that natural immunity affords longer-lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease, and hospitalization due to the delta variant,” the researchers said.
For additional research comparing natural infection vs vaccination, please see the research articles below.
|Study 1||Study 5|
|Study 2||Study 6|
|Study 3||Study 7|
|Study 4||Study 8|
While it may have been disheartening to hear the Supreme Court case audio from last week, the information provided in this chapter should afford individuals with a contrarian view to the mainstream narrative. If we are doing an adequate job, we would expect an open letter to be penned by a few physicians (there are about 900,000+ in the US) to encourage us to stop spreading “misinformation.” But the “misinformation” is cited from actual scientific databases. Are those scientists lying? What we know to be accurate from this chapter is the following:
- Supreme Court Justices can make ridiculous commentary without a refutation.
- The Original Antigenic Sin phenomenon provides a strong rationale to never vaccinate into a pandemic.
- Vaccinating individuals who have had prior natural infection can result in adverse health effects including a suppression of future immune responses.
- Testing for prior infection should be required prior to anyone receiving a vaccine.
- Unvaccinated individuals with prior natural infection have a robust and diverse immunity that is protective against reinfection of original strains (90+%) and shows efficacy towards Omicron (60%). Prior natural infection shows almost complete protection against serious infection and death.
- Failure to recognize the science behind and importance of natural immunity when defining herd immunity is a disastrous public policy that has the potential to harm millions of people through vaccine adverse events (more on that topic in our next chapter).
- The evolution of the Omicron variant is unnatural given prior variants (see Figure 5)
- The vaccines efficacy is negative for Omicron, and we know that after 211 days the original doses have zero efficacy towards the variants.
- Natural immunity continued to be robust 15 months post infection. As time passes, these numbers will be updated.
- Contrary to White House data, the UK, Canada, and Israel all show higher percentage of vaccinated cases and hospitalizations. Why is the U.S. data so different?
- Natural immunity is superior to vaccinated immunity.
On September 23, 2021, the Natural Immunity is Real Act (S. 2846) was introduced to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. On October 15, 2021, an identical bill (H.R. 5590) was introduced to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. If passed, these bills will “require Federal agencies to acknowledge, accept, and agree to truthfully present, natural immunity pertaining to COVID–19 pursuant to promulgating certain regulations.”
The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) filed a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on November 5, 2021, against the U.S. government, as well as Dr. Anthony Fauci and other members of the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force, to recognize natural immunity. They followed up with another lawsuit on January 4, 2022, against President Biden, the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force, the Office of Management and Budget, and other government agencies and officials, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The Plaintiffs in this lawsuit seek judicial relief from the unlawful and unconstitutional Federal Contractor Vaccine Mandate. Two subclasses are being sought within the class-action suit, one for naturally immune contractor employees and one for remote workers. There are many more of these lawsuits being filed across the country.
What a ridiculous reality we are living if we need a Senate and House Bill, along with numerous lawsuits, to force our government leaders to acknowledge the power of natural immunity – because the science is clear. Natural immunity is superior, and we should be allowing our lowest risk, healthy populations to be naturally exposed and then providing effective early treatment protocols like those offered by Fareed and Tyson in their new book. We can also protect our most vulnerable with safe, effective and inexpensive prophylactic treatments that have been shown to work around the world.
As we finish writing the final chapters of this book, we leave each of you with a cliff hanger. Why hasn’t anyone taken Steve Kirsch’s $1 million offer to disprove his thesis that there are now over 100,000 American deaths caused by the vaccines? This offer was made in October of 2021.
- Can corrections be submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court when false statements are made on record?
- Does vaccinating a naturally immune person put them at risk of a serious adverse event or impact their natural immunity?
- Why is the government recommending vaccinating EVERYONE regardless of immunity status?
- Why are vaccination MANDATES coming from employers regardless of immunity status (e.g., not accepting “naturally immune” as a valid medical exemption request)?
- Why is natural immunity crucial to crushing a coronavirus, especially when we have therapeutics to take either prophylactically or during early symptoms to lessen the severity of the disease?
- How is natural immunity different from vaccine-induced immunity?
- What testing and quantitative metrics can be used to assess the strength and longevity of both natural infection-induced and vaccine-induced immunity?
“Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime” – Potter Stewart (Supreme Court)