Better memory B cells, T cells, and longer lasting antibodies. It is no competition. Natural immunity is better and it is becoming clear we should have let the virus do its thing while protecting old people, promoting health, and locking up most pharmaceutical executives.
And for those keeping score, my personal experience in primary care is as follows:
1. Patient death from covid before vaccines were available - typical high risk person in his 70s with DM, CAD, HTN, CKD
1. Friend who died in his 40s from embolic strokes starting 7d after second Pfizer vaccine (no prior health issues)
1. Friend with retinal vein occlusion after vaccination (no prior health issues)
1. Friend in his 70s that died of MI 7d after second Pfizer (prior CAD hx, certainly could be coincidental...)
1. Colleague with transverse myelitis resulting in incomplete paraplegia that developed immediately after second Pfizer vaccine
I did just watch the video in the next gato post which is completely consistent with my experiences as well as the ER numbers previously posted showing the stunning increase in CV and neuro complaints in Germany since the advent of vaccination.
I feel like I live in a parallel universe of medicine where "first do no harm" has been replaced with "injury and death of healthy young and middle aged people is an acceptable outcome from an intervention that will not benefit them".
“the order of occurrence matters greatly”—I find this of particular interest given the statement I shared from Dr. Malone about the vaccine only encoding for the spike protein, which leaves 28 proteins the vaxxed’s immune system is unable to mount a response to. If the infection occurs prior to vaccination, however, natural immunity has been developed, putting the person in a better position to fight off breakthrough infection post-injection (actually, does anyone know if breakthrough infections occur for those who achieved natural immunity prior to injection?) …
DR. MIKE YEADON: It’s actively dangerous to vaccinate a person known to be already immune to the protein used in a vaccine.
In this case, we aren’t using conventional, protein-based agents. Usually this takes the form of the pathogen itself, grown in culture, then killed by heating or by adding a chemical which breaks up the protein. This format of vaccine has a century-long record of protecting people from infection by that pathogen as well as to prevent clinical illness. It’s the base case that they usually attenuate if not halt transmission. Finally, with rare exceptions, they’re generally very safe. So they should be. In fact, MUST be. Why? Because the contract is this: a perfectly healthy person shows up at the clinic. They get vaccinated. They leave in the same good health & will remain so.
There is no situation in which it’s acceptable even for a minority to be injured, crippled or killed by a vaccine.
Like I said, on rare occasion, and we don’t understand why, a conventional vaccine turns out to have adverse effects (AEs). In 2009, a rushed vaccine against swine flu was determined to have killed a few dozen people & injured thousands (the most-noted, serious AE was narcolepsy, in which some people can slide into a form of sleep, without warning. The most infamous case was in Sweden, where hundreds of children were permanently damaged in this way. Compensation has been paid, iirc by the U.K. government.
Importantly, the vaccine was withdrawn.
It’s worth knowing that most countries simply simply couldn’t find the strain of influenza in question.
Though most people don’t know it, the whole event was faked by the pharmaceutical industry & well-placed academics. PCR testing, deliberately used badly, coupled with implausibly dire projections of a wave of deaths (from a notoriously unreliable modeller) & a corrupt WHO, orchestrating the criminal enterprise.
In all probability, tech companies have modified how browser searches no longer find much information about this fraud.
Some of you will recall Jon Snow of UK’s Channel 4 News interviewing a German physician, Dr Wolfgang Wodarg. Wodarg was a public health Doctor in a northern town in Germany. He was also a minor politician, having bern elected as our equivalent of an MP. As there were so few technically qualified people in Parliament, he became the leader of a medical subcommittee & ultimately of an EU liaison group. So it happened that Wolfgang, once he realised that it was a fraud, was able quickly to network & to build alliances, including within the EU & WHO. Eventually, those protecting the perpetrators realised they were discovered (eg the Channel 4 News interview) & declared the pandemic to be at an end. Billions in unused vaccines & ineffective antivirals were lost. No sanctions were placed upon the medical academics in China, who faked the number of sick & dead victims of Influenza-like illness. Nor on European academics who developed untrustworthy PCR tests Nor even on the pharmaceutical companies or their fellow conspirators in public offices responsible for negotiating contracts activated by WHO declaring a Pandemic and a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern” (PHEIC: pronounced “fake”).
In brief, far fewer people died, even “with Swine Flu”, than the Imperial College modellers warned about.
Additionally, it turned out that the PCR test as specified was mostly finding false positives. The effect of this was the so-called “second wave” was retrospectively named as an example of a “PCR false positive pseudo epidemic”.
This has happened before, on more than one occasion, one of which is so stark that those who dismiss all of these facts as conspiracy theories still insist it’s impossible to fake pandemic.
The most notorious example of a genuine pseudo epidemic was of whooping cough. There was an apparent outbreak of hundreds of staff & patients at a hospital in north east USA. After weeks of panic, the final damaging explanation was that all the tests were performed in one PCR lab & there was invisible contamination of the laboratory bench.
NOT A SINGLE REAL CASE of whooping cough was identified by bacterial culture of clinical specimens. Furthermore, none of the apparently sick children or staff member was found to have circulating antibodies.
I believe that this was an honest mistake & all participants genuinely believed that the biggest outbreak of whooping cough had happened.
I recall being struck, upon first reading about this event, that it might well have been the inspiration for the covid19 fraud.
The novel technology, gene-based “vaccines” are nothing like conventional vaccines. I’m certain that the very design of them, all causing expression of spike protein, is the central & shared design flaw, and thus has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, dominated by disorders of clotting & bleeding.
If a person who is immune to SARS-CoV-2 virus is then vaccinated, their risks of serious AEs & even death is greatly increased. No responsible doctor recommends this. We know for certain that this is true. It’s obvious & inevitable. Yet JCVI recommends vaccination even if recovered from the virus. You should have zero doubt that they know full well how dangerous this is.
Perhaps it's because I've now had to look through so many of these bogus reports, but I actually was able to spot the problem with the graph after a second.
Did this even account for symptomatic vs. not, or severe vs. mild illness?
Also, get ready for "hybrid immunity" as the next big fog, deliberately obfuscating the apparent nontrivial worsening of natural immunity from getting the vaccine first.
I saw this chart on Twitter a couple of days ago and I was surprised, but not shocked, at the obfuscation going on by manipulation of the y-axis. A long time ago, at the beginning of my career, I used to review water supply flow and pressure reports from developers for the local water jurisdiction. Engineers play these sorts of games all the time, tweaking the presentation of tables to create an impression that is not actually supported by the data.
Truer words have never been spoken: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics."
That first set of plots is stunning. As somebody who makes a living analyzing data, that is one of the most obscene examples of misleading data presentation that I have ever seen. The authors should be considered as having lost all credibility. And it is extremely unlikely that any competent data analyst would have let that pass unintentionally.
We Chartruese (covid-recovered, un-jabbed) are the best hope for humanity, but are seen as the villains. Thanks for always helping to point out stuff like this.
Take the time to read the actual study linked here and learn it and be ready to reference it when challenged. We can only beat this if we know our stuff and can defend our position. More great work, gato.
And here is an important pearl from the discussion section:
"Our data on Covid-19 hospitalized patients with severe disease has too few cases for a definitive analysis but does not seem to support a recent report 22 that suggests that vaccinated individuals were more protected than previously infected individuals 3 to 6 months after the immunity-conferring event."
Let me translate, "the study cited by Dr. Walensky and her cronies in the USA claiming vaccination is 5x better than natural immunity is a useless and totally bogus turd. We just don't have enough power in our study to refute it directly so we added this backhanded comment. We suggest you (the global body of medicine) ignore any statements made by Dr. Walensky or Dr. Fauci as they cite bad data to support their preferred narrative that your immune system is useless without their shots" - okay, so maybe I did editorialize this just a bit for emphasis....
The hypothesis-- presented as a conclusion-- developed around the same time the new "vaccines" were released, was that vaccine-modulated immunity to this virus would be superior to that gained by infection. That was a very strange cart being put before the horse. The subsequent, continued attempts to justify this conclusion are just as lousy as one would expect from a total abandonment of the scientific method.
If I were grading this science fair project, I'd say go back to the drawing board and find a project you're really curious about, not a faith-based exercise you're hoping to exploit the tools of science for the purposes of proselytizing.
"if you get vaxxed first, then get sick, you never develop the full panoply of responses...but this does not happen if you get sick first, then vaxxed. because you already learned those things"
Given the unknown long-term safety data surrounding the vaxxes, and given the *known* problems with the vaxxes already, the fact I quoted above seems to me so argue strongly *against* being vaxxed if you've already had the WuFlu.
That is, if your immune system has "already learned those things", why eff with it by then getting vaxxed?
"the risk of needing medical care from vaxx is about the same as the risk of getting PCR detectable virus. pile on the 25% “unable to do daily activities” and this looks like a rotten trade."
Gato - you forgot the real benefit: not being treated as a leper.
Nattymunes necessarily have better T-cell memory and avidity (especially for nucleocapsid), and are the ONLY kind of immunity that includes any chance at secretory IgA (snot). One does not get those things from arm-shots or soluble foreign protein fragments in the blood. It is surprising that among the millions upon millions of new immunology and virology housewife Ph.Ds that the media world has created recently, that somehow none of them realize that the Holy Sacrament they receive from their Pfriest never physically makes it to the needed location to provide any real-world immunity.
What is irking about that graphic is that no where is it disclosed that the graphs aren't covering all the same time frames. As a writer, I would make a point of outlining that in, at least, the footnotes to the graph itself, and would actually point it out in the text describing the results.
Better memory B cells, T cells, and longer lasting antibodies. It is no competition. Natural immunity is better and it is becoming clear we should have let the virus do its thing while protecting old people, promoting health, and locking up most pharmaceutical executives.
And for those keeping score, my personal experience in primary care is as follows:
1. Patient death from covid before vaccines were available - typical high risk person in his 70s with DM, CAD, HTN, CKD
1. Friend who died in his 40s from embolic strokes starting 7d after second Pfizer vaccine (no prior health issues)
1. Friend with retinal vein occlusion after vaccination (no prior health issues)
1. Friend in his 70s that died of MI 7d after second Pfizer (prior CAD hx, certainly could be coincidental...)
1. Colleague with transverse myelitis resulting in incomplete paraplegia that developed immediately after second Pfizer vaccine
I did just watch the video in the next gato post which is completely consistent with my experiences as well as the ER numbers previously posted showing the stunning increase in CV and neuro complaints in Germany since the advent of vaccination.
I feel like I live in a parallel universe of medicine where "first do no harm" has been replaced with "injury and death of healthy young and middle aged people is an acceptable outcome from an intervention that will not benefit them".
Another revelatory data-sleuthing exposé!
“the order of occurrence matters greatly”—I find this of particular interest given the statement I shared from Dr. Malone about the vaccine only encoding for the spike protein, which leaves 28 proteins the vaxxed’s immune system is unable to mount a response to. If the infection occurs prior to vaccination, however, natural immunity has been developed, putting the person in a better position to fight off breakthrough infection post-injection (actually, does anyone know if breakthrough infections occur for those who achieved natural immunity prior to injection?) …
That said, Dr. Mike Yeadon advises it is dangerous to vaccinate someone with natural immunity due to the heightened risk for adverse events, as per this recent comment (https://lauradodsworth.substack.com/p/i-love-my-job-but-i-wont-be-jabbed/comments):
DR. MIKE YEADON: It’s actively dangerous to vaccinate a person known to be already immune to the protein used in a vaccine.
In this case, we aren’t using conventional, protein-based agents. Usually this takes the form of the pathogen itself, grown in culture, then killed by heating or by adding a chemical which breaks up the protein. This format of vaccine has a century-long record of protecting people from infection by that pathogen as well as to prevent clinical illness. It’s the base case that they usually attenuate if not halt transmission. Finally, with rare exceptions, they’re generally very safe. So they should be. In fact, MUST be. Why? Because the contract is this: a perfectly healthy person shows up at the clinic. They get vaccinated. They leave in the same good health & will remain so.
There is no situation in which it’s acceptable even for a minority to be injured, crippled or killed by a vaccine.
Like I said, on rare occasion, and we don’t understand why, a conventional vaccine turns out to have adverse effects (AEs). In 2009, a rushed vaccine against swine flu was determined to have killed a few dozen people & injured thousands (the most-noted, serious AE was narcolepsy, in which some people can slide into a form of sleep, without warning. The most infamous case was in Sweden, where hundreds of children were permanently damaged in this way. Compensation has been paid, iirc by the U.K. government.
Importantly, the vaccine was withdrawn.
It’s worth knowing that most countries simply simply couldn’t find the strain of influenza in question.
Though most people don’t know it, the whole event was faked by the pharmaceutical industry & well-placed academics. PCR testing, deliberately used badly, coupled with implausibly dire projections of a wave of deaths (from a notoriously unreliable modeller) & a corrupt WHO, orchestrating the criminal enterprise.
In all probability, tech companies have modified how browser searches no longer find much information about this fraud.
Some of you will recall Jon Snow of UK’s Channel 4 News interviewing a German physician, Dr Wolfgang Wodarg. Wodarg was a public health Doctor in a northern town in Germany. He was also a minor politician, having bern elected as our equivalent of an MP. As there were so few technically qualified people in Parliament, he became the leader of a medical subcommittee & ultimately of an EU liaison group. So it happened that Wolfgang, once he realised that it was a fraud, was able quickly to network & to build alliances, including within the EU & WHO. Eventually, those protecting the perpetrators realised they were discovered (eg the Channel 4 News interview) & declared the pandemic to be at an end. Billions in unused vaccines & ineffective antivirals were lost. No sanctions were placed upon the medical academics in China, who faked the number of sick & dead victims of Influenza-like illness. Nor on European academics who developed untrustworthy PCR tests Nor even on the pharmaceutical companies or their fellow conspirators in public offices responsible for negotiating contracts activated by WHO declaring a Pandemic and a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern” (PHEIC: pronounced “fake”).
In brief, far fewer people died, even “with Swine Flu”, than the Imperial College modellers warned about.
Additionally, it turned out that the PCR test as specified was mostly finding false positives. The effect of this was the so-called “second wave” was retrospectively named as an example of a “PCR false positive pseudo epidemic”.
This has happened before, on more than one occasion, one of which is so stark that those who dismiss all of these facts as conspiracy theories still insist it’s impossible to fake pandemic.
The most notorious example of a genuine pseudo epidemic was of whooping cough. There was an apparent outbreak of hundreds of staff & patients at a hospital in north east USA. After weeks of panic, the final damaging explanation was that all the tests were performed in one PCR lab & there was invisible contamination of the laboratory bench.
NOT A SINGLE REAL CASE of whooping cough was identified by bacterial culture of clinical specimens. Furthermore, none of the apparently sick children or staff member was found to have circulating antibodies.
I believe that this was an honest mistake & all participants genuinely believed that the biggest outbreak of whooping cough had happened.
I recall being struck, upon first reading about this event, that it might well have been the inspiration for the covid19 fraud.
The novel technology, gene-based “vaccines” are nothing like conventional vaccines. I’m certain that the very design of them, all causing expression of spike protein, is the central & shared design flaw, and thus has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, dominated by disorders of clotting & bleeding.
If a person who is immune to SARS-CoV-2 virus is then vaccinated, their risks of serious AEs & even death is greatly increased. No responsible doctor recommends this. We know for certain that this is true. It’s obvious & inevitable. Yet JCVI recommends vaccination even if recovered from the virus. You should have zero doubt that they know full well how dangerous this is.
Perhaps it's because I've now had to look through so many of these bogus reports, but I actually was able to spot the problem with the graph after a second.
Did this even account for symptomatic vs. not, or severe vs. mild illness?
Also, get ready for "hybrid immunity" as the next big fog, deliberately obfuscating the apparent nontrivial worsening of natural immunity from getting the vaccine first.
I saw this chart on Twitter a couple of days ago and I was surprised, but not shocked, at the obfuscation going on by manipulation of the y-axis. A long time ago, at the beginning of my career, I used to review water supply flow and pressure reports from developers for the local water jurisdiction. Engineers play these sorts of games all the time, tweaking the presentation of tables to create an impression that is not actually supported by the data.
Truer words have never been spoken: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics."
That first set of plots is stunning. As somebody who makes a living analyzing data, that is one of the most obscene examples of misleading data presentation that I have ever seen. The authors should be considered as having lost all credibility. And it is extremely unlikely that any competent data analyst would have let that pass unintentionally.
We Chartruese (covid-recovered, un-jabbed) are the best hope for humanity, but are seen as the villains. Thanks for always helping to point out stuff like this.
Did they actually get away with such a dishonest graph in their publication?
That's horrific.
I would love to see infection rates for unvaccinated without prior infection.
Take the time to read the actual study linked here and learn it and be ready to reference it when challenged. We can only beat this if we know our stuff and can defend our position. More great work, gato.
And here is an important pearl from the discussion section:
"Our data on Covid-19 hospitalized patients with severe disease has too few cases for a definitive analysis but does not seem to support a recent report 22 that suggests that vaccinated individuals were more protected than previously infected individuals 3 to 6 months after the immunity-conferring event."
Let me translate, "the study cited by Dr. Walensky and her cronies in the USA claiming vaccination is 5x better than natural immunity is a useless and totally bogus turd. We just don't have enough power in our study to refute it directly so we added this backhanded comment. We suggest you (the global body of medicine) ignore any statements made by Dr. Walensky or Dr. Fauci as they cite bad data to support their preferred narrative that your immune system is useless without their shots" - okay, so maybe I did editorialize this just a bit for emphasis....
The hypothesis-- presented as a conclusion-- developed around the same time the new "vaccines" were released, was that vaccine-modulated immunity to this virus would be superior to that gained by infection. That was a very strange cart being put before the horse. The subsequent, continued attempts to justify this conclusion are just as lousy as one would expect from a total abandonment of the scientific method.
If I were grading this science fair project, I'd say go back to the drawing board and find a project you're really curious about, not a faith-based exercise you're hoping to exploit the tools of science for the purposes of proselytizing.
"if you get vaxxed first, then get sick, you never develop the full panoply of responses...but this does not happen if you get sick first, then vaxxed. because you already learned those things"
Given the unknown long-term safety data surrounding the vaxxes, and given the *known* problems with the vaxxes already, the fact I quoted above seems to me so argue strongly *against* being vaxxed if you've already had the WuFlu.
That is, if your immune system has "already learned those things", why eff with it by then getting vaxxed?
Sneaky. And is Omicron "mutation" a cover for OAS?
"the risk of needing medical care from vaxx is about the same as the risk of getting PCR detectable virus. pile on the 25% “unable to do daily activities” and this looks like a rotten trade."
Gato - you forgot the real benefit: not being treated as a leper.
Nattymunes necessarily have better T-cell memory and avidity (especially for nucleocapsid), and are the ONLY kind of immunity that includes any chance at secretory IgA (snot). One does not get those things from arm-shots or soluble foreign protein fragments in the blood. It is surprising that among the millions upon millions of new immunology and virology housewife Ph.Ds that the media world has created recently, that somehow none of them realize that the Holy Sacrament they receive from their Pfriest never physically makes it to the needed location to provide any real-world immunity.
What is irking about that graphic is that no where is it disclosed that the graphs aren't covering all the same time frames. As a writer, I would make a point of outlining that in, at least, the footnotes to the graph itself, and would actually point it out in the text describing the results.