First published on February 15th, 2023.
video
https://www.bitchute.com/video/vJGf2yWthEOl/
source
https://www.bitchute.com/video/vJGf2yWthEOl/.
You can find us on Twitter
Rand Paul Issues Update on Fauci: "We've Got Him Red-Handed, and He Won't Get Away"
You can find us on Twitter
Immunity acquired from past COVID-19 infection provides strong, lasting protection against severe outcomes from the illness at a level “as high if not higher” than that provided by mRNA vaccines, according to a study published Thursday in The Lancet.
Immunity acquired from past COVID-19 infection provides strong, lasting protection against severe outcomes from the illness at a level “as high if not higher” than that provided by mRNA vaccines, according to a study published Thursday in The Lancet.
Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 65 studies worldwide, providing overwhelming evidence to support what many scientists, doctors and studies have said since early in the COVID-19 pandemic.
“The Lancet is finally acknowledging what doctors and scientists have been gaslit for saying for years — that natural immunity provides superior protection to experimental vaccines,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman and chief litigation counsel for Children’s Health Defense.
“Only the tsunami of propaganda and censorship from the pharma/government biosecurity cartel and the controlled media persuaded the public that Pfizer and Moderna were better at protecting the human immune system than God and evolution,” he added.
The study found that immunity acquired from infection was often far more robust and consistently waned more slowly than the immunity from two doses of an mRNA vaccine.
The researchers found that natural immunity was at least 88.9% effective against severe disease, hospitalization and death for all COVID-19 variants 10 months after infection.
It also provided 78.6% protection against reinfection for all variants except omicron BA.1, for which protection was 45.3%.
At an October 2022 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meeting, the CDC presented data showing that vaccine-acquired immunity after two or three injections dropped to zero six months after injection, and then became negative.
The Lancet study stated that “although protection from reinfection from all variants wanes over time, our analysis of the available data suggests that the level of protection afforded by previous infection is at least as high, if not higher than that provided by two-dose vaccination using high-quality mRNA vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech).”
The study was funded in part by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Authors included Dr. Christopher Murray, director of The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, the Gates-funded institute that was “largely responsible for the notoriously exaggerated mortality calculations that overestimated COVID deaths by 20-fold at the COVID pandemic’s outset,” according to Kennedy.
The authors argued, based on their findings, that natural immunity should be recognized along with vaccines when authorities are considering restricting travel, access to venues and work based on immunization status.
Commenting on these conclusions, Dr. Meryl Nass, internist and epidemiologist, said:
“While framing this as an acknowledgment that natural immunity confers protection, what it is also doing is providing tacit agreement that government-imposed policies restricting travel are acceptable. It furthermore provides tacit approval of vaccine passports.”
The ‘cartel’s’ war on natural immunity
In October 2020, The Lancet published an article — “Scientific consensus on the COVID-19 pandemic: we need to act now” — by authors including CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, which was widely covered in the mainstream press. They stated that “there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection” and that “the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future.”
But in November 2021, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request forced the CDC to admit that it didn’t even collect data on natural immunity.
Then, in January 2022, the CDC was compelled to revise its position on natural immunity, acknowledging in a report that natural immunity against COVID-19 was at least three times as effective as vaccination at preventing people from becoming infected with the Delta variant.
The pharmaceutical companies were also aware of the benefits of naturally acquired immunity, although they suppressed that information, documents revealed.
In October 2021, Project Veritas exposed three Pfizer officials saying that antibodies lead to equal if not better protection against the virus compared to the vaccine, The Defender reported.
Later, in April 2022, Pfizer documents held by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and released under court order confirmed Pfizer knew natural immunity was as effective as the company’s COVID-19 vaccine at preventing severe illness, journalist Kim Iversen reported.
Most recently, the Twitter files revealed that a Pfizer board member who used to head the FDA lobbied Twitter to take action against a post accurately pointing out that natural immunity is superior to COVID-19 vaccination, The Epoch Times reported.
FOIA requests also revealed that Dr. Anthony Fauci and his boss, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, colluded to suppress the Great Barrington Declaration, which argues that natural immunity plays an important role in mitigating public harm from COVID-19, The Defender reported.
The vaccines are failing, which means we need more vaccines
Media that reported on the study, including NBC, ABC and U.S. News & World Report, continue to advocate for vaccination as the more important way to protect against severe disease and death from COVID-19.
This is despite the fact that even vaccine advocates Bill Gates and Fauci admitted that COVID-19 vaccines perform poorly.
In a paper published last month in Cell Host and Microbe, Fauci and his co-authors confirmed that the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses, including influenza, coronaviruses, respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, and common colds “have not to date been effectively controlled by licensed or experimental vaccines.”
They concluded, “Durably protective vaccines against non-systemic mucosal respiratory viruses with high mortality rates have thus far eluded vaccine development efforts.”
Nass said that while it is quite significant for The Lancet to publish these findings about natural immunity, the authors’ framing, like the admissions by Gates and Fauci, “is intended to quietly, without apology, veer away from current COVID vaccines, while implying that more money is needed to develop new types of vaccines. No one made any mistakes. No one accepts any blame. Chris Murray never erred with his outlandish estimates. No, just send money and let us do the science.”
source
https://childrenshealthdefense.org
You can find us on Twitter
Commissioner Paul Rouleau — a Trudeau appointee and Liberal Party donor — found that the prime minister's actions inflamed the demonstration but were justified nonetheless.
Commissioner Paul Rouleau has delivered his statement on the POEC Inquiry, tasked with examining the measures taken by the federal government for invoking the Emergencies Act in response to the Freedom Convoy more than a year ago in Ottawa.
Rouleau lauds the “thorough” and “comprehensive” report that met the deadline on procuring the report as laid out by parliament.
He describes invoking the Emergencies Act as a “significant event” that the public is privy to know about, hearing from dozens of experts, witnesses, and convoy organizers, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and senior Liberal cabinet ministers.
Rouleau said cabinet privilege was waived to disclose 28,000 documents, of which 9,000 entered into evidence.
“Thousands of people watched the proceedings … and the public has been exposed to an incredible amount of information,” said Rouleau, adding it has enabled people to inform their opinions on the Freedom Convoy and the government response to the weeks-long protests.
He said the protests were rooted in a “loss of faith in government” and “economic hardship” caused by the government’s COVID government response.
Rouleau said the proliferation of protests against the government in “peaceful demonstrations” came as a surprise to him.
He acknowledged a “diversity” of views among the protestors, of which some supposedly desired to commit “dangerous acts” including an ‘occupation’ of the nation’s capital, and border blockades, including that of Coutts, Alberta.
According to documents released on the POEC report, the assessment of the Emergencies Act was considered “appropriate” and “effective” as the feds had “reasonable grounds” to necessitate the taking of “special temporary measures,” citing “threats to national security.”
However, Rouleau admitted that other “reasonable and informed people” could come to different conclusions on invoking the Act, as it is not a “tool of convenience” but a “tool of last resort.”
He admitted its use is “regrettable” owing to several policing failures in their response to events to the Convoy that “spun out of control.”
Rouleau also criticized the government for not adequately preparing for the Freedom Convoy, which he said could have avoided the measures taken under the Emergencies Act.
The report provides a collection of 56 recommendations in response to the affair that occurred more than one year ago.
source
You can find us on Twitter
