(source)
A study of 800,000 people in Israel has found that natural immunity in people who have recovered from an earlier COVID-10 infection is vastly superior to the immunity acquired by vaccination using two of the major vaccines in use. The conclusion:
“This analysis demonstrated that natural immunity affords longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization due to the delta variant.”
Bloomberg summarizes:
People who recovered from a bout of Covid-19 during one of the earlier waves of the pandemic appear to have a lower risk of contracting the delta variant than those who got two doses of the vaccine from Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE.
The largest real-world analysis comparing natural immunity — gained from an earlier infection — to the protection provided by one of the most potent vaccines currently in use showed that reinfections were much less common. The paper from researchers in Israel contrasts with earlier studies, which showed that immunizations offered better protection than an earlier infection, though those studies were not of the delta variant. (snip)
The analysis also showed that protection from an earlier infection wanes with time. The risk of a vaccine-breakthrough delta case was 13-fold higher than the risk of developing a second infection when the original illness occurred during January or February 2021. That’s significantly more than the risk for people who were ill earlier in the outbreak.
Disclaimer: I am not a medical doctor and do not offer medical advice to any reader.
Israel, with its very high vaccination rate, is currently dealing with a severe outbreak of the delta variant.
It would seem that the vaccines are no panacea when it comes to a rapidly-evolving virus.
Alex Berenson goes into some detail on the body’s natural immunity response and cites other studies as well indicating the effectiveness of natural immunity, a position that was contradicted by some earlier studies.
Tucker Carlson discussed the findings with Dr. Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins Medical School, in which the doctor made the point that the study is not a reason to avoid vaccination. But Dr. Makary also stated that widespread distrust of medical authorities is a response to the behavior of so many over the course of the pandemic.
@Michael
I think it can not be stated enough that we should each contact a physician to discuss treatment details, as we are, none of us, truly lab rats, and each of us have medical conditions that should be considered by a qualified physician to whom we can trust to balance our health needs against any treatment regimen – though recently, I warn people to be sure to confirm that their physician will actually treat Covid, medically…Such a state of affairs…
In any case, there are many prophylactic treatment plans that are tweaked and adjusted by differing clinicians preferring differing drugs and dosages. It can not be emphasized enough, though, that Covid is easily treated if treated early or with prophylaxis, as is demonstrated by the wide variety of treatment protocols with varying drugs and dosages.
Dr. Zelenko has the original protocol for prophylaxis here:
https://vladimirzelenkomd.com/prophylaxis-protocol/
Dr. Urso has his protocol in this video:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/4DlTESD40d89/
He talks about dosages and drugs around 3min mark. He has formulated a treatment specifically that optimizes benefits for this recent outbreaks this summer.
Dr. McCullough discussed his prophylaxis in a recent 30min video, but the video has been removed from where I had viewed it(I am really tired of that happening). If you find a 30min video of his that has been posted in the past week or so, that is probably the right one, but I am not currently finding it. I do have a link for his free home treatment booklet(EXCELLENT SOURCE) here:
https://aapsonline.org/covidpatientguide/
The booklet was published last Dec. but was updated on 8/8/21 so it is should have the latest medical findings. The prophylaxis is discussed on pg 22. This is a very good source of info and other additional sources. I highly recommend everyone download a copy.
Do check with a physician first. One of the following sites should be consulted for doctors who actually treat ill patients as if they need medical support to avoid viral pneumonia, something that use to be commonplace enough but is now something of a specialized field of study…forgive my redundant outrage on this point.
http://www.myfreedoctor.com
https://covid19criticalcare.com/
https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/
https://c19protocols.com/physicians-facilities-offering-early-treatment/
Thank you for the explanation, Peloni. What is the recommended prophylactic treatment/ dosage?
But the virus is not able to replicate, or not very much, due to the medical-prophylaxis. Hence, no variants created because there isn’t much viral replication occurring. So in truth, the key to winning the war is to fight with a strategy that prevents viral replications which is the sole mechanism leading to the rise of the variants. This is why the leaky vax will only stimulate the survival of a variant that will escape its immunity, because it does not stop viral replication and so it does not stop the creation of new variants, but causes them to be generated and chosen to escape the vax immunity or worse create ADE(very lethal).
I hope this better explains that variants are not caused by the host merely surviving the disease – it is specifically related to the doctor not medicating the patient and failing to prevent the viral replication. Viral replication is the only source of variants => if virus is not replicating in an infected cell, it can’t mutate, and it can’t replicate in an infected cell if it can’t infect the cell. These vital steps are prevented by medical-prophylaxis, but only if the cocktail is applied before the infection, or shortly after infection, as the virus only replicates for 6-8days. This is why Early-Treatment/Medical-Prophylaxis is KEY to victory.
Hope you don’t take my explanation as criticism. I actually think you likely do understand it, but I just want to be sure as variants are unrelated to the patient’s survival. Hope this better explains things.
/2
@Michael
So, your comment here is just a bit inaccurate, let me try to explain better. The greater the actual infection by the virus the more viral factories that will be built and, consequently, the more variants that will be generated. Viruses are very dedicated towards producing as many copies as possible once they infect a cell and this is where variants are created via mutation. Hence, it is vital to prevent any significant infection from every taking place. The virus has many steps that result in disease, but let me simplify it by providing only 4 major steps:
1. Virus invades the body
2. Virus infects cell(s) creating billions of new viruses(with some mutations)
3. Infected cells stimulate massive immune response – inflammation
4. Resulting massive immune response causes tissue/organ/clotting disease – inflamed blood-vessels, blood clots,… we all know that list.
The medical-prophylaxis will not prevent exposure, of course, so you will inhale or ingest the a group of viruses that will invade the body, regardless of any vaccine or medical-prophylaxis. This is a good thing really, as it gives your body the ability to become exposed to the virus, but only if you are able to prevent the resulting cascade leading to disease. Hence, medical-prophylaxis will prevent the virus from invading cells, so they don’t take control of the cell and can’t reproduce/mutate within a cell. These vitals steps are all prevented/reduced based upon the dosage and choice of the medical-prophylaxis cocktail/drugs being used. So the body has exposure(Step1) without an established infection, or if an infection is established, it is very limited(Step2). This allows the body to recognize the virus and generate an immunity memory to protect the patient in case of future exposure, ie, they are immune. Simultaneously, the over-reactive immune response(Step3) is also shut down by the medical-prophylaxis.
To summarize, the medical-prophylaxis prevents a large viral infection and also prevents the enormous inflammatory response and the associated diseases(Step4). But the exposure to the virus allows the body to produce an immune response that is protective to future exposure.
Furthermore, the immunity is to every part of the virus. To demonstrate this, think of a virus as a car. The spike protein might be the left-door mirror of the car, so the vax only protects against that one mirror. If the virus changes, via mutations, the physical shape or context of just that mirror, the vax will fail to be protective. But natural immunity looks at the entire car and gains immunity to every part of the car, including the Left-Door Mirror. So with natural immunity you get the immunity to the Right-door Mirror, the Left-door Mirror, the hood, each tire, the engine and its many parts, the roof, the seat covers – the patient has immunity to the whole damn car with natural immunity, not just one mirror.
/1
Hi, Peloni. You’ve done a good job of explaining this virus, and how it works. It is a complicated subject — The more successful the host is at surviving, the more able the virus is to mutate. I’m left, on the practical level, to trusting in simple logic:
The more ineffective at killing the virus the “vaccines” are proven to be, the more injections are being recommended and mandated. On its face, that doesn’t seem to make sense. It seems more logical to me, that the authorities should be vaccinating less, not more. My personal decision, is that I will avoid vaccination at all costs.
That’s all I can handle for tonight. God bless and keep you and yours.
If we had only focused on saving as many lives as possible, think of the millions of people who could have been saved and the thousands of frankenstein variants that we wouldn’t have created…Seems simple, yet here we are.
So, after a year, they have finally corrected the data models that painted the end of the world scenario by using arbitrary end points for data collection, utilizing hard hit centers of outbreaks as the singular representations of data collections and using full population numbers to represent those dying in nursing homes. These collection “errors” were all known last year, but they have only now been corrected with no surprise to be found that the over-collection/mis-collection of death data will tend to overstate reality into fantasy. There needs to be some accountability somewhere for these managed mistakes that have driven the population into a fear state that have warped both govt policy and public choices alike.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.08.21260210v1.full#ref-2
Surely Viruses mutate in response to vaccines and also to the degree of the immune system in a local group they may encounter..
@Adam
Part of the answer to this question lies in the distinction in reproduction and genetic transfer between viruses and bacteria. I will try to keep it simple, but that sometimes makes it more difficult to explain well, so as always, let me know if I am unclear.
Viruses are not considered a living organism because they can not reproduce without a host cell. They infect a cell and take over the cellullar factories, as it were, to produce on an assembly line fashion their many parts that are later assembled. They continue this for some time til the immune system attacks the cell or the cell bursts from being overfilled with viruses. The mass production system of the virus is chaotic and creates many errors, that will either result in non-viable mutants that will be of no import or a viable mutation, ie a new variant.
Bacteria are considered alive and reproduce by a process called fission where the bacteria doubles everything in it and then splits into 2 new bacteria. It is much less chaotic, but slower than the viral reproduction. Specifically, the bacterial genetic material is much more carefully copied, so there is less chance of mutations taking place, but they still occur of course. Alternatively, some bacteria have long tubes on their outer shell, called a pilus, that can connect to a sister bacteria and transfer a developed mutation such as antibiiotic resistant genetic code – it does sound like something out of Aliens, but it is very real. This process is called conjugation and affords the bacteria an advantage over viruses in transmitting useful mutations that prolong life to her sister bacteria. Meanwhile, viruses have the Mullers Ratchet advantage over bacteria since the bacterial genetic code is mutating less often.
In both bacteria and viruses, the organism will respond to any harsh environment such as an onslaught of antibiotics for bacteria or anti-virals for viruses by undergoing more mutations. This is why it is critical for people to take their medications as prescribed, eg, one tablet every 12hrs for 10 days. Taking medications too frequently, too infrequently, skipping a dose, taking the medication for too long or too short an interval, or taking a lower than effective dose can all lead to bacterial/viral resistance. And with some bacteria, due to the use of the piluses, a single bacteria developing resistence can protect the entire colony of bacteria.
The question relating vaccines to antibiotics is slightly different than anti-biotics to anti-virals – these are each a foreign compound that is toxic to a current infection with bacteria/virsus – while the vaccines actually only teach your immune system to be smart enough to prevent a future infection by killing the bacteria/virus before an infection takes place. After this vaccine-lesson is taught to your immune system, either the student, ie the immune system, learned the lesson or it failed, ie no memory cells were established to be called upon during a future infection. So the antibiotics vs vaccines is kind of comparing apples to oranges. Let me know if this makes sense. I can also explain this more thoroughly if you like.
(2 or 2)
2. Later prolonged effect on the surviving variants:
After the vaccines have been put in place, they will exert an evolutionary pressure upon the virus’ development such that the effects of the immune system will select for a specific design of the virus that will eventually escape the vaccine-induced immunity(vaccine escape). Under the influence of the strong, but incomplete vaccine-induced immune response, Muller’s Ratchet is countered. Muller’s Ratchet specifically notes that in the absence of a survival threat, the mutations that support survival will be chosen for and those mutations that cause a harmful(to the host) response to the host/patient will be discarded. But if the virus is placed in a situation of survival threat, the harmful(to the host) mutations will persist. This is why the high level of vaccine-induced incomplete immunity is so disadvantageous during an outbreak situation. In between outbreaks, is when such vaccinations should be applied, this and the fact that vaccination actually temporarily challenges the immune system and makes it less responsive(which give opportunistic infections a chance to setup an infection). This process of preserving the harmful(to the host) mutations results in a more lethal phase of the virus. The limited immunity also offers the opportunity for the virus to develop the lethal antibody-dependent-enhancement-syndrome where the antibodies actually protect the virus from the immune system.
The Delta+ seems to be developing an almost complete vaccine escape from the immunity from the vax. With this in mind Pfeizer developed an alternate formulation to their initial vax which the CDC has decided to employ without further testing in the coming weeks.
This is far more info than I intended to impart in my previous post, but I see the simplified form was poorly written and created more confusion than I should have allowed. Let me know if this explains the matter better.
/2
(1 of 2)
@Adam
@Michael
This is a bit complicated, so let me know if it does not make sense, as I say it is an important point, but it is actually more complicated than I presented in my previous post when I was trying to keep it simple. I will give a little more detail as it will likely explain things better than was achieved in my earlier post. There are actually 2steps to consider:
1.Initial effect on the virus by the initial vaccine challenge
2.Later prolonged effect on the surviving variants by a limited immunity.
1. Initial Effect of vax on accumulated variants:
So, there are actually many factors at play that influence a virus’ evolution. None of them support pursuing a tightly targeted vaccination program during an outbreak. Throughout 2020, there were no vaccines and there was no treatment applied against the virus. This allowed the virus to replicate at will in each of the millions of people who were infected by SARS-Cov2. This led to a series of mutations in 2020 with the mutated forms being less lethal than the initial forms of the virus. This was consistent with Mullers Ratchet. In virology, there is a basic concept called Mullers Ratchet which states that in organisms that undergo rapid mutations, such as RNA viruses, each successive virus variant will become less lethal but more infectious so long as there is a lack of any survival threat to the virus. This process will continue til the viruses die off. So, from the initial virus, many less lethal viruses were developed due to these mutations. A vaccine applied against a crowded field of variants will leave only those variants that are unaffected by the vaccine-induced immunity – the virus variants that survive this initial culling is irrelevant to lethal nature of any of the variants that survive or die off. This is the only chance that a vaccine program has to irradicate a virus, for reasons we shall see. If the vax was effective, ie it eliminated the various variants all at once, it could be successful. Unfortunately, the vax proved to be leaky, ie they provided less than complete protection. Hence the initial kill-off objective of the virus was doomed. We might have known this if the EUA studies had some high-risk members included in the 35K study groups(there were no elderly >70yrs, no African Americans, and no Native Americans). Had this been the case, we might have had a statistical significant result from the study that would have shown the real original efficacy of the vax.
/1
From Arutz Sheva:
Peloni, I do have a question about something you wrote:
If I understand you correctly, you believe that the effects of the vaccine are to make the covid-2 variants less rather than more deadly, because the more deadly variants are destroyed by the vaccines, leaving only relatively innocuous ones to infect people. I believe you wrote that while the delta variant is now dominant, it is much less deadly than the original “alpha” variant. While more infectious, it causes fewer deaths and serious illnesses.
This would seem to be an argument for continued vaccinations. I the vaxxes cause the cover variants to be less and less deadly over time, until finally they cause few or no deaths, why not continue the vaccine campaign indefinitely?
On the other hand, several vaccinologists and immunologogists argue that the variants that most likely to survive the vaccines are those that are more deadly. Their theory is that only the most deadly ones will escape destruction by the vaccines.
This concept seems to me to influenced by the generally recognized fact that antibiotics (such as penicillin) tend to become ineffective over time in curing bacterial illnesses, as the bacteria evolve in ways that make them resistant to the antibiotics, which requires the constant development of new antibiotics to replace them. The question then is, do viruses evolve in respone to vaccines in a similar way to the way bacteria evolve in response to antibiotics?
Any thoughts, observations or responses to my confusion about whether vaccination is likely to make the cv-2 virus more or less deadly will be much appreciated.
@Raphael
You are too generous. These matters are easily discerned by anyone able to read the literature while understanding the science. In truth, I am reluctant to be the first voice on any of these matters, even as I hold a certain opinion on them. The many clinicians and researchers who have each spoken out against these issues under a certain threat(professional or legal) are the clear sources we should each lend our ear and evaluate their warnings. That being said, I am happy to clarify these matters to the best of my ability.
I wish that @peloni1986 had his own blog, show, or forum. Such lucid explanations!
Adam and I wrote about the above study under a different article yesterday, so I thought it appropriate to add a link to our comments here:
https://www.israpundit.org/biotech-analyst-destroys-big-pharma-in-bombshell-exclusive/#comment-63356000240798
@Michael
If they had not included this statement in the study, it would most likely not have been printed. It is rare that you will find any article published on Covid not including a similar statement. Failing to do so may result in the dilemma that McCullough and Malone each reported of having studies undergo postponed consideration and repeated rejection so that publication is delayed for 6months to 1yr, which is a scandal in and of itself.
To your points:
1.A recent study that showed that there was a 3.24X-increase in myocarditis with the vax. Myocarditis is a permanent scarring of the heart muscle. The return to health following such an event is only due to the body’s ability to compensate for diminished heart capacity, but no one should be fooled that this is a return to a healthy heart. Patients who leave the hospital can have diminished abilities in life or they may be walking home one day and just collapse in death. The vaccine developers have the obligation to prove their product is safe. This is the only study which has used the govt databases to examine the data, and it incorporated a 2million subject study. So, this is pretty damning evidence and the only real-world evidence to date which must be thoroughly examined.
2. The comment of “any variant” is an overstatement of what is known. Of course, we know little because they won’t release the data. What we do know is that the vax are failing to protect against Delta/Epsilon while Delta+ appears to be virtually immune to the vax. This is why they were creating a Delta-specific-booster in July(https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/staying-vigilant-pfizer-and-biontech-plot-delta-busting-covid-19-booster-shot) which has a different formulation that the CDC has judged close enough to authorized the booster without any delay/testing – it will be available soon. Currently, the vax are acting to provide the vaccinated with a lack of symptoms, or delayed symptoms(probably more accurate), while carrying a higher concentration of the virus in their mouth and nose. These two factors can allow them to become superspreaders.
3. There is a great misunderstanding between rate of mutation vs selection of a dominant mutant – these are very different things. The vax don’t increase mutations. Mutations happen due to the lack of treatment, the viruses reproduce and mutations are caused by their uninhibited reproduction in every patient. Delta was present early in 2020 and dominated because the vax killed the other variants. Delta+ has 4 new mutations in just its spike protein for example which occurred due to Delta being able to reproduce billions of copies in every one of its millions of victims. The vax actually kills everyone of the mutants that it can and the last mutant standing is the new dominant variant, called “vaccine escape”. Tell me if this is not clear, it is an important point, or if you have any questions.
“the doctor made the point that the study is not a reason to avoid vaccination.”
Oh? Let me think… Peloni, please give me your opinion on this. My thoughts are:
1. The “vaccine” compromises my immune system, as well as making me more vulnerable to myocarditis and early death (I already have cardiovascular disease).
2. The very temporary benefit from flooding my system with spike proteins merely masks immunity, while leaving me very vulnerable to infection with COVID (ANY variant) — making me more dangerous to others.
3. Widespread inoculation during the freak (Summer) variant is exponentially increasing the rate of mutation to even more dangerous variants.
This “vaccination” blitzkrieg appears to be the utmost of folly, promoted by the very man (Fauci) who spearheaded the development of the virus, and who has become personally wealthy through the vaccination campaign.
Tell me if I’m wrong, when I say we are like the newly-arrived Hungarian Jews, standing in line to be triaged at Auschwitz. Zyklon B anyone? It’s government-approved!