"The association of 'pure,' 'natural' and 'good' would have made perfect sense at the time, since natural goodness and unnatural evil were standard in popular discussions of health. In his immensely popular 1867 book 'The Philosophy of Eating,' homeopath Albert J. Bellows blamed all illness on impurity and in a chapter titled 'Impure Blood' explained how good health depended on 'natural food' and 'pure water.' Illness was the result of 'unnatural drugs or medicine.'
The same associations remained powerful in the mid-20th century, when opponents of water fluoridation complained about unnatural adulteration of what should be pure. Their position — described by social scientists at the time as 'naturalist syndrome' — was so mainstream that Stanley Kubrick skewered it in his classic 'Dr. Strangelove,' wherein the lunatic Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper bemoans how fluoride corrupts the 'pure blood of pure Americans.'"
Is this the relevant issue regarding the mRNA "vaccines"?
Could only get to lead paragraph of article, but to assume that opposition to the forced injection of these spike proteins is some misplaced trust in kindly nature, when human medicine could improve on that, misses the point of what's wrong with them.
Quite aside from the fact that the a heck of lot of data show natural immunity IS better than what the mRNAs deliver.
Isn't the policy dispute over natural immunity that it often isn't being recognized by authorities as a source of protection at all? This article's argument that it's not better than vaccination seems like strawmanning.
Antibodies to the coronavirus are not better just because they are ‘natural'
Of course, this does not mean that they are worse or the same as the vaccine (that is not, in fact, a vaccine at all). Also, humanity discovering how to purify water may be the greatest accomplishment, health-wise, in the history of the species.
Also, the entire point of the article is simply that the names given to the two types of immunity should be changed, and with that I agree. It should be "natural immunity" and "synthetic symptom reducer" - that way it is clear that the "vaccine" is of no benefit, vaccine-wise.
a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease. "every year the flu vaccine is modified to deal with new strains of the virus"
Ok Natural is not really better in lots of things. However, If I understand correctly the argument over COVID was not that natural immunity was better. The argument was - if you have already had COVID you do not need the Vac? The Vac pushers would not stop forcing mandates on everyone, even those who already had COVID.
How many heroic health care workers who did their job early and got COVID, were later fired because they would not get vacced? I bet thousands.
The purity/natural thesis started rolling strong in the Victorian era with the (fully correct) pasteurization discovery, anti-microbe/virus measures (e.g., Listerine, sanitation, 1918 flu control), and (profoundly effective) evolutionary analyses.
As with today's Wokesters, naturalistic analyses had been boiled down for the ignorant and repeated blindly for several generations by the time fluroidation became an issue. This included extremely crude racism per eugenics and Nazism. Not coincidentally, the naturalism era died and was replaced by "blank slate" thinking after WW2. The notion of blank slates included claims that (1) women are identical to men, (2) all races/ethnicities are identical despite documented genetic differences and unique medical conditions. [This is why Steven Pinker and Jordan Peterson are now called "right wing" -- they know about the libraries full of biological research that goes against blank slate analyses.]
In due course, blank slate thinking morphed into current Wokester excesses. Wokesters intuit that the blank slate is somehow wrong, but incorrectly attribute it to white privilege and easily debunked nonsense.
When a mass audience does not understand history, they end up repeating superstitions and mimicking things they don't understand. Read how dogmas and superstitions are created per research project involving monkeys, a ladder, and a water sprinkler.
It derives further back from Germanic paganism. I wrote about it, looks like a decade ago. https://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2012/09/german-pagan-all-natural-origins.html
Purification has always been everywhere as rhetoric. The mob trigger of today is pedophiles, but not before the 1970s. See Dorothy Rabinowitz's book on the spectacular excesses of the 90s to purify the world of it. Spectacular in proportion to the purification urge.
@Althouse, if you wish to receive your medical information from places like the New York Times and Washington Post, that’s on you. The intelligent among us will look towards real science, not junk science.
Was Professor Levinovitz among those who attacked and mocked President Trump for the very early suggestion that medical science might develop a way for a disinfectant to be injected into the body to control the virus? A disinfectant such as chlorine, which we "inject" into our bodies every time we take a drink of water?
Was he a supporter of the prominent Dems, among them Biden and Harris, who questioned the safety of the vaccines which Trump said were being developed?
Or does he just write for the newspaper which led the attacks?
There are occasional studies showing that having had some variant of the virus - and hey, what could possibly go wrong with that, eh? - is better than one vaccine or another over the course of that study. Those get trumpeted by those who don't want them at all, of course. But in aggregate, the studies are showing that all immunity wanes, but so-called "natural" immunity wanes more quickly. That's just there. It's not a question of news sites suppressing real information. They might be, I never read them myself. I try to get to the science of researchers and decision-makers who have skin in the game. That is, people whose patients die or whose hospitals go past the breaking point for capacity and staffing if they choose the wrong policy. It is best to hold other experts, however credentialed, at arm's length.
And that group is nearly universal in advocating for the vaccines as being very low-risk and high payoff, both for the individual and for everyone they come in contact with.
For those who think there is some other Real Science that would put you off vaccines, here's my challenge: if you don't know actual researchers whose careers are on the line, talk to the medical staff at your local ERs and ICUs. They aren't far away. You know a guy who knows them if you don't yourself.
Because I already knew that you don't know them yourselves already. You guys keep outing yourselves here in your very unskeptical skepticism more than you know, comment after comment.
From "How the phrase ‘natural immunity’ misleads us about real risks and dangers/Antibodies to the coronavirus are not better just because they are ‘natural'" (WaPo, September 29, 2021).
They aren't better because they are natural.
Natural Antibodies are better because they are better.
As in every scientific study shows they are better and there is no point for people with natural immunity to be forced to get vaccinated.
But the fascists can't make their corporate masters rich or stomp on their political opponents by pushing natural antibodies and following the actual science.
"Antibodies to the coronavirus are not better just because they are ‘natural'"
Natural immunity is so much more than antibodies and that's why natural immunity is same or better.
Many studies have shown that antibodies are the least important part of immunity for coronaviruses. The T cells are more important.
All the political "science" is only caring about antibodies and is probably a large reason why the vaccine is not as effective as we want it to be. It is still a powerful prophylaxis but more like the flu shots. It lessens and shortens effects and only strengthens the immune system some.
@AVillgIdiot: T-cell immunity has been found still present and viable 17 years after SARS-1 infections in 2004. Doubtful that your claim similar immunities from SARS-2 wanes is entirely accurate.
The dangers of the mRNA vaccines are still just showing up. The excess deaths issue may hold a horrible clue.
Also, consider this -- it contains interesting data from Hong Kong.
But in aggregate, the studies are showing that all immunity wanes, but so-called "natural" immunity wanes more quickly.
I'm surprised you did not include a link because that is not how I understand it. Of course traditional vaccines, most of which produce life long immunity, are nothing like the mRNA "vaccine."
Why print such foolishness to serve up to the Follow the Science! Party, formerly known as the Democrats? Are religious scholars reliable sources for immunology news?
@Assistant Village Idiot-- You had me impressed by your fairly levelheaded, pragmatic comment until I got to that arrogant last paragraph. I withdraw the cookie I was going to give you and there shall be no pats on the head.
Don’t know where the Village Idiot’s assistant learned about immunity but it was misinformation zhe is spreading on Althouse blog. Read up T cell memory before posting such nonsense about a rushed “vaccine” designed to address a lone spike protein on the Alpha variant, a spike protein that Omicron has already evolved away from. Then you’ll (possibly) have a clue why hospitalization rates are higher now for the VACCINATED than the unvaxxed. Facts are stubborn things!
It's predictable that the media looks at the failings and foibles of the anti-vaxxers. The failings and foibles of vaccine developers in the past and now aren't. In the 50s and 60s defective vaccines for polio, measles and respiratory syncytial virus killed children. More recently, a dengue fever vaccine in the Philippines increased the possibility of death in children who hadn't already been exposed to a variant of the disease. I was vaccinated and would do it again, but it's not the case that people who are vaccine-averse are superstitious yahoos.
Smearing those who are against forcing people to take experimental drugs as "anti-vaxxers" is disingenuous and tiresome.
Those who are against all vaccinations are not the same group as those who are against forcing people to take these covid shots-- I refuse to even call them vaccinations anymore. Of course there is some overlap between the 2 groups but not nearly as much as our dishonest, pharmaceutical sponsored media implies.
I grew up with John Bircher parents who fought against fluoridation of water. No, really.
What I like about the MRNA vaccines is that should an actual biowar with novel virus agents be started, it would take less than a week to create an innoculation against it, which could pretty much be produced asap and used immediately with zero testing to save lives.
Think of COVID-19 as the trial run that saved billions from biowar. Not only are all the previously strong arguments against purposeful release of biological agents still around, from nuclear responses to unconrtollable directions of spread, but now for a whole raft of viral agents, an attack can be stopped rapidly. Not a bad thing at all, adding another reason to the list of why biowar isn't worth doing. Yay, science!
that may have been the original protocol behind the nih, nhs msp (french counterpart) were funding research in China, with the gates foundation as middleman, but the results were different,
Boy Mikee is an optimist. Dude all I’ll say is there is a reason classic vaccines that conformed to the pre-2020 definition of vaccine took five to twenty years to gain FDA approval. Same reason carpenters say “measure twice cut once,” if you get my drift.
And that group is nearly universal in advocating for the vaccines as being very low-risk and high payoff, both for the individual and for everyone they come in contact with.
The risks are not low and the payoff is not high. The vaccines are not vaccines in the sense of smallpox vaccines or polio vaccines. The CDC found itself constrained to change the definition of the word “vaccine” to slip the mRNA jabs under the rubric. I know from personal experience that omicron burns right through the vaccines.
The risks are continually pooh-poohed, but I note that nurses are refusing the jabs, and accepting termination as a consequence. Ask yourselves, what do they know that isn’t being published?
Natural is not always better, say the folks who pay extra for “organic” everything.
But is it a stronger and longer-lasting immunity from Covid? I’ll put my money on yes. Not because I’m charmed by the word, but because it’s what science and logic suggest.
The vaccine is against the spike protein and antibodies are created to fight that protein. SARS-COV-2 has 29 proteins. If your immune system has been exposed to the full virus it likely has created antibodies against more than one of those proteins. So sure, the antibody against the spike protein is probably the same whether it is a response to the vaccine or the virus, but exposure to the virus will likely lead to a more diverse array of antibodies. Celebrate diversity. At least that's my amateur understanding of the immune system.
The problem with Levinovitz's thinking is that real vaccines create natural immunity.
John Fewster noticed that previous infection with cowpox made a person immune to smallpox. Benjamin Jesty innoculated himself and his family. And then Edward Jenner followed the scientific method to confirm that injecting someone with a weaker strain of smallpox, cowpox, made them immune to the stronger disease. The body fights off the weaker disease and figuratively speaking, remains vigilant and ready to fight off the stronger disease.
That is not what is happening with mRNA shots. It's a gene therapy, not a true vaccine. Rejecting an mRNA shot is not engaging in magical thinking or rejecting something in favor of bodily purity; it's refusing to have faith in something that isn't what it was promised.
And like a poster mentioned before, I have zero respect for a professor of religion touting government science, especially when he's unwilling or unable to recognize a difference between real vaccines and mRNA shots.
Deplorables don't avoid women, but they deny them their essence
Spot on.
See, we don't always have to agree, Howard.
Deplorable fascists (progressives, socialists, democrats, whatever name you choose) DO deny women their essence by believing that any man can truly become a woman by uttering 3 magic words "I am woman"
As several have pointed out the "vaccine" from Pfizer, Moderna et al is not a "vaccine" in any meaningful sense of the word. It might be a prophylactic or therapeutic but not a vaccine.
Not by tradition and not by law until they changed the law last summer.
It it a "trans-vaccine" a not "vaccine". We could call it a "tranny" like a man pretending to be a woman, it is a not-a-vaccine pretending to be a vaccine.
I identify as unvaccinated. I have never been vaccinated against kung flu.
I do have a legally authorized kung flu card, though.
"The same associations remained powerful in the mid-20th century, when opponents of water fluoridation complained about unnatural adulteration of what should be pure."
Just FYI, little Dr. Religious Studies, fluoride occurs "naturally" in many water supplies. The objection was not to "adulteration" of pure water. The objection was to government-mandated medical care. Funny that, huh?
"But in aggregate, the studies are showing that all immunity wanes, but so-called "natural" immunity wanes more quickly. That's just there. It's not a question of news sites suppressing real information. "
Well, yes, actually, it is a question of news sites suppressing real information. There are multiple forms of natural immunity. Some of them wane shortly after an infection has been defeated. Others last longer.
As several have pointed out the "vaccine" from Pfizer, Moderna et al is not a "vaccine" in any meaningful sense of the word. It might be a prophylactic or therapeutic but not a vaccine.
Not by tradition and not by law until they changed the law last summer.
It it a "trans-vaccine" a not "vaccine". We could call it a "tranny" like a man pretending to be a woman, it is a not-a-vaccine pretending to be a vaccine.
I identify as unvaccinated. I have never been vaccinated against kung flu.
I do have a legally authorized kung flu card, though.
I'm late to the party, but I'm reading Richard Webster's 1995 critical biography of Freud, "Why Freud Was Wrong". Webster points out that many of Freud's fantastical ideas were not innovations by Freud but Freud building upon earlier insights by the leading neurologists. These neurologists made real discoveries to the science of their day but also went off the deep end. Franz Joseph Gall discovered the use and importance of "grey matter" in the brain. He went on from these discoveries to invent the "science" of phrenology. Jean Martin Charcot was the leading neurologist of his day. He diagnosed the altered mental status of those who suffered closed head trauma as a form of hysteria. Freud agreed with him and went on to build his "science" of psychoanalysis on Charcot's observtions....It is quite possible for science and a scientist to be wrong, or right, or partially wrong and right. If you follow the science, you can follow the science off a cliff....During the Crimean War, the British physicians resisted the use of chloroform during amputations because they thought that the shock patients went into during such operations aided the recovery process....God plays dice with the universe. If Einstein could be wrong about physics, what are the chances Dr. Fauci could be wrong about masks.
mikee said... What I like about the MRNA vaccines is that should an actual biowar with novel virus agents be started, it would take less than a week to create an innoculation against it, which could pretty much be produced asap and used immediately with zero testing to save lives.
Think of COVID-19 as the trial run that saved billions from biowar.
Or, selective distribution would enable the targeted depopulation of the country and the planet that the left believes in.
But the vaccines make us all fine, just fine. And it's good to be fine because when we're all fine, that itself is fine.
"Hello?... Er, hello, Di-er, hello, Dimitri?... Listen, er, I can't hear too well, do you suppose you could turn the music down just a little?... Oh, that's much better!... yeah - yeah - Fine, I can hear you now, Dimitri. Clear and plain and coming through fine... I'm coming through fine, too, eh? Good - then - Well, then, as you say we're both coming through fine - Good — Well, it's good that you're fine and, and I'm fine - I agree with you, it's great to be fine. [laughs nervously]."
John henry said... As several have pointed out the "vaccine" from Pfizer, Moderna et al is not a "vaccine" in any meaningful sense of the word. It might be a prophylactic or therapeutic but not a vaccine. =========== are we then having battle for market-share for therapeutics?
Were your parent wrong, based on knowledge at the time?
Flourine, like it's sister chlorine, iodine, and bromine, is really nasty, dangerous, stuff.
The sole reason for adding it to drinking water is to reduce tooth decay. That is a worthy goal, but is adding fluorine to all city water a good way to do it?
First it is pretty wasteful since only a miniscule percent actually gets to mouths.
Dosage varies widely. Some, like my wife drink almost no city water normally. Others, like me drink a quart of more.
At the time, in the 50s and 60s,the science was divided on long term health effects. One question was whether it would build up in the body over years or decades.
In some places floride occurs naturally in large enough quantities that it does cause health problems and must be removed.
There are other, more targeted, ways to get floride onto teeth such as in Toothpaste. This also results in very little getting into the body.
In the 50s and 60s fluoridation was forced on the public without any informed consent.
It seems to have worked out OK. But the way it was done was WRONG.
I don't know your parents, I don't know why the opposed fluoridation. I doubt they were nutters (you seem to have turned out OK) and I don't think they were wrong for opposing it.
And that group is nearly universal in advocating for the vaccines as being very low-risk and high payoff, both for the individual and for everyone they come in contact with.
It is quite important to realize how ill-quipped frontline doctors are to observe the totality of cost and benefit. They cannot observe costs and benefits outside the acute phase of hospitalizations. They are as dependent upon wider scope studies as anyone else, although they have very real experience with and observations about acute treatment.
Can anyone defend the Fauci establishment without resorting to pure bullshit? It's hard to believe an intelligent person thinks natural immunity is better just because it is natural. Maybe hard-core anti-vaxxers, like Robert Kennedy, think there is always a natural way that is better than any artificial or man-made way, but that is bullshit. Vaccines re-produce natural processes,they don't demonstrate brand-new processes, invented from scratch.
Funny about fluoride in the water. A dentist told me the dosage or concentration is much too small to benefit anyone's teeth. Childhood cavities went down, despite candy and Coke, because of good brushing habits--reinforced by the good old private sector, Crest and Colgate. Of course they would use Fauci types with white lab coats in the ads. I thought the real paranoia about fluoride in the water was: if we let them do this, what else will they do? Kubrick may have under-estimated the intelligence of conservatives. More recently progressive people reject tap water not because of the fluoride, but (I think) because of the chlorine. So unnatural. So untested. Lewis Black used to rant that progressive people would buy both dirt and water.
As others have noted here, one big problem is these mRNA jabs only sensitize people’s immune system against the spike proteins. Regular immunity sensitizes them against all of the proteins. The other problem is that the mRNA jabs only stimulate short term immune system memory. When those cells die, after a couple months, the memory is apparently lost. By bypassing the normal immune system contagion recognition process, the recognition of these spike proteins never makes it into their long term (T Cell) memory.
So, yes, “natural” immunity is better than immunity gained through injection of these “vaccines”. But not because it is natural, per se, but rather the mRNA experimental gene therapies try to take a shortcut, that doesn’t work well long term.
Of course, this doesn’t consider the side effects of these injections. The side effects can be significant, and, in particular, fatal.
"both the jab and the virus are engineered, spike protein included." It would be interesting to compare systemic biodistribution and duration of each. Seems one appproach goes way beyond the respiratory tract and finds its way to organs etc far removed from combatting Rona(s). So..yeah...not natural. Neither is the obfuscation, suppression and backfilling of adverse events tracking systems including DMED.
Wouldn't be better in terms of credibility and academic integrity (if there is such a thing) if the phrase Levinovitz attributes to General Ripper was actually spoken by the character in the film as released?
Not the main subject, because I have nothing to add, but a side note...
When I was in high school, there were actual anti-fluoridation activists that were always protesting downtown, near the city library where I studied. "Get the fluoride out of our water!" I talked to them a few times. They were very convincing, and had a lot of impressive literature. In retrospect, they embodied the saying, "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
But if they were right, well... that would explain where we are as a country.
Though the facts in this article are not exactly wrong they are so out of order in relation to group histories, such as the history of eugenics, or in relation to causal timelines that you know less after reading it than you did at the start. For example, a honeopath of 1867 is quoted: "homeopath Albert J. Bellows blamed all illness on impurity" and then the article asserts that the "same associations remained powerful in the mid-20th century" as shown by opponents of water fluoridation whose representative is "the lunatic Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper" of Dr. Strangelove. First of all, homeopathy itself is still a force. Second, the "same associations" are not only represented by a mad right-wing general of the Fifties but also by a strongly left-wing movement oresent right now and asserting that "good health depend[s] on 'natural food' and 'pure water,' just as homeopaths did in 1867. Think of people you know who are carrying about water bottles with "pure" water; think of Whole Foods and its clones marketing eggs and meat which are advertised as antibiotic-free; think of the slogan 'buy local, buy fresh.' Those who are buying at Whole Foods despite its inflated prices believe that "good health depend[s] on 'natural food' and 'pure water' just as if they were homepaths in 1867. Those shoppers are by no means solely leftys but the left is so strongly represented among Whole Food shoppers that presenting the natural food movement as a right-wing idiocy takes away knowledge that people have. The article isn't any better at explaining the eugenic tendencies of the pure food movement which co-existed with the eugenic tendencies of the birth control movement which injected of drugs like mercury and hormones like testosterone into women. The subject of "natural" food or drugs is really too large for a single shallow drive-by aiming at the right This is proved by the fact that, as is common in drive-bys, the article is hitting unintended targets on the left. "Illness was the result of 'unnatural drugs or medicine' said the right wing. Really? Take a look at the line of "natural" vitamins in stores and ask who buys them? It would be interesting to ask what the difference is between what two sides mean by "natural" and whether it makes any real difference in what they buy. I expect marketeers have the slogans to feed to a lefty on Facebook to get xe to buy grass-fed cattle as well as the slogans for the woman on the right and all are flowing via the same pipe. Waves and electrons mingling impurely? till the router address calls each signal down like a lark descending through blue sky to its own nest.
I say we should take all the antiabortion nutters at their word and "vaccinate" the kiddos well before they enter our cruel, unnatural world. Why draw some arbitrary line at the preggers? If something goes wrong, give them some buttery spice cakes.
When you receive an MMR, tetanus, yellow fever, and even rabies vaccination your body produces antibodies in response to the vaccine, antibodies that are essentially identical to antibodies produced if you get the actual disease.
The body does not produce antibodies in response to the mRNA vaccines. Any of them. If you’ve educated yourself about them you know they are designed in such a way that the immune system specifically doesn’t react to them. This is because they need to enter cells to do their work. When a bacteria or virus does this we call it an infection.
Once the mRNA sequence has infected the cell- and that is the correct definition and correct use of the word- it hijacks the cell to produce the spike protein and release it into the bloodstream. The whole entire spike protein, a known pathogen, not mostly harmless fragments of a virus in a real vaccine. The body is then supposed to make antibodies against the spike protein. The one on the original dreaded covid. Not the one on any follow on variants.
Question: Why not cultivate and inject the spike protein directly into the body to develop antibodies against it? Answer: Because it is a known pathogen and would kill people. Question: How is getting the spike protein into the body through a two step process using mRNA any safer. Answer: Because SCIENCE! Shut up!
The spike protein being a known pathogen was known before any vaccine was developed. And this was my first problem with the “vaccine”. Question: Why would I want my own cells to deliver a known pathogen into my blood? Answer: I don’t. Doesn’t make any sense. As time marches on many other reasons for not getting this vaccine are showing up. Not reported in the mainstream media. But the information is out there.
And to preach again - it’s been known since the beginning of the covidiocy that higher Vitamin D blood levels bring better outcomes, lower and inadequate levels bring hospitalization and death. I’m not going to link studies again. But now the information on that is appearing in MSM as some new profound and important information. And yet, still no recommendations from the health authorities or government that people be tested for it and start taking a very inexpensive hard to overdose on supplement that will keep them alive. Almost makes you think they don’t care about your health.
It has been a commonly accepted definition that the gold standard for a vaccine is to mimic natural immunity that comes with fighting off an infection.
Anything less...is less. And the mrna vaccine is less .
That being said, I sense a massive amount of hubris in believing that we can continually, artificially, preemptively biohack our immune system and have zero down side. That's a lie. Studies have shown that over stimulation of the immune system can lead to all kinds of problems and autoimmune disorders. Indeed, in some people that's exactly what's happened with platelets clotting.
So that being said, it doesn't mean the vaccine trade off isn't worth the risk of getting the disease. But we should have some humility and risk calculations about what vaccines and why and for whom. Not just say bring them all and inject them all and we'll boost our way to immune health.
Again, in the best case the vaccine is doing what a properly functioning immune system would already do. Maybe..let's help those immune systems to function properly in the first place?
The non-sterilizing "vaccine(s)" are divergent from vaccines in structural and functional attributes. They are more a virus in structure, and a pathogen in function. And while Covaxing may have benefits, the inoculated exhibit symptom suppression, and remain viable, silent spreaders, particularly with the Covid-20, 21, and 22 variants. The immune populations may want to avoid close contact with the inoculated. At least until we know how these artificial proteins evolve in vivo.
From "How the phrase ‘natural immunity’ misleads us about real risks and dangers/Antibodies to the coronavirus are not better just because they are ‘natural'" (WaPo, September 29, 2021).
That's written by Alan Levinovitz, an associate professor of religious studies at James Madison University and the author of "Natural: How Faith in Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science."
Natural immunity is better because it targets far more of the virus than just the one spike protein coded for in the "vaccines".
Which means it takes more mutations in Covid for teh new virus to get around natural immunity, than it takes to get around the shots.
Alan Levinovitz is either a liar, or a scientific ignoramus. In neither case is he worth listening to or reading.
The same can be said for every editor involved in publishing that crap article
some Serious questions mrna "vacines" do NOT stop you from getting infected, just limit severity, right? asymptomatic people are STILL contagious, right? WHY IS It, that they DEMAND that EVERYONE take vax shot after vax shot?
Do you realize, they are planning on butting mrna vaccines in Ice Cream? CHILDREN'S ICE CREAM?
No, natural immunity is not better because it is natural. It is better because it works better and lasts longer. And has no permanent side effects if you survive the illness.
In a large study published Wednesday in the journal The BMJ, researchers from St. Louis analyzed the records of 153,848 people from the Veterans Health Administration system.
The study included only people who had no mental health diagnoses or treatment for at least two years prior to infection, and the cohort study divvied participants into those who survived the first 30 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection and two control groups.
The control groups included a contemporary one with no evidence of infection from the virus and a historical group that predated the pandemic.
Those with COVID-19 were 39% more likely to have depressive disorders and 35% more likely to show an increased risk of incident anxiety disorders over the months after infection.
That group was also 38% more likely to be diagnosed with stress and adjustment disorders and 41% more likely to be diagnosed with sleep disorders.
COVID-19 patients were 80% more likely to develop neurocognitive problems and 34% more likely to develop opioid use disorders.
Assistant Village Idiot said... There are occasional studies showing that having had some variant of the virus - and hey, what could possibly go wrong with that, eh? - is better than one vaccine or another over the course of that study. Those get trumpeted by those who don't want them at all, of course. But in aggregate, the studies are showing that all immunity wanes, but so-called "natural" immunity wanes more quickly.
Congratulations, you've just been promoted to Lead Village Idiot
There is not one single study, anywhere, that shows that effective immune response from the mRNA shots lasts longer than effective immune response from surviving a Covid infects.
Here, let's have so real data: https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/coronavirus/situation.html Total positive cases, including reinfections (cumulative) 1,404,662 Total positive people (cumulative) 1,347,353 That means there's been ~57k times where a person who had one positive Covid test had a second positive test 57k / 1,347,353 = 4%
https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/coronavirus/stats/vbt.html Total number of fully vaccinated Minnesotans age 5 and older:3,532,622 Number of vaccine breakthrough cases: 347,831 Percent of fully vaccinated people: 9.846%
So, despite a significantly longer time period for the reinfections vs the breakthrough infections, despite the possibly significant input of false positives (since a false positive could be the source of the 1st "infection:, or the second one), the vaccine breakthrough rate is over twice the "reinfection" rate.
Bruce Hayden said... As others have noted here, one big problem is these mRNA jabs only sensitize people’s immune system against the spike proteins. Regular immunity sensitizes them against all of the proteins. The other problem is that the mRNA jabs only stimulate short term immune system memory. When those cells die, after a couple months, the memory is apparently lost. By bypassing the normal immune system contagion recognition process, the recognition of these spike proteins never makes it into their long term (T Cell) memory.
Oh, wow, if that's true that's pretty much a game killer for mRNA "vaccines" until researchers can figure out how to trigger the creation of memory T and B cells.
Now, from the Pfizer bottom line perspective, having a shot that has to be renewed every 4 - 6 months is really cool.
But since the Omicron / Xi variant has already mutated away from the sequence they're using, it's pretty stupid to get teh shot at tis point
----Oh, wow, if that's true that's pretty much a game killer for mRNA "vaccines" until researchers can figure out how to trigger the creation of memory T and B cells.
Greg, the game's already been changed for some. From the Berenson substack article I linked in 9:14 post:
China’s CoronaVac shot caused people to make far more T-cells targeting the coronavirus than those who received Pfizer’s mRNA shot, scientists in Hong Kong have found.
Though it is only one datapoint, the study hints the Chinese shot - which is based on older, well understood principles of vaccinology - may ultimately provide longer-lasting protection than the hastily developed mRNA jabs from Pfizer and Moderna.
The study was published in a peer-reviewed journal called Respirology in November, but has (unsurprisingly) received no attention. It offers a rare head-to-head look at the immune-system effects of the Chinese and Pfizer
Kai Akker said... China’s CoronaVac shot caused people to make far more T-cells targeting the coronavirus than those who received Pfizer’s mRNA shot, scientists in Hong Kong have found.
Sorry, but as a basic matter I don't trust any information coming out of the PRC.
And from what we've seen, no "Chinese Covid vaccine" has stoped Covid from spreading in China (see the continual harsh city-wide lockdowns. you don't have to do that, if you have an effective vaccine)
So while I'll be happy to see a competitor to the mRNA shots, I'll wait until there's a potentially honest study, which is to say one not conducted by communists or under the control of a communist government, before I pass any judgement
Kai Akker said... Respirology is a John Wiley peer-reviewed publication, not a product of the PRC. But please be as sorry as you like to hear the news.
I don't care who "peer reviewed" it. I don't trust any data that comes from a PRC paper.
The "peer reviewers" aren't going to re-do the experiments to confirm that the data reported is valid, they're going to, at best, play around with the provided data a bit.
There is absolutely nothing coming out of Communist China, and that sadly now includes Hong Kong, that can be trusted.
You're free to pretend otherwise. I'm not going to
You are properly skeptical, Greg. I would like it to be true that there is a more traditional vaccine that works against this coronavirus. And I can believe that Asian science might have found it, where western medicine has so far not. To me, that is plausible. But it is far from a proven fact, and there has never yet been a successful vaccine against a coronavirus, as I understand it.
What is proven is the inadequacies of the mRNA methods. And I suspect Pfizer has pulled a couple fast ones in how it has run its testing. But that, too, remains to be seen.
Kai Akker said... You are properly skeptical, Greg. I would like it to be true that there is a more traditional vaccine that works against this coronavirus.
It would be nice. But given how pathetic the flu shots are, I don't have any particular reason to believe that it's a problem amenable to a vaccine solution.
What is proven is the inadequacies of the mRNA methods.
For me, the open questions is "just how inadequate ARE the mRNA methods?"
If Bruce is right, and none of the T and B cells created by the mRNA vaxx get turned into Memory T/B cells, then the method is worthless until such time as we figure out how to trigger that process with an mRNA shot.
I haven't had time to dig in to that myself, so I don't know. But something that doesn't produce Memory T/B cells is not a vaccine. At best it's a "temporarily protective shot".
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Encourage Althouse by making a donation:
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
पोस्ट्स
८७ टिप्पण्या:
Is this the relevant issue regarding the mRNA "vaccines"?
Could only get to lead paragraph of article, but to assume that opposition to the forced injection of these spike proteins is some misplaced trust in kindly nature, when human medicine could improve on that, misses the point of what's wrong with them.
Quite aside from the fact that the a heck of lot of data show natural immunity IS better than what the mRNAs deliver.
Isn't the policy dispute over natural immunity that it often isn't being recognized by authorities as a source of protection at all? This article's argument that it's not better than vaccination seems like strawmanning.
But prior infection + one vax is da bomb.
If anyone's interested.
Three shots and a case of Omicron, I'm golden.
Masks are pretty much useless anyway.
Antibodies to the coronavirus are not better just because they are ‘natural'
Of course, this does not mean that they are worse or the same as the vaccine (that is not, in fact, a vaccine at all). Also, humanity discovering how to purify water may be the greatest accomplishment, health-wise, in the history of the species.
"Antibodies to the coronavirus are not better just because they are ‘natural'"
But also not worse. And in any case beside the point, as Kai and Tom already noted.
Even at this late date, prog reporters are incapable of addressing Covid disputes honestly.
Also, the entire point of the article is simply that the names given to the two types of immunity should be changed, and with that I agree. It should be "natural immunity" and "synthetic symptom reducer" - that way it is clear that the "vaccine" is of no benefit, vaccine-wise.
Deplorables don't avoid women, but they deny them their essence.
Deseret News: CDC Study Says Natural Immunity Is Superior to Vaccines Against Delta Variant
Link to the CDC study.
vac·cine
/vakˈsēn/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: vaccine; plural noun: vaccines
a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.
"every year the flu vaccine is modified to deal with new strains of the virus"
Thank you for your service, Rusty.
Ok Natural is not really better in lots of things. However, If I understand correctly the argument over COVID was not that natural immunity was better. The argument was - if you have already had COVID you do not need the Vac? The Vac pushers would not stop forcing mandates on everyone, even those who already had COVID.
How many heroic health care workers who did their job early and got COVID, were later fired because they would not get vacced? I bet thousands.
The purity/natural thesis started rolling strong in the Victorian era with the (fully correct) pasteurization discovery, anti-microbe/virus measures (e.g., Listerine, sanitation, 1918 flu control), and (profoundly effective) evolutionary analyses.
As with today's Wokesters, naturalistic analyses had been boiled down for the ignorant and repeated blindly for several generations by the time fluroidation became an issue. This included extremely crude racism per eugenics and Nazism. Not coincidentally, the naturalism era died and was replaced by "blank slate" thinking after WW2. The notion of blank slates included claims that (1) women are identical to men, (2) all races/ethnicities are identical despite documented genetic differences and unique medical conditions. [This is why Steven Pinker and Jordan Peterson are now called "right wing" -- they know about the libraries full of biological research that goes against blank slate analyses.]
In due course, blank slate thinking morphed into current Wokester excesses. Wokesters intuit that the blank slate is somehow wrong, but incorrectly attribute it to white privilege and easily debunked nonsense.
When a mass audience does not understand history, they end up repeating superstitions and mimicking things they don't understand. Read how dogmas and superstitions are created per research project involving monkeys, a ladder, and a water sprinkler.
https://infiniteretro.com/2020/07/24/The-Monkey-Ladder-Experiment/
It derives further back from Germanic paganism. I wrote about it, looks like a decade ago.
https://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2012/09/german-pagan-all-natural-origins.html
Purification has always been everywhere as rhetoric. The mob trigger of today is pedophiles, but not before the 1970s. See Dorothy Rabinowitz's book on the spectacular excesses of the 90s to purify the world of it. Spectacular in proportion to the purification urge.
White men are another pollutant now.
@Althouse, if you wish to receive your medical information from places like the New York Times and Washington Post, that’s on you. The intelligent among us will look towards real science, not junk science.
See also, Chiropractic therapies
"Even at this late date, prog reporters are incapable of addressing Covid disputes honestly."
Correction: I guess not a "reporter" in this case.
Was Professor Levinovitz among those who attacked and mocked President Trump for the very early suggestion that medical science might develop a way for a disinfectant to be injected into the body to control the virus? A disinfectant such as chlorine, which we "inject" into our bodies every time we take a drink of water?
Was he a supporter of the prominent Dems, among them Biden and Harris, who questioned the safety of the vaccines which Trump said were being developed?
Or does he just write for the newspaper which led the attacks?
Always trust a religious studies professor on the ineffectiveness of the human natural immunity system. Believe the science, man!
this is jim acostas alma mater, they are really reaching
There are occasional studies showing that having had some variant of the virus - and hey, what could possibly go wrong with that, eh? - is better than one vaccine or another over the course of that study. Those get trumpeted by those who don't want them at all, of course. But in aggregate, the studies are showing that all immunity wanes, but so-called "natural" immunity wanes more quickly. That's just there. It's not a question of news sites suppressing real information. They might be, I never read them myself. I try to get to the science of researchers and decision-makers who have skin in the game. That is, people whose patients die or whose hospitals go past the breaking point for capacity and staffing if they choose the wrong policy. It is best to hold other experts, however credentialed, at arm's length.
And that group is nearly universal in advocating for the vaccines as being very low-risk and high payoff, both for the individual and for everyone they come in contact with.
For those who think there is some other Real Science that would put you off vaccines, here's my challenge: if you don't know actual researchers whose careers are on the line, talk to the medical staff at your local ERs and ICUs. They aren't far away. You know a guy who knows them if you don't yourself.
Because I already knew that you don't know them yourselves already. You guys keep outing yourselves here in your very unskeptical skepticism more than you know, comment after comment.
From "How the phrase ‘natural immunity’ misleads us about real risks and dangers/Antibodies to the coronavirus are not better just because they are ‘natural'" (WaPo, September 29, 2021).
They aren't better because they are natural.
Natural Antibodies are better because they are better.
As in every scientific study shows they are better and there is no point for people with natural immunity to be forced to get vaccinated.
But the fascists can't make their corporate masters rich or stomp on their political opponents by pushing natural antibodies and following the actual science.
"Antibodies to the coronavirus are not better just because they are ‘natural'"
Natural immunity is so much more than antibodies and that's why natural immunity is same or better.
Many studies have shown that antibodies are the least important part of immunity for coronaviruses. The T cells are more important.
All the political "science" is only caring about antibodies and is probably a large reason why the vaccine is not as effective as we want it to be. It is still a powerful prophylaxis but more like the flu shots. It lessens and shortens effects and only strengthens the immune system some.
What's his opinion on Creationism? Will the WaPoo print another op-ed on that ?
@AVillgIdiot: T-cell immunity has been found still present and viable 17 years after SARS-1 infections in 2004. Doubtful that your claim similar immunities from SARS-2 wanes is entirely accurate.
The dangers of the mRNA vaccines are still just showing up. The excess deaths issue may hold a horrible clue.
Also, consider this -- it contains interesting data from Hong Kong.
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/no-wonder-china-isnt-using-mrna-shots?utm_source=url
The rest of your argument is just that you know better than anyone else. Maybe you do. Forgive me if I doubt that.
But in aggregate, the studies are showing that all immunity wanes, but so-called "natural" immunity wanes more quickly.
I'm surprised you did not include a link because that is not how I understand it. Of course traditional vaccines, most of which produce life long immunity, are nothing like the mRNA "vaccine."
Why print such foolishness to serve up to the Follow the Science! Party, formerly known as the Democrats? Are religious scholars reliable sources for immunology news?
@Assistant Village Idiot-- You had me impressed by your fairly levelheaded, pragmatic comment until I got to that arrogant last paragraph. I withdraw the cookie I was going to give you and there shall be no pats on the head.
Don’t know where the Village Idiot’s assistant learned about immunity but it was misinformation zhe is spreading on Althouse blog. Read up T cell memory before posting such nonsense about a rushed “vaccine” designed to address a lone spike protein on the Alpha variant, a spike protein that Omicron has already evolved away from. Then you’ll (possibly) have a clue why hospitalization rates are higher now for the VACCINATED than the unvaxxed. Facts are stubborn things!
Deplorables don't avoid women, but they deny them their essence.
Deplorable women will not be denied.
Propaganda
Hate and division
Same old shit
It's predictable that the media looks at the failings and foibles of the anti-vaxxers. The failings and foibles of vaccine developers in the past and now aren't. In the 50s and 60s defective vaccines for polio, measles and respiratory syncytial virus killed children. More recently, a dengue fever vaccine in the Philippines increased the possibility of death in children who hadn't already been exposed to a variant of the disease. I was vaccinated and would do it again, but it's not the case that people who are vaccine-averse are superstitious yahoos.
they seem to going after every dissident doctor who has treated covid with therapeutics, so who's career is on the line?
The Branch Covidians are not trying to help anyone.
They just want an excuse for their fascism.
Smearing those who are against forcing people to take experimental drugs as "anti-vaxxers" is disingenuous and tiresome.
Those who are against all vaccinations are not the same group as those who are against forcing people to take these covid shots-- I refuse to even call them vaccinations anymore. Of course there is some overlap between the 2 groups but not nearly as much as our dishonest, pharmaceutical sponsored media implies.
I grew up with John Bircher parents who fought against fluoridation of water. No, really.
What I like about the MRNA vaccines is that should an actual biowar with novel virus agents be started, it would take less than a week to create an innoculation against it, which could pretty much be produced asap and used immediately with zero testing to save lives.
Think of COVID-19 as the trial run that saved billions from biowar. Not only are all the previously strong arguments against purposeful release of biological agents still around, from nuclear responses to unconrtollable directions of spread, but now for a whole raft of viral agents, an attack can be stopped rapidly. Not a bad thing at all, adding another reason to the list of why biowar isn't worth doing. Yay, science!
that may have been the original protocol behind the nih, nhs msp (french counterpart) were funding research in China, with the gates foundation as middleman, but the results were different,
Boy Mikee is an optimist. Dude all I’ll say is there is a reason classic vaccines that conformed to the pre-2020 definition of vaccine took five to twenty years to gain FDA approval. Same reason carpenters say “measure twice cut once,” if you get my drift.
And that group is nearly universal in advocating for the vaccines as being very low-risk and high payoff, both for the individual and for everyone they come in contact with.
The risks are not low and the payoff is not high. The vaccines are not vaccines in the sense of smallpox vaccines or polio vaccines. The CDC found itself constrained to change the definition of the word “vaccine” to slip the mRNA jabs under the rubric. I know from personal experience that omicron burns right through the vaccines.
The risks are continually pooh-poohed, but I note that nurses are refusing the jabs, and accepting termination as a consequence. Ask yourselves, what do they know that isn’t being published?
Natural is not always better, say the folks who pay extra for “organic” everything.
But is it a stronger and longer-lasting immunity from Covid? I’ll put my money on yes. Not because I’m charmed by the word, but because it’s what science and logic suggest.
The vaccine is against the spike protein and antibodies are created to fight that protein. SARS-COV-2 has 29 proteins. If your immune system has been exposed to the full virus it likely has created antibodies against more than one of those proteins. So sure, the antibody against the spike protein is probably the same whether it is a response to the vaccine or the virus, but exposure to the virus will likely lead to a more diverse array of antibodies. Celebrate diversity. At least that's my amateur understanding of the immune system.
Nobody should be required to take the jab, but both the jab and the virus are engineered, spike protein included.
The problem with Levinovitz's thinking is that real vaccines create natural immunity.
John Fewster noticed that previous infection with cowpox made a person immune to smallpox. Benjamin Jesty innoculated himself and his family. And then Edward Jenner followed the scientific method to confirm that injecting someone with a weaker strain of smallpox, cowpox, made them immune to the stronger disease. The body fights off the weaker disease and figuratively speaking, remains vigilant and ready to fight off the stronger disease.
That is not what is happening with mRNA shots. It's a gene therapy, not a true vaccine. Rejecting an mRNA shot is not engaging in magical thinking or rejecting something in favor of bodily purity; it's refusing to have faith in something that isn't what it was promised.
And like a poster mentioned before, I have zero respect for a professor of religion touting government science, especially when he's unwilling or unable to recognize a difference between real vaccines and mRNA shots.
An associate professor of religious studies.
Exactly where I go for medical advice...
And who says Ripper was a 'lunatic'?
Isn't "faith in nature's goodness" the basis of just about all environmentalism?
Howard said...
Deplorables don't avoid women, but they deny them their essence
Spot on.
See, we don't always have to agree, Howard.
Deplorable fascists (progressives, socialists, democrats, whatever name you choose) DO deny women their essence by believing that any man can truly become a woman by uttering 3 magic words "I am woman"
Well done, Howard!
John LGBTQBNY Henry
Yeah, that may be so. But, most of those innovations, if not all, came via thorough testing.
Thorough testing takes time.
What happens when we are asked to test something, and some decide to take a pass?
As several have pointed out the "vaccine" from Pfizer, Moderna et al is not a "vaccine" in any meaningful sense of the word. It might be a prophylactic or therapeutic but not a vaccine.
Not by tradition and not by law until they changed the law last summer.
It it a "trans-vaccine" a not "vaccine". We could call it a "tranny" like a man pretending to be a woman, it is a not-a-vaccine pretending to be a vaccine.
I identify as unvaccinated. I have never been vaccinated against kung flu.
I do have a legally authorized kung flu card, though.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
Sebastian said...
Correction: I guess not a "reporter" in this case.
Maybe a tyranny?
As in trans-reporter?
John LGBTQBNY Henry
"That's written by Alan Levinovitz, an associate professor of religious studies ..."
Wait, I thought we were following the science ....
"The same associations remained powerful in the mid-20th century, when opponents of water fluoridation complained about unnatural adulteration of what should be pure."
Just FYI, little Dr. Religious Studies, fluoride occurs "naturally" in many water supplies. The objection was not to "adulteration" of pure water. The objection was to government-mandated medical care. Funny that, huh?
"But in aggregate, the studies are showing that all immunity wanes, but so-called "natural" immunity wanes more quickly. That's just there. It's not a question of news sites suppressing real information. "
Well, yes, actually, it is a question of news sites suppressing real information. There are multiple forms of natural immunity. Some of them wane shortly after an infection has been defeated. Others last longer.
As several have pointed out the "vaccine" from Pfizer, Moderna et al is not a "vaccine" in any meaningful sense of the word. It might be a prophylactic or therapeutic but not a vaccine.
Not by tradition and not by law until they changed the law last summer.
It it a "trans-vaccine" a not "vaccine". We could call it a "tranny" like a man pretending to be a woman, it is a not-a-vaccine pretending to be a vaccine.
I identify as unvaccinated. I have never been vaccinated against kung flu.
I do have a legally authorized kung flu card, though.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
I'm late to the party, but I'm reading Richard Webster's 1995 critical biography of Freud, "Why Freud Was Wrong". Webster points out that many of Freud's fantastical ideas were not innovations by Freud but Freud building upon earlier insights by the leading neurologists. These neurologists made real discoveries to the science of their day but also went off the deep end. Franz Joseph Gall discovered the use and importance of "grey matter" in the brain. He went on from these discoveries to invent the "science" of phrenology. Jean Martin Charcot was the leading neurologist of his day. He diagnosed the altered mental status of those who suffered closed head trauma as a form of hysteria. Freud agreed with him and went on to build his "science" of psychoanalysis on Charcot's observtions....It is quite possible for science and a scientist to be wrong, or right, or partially wrong and right. If you follow the science, you can follow the science off a cliff....During the Crimean War, the British physicians resisted the use of chloroform during amputations because they thought that the shock patients went into during such operations aided the recovery process....God plays dice with the universe. If Einstein could be wrong about physics, what are the chances Dr. Fauci could be wrong about masks.
mikee said...
What I like about the MRNA vaccines is that should an actual biowar with novel virus agents be started, it would take less than a week to create an innoculation against it, which could pretty much be produced asap and used immediately with zero testing to save lives.
Think of COVID-19 as the trial run that saved billions from biowar.
Or, selective distribution would enable the targeted depopulation of the country and the planet that the left believes in.
But the vaccines make us all fine, just fine. And it's good to be fine because when we're all fine, that itself is fine.
"Hello?... Er, hello, Di-er, hello, Dimitri?... Listen, er, I can't hear too well, do you suppose you could turn the music down just a little?... Oh, that's much better!... yeah - yeah - Fine, I can hear you now, Dimitri. Clear and plain and coming through fine... I'm coming through fine, too, eh? Good - then - Well, then, as you say we're both coming through fine - Good — Well, it's good that you're fine and, and I'm fine - I agree with you, it's great to be fine. [laughs nervously]."
John henry said...
As several have pointed out the "vaccine" from Pfizer, Moderna et al is not a "vaccine" in any meaningful sense of the word. It might be a prophylactic or therapeutic but not a vaccine.
===========
are we then having battle for market-share for therapeutics?
aided and abetted by gommint?
Mike,
Were your parent wrong, based on knowledge at the time?
Flourine, like it's sister chlorine, iodine, and bromine, is really nasty, dangerous, stuff.
The sole reason for adding it to drinking water is to reduce tooth decay. That is a worthy goal, but is adding fluorine to all city water a good way to do it?
First it is pretty wasteful since only a miniscule percent actually gets to mouths.
Dosage varies widely. Some, like my wife drink almost no city water normally. Others, like me drink a quart of more.
At the time, in the 50s and 60s,the science was divided on long term health effects. One question was whether it would build up in the body over years or decades.
In some places floride occurs naturally in large enough quantities that it does cause health problems and must be removed.
There are other, more targeted, ways to get floride onto teeth such as in Toothpaste. This also results in very little getting into the body.
In the 50s and 60s fluoridation was forced on the public without any informed consent.
It seems to have worked out OK. But the way it was done was WRONG.
I don't know your parents, I don't know why the opposed fluoridation. I doubt they were nutters (you seem to have turned out OK) and I don't think they were wrong for opposing it.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
And that group is nearly universal in advocating for the vaccines as being very low-risk and high payoff, both for the individual and for everyone they come in contact with.
It is quite important to realize how ill-quipped frontline doctors are to observe the totality of cost and benefit. They cannot observe costs and benefits outside the acute phase of hospitalizations. They are as dependent upon wider scope studies as anyone else, although they have very real experience with and observations about acute treatment.
Can anyone defend the Fauci establishment without resorting to pure bullshit? It's hard to believe an intelligent person thinks natural immunity is better just because it is natural. Maybe hard-core anti-vaxxers, like Robert Kennedy, think there is always a natural way that is better than any artificial or man-made way, but that is bullshit. Vaccines re-produce natural processes,they don't demonstrate brand-new processes, invented from scratch.
Funny about fluoride in the water. A dentist told me the dosage or concentration is much too small to benefit anyone's teeth. Childhood cavities went down, despite candy and Coke, because of good brushing habits--reinforced by the good old private sector, Crest and Colgate. Of course they would use Fauci types with white lab coats in the ads. I thought the real paranoia about fluoride in the water was: if we let them do this, what else will they do? Kubrick may have under-estimated the intelligence of conservatives. More recently progressive people reject tap water not because of the fluoride, but (I think) because of the chlorine. So unnatural. So untested. Lewis Black used to rant that progressive people would buy both dirt and water.
As others have noted here, one big problem is these mRNA jabs only sensitize people’s immune system against the spike proteins. Regular immunity sensitizes them against all of the proteins. The other problem is that the mRNA jabs only stimulate short term immune system memory. When those cells die, after a couple months, the memory is apparently lost. By bypassing the normal immune system contagion recognition process, the recognition of these spike proteins never makes it into their long term (T Cell) memory.
So, yes, “natural” immunity is better than immunity gained through injection of these “vaccines”. But not because it is natural, per se, but rather the mRNA experimental gene therapies try to take a shortcut, that doesn’t work well long term.
Of course, this doesn’t consider the side effects of these injections. The side effects can be significant, and, in particular, fatal.
"both the jab and the virus are engineered, spike protein included."
It would be interesting to compare systemic biodistribution and duration of each.
Seems one appproach goes way beyond the respiratory tract and finds its way to organs etc far removed from combatting Rona(s).
So..yeah...not natural.
Neither is the obfuscation, suppression and backfilling of adverse events tracking systems including DMED.
'pure blood of pure Americans.'
Wouldn't be better in terms of credibility and academic integrity (if there is such a thing) if the phrase Levinovitz attributes to General Ripper was actually spoken by the character in the film as released?
Not the main subject, because I have nothing to add, but a side note...
When I was in high school, there were actual anti-fluoridation activists that were always protesting downtown, near the city library where I studied. "Get the fluoride out of our water!" I talked to them a few times. They were very convincing, and had a lot of impressive literature. In retrospect, they embodied the saying, "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
But if they were right, well... that would explain where we are as a country.
Though the facts in this article are not exactly wrong they are so out of order in relation to group histories, such as the history of eugenics, or in relation to causal timelines that you know less after reading it than you did at the start. For example, a honeopath of 1867 is quoted: "homeopath Albert J. Bellows blamed all illness on impurity" and then the article asserts that the "same associations remained powerful in the mid-20th century" as shown by opponents of water fluoridation whose representative is "the lunatic Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper" of Dr. Strangelove. First of all, homeopathy itself is still a force. Second, the "same associations" are not only represented by a mad right-wing general of the Fifties but also by a strongly left-wing movement oresent right now and asserting that "good health depend[s] on 'natural food' and 'pure water,' just as homeopaths did in 1867. Think of people you know who are carrying about water bottles with "pure" water; think of Whole Foods and its clones marketing eggs and meat which are advertised as antibiotic-free; think of the slogan 'buy local, buy fresh.' Those who are buying at Whole Foods despite its inflated prices believe that "good health depend[s] on 'natural food' and 'pure water' just as if they were homepaths in 1867. Those shoppers are by no means solely leftys but the left is so strongly represented among Whole Food shoppers that presenting the natural food movement as a right-wing idiocy takes away knowledge that people have.
The article isn't any better at explaining the eugenic tendencies of the pure food movement which co-existed with the eugenic tendencies of the birth control movement which injected of drugs like mercury and hormones like testosterone into women.
The subject of "natural" food or drugs is really too large for a single shallow drive-by aiming at the right This is proved by the fact that, as is common in drive-bys, the article is hitting unintended targets on the left. "Illness was the result of 'unnatural drugs or medicine' said the right wing. Really? Take a look at the line of "natural" vitamins in stores and ask who buys them?
It would be interesting to ask what the difference is between what two sides mean by "natural" and whether it makes any real difference in what they buy. I expect marketeers have the slogans to feed to a lefty on Facebook to get xe to buy grass-fed cattle as well as the slogans for the woman on the right and all are flowing via the same pipe. Waves and electrons mingling impurely? till the router address calls each signal down like a lark descending through blue sky to its own nest.
I say we should take all the antiabortion nutters at their word and "vaccinate" the kiddos well before they enter our cruel, unnatural world.
Why draw some arbitrary line at the preggers?
If something goes wrong, give them some buttery spice cakes.
When you receive an MMR, tetanus, yellow fever, and even rabies vaccination your body produces antibodies in response to the vaccine, antibodies that are essentially identical to antibodies produced if you get the actual disease.
The body does not produce antibodies in response to the mRNA vaccines. Any of them. If you’ve educated yourself about them you know they are designed in such a way that the immune system specifically doesn’t react to them. This is because they need to enter cells to do their work. When a bacteria or virus does this we call it an infection.
Once the mRNA sequence has infected the cell- and that is the correct definition and correct use of the word- it hijacks the cell to produce the spike protein and release it into the bloodstream. The whole entire spike protein, a known pathogen, not mostly harmless fragments of a virus in a real vaccine. The body is then supposed to make antibodies against the spike protein. The one on the original dreaded covid. Not the one on any follow on variants.
Question: Why not cultivate and inject the spike protein directly into the body to develop antibodies against it?
Answer: Because it is a known pathogen and would kill people.
Question: How is getting the spike protein into the body through a two step process using mRNA any safer.
Answer: Because SCIENCE! Shut up!
The spike protein being a known pathogen was known before any vaccine was developed. And this was my first problem with the “vaccine”. Question: Why would I want my own cells to deliver a known pathogen into my blood? Answer: I don’t. Doesn’t make any sense. As time marches on many other reasons for not getting this vaccine are showing up. Not reported in the mainstream media. But the information is out there.
And to preach again - it’s been known since the beginning of the covidiocy that higher Vitamin D blood levels bring better outcomes, lower and inadequate levels bring hospitalization and death. I’m not going to link studies again. But now the information on that is appearing in MSM as some new profound and important information. And yet, still no recommendations from the health authorities or government that people be tested for it and start taking a very inexpensive hard to overdose on supplement that will keep them alive. Almost makes you think they don’t care about your health.
It has been a commonly accepted definition that the gold standard for a vaccine is to mimic natural immunity that comes with fighting off an infection.
Anything less...is less. And the mrna vaccine is less .
That being said, I sense a massive amount of hubris in believing that we can continually, artificially, preemptively biohack our immune system and have zero down side. That's a lie. Studies have shown that over stimulation of the immune system can lead to all kinds of problems and autoimmune disorders. Indeed, in some people that's exactly what's happened with platelets clotting.
So that being said, it doesn't mean the vaccine trade off isn't worth the risk of getting the disease. But we should have some humility and risk calculations about what vaccines and why and for whom. Not just say bring them all and inject them all and we'll boost our way to immune health.
Again, in the best case the vaccine is doing what a properly functioning immune system would already do. Maybe..let's help those immune systems to function properly in the first place?
It it a "trans-vaccine" a not "vaccine"
The non-sterilizing "vaccine(s)" are divergent from vaccines in structural and functional attributes. They are more a virus in structure, and a pathogen in function. And while Covaxing may have benefits, the inoculated exhibit symptom suppression, and remain viable, silent spreaders, particularly with the Covid-20, 21, and 22 variants. The immune populations may want to avoid close contact with the inoculated. At least until we know how these artificial proteins evolve in vivo.
From "How the phrase ‘natural immunity’ misleads us about real risks and dangers/Antibodies to the coronavirus are not better just because they are ‘natural'" (WaPo, September 29, 2021).
That's written by Alan Levinovitz, an associate professor of religious studies at James Madison University and the author of "Natural: How Faith in Nature's Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science."
Natural immunity is better because it targets far more of the virus than just the one spike protein coded for in the "vaccines".
Which means it takes more mutations in Covid for teh new virus to get around natural immunity, than it takes to get around the shots.
Alan Levinovitz is either a liar, or a scientific ignoramus. In neither case is he worth listening to or reading.
The same can be said for every editor involved in publishing that crap article
An old article says something that to powers-that-be wish to mock, so it is brought out and...mocked.
Well, okay. And that means what about today? Nothing? That's what I thought.
some Serious questions
mrna "vacines" do NOT stop you from getting infected, just limit severity, right?
asymptomatic people are STILL contagious, right?
WHY IS It, that they DEMAND that EVERYONE take vax shot after vax shot?
Do you realize, they are planning on butting mrna vaccines in Ice Cream?
CHILDREN'S ICE CREAM?
No, natural immunity is not better because it is natural. It is better because it works better and lasts longer. And has no permanent side effects if you survive the illness.
Even Harvard is questioning fluoridated water these days. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/fluoridated-drinking-water/
No side effects? Must not have read the recent study:
www.foxnews.com/health/covid-infection-mental-health-eating-disorders-studies.amp
In a large study published Wednesday in the journal The BMJ, researchers from St. Louis analyzed the records of 153,848 people from the Veterans Health Administration system.
The study included only people who had no mental health diagnoses or treatment for at least two years prior to infection, and the cohort study divvied participants into those who survived the first 30 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection and two control groups.
The control groups included a contemporary one with no evidence of infection from the virus and a historical group that predated the pandemic.
Those with COVID-19 were 39% more likely to have depressive disorders and 35% more likely to show an increased risk of incident anxiety disorders over the months after infection.
That group was also 38% more likely to be diagnosed with stress and adjustment disorders and 41% more likely to be diagnosed with sleep disorders.
COVID-19 patients were 80% more likely to develop neurocognitive problems and 34% more likely to develop opioid use disorders.
Assistant Village Idiot said...
There are occasional studies showing that having had some variant of the virus - and hey, what could possibly go wrong with that, eh? - is better than one vaccine or another over the course of that study. Those get trumpeted by those who don't want them at all, of course. But in aggregate, the studies are showing that all immunity wanes, but so-called "natural" immunity wanes more quickly.
Congratulations, you've just been promoted to Lead Village Idiot
There is not one single study, anywhere, that shows that effective immune response from the mRNA shots lasts longer than effective immune response from surviving a Covid infects.
Here, let's have so real data:
https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/coronavirus/situation.html
Total positive cases, including reinfections (cumulative) 1,404,662
Total positive people (cumulative) 1,347,353
That means there's been ~57k times where a person who had one positive Covid test had a second positive test
57k / 1,347,353 = 4%
https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/coronavirus/stats/vbt.html
Total number of fully vaccinated Minnesotans age 5 and older:3,532,622
Number of vaccine breakthrough cases: 347,831
Percent of fully vaccinated people: 9.846%
So, despite a significantly longer time period for the reinfections vs the breakthrough infections, despite the possibly significant input of false positives (since a false positive could be the source of the 1st "infection:, or the second one), the vaccine breakthrough rate is over twice the "reinfection" rate.
Thank you for playing, but you're wrong
https://twitter.com/CartlandDavid/status/1495412605669810180
You'll wanted to look at this at a time when you can listen to the sound
It's a collection of Fauci talking about how awesome the Covid 19 vaccines are, followed newspaper headlines showing how well his claims have held up
It's worth the two minutes
Bruce Hayden said...
As others have noted here, one big problem is these mRNA jabs only sensitize people’s immune system against the spike proteins. Regular immunity sensitizes them against all of the proteins. The other problem is that the mRNA jabs only stimulate short term immune system memory. When those cells die, after a couple months, the memory is apparently lost. By bypassing the normal immune system contagion recognition process, the recognition of these spike proteins never makes it into their long term (T Cell) memory.
Oh, wow, if that's true that's pretty much a game killer for mRNA "vaccines" until researchers can figure out how to trigger the creation of memory T and B cells.
Now, from the Pfizer bottom line perspective, having a shot that has to be renewed every 4 - 6 months is really cool.
But since the Omicron / Xi variant has already mutated away from the sequence they're using, it's pretty stupid to get teh shot at tis point
covid-infection-mental-health-eating-disorders-studies
The same symptoms have been observed in the vaccinated. The spike protein may be the common pathogen.
----Oh, wow, if that's true that's pretty much a game killer for mRNA "vaccines" until researchers can figure out how to trigger the creation of memory T and B cells.
Greg, the game's already been changed for some. From the Berenson substack article I linked in 9:14 post:
China’s CoronaVac shot caused people to make far more T-cells targeting the coronavirus than those who received Pfizer’s mRNA shot, scientists in Hong Kong have found.
Though it is only one datapoint, the study hints the Chinese shot - which is based on older, well understood principles of vaccinology - may ultimately provide longer-lasting protection than the hastily developed mRNA jabs from Pfizer and Moderna.
The study was published in a peer-reviewed journal called Respirology in November, but has (unsurprisingly) received no attention. It offers a rare head-to-head look at the immune-system effects of the Chinese and Pfizer
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/no-wonder-china-isnt-using-mrna-shots?utm_source=url
Kai Akker said...
China’s CoronaVac shot caused people to make far more T-cells targeting the coronavirus than those who received Pfizer’s mRNA shot, scientists in Hong Kong have found.
Sorry, but as a basic matter I don't trust any information coming out of the PRC.
And from what we've seen, no "Chinese Covid vaccine" has stoped Covid from spreading in China (see the continual harsh city-wide lockdowns. you don't have to do that, if you have an effective vaccine)
So while I'll be happy to see a competitor to the mRNA shots, I'll wait until there's a potentially honest study, which is to say one not conducted by communists or under the control of a communist government, before I pass any judgement
Respirology is a John Wiley peer-reviewed publication, not a product of the PRC. But please be as sorry as you like to hear the news.
Oh and Greg -- how did I forget? We disagree. "FOAD!"
Kai Akker said...
Respirology is a John Wiley peer-reviewed publication, not a product of the PRC. But please be as sorry as you like to hear the news.
I don't care who "peer reviewed" it. I don't trust any data that comes from a PRC paper.
The "peer reviewers" aren't going to re-do the experiments to confirm that the data reported is valid, they're going to, at best, play around with the provided data a bit.
There is absolutely nothing coming out of Communist China, and that sadly now includes Hong Kong, that can be trusted.
You're free to pretend otherwise. I'm not going to
You are properly skeptical, Greg. I would like it to be true that there is a more traditional vaccine that works against this coronavirus. And I can believe that Asian science might have found it, where western medicine has so far not. To me, that is plausible. But it is far from a proven fact, and there has never yet been a successful vaccine against a coronavirus, as I understand it.
What is proven is the inadequacies of the mRNA methods. And I suspect Pfizer has pulled a couple fast ones in how it has run its testing. But that, too, remains to be seen.
Kai Akker said...
You are properly skeptical, Greg. I would like it to be true that there is a more traditional vaccine that works against this coronavirus.
It would be nice. But given how pathetic the flu shots are, I don't have any particular reason to believe that it's a problem amenable to a vaccine solution.
What is proven is the inadequacies of the mRNA methods.
For me, the open questions is "just how inadequate ARE the mRNA methods?"
If Bruce is right, and none of the T and B cells created by the mRNA vaxx get turned into Memory T/B cells, then the method is worthless until such time as we figure out how to trigger that process with an mRNA shot.
I haven't had time to dig in to that myself, so I don't know. But something that doesn't produce Memory T/B cells is not a vaccine. At best it's a "temporarily protective shot".
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा