Horowitz: Do the COVID shots erase natural immunity?
Why is it that years into this pandemic, the cases continue to proliferate and people seem to get the virus multiple times? A new study might shed light on this question, revealing a disturbing business model of the pharmaceutical companies to ensure that their product is always in demand because it serves as the arsonist while pretending to be the medical equivalent of a firefighter.
A new study published as a letter in the New England Journal of Medicine reveals that not only did the Pfizer shots turn negative after five months during the Omicron wave, making a vaccinated individual more likely to get the virus, but they actually erased the immunity provided by prior infection, thereby ensuring that injected people can get COVID again. In a one-of-a-kind observational study of over 273,000 children, the study divided the groups into four camps: unvaccinated children with prior infection, unvaccinated children with no prior infection, vaccinated children with prior infection, and vaccinated children with no prior infection. What were the results?
Shockingly, the authors conclude, “The rapid decline in protection against omicron infection that was conferred by vaccination and previous infection provides support for booster vaccination.”
Except their study should demonstrate the exact opposite conclusion. Take a look at these two figures side by side:
The figure on the left (C) shows the gradual waning of immunity among unvaccinated children with prior infection. The figure on the right shows a precipitous waning of immunity among children who got COVID but then got vaccinated. Among those infected in November 2021 in the vaccine group, their level of protection went down to zero within a half-year, even though they already had the virus!
The authors suggest this is reason to constantly get boosters, but that would only make sense if boosters offered temporary protection but retained the protection accorded from prior infection. Clearly, this data shows that it slides the protection from natural infection backward, as was previously hypothesized from other academic papers.
Then again, if you look at their first two figures (A and B), they appear to show negative efficacy after five months for those without prior infection and just a slightly slower decline into negative territory among the vaccinated children who already had prior infection. In other words, either way – previously infected or not – the vaccine makes the children worse off.
This study lends credence to the findings of an NIH paper from earlier this year showing that only 40% of people with a previous infection in the vaccinated group produced anti-nucleocapsid antibodies, compared to 93% in the placebo group. The possible inhibition of N-antibodies, which are more comprehensive than the S(spike)-antibodies, might be a possible culprit for this negative efficacy even after having already been infected with the virus.
Another explanation might be original antigenic sin, which is the priming of the body to respond to new variants with an antigen to the old strain. A study from Stanford published in Cell earlier this year might shed light on this phenomenon. Researchers observed a decreased immune response to new variants among those vaccinated for the original strain because the shots are teaching the body to respond improperly. “We find that prior vaccination with Wuhan-Hu-1-like antigens followed by infection with Alpha or Delta variants gives rise to plasma antibody responses with apparent Wuhan-Hu-1-specific imprinting manifesting as relatively decreased responses to the variant virus epitopes, compared with unvaccinated patients infected with those variant viruses,” observed the Stanford pathologists. They note that the extent to which this causes original antigenic sin “will be an important topic of ongoing study.”
Important indeed! Just as with Pfizer’s oral therapeutic, Paxlovid, the more you use it, the more you need to use it! Behold the beauty of negative efficacy, rebounding of the virus, erasing natural immunity, and the promise of endless doses to stanch the bleeding.
Imagine that these shots are still being foisted upon children. Even the U.K. government quietly suspended the COVID shots for 5- to 11-year-olds. Yet we still have some cities in America requiring them for school.
What is further astounding is that even if the shots did work to prevent COVID, the upper bounds of illness severity most children present with is no worse than even the minor symptoms from the vaccine. Even putting aside the risk of serious injury, such as heart inflammation, the CDC’s own research shows that a massive percentage of toddlers who got the shots suffered what can only be described as flu-like symptoms. An unfathomable 50%-60% of children 6 months to two years of age experienced systemic reactions to one or both doses of either Pfizer or Moderna. This means they experienced some sort of illness beyond just pain at the injection site.
Furthermore, more than 15% of children 3-5 experienced a “health impact” from the second dose of Moderna, and anywhere from 5%-18% of children couldn’t go to school the next day, depending on the type and dose of shot. About 2% required medical care. Remember, this is for children and for Omicron, at a time when most already got the virus, but now the shot will give them up front COVID-like symptoms, possibly erase their prior immunity, thereby making them get the virus again, and exposing a certain percentage to life-altering adverse effects.
Could anyone possibly have manufactured a more Orwellian counterproductive vaccine if they tried on purpose?