Horowitz: New study shows more effective immunity from prior infection than in vaccinated among organ transplant recipients



Few people are as immunocompromised and vulnerable to COVID as solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs). Those are the people whom the medical establishment suggests should get shots and boosters early and often — even if they have to "mix and match" different variations of the shots. However, given the fact that these people are also the most vulnerable to complications from the pathogenic spike protein of the shots, why are doctors not first making sure they don't have natural immunity? A new study demonstrates that it is criminal to assume the risks of vaccination for SOTRs with prior infection.

We already have at least 122 studies attesting to the durability of immunity from prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, many of which clearly show that immunity to be much stronger and longer-lasting than vaccine-mediated immunity. However, a new study from researchers at Ajmera Transplant Centre, University Health Network, in Toronto, Canada, demonstrates that even organ transplant patients have robust T cell immunity from prior infection, much greater than those who are vaccinated.

"Vaccinated SOTRs mounted significantly lower proportions of S-specific polyfunctional CD4 + T-cells after two doses, relative to unvaccinated SOTRs with prior COVID-19," concluded the authors of the study, published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases. "Together, these results suggest that SOTR generate robust T-cell responses following natural infection that correlate with disease severity but generate comparatively lower T-cell responses following mRNA vaccination."

Rather than studying the less meaningful antibody responses, the researchers studied T cell responses in three cohorts at Toronto's University Health Network (UHN) Transplant Centre: SOTRs who had prior infection but were not subsequently vaccinated, SOTRs who were vaccinated 4-6 weeks prior to the study but never had the virus, and a control group of regular non-SOTRs with prior COVID. While the non-immunocompromised naturally immune cohort obviously mounted the greatest T cell response, the study still found that SOTRs with prior immunity had robust antigen-specific helper (CD4) and killer (CD8) T cells. Overall, the researchers found a detectable antigen-specific T-cell response in SOTRs with prior immunity at a 41.4% greater frequency than in the vaccine-only group. Also, most of those in the vaccine cohort received the Moderna shot, which is believed to be more potent than the Pfizer shot.

The findings of this study are a bombshell, because they suggest, at least in the short run, that even the most immunocompromised people with prior infection mount a serious antigen-specific T cell response that, unlike the vaccines, targets the nucleocapsid and membrane of the virus, not just the spike protein. While there is no long-term follow up in this study of SOTRs, it is important to remember that there are endless studies showing long-term and likely lifetime immunity from prior infection in the general healthy population. At the same time, we already have numerous studies and the reality of the current hard data from fully vaccinated countries hit hard with a new spread that the vaccine-mediated immunity completely wears off even for healthy people after six months.

Moreover, studies have already shown that the immunity conveyed by the shots might be particularly short-lived for the immunocompromised. For example, a study from Puerto Rico's Department of Health recently found the shots to be 0% effective in those 85 years and older after 150-200 days after vaccination. A massive Swedish study of half the country's population showed "notable waning among men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities" after about six months.

The results of the SOTR study raise some serious questions:

  1. How can our government continue to ignore the power of natural immunity if it is this potent even in organ transplant recipients?
  2. How can we continue denying organ transplants to those who don't get the shot when some of them already had the virus and the shot itself doesn't work much?
  3. What is our solution to the immunocompromised? The shots barely work and will likely not work at all with the new variants, yet they are most dangerous to those people. They have never even been tested in people with kidney failure, much less an organ transplant. Are they supposed to live in their homes forever and atrophy with no safe and effective solution? Why is the government not studying the idea of using preventives like ivermectin, nitazoxanide, or monoclonal antibodies? A recent study of the general population showed that Regeneron given pre-emptively could work for at least eight months of protection without any of the severe risks that are associated with the failed shots. Our government won't even advise these people to use Betadine nasal spray after being around people.

Just how vociferously is our government working to deny natural immunity? At the other end of the health spectrum from elderly transplant patients are healthy children. As scandalous as it is to risk the shot on healthy kids, it's unfathomable to push the shot on kids who also had prior infection. Already in March, the government estimated that 42% of children 5-17 had prior infection, and that was long before the "Delta wave," which was more transmissible and seemed to infect kids more than the ancestral strain. We all assumed that a solid majority would have been infected by now and were waiting for new data to be published. But finally the CDC has updated its numbers, and you will never guess the new data. Immunity magically slid backward!

CDC finally updated their burden estimates... and they bizarrely find that the percent of age 0 to 17 ever-infected fell from 36.7% through May to just 29.9% through September.\n\nEven more bizarre: they claim a higher % of symptomatic COVID than infection. Literally impossible.pic.twitter.com/B3ujqf5Csw

— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) 1636496130

Although they don't have new numbers isolated for 5- to 17-year-olds (excluding really young kids and babies who were generally more isolated), their numbers for the 0-17 cohort have slid backward from 36.7% through May to just 29.9% through September ... after Delta! This makes no sense because the media and our government were panicking about this wave hitting the schools much harder. For those with children in schools, we can attest to that fact that last year barely any kids got the virus, whereas this year more seemed to get it (although still mildly) and, unlike before, even spread it in the classrooms to some degree. There is simply no way that a majority of children are not already immune.

This is yet another example of the government retracting a talking point, data point, or study once our side begins using it.

What will it take for people to wake up and realize we are being lied to?

Horowitz: It’s time for candidates and politicians to boycott Pfizer’s toxic PAC donations



This is Pfizer's country. We merely live in it.

Many of us have forgotten that the impetus behind the infamous 2005 Kelo v. New London court case, in which the principle of private-use eminent domain was established for none other than Pfizer. In other words, 16 years ago, Pfizer established the principle of "your property, our choice." Now the company has established the principle of "your body, our choice." What we have witnessed the past year is that no matter how illogical, dangerous, and immoral Pfizer's mandate is on the American people, now including pushing a dangerous shot on young kids who clearly don't need to assume such risk, whatever Pfizer wants, Pfizer gets. There is a reason for it. The company has bought out the politicians in both parties.

Pfizer now has 92 lobbyists in Washington split between the two parties, not to mention high-roller PR firms to help with the (political) science. Pfizer's political action committee donated to 228 federal lawmakers at a price tag of over $4 million. Although people think of doctors and scientists when Pfizer comes to mind, the company likely has as many politicians working for it. The National Pulse found 74 known former White House staffers and staff of members and committees in Congress controlled by both parties now working for the Big Pharma god. Pfizer spent over $13 million on lobbying expenditures, not to mention buying up the airwaves to the point that news agencies cannot report a negative word about the company.

You can definitely trust these news outlets to tell you the truth about Pfizer products. https://t.co/gjTpZpRvGV

— Tyler Cardon (@TyCardon) 1634696302.0

In other words, Pfizer is now strong enough that it could blatantly poison our children with myocarditis and other known and unknown side effects – with zero absolute risk reduction of COVID – and will get away with it. Pfizer's wish is not only the government's command, but its mandate on we the people. The only way to break its impervious grip over our lives and bodies is to make it taboo for any candidate to take money from the pharma giant. Conservatives must make Republican primary candidates pledge never to take money again from Pfizer as a candidate or an incumbent.

Over three decades ago, Americans for Tax Reform created the famous no-tax pledge, barring candidates who sign the document from ever voting for a net tax increase. Such a clear and simple message resulted in the GOP essentially adhering to that one promise, despite violating every other facet of conservatism for decades. Republicans are now low-tax socialists and globalists, but until the bitter end they will all support low taxes. Perhaps it's time for a "No Pfizer Pledge" in which all candidates will swear off all money, lobbying, or meeting with this barbaric organization that now has more power than any elected entity.

Even if one is a dogmatic supporter of these shots and completely ignores all of the death, destruction, and viral enhancement they have created, nobody alive can look you in the eye and suggest that the drive to inject young children is driven by any shred of morality. Putting aside the immoral FDA policy of allowing Pfizer to control its own destiny without third-party audits, the company's own data showed zero cases of serious illness in both the trial and control groups in its study of 5- to 11-year-olds. There is zero benefit against serious illness, which is the only reason to vaccinate children, especially with an experimental and novel technology that has already caused numerous heart ailments in young boys and men. Moreover, roughly half the children already got the virus in some form, making any degree of risk from the shot unjustified, yet there is no desire to subject them to testing before the shot. How can Pfizer possibly justify emergency use for an ailment that its own trial showed caused no serious illness in any young child?

Now, let's look at the safety side. Despite unprecedented cases of myocarditis among young males, Pfizer admits on page 11 of its FDA briefing document that "the current clinical development program is too small to detect any potential risks of myocarditis associated with vaccination" and that it will take five years to "evaluate long term sequelae of post-vaccination myocarditis/pericarditis." Incidentally, despite the small sample size (p. 47), one child in the study group did develop Henoch–Schönlein purpura, an immunologically mediated inflammation of the small blood vessels.

How is it moral to turn the children into de facto animal trials? Come back to us in five years and you can get authorization for your shot. Then again, we already have the result of the immoral experimentation on teenagers from the past half-year. According to one study (Hoeg et al.), "for boys 12-15 without medical comorbidities receiving their second mRNA vaccination dose," the rate of hospitalization for myocarditis was "3.7 to 6.1 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk as of August 21, 2021." That is just from one side effect! How are the executives not in jail, the shots not suspended, and politicians not completely swearing off any relationship with these companies?

It is criminal to do a trial with such a small sample size when it will likely take a million shots to even find a supposed benefit from the vaccine while there are myocarditis incidents among males every few thousand!

WE CANNOT RISK vaccinating 5 to 11 year-olds1 in ~5,200 12 to 17 yo males in Ontario are experiencing myocarditis… https://t.co/mLlbHtCIlV

— Kelly Brown (@rubiconcapital_) 1634945008.0

Incidentally, a sample size of just two young children who happened to be mistakenly given the Pfizer COVID shot at a Walgreens in Evansville, Indiana, instead of the flu shot resulted in both of them suffering from heart conditions. While it is true that those children were given the full adult dose, the fact that we saw heart issues right away from it doesn't exactly reflect positively on the entire concoction, regardless of the dose.

The signals of likely vaccine-related deaths stemming from heart conditions in young males are jarring enough to suspend these vaccines, yet they are responding to those signals by mandating them and then pushing them on even younger children. According to an analysis by the Hart Group, excess mortality in the U.K. for 15- to 19-year-olds has spiked as much as 47% above the baseline level since May 1, right around when teens and young adults began to get vaccinated. The deaths also spiked among 20- to 29-year-olds and in both groups were dominated by males. Concomitantly, they also observed "a clear rise in ambulance cardiac and respiratory arrest calls in England and ambulance calls for people becoming unconscious starting from May 2021."

The rate of increase in excess deaths among young adults, while slightly higher at the beginning of the year because of COVID (and the likely cascading effects of depression, isolation, and drugs), seemed to skyrocket during the spring and summer when younger adults were mass vaccinated. This is the trend in both Europe and the U.S.

⚰️ Excess Deaths ⚰️Euromomo: 🇪🇺🇬🇧🇨🇭🇳🇴🇮🇱🇺🇦👨👩 Younger Adults 👩👨Why the excess ⚰️ in these countries in 2021? 🤔… https://t.co/9hGqQM6iFv

— Miss Conceptions (@MConceptions) 1634898392.0

Excess mortality in young adults in Europe and the USA.Something really wrong is going on in 2021 vs 2020. https://t.co/oKcMooL4fC

— Covid19Crusher (@Covid19Crusher) 1635068478.0

Again, we are talking about a group of people who, to begin with, are at extremely low risk from this virus, putting aside the fact that there are much safer treatments that don't cause blood clotting and heart disorders.

Not surprisingly, sales for Pfizer's drug for treating myocarditis, Vyndamax, are up 77%.

Sales of Pfizer drug for myocarditis treatment, Vyndamax, are up 77% in the US. strong cross sell strategy, dest… https://t.co/fI7EVlgcZ1

— Real Developments (@pdubdev) 1635112292.0

It is simply criminal for Pfizer to be pushing this shot on children, and it is shameful for any politician to be associated with the company. Even with just 1% of adverse events being reported to VAERS, there are currently a total of 818,044 adverse events , including 117,399 reports of serious injuries and 17,128 reports of deaths from all of the COVID vaccines together.

Evidently, Pfizer believes in the adage of Karl Marx, "The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope." But it doesn't have to be this way. Not if there is at least one political party not bought out by this truly evil empire. Any takers?

Horowitz: UK report raises concerns about suboptimal vaccine antibodies erasing natural immunity



In many areas of life, half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. But when it comes to vaccines, the opposite is true. Half-baked antibodies injected throughout the entire population can make the virus even stronger and negate people's natural immunity. Thus, all the defenses of the leaky vaccine suggesting that it at least conveys "some" protection are actually extremely concerning, a point driven home by a nugget in the most recent surveillance report from Public Health England (PHE).

On page 23 of PHE's "COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report Week 42," British health officials report a shocking finding. They believe their serology tests are underestimating the number of people with prior infection due to "recent observations from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data that N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination." In other words, the vaccine might be reducing the all-important N antibodies that one generates from natural infection. Kudos to former NYT reporter Alex Berenson for discovering this important point.

Until now, we've been operating under the assumption that those with prior infection don't need the vaccine to boost immunity and taking the shots would only expose them to the growing risk of side effects. However, what if the shots are actually sliding back the natural immunity generated in those with previous infection? What if that is related to the macro concern that a narrow-spectrum vaccine with suboptimal antibodies that only recognize the "S" (spike) protein of the virus but not the "N" (nucleocapsid) of the virus will cause B cells in those with the vaccine to learn to produce only S antibodies, which are slower-acting and less sterilizing (don't stop transmission) than N antibodies, which are faster-acting and are more effective in their protection against the virus?

It's not like we weren't confronted with some other warning signs that the vaccine could perhaps negate some of the immunity acquired from prior infection. In March, researchers from Mount Sinai in New York and Hospital La Paz in Madrid posted a preprint study indicating that at least the second Pfizer shot might weaken T cell immunity. In a shocking discovery after monitoring a group of vaccinated people both with and without prior infection, they found "in individuals with a pre-existing immunity against SARS-CoV-2, the second vaccine dose not only fail to boost humoral immunity but determines a contraction of the spike-specific T cell response." They also note that other research has shown "the second vaccination dose appears to exert a detrimental effect in the overall magnitude of the spike-specific humoral response in COVID-19 recovered individuals."

Thus, mass vaccinating with leaky suboptimal antibody production could serve as a Trojan horse and make people more susceptible to an ever-enhanced virus. It's not like we had no warning about the possibility of viral enhancement through waning and suboptimal vaccine-mediated antibodies. On page 52 of Pfizer's "Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for an Unapproved Product Review Memorandum," it is admitted that antibody dependent disease enhancement was a possibility in the long run with waning efficacy.

"However, risk of vaccine-enhanced disease over time, potentially associated with waning immunity, remains unknown and needs to be evaluated further in ongoing clinical trials and in observational studies that could be conducted following authorization and/or licensure," write the FDA regulators in the memo. In the April 9, 2021, follow-up memorandum (p. 40), the FDA follows up with the same concern.

Well, here we are today, and we now know this vaccine wanes so badly that they are pushing boosters for everyone, as transmission rates among the vaccinated begin to overtake the unvaccinated. At the time of the April FDA memorandum, it was claimed that the vaccines were not waning. But several months later, they leaked so much that now the CDC is not even ruling out the possibility of deeming those without booster shots "unvaccinated," just like in Israel. So, if the vaccine-mediated antibodies wane beyond what anyone could have imagined, and we are seeing with our own eyes that the virus is getting worse instead of better, how is the concern of viral enhancement not even entertained?

According to PHE data, 86% of all U.K. residents over age 12 have received at least one shot, including nearly everyone in a vulnerable age bracket. Yet the summer and early fall curve, as presented by Worldometer, has blown out the magnitude of the case curve last year when nobody was vaccinated, and the daily numbers are reaching close to their winter peak.

The case rates per capita are now higher among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated in every age cohort over 30.

Oct 21, 2021: UK CoV2 infection rates among the fully vaxxed remain higher than those of the unvaxxed in all age co… https://t.co/hQqCXdRzc0

— Don Wolt (@tlowdon) 1634880346.0

According to the PHE data (p.16), among those who died within 60 days of testing positive for COVID over the past three weeks in the U.K., 83% of them were fully vaccinated. Some of those deaths were obviously incidental, and among the most vulnerable groups, the vaccination rate is over 90%, but still, something is not right. This is not what we would expect from any minimally effective vaccine.

Consider the fact that they are now taking young children who are not vulnerable to this virus at all and who will produce impervious lifelong natural immunity, and aside from injecting them with numerous side effects, perhaps their natural immunity will also be mitigated by the suboptimal antibodies. Why on earth would anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty make these shots available (much less mandate them) to young children?

Behold the power of a leaky vaccine. When it comes to vaccines, half a loaf is not better than no loaf; it's a poisonous loaf.