<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Is that the talking point your Big Pharma owned summary journal
provides you when hard irrefutable evidence is presented that
natural immunity is better than the covid19 quasi vaccine? Art<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/16/21 1:18 p.m., 2docp 2docp
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:625860927.1016499.1634415522279.JavaMail.open-xchange@torgui01">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Here are just a few infectious diseases that we, thank God, no
longer rely on "natural immunity": Small pox, polio,
diphtheria, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox,
yellow fever, tetanus, typhoid, typhus, meningococcus, H.
influenza. Paul.</p>
<blockquote type="cite"> ---------- Original Message ---------- <br>
From: Arthur Blomme via craic
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:craic@lists.integralshift.ca"><craic@lists.integralshift.ca></a> <br>
Date: October 16, 2021 at 4:02 PM <br>
<br>
<p><span id="bcr_rptStory_cslStory_4">Hi all</span></p>
<p><span id="bcr_rptStory_cslStory_4">The question I keep asking
myself is how can you believe anything the CBC says if they
are so biased in their presentation of Covid19 science. <br>
</span></p>
<p><span id="bcr_rptStory_cslStory_4">For the past several
months the CBC has demonstrated collusion with big Pharma by
censoring information that does not support the need for
vaccine mandates. While natural immunity has been considered
the consequence of surviving all infectious diseases to this
point, in Canada this logic is denied and not given due
consideration by Big Pharma, the CBC and most other
mainstream media sources. In Canada, if you survive the
disease and acquire natural immunity you will still be
mandated to get both jabs to save your job. </span><span
id="bcr_rptStory_cslStory_4"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span id="bcr_rptStory_cslStory_4">The general belief seems
to be that surviving Covid does not give you immunity;
despite a plethora of scientific studies from reputable
journals demonstrating the superiority of natural immunity.
As I have said repeatedly, the only data presented in the
media is data that support the thesis that vaccines are our
only salvation from this horrible disease. No nuances
allowed. This policy is extremely prejudicial to the
survivors of Covid19. </span><span
id="bcr_rptStory_cslStory_4"><span
id="bcr_rptStory_cslStory_4">In addition to having the
best protection available, those with natural immunity
also face higher stakes when taking the COVID shot, as
their preexisting immunity makes them more prone to side
effects</span>. </span> <a id="lnkReference"
target="_blank"
href="https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/11/3/249/htm"
moz-do-not-send="true">Life 2021; 11(3): 249, Discussion</a></p>
<p><span id="bcr_rptStory_cslStory_4"><span
id="bcr_FormattedBody">Moreover, the dogmatic ‘get
vaccinated’ position constitutes a lack of honesty about
the data . The policy bias in favor of vaccines ignores
many other facts as well, such as the relative risks of
vaccines, especially for the young.</span></span></p>
<p><span id="bcr_rptStory_cslStory_4"><span
id="bcr_FormattedBody"><em>Below is a list of some of the
studies that indicate the comparative effectiveness of
natural immunity over covid19 vaccines: <br>
</em></span></span></p>
<blockquote> An Israeli study <sup style="font-size: 10px;"><span
id="edn4">4</span></sup> that included 700,000 people,
posted August 25, 2021, on the preprint server medRxiv, found
those with prior SARS-CoV-2 infections were 27 times less
likely to develop symptomatic infection for a second time,
compared to those who were vaccinated.
<ul id="footnote-references2">
<li><sup style="font-size: 10px;"><span id="ednref4"><span
id="lblReferenceNo">4</span></span></sup> <a
id="lnkReference" target="_blank"
href="https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1"
moz-do-not-send="true">medRxiv August 25, 2021</a></li>
</ul>
<div class="MidProductAd"> <br>
</div>
<p>A June 11, 2021, Public Health England report<sup
style="font-size: 10px;"><span id="edn5">5</span></sup>
also showed that as a hospital patient, you are six times
more likely to die of the COVID Delta variant if you are
fully vaccinated, than if you are not vaccinated at all.</p>
<ul id="footnote-references2">
<li><sup style="font-size: 10px;"><span id="ednref5"><span
id="lblReferenceNo">5</span></span></sup> <a
id="lnkReference" target="_blank"
href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/993879/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_15.pdf"
moz-do-not-send="true">Public Health England Briefing 15
June 3, 2021</a></li>
</ul>
<p>October 4, 2021, Project Veritas released a video<sup
style="font-size: 10px;"><span id="edn6">6</span></sup>
(below) in which Pfizer scientist Nick Karl states, “When
somebody is naturally immune ... they probably have more
antibodies against the virus,” correctly explaining that
“When you actually get the virus, you’re going to start
producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus
... So, your antibodies are probably better at that point
than the [COVID] vaccination.” <br>
</p>
<ul id="footnote-references2">
<li><sup style="font-size: 10px;"><span id="ednref6"><span
id="lblReferenceNo">6</span></span></sup> <a
id="lnkReference" target="_blank"
href="https://www.projectveritas.com/news/pfizer-scientist-your-antibodies-are-probably-better-than-the-vaccination/"
moz-do-not-send="true">Project Veritas October 4, 2021</a></li>
</ul>
<p> <br>
</p>
<p>Yet another senior associate scientist at Pfizer, Chris
Croce, is caught saying that “You’re protected for longer”
if you have natural COVID antibodies compared to the COVID
vaccine. Croce adds that he works “for an evil corporation”
that is “run on COVID money.</p>
<ul id="footnote-references2">
<li><sup style="font-size: 10px;"><span id="ednref7"><span
id="lblReferenceNo">7</span></span></sup> <a
id="lnkReference" target="_blank"
href="https://www.reddit.com/r/LockdownSkepticism/comments/oy84pe/covid19_and_immunity/"
moz-do-not-send="true">Reddit COVID-19 and Immunity</a></li>
</ul>
<p>”Science Immunology October 2020 found that “RBD-targeted
antibodies are <span id="bcr_FormattedBody">excellent
markers of previous and recent infection, that
differential isotype measurements can help distinguish
between recent and older infections, and that IgG
responses persist over the rst few months after infection
and are highly correlated with neutralizing antibodies.”</span></p>
<ul id="footnote-references2">
<li><sup style="font-size: 10px;"><span id="ednref8"><span
id="lblReferenceNo">8</span></span></sup> <a
id="lnkReference" target="_blank"
href="https://immunology.sciencemag.org/content/5/52/eabe0367"
moz-do-not-send="true">Science Immunology October 8,
2020; 5(52): eabe0367</a></li>
</ul>
<p><span id="bcr_FormattedBody">The BMJ January 2021<sup
style="font-size: 10px;"><span id="edn9">9</span></sup>
concluded that “Of 11, 000 health care workers who had
proved evidence of infection during the first wave of the
pandemic in the U.K. between March and April 2020, none
had symptomatic reinfection in the second wave of the
virus between October and November 2020.”</span></p>
<br>
<span id="bcr_FormattedBody"></span>
<ul id="footnote-references2">
<li><sup style="font-size: 10px;"><span id="ednref9"><span
id="lblReferenceNo">9</span></span></sup> <a
id="lnkReference" target="_blank"
href="https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n99"
moz-do-not-send="true">BMJ 2021;372:n99</a></li>
</ul>
<p> <br>
</p>
<p>Science February 2021<sup style="font-size: 10px;"><span
id="edn10">10</span></sup> reported that “Substantial
immune memory is generated after COVID-19, involving all
four major types of immune memory [antibodies, memory B
cells, memory CD8+ T cells, and memory CD4+ T cells]. About
95% of subjects retained immune memory at ~6 months after
infection.<br>
</p>
<p> <br>
</p>
<p><span id="bcr_FormattedBody">Circulating antibody titters
were not predictive of T cell memory. Thus, simple
seriological tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies do not
reflect the richness and durability of immune memory to
SARS-CoV-2. A 2,800-person study found no symptomatic
reinfections over a ~118-day window, and a 1,246-person
study observed no symptomatic reinfections over 6
months.”symptomatic reinfections over 6 months.”</span></p>
<ul id="footnote-references2">
<li><sup style="font-size: 10px;"><span id="ednref10"><span
id="lblReferenceNo">10</span></span></sup> <a
id="lnkReference" target="_blank"
href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6529/eabf4063"
moz-do-not-send="true">Science February 5, 2021;
371(6529): eabf4</a><span id="bcr_FormattedBody"></span></li>
</ul>
<span id="bcr_FormattedBody">A February 2021 study posted on
the prepublication server medRxiv<sup style="font-size:
10px;"><span id="edn11">11</span></sup> concluded that
“Natural infection appears to elicit strong protection
against reinfection with an efficacy ~95% for at least seven
months.”</span> <br>
<ul>
<li><a id="lnkReference" target="_blank"
href="https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.15.21249731v2"
moz-do-not-send="true">medrxiv February 8, 2021 DOI:
10.1101/2021.01.15.21249731</a></li>
</ul>
<p><span id="bcr_FormattedBody"></span><span
id="bcr_FormattedBody">An April 2021 study posted on
medRxiv<sup style="font-size: 10px;"><span id="edn12">12</span></sup>
reported “the overall estimated level of protection from
prior SARS-CoV-2 infection for documented infection is
94.8%; hospitalization 94.1%; and severe illness 96·4%.
Our results question the need to vaccinate
previously-infected individuals.”</span></p>
<ul id="footnote-references2">
<li><sup style="font-size: 10px;"><span id="ednref12"><span
id="lblReferenceNo">12</span></span></sup> <a
id="lnkReference" target="_blank"
href="https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v1.full.pdf"
moz-do-not-send="true">medRxiv April 24, 2021 (PDF)</a></li>
</ul>
<p><span id="bcr_FormattedBody"></span><span
id="bcr_FormattedBody">Another April 2021 study posted on
the preprint server BioRxiv<sup style="font-size: 10px;"><span
id="edn13">13</span></sup> concluded that “following a
typical case of mild COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T
cells not only persist but continuously differentiate in a
coordinated fashion well into convalescence, into a state
characteristic of long-lived, self-renewing memory.”</span></p>
<ul id="footnote-references2">
<li><sup style="font-size: 10px;"><span id="ednref13"><span
id="lblReferenceNo">13</span></span></sup> <a
id="lnkReference" target="_blank"
href="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.28.441880v1"
moz-do-not-send="true">BioRxiv April 29, 2021 DOI:
10.1101/2021.04.28.441880</a></li>
</ul>
<p><br>
<span id="bcr_FormattedBody"></span><span
id="bcr_FormattedBody">A May 2020 report in the journal
Immunity<sup style="font-size: 10px;"><span id="edn14">14</span></sup>
confirmed that SARS-CoV-2-specific neutralizing antibodies
are detected in COVID-19 convalescent subjects, as well as
cellular immune responses. Here, they found that
neutralizing antibody titers do correlate with the number
of virus-specific T cells.</span></p>
<ul id="footnote-references2">
<li><sup style="font-size: 10px;"><span id="ednref14"><span
id="lblReferenceNo">14</span></span></sup> <a
id="lnkReference" target="_blank"
href="https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(20)30181-3?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS1074761320301813%3Fshowall%3Dtrue"
moz-do-not-send="true">Immunity June 16, 2020; 52(6):
971-977.E3</a></li>
</ul>
<p><br>
<span id="bcr_FormattedBody"><span id="bcr_FormattedBody">A
May 2021 Nature article<sup style="font-size: 10px;"><span
id="edn15">15</span></sup> found SARS-CoV-2
infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells,
which are a crucial source of protective antibodies.
Even after mild infection, anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein
antibodies were detectable beyond 11 months’
post-infection.</span></span></p>
<ul id="footnote-references2">
<li><sup style="font-size: 10px;"><span id="ednref15"><span
id="lblReferenceNo">15</span></span></sup> <a
id="lnkReference" target="_blank"
href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4"
moz-do-not-send="true">Nature 2021; 595: 421-425</a></li>
</ul>
<p><span id="bcr_FormattedBody">A May 2021 study in E Clinical
Medicine<sup style="font-size: 10px;"><span id="edn16">16</span></sup>
found “antibody detection is possible for almost a year
post-natural infection of COVID-19.” According to the
authors, “Based on current evidence, we hypothesize that
antibodies to both S and N-proteins after natural
infection may persist for longer than previously thought,
thereby providing evidence of sustainability that may
influence post-pandemic planning.”</span><br>
</p>
<ul id="footnote-references2">
<li><sup style="font-size: 10px;"><span id="ednref16"><span
id="lblReferenceNo">16</span></span></sup> <a
id="lnkReference" target="_blank"
href="https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2589-5370(21)00182-6"
moz-do-not-send="true">E Clinical Medicine 2021; 36:
100902 (PDF)</a></li>
</ul>
<p> <br>
</p>
<p><span id="bcr_FormattedBody">Cure-Hub data<sup
style="font-size: 10px;"><span id="edn17">17</span></sup>
confirm that while COVID shots can generate higher
antibody levels than natural infection, this does not mean
vaccine-induced immunity is more protective. Importantly,
natural immunity confers much wider protection as your
body recognizes all five proteins of the virus and not
just one. With the COVID shot, your body only recognizes
one of these proteins, the spike protein.</span></p>
<ul id="footnote-references2">
<li><sup style="font-size: 10px;"><span id="ednref17"><span
id="lblReferenceNo">17</span></span></sup> <a
id="lnkReference" target="_blank"
href="https://www.cure-hub.com/post/covid-19-natural-infection-vs-vaccine-immunity"
moz-do-not-send="true">Cure-hub June 11, 2021</a></li>
</ul>
<p> <br>
</p>
<p>A June 2021 Nature article<sup style="font-size: 10px;"><span
id="edn18">18</span></sup> points out that “Wang et al.
show that, between 6 and 12 months after infection, the
concentration of neutralizing antibodies remains unchanged.
That the acute immune reaction extends even beyond six
months is suggested by the authors’ analysis of
SARS-CoV-2-specific memory B cells in the blood of the
convalescent individuals over the course of the year.</p>
<p>These memory B cells continuously enhance the reactivity of
their SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies through a process known
as somatic hypermutation. The good news is that the evidence
thus far predicts that infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces
long-term immunity in most individuals.”</p>
<ul id="footnote-references2">
<li><sup style="font-size: 10px;"><span id="ednref18"><span
id="lblReferenceNo">18</span></span></sup> <a
id="lnkReference" target="_blank"
href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01557-z"
moz-do-not-send="true">Nature June 14, 2021</a></li>
</ul>
<p><span id="bcr_FormattedBody">Another June Nature paper<sup
style="font-size: 10px;"><span id="edn19">19</span></sup>
concluded that “In the absence of vaccination antibody
reactivity [to the receptor binding domain (RBD) of
SARS-CoV-2], neutralizing activity and the number of
RBD-specific memory B cells remain relatively stable from
6 to 12 months after infection.” According to the authors,
the data suggest “immunity in convalescent individuals
will be very long lasting.”</span></p>
<ul id="footnote-references2">
<li><sup style="font-size: 10px;"><span id="ednref19"><span
id="lblReferenceNo">19</span></span></sup> <a
id="lnkReference" target="_blank"
href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34126625/"
moz-do-not-send="true">Nature July 2021; 595(7867):
426-431</a></li>
</ul>
<p><span id="bcr_FormattedBody"><span id="bcr_FormattedBody">A
September 2021 paper<sup style="font-size: 10px;"><span
id="edn20">20</span></sup> in the European Journal
of Immunology assessed the persistence of serum
antibodies following wild-type SARS-CoV-2 infection at 8
and 13 months after diagnosis in 367 patients. At 13
months, neutralizing antibodies against the wild-type
virus persisted in 89% of cases, and SARS-CoV-2 spike
immunoglobulin G (S-IgG) persisted in 97% of cases.</span></span></p>
<ul id="footnote-references2">
<li><sup style="font-size: 10px;"><span id="ednref20"><span
id="lblReferenceNo">20</span></span></sup> <a
id="lnkReference" target="_blank"
href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eji.202149535"
moz-do-not-send="true">European Journal of Immunology
September 24, 2021 DOI: 10.1002/eji.202149535</a></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p> <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Peace <br>
</p>
<p>Art Blomme</p>
<p><br>
<span id="bcr_FormattedBody"></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
_______________________________________________ <br>
craic mailing list <br>
To send message: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:craic@integralshift.ca">craic@integralshift.ca</a> <br>
To manage Subscription:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.integralshift.ca/listinfo.cgi/craic-integralshift.ca">http://lists.integralshift.ca/listinfo.cgi/craic-integralshift.ca</a>
<br>
To Unsubscribe send email to: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:craic-unsubscribe@integralshift.ca">craic-unsubscribe@integralshift.ca</a>
<br>
To Subscribe send email to: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:craic-subscribe@integralshift.ca">craic-subscribe@integralshift.ca</a> </blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>