I’m glad you reached the conclusion that the immune system …

Comment on Natural Immunity vs. Vaccines vs. the Delta Variant by Inge Anderson.

I’m glad you reached the conclusion that the immune system God designed into our bodies gives better protection against infection than vaccines do.

However, you also wrote: “The additional advantage of vaccine-based immunity is that it seems to offer more consistent immunity compared to natural immunity (i.e., some who were infected don’t gain significant immunity following infection)”

But Sean, that’s exactly what happens with vaccines – “some who were infected [got the vaccine] don’t gain significant immunity following infection [the vaccine shots].” That’s why we have “breakthrough infections.”

Regarding what I believe about the COVID vaccine, further evidence has demonstrated my belief that natural immunity is significantly better than vaccine immunity to be true.

You’re referring to “conspiracy theories” being “scary.” By that criteria, the mainstream narrative is a conspiracy theory. H’mm … maybe so .. especially considering the suppression of information and the lack of open dialogue that is normally part of a scientific approach to problem-solving. The alternative views I have investigated are actually far more hopeful and less scary than the mainstream narrative which has kept much of the world fearful and engaged in irrational and hateful behavior (e.g. wearing a mask while alone in a car or walking alone outdoors and reporting persons for not wearing a mask alone on the beach or riding a bike alone outside) for the better part of two years. So the “scary” theory is not what I subscribe to. The alternative path is lined with stories of apparently miraculous recoveries, some of which have made their way into mainstream news because of the involvement of the court system.

I have actively searched for a death proven to be directly attributable to the drug that has a history of billions of doses taken. I have found one recent claim, but no proof. I have seen a lot of scary warnings and supposed “poisonings,” but no hard evidence of harm beyond headache, nausea and stomach upset from misuse of the drug. (I really would like to see more evidence on he subject.) That can’t even be said of aspirin. I’ve read that there may have been one death attributable to the drug by someone with a genetic mutation that made the drug dangerous to the person, but I couldn’t find it. If an alternative drug is safer than aspirin and there are thousands of claimed recoveries resulting from the drug, isn’t it worth a trial, no matter what the “studies” say, considering the alternative is often death after being on a ventilator?

But it’s okay. We each can choose a path that is consistent with the best evidence as we understand it. For that matter, it seems to me that vaccination is the best course for many but not for others. Most don’t bother to understand just what these COVID vaccines do, much less do a benefit-risk analysis. But some of us do, and some of us find that avoiding the COVID vaccine, boosting our immune system and preparing for a possible infection is the best path for us. (I suspect everyone will be exposed to this corona virus sooner or later, just as we have been to other corona viruses.) What concerns me most is the lack of respect among Christians for those with opposing views. While I don’t see vaccination as a salvation matter, an attitude of forcing others into agreement with our views is not an attitude born of the Spirit of God but of the enemy. I believe we can agree on that.

Inge Anderson Also Commented

Natural Immunity vs. Vaccines vs. the Delta Variant
Sean, you’re not nearly as critical regarding the vaccine studies as you are regarding studies proving evolution, and that’s a shame. The Creator also created our immune system, and He did a better job than the creators of the vaccines did, and we should know that intuitively. But there are studies that demonstrate this.
In the meantime, the studies Roger mentioned are flawed in the narrowness of their focus on antibodies alone. They really don’t tell the story.

Your comments on the Massachusetts and UK data make sense up to the point. But the data does not confirm that vaccines offer a significant advantage, since the death rate of vaccinated and unvaccinated persons follow
a similar curve and would thus demonstrate that vaccinated and unvaccinated persons get infected and die from new variants at a similar rate. (Current vaccines seem to be most effective against the original or alpha version of the virus, and Roger analyzed studies that were done before the Delta version.) Something to also check out is how being “vaccinated” or “unvaccinated” is being determined. In many cases, persons are deemed “unvaccinated” until after 2 weeks after the single-dose vaccines or 2 weeks after the second shot of the two-dose vaccines. There’s no indication how they were counted in these analyses. It seems to me that it could make a significant difference in interpretation of the data.

You know, of course, that vaccinated folks have comparable viral loads to unvaccinated folks, when infected. So, no, vaccination does not seem to protect others.

I’m going to shamelessly plagiarize a Youtube comment to save time:
Tom S 1 month ago
Concerning the study in Nature, there caveats that one needs to take into account. 1) The natural immune response targets various portions of the viral structure/life cycle. As such, it is not exclusively focused towards the spike protein. 2) Natural antibodies may wane over time. This is well seen in those with prior hep B infections where antibodies drop below levels of “protection”, yet rebound robustly upon rechallenge. 3) The study focuses on the immune levels to spike proteins pre/post vaccination. Sure, the vaccine performs better because it’s target is entirely the spike protein. Those with natural infection show lower levels to start with, but again, that might relate to point #1. In sum, this study is valid related to how antibodies form after vaccine, but cannot really shed any light on whether such levels are relevant in previously infected individuals (point #2). Naturally infected individuals might still have excellent protection due to the complex nature of antibody formation in vivo.

Also see https://newsrescue.com/delta-variant-natural-immunity-700-greater-protection-than-shot-data-from-israeli-govt-shows/
www.science.org had a similar report when I bookmarked it Aug 27, but it now yields a 404 error. H’mm …
Their title was “Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine—but no infection parties, please”
Now, of course, you will say it was taken down because it was wrong. I have other thoughts.

Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells:

On natural immunity vs vaccines in Israel:

Much more .. but it’s way past my bedtime.

Recent Comments by Inge Anderson

Review of “The Surge” with Dr. Lela Lewis and Friends
Sean, after acquainting myself with the COVID 19 protocol including ivermectin, I took a closer look at the study you cite, and it seems that the dosage used was .3 mg/kg. The dosage used by physicians who actually use ivermectin in their protocol is .2 mg/kg for *prevention* but going up to .4mg/kg after exposure to the virus and going up to .4 to .6mg/kg for early outpatient treatment. The protocol does not rely on Ivermectin alone either. I’m sure that synergism plays a part in many treatment models.

See https://www.onedaymd.com/2021/04/ivermectin-flccc-protocol-for-covid-19.html,
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Alliance-I-MASKplus-Protocol-ENGLISH.pdf (Prevention, early outpatient protocol)
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/FLCCC-Protocols-%E2%80%93-A-Guide-to-the-Management-of-COVID-19.pdf (More complete)

Review of “The Surge” with Dr. Lela Lewis and Friends
Ok. Thanks, Sean. I admit I didn’t actually read this one. The headline caught my eye, and I thought I’d ask if you were aware of it.
And thanks for the link to a list of predatory journals. That should be most useful in checking the potential reliability of “studies” of various sorts. (It looks like it will take a bit of digging to find the actual publishers.)
Re the link below, Dr Damania (Dr Zdogg) recommends vaccination. With that said, I find this type of video more convincing than most. Their discussion of the history of meds and their relative efficacy persuades me that the participants are capable of discerning between facts and fables: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rok-9DqdOM&t=2235s (Ivermectin & Aducanumab: Do They Work? w/Dr. Vinay Prasad)

Review of “The Surge” with Dr. Lela Lewis and Friends
Thanks, Sean. i know that the Egyptian study was fraudulent, but that doesn’t necessarily negate all other evidence. I just posted another link in a separate comment. It is current.

Review of “The Surge” with Dr. Lela Lewis and Friends
Sean, are you aware of this study? https://www.scivisionpub.com/pdfs/us-covid19-vaccines-proven-to-cause-more-harm-than-good-based-on-pivotal-clinical-trial-data-analyzed-using-the-proper-scientific–1811.pdf
“US COVID-19 Vaccines Proven to Cause More Harm than Good Based on Pivotal Clinical Trial Data Analyzed Using the Proper Scientific Endpoint, “All Cause Severe Morbidity”
Classen Immunotherapies, Inc, 3637 Rockdale Road, Manchester,
J. Bart Classen, MD*

Review of “The Surge” with Dr. Lela Lewis and Friends
Sean, I can’t help but wonder: If the facts are so much on the side of the shots currently being given, why is there so much suppression of people reporting negative side effects? (There are multiple incidents of support groups with hundreds of members for people with strange side effects of the shots being de-platformed. They just suddenly disappear.) Does truth have to hide from the light? Why is there so much censorship and de-platforming of people with other opinions? Is it okay to suppress the telling of the experience of other well-qualified and well-respected personnel (before COVID!) if their experience is deemed to be “wrong”? (No, I haven’t tabulated all the incidents of censorship and suppression of expression that I have observed, but surely you know about it.) Could there be reasons why some in power wish to foster fear of COVID and the saving power of vaccines?

You have a majority opinion. Good for you! You are allowed to express yourself! But you see nothing wrong with others with different experiences not being allowed to express themselves?

Btw, here’s a report of meta-analyses of studies on Ivermectin (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/) which you seem to dismiss as a treatment. I have personally read reports of doctors treating COVID patients with Ivermectin (often as part of a multi-faceted protocol) with good results. Note that Ivermectin is said to be effective *early* in the onset of COVID, not by the time patients are on ventilators, in the process of dying.

Everything points to effectiveness of early treatment, which US doctors and hospitals have not been doing. (I believe our son in Dallas had COVID in January, but doctors refused to test him because at the time they didn’t consider fever as a COVID symptom. Later I read a list of symptoms that included quite a few of his symptoms. He had never been as sick in his life. Doctors had no treatment for him, so he stayed home, as most COVID-positive patients have been advised to do until they are ill enough to need a ventilator!! Our son recovered. Our grand-son, who probably infected him, at 18, only felt a bit under the weather for a couple days.)

I am gobsmacked that you denigrate natural body immunity developed from COVID infection in favor of the much narrower immunity conferred by the shots! I realize that that is the accepted narrative in this situation,, but the whole philosophy of vaccination depends on the reaction of the natural immune system. These shots, however, are different, in that the body is not presented with an attenuated disease organism, but with a protein, which is only a small part of the virus. Thus, naturally, the immunity is conferred only against the protein, and a small mutation in the protein will allow the virus to by-pass this narrow immunity conferred by the shots. By contrast, a natural infection by the COVID 19 virus confers a much broader immunity, including against newer strains, though the immunity against new strains will not be as complete as against the original strain. And natural immunity lasts – usually for a lifetime. Tested vaccinations depend on this immunity conferred by their use, or we would need booster shots for polio and smallpox for the rest of our lives.

And, surely you do know that even double-blind studies can be constructed in ways to produce the wanted results. Following the money trail can be helpful for truth seekers. (Pardon me, I get it: Pharmaceutical companies who fund the studies are painfully honest and would never insist on studies that demonstrate their products to be both helpful and safe!! That has never, never happened!! That’s why we must not never pay attention to “anecdotal” reports of thousands of people recovering from COVID 19 through the use of inexpensive, tested, no-longer-patented drugs!)

By the way, kudos to you for countering someone else’s account with what you see as better facts, rather than ad hominem remarks. I do appreciate it!! But could there are still some facts that you are missing – facts that might favor the minority view?