Opinion
Featured Image
 shutterstock

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

June 4, 2021 (American Thinker) – Millions of Americans have been infected with COVID and survived. We must examine the important question of whether they are now immune to the disease or whether it is advisable for them to receive injections of one of the Emergency-Use-Authorized shots – Pfizer, Moderna, or Jansen (Johnson & Johnson).

In a news briefing on May 5, Dr. Anthony Fauci highlighted three recent studies addressing immune response with and without vaccination (Reynolds et al, Leier et al, Stamatatos et al.) and declared, “We need to get vaccinated because vaccines are highly efficacious. They are better than the traditional response you get from natural infection.” The net conclusion of the studies he cited was that, based on antibody response, vaccinated people who had a previous infection are more protected from future COVID infection than both people vaccinated but not previously infected and people who are unvaccinated but previously infected.

As these declarations of virus protection and vaccine efficacy were based on antibody response, it would make sense to check current immunity status by having antibody levels checked, but that is not what is happening. According to the CDC,

Antibody testing is not currently recommended to assess for immunity to COVID-19 following COVID-19 vaccination or to assess the need for vaccination in an unvaccinated person. Since vaccines induce antibodies to specific viral protein targets, post-vaccination serologic test results will be negative in persons without history of previous natural infection if the test used does not detect antibodies induced by the vaccine.

In other words, even though scientists typically make conclusions about potential immune response based on antibodies in the lab, checking for antibodies in the real world – in your body – is not a valid way to detect your immune status. Also, the reference to “antibodies induced by the vaccine” seems to indicate that people who have been previously infected may have a broader immune response than vaccine recipients who were not previously infected.

Is there any real data (not lab-based) demonstrating an expected immune response for people who have been previously infected compared to vaccinated people? As a matter of fact, there is. A U.K. study with over 25,000 participants published in The Lancet on April 17 showed that having had a previous infection “reduced the incidence of reinfection by at least 84%.”

Even more convincing, an Israeli study with over 6 million participants directly compared the risk of infection (or reinfection) of people who had been vaccinated with that of people who had not been vaccinated but who had survived a COVID infection. They found that the risk of infection for both groups was equivalent:

Vaccination was highly effective with overall estimated efficacy for documented infection of 92·8% (CI:[92·6, 93·0]); hospitalization 94·2% (CI:[93·6, 94·7]); severe illness 94·4% (CI:[93·6, 95·0]); and death 93·7% (CI:[92·5, 94·7]). Similarly, the overall estimated level of protection from prior SARS-CoV-2 infection for documented infection is 94·8% (CI:[94·4, 95·1]); hospitalization 94·1% (CI:[91·9, 95·7]); and severe illness 96·4% (CI:[92·5, 98·3]).

It is unbelievable that this information is not more widespread: A careful study involving over 6 million participants clearly demonstrated that having had a previous infection is equivalent to the Pfizer vaccine in preventing future COVID infections.

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: Say 'No' to COVID 'Vaccine Passports'!
  Show Petition Text
215230 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 225000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

Powerful nations of the world, including China, the UK, and Canada are discussing plans to require so-called 'vaccine passports' as a condition for travel, and possibly to restrict entry to shopping and entertainment venues.

Israel has already put in place a system to discriminate against those who choose not to take the COVID vaccine, and, in the United States, Joe Biden has signed a new executive order which could pave the way for the implementation of a 'vaccine passport' system. [See more below.]

This kind of medical dictatorship must be resisted, and therefore, we must act quickly before these authoritarian notions take root and spread!

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition to SAY NO to government 'vaccine passports.' Tell your legislators to respect your freedom not to vaccinate without fear of repercussion.

People should not have to live in fear of government retribution for refusing a vaccine which is being rushed to market by Big Pharma and their fellow-travelers in NGOs, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

It would be intolerable and immoral for the government to coerce someone, and their family, to take a COVID vaccine against their will just so they can do their weekly grocery shopping, go to a high school soccer game, travel on public transport, or visit their relatives who live in a different part of the country, or overseas.

Medical freedom must be respected in principle and also in practice.

So, it is now time that our policy-makers listen to all voices involved in this vital conversation, and start to represent those who will not tolerate being punished, restricted, or tracked for refusing an experimental vaccine.

Simply put, legislatures must begin to act as legislatures again.

Questions must be asked. Hearings and investigations must be held. And, the legislatures of each state and country must return to the business of representing the people who voted for them, assuming their rightful place as the originator of legislation.

We will no longer accept the dictates of executive branches without question. And, neither can we accept the dictates of some doctors who seem detached from reality and from science.

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition which asks national political leaders (as well as state and provincial legislators in the U.S. and Canada) to pledge to respect the rights of those who refuse a COVID vaccine, and NOT introduce 'vaccine passports,' or any other system which would discriminate on the basis of taking the COVID vaccine.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

'Biden executive order directs government to evaluate ‘feasibility’ of vaccine passports' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/biden-executive-order-directs-government-to-evaluate-feasibility-of-vaccine-passports

'China lobbies WHO to develop COVID vaccine passports for all nations' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/china-lobbies-who-to-develop-covid-vaccine-passports-for-all-nations

'UK advances plans for vaccine passports to travel, enter stores' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/uk-advances-plans-for-vaccine-passports-to-travel-enter-stores

'Canada’s health minister: Gov’t ‘working on the idea of vaccine passports’' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadas-health-minister-govt-working-on-the-idea-of-vaccine-passports

'European Commission president plans to introduce vaccine passports' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/european-commission-president-plans-to-introduce-vaccine-passports

'Israel’s ‘Green Passport’ vaccination program has created a ‘medical Apartheid,’ distraught citizens say' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/israels-green-passport-vaccination-program-has-created-a-medical-apartheid-distraught-citizens-say

'LA schools to track every kid using Microsoft’s ‘Daily Pass’ COVID app' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/la-schools-to-track-every-kid-using-microsofts-daily-pass-covid-app

  Hide Petition Text

OK, so maybe having survived COVID provides good immunity, but why not just get the shot anyway – as a booster or an insurance policy? The advisability of getting the shot depends on the risk. The CDC says that vaccines are safe and effective and that serious safety problems are rare. These conclusions are based on the Phase 1/2/3 clinical vaccine safety trials. For COVID survivors, the problem with the clinical trial results is that COVID survivors were specifically excluded from the safety trials. News reports, though, highlight that side effects are more common in COVID survivors.

As of May 21, the CDC’s own Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) lists 262,521 reports of adverse events. Here are some of the events associated with COVID vaccination included in these reports: 4,406 deaths; 14,986 hospitalizations; 6,494 blood clots and strokes; 1,598 heart attacks; and 511 miscarriages. Since previously infected people were excluded from the safety trials, we have no comprehensive safety data for them. With the clinical trial safety data for vaccination of never-infected showing very minimal adverse effects, it is possible that serious adverse effects such as heart attack, stroke, and death occur far more frequently in previously infected than in never-infected people. Maybe many, if not most of the deaths, heart attacks, and strokes reported to VAERS were in previously infected vaccine recipients. If so, what is the likelihood of an adverse event for a previously infected person? We just don’t know.

Here is what we do know: Serious studies in the U.K. and Israel show that a previous infection reduces the infection risk to a level equivalent to the vaccine. No large-scale studies document the safety of the vaccine for previously infected people, and anecdotal evidence indicates a higher risk of complications for COVID survivors compared to non-infected. If you are a COVID survivor and feel pressure to “just get the shot” so that you will not be a second-class citizen, think about this:

  1. The vaccine manufacturers have been indemnified and have zero liability for any harm or death that may come to you from the vaccine.

  2. OSHA has announced they won’t hold employers liable for vaccine-related injuries if they mandate them for their employees.

  3. The complete burden of liability falls on you, the vaccine recipient, which you acknowledge in an informed consent declaration.

A portion of Walgreen’s consent form is here:

. . . I understand the risks and benefits associated with the above vaccine(s) and have received, read and/or had explained to me the EUA Fact Sheet on the vaccine(s) I have elected to receive. I also acknowledge that I have had a chance to ask questions and that such questions were answered to my satisfaction . . . On behalf of the patient, the patient’s heirs and personal representatives, I hereby release and hold harmless each applicable Provider, its staff, agents, successors, divisions, affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, contractors and employees from any and all liabilities or claims whether known or unknown arising out of, in connection with, or in any way related to the administration of the vaccine(s) listed above . . .

By signing the consent form, you declare that you know the risks and benefits and that you personally assume all responsibility for the effects of the vaccine. Evidence presented in this article indicates that for previously infected people, there are real risks from being injected with the vaccine, and the benefits, if any, are minimal. This may not be part of the “conventional wisdom” but it is echoed by respected doctors such as Florian Krammer from Cedars Sinai, Marty Makary from Johns Hopkins, and in a very thorough manner by respected Dr. Peter McCullough in this video. Beware of people insisting you, “get the shot” without addressing the safety vs. efficacy for your particular health history. They do not have your best interests at heart. They are not responsible for you and your family – you are.

Cassandra Chambers is a pseudonym.

Published with permission from the American Thinker.

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.