Natural Immunity, the ‘Vaccine’ That Destroys it, and the Crime Against Humanity These Mandates are - Part 2
“The Red Cross said vaccinated people can't donate plasma because the shot counteracts existing antibodies.” - NBC News affiliate Komu 8, February 28, 2021
According to the large body of compelling available scientific evidence, natural immunity acquired from exposure to ‘Covid19’ is extremely strong and effective, robust, long-lasting, and offers far more comprehensive and durable protection than any ‘protection’ that may be offered by these experimental mRNA injections. There is also evidence suggesting that the Covid ‘vaccines’ suppress, deplete or destroy the main components of this far superior natural immunity acquired during infection, accompanied by a coverup, a whole lot of propaganda, and together it all tells a story that needs to be heard.
Injection ‘wipes out’ naturally acquired antibodies or otherwise renders them ineffective at battling coronavirus, Red Cross policy reveals, and the propaganda campaign that ensued to bury this story
In February, the American Red Cross stopped accepting convalescent plasma donations exclusively from prospective donors who had been vaccinated, as documented in an archived version of their page on blood donations from the time, because the blood was ineffective at helping battle the ‘virus’ in ‘Covid19’ patients. “Individuals who have received a COVID-19 vaccine are not able to donate convalescent plasma with the Red Cross,” the organization’s website said.
Convalescent plasma is blood taken from recovered ‘Covid19’ patients, which is then used to help fight the ‘virus’ in those battling the disease, as the antibodies created during the body’s previous exposure are apparently effective in helping Covid patients recover by targeting the ‘virus’ in the same way they would as a part of the natural immune response upon future exposure in the donor. It is important to understand that all convalescent plasma comes from recovered ‘Covid19’ patients, and if only convalescent plasma from the unvaccinated is effective in battling coronavirus, then it must mean the injection in some way renders the naturally acquired antibodies ineffective at doing their job, what they would otherwise do when confronted with the disease again - effectively suppressing, neutralizing, or destroying them altogether.
Indeed, this is exactly what mainstream news outlets reported at the time.
“The Red Cross said vaccinated people can't donate plasma because the shot counteracts existing antibodies,” Komu 8 News, a South Carolina NBC affiliate reported on February 28.
"Usually, the COVID-19 antibodies will stay in a person's plasma or blood for about three to four months," American Red Cross Regional Communications Manager Joe Zydlo is quoted as saying by Komu 8, immediately followed by the claim that, “American Red Cross said ... the shots counteract [those] existing antibodies,” the reason given as to why they stopped accepting this plasma from only the vaccinated.
A television news anchor similarly reported, using slightly different language, that the injection “wipes out those antibodies”:
“The Red Cross says anyone who has received their COVID-19 vaccine cannot donate convalescent plasma to help other COVID-19 patients in hospitals. That plasma is made up of antibodies from people who have recovered from the virus, but the vaccine wipes out those antibodies, making the convalescent plasma ineffective at treating other COVID-19 patients.”
The video clip - original source unknown, but widely circulated on the internet - has been archived by The Last American Vagabond and can be viewed here.
This news has since been thoroughly ‘fact-checked’, the Red Cross denies these claims are accurate, its website was soon updated to reflect an entirely different reason for refusal to accept convalescent plasma that had nothing to do with vaccination status, and this story was immediately relegated to the realm of ‘anti-vaxxer conspiracy’ material.
But the fact remains that an NBC news affiliate reported the Red Cross as making this claim, while archives prove the Red Cross originally did stop accepting convalescent plasma from the vaccinated exclusively, and their subsequent updates to hide that fact turn out to be less than honest. And, as of this writing over six months later, Komu 8 News has still not retracted their contentious statement. I would imagine this is in large part because ‘anti-vaxxers’ and the ‘fact-checkers’ alike focused almost exclusively on the viral video clip.
Also, the following explanation remained on the Red Cross website for several months, but has since also been removed along with the initial statement:
One of the Red Cross requirements for plasma from routine blood and platelet donations that test positive for high-levels of antibodies to be used as convalescent plasma is that it must be from a donor that has not received a COVID-19 vaccine. This is to ensure that antibodies collected from donors have sufficient antibodies directly related to their immune response to a COVID-19 infection and not just the vaccine, as antibodies from an infection and antibodies from a vaccine are not the same.
We can clearly see that the way in which antibodies from the vaxxed versus the unvaxxed “are not the same,” is that those in the vaxxed are not effective in helping treat Covid patients, or else Red Cross would not have continued accepting convalescent plasma from the unvaccinated for a time.
The reason for this likely being that, “because with natural immunity, the body develops antibodies to the entire surface of the virus, not just a spike protein constructed from a vaccine,” as Dr. Marty Makary of John Hopkins has explained, and studies confirm that these naturally acquired antibodies are reactive not only against the spike protein, the only component of the virus the injection is designed to attack, but also, among other things, the receptor-binding domain (RBD), N-terminal domain (NTD), and the N protein. Research has also demonstrated that these naturally acquired antibodies, even in recovered patients exposed to the very earliest strains of the ‘virus’, both recognize and effectively protect against all of the new ‘vaccine resistant’ variants of concern currently said to be driving disease, including ‘Delta’, which the ‘vaccines’ are effectively defenseless against.
Additionally, the Red Cross statement appears to confirm that the injection depletes the number of pre-existing natural antibodies, or one might say ‘wipes them out’; otherwise there would be no reason to accept unvaccinated convalescent plasma specifically in order “to ensure that antibodies collected from donors have sufficient antibodies directly related to their [natural] immune response.” This appears to be the primary reason for the introduction of the short-lived policy, and has nothing to do with the difference between antibody types but rather with the quantity of the naturally acquired antibodies, which are clearly effective at fighting active symptomatic disease where the ‘vaccine’-induced antibodies are not.
And since it is all convalescent plasma we are talking about here, it can only be that the antibodies developed during infection are either wiped out, sufficiently depleted or counteracted in some way by the injections so as to render them ineffective, as the simple presence of ineffective ‘vaccine’-induced antibodies alone should not prevent or hinder the preexistent naturally acquired antibodies from effectively combatting the ‘virus’. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is that the initial reporting was correct, a coverup and subsequent damage control ensued, and the Red Cross has evidence that the injection renders naturally acquired antibodies ineffective at fighting the ‘virus’ in ‘Covid19’ patients, in some way, shape or form; and it would appear that this is indeed the case because those antibodies are sufficiently depleted or ‘wiped out’.
At the time, the Red Cross also noted it was working to implement an updated policy in accordance with FDA guidelines which allow for donation of convalescent plasma from vaccinated patients for plasma treatment therapy, as long as the patient has recovered from disease within the past six months to ensure high natural antibody levels, the same requirements for unvaccinated plasma donors. But strangely they never did, and to the day they stopped collecting convalescent plasma donations altogether, they never once began accepting convalescent plasma from the vaccinated, because, as their website explained, vaccinated plasma had “[in]sufficient antibodies directly related to [the natural] immune response,” and the ‘vaccine’-induced antibodies were different to the degree that they were ineffective for treating patients.
The FDA may have allowed it, but Red Cross was clearly aware of a problem, and despite FDA approval the organization was never willing to accept it themselves. And that should really beg the question, what information exactly did they have and what are they trying so desperately to hide? It seems clear enough upon review of the initial available evidence at the time, although fairly obscured by indirect language used by the Red Cross, nonetheless clear enough. They may be willing to cover this up for the narrative, but they were apparently entirely unwilling to accept ineffective treatment plasma, for they probably wouldn’t last very long as a major supplier of blood treatment products if a product like this was ineffective for the treatment it was being provided for.
When I initially reported on this story back in the spring, I got some flack for citing ‘anonymous’ reports, due to my inability to find the original video source, but a mainstream outlet verifiably reporting the same claim in different words at the same time is to me evidence enough that the Red Cross did make a statement to this effect and that the video clip is at the least not a total ‘anti-vaxxer’ conspiracy hoax.
“If [Red Cross] changed their official viewpoint and tried to hide their original announcement, surely there's still some record of it,” fellow truth seeker @Drutter wrote in a comment at the time, seeking additional evidence to support these claims. And I agree, there should be some record of the original announcement, and there is, over at Komu 8 News, still to this day. That stands with or without the acceptance of the video clip as a reliable source for this story.
And now I am happy to finally be able to say that additional evidence has indeed surfaced, shedding more light on the ‘conspiracy theory’ that the injection weakens or destroys natural immunity, and it does not bode well for the ‘vaccine’-pushers or the ‘fact-checkers’. There is a highly relevant scientific study I just recently discovered which had actually already been published when I first wrote on this, and there is also some brand new evidence in the form of a recorded phone conversation with a Red Cross representative, thanks to Ryan Cristian over at The Last American Vagabond. There is also solid evidence that the Red Cross is to this day lying about why they really stopped collecting convalescent plasma for ‘Covid19’ patients, so let us start there.
In the Red Cross page, “answers to common questions about Covid-19, vaccines and blood platelet plasma donation eligibility,” the organization responds to the claim that the injection “wipes out” antibodies acquired through natural infection, simply denying this is the case, and following up with this explanation:
Due to the decline in hospital demand and because the Red Cross and our industry partners have been able to build a sufficient supply of convalescent plasma to meet the foreseeable needs of COVID-19 patients the Red Cross stopped collecting convalescent plasma completely on June 14.
It is worth noting that Red Cross initially stopped collecting convalescent plasma completely on March 26, so who knows what happened between then and June 14, just another layer of confusion to slice through, I suppose.
At any rate they do not address the obvious problem with this denial, which is the absence of any alternative reason as to why they actually did initially stop accepting convalescent plasma from the vaccinated exclusively; they simply ignore this documented reality, and hope people are ignorant of the archived material and Komu 8 News report further substantiating it.
The ‘fact-checkers’ similarly run circles around this core issue in their desperate attempts to avoid the problem at the heart of this controversy, and they are entirely unable to provide an answer to the question as to why exactly the Red Cross did stop accepting convalescent plasma from the vaccinated exclusively if the ‘vaccine’ does not in fact “wipe out” or otherwise “counteract” existing antibodies to the degree they are rendered ineffective at doing what they are otherwise able to effectively do prior to injection.
Reuters ‘fact-check’ goes out of the way to stress that Red Cross never stopped accepting blood donations from the unvaccinated, and still accepts them to this day, as if this ‘debunks’ conspiracy claims, although this is not the issue, as only convalescent plasma donations were ever the issue of contention.
COVID-19 vaccine recipients can donate plasma to the American Red Cross, contrary to claims on social media that the Red Cross is not accepting these donations because the COVID-19 vaccine wipes out the body’s natural antibodies.
Above is the opening paragraph of the ‘debunk’, and sets the tone for the article. The fact-checkers then go on to admit that indeed Red Cross did initially stop accepting convalescent plasma from the vaccinated, but do not provide a legitimate reason as to why, instead simply referencing a statement made by the medical director of the Red Cross stating that the claim regarding the ‘vaccine’ wiping out antibodies is “inaccurate,” and that: “In most cases, you can donate blood, platelets and plasma after a COVID-19 vaccine as long as you’re feeling healthy and well.”
But again, this of course does nothing to refute the valid claims being made that vaccinated patients exclusively were prohibited from donating convalescent plasma, and the statement simply circles around this, and says, without providing an alternate explanation for why this is, that the claim which says the injection wipes out antibodies is “inaccurate”.
Note also that there is no refutation that the Red Cross initially did make such a claim, only an assertion that this claim is “inaccurate,” which could simply mean imprecise or inexact, not absolutely false. Could this claim be deemed “inaccurate” if only some of those naturally acquired antibodies were wiped out, if they were depleted to levels insufficient to battle the ‘virus’ with just a few remaining, or perhaps if they were “counteracted,” rendering them ineffective but still present to some degree? As we can see, the Red Cross is also running circles around the issue at hand, unwilling to give a direct answer that would clear up all confusion once and for all. As to the reason for this policy, we are at least given a hint by the Red Cross medical director:
Dr Lasky explains that, “Antibodies that an individual produces when they’ve been exposed to the virus are slightly different from the antibodies that an individual produces when they’ve been vaccinated.”
This brings us back to the original explanation now removed from the Red Cross page, and the ‘fact-checkers’ do not comment on this summary of that explanation from Dr. Lasky or the more detailed explanation, let alone attempt to explain to the reader why it is, if the antibodies are different - and that difference is efficacy in battling the ‘virus’ - why this difference seen in ‘vaccine’-induced antibodies and their added presence alone in the blood should do anything to prevent the preexistent highly functional naturally acquired antibodies from being effective, unless the ‘vaccine’ also wipes them out, or depletes them to levels insufficient for treatment, or otherwise counteracts them.
Furthermore, the ‘fact-checkers’ do not address the Komu 8 News statement, do not reach out to Komu 8 News for comment, and do not attempt to refute that it was reported by an NBC News affiliate that “Red Cross said ... the shot counteracts existing antibodies.” This is simply ignored, and the viral news clip is instead the focus of the ‘fact-check’, although they do not even attempt to explain why it was reported that Red Cross made a statement to the effect that the ‘vaccine’ “wipes out” antibodies, if they did not in fact initially make any such statement.
Reuters does reference the video clip of the newscaster reporting this, but instead of directly addressing the claim made by the reporter, they point to the captions that allegedly “confuse plasma donations with convalescent plasma donations,” because the caption reads: “The American Red Cross says you cannot donated Blood Plasma if you’ve had the vaccine, because the vaccine wipes out the body’s natural antibodies.” The caption would only be ‘confusing’, however, if one was not actually listening to the newscaster herself, so this is just another circle being run around the issue at hand.
The ‘fact-checkers’ continually point back to the acceptance of all other types of plasma donation from the vaccinated to deflect from the main issue they allege to be debunking, as if repeatedly deflecting from what should be the main subject of the ‘fact-check’ somehow bolsters their flimsy case.
Reuters previously debunked similar claims here , explaining that the Red Cross is accepting blood plasma donations from people vaccinated against COVID-19...
Finally, the only evidence they provide as conclusive ‘proof’ that the injection does not wipe out antibodies is the FDA approval of convalescent plasma from vaccinated donors for treatment, as if FDA approval automatically equates to proof of efficacy.
Regarding convalescent plasma, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows people who had COVID-19 before they were vaccinated to donate dedicated convalescent plasma within six months of recovering from COVID-19, as set out here. Therefore, antibodies from natural infection are not “wiped out” by the COVID-19 vaccine.
But FDA approval absolutely does not on its own constitute proof of efficacy, and “therefore,” the only thing the fact-checkers have proved is their ignorant reliance upon the approval given by an extremely compromised organization, and not even a direct statement by the FDA refuting the claims in questions, to ‘debunk’ a claim based upon evidence they never even address or attempt to explain.
Case in point: The FDA recently approved the Pfizer injection, but not the Moderna injection, despite the findings of a Mayo Clinic study indicating that Moderna has notably higher initial efficacy (86%) than Pfizer (76%), and Pfizer’s efficacy plummets faster and to far lower levels after 6 months (42%) compared to Moderna (76%). That Pfizer’s own Phase 2 clinical trial study found that, “From its peak post-dose 2, observed VE [vaccine efficacy] declined,” and Israel has too reported a drop in efficacy to a mere 39% in just 5-6 months, and abundant real world data confirms Pfizer jab to be ineffective against all of the current variants of concern, and yet in the face of all of this evidence FDA prematurely issued Pfizer approval even before Phase 3 trials were complete, is altogether evidence enough that FDA approval alone is no guarantee of efficacy.
Also, just because convalescent plasma from the vaccinated is being used in plasma treatment therapy by some institutions now, if it is, does not necessarily demonstrate it is effective either, as we know hospitals are more than willing to use highly ineffective treatments on Covid patients, even to the point of needlessly killing them; as was demonstrated with the widespread misuse of ventilators during the peak of the first wave of the ‘pandemic’, which had a 99% kill rate and were thus demonstrably ineffective, while the doctors who spoke out against this senseless policy were ignored along with the overwhelming evidence that this ‘treatment’ wasn’t working - to the detriment of the hastened deaths of countless Americans across the country, how many of whom would have otherwise survived we will likely never know. So neither FDA approval nor widespread use of a treatment by the medical establishment on its own proves efficacy, any more than eating junk food makes it healthy just because it is being consumed.
And if there were any medical studies supporting the efficacy of post-injection convalescent plasma for treatment therapy as approved by the FDA, which had compared antibody levels and potency in the naturally immune before and after injection in this regard, Reuters would surely have cited them. But they did not, probably because no such studies have been published.
As it is, however, however, Red Cross clearly has their hands on some such information and it led them to stop accepting convalescent plasma donations from the vaccinated over issues directly relating to ineffectiveness. There is a reason the Red Cross has not publicly released the specific data they are privy to, and instead simply makes broad generalizations about the implications of that data from which researchers must infer what those data findings are. Releasing the specific information they have their hands on would go a long way in helping to clear up all the confusion, but I suspect confusion is what they prefer over publication of their specific findings.
So after running readers in circles around the main issue, without even attempting to provide a clear answer as to why the Red Cross initially did stop accepting convalescent plasma from the vaccinated exclusively and never changed that policy despite FDA guidance permitting them to, the ‘fact-checkers’ have left intellectually honest researchers exactly where they were before, without any definitive answers, but with the ‘confusing’ Red Cross policy and all official explanations still pointing in one and only one direction - towards the only reasonable conclusion: that the ‘vaccine’ depletes preexisting antibodies, effectively counteracting or wiping them out, rendering convalescent plasma from the vaccinated ineffective at treating ‘Covid19’ patients where the same plasma from the unvaccinated is on the other hand very effective, insofar as plasma treatment therapy goes at any rate.
And so the saga continues, with the original ‘conspiracy theory’ very much not put to rest, no matter how many flimsy ‘fact-checks’ which ignore the most relevant facts are produced.
As to the claim that the donation program was shut down in response to declining hospital demand, there is evidence suggesting that there was not, and most certainly is not any longer, “a sufficient supply of convalescent plasma.”
On July 1, two weeks after they discontinued all convalescent plasma donations (for the 2nd time?), the Red Cross issued a “Severe shortage alert,” indicating they were still in desperate need of blood donations.
Maybe they just didn’t need convalescent plasma specifically, but that has since changed, although neither their refusal to accept donations nor their assertion that they and “industry partners” have a sufficient supply has changed at all. If this was ever the case, it is most certainly not the case any longer, as there are now severe shortages being reported all across the county.
On Aug 19th it is reported that:
LifeSouth is once again testing blood donations for COVID-19 antibodies. The blood bank says hospitals in Northeast Florida are clamoring for convalescent plasma which is used to treat patients with the coronavirus.
Houston Methodist is renewing its call for recovered COVID-19 patients to donate convalescent plasma.
Recently, it’s getting harder to find donors. The hospital said they are getting about three units per day but they really need five times that amount.
And on September 2, in a WKRN article with the headline Blood Assurance in urgent need of convalescent plasma donations, we can read that, “As more and more COVID-19 patients are admitted to hospitals around the country, there is a growing need for plasma that can be used to help them recover.”
It sure doesn’t look to me like there is “sufficient supply” of convalescent plasma at all...
One wonders if the increasing difficulty in finding donors is in part the inability to accept donations from the vaccinated who now make up a much larger percentage of the population than in February and March, or perhaps because the Red Cross is no longer playing any supply role as they typically would in such situations. As it is, we have every indication that this senseless Red Cross policy is remaining in place for the sole purpose of hiding the fact that they would otherwise only be accepting this much needed plasma from the unvaccinated.
That they continue to state to this day that their current policy is in place because of ample supply when hospitals all across the country are literally putting out calls for donors because they are in desperate need due to severe widespread shortages is testament to the deception the organization is willing to employ, for reasons that by now should be readily apparent.
Red Cross confirms convalescent plasma from vaccinated not accepted due to ineffectiveness at treating ‘Covid19’ patients
Ryan Cristian over at TLAV media has been doing a great job of documenting this saga of ever-changing Red Cross explanations and ‘fact-checker’ attempts to ‘debunk’ the original story that started it all, and in a recent show largely dedicated to the subject on September 6, he aired a recorded phone call with the Red Cross, which turned out to be quite the bombshell. Attempting to clear up some of the confusion caused by the ever shifting Red Cross policies, Ryan asked for clarification on the current convalescent plasma donation policy and why they initially stopped accepting it from the vaccinated. The spokeswoman he was put on the line with confirmed that they did initially stop accepting convalescent plasma from the vaccinated for reasons having to do with ineffectiveness.
“The reason being because the antibodies produced by the vaccine may not be strong enough to help someone battling covid19,” she said. “That’s why” Red Cross stopped accepting convalescent plasma from the vaccinated. She also confirmed that convalescent plasma from the unvaccinated, on the other hand, did not have this problem. “We were accepting from [unvaccinated] patients who had recovered,” she said. Only later, when they say supply began overtaking demand, did they stop the convalescent plasma donation program completely.
I highly recommend listening to the entire conversation and even the show, or at least Ryan’s discussion about it (clip played between 1:50.00-2:10.00 in the full video), as it demonstrates how officials are trained to say one thing and then slip up and admit another when presented with evidence that catches them off guard, in this case in relation to Red Cross documents. And although it is not a direct admission that Red Cross initially stopped accepting donations from the vaccinated because the injection “counteracts” or “wipes out” naturally acquired antibodies as initially reported, it is probably as close as we will get in an official statement, and it is confirmation enough that this was in fact the reason.
If the antibodies produced by the ‘vaccine’ were admittedly not strong enough, but the naturally acquired antibodies were, as evidenced by the continued acceptance of convalescent plasma from the unvaccinated patients who had recovered, then the only possible reason convalescent plasma from the vaccinated could be ineffective or less effective is if those naturally acquired antibodies were suppressed, counteracted, inactivated, depleted, or entirely wiped out by the injection, leaving only the ‘vaccine’-induced antibodies at play. There is no other way around it.
Given all of the available evidence, I think it is safe to state as a matter of fact that anyone who is vaccinated within 5-6 months of recovery or exposure to the ‘virus‘ can expect any naturally acquired antibodies that are still in their bloodstream to be effectively neutralized and replaced with far less effective and less durable antibodies which are neither strong enough to battle coronavirus during a symptomatic infection nor at all effective against ‘Delta’ or any of the other ‘vaccine resistant’ variants which are, according to the narrative, currently driving disease.
That the evidence strongly suggests the injection counteracts or wipes out these naturally acquired antibodies does not necessarily equate to a total destruction of natural immunity, as these antibodies in the bloodstream appear to naturally diminish after about 4-6 months,but it is foreboding. After all, when a UK study found that antibody levels following the Pfizer and AstraZeneca jabs began declining at six weeks and then plummeted to as low as 50% in just 10 weeks, The Guardian and ‘experts’ alike warned: “Waning antibody levels are possible warning sign of lower protection in months after vaccination.” Sure enough, we now know injection ‘protection’ has diminished to near zero efficacy after just six months.
The study that suggests Pfizer injection destroys natural immunity, not just antibodies
Whether the antibodies produced from bone marrow cells (which evidence suggest are lifelong) in the naturally immune upon re-exposure to the ‘virus’ are similarly counteracted by the injection is yet unknown, and may depend upon whether the person has recently had a third or fourth injection or not. Whereas neutralizing antibodies in the bloodstream naturally diminish after a number of months, memory B cells patrolling the bloodstream increase in number over time, and studies suggest that T cell immunity remains strong and effective for decades. So the most important factor in whether or not the injections effectively destroy natural immunity altogether or only this one aspect of it likely lies with cellular immunity.
In this regard, a study published by researchers from Paris and New York on March 22 found the Pfizer jab to cause similarly destructive effects upon cellular immunity in ‘Covid19’ recovered individuals, resulting in a “reduction of cellular immunity,” so it looks like these injections may effectively wipe out both circulating antibodies and memory T cells which we are being told can be expected to otherwise remain for decades.
Our results demonstrate that the second dose increases both the humoral and cellular immunity in naïve individuals. On the contrary, the second BNT162b2 vaccine dose results in a reduction of cellular immunity in recovered individuals,...
Specifically, “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.” The study authors note that they did not investigate “the mechanisms of the contraction of the spike-induced production of IFN-gamma in COVID-19 recovered subjects observed” after double-injection, but hypothesized “that the effector memory CD4+ T cells” in the naturally immune “may be prone to activation-induced cell death (AICD) after the second vaccination dose.”
They noted that more research is essential to determine the mechanism of this reduction in cellular immunity and whether or not the injection effects only weakened cellular immunity by initially inhibiting production of IFN gamma or effectively destroys the long-term immune response altogether in recovered individuals. Unfortunately, it does not appear to be a subject of much interest to the medical establishment, and I know of no such studies which have been undertaken in the months since this alarming discovery.
Cellular immunity as opposed to antibody reactivity forms the core of the long-lasting natural immune response to future exposure expected in the naturally immune, so a reduction of cellular immunity does indeed appear to signal the destruction of the body’s otherwise long-term immunity. Whether intended or not, this would work out quite conveniently for those selling the shots, as then even the previously naturally immune will need to keep coming back for ineffective boosters every few months, but it’s not such a great deal for those who would rather be set for life and don’t want to be dependent on Big Pharma for the rest of their life just to be ‘protected’ from a ‘virus’ no deadlier than the flu. Any potential reduction or suppression of natural immunity, no matter on what level or how insignificant it may be deemed, is an entirely unnecessary risk that should be avoided by all who have the demonstrably far superior and more comprehensive protection offered by natural immunity.
Not being peer-reviewed, I am strictly prohibited from reporting these study findings as conclusive, but the evidence does not bode well for the natural immunity of the injected, that’s for sure, and it does appear to suggest that these experimental mRNA injections do effectively weaken or destroy the totality of natural immunity. Also indicative of this notion is the high and fast rising number of ‘breakthrough’ cases around the world that are not likely to be affecting the previously non-infected exclusively, given the high rates of vaccination and percentage of the population that should otherwise have natural immunity based upon prior disease prevalence and official estimates.
https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD/status/1433436382165413893
- RWMaloneMD
—————————————————
UPDATE: “Post-vaccine, what we are seeing is a drop in your killer T-cells, in your CD8 cells,” Dr. Ryan Cole has reported, leading to a “20 times increase of endometrial cancers” over what he normally sees on an annual basis.
Cole goes on to state that as a result of this vaccine-induced “killer T-cell” suppression, he is seeing an “uptick” of not only endometrial cancer, but also melanomas, as well as herpes, shingles, mono, and a “huge uptick” in HPV when “looking at the cervical biopsies of women.”
https://twitter.com/ToTheLifeboats/status/1430589141344034816
- ToTheLifeboats
It seems the injections are indeed suppressing or destroying T cell immunity...
————————————————
More studies should immediately be undertaken to look into these issues, but as it is, there is already absolutely no reason to be vaccinating the natural immune regardless of risks associated with the injection. As studies have consistently found, there is no additional benefit to vaccination for the naturally immune, so there’s no reason to risk losing that natural immunity to an experimental injection which increasingly looks to be causing far more harm than good, in more ways than one.
And that will be the subject of the next post and final installment of this series, where we will look at the most criminal aspect of this vaccination coercion campaign of all - the intentional suppression of additional known ‘vaccine’ harms and blatant disregard for all rule of law in every aspect of the implementation of these nonscientific, tyrannical and downright dangerous mandates.