What Was the Point of Denying Natural Immunity?

What Was the Point of Denying Natural Immunity?
People are being strongly encouraged to get vaccinated, even if they have natural immunity. (ronstik/Shutterstock)
Jeffrey A. Tucker
2/13/2023
Updated:
2/16/2023
0:00
Commentary

On Nov. 13, 2020, just as the vaccine was being rolled out (surely a sheer coincidence that it was just after the election), the World Health Organization (WHO) made a hugely significant change to its website.

It pertained to the section on herd immunity—the concept theorizing how a new pathogen goes from pandemic to endemic, from socially disruptive to manageable. It’s about how a society gets back to normal. Previously, the website said it happens with immunity upgrades through exposure plus vaccines.

On that day, the WHO changed its website. The science hadn’t changed. But the body presuming to guard and govern world health changed it anyway. The website suddenly struck out natural immunity and even put it down. The new text said, “Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not exposing them to it.”

Wow, amazing news! You mean that for all viruses, we will now rely only on vaccines, even though natural immunity has been the way that humanity evolved with viruses from the beginning of time? And even though natural immunity and exposure are how infectious disease went from being possibly the No. 1 problem humanity faced over most of history to becoming a relatively minor problem in the modern age?

That’s right. The WHO announced that scientists and their potions would protect the whole of humanity from everything! Astounding. And unbearably false. It just so happened that this grand reveal happened just as COVID vaccines were about to hit the market.

There was a minor uproar online, but it was enough even to reach the inner chambers of the organization. And so by Jan. 4, 2021, the website of the WHO dialed back its absurdity a bit. Herd immunity “happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection,” the site then said. It added, however, in case there was any doubt, that the WHO “supports achieving ‘herd immunity’ through vaccination.”

This is surely one of the most bizarre chapters in the history of public health. We’ve known about natural immunity for at least 2,500 years. It’s a basic concept without which there is no understanding of disease at all. To think that the WHO tried to wipe it out with a website change is beyond belief.

The month before the WHO came out with its preposterous claim, the British medical journal The Lancet had more-or-less trumpeted the same blather. As the Norfolk Group has written:

“In October 2020, a widely circulated Memorandum published in The Lancet, a top British medical journal, questioned infection-acquired immunity. It stated that ‘there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection,’ claiming ‘scientific consensus’ for this view. The Memorandum was co-authored by several senior US scientists, including Drs. Marc Lipsitch (Harvard), Ali Nouri (president, American Federation of Scientists) and Rochelle Walensky (Harvard).
“With extremely few reinfections at the time, clear evidence for the existence of infection-acquired immunity, and despite what we know about other coronaviruses, on what basis did these scientists question that infection with SARS-CoV-2 provided lasting protection from severe disease for recovered individuals and, early on, from reinfection? What was the rationale for The Lancet Editor-in-Chief Dr. Richard Horton’s decision to publish the Lancet Memorandum that questioned infection-acquired immunity after SARS-CoV-2 infection without citing supporting data and which ran in opposition to well established immunologic principles?”
The memorandum in question was supposed to be a response to the Great Barrington Declaration. They called it the John Snow Memo. Today, it’s nothing if not embarrassing.

Of course, the evidence rolled in from all over the world over the coming months that natural immunity to this pathogen works exactly as one would expect. It’s robust and broad and lasting.

Simply incredible.

Then what happened? Something absolutely remarkable. It turned out that the vaccine failed to prevent infection or transmission. That is to say, vaccination turned out to make no contribution to herd immunity or public health. Not just some but none. Forget the idea that we would vaccinate our way out of this mess. Nope. Far from it. The pandemic would end the old-fashioned way, the same as every pandemic of the past—through natural exposure and recovery.

This fiasco has to rank among the most egregious failures of public health in history. The world’s most respected institutions actually opened themselves up to be major sources of massive disinformation for the entire planet Earth. And then, everything they promised turned out to be a complete lie.

Why did the WHO change basic immunological realities? I have my own theories. They’re so captured by industry and Big Pharma in particular that they WANTED the population to stay immunologically naïve and unprotected in order that they could market and test a new technology.

Again, that has to rank among the most egregious experiments in modern life, and it’s one that utterly and completely failed.

If you think about it, and if this is true, this accounts for nearly all the insanity of government for the better part of three years. It explains the deprecation of early treatments. It explains the relentless and bizarre demand to “flatten the curve” even though there was no threat to the healthcare system. The point was to preserve the non-immune state of the population as long as possible so that they could get shots in the arms of everyone, even those who didn’t want them or need them.

It explains the lockdowns. It explains the closures and capacity restrictions. It explains the travel restrictions. It explains the demand that we put ourselves under house arrest and avoid contact with anyone. If we had to go out, we were told to “socially distance” and mask up. It was all a plot to keep us vulnerable to the pathogen that the vaccines were supposed to magically whisk away, even though we’ve never in history had a vaccine for a widespread coronavirus respiratory infection that mutates quickly.

In fact, we’ve also long known that getting repeatedly vaccinated for a fast-mutating virus is itself a great danger due to “immunity imprinting” and “original antigenic sin”—making us sicker than ever. And not only that More and more mutations are also given strength by the vaccination itself, in which case the vaccination not only prolonged the pandemic but even added a new layer of unusual sickness on top of that.

They actually put profit and industrial capture ahead of matters of health. And they did it for the entire planet. They experimented with the world’s population to create a new platform technology for perpetual boosters not only for this virus but all diseases. This is the only possible explanation. It’s a scandal of epic proportions.

Once you understand this, if you were already angry about what has happened to us, you would add another layer of fury. Crucially, none of these errors in judgment have any justification in ignorance. They knew. They just decided to ignore science and experience and replace it with industrial propaganda, at great expense to the health of the population all over the world.

Will you ever regain your trust in public health? You shouldn’t, not until there’s full accountability and open admissions of wrongdoing.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Jeffrey A. Tucker is the founder and president of the Brownstone Institute, and the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press, as well as 10 books in five languages, most recently “Liberty or Lockdown.” He is also the editor of The Best of Mises. He writes a daily column on economics for The Epoch Times and speaks widely on the topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.