Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology, elaborated on this in an article on his Substack. He cited a Nov. 24 study published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, which observed unvaccinated hairdressers and hospitality staff in the Netherlands.
The researchers who penned the Nov. 24 paper collected blood samples for the participants every three months for one year. They also made the participants answer questionnaires about their health and line of work.
The study concluded that among unvaccinated Dutch hairdressers and hospitality staff, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persisted for up to one year after initial detection in the blood, "suggesting long-term natural immunity." They also found that there were very low rates of antibody reduction over time, and that immunoglobulin G antibody levels remained detectable for up to 12 months despite an initial decrease.
Malone then shared another study that supposedly highlighted the "benefits" of COVID-19 booster doses. According to the December 2022 paper, increasing booster uptake would result in a one percent "increase in protection" against the less deadly omicron.
"Of course, as the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] has implied – that extra one percent protection would wane rapidly and be gone in 60 days," said Malone. "It doesn't get any more clear than this. These 'boosters' are not effective and, by the way, they are not safe."
The mRNA vaccine technology inventor then challenged readers to "juxtapose the results of the booster study" with the one done in the Netherlands that documents natural immunity to COVID-19.
"The adverse event rate with these vaccines is extremely high. At this point, the risk of an adverse event is much, much more than the risk of severe disease from the circulating omicron variants."
"Clearly, the results are in – natural immunity is best against omicron."
The Texas-based think tank Brownstone Institute also shared several studies that proved the superiority of natural immunity over the COVID-19 injections. An initial batch of 30 studies was published on Oct. 10, 2021 in cooperation with epidemiologist and Brownstone Institute fellow Dr. Paul Elias Alexander.
A week later on Oct. 17, 2021, Alexander himself published an additional 161 studies on natural immunity. He commented: "We should not force COVID-19 vaccines on anyone, when the evidence shows that naturally acquired immunity is equal to or more robust and superior to existing vaccines. Instead, we should respect the right of the bodily integrity of individuals to decide for themselves."
Alexander, a former COVID-19 senior advisor to the Department of Health and Human Services, added that "public health officials and the medical establishment – with the help of the politicized media – are misleading the public with assertions that the COVID-19 shots provide greater protection than natural immunity."
But he argued that according to basic immunology and virology, "natural immunity confers protection against a respiratory virus's outer coat proteins." This protection does not only apply to SARS-CoV-2, but also to other pathogens.
Alexander also pointed out that those injected with the COVID-19 shots are showing the same very high viral loads as their unvaccinated counterparts, which means that both are capable of transmitting COVID-19.
"Tearing apart the vaccinated and the unvaccinated in a society, separating them, is not medically or scientifically supportable," he concluded.
Infections.news has more stories about natural immunity against COVID-19.
Watch Larry Cook in the video below explain the difference between natural immunity and vaccine immunity.
This video is from The Big Logic channel at Brighteon.com.