After the mRNA vaccine experiment was unleashed, governments did not recognize naturally-acquired immunity and falsely shamed healthy individuals for being the cause of a never-ending “pandemic.” Vaccine mandates and passports were used to segregate individuals from society. Individuals with natural immunity and individuals who could readily attain natural immunity were even told to take faulty experimental vaccines multiple times, or lose their freedoms.
Now, a new meta-analysis concludes that a naturally-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection offers durable protection against re-infection and protects against severe disease from subsequent covid-19 variants. The meta-analysis consists of 65 studies from 19 different countries and is published in the Lancet. This has been known since early 2021, and even the World Health Organization admitted that 90-99 percent of individuals infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus develop detectable neutralizing antibodies.
At 40 weeks, protection from re-infection from ancestral, alpha, and delta variants remained high at 78.6%. Most importantly, protection against severe disease remained high for all variants (90.2%) after 40 weeks. Meanwhile, the vaccine caused new health problems and its immunogenicity failed to hold up to the manufacturer’s initial promises. The immune depletion caused by the vaccine is so abysmal, new boosters are pushed every season, causing a grim cycle of sickness, viral mutation, and death.
Natural immunity protected against re-infection to the omicron BA.1 variant 45.3% and 44.0% against omicron BA.1 symptomatic disease. Even though the unvaccinated more likely to get omicron than the other variants, it resembled the common cold for most. This is also why omicron hospitalizations occurred primarily in the “fully vaccinated." The immunity from the vaccine and its boosters was insufficient.
The authors of the meta-analysis conclude: “Although protection from re-infection from all variants wanes over time, our analysis of the available data suggests that the level of protection afforded by previous infection is at least as high, if not higher than that provided by two-dose vaccination using high-quality mRNA vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech), as documented by Nassereldine and colleagues, in our companion study.”
In the meta-analysis, re-infection to a covid-19 variant was defined using a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test or rapid antigen test (90-120 days after a previously positive test and separated by four consecutive PCR negatives). Therefore, the results of the meta-analysis only include cases of natural immunity that were formally monitored using PCR or rapid antigen testing. The meta-analysis does not include millions of cases of naturally-acquired immunity that took place without these testing parameters in place.
Furthermore, the meta-analysis relies on testing programs that varied in scope and accuracy from country to country, due to the fact that different laboratories used different cycle thresholds, amplifying viral debris at various rates. Some cycle thresholds were calibrated so high, they may have turned up a false positive for re-infection or provided false evidence of a previous infection. Due to the limitations of testing programs and availability, and non-specific diagnostic criteria, the scientific integrity of this meta-analysis is lacking and may skew the full scope and durability of natural immunity in the population.
Amazingly, despite all these confounding variables, natural immunity still remained durable and long lasting in this meta-analysis. For the 40 weeks studied, natural immunity against re-infection remained very high for the pre-omicron variants, including the ancestral, alpha, beta, and delta variants.
The study, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, debunks what Bill Gates wanted all along: long-standing lockdowns, forced masks and the experimental and ongoing vaccination of every man, woman, and child on the planet. The abstract still supports medical tyranny and bio surveillance for the future. By verifying natural immunity through testing programs, future policies can be "designed to restrict travel and access to venues" the study authors wrote. Granted, everyone should have the right to be naturally exposed to their environment and one another if they so choose. Everyone should have the freedom to opt out of faulty, invasive, and inconsistent testing programs as a prerequisite to their participation in society.