By Paul Elias Alexander, Ph.D.
It became clear soon after the pandemic was declared that COVID-19 is primarily about big pharma profits and power and not about the data or science on vaccines and natural immunity.
With a heavy assist from governments around the globe and the corporate media, vaccine marketers frightened the public at large into taking the vaccine when a more targeted approach toward the most vulnerable would have been more prudent.
Knowledge Gained, Ignored
We knew very early on that COVID was amenable to risk stratification and that baseline risk was prognostic on mortality. We knew elderly persons had a 1,000-fold greater risk for death than children and thus an age-risk stratified approach was needed rather than a carte blanche lockdown.
We knew quickly that lockdowns and school closures were killing business owners, laid-off employees, and children. Not the virus. There is no evidence anywhere that lockdowns and school closures or mask mandates were effective. None.
We knew that failure to use early outpatient treatment especially for the high-risk elderly in nursing homes was killing them. We knew early treatment reduced the risk of hospitalization and death by as much as 90 percent. This will go down as a serious stain and shame on the medical community for 750,000 of the 800,000 deaths in the United States would be alive today had we used early treatment.
Natural Immunity Superior
In a recent article I wrote for the Brownstone Institute, I describe the large body of evidence on natural immunity and its superiority over immunity from a vaccine. Public health officials like Anthony Fauci, M.D., President Biden’s chief COVID-19 advisor, and Rochelle Walensky, M.D., the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, deceive the public when they state people need a vaccine even if they have recovered from COVID.
Walensky, for example, was simply not correct when she stated in The Lancet in October 2020 that “there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection” and “the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future.”
Statements such as that are not just deceptive, but harmful. It is not true that immunity wanes when there is no longer an active presence of antibodies following an infection.
Immune System’s Learned Response
It is well known among physicians and immunologists that antibodies do not necessarily wane but more or less wait in the wings. The immune system learns how to fight the particular pathogen and upon re-exposure will quickly churn out new antibodies from the memory held by B cells and T cells that now harbor in the bone marrow as plasma from the original infection. These long-lived bone marrow plasma cells churn out antibodies on re-exposure.
We need to be mindful that the priming from these vaccines can compromise this natural immune response. We should also note tests measuring antibodies may not be sensitive enough or could identify the wrong antibodies. The RT-PCT test that was used since inception was over-sensitive and over-cycled and contributed to massive false positive “positive” tests.
We are very concerned with the vaccination of children for it may damage the innate immunity that usually protects them from pathogens. Vaccinal antibodies may subvert and suppress innate antibodies and leave children at risk when usually they are not. No healthy child in the United States has died from COVID—not in Germany, or Sweden as examples.
Paul Elias Alexander, Ph.D., has experience in epidemiology, and the teaching of clinical epidemiology, evidence-based medicine, and research methodology and held advisory roles on COVID-19 and public health at the World Health Organization, and the U.S. Department of Human Resources
