Natural Immunity Vs. "Vaccine"--What Works Best?

There is an article, tied to research, circulating...which claims that naturally-acquired immunity from having recovered from the China Virus...is 6-7X more effective towards preventing future CV infections than any claimed immunity acquired from the so-called China Virus "vaccine(s)".

Furthermore, it's been suggested that people who have recovered from China Virus...and then taken the "vaccines", will actually reduce the natural immunity they have already established.

In both media and politics, it seems the topic of 'naturally-acquired' immunity is all but forgotten.
Every discussion appears, by intent, to center around the China Virus "vaccine"...and why we must get it.

With so much propaganda circulating and so much news suppression currently taking place, what do we really know about conferred immunity from these two sources?

In other words...Which is actually more effective?

I will suggest that the natural evolution of our own immune systems over the course of millions of years...provides the better product.
Nevertheless, I'm open to hearing other opinions.

I post this thread as a catalyst for new information and discussion on this comparison.

So, what do you think, ATS?

Is naturally-acquired immunity better, worse or no different than any claimed immunity offered by the China Virus "vaccine(s)"?

Sources?

Or just your 2 cents?

Natural immunity vs gene therapy is what you meant right?

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
Natural immunity vs gene therapy is what you meant right?

Hence the marks around the word "vaccine" in my OP.

originally posted by: Havamal
Sources?

Or just your 2 cents?

You know it is possible to discuss a topic without a source telling you what to think.

OP:

I trust my own immune system when it comes to colds or flu.

originally posted by: Havamal
Sources?

Or just your 2 cents?

If it's sourced, studied, peer reviewed, and published, would that change anything in your mind?

The whole point of a vaccine is to supersede the process of needing to endure the disease. This is wonderful for things like rabies which you cannot survive to go on and enjoy the immunity you acquire.

The thought process with any vaccine should be risk/reward. What is the risk of me getting this disease v. the risk of taking this vaccine as there is always some risk in taking any vaccine. If the disease itself is more dangerous to you, then you take the vaccine.

They have been treating COVID like it's uniquely deadly since the beginning despite all evidence to the contrary. If COVID behaved more like its cousin SARS, the original one, then the need to be vaccinated would be much more strong. As it is, this strain of COVID can make you ill, but unless you are also fat and have something like hypertension or diabetes or are above a certain age with those things or heart issues, you are extremely likely to only suffer from a bad cold-like illness.

I have yet to decide whether this is anything other than typical government overreach coupled with democrat power issues where they decide that if a thing is good, it's good for everyone NO MATTER WHAT. Don't delude yourselves; that is the impulse common to most every progressive piece of anything that comes out of Democrat governance.

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: Havamal
Sources?

Or just your 2 cents?

OP:

I trust my own immune system when it comes to colds or flu.

As do I.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Link to the CDC

'Herd immunity', also known as 'population immunity', is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. WHO supports achieving 'herd immunity' through vaccination, not by allowing a disease to spread through any segment of the population, as this would result in unnecessary cases and deaths.

Herd immunity against COVID-19 should be achieved by protecting people through vaccination, not by exposing them to the pathogen that causes the disease. Read the Director-General’s 12 October media briefing speech for more detail.

Vaccines train our immune systems to create proteins that fight disease, known as ‘antibodies’, just as would happen when we are exposed to a disease but – crucially – vaccines work without making us sick. Vaccinated people are protected from getting the disease in question and passing on the pathogen, breaking any chains of transmission. Visit our webpage on COVID-19 and vaccines for more detail.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Havamal
Sources?

Or just your 2 cents?

If it's sourced, studied, peer reviewed, and published, would that change anything in your mind?

I'm not interested in feeding hungry trolls their breakfast...only creating a discussion on the matter.

Natural immunity, acquired immunity, is superior to what most vaccines can provide.

These shots are not true vaccines.

a reply to: network dude

My thoughts were that the original vaccine push was to break up the chain of transmission and get to herd immunity faster so that COVID would be more clustered outbreaks like a seasonal cold or flu.

To that end, it didn't seem to matter much to me if the immunity was one type or the other. Even if the vaccine produced immunity faded, the point was, I thought, to break the back of the sustained, epidemic transmission. Once that was done, different individuals who are vaccinated will have their immunity wear off at different times, so it will be difficult for COVID to actually re-establish anything more than clustered outbreaks.

This is why so many vets do titer tests before automatically vaccinating your pets now. They're checking to see if the vaccine produced immunities have dropped to a point where the shots are actually necessary, and that rate is different in different animals. For that matter, when husband was more working with active pathogen, he had the same titer tests to determine his need for certain nontraditional vaccines that he needed for his job.

a reply to: IAMTAT

I am firmly in the natural immunity camp.

If you have a link to this article, please post it for us. I gather this info to beat others over the head with because they seem to blindly follow what is said on the news and for the most part refuse to listen to anything unless presented with something to read or watch. (i am just trying to fight fire with fire, so to speak; not question your post integrity)

a reply to: IAMTAT

I keep things simple whenever Vaccine-induced vs Nature-induced antibodies comes up in conversation.

Bookmark this CDC webpage on your phone: www.cdc.gov...

Ten months of millions of people recovering from Covid-19 shows very few of them were re-infected by Covid-19 again.

Considering the long-term dangers of the vaccine(s), the best anyone can hope for is they contract Covid-19, and get it over with. Avoid the need for vaccines, boosters, and all the health warnings that have/will come in association with those drugs. (aka: Peace of mind.)

a reply to: IAMTAT

Just to put it in perspective, in 1968 the Hoing Kong Flu wiped out 100,000 Americans.

No one shut down anything.

No one wore worthless masks.

In 1969 the even had Woodstock.


As I've said since the begining of all of this; common sense approaches and keeping calm are the best measures when experiencing a novel cold virus.

originally posted by: discordantone
a reply to: IAMTAT

I am firmly in the natural immunity camp.

If you have a link to this article, please post it for us.

Natural Covid Immunity 6.72 Times More Effective than Vaccines

conservativeplaylist.com...

There is also immune system memory to consider. It works for both vaccine and natural.

So if the vaccine isn't quite as effective, it will still train one's immune system so that if you do get the disease, it still shouldn't be as bad for you as it would have been without that initial exposure through the vaccine.

For some people like the immunosuppressed or those individuals who are at higher risk, such exposure through a gentler alternative would be preferable even if they are still going to get COVID later on, or another disease. Sure it may not always save them, but you would hope the immune system would be able to better handle the challenge than it would have unprepared.

This is interesting:

John Hopkins is regarded as the gold standard for medical research. They get a lot of funding from government as well as private sources.

They recently put out this article which promotes the vaccine, and claims that the vax offers " longer and stronger" immunity than our body's natural immunity. The article really, really promotes the vax.

Bill Gates donates lots of money to John Hopkins.

Dr Who makes a good point.

One potato, two potato, three potato four, five potato, six potato, seven potato more...