As I was looking through news today I found an article referring to a Doctor who is having to state what has been common knowledge for a very long time. Why? It isn't common knowledge any longer and the propaganda engines pushing vaccines, lockdowns, masks, etc. are conveniently ignoring what has been a truth in the history of illnesses.
Dr. Marty Makary made the comments during a recent interview, noting that “natural immunity works” and it is wrong to vilify those who don’t want the vaccine because they have already recovered from the virus.
The quote above is stating what should be common sense.
Until recently if you survived an illness you then had the best form of immunity available. You actually had better immunity than any vaccine. Vaccines were an attempt to trigger the same immune response that survivors developed in order to build up the immunity without exposing the person to the full effects of the illness. That at least is the narrative that they use to sell vaccines to us.
If you understand this then it should be clear that if you had COVID already and survived (If you are reading this and are not a ghost, that should be the case) then there is no rational reason for you to take one of these vaccines.
Yet that isn't in their plan. They are demanding vaccine passports, identification, badges, etc. They are not demanding immunity passports.
Considering there have already been over 10,000 cases reported to the CDC of people getting coronavirus after being vaccinated it seems like immunity should be held in much higher regard than being vaccinated.
That isn't the case. It was, until recently.
You can't lump this trend just with the COVID "vaccines". For awhile now there have been strong pushes for increasing amounts of vaccines. Over time that has morphed into requiring boosters. Let your common sense think about that... If you survive then you are now immune. If you get a vaccine you are now told you need to come in for a booster. Does that mean they stopped working (assuming they did in the first place)?
You'll get a nice song and dance when these things are brought up. They will likely trot out some "expert" to convince you there is some very rational reason why this change has occurred. They will likely throw around the label science without being required to provide any data, methodology, and proof of the scientific method being used to back up this new "push". If you go back far enough rational people had a label for this as well. It is a label that is still around but, most people seem not to understand it at all. That label is "Propaganda".
Consider the following:
- Vaccine manufacturers were given immunity for damages caused by their products. Any such reports now can be submitted through VAERS which the government might pay someone damages without charging the manufacturer anything (your inflated money, and/or taxes pay off the damages). They will also keep that information hush hush and if you want you can look for the information yourself. It is there though it is very tricky to find on their sites. It is amazing how obtuse and buried they make the information when it comes to this topic.
- This is not the first time the government has tried to mandate vaccines (remember H1N1 swine flu). Anytime they do this they have guaranteed the product sales for the vaccine manufacturers. They have no liability so there is no need to try to improve safety. In fact they have at times brought back less safe versions of vaccines (MMR & DPT) because they were less expensive to manufacture.
- Look at what the majority of commercials on commercial television are. Hands down it is overwhelmingly dominated by drug and pharmaceutical advertisements. If you were alive long enough or you had a time machine and went back in time say even 20 years we still had lots of commercials. Pharmaceutical commercials were very rare. Now they are the vast majority of the commercials.
- If you are a media outlet and almost all of your ad revenue is coming from big pharmaceutical companies and you find evidence their products are harming and killing people, or evidence of some other form of corruption what do you think you would be likely to do?
- If you are the head of NIH and get to tell people how to behave while simultaneously owning stocks in certain big pharmaceutical companies what might you do?
I wrote about the Hegelian Dialectic two weeks ago and if you are unfamiliar with it then you might want to give that a look. There is quite a bit of evidence that this indeed may be occurring in a great number of places. This COVID situation is no exception.
I can summarize it with one popular statement followed by an additional sentence.
Never let a crisis go to waste...
SENTENCE: It's even better if you can plan for and initiate that crisis.
Other than the title, the image, and that first quote at the top this post is all me. I linked to the article that inspired me in its entirety. It is rather short but it is available to you if you have interest.