The Lancet finally acknowledges that natural immunity is far superior to mRNA covid “vaccination”

A new study published in The Lancet confirms that natural immunity to the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) is far superior to the artificial “immunity” generated by the so-called “vaccines.”

The paper includes a systematic review and meta-analysis of 65 other studies conducted worldwide. All of them provide overwhelming support for what many scientists and doctors have been saying about natural infection versus synthetic injection.

According to the study’s funding, acquiring and recovering from covid naturally provides strong, lasting protection against severe health outcomes at a level “as high, if not higher” than the temporary-at-best protection conferred by the experimental shots.

“The Lancet is finally acknowledging what doctors and scientists have been gaslit for saying for years – that natural immunity provides superior protection to experimental vaccines,” said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chairman and chief litigation counsel for Children’s Health Defense (CHD).

“Only the tsunami of propaganda and censorship from the pharma / government biosecurity cartel and the controlled media persuaded the public that Pfizer and Moderna were better at protecting the human immune system than God and evolution.”

(Related: Remember when The Lancet published, then retracted, a paper mocking the lab origin theory for covid?)

CDC now admits covid jab “immunity” barely lasts at all before turning negative

Even when compared to the immunity allegedly provided by two doses of mRNA (messenger RNA) from either Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna, natural immunity from infection lasts much longer and provides much better protection, the study found.

Natural immunity, the researchers found, was at least 88.9 percent effective against severe disease, hospitalization, and death for all covid “variants” 10 months after infection. It also provides 78.6 percent protection against reinfection for all variants except omicron BA.1, for which only 45.3 percent protection occurs.

Back in October, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) met to discuss data on so-called “vaccine-acquired immunity,” which the authorities have been touting all this time as preferable to natural immunity.

What the CDC found and discussed is that after two or even three injections of a covid shot, jab-induced immunity drops to zero after just six months before turning negative. Negative efficacy, just to clarify, means one’s immune system is worse off, and is basically now attacking itself like AIDS.

Even though all protection from reinfection wanes over time to some degree, jab-induced protection is the worst kind of protection in that it is not protection at all but rather a temporary bandage that destroys the immune system in the end.

Amazingly, the new study was funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Its authors include Dr. Christopher Murray, director of The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), which is also funded by billionaire eugenicist Bill Gates.

IHME, by the way, was “largely responsible for the notoriously exaggerated mortality calculations that overestimated COVID deaths by 20-fold at the COVID pandemic’s outset,” according to Kennedy.

The study comes as some authorities in some areas mull restricting people’s access to travel, venues, and even workplaces based on their jab status. If the jabs do not even work, then how can anyone require them as a condition of living (not that any form of compulsory medicine is legitimate, no matter how “effective” it supposedly is)?

“While framing this as an acknowledgment that natural immunity confers protection, what it is also doing is providing tacit agreement that government-imposed policies restricting travel are acceptable,” commented Dr. Meryl Nash, an internist and epidemiologist, about the findings.

“It furthermore provides tacit approval of vaccine passports.”

More of the latest news about covid injections can be found at Immunization.news.

Sources for this article include:

ChildrensHealthDefense.org

NaturalNews.com