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

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: rickymouse


The USA has way too many vaccines they are giving to the young, focus on the bad diseases. The cumulative effect of lots of vaccines is probably not good. I am in a higher risk group but do not believe this disease warrants me taking a vaccine that might trigger severe negative reactions.

So Measles, Mumps, Rubella are best for our kids to get them?

You cannot lump all vaccines necessity into the same group...that is not scientific nor is it rational.

I'm not sure your point here? So pick and choose what diseases you want to get naturally? How about they got two shots one with the actual disease and the other with the vaccine? Remember a bunch of these diseases are more harder on you as you get older like Measles. I just do not see how one can think the active disease is safer/better than the dead or inert vaccine.

I had the measles when I was young, and people have known for sixty years that getting them at a younger age was better, same with chicken pox. Getting Chicken pox trains the immune system to identify how to work properly, the vaccine does not do that. Training the immune system properly helps it be strong and learn to fight things throughout life.

Look at the shingles vaccine, a weakened virus....when you get it you have to stay away from kids for three weeks or so, it says right on the information from the pharma company. It infects the kids with chicken pox. They do not even know how that works, it was designed not to spread but mutates back to regular chicken pox with a specific marker they learned to identify. People think that the chicken pox hides in our body and reactivates, that is what they used to say caused shingles..but it is not correct, it is your immune system getting weak, so they stimulate the immune system to fight chicken pox again....which can cause it to be weaker against other viruses and pathogenic microbes.

When a person is old, they cannot build their immune system much anymore, just steer it to look for what they believe is a threat. Not that many people I knew over the years got shingles, maybe one in five hundred people, but now they say shingles is way more common....at least that is the sales pitch for the vaccine....Why is it now such a problem when it was rare before....why is the immune system not fighting it, is it being steered to fight other diseases by vaccines or do chemicals added to foods cause the antigens to be destroyed and immunity is lost. I will put my money on the second choice.

originally posted by: marg6043
I always wonder in sadness, with all the advances in technology, people are still dying because is not cures just treatments for many illnesses, cancer, hart disease viruses, bacteria, big pharma holds the key to cures but because profits and greed they suppress cures in order to push treatments for a life time, share holders are priority.

Is despicable and if is a hell somewhere I hope they stew for eternity in the fire.

I bet the medical industry helps to promote foods to the general public that cause diabetes, clogged arteries, arthritis, etc..

Supposedly picking one own snot an eating will make you ready for almost any thing, an fecal matter transplants probably add years to your life.

God made weed, man made booze....who should you trust.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Training the immune system properly helps it be strong and learn to fight things throughout life.

I really don't think it works the way you think it does.

.Why is it now such a problem when it was rare before....why is the immune system not fighting it, is it being steered to fight other diseases by vaccines or do chemicals added to foods cause the antigens to be destroyed and immunity is lost. I will put my money on the second choice.

When you say rare before how long ago are you suggesting? Shingles affect about a million older people every year and its been that way a very long time, many many decades back to even starting to count.

Maybe it just wasn't highlighted as it is today. When it comes to childhood diseases I would rather my kids skip the pain and suffering, so to suggest people "should" get chicken pox, or "should" get small pox is just ignorance.

"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is not something we should wear with pride...lol

originally posted by: Proto88

God made weed, man made booze....who should you trust.

God made all the nasty viruses too...lol

God also makes booze...you ever seen drunk monkeys?

originally posted by: carewemust

I bet the medical industry helps to promote foods to the general public that cause diabetes, clogged arteries, arthritis, etc..

Yep they are all evil...EVIL I SAY!!!!

originally posted by: nonspecific

No one chews on willow bark anymore do they.

Actually what is in Willow bark is different than aspirin, though it is known as "natural aspirin."

So Willow bark has Salicin which by itself is very weak and insufficient to produce analgesia, but the body will hydrolyzed it in the intestine to create Saligenin, which is absorbed and then oxidized into salicylic acid. Later years Salicylic acid was refined make acetylsalicylic acid which is aspirin. All three are different chemicals though related.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Of the two, vaxxing poses the least risks to health as vaccine side effects are almost always milder than the disease itself. Particularly if you are obese, diabetic, or have other problems.

Vaxxing is statistically safer.

originally posted by: nonspecific
Looking at the wording of thread it seems to be a discussion of opinion not a discussion of fact.

You don't actually need any sources or evidence to have an opinion.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: IAMTAT

How about you give us sources and data rather than words.

Such hostility.

If asking you to source your post is hostility you must be very fragile indeed.

Maybe you should read the thread instead of getting all triggered.

So I need to read the thread to get the information that should be contained in your OP? One of us is triggered, and it's not me, you can't even handle someone asking you for a source.

Even worse - there was no scientiic study to begin with. It's all made up gibberish.

It's an opinion piece by quack/anti-vax site 'Natural News' based on a Israeli news article that uses basic lying with numbers and a ignorance on basic maths and science to arrive at the claim.

Natural News - Covid piece

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: nonspecific
Looking at the wording of thread it seems to be a discussion of opinion not a discussion of fact.

You don't actually need any sources or evidence to have an opinion.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: IAMTAT

How about you give us sources and data rather than words.

Such hostility.

If asking you to source your post is hostility you must be very fragile indeed.

Maybe you should read the thread instead of getting all triggered.

So I need to read the thread to get the information that should be contained in your OP? One of us is triggered, and it's not me, you can't even handle someone asking you for a source.

Even worse - there was no scientiic study to begin with. It's all made up gibberish.

It's an opinion piece by quack/anti-vax site 'Natural News' based on a Israeli news article that uses basic lying with numbers and a ignorance on basic maths and science to arrive at the claim.

Natural News - Covid piece

Why is it that we're blocked from linking to known hoaxer like SecureTeam10, but Natural News still get's a golden pass?

Maybe it's time that the site admin simply auto-deleted any links to there, I don't remember anybody in the last year linking to a story that they had which was actually true.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Damn straight. I've gone 16 months Covid free after getting it when it first went around. People who are vacicnated keep saying I need to get vaccinated and I'm foolish, but I think they're the ones who have been bamboozled and put themselves at risk. Not just for lowering their immunity to Covid a second time, but for the health consequence for the experimental vaccine. The next pandemic will be those who got the vaccine becoming ill and many dying.

a reply to: Dutchowl
Here's a study I found while wondering if a peculiar blood type is more susceptible to wuflu bioweapons...

ty pe o negative? turns out not only rare, but is stronger?

January 13, 2021

Type O and Rh-Negative Blood Type Protective Against COVID-19

Estie Mermelstein, MSN, FNP-BC

Study from the Cleveland Clinic.

www.news-medical.net...

a reply to: HUSARIA
And that is precisely why I did not get the jab. My test showed I had the T&B cells programmed too.
Rainbows
Jane

Seems reasonable.

With time after more testing and research would you take a shot in the future if data showed either a mutation that your existing antibodies were not able to fight or that a booster would drastically reduce your chances of getting seriously ill?

originally posted by: angelchemuel
a reply to: HUSARIA
And that is precisely why I did not get the jab. My test showed I had the T&B cells programmed too.
Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: nonspecific

Nope, any mutation can scientifically be only less than 1% different from the original.
Also SARS-cOV-2 is only 20% different to the original SARS back in 2002/3. There is emerging evidence now that people who had the original SARS, still had T&B cell immunity 17 years later, which put them in a good place to fight SARS-cOV-2 being only 20% different from the original. Very much contributing to the +99% survival rate (which I did albeit I had very mild symptoms.)
Why would I want ANY type of vaccine for something I have already contracted against 'mutations' which are less than 1% different from the original?

Rainbows
Jane
The only problem is if SARS-cOV-2 is proved to have been genetically engineered.

So you are pretty much anti vaccination.full stop then?

Not just covid 19 or mRNA you personally don't agree with them as something people need?

originally posted by: angelchemuel
a reply to: nonspecific

Nope, any mutation can scientifically be only less than 1% different from the original.
Also SARS-cOV-2 is only 20% different to the original SARS back in 2002/3. There is emerging evidence now that people who had the original SARS, still had T&B cell immunity 17 years later, which put them in a good place to fight SARS-cOV-2 being only 20% different from the original. Very much contributing to the +99% survival rate (which I did albeit I had very mild symptoms.)
Why would I want ANY type of vaccine for something I have already contracted against 'mutations' which are less than 1% different from the original?

Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: nonspecific
How the heck do you read I am an anti-vaxxer from what I wrote hmmmm?
No I AM NOT AN ANTI-VAXXER! I am PRO-SAFE vaccine.
This is NOT a safe vaccine as far as I am concerned, neither is it warranted. I made the decision NOT to have the vaccine because my immune system is now already programmed against C19 and any direct variants.
I thought that was what I was explaining in my comment, nothing at all about being an anti-vaxxer.
So to be clear NO, I am not an anti-vaxxer.

Where do you get the virus can only mutate by one percent from?

And surely that mutation can mutate by one percent as well if that is in fact true?

originally posted by: angelchemuel
a reply to: nonspecific
How the heck do you read I am an anti-vaxxer from what I wrote hmmmm?
No I AM NOT AN ANTI-VAXXER! I am PRO-SAFE vaccine.
This is NOT a safe vaccine as far as I am concerned, neither is it warranted. I made the decision NOT to have the vaccine because my immune system is now already programmed against C19 and any direct variants.
I thought that was what I was explaining in my comment, nothing at all about being an anti-vaxxer.
So to be clear NO, I am not an anti-vaxxer.

originally posted by: markymint

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

I thought it very convenient that this has happened the day before the flood gates are opened and the U.K. (London in particular due to population density) becomes an invisible smog of Covid aerosols.

How convenient that as this makes the R number explode overnight, Javid, the PM and Chancellor all have an excuse to stay out of this mayhem in their metaphorically hermetically sealed bubbles.


Sure, the PM and chancellor put out the notion briefly that they wouldn’t isolate, however they would’ve known that’d cause a fuss and they could u-turn on that. Now instead of being seen as cowardly hiding while the country is infected, they’re merely doing what the people have demanded and isolating…

Very clever, or paranoid on my part? These are indeed paranoid times!