In late January 2021, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published research revealing that the natural immune systems of over 95 percent of people who recovered from COVID-19 had “durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection.” The NIH pointed out these results provide “hope that people receiving SARS-CoV-2 vaccines would develop similar lasting immune memories after vaccination.”

Evidence of Natural Immunity Following COVID-19

To date, epidemiologists estimate that nearly 211 million people worldwide have recovered from COVID-19. Countless experts, including those in a recent Cleveland Clinic study, agree that those recovered have an extraordinarily low likelihood of repeat infection, disease, or death because of natural immunity from prior COVID-19 infection. NIH research notes that this long-term immunity involves several components, all of which have been found in individuals who have recovered from SARS-CoV-2:

This long-term immune protection involves several components. Antibodies—proteins that circulate in the blood—recognize foreign substances like viruses and neutralize them. Different types of T cells help recognize and kill pathogens. B cells make new antibodies when the body needs them.

Supporting COVID-19 natural immunity, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a scientific brief on May 10, 2021, that insisted most people who have recovered from COVID-19 develop a substantial protective immune response. Scientists at the WHO concluded that 90% to 99% of those recovered from COVID-19 generate detectable neutralizing antibodies within four weeks of infection. Backing up the NIH research from January, they further declared that “the immune response remains strong for at least 6 to 8 months after infection.” 

While there are multiple reports of waning vaccine-induced immunity against COVID-19, an Aug. 25, 2021, MedRxiv preprint provides no evidence indicating comparable long-term natural immunity diminishes over time. Instead, the authors summarized:

“This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer-lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.”

The Politicization of Natural Immunity

With a built-in mechanism as incredible as the human body’s anticipated natural immunity after recovery from the novel coronavirus, why suddenly did the White House and U.S. government agencies discredit this proven miracle and become laser-focused on vaccine-induced immunity? Instead of focusing on their robust immune defense, those with natural immunity are repeatedly threatened to get the COVID-19 “vaccine” and are increasingly prohibited from returning to “normal” activities and are now losing their jobs.

A Sept. 13, 2021 article in The BMJ reminds us that as soon as Republican politicians began promoting natural immunity—including Senator Rand Paul, who recovered from COVID-19 and declared himself innately protected—the Biden administration manipulated it as a political weapon. The BMJ study suggests the argument for a less restrictive pandemic strategy, as recommended last year by the Great Barrington declaration, may have also played a part in the Biden administration’s strategy of positioning the vaccinated squarely against the unvaccinated. 

Immediately following the introduction of the Great Barrington declaration, in October 2020 The John Snowden memorandum appeared in the Lancet to dispute the assertion that less confining measures in dealing with the pandemic would “help build herd immunity through natural infections in people at minimal risk.” Signed by close to 120 scientists, including Rochelle Walensky, who now heads the CDC, the memorandum (with ties to Big Pharma and Bill Gates) declared:

“Any pandemic management strategy relying upon immunity from natural infections for COVID-19 is flawed. Uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity and mortality across the whole population. Furthermore, there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection.”

Walensky has been relentless in promoting the Biden administration’s push to inject humanity with a COVID-19 “vaccine.” A recent CDC study decreed that those who were unvaccinated had more than twice the odds of reinfection. In announcing the study, Walensky said, “If you have had COVID-19 before, please still get vaccinated.” 

Disagreeing with Walensky’s unproven directive, vaccinologist and professor in global health at the University of Southern Denmark, Christine Stabell Benn remarked to The BMJ that the CDC has acknowledged the “small but serious risks of heart inflammation and blood clots after vaccination, especially in younger people.” She believes the actual risk in vaccinating people who have had COVID-19 “is of doing more harm than good,” adding:

“If natural immunity is strongly protective, as the evidence to date suggests it is, then vaccinating people who have had COVID-19 would seem to offer nothing or very little to benefit, logically leaving only harms—both the harms we already know about as well as those still unknown.” 

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/20793561/leopold-nih-foia-anthony-fauci-emails.pdf

Indeed, before the Democrat’s dubious political narrative surrounding both the pandemic and the highly profitable COVID-19 vaccines became evident, experts considered the expected role natural immunity would play. At 5:58 AM on May 4, 2020, Ezekiel Emanuel— former Obama health advisor who served on the Biden-Harris COVID-19 response team— sent an email to Dr. Anthony Fauci. Emanuel, a biochemist at the University of Pennsylvania and senior fellow at the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, asked Fauci, “Is a person likely to be immune once they caught the coronavirus once? Do we know anything about likely drift?” Fauci responded within a few hours, declaring:

“You would assume that there would be substantial immunity post-infection.” 

Offering an alternative perspective on the mass vaccination of every man, woman, and child, Marty Makary—a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University—reasons that “Many of us were saying let’s use [the vaccine] to save lives, not to vaccinate people already immune.” He told The BMJ there is a substantial portion of the population who are saying, “Hey, wait, I’ve had [COVID].” He points out they have been “blown off and dismissed,” adding:

“If you listen to the language of our public health officials, they talk about the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. If we want to be scientific, we should talk about the immune and the non-immune.”