Vaccination or natural immunity [Dr John Campbell]

  • Updated:1 year ago
  • Reading Time:6Minutes
  • Post Words:1288Words
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Dr John Campbell is well on his way now to moving to the right side of history as he continues to uncover how corrupt the pharmaceutical industry has become and that their “science” doesn’t match the mandate-madness. He still hasn’t clicked-onto the vaccines in general (that might take him a while because he’s been advocating for the vaccines the whole time), and still believes the “science” that suggests the vaccines made the pandemic less lethal overall–probably because he hasn’t yet grasped just how evil this agenda is, but he’s getting there. Here he provides the evidence that “now” the science shows that natural immunity is better than vaccines and that mandates and one-size-fits-all health policies make no sense given the data.

Vaccination or natural immunity

22 Jun 2022 COVID-19 vaccine mandates should not discriminate against natural immunity. The unnaturalistic fallacy.

Referenced as usual:

  1. COVID-19 vaccine requirements, debate.
  2. Policies should have recognised proof of natural immunity.
  3. Sufficient basis for exemption to vaccination requirements.


Two implausible claims about natural immunity:

  1. Implausible Claim One: Natural immunity is superior to ‘artificial’ immunity.
    • It is better to acquire immunity through natural infection.
    • Naturalistic fallacy (many things are natural, does not necessarily mean better)
    • It’s not a philosophical argument, it’s a scientific argument.
    • (A natural public health strategy, increased overall morbidity and mortality)
  2. Implausible Claim Two: Unnaturalistic fallacy.
    • Vaccination not necessarily better than natural.

Neither are necessarily true.

The paper says:

  • We lack clear and convincing scientific evidence that vaccine-induced immunity has a significantly higher protective effect than natural immunity.
    1. Vaccine requirements represent a substantial infringement of individual liberty, and other significant costs.
    2. Vaccine mandates can only be justified if they are necessary for achieving a proportionate public health benefit.
    3. Without compelling evidence for the superiority of vaccine-induced immunity, it cannot be deemed necessary to require vaccination for those with natural immunity.
    4. It cannot be deemed necessary to require vaccination for those with natural immunity.
      • Acquired immunity naturally, potentially equivalent to vaccination immunity.

We need to treat everybody on an individual basis not this “one-size-fits-all” basis. Why are governments going for “One-size-fits-all” policies? ‘vaccine passports’ ‘health passes’

  • Rationale for vaccine mandates.
    1. Preventing healthcare systems becoming overwhelmed, (staff and patients).
    2. Reducing community viral transmission.
      • The vaccines are not preventing community viral transmission.

Natural immunity and vaccine-induced immunity, evidence between the two are needed.

  1. All of the included studies found at least statistical equivalence between the protection of full vaccination and natural immunity.
  2. Three studies found superiority of natural immunity.
    • The Numbers Needed to Treat (NNT) to prevent one annual case of infection in COVID-recovered patients 218 (You would have to vaccinate 218 to prevent 1 case – not 1 death, 1 infection)
    • NNT COVID-naïve patients, 6.5
    • 33.5-fold difference in benefit between the two populations.

“Our review demonstrates that natural immunity in COVID-recovered individuals is, at least, equivalent to the protection afforded by complete vaccination of COVID-naïve populations.”

Vaccinations for recovered people, marginal on an absolute basis.

Omicron in adults aged 65 or over

  1. Those who have been vaccinated have minimal or no effect against mild disease with the Omicron variant from 20 weeks after the second dose of ChAdOx1-S or BNT162b2.
  2. Data are beginning to emerge which suggest that the effect of the vaccines on transmission may diminish within a matter of months
  • Immunological memory is the basis for durable protective immunity after infections or vaccinations.
  • Substantial immune memory is generated after COVID-19, involving:
    1. memory B cells
    2. antibodies
    3. memory CD4+Tcells (T-helper cells)
    4. memory CD8+T cells (T-killer cells)
  • Circulating antibody titers were not predictive of T cell memory.

So many papers talk about antibodies which is not an indicator of the memory T-cells. They need to move away from antibodies because they have the ability to look at the memory T-cells, and it really is surprising that they don’t. The memory T-cells is more important.

  • Antibodies do not reflect the richness and durability of immune memory to SARS-CoV-2.
  • Antibodies is irrelevant.

This paper looked at 150,000 patients:

  • N = 150,325 patients
  • 8,845 (5.9% tested positive)
  • 141,480 (94.1% didn’t)
  • Protection against reinfection for those who had been previously exposed, 81.8%
  • Protection against symptomatic reinfection, 84.5%

Massive study:

  • Cohort one, 2,039,106 (over 2 million people)
  • Cohort two, 962,318 one dose
  • Cohort three, 567,810 two doses
    • 767 individuals with natural immunity needed to be vaccinated to prevent one infection
  1. Protection from prior infection against severe outcomes from Omicron remained robust, 87.8%
    • Reinfection often occurs with negligible symptoms and high Ct values (meaning they had to replicate it a lot to get a positive result because there wasn’t much viral load), indicating reduced epidemiologic significance.

The case for natural immunity exemptions

  1. Vaccine requirements have significant costs. Financial costs are high. Lot of profit being made in a lot of pharmaceutical industries.
  2. Substantial infringement of individual liberty by having vaccine-mandates for those with natural immunity.
  3. There are non-trivial risks associated with vaccination.

Why is it that national agencies are not taking into account natural immunity? It’s almost as if they are trying to push out as many vaccines as possible. The risk-benefit analysis has changed so why are they doing it?

It does seem that it’s the end-users that are largely paying the bill for the FDA – they control huge amounts of the food, drug, vaccine and pharmaceutical industry, and this article says that the biopharmaceutical industry provides 75% of the FDA’s budget.

Penny: Well, yes, yes it is. the FDA, CDC, and WHO being pharmaceutically & globalist controlled instead of the other way around is a global catastrophe.


Penny... on Health
Penny... on Health

Truth-seeker, ever-questioning, ever-learning, ever-researching, ever delving further and deeper, ever trying to 'figure it out'. This site is a legacy of sorts, a place to collect thoughts, notes, book summaries, & random points of interests.

DISCLAIMER: The information on this website is not medical science or medical advice. I do not have any medical training aside from my own research and interest in this area. The information I publish is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease, disorder, pain, injury, deformity, or physical or mental condition. I just report my own results, understanding & research.