Covid: “Natural immunity is way better”

The statement

“Every scientist in the world knows that natural immunity is way better than vaccine immunity.”


The source

Dr Peter McCullough, world leading cardiologist who testified last year in a Senate hearing to defend ‘alternative’ covid treatments HCQ and Ivermectin (which have been PROVEN to work, forcing many retractions including from the Lancet and the American Medical Association, most notably). Quoted by Martin Geddes on Telegram, 26 May 2021


My take on it

We must allow Dr McCullough some poetic licence. I don’t know that every scientist in the world agrees about anything.

That said, this core truth needs to be shouted from the rooftops – that natural immunity is effective, safe, and free. Vaccination is none of those things.

And those who really know this field of scientific endeavour, know that to be true.

For which reason, our innate immune system is to be revere, boosted and protected.

The experimental gene therapy (aka ‘the jab’) being promoted by politicians and biocrats as a policy response to Covid-19 is a direct, intentional and probably irreversible assault on that priceless asset.

Covid Cure: Ivermectin upheld in court

The statement

“Ralph Lorigo is the lawyer who now has won three court orders forcing New York hospitals to administer Ivermectin to dying patients. Incredibly, these three hospitals and their lawyers fought against the patients, arguing they did not have the right to receive the drug despite a valid prescription written by their doctors. In essence, the argument was that they did not have the right to try a potentially life-saving medication.

In each of the three cases, the New York State Supreme Court Justices sided with the patient, and in each of the three cases, the patients made near-miraculous recoveries after the Ivermectin was given. In each case, these patients were in the Intensive Care Unit on ventilators, unable to breathe on their own, and universally, after the drug was given, they rapidly improved and were able to breathe on their own.”

The source

Justus R Hope, MD, writing in The Desert Review, 19 April 2021

My take on it

If you had never heard of Ivermectin before you read this article, it alone should suffice to alert you that the official narrative is suspect, and that powerful forces are behind that narrative.

Dr Hope mentions that some commentators have chosen to ridicule Ivermection by categorising it purely as a treatment for animals. Sadly some panelists on the ABC’s Insiders program have done exactly that, speaking of it as ‘discredited’. Truth is the first casualty of war. But at what cost is such a lie perpetuated?

Is Covid the cure for the flu ?

The statement

“Flu has disappeared worldwide during the COVID pandemic.

Since the novel coronavirus began its global spread, influenza cases reported to the World Health Organization have dropped to minuscule levels. The reason, epidemiologists think, is that the public health measures taken to keep the coronavirus from spreading also stop the flu. Influenza viruses are transmitted in much the same way as SARS-CoV-2, but they are less effective at jumping from host to host.

As Scientific American reported last fall, the drop-off in flu numbers was both swift and universal. Since then, cases have stayed remarkably low. “There’s just no flu circulating,” says Greg Poland, who has studied the disease at the Mayo Clinic for decades. The U.S. saw about 600 deaths from influenza during the 2020-2021 flu season. In comparison, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated there were roughly 22,000 deaths in the prior season and 34,000 two seasons ago.

The author goes on to explain (probably laughing all the time) that the treatments for Covid are working remarkably well against flu and influenza. Of course, the main treatment is the quarantine, masks, and “social distancing.” The jab has only come recently and is only serving to spread disease, as they discovered in India.

The article goes on to say,

Public health experts are grateful for the reprieve. Some are also worried about a lost immune response, however. If influenza subsides for several years, today’s toddlers could miss a chance to have an early-age response imprinted on their immune system. That could be good or bad, depending on what strains circulate during the rest of their life. 

More laughs! They are more worried that Pfizer might not sell as many vax’s. Their profits might drop by billions of dollars. It used to be that children got immunity by exposing themselves to certain diseases, such as chicken pox. But that was too cheap.

According to Dr. Jim Willie, the World Health Organization (WHO) recently published a chart showing how flu cases have dropped dramatically in the 2020-2021 flu season (winter).

Was this due to the masks and social distancing? Hardly. If that had worked, then it would have worked equally well on Covid-19 cases. More likely, it worked because flu and influenza were being labelled as Covid-19, along with a multitude of other conditions such as heart attacks, car accidents, shark attacks, and old age.”

The Source

Scientific American, 29 April 2021


as discussed by Dr Stephen Jones

( )

My take on it

Here’s a complementary picture, from the same (WHO) source:

               (See )

The official explanations as given in Scientific American strike me as ludicrous.

One could theorise that the people who would otherwise have succumbed to the flu, during that period, succumbed instead to the Covid virus, simply because it got there first.   That theory doesn’t appeal to me either.

The most logical explanation, as Dr Jones says, is mis-attribution.  And what I have read supports that thesis, precisely because the WHO and other actors evidently encouraged it.

Masks for kids: High Court evidence is that risk was never considered

The statement

“At the High Court hearing today, 30 April 2021, it was revealed to the Court that neither the Tapton School Academy Trust (which runs 4 secondary schools) nor the government had conducted any assessment of the risk of harms from requiring children to wear masks in schools.

At the same time the Court received unchallenged evidence that wearing masks could result in causing pulmonary fibrosis, being “among the worst diseases that can be suffered or witnessed. It kills exceedingly slowly, by ever-thickening matrix formation, a kind of scar tissue, obstructing the alveoli and reducing their air exchange. The illness worsens over time, and suffocates the victim very gradually. Nothing is available to the sufferer from conventional medicine.”     

Also unchallenged was evidence of psychological harm suffered by children because of the pressure upon them to wear masks and the need to conform to the authority of teachers and their peers.

Against this background, the child (whose name and school remain subject to a Court anonymity order) asked the Court for an order stopping the school encouraging mask-wearing by children.

Roger Ter Haar QC (Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) has reserved his judgment but indicated he expects to provide his decision in writing by next Wednesday 05 May 2021.”

The source

My take on it

Tapton Secondary School is located in the UK, so I gather that this action is proceeding in the High Court of England and Wales.

I have my own view as to the wisdom of wearing masks in response to Covid.  Those views have been formed by examining some of the arguments and evidence for and against.

Not everyone who does take that approach, reaches the same conclusion as I have.

And of course not everyone takes that evidence-based approach.

The question is, Should we expect that evidence-based approach from government?

Of course we should.

And should we expect that evidence-based approach of those who are entrusted with the care of our children, and specifically of schools and teachers  – in loco parentis?

Of course we should.

To me it is unsurprising that an institution such as a school should just follow government guidelines unquestioningly.  I witnessed the same attitude early last year when I contacted aged care institutions in Australia in an effort to forestall what I saw coming.  They pointed me to the government.

The government formally holds that trust.  The government is all the more responsible for weighing the evidence for and against any policy; of assessing the impact.  The evidence is that in this case the UK government did not.

That is a breach of trust.