19 thoughts on ““We’re bred and taught to say ….””

  1. I’m not surprised. After all, corporations, by their very nature, are designed to make money for their shareholders. Covid is a windfall for them. I’d fully expect them to do all within their power to make a profit off a public health crisis (while appearing altruistic in their efforts). The question is if their profit making efforts are putting people in danger, creating greater health risks than the virus and/or are they being unethical?

    That said, I’m “curious” about the source and reporting. I’ve seen some of their work previously and they seem to have more of a political agenda than delivering unbiased facts and truth. As well, who are these scientists? How did the reporters get them to speak about something they were supposed to be sworn to secrecy on? What was the context of the conversation and does the excerpts fully represent the scientist’s total viewpoint? What’s the featured scientist’s training and role within the company…how much do they “really” legitimately know? How do their opinions square with the larger body of research? You can always find outliers in anything. Were the interviews real or contrived (fake news) to promulgate a specific point of view? Indeed a natural antibody response would likely be better but what about if the person doesn’t survive Covid in their effort to produce natural antibodies? What are the scientist’s views on risks and survival rates, if one tried for individual natural immunity?

    It would be interesting to learn what promises/mandates were given by the government last year at the initiation of “Operation Warp Speed”. To what degree did the Trump and Biden administrations know or endorse this and other things? Interesting stuff but a LOT more to learn before an “informed” perspective could be developed.

    1. There are certainly a lot of competing incentives here. The company has profit incentives. Politicians want kickbacks. Journalists want a story that gets clicks.

  2. Maybe I’ll read more or watch more…but it struck me the caption on top of the video…

    “So your antibodies at that point are probably better than the vaccination.”

    Aren’t the words on which everything hinges in that sentence for Pfizer or for the pro-virus crowd: “…at that point…” ?

    As a layman, do I think a week or month after kicking Covid the anti-bodies produced by an infection are better than a vaccine? Yes. Three months? Probably. At six months? Who knows? Maybe it’s better to get a freaking booster? I had chicken pox as a kid. Supposedly I’m susceptible to shingles which is the same virus.

    But “…at that point…” … What point?

    Count me against the virus.

    If it’s PJ Media I expect click bait…. Some guy wrote a blog post recently about how headlines are dividing us… I’ll have to look it up and share it with you when I find it…

    1. QUOTE: If it’s PJ Media I expect click bait….

      Exactly. When I saw the headline my initial reaction was… “Of course…something generated naturally by the body is likely to be superior to something artificially introduced”. As well, “what happens if Covid kills the individual while trying to acquire natural immunity”? “What if the individual survives but left with debilitating effects (e.g. lung fibrosis that requires life-long oxygen support)”? It’s a curious thing…why would some people rather risk getting sick and/or death than getting a vaccine? Even more curious is people’s confidence in their political allegiance over medical guidance when dealing with a potentially fatal virus.

      Beyond that, you have to wonder about the veracity of the story. Per my previous post, it raised a myriad of questions….all of which would need to answered before I could find the story credible. As well, remember we’ve been told “don’t believe anything you hear” and don’t accept media reports when they are first published…wait.

      1. I may just not be seeing it, but I don’t think that as of October 2021 there are many people advocating “just get the virus and be immune” anymore as an actual plan of action. I believe the point is more, “Why should I get a vaccine when natural immunity is stronger?” and questioning why verified natural immunity has no place in the mandates that being proposed and imposed.

        1. To clarify, I mean “Why should I get a vaccine when natural immunity, which I already have, is stronger?” Natural immunity has a lot more of a practical issue for responsible people in October 2021, when tens of millions of people now have it, than it was in April 2020, when people were just talking about what would happen if/when people got it.

          2. QUOTE: “Why should I get a vaccine when natural immunity, which I already have, is stronger?”

            Since scientists were referenced in the initial post, so I suppose they are credible enough to reference in this context too. They (scientists) inform us that in order to develop natural immunity, one must be exposed to Covid. Given that, there’s no guarantee the individual will not become significantly ill or die from the virus…thus not acquiring natural immunity.

            That said, those who choose this route take the risk of getting a mild, severe (with potential lasting health issues) or deadly reaction to the virus. It’s a bit of Russian roulette…they may develop natural immunity or not. If that’s all it was, I’d say, that’s their business and go have a nice life…or death. Yet, these people are not only gambling with their lives but others. Given the virus and its variants are highly contagious, these individuals put others at risk. There’s a real possibility they could negatively impact or kill another by their choice to pursue natural immunity.

            Interestingly enough, some scientists believe people that were infected with the coronavirus in 2020 and then immunized with mRNA vaccines this year (aka hybrid exposure – antibodies + vaccine) are considered in the best position to fight the virus and any known or potential variants. So, it seems, based on what’s known in October 2021, vaccines still play a part in providing the “best” known protection.

            1. Apparently I’m having difficulty making myself clear.

              I’m not talking about people thinking they have some kind of magical natural immunity so that they won’t get Covid, or will easily fight it off, or people who think they should just allow themselves to get Covid so that they become immune in the future.

              I’m talking about people who are naturally immune *because they have already had Covid,* which the evidence suggests is far more powerful than vaccine-induced immunity, and which can be verified through antibody testing.

              It makes no sense that having post-infection immunity counts for nothing when it comes to vaccine mandates, when post-infection people are actually more immune than people who are only vaccinated, yet being only vaccinated is good enough for the purposes of the mandates.

              It’s fine to suggest that post-infection people might want to further boost their immunity through vaccination. It’s completely illogical to treat post-infection immune people as dangerous because they’re not vaccinated, when they’re far more immune than people who are only vaccinated. Yet there’s no path for post-infection immune people to be deemed safe for all the purposes vaccinated people are deemed safe.

              1. QUOTE: It’s completely illogical to treat post-infection immune people as dangerous because they’re not vaccinated, when they’re far more immune than people who are only vaccinated.

                According to scientists, the population you reference can still contract and transmit the virus to others. That’s a problem with a highly contagious, potentially fatal virus. As well, it’s speculatively, if natural immunity will protect the individual against future Covid variants. Given this, it doesn’t seem so illogical to exercise caution with this population.

              2. “According to scientists, the population you reference can still contract and transmit the virus to others. That’s a problem with a highly contagious, potentially fatal virus. As well, it’s speculatively, if natural immunity will protect the individual against future Covid variants. Given this, it doesn’t seem so illogical to exercise caution with this population.”

                So can vaccinated people. And it’s not speculative. Studies are showing post-infection immune people to have many times more antibodies in their system than never-infected vaccinated people. Yet the vaccine is treated as sufficient for a person to engage in all activities that are permitted to anyone, but a post-infection immune person is treated as though he has no more immunity than a never-infected, unvaccinated person. There is simply no rationality to this, from a scientific perspective.

  3. QUOTE: So can vaccinated people.

    Ah, yeah! Given potentially infecting others, it’s NOT illogical to treat those with natural immunity with caution…as well, the vaccinated.

    QUOTE: And it’s not speculative. Studies are showing post-infection immune people to have many times more antibodies in their system than never-infected vaccinated people.

    That’s true about what studies are showing about natural immunity and it’s effects relative to Covid and current variants. Yet, it IS speculative if natural immunity will protect against future variants. That’s one of the reasons some scientist are studying “hybrid exposure”. As of October 2021, those studies seem indicate having both natural immunity and vaccine increases potential protection from future Covid variants. But, even that is speculative.

    1. And all that is just as true of the vaccine. You still haven’t explained why as of a given moment “vaccinated person with is good to go” but “naturally immune person with verified antibody level is unwashed Typhoid Mary pariah”. Going forward, should we monitor the long-term immunity of both the vaccinated and post-infection immune for possible decreases in how protected they and others around them are over time, or in response to new strains? Of course. But none of that is a reason to treat the MORE naturally immune people as though they are walking vectors when the LESS immunity-producing vaccine is considered sufficient protection for normal social engagement.

      This is not an argument to disparage vaccination, it’s to question why one source of protection is deemed insufficient for public health purposes even though from a scientific perspective, it is more effective than the other source of protection, which is treated as a silver bullet (at least at a given moment in time).

      1. Yes, if the scientific consensus is that a person has natural immunity from a previous infection, they shouldn’t be treated any different than a vaccinated person. Trouble will be those that have had it and are vaccine adverse/paranoid/uninformed might not want to tell the gov’t or submit to testing to prove that they are in that state.

        IDK what we are going to do in a year if we are still at the infection rates we have now. I’d like to hope that either everyone has been vaccinated or has had a dose of Covid so they don’t need it. I told my daughter that I recommended she get the vaccine, but her fiance is a RWNJ and it’s probably not going to happen. She has some natural immunity from having it 16-18 months ago…but that’s a long time.

        1. Where we’ll be in a year will be worse than where we are now, because the lies and the mistrust will only increase.

          My hope is that the virus will weaken over time. That’s apparently what most viruses do. It’s supposedly better — from the virus’ viewpoint — to make somebody sick, but not kill them.

        2. The people who won’t even submit to antibody testing to get them off the hook from the vaccine were going to be obstructive no matter what, though. In the absence of a system where established natural immunity is accepted, they’re being obstructive about the vaccine. In the presence of such a system, they’d just be obstructive about a different mechanism.

      2. QUOTE: You still haven’t explained why as of a given moment “vaccinated person with is good to go” but “naturally immune person with verified antibody level is unwashed Typhoid Mary pariah”.

        You are responding to an argument I’ve not made. My point had nothing to do with treating the two populations you identify differently. What I have said is treating natural immunity as if it’s a panacea is unwise, given the potential negative impact on others. As well, those that believe they have some kind of magical natural immunity so that they won’t get Covid, or will easily fight it off, or people who think they should just allow themselves to get Covid so that they become immune in the future …. are foolish.

        1. And you keep bringing up people who think what you quoted in italics as though anyone is talking about those people, rather than the people who have acquired immunity post infection.

          Who said acquired natural immunity was a “panacea”?

Comments are closed.