Should people who have recovered from COVID take a vaccine?
Epidemiology1 , immunology2 and the clinical data3 all say a clear No!. There is no good reason to vaccinate the recovered. ________________________________________________________________________  A British friend, recovered from COVID, decided to get vaccinated despite being naturally immune. This is the email he recently sent me:  Marc I suffered a mild stroke on Wednesday 8 days after taking the Astrazeneca 2nd dose. Since I am a marathon runner I am a very rare case. I dont smoke, have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, family history or come into any of the risk categories for blood clots You did warn me against taking the second dose and I wished Id heeded your advice. Ive taken a totally unnecessary risk with my life and I bitterly regret doing it.  Contrary to most, Tony was informed; he had been told about the power of natural immunity, about the longif not lifelongduration of immunity, of the risk inherent to any medical procedure (Yes, vaccination is a medical procedure! ), as well as of the rising levels of adverse events. He admitted he hadnt imagined it could happen to him  Though it is hard to assess precisely the actual severity and breadth of vaccine-related adverse events, it is very clear that vaccination against COVID-19 isnt as harmless4 as pharmaceutical companies, mainstream media, academia, health authorities and the medical community have been saying. And, in contrast to high risk individuals who are still susceptible, recovered people have no real benefit to balance the additional risks of vaccination. 2021 Adverse Events Reporting  VAERS US EUROVIGILANCE EUROPE YELLOW CARDS UK Date 18/06/2021 04/06/2021 16/06/2021 Fully Vaccinated (Mn) 148.46 137.44 30.68 Deaths 6,136 4,572 1,356 Incidents 387,288 316,925 73,944 Death per 100,000 4.1 3.3 4.4  For over a year, mainstream media, health authorities as well as many experts have been downplaying the power of the immune system, dismissing natural immunity5 and proclaiming that immunity to COVID-19 was short-lived6. Simultaneously, vaccines have been portrayed as the silver bullet to this crisis, an incidental procedure with no risk whatsoever. The data shows a different picture and many are coming forward7 8, to challenge the official narrative. We will demonstrate that the official narrative is a dangerous fallacy. The human immune system is one of the most sophisticated achievements of evolution. The survival of our species has depended on it for millenia. Today, we still very much rely on it. For the record, 99% of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 recover without treatment. Only 1% of SARS-CoV-2 patients, who did not receive early home-based treatment, end up hospitalized9. In other words, the immune system overwhelmingly protects. Even vaccines are entirely dependent on the immune system: vaccines essentially teach our immune systems what viral markers to be prepared for, they are not cures per se. Without a functional immune system, there can be no effective vaccine10. On the waning immunity fallacy  Once recovered, the immune response recedes, notably via a decrease in antibodies. It is not only natural; it is indispensable to restore the body to a normal, balanced state. Just as a permanent state of fever is harmful, a high number of targetless antibodies or T-cells constantly circulating throughout the body could create serious complications, such as autoimmune diseases11. Taking an evolutionary perspective, only those whose antibody and T-cell count waned post-infection survived. So, a decreasing number of antibodies and T-cells is reassuring, even healthy. Antibody Levels during infection and post infection  Redline= antibodies  Blue-line= Memory B cells | Credit: Nature  But this decrease in T-cells and antibodies doesnt mean that immunity is lost . It means the immune system has adapted to the new situation, and is now just on sentinel mode: Memory B- and T-cells, circulating in the blood and resident12 in tissues, act as vigilant13 and effective sentinels for decades:  survivors of the Spanish Flu epidemic were tested for their immunity to the 1918 influenza virus 90 years later  14,15 and still demonstrated immunity;  and still demonstrated immunity; people who had recovered from the 2003 SARS infection demonstrated robust T-Cell responses seventeen years later 16 . . the wide-spread prevalence of high cross-immunity17,18,19 gained from past common cold infectionsfurther demonstrates the resilience of natural immunity for coronaviruses. Indeed, all recent studies show that specific anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunity remains effective20,21,22,23, possibly for a lifetime24. Our immune system is a modular platform, it can combine in an infinite number of ways to address a multitude of threats in a variety of contexts. As such it is neutral to the viral threats it faces. In other words, there is absolutely no reason to believe that those recovered from Covid-19 would lose their immunity over the years, or even the decades25 to come. On the reinfection fallacy  You might have also heard of people becoming reinfected by SARS-CoV-2. Indeed, immunity, natural or vaccine-induced, isnt the impenetrable shield described by many. Essentially harmless and asymptomatic reinfections do take place. That is, in fact, the very mechanism by which adaptive immunity is triggered. However, symptomatic reinfections are very rare26,27. Like an army that adapts its response to the size and the progression of its enemy forces, adaptive immunity provides a specific, rapid and resource-optimized response. As such reinfections are mostly asymptomatic28 and recovered patients are protected from severe disease. In fact, innocuous reinfections can play a positive public health role by acting as continuous immune updates29 for the population. They can help form a seamless and progressive adaptation to emerging variants and strains. And indeed a recent study showed that couples with children were more frequently asymptomatic than couples without, most likely because children act as natural and harmless immunisation vehicles. The most likely reason why high density countries mostly have very low death tolls is that they have asymptomatic reinfections that regularly and widely update the populations immunity. On the variant fallacy  As demonstrated by the low numbers of symptomatic reinfections mentioned above, and also by multiple studies31,32, variants have thus far not escaped acquired immunity. Just as Americans can speak and interact seamlessly in England, unhindered by a few word variants33, natural immunity is unhindered by variants, possibly more so than vaccine-induced immunity. There is ample evidence of the sophistication and breadth of the human immune system, and it is clear that a few minor gene changes in the virus cannot evade its arsenal . Across the world34, multiple studies demonstrate high levels of pre-existing cross-reactive T-cells35 and antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. In other words, many were already largely immune via other coronaviruses. This is the most likely explanation for the unexpectedly high level of asymptomatic infections during the pandemic. More importantly, this demonstrates that even with large genetic differences, prior immunity to related coronaviruses is sufficient to avoid severe COVID-19. Therefore, it is quite evident that variants are of no concern to the recovered population. On the vaccine better-than-natural-immunity fallacy  You might have heard people stating that vaccines provide better protection than natural immunity. That is an interesting way of bending reality. Theoretically, there are several reasons explaining why natural immunity is better than vaccine-induced immunity:  Fewer immune targets: mRNA/DNA vaccines present only a fraction of the virus genetic code (5-10%). For example, they dont utilize the ORF1 highly immunogenic epitopes 36 . Therefore, the immune system recruits a smaller number of T-cells by tapping into a narrower repertoire and consequently mounts a less effective response 37 . The logic: Imagine you lose a number of key players for a football tournament, you might still win, but it will be harder. mRNA/DNA vaccines present only a fraction of the virus genetic code (5-10%). For example, they dont utilize the ORF1 highly immunogenic epitopes . Therefore, the immune system recruits a smaller number of T-cells by tapping into a narrower repertoire and consequently mounts a less effective response . The logic: Imagine you lose a number of key players for a football tournament, you might still win, but it will be harder. Longer immune trigger time: The smaller number of epitope targets also means that the alarm to the immune system will be delayed. This is a key driver of success in the COVID-19 battle. The wider the target repertoire, the faster the encounter between dendritic cells and identifiable antigens. The logic: Like a party you go to, you can start partying much faster when you have ten friends there than when you have only one. They are just easier to find. The smaller number of epitope targets also means that the alarm to the immune system will be delayed. This is a key driver of success in the COVID-19 battle. The wider the target repertoire, the faster the encounter between dendritic cells and identifiable antigens. The logic: Like a party you go to, you can start partying much faster when you have ten friends there than when you have only one. They are just easier to find. Inappropriate delivery location: The intramuscular delivery of current vaccines unfortunately doesnt mimic viral penetration and propagation at all. Coronaviruses dont enter the body via muscles. They do so via the respiratory tract, often infecting cell-to-cell. Contrary to muscle-delivered vaccines, natural immunity places a strong sentinel force of memory resident cells at the portals of entry38 and shuts the body entrance to the virus preemptively. From an evolutionary standpoint, this makes perfect sense. The logic: its much easier to stop an army coming through a narrow gorge than on the beaches of Normandy. Recent research confirms this logic. One comparative study39 in Israel found the protection from severe disease to be 964% for Covid-19 recovered individuals but 94.4% for vaccinated ones, and concluded Our results question the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals. Another reference comparative study40 by a team at New York University highlighted a faster, wider and more impactful humoral and cytotoxic reaction in recovered immunity versus vaccine-induced. There is ample evidence that vaccinating people recovered from COVID-19 doesnt bring any benefit. It quite possibly does the opposite, because of the risk of building tolerance to elements of the virus43 translating into reduced immune potency. On the vaccine innocuity fallacy  Without denigrating the incredible contribution of vaccines to modern medicine and public health, one needs to acknowledge that vaccines are a medical procedure. As such, vaccines should never be considered lightly. They are neither neutral, nor trivial, all the more so when they are injected into billions of people. By their very nature, vaccines tinker with the sophisticated balance of ones immune system. That in itself demands respecting rigid safety protocols. Though we have made considerable progress in our understanding of immunology, we are still very far from understanding its intricacies and subtleties, especially when it comes to novel mRNA and DNA technologies. Because of the risk of anaphylactic44 shock, auto-immune diseases, unforeseen interactions, design flaws, deficient quality protocols, over-dosage, and so on, vaccines have traditionally been strictly regulated. History teaches us to be watchful45 with vaccines, from the botched inactivation of polio vaccines that ended infecting 40,000 kids46 with polio in 1955, to the 1976 swine flu vaccine47 which caused 450 to develop Guillain-Barr syndrome, to the more recent vaccine-induced outbreak of polio in Sudan48. The recent rejection49 by Brazilian health authorities of the Bharats Covaxin is a clear reminder of how rigorous and independent our health authorities need to be if vaccines are to promote, not hinder, public health. Map of Vaccine Symptoms  316,925 reports (date: 06/20/21)  credit: Wouter Aukema  source: CDC  After 6 months of vaccination and a year of research, a number of red flags should be alerting the would-be vaccinated and health authorities:  Wandering nanoparticles: The lipid nanoparticles, the carriers of the mRNA, were supposed to remain in the muscle, but ended up broadly distributed throughout the body50, notably in the ovaries51, the liver52 and possibly the bone marrow. Anaphylactic PEG: A number of concerns had been raised regarding the novel use of PEG adjuvant53. Notably, prior research had raised the risk of cardiac anaphylaxis at second injection54. Sensitive locations: ACE-2 receptors susceptible to binding to the spike protein are highly expressed in blood vessel lining cells of highly sensitive areas, such as the brain, the heart, the lungs, the liver and both male and female reproductive systems. Toxic circulating spikes: The spike proteins induced by mRNA/DNA vaccines have been shown to be pathogenic55,56,57,58 and highly inflammatory59, notably because of the similarity of a spike sequence to that of Staphylococcal Enterotoxin B60. It has also been found to be directly causing blood clots through platelet activation61,62. One researcher said, Our findings show that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein causes lung injury even without the presence of an intact virus. BBB disruption  A recent study highlights the risk of disruption of the blood-brain barrier63, a fundamental filter mechanism to protect the brain64,65. The spike protein has also been found to cross the BBB and create inflammation in the brain,. High adverse events: Even though most likely under-reported66, the overall number of serious adverse events versus other traditional vaccines remains very high. The 6,000+ deaths67 seen [in the US] in six months exceed all the vaccine-related deaths in 30 years. This is quite disquieting, and tends to confirm the aforementioned red flags.. Children more at risk: The Covid-19 vaccines seem to be more harmful to children and teens, notably with a growing number of myocarditis68,69 events. The fact that vaccine doses are not adjusted for body weight is notably a cause for concern given the discovery of circulating nanoparticles and spike toxicity. These are essentially just the short-term effects of these novel vaccines. There is no long-term clinical data regarding the implications of these vaccines, notably regarding autoreactive antibodies (antibodies that target ones own body creating autoimmune diseases). To conclude, we question why anyone healthy and recovered from COVID-19 would want or be advised to take any riskeven the most remotein getting vaccinated given that:  those who have recovered from COVID-19 enjoy robust immunity,  natural immunity duration is decades-long, probably lifelong,  natural immunity effectiveness is better than vaccine-induced,  variants are not an immunological concern, presenting no risk of immune escape,  vaccines are medical interventions which should never be taken lightly, especially when still experimental,  there is no benefit for COVID-19 recovered and  COVID-19 vaccines are obviously not as safe as stated initially by the manufacturers.