Suppressed Cancer Cures; Crimes Against Humanity; The Power Within

The suppressed cancer cures that have been denied by the medical cartels throughout history revealed.
Taking  the COVID Vaccine is a choice. Insurance company’s may deny payment in the event of death from the Vaccine.

Fauci and Gates are Criminals and should be  tried for crimes against humanity along with many others.

As we increase our understanding of our true nature,  we begin to realize there is a  Source,  a Universal Intelligence of pure divine energy, that connects us all. Science may call it a quantum or biofield, described as “a field of energy and information, both putative and subtle, that regulates the homodynamic function of living organisms and may play a substantial role in understanding and guiding health processes.” Science also tells us that the heart electromagnetic energy  field be detected and measured several feet from the body.

Dr Joe Dispenza, a researcher  who healed himself after breaking 6 vertebrae in his back after being told he would never walk again. Through meditation, visualizations main-qimg-870c72f211d98b257e0d813911b8f9daand his belief system, after nine and a half weeks after the accident, he got up and walked, without having any body cast or any surgeries.

The late  Dr. Valerie V. Hunt, scientist, author, lecturer and Professor Emeritus of Physiological Science at the University of California confirmed electromagnetic energy is the most plentiful constant energy of our universe. It is a part of all structures living and dead, including the atmosphere. We create hqdefault (4)electromagnetic energies in the atoms of our living cells, which we enhance by the reaction with the atmospheric energy field. We know this expanded energy field as the human aura. Without this biofield life would not exist and there would be only an inner biochemical mix. Dr. Hunt was involved in research that is uncovering the various dimensions involved in the bioenergetic transactions between humans and the environment as they relate to human behaviors, emotions, health, illness, and disease, as well as scientifically quantifying the human aura and the levels of consciousness it contains., all you have to do is realize the power within you.

EXCLUSIVE: Fauci’s Agency Scrambled to Answer Questions on Changing Remdesivir Trial Endpoint: Emails

EXCLUSIVE: Fauci’s Agency Scrambled to Answer Questions on Changing Remdesivir Trial Endpoint: Emails

By Zachary Stieber
April 16, 2022 Updated: April 16, 2022
Dr. Anthony Fauci and top officials at the agency he heads scrambled in April 2020 to answer questions about altering the endpoint in a trial testing the antiviral drug called remdesivir, newly obtained emails show.

The endpoint was changed in the middle of the trial from measuring the effectiveness against death and various forms of hospitalization on day 15 to time to recovery through day 29.

Gilead Sciences, which makes the drug, announced the results of the trial in early April 29, 2020. Within hours, Fauci, the longtime head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), was trumpeting them to reporters at the White House.

The trial results proved that remdesivir “can block the virus” that causes COVID-19, said Fauci, who didn’t mention the change in endpoint.

Just hours later, doctors and reporters started questioning researchers involved with the trial and NIAID, which funded the study and said its officials were behind the change.

Officials at the agency were not prepared for questions about the matter, according to emails obtained by The Epoch Times and never published before.

Dr. Andre Kalil, an infectious disease expert at Nebraska Medicine Omaha who was helping run one of the trial sites, told Fauci, Dr. Clifford Lane, and John Beigel, all top NIAID officials, at 3:19 a.m. on April 30, 2020, that he had received multiple requests from colleagues and reporters on why the primary outcome was changed while the trial was underway.

“Believe or not, but I even heard nonsense things such as a conspiracy theory that Gilead opened the database and changed the primary outcome to favor the trial results,” Kalil wrote. “In order to prevent more conspiracies, I thought about a transparent and objective way to respond to these questions, so we can all be on the same page.”

The statement he proposed was redacted. NIAID, which released the emails based on a Freedom of Information Act request, cited an exemption that allows the government to shield inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters “which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.”

About two hours later, Lori Dodd, an NIAID statistician, responded by saying she liked what Kalil wrote. Soon after, Beigel, the trial’s principal investigator, said he was “merging the two” in an email that was otherwise redacted and on which Kalil had been cut out.

A draft statement was sent to the Food and Drug Administration, which “cleared with Gilead” a paragraph about the regulator’s “commitment to expediting” COVID-19 treatments and how the agency had been in touch with Gilead about making remdesivir available to patients “as quickly as possible, as appropriate,” the emails show.

The statement was still being adjusted at 3:20 p.m., according to a missive from Jennifer Routh, an NIAID spokeswoman, sent to Beigel, Lane, and others.

“We now have 10 media inquiries asking about why the primary endpoint in the remdesivir study changed,” she said, adding later: “We need a statement to respond as soon as possible. Is this OK to send or is this still under review?”

The draft statement was redacted.

Reporters from the Wall Street Journal, CNN, and the Washington Post, among others, had reached out, with the latter later quoting Dr. Steven Nissen, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, as saying government scientists shifted the endpoint because they “thought they weren’t going to win, and they wanted to change it to something they could win on.”

Another expert, Henry Drysdale of the University of Oxford, panned the NIAID’s statement, saying, “Whenever I see an explanation like this, when an outcome-switching has happened, that’s fine, but you were not open about this when you reported your quote-unquote exciting results.”

NIAID ultimately sent a statement out around 4:30 p.m., with The Epoch Times being one of the outlets that obtained it.

Drug-remdesivir-COVID-19
Rubber stoppers are placed onto filled vials of the investigational drug remdesivir at a Gilead manufacturing site in March 2020. (Gilead Sciences via AP)

“Little was known regarding the natural course of COVID-19 when the trial was initially designed, and the initial endpoint chosen specified a single timepoint for evaluation, namely day 14. However, with the growing knowledge during the epidemic, we learned that COVID-19 had a more protracted course than previously known. Further concerns were raised about the reliance on a single time point for evaluating treatment effects,” the agency said.

“While still blinded to treatment assignment, NIAID statisticians performed modeling of what happens if the right day is not picked for assessment, which revealed that meaningful treatment effects could be missed with that primary endpoint. Time to recovery avoids this issue, and the change in primary endpoint seemed appropriate given the evolving clinical data. This change in primary endpoint was made without any knowledge of data from ACTT, before any interim data was available.”

ACTT is the name of the trial.

Biegel, Dodd, Kalil, and others involved in the study wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine following peer review of the results that the change was proposed on March 22, 2020—after 72 patients had been enrolled—by statisticians who were “unaware of treatment assignments and had no knowledge of outcome data.” The change was finalized on April 2, 2020, he said, and the primary measure became one of many secondary outcomes.

On the trial’s official page, the change in outcome was not reported until April 16, 2020.

Additionally, during an April 24, 2020, teleconference that included then-National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Francis Collins, the original primary endpoint was still listed as the main endpoint, according to slides obtained by The Epoch Times. The data in the slides was listed current as of April 6, 2020.

Executives and scientists from Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca, among others, took part in the meeting. Bill Lee, Gilead’s executive vice president of research, was listed as a “tentative” attendee but it wasn’t clear whether he ended up attending.

Gilead, NIAID, and Fauci did not respond to requests for comment.

The emails also showed that Fauci listed erroneous statistics at the White House.

Fauci “used the old mortality numbers,” Routh wrote shortly after the doctor spoke during an appearance with then-President Donald Trump.

“Just spoke with Dr. Fauci on phone. He confirmed he has the new numbers,” Kimberly Barasch, with the office of the NIAID director, said.

“To be clear though, he USED the old numbers,” Courtney Billet, an NIAID spokeswoman, responded. “And I talked to him just now on the phone and he confirmed we should stick with those in written statement.”

“Fauci was great. Good job to all who prepped him, and thanks for trying to squeeze in the updated numbers,” Dodd later wrote.

“Thanks to all for the help—the process wasn’t pretty but it worked out in the end!” Billet said.

The impact of the trial results was dramatic. Remdesivir was immediately declared the new standard of care, or the standard treatment for COVID-19 patients, in a time when cases, hospitalizations, and deaths were overwhelming some hospitals. No other treatment had received such positive promotion from top government officials at that time.

Before the results were announced, meanwhile, Gilead sent Beigel a press release that the company planned to issue “just before the market opens tomorrow AM.”

“There will be a lot of interest after that statement,” Beigel wrote, sharing the release with Routh, Lane, and others with NIAID.

Fauci quickly reviewed the release and had no issues with it, Routh said.

After the Gilead and NIAID announcements on April 29, 2020, Tomas Cihlar, a senior vice president at Gilead, wrote to Lane thanking him for the ACTT trial “and the amazing work your clinical team did.”

“Congratulations,” Cihlar said.

The first part of Lane’s response was redacted.

“I am glad for Gilead as well,” Lane also wrote.

Natural Immunity is Usually Life Long

Corona Investigative Committee

American’s Grand JuryReal Evidence of Alleged Crimes for Real World Prosecution

Denial of Natural Immunity in Vaccine Mandates Unprecedented

ROBERT F. KENNEDY, is an American environmental lawyer, author and a reputation as a resolute defender of the environment stems from a litany of successful legal actions.  Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is founder of Waterkeeper Alliance and founder, chairman of the board and chief legal counsel for Children’s Health Defense. He is also counsel to Morgan & Morgan, a nationwide personal injury practice. Kennedy is an esteemed author, with a long list of published books including the New York Times’ bestseller, “Crimes Against Nature.” Mr. Kennedy was named one of Time magazine’s “Heroes for the Planet” for his success helping Riverkeeper lead the fight to restore the Hudson River. His reputation as a resolute defender of the environment and children’s health stems from a litany of successful legal actions. He received recognition for his role in the landmark victory against Monsanto last year, as well as in the DuPont Case that inspired the movie "Dark Waters" (2019).https://www.facebook.com/rfkjr/

Denial of Natural Immunity in Vaccine Mandates Unprecedented

Joseph Mercola

Joseph Mercola
February 11, 2022 Updated: February 11, 2022

Commentary

COVID-19 injection mandates raise glaring questions, with a key one revolving around natural immunity. Your immune system is designed to work in response to exposure to an infectious agent. Your adaptive immune system, specifically, generates antibodies that are used to fight pathogens that your body has previously encountered.

If you’ve had COVID-19, the research is strong that you’re well protected against reinfection. New data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention even show that prior COVID-19 infection, i.e., natural immunity, is more protective than COVID-19 injections.

However, people with natural immunity continue to be discriminated against and are still expected to get double- or triple-jabbed in order to comply with vaccine mandates — an unprecedented move in history.

‘Unprecedented’ Denial of Natural Immunity

The U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld a vaccine mandate at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service (CMS), which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The mandate affects 10.4 million health care workers employed at 76,000 medical facilities, making no exceptions for those who have natural immunity to COVID-19 due to prior infection.

Speaking with The Epoch Times, Dr. Scott Atlas, a former White House COVID-19 Task Force adviser, called the SCOTUS ruling “another denial of scientific fact,” adding:

“Our continued denial of superior protection in recovered individuals, with or without vaccination, compared to vaccinated individuals who’ve never had the infection … the denial of that is simply unprecedented in modern history. Proven fact and decades of fundamental immunology are somehow denied. If we are a society where the leaders repeatedly deny the fact, I’m very concerned about the future of such a society.”

While upholding the vaccine mandate for medical facilities that accept Medicare or Medicaid payments, SCOTUS blocked a White House mandate that would have required private companies with 100 or more employees to ensure staff have gotten a COVID-19 injection or were tested regularly for COVID-19 — or face steep fines.

The Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was supposed to be in charge of enforcing the rule, which would have affected more than 80 million U.S. workers. Of their decision, the court noted:

“Although Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly. Requiring the vaccination of 84 million Americans, selected simply because they work for employers with more than 100 employees, certainly falls in the latter category.”

Despite the private business vaccine mandate being struck down, the White House urged states and businesses to voluntarily enact sweeping vaccine mandates, again ignoring the fact that many people are already naturally immune.

World No. 1 tennis player Novak Djokovic is a prime example — despite previously having COVID-19, and therefore having acquired natural immunity, he was barred from playing at the Australian Open because he didn’t get the COVID-19 injection.

Natural COVID-19 Immunity Superior to Shot-Derived Immunity

Data from New York and California health officials, published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, show that people who had previously had COVID-19 were far better protected against COVID-19 infection with the Delta variant than people who had been jabbed. The report states:

“By the week beginning October 3, compared with COVID-19 cases rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, case rates among vaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis were 6.2-fold (California) and 4.5-fold (New York) lower; rates were substantially lower among both groups with previous COVID-19 diagnoses, including 29.0-fold (California) and 14.7-fold lower (New York) among unvaccinated persons with a previous diagnosis, and 32.5-fold (California) and 19.8-fold lower (New York) among vaccinated persons with a previous diagnosis of COVID-19.

During the same period, compared with hospitalization rates among unvaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalization rates in California followed a similar pattern. These results demonstrate that vaccination protects against COVID-19 and related hospitalization, and that surviving a previous infection protects against a reinfection and related hospitalization.

Importantly, infection-derived protection was higher after the Delta variant became predominant, a time when vaccine-induced immunity for many persons declined because of immune evasion and immunologic waning.”

In another study, researchers reviewed studies published in PubMed and found that the risk of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 decreased by 80.5% to 100% among people who had previously had COVID-19. Additional research cited in their review found:

  • Among 9,119 people who had previously had COVID-19, only 0.7% became reinfected.
  • At the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, the incidence rate of COVID-19 among those who had not previously been infected was 4.3 per 100 people; the COVID-19 incidence rate among those who had previously been infected was zero per 100 people.
  • The frequency of hospitalization due to a repeated COVID-19 infection was five per14,840 people, or .03%, according to an Austrian study; the frequency of death due to a repeated infection was one per 14,840 people, or .01%.

Given these findings, the researchers concluded that previous infection status should be documented and recovered patients counseled on their risk for reinfection. They stated:

“Given the evidence of immunity from previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, however, policy makers should consider recovery from previous SARS-CoV-2 infection equal to immunity from vaccination for purposes related to entry to public events, businesses, and the workplace, or travel requirements.”

It’s Rare to Get Reinfected by SARS-CoV-2

In a letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Roberto Bertollini of the Ministry of Public Health in Doha, Qatar, and colleagues estimated the efficacy of natural immunity against reinfection by comparing data in the national cohort.

They found that immunity acquired from previous infection was 92.3% effective against reinfection with the beta variant and 97.6% effective against reinfection with the alpha variant. Protection persisted even one year after the primary infection.

Researchers from Ireland also conducted a systematic review including 615,777 people who had recovered from COVID-19, with a maximum duration of follow-up of more than 10 months. “Reinfection was an uncommon event,” they noted, “… with no study reporting an increase in the risk of reinfection over time.” The absolute reinfection rate ranged from zero percent to 1.1%, while the median reinfection rate was just 0.27%.15,16,17

Another study revealed similarly reassuring results. It followed 43,044 SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positive people for up to 35 weeks, and only 0.7% were reinfected. When genome sequencing was applied to estimate population-level risk of reinfection, the risk was estimated at 0.1%.

Again, there was no indication of waning immunity over seven months of follow-up, with the researchers concluding, “Reinfection is rare. Natural infection appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection with an efficacy >90% for at least seven months.”

Another study from Israel also had researchers questioning “the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals,” after their analysis showed similar risks of reinfection among those with vaccine-induced or natural immunity. Specifically, vaccination had an overall estimated efficacy of preventing reinfection of 92.8%, compared to 94.8% for natural immunity acquired via prior infection.

Evidence from Washington University School of Medicine also shows long-lasting immunity to COVID-19 exists in those who’ve recovered from the natural infection. At both seven months and 11 months after infection, most of the participants had bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) that secreted antibodies specific for the spike protein encoded by SARS-CoV-2.

The BMPCs were found in amounts similar to those found in people who had been vaccinated against tetanus or diphtheria, which are considered to provide long-lasting immunity. “Overall, our data provide strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans robustly establishes the two arms of humoral immune memory: long-lived BMPCs and memory B cells,” the researchers noted.

This is among the best available evidence of long-lasting immunity, because this immunological memory is a distinct part of the immune system that’s essential to long-term protection, beyond the initial immune response to the virus.

Getting the Shot May Be Worse After Prior Infection

If you’ve had COVID-19, getting injected may pose an even greater risk, to the extent that Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, Ph.D., a cardiac surgeon and patient advocate, has repeatedly warned the FDA that “clear and present danger” exists for those who have had COVID-19 and subsequently get the injection.

At issue are viral antigens that remain in your body after you are naturally infected. The immune response reactivated by the COVID-19 injection can trigger inflammation in tissues where the viral antigens are present. The inner lining of blood vessels, the lungs and the brain may be particularly at risk of such inflammation and damage.25 Writing in Lancet Infectious Diseases, researchers also explained:

“Some people who have recovered from COVID-19 might not benefit from COVID-19 vaccination. In fact, one study found that previous COVID-19 was associated with increased adverse events following vaccination with the Comirnaty BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine (Pfizer–BioNTech). In addition, there are rare reports of serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination.”

As it stands, the U.S. CDC continues to push universal injections, despite past infection status, and natural immunity is not considered adequate to enter the growing number of venues requiring vaccine passports. This isn’t the case in Switzerland, where residents who have had COVID-19 in the past 12 months are considered to be equally as protected as those who’ve been injected.

The end-goal of vaccine passports, though, isn’t to simply track one shot. Your entire identity, including your medical history, finances, sexual orientation and much more, could soon be stored in a mobile app that’s increasingly required to partake in society. While some might call this convenience, others would call it oppression.

You can fight back against vaccine mandates and their related vaccine passports by not supporting establishments that require proof of a shot or a negative test, and avoiding all digital identities and vaccine ID passports offered as a means of increasing “access” or “convenience.”

Sources and References

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Natural Immunity is our Gift from God

Natural Immunity to COVID-19 Detected at 20 Months After Infection: Study

By Zachary Stieber
February 4, 2022 Updated: February 5, 2022

Protection against the virus that causes COVID-19 among the recovered was detected by researchers at 20 months post-infection, adding to the body of evidence that such protection, known as natural immunity, is long-lasting.

Researchers found antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD) in 99 percent of study participants who tested positive for COVID-19, with some having had the illness as long as 20 months prior.

SARS-CoV-2 is another name for the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, which causes COVID-19. Antibodies are a form of protection against the virus.

The researchers, led by Dr. Dorry Segev, the director of the Epidemiology Research Group in Organ Transplantation at Johns Hopkins University, put out a call for unvaccinated, healthy adults in the fall of 2021 and divided them into three groups. The first group consisted of 295 participants who had test-confirmed COVID-19 infections in the past; the second consisted of 275 participants who believed they recovered from COVID-19 but did not get a test; the third consisted of 246 people who did not think they ever had COVID-19 and had never tested positive.

In the first group, all but 2 of the participants tested positive for the antibodies, and there was no indication that the level of protection waned over time.

About 55 percent of the second group tested positive for anti-RBD antibodies, and the median level among those who did was lower.

The third group had the lowest percentage, 11 percent, of participants who had the antibodies and the level among those who did was the lowest.

“The major takeaway is that natural immunity … is strong and durable,” Segev told The Epoch Times in an email.

The peer-reviewed study, which was funded by charitable donations from the Ben-Dov family, was published by the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Dr. Nasia Safdar, a professor in the Division of Infectious Disease at the University of Wisconsin’s School of Medicine and Public Health, said the results were encouraging, “but likely applicable only to a healthy adult population, with the ability and resources to go get a blood draw.”

“We are probably missing the immunocompromised, older, frail group of people where immune response may be very different than other groups,” Safdar, who was not involved in the study, told The Epoch Times via email.

Epoch Times Photo
A 3D print of a spike protein of SARS-CoV-2—the virus that causes COVID-19—in front of a 3D print of a SARS-CoV-2 virus particle. (Courtesy of NIAID/RML)

Dr. Jeffrey Klausner, a clinical professor of medicine at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, added that the study “confirms that those with prior infection will have detectable antibody and that antibody may persistent for up to 20 months,” which should give people who recovered from COVID-19 confidence that they are protected and prompt officials imposing vaccine mandates to grant exceptions to the naturally immune.

“Unfortunately, still we do not know the exact level of antibody that is protective against infection versus disease or death but that matters less in the current context of living with COVID and accepting the fact that most people with prior infection or vaccination will not get seriously ill,” Klausner told The Epoch Times in an email.

The researchers who conducted the study noted that antibodies are just one measure of immunity. It remains unclear whether the anti-RBD antibodies will protect people against emerging virus variants, they said.

The Omicron variant became dominant in the United States in December 2021 and research suggests it can evade protection from vaccines and prior infection better than Delta, the strain it displaced.

Most previous studies have found that natural immunity is superior to vaccination, including while Delta was dominant. One study was backed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

A key question about the protection, though, is how long it will last. Some experts recommend people get at least one shot of a COVID-19 vaccine even if they’ve recovered from the disease due to the uncertainty, though others point to research indicating the vaccines would only give a small boost in protection to the naturally immune.

The new study was published several weeks after a different, non-peer reviewed paper found evidence of natural immunity at 18 months past infection in a collection of vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

Segev said he and other scientists are studying how Omicron affects the naturally immune, with plans to publish results on a preprint server soon.


Holistic Health and Alternative Medicine - Earth ClinicEarth Clinic Home Remedies. Time to get back to nature.


If you received the Jab, may want to listen to the Video below

If You’ve Had COVID You’re Likely Protected for Life

HEALTH NEWS

If You’ve Had COVID You’re Likely Protected for Life

Joseph Mercola

If you’ve had COVID-19, even a mild case, major congratulations to you as you’ve more than likely got long-term immunity, according to a team of researchers from Washington University School of Medicine. In fact, you’re likely to be immune for life, as is the case with recovery from many infectious agents — once you’ve had the disease and recovered, you’re immune, most likely for life.

The evidence is strong and promising, and should be welcome and comforting news to a public that has spent the last year, 2020, in a panic over SARS-CoV-2.

Increasingly evidence is showing that long-lasting immunity exists.

Initial Reports That COVID Immunity Was Fleeting Were Flawed

Seasonal coronaviruses, some of which cause common colds, yield only short-lived protective immunity, with reinfections occurring six to 12 months after the previous infection. Early data on SARS-CoV-2 also found that antibody titers declined rapidly in the first months after recovery from COVID-19, leading some to speculate that protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 may also be short-lived. 

Senior author of the study, Ali Ellebedy, Ph.D., an associate professor of pathology and immunology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, pointed out that this assumption is flawed, stating in a news release:

“Last fall, there were reports that antibodies waned quickly after infection with the virus that causes COVID-19, and mainstream media interpreted that to mean that immunity was not long-lived. But that’s a misinterpretation of the data. It’s normal for antibody levels to go down after acute infection, but they don’t go down to zero; they plateau.”

The researchers found a biphasic pattern of antibody concentrations against SARS-CoV-2, in which high antibody concentrations were found in the acute immune response that occurred at the time of initial infection.

The antibodies declined in the first months after infection, as should be expected, then leveled off to about 10% to 20% of the maximum concentration detected. In a commentary on the study, Andreas Radbruch and Hyun-Dong Chang of the German Rheumatism Research Centre Berlin explained:

“This is consistent with the expectation that 10–20% of the plasma cells in an acute immune reaction become memory plasma cells, and is a clear indication of a shift from antibody production by short-lived plasma cells to antibody production by memory plasma cells. This is not unexpected, given that immune memory to many viruses and vaccines is stable over decades, if not for a lifetime.”

When a new infection occurs, cells called plasmablasts provide antibodies, but when the virus is cleared, longer lasting memory B cells move in to monitor blood for signs of reinfection.

Bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) also exist in bones, acting as “persistent and essential sources of protective antibodies.” According to Ellebedy, “A plasma cell is our life history, in terms of the pathogens we’ve been exposed to,” and it’s in these long-lived BMPCs were immunity to SARS-CoV-2 resides.

Long-Term Immunity Likely After COVID-19 Infection

For the study, blood samples were collected from 77 people who had recovered from COVID-19, about one month after the onset of symptoms; most had experienced mild cases. Additional blood samples were collected three more times at three-month intervals to track antibody production; memory B cells and bone marrow were also collected from some of the  participants.

Levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S) antibodies declined rapidly in the first four months after infection, then slowed over the next seven months. The most exciting part of the research is that, at both seven months and 11 months after infection, most of the participants had BMPCs that secreted antibodies specific for the spike protein encoded by SARS-CoV-2.

The BMPCs were found in amounts similar to those found in people who had been vaccinated against tetanus or diphtheria, which are considered to provide long-lasting immunity.

“Overall, our data provide strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans robustly establishes the two arms of humoral immune memory: long-lived BMPCs and memory B cells,” the researchers noted. This is perhaps the best available evidence of long-lasting immunity, Radbruch and Chang explained, because this immunological memory is a distinct part of the immune system that’s essential to long-term protection, beyond the initial immune response to the virus:

“In the memory phase of an immune response, B and T cells that are specific for a virus are maintained in a state of dormancy, but are poised to spring into action if they encounter the virus again or a vaccine that represents it. These memory B and T cells arise from cells activated in the initial immune reaction.

The cells undergo changes to their chromosomal DNA, termed epigenetic modifications, that enable them to react rapidly to subsequent signs of infection and drive responses geared to eliminating the disease-causing agent.

B cells have a dual role in immunity: they produce antibodies that can recognize viral proteins, and they can present parts of these proteins to specific T cells or develop into plasma cells that secrete antibodies in large quantities.

About 25 years ago, it became evident that plasma cells can become memory cells themselves, and can secrete antibodies for long-lasting protection. Memory plasma cells can be maintained for decades, if not a lifetime, in the bone marrow.

In addition, in 2020 it was reported that people who had recovered from SARS-CoV — a virus that is genetically closely related to SARS-CoV-2 and belongs to the same viral species — maintained significant levels of neutralizing antibodies at least 17 years after initial infection. This also suggests that long-term immunity against SARS-CoV-2 should be expected. Ellebedy even said the protection is likely to continue “indefinitely”:

“These [BMPC] cells are not dividing. They are quiescent, just sitting in the bone marrow and secreting antibodies. They have been doing that ever since the infection resolved, and they will continue doing that indefinitely.”

Alan Fountain – Interview Disclosing Trauma Ritual By The Deep State for Exposing GA Pedo-Ring
An Appreciative Heart is Good Medicine
%d bloggers like this: