Vaccinologist Paul Offit admits that natural immunity was always superior to vaccine-induced immunity—if you survived the infection—but that this was not a matter of public health policy because Americans couldn’t handle the nuance. Bret and Heather react in The Evolutionary Lens 298, “Can Trump Make Harvard Great Again?”
Watch the full episode: https://youtube.com/live/3ILPe5owhtY
*****
Join us on Locals! Get access to our Discord server, exclusive live streams, live chats for all streams, and early access to many podcasts: https://darkhorse.locals.com
Heather’s newsletter, Natural Selections (subscribe to get free weekly essays in your inbox): https://naturalselections.substack.com
Our book, A Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century, is available everywhere books are sold, including from Amazon: https://amzn.to/3AGANGg (commission earned)
Check out our store! Epic tabby, digital book burning, saddle up the dire wolves, and more: https://darkhorsestore.org
*****
Mentioned in this segment:
Paul Offit on Covid immunity: https://x.com/kevinnbass/status/1891856265292169570
I wanted to move on to a clip that, uh, I saw of Paul Offit talking to Zubin Damania ZDogg that, uh, practically knocked me off my chair until a friend, um, reminded me that Paul Offit had told the same story before, which I had forgotten. But in any case, can we show this clip of Paul Offit talking to Zubin Damania? In February of 2022, I was asked with three other immunology, virology types to participate in a conference call about whether or not natural infection should count as a vaccine. In other words, for those areas that were still mandating vaccine, which was many in early 2022, whether they should be able to say, “Look, here, I was naturally infected here. This should serve as my vaccine card.” And that meeting was held with Rochelle Walensky, Tony Fauci, Vivek Murthy, Murthy from Surgeon General’s Office and Francis Collins, and then me and three other immunology, virology types. So he started off, he said, “Let’s introduce ourselves.” So Tony Fauci says, “I’m Dr. Tony Fauci from NIID.” And then Rochelle Walensky says, “I’m Rochelle Walensky from CDC.” I said, “We know who you are.” And the question is, who the hell are we? Right? Tony didn’t need to introduce himself. In any case,(…) we voted on it, and it was sort of two to two, basically. I mean, I was one of the, I think, natural infection should count for obvious reasons. I mean, actually, you’re making immunosomensal for viral proteins. You, in many ways, make a broader cytotoxic T-cell response. I think you’re better off in many ways. The problem with natural infection is it’s misnamed. It should be called survivor-induced immunity because not everybody was with a natural infection. So, (Laughter) Yeah. That was, I wish we had then immediately gone to the press and said, “Look, here’s the conversation we just had. Here’s the conversation that we went back and forth on on this.” Because while we all basically agreed, I think, that it should count, that the question was bureaucratically, would it work at a time when people could just go on the internet and say, “Look, I’ve been naturally infected and get out of it.” You know, it’s just, it became a bureaucratic issue. So I saw Dr. Fauci at a meeting maybe a year ago or so, because I was already getting out there saying, “I think we should target high-risk groups,” where I was getting a lot of pushback from public health people who felt that I had gotten off the bus. Because see, that was the whole feeling in this. You know, you’re either on the bus or off the bus, and there was no in-between. So I’d gotten that. Yeah.(…) I said, “Tony, am I wrong? Am I wrong in making this?” He said, “No, you’re right. We should target high-risk groups.” He said, “The problem is, many of you say that it becomes a nuanced message, and a nuanced message is a barbled message. If you really want to make sure those groups get vaccinated, then you recommend it for everybody.” And okay, so if we think that, we should say it. Because my personal thinking on this is, if that’s the reason we’re vaccinating healthy 16-year-old boys, that’s not a good reason. And just have it open. Say it openly. You know what I’m saying?(…) Because I think people are smart enough to hear it. Yeah, you’re either on the bus or you’re off the bus.(…) So, okay, on the one hand, that clip is just maddening to find out what the discussion was behind the scenes. But there are a couple of things I want to point to in it. Again, I said that this was a little bit subtle. So this is, this is where the subtlety comes in. First of all,(…) he covers a lot of the ground that those of us on the outside who were demonized and censored and ridiculed and coerced,(…) we’re trying to point out(…) these shots were painfully narrow, they focused on one antigenic motif, all the shots focused on the same motif, and that created a very narrow kind of immunity to the extent it created immunity at all. The idea that natural immunity is superior is based on the obvious fact that if you get sick with the virus, your immune system reacts to everything about the virus that it can react to, not just one antigen, in this case, it’s four separate proteins.(…) He correctly points out that the important immunity is T cell based, not antibody based. So another one of the little scams they ran on us was they pretended that a robust antibody response is tantamount to immunity, when in fact, at best, it is a weak proxy because the immunity you’re looking for is T cell based. So he evidences that he had all of this knowledge, even as we out in the public trying to make the case that we were being told nonsense, we’re being gaslit. And of the most terrible things that are done by our governmental structures, gaslighting of people who are trying to tell you the truth is at the top of the list. Where does anybody in government get the right to tell the public that you are a crank for trying to say true things that it privately knows are true? Where could that right possibly come from? And then frankly, I think, if I read off it correctly here,(…) he is building a defense for himself. 100%. Yes. And now, mind you, Anthony Fauci has a pardon, a broad pardon, which makes no sense, right? The whole idea of a pardon is that somebody, a president can give you immunity for some crime because they think in this case, it serves the public’s interest to give you immunity. The idea of saying, well, whatever you may have done that was illegal during this period, you’re covered. What the living fuck? You can’t do that. But Anthony Fauci has one of these things. Paul Offit does not. And so I think Paul Offit is trying to say- He’s absolutely building this defense and he hedges in this. He says, I was one of two, I think. It’s like, were you, you think you’re one of two or you think this was your position? Well, I looked at that sentence and it’s ambiguous. And I think what he said is I was one of two, I think that natural immunity should count. So it is ambiguous and maybe he’s hedging because it was unclear. But okay. So you’ve got- Or because he’s revisioning history. Could be anything. I don’t trust the guy any farther than I can throw him. And you can put DeMoni on that list too. But he is at least doing us the courtesy of years too late, telling us, hey, by the way, it was T cells. And by the way, the shots had way too narrow an immunity. And by the way, natural immunity was understood by all of the top people who told you it wasn’t good enough to be better. Even if it’s utterly self-serving, completely premeditated, made to look like he’s just occurring to him to tell this story, but actually it’s building a defense.(…) It is something that we did not know. Although you say that apparently he has said this before. He has recounted this story before, but in any case,(…) the two points that I think are likely to be missed here is this group of public health elites knew the truth about natural immunity. And that means that they denied informed consent to all of the people who had had COVID and had a right to know that the shot was worthless. Okay. Nevermind that it was very dangerous. The point is you had a right to think, hey, this shot’s not going to do anything useful to me. There are lots of ways that it could harm me. I don’t want it. And that is a perfectly rational thing to conclude because I’ve had the disease. Yep. Right. So they denied informed consent to hundreds of millions of people. This, I will remind you, was understood to be a hanging offense in 1947. We literally hung doctors over violating informed consent. And this group of arrogant assholes gathered and decided on behalf of the rest of us that they were going to mandate the shot for everybody because it’s too bureaucratically complicated to figure out how you would do anything else. God damn it. It’s a hanging offense. You tell us what you know, then we get to decide it. That’s how it works. You don’t get to do this. So, well, and Offit describes it as bureaucratically complicated. I read it as Fauci at least, uh, believes in the fundamental stupidity of Americans. He just like, there’s just, there’s no respect for the capacity of humans, uh, to do any of their own work. Well, frankly, I don’t know what it is that Anthony Fauci thought he was up to, but I don’t think it was public health. I think we have to always remember that this is a weapons guy and that this whole thing had something to do with dual use research. That’s where the virus came from. So not only was he going to lie to us about the risk reward ratio of the shots in light of the fact that you get no benefit if you’ve already got a superior kind of immunity. Not only was he going to do that, but he’s responsible for the goddamn disease in the first place. So, you know,(…) I nominate Anthony Fauci for a worst person on earth. I mean, I just think he has a strong shot at that title. Okay. So they violated our informed consent. That would have been one thing if the shots were, let’s say, tolerably safe. (…) But these same people knew, I mean, off it is a vaccinologist.(…) He knows how radically different this shot was from anything that had gone before and that had never been successfully demonstrated as a platform in human beings. So highly risky to get this shot and no value for all the people who had had COVID, which was a lot of people in 2021 when the shots finally came out. Okay. So the point is, are we to believe that the members of that discussion who had already had COVID took the shot anyway, just to do their part? I don’t believe it. I think that this is a tacit admission that amongst the ultra elites, there was an understanding,(…) who really there was an understanding that the shots were very dangerous. And as soon as you know, that natural immunity gives you all the benefit, there’s no argument at all for taking that risk. Why would you do it? It’s insane. So my assumption is there’s some mechanism by which people who had already had COVID didn’t take the shot. And by the way, I think they also knew that the disease as bad as it is, wasn’t dangerous to healthy people and that it was easily managed with commonly available drugs. So the question I want to know the answer to is, did these people actually take the shot that they coerced so many others into getting while violating their informed consent? I think some or all of them didn’t take it. And I think we have a right to know that. And frankly, I think history would change if we knew the answer to that question. That’s super important. I agree. I think the chances of us knowing are basically zero. And yet, given what Offit is saying here, he’s saying that and then he and the other presumably healthy immunologists and vaccinologists on that committee who remain unnamed in this public conversation. If they had the conversation that he is reporting, and two of them, Offit claims, Offit and someone else were like, no, actually, natural immunity is sufficient. If those two people claim that they got the shots anyway, are they stupid? Like, like either they knew that the shots were unnecessary, and they definitely knew that the(…) platform was novel, and therefore it could not be known to be safe.(…) Or they didn’t. And if the claim now, which may be part of building a defense is no, no, no, we knew a natural immunity would have been sufficient, but you know, as a bureaucratic hassle, then I’m sorry privately, you don’t go ahead and get the untested novel technology out of a sense of what? Like lack of bureaucratic hassle? Like that’s not the world you’re playing in, guys. Well, and you know, look, I think(…) the entire game across civilization, the entire corrupt fiasco is based on double standards. And, you know, do I think anybody in that room would blink an eye at the idea that they were privately going to do something different? I mean, how many times did we see footage of, you know, our governmental officials, you know, gathering soberly, putting on their masks moments before the cameras go on this kind of thing, right? You know, privately partying it up at the same time they were telling us to stay away from each other. I mean, double standards is the whole story, as you would expect it to be. And I think it would be wise for those of us in the public to realize what the message is, right? These people never cease to posture as if they are on our team and acting out of an abundance of caution. It’s bullshit on every topic. They don’t care about us, right? What they are doing is about them. And I think frankly, they are indifferent to us. We are like furniture to them. We are like cattle, right? So it’s time we got that message and we stopped listening when they furrow their brow at all concerned about our health and oh my God, it’s bird flu. We’ve got to, you know, kill the ostriches. No, I’m sorry. This is not motivated out of concern that there’s going to be an outbreak of bird flu and innocent people are going to die. No, that’s about something else. I don’t know what it is. New vaccine, some kind of new control measures, but it is not about the wellbeing of the public period. The end, I don’t believe it. Yeah, because there’s been no indication for years that there is any care for the public. No, anytime you get a peek behind the curtain, the exact opposite is what shows. It’s just the opposite, right? We are an inconvenient problem to be dealt (Music)
