COVID-19 confers no immunity

 

The above video comes to us via Jon Lebon (see links below on this blog) via Fakeologist (ditto). I find it staggering in its implications. Take a minute to view it if you have time. It is a little over seven minutes.

The WHO, a corrupt entity that is supposedly a go-to source on the scamdemic, is telling us that even if we get their virus and process it, that does not confer immunity.

Of course, they are only saying this because they are going to bring it back for a repeat visit, possibly this fall. Since it does not exist, they can play with it like a toy, stuff it in the closet, and then bring it out again later.

The implication, which will be understood by only a few, is that if the virus does not confer immunity, then there can be no vaccine.

But there will be.

10 thoughts on “COVID-19 confers no immunity

  1. They won’t have a covid vaccine, and use that excuse as a way to push the regular flu vaccine to keep as many of those patients out of the hospital make room for the covid patients. Just wait until this fall for intense pressure to get the flu vaccine. I’m sure it will be a “special” batch, or at least some of the batches. There will be adverse affects that aren’t traceable to the vaccine because they are not on the official list of side effects. If you are diagnosed with a disease a few months after receiving the vaccine, not many are going to link the two, most certainly not medical professionals who are pigeon holed into the standard of care guidelines.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Me too, but my ma did and she felt ill for days. Maybe the coronahoax is covering up a multitude of sins, flujabs, pesticides, etc. Just a thought I have as I wander lonely streets.

        Like

  2. Even without this news it makes sense to me that there’ll never be a vaccine for COVID-19. There’s no vaccine for AIDS after all these years. Or for the common cold for that matter, which is also (for certain cases at least) blamed on a “coronavirus.”

    Like

  3. but they will have a vaccine as always if they want one. You may not remember this, but once there was Ebola recently, not this Ebola from 70-s where natives in Kongo got poisoned with heavy metals by a French corporation and they called it virus to save them the trouble, I mean this recent Ebola outbreak with lot’s of fake videos and crisis actors and fake Hazmat suits, etc. they started to heal this with Flu and Aids medicine. This suddenly disappeared, later there was SARS in 2009 which they cured with Ebola medicine. Not they have Corona which they want to heal with SARS medicine. It’s always the same thing. What they actually do developing a vaccine is creating a mixture which causes similar symptoms they once claimed Corona causes. And they only make sure the side effects cannot be used for litigation. They don’t test if a vaccine actually reduces anything, they claim it does, because it have to, because it causes similar symptoms. Also they don’t isolate a virus anymore. They just claim the DNA difference between a sick person’s DNA and a healthy DNA must belong to the virus not explaining how they got the healthy DNA for comparison, etc. But Mark doesn’t like my DNA arguments, and I will stop here.

    Like

  4. What you did concerning DNA was to superimpose your own narrative on my experiences, which were first hand and random. You claimed a depth of knowledge, but in fact had to resort to farcical tales requiring extreme manipulations by police over a period of decades to justify your belief that DNA evidence is a hoax. Your opinions on the matter were extreme and had no evidence to support them, yet you chimed in on the matter with smug and arrogant assurance that you were right and that my own first-hand perceptions were wrong.

    In other words, you were full of shit, and the last to realize it. So you’re right. I do not like your DNA arguments. You assert your opinions with haughty self-assurance that replaces real evidence. That’s annoying too.

    Like

  5. that is what made DNA popular after the war. The phages in nature deliver basic substances like proteins to bacteria, which bacteria are made of. In nature phages don’t kill bacteria but help them to regenerate. Bacteria constantly exchanges information with other bacteria and the environment and adapts to it. That’s why after some sickness suddenly certain bacteria appeared out from nowhere to do all the cleaning, etc. Bacteria in laboratory are always inbred and therefore artificial. As soon as bacteria is taken out of the natural environment it starts to change and actually die. Only very few bacteria can survive in a petri dish and never for long and then they are not the same bacteria as in nature. This artificial bacteria becomes phages when it comes to contact with phages. That’s what was observed back then in the 50s and was the basis of the idea of the genetic code. The phages in nature don’t kill bacteria, the phages in laboratory change the actually dying bacteria into phages as bacteria try to survive.

    Like

    1. This is basically what Stephen Lanka is saying. The distinction between how things work in a living body vs. a dead one or in a Petri dish is enormous and completely glossed over in what we’re told about health. They are two completely different things and this is a point of emphasis we need to find a way to make ever more strongly.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s