2004 Clip Shows Fauci Saying, “The Best Vaccination Is to Get Infected”
The public health establishment has been extremely reluctant to admit that natural immunity provides strong protection against severe Covid. And while protection against infection is lower for the highly mutated (and possibly lab-generated) Omicron variant, it’s still better than what the vaccines provide.
For example, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky signed the John Snow Memorandum – a clumsy rebuttal to the Great Barrington Declaration which claimed “there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection”. (The Memorandum was published in October of 2021.)
Given this reluctance, it’s unsurprising that health authorities have insisted that those with natural immunity still need to get vaccinated. For example, the US federal vaccine mandate did not include an exemption for such people. And to this day, the CDC website states, “You should get a COVID-19 vaccine even if you already had COVID-19.”
Anthony Fauci was among those who stressed that previous infection was no reason not to get vaccinated, telling one radio host who’d already had Covid, “it’s very likely that if you didn’t get the vaccine your antibodies levels will start going down and down and down and down.” (This was in April of 2021.)
Now a 2004 video clip of Fauci has resurfaced, in which he takes a very different line on natural immunity. Fauci is asked whether a woman who’s had the flu for 14 days should get a flu shot, and he responds as follows:
Well, no, if she got the flu for 14 days, she’s as protected as anybody can be because the best vaccination is to get infected yourself … If she really has the flu, she definitely doesn’t need a flu vaccine … She doesn’t need it because the most potent vaccination is getting infected yourself.
In fact, as recently as March of 2020, Fauci told an email correspondent who asked whether someone is likely to be immune after catching Covid, “you would assume their would be substantial immunity post infection”.
And the issue of whether convalescents (people who’ve already had Covid) need to get vaccinated isn’t purely academic.
There’s tentative evidence that side effects are more common among those with natural immunity, meaning the costs may well outweigh the benefits for that group. What’s more, we ended up wasting millions of doses that could have gone to people who actually needed them, such as the elderly and vulnerable in poor countries.
As Fauci’s comments from 2004 and March of 2020 make clear, the John Snow Memorandum was simply wrong to claim “there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection”.
After all, evidence from other respiratory viruses surely counts (even if it’s not as powerful as evidence from SARS-CoV-2 itself). Each time a new respiratory virus emerges, do scientists go back to the drawing board and pretend they know nothing about how it interacts with the immune system?
In fact, the first challenge trial for Covid was published way back in May of 2020, although it involved monkeys rather than humans. There was clear evidence for natural immunity, with the researchers finding “near-complete protection in all animals after SARS-CoV-2 rechallenge”.
So we’ve always had good circumstantial evidence for natural immunity from Covid. But health authorities chose to ignore or downplay it.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Out of the
horse’scrocodile’s own mouth. Brilliant.There is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection. In 2020, this was obviously true: There can be no evidence for lasting, protective immunity against something which hasn’t been around for long enough to gather such evidence. On the other hand, that’s an entirely pointless truism which could – with absolutely no loss of meaning – be reduced to We don’t know for certain what future will bring. Minus the outright lies, all harangueing warnings about COVID, up to and including the most-recent ones, were of this exact same structure, in other words, they were equally void of content: People talking about what they don’t know. And endless and useless topic. And then, of course, comes the usual second half: Because we don’t know what the future will bring, we must now urgently do X because it could help against something the future might bring. However, they future might as well bring something completely different and X could as well hinder as help. This is still our old friend, the appeal to ignorance logical fallacy. Every so-called COVID expert who used such an argument – and as far as I know, they all did – is… Read more »
The standard moronic response to the expression of a view opposed to the official one is a horrible mixture of “argument from authority” with “argument from ignorance”.
Whoops
This may be true for some infections, but it isn’t true for all. Would you advocate being infected with Ebola is better than being vaccinated (if such a vaccine existed)? Even measles is questionable. It all depends on the severity of the disease that results from the infection.
True, but the example Fauci gave was Flu. These were his comments about flu and we might possibly presume, mild respiratory illnesses.
However, influenza is by no means a mild respiratory illness for some people of all ages.
If a person has recovered from influenza then they don’t require the current influenza vaccine, however that does not preclude them from needing next years vaccine if there has been a change in the predominate strain.
If a person has had the measles, like myself, then the vaccination is unnecessary, as they have active antibodies (measles remains active in the body).
You are obfuscating.
You are the one conflating influenza with SARS-CoV-2.
Yes influenza is a minor but unpleasant illness for most people but not for all, including children.
Take Whooping cough, another upper respiratory tract infection, which can kill infants but not adults.
Yes Fauci is talking about someone who has recovered from the flu, so she is immunised against the current strain of flu (H1N1 for example), however next year’s influenza could be H3N1 and this year’s immunity is unlikely to protect against it.
I was not comparing it with SARS-CoV-2. Which makes point 3 moot. If my influenza example is nonsense then so is this whole discussion.
Its comparing apples and oranges.
If a person has had a SARS-CoV-2 infection then they do not require any vaccination against it, irrespective of its effectiveness.
I agree that you are talking nonsense.
Can I ask what your qualifications are that gives you the right to insult me.
Are qualifications required now to insult someone? When did Johnson put that law on the statute books?
If someone insults my knowledge then I need to know on what grounds and knowledge that they possess
How can anyone “insult your knowledge”? They can say that you’re wrong and if so minded, call you a plonker for being wrong (and that’s an insult), but in doing so their qualifications are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether they are right. If a bus driver corrects an economist on a point of fact, say the CPI in September 2002, the only thing that matters is whether he is right.
Youve described an ad hominem attack.
An ad hominem which you appear to be making by demanding to know the qualifications of someone who has “insulted” you.
Before you get on your high horse, any more than you already have done, can you remind us of what your particular qualifications are which are so worthy of so much respect? just asking in case I missed them along the way.
John has paper thin skin, and hurty words are mortifying
You earned the right to be insulted m when you posted your low quality text
The qualifications I have that gives me the right to insult you are from the School of Hard Knocks, the Lifetime Diploma.
You shouldn’t be on public forums if you think someone needs qualifications to insult anyone. You are also mistaken if you think there is a right to insult someone, whatever the qualifications of the insulter. If you are that precious then perhaps it is time to go away.
“Fauci is talking about someone who has recovered from the flu, so SHE is immunised…”
“she”? Guys, don’t bother arguing with this guy; he’s a pre-programmed woke-bot.
Pretty much agree but be careful with flu. The ‘Spanish’ variety was especially lethal to younger age groups.
due to the specific conditions of war and its field hospitals allowing virulent strains in the young to spead easily and not be out competed by milder more transmissible ones. in effect lockdown type conditions of war stopped the fit and healthy people mingling and allowing a competitve advantage to milder strains. sound familiar?
From what I read and mentioned by Mike Yedon, flu is more dangerous to kids than Covid, but with the oldies it is the reverse.
Does anyone ever need a vaccination for measles, whooping cough etc.? If you actually take the time to examine the decline in these diseases and note the point at which vaccines were introduced you will find that vaccines played no part. What did play a part were sanitation, clean water, improved housing and better nutrition.
I reckon shorter working hours had an effect as well: football took off in the 19th century after workers started getting Saturday afternoons off.
I was born in 1956 and was vaccinated against diphtheria, whooping cough and tetanus. I had the polio vaccine when I was four or five. Polio became a problem because of improved sanitation as it was endemic and was passed via the orofaecal route, thus children developed immunity in their gastrointestinal tract.
I had measles and rubella as an infant. We had no central heating until I was 12, outside toilet only until I was 12.
“I had measles and rubella as an infant. We had no central heating until I was 12, outside toilet only until I was 12.”
Central heating! You were lucky. We used to sleep in one room, all 26 of us. And ‘alf the floor was missing ‘cos we used it to put on t’fire. We all huddled in one corner, for fear of falling.
You’re younger than me then. I had measles when I was five, but I never had diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus, mumps, chicken pox, rubella, scarlet fever or polio, even though I was only vaccinated against polio and cholera (I spent a few years of my childhood in Hong Kong). Re: polio I rather think DDT has a part to play there.
Well, didn’t you have a posh upbringing
“Needing [sic] next [year’s] [flu] vaccine“??
You need to wake up.
If a person has recovered from influenza then they don’t require the current influenza vaccine, however that does not preclude them from needing next years vaccine if there has been a change in the predominate strain.
Did you mean “predominant” strain?
I take it that you are not impressed by those who doubt the efficacy of influenza vaccines in general.
I wonder if you consider that the Diamond Princess event indicates pre-existing immunity to Covid 19 in part of the population.
Until the so-called avian flu of 2004/ 2005, there was no such thing as a flu vaccine. Maybe technically, there was (I don’t know) but that’s when it started to get marketed aggressively. Which suggests that it isn’t that useful or necessary.
As far as I know, the clinical definition of mild disease is doesn’t require hospital treatment. In this sense, influenza is usually a mild disease. But the symptoms can nevertheless by very unpleasant. But in my opinion, it doesn’t warrant any kind of medical treatement for the usual case. Getting sick and recovering from that is just a normal part of life.
I suppose people make the connection when flu causes Pneumonia.
And on the shape of the graph of expected severity, and on the viral load of course. Personally I would a million times rather be infected with a median load of SARSCoV2, of any subvariant, than be “vaccinated”.
The point is not whether you would want to be infected by eg ebola, but that if someone were infected by ebola or measles etc and survived they would have developed a stronger and longer lasting immune response. The whole point of a vaccine is to lessen the symptoms of subsequent infections by promoting a milder immune response to a specific amount of denatured antigen then you would get with a natural infecrtion. Not to give you a bad enough reaction to the vaccine that makes it pointless in comparison to natural infection. The caveat as you say is that some diseases come with possible severe problems and so vaccine is preferable. This is not the case with covid for a vast amount of people and flu also for all but the vulnerable. Also your upper resiratory tract has its own specific memory response which is induced during natural infections. A vascular vaccine does not produce this same response, hence is useless for stopping replication and transmission of a urt virus, as we know. Natural immunity is the only and quickest way out of an epidemic of a virus like sars2. Unless it is an intranasal vaccine it cannot help… Read more »
Brilliant post!
‘Also your upper respiratory tract has its own specific memory response which is induced during natural infections’
I didn’t know that prior to your post. I learn something new from this site every day!
This is besides the point of the article which was about a situation where infection/ illness had already happened. It’s also more generally besides the point, as bringing up Ebola in the context of Sars-CoV2/ COVID is seriously inappropriate.
Covid – 0.2% mortality ….. is not Ebola – 50% mortality. Or Bubonic Plague – 30% mortality. Or even Measels – roughly 10% mortality in very poor countries but 1% in developed ones.
And that precisely is how I dealt with so called covid.
I said Boris can shove his unproven injection
“it’s very likely that if you didn’t get the vaccine your antibodies levels will start going down and down and down and down.” “Well, no, if she got the flu for 14 days, she’s as protected as anybody can be because the best vaccination is to get infected yourself …” These two statements are not mutually exclusive. Antibody levels WILL drop after an infection. Further, high antibody levels in and of itself is no guarantee of immunity. With natural immunity, however, the white blood cells will retain the memory of the virus/antigen. So, if that virus is encountered again the body’s reaction will be immediate in producing antibodies when required. It doesn’t need armies of antibodies charging around the system on the off-chance an infection is going to occur – this excess of antibodies is itself problematic. What’s more, we ended up wasting millions of doses that could have gone to people who actually needed them, such as the elderly and vulnerable in poor countries. Why send these experimental treatments elsewhere? At the outset of 2021 the vaxx was already proving to be problematic in older age groups (not that LS would admit this a year ago). Why then should this ‘elderly and vulnerable’… Read more »
The response to a second infection is quicker but not immediate as the pathogen still has to be identified. Also the vaccines are not gene therapy as they do not alter the human genome.
In every natural immune response this is true. I am not sure what ‘immediate’ has to do with my point?
Traditional vaccines may not be, but Pfiezer, Moderna etc are not traditional vaccines. Research has shown that mRNA vaxx treatments interferes with human DNA via different mechanisms, among other things. The spike protein produced by the mRNA interferes with the process of repairing of damaged DNA.
Further info is now coming out regularly, not least from the release of the Pfiezer trial documents known
Pharmaceuticals to not have to alter the genome to be classed as gene therapy. Your revisionism is showing, you ought to put it away, it’s rather an unpleasant sight.
Yes they do. Search gene therapy great ormond street hospital. Search gene therapy CDC. Gene therapy is designed to replace faulty genes, e.g. muscular dystrophy, with healthy genes. Please explain revisionism as I don’t know what it means.
Wrong. And look up revisionism yourself.
Is this what you mean? (My italics, underlined bold)
“Definition and Nature of Revisionism: The term revisionism is used in a pejorative sense. People use the word revisionism to deprecate some ideas, ideology and concept. The German synonym of this word is durchsehen.
It is to be noted here that to revise or review something is not bad or condemnable at all. But in the Marxian literature it carries a special connotation. The Marxists use the term revisionism or revisionists to condemn those who have deviated from orthodox Marxism.”
There are many research papers that explain the way the viral mRNA used in the treatment interferes with human DNA. Here is one example, and I quote an extract from the abstract (my emphasis and underline).
Innate Immune Suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes and microRNAs
I suggest you look at the qualifications and affiliations of the authors of this paper.
Also note that human herpes virus 6 can attach itself to the human genome in 0.8% of the infected population and is passed down the generations, so is HHV6 a gene therapy?
If you can link to a paper specifically challenging the findings of Seneff et al, as quoted, I would be interested to look at it.
Meanwhile, I suggest you look at the FDA’s definition of Gene Therapy. I trust you will find these two extracts useful
And? Please show me exactly how the Pfizer and Moderna preparations meet any of this definition. The genes referred to in this definition are human genes. As I said, replacing the genes that cause muscular dystrophy by genes that don’t.
You haven’t read my post, of the FDA definition. Gene Therapy (in humans) includes the use of viruses as viral vectors, as well as other mechanisms including gene replacement. You seem to be in denial of this. A variety of types of gene therapy methods include: Plasmid DNA: Circular DNA molecules can be genetically engineered to carry therapeutic genes into human cells. Viral vectors: Viruses have a natural ability to deliver genetic material into cells, and therefore some gene therapy products are derived from viruses. Once viruses have been modified to remove their ability to cause infectious disease, these modified viruses can be used as vectors (vehicles) to carry therapeutic genes into human cells. Bacterial vectors: Bacteria can be modified to prevent them from causing infectious disease and then used as vectors (vehicles) to carry therapeutic genes into human tissues. Human gene editing technology: The goals of gene editing are to disrupt harmful genes or to repair mutated genes. Patient-derived cellular gene therapy products: Cells are removed from the patient, genetically modified (often using a viral vector) and then returned to the patient. Please also see my reply to TheyLiveandWeLockdown (below) where the president of Bayer also acknowledges that the… Read more »
I have had one reply blocked, so will try to edit it. You haven’t read my post or the FDA definition linked to. Gene Therapy (in humans) includes the use of viruses as viral vectors, as well as other mechanisms including gene replacement. You seem to be in denial of this. The types of gene therapy methods detailed on the FDA website (link given above) include: Plasmid DNA; Viral vectors; Bacterial vectors; Human gene editing technology; Patient-derived cellular gene therapy products (that you are referring to).
Please also see my reply to TheyLiveandWeLockdown (below) where the president of Bayer also acknowledges that the mRNA vaxx is ‘cell and gene therapy’.
You best get in touch with Moderna and Pfizer and tell them they were wrong when they applied for USA patents – they described these novel medical treatments as gene therapy!
Why the fuck are you quoting ANYTHING from the FDA ?
The producer Bayer called them Gene Therapy.
Why did you lie then?
“Ultimately the mRNA vaccines are an example for that ‘cell and gene therapy’. I always like to say, if we had surveyed two years ago in the public; would you be willing to take gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body, we would have probably had a 95% refusal rate”.
~ Bayer Pharmaceuticals President, Stefan Oelrich
That’s odd. The germ “gene therapy” was originally used by the manufacturers.
Apologies BF – I see the point has already been made.
Correct about antibodies. They are only there when actually needed. The templates are stored by the other components of the immune system, to be used to manufacture more antibodies if required. Another big advantage of natural immunity is it’s flexibility. It recognises cousins of a previous infection, not just a specific single element. Strong evidence shows that exposure to SARS Cov-1 provides some immunity to the Cov-2 relative, many years later.
Liars usually catch themselves in their own traps. The big concern is whether they do it before screwing other people, perhaps limiting damage; or after, when those they seek to deceive have already suffered.
This monster is a blot on Mankind.
“The best vaccination is to get infected” – but not for those that die from COVID. For those individuals, it is better to receive a vaccine.
That is an obvious statement of fact. God only knows why it has been downvoted! It means that it is sensible to vaccinate those who have been identified as clinically vulnerable but not those – the vast majority – who are not vulnerable.
Queue more downvotes! 🙂
It would only be sensible if you had properly tested the gunk before jabbing people and took into account the huge reductions in mortality achieved by proper doctors using combinations of existing treatments.
And it’s cue, not queue.
Note that smallpox vaccine can cause some of the adverse effects associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination Cheng et al (2016),”Post-vaccination myositis and myocarditis in a previously healthy male”, Allergy Asthma Clinical Immunology, 12,6 Dilber et al (letter) (2003), “Acute Myocarditis Associated WithTetanus Vaccination”, Mayo Clin Proc, 78, pp1431-1433 Eckart et al (2005), “Comparison of Clinical Presentation of Acute Myocarditis Following Smallpox Vaccination to Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients <40 Years of Age”,The American Journal of Cardiology, 95, pp1252-1255 Engler et al (2015),”A Prospective Study of the Incidence of Myocarditis/Pericarditis and New Onset Cardiac Symptoms following Smallpox and Influenza Vaccination”, PLOS One Helle et al (1978),”Myocardial complications of immunisations”, Annals of Clinical Research, 10,5, pp 280-287 Kim et al (2019),” Acute fulminant myocarditis following influenza vaccination requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation”, Acute and Critical Care, 34, 2, pp165-169 Murphy ey al (2003),”Eosinophilic-lymphocytic myocarditis after smallpox vaccination”, Lancet, 362, pp 1378-1380 Polat et al (2008), “Severe thrombocytopenia after hepatitis B vaccine in an infant from Turkey”, Vaccine, 26, pp 6495-6496 Ronchi et al (1998), “Thrombocytopenic purpura as adverse reaction to recombinant hepatitis B vaccine”,Archive of Disease in Childhood, 78, pp 273-274 Saurina et al( 2003), Myocarditis after Smallpox Vaccination: A Case Report”, Clinical Infectious Diseases, 37, pp 145–6 Schattner A. (2005),”Consequence or coincidence? The occurrence,… Read more »
Oh no… if it’s more than one it’s a queue! Cue the queue of pedants.
Wouldn’t the downvoters be in the queue rather than their downvotes? I claim first place in the pedant queue.
Ah. Spot on. Your pedantry is a joy. 🙂
Maybe there was a queue to downvote?
Ditto.
How can it be sensible (let alone ethical) to take those presumed to be vulnerable and co-opt them into a clinical trial of an experimental gene treatment that had hitherto been denied widespread human usage permission before SARS CoV-2? Particularly when (a) this was not an ’emergency situation’ and (b) effective treatments did exist such as Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine (although this was denied to enable the ‘special conditions’ for a liability free vaxx roll out by Big Pharma). Such a move would be wholly in breach of the Nuremberg Code.
Please note, the upcoming vaxxing of the under 5s in the USA has nothing to do with their vulnerability to Covid (as this is utterly negligible), but simply to continue Big Pharma’s exemption from liability for vaxx damage to ALL age groups that applies under the emergency legislation.
In other words it would be coerced Guinea Piggery.
Yawn… Whatever…
You are a complete cockwomble.
No, sorry. Lack of logic. If you’ve died, no covid injection has kept you alive. So, “– but not for those that die from COVID. For those individuals, it is better to receive a vaccine.” They have died. The injection hasn’t worked.
And you’re a complete disillusioned dickhead.
Please provide some evidence for this assertion
It’s almost as though the whole thing has been a complete and utter crock from the start.
All the covid theatre is certainly nothing to do with health.
It never was about health, it was always about WEF 2030 implementation.
Total control by unelected technoctats.
“You will own nothing, and be happy”.
Fuck off, and die.
If I were religious, I would pray the someone would infiltrate the next Davos/WEF gathering and sacrifice themseves for the good of the many.
what do you think about this?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1065279/vaccine-surveillance-report-week-13.pdf
table 3
effectiveness against mortality – a lot of ‘insufficient data’
I see no data…
Fauci was the source of other misinformation
yes, the vaccines were supposed to stop covid spread. yes, the “experts” told us so.
He’s a filthy liar. Who knew?
I am getting seriously angry by some of the claims made about myself on this site. First of all, the mRNA vaccine is NOT gene therapy according to the definitions used by the CDC and GOSH, as it does not change any genes in the 46 human chromosomes. Gene therapy is designed to remove defective genes that cause muscular dystrophy, for example, and replace them with non defective genes. This is my take on the Pfizer preparation (Moderna I believe uses pseudouridine not the methylated version) In RNA the one nucleotide that is different to DNA is called uridine, the other three are the same and so may be safely ignored for the purposes of this discussion. Uridine can naturally exist in two forms or isomers, uridine and pseudouridine. When RNA is listed the four nucleotides are denoted by the initial letter of their name, so Uridine is U and pseudouridine is denoted by the Greek letter psi. Within the mRNA in the Pfizer vaccine the pseudouridine has been further modified by the addition of a methyl group, it is this modification that is significant. Pseudouridine is known to diminish or attenuate the innate immune system, even though it occurs… Read more »
John you’re full of cra pola.
I suspect a lot of people no longer trust the CDC or anyone who promotes the lies and spin coming from such ‘august’ institutions.
you may happily believe their nonsense, all other people on this site don’t have the time to put you back in your box.
youre not receptive to our remarks and we’re basically tired of the lies from your beloved institutions.
The manufacturers themselves refer to their products as ‘gene therapy’. Why would they do that if it wasn’t true?
The idiots didn’t consult John.
Indeed they do and not only are they proud of it but they boast of all the other “things” that they intend to treat using their “gene therapy”. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
I have read evidence of reverse transcription of the spike mrna back into the host cells dna. Would that count as gene therapy in your book if correct?
Discovery identifies a highly efficient human reverse transcriptase that can write RNA sequences into DNA — ScienceDaily
It’s gene therapy according to the Pharma companies that applied for patents in the USA – that’s how they were described on the paperwork. I don’t know why you refuse to accept this stone cold fact.
John, or whatever your real name is, your’re a cockwomble, and a stooge.
Seven posts, 1/10 rating, and 2,167 blog comments…
Boy…you have been busy, and ‘earning’ your rubbles….
In other words, a troll.
“John
13 hours ago
I am getting seriously angry by some of the claims made about myself on this site.
First of all, the mRNA vaccine is NOT gene therapy according to the definitions used by the CDC ”
Would that be the same CDC who had to change the definition of “vaccine” TWICE to make the clot shots fit the bill? Or another CDC?
Just asking…
Ipse dixit!
There are other ways of strengthening natural immunity than getting infected. These are also known as “keeping fit”, “eating healthily”, and “getting fresh air”. Even as it stands, I reckon most people got infected with SARSCoV2 and didn’t even know about it.
Wikipedia call the Great Barrington Declaration based on “pseudoscience”. It would be great if some of the signatories took those b***ards to court for defamation.
This is consistent with the Doctator’s approach to Covid: change his pronouncements without acknowledging his previous pronouncements or why he has changed.
With a final target of between 50,000 and 500,000 world wide, obviously not enough have died yet to make any great impact on the desired final numbers
3 minute cure for all viruses – been doing for past 27 years – never ill from viruses: 3 minutes from preparation to job done!! Everything else you have read, or heard, is totally irrelevant – how simple is that? Covid Crusher: Mix one heaped teaspoon of Iodine table salt in a mug of warm clean water, cup a hand and sniff or snort the entire mugful up your nose, spitting out anything which comes down into your mouth. If sore, then you have a virus, so continue morning noon and night, or more often if you want, until the soreness goes away (2-3 minutes) then blow out your nose and flush away, washing your hands afterwards, until when you do my simple cure, you don’t have any soreness at all, when you flush – job done. Also swallow a couple of mouthfuls of salt water and if you have burning in your lungs, salt killing virus and pneumonia, there too. My simple salt water cure, kills all Coronaviruses and viruses, as soon as you think you have an infection, or while self isolating, before the viruses mutate into the disease in your head and body, for which there is… Read more »
Having read RFK jnr’s book on Fauci I’m amazed he isn’t behind bars yet.