Texas Gov. Abbott Signs Bill Banning Abortions When Fetal Heartbeat Detected

"Texas has taken a position that innocent life is so important," says Republican governor.

SEE: https://www.infowars.com/posts/texas-gov-abbott-signs-bill-banning-abortions-when-fetal-heartbeat-detected/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes: 

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) has signed a bill banning abortions once an unborn baby’s heartbeat is detected.

The Senate Bill 8, also known as the Texas heartbeat bill, prohibits abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, usually at around six weeks. It takes effect in September.

“Millions of children lose their right to life every year because of abortion,” Abbott said Wednesday during the bill signing ceremony. “In Texas, we work to save those lives.”

“We’re addressing every issue in the entire state that will make lives better for everybody, including innocent, unborn children,” the governor continued. “What this bill seeks to do is once a heartbeat is detected in a mother’s womb, at that time it would be inappropriate to take the life of that baby. Texas has taken a position that innocent life is so important.”

“Our creator endowed us with the right to life and yet millions of children lose their right to life every year because of abortion,” he said, adding that the Legislature “worked together on a bipartisan basis to pass a bill that I’m about to sign that ensures that the life of every unborn child who has a heartbeat will be saved from the ravages of abortion.”

A provision in the bill would also allow private citizens to sue abortion providers or doctors if they perform an abortion after a heartbeat is detected.

“It’s a very unique law and it’s a very clever law,” said constitutional law professor Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston.

“Planned Parenthood can’t go to court and sue Attorney General [Ken] Paxton like they usually would because he has no role in enforcing the statute. They have to basically sit and wait to be sued.”

Texas joins numerous other states who also passed heartbeat bills over the years but have been unable to enforce them over legal challenges by pro-abortion groups.

States with heartbeat laws include Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee, and South Carolina.


Big money is being made from the sale of fetal body parts.

Ex-FBI Director Gave $100K to Biden Trust, Sought ‘Profitable’ Work With Joe Biden Through Hunter

BY TYLER O'NEIL

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/05/21/ex-fbi-director-gave-100k-to-biden-trust-sought-profitable-work-with-joe-biden-through-hunter-n1448763;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes: 

Louis Freeh, who directed the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 1993 to 2001, made a $100,000 donation to the trust fund of then-Vice President Joe Biden’s grandchildren in April 2016. In July 2016 and March 2017, Freeh approached Biden’s son Hunter, attempting to do business with Joe Biden, mentioning “some very good and profitable matters” that the former Vice President could “enhance.”

Freeh mentioned his hefty donation to the trust after reaching out to Hunter Biden to arrange business with his father, The New York Post reported. The Post published previously undisclosed emails between Freeh and Hunter Biden that the Post acquired by searching a copy of Hunter Biden’s laptop.

“I would be delighted to do future work with you,” Freeh wrote to Hunter Biden in July 2016, three months after he made the donation. “I also spoke to Dad a few weeks ago and would like to explore with him some future work options. I believe that working together on these (and other legal) matters would be of value, fun and rewarding.”

Louis Freeh Hunter Biden
Louis Freeh Hunter Biden email first published by The New York Post.

RecommendedThe Hunter Biden Corruption Scandal Is a Reckoning for the Legacy Media

In another email to Hunter Biden in March 2017, Freeh described running into Joe Biden at St. Joseph’s Roman Catholic Church. While Biden “said hi walking back from communion,” Freeh said he “didn’t get the chance to return greetings.”

So the former FBI director asked Hunter Biden for his father’s contact information. “If you have his cell and a personal email, I’d like to have his contacts (will protect),” Freeh wrote. “I would still like to persuade him to associate with me and FFS [Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan, Freeh’s law firm]– as we have some very good and profitable matters which he could enhance with minimal time” (emphasis added).

Louis Freeh Hunter Biden
Louis Freeh Hunter Biden email first published by The New York Post.

Hunter Biden said his father “rarely ever uses email,” but he promised to pass on the message.

One month later, Freeh reached out to Hunter Biden to discuss the gift he’d made to the trust for the children of Hunter’s late brother, Beau Biden, who died of brain cancer in 2015, and Beau’s widow, Hallie, whom Hunter later dated. The former FBI director mentioned that Hunter Biden already knew about the donation.

RecommendedEx-Hunter Biden Associate: ‘I Have Firsthand Knowledge’ Joe Biden Was Involved in China Deals

“As you know, our family foundation made a $100K contribution to Hallie’s children’s trust last year,” Freeh wrote. Yet his accountants “now advise that since the grant did not go to a 501(c) organization, it was not a proper foundation gift.” Freeh said he would fix the situation by making “a new $100k gift” and having Hallie Biden’s trust “reimburse the foundation by paying it $100k.”

“I can handle this with the lawyers (see attached) but wanted to let you know first before doing anything-so it’s clear what we’re trying to do,” Freeh wrote. “Sorry for the extra burden.”

Hunter Biden replied, “Thanks so much and of course no burden at all. Speak to you soon.”

Louis Freeh Hunter Biden
Louis Freeh Hunter Biden email first published by The New York Post.

The emails The New York Post reviewed did not indicate whether or not Freeh ever did business with Joe Biden nor what exactly the former FBI director had in mind.

However, the emails did reveal that Hunter Biden referred a client — corrupt Romanian real estate tycoon Gabriel “Puiu” Popoviciu — to Freeh in mid-2016.

“I wanted to thank you again for referring Gabriel to us and we have
finalized an attorney letter of engagement with him,” Freeh wrote in July 2016. “I will meet him in Paris Sunday and then we’ll deploy to Bucharest and
get to work.”

Freeh conducted an independent review of Popoviciu’s corruption conviction before the Romanian Court of Appeals. Romania’s High Court of Cassation and Justice affirmed the conviction, however, and sentenced Popoviciu to seven years in prison.

The recently released Freeh emails had been stored on a water-damaged laptop computer that Hunter Biden reportedly dropped off at the Wilmington, Del., repair shop of John Paul MacIsaac in April 2019. MacIsaac provided a hard drive containing the contents of the laptop to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s lawyer, Robert Costello, and Giuliani gave the Post a copy of the hard drive in October 2020, leading to explosive stories about Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine and China. The FBI seized the laptop in December 2019, apparently as part of a probe that Hunter Biden characterized as an investigation into his “tax affairs.”

Twitter censored stories based on the documents recovered from the laptop, claiming they violated the social media platform’s policy on “hacked materials.” MacIsaac has sued Twitter for defamation, claiming that Twitter unjustly gave him a bad reputation and cost him business.

Recommended5 Ways Hunter Biden’s Business Deals Empowered China at America’s Expense

While some characterized the documents on the laptop as “Russian misinformation,” The Daily Mail claims to have verified the laptop and Hunter Biden admitted that it might be his.

 

School Superintendent: Critical Race Theory ‘Isn’t Optional Anymore’

BY TYLER O'NEIL

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/05/21/school-superintendent-critical-race-theory-isnt-optional-anymore-n1448744;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes: 

School districts across the country have pushed Marxist critical race theory, either by requiring teachers to take “anti-racism” trainings or by embracing the discredited “1619 Project” or by championing the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Learning for Justice” lessons. Yet rarely have superintendents blatantly stated that there is no room for dissent from the idea that America is institutionally racist.

Yet in a Zoom equity committee meeting on January 28, 2021, Dan Grotting, superintendent of the school district in Beaverton, Ore., suggested that if teachers disagree with the anti-racism movement inspired by critical race theory, they should look for work elsewhere.

“I do want the message to get out there that this [anti-racism training] isn’t optional anymore,” Grotting said in the meeting, The Daily Wire reported. “We’ve waited for the willing, and if you’re not willing then maybe this isn’t the right place for you to work” (emphasis added).

RecommendedWATCH: Teacher Rips Woke School District for ‘Racist Insanity’

“Maybe we can free up your future, because if we’re going to become an anti-racist school district, it can’t just be a few people, it needs to be everybody, to include our staff, our students, our community, eventually everyone,” the superintendent said.

This statement may violate teachers’ First Amendment protections, but Grotting’s remarks illustrate just how noxious and widespread this movement has become. Some on the Left equate any disagreement with “anti-racism” with actual racism.

The “anti-racism” movement traces back to Ibram X. Kendi’s book How To Be An Antiracist. Echoing critical race theory, Kendi claims that racial disparities are ipso facto proof of hidden racial bias or discrimination (regardless of civil rights laws explicitly forbidding such discrimination), and that people must choose sides. Those who support the status quo are “racist” while those who advocate for leftist race-based overhauls are “anti-racist.”

These ideas trace back to critical race theory (CRT), a Marxist attempt to upend society by claiming that America is systemically racist.

The Chinese American Citizens Alliance of Greater New York (CACAGNY) condemned CRT as a “hateful, divisive, manipulative fraud,” noting that CRT implies that Asians are “over-represented.”

“CRT is today’s Chinese Exclusion Act. CRT is the real ​hate crime​ against Asians” (emphasis original),” CACAGNY argued. “CRT appears in our workplaces under the cover of ​implicit bias/sensitivity​ ​training​. It infiltrates our schools pretending to be ​culturally/ethnically responsive​ ​pedagogy​, with curricula such as the New York Times’ ​1619 Project​ and Seattle’s ​ethnomathematics​.”

Even the Smithsonian briefly published a horrifying Marxist lesson on “whiteness” that “deconstructed” various aspects of American and Western culture, including capitalism, science, the nuclear family, and Christianity, as nefarious relics of white supremacy. The lesson also claimed that a work ethic, delayed gratification, being polite, and getting to meetings on time are aspects of the “whiteness” culture that must be deconstructed and rejected.

Marxist critical race theory inspired much of the destruction of the Black Lives Matter and antifa riots over the summer. While protesters rightly expressed outrage at the treatment of George Floyd, many of the protests devolved into looting, vandalism, and arson in which lawless thugs — acting in the name of fighting racism — destroyed black livesblack livelihoods, and black monuments.

The SPLC, a far-left organization best known for demonizing mainstream conservative and Christian organizations as “hate groups” and listing them alongside the Ku Klux Klan, pushes critical race theory in schools across the country through its “Learning for Justice” program. As of 2018, the SPLC claimed that over 500,000 educators nationwide use its materials. The program, long known as “Teaching Tolerance,” has pushed transgenderism for kids as young as preschool. It has encouraged teachers to teach kids about “microaggressions” in first grade.

RecommendedThe SPLC’s Horrifying Plan for Your Children’s Schools

Critical race theory and “anti-racism” have made terrifying inroads in American society and in education, in particular. Parents, teachers, and citizens need to push back on this noxious ideology.

 

Republican State Legislators Run for Cover on K-12 Indoctrination Bill~Betraying the parents fighting for their kids

BY LAWRENCE LOCKMAN

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/05/republican-state-legislators-run-cover-k-12-lawrence-lockman/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes: 

Editors' note: The following op-ed is by Lawrence Lockman, a Republican who served four terms in the Maine House of Representatives from 2012 to 2020. He is co-founder and president of the conservative non-profit Maine First Project - which trains activists and candidates to fight fire with fire. He can be reached at [email protected].

Maine parents who want Critical Race Theory and other noxious species of political indoctrination banished from their K-12 public schools were counting on Republican state legislators to help them push back against the Left’s malignant agenda.

What a shock to the parents when those lawmakers slapped them across their faces last week.

For the second time in as many years, the Maine Legislature is considering a bill to enact a statewide Code of Ethics for K-12 teachers in public schools. The proposal, based on model legislation drafted by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, would explicitly ban singling out one racial group of students as responsible for the suffering or inequities experienced by another racial group of students. In addition, teachers would be required to refrain from partisanship, and present both sides in any discussion of controversial issues.

How’s that for a revolutionary proposal?

During the public hearing earlier this month, the Education committee heard compelling testimony from scores of Mainers who are disgusted with the rampant racial stereotyping and racial scapegoating that goes on in public school classrooms. If there were ever any lingering doubts that the racist, anti-American, Marxist ideology known as Critical Race Theory is deeply embedded in Maine’s public schools, the public hearing blew those doubts away.

The heart-felt, fact-based testimony came from parents in school districts across the state, imploring legislators to pass LD 550,  "Resolve, Directing the State Board of Education To Adopt Rules Prohibiting Teachers in Public Schools from Engaging in Political, Ideological or Religious Advocacy in the Classroom."

Eighty-four percent of the 78 pieces of testimony submitted to the committee were in support of the bill, from Mainers in 40 different towns.

The opposition testimony came almost exclusively from Leftist institutional swamp critters, not from parents. The teachers’ union and the ACLU of Maine were among the most vocal, joined by a far-Left outfit called the Maine Curriculum Leaders Association. Even the American Atheists chimed in with opposition.

When it came time for Education committee members to vote on the bill during last week’s work session, the Democrats unsurprisingly voted in lockstep: ought not to pass.

Republicans also voted in lockstep, but not to pass the bill before them. They chose instead to throw the bill in the legislative shredder, and replace it with a toothless requirement that teachers get annual training on how to handle controversial issues in the classroom.

Democrats must be having a good laugh at our expense after watching this pathetic spectacle. “Hey, look at that, the stupid Republicans think the swamp is gonna drain itself!”

Our team apparently learned nothing from what happened two years ago, during the last session of the Maine Legislature.

In February of 2019, Republican members of the Education committee voted to kill the same bill in committee in exchange for a promise that a lobbying organization for school superintendents that opposed the bill would send a letter to all the districts reminding them to be fair and balanced in classroom discussions of current events.

How did that work out?

Judging by the testimony submitted to the committee this year, the depth and extent of political and ideological indoctrination in K-12 classrooms across Maine is worse, much worse than it was two years ago. In fact, it’s crossed the line from indoctrination to brainwashing in many districts.

To be clear, the pending legislation has no chance of being enacted even if Republican legislators spontaneously generated brains and backbones. With solid Democrat majorities in both houses of the Legislature and an unreconstructed 1960s radical Governor who’s been on the government payroll her entire adult life, Maine is suffering from one-party rule by aspiring totalitarians.

The purpose of introducing legislation such as LD 550 is to get a public hearing so constituents can submit testimony that becomes part of the permanent public record. Then the bill moves to the floor of the Legislature for a robust debate, followed by a recorded roll call vote. That vote then becomes ammunition for our team to fire at vulnerable incumbents in the 2022 election cycle.

This isn’t rocket science or quantum mechanics. It’s Politics 101. Why is it so hard for Republican legislators and their leaders to understand?

We still have a shot at getting a full debate and a roll call vote on LD 550. It’s just that Republican members of the Education committee have made that task more difficult by giving members of their caucus an excuse to let the bill go “under the hammer” without debate.

Sadly, Republican legislators in Maine are showing the rest of the country how NOT to be effective advocates for parents who want political indoctrination banished from their K-12 public schools.

And if GOP lawmakers here in Maine keep it up, they are cementing their minority status in place for generations to come.

 

Health departments caught lying, covering up covid vaccine vascular damage and “acute anaphylactic reactions”

Image: Health departments caught lying, covering up covid vaccine vascular damage and “acute anaphylactic reactions”

BY ETHAN HUFF

SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-05-19-health-departments-lying-covid-vaccine-vascular-reactions.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) According to the government, which apparently never lies, there is zero risk from Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccine” spike proteins causing any long-term problems inside the body. According to the Salk Institute, though, nothing could be further from the truth.

The Connecticut Department of Public Health (CDPH) recently put out a “fact” sheet about Chinese Virus injections that claims their spike proteins are “harmless.” Readers are left with the impression that there is no risk to getting jabbed because “science” says the injections are safe.

“Our immune systems recognize that this spike protein doesn’t belong in our bodies and makes antibodies to bind onto the protein, signaling our immune cells to attack,” it further claims.

“This is called an immune response. mRNA vaccines provide instructions for our immune system to make antibodies without ever having to risk the serious consequences of getting sick with COVID-19 and passing it on to others.”

Sounds great, right? This is hardly accurate, though. A Salk Institute study found that this so-called “harmless” spike protein is directly responsible for causing the vascular damage that many Wuhan Flu shot recipients are suffering, resulting in conditions like stroke, heart attack, migraine, blood clots and other damage.

“Critically, all four covid vaccine brands currently in widespread use either inject patients with the spike protein or, via mRNA technology, instruct the patient’s own body to manufacture spike proteins and release them into their own blood,” warns Mike Adams, the Health Ranger.

“This floods the patient’s body with the very spike protein that the Salk Institute has now identified as the smoking gun cause of vascular damage and related events (such as blood clots, which are killing many people who take the vaccines).”

You could suffer a deadly allergic reaction from Chinese Virus injection

Interestingly, CDPH also put out a “pre-vaccination checklist” that would seem to contradict its “fact sheet.” On the fourth page in the bubble sidebar, it is noted that healthcare professionals “should be familiar with identifying immediate-type allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis” resulting from injection.

It goes on to explain that healthcare professionals should familiarize themselves with how to competently treat allergic reactions “at the time of vaccine administration” – meaning the injections are not nearly as safe as is widely claimed.

“Appropriate medical treatment for severe allergic reactions must be immediately available in the event that an acute anaphylactic reaction occurs following administration of a COVID-19 vaccine,” it further states.

All of this points right back to the “harmless” spike proteins that if they fail to induce death immediately through anaphylactic shock will eventually tear apart the vascular system. So much for being “inert.”

“Put simply, it means the vaccines were designed to contain the very element that’s killing people,” the Health Ranger adds.

“The upshot of this research is that covid vaccines are inducing vascular disease and directly causing injuries and deaths stemming to blood clots and other vascular reactions. This is all caused by the spike protein that’s deliberately engineered into the vaccines.”

The Salk paper is the first, by the way, to explain how these spike proteins impact the body by binding to ACE2 (angiotensin-converting enzyme 2) receptors and inhibiting normal function of cellular mitochondria.

The establishment’s response to these findings is to claim that “vaccination-generated antibodies” protect against spike protein damage, thus making it not a threat. But the Salk Institute disagrees.

In some people, their immune systems may be strong enough to initially protect against immediate and obvious spike protein damage. But what happens later on down the road when they encounter other diseases and their immune systems become compromised?

More related news stories are available at ChemicalViolence.com.

Sources for this article include:

Portal.CT.gov

NaturalNews.com

Portal.CT.gov

__________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO: https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-05-19-pfizer-covid-injection-alzheimers-neurodegenerative-disease.html

 

Brighteon: vaccine shedding

Dr. Christiane Northrup gives new details on covid vaccine shedding / transmission, especially among women

COVID Vaccine Shedding Hurting Unvaxed? Dr. Lee Merritt Explains

BY ALEX NEWMAN

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/covid-vaccine-shedding-hurting-unvaxed-dr-lee-merritt-explains;

republished below unedited for informational, educational & research purposes: 

In this interview with The New American magazine Senior Editor Alex Newman, celebrated former military doctor and bioweapons expert Dr. Lee Merritt offers her thoughts on recent claims that vaccinated individuals may be “shedding” spike proteins or something else that is hurting unvaccinated people–especially women. Blood clots, odd menstrual occurrences, and more are all examined. She says doctors need to listen to their patients, and that something is going on, but more research will be needed to figure out. Dr. Merritt, the former head of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, also spoke about previous research into “self-propagating” vaccines, including efforts to reduce a mouse population in Australia using similar technologies. Finally, she blasted recent CDC efforts to push the experimental shot on children who are not even at serious risk from COVID.

 

New Study Shows COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects May Be More Common and Severe in Recovered Recipients

BY STACEY LENNOX

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2021/05/18/new-study-shows-covid-19-vaccine-side-effects-more-common-and-severe-in-recovered-recipients-n1447874;

republished below unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

A new study of COVID-19 vaccine recipients globally should give the public health community a reason to reevaluate recommendations that everyone needs to be vaccinated regardless of prior infection with the virus. The researchers surveyed slightly more than 2,000 self-reporting vaccinated individuals who were at least seven days past their first vaccine dose and monitored their reports of side effects and their severity through the vaccination process. They compared the results for recovered patients with a confirmed COVID-19 PCR or antigen test with those who had not had COVID-19. From the study (emphasis mine):

People with prior COVID-19 exposure were largely excluded from the vaccine trials and, as a result, the safety and reactogenicity of the vaccines in this population have not been previously fully evaluated. For the first time, this study demonstrates a significant association between prior COVID19 infection and a significantly higher incidence and severity of self-reported side effects after vaccination for COVID-19. Consistently, compared to the first dose of the vaccine, we found an increased incidence and severity of self-reported side effects after the second dose, when recipients had been previously exposed to viral antigen. In view of the rapidly accumulating data demonstrating that COVID-19 survivors generally have adequate natural immunity for at least 6 months, it may be appropriate to re-evaluate the recommendation for immediate vaccination of this group.

While this is the first study of its kind and certainly warrants further examination, particularly because the side effects were self-reported, it acknowledges something that the public health bureaucracy, including CDC Director Rochelle Walensky and Dr. Anthony Fauci, rarely, if ever, mention. The science has consistently shown an adequate immune response in recovered patients, and we also know that the response includes more than just antibodies. In March, researchers found the immune response was durable at eight months with minor declines in several immune system components, including T cells, B cells, and neutralizing antibodies. According to The New York Times:

“That amount of memory would likely prevent the vast majority of people from getting hospitalized disease, severe disease, for many years,” said Shane Crotty, a virologist at the La Jolla Institute of Immunology who co-led the new study.

The findings are likely to come as a relief to experts worried that immunity to the virus might be short-lived, and that vaccines might have to be administered repeatedly to keep the pandemic under control.

And the research squares with another recent finding: that survivors of SARS, caused by another coronavirus, still carry certain important immune cells 17 years after recovering.

The study above is in addition to several studies on durable natural immunity noted in the research paper on side effects. Clearly, this type of research should be ongoing, but it is only valuable if our public health officials share it broadly, and to date, they have not. Even if it is emerging data, there have been no reports of large numbers of reinfections with any COVID-19 variant causing severe illness or death in recovered patients. This fact appears to reinforce the research findings to date.

The new study also compared side effects between the mRNA and viral vector vaccines:

Moreover, this is the first head-to-head real-world comparison of the self-reported safety of viral vector versus mRNA vaccines, with the latter associated with a 58% decreased incidence of self reported severe side effects, requiring hospital care. While more recipients of mRNA vaccines reported at least one (any) side effect, the difference was predominantly driven by the frequent local reactions, while the incidence of each of the systemic side effects evaluated, which are more burdensome to the recipients, was significantly reduced. Recipients of the viral vector-based vaccines were relatively older. However, differences in the incidence of adverse events were confirmed in multivariate analyses accounting for the age of the respondents as a covariate. Moreover, given that older people reported side effects less frequently, potential bias due to age difference would be expected to favour viral vector-based vaccines. These findings may have an impact on vaccine choice, and health policies.

Hooman Noorchashm, M.D., Ph.D., has warned of the possibility of a harmed minority in the public health bureaucracy’s rush to vaccination. He is not an anti-vaxxer by any means, views the development of the COVID-19 vaccines as a medical miracle, and has received the COVID-19 vaccination himself. Noorchashm raised the issue of receiving the vaccine after recovering because of how vaccine-induced immune responses work during an appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight:

I want to reiterate as we have before, the most unprecedented thing that we’re doing in this vaccine campaign is that we’re deploying it indiscriminately into folks who have been recently or previously infected. And I think that we shouldn’t underestimate what the effect of a vaccine-driven immune response is on the tissues in individuals who have been previously infected, that literally, the antigenic footprint of the virus persists in the tissues of the previously infected.

So, it’s not a far stretch to imagine that those tissues, such as the inner lining of the blood vessel, will be targeted by the vaccine immune response.

To simplify, the sites where a recovered patient’s body fought off the virus—the lungs, the heart, the blood vessels, and even the brain, to name a few—remain physiologically “marked.” Vaccine-generated immune cells will attack these sites in the body as if they are still infected, potentially causing problems. Given the number of organs in the body that COVID-19 reportedly infects, Noorchashm’s explanation made me wonder if this phenomenon could cause the range of adverse reactions seen on VAERS data, from diarrhea to blinding headaches, high fevers, and shortness of breath. This study is the first to provide insight into a possible answer to those questions.

Anyone interested in finding out if they have a current immune reaction to COVID-19 can order a T-Detect test. It does not require a doctor’s order and can be completed at a local lab. The CDC estimates that only 1 in 4.3 infections with COVID-19 have been confirmed by testing. This test may be worthwhile for those who did not receive a positive test but are hesitant to get the vaccine to help them better assess their risk in conjunction with their doctors.

It would be great if our public health gurus would acknowledge recovered immunity. Then colleges and employers could accept proof of immunity in place of proof of vaccination, at least while researchers continue to study the question of the durability of naturally acquired immunity. Given this first glimpse regarding the increased severity of side effects, it would be irresponsible not to. And worth wondering why, if they do not.