A short reasoning on Bias, Natural Immunity, and Unstudied Risks
The legal immunity shielding vaccine manufacturers, notably under the U.S. PREP Act and EU frameworks, remains intact despite growing skepticism about vaccines’ safety and efficacy. This Vaccine Manufaturer Immunity protection, rooted in the 1986 NCVIA and bolstered by the 2005 PREP Act, assumes regulators like the FDA and EMA ensure vaccines are safe. However, allegations of bias, together with the superiority of natural immunity, as well as research on vaccines’ potential to impair broader immune responses challenge this.
The European Court of Justice (CJUE) stated in a ruling in January 2025 (Frajese v. Commission) that doctors are responsible for the safety of their patients while the EMA, not doctors, are the ones responsible for verifying vaccine safety. Yet transparency issues—like redacted contracts (for example BonSens.org)—hint at compromised oversight. If regulators favor pharmaceutical agendas, then their safety assurances weaken. Research suggests vaccines, with aluminum adjuvants boosting T1 antibodies, may skew immunity toward Th2 responses (Frontiers in Immunology, 2018), potentially lowering innate defenses—unlike natural immunity’s robust, often lifelong protection (The Lancet, 2023). The sole efficacy metric, T1 antibody levels, ignores this broader impact, a flaw regulators overlook.
Natural immunity’s edge—13x better protection than Pfizer’s vaccine (Israel, 2021)—is sidelined by politicians and pharma, who profit from vaccines despite their, if any, very short-term effects (NEJM, 2022: waning in 6 months). This denial, coupled with no true saline-placebo controlled studies on almost all individual vaccines and none ever made on the total sum of all the vaccines in the vaccine program’s long-term immune effects. No simple retrospecting study between vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations (Journal of Toxicology, 2011), suggests that the regulators do indeed work under a bias. An unbiased agency would demand such data, yet the FDA and EMA do not and neither do any other public agency anywhere in the world -most likely due to pharma’s $375 million dollars lobbying activities (OpenSecrets) or revolving-door ties (for example, Gottlieb to Pfizer). Politicians, pushing mandates, avoid admitting natural immunity’s durability (SARS-CoV-1, 17+ years, Nature, 2020), preserving a vaccine-centric narrative.
This bias fuels immunity’s persistence. Manufacturers argue liability risks would halt production, as in the 1980s, but if natural immunity reduces need—50%+ U.S. infected by 2022 (CDC)—this fear for the consequences may be very much overstated. The PREP Act’s “willful misconduct” bar shields them, yet unstudied risks (e.g., no trials on 70+ shots’ cumulative impact) and unlawful, prescription-less doses (CJUE texts) suggest accountability gaps. The CICP’s dismal payout (11/13,000+ claims) reflects a system protecting industry over victims. This is amplified by distrust—80% of French (France-Soir) and 40% of Americans (Pew, 2020) question motives and that amount has significantly grown all over the world since the much critizised pandemic handling. On top of this it is very difficult for health care workers to report a vaccine injury as such due to, among other things, the lack of reporting codes.. It is estimated that only 1% of all vaccine adverse effects are officially reported.
Revoking immunity could drive safety. If vaccines impair immunity beyond T1 responses (Clinical Immunology, 2020) and natural immunity outlasts them, liability might force manufacturers to address waning efficacy as well as inform citizens of potential health risks from their products. Regulators, doctors, politicians and other vaccine-believers claim that existing regulation suffices, but just missing placebo data and studies on the effects of aluminum in the body alone undermine this—bias allow flaws to slide. Untested long-term effects of vaccines and the viability of natural immunity question any issues surrounding usage and urgency. Public trust, seriously eroded by the ongoing suppression of science, might rebound, along with accountability.
Then, why does the issue of immunity endure? Pharma’s $4.9 billions worth lobbying groups (2010-2022) and their political inertia—admitting natural immunity’s superiority or calling attention to vaccine risks unravels current policy—these two combined would mean an absolute reversal of thinking after decades of steadfast faith in the benefits of vaccines and the denial of any sort of negative outcomes.
Conclusion
If regulators are biased, and they deny natural immunity’s lifelong edge, if they choose to ignore vaccines’ potential to lower broader immunity and also continue their persistent skipping of critical placebo studies—their claims of vaccine safety start to unravel. Vaccines may be less necessary or less safe than claimed, but immunity shields manufacturers from being forced to fix this. Revoking this immunity shield could align incentives with science, echoing the CJUE’s doctor-level focus.
The Vaccine Manufacturer Immunity is a blessing for pharma, and vaccines are the only pharmaceutical protected in this way, to the point where anything named vaccines, even the gene-therapy injections for COVID-19, are fully shielded by this legal immunity. With obvious regulatory-bias the two strongest factors for vaccine safety are severely impaired and untrustworthy. Pharma’s grip on the regulators and political denials surrounding potential vaccine harms need to cease. New politicians in power will make a difference. The case for change is growing and it is doing so fast.
