Health Ranger Chronicles: Why Vaccination Is Better Than Catching COVID

Related articles

It's time for another installment of "The Health Ranger Chronicles," where we examine Mike Adams' claims about the supposed dangers of COVID vaccination. Adams and other Natural News writers have alleged that the shots are mind-control tools or bioweapons, and that planning for the pandemic began in 2015. This time, COVID-19 is apparently a real threat, but the vaccines are still more dangerous.

Throughout 2021, Mike “the health ranger” Adams has been a consistent source of science-fiction-inspired commentary about the COVID-19 vaccines. He's claimed that the shots were either mind-control tools or lethal “spike protein bioweapons,” depending on which one you got. Adams has also alleged that a biometric-tracking device for COVID-19 was in the works as early as 2015 and that the Biden Administration has initiated a five-phase plan to implement mandatory vaccination.

While he got the details wrong, vaccine skeptics haven't been “fined or jailed” yet, The Biden Administration has indeed proposed a nationwide vaccine mandate, so Adams got this one right. I'm happy to give credit where it's due. But the health ranger and his cohorts at Natural News continue to butcher their analysis of how the COVID vaccines actually work, calling them “lab-engineered spike proteins,” as opposed to the all-natural spike proteins we know and love. Here's the latest example, written by a gentleman named Lance D. Johnson:



The problem isn't so much that Johnson misreported the science, though he certainly did that too; the real issue is that he described how the shots work in emotion-laden terms designed to scare people. That's a mistake worth correcting, especially since a fair number of Natural News readers visit our comments section to yell at my intrepid colleagues and me. So, I write with the hope that some of them read this article with an open mind. Natural News in quotes, followed by my replies.

The various COVID vaccines being rushed into existence do not operate as traditional biologics (vaccines) and are being falsely represented and regulated as such. Standard vaccines introduce attenuated (weakened) forms of a target virus, in conjunction with inflammatory adjuvant and other chemicals. These new mRNA, adenovirus-vectored, and DNA vaccines utilize the “software” of the virus, forcing the body to make copies of it.

This is actually a positive development. Our ability to rapidly design COVID vaccines based on a relatively recent (but by no means brand new) platform is indicative of important advancements in medicine. Here's a 2014 paper outlining dozens of mRNA-based therapies that were in development at the time:

In the field of therapeutic cancer vaccination, IVT mRNA has undergone extensive preclinical investigation and has reached Phase III clinical testing. In other areas such as protein-replacement therapies in oncology, cardiology, endocrinology, haematology, pulmonary medicine or the treatment of other diseases, the development of IVT mRNA-based therapeutics is at the preclinical stage.

Here's another incredible example. We're now injecting a virus carrying the instructions for CRISPR-Cas9 into the eyes of patients suffering from Leber congenital amaurosis (LCA), a genetic condition that causes blindness. Once it reaches its destination, CRISPR corrects a mutation in the gene that causes a subtype of LCA, restoring the patient's vision. This is a revolutionary therapy; it's fundamentally different than its predecessors—teaching people how to read braille and encouraging them to get guide dogs. I'd say that's a significant step forward, as are mRNA-based vaccines. Novel isn't necessarily harmful; context is everything.

Side note: Listen to my interview with one of the researchers conducting the LCA therapy clinical trials.

Professor Jonathan Gershoni from Israel’s Tel Aviv University explains that three covid vaccines on the market are actually DNA vaccines. Inoculations manufactured by Sputnik V, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson contain DNA (not just RNA) that is inserted into the nucleus of human cells to ultimately translate and replicate lab engineered spike proteins.

Those spike proteins then dramatically lower your chances of SARS-COV-2 infection and catching a severe or fatal case of COVID-19. It's true that your risk varies with age. But we'll probably be living with this virus for the rest of time; you're likely going to be exposed to some spike proteins one way or another. Why not get them from a vaccine that doesn't have the rest of the nasty virus attached?

In the initial process of subverting the immune system, these vaccines do not beckon a strong enough T cell response to elicit adequate T helper 1, T helper 2, and memory B cells. Because the innate immune system is not exposed to the whole virus, including the envelope and the nucleocapsid, the immune system SUFFERS. This incomplete and subverted immune response primes the body for severe disease upon subsequent re-infection.

This is the same breakthrough infection spin Children's Health Defense tried to promote in August. In truth, COVID cases in the vaccinated are rare; when they do occur, they're mild relative to the old-fashioned disease. Yes, we know about the Texas prison delta outbreak; we're also aware of the situation in Israel. If you want to risk getting sick for the sake of infection-acquired immunity, it's your call. But consider these comments from my colleague Dr. Chuck Dinerstein before you do:

For those under 60 [in Israel], 'almost perfect' immunity was conferred equally through vaccination or infection. Only for those over sixty did infection-induced immunity surpass that achieved from vaccination, but then the 13 fold difference dropped to 2.7 fold.

Put simply, there's nothing shocking about the COVID vaccines. They're among an impressive list of biologics that have been developed in recent years. Getting lab-engineered spike proteins is better than getting the non-GMO variety from a dangerous virus, and Mike Adams remains an unreliable, if entertaining, source of commentary about the pandemic.