Mainstream Media Now Say Natural Immunity Is A ‘Dangerous Theory’
When the media erupted in outrage over the CDC’s new deputy, Dr. Ralph Abraham — whose views mirror MAHA’s push for evidence, autonomy, and transparency — you would think he’d called for dismantling public health itself
His real offense? Saying out loud what everyone knows but few in power dare admit: the human immune system works.
For generations, the human immune system has been understood as the foundation of survival — the ancient, adaptive, exquisitely tuned intelligence that brought our species through plagues, famines, migrations, and millennia of microbial challenge.
Yet somehow, in the strange epistemic twilight of the COVID era, acknowledging this most basic biological reality has become an object of scorn, ridicule, even moral panic.
To read today’s mainstream coverage, one might conclude that “natural immunity” is not simply inferior — but dangerous, fringe, or a sign of ideological contamination.
The very idea that one’s own immune system could work is treated as a threat to public order.
Two recent examples — one from Ars Technica and another from Mother Jones — reveal just how surreal this inversion has become.
And the irony is that nothing Abraham said exists outside the mainstream of MAHA’s reform agenda. His emphasis on natural immunity, patient autonomy, honest risk-benefit analysis, and ending coercive pharmaceutical policies mirrors MAHA’s core commitments.
In fact, his own public statement as Louisiana Surgeon General reads like a blueprint for MAHA’s health-freedom vision: a rejection of one-size-fits-all mandates, a call to restore truth in medicine, and a demand to respect individual decision-making.
To make matters even clearer, Abraham articulated these exact principles under oath last September before the Louisiana House Committee on Homeland Security during its investigation into the state’s COVID response.
In testimony posted by Health Freedom Louisiana, he condemned nearly every major government intervention — mask mandates, lockdowns, coerced vaccination, and the suppression of dissent — calling them “ineffective, counterproductive and antithetical to the core principles of a free society.”
He described how third-party interests “hijacked public health to be their marketing legacy,” how pharmacists refused to fill valid prescriptions, and how the real risk to children came not from COVID but from the vaccine itself.
His theme was unmistakable: restoring trust requires “something radical… simply tell the truth.”
The Media Treats a Normal Biological Fact as a Public Hazard
Consider the Ars Technica piece attacking Dr. Ralph Abraham, newly appointed as CDC deputy director, for stating that he “prefer[s] natural immunity” to COVID shots — a view he has expressed consistently in both public letters and sworn legislative testimony.
Rather than engaging the substance of his argument, the article treats his comment as an indictment, painting him as “dangerous” and “probably pretty terrible,” as though affirming the basic function of the immune system were an act of extremism.
A decade ago, this statement would have been biologically unremarkable. Today, it is portrayed as heresy.
Even more bizarre, this preference is framed as more alarming than his past prescription habits or administrative decisions. It is the belief in the capacity of the human immune system — not opioids, not policy failures — that triggers the strongest condemnation.
This isn’t journalism. It’s the enforcement arm of a collapsing belief system.
Mother Jones Goes Further — Branding Natural Immunity a “Dangerous Theory”
Mother Jones’ 2020 article goes even further, declaring that “anti-vaxxers have a dangerous theory called ‘natural immunity’,” as though the body’s innate and adaptive responses were a fringe ideology rather than proven immunology.
Since when has natural immunity been considered ‘dangerous’? Was the editor of Mother Jones somehow unaware that natural immunity existed?
One might reasonably ask when did acknowledging basic immunobiology become a radical position?
The article even cites examples of people wanting their children to gain real, lasting immunity from childhood infections — a perfectly normal concept throughout all of human history — and treats them as reckless dissidents.
The absurdity is almost theatrical.
The Unspoken Context: Widespread Harm From the Products Being Defended
What neither of these outlets dare acknowledge is the context: millions of people worldwide have experienced adverse effects from the so-called “safe and effective” interventions that were promoted with absolute certainty.
Every society now harbors:
- individuals with persistent neurological symptoms,
- young people with myocarditis or pericarditis,
- families mourning sudden and unexplained deaths,
- communities grappling with unprecedented increases in chronic illness.
This is not fringe speculation — it’s a lived reality across nations.
Yet the media, rather than grappling with these harms, channels its energy into attacking the idea that the body’s own immune system may offer protection.
They lash out at “natural immunity” because it challenges the psychological and economic architecture built around forced compliance, pharmaceutical dependence, and the suppression of biological literacy.
The Absurdity of the New Orthodoxy
The resulting cultural logic looks like this:
- The immune system works — but don’t say that aloud.
- Natural immunity exists — but treat it as misinformation.
- Vaccines caused documented harm — but discussing that is taboo.
- A public health official trusting the human body is dangerous — but mass experimental injections are fine.
It is the inversion of reason into ideology.
A population encouraged to distrust its own biology becomes a population dependent on external authority. This dynamic — not science — explains the intensity of the media’s reaction.
Why the Truth Is So Uncomfortable
Natural immunity is threatening to the current public-health narrative for three reasons:
- It is universal.
No company can own, patent, or monetize it. - It is adaptive and individualized.
It resists one-size-fits-all mandates. - It offers evidence that many interventions were unnecessary — or worse, harmful.
If natural immunity is effective, the moral and political justification for coercive mass vaccination collapses.
Thus, media outlets respond not with nuance or scientific humility, but with ridicule and moral condemnation — the classic tools of rhetorical control.
A Return to Sanity — And a Sign We Are Winning
The absurdity of the media’s reaction reveals a deeper truth: this was never a scientific debate. It is a struggle over narrative control.
Acknowledging natural immunity isn’t “anti-science”; it is recognizing the most fundamental principle of human biology — that the body is intelligent, adaptive, and older than any institution claiming authority over it. To honor that truth threatens only those who built their power on denying it.
And that is exactly why they’re attacking RFK Jr.’s and MAHA’s new deputy director. His trust in the immune system, his refusal to bow to pharmaceutical dogma, and his insistence on evidence over ideology are the very qualities the public is hungry for — and the establishment fears most.
Their outrage is an admission they can’t speak aloud:
The old guard is being replaced.
The old narratives are collapsing.
The era of unquestionable pharmaceutical dominance is ending.
A new paradigm is emerging — one that respects biology, demands transparency, rejects coercion, and restores agency to the individual. A paradigm rooted not in fear, but in sovereignty.
So when legacy media lashes out with panic and derision, it isn’t because the truth is dangerous.
It’s because the truth is prevailing.
Their attacks have become a kind of unintentional celebration — the final, frantic notes of institutions losing their grip, signaling that a new generation of leadership, and a new era of health freedom, has already begun.
See more here substack.com
Some bold emphasis added
Tom
| #
LMAO…totally outrageous as everyone knows that germ theory is the most dangerous theory ever invented.
Reply