We don't need to believe in anything when science is involved. We get evidence.
She said, from the article, "In some studies that I've read, natural immunity gives you 27 times more protection against future COVID than a vaccination." I believe that she was making this up. But I don't know what kind of articles she's been reading. I know I have not seen any that say that at all. On the contrary, people who've got covid-19 are advised to get at least one shot of a vaccine to boost their immune protection.
So, on top of being a hypocrite, it looks like she's a liar (or very confused) and she's saying by this that people should rely on getting infected rather than to be vaccinated.
All immunity is natural (vaccine or infection), unless we are injected antibodies or immune cells. Natural immunity (in the sense of being exposed to the actual pathogen) works fairly well for most people and most infections. We do resolve the infection eventually, or keep it in check. It does a pretty good job with HIV until it crashes, though, so there are limits, of course.
But, even if getting exposed (and possibly ill) was more effective in terms of future infections than any vaccine, it would still mean that we'd get exposed and could be seriously ill and die.
As a control strategy it does not make sense to favour one approach AND the other. It is either/or, even if the previously infected population do contribute towards what can be called "herd immunity", or a marked reduction in the number of susceptible people.