- Antibodies are very important for our immune system in getting over viral and bacterial diseases. We make non-specific IgM Antibodies (Ab) initially then specific IgG Ab later. Once we make IgG we are immune for life against that pathogen.
- An example of this is with mumps, mumps is caused by a virus, we get the disease once, make IgG antibodies and are immune for life.
- Another example is measles, we test for IgG and prove we are immune for life, well except that in a Supreme Court case in Germany it was shown that the measles virus doesn’t exist, never mind.
- Another example is chickenpox, we get chicken pox once and never again due to IgG antibodies, except if we get shingles which is also chickenpox, but well that’s different.
- If we have AIDS we test for the presence of Ab, if we have them we know for sure that we have a deadly virus which will soon kill us. That’s because the HIV virus is “smart” and knows how to evade the Ab unlike the mumps virus which is stupid and doesn’t. The measles virus doesn’t exist and the chickenpox virus is smart-ish.
- Another example is Hep C, again if your liver is falling apart you can be tested for Ab and if they are positive it means you have a deadly virus which is eating your liver. This is clearly another example of a smart virus.
- With rhino virus, the cause of the common cold, we, naturally develop antibodies to the virus, but this virus is very smart (seeing as how it jumped to humans as a result of the unfortunate tendency of Africans to eat rhinos ) and many of us get colds year after year in spite of the presence of antibodies.
- Similarly the influenza virus is very, very smart and unlike the measles virus which not only doesn’t exist but has remained constant in its non-existence for centuries, the flu virus changes its form yearly. This is undoubtedly because the flu virus is so smart it has included flu vaccine companies in its stock market portfolio. I wish I were as smart as the flu virus.
- If you have symptoms of Lyme’s disease and you test for the presence of Ab and show them to your infectious disease doctor and tell him you tested positive for antibodies which means you have Lyme disease, he will throw you out of the office and call you a fucking lunatic. That’s because the presence of Ab don’t mean anything in Lyme’s disease
- If you have Covid and you test positive for Ab it means you either had the virus or you didn’t have the virus. Also, it is clear evidence that you were either sick or not sick. That’s because the corona virus is so smart that it can trick you into either making Ab or not to throw off the immunologists.
Hope this makes it perfectly clear.
by Tom Cowan, M.D.
If you’ve read this far hold onto your hat for some serious stuff……..
“Covid patients in UK to be treated with man-made antibodies after new drug approved
in the UK are to be treated with man-made antibodies that prevent and fight coronavirus infection after approval was granted by the medicines regulator.
Health secretary Sajid Javid said the treatment, which was used on former US president Donald Trump (🙄) after he fell with Covid-19, would be rolled out through the NHS “as soon as possible”.
‘Antibodies’, hmm really.. artificial ones at that. NOT good.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said the clinical trial data they had assessed has shown Ronapreve may be used to prevent infection, treat symptoms of acute Covid-19 infection and can reduce the likelihood of being admitted to hospital due to the virus.”
But what ARE antibodies really? Do they even exist to do what they say they do? No they don’t.
We all know that the whole science of vaccines is built on antibody production. That is how they measure their effectiveness too. So if they are wrong about antibodies then they are wrong about immunity and vaccines have no place in medicine.
They ARE wrong about antibodies….
Antibodies debunked- (A collection of quotes from doctors and scientists on what they think antibodies are and what they are not)
The whole vaccine business is built on the very dodgy foundation of a theory called ‘the immune system’. Vaccines are tested for efficacy by measuring antibody levels which everyone believes equates to some form of ‘immunity’ to reinfection.
But what if antibodies were not what we’ve been told?
“He said the normal trials on a new vaccine were not possible in Britain because of the relatively small numbers of people who contracted the disease. Instead scientists had tested whether the vaccine produced sufficient antibodies.”–Media report on meningitis C vaccine- http://whale.to/v/meningitis5.html
“FROM REPEATED medical investigations, it would seem that antibodies are about as useful as a black eye in protecting the victim from further attacks. The word “antibody” covers a number of even less intelligible words, quaint relics of Erlich’s side-chain theory, which the greatest of experts, McDonagh, tells us is “essentially unintelligible”. Now that the old history, mythology and statistics of vaccination have been exploded by experience, the business has to depend more upon verbal dust thrown in the face of the lay public. The mere layman, assailed by antibodies, receptors, haptophores, etc., is only too pleased to give up the fight and leave everything to the experts. This is just what they want, especially when he is so pleased that he also leaves them lots and lots of real money.
The whole subject of immunity and antibodies is, however, so extremely complex and difficult, especially to the real experts, that it is a relief to be told that the gaps in their knowledge of such things are still enormous.
We can obtain some idea of the complexity of the subject from The Integrity of the Human Body, by Sir Macfarlane Burnet. He calls attention to the fact—the mystery—that some children can never develop any antibodies at all, but can nevertheless go through a typical attack of, say, measles, make a normal recovery and show the normal continuing resistance to reinfection. Furthermore, we have heard for years past of attempts made to relate the amount of antibody in patients to their degree of immunity to infection. The, results have often been so farcically chaotic, so entirely unlike what was expected, that the scandal has had to be hushed up—or put into a report, which is much the same thing (vide M.R.C. Report, No. 272, May 1950, A Study of Diphtheria in Two Areas of Great Britain, now out of print). The worst scandal, however, is that the radio is still telling the schools that the purpose of vaccinating is to produce antibodies. The purpose of vaccinating is to make money!”—Lionel Dole- http://whale.to/v/dole.html
“Human trials generally correlate “antibody” responses with protection – that is if the body produces antibodies (proteins) which bind to vaccine components, then it must be working and safe. Yet Dr March says antibody response is generally a poor measure of protection and no indicator at all of safety. “Particularly for viral diseases, the ‘cellular’ immune response is all important, and antibody levels and protection are totally unconnected.”–Private Eye 24/1/2002 –http://whale.to/v/mmr445.html
A “titer” is a measurement of how much antibody to a certain virus (or other antigen) is circulating in the blood at that moment. Titers are usually expressed in a ratio, which is how many times they could dilute the blood until they couldn’t find antibodies anymore. So let’s say they could dilute it two times only and then they didn’t find anymore, that would be a titer of 1:2. If they could dilute it a thousand times before they couldn’t find any antibody, then that would be a titer of 1:1000. A titer test does not and cannot measure immunity, because immunity to specific viruses is reliant not on antibodies, but on memory cells, which we have no way to measure. Memory cells are what prompt the immune system to create antibodies and dispatch them to an infection caused by the virus it “remembers.” Memory cells don’t need “reminders” in the form of re-vaccination to keep producing antibodies. (Science, 1999; “Immune system’s memory does not need reminders.”) ACCESS to JUSTICE. MMR10 – IN EUROPE- http://whale.to/vaccines/access_to_justice.html
The theory that the creation of antibodies in the blood indicates that protection against disease has been established is not supported by experience. The Medical Research Council’s Report on Diphtheria Outbreaks in Gateshead and Dundee, published in 1950. showed that many of the persons actually in hospital with diphtheria had far more anti-toxin in their blood than was said to be required for complete protection against diphtheria, whilst nurses and others in close contact with diphtheria infection and without sufficient anti-toxin remained immune.  THE BRAINS OF THE INOCULATED Speech by LILY LOAT –http://whale.to/vaccines/loat1.html
“In order to better grasp the issue of vaccine effectiveness, it would prove helpful for us to go back to the early theoretical foundation upon which current vaccination and disease theories originated. In simplest terms, the theory of artificial immunization postulates that by giving a person a mild form of a disease, via the use of specific foreign proteins, attenuated viruses, etc., the body will react by producing a lasting protective response e.g., antibodies, to protect the body if or when the real disease comes along.
This primal theory of disease prevention originated by Paul Ehrlich–from the time of its inception–has been subject to increasing abandonment by scientists of no small stature. For example not long after the Ehrlich theory came into vogue, W.H. Manwaring, then Professor of Bacteriology and Experimental Pathology at Leland Stanford University observed:
I believe that there is hardly an element of truth in a single one of the basic hypothesis embodied in this theory. My conviction that there was something radically wrong with it arose from a consideration of the almost universal failure of therapeutic methods based on it . . . Twelve years of study with immuno-physical tests have yielded a mass of experimental evidence contrary to, and irreconcilable with the Ehrlich theory, and have convinced me that his conception of the origin, nature, and physiological role of the specific ‘antibodies’ is erroneous.33
To afford us with a continuing historical perspective of events since Manwaring’s time, we can next turn to the classic work on auto-immunity and disease by Sir MacFarlane Burnett, which indicates that since the middle of this century the place of antibodies at the centre stage of immunity to disease has undergone “a striking demotion.” For example, it had become well known that children with agammaglobulinaemia–who consequently have no capacity to produce antibody–after contracting measles, (or other zymotic diseases) nonetheless recover with long-lasting immunity. In his view it was clear “that a variety of other immunological mechanisms are functioning effectively without benefit of actively produced antibody.”34
The kind of research which led to this a broader perspective on the body’s immunological mechanisms included a mid-century British investigation on the relationship of the incidence of diphtheria to the presence of antibodies. The study concluded that there was no observable correlation between the antibody count and the incidence of the disease.” “The researchers found people who were highly resistant with extremely low antibody count, and people who developed the disease who had high antibody counts.35 (According to Don de Savingy of IDRC, the significance of the role of multiple immunological factors and mechanisms has gained wide recognition in scientific thinking. [For example, it is now generally held that vaccines operate by stimulating non-humeral mechanisms, with antibody serving only as an indicator that a vaccine was given, or that a person was exposed to a particular infectious agent.])
In the early 70’s we find an article in the Australian Journal of Medical Technology by medical virologist B. Allen (of the Australian Laboratory of Microbiology and Pathology, Brisbane) which reported that although a group of recruits were immunized for Rubella, and uniformly demonstrated antibodies, 80 percent of the recruits contracted the disease when later exposed to it. Similar results were demonstrated in a consecutive study conducted at an institution for the mentally disabled. Allen–in commenting on herb research at a University of Melbourne seminar–stated that “one must wonder whether the . . . decision to rely on herd immunity might not have to be rethought.36
As we proceed to the early 80s, we find that upon investigating unexpected and unexplainable outbreaks of acute infection among “immunized” persons, mainstream scientists have begun to seriously question whether their understanding of what constitutes reliable immunity is in fact valid. For example, a team of scientist writing in the New England Journal of Medicine provide evidence for the position that immunityto disease is a broader bio-ecological question then the factors of artificial immunization or serology. They summarily concluded: “It is important to stress that immunity (or its absence) cannot be determined reliable on the basis of history of the disease, history of immunization, or even history of prior serologic
Despite these significant shifts in scientific thinking, there has unfortunately been little actual progress made in terms of undertaking systematically broad research on the multiple factors which undergird human immunity to disease, and in turn building a system of prevention that is squarely based upon such findings. It seems ironic that as late as 1988 James must still raise the following basic questions. “Why doesn’t medical research focus on what factors in our environment and in our lives weaken the immunesystem? Is this too simple? too ordinary? too undramatic? Or does it threaten too many vested interests . .”—Dr Obomsawin MD https://web.archive.org/web/20001215233300/http://www.whale.to/vaccines/obomsawin.html
“Antibodies are in reality, soluble blood proteins, which play a central role in the healing of wounds” (So if they are there to heal wounds it makes sense they would be around poisoned, dying cells, right? The theory that they are specific to every disease has been disproven, there are only a few different proteins they call ‘anti-bodies’ whereas there are infinite types of ‘viruses’ by their own admission.)
‘One of the most disconcerting discoveries in clinical medicine was the finding that children with congenital agammaglobulinaemia, who could make no antibody and had only insignificant traces of immunoglobulin in circulation, contracted measles in normal fashion, showed the usual sequence of symptoms and signs, and were subsequently immune. No measles anti-body was detectable in their serum (the water part of blood minus clotting factors and cells).’ [2013 Jan] Melanie’s Marvelous Measles: Is the provaccine backlash rational or hysterical? by Suzanne Humphries, MD http://whale.to/vaccines/antibody.html
This may be news to many but it is in fact long known in medical circles which means the vaccine industry is committing fraud (apart from murder) and we really need a moratorium on the whole ‘vaccine’ issue NOW.
On the WHO admitting that AB counts do not correlate to immunity-