“Neither an immune correlate of protection nor of the duration of protection has been established to date.”
-WHO on “SARS-COV-2” vaccine immunity October 4th, 2021
https://www.who.int/news/item/04-10-2021-interim-statement-on-booster-doses-for-covid-19-vaccination
In order for antibodies to have any usefulness as a measurement of protection, it must be established how many antibodies are needed for protection. This is supposedly determined by a measurement known as the correlation of protection. It is claimed that this threshold is known for some “viruses” (such as measles) while it is difficult or next to impossible to figure out for others (such as tuberculosis and pertussis). It has been described as the “holy grail” of immune measurements:
We’re Zeroing In On the ‘Holy Grail’ of COVID-19 Immunity
“There’s no good way of measuring whether your vaccine worked—yet.”
“With a correlate in hand, researchers can confirm how well a shot is working and identify the rare individuals in whom it doesn’t take; they can suss out the need for boosters and fast-track the development of new vaccines. At their most powerful, correlates of protection boil down the complexities of an immune response to a single value—one that can confidently affirm that a person won’t get infected or seriously sick. “It’s kind of a magic number,” Ali Ellebedy, an immunologist at Washington University in St. Louis, told me. “It’s the big holy grail,” Emory University’s Sri Edupuganti says. “It’s what we dream about,” Cornell’s Sallie Permar told me last month.”
“But for all their apparent simplicity, correlates of protection are devilishly hard to come by. Try as researchers might, capturing the oomph of vaccine-induced immunity in one number—or several—isn’t always possible. Even as scientists chase them, correlates are a reminder of just how inscrutable our own bodies can be.”
“Some of the vaccines we’ve been using for decades still don’t have a concrete correlate, including the shots for mumps, rotavirus, and tuberculosis.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/619508/
This is how vaccine maker AstraZeneca describes it:
“Correlates of protection define the immune response a vaccine or natural viral infection would need to trigger so that an individual is protected from a virus or infectious disease in the future.
The aim of measuring immune response to vaccination or natural viral infection is to understand the level at which a person can fight off a future infection.“
It is apparent that the correlation of protection is a measurement that needs to be known before any claims about the benefit and usefulness of antibodies can be meaningful. Without it, there can be no claim that vaccines offer better protection than natural infection. In fact, there can be no claims that antibodies offer any protection at all.
This raises some questions: What do we really know about antibodies as a measure of protection? What do antibodies mean for “SARS-COV-2?” Is there a known correlate of protection or are the CDC/WHO/MSM making claims about the effectiveness of vaccines and the usefulness of antibody tests which they can not back up? Let’s look at some sources and see if we can clear this antibody confusion up.
On May 10th, 2021, the American College of Physicians put out new guidelines in response to “Covid-19” and immunity. What is clear after having read through them is that we are nearly two years into this “pandemic” and they know absolutely nothing about the role of antibodies in regards to “Covid-19.” These guidelines put a spotlight not only on the antibody scam but the “Coronahoax” as well. A nice overview was presented by Renal and Urology News:
New Guidance: American College of Physicians Discusses Antibody Response in COVID-19 Immunity
“Because of the novelty of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, there is not enough evidence to determine whether antibodies produced after exposure are protective against reinfection. As such, the American College of Physicians (ACP) published rapid, evidence-based living practice points in the Annals of Internal Medicine discussing the role of antibodies in, tests for diagnosing, and tests for estimating the prevalence of COVID-19.
Practice Point 1: Antibody Tests for COVID-19 Diagnosis
The ACP does not recommend using SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests to diagnose COVID-19. This recommendation is based on the limited evidence that suggests not all patients with COVID-19 develop antibodies early in the course of their infection, as the presence and levels of antibodies can vary across patients and be dictated by certain disease characteristics.
The guideline panel adds that clinicians and patients should be mindful that some SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests may provide false-positive results, which are caused by cross-reactivity with antibodies of other coronaviruses.
Studies also suggest that the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of currently available antibody tests widely vary, further complicating their use as reliable diagnostic tools. Variation in the sensitivity and specificity of these tests can also contribute to both false-negative and false-positive results, leading to inaccurate conclusions about infection and possibly inappropriate or insufficient treatment.
Practice Point 2: Antibody Tests for Estimating Community Prevalence
Studies suggest that patients develop immune responses following exposure to the novel coronavirus. The evidence shows immunoglobulin (Ig)A and IgM antibodies are detectable in the majority of patients who are infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Nearly all patients also demonstrate detectable IgG and neutralizing antibodies.
Over time, the prevalence and levels of these antibodies may vary by different patient characteristics, disease symptoms, and disease severity. On average, the levels of each of the antibody types peak between 20 to 31 days following symptom onset or polymerase chain reaction diagnosis. Studies also show that the IgM antibodies may persist for up to 115 days and neutralizing antibodies may persist up to 152 days. Therefore, the ACP notes that antibody tests could be feasible options for estimating community prevalence of COVID-19.
Practice Point 3: The Protective Effect of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies Against Reinfection
There is a paucity of evidence to suggest that natural immunity is conferred by SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. There is no evidence to suggest SARS-CoV-2 antibodies can predict the presence, level, or durability of any conferred natural immunity, especially as it relates to protection against reinfection.
Given that most patients exhibit detectable antibodies at least 100 days after infection, it may be plausible that natural immunity can occur. However, the panel reiterates that there is no direct evidence to answer the question of whether these antibodies can protect against reinfection.
Some literature indicates that both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients can develop an antibody response indicative of natural immunity following COVID-19, but variables such as disease severity, patient factors, type and amount of antibodies developed, as well as the longevity of those antibodies, play an important role.
The guideline panel cites a small study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 that reported a single possible case of reinfection during the convalescence stage. This patient did not have IgM or IgG antibodies detected at the 4-week follow-up period.
Limitations of the Practice Points
According to the guideline authors, the practice points presented concern only the antibody-mediated natural immunity response in COVID-19 and do not particularly address the involvement of other natural immune responses, including cell-mediated immunity or vaccine-acquired immunity.
Currently, the only evidence-based recommendation for increasing immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and preventing infection is to receive an authorized COVID-19 vaccine. Additional prevention strategies recommended in the guideline include social distancing, wearing a mask in public, quarantining, and regular hand washing.
“Given limited knowledge about the association between antibody levels and natural immunity,” the guideline authors wrote, “patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and those with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection should follow recommended infection prevention and control procedures to slow and reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2.”
New Guidance: American College of Physicians Discusses Antibody Response in COVID-19 Immunity
I want to highlight two important sections from the ACP’s Guidelines:
What Is the Antibody Response and Role in Conferring Natural Immunity After SARS-CoV-2 Infection? Rapid, Living Practice Points From the American College of Physicians (Version 1)
“However, currently little is known about the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and natural immunity. The potential for natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection stems from the activation of B lymphocytes (humoral or antibody-mediated immunity) and T lymphocytes (cellular immunity). However, like with other viruses, the relationship between antibodies and natural immunity may vary on the basis of differences in the level and duration of antibodies produced as well as viral mutations of the infection. When persons are infected with SARS-CoV-2, uncertainty exists about whether the antibodies produced (IgM, IgG, IgA, or neutralizing) are protective against reinfection, and if so, for how long what levels of antibodies are needed for such protection (1). In addition, because antibodies to other coronaviruses have been shown to decline over time, how long such protection against reinfection may last also needs to be determined.“
“It is also important for clinicians and patients to keep in mind that SARS-CoV-2 antibody test results may be falsely positive due to cross-reactivity with antibodies of other coronaviruses (74, 75). Furthermore, although a complete assessment of diagnostic accuracy of various antibody tests was beyond the scope of the evidence review, characteristics (for example, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy) varied substantially among the antibody tests used in included studies (3, 4). Such variation can contribute to false-negative and false-positive test results and ultimately wrong conclusions.“
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-7569
What is absolutely absurd about the ACP Guidelines is that while they state there is no scientific evidence for natural immune protection from “SARS-COV-2,” they still urge people to get artificial immune protection from vaccines, claiming this is the only surefire way to be protected. However, if there is no definitive scientific data on whether or not antibodies mean protection naturally, how could they possibly know if antibodies mean protection artificially?
They can’t.
From July 2021, two months after the ACP released their guidelines on the lack of evidence for “SARS-COV-2” natural immunity, came this call for a correlation of protection (knowledge of immune measures that are statistically associated with protection against disease) for vaccine immunity:
A correlate of protection for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is urgently needed
“To place these studies in context, it is important to first understand why a correlate of protection and, more specifically, an ‘absolute correlate’ (meaning a protective threshold) are urgently needed. First, more vaccines are needed for global protection against SARS-CoV-2, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The currently licensed vaccines cannot be produced in large enough quantities to satisfy this need in a timely manner; therefore, more vaccines need to be licensed. Many candidates are in advanced stages of clinical development, but conducting phase 3 efficacy studies is challenging due to ethical reasons (the need for non-inferiority trials with a standard-of-care comparator instead of a placebo) and due to a reduction in the number of cases (which means trials may take longer or may require a larger number of participants). Many of the vaccine candidates that are still in the pipeline are being developed by smaller companies or producers in low- and middle-income countries who may not be able to conduct the large phase 3 trials needed to get their products licensed. Having a correlate of protection that allows licensure based on immune readouts would circumvent these issues and would undoubtedly boost vaccine availability.
Many individuals with a compromised immune system, including transplant patients, patients with cancer and individuals taking immunosuppressive drugs, do not mount strong responses to vaccines, including those for SARS-CoV-25,6,7,8. At present, the messaging from regulatory agencies states that “antibody tests should not be used to evaluate a person’s level of immunity or protection from COVID-19.”9 If there is no detectable antibody response after vaccination, the vaccines may still offer protection through cellular immunity. Although this may be true in some cases, cellular immune responses and antibody responses often correlate to some extent10. Mechanistically, the induction of strong antibody responses is dependent on CD4+ T cell responses, and there are preliminary reports of immunocompromised individuals who did not mount antibody responses to vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 and subsequently succumbed to infection5. Having an established correlate of protection would allow healthcare providers to manage the vaccination of immunocompromised individuals more efficiently, such as by recommending booster vaccinations if antibody titers are too low, or recommending non-pharmaceutical interventions for protection if no immune response is detected.
Having a correlate of protection would also allow healthcare and governing bodies to efficiently determine what percentage of the population is protected. Although seroprevalence is currently used as a crude measure of community immunity, having a correlate of protection would allow more-precise estimations that could then trigger interventions such as vaccination campaigns if the percentage of immune individuals is deemed to be too low.”
“Relying on a correlate of protection—although extremely helpful in many ways—also comes with certain risks. Although certain correlates can be non-mechanistic1, meaning an immune marker that indicates protection but does not cause it, antibodies are often mechanistic correlates1 of protection, especially if they are capable of neutralizing the pathogen in question. Correlates may be specific to a vaccine platform or even specific to a vaccine. Some vaccines may be highly protective but may not induce the type of immunity established as a correlate and, vice versa, a vaccine may induce the immune response used as correlate but may still not provide protection, especially when a non-mechanistic correlate of protection is used. Nevertheless, robust preclinical and clinical studies make these scenarios unlikely; vaccine developers understand the type of immunity their vaccines induce, and animal experiments12 (and monoclonal antibody therapeutics in humans) show that antibodies do directly participate in protection (and therefore are probably a mechanistic correlate of protection)10.
A more robust threshold of protection, based on data from individual people instead of pooled efficacy data, can be derived from breakthrough cases in phase 3 studies and observational studies. Therefore, swift data sharing and collaboration to establish an absolute correlate of protection should be the number one priority for vaccine producers, academic researchers and regulatory agencies. Although it is unlikely that such an effort will arrive at a flawless absolute correlate that can be applied to all vaccine candidates, all viral variants and all patient populations, it would certainly be extremely helpful in catalyzing the licensure of more vaccines, guiding patient management and informing public-health decisions.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01432-4
From September 2021:
Correlates of protection against symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection
“Understanding the relationship between immune responses to vaccines and protection against clinical outcomes is urgently needed to speed vaccine development. Knowledge of immune measures that are statistically associated with protection against disease (‘correlates of protection’) may allow new vaccines to be authorized for use on the basis of immunogenicity and safety data alone, when large efficacy trials are not feasible. In addition, understanding the immune response allows for comparison of vaccines across cohorts of people who differ by age, race, ethnicity, or other factors.“
“Evidence that antibodies may play a role in mediating protection against overt disease has come from vaccination and challenge studies in animals.“
“Nevertheless, no study to date has defined a correlate of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection or disease that can be used by regulators and vaccine developers.”
“Protection against symptomatic COVID-19 is not absolute with any vaccine, and the results presented here show that there is no single threshold value for any of the assays investigated that was indicative of sterilizing immunity in our data. Instead, the probability of infection decreases on average with higher immune responses, but substantial variation exists between individuals. This is similar to studies of respiratory syncytial virus, in which risk of infection decreased with higher antibody levels, although infections were still observed at high antibody levels, suggesting that a definitive individual threshold of protection does not exist32. We provide antibody estimates that correspond with 50% to 90% VE; however, the wide CIs around these estimates should be noted.“
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01540-1
The lack of a correlate of protection is not just in regards to “SARS-COV-2.” Even measles, considered one of the “viruses” with strong evidence for a correlate of protection, is being questioned. From an article published November 2019:
Is There a Correlate of Protection for Measles Vaccine?
“To define a correlate of protection by a vaccine is not easy, as I have learned over the years. In 2001, I first wrote about the subject, attempting to simplify it with certain definitions and criteria [3]. Subsequently I realized that nothing is simple, as has been noted from times immemorial [4]! The reasons for this lack of simplicity are manifold, including lack of standardization of critical immunologic tests, the multiplicity of antibody and cellular immune functions, and the many ways in which those functions interact. In addition, challenge dose and number of challenges also figure into estimations of correlates.
It is in face of these daunting circumstances that Bolotin et al, in the current issue of The Journal of Infectious Diseases [5], have reassessed the data for correlates of protection by measles vaccine. The field has long depended on the study of a measles epidemic by Chen et al [6], in which the subjects had given blood specimens before vaccination and after a subsequent outbreak of measles. The conclusion drawn from that study was that 120 mIU of measles virus antibody, based on results of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), correlated with protection against clinically diagnosed measles. Whereas that was, and is, a useful number, its accuracy has not been confirmed for several reasons.
First, the antibody level was measured by an ELISA, which does not measure antibodies with respect to their function. Antibodies have multiple functions, including neutralization, prevention of attachment to the organism, and enhancement of natural killer cell activity. In addition, cellular responses to measles virus are ill defined, and in some other diseases those responses are additive to protection by antibodies. Thus, it is important to look again at the correlates of protection for measles vaccine, which Bolotin et al have attempted to do.
In the 19th century, Panum [7] recognized that natural infection with measles virus in the Faroe Islands conferred permanent immunity against the disease, and, indeed, that observation may still be true. However, the vaccine gives an attenuated infection, and it is not the case that antibody levels remain permanently elevated in vaccinees. The current situation is responsible for reevaluation of the long-term efficacy of measles vaccine [8].”
https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/221/10/1571/5610905
Here are a few excerpts from the abstract of the Bolotin et al study mentioned above:
What Is the Evidence to Support a Correlate of Protection for Measles? A Systematic Review
Background
“Many studies assume that the serologic correlate of protection from measles disease is 120 mIU/mL. We systematically reviewed the literature to examine the evidence supporting this correlate of protection.”
Conclusions
“Our findings underscore the scant data upon which the commonly used 120 mIU/mL measles threshold of protection is based, suggesting that further work is required to characterize the measles immunity threshold.”
https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/221/10/1576/5610904
In Summary:
- According to the WHO, as of October 4th, 2021, neither an immune correlate of protection nor of the duration of protection has been established to date
- A July 2021 article in The Atlantic states there’s no good way of measuring whether your vaccine worked
- With a correlate of protection in hand, researchers can confirm how well a shot is working
- Correlates of protection boil down the complexities of an immune response to a single value—one that can confidently affirm that a person won’t get infected or seriously sick
- Correlates of protection are devilishly hard to come by and try as researchers might, capturing the oomph of vaccine-induced immunity in one number—or several—isn’t always possible
- Some of the vaccines we’ve been using for decades still don’t have a concrete correlate, including the shots for mumps, rotavirus, and tuberculosis
- The May 2021 ACP Guidelines state there is not enough evidence to determine if antibodies produced after exposure provide protection from reinfection
- They recommend not using antibody tests for “Covid-19” diagnosis
- Not all patients with “Covid” develop antibodies early
- Presence and levels of antibodies vary person to person
- Some “SARS-CoV-2” antibody tests may provide false-positive results, which are caused by cross-reactivity with antibodies of other “coronaviruses”
- Studies also suggest that the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of currently available antibody tests vary widely
- Studies suggest patients develop an immune response after “Covid” exposure (except for asymptomatic I suppose…🤷♂️)
- Prevalance and levels of antibodies may vary due to patient characteristics, disease symptoms, and disease severity
- There is a paucity (i.e. scarcity) of evidence to suggest that natural antibodies from “Covid” infection confers immunity
- There is no evidence to suggest that “Covid” antibodies can predict presence, level, or durability of any conferred immunity, especially regarding reinfection
- They state it may be plausible that natural immunity can occur
- However, they reiterate that there is no direct evidence that the antibodies protect against reinfection
- The practice points are only in regards to antibody-mediated natural immunity
- They state the only “evidence-based” method to increase immunity is through vaccination (ARTIFICIAL IMMUNITY)
- They admit there is limited knowledge about the association between antibodies and natural immunity
- Like with other “viruses,” the relationship between antibodies and natural immunity may vary
- Uncertainty exists as to whether the antibodies produced (IgM, IgG, IgA, or neutralizing) are protective against reinfection
- They do not know for how long or at what levels these antibodies would be needed for protection
- The antibody tests may produce false-positives due to cross-reactivity to other “Coronaviruses”
- Test sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy varied substantially among all of the antibody tests
- The test variation leads to false-negatives, false-positives, and wrong conclusions
- As for vaccine immunity, a July 2021 study called for a correlation of protection (knowledge of immune measures that are statistically associated with protection against disease) as it is urgently needed
- The reasons for this urgent need include:
- Having a correlate of protection that allows licensure based on immune readouts
- Having an established correlate of protection would allow healthcare providers to manage the vaccination of immunocompromised individuals more efficiently, such as by recommending booster vaccinations if antibody titers are too low, or recommending non-pharmaceutical interventions for protection if no immune response is detected
- Having a correlate of protection would also allow healthcare and governing bodies to efficiently determine what percentage of the population is protected
- Having a correlate of protection would allow more-precise estimations of immunity
- Of course, they have their built in excuse ready for if no antibody response occurs as they claim if there is no detectable antibody response after vaccination, the vaccines may still offer protection through cellular immunity
- However, the cellular immunity claim is immediately refuted a few sentences later when they state there are preliminary reports of immunocompromised individuals who did not mount antibody responses to vaccination against “SARS-CoV-2” and subsequently succumbed to infection
- Seroprevalence (percentage of individuals in a population who have antibodies to an “infectious agent”) is currently used as a crude measure of community immunity but without a correlation of protection it is a meaningless measure
- Some vaccines may be highly protective but may not induce the type of immunity established as a correlate and, vice versa, a vaccine may induce the immune response used as correlate but may still not provide protection
- They call for swift data sharing and collaboration to establish an absolute correlate of protection as this should be the number one priority for vaccine producers, academic researchers and regulatory agencies
- However, even if this were to happen, they claim it is unlikely that such an effort will arrive at a flawless absolute correlate that can be applied to all vaccine candidates, all “viral” variants and all patient populations
- In other words, another built-in excuse for the continued failure to determine whether antibodies equal “protection”
- A study from September 2021 stated understanding the relationship between immune responses to vaccines and protection against clinical outcomes is urgently needed
- There is an urgent need for knowledge of immune measures that are statistically associated with protection against disease (‘correlates of protection’)
- Understanding the immune response allows for comparison of vaccines across cohorts of people who differ by age, race, ethnicity, or other factors
- Evidence that antibodies may play a role in mediating protection against overt disease has come from vaccination and challenge studies in animals
- No study to date has defined a correlate of protection against “SARS-CoV-2” infection or disease that can be used by regulators and vaccine developers
- Protection against symptomatic “COVID-19” is not absolute with any vaccine, and the results presented here show that there is no single threshold value for any of the assays investigated that was indicative of sterilizing immunity
- Substantial variation in immune responses exists between individuals
- For respiratory syncytial “virus,” infections were still observed at high antibody levels, suggesting that a definitive individual threshold of protection does not exist
- A November 2019 article about the Measles correlate of protection states that to define a correlate of protection by a vaccine is not easy
- The reasons for this lack of simplicity are manifold, including:
- Lack of standardization of critical immunologic tests
- The multiplicity of antibody and cellular immune functions, and the many ways in which those functions interact
- Challenge dose and number of challenges also figure into estimations of correlates
- ELISA tests were used to define the measles correlate of protection yet its accuracy has not been confirmed for several reasons
- ELISA tests do not measure antibodies with respect to their function
- Cellular responses to measles “virus” are ill defined
- In the 19th century, Panum [7] recognized that natural infection with measles “virus” in the Faroe Islands conferred permanent immunity against the disease, and, indeed, that observation may still be true
- It is not the case that antibody levels remain permanently elevated in vaccinees
- According to the Bolotin et al study, many studies assume that the serologic correlate of protection from measles disease is 120 mIU/mL
- Their findings underscore the scant data upon which the commonly used 120 mIU/mL measles threshold of protection is based
What all of this information tells us is that virologists/immunologists clearly have no clue as to what theoretical antibodies do nor what the measurements of these invisible substances actually mean. Here we are nearly two years into this hoax and they somehow have more certainty over the protective effects of the experimental mRNA jab than they do over how the body responds to their “virus” naturally. This is obviously by design. If they can keep people confused/scared about the uncertainty of the protection “natural immunity” does or does not afford, they will be more than happy to line up for the artificial “immunity” of the toxic gene therapy masquerading as a vaccine. However, with no correlation of protection for either natural or artificial immunity, it should be easy to see through the propaganda and realize that antibodies are just another in a long line of meaningless measurements used to prop up the science fiction virology has created.
ViroLIEgy 
I remember maybe a decade ago reading about titers for the first time. That some people getting the measels vaccine don’t show any response, meaning any prevention of the disease due to “low titers.” They could get two, three doses and show no protection. What the heck is a titer?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Titer: the concentration of an antibody, as determined by finding the highest dilution at which it is still able to cause agglutination of the antigen.
Or in other words, an indirect BS chemistry experiment passed off as a meaningful measurement for invisible theoretical particles. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Misto,
I’m a part-time blog writer and very interested in your subject matter, so I took the liberty to rewrite the first three paragraphs of your intro page. If you like the changes, I might be able to find the time to do more. Of course, it would be purely a donation.
A few years ago, our medical system misdiagnosed an illness of one of my loved ones and abused her with numerous toxic drugs and invasive medical procedures that tortured and eventually killed her. In an attempt to alleviate her suffering, I began to research the origins of modern medicine and stumbled on the conflict between Germ and Terrain theory. The plagiarist Louis Pasteur promoted germs as the cause of disease while Antoine Beauchamp argued that the overall condition of the human body manifested disease. Unfortunately, Rockefeller money eventually tipped the scales of the debate in favor of the germ theory business model.
My research led me to the work of David Crowe, Stefan Lanka, Roberto Giraldo, The Perth Group, Liam Scheff, Celia Farber, and many others. With the emergence of the COVID-19 “pandemic” in 2020 based on countless spurious pretenses and malevolent misinformation, I decided to share what I had learned.
The only pandemic engulfing the world was one of FEAR driven by misleading “tests,” which were encouraged by a Big-Pharma-dominated mainstream news media. I decided to combat the hysteria with logic, and so I began my crusade of compiling and posting true scientific knowledge.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, I appreciate the input and the support! You did an excellent job. 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks Misto1481 for another very informative assessment! This puts into perspective the honest state of test and measurement when it comes to the human body. I have read of researchers back to the 1950s that antibodies have no bearing by themselves on immunity or protection from a claimed pathogen.
There are so many factors that are glaringly ignored by the medical industry that i assume is on purpose. Test methodologies that have no baseline, basis or merit to ascertain any threshold or meaningful relationship to real time health let alone prevention of anything. Complete lack of due diligence to consider mechanisms of toxicity. No due diligence to examine actual metabolic processes and how they might be distorted by non nutritional substances, agents or materials.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, I appreciate that. 🙂
I agree that the factors ignored by the medical industry is definitely on purpose. They have done a wonderful job of promoting assumptions, theories, and guesswork stemming from pseudoscience as if they are fact while drowning out any voices of rational opposition. The warning signs were there in the early days of Germ Theory/Virology. Many Dr.’s spoke out against it as well as vaccination. Unfortunately, the Rockefeller money won out. They were able to create and control the narrative in order to fool the ignorant masses.
LikeLike
Dear Mike,
I am thoroughly enjoying your deconstruction and debunking of virology, germ theory, covid and the greater lies, deceit and fabrications of the medical industrial complex. My journey towards the light started by discovering Dr. Zach Bush who presented a new way of looking at ‘viruses’ as evolutionary, genetic messengers. Granted he still seems to affirm their existence though in large part as beneficial agents that assist in life’s real-time adaptations. Next up was Dr. Andrew Kaufman who really tested my limits of credulity by asserting pathogenic viruses have never been isolated, cause disease or even shown to exist. This led me onward to Stefan Lanka, Dr. Tom Cowan, Sam and Mark Bailey and a host of other critical thinkers and questioners. From there I have not looked back and it’s been quite a journey of revelation, discovery and refiguring so much that I took for granted about health and medicine. Always a skeptic of hospitals and modern allopathic/pharmaceutical practice I still held onto the germ-driven fallacy that pathogens can jump on board and infect us. No longer!
I really appreciate the forum and dialogue you are cultivating here. You take highly complex, “scientific” research, distill it down, then pick it apart for the lay person. Thank you for doing the grunt work and continuing to expose the naked emperor of virology.
That said I wanted to share two links that may relate to the above blog post. This first one from Truthseeker (John Blaid) you may have already seen, but is a great summary of the contradictions and self-deception of mainstream antibody assertions:
https://truthseeker.se/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/The-Misinterpretation-of-Antibodies.pdf
This next one is a doozy from Andrew Maniotis who has laboriously collated a lengthy chronology of the sordid history of vaccines. By no means a complete litany but a Herculean effort nonetheless. He also adds his own, sometimes acerbic, commentary:
https://andrewmaniotis.wordpress.com/vaccines-how-to-predict-epidemics-3/
Thank you again for all your diligent and brave efforts.
Keith
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you so much for the very kind words and support! It was a quite a journey for myself as well which started with a reversal on my outlook on vaccines, then to HIV and the lack of purified/isolated particles proven pathogenic, and then to understanding this lack of evidence applied to all “viruses” and Germ theory. It seems that truth comes in waves for most.
I definitely know of John’s work as we have been FB and Telegram friends but I always appreciate the shout out to his work! I will definitely check out the other link. Thanks again for the very nice message! 🙂
LikeLike
The frustration I have in reading this type of article is that an antibody is a theoretical construct that has not been proven true. So this entire article reads like an esoteric argument about how many fairies can dance on the point of a unicorns horn. It give credence to something that has not been proven to exist. Excuse my language but WTF???
LikeLike
I was showing that by their own measurements, antibodies do not offer protection nor do they have any way of measuring this supposed protection. I understand the confusion but I call antibodies out for being theoretical in the conclusion:
“What all of this information tells us is that virologists/immunologists clearly have no clue as to what theoretical antibodies do nor what the measurements of these invisible substances actually mean. Here we are nearly two years into this hoax and they somehow have more certainty over the protective effects of the experimental mRNA jab than they do over how the body responds to their “virus” naturally. This is obviously by design. If they can keep people confused/scared about the uncertainty of the protection “natural immunity” does or does not afford, they will be more than happy to line up for the artificial “immunity” of the toxic gene therapy masquerading as a vaccine. However, with no correlation of protection for either natural or artificial immunity, it should be easy to see through the propaganda and realize that antibodies are just another in a long line of meaningless measurements used to prop up the science fiction virology has created.”
LikeLike
Don’t worry Mike. My comment was not directed at you. These pseudoscientists invent a language that has no basis in reality and then force their dogma on us with devastating consequence to us. As I mentioned in another comment, they are preying on the ignorance of people like me. That is the source of my frustration.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh OK gotcha! 🤣 I had to reread the article as I was afraid I made it seem as if I believed antibodies exist. I wrote that one a while ago. Thanks for clarifying. 🙂
LikeLike
Do you have an email address that your readers can use to contact you directly? If you are open to suggestions, I would like to offer some ideas on how you might consider conveying information in your articles. You have my email address. If you are open to suggestions then send me a short email message. Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, my email is Misto1481@hotmail.com
LikeLike