Antibodies, Plasma, and the Power of Correlation

There is a real problem in the sciences that goes far beyond the methods and experiments. It is a deeper issue that has more to do with the very ideology used by the researchers themselves which permeates throughout much of the scientific literature. It is this idea that finding indirect evidence of assumed particles or even genomic sequences in a (heavily altered) tissue, cell culture, and/or blood sample can legitimately point to a cause and effect relationship. However, this is obviously not the case and those who promote this idea are engaging in what is known as the false-cause logical fallacy. This is better known either by the phrase “with this, therefore because of this” or “correlation does not equal causation:”

Correlation vs. Causation

“The place where this fallacy shows up the most often is in (the media), which unfortunately is where most people get their science information and news. Imagine you’re looking to buy a magazine. Which headline best grabs your attention:

  1. “One study on a limited population shows that when people do X, Y happens a certain percentage of the time.”
  2. “Link found between doing X and Y happening!”
  3. “New research shows that X causes Y.”

If you ever read a scientific paper, you’ll find that almost all scientists make statements like that first one. However by the time this research hits the popular media, it’s often transformed to look a lot more like that last one.”

We see this all the time in science. It is very common to find correlations in relationships yet know nothing about the cause. Sadly, more often than not, these supposed relationships are assumed to be one of cause-and-effect without providing any direct evidence that this is the case.

Take, for instance, the work of Astrid Fagraeus. It was said that a “breakthrough” in Immunology occurred in 1947-48 when Astrid Fagraeus published her doctoral dissertation “Antibody Production in relation to the Development of Plasma Cells.” She was given the credit for showing that the plasma cells produce antibodies. Before her paper, the function of plasma cells was unknown. But did Astrd Fagraeus really prove the correlation between plasma cells and antibodies definitively?

According to the book “Advances in Immunology” by Frederick W. Alt, she did not:

“In 1902, the Russian scientist
Alexander Maximow summed up the findings on plasma cells in a comprehensive pathological work. Based on the studies of Marschalko, Almkvist and others, Maximow described plasma cells as “mononuclear leukocytes that have emigrated from blood vessels and are particularly altered, mostly lymphocytes, which are present in normal lymphoid organs and pathological tissues and may possibly provide stable elements” (Maximow, 1902). At that time the nature of “stable elements” remained unclear, but from today’s perspective, these stable elements are certainly secreted antibodies. In 1938, Fred Kolouch Jr. (Minnesota) directly correlated the formation of plasma cells with injection of the antigen. Moreover, he made the essential finding that increase of serum antibodies accompanied the accumulation of plasma cells in the bone marrow (BM) and postulated for the first time that plasma cells produce antibodies, even though he had no direct experimental evidence for his hypothesis (Kolouch, 1938). This breakthrough in immunology was achieved in 1948 by the Swedish immunologist Astrid Fagraeus (Fagraeus, 1947, 1948). During her studies on multiple myeloma (MM), she observed an increase of plasma cell numbers in hypergammaglobulinemia, a finding which had already been described earlier by Bing (Bing, 1940). Fragraeus performed in vitro studies with plasma cell-enriched spleen biopsies from horse serum-injected rabbits and found a direct correlation between plasma cell numbers in the tissue and the amount of secreted antibodies in the culture medium. However, she was unable to provide clear evidence that plasma cells were indeed the cells that produced antibodies. Finally, in 1955, Leduc and colleagues succeeded in concluding that plasma cells produce antibodies by using immunofluorescence to detect antigen-binding proteins (i.e., antibodies) in morphologically defined plasma cells in lymph nodes of diphtheria-toxin-immunized rabbits (Coons, Leduc, & Connolly, 1955; Leduc, Coons, & Connolly, 1955).”

As can be seen by the above source, many scientists, including Fagraeus, found correlations between plasma serum and antibodies. However, Fagraeus could not provide clear evidence of the “direct correlation” that she observed. Did this lack of proof stop the accolades by the scientific institutions announcing Fagraeus’s breakthrough? No, the lack of clear evidence did not stop the scientific community from recognizing Fagraeus and her findings as proof that plasma cells produce the still unseen antibodies:

“Fagraeus’ doctoral dissertation, ‘Antibody Production in relation to the Development of Plasma Cells‘, attracted international attention and was considered a milestone in modern immunology. In this work, she was the first to show that plasma cells produce antibodies (IgG). Until then their function was unknown.”

“When Behring and Kitasato demonstrated the specific protection of rabbits by serum from infected animals in 1890 [4], it became clear that serum antibodies could provide “immunity”, i.e., protection against a recurrent infectious challenge. It took another 60 years until Astrid Fagreus discovered the cells secreting those antibodies, the “plasma cells”, describing them as “terminal stages of B cell differentiation” [5]. “Protective memory”, as provided by serum antibodies, was later conceptually complemented by a “reactive memory” formed by expanded and long-lived populations of antigen-experienced T and B lymphocytes.”

“In 1943, Mogens Bjørneboe and Harald Gormsen were the first to experimentally show that repeated immunization of rabbits with polyvalent vaccines leads to massive proliferation of plasma cells in most organs and that this proliferation correlates with antibody concentration.

That finding was supported a few years later by Astrid Fagraeus, who reported that plasma cells produce antibodies in vitro. Tissue cultures of spleens from rabbits immunized with live bacteria showed abundant formation of plasma cells. Fagraeus concluded that plasma cells appear in connection with strong antigen stimulation.”

While the actual dissertation paper was difficult to find, I did manage to obtain and take an image of the Nature article in which she details her work. While I was unable to copy/paste from the article itself, there was a summary provided by the Journal of Immunology:

doi: 10.1038/159499a0

Before the summary, let’s look a little closer at what Fagraeus did to achieve her results:

Pieces of rabbit spleen were cultured in normal rabbit serum, tyrode solution (an acidic solution made up of various substances), and isotonic sodium bicarbonate (generated by adding 150 mEq of sodium bicarbonate to a liter of 5% dextrose). A gas mixture of 80% oxygen, 4.5% carbon dioxide, and nitrogen was then passed into the tubes which were incubated at 37° C for 5-12 hours. From this tissue cultured mixture, Fagraeus assumed that the accumulation of plasma cells meant that they produced antibodies. Listed below is a summary of the results:

The Plasma Cellular Reaction and Its Relation to the Formation of Antibodies in Vitro

The Journal of Immunology 58 (1), 1-13, 1948


1. During secondary response, elicited in sensitized rabbits by means of intravenous injections of antigen, a great increase in the number of plasma cells (pl.c.) in the spleen was recorded simultaneously with the increase of circulating antibodies.

2. Pl.c. were confined almost exclusively to the red pulp, especially after the injection of living S. typhi. They originated apparently from reticulum cells, passing through a chain of development: transitional cell → immature pl.c. → mature pl.c.

Pieces of spleen were excised at different times during the period of antibody formation in rabbits, differential cell counts were made and the capacity of excised splenic tissue to form antibodies in vitro was investigated. The following observations were made:

a. The amount of antibody liberated in plain tissue extracts, under conditions preventing growth or metabolism of cells, was very low, whereas significant yields were obtained in tissue cultures.

b. The capacity of the red pulp abundant in pl.c. to produce antibodies in vitro was considerably superior to that of lymph follicles, rich in lymphocytes but devoid of pl.c.

c. Antibody production was comparatively poor in tissue containing only transitional cells, reached a maximum when numerous immature pl.c. were present and receded when predominantly mature pl.c. were found.

4. After intravenous injections the antigen accumulated in those places where pl.c. subsequently developed.

The conclusion is drawn that antibodies under the conditions of the experiments, are formed by cells of the R.E.S., passing through a chain of development, the final link of which is the mature pl.c.

doi: 10.1038/159499a0.

While the methods used to determine antibody content is not overly clear beyond staining with methyl green pyronine and the steps used for tissue culturing, it is clear that Fagraeus relied on the power of correlation to suggest that plasma cells create antibodies. This process of plasma cells producing antibodies could not be observed as antibodies themselves have never been observed in a purified/isolated state nor can such a production process be seen inside of a living organism. Fagraeus relied on the proliferation of plasma cells being a correlation of antibody content and assumed that staining patterns were able to tell her that antibodies were present in the dead tissue culture sections. Obviously, staining tissue cultures would be a form of indirect evidence which is probably why Frederick Alt concluded that even though Fagraeus found a “direct correlation” between plasma cell numbers in the tissue and the amount of secreted antibodies in the culture medium, she was unable to provide clear evidence that plasma cells were the cells that produced antibodies. Granted, Alt then immediately stated that in 1955, Leduc and colleagues were successful in concluding that plasma cells produced antibodies by using immunofluorescence to detect antibodies in morphologically defined plasma cells in lymph nodes of diphtheria-toxin-immunized rabbits. However, was this truly the case? How effective is immunofluorescence at detecting antibodies? From the first sentence in the discussion section of the 1955 paper listed as a reference, Leduc and colleagues state this:

“The method employed for the histological demonstration of antibody is clearly specific, despite the confusion caused at times by the occurrence of non-specific reactions.”

doi: 10.1084/jem.102.1.49.

In other words, the method they used to determine antibody content was not specific even though they claimed that it was. This is a nice case of scientific double-speak attempting to confuse the audience into accepting the idea that the methods used are in fact valid when the evidence shows otherwise. In a follow-up paper by Coons in 1956, he admitted to some other interesting revelations:

“The use of labeled antibody requires a certain familiarity with the methods and tradition of immunology, as well as with the more strictly practicaI procedures used in the purification of antigens and the production of antisera. There are of course many antigenic substances which can
theoretically be studied under a variety of circumstances by such means. The specificity of every reaction must be established by appropriate controls, the character of which will vary with the substance and the circumstance. Labeled antibodies so employed identify objects and localize them; they are most effective when used to answer a morphological question.”

“The nonspecific reactions referred to above are due to at least three elements: side reactions producing derivatives of fluorescein not readily removed by dialysis (these “stain” elastic tissue, blood vessel endothelium, and perhaps other elements), probably proteins in serum which react with tissue components (cf. Kidd and Friedewald, 1942), and finally antibodies against tissue components occurring as a result of immunization (e.g., Watson and Coons, 1954).”

“The antibody content in these cells increased, as judged by observation of the intensity of fluorescence, during this sequence.”

Antibodies can bind non-specifically you say?

According to Coons, the purification of the antigen and the production of antisera are of critical importance to obtaining results. Oddly, he says nothing about the importance of purifying and isolating the antbodies. Theoretically, there are a variety of antigens that can be studied under a variety of circumstances using their method. However, appropriate controls are a necessity to determine specificity as specificity will vary with the substance and the circumstance. Non-specific reactions do occur and it was stated that there were at least three reasons for this:

  1. The stain reacts to other tissues
  2. Other proteins in the blood react to the tissue
  3. Antibodies are present from immunization
  4. ???

Thus, Coons believed that it was not a failure of the immunofluorescence methods they utilized to be specific in identifying antibodies. Instead, inconsistent results were explained away by his three postulated excuses, along with the possibility that other unknown excuses remained for the apparent lack of specificity. Beyond these reasons, the method itself was apparently “clearly specific.”

The reason this matters is shown in the final highlight where Coons stated that the antibody content in these cells increased, as judged by observation of the intensity of fluorescence. In other words, the only way they could determine antibodies were present in the tissue culture samples was due to the fluorescence stain which they used as a guide to tell them the amount of antibody by the intensity of the fluorescent signal. Beyond the fact that this is an indirect way to detect and measure unseen entities, if the test is not specific and regularly cross-reacts with other substances for various reasons, the results can not be specific to detecting antibodies and are essentially meaningless. The use of fluorescence to determine antibody is just another example of a correlation being established as a fact when direct evidence does not establish a causal relationship. As Coons pointed out, the above 3 excuses, as well as any other unknown variable he did not think up to list, may have been the cause for any of the results rather than the assumed antibodies. Thus, the correlation between the fluorescence signal and the presence of antibodies remains unproven.

What must be understood about any of the evidence relating to antibodies is that there is nothing there but dreamt up hypothetical fantasies and unrelated chemistry experiments attempting to claim an invisible entity was the cause of the observed lab-created effects. It is the same exact trick used in virology which is why these two (pseudo)sciences go hand-in-hand. If the entity in question has never been observed in a purified and isolated state and was conjured up without ever being found in nature, none of these reactions matter as the results are being applied to a fictitious entity. A story is created in order to try and explain the unrelated experimental results in order to fit the latest and greatest revision of the agreed-upon unproven theory.

See that band-like deposit? That band represents “antibodies.”

Finding plasma cells near fluorescent dyes in stained tissue cultures does not mean that antibodies are present nor that plasma cells produce these imaginary entities, especially when the method used is known to be non-specific and prone to cross-reactions. If various scientists get the same or similar results using a similar method, this still does not prove the correlation correct. All that does is strengthen the correlation. In order to prove that plasma cells produce antibodies, the antibodies themselves must be shown to exist in a purified and isolated state first. Only then would any immunofluorescence test be able to be calibrated and validated to the intended target so that the results have some semblance of any meaning. Even then, as the process of plasma cells producing antibodies is unobservable, this connection would still remain nothing more than a strong correlation.

However, none of this matters as it is very apparent that the scientific community is of the mindset that correlation does in fact equal causation. They want you to believe that the fluorescent dye equals antibodies. They want you to believe that the cultured cells dying equals “virus.” Yet these researchers would be wise to remember:

“Correlation tests for a relationship between two variables. However, seeing two variables moving together does not necessarily mean we know whether one variable causes the other to occur. This is why we commonly say “correlation does not imply causation.”

A strong correlation might indicate causality, but there could easily be other explanations:

  • It may be the result of random chance, where the variables appear to be related, but there is no true underlying relationship.
  • There may be a third, lurking variable that that makes the relationship appear stronger (or weaker) than it actually is.


  1. “Correlation is not causation” is a point i made at the first meeting of the semester of every intro stat class i’ve taught, and a point i repeated at least once a week the rest of the semester. But, causation requires correlation. No correlation means no causation. Some people try to establish causation without even proving correlation.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Great article, always enjoy learning more. Read this the other day –

    “If the hypothesis that the body manufactures anti-toxins, anti-bodies, etc., is correct it still remains to be proven that the body ever manufactures these greatly in excess of the need for them. It cannot be shown that ‘free’ anti-toxin, anti-bodies, etc., are suspended in the blood serum and can therefore be transferred to another animal in sufficient quantities to be of use to the receiving animal. In keeping with a general law of life, it is very probable that the body does manufacture an excess of anti-bodies, but it cannot be shown that it retains these after the need for them has ceased. On the contrary, in keeping with another general law of life, it is very probable that the body begins to get rid of them the very instant the need for them ceases. If they exist they are chemical substances produced to meet an emergency and will be cast out as soon as the emergency ceases to exist.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That is interesting. I agree the whole premise for antibodies is flawed. They can not see these entities and can only guess that antibodies are in the blood and that the tests measure them. We know that the tests are wildly inaccurate, that antibody results are inconsistent between vaxxed/unvaxxed, that antibodies are non-specific, that antibody research is largely unreproducible/irreplicable, that antibody therapy is toxic, etc. To me, it is very clear these entities do not exist. Even if they were to exist, it seems apparent the researchers are very wrong in how they function within the body.

      Thanks for sharing the link! 🙂


    2. What McBean calls “a law of life” may be better termed “natural intelligence” or “natural economy.”

      Though the direct reasoning ability of our conscious minds pales before that of a natural system, we can often infer some of the boundaries of what a hyperintelligent being, such as the human body, would do in order to be prudent. Maintaining excess substances for all manner of sundry emergencies, in substantial quantity, is simply impractical and therefore unintelligent and therefore we can infer that the body of a human or animal would not do so.

      Sure the argument is not watertight, but it’s one powerful line of reasoning and generally far more useful to think about than most “scientific studies” — notwithstanding the need to debunk scientism due to it being one of the biggest forces in modern life, of course (hence the value of this site).

      Liked by 1 person

  3. I have this plasma cell, or I believe it exists in the body. How do I examine it without changing it or affecting it in some way? It exists in it’s own closed environment and any outside interference will likely alter its characteristics.

    At this point in medical research, I don’t think there is a plausible way to investigate cells as they exist in a body in their natural state. Therefore, I conclude that most research, understanding and medical mumbo-jumbo is irrelevant other than to create this monstrous medi-sphere of germ theory. I might be wrong in my understanding of this.

    I was thinking that after 100 years of germ theory brainwashing, it is no wonder that few question its viability. And I wonder in how many other areas we have been continuously brainwashed without even realizing how the process has affected our thinking.

    The more you present, the more scarier it gets thinking these experts are totally clueless. They were long ago, have been now and will be going forward figments of their own imaginations.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I absolutely agree 💯. Once cells and fluids are taken from the living body, they are already altered as they are outside of their natural state. The cell cultures and EM prep procedures are nothing but further alterations which kill the materials. Biologist Dr. Harold Hillman was very much against studying dead samples. He noted the many ways that they are altered immediately upon collecting the sample. Every additional step along the way just takes it further and further away from reality. One can not understand how these things work and function in a living body by looking at heavily altered and processed dead samples. It is absurd that this scam has gone on for so long.


      1. I agree that in vitro studies of cells are less naturalistic than in vivo studies of cells that can’t be done but they are still studying Life – they are just studying it on artificial life support, and we all agree that a, say, comatose person on life support is still alive and performing 99.9999pc of its biological functions essentially the same way if, presumably, not optimally.

        EM is a photographic medium and no one is claiming that it enables dynamic observations of cellular life.

        And as I mentioned in my last comment to Mike in the previous thread, new flash-freezing methods of in vitro cells are claimed to preserve perfectly, for all intents and purposes, the fine structures of cells, and this stands to reason if you ask me. Here’s a good article on that method, including detailed instructions on performing it.!po=20.8333


      2. This process is already flawed as it starts from cell culture. They also use numerous cell altering chemicals:

        “Chemical Reagents

        Fetal calf serum.

        Appropriate cell culture media.

        Pure methanol.

        Uranyl acetate (UA) crystals.

        Analytical grade acetone (99.9 %).

        20 % (w/v) solution of UA in methanol (see Notes 1 and 2).

        Freeze substitution (FS) medium: 2 % (v/v) uranyl acetate in analytical grade acetone (see Notes 1 and 2).

        Lowicryl HM20, made to manufacturers specification (see Note 3).

        A plentiful supply of liquid nitrogen.

        Epoxy resin blocks, previously polymerized in BEEM capsules for mounting samples.”

        On top of that, they claim this:

        “Here we describe a method for high-pressure freezing and freeze substitution of cells in culture that MINIMIZES MECHANICAL OR CHEMICAL STRESS prior to freezing and gives consistent preservation of cellular architecture.”

        It MINIMIZES but does not eliminate mechanical and chemical stress. On top of that, how would they know what the actual cellular architecture looks like if every method prior was flawed and altered it?

        In any case, this is a proof of concept. Where was this method validated independently and used on exosomes?


      3. You’re taking those chemicals out of context. They only come into play after vitrification.

        WADR Mike I honestly feel like your bargaining with the situation. You should respect the fact that they’re going to great, spare-no-expense lengths to minimize fine structure preservation, not fixate on the fact that “if it’s not a video of living cells it just won’t do.” There’s more to truth than the scientific method or the ‘scientific method’ just becomes another false idol.

        Thanks for the conversation but I think it’s dead-ended for now unless you disagree.


      4. I think you assume too much. We can not assume that, because scientists are going to great lengths, that the technology and the conclusions drawn from their efforts are valid. There are many experimental works which are built upon fraudulent foundations. This is repeated and perpetuated in future work by other researchers. They may believe that the work they are doing is valid but that does not make it so. There is a reproducibility crisis in the sciences right now where the vast majority of the work can not be reproduced nor replicated. Antibodies and cancer research (including exosomes) are major factors in this crisis.

        We can not just assume the methods these researchers employ are accurate, even if they have new and improved technology. The very premise of the existence of these entities must be dealt with first. When dealing with issues relating to cause and effect, theoretical entities such as “viruses,” antibodies, exosomes, etc. must be held to the scientific method. This obviously requires a valid independent variable of purified/isolated particles. If this evidence can not be provided, then there is no reason to believe in the conclusions of any research or experiment done without it as this is not science but pseudoscience.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. The tendrils of scientism reach far and damage thought widely. If I had a dime for every time some important debate devolved into embrace of contradiction on the grounds that “quantum physics does it” I’d be retired in Tahiti by now.

      Science has been turned into a giant trough at which careerists, racketeers, politicians, and other various shysters feed while turning the minds of the masses to mush while convincing them they’re privy to the ripest wisdom.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. S o i suppose that also the term antigen is also theoretical and the monoclones antibodies another scam as the mrna vaccines.


    1. An antigen is just a toxin or foreign substance. Claiming certain particles as antigens is a stretch but the toxins or foreign substances that sicken us exist. Monoclonal antibodies are just cell cultured soup. The problem is assuming there are antibodies contained within the soup. Same for mRNA.


      1. Yeah the fact that they called the pneumococcal membrane an antigen in your recent blog post is a total joke. These functional anaerobes are just going about their business cleaning up our hypoxic and anoxic disease. They’re the flip side of our microbiome doing us a solid and the germophobes — the biophobes — want to try and pass the buck to them. It’s pathetic.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Molecular Biology, Virology, Immunology, Genetics and Atomic Chemistry are based only on so-called indirect evidence that is interpreted in such a way as to support current purported scientific dogmas. In reality … there is not a single direct and uninterpretable proof of the existence of hypothetical atoms and the existence of hypothetical molecules, as postulated by the so-called Science. Quite simply, all the supposed knowledge about the hypothetical sub-microscopic particles (atoms and molecules) is a fable completely devoid of any real evidence (direct and uninterpretable evidence), for the simple reason that so-called scientists have no technological capabilities to see how energy is structured beyond the field of visibility (ie, in the sub-microscopic field).
    Even today, with so-called state-of-the-art technology, none of the so-called scientists have been able to isolate, purify, and visualize even one of the many hypothetical sub-microscopic particles that are claimed to exist.
    As the French doctor and biologist Alain Scohy rightly remarked … all supposed biological science, past and present, was and is based only on observations that were and are made only on dead and extremely distorted tissues due to the process of preparation for microscopic visualization as well as the microscopy itself. And that’s because so-called scientists do not have (and will never have) any technology that would make it possible to examine the living human body “in vivo” … live and without harming it.
    „Our supposed knowledge, today, of what life is on a microscopic scale, is based only on observations made on dead tissue, which are subject to an astonishingly harmful preparation protocol.”
    – Dr. Alain Scohy

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Where can I find out more about the existence of atoms and molecules? I’ve been looking for chemistry skeptics for a while. Physics skeptics I’ve found but all believe in atoms and molecules. Who do I read? (Or are you just making commonsense observations?)

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Nike
    Your argument is based on a very low-grade “appeal to ignorance” fallacy: if I can’t see it with my naked eye (visible light spectrum) then it doesn’t exist. It’s the other intellectual nihilism, which is what the elites want one way or the other, under their polarizing cultural agenda.

    “for the simple reason that so-called scientists have no technological capabilities to see how energy is structured beyond the field of visibility”

    By this logic infrared light does not exist. Sounds outside of our audible frequencies that we also cannot feel do not exist. Nuclear fission power stations do not exist. The list goes on and on.

    Terrain theory requires being grounded to reality. That starts with a mineral rich diet which is the first fundamental of Life.


Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: