The Misinterpretation Of Antibodiestranslated by Corona Investigative
A close look at antibodies is more important today than ever. After it has already been shown in other articles that there is no proof of the existence of a pathogenic virus (1), since none of the claimed pathogenic viruses have fulfilled Koch's postulates (2), vaccination advocates are playing the "antibody" card.
Their claim, which has been drilled into their heads for decades, that they are the indirect proof of a pathogen, or offer protection against a pathogen X, is based on an error.
This type of assertion by surrogates (substitute makers) has been repeatedly exposed as false. Since I have been asked again and again what these antibodies are, I would like to show in this article that antibodies are no proof of protection, nor that they work specifically according to the key/lock theory.
What is the increase in titer?
Quote: Dr. Stefan Lanka:
"The increase is nothing more than the body's reaction to poisoning [adjuvants], when the body is poisoned, holes are torn into the cells by these poisons and the cells are destroyed. The body's reaction when cells break down is to form sealing substance (globulins), small proteins that immediately expand in the acidic state, become flat and cross-link with their hydrogen sulphide groups, in which energy is stored, with other proteins and others.
These start blood clotting and wound formation and these seal our cells when toxins are implanted in the body. But even if you get a blow on the muscle, in case of a bruise, or a blow on the kidney (especially sensitive), or the liver, there is an immediate increase in titer. The body reacts by sealing the damaged cells and sealing naturally growing cells.
It is like a house that leaks until the windows are in and isolated, this is called an antibody and even a specific antibody, that is not true, the binding property of these proteins with your hydrogen sulfide group is not specific, this binds to all sorts of things, you can manipulate this in the laboratory by changing the acidity, adding detergents (washing up liquid) that change the mineral concentration, so you can achieve a binding, or not.
The blood of a pregnant woman is full of globulins to seal the placenta, which is constantly growing, to carry the substance to the child. The blood of a pregnant woman must be diluted 40 times to prevent her from being massively positive in tests, such as the HIV test."
The approval of vaccines is limited to the so-called seroconversion
All vaccines for Europe are approved by the EMA (European Medicines Agency) in London. Their demand for proof of efficacy (3) is limited solely to the so-called seroconversion. This seroconversion describes the formation of measurable antibodies in the blood of vaccinated persons, which are equated with protective effect.
When assessing the immunity after vaccination or the effectiveness of vaccinations, however, this decisive limitation is again put into perspective by the fact that (almost) all current vaccinations develop their efficacy primarily through the formation of antibodies: "Although mucosal and cellular immune responses are clearly important to protection by some vaccines, most vaccines licensed today depend for their efficacy on serum antibodies." (Plotkin 2010 (4) and 2001 (5)).
This is also important for the development and approval of vaccines, as they have to prove their efficacy in this context - which is done without exception (and in many cases exclusively!) by determining the provoked antibodies.
Even long-standing STIKO (6) members do not always seem to be aware of this correlation when they question the usefulness of titer determinations after vaccinations - after all, the proof of efficacy of the respective vaccinations is based on the detection of precisely these antibody titers.
According to Prof. Heininger:
"For none of the generally recommended so-called basic vaccinations is a routine control of the vaccination success planned or even advisable." (Heininger 2017) (7) or the blanket statement regarding the measles vaccination, "that a positive laboratory result does not certify protection" (Heininger 2016) (8) - - the latter would be the case, the vaccination would not have been certified effective in the context of the approval...
However, in medicine we have known for many decades that circulating antibodies are not synonymous with protection against a disease, which even the layman can understand by means of short examples.
If the antibodies do reflect the indication for protection, how do the following statements of the RKI (9), STIKO and Arznei-Telegram (10) fit together?
- In the Journal Arznei-Telegram April 2001 it says: (11) "Vaccine-induced titre increases are also unreliable substitute criteria for efficacy. What benefit or harm the vaccinated person can expect cannot be deduced from such findings.
- The RKI (Robert Koch Institute) writes: (12) "For some vaccine-preventable diseases (e.g. pertussis) there is no reliable serological correlate that could be used as a surrogate marker for existing immunity. Furthermore, the antibody concentration is not indicative of a possible cellular immunity."
- Prof. Heininger, a long-standing member of the STIKO (permanent vaccination commission) writes about this: (13) "It is neither necessary nor useful to determine efficacy by blood sampling and antibody determination after a vaccination has been administered. On the one hand, it is not possible to make a reliable statement about the presence or absence of vaccination protection even by antibody determination, and on the other hand, it is simply too expensive."
- Ill despite vaccination? (14) An example of this may be a 14-year-old boy who had received sufficient basic immunization in his childhood and a booster against tetanus six months earlier when he developed tetanus. During laboratory tests, antibodies were found so high that, according to the definition of antibody titers, he should have been protected. But he was not! This example shows that the theory of antibodies as "protective magic bullets" is not correct. The RKI then coined the term "non-protective" antibodies.
- Prof. Heininger - STIKO (2017): (15) "The most important thing first of all: For none of the generally recommended so-called basic vaccinations is a routine control of the vaccination success planned or even advisable."
- Prof. Heininger - STIKO (2016): (16) "...there are not only false-negative IgG antibody results (which would not bother us if the child received an MMR vaccination), but unfortunately also false-positive results. This must be told to the parents so that they understand that a positive laboratory result does not attest protection and that they are much better advised to give their child a 2nd dose of MMR."
Remark: Again, this is a confirmation that a positive laboratory result has no significance. The question that arises again and again is, how do we know that antibodies offer circulating protection when the highest authorities themselves say that the titer increase cannot give any indication as to whether protection exists. When people have high antibody levels, but still fall ill? If no one can say exactly at what titer reading there is real protection, why is the approval of a vaccine based on that exact reading? Personally, this makes me more than a little suspicious.
The following points are of crucial importance in this discussion:
- firstly, that we cannot reliably clarify the question of immunity via antibody determination for every vaccination (see below),
- Secondly, that the antibodies that we determine in routine tests are not automatically the ones that provide protection (and thus represent the correlate of immunity), but sometimes only those that indicate that, apart from the measured protective antibodies that are not decisive for immunity, protective antibodies that are certainly not measured have been produced (the measured ones are then a so-called surrogate parameter of immunity). This complicated circumstance is based on the one hand on the fact that the immune response produces numerous different antibodies with different functions and on the other hand, the determination of the actually decisive antibodies in some vaccinations would be too time-consuming for routine diagnostics. (Or to put it simply, the connection between antibodies and immunity is a phantom)
- Thirdly, each immunity is always only a statistical statement and therefore relative whether it protects in the individual case or not. The true reasons for the state of the body being "symptom-free" lie buried in other justifications. "Thus protection is a statistical concept. When we say that a particular titer of antibodies is protective, we mean under the usual circumstances of exposure, with an average challenge dose and in the absence of negative host factors." (17)
- Fourthly in this connection also the question is crucial, the protection from orthodox medicine view against which exactly then is meant. For example, it is claimed that in the case of HiB (Haemophilus influenzae) and measles, much lower antibody levels protect against contracting the disease oneself (protection from disease) than is necessary to prevent transmission to others (protection from infection). Note: Since there is no scientific proof of the measles virus to date (18), the question naturally arises as to how the claim of protection in measles by antibodies can be based on the fact that the pathogen has not yet been proven. A fallacy. So the horse is put on the bridle here. I measure something "antibodies", so I indirectly claim to have a pathogen.
The measurable antibody titers after vaccination only show the confrontation of the immune system with the antigens, which are mostly coupled to adjuvants. Without these adjuvants, no antibody formation would occur. Here it becomes clear that the immune system is much more complex and does not function exclusively through antibody formation.
Herpes sufferers develop circulating antibodies against the herpes virus. Nevertheless, herpes can flare up again and again by weakening the immune system, for many people disgust is enough. And this even though herpes antibodies are detectable. The one who is HIV-positive is also not happy about having circulating antibodies against the HIV.
The model with the antibodies does not work in the front and back. If they can offer protection, how is it that people who have a sufficient titer still fall ill? How is it possible that the complete logic of the antibodies in HIV was turned 180 degrees, where high antibodies are counterproductive?
No antibodies are required, protection by vaccination is always assumed without providing any evidence. The phantom is always assumed, one does not want to think in other directions! This is not a science. The RKI writes on its website:
How should we proceed if no antibodies against measles are detectable after a double vaccination?
If two vaccinations against measles are documented, protection against measles can be assumed with a high probability even in the absence of or borderline antibody levels. A third vaccination against measles is not necessary. The protection after a double vaccination is likely to last for life. (19)
To claim an "antibody", a "body" is required
As I have already pointed out in my other articles, there is still no proof of the presence of alleged disease-causing viruses. (20)|(21). So if I don't have any evidence for the body, how can I claim to have defined specific antibodies and most importantly, how in God's name can I test them? You know the answer, it is simply not possible.
What does all this mean for the vaccinated person?
Since there is no scientific research on how often this phenomenon occurs that vaccinated individuals develop nonprotective antibodies, the possibility of disease remains for each vaccinated individual. A complete vaccination record and also the detection of antibody titers, as is often done for rubella or hepatitis B, for example, do not provide any guarantee.
Could the nonprotective antibodies invented off the cuff explain the situation that after vaccination (e.g. against measles, mumps, rubella or whooping cough, etc.) the vaccinated individual may have antibodies, but still develop disease (measles, mumps, rubella or whooping cough, etc.)? Could they be responsible (apart from the alleged mutations that undermine the vaccination protection) for the epidemics despite high vaccination rates, in which not infrequently a large part of the sick persons were sufficiently vaccinated?
Circulating antibodies alone do not provide reliable protection, and this has been orthodox medical knowledge for many decades. In contrast, proof of efficacy at the time of vaccine approval is based solely on proof of the allegedly (sometimes?) protective antibody titers.
DIMDI, the German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information: Anti-body titer is only a supplementary measurement
A quarter of the truth of conventional medicine - but still!
Antibodies" are surrogate endpoints, i.e. substitute measurement quantities invented on the basis of random correlations, says DIMDI, the German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information:
"The use of surrogate endpoints is [...] not without problems. In the past, there have been many situations in which relying on surrogate endpoints was misleading or had fatal consequences despite strong correlation with the clinical endpoint. This problem has been known for more than 30 years. [...] Some products that were approved on the basis of surrogate endpoints had to be withdrawn from the market later because the benefit-risk balance was reversed in studies with mortality or morbidity endpoints." Source: DIMDI, Cologne 2009 (22)
Remark: So we have been dealing with problematic "substitute makers" for decades, which have repeatedly led to extremely wrong results and assumptions. Despite strong correlation (correlation is no scientific proof, only an indication) these were misleading and had fatal consequences! It is slowly time to correct this misconception of antibodies.
Working guide on the topic of antibodies: Stefan Lanka and Veronika Widmer from: DOES VACCINATION MAKE SENSE?
An excerpt from: "Does vaccination make sense? Pathogenic viruses? Isolated viruses? The Basic Law. How are new viruses identified? Commentary on viruses claimed to be isolated (German) Brochure - July 1, 2005": (23)
Comment on the (wrong) question: What are antibodies?
Correct question: What is measured when antibodies are claimed?
According to Pschyrembel, antibodies are "a possible reaction of the immune system. Antibodies do not occur naturally."
Was this formulation chosen because it is known that people with a high "antibody titer" can fall ill in the same way as people without a "titer" remain healthy? Today's orthodox medicine distinguishes between the formation of foreign antibodies (pathogenic bacteria, toxins from viruses) and the body's own antibodies (tumor cells).
While we are told that after a vaccination the organism is protected by the formation of antibodies, orthodox medicine also describes cases in which the presence of antibodies indicates adverse effects on the organism. For example, conventional medicine refers to allergies, AIDS, transplant rejection and autoimmune diseases. The Robert Koch Institute explains this: An increased total immunoglobulin concentration in the serum indicates in the majority of cases an allergic disease.
However, elevated levels can also occur, for example, in cases of parasite infestation or malignant tumors. In the case of inhalation allergies, the immunoglobulin E values are moderately to greatly increased, depending on the symptoms and the number of allergens that trigger the allergy. A normal immunoglobulin E does not exclude an allergy.
If antibodies are diagnosed after a vaccination, conventional medicine tells us that the person concerned is now protected. However, it is concealed that people fall ill despite the presence of antibodies and people without antibodies remain healthy. The HIV-antibodies detected by the test procedure provide and bring the diagnosis - fatally ill - or at least - will fatally ill for the affected person. The rubella antibodies detected by the test procedure provide and bring the diagnosis - protected - to the affected person. A contradiction in itself. "Anti" bodies were never detected.
Bodies, the immunoglobulins, which among other things play a role in the coagulation and cross-linking of proteins, have, however, been detected. The word "anti" assumes that the immunoglobulins can only bind to certain proteins. All experiments ever made exclude this. Whether or not binding takes place depends on the state and environment of the proteins: Whether acidic or basic, i.e. oxidized or reduced. Every scientist who has carried out such experiments or studied them knows this.
Antibody tests: The procedure in the laboratory
First, the blood is separated from its cells and the larger proteins. This is done, for example, by a centrifuge. 99% of all tests performed are performed with the patient's serum, the remaining blood water. Now the laboratory technician is told what is to be tested by the antibody test. For this purpose, the so-called supernatant is then filled with corresponding, pharmaceutically produced, patented substances whose composition is kept secret (the government and the Paul-Ehrlich-Institute under its supervision keep strict secrecy). If there is a measurable reaction, the test is evaluated as "positive". So far it has been claimed that if antibodies have been detected, immune protection has been proven.
The only indirectly and not quantitatively determined amount of "antibodies" is then called titer. Since AIDS, however, a death sentence has been pronounced, if necessary, because since that time it has been claimed that the claimed antibodies now equate to the existence and presence of the AIDS virus. So it is not surprising that there is no scientific standard for titers and the measurements are never comparable.
It is even less surprising then that there are no scientific criteria whatsoever as to what titer can, should, may etc. be called "immune protection". The laboratory technician is told that the test kit contains one or more proteins exactly corresponding to the shape of the microbe. If the laboratory technician would think about it, he would realize that under the appropriate conditions the form of the proteins could not correspond to that of the claimed microbe, because the proteins are no longer in their natural environment. This is called denaturation of the proteins.
According to the delusional logic of compulsion, these secret proteins are then called "antigens". Against which the antibodies can be detected. The test kit also contains: e.g. dyes and substances that serve to produce a "positive" signal for reproduction. The apparatus, into which the whole thing is then placed, is calibrated again with substances whose composition is kept secret and which are monitored by the Paul Ehrlich Institute. That and why there are about 5% people in the entire population in whose blood, under laboratory conditions, little or no immunoglobulins can be detected, is not discussed and not investigated.
These people are then called "non-responders" after vaccination and are poisoned with more and more vaccines according to the delusional compulsive logic. For these 5%, blood group AB was invented. And, according to the compulsive logic, blood groups A and B, in addition to blood group 0 (40% of the population), for which little or no proteins that could clump in the test tube are found under the appropriate laboratory conditions.
The contradictions arising from the dogma of blood groups have been discussed away, first by claiming a rhesus factor and later by the continuous introduction of thousands of sub-blood groups.
Stefan Lanka: Facts that refute the claims about "antibodies" and a specific immune system
- As there are so-called autoimmune diseases and so-called allergies that occur at lightning speed. In the psycho-neuro-immunology this is called "Bahnung". Comment: It cannot be that "specific" antibodies react against the "foreign" and then suddenly against "own" proteins.
- Alternating "foreign" intestinal bacteria exist side by side with immune cells, which are supposed to manage the specific defense. Comment: If there were specific antibodies, the intestinal colonization should not be able to change.
- Humans, mammals, bony fish and sharks exist. They produce immunoglobulins. Comment: If there were specific antibodies, the offspring would be destroyed and breast milk would be toxic.
- In the development of humans and animals, under shock and in old age new proteins appear. Comment: Since, according to the never verified but always only falsified immune hypotheses, "foreign" and "own" proteins are recognized in the thymus in earliest childhood and "antibodies" or the immune cells forming them are sorted out against "own" proteins, proteins occurring later, such as hormones in puberty etc., should automatically lead to allergy, autoimmune diseases, destruction and death. This is not the case. "Anti" bodies against viruses which do not exist at all, can in principle not exist either. Here, the claim of the existence of specific antibodies and specific tests clearly turns out to be a crime and consequently a genocide. Comment: But since immunoglobulins are detected that are capable of binding other proteins, there is "body. But not "anti". But globulins that first complete themselves in an oxidized, i.e. acidic environment (via reduced S-H groups, which in the oxidized state combine to form disulfite groups (-S-S-) and thus bind the protein chains to each other, which is what first makes up the complete immunoglobulin) and are then able to bind proteins that are intended for transport, conversion or recycling. Comment by Karl Krafeld: An antibody can only be claimed if the body has been detected. It is claimed that many viral antibodies can be detected (e.g. by tests) without the virus being able to be claimed scientifically. Orthodox medicine knows its own nonsense which it habitually spreads: "Antibodies are formed in infectious diseases and the detection of antibodies is a proof of protection against the disease". According to orthodox medicine, HIV-positivity should be the best protection against AIDS. Every test measures what the test measures, only nobody knows exactly what the test measures. The tests react quite unspecifically to proteins, according to the coffee grounds reading principle: Is Eduscho coffee or Tschibo coffee better for the coffee grounds reading? In any case, no test can detect antibodies if the underlying body was never detected.
Antibodies in Reality/Religion
Antibody fraud of the vaccination religion:
Vaccination = Antibody = Protection = Long life and health I have shown in detail that exactly this assumption (belief) is not true and has been disproved by several studies.
Small proteins are called globulins. These globulins are produced by the body whenever cells need to be multiplied, repaired or newly formed. From the vaccination religion, globulins are called antibodies against better knowledge, because these proteins bind very easily with other proteins and molecules. The whole vaccination business is based on the globulins' ability to bind with other proteins and molecules.
In 1892, the so-called "antibodies" of today were still "healing bodies" for Emil von Behring and "magic spheres" for Paul Ehrlich. The globulins formed by vaccination poisoning are claimed to be a protection against freely invented pathogens [or here], and the combination of globulins with proteins from chicken embryos or artificial cells (laboratory artifacts), which are claimed to be components of viruses, is claimed to be a vaccination protection against diseases (alleged "immunity"), which in turn are claimed to be against better knowledge than caused by pathogens, but which in reality do not agitate at all. Antibodies are the blood's response to infiltrated (inoculated) foreign proteins (24) and foreign substances (25) as in allergy.
The term "defense strength" ("immunity") would have to be replaced by a term like "healing ability". Healing ability cannot be produced by any kind of vaccination, it is an ability of the whole being (body-mind-spirit-unity) and depends on many factors.
The more "poisonous " the adjuvant, the stronger the "antibody reaction"
The antibody titer measurement only indicates poisoning/damage to the body.
The powerful aluminum adjuvant from Gardasil.
The three Merck lawyers who gave presentations were Dino Sangiamo, Sally Bryan and Christina Gaarder. Jo Lyn Valoff represented Kaiser. “Among vaccinologists, it’s axiomatic that the duration of immunity correlates directly to the toxicity of the adjuvant; the more toxic the adjuvant, the longer the duration of immunity.” (26)
That is perfectly expressed. The toxins are supposed to measurably boost antibody blood levels so that you can measure and "prove" something and what a vaccine would not do without these adjuvants.
The deception starts where the measured value is pretended to be immunity, because in reality it only indicates the degree of poisoning, completely independent of the effectiveness of a vaccine according to the key-lock theory and the fairy tales of viral load, antigens etc.
The interesting finding with multiple personalities
In the book "Die geimpfte Nation" - "The Vaccinated Nation" by Andreas Moritz (27), a fact is described that also makes people lose faith in the antibody doctrine.
Quote on the fraud with the antibodies as proof for the alleged functioning of the uselessly harmful vaccines:
"Having produced antibodies against a certain substance, for example against a food or vaccine, does not really determine whether a disease such as an infection or allergy will actually occur.
For example, people with a multiple personality disorder in the role of one personality can be highly allergic to orange juice (allergen), while the same allergen, once they have switched to a different personality, suddenly no longer causes an allergic reaction
You may also show symptoms of diabetes in one personality and be free of diabetes a few minutes later. In women, there may even be completely different menstrual cycles.
There is another example. In a normal person who is allergic to cat hair, as soon as they come into contact with the proteins of cat hair, the formation of antibodies and inflammatory reactions are triggered. However, it is not uncommon for someone to be allergic only to white or red cats, but not to black cats (or vice versa). Usually there was a previous traumatic experience with a white cat - for example its death - which was related to the formation of antibodies.
As soon as the person touches a white cat, the body reproduces the reaction, based on the memory of the previous emotional trauma. Since black cats were not part of this experience, touching black cats does not cause allergic reactions.
Similarly, someone who is allergic to gluten may have problems when eating bread, but not when eating pasta, even though it contains gluten."
In other words, it is impossible to know whether the mere presence of antibodies produced by vaccination actually protects against mumps or measles viruses. The entire vaccination theory is based on the idea that the presence of specific antibodies in the blood confers immunity to the disease in question.
Feli Popescu: Rhesus factor, blood groups, blood plasma, anti-D prophylaxis
Feli Popescu has written an incredibly interesting article about rhesus factor, blood groups, blood plasma, anti-D prophylaxis. This article shows extreme inconsistencies and discrepancies in how science works. You can see in the article, how the antibody thesis is being defeated in this respect as well. Highly interesting. (28)
High vaccination rates cannot prevent measles outbreaks - antibodies failed
We need "information not fear" and "facts not expert opinions".
In the following link Libertas & Sanitas has compiled more than 50 well-known studies by the CDC, Oxford and others that clearly show that the vaccination does not protect. The results of the first 10 studies were summarized directly in the PDF. This is a practical example that the claimed antibodies do not reflect the protection attributed to them. Since this is not an article about vaccines, I will not mention all the other studies, they will become part of another article. (29)
Correspondence between science journalist Hans Tolzin and Robert Koch Institute (RKI) on the topic of antibodies
The correspondence shows that the RKI does not consider the antibody level (titer) as the sole criterion for protection.
Thus the RKI writes on 01.02.2005: "Neither the RKI nor the STIKO consider the level of AK concentration as the sole criterion for immunity and do not define it as such. Cellular immunity (immunological memory), which is particularly important for long-term immunity, is not dependent on the detectable AK titers and therefore AK titers often only serve as "surrogate markers" for immunity." .... "However, undetectable or low AK titers are no proof of non-existent immunity."
So we see, no matter if antibodies are measured or not, it doesn't matter, because according to the RKI there is a protection in case of non-existing as well as existing antibodies. Since we know that these "antibodies" are created when cells are poisoned/destroyed, it does not seem to be a claimed virus that is the cause, but rather, for example, poisoning by a vaccination and its harmful adjuvants.
To the question of Hans Tolzin: "If the level of antibody concentration, as you write, does not allow a reliable statement about immunity, how can it be the sole criterion for the proof of benefit in vaccine approval? I do not understand that."
Answered the RKI: "Dear Mr. Tolzin, we had replied in detail. For capacity reasons, we cannot continue the discussion. Yours sincerely"
Note: No further comment is required. In the construct of lies full of unscientific claims and consensus-building without scientific basis, even the best confuser loses the overview and is confronted with reality.
You can read further excuses of the RKI on this page. (30)
Correspondence between Hans Tolzin and Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) on the subject of antibodies
On May 13, 2006, [Hans Tolzin] also submitted a request to the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI), the German regulatory authority for vaccines: "Please name the scientific studies and publications relevant to the PEI that prove the connection between AK levels and immunity (in the sense of actual non-disease over a longer period of time)."
Answer of the PEI: "There is no general statement of the PEI that a sufficiently highly regarded specific antibody titer is a guarantee of non-disease. This statement is undifferentiated and does not correspond to scientific standards, so there is no internal documentation from the authorities. The European Pharmacopoeia precisely defines how efficacy is to be tested for the various vaccines."
Thus, the PEI staff do not have any scientific documentation to show that a high titre means no disease. Instead, the responsibility is shifted to the EU level. However, the regulations there contain both mandatory and optional provisions regarding proof of efficacy, so that the reference to them does not say anything about which criteria the PEI considers binding. A corresponding question from me [Hans Tolzin] has not yet been answered. Every little piece of information has to be taken out of the authority's nose. (31)
Spiess, "Impfkompendium", 5th edition 1999, p. 180 (in the chapter on pertussis)
"A conclusion from the level of the measured titre on the immune status regarding protection against recurrence of the disease is currently not possible."
Another study published in the journal Immunity ( Scientific Journal of Science) shows that antibodies are not necessary to fight the disease.
"Our results contradict the current view that antibodies are absolutely necessary to survive infections with viruses such as VSV (vesicular stomatitis virus). They represent an unexpected function of B cells as guardians of macrophages for antiviral immunity," said Dr. H. Uldrich of Andrian of Harvard Medical School. "There is a need for further research into the role of antibodies and interferons in immune defense against similar viruses that attack the nervous system, such as rabies, West Nile virus and encephalitis."
Note: Even though these researchers also already assume that there are disease-causing viruses, it shows once again that even among "believers" of the same faith, different results emerge and the antibody is not at all synonymous with protection.
In HIV, the complete logic of the antibodies was finally over
The German magazine "Spiegel" writes: "In HIV-infected persons, however, the scientists were able to detect above-average numbers of antibodies against various viruses. This can be explained by the fact that the HI virus can weaken the immune system and make the affected persons more susceptible to further infections." (32)
In HIV, therefore, antibodies are more likely to indicate that the person is weakened, even though he or she has extremely high antibody levels. In principle, he should be the most protected person at all. But we know it no differently from "pseudo" medicine. If something doesn't fit, we twist and turn until it supposedly does. The basic thesis is not even questioned, although especially with HIV the dissenting voices were extremely strong. The topic of HIV is one of its own and would go beyond the scope of this article.
WHO: no proof that SARS-CoV-2 antibodies mean immunity against COVID-19 - 18.04.2020
In the course of the investigation of COVID-19 patients who again showed positive swab results after surviving the disease, the WHO pointed out on April 17th that there was no evidence that the presence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in serum meant immunity against COVID-19 (CNN 18.04.2020) (33) Should this fear be confirmed, a whole series of concepts that have been communicated as saving the herd would be questioned - from herd immunity to the messianically transfigured vaccine...
The conclusion from the whole situation is frightening
Obviously, the relevant federal authorities are not aware of any scientific evidence of protection by antibodies. Alternatively, the "state of the art" and the "general acceptance" of such substitute measurement parameters ("surrogate parameters") are invoked without obligation. The employees of the authorities therefore assume a protective titer without ever having seen the proof! This is exactly the problem we see all the time. It is always assumed without questioning it. We have the same problem with the claim of the pathogenic measles virus, which has never been proven (34). We also have the same problem with SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2, again and again the proof is missing (35), each time it is assumed to be so. We are at a point where we must finally uncover the misguided development in medicine and introduce a paradigm shift.
- We claim disease-causing viruses, without proof
- We use surrogates such as antibodies for protection, which also have no scientific basis and reality does not at any time confirm this claim.
- We use a DNA test (PCR) which cannot be a proof of a virus but is a manipulation tool and has never been validated.
- Our leading consultants are those who have already been convicted of fraud
I could continue the list, but you can already see what huge problems we have because we looked away too long, because we believed everything without question, because we just wanted to trust. Today reality is catching up with us and we have to act now, not later, otherwise these false claims will become even worse and the situation cannot be corrected.
An appeal to everyone: "Write to the politicians, write to the health authorities and responsible scientific institutes in your country, confront them with the facts. Do not allow any excuses. The authorities have known about this information for a long time, yet they have not bothered or dared to correct it.
What did the German politician Horst Seehofer say to ZDF television about the power of the pharmaceutical lobby?
Reporter: Does that mean that the lobby was really that strong, the pharmaceutical lobby against politics and you had to pull out, so to speak?
Seehofer: Yes. It's been that way for 30 years. Until the hour. That meaningful structural changes also in the sense of more social market economy in the German health service are not possible, because of the resistance of the lobby groups. I can only describe to you that it is so. And that this is how it happens. And that it is very effective.
Reporter: But it cannot be that industry is stronger than politics. Ultimately, it must mean that politics must say: No, it can't be like that.
Seehofer: I cannot disagree with you.
So we see that we are dealing with very powerful commercial enterprises (lobby), where not even politicians can/may make their own decisions. Do we really want to continue to run blindly through the world?
Translated & reblogged Version - Original here
Telegraph main page with overview of all articles: Link
Visit our Telegram Channel for additional news & information: Link
Chat with like-minded in our Telegram Chat Group: Link
Please support to keep this blog alive: paypal
References and Notes:
(1) The Federal Court of Justice destroys the belief in Viruses
(2) Leading Corona researchers admit that they have no scientific proof for the existence of a virus
(3) Entwicklung von Impfstoffen (Development of vaccines)
(4) Plotkin SA. 2010. Clinical and Vaccine Immunology. July 2010, p. 1055–1065
(5) Plotkin SA. 2001. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. 20(1):63–75
(6) Ständige Impfkommission (STIKO) - The Standing Vaccination Commission (STIKO) develops vaccination recommendations for Germany
(7) Heininger U. 2017. Ars medici. - Impfungen und Antikörpertiter (Vaccinations and antibody titers)
(8) Heininger U. 2016. Kinder- und Jugendarzt. S. 28 - Lieber impfen als Titer messen (Inoculate rather than measure titer)
(9) The Robert Koch Institute is the public health institute in Germany.
(10) Arznei Telegram - Die Information für Ärzte und Apotheker (Medicine Telegram - Information for doctors and pharmacists)
(11) FSME- Impfstoff Ticova - Zu spät vom Markt und die Folgen (TBE vaccine Ticova - Too late from the market and the consequences)
(12) Epidemiologischen Bulletin (EpiBull) Nr. 30 / 2012 S.299 (Epidemiological Bulletin (EpiBull) No. 30 / 2012 p.299)
(13) U.Heininger „Handbuch Kinderimpfgung" - Die kompetente Entscheidungshilfe für Eltern 2004 (U.Heininger "Handbook child inoculation" - The competent decision guidance for parents 2004)
(15) see 7
(16) see 8
(17) see 5
(18) see 1
(19) Antworten auf häufig gestellte Fragen zur Schutzimpfung gegen Masern (Answers to frequently asked questions about vaccination against measles)
(20) see 1
(21) see 2
(22) Surrogatendpunkte als Parameter der Nutzenbewertung (Surrogate endpoints as parameters for benefit assessment)
(23) Die Impfluege - Macht Impfen Sinn? (The vaccination lie - Does vaccination make sense?)
(24) Fetale Zellen: Lebende, abgetriebene Babys für Lebend-Impfstoffe! (Fetal cells: Live aborted babies for live vaccines!)
(25) Ekelstoffe und Giftstoffe als Zusätze in den Impfstoffen (Disgusting substances and toxins as additives in the vaccines)
(26) Court Hears Gardasil Science and Moves Forward
(27) Die geimpfte Nation (The vaccinated Nation)
(28) „Rhesus-Faktor“ Analyse der Behauptungen zum Rhesus-Faktor ("Rhesus Factor" Analysis of the Rhesus Factor claims)
(29) Tatsachen zur Masernimpfung (Facts about measles vaccination )
(30) Antikörpertiter als Wirksamkeitsnachweis bei Impfstoffen (Antibody titers as proof of efficacy for vaccines)
(31) Source is email from PEI to Hans Tolzin
(32) Blutstropfen verrät Infektionen des ganzen Lebens (Blood drops reveal infections of the whole life)
(33) CNN 04/18/2020 WHO says no evidence antibody tests can determine immunity
(34) see 1
(35) see 2