What's the story with "antibodies"?
The Medical Mafia offer "protection" ("vaxSins") against a particle they claim we "spread". They claim our specific antibodies can be tricked into giving us this "immunity" needed to protect us.
Immunoglobulin is another name for an antibody, but just because one puts the word “immuno” before the word “globulin” doesn’t mean that the “Science” is settled on our bodies having an “Immune System.” The alternative to this point of view is that we have a “Self-Cleansing, Self-Protective System” and that globulin responses to non-self toxins/proteins/antigens MAY be a protective mechanism/reaction towards toxicity/protein/antigens, inwardly expelled during a growth spurt or externally introduced through the microbiome.
“…. An antibody does not react exclusively with the antigen that induces its appearance. Antibodies induced by and directed against a given protein may react with other proteins. Sometimes, many proteins”
“The scientific literature is replete with data showing antibodies are not very specific …” – Deni Papadopulos Eleopulos (Perth Group)
Mike Stone’s articles, mentioned in this clip, have been added lower down in this article.
Dr Sam Bailey - Is Immunity Real? (here)COVID-19 Shots, Cancer, and HIV Dr. Sam Bailey (here)
"Antibodies are merely soluble blood proteins that assist with wound repair and waste removal. They are not a measure of immunity to anything; in fact, we have no immune system whatsoever. That was simply a manufactured term gobbled up and marketed forward by the fraudulent vaccine industry. Antibody levels associated with some idea of "protection" is complete and utter nonsense and 100% pseudoscience."
Dr. Thomas Cowan - 3 Stories regarding Antibodies (02.12.2021) (here)
Did Montagnier Get It All Wrong? The HIV Debate Continues… (here)
The most commonly listed antibodies are IgA, IgG, IgM, IgE, IgY, and IgD. These listed immunoglobulins also have numbered versions i.e. IgG4 etc. which allegedly denote a specific “immunological” reaction.
What Are Immunoglobulins (here)
This topic of the “Innate and Adaptive Immune System” is complex. The “No Virus Challengers” challenge the “Scientific Methods” used to claim both “viruses” and “specific immunizing antibodies” have been isolated or function as promoted. The medical profession regularly does blood screening for “immunoglobulin antibodies” (here & here). The Vaxpass Jab All Killers claim that after receiving their toxic injections/”immunizers,” a “specific” antibody reaction is created against the alleged “virus” they allege is included in their toxic “immunizing” concoction. This has never been proven, but as long as the “Health Freedom Movement”/”opposition” believes this is true, it’s likely most people will too.
Dr. Tom Cowan says “Non-Specific Antibodies” (IgA, IgM …. )are “Neutralizing Proteins” expressed against toxicity.
Cowan, Kaufman, and Friends Discuss the Antibody Myth (here)
Vaxsins require an “antibody” response to gain approval from the Pharmakeia-sponsored FDA “regulatory body”. These “antibody” responses are not measured against the alleged “virus” people are later allegedly “immunized” against. Often, an immunoglobulin response is measured against the neurotoxic Aluminum Hydroxide included in vaxsins. One has to wonder how this relates to their jab product being “qualified” as an “immunizer”, assuming “specific antibody” testing could qualify as proof that “immunization” occurs.
Could the antibody-based theory of vaccine-induced immunity no longer be supported by up-to-date science?
Study Calls Into Question Primary Justification for Vaccines (here)
With regards to stopping “respiratory infections” claimed to be caused by a “Coronavirus” even Prof. Sucharid Bhakti states that “You can't Vaccinate for a Respiratory Virus with Antibodies that are produced in the Blood (in the Arm)”
You can't vaccinate for a Respiratory Virus with Antibodies that are produced in the Blood (in Arm) (here)
Before delving into the virological theories of Antibody Dependent Enhancement and Pathogenic Priming, I suggest reading the following article on Anaphylaxis.
I do believe, hypothetically, the amino acid “Spike Protein” sequence put together on the Wuhan/UNC computer was designed to produce a toxic result, and this toxicity may have been designed around snake venom, albeit synthetic.
Proteins, Spikes and Bio-weapons (here)
Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche believes that the alleged “SARS-CoV-2 virus” will mutate because of over-vaxSINation i.e. training the body to produce the same “specific antibody” will create an “Immuno-escape of variants” and so “contagious” people will become the cause of mass death via them “spreading” these more pathogenic mutations to others who have had their “adaptive immune system” trained to only “protect” them against a specific "vaxsination-variant”.
The Highwire surrounds itself with “Virus Believing Experts” and continues to train its audience in this Belief System. Del Bigtree provides a simple explanation of this deadly “Antibody Dependent Enhancement” Belief System (here).
Pathogenic priming (here & here & here) is one of the health warnings put forward by Germ Theory experts against vaxsinating during a “viral outbreak”. As Dr. Lyons-Weiler puts it - Priming is the hyperstimulation of the immune response leading to autoimmunity via molecular mimicry, among other mechanisms. Allegedly, “Pathogenic Priming” and “Antibody Dependent Enhancement” are both concerns within the “Vaxsin, Antibody and Adaptive Immune-System” Ideological paradigm. None of the above has been biologically validated following the Scientific Method. Proof of “virus” is needed before entertaining hypothetical ideas.
Here’s an alternative view on a ferret study (here) used to “qualify” Pathogenic Priming/Antibody Dependent Enhancement.
The presence of IgG4 “antibodies” is an accepted indicator of the presence of Cancer. I have to wonder if what is being measured as IgG4 is actually an “antibody” that responds to an “antigen” vs. a measurement of a disruption within the interstitial fluids that leads to a mitochondrial imbalance. This topic is a can of worms.
Many believe the genetic sequencing diagnostic tool, the RT-PCR test (here), used in 2020 and 2021 to “validate” if people had “contracted” the “SARS-CoV-2 virus”, was useless and only presented false data that the monopolized Mainstream Media ran with.
Dr Sam Bailey - PCR, Deaths, Delta Variant and Covid Antibodies (here)
This is another great article by Mike Stone, of www.viroliegy.com, exposing how the “Scientific Method” is largely blurred by those who have laid the foundation for the “Virus” Hypothesis BELIEF SYSTEM.
The Antibody TM
Mike Stone’s historical research unravels the “scientific history” of “discovering antibodies” - Category “Antibodies” (here)
It is said that "antibodies" bind to multiple proteins with similar epitopes. This challenges the assumption that a positive result from an "antibody-based" assay conclusively identifies a unique "pathogen," rather than a structurally similar but unrelated protein.
As a result, “antibody” tests cannot definitively confirm exposure to “SARS-COV-2” or any other “virus.” At best, a positive result may simply reflect past exposure to unrelated factors that triggered a similar response measured by fraudulent tests.
For my latest on this topic:
Corona Cross-Reactivity (here)Meryll Chase basically created the “Innate” & “Adaptive” immunity Theory based on a falsehood and this “Adaptive” immunity based on “antibodies” has yet to be proven.
it was decided to split the “immune” system into two different responses, and the B cells were given the ability by Astrid Fagraeus to create these hypothetical substances.
Chase’s observations did not postulate a division of labor between cellular and humoral immunity and left unresolved the question of where antibodies came from, the relation between antibodies and white blood cells, and how animals specifically developed and adapted their immune responses to different kinds of pathogens.”
Merrill Chase Inadvertently Disproved Antibodies in 1942 (here)Rodney Porter and Gerald M Edelman first elucidated the characteristic Y-shaped structure of antibodies. In 1972, they were awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine and Physiology for their findings. These Y-shaped molecules were eventually identified as immunoglobulin G (IgG)
At no point were the assumed antibodies seen as a whole unit before being digested by papain.
How would Porter have known that the fractions he was working with were even from an antibody at all if they were unable to be properly purified and isolated away from other components/impurities?
The Chemical Structure of Antibodies? (here)Antibodies, conjured up by Paul Ehrlich, were (and still are) nothing more than unseen theoretical constructs used to explain chemical reactions created in a lab.
Heidelberger wrote in 1979 that until the true nature of antibodies was determined, there could be no end to the polemics and uncertainties that were plaguing immunology.”
The conclusions drawn by Heidelberger were born out of chemistry experiments and reactions using the precipitin test, which have no bearing on reality, while using mathematical equations attempting to quantify the unquantifiable.
No antibodies had ever been seen nor proven to exist by proper purification and isolation up to that time and that still holds true to date. This work is based off of theoretical explanations of immunity for which nothing could be observed.
How Heidelberger and Avery sweetened immunology – All about Nitrogen.
The Antibody Equation (1929) – (here)The Clonal Selection theory has become the most widely accepted explanation for the formation of the unseen “antibody” particles assumed to be within the blood.
The clonal selection hypothesis has become a widely accepted model for how the immune system responds to infection and how certain types of B and T lymphocytes are selected for destruction of specific antigens invading the body.”
Putting it all together, Burnet’s Clonal Selection theory, conceived of by the human imagination, which can be rejected just like any other tentative explanation otherwise known as a hypothesis, is the current model, which is a conceptual representation of a real phenomenon that is “difficult to observe directly.” This explanation obviously creates a bit of a problem. In order for this hypothesis/model/theory to be considered scientific, it must adhere to the scientific method:
Burnet’s Clonal Selection did not adhere to the scientific method and is thus not scientific at all.
The Clonal Selection Antibody Theory (1957) (here)It is clear to see that there was absolutely no atomic imaging done whatsoever. It is also clear that Givol broke down what he claimed was the Fab fragment from the blood of a tumor-bearing mouse, split it into a smaller fragment, named the resulting smaller particle as the Fv fragment, and then designed theoretical functions and characteristics around it.
Was the First Atomic Resolution Structure of an Antibody Fragment Published in 1973? (here)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.
They want you to believe that the fluorescent dye equals antibodies. They want you to believe that the cultured cells dying equals “virus.”
Antibodies, Plasma, and the Power of Correlation (here)Six years after Frank MacFarlane Burnet proposed his Indirect Template theory for antibody production and with three major competing theories already available to choose from, it was time once again to throw yet another explanation into the mix to describe the formation of the still-unseen, still unobserved, and still assumed to exist fictional entities.
Instead of the body creating antibodies from the antigens, the immune system already had all of the antibodies available in order to fight off any pathogen (Jerne’s Natural Selection theory proposed in 1955).
The immune system can identify and distinguish what is from the “self” (or host) and what is not (proposed by Jerne in 1971).
The idea that not only do antibodies attach to an antigen, but that they can also become attached to other antibodies (which became known as the Network theory proposed by Jerne in 1974)
The entities being discussed were still unpurified and never isolated. Antibodies had never been observed. They were not available to be used as a physically existing independent variable in order to determine cause and effect. They were assumed to be within the blood and causing certain chemical reactions during experimentation. Thus, the unrelated experimental data could be interpreted in many different ways and depended upon the eye and imagination of the beholder in order to try and explain the contradictory findings. The data needed to be continually massaged into a “cohesive general image” that would be accepted by the majority as the truth rather than the pure speculation that it actually was. In essence, these antibody “theories” amount to nothing more than ink blots waiting to be reinterpreted by the next observer.
The Natural Selection Theory of Antibody Formation (1955) (here)From 1900 to 1949, there were two main competing theories attempting to explain antibody production and formation as they had never been purified nor isolated directly from the fluids and proven to exist.
The first of these was the Side-Chain theory formulated by Paul Ehrlich in 1900. It is considered part of the Selection theories of antibody production, which believe that antigens react to antibodies already existing within the body.
1930 the Direct Template theory was proposed by Fritz Breinl and Felix Haurowitz, and later revised by Linus Pauling in 1940. This was considered an Instruction theory as antigens were thought to play a prominent role by serving as a genetic template used to create specific antibodies. These two theories created a bit of a divide between biologically trained and chemically trained immunologists as they attempted to explain, according to their backgrounds, how antibodies and the immune system worked.
Unproven theories are being presented as the unbridled truth and are used to impact our health and our freedoms. Antibodies are the perfect scapegoat to keep us blind to the “virus” lie and believing in the power of vaccination.
The Indirect Template Theory of Antibody Production (1949) (here)“No, there is no such thing as a monoclonal antibody that, because it is monoclonal, recognizes only one protein or only one virus. It will bind to any protein having the same (or a very similar) sequence.”
One of the primary selling points for the use of antibodies is their supposed (presumed) specificity. This is the ability of the antibody to discriminate between similar or even dissimilar antigens. This is how researchers try to claim that the measure of a “specific” antibody means one has been exposed to a certain “virus” in the past or that they are currently “immune” after vaccination.
Contrary to the popular claims of the scientific community, antibodies are not specific. This is why an antibody test for HIV can return a positive result for over 70 other conditions (such as tuberculosis, pregnancy, or even the flu vaccine) that are said to trigger the same antibody response. The results are inaccurate. Next time they try to state that “specific” antibodies are targeting certain “viruses” or their “spike proteins,” hopefully you will now know better and realize that this is never the case.
Antibody Specificity (here)In 1900, Paul Ehrlich, considered the “Father of Chemotherapy,” took a shot at creating a theoretical explanation for how immunity occurs inside the human body. According to Ehrlich’s Nobel Prize biography, while working with Behring’s anti-diphtheria serum, Ehrlich was said to have standardized this serum in units related to a fixed and invariable standard. Previously, his work had shown that the anti-toxin in the sera varied so much due to numerous factors that it could not be measured. This unit of standardization became the basis for all future standardization of sera. Ehrlich’s work on these substances eventually led him to create the Side-Chain theory of immunity, which introduced the idea of unseen antibodies, antigens, and the concept of the lock and key mechanism of action:
Ehrlich aimed to create a “plausible explanation” for the phenomena that he and other researchers were unable to observe. He worked with them to dream up and formulate the concepts, and even though for Immunology, his ideas were not “entirely accurate,” these inaccurate fantasies became the foundation
Ehrlich established the bottom layer of this house of cards known as Immunology. Like virology, it is a house of cards ready and willing to come tumbling down.
Paul Ehrlich’s Side-Chain Antibody Theory (1900) Part 1 (here)However, even though Linus Pauling is given credit for continuing and expanding upon the direct template theory and for confirming aspects of Ehrlich’s “lively imagination” with his own pretty pictures, his theoretical fantasies were shown to be completely wrong:
Pauling was called out by many of his own peers for his inability to reproduce his results and even by his own financiers, the Rockefeller Foundation.
If you enjoy your “proof” in the form of assumptions and guesswork based on cherry-picked experimental research, papers such as Pauling’s 1940 theoretical explanation of the antibody structure will be right up your alley.
Direct Template and the Theoretical Structure of Antibodies (1930-1940) (here)If these bacteria are not the true cause of the diseases they are associated with, what exactly were Behring and Kitasato “immunizing” against? Why did the serum treatments create the same exact symptoms that they were supposed to prevent? It seems that this is another case in the long history of germ theory where the treatment based on theoretical entities is worse than the supposed disease.
Emil Von Behring is considered the “Father of Immunology,” which creates some confusion, as Edward Jenner is also considered the “Father of Immunology.”
Emil Von Behring’s Diphtheria/Tetanus Papers (1890): Precursor to Antibodies (here)Ehrlich provided a theory that weaved together various disparate elements like the best fiction writers often do. He defined the concepts of antibody, antigen, and the complement system and provided a framework for how immunity could work. This led to indirect, non-specific, and non-sensitive complement fixation tests (among others) used as evidence for the existence of “viruses” and/or as proof that the vaccines are effective against them. The problem is that Ehrlich’s theories were just mere words with nothing physical backing them. He first assumed any such entities existed in the blood based on lab-created chemical reactions and then developed a framework around his imagination. He created concepts and ideas for that which he could not physically see. His creations remain in the “domain of the invisible.” They belong to the realm of fantasy and fairy tales.
Paul Ehrlich’s Side-Chain Antibody Theory (1900) Part 2: The Complement System (here)Trying to decipher why some people mount a strong antibody response to the influenza “virus” while others do not, researchers, instead of uncovering why this lack of seroconversion occurs, their results showed that airway monocytes, which are typically associated with severe disease, were somehow linked to a protective effect. Obviously wanting to have their cake and eat it too, the researchers concluded that sometimes immune factors play a protective role and other times they play a pathogenic role:
They can claim antibodies are “protective” even though they are not found in many cases of disease. This is how they can state that antibodies are a sign the immune system is working in regards to vaccinations yet they are also a sign one has a weakened immune system with HIV.
The Antibody Mess: Contradictions and Confusion (here)ELISA tests, etc., are chemical reactions used to “detect” the unseen antibodies in order to claim these particles are present, yet there are no methods of direct detection. Contrary to the claims, there is zero direct evidence as to whether or not these particles exist.
One thing that is certain is that, when it comes to the theories about antibodies, they are not certain about anything at all. When nothing is for certain, any contradicting hypothesis or theory will seem possible.
Antibodies Are Not Required For Immunity (here)It should be clear now, with the lack of proof of purified/isolated antibodies over the last century as well as the alarming reproducibility crisis, why researchers/scientists/Drs, etc. have no clue how to answer questions about antibodies. They can’t say how many antibodies are needed for protection. They can’t say if they offer lifetime immunity or any immunity at all. They can’t explain how antibodies can be a sign of protection in regard to vaccines, yet are a sign of illness in regard to HIV. They can’t interpret the test results accurately, explain what they mean, or provide any reasons for the high rates of false positives. They simply don’t know anything about these hypothetical/theoretical particles because the “science” behind them is questionable at best and completely unreproducible/irreplicable.
Over the years, it has been shown that the lack of reproducibility has been discovered in many areas related to virology, including cell cultures, genomics, and PCR. So knowing that most of the scientific literature is wrong and extends to many of the areas virology incorporates, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that this reproducibility crisis is happening in the world of antibodies as well.
The Reproducibility Crisis in Antibody Research (here)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.
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:
Antibodies: No Correlation of Protection (here)How many antibodies equal protection/immunity? If you are vaccinated but have low or no detectable antibodies, did the vaccine not work? What about if you are vaccinated and still get sick despite high levels of antibodies? If you have too many antibodies, does that mean you have an autoimmune disease due to an overactive immune system? If you have too few antibodies, do you have a weakened immune system?
The answer to all of these questions: THEY DON’T KNOW.
There is no true correlate of protection with antibodies nor a test that can definitively tell when one is protected or notDo Antibodies Equal Protection? They Don’t Know. (here)
If you want more evidence that unproven theoretical antibody measurements are absolutely useless, it’s always fun to go directly to the accepted mainstream sources themselves. Many times, you can find very revealing nuggets of information buried within their releases. This information tends to contradict the claims they make publicly. Case in point, the claim that vaccine-induced (artificial) immunity is better than natural immunity. If you go through both the FDA and CDC, you will see that this is a claim that even they themselves can not back up with evidence. Along with this, there are many other admissions they make in regards to not knowing what the antibody results actually mean nor whether there is any immunity to be gained at all. There are also some fun concessions in regards to the inaccuracies of the antibody tests themselves.
FDA and the CDC Destroy Antibody Testing and Immunity (here)“We attribute this altered reactivity [of sera] to the presence of ‘antibodies,” despite the fact that we have absolutely no knowledge of what these antibodies may be, or even that they exist as material objects. Like the enzymes, we recognize them by what they do without discovering just what they are.” - American Pathologist Harry Gideon Wells on page 109 in his 1929 book The Chemical Aspects of Immunity
“In order to learn the nature of these antibodies, attempts have been made to isolate them chemically. Thus far, all such trials have been unsuccessful. It is even uncertain whether these so-called antibodies are definite chemical entities. Only the effects of the serum as a whole are known, and the ingredients in it to which these activities are attributed are thought of as antibodies.”
Köhler and Milstein's Monoclonal Antibody Monstrosity (1975) (here)It is easy to create a confirmation bias where one ignores contradictory information in order to claim that the vast majority of the observations fit within their own theoretical paradigm.
Falsifiability, which means there is a possibility of evidence that would contradict a hypothesis or prove it wrong, is a cornerstone of science. However, germ "theory" & virology have found many ways to circumvent this core concept.
Unfalsifiable (here)
Being from South Africa, I can’t monetize my substack.
If you’d like to buy me a SA cup of coffee, go - here,
For PayPal contributions, please go - here.
Thank you.
https://linktr.ee/hewettinsite
https://andrew-hewett.pixels.com/