Antibodies a Side Effect, not a Progenitor of Immunity.
Scientists have known since the 1940s that the primitive concept of simply inducing antibodies does not produce immunity. The immune system is much more complex than that. It consists of at least two branches; the humoral and the cellular. If one is activated the other is suppressed. Thus, when vaccines stimulate the humoral side (antibodies), the cellular side is suppressed. But it is the cellular side that is required for true immunity. Thus, vaccines reduce real immunity; in individuals and in the "herd."
Vaccine industry scientists get away with saying "vaccines create immunity" by defining "immunity" as the presence of antibodies. This belief is akin to assuming that firemen cause fires because they are often seen at fires. The irony is that vax-o-philes love to say "correlation is not causation," yet they assume that antibodies cause immunity because there is a correlation. The presence of antibodies is more accurately a sign of infection, which would indicate that vaccines are infecting the person, not immunizing them. The belief in vaccine-mediated immunity is hoax/house-of-cards propping up the entire vaccine industry.
Humoral Immunity (Antibodies) v. Cellular Immunity.
Immunologist Dr. Merrill W. Chase whose research on white blood cells helped undermine the longstanding belief that antibodies alone protected the body from disease and micro-organisms, died on Jan. 5 at his home in New York City, according to the Rockefeller University, where he worked for 70 years. He was 98.
Dr. Chase made his landmark discovery in the early 1940's while working with Dr. Karl Landsteiner, a Nobel laureate recognized for his work identifying the human blood groups. At the time, experts believed that the body mounted its attacks against pathogens primarily through antibodies circulating in the blood stream, known as humoral immunity.
But Dr. Chase, working in his laboratory, stumbled upon something that appeared to shatter that widespread tenet. Dr. Chase had uncovered the second arm of the immune system, or cell-mediated immunity. His finding became the groundwork for later research that pinpointed B cells, T cells and other types of white blood cells as the body's central safeguards against infection.
As he tried to immunize a guinea pig against a disease using antibodies he had extracted from a second pig, he found that blood serum did not work as the transfer agent. Not until he used white blood cells did the immunity carry over to the other guinea pig, providing solid evidence that it could not be antibodies alone orchestrating the body’s immune response.
[This indicates that the entire model on which vaccines are now produced and marketed (antigenic stimulation) was proven to be false nearly 80 years ago by Nobel laureate, Dr Chase.]
"This was a major discovery because everyone now thinks of the immune response in two parts, and in many instances it's the cellular components that are more important," said Dr. Michel Nussenzweig, a professor of immunology at Rockefeller. "Before Chase, there was only humoral immunity. After him, there was humoral and cellular immunity. People never anticipated that there would be something other than antibodies. It was an amazing finding." Source: New York Times
Crucifying the Vaccine Heretics by Roman Bystrianyk
If you read the general information for the CDC you’ll read about antibodies. (7) This is the corner stone of vaccinology – antibody stimulation. But this is really a kindergarten level description of the immune system. It is vastly more complex and even immunologists don’t really understand how it works.
. . . “the immune system remains a black box,” says Garry Fathman, MD, a professor of immunology and rheumatology and associate director of the Institute for Immunology, Transplantation and Infection . . . It’s staggeringly complex, comprising at least 15 different interacting cell types that spew dozens of different molecules into the blood to communicate with one another and to do battle. Within each of those cells sit tens of thousands of genes whose activity can be altered by age, exercise, infection, vaccination status, diet, stress, you name it. . . . That’s an awful lot of moving parts. And we don’t really know what the vast majority of them do, or should be doing . . . (8)
Without really understanding the immune system, vaccinologists began injecting people with various types of vaccines since the mid-1900s. And what was even known at about the time the measles vaccine was being introduced was that antibodies weren’t even needed for a full recovery from measles!
One of the most disconcerting discoveries in clinical medicine was the finding that children with congenital agamma-globulinaemia, who could make no antibody and had only insignificant traces of immunoglobulin in circulation, contracted measles in normal fashion, showed the usual sequence of symptoms and signs, and were subsequently immune. (9)
What? No antibodies need to fully recover from measles? That revelation ruins the simple story of antibodies are the immune system. The truth is that the immune system can be described as being made of two parts – the humoral part (antibodies) and the cellular part (natural killer cells, etc.) It’s the cellular immune system that relies on good nutrition and that in large measure explains why the death rate had improved so dramatically before the advent of the measles vaccine. Vitamins. Good nutrition is no doubt what brought about the 99.9% improvement in mortality.
Unfortunately, to this day vaccine developers and proponents really don’t understand exactly how the immune system functions. Worse, they use antibodies to measure immunity when the truth is that antibodies after measles are really just a marker of what happened and cannot be the sole measure of future protection.
So what about vitamins and measles? Back in the 1940s and 1950s a Dr. Klenner was using vitamin C successfully in treating measles. He published his results in medical journals of the time.
More: Crucifying the Vaccine Heretics by Roman Bystrianyk, co-author, Dissolving Illusions
The Antibody Deception
While the science may still be out in regards to what role and significance the presence of antibodies hold, it is quite possible that antibodies play no role legitimate role whatsoever in preventing or fighting off infections.
Recent mainstream medical research is starting to point to what many researchers and medical doctors have been saying for years; that immune system antibodies are not able to fight infection by themselves nor are they an accurate indication of the presence of immunity. These scientists are now skeptical about the ability of vaccines to prevent disease.
In the Science Daily article entitled, “Antibodies Are Not Required For Immunity Against Some Viruses,” the authors report on a study that “turns the well established theory that antibodies are required for antiviral immunity upside down and reveals that an unexpected partnership between the specific and non-specific divisions of the immune system is critical for fighting some types of viral infections.”
The study, entitled “B cell maintenance of subcapsular sinus macrophages protects against a fatal viral infection independent of adaptive immunity,” examined mice that had been infected with vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV). The results of the experiment were quite surprising to the scientists. As Dr. Ulrich H. von Andrian of Harvard Medical School stated, “Mice infected with vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) can suffer fatal invasion of the central nervous system even when they have a high concentration of anti-VSV antibodies in their system. This observation led us to revisit the contribution of adaptive immune responses to survival following VSV infection.”
Co-author of the study, Dr. Matteo, stated that “We determined that the B cells produced a chemical needed to maintain innate immune cells called macrophages. The macrophages produced type I interferons, which were required to prevent fatal VSV invasion.”
The researchers concluded that antibodies are not required to survive infection and that the actual relationship they play to immunity needs to be investigated further.
(contined in next column "Macrophage Clear Infections; Antibodies Don't")
Macrophage Clear Infections; Antibodies Don't
Dr. von Andrian stated, "Our findings contradict the current view that antibodies are absolutely required to survive infection with viruses like VSV, and establish an unexpected function for B cells as custodians of macrophages in antiviral immunity. It will be important to further dissect the role of antibodies and interferons in immunity against similar viruses that attack the nervous system, such as rabies, West Nile virus, and Encephalitis."
The scientists also studied infected mice who had B cells but did not produce antibodies. Coming as a surprise to the researchers, “although the B cells themselves were essential, survival after VSV exposure did not require antibodies or other aspects of traditional adaptive immunity.” Co-author of the study, Dr. Matteo, stated that “We determined that the B cells produced a chemical needed to maintain innate immune cells called macrophages. The macrophages produced type I interferons, which were required to prevent fatal VSV invasion.”
The researchers concluded that antibodies are not required to survive infection and that the actual relationship they play to immunity needs to be investigated further. Dr. von Andrian stated, "Our findings contradict the current view that antibodies are absolutely required to survive infection with viruses like VSV, and establish an unexpected function for B cells as custodians of macrophages in antiviral immunity. It will be important to further dissect the role of antibodies and interferons in immunity against similar viruses that attack the nervous system, such as rabies, West Nile virus, and Encephalitis."
Yet the von Andrian study is not the only examination of antibody testing that has yielded such surprising results. That is, surprising to the medical community which has relied on the presence of antibodies as an indicator of immunity for so long. See the additional studies at Source
Vaccine Theory is Based on Fraud, Pseudoscience and Assumptions
The ENTIRE THEORY of vaccination is based on fraudulent pseudoscience and propaganda. "Assumptions on top of assumtions on top of assumptions."
The injury and malfunctioning of and to the undeveloped immune system begins with vaccines injected at or shortly after birth and is directly connected to and causal of lifelong vaccination injuries, including neurological and gastrointestinal injury, chronic illness, autoimmune diseases, cancer and often death. It's not about blood type or genes. It's about injecting toxic, biochemical poisonous pharmaceuticals.
"Vaccination is based on the long-discredited theory that stimulation of antibodies in the human body equals protection from disease. This theory has not only failed to be proved, but has been repeatedly disproved. Stimulation of antibodies does not equal immunity and certainly does not equal permanent immunity. The presence of antibodies is merely a sign of exposure to a disease, which is just one small aspect of what makes up the immune system. Children, with underdeveloped and immature immune systems, receive today about 25 separate vaccines by the age of 13 months. There is no doubt this irresponsible system disrupts and can even destroy the development of their immune systems forever." --Dr. Abdel Majid Katme
Dumbed-Down Populations Accept Outrageous Vaccine Logic
Jon Rappoport wrote: What does vaccination supposedly do to “prepare” the body against the future invasion of a particular germ? It stimulates the production of antibodies against that germ.
Antibodies are immune-system scouts that move through the body, identify germs, and paint them for destruction by other immune-system troops.
However, since the entire immune system is involved in wreaking that destruction, why is bulking up one department of the immune system—antibodies—sufficient to guarantee future protection?
On what basis can we infer that bulking up antibodies, through vaccination, is enough?
There is no basis. It’s a naked assumption. It’s not a fact. Logic makes a clear distinction between assumptions and facts. Confusing the two leads to all sorts of problems, and it certainly does in the case of vaccination.
Furthermore, why does the body need a vaccine in order to be prepared for the later invasion of germs? The whole structure/function of the immune system is naturally geared to launch its multifaceted counter-attack against germs whenever trouble arises. The antibodies swing into action when a potentially harmful germ makes its appearance, at age five, eight, 10, 15.
It’s said that vaccination is a rehearsal for the real thing. But no need for rehearsal has been established.
And why are we supposed to believe that such a rehearsal works? The usual answer is: the body remembers the original vaccination and how it produced antibodies, and so it’s better prepared to do it again when the need is real. But there is no basis for this extraordinary notion of “remembering.”
It’s another assumption sold as fact.
The terms “prepared for the real thing,” “rehearsal,” and “remember” aren’t defined. They’re vague. One of the first lessons of logic is: define your terms.
A baby, only a few days old, receives a Hepatitis B vaccine. This means the actual Hep-B germ, or some fraction of it, is in the vaccine.
The objective? To stimulate the production of antibodies against Hep-B. Assuming the baby can accomplish this feat, the antibodies circulate and paint those Hep-B germs for destruction now.
From that moment on, the body is ready to execute the same mission, if and when Hep-B germs float in the door.
But when they float in the door, why wouldn’t the body produce antibodies on its own, exactly as it did after the vaccination was given? Why did it need the vaccination to teach it how to do what it naturally does?
And why should we infer the baby body is undergoing an effective rehearsal when vaccinated, and will somehow remember that lesson years later? The logic of this is tattered and without merit. No More Fake News
Antibodies not a Sign of Immunity
Dr Patrick Quanten Interview on UK Column Live