Antibody Theory
Quotes Disease theory
[back] Medical study ploys
[Vaccines are tested for effectiveness by using antibodies, even though it has never been proven to be a measure of immunity. If you had them you were protected. Now if you have them for HIV you aren't protected but must go on drugs. Profitable junk science.]
See: Medical test quotes
Antibody titers and immunity: Are they related?
Inducing Antibodies does not produce immunity
[11, 2005] HOW DO THEY ACTUALLY TEST FOR BIRD FLU? --Rappoport
THE ANTIBODY RUSE AND FALSE SCIENCE --Rappoport
[1988/2006] The Massive Fraud Behind HIV Tests by Jon Rappoport
Crone, NE; Reder, AT; Severe tetanus in immunized patients with high
anti-tetanus titers; Neurology 1992; 42:761-764;
Article abstract: Severe (grade III) tetanus occurred in three
immunized patients who had high serum levels of anti-tetanus antibody. The disease was
fatal in one patient. One patient had been hyperimmunized to produce commercial tetanus
immune globulin. Two patients had received immunizations one year before presentation.
Anti-tetanus antibody titers on admission were 25 IU/ml to 0.15 IU/ml by hemagglutination
and ELISA assays; greater than 0.01 IU/ml is considered protective. Even though one
patient had seemingly adequate anti-tetanus titers by in vitro measurement 0.20 IU in vivo
mouse protection bioassays showed a titer less than 0.01 IU/ml, implying that there may
have been a hole in her immune repertoire to tetanus neurotoxin but not to toxoid. This is
the first report of grade III tetanus with protective levels of antibody in the United
States. The diagnosis of tetanus, nevertheless, should not be discarded solely on the
basis of seemingly protective anti-tetanus titers. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=1565228&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
Antibody titres are not equivalent to immunity.
Studies show that antibody levels induced by vaccine
are also lower than those following natural infection
(Weibel RE, Sokes J Jr, Buynak EB, Whitman JE Jr,
Hilleman MR. Live, attenuated mumps-virusvaccine: 3. Clinical
and serologic aspects in a field situation. N Engl J Med
1967;276:245-51 and
Weibel RE, Buyak EB, McLean AA, Roehm RR, Hilleman MR.
Follow-up surveillance for antibody in human subjects
following live attenuated measles, mumps, and rubella virus vaccines.
ProcSoc Exp Biol Med 1979;162:328-32.)
Field studies show lower estimates for vaccine effectiveness than would
be consistent with antibody titres, sometimes dramatically so (Chaiken
BP, Williams NM, Preblud SR, Parkin W, Altman R. The effect of a school
entry law on mumps activity in a school
district. JAMA 1987;257(18): 2455-8 and Kim-Farley R,
Bart S, Stetler H, et al. Clinical mumps vaccine
efficacy. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121:593-7.)
Quotes
I'm absolutely sure that no antibody test in medicine has any absolute
meaning. Especially in HIV antibody testing, it is clear that the antibodies
that are detected in the test are present in everybody. Some people have them in
higher concentrations, and some in lower concentrations, but only when you reach
a very high level of antibodies -- much higher than in any other antibody
testing -- are you considered to be "positive." This is a contradiction in terms
because in other antibody tests, the lower your level of antibodies, the
higher your risk for a symptomatic infection. But with HIV they say you are
"positive" only when you have reached a very high level of
antibodies. Below this level, you are said to be negative.
[1995] INTERVIEW STEFAN LANKA
Neither of the "HIV-antibody" tests -- the Elisa or the Western Blot -- has ever been properly validated, which means that no one knows what their results mean. The tests are chemical reactions to antigens, which are substances that provoke an immune response. Many dozens of conditions can produce a positive result on these tests, including drug abuse, flu vaccinations, past infection with malaria, pregnancy, and liver disease. Nevertheless, physicians still use these worthless tests, assume that positive results mean HIV infection, and give their patients doom-diagnoses of "HIV-positive" or "AIDS". 'AIDS: A Death Cult' by John Lauritsen
Until AIDS testing took off in earnest in the mid-1980s, it was generally
assumed that the presence of antibodies in a patient signified good health. The
patient had contacted a germ, mounted an immune response, and the germ was
neutralized. There was certainly no consensus that antibodies meant present or
future disease across the board.
In other words, if millions of people in China had encountered H5N1 (bird
flu) viruses and showed antibodies to these viruses, it would be expected that
they would remain healthy.
Except that with the onset of AIDS research, everything was stood on its
head. People who were tested and called HIV-positive – meaning they had
antibodies to the virus – were said to be sick or on a sure road to becoming
sick.
So now we have another level of the AIDS testing hoax. Why were people being
tested for antibodies to HIV? Why was that method presumed to be significant at
all? Why wasn’t the presence of antibodies to HIV taken as a sign of health?
Millions of people all over the world have been subjected to the Elisa and
Western Blot HIV tests – both of which have the sole objective of finding
antibodies to HIV. Why have these tests been elevated to the status of present
or future disease detectives?
While writing AIDS INC. in 1988, I had a very interesting conversation
with a doctor at the US National Institutes of Health. He told me that when an
HIV vaccine eventually went into testing (and when it was later released for use
on the public), every person who got the vaccine would be given a special
letter.
The letter would say that the person had received the vaccine. The letter
would say that if, at any time, the person was subsequently tested for HIV and
came up positive – meaning he had antibodies to HIV – this should NOT be taken
as a sign of present or future illness. In this case, the person was actually
immune to HIV, because he had “received” his antibodies from the vaccine.
I almost fell off my chair. I said, “Let me get this straight. If a person
develops antibodies naturally to HIV, he is told he is either sick now or will
get sick. But if gets his antibodies – the same antibodies – to HIV from a
vaccine, he is told he is immune to the virus.”
The doctor gave me no clear response.
This explosive contradiction has been studiously ignored by the mainstream
press and by the entire AIDS establishment network.
By conventional standards (not mine), the whole point of a vaccine is to
confer immunity to a germ by producing antibodies to that germ in the body. That
is the essence and the standard of a “good vaccine.”
And yet, in the case of AIDS research, all this was turned upside down.
Suddenly, HIV positive meant: the patient has antibodies to HIV and this is a
sign that he will become very ill and most likely die.
To sum up: not only are both HIV antibody tests (Elisa and Western Blot)
unreliable in finding true positives, as opposed to false positives, the WHOLE
IDEA of using the presence of antibodies as an unmistakable sign of present or
future illness is without merit.
[1988/2006] The Massive Fraud Behind HIV Tests by Jon Rappoport
Big business
Epidemiological and toxicological data
suggest that chronic intoxication's are the real cause for the named diseases
AIDS, Hep C and BSE. Why these plausible hypothesis aren´t investigated further,
this is a topic one could write a book about which could have the title
"conflicts of interests".
Infection hypotheses can help making billions of dollars:
1. The antibody business: Millions
of screening tests are distributed, each blood sample needs to be tested (4
millions in Germany alone)
2. The therapy business: Antiviral
medication, 3 or 4 or 5 fold combinations, AIDS can´t be topped in this
department.
3. Possibly vaccinations: Here,
however, the concept of the new big plagues gets in the way of itself, because
this has brought up the central paradox of immunology. Since the beginning of
HIV they have told us: He who has antibodies to HIV, will die, instead of, he
who has antibodies to HIV will live, which would meet our vaccination concepts.
How many HIV antibody negative individuals would like to get vaccinated, in
order to have antibodies to HIV afterwards?
With intoxication hypotheses on the
other hand you cannot make any money at all. The simple message is: Avoid the
poison and you won´t get sick. Such hypotheses are counterproductive insofar as
the toxins (drugs, alcohol, pills, phosmet) bring high revenues. The conflict of
interests is not resolvable: What virologist who does directly profit millions
from their patent rights of the HIV or HCV tests (Montagnier, Simon Wain-Hobsen,
Robin Weiss, Robert Gallo) can risk to take even one look in the other
direction.
What physician who has treated AIDS
or hepatitis C patients over many years in good faith in the virus hypothesis
and with high personal input, can look in the other direction?
BSE/AIDS/Hepatitis C
Infectious or Intoxication Diseases? By Claus Köhnlein
Antibodies used as measure of immunity:
"He said the normal trials on a new vaccine were not possible in
Britain because of the relatively small numbers of people who contracted the disease.
Instead scientists had tested whether the vaccine produced sufficient antibodies."--Media report on meningitis C vaccine
"The administration of Rabies Vaccine Inactivated (Diploid Cell Origin), Dried stimulates the rapid development of specific antibodies."--Rabies Vaccine Inactivated (Diploid Cell Origin), Dried
Antibodies not a measure of immunity:
A "titer" is a measurement of how much antibody to a certain virus (or
other antigen) is circulating in the blood at that moment. Titers are usually
expressed in a ratio, which is how many times they could dilute the blood until
they couldn't find antibodies anymore. So let's say they could dilute it two
times only and then they didn't find anymore, that would be a titer of 1:2. If
they could dilute it a thousand times before they couldn't find any antibody,
then that would be a titer of 1:1000. A titer test does not and cannot measure
immunity, because immunity to specific viruses is reliant not on antibodies, but
on memory cells, which we have no way to measure. Memory cells are what prompt
the immune system to create antibodies and dispatch them to an infection caused
by the virus it "remembers." Memory cells don't need "reminders" in the form of
re-vaccination to keep producing antibodies. (Science, 1999; "Immune system's
memory does not need reminders.") ACCESS to
JUSTICE. MMR10 - IN EUROPE
The theory that the creation of antibodies in the blood indicates that protection against disease has been established is not supported by experience. The Medical Research Council's Report on Diphtheria Outbreaks in Gateshead and Dundee, published in 1950. showed that many of the persons actually in hospital with diphtheria had far more anti-toxin in their blood than was said to be required for complete protection against diphtheria, whilst nurses and others in close contact with diphtheria infection and without sufficient anti-toxin remained immune. [1957] THE BRAINS OF THE INOCULATED Speech by LILY LOAT
"Human trials generally correlate "antibody" responses with protection - that is if the body produces antibodies (proteins) which bind to vaccine components, then it must be working and safe. Yet Dr March says antibody response is generally a poor measure of protection and no indicator at all of safety. "Particularly for viral diseases, the 'cellular' immune response is all important, and antibody levels and protection are totally unconnected."--Private Eye 24/1/2002
"The fallacy of this (antibody theory) was exposed nearly 50 years ago, which is hardly recent. A report published by the Medical Research Council entitled 'A study of diphtheria in two areas of Gt. Britain, Special report series 272, HMSO 1950 demonstrated that many of the diphtheria patients had high levels of circulating antibodies, whereas many of the contacts who remained perfectly well had low antibody."--Magda Taylor, Informed Parent
"Just because you give somebody a vaccine, and perhaps get an antibody reaction, doesn’t mean a thing. The only true antibodies, of course, are those you get naturally. What we’re doing [when we inject vaccines] is interfering with a very delicate mechanism that does its own thing. If nutrition is correct, it does it in the right way. Now if you insult a person in this way and try to trigger off something that nature looks after, you’re asking for all sorts of trouble, and we don’t believe it works."—Glen Dettman Ph.D, interviewed by Jay Patrick, and quoted in "The Great American Deception," Let’s Live, December 1976, p. 57."Many measles vaccine efficacy studies relate to their ability to stimulate an antibody response, (sero-conversion or sero-response). An antibody response does not necessarily equate to immunity......... the level of antibody needed for effective immunity is different in each individual.....immunity can be demonstrated in individuals with a low or no detectable levels of antibody. Similarly in other individuals with higher levels of antibody there may be no immunity. We therefore need to stay clear on the issue: How do we know if the vaccine is effective for a particular individual when we do not know what level of antibody production equals immunity?"--Trevor Gunn BSc
" The antibody business: Millions of screening tests are distributed, each blood sample needs to be tested (4 millions in Germany alone) ... The therapy business: Antiviral medication, 3 or 4 or 5 fold combinations, AIDS can´t be topped in this department. ....... With intoxication hypotheses on the other hand you cannot make any money at all. The simple message is: Avoid the poison and you won´t get sick. Such hypotheses are counterproductive insofar as the toxins (drugs, alcohol, pills, phosmet) bring high revenues. The conflict of interests is not resolvable: What virologist who does directly profit millions from their patent rights of the HIV or HCV tests (Montagnier, Simon Wain-Hobsen, Robin Weiss, Robert Gallo) can risk to take even one look in the other direction."--By Claus Köhnlein
"When they say immunogenicity what they actually mean is antibody levels. Antibody levels are not the same as IMMUNITY. The recent MUMPS vaccine fisaco in Switzerland has re-emphasised this point. Three mumps vaccines—Rubini, Jeryl-Lynn and Urabe (the one we withdrew because it caused encepahlitis) all produced excellent antibody levels but those vaccinated with the Rubini strain had the same attack rate as those not vaccinated at all (12), there were some who said that it actually caused outbreaks."--Dr Jayne Donegan
"Whenever we read vaccine papers the MD researchers always assume that if
there are high antibody levels after vaccination, then there is immunity (immunogencity).
But are antibody levels and immunity the same? No! Antibody levels are not the same
as IMMUNITY. The recent MUMPS vaccine fiasco in Switzerland has re-emphasized this point.
Three mumps vaccines-Rubini, Jeryl-Lynn and Urabe (the one withdrawn because it caused
encephalitis) all produced excellent antibody levels but those vaccinated with the Rubini
strain had the same attack rate as those not vaccinated at all, there were some who said
that it actually caused outbreaks. Ref: Schegal M et al Comparative efficacy of three
mumps vaccines during disease outbreak in Switzerland: cohort study. BMJ, 1999;
319:352-3."--Ted Koren DC
"In order to better grasp the issue of vaccine effectiveness, it would prove helpful
for us to go back to the early theoretical foundation upon which current vaccination and
disease theories originated. In simplest terms, the theory of artificial immunization
postulates that by giving a person a mild form of a disease, via the use of specific
foreign proteins, attenuated viruses, etc., the body will react by producing a lasting
protective response e.g., antibodies, to protect the body if or when the real disease
comes along.
This primal theory of disease prevention
originated by Paul Ehrlich--from the time of its inception--has been subject to increasing
abandonment by scientists of no small stature. For example not long after the Ehrlich
theory came into vogue, W.H. Manwaring, then Professor of Bacteriology and Experimental
Pathology at Leland Stanford University observed:
I believe that there is hardly an element of truth in a single one of the basic hypothesis
embodied in this theory. My conviction that there was something radically wrong with it
arose from a consideration of the almost universal failure of therapeutic methods based on
it . . . Twelve years of study with immuno-physical tests have yielded a mass of
experimental evidence contrary to, and irreconcilable with the Ehrlich theory, and have
convinced me that his conception of the origin, nature, and physiological role of the
specific 'antibodies' is erroneous.33
To afford us with a continuing historical
perspective of events since Manwaring's time, we can next turn to the classic work on
auto-immunity and disease by Sir MacFarlane Burnett, which indicates that since the middle
of this century the place of antibodies at the centre stage of immunity to disease has
undergone "a striking demotion." For example, it had become well known that
children with agammaglobulinaemia--who consequently have no capacity to produce
antibody--after contracting measles, (or other zymotic diseases) nonetheless recover with
long-lasting immunity. In his view it was clear "that a variety of other
immunological mechanisms are functioning effectively without benefit of actively produced
antibody."34
The kind of research which led to this a
broader perspective on the body's immunological mechanisms included a mid-century British
investigation on the relationship of the incidence of diphtheria to the presence of
antibodies. The study concluded that there was no observable correlation between the
antibody count and the incidence of the disease." "The researchers found people
who were highly resistant with extremely low antibody count, and people who developed the
disease who had high antibody counts.35 (According to Don de Savingy of IDRC, the
significance of the role of multiple immunological factors and mechanisms has gained wide
recognition in scientific thinking. [For example, it is now generally held that vaccines
operate by stimulating non-humeral mechanisms, with antibody serving only as an indicator
that a vaccine was given, or that a person was exposed to a particular infectious agent.])
In the early 70's we find an article in the
Australian Journal of Medical Technology by medical virologist B. Allen (of the Australian
Laboratory of Microbiology and Pathology, Brisbane) which reported that although a group
of recruits were immunized for Rubella, and uniformly demonstrated antibodies, 80 percent
of the recruits contracted the disease when later exposed to it. Similar results were
demonstrated in a consecutive study conducted at an institution for the mentally disabled.
Allen--in commenting on herb research at a University of Melbourne seminar--stated that
"one must wonder whether the . . . decision to rely on herd immunity might not have
to be rethought.36
As we proceed to the early 80s, we find that
upon investigating unexpected and unexplainable outbreaks of acute infection among
"immunized" persons, mainstream scientists have begun to seriously question
whether their understanding of what constitutes reliable immunity is in fact valid. For
example, a team of scientist writing in the New England Journal of Medicine provide
evidence for the position that immunityto disease is a broader bio-ecological question
then the factors of artificial immunization or serology. They summarily concluded:
"It is important to stress that immunity (or its absence) cannot be determined
reliable on the basis of history of the disease, history of immunization, or even history
of prior serologic
determination.37
Despite these significant shifts in scientific
thinking, there has unfortunately been little actual progress made in terms of undertaking
systematically broad research on the multiple factors which undergird human immunity to
disease, and in turn building a system of prevention that is squarely based upon such
findings. It seems ironic that as late as 1988 James must still raise the following basic
questions. "Why doesn't medical research focus on what factors in our environment and
in our lives weaken the immunesystem? Is this too simple? too ordinary? too undramatic? Or
does it threaten too many vested interests . .
?" 38"---Dr Obomsawin MD
"FROM REPEATED medical investigations, it would seem that
antibodies are about as useful as a black eye in protecting the victim from further
attacks. The word "antibody" covers a number of even less intelligible words,
quaint relics of Erlich’s side-chain theory, which the greatest of experts, McDonagh,
tells us is "essentially unintelligible". Now that the old history, mythology
and statistics of vaccination have been exploded by experience, the business has to depend
more upon verbal dust thrown in the face of the lay public. The mere layman, assailed by
antibodies, receptors, haptophores, etc., is only too pleased to give up the fight and
leave everything to the experts. This is just what they want, especially when he is so
pleased that he also leaves them lots and lots of real money.
The whole subject of immunity and antibodies is, however, so extremely
complex and difficult, especially to the real experts, that it is a relief to be
told that the gaps in their knowledge of such things are still enormous.
We can obtain some idea of the complexity of the subject from The
Integrity of the Human Body, by Sir Macfarlane Burnet. He calls attention to the
fact—the mystery—that some children can never develop any antibodies at all, but
can nevertheless go through a typical attack of, say, measles, make a normal recovery and
show the normal continuing resistance to reinfection. Furthermore, we have heard for years
past of attempts made to relate the amount of antibody in patients to their degree of
immunity to infection. The, results have often been so farcically chaotic, so entirely
unlike what was expected, that the scandal has had to be hushed up—or put into a
report, which is much the same thing (vide M.R.C. Report, No. 272, May 1950, A
Study of Diphtheria in Two Areas of Great Britain, now out of print). The worse
scandal, however, is that the radio is still telling the schools that the purpose of
vaccinating is to produce antibodies. The purpose of vaccinating is to make
money!"---Lionel Dole
[Home]