The misinterpretation of antibodies

English
8.5
Average: 8.5 (2 votes)

“The misinterpretation of antibodies-To claim an "antibody" you need a "body" “

“The entire theory of vaccination is based on the idea that the presence of specific antibodies in the blood confers immunity against the disease in question.”
 
“To claim an "antibody" you need a "body"
 
"As I have already shown in my other articles, there is still no evidence of alleged disease-causing viruses [measles virus] | [SARS]. 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.”
 
“Comment on the (wrong) question: What are antibodies?
 Right question:
What is measured when antibodies are claimed?”
 
“What is the titre  increase?”
 
"Note: So here again the confirmation that a positive laboratory result has no meaningfulness. The question that arises again and again is how do you know that antibodies offer circulating protection when the people in highest positions themselves say that the increase in titer cannot provide any information about whether protection exists. When people have high antibody levels and still fall ill? If no one can say exactly at which titer reading there is really protection, why is the approval of a vaccine based exactly on this information? “
 
“every immunity is only a statistical statement and is therefore relative as to whether or not it protects in an individual case. The real causes of the state of the body in which it is "symptom-free" lie buried in other justifications.”
 
 "The measurable antibody titers after vaccinations only show that the immune system is dealing with the antigens, which are usually linked to adjuvants. Without these adjuvants, there would be no antibody formation. Here it becomes clear that the immune system has a much more complex structure and does not function solely through the formation of antibodies.
 
So circulating antibodies alone do not provide reliable protection, this has been conventional medical knowledge for many decades. In contrast, the proof of efficacy in the approval of the vaccines is based solely on the proof of the supposed (sometimes?) Protective antibody titers.
 
Note: We have been dealing with problematic "substitute makers" for decades, who have repeatedly led to extremely wrong results and assumptions. Despite strong correlation (correlation is not scientific proof, just an indication), these were misleading and had fatal consequences! It is now time to correct this misconception about the antibodies."
 
 "Antibodies ”are surrogate endpoints, ie substitute measured variables invented on the basis of some random correlation, 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 reliance on surrogate endpoints was misleading or had fatal consequences despite a 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 later had to be withdrawn from the market, as the risk-benefit analysis was reversed in studies with mortality or morbidity endpoints. " "
 
"While we are told that the organism is protected by the formation of antibodies after a vaccination, conventional medicine also describes cases in which the presence of antibodies indicates adverse effects on the organism. This is what conventional medicine calls allergies, AIDS, rejection reactions in transplants and autoimmune diseases. "
 
"However, increased values ​​can also occur, for example, with parasite infestation or malignant tumors. In the case of inhalation allergies, the IgE values ​​are moderately to strongly increased, depending on the symptoms and the number of triggering allergens. A normal IgE does not rule out an allergy."
 
"Bodies, the immunoglobulins, which, among other things, play a role in the coagulation and crosslinking of proteins, on the other hand, do. The word “anti” presupposes that the immunoglobulins can only bind to certain proteins. All experiments ever made exclude this. Whether binding takes place or not depends on the state and environment in which the proteins are: whether acidic or basic, i.e. oxidized or reduced. This is known to every scientist who has carried out or studied such experiments."
 
"Antibodies in Reality / Religion
 
Vaccination Religion's Antibody Fraud:
Vaccination = antibodies = protection = long life and health (I have shown in detail that precisely this assumption (belief) is not true and has been refuted by several sources and studies.
 
Reality:
 
Small proteins are called globulins. These globulins are always produced by the body when cells need to be multiplied, repaired or regenerated. In the vaccination religion, globulins are called antibodies against their better judgment, because these proteins combine very easily with other proteins and molecules. The whole vaccination business is based on the ability of globulins to bond with other proteins and molecules
 
The fraud begins where the measured value is pretended to be immunity, because in reality it only shows the degree of poisoning, completely independent of the effectiveness of a vaccine according to the lock and key theory and the fairy tales of viral load, antigens, etc.
 
In other words, there is no way of knowing whether the very presence of the antibodies produced by vaccination actually protects against mumps or measles viruses. The entire theory of vaccination is based on the idea that the presence of specific antibodies in the blood confers immunity against the disease in question."
 
 
"This is exactly the problem we see all the time. It is always assumed without questioning it. 
 
• We claim disease-causing viruses without evidence
 
• We use surrogates such as antibodies for protection, which also has no scientific basis and reality never confirms this claim.
 
• We use a DNA test (PCR) which cannot prove a virus but is a manipulation instrument and has never been validated for it.
 
• Lead consultants who have already been convicted of fraud are used as leading advisors"
 
"The authorities have known about this information for a long time, but have neither cared nor dared to accept it."
 

"The term “immune strength” (“immunity”) would have to be replaced by a term such as “healing ability”. The ability to heal cannot be produced by any kind of vaccination, it is an ability of the whole being (body-soul-spirit unity) and depends on many factors."

"The more “toxic” the adjuvant, the stronger the “antibody reaction”
The antibody titer measurement only shows the poisoning / damage to the body.”  "

Source :  Extracts  from article translated using google translate -  https://telegra.ph/Die-Fehldeutung-der-Antikörper-07-12



Google tranlate of the article

Die Fehldeutung der Antikörper- https://telegra.ph/Die-Fehldeutung-der-Antikörper-07-12

 

 
 
 
A close look at the antibodies is more important than ever today! After I have already shown in my other articles that there is no proof of the existence of a disease-causing virus, since Koch's postulates have not been fulfilled for any of the alleged disease-causing viruses, the "antibody" card is played by the vaccination advocates.
 
Your claim, which has been bored into your head for decades, that you are indirect evidence of a pathogen or offer protection against pathogen X, is based on an error!
 
This type of assertion by surrogates (substitute makers) has repeatedly been exposed as false. Since I was constantly asked what these antibodies are, I would like to show in the article that antibodies are no proof of protection, nor that they work specifically according to the key / lock theory ...
 
What is the titer increase?
 
Quote: Dr. Stefan Lanka: (backup available)
"The surge is nothing more than the body's response to poisoning [adjuvants], when the body is poisoned they tear holes in the cells and break the cells. The body's response when cells break is Forming a sealing substance (globulins), small protein bodies that immediately expand in acidic conditions, become flat and with their hydrogen sulfide groups, in which energy is stored in order to network with other proteins, among other things.
 
These start blood clotting and the formation of wounds, these seal our cells when toxins are implanted in the body. But even if you get a blow to the muscle, a bruise or a blow to the kidney (particularly sensitive) or the liver, the titer increases immediately. The body reacts to this by sealing off the damaged cells and sealing off the naturally growing cells.
 
It is like building a house, which is initially leaking, until the windows are in and are isolated, this is then referred to as an antibody and even a specific antibody, that is not true! The binding property of these proteins with their hydrogen sulphide group is not specific, they bind to everything, you can manipulate this in the laboratory by changing the acid value, adding detergents (washing-up liquid) that change the mineral concentration, so they can achieve a binding, or not.
 
A pregnant woman's blood is full of globulins in order to seal the placenta, which is constantly growing, in order to carry the substance to the child. The blood of a pregnant woman has to be diluted 40 times so that it is not assessed as massively positive in tests, including 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. Your request for proof of effectiveness is limited to what is known as seroconversion. This seroconversion describes the formation of measurable antibodies in the blood of vaccinated persons, which are equated with protective effects.
 
When assessing immunity according to or the effectiveness of vaccinations, this crucial limitation is put into perspective, however, by the fact that (almost) all current vaccinations develop their effectiveness 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 [5] and 2001 [6]).
 
Last but not least, this is also important for the development and approval of vaccines, since in this context they have to prove their effectiveness - which without exception (and in many cases exclusively!) Takes place via the determination of the provoked antibodies.
 
Even long-term STIKO members do not always seem to have this connection when they fundamentally question the usefulness of titer determinations after vaccinations - after all, the proof of effectiveness of the respective vaccinations is based on the detection of precisely these antibody titers.
 
According to Prof. Heininger it is said:
"For none of the generally recommended so-called basic vaccinations is a routine check of the vaccination success planned or even advisable". (Heininger 2017) [7]
or the blanket claim regarding the measles vaccination,
"that a positive laboratory result does not certify protection" (Heininger 2016) [8] -
if the latter were so, the vaccination could not have been certified as effective within the framework of the approval ...
 
However, in medicine we have known for many decades that circulating antibodies are not synonymous with protection against disease, which even laypeople can understand with the help of brief examples.
 
If the antibodies reflect the evidence for protection, how do the following statements of the RKI, STIKO and drug telegram fit in?
 
In the April 2001 drug telegram it says:
[1] "Even increases in titer caused by vaccines are unreliable substitute criteria for effectiveness. What benefits or harms the vaccinee can expect cannot be derived from such findings."
 
The RKI (Robert Koch Institute) writes:
 1 “For some vaccine-preventable diseases (e.g. pertussis) there is no reliable serological correlate that would be suitable as a surrogate marker for existing immunity. Furthermore, the antibody concentration does not allow any conclusions to be drawn about a possibly existing cellular immunity. "
 
Prof. Heininger, a long-time member of the STIKO (permanent vaccination commission) writes:
 2 “It is neither necessary nor sensible to determine the effectiveness by taking blood samples and determining antibodies after a vaccination has been carried out. On the one hand, no reliable statement about the presence or absence of vaccination protection is possible even with an antibody determination, on the other hand it is simply too expensive. "
 
Sick despite vaccination?
 3 An example of this may be a 14-year-old boy who had been given sufficient basic immunization in childhood and had received a booster against tetanus six months earlier when he developed tetanus. The laboratory tests found antibodies so high that, according to the definition of the antibody titre, it should have been protected. But it wasn't! This example shows that the theory of antibodies as “protective magic balls” is incorrect. The RKI then coined the term, the non-protective (non-protective) antibody.
 
Prof. Heininger - STIKO (2017) 
4 "First things first: For none of the generally recommended so-called basic vaccinations is a routine check of the vaccination success planned or even advisable"
 
Prof. Heininger - STIKO (2016) : 
5"... there are not only false-negative IgG antibody results (which would not bother us further if the child were to receive an MMR vaccination as a consequence), but unfortunately Also false positives. You have to tell the parents that so that they understand that a positive laboratory result does not certify protection and that they are much better advised with a second dose of MMR for their child. "
 
Note: So here again the confirmation that a positive laboratory result has no meaningfulness. The question that arises again and again is how do you know that antibodies offer circulating protection when the people highest positions themselves say that the increase in titer cannot provide any information about whether protection exists. When people have high antibody levels and still fall ill? If no one can say exactly at which titer reading there is really protection, why is the approval of a vaccine based exactly on this information? Personally, this makes me more than suspicious.
 
Crucial to this discussion are the following:
• First of all, we cannot reliably clarify the question of immunity via an antibody determination for every vaccination (see below),
 
• Secondly, the antibodies that we determine in routine tests are not automatically those that bring about protection (and thus represent the correlate of immunity), but sometimes only those that indicate that other than those measured, not for immunity decisive protective antibodies, which were certainly not measured, have arisen (the measured antibodies are then a so-called surrogate parameter of immunity). This complicated circumstance is due, on the one hand, to the fact that numerous different antibodies with different functions arise in the course of the immune response 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 link between antibodies and immunity is phantom.)
 
• Furthermore, thirdly, every immunity is only a statistical statement and is therefore relative as to whether or not it protects in an individual case. The real causes of the state of the body in which it is "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."
 
• Fourth, the crucial question in this context is protection from a conventional medical point of view against what exactly is meant. It is claimed that in HiB and measles, much lower antibody levels protect against falling ill (protection against illness) than is necessary to prevent transmission to others (protection against infection).
 
Note: Since there is still no scientific evidence for the measles virus, the question of course arises as to how one arrives at the claim of protection against measles by antibodies if the pathogen has not yet been detected. A fallacy. The horse is therefore bridled from behind here. I'm measuring some "antibody", so I'm indirectly claiming to have a pathogen.
 
The measurable antibody titers after vaccinations only show that the immune system is dealing with the antigens, which are usually linked to adjuvants. Without these adjuvants, there would be no antibody formation. Here it becomes clear that the immune system has a much more complex structure and does not function solely through the formation of antibodies.
 
Herpes sufferers develop circulating antibodies against the herpes virus. Nevertheless, the herpes can flare up again and again due to a weakening of the immune system, for many disgust is enough. And that although herpes antibodies are detectable. Those who are HIV positive are also not happy to have circulating antibodies to HIV.
 
The model with the antibodies does not work in front and behind. If these can offer protection, how does it come that people who have a sufficient titer still fall ill? How can it be that the complete logic of the antibodies in HIV has been turned 180 degrees, there high antibodies are counterproductive.
 
No antibodies are required, protection by vaccination is always assumed without providing any evidence. The phantom is always assumed, you don't even want to think in other directions! It's not a science.
 
To claim an "antibody" you need a "body"
 
As I have already shown in my other articles, there is still no evidence of alleged disease-causing viruses [measles virus] | [SARS]. 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 vaccinee?
 
Since there is no scientific research into how often this phenomenon occurs, that vaccinated persons develop non-protective antibodies, the possibility of disease remains for every vaccinated individual. A complete vaccination certificate and proof of antibody titers, as is often done for example in rubella or hepatitis B, are no guarantee.
 
Could the non-protective antibodies invented up the sleeve explain the situation that after vaccinations (e.g. against measles, mumps, rubella or whooping cough, etc.) the vaccinee does have antibodies, but?
can still get sick (measles, mumps, rubella or whooping cough, etc.)? Could they (in addition to the alleged mutations that undermine the vaccination protection) be responsible for the epidemics despite high vaccination rates, in which a majority of the sick were often sufficiently vaccinated?
 
So circulating antibodies alone do not provide reliable protection, this has been conventional medical knowledge for many decades. In contrast, the proof of efficacy in the approval of the vaccines is based solely on the proof of the supposed (sometimes?) Protective antibody titers.
 
DIMDI, the German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information: Anti-body titer is only a measurement variable
 
A quarter truth of conventional medicine - but at least!
Antibodies ”are surrogate endpoints, ie substitute measured variables invented on the basis of some random correlation, 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 reliance on surrogate endpoints was misleading or had fatal consequences despite a 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 later had to be withdrawn from the market, as the risk-benefit analysis was reversed in studies with mortality or morbidity endpoints. "
Source: DIMDI, Cologne 2009
 
Note: We have been dealing with problematic "substitute makers" for decades, who have repeatedly led to extremely wrong results and assumptions. Despite strong correlation (correlation is not scientific proof, just an indication), these were misleading and had fatal consequences! It is now time to correct this misconception about the antibodies.
 
Working aid on the subject of antibodies: Stefan Lanka and Veronika Widmer fromMACHT IMPFEN SINN?
 
 
Comment on the (wrong) question: What are antibodies?
 
Right 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 get sick just as much as people without a "titer" stay healthy? Today's (traditional) medicine differentiates between the formation of foreign antibodies (pathogenic bacteria, toxins from viruses) and the body's own antibodies (tumor cells).
 
While we are told that the organism is protected by the formation of antibodies after a vaccination, conventional medicine also describes cases in which the presence of antibodies indicates adverse effects on the organism. This is what conventional medicine calls allergies, AIDS, rejection reactions in transplants and autoimmune diseases. The Robert Koch Institute explains: An increased total immunoglobulin concentration in the serum indicates an allergic disease in the majority of cases.
 
However, increased values ​​can also occur, for example, with parasite infestation or malignant tumors. In the case of inhalation allergies, the IgE values ​​are moderately to strongly increased, depending on the symptoms and the number of triggering allergens. A normal IgE does not rule out an allergy.
 
If antibodies are diagnosed after a vaccination, conventional medicine tells us that the person concerned is now protected. However, the fact that people are sick despite the presence of antibodies and people without antibodies remain healthy is not mentioned. The HIV antibodies detected by the test procedure give and bring the diagnosis to the affected person - fatally ill - or at least - will become fatally ill. The rubella antibodies detected by the test procedure bring the affected person the diagnosis - protected -. A contradiction in terms. “Antibodies” were never detected.
 
Bodies, the immunoglobulins, which, among other things, play a role in the coagulation and crosslinking of proteins, on the other hand, do. The word “anti” presupposes that the immunoglobulins can only bind to certain proteins. All experiments ever made exclude this. Whether binding takes place or not depends on the state and environment in which the proteins are: whether acidic or basic, i.e. oxidized or reduced. This is known to every scientist who has carried out or studied such experiments.
 
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 carried out are carried out with the patient's serum, the remaining blood water. Now the laboratory technician is told what the antibody test should test. For this purpose, the so-called supernatant is then given appropriate, pharmaceutically manufactured, patented substances that are kept secret in terms of their composition (the government and the Paul Ehrlich Institute subordinate to it watch over the strict secrecy). If there is a measurable reaction, the test is rated as "positive". So far it has been claimed that if antibodies were detected, immune protection was demonstrated.
 
The amount of "antibodies" that is only indirectly and not quantitatively determined is then referred to as the titer. Since AIDS, however, a death sentence has been pronounced if necessary, because since that time it has been claimed that the alleged antibodies are now to be equated with the existence and presence of the AIDS virus. So it is not surprising that there is no scientific standard for titer information and that the measurements are never comparable.
 
It is even less surprising that there are no scientific criteria from which titer “immune protection” can, should, etc. be spoken of, the laboratory technician is told that the test kit contains one or more proteins that correspond exactly to the shape of the microbe . If the laboratory technician were to think about it, he would become aware that, under the appropriate conditions, the shape of the proteins can no longer correspond to that of the claimed microbe, since the proteins are no longer in their natural environment. One speaks of denaturation of proteins.
 
According to the delusional coercive logic, these secret proteins are then called "antigens". Against which the antibodies can be identified. The test kit also contains: e.g. dyes and substances that serve to increase a "positive" signal. The apparatus into which the whole thing is then calibrated is again calibrated with substances kept secret in terms of their composition, over which the said Paul Ehrlich Institute watches. That and why there are approx. 5% people in the entire population, in whose blood little or no immunoglobulins can be detected under the conditions of the laboratory, has not been discussed and is not investigated.
 
After the vaccination, these people are then referred to as "non-responders" and, according to the delusional obsessional logic, are poisoned with more and more vaccines. The AB blood group was invented for this 5%. And according to the compulsory logic, blood group A and B, in addition to blood group 0 (40% of the population), in which little or no proteins are found under the appropriate laboratory operations that could clump in the test tube.
 
The contradictions that have arisen from the dogma of blood groups were first disputed away by the assertion of a rhesus factor and later by the continuous introduction of thousands of sub-blood groups.
 
Stefan Lanka: Facts that refute claims about antibodies “and a specific immune system.
• Because there are so-called autoimmune diseases and so-called allergies that take place in a flash. In psycho-neuro-immunology this is referred to as so-called facilitation. Comment: It cannot be that “specific” antibodies react against the “foreign” and then suddenly react against “own” proteins.
 
• Alternating “foreign” intestinal bacteria exist side by side with immune cells that are supposed to bring about the specific defense. Comment: If there were specific antibodies, the colonization should not be able to change.
 
• Humans, mammals, bony fish and sharks exist. They make immunoglobulins. Comment: If there were specific antibodies, the offspring would be destroyed and breast milk would be toxic.
 
• New proteins appear in the development of humans and animals, in shock and in old age. Comment: Since according to the never verified, but always falsified immune hypotheses, “foreign” and “own” proteins are recognized in the thymus in early childhood and “antibodies” or the immune cells that form them against “own” proteins would have to be sorted out later occurring proteins, such as hormones in puberty etc. automatically lead to allergies, autoimmune diseases, destruction and death. This is not the case. "Anti" bodies against viruses that do not even exist cannot, in principle, exist either. Here the claim of the existence of specific antibodies and specific tests turns out to be a crime and consequently genocide. Comment: Since immunoglobulins are detected that are able to bind other proteins, there is “body” but not “anti”. But globulins that are first completed in the oxidized, i.e. acidic environment (via reduced SH groups, which combine to form disulfite groups (–SS-) in the oxidized state and thus bind the protein chains to one another, which first makes up the complete immunoglobulin) and then in the It is possible 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. The proof (e.g. by means of tests) of many virus antibodies is claimed without the virus being scientifically proven. Orthodox medicine knows its own nonsense that it habitually spreads: "Antibodies are formed in infectious diseases and the detection of antibodies is proof of protection against the disease." According to orthodox medicine, HIV positivity should be the best protection against AIDS. Each test measures what the test measures, just nobody knows exactly what the test measures. The tests react quite unspecifically to proteins, according to the coffee grounds reading principle: Is Eduscho or Tschibo better for reading coffee grounds? In any case, no test can detect antibodies if the underlying body has never been detected.
 
Antibodies in Reality / Religion
 
Vaccination Religion's Antibody Fraud:
Vaccination = antibodies = protection = long life and health (I have shown in detail that precisely this assumption (belief) is not true and has been refuted by several sources and studies.
 
Reality:
 
Small proteins are called globulins. These globulins are always produced by the body when cells need to be multiplied, repaired or regenerated. In the vaccination religion, globulins are called antibodies against their better judgment, because these proteins combine very easily with other proteins and molecules. The whole vaccination business is based on the ability of globulins to bond with other proteins and molecules.
 
The so-called “antibodies” today were still “healing bodies” for Emil von Behring in 1892 and “magic balls” for Paul Ehrlich. The globulins formed by vaccination poisoning are claimed as protection against fictitious 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 presented as vaccination protection against diseases ( alleged “immunity”), which in turn are alleged against better knowledge than caused by pathogens, but which in reality do not excite at all. Antibodies are the blood's response to foreign proteins and substances that have penetrated (inoculated), as is the case with allergies.
 
The term “immune strength” (“immunity”) would have to be replaced by a term such as “healing ability”. The ability to heal cannot be produced by any kind of vaccination, it is an ability of the whole being (body-soul-spirit unity) and depends on many factors.
 
The more "toxic" the adjuvant, the stronger the "antibody reaction"
The antibody titer measurement only shows the poisoning / damage to the body.
 
The powerful aluminum adjuvant from Gardasil.
The three Merck attorneys 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. "
 
The fraud begins where the measured value is pretended to be immunity, because in reality it only shows the degree of poisoning, completely independent of the effectiveness of a vaccine according to the lock and key theory and the fairy tales of viral load, antigens, etc.
 
The interesting insight into multiple personalities
In the book The Vaccinated Nation by Andreas Moritz a fact is described that also breaks the belief in the antibody theory.
Quote on the fraud with the antibodies as evidence for the alleged functioning of the useless-harmful vaccines:
 
Having produced antibodies against a certain substance, for example against a food or a vaccine, does not really determine whether a disease such as an infection or an allergy will actually occur.
 
For example, people with a multiple personality disorder in the role of one personality may be severely allergic to orange juice (allergen), while the same allergen, if they have switched to a different personality, suddenly no longer causes an allergic reaction
 
You can also show symptoms of diabetes in one personality and be diabetes free a few minutes later. Women can even have 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 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 the antibodies.
 
Once the person touches a white cat, the body reproduces the response based on the memory of the previous emotional trauma. Since black cats were not part of this experience, touching black cats will not cause allergic reactions either.
 
Similarly, if someone is allergic to gluten, as soon as they eat bread, they will have no problem eating pasta, even though it also contains gluten. "
 
In other words, there is no way of knowing whether the very presence of the antibodies produced by vaccination actually protects against mumps or measles viruses. The entire theory of vaccination is based on the idea that the presence of specific antibodies in the blood confers immunity against the disease in question.
 
Feli Popescu wrote an incredibly interesting article on the subject of rhesus factor, blood groups, blood plasma, anti-D prophylaxis. This article points out extreme inconsistencies and inconsistencies in how science works. You can see in the article how the antibody thesis is negated in this respect as well. Very interesting.
 
High vaccination rates cannot prevent measles outbreaks - antibodies fail
We need "information instead of fear" and "facts instead of expert opinions".
 
In the link below, Libertas & Sanitas has compiled over 50 known studies from the CDC, Oxford and others that clearly show that vaccination does not protect. The results of the first 10 studies were summarized directly in the PDF. This is a real-life example that the antibodies claimed do not reflect the protection assigned to them. Since this is not an article on vaccines, I will not mention all of the other studies, they will become part of another article.
Source: Libertas & Sanitas e.V. [PDF]
 
 
The correspondence shows that the RKI does not regard the antibody level (titer) as the sole criterion for protection.
The RKI wrote on 02/01/2005:
"Neither the RKI nor the STIKO consider the level of the AK concentration as the sole criterion for immunity and do not define it as such. The cellular immunity (immunological memory) which is particularly important for long-term immunity does not depend on the detectable AK titers and therefore, AK titers often only serve as "surrogate markers" for immunity. "
....
"However, undetectable or low AK titers are not evidence of non-existent immunity."
 
So we see, regardless of whether antibodies are measured or not, it doesn't matter because, according to the RKI, there is protection against non-existent and existing antibodies. Since we know that these "antibodies" arise when cells are poisoned / destroyed, it does not seem to be a virus that is claimed to be the cause, but rather, for example, poisoning by a vaccination and its harmful adjuvants.
 
In response to Hans Tolzin's question:
"" If the level of the AK concentration, as you write, does not allow a definite statement about immunity, how can it be the sole criterion for the proof of benefit in the vaccine approval? I do not understand that."
The RKI answers:
"Dear Mr. Tolzin, we had answered in detail. For reasons of capacity we cannot continue the discussion. Sincerely,"
 
Note: No further comment is required. In the building of lies full of unscientific claims and consensus building without a scientific basis, even the best confounder loses the overview and is confronted with reality.
 
You can read more of the RKI's excuses on the site.
 
Correspondence between Hans Tolzin and the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) on the subject of antibodies
 
On May 13, 2006, [Hans Tolzin] also sent a request to the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI), the German approval authority for vaccines:
 
"Please tell me the basic scientific studies or publications that are relevant for the PEI and that prove the connection between AK levels and immunity (in the sense of actual non-disease over a longer period of time)"
 
Answer from the PEI:
"" There is no general statement by 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, accordingly there are no official documents. The European Pharmacopoeia specifies exactly how the effectiveness is to be tested for the various vaccines. "
 
The PEI employees therefore have no scientific documents to show that a high titer means no disease. Instead, responsibility is shifted to the EU level. The regulations there contain with regard to the proof of effectiveness, however, both must and can clauses, so that the reference to them does not say anything about which criteria the PEI regards as binding for itself. A corresponding request from me [Hans Tolzin] has not yet been answered. You have to pull every little piece of information out of the nose of the authorities. Source: Email
 
Spiess, "Impfkompendium", 5th edition 1999, p. 180 (in the chapter on pertussis)
"It is currently not possible to draw conclusions from the level of the measured titer on the immune status with regard to protection against recurrence of the disease"
 
Another study published in the journal Immunity (scientific journal) shows that antibodies are not necessary for a fight.
"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 von Andrian of Harvard Medical School. "There is a need to further explore 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 if these researchers also assume that there are disease-causing viruses, it shows once again that even among the same "believers" different results emerge and that antibodies cannot be equated with protection at all.
 
In the case of HIV, the entire logic of the antibodies was finally overturned
 
Der Spiegel writes: "In contrast, the scientists were able to detect an above-average number of antibodies against various viruses in people infected with HIV. This can be explained, for example, by the fact that the HI virus can weaken the immune system and make those affected more susceptible to further infections."
In the case of HIV, antibodies are therefore more of an indication that the person is weakened, even though he has extremely high antibody levels. In principle, he should be the most protected person there is. But we don't know anything else from "pseudo" medicine. If something doesn't fit, it is turned until it supposedly fits. The basic thesis is not even questioned, although the dissenting voices were extremely strong, especially with HIV. The topic of HIV is one in itself and would go beyond the scope of this.
 
WHO: no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 antibodies mean immunity to COVID-19 - 04/18/2020
 
In the course of the examination of COVID-19 sufferers who again showed positive smear results after surviving the disease, the WHO reported on April 17. suggests that there is no evidence that the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in serum implies immunity to COVID-19 (CNN 04/18/2020)
If this fear is confirmed, it would call into question a whole series of previously communicated saving concepts - from herd immunity to the messianically transfigured vaccine ...
 
The conclusion from the whole situation is shocking.
 
Obviously, the responsible federal authorities are not aware of any scientific evidence for protection by antibodies. As a substitute, one invokes the "state of knowledge" and the "general recognition" of such substitute measured variables ("surrogate parameters") without any obligation. The employees of the authorities therefore assume a protective titer without ever having seen the evidence for it! This is exactly the problem we see all the time. It is always assumed without questioning it. We have the same problem with the allegation of the pathogenic measles virus, which has never been proven. We also have the same problems with SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2, there is always no evidence, every time it is assumed that it would be so. We are at a point where we finally have to uncover the undesirable developments in medicine and introduce a paradigm shift.
• We claim disease-causing viruses without evidence
 
• We use surrogates such as antibodies for protection, which also has no scientific basis and reality never confirms this claim.
 
• We use a DNA test (PCR) which cannot prove a virus but is a manipulation instrument and has never been validated for it.
 
• Lead consultants who have already been convicted of fraud are used as leading advisors
 
I could go on with the list, but you can already see the huge problems we have because we looked the other way too long, because we believed everything unquestionably, because we just wanted to trust. Today reality catches up with us and we do not have to act later now or these false claims will get worse and the situation cannot be corrected.
 
My appeal to you: "Write to the politicians, write to the RKI and PEI, confront them with the facts. Do not allow any excuses. The authorities have known about this information for a long time, but have neither cared nor dared to accept it How did Horst Seehofer say to ZDF about the power of the pharmaceutical lobby? (Backup of the video available)
Basically: "The pharmaceutical lobby is too strong, it has been like that for 30 years, until now it is not possible to introduce meaningful changes because these structures are so powerful that politicians cannot influence them."
Seehofer explains: "I can only tell you that it is so and that it works very effectively"
 
In response to the reporter's question: "How can it be that the pharmaceutical lobby is stronger than the politicians in a country?
 
Says Seehofer: "I can't contradict you ..."
 
So we see that we are dealing with very powerful commercial enterprises (lobby) where not even politicians can / are not allowed to make their own decisions. Do we really want to continue walking blindly through the world?