[awakened53]

Vaccine Companies Partner with MasterCard to Merge vaccines with Cashless Money System

https://needtoknow.news/2020/07/vaccine-...ey-system/

[awakened53]

Scientists Are Growing Genetically Modified Tomatoes As Edible Coronavirus Vaccine

https://greatgameindia.com/gmo-tomatoes-...s-vaccine/

[awakened53]

COVID-19 Vaccine Could Mean Regular Injections, No Guarantee Of Immunity

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/covi...e-immunity

[awakened53]

Covid-19 Vaccines: An Alarming Update from Europe

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/child...2cd038d244

[awakened53]

US Government And Yale Hold Trials On How Best To "Persuade" Americans To Take COVID-19 Vaccine

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/us-g...19-vaccine

[awakened53]

Petition to UK government demands no sanctions against those refusing the Gates ‘virus’ vaccine – sign here

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions...-MuS5YwL_s

[awakened53]

Cult-owned USA Today: ‘Defeat COVID-19 by requiring vaccination for all. It’s not un-American, it’s patriotic’. No – it’s fascism

Dr. Michael Lederman, Maxwell J. Mehlman and Dr. Stuart Youngner Opinion contributors
Published 1:30 PM EDT Aug 6, 2020
To win the war against the novel coronavirus that has now killed over 158,000 people in this country, the only answer is compulsory vaccination — for all of us.
And while the measures that will be necessary to defeat the coronavirus will seem draconian, even anti-American to some, we believe that there is no alternative. Simply put, getting vaccinated is going to be our patriotic duty.
The reason: When an effective vaccine is available for COVID-19, it will only defeat the pandemic if it is widely used, creating “herd immunity.” It is important to note that, during an epidemic, there is no threshold above which the protection conferred by “herd immunity” cannot be improved. Thus, the more people who are immunized, the lower the risk for all of us, including those who are not vaccinated. 
Severe penalties for non-compliance
Nor is there an alternative to vaccine-induced herd immunity in a pandemic. Relying on enough people becoming infected and then immune is dangerous, as exemplified by the Swedish experience where the COVID-19 mortality rate exceeds that of its more cautious neighbors. Broad induction of immunity in the population by immunization will be necessary to end this pandemic. In simple terms, a refusal to be vaccinated threatens the lives of others.
So here's what America must do when a vaccine is ready:
► Make vaccinations free and easily accessible.
► Exempt only those with medical contraindications to immunization. It is likely that more than one vaccine platform will prove effective (as was the case for polio vaccines) and, as a result, medical conditions that prohibit all COVID-19 vaccines will be rare.
► Do not honor religious objections. The major religions do not officially oppose vaccinations.
► Do not allow objections for personal preference, which violate the social contract.
How can government and society assure compliance with protective vaccines? Vaccine refusers could lose tax credits or be denied non-essential government benefits. Health insurers could levy higher premiums for those who by refusing immunization place themselves and others at risk, as is the case for smokers. 
Unnerving toll: Sweden hoped herd immunity would curb COVID-19. Don't do what we did. It's not working.
Private businesses could refuse to employ or serve unvaccinated individuals, schools could refuse to allow unimmunized children to attend classes, public and commercial transit companies — airlines, trains and buses — could exclude refusers. Public and private auditoriums could require evidence of immunization for entry. The only legal limitation on government or private action is that it not be discriminatory, and it’s hard to see how discrimination would occur if vaccinations were free and accessible to all.
Immunization certification cards 
How then should immunizations be documented? A registry of immunization will be needed with names entered after immunization is completed. Adequate immunization may require more than a single vaccination, and the durability of protection by different vaccines may vary and may not be life-long, requiring periodic booster immunizations. Thus, immunized persons will need to receive expiration date-stamped certification cards, which should be issued to all who are immunized in the country, whether here legally or not.
These measures may seem draconian and would be costly, but insuring universal vaccination is a negligible sacrifice compared with the costs, deaths and social upheaval that a sustained pandemic is having on our country.  
Q&A with epidemiologist[b]: [/b]Coronavirus future in America will be like whack-a-mole 
We acknowledge that the refusal to obey rules one considers unjust is an American tradition. But another cornerstone of the American tradition is that we come together when it’s necessary. The best example of this was during the two World Wars. Everyone contributed, no one was allowed to opt out merely because it conflicted with their sense of autonomy, and draft dodgers who refused to serve were subject to penalties.
True, conscientious objectors could refuse to use weapons for religious reasons, but they were obligated to help out in other ways, serving in noncombatant roles. There are no such alternatives for vaccination.
Dr. Michael Lederman (@mmlederman1) is Professor of Medicine at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. Maxwell J. Mehlman is Professor of Law at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Dr. Stuart Youngner is Professor of Bioethics at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine.
Published 1:30 PM EDT Aug 6, 2020

[awakened53]

Russia Registers World's First COVID-19 Vaccine, Which Was Tested On Putin's Daughter

One month after Russia's Gamelei Institute finished the first experimental vaccine trials on clinical subjects at Moscow's state medical college, Russia has set an international precedent by becoming the first country to register a COVID-19 vaccine with international medical authorities.
Russia declared the vaccine "ready for use" despite "international skepticism," the Associated Press reported. Putin made the announcement during a "government meeting", where he also revealed that one of his own daughters had participated in the experimental trials.

"I would like to repeat that it has passed all the necessary tests," he said. "The most important thing is to ensure full safety of using the vaccine and its efficiency."

The trials established that a single course of the Russian vaccine is enough to establish immunity to COVID-19, while side-effects were minimal, with slight fevers appearing in Putin's daughter, and other subjecst.

“As far as I know, a vaccine against the coronavirus infection has been registered this morning (in Russia) for the first time in the world,” the President told members of the government. “I thank everyone who worked on the vaccine - it’s a very important moment for the whole world."

Of course, it's worth noting that Russia-linked hackers were accused of spying on and possibly stealing vaccine-related "medical secrets" gleaned form research conducted in the UK.
Putin insisted that vaccination in Russia should only be carried out on a voluntary basis.

"I know that it works rather effectively, forms a stable immunity, and, I repeat, it passed all the necessary inspections," the President added.

While the west raised alarms about potential safety issues caused by Russian "recklessness", Vadim Tarasov, a top scientist at Moscow’s Sechenov University, where the trials took place, said Russia the country had a "head start" as it has spent the last 2 decades dedicating significant resources to the virus. The technology behind the Russian vaccine is based upon adenovirus, otherwise known as the common cold, he added. Created artificially, the vaccine proteins replicate those of COVID-19 and trigger "an immune response similar to that caused by the coronavirus itself," Tarasov revealed.
Nikolay Briko, the Russian Health Ministry’s chief non-resident epidemiologist, echoed these sentiments."This vaccine wasn’t developed from scratch, the Gamelei Research Center had a serious, significant research base on vaccines," he was quoted as saying. "The technology of developing such a vaccine was perfected. So perhaps, the process was sped up due to the fact that the vaccine was not created from scratch. It is important that all stages (of vaccine research) are followed and that international requirements are adhered to."
To try and reassure the Russian public, Putin declared his daughter, who participated in the "experiment" suffered only a mild fever that quickly went away.

"One of my daughters got the vaccine. In this sense, she took part in the experiment. After the first vaccination, she had a temperature of 38, the next day - 37 and that was all."

The news that Putin administered the vaccine to his own daughter elicited some snickers on Twitter.

Nothing says ‘we have a great vaccine’ than also saying ‘No, you can’t see our scientific data on the vaccine testing’
— Darth Putin (@DarthPutinKGB) August 11, 2020

Did Putin's daughter know she was getting the vaccine?
— Ivan the K™ (@IvanTheK) August 11, 2020

But believe it or not (clearly, the reporters at the AP are still skeptical), news of the world's first registered vaccine sent futures higher in premarket trading.


Of course, Russia's playing fast and loose with the "rules" allowed the experimental vaccine to be tested on Russian "elites" as early as April.

The first doses of the vaccine will be reserved for health-care workers and other vulnerable parties, Putin said. Russia says it hopes the vaccine will be available for mass innoculation early next year

[awakened53]

Once We Have An Approved COVID-19 Vaccine, Then What?


by Tyler Durden
Fri, 08/14/2020 - 21:20


Authored by Andrew I. Fillat and Henry I. Miller via HumanEvents.com,
It’s not as simple as snapping your fingers and getting herd immunity...
[b]Here’s a thought experiment: after the RMS Titanic collided with an iceberg, it became necessary to allocate seats on the lifeboats; there were only about 700 places for the 2208 passengers. What if seats had been auctioned, with the price determined by supply and demand—i.e., by market forces? Clearly, the wealthiest would have crowded out the others. Instead, the Captain decided that women and children should take precedence. Of course, children had the most life to lose, but why women over men? Chivalry? We will likely never know.[/b]

A contemporary example of the limitations of purely free-market distribution models is quickly approaching, as one or more vaccines to prevent infection by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID-19, come to market.

The situation is exceedingly complex in many ways, and the “solution” will inevitably involve elements of medicine, science, ethics, and politics.

The clinical results from the testing of different vaccines, which have been created using a variety of platforms, will inevitably vary in ways that we cannot foresee, and that will raise many questions. For example, how effective will the vaccines be for different demographic groups—particularly the elderly, who are most vulnerable to severe illness and death, but who mount a less vigorous immune response?

One thing seems clear, however: we have seen no enthusiasm from any quarter for allowing the price of the vaccine (i.e., market forces) to determine who should get priority in obtaining protection from COVID-19. But that still leaves many possible strategies to allocate what will inevitably be a scarce resource for some time—despite attempts to anticipate the conundrum and produce many millions of doses, beginning large-scale production even before safety and effectiveness have been demonstrated to a level acceptable to regulators. 

In several cases, this early production is being subsidized by the U.S. government. Its Operation Warp Speed aims to begin delivery of 300 million doses of an FDA-authorized, safe and effective vaccine for COVID-19 by the end of the year (an admirable but probably overly ambitious goal). As part of that initiative, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Department of Defense (DoD) jointly announced on July 7th a $1.6 billion agreement with Maryland-based Novavax Inc., to demonstrate commercial-scale manufacturing of the company’s COVID-19 investigational vaccine. By funding this manufacturing effort, the federal government will own the 100 million doses of investigational vaccine expected to result from those demonstration projects. On July 22nd, the feds announced a $1.95 billion deal with U.S.-based Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech for large-scale production and delivery of 100 million doses of an FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine. Additional federal funding of COVID-19 vaccine development has gone to Massachusetts-based Moderna (almost half a billion dollars) and to British drugmaker AstraZeneca (more than $1 billion).

These and other similar initiatives are some of the U.S. government’s wisest “corporate welfare” subsidies within memory. They accelerate the realization of remedies to a societal calamity, without which progress would be much slower. Unfortunately, although they might mitigate some of the most difficult vaccine allocation choices, others will remain.

[b]WHO IS “ESSENTIAL” AND WHO IS “MOST VULNERABLE?”[/b]

Triaging vaccine distribution raises many possible options concerning whom to prioritize and why.

One obvious priority would be to vaccinate the “most vulnerable” populations.

But how do we define vulnerability? By age and comorbidities, or, perhaps, by occupation or living situation (such as residents of nursing homes, or to people working in tight quarters like meatpacking plants).

Or should “value to society in mitigating the pandemic” trump other considerations, with front-line medical personnel and staff at long-term care facilities going to the head of the line? Those whose work is both essential and hazardous? And how about those involved in keeping the food supply chain intact, such as farmworkers, truck drivers, and food-store workers? (The head of our line is starting to get pretty crowded.)

Still, another question is to what extent the results of clinical trials should affect our priority-setting.

For example, if a trial revealed that subjects with blood type A obtain the greatest benefit, should they get priority for that vaccine? What about various racial, ethnic, or gender groups that have a statistically higher incidence of mortality from COVID-19? For example, should Blacks be considered a higher priority for vaccination because they are dying from COVID-19 at a rate 2.5 times higher than whites? And what about the political considerations: should Americans automatically receive higher priority, simply because our government subsidized the development of the vaccine?

The allocation criteria could theoretically become a complex algorithm, perhaps something analogous to the National Association of EMS physicians SALT Mass Casualty Triage Algorithm, which sorts patients into three categories based on the severity of their condition and determines the interventions they should get and in what order. In the case of vaccination, on the basis of the variables mentioned above, individuals could be placed in a category of the appropriate category, and within the category, would then receive vaccine in random lottery order. Of course, such an approach would not eliminate value judgments or squelch controversy.

We hope that, to the extent possible, these decisions will be made based on medical evidence and plausible rationales rather than political interests. To return to our analogy, imagine if only members of one political party or British citizens were permitted on the Titanic’s lifeboats. (It was a British ship, after all.)

In today’s hyper-partisan times, nothing seems too implausible or cynical.

SCIENCE, NOT PARTISAN PERFORMANCE, SHOULD DETERMINE VACCINE ALLOCATION DECISIONS [B]


In order to muddle through (“resolve” would be too optimistic) these conundrums, the feds will receive formal advice from at least two sources. National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins has asked the National Academy of Medicine to develop guidelines for who should get priority for the first doses of a coronavirus vaccine.

A second panel, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccine issues, has also been tasked to formulate guidelines. Last month, the ACIP convened a meeting electronically to discuss “who counts as an essential worker, where teachers should fall in the priority list, vaccinations for pregnant women and whether race and ethnicity should factor into priority considerations.”

[b]It remains to be seen how and who in the administration will reconcile two independently crafted sets of recommendations, and to what extent other parties will be allowed to participate in the process. In the end, the FDA could specify which groups get priority if it grants an emergency use authorization for a vaccine. That would be similar to the FDA’s having directed that Gilead Sciences remdesivir, a COVID-19 drug treatment, be used exclusively for “patients hospitalized with severe disease,” when regulators granted an emergency use authorization.

Questions will also arise about the cost of vaccines to consumers—and the posturing and virtue-signaling by politicians have already begun. In early June, before a vaccine was even on the horizon, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said in a statement,

“We can’t allow American families—who are already struggling to make ends meet during this public health emergency—to be squeezed even further by companies out to make a quick buck.”

And Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) echoed her comrade, “We need to have confidence that no one is making billions in a back room somewhere.” These gratuitous broadsides are part of their ongoing disparagement of one of the nation’s most innovative and successful industries. (Thankfully, the major vaccine manufacturers seem to have accepted that the pandemic is not a time for profiteering. The deals vaccine makers have struck with the feds suggest the cost will be modest, in the range of $4-$37 per dose.)

Several things are certain, however.

First, no allocation scheme will please everyone, and despite all the attempts at rational analysis and planning, there will be unintended consequences.
Second, the vaccine debate will re-inflame the passions about drug pricing and drug companies’ profits.
Finally, we can be sure the companies that are working furiously on therapies and vaccines to rescue the world from the throes of the worst pandemic in a century won’t receive any gratitude from progressive politicians.

The bottom line: insofar as it’s possible, the scientific and medical evidence should inform the allocation process.

[awakened53]

Antibodies Don’t Equal Immunity: Busting the Antibody-Protection Paradigm

The topic of antibodies is becoming more important
again due to the manufactured COVID crisis. It is important that you grasp the nature and function of antibodies, as well as their limitations, since the New World Order (NWO) manipulators orchestrating Operation Coronavirus are counting on your ignorance as they continue to roll out their tyrannical agenda. Specifically, they are counting on most of the public buying into the antibody-protection paradigm. What does this mean? By that term, I mean that they want you to believe that if you have certain antibodies, or a certain amount of antibodies (measured by titer), that you will be safe and protected from a certain disease. This plays out in 2 ways: firstly, they want you to trust the accuracy and authority of COVID antibody tests (even though there are many flaws, at least 5 as I touched upon in this article), but secondly and more importantly, they want you to trust the pending COVID vaccine (and all vaccines), since the efficacy of every single vaccine is predicated on the idea that it induces antibodies and therefore immunity. This is the key assumption – and it is patently false. Antibodies do not equal immunity; they are merely one part of a complex system that we don’t fully understand. Immunity is far more broad, deep, holistic and mysterious than simply the presence of antibodies. If you buy into the idea that antibodies make you immune, for instance that if you have COVID antibodies you will be immune to COVID, you will be playing right into the hands of those running this despicable “live exercise.”
First Things First: The 3 Layers of the Human Immune System
Before we get into what an antibody is and what it can do, let’s revisit the human immune system. Did you know that, anatomically speaking, there is no separate and distinct ‘immune system’ as such (unlike other systems such as the circulatory system or the respiratory system)? Instead, there are several systems that possess immune function, the most important of which is the digestive system, as it is home to our microbiome or 2nd brain. Cell by cell, we have 10 times more bacterial than human cells in our body, and these bacteria live in symbiosis with us, helping to keep us healthy and prevent disease. The immune system has 2 parts (innate or non-specific immunity and acquired or specific immunity), and at least 3 layers that operate in a very specific order. I will quote from Peter Tocci’s wonderful article OK, Let’s Talk Immunity:

“The [immune] ‘system’ exists only in the wondrous cross-communication and coordination among immunity components of the various anatomical systems … There are two major phases of immune function: 1) “Innate,” and 2) “Humoral.” Innate immune function consists of two “layers” considered to be the first and second ‘lines of defense’. The first layer is physical and chemical barriers. The second layer of defense is called cell-mediated or non-specific resistance. Cells in the intestinal wall (protected by bacteria) thwart germs by signaling to innate cells, leading to the activation of white blood cells and release of protective chemicals. Humoral immunity (antibody-mediated), also called specific resistance and “acquired immunity,” is the third line of defense. Vaccine doctrine says it’s first, which is a ploy on behalf of artificial ‘immunity’. Specific proteins called antigens exist on the membranes of germs. Once the antigen/organism is identified as foreign, plasma cells make antigen-specific proteins called antibodies that attach to and deactivate them. Vaccines target humoral/antibody function. As physiology texts say, however, the first time immune function sees an antigen/pathogen, antibody response is comparatively mild, as innate immunity takes the lead.”

Innate Immunity Leads While the Acquired Specific Immunity of Antibodies Only Comes Later
So when the body recognizes something foreign inside itself, it will activate its innate immunity (including white blood cells) first. If that doesn’t work sufficiently, then the body will activate the 3rd layer of defense, specific immunity. Here’s where antibodies come into the picture. What is an antibody? The textbook definition is a protein (also known as an immunoglobulin) made by the body and produced mainly by plasma cells to combine chemically with (and neutralize) possible pathogens such as foreign substances and bacteria. The antibody recognizes a unique molecule of the pathogen, called an antigen, to which it binds.
Here’s the problem: the Medical Industry, driven by the dangerous half truth of Pasteur’s germ theory and driven by the extremely reductionist mindset of materialistic science (‘everything must be measured’), has propagated the false notion that antibodies can be stimulated and measured, and therefore can be equated to immunity. Perhaps this is because antibodies were the only part of the mysterious immune system that could be quantified, but whatever the reason, this false idea ignores the fact that many healthy people do not contract a disease even if they have low antibody titers, and conversely, there are people with high antibody titers who still get sick. In other words, a low antibody or titer count does not indicate susceptibility to a disease just as a high antibody or titer count does not confer immunity to a particular disease.
Antibodies Not Required for Immunity
This point was rammed home in a 2012 study entitled Antibodies are not required for immunity against some viruses. The study analyzed mice infected with vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) and found that survival after VSV exposure did not require antibodies. They found the mice used their “adaptive immunity” (specific or acquired immunity), including antibody-producing B cells, but they didn’t actually need to produce any antibodies as such:

“A new study 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 research team studied VSV infection in mice that had B cells but did not produce antibodies. Unexpectedly, although the B cells themselves were essential, survival after VSV exposure did not require antibodies or other aspects of traditional adaptive immunity. “We determined that the B cells produced a chemical needed to maintain innate immune cells called macrophages.” … Taken together, the results show that the essential role of B cells against VSV does not require adaptive mechanisms, but is instead directly linked with the innate immune system. “Our findings contradict the current view that antibodies are absolutely required to survive infection with viruses like VSV …”

Total Body Health is the Only True Immunity
We have to understand that true health is an all encompassing-matter. They are few shortcuts. We need to patiently build our microbiome, inner terrain and blood alkalinity levels by eating a healthy diet and living a healthy lifestyle. Cultivating this will sharpen our innate and specific immune systems, while simultaneously making us less susceptible to disease, because pathogens won’t be able to effectively invade or gain a foothold when our inner ecology is strong. The article Antibody titers and immunity: Are they related? posted on Vaccine Liberation (VacLib.org) emphasizes the importance of memory cells rather than antibodies, but even memory cells are not the true measure of immunity. Total body health is. Here is a quote:

“The most important factor in a fully-effective immune response is general good health characterized by a clean bloodstream coupled with a nutrient-rich diet. Immunity to pathogens is dependent upon a complex response of the body’s cells which may—or may not —include the production of antibodies. A titer test typically measures only one aspect of the immune system’s response. Considered essential for viral disease immunity are memory cells for specific viruses. There is no test for qualitative measuring of these memory cells. Memory cells are what prompt the immune system to create antibodies that are dispatched to an infection associated with the pathogen it “remembers.” Memory cells don’t need reminders in the form of re-vaccination to keep producing antibodies … It is clear that immunity does not come from antibodies or even ‘memory cells’, although memory cells may play a small part in the much larger processes of protecting health. If a person is healthy, first time natural exposure to a virus does not necessarily result in disease. In fact, the majority of first time exposures result in no symptoms but do result in ‘antibodies’ which ‘prove the exposure’ but also prove that immunity was present before the exposure.”

[/url]Vaccines Are Solely Based on Artificially Stimulating Antibody Production
It would be a disaster for Big Pharma if more people knew the truth that antibody counts had nothing to do with true immunity. After all, Big Pharma vaccines are solely based on artificially stimulating an immune response (particularly with toxic adjuvants like aluminum) by inducing the body to make antibodies. Then they turn around and say, “Look, we made you produce the antibodies to this disease, so now you are protected.” But if antibodies are no real measure of immunity, the artificial production of antibodies is irrelevant. Here are some more quotes from the VacLib article above:

“Dr. John March, a developer of animal vaccines, wrote, “Particularly for viral diseases, the ‘cellular’immune response is all important, and antibody levels and protection are totally unconnected.”
Dr. Glenn Dettman stated the following in an interview with Jay Patrick: “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.” [“The Great American Deception,” Let’s Live, December 1976, p. 57]
Raymond Obomsawin, PHD wrote the following in his book, Universal Immunization: Medical Miracle or Masterful Mirage?:  “[W]e 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 scientists writing in the New England Journal of Medicine provide evidence for the position that immunity to disease is a broader bio-ecological question than 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.’
“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 ….[we] 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 immune system? Is this too simple? too ordinary? too undramatic? Or does it threaten too many vested interests?”

Brandon Turbeville [url=https://www.activistpost.com/2014/01/the-antibody-deception.html]writes:

“With all of the evidence such as that compiled in this article, the underlying foundation of claims by the medical and pharmaceutical industries regarding vaccine effectiveness is clearly a shaky one. The evidence that vaccines work – without even taking into account the many studies which have demonstrated that they do not – is thus wholly unreliable even when demonstrating the “proof” claimed by the researchers. In short, neither vaccination nor antibody response equals immunity.”

Conclusion
This topic ties together many fascinating threads: germ theory, materialistic reductionist science, Big Pharma, vaccines, COVID, antibody tests and a lack of appreciation for the holistic and energetic nature of the human body and its immune system. There are clearly many many more factors at play in determining an individual’s immunity than just counting that person’s antibodies. We need to fully comprehend this, because in the months to come, you can be sure there there will be some governments that will bait their citizens with a ‘return to normalcy’ if they just take the COVID serological or antibody test, despite the fact that a result of COVID-antibody positive can be interpreted any which way, and is scientifically meaningless when it comes to determining actual immunity. Next, of course, the authorities will pitch the COVID vaccine™ that produces COVID antibodies™ as the only way to participate fully in society again, a la Mark of the Beast. This article has pierced that line of reasoning. Spread this far and wide.
*****
Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles, author of Cancer: The Lies, the Truth and the Solutions and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com. Makia is on Steemit and Parler.
Sources:
*https://thefreedomarticles.com/covid-antibody-tests-here-comes-more-trickery-fakery/
*https://thefreedomarticles.com/busted-11-covid-assumptions-based-on-fear-not-fact/
*https://thefreedomarticles.com/bacterial-human-cell-ratio/
*https://www.activistpost.com/2020/04/ok-lets-talk-immunity.html
*https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120301143426.htm
*http://vaclib.org/basic/titers-immunity.htm
*https://thefreedomarticles.com/toxic-vaccine-adjuvants-the-top-10/
*https://www.activistpost.com/2014/01/the-antibody-deception.html