Herd immunity is just an obsession. (Antibodies mean nothing)

In the past few days and weeks the media used the term “herd immunity” over and over again, meanwhile the alert observer had to notice that, from an international point of view, two completely different approaches are competing with each other to get closer to this supposed goal.

Unofficial Translation of Source… https://telegra.ph/Die-Herdenimmunit%C3%A4t-kann-nicht-existieren-01-02

While a handful of countries trust the elderly to be protected by actively exposing the younger to a (believed) wild virus, most of the other states believe that their subjects are perfectly fortunate and the only true salvation of their subjects in the fortunes of vaccine manufacturers – whose questionable products, however, not realized by many, still owe us any proof of effectiveness. In fact, this applies to all types of vaccines! [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

What the believers don’t seem to take into account either on one or the other course: the fact that there is no herd immunity!

Here is the thought pattern of conventional medicine in a nutshell:

Wild virus / vaccine -> antibodies -> protection -> herd immunity

The body (or the so-called “immune system”) fights a suspected dangerous pathogen that has penetrated from the outside. Our wonderful body is able to automatically generate an accurate response, i.e. to form antibodies, although these structures (virus) were previously completely unknown to it. A specific source code “appears” to him – out of nowhere – that impressively enables him to generate the appropriate counter-argument in the form of these antibodies. If enough people were to build such a “protective wall”, herd immunity would automatically result, a miracle of nature.

But are these assumptions based on fact at all, have they been checked and have they been scientifically proven?

Very clear announcement and answer in advance: no, by no means – and those responsible in institutions and authorities confirm this again and again. [9] [10] [11]

In terms of the existence of a disease-causing virus, there is already a problem, because the following applies to all postulated pathogenic viruses:

  • No isolate, in the sense of truly isolating the structure from all other components, has ever been presented. [12] [13] [14]
  • A so-called alignment is used to construct the new genetic strand of an alleged pathogen that causes disease. In this process, many non-contiguous short gene sequences, which do not even make up 1% of their length of the genome strand generated at the end, are created using a template (another genome strand of an alleged virus that has been stored in the database), which the computer serves as a template , added up. Existing gaps in the complete gene sequence to be created are filled and freely invented by means of the computer program.
  • There are no scientific and, above all, mandatory control experiments that define a work as ‘scientific’!
  • Koch’s postulates, which have been defined and recognized in science in such a way that only their fulfillment can really define a pathogen as ‘disease-causing’, are not adhered to.

And for these same reasons there can be no so-called “antibodies”.

What are the inconsistencies in the theory of antibodies:

  • In the April 2001 drug telegram it says: “Antibodies (titer increases) are unreliable substitute criteria for effectiveness. What benefits or harm the vaccinee can expect cannot be derived from such findings.” [15]
  • Prof. Heininger, a long-time member of the STIKO (permanent vaccination commission) writes: “It is neither necessary nor sensible to determine the effectiveness by taking blood and determining antibodies after a vaccination has been carried out. On the one hand, it is not possible to make a reliable statement about the presence or absence of vaccination protection even through an antibody determination, on the other hand it is simply too expensive. “(Statement by a long-term STIKO member) [10]
  • Antibodies appear even when there is no infection. [16]
  • Although a disease was present, the so-called specific antibodies cannot always be found.
  • Children in whom very high antibodies (titers) were measured, nevertheless fell ill with this disease. [17]
  • Conventional medicine understands the following by a “specific antibody increase”: Let us assume that the laboratory always measured an increase in “immunoglobulins from group G” in more than 50% of cases with a diphtheria vaccination. With a rubella vaccination, the laboratory found an increase in “immunoglobulins from group M” in over 50% of cases. We have already conjured up the “specific antibodies”.
    As I said, the protein bodies are not an antidote, but are “only” a reaction of the body to the toxins contained in the vaccine.
  • The approach that the presence of antibodies can be viewed as a positive result for immunity had to be completely thrown overboard for HIV -> AIDS. From now on, a high antibody titer was no longer considered positive and protective, but on the contrary. The problem of conventional medicine is now the following: If the basic assumptions (on which my framework is based)have been misinterpreted, you just have to get lost with each additional addition! Entanglement in contradictions forces the ad hoc provision of new illustrative explanations. Spontaneously I think of “non-protective antibodies” [17], that is, antibodies which, according to the tests, should be protective and supposedly specific (and to top it off, as approval criteria for vaccines) – but then turn out to be non-protective antibodies.
  • Conclusion: An increased “antibody level” is of no significance! The alleged antibodies offer no protection – they are indications of poisoning [18], degradation or build-up of tissue. People with high “antibody levels” can also get sick. The drug approval of vaccines, which is based on “antibody formation”, is scientifically not tenable, if not criminal. Conventional medicine has known since about 1980 that “antibodies” are invented substitute measures, based on some random mutual relationship. The German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information writes: “The use of surrogate endpoints(Measured values ​​that are intended to enable a prediction of later clinical events; for example lowering blood pressure as a surrogate endpoint for avoiding a stroke) is not without problems. ”
    In the DIMDI’s HTA report 91, you can read on p the use of surrogate endpoints in the clinical benefit assessment is not without problems, which has been known for over 30 years, so that the risk-benefit assessment of various drugs has been reversed and these products therefore had to be withdrawn from the market.
  • But it is precisely with the help of such surrogates that science invariably proceeds in the case of virology.
  • For all further information and statements from the responsible institutions, please read our two articles on the subject of antibodies [20] [21]

With this, the first three assumptions of conventional medicine (disease-causing viruses, antibodies, protection and herd immunity) were already reduced to absurdity and the scientific basis withdrawn from them.

Unfortunately, experience teaches that so-called dogmas are still able to last forever, even if they have long since been disproved or dismantled by the world of science.

By the way: The approval of vaccines is limited to the so-called seroconversion!

The EMA (European Medicines Agency) in London is responsible for approving all vaccines for Europe. Their requirement for proof of efficacy [22] is limited to so-called seroconversion. This describes the formation of measurable antibodies in the blood of vaccinated people, which is equated with the protective effect.

For more information and sources, see our article:

The misinterpretation of antibodies [20]

Even if we move within the narrative that there are disease-causing viruses and antibodies – the concept of herd immunity does not work!

Even if it were possible to close all eyes to what is visible and to put aside all false assumptions (resulting from a misinterpretation) and assume that there are disease-causing viruses that stimulate the body to form antibodies that would protect people, the herd immunity model does not work.

Hans Tolzin had known how to express it very well in his vaccination report 124: [23] [24]

“Any medical layperson who has mastered the basic arithmetic can understand that the achievement of so-called herd immunity or even the eradication of measles is not possible with the available vaccines, not even through a statutory vaccination requirement. Because the central problem of herd immunity is not that Unvaccinated people, but vaccination failures , ie those vaccinated who do not develop an antibody titer. But Health Minister Jens Spahn’s solution is: ” Close your eyes and through!” – even if our basic rights are trampled on. “

Even within the presumed blockages of thought of those responsible, no calculation of the world would result in meaningful herd immunity. For this and other reasons that we will list, an alleged pathogenic pathogen cannot be eradicated – it is simply impossible!

A little hint: So that the overstretched vaccination industry and its dubious vaccines, which have been used to “bless” mankind for over a hundred years and have had the fate of countless people plagued by vaccine damage on their conscience [25], cannot blame their failure you don’t even think to slip the role of villain in this crime thriller to someone else: the mutations [26]! … which then happen to develop in any animal that is currently “hip” or “in”. Sometimes in the pig, sometimes in the chicken, sometimes in the cow and sometimes in the salmon, or even the bat, the camel or [… use any animal here], such a clever representative of the virus species decides who is actually unable to jump over to humans, to mutate and consequently to be able to change hosts.

If you follow the logic of the responsible medical school doctors, we would have to isolate all animals or, ideally, slaughter them right away. According to their thinking, the danger lurks in their biology, anywhere and anytime, because everything is permanently at war – good versus evil!

Meanwhile, the miracle of symbiosis and the perfection of nature are punished with disregard.

Even a small number game based on measles shows that herd immunity is statistically completely excluded!

The RKI writes: “If over 95% of the population have immune protection against measles, measles can be completely eradicated.” [27]

Suppose there really was such a thing as herd immunity in measles if at least 95% of the population were immune to the “virus”   .

Mind you, we are not  talking about a vaccination coverage rate of at least 95 percent  , but a 95 percent  immunity rate . In order to achieve this 95 percent immunity rate, the measles protection law aims at a 95 percent  vaccination rate  !

However, the immunity rate  and  vaccination rate  are not the same due to so-called primary and secondary “vaccination failures”!

And we already encounter a striking problem here: According to the KiGGS study [28] [29] [30] (with a titer below 0.35 IU / ml) up to 12.6% of children who have been vaccinated twice are so-called “vaccination failures” “, Which from a conventional medical point of view remain contagious because they do not develop an antibody titer. For this reason alone, 95% immunity cannot be achieved in one year – and certainly not in the general population! And that is still cautiously estimated, since the responsible federal authorities cannot seriously comment on how high the measles antibody titer has to be in order to prevent not only the disease itself, but also the excretion of viral material.

As we were able to find out earlier, the RKI and the STIKO even say themselves that the level of the antibody titer does not allow a statement to be made about the extent of the protective effect …

Are you starting to realize the tangle of unsubstantiated claims we are caught in?

Because the RKI is only too well aware of this fact with regard to the antibodies, it – and now hold on tight – did not consider the proof of the antibodies, which were also claimed to be “effective protection” for the approval of the vaccines, to be necessary. The RKI writes literally [31]:

https://www.rki.de/SharedDocs/FAQ/Impfen/MMR/FAQ_Uebersicht_MSG.html#:~:text=Sind%20zwei%20Impfungen%20gegen%20Masern,Impfung%20h%C3%A4lt%20wahrscheinlich%20lebenslang%20an.

A fatal circular argument: If we simply claim that a vaccination is a protection against a disease, it does not matter whether all the criteria that led to its approval can be proven.

It is therefore completely irrelevant whether the claimed antibodies can be found in your blood sample (which were one of the main criteria for the approval of the vaccine) or not: the main thing is to have a stamp in your passport! What happens to your body doesn’t matter. Vaccination good, all good. Verifiable, “don’t give a shit”.

If your curiosity then grabs you and you want to find out whether it has also been checked what is happening in your body with the other components of the vaccine, some of which have been declared highly toxic, I will unfortunately have to disappoint you at this point. The licensing authorities do not take it that carefully, which is why the package insert reads the following: (This also applies to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of all manufacturers) [32]

Excerpt from the MMR vaccine Priorix – https://www.gsk-arzneimittel.de/assetManager.xm?action=getFi&id=08627744

And if you shouldn’t be given a vaccination at all, e.g. B. If you are allergic or have another contraindication, this is by no means a reason for the RKI to exclude you from the vaccination. Then the vaccination will be transferred to a hospital [33], where you are better prepared for an allergy-induced collapse … the shock room is practically right next door.

Can people be vaccinated against measles or measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) if they are allergic to egg white? – https://www.rki.de/SharedDocs/FAQ/Impfen/MMR/FAQ_Uebersicht_MSG.html

Make a note of this: It is not important whether you are considered protected according to any test result, but that you can show two stamps in your vaccination certificate!

Can you understand that this almost knocks me off my stool and that I have to control my choice of words as much as possible? Calling such weird things ‘science’ must feel like a punch in the face to any sincere scientist. Without exaggeration: These machinations are criminal!

If one stays within the refuted theory that disease-causing viruses exist and that they can be infected, one finds that animals can certainly infect people.

Please do not memorize all of these things so much, because they come from a fallacy anyway. I refer to the same only for the sake of completeness to open your eyes to how nonsensical the theory of the possible eradication of so-called pathogens is.

Researchers at the University of Bonn come to the following conclusion in their publication:

“The probable origin of several infectious agents has now been identified by international researchers led by the University of Bonn. Paramyxoviruses have their origin in widespread bats, from which the pathogens have spread to humans and other mammals. A total of 9278 animals were found in the worldwide unique study Tested for viruses, including 86 bat and 33 rodent species. An enormous number of new virus species were discovered. The eradication of many dangerous diseases could therefore be much more difficult than previously thought, because the bats form a reservoir from which viruses can come back after vaccination campaigns. The results have now been published in the current issue of “Nature Communications”. “[34]

Provided that we stay within the refuted theory of contagious and infecting pathogens, it must by no means be concealed that vaccinated people can continue to infect others.

Assuming that there are so-called pathogens that cause illness, the next contradiction explains the impossibility of eradicating them:

When vaccinated people can also pass the “virus” on!

So it says in the EpidBull of the RKI [35]:

“Vaccinated contact persons are largely protected from B. pertussis, but not B. parapertussis, but they can be temporarily populated with brothels and thus represent a source of infection for third parties. Therefore, vaccinated close contact persons of B. pertussis sufferers should also be a precaution receive chemoprophylaxis if there are vulnerable people in their environment, such as unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated infants, children with underlying cardiac or pulmonary diseases or pregnant women in the last trimester. “

A work published in Oxford University Press (OUP) also shows that those who had already been vaccinated were sick and not protected.

Measles outbreak in individuals with prior evidence of immunity, New York City, 2011 [36]

There it says among other things:

“The index patient had 2 doses of measles vaccine; 88 contacts confirmed 4 secondary patients to have either 2 doses of measles vaccine or a past positive measles IgG antibody. All patients had laboratory confirmation of measles infection, clinical symptoms associated with Measles match, and high-avidity IgG antibodies that are characteristic of a secondary immune response. “


We could go on like this for hours and conjure up a number of publications that would show you that within the thought pattern that there are all these pathogenic pathogens including an infection, vaccinated people can also become ill and would also infect others.

How did those responsible even get their numbers: 95% (measles) or 60 – 80% (SARS-CoV-2) would be necessary to build up herd immunity?

Even in the science section of the WDR called “Quarks” it says about these values:
“This threshold value is primarily a purely theoretical construct. It is calculated from how quickly a virus is transmitted. The more infectious infected people are, the higher the threshold value can be And the less contact people have with one another, the lower.

Wherever the real threshold lies: at some point the coronavirus would no longer find enough hosts. It would go away. At least that’s the hope. “

A purely mathematical construct that is completely out of thin air. In principle it is a complex rule of three [37]:

  • You need the protective effectiveness of the vaccination (attention: the naturally suffered illness is not taken into account).
  • You have to know how many people a sick patient infects within his illness. For measles, this is estimated at 12–18; this value was thrown into the open at some point and generally accepted within the consensus. Of course, other studies determine different values. As always, a value is simply set here that no one has to shake.
  • Calculation with a homogeneous mix of the population!

Since all of these calculations have absolutely nothing to do with reality, these models, like those of Neil Ferguson, are, from a purely scientific point of view, a waste bin.

If you want to know more about Neil Ferguson from London’s Imperial College (called “Mr. Genius”) and his always incorrectly calculated models for every alleged pandemic, please treat yourself to our article [38]:

The scientific fraud by Prof. Christian Drosten

In the above article, a whole section was dedicated to this Neil Ferguson, on whose models Prof. Christian Drosten also referred. Keep in mind that all of Ferguson’s model calculations were 100–1,000 times wrong at all times and that tens of thousands, if not millions, of animals fell victim to slaughter due to his incorrect calculations.

How Much Herd Immunity is Enough? Everyone only gives estimates and gut feelings, apparently these are the new guidelines of the currently responsible scientists.

Excerpts from the New York Times [39]:

Initially, they estimated that 60 to 70 percent of the population would have to acquire resistance to the coronavirus in order to ban it. Now we observe that Dr. Anthony Fauci and others are quietly moving that number up .

In the early days of the pandemic, Dr. Fauci tends to be the same 60 to 70 percent estimate that “most” experts shared. About a month ago he began to call the figure “70 … 75 percent” in television interviews. And last week in an interview with CNBC News, he said “75 … 80 … 85 percent” and “75 to 80 percent and more”.

In a telephone interview the next day , Dr. Fauci admitted that he had slowly but deliberately moved the goalposts . He is doing this, partly based on new scientific knowledge, partly because of his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks.

“We need to have some humility here,” he added. “ We really don’t know what the real number is . I think the actual reach is between 70 and 90 percent. But I’m not going to say 90 percent. “

“You tell me what numbers to put in my equations and I’ll give you the answer,” said Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist at TH Chan School of Public Health at Harvard. “But you can’t tell me the numbers because nobody knows them.”

Note from Corona_facts:

The reason why nobody can give reliable figures is obvious: Since neither the virus has been detected nor the antibody theory is correct, all statements are based on a false assumption and are automatically incorrect. At least they want to admit that, they prefer to stay in their dream castle, where a new idea is simply conjured up from the drawers for every contradiction.

Let us draw our conclusion on the assertion of the idea of ​​herd immunity:

  • There is a lack of scientific evidence of pathogenic viruses, as well as the necessary control experiments.
  • On closer inspection, the protective antibodies turn out to be completely normal globulins-forming sealing substances: small protein bodies that immediately expand in acid, become flat and network with other proteins and other things through their hydrogen sulfide groups, in which energy is stored. These always appear when the body z. B. was poisoned by adjuvants (additives in vaccination doses).
  • The so-called antibodies are therefore not a specific protection according to the lock and key theory, but arise with every injury or poisoning of a body – depending on the area in which they are needed.
  • Herd immunity is not possible based on these two findings alone. However, not even if we stay within what we call the “virus church”.
  • In order to eradicate what is known as a disease-causing virus, one would also have to eliminate every animal. Since the joker card – the mutation card – of those who believe in the virus is played out again and again, a world can never become “free of pathogens”.

My appeal to you, based on the available data, is clear: NEVER GET VACCINATED!

Bibliography:

[1] The vaccination myth: The statistics (processing based on statistics, the introduction of vaccines and the decline in “diseases” )

[2] Polio in the context of vaccination criticism (a video about polio, with several correlations to other causes)

[3] Robert F. Kennedy Jr. proves to Alan Dershowitz that vaccinations are ineffective and dangerous .

[4] The tetanus vaccination – a risk-benefit analysis (a review of the tetanus vaccination, here it is conclusively explained why it cannot be of any benefit)

[5] The vaccination myth: The vaccinated victims (various sources of vaccination damage that are known)

[6] Rolf Kron – Do we vaccinate ourselves healthy? AKASHA Congress Back2Health 2016 (talk about the vaccination business)

[7] The flu vaccination is not only useless, those involved know about it (various sources that prove that the flu vaccination is of no use)

[8] The flu vaccination is a crime – and has been for 78 years (various sources that show that the flu vaccination is of no use)

[9] The RKI (Robert Koch Institute) writes:
“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 possible existing cellular immunity. “

[10] Prof. Heininger, a long-time member of the STIKO (permanent vaccination commission) writes:
“It is neither necessary nor sensible to determine the effectiveness by taking blood samples and determining antibodies after a vaccination. On the one hand, it is not possible to make a reliable statement about the presence or absence of vaccination protection even through an antibody determination, on the other hand it is simply too expensive. “

U. Heininger “Handbook Child Vaccination Handbook Child Vaccination: The competent decision-making aid for parents 2004

[11] Prof. Heininger – STIKO (2017) [7] : “The most important thing first: For none of the generally recommended so-called basic vaccinations is a routine check of the vaccination success planned or even advisable”

[12] Corona: The comprehensible and verifiable refutation of the virus claims (a review of the relevant study on SARS-CoV-2 and historical review)

[13] Project Immanuel – film series to refute the virus existence claim

[14] Leading corona researchers admit that they have no scientific evidence for the existence of a virus (responses from the authors on SARS-CoV-2)

[15] Medicinal telegram

[16] The book The vaccinated nation by Andreas Moritz

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 allergy will actually occur. For example, people with multiple personality disorder can play the role of one personality be strongly allergic to orange juice (allergen), while the same allergen, if you 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. …

[17] RKI – sick despite vaccination? [4]
As an example, a 14-year-old boy may be cited who had received sufficient basic immunization in childhood and had received a booster against tetanus six months earlier when he developed tetanus. The laboratory examination 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.

[18] 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. “
Translated:
“It is an axiom among vaccinators that the duration of immunity is directly correlated to the toxicity of the adjuvant: the more toxic the adjuvant, the longer the duration of immunity.”
That is perfectly expressed. The toxins are supposed to drive up the antibody blood levels measurably so that something can be measured and something “proven” and what a vaccine would not do without these auxiliary substances.

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.

[19] German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information – surrogate endpoints as parameters of the benefit assessment (dimdi.de)

[20] The misinterpretation of antibodies (dealing with the misinterpretation of antibodies with a wealth of sources and statements from state institutions)

[21] Confused, confused, antibody tests (explanation of how the antibody test works and various statements from experts in the field)

[22] Aerztezeitung – development of vaccines

[23] Vaccination report issue 124 Close your eyes and go? Herd immunity is just an illusion!

[24] Is there any scientific evidence for “herd protection”?

[25] The vaccination myth: The vaccinated victims (various sources on vaccination damage that are known)

[26] The alleged SARS-CoV-2 mutation from England is a sham

[27]

https://www.rki.de/SharedDocs/FAQ/Impfen/MMR/FAQ_Uebersicht_MSG.html

[28] https://www.kiggs-studie.de/deutsch/home.html

[29] https://impfen-nein-danke.de/u/UngeimpfteGesuender-1.pdf (Kigg’s study evaluated)

[30] Allergies: the RKI has notably withdrawn

[31] RKI – Measles – Answers to frequently asked questions about vaccination against measles

[32] Priorix package insert (triple vaccine MMR)

[33] Is it possible to be vaccinated against measles or measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) if you are allergic to egg white? – https://www.rki.de/SharedDocs/FAQ/Impfen/MMR/FAQ_Uebersicht_MSG.html

[34] University of Bonn – Unexpected reservoir of viruses

[35] RKI – RKI-Ratgeber – Whooping Cough (Pertussis)

[36] Oxford University Press – Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 58, Issue 9, 1 May 2014, Pages 1205–1210 Measles Outbreak in Individuals with Prior Evidence of Immunity, New York City, 2011

[37] Lecture by Prof. Alexander S. Kekulé (microbiologist and virologist) – October 12, 2019 – the statements of the experts

[38]   The science fraud by Prof. Christian Drosten (a chronological review of the creation of the Drosten test, as well as other sources about Niel Ferguson)

[39] nytimes – How Much Herd Immunity Is Enough?

Spread the love

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *