Dr.s Cowan, Lanka, Scoglio and Kaufman discuss the antibody myth. (2022)

Dr.'s Cowan, Lanka, Scoglio and Kaufman discuss the antibody myth. (2022)

THE MISINTERPRETATION OF ANTIBODIES A closer look at antibodies is more important than ever today. In my other articles I have shown that there is no evidence of the existence of a pathogenic virus, because none of the purported pathogenic viruses have fulfilled Koch's Postulates, and now the "antibody" card is being played by the vaccine proponents. Their claim (which has been entrenched in their minds for decades) that antibodies are indirect evidence of the existence of a disease-causing particle, or provide protection against a certain pathogen X, is based on error. This claim has been repeatedly debunked as false. Since the question of what these antibodies are is being asked again and again, I want to show in this article that antibodies are not proof of protection, nor do they work specifically as in the key/lock theory. ... 5- Stefan Lanka: FACTS THAT REFUSE THE CLAIMS ABOUT "ANTIBODIES" AND A SPECIFIC IMUNE SYSTEM ** Because so-called autoimmune diseases and so-called allergies are popping up at the speed of light. In psyche-neuroimmunology this is called a so-called “track”. Note: It cannot be the case that "specific" antibodies react against "foreign" and then suddenly against "self" proteins. ** Alternately "foreign" gut bacteria coexist with immune cells that are supposed to mount a specific defense against them. Note: If there were specific antibodies, the gut flora should not be able to change. ** There are humans, mammals, bony fish and sharks. They produce immunoglobulins. Note: If there were specific antibodies, the offspring would be destroyed and breast milk would be toxic. ** In the development of humans and animals, under shock and in old age, new proteins appear. Note: Since, according to the unverified but only falsified immune hypotheses, "foreign" and "self" proteins are recognized in the thymus in early childhood and "antibodies" of the immune cells that make the "antibodies" are screened against "self" protein. Proteins that arise later, such as hormones in puberty, etc., would automatically lead to allergy, autoimmune diseases, destruction and death. This is not the case. "Anti" bodies against viruses that do not exist at all cannot, in principle, exist. Here the allegation of the existence of specific antibodies and specific tests clearly appears to be a crime and therefore genocide. Note: But since immunoglobulins capable of binding other proteins are detected, there is "body" but not "anti". But globulins that first perfect themselves in an oxidized, i.e. acidic environment (via reduced S-H groups, which in combine the oxidized state to form disulphite groups (-S-S-) and thus bind the protein chains together, which first forms the entire immunoglobulin) and are then able to bind proteins destined for transport, conversion or recycling. Note from Karl Krafeld: An antibody can only be claimed once the body has been detected. It is claimed that many viral antibodies can be detected (e.g. by tests) without scientific verification of the virus. Orthodox medicine has its own nonsense that it usually spreads: "In infectious diseases, antibodies are formed, and the detection of antibodies is evidence of protection against the disease." According to orthodox medicine, HIV positivity should be the best protection against AIDS. Every test measures what the test measures, but nobody knows exactly what the test measures. The tests react quite non-specifically for proteins, according to the principle of reading coffee grounds: is Eduscho or Tschibo better for reading coffee grounds? In any case, no test can detect antibodies if the underlying body has never been observed.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/dPd7O9a0Pjwq/?list=notifications&randomize=false