This is an explanation in response to the previous comment, but cut short in order to save space in the comment sections. Nobody has to read it. Have you?
'"Antibodies" are just as shaky as "viruses,"...' I completely agree with your contention of the undeniable, thoroughly-attested Rockefeller take-over and domination of medical "science" and all things related to petroleum-based pharmaceutical corporation-managed public health (and agriculture, and education, and government, and law, and ...)
Apologies for repeating myself (with apparent self-importance, when I know that in reality I'm an inconsequential non-entity), but while I agree that antibodies are not all they've been acclaimed to be, in other ways they're quite a lot more than what the dominant COVID-19 narrative owners would have us believe. Contrary to the laser focus we're supposed to have on antibodies, especially as a consequence of being injected with a "vaccine," vaxxine, or a sLNP-enveloped mRNA suspension gene therapy technology, antibodies are not correlates of immunity. The hyperfocused attention on antibodies, from the spurious "testing" protocols, to antibody titres post-injection, all has the purpose of convincing us that an immunological response that results in the production of antibodies is a measure for resultant immunity. It most definitely is not. The fact is that it is simply not well understood at all yet what the antibodies themselves, and the immune responses that result in their production all entail. As a consequence, as we've now had repeatedly verified, an increase in antibody titres post injection does not mean the injectee has gained immunity to infection to anything.
As for viruses being "shaky," the other egregious lying by omission is the the narrative underscoring and entrenching the falsehood that viruses are pathogens, and only pathogens. There are a lot of biological communication and inter- and intracellular signalling functions, and other functions as well, that are never spoken about in the context of viruses and viral-like particles. The converse of this, which is equally misleading, and is quite frankly a calumny, is the contention gathering steam all over the world that 'viruses aren't real' and virology is an intentional misrepresentation. As for the case of antibodies and our understanding of their purposes and functions, I would counsel to proceed with caution; at least be patient and allow more research to come forward which may help to clarify these topics.
"Antibodies" are just as shaky as "viruses," because the "science" is still at the popularized levels of the Rockefellerian flavor or "Medicine."
Of course, it doesn't seem to make any difference what people believe:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/what-is-in-where-and-why
EXOSOMES
From June 20th, 2022:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/what-is-a-virus
This self-promotion is a little too shameless.
This is an explanation in response to the previous comment, but cut short in order to save space in the comment sections. Nobody has to read it. Have you?
'"Antibodies" are just as shaky as "viruses,"...' I completely agree with your contention of the undeniable, thoroughly-attested Rockefeller take-over and domination of medical "science" and all things related to petroleum-based pharmaceutical corporation-managed public health (and agriculture, and education, and government, and law, and ...)
Apologies for repeating myself (with apparent self-importance, when I know that in reality I'm an inconsequential non-entity), but while I agree that antibodies are not all they've been acclaimed to be, in other ways they're quite a lot more than what the dominant COVID-19 narrative owners would have us believe. Contrary to the laser focus we're supposed to have on antibodies, especially as a consequence of being injected with a "vaccine," vaxxine, or a sLNP-enveloped mRNA suspension gene therapy technology, antibodies are not correlates of immunity. The hyperfocused attention on antibodies, from the spurious "testing" protocols, to antibody titres post-injection, all has the purpose of convincing us that an immunological response that results in the production of antibodies is a measure for resultant immunity. It most definitely is not. The fact is that it is simply not well understood at all yet what the antibodies themselves, and the immune responses that result in their production all entail. As a consequence, as we've now had repeatedly verified, an increase in antibody titres post injection does not mean the injectee has gained immunity to infection to anything.
As for viruses being "shaky," the other egregious lying by omission is the the narrative underscoring and entrenching the falsehood that viruses are pathogens, and only pathogens. There are a lot of biological communication and inter- and intracellular signalling functions, and other functions as well, that are never spoken about in the context of viruses and viral-like particles. The converse of this, which is equally misleading, and is quite frankly a calumny, is the contention gathering steam all over the world that 'viruses aren't real' and virology is an intentional misrepresentation. As for the case of antibodies and our understanding of their purposes and functions, I would counsel to proceed with caution; at least be patient and allow more research to come forward which may help to clarify these topics.
the Pasteur/Bechamps argument was over the microbiota being causative of disease, or subsequent to it, not if they existed at all
Bechamp seems to be closer to what's actually happening, when people get sick, but I have my own paradigm of health/illness:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/what-makes-people-sick-apart-from