The Meaning of Antibodies #lols

in Proof of Brain2 years ago (edited)


  1. Antibodies are very important for our immune system in getting over viral and bacterial diseases. We make non-specific IgM Antibodies (Ab) initially then specific IgG Ab later. Once we make IgG we are immune for life against that pathogen.
  2. An example of this is with mumps, mumps is caused by a virus, we get the disease once, make IgG antibodies and are immune for life.
  3. Another example is measles, we test for IgG and prove we are immune for life, well except that in a Supreme Court case in Germany it was shown that the measles virus doesn’t exist, never mind.
  4. Another example is chickenpox, we get chicken pox once and never again due to IgG antibodies, except if we get shingles which is also chickenpox, but well that's different.
  5. If we have AIDS we test for the presence of Ab, if we have them we know for sure that we have a deadly virus which will soon kill us. That’s because the HIV virus is “smart” and knows how to evade the Ab unlike the mumps virus which is stupid and doesn’t. The measles virus doesn’t exist and the chickenpox virus is smart-ish.
  6. Another example is Hep C, again if your liver is falling apart you can be tested for Ab and if they are positive it means you have a deadly virus which is eating your liver. This is clearly another example of a smart virus.
  7. With rhino virus, the cause of the common cold, we, naturally develop antibodies to the virus, but this virus is very smart (seeing as how it jumped to humans as a result of the unfortunate tendency of Africans to eat rhinos ) and many of us get colds year after year in spite of the presence of antibodies.
  8. Similarly the influenza virus is very, very smart and unlike the measles virus which not only doesn’t exist but has remained constant in its non-existence for centuries, the flu virus changes its form yearly. This is undoubtedly because the flu virus is so smart it has included flu vaccine companies in its stock market portfolio. I wish I were as smart as the flu virus.
  9. If you have symptoms of Lyme’s disease and you test for the presence of Ab and show them to your infectious disease doctor and tell him you tested positive for antibodies which means you have Lyme disease, he will throw you out of the office and call you a fucking lunatic. That’s because the presence of Ab don’t mean anything in Lyme’s disease
  10. If you have Covid and you test positive for Ab it means you either had the virus or you didn’t have the virus. Also, it is clear evidence that you were either sick or not sick. That’s because the corona virus is so smart that it can trick you into either making Ab or not to throw off the immunologists.
    Hope this makes it perfectly clear.
    by Tom Cowan, M.D.

The original title had 'satire' in brackets but not sure if it is helpful to tell everyone it's satire before the fact. I know some people don't have a sense of humour but this one's for those who do. It certainly cracked ME up.
Apparently comedy is one of the best ways to educate people which is probably why comedy, particularly stand-up, has been killed off by covid. They had already started the cull way before that with the PC nonsense. Without free speech and the right to 'take the piss' out of our controllers, politicians, influencers etc comedy could not survive. This is why I am sharing this. Dr Cowan can make any medical story funny and understandable. I hope this makes sense to you but if the above makes sense then you are lost in the forest of medical dogma. Their lies are falling apart, lies upon lies to prop up more lies and it's looking like more and more people are seeing through it.

If you still haven't seen it you can read more here:

Posted via


I think it's illegal to have a sense of humour these days. After all, someone might get offended. 🤔

This is actually a really good example of the fact that we are constantly learning when it cones to science. We draw conclusions on the little bit of knowledge that has been figured out so far, but when you string it all together it's full of contradictions and raises further questions.

...but of course it's all gospel as long as it's coming from those who are in the right positions.


HaHa, thanks for the laughs!

We have a classic dilemma here, don't we? As far as I believe in the virus theory, I cannot get out of the dilemma. I am caught between the desire for (my) freedom, which must also include the desire for freedom for others, because otherwise I myself am also unfree.

When someone says, "What do you want? Strawberry or chocolate cake? And he insists that you should decide, and you think you actually have to make a decision, then you are already mistaken. Because you could also say: neither. I choose neither, but have an ice cream instead. Thank you very much. Oh, and a cup of Mocca!

Here, you'll find a post of mine which deals with "dilemma" in a humorous and hopefully scientific way :) I would like to know if this can be something useful to you. May for your writings or in private dialogues.

I'm confused. You believe in the virus theory because it makes you free? I have never felt more free from fear since I discovered germ theory was an absolute lie as well as viruses. I don't actually understand your dilemma exactly.

LOL, I was using the "I" term in general, I also could have said "one" or "you". No, I don't believe in virus-theory, that much shall be clear between us. :)

The dilemma is there as long as people DO believe in it.

I have chosen not to accept the virus theory for my decision making processes. Before 2020 I believed in virus theory but it was not an issue which bothered me much. I may change my mind, eventually, perhaps, or not. But right now and here, I am not changing it. Nothing whatsoever can currently convince me otherwise. I made up my mind (and heart) on this and I probably have very good reasons for this, reasons I may not even know myself to the clearest point.

So, time taken to support me with contradictory proof or knowledge is truly wasted on me ;-)

CDC.GOV confirmed the updated age-specific survival rates: 0-19 years old, 99.997 percent; 20-49 years old, 99.98 percent; 50-69 years, 99.5 percent; and 70 years old or older, 94.6 percent.

Yes, so no one can claim afterwards that they didn't publish it in figures. It's just that the thing has taken on a life of its own and the fumbling apart of events and how which figures were put into which context will be difficult to prove. As always, in the course of history it is forgotten, dropped under the table or the appearance is made that nothing was wrong. Which, to a certain extent, if you take the figures you mentioned here, is also "true".
It just seems to be of no interest to those who, despite these reassuring figures, continue to be afraid.

Hey, I still enjoy researching hypotheses I may not personally agree with.


Ah, oh, I see :) I got a little irritated.
Yes, I do that, too. It's time consuming. LOL
Oftentimes I follow what fascinates me or is new to me in a positive way. Here, a video from Sheldrake, I am currently watching. Discovered him years ago, still it's new to me what he says.

Insofar as I adhere to the virus theory, I cannot seem to assert my freedom over my body, since I would then have to admit that my freedom to decide over my body interferes with the freedom of others. This is a trap (dilemma) from which no one can get out who either takes this theory very seriously or, if he does take it seriously, but relativisingly believes that the infection of a rather non-lethal viral disease is to be accepted and still wants to exercise his bodily integrity. However, if it were "credibly proven" to him that a virus has a very high lethality, from that moment on he would be inclined, under this premise, to rely on a drug or a vaccination. Is it clearer now, as I commented above?

This really begs the question of criminal liability.

Is typhoid mary a serial killer ?

enlighten me. I did not understand. What do you mean with typhoid mary?

Mary Mallon (September 23, 1869 – November 11, 1938), also known as Typhoid Mary, was an Irish-born cook believed to have infected 53 people with typhoid fever, three of whom died, and the first person in the United States identified as an asymptomatic carrier of the disease pathogen, Salmonella Typhi.[1][2] Because she persisted in working as a cook, by which she exposed others to the disease, she was twice forcibly quarantined by authorities, eventually for the final two decades of her life. Mallon died after a total of nearly 30 years in isolation.[3][4] WIKI

Oh, I remember reading about her, even probably on this, Tracy's Blog.
It sucks. How horrible it must be to be imprisoned for something you also may not understand or accept as true.
For me, the very issue of asymptomatic carriers, even if it would be true, is not something worth to consider to be helpful. It makes us all (including animals) to enemies.

I like your 'Dilemma' piece but don't see it as relevent in this case. Scientifically germs either cause disease or they don't. There are people who can't let go and they fall into the 'good and bad germs' nonsense. It is not a case of making a choice it's a case of finding the truth. Once the truth has been proven the paraphenalia that surrounds germ theory all fall apart too, including antibodies, immunity, vaccines and all the rest

From your and my point of view, this is certainly true. But truth is a word about which you will not find a consensus. The fact remains that people at all times have held different views:
They affirm a view
They deny a point of view
They are indifferent or neutral to a point of view

Can you agree with this?

No science, taken as proven (true) or unproven (untrue), will change the fact that people will continue to disagree. Therefore, they inevitably end up in a decision-making dilemma for questions that are unanswerable in principle. Of course, we answer them anyway, daily, by letting our will decide.

Science is about the quest for 'truth'. Belief has no place in science.
The phrase “I believe in science” may be one of the most ridiculous things a person can say in this age of information.
Let me explain.
What this statement has come to mean is, “I believe in the current scientific consensus,” or “I trust the scientific results in this study posted right below.” It also implies that “anyone who disagrees with me is anti-science, and I have no reason to listen to them.” Not often do we realize that a person can find scientific evidence to support any belief they have about the world.
It is not sciences job to dissprove a theory and scientifically you can't prove a negative therefore it is up to the germ theory proponants to prove their hypothesis which they up till now have failed at. The dilemma comes from a desire to not take responsibility for their own health. There is no dilemma in the truth, only in hearing it.
Science is meant to be a process. The minute you “believe” in science is the minute you give away your critical thinking skills because a particular study tells you how to think. True scientists do not “believe” in scientific results so much as they believe in the process. They have the understanding that science is always changing. We will never arrive at a place and time where we know all there is to know. As a science major in college I learned that doing science often leaves us with more questions than answers.
Science is meant to be questioned, not blindly believed in. In the words of Richard Feynman,
“I’d rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.”
The final issue I have with this statement is that most science has been bought by our capitalistic and reductionist culture. We only study the things that can make us money and only those with money can fund the science that they believe in. We might study what a drug or supplement does to one part of our body instead of looking at how it affects the whole person long term.
“Science is too delicate for market forces to govern. It turns scientists into salesmen” - Bret Weinstein
Science is a tool that helps us understand the world. Science is not a religion. Science is not a weapon to use against people who don’t agree with you.
If you read an article that cites a study, tells you how to think, and then asks no questions, take it with a grain of salt. If it seems to have everything about this subject figured out, move on. Filter any scientific result through your own personal devil's advocate. What does your gut tell you intuitively? How does it compare to the biological norm? How does it compare to what you know to be true in the world? And, for the love of all that is holy, when someone else has a different scientific opinion try to engage in a conversation instead of a debate.
by Victoria Miner

I question almost everything. My attitude is more of a questioning nature, or so I think I taught myself. Where I trust myself is, what I see when it comes to differences between people. That an issue like the current one is seen from different perspectives and coupled with emotions, is a simple fact for me (I don't question that:). That was what I tried to express. I have no disagreements towards what you cited and pointed out. We are on the same page here, I just realize, that there are other pages.

Good night from here.

Yeah of course this makes sense to me, And now I really understand the meaning of Antibodies. And your sense of humour is really Top Notch but having a sense of humour nowadays seems misleading and irratating to a lot of people out there. I don't really know why but I don't see anything wrong with displaying your sense of humour freely.

Posted via

Antibodies are crucial part of our body's defence system.
When we are immunized against a particular disease, the body's antibodies are the ones that fight against the antigens in the vaccine introduced into our body inorder develop some level of immunity against that very antigen, like you rightly said @active-truth when the system develops Ig G against any pathogen it means the body is immuned to that antigen/pathogen for life.

Posted via

Yeh you didn't get it then, I never said that at all and dispute it completely

Posted via

Wishing we are as smart as flu virus will give us an edge over the virus if we are as smart as it is. But as humans evolve in system bodily I think these pathogens also elvove also

Posted via

what pathogens? No proof of any of them existing let alone 'mutating'.

Posted via

The article seemed sincere to me until I read the part saying it was satire.

you're funny

Posted via

Some people have no sense of humour lol.

Posted via

judging by a few comments yup except leprechaun who's clearly sarcastic ;-)

Posted via

Take everything with a pinch of salt. smile, and enjoy living tgal x

But as it may be they said antibodies are very importance in our system because of the work it does without antibodies bacterial will take over with within a blink of an eye, and that's where antibodies comes in the fight against germs and bacteria from infecting us so you can see how important it is.

Posted via

you don't get satire then....

Posted via

Congratulations @active-truth! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You got more than 800 replies.
Your next target is to reach 900 replies.

You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Check out the last post from @hivebuzz:

Hive Power Up Month - Quick feedback
Feedback from the September 1st Hive Power Up Day

...and now Drosten saying that the vaxxed should infect themselves for better protection. But hey, he is no comedian.

Drosten can kiss my posterior, he is one of the main instigators with his fake PCR settings. Funny he should say that when all the other fake scientists are shouting about ADE.

Posted via

He should be the first one put against the wall, once all this gets resolved (if it ever gets resolved). And no, I usually do not have violent tendencies.

yeh him and Gates and Fauci, line them all up

Posted via