Welcome. I have this question.
Isn't it a natural process that antibodies to a pathogen only stay at a higher level when the body detects an intruder? Then the amount of antibodies decreases because they are not needed and again when the same virus appears it increases?
What I mean is that the need to take more doses is explained by the decrease of antibodies.
 
Welcome. I have this question.
Isn't it a natural process that antibodies to a pathogen only stay at a higher level when the body detects an intruder? Then the amount of antibodies decreases because they are not needed and again when the same virus appears it increases?
What I mean is that the need to take more doses is explained by the decrease of antibodies.
Yes, that's what I understand otherwise your blood will be full of antibodies from all the infections you've got in your whole life. The antibodies decrease but your immunity retains the memory meaning next time you get infected by the same (or similar) pathogen it's able to recall the antibodies very quickly. OSIT.
 
Yes, that's what I understand otherwise your blood will be full of antibodies from all the infections you've got in your whole life. The antibodies decrease but your immunity retains the memory meaning next time you get infected by the same (or similar) pathogen it's able to recall the antibodies very quickly. OSIT.
Thank you. I think that is logical.
Although they use this argument and people swallow it as truth.
 
As of two months ago, American NFL players were 93% vaccinated. They keep testing them. COVID shows up in the (unreliable PCR) tests so often that they've been canceling matches (because a positive test sidelines the player). This costs money and reflects poorly on the efficacy of the mRNA shot.
I think this is noteworthy because it reinforces some probably truths and raises some questions about the immediate future.

1. If it costs rich people (the American NFL and its investors) money, they can ignore the so-called deadly threat of the virus and just stop testing asymptomatic people.
2. Testing of asymptomatic people never should have occurred in the first place, but doing so, and getting false positives, allowed the PTB to declare a pandemic.
3. Had the PCR test never been relied upon, there would never have been any alleged pandemic.
4. The presence of the vaccine seems to be causing more positive tests. They probably know this, and if so, cannot allow the testing to continue.
5. How does it look if the unvaccinated repeatedly test negative but the vaccinated repeatedly test positive? Never to be reported.
6. The entire alleged pandemic can be ended by stopping unreliable testing.
7. What happens when the PCR test is replaced by a more reliable genetic-sequencing or other test? Pandemic goes away.
8. What happens if #7 happens, a lot of people see it, but gov'ts and corporations double down on mRNA shots anyway? Theater of the Absurd.
 

A new Omicron vaccine
“We remain on track with our 100-day target, which means we should be able to deliver our first suitable vaccines to Omicron in March, subject to regulatory approval,” he said.
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom