In our previous post, we refuted the sacred cow of vaccination that says antibodies are crucial for disease protection. We showed that it is about the innate immune system and nutrition — not vaccine-induced antibodies.
In demolishing the vaccine antibody narrative, let us move on to scorched-earth. We will now give specific examples exposing vaccine antibody mythology.
In this post, we address antibodies and measles.
You were told, of course, that your children will die from measles without vaccine induced antibodies. Or that you will kill others if you don’t get vaccinated yourself.
But aside from the vaccine propagandists neglecting to tell you that former head of the CDC Dr. Alexander Langmuir (1910-1993) — regarded as “the father of infectious disease epidemiology” — called measles a “low fatality” disease, they also somehow neglected to tell you that there are those who can develop immunity to measles who are genetically unable to produce antibodies.
That condition is called agammaglobulinemia. And it was known about long before the deadly measles vaccine was unleashed on the public in 1963.
The following is from Natural History of Infectious Disease, first published in 1940. The authors are pro-vaccine — and yet hear what they say about measles and antibodies:
Again we must add the warning that immune responses and their effects will differ according to the virus being studied. Measles is the most familiar of all virus diseases and perhaps provides the most illuminating example of the role of immunity in virus disease. …
For many years it was taught that post-measles immunity was due to the continuing presence of antibody in the blood. …
With the recognition of considerable numbers of children with agammaglobulinaemia and their maintenance in fair health by immunogloblin injections, it was inevitable that some of them would contract measles. To everyone’s surprise they showed a normal measles course with a typical rash which faded at the normal time and was followed by just as substantial immunity against reinfection as would be shown by any other convalescent. Antibody production is therefore not necessary either for recovery from or for the development of immunity to measles.
Sir Macfarlane Burnet and David O. White, Natural History of Infectious Disease (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1972, 1st edition 1940), 78, 79.
In Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett’s Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases (Eighth Edition, 2015), we likewise read:
Cellular immunity to MV [measles virus] probably also plays a role in the prevention of recurrent measles because patients with agammaglobulinemia do not have multiple attacks of measles. A cell-mediated response to measles antigen in the absence of detectable measles antibody was reported in two physicians in whom no disease developed despite repeated exposures to measles. Therefore, when humoral antibodies to measles are absent or of low titer, cellular immunity to the virus may protect against subsequent illness.
Anne A. Gershon, in Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett’s Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases (Eighth Edition, 2015), in ScienceDirect, Measles Antibody. Retrieved October 4, 2023, from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/measles-antibody
(The last sentence in the quote further confirms that innate/cellular immunity — not antibodies — is the crux of the matter in disease protection.)
In short, those with a condition that keeps them from producing antibodies recover as well as anyone else with the Measles — and they develop immunity without antibodies. Antibodies were irrelevant.
Whoops! This is devastating to the vaccine paradigm, which says “antibodies or death!” Hmm … is the whole antibody narrative a fraud?
We close with these fitting remarks from vaccine expert Shawn Siegel:
There’s no reason to assume that the same phenomenon isn’t true for all other infectious illnesses. This, of course, tends to shoot the legs out from under the vaccination paradigm, which depends heavily on vaccine-elicited antibody production as proof of efficacy, of lauded protection.
Shawn Siegel, Facebook, January 5, 2022. Retrieved January 29, 2022, from https://www.facebook.com/shawn.siegel.7/posts/5262666307094127
If you find this site helpful, please consider supporting our work.
