by Stephen Halbrook
See also:
Health: It’s About Nutrients — NOT Vaccine Antibodies
Demolishing the Antibody Narrative: Measles Immunity can be Attained with ZERO Antibodies
Continuing in our scorched-earth campaign against the vaccine antibody narrative, we move on to antibodies and HIV.
According to the vaccinators, antibodies are supposed to be the basis for disease protection. But the antibody narrative keeps twisting like a pretzel: do antibodies really protect? Are they useless in protection? Do they indicate illness? Just what do they do?!
First, as we previously showed, the emphasis in fighting disease should not be with antibodies, but cellular/innate immunity, and nutrients. Second, measles immunity can be attained with zero antibodies. And now third, as we come to HIV (human immunodeficiency virus), antibodies are evidence of having HIV — instead of having protection against it.
This is, at least, as according to the vaccine propagandists themselves: HIV antibodies don’t mean protection — they mean you need medical treatment — and that you may eventually contact AIDS (and therefore die).
The CDC says this:
What does a positive HIV result mean?
If you use any type of antibody test and have a positive result, you will need a follow-up test to confirm your results. … If the follow-up test is also positive, it means you have HIV. …If I test positive for HIV, does that mean I have AIDS?
No. Testing positive for HIV does not mean you have AIDS.
– AIDS is the most advanced stage of HIV disease (Stage 3).
– HIV can lead to AIDS if a person with HIV does not get treatment or take care of their health. But if someone with HIV takes their HIV treatment as prescribed, they can live long, healthy lives, and may never develop AIDS.CDC, Understanding a Positive Result (Page last reviewed: August 22, 2022). Retrieved October 27, 2023, from
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/hiv-testing/positive-hiv-results.html
Jon Rappoport comments:
By conventional standards (not mine), the whole point of a vaccine is to confer immunity to a germ by producing antibodies to that germ in the body. That is the essence and the standard of a “good vaccine.”
And yet, in the case of AIDS research, all this was turned upside down. Suddenly, HIV positive meant: the patient has antibodies to HIV and this is a sign that he will become very ill and most likely die.
Jon Rappoport, The Massive Fraud Behind HIV Tests (1988/2006, Adapted from material originally published in AIDS Inc. : Scandal of the Century). Retrieved October 27, 2023, from http://www.whale.to/b/rappoport1.html
And Dr. Thomas S. Cowan writes:
Just as people remember for the rest of their lives the moment they heard that JFK was shot, or about the World Trade Center towers coming down on September 11, I have a vivid memory of hearing the announcement by Robert Gallo in 1984 that they had found the cause of AIDS. It was caused by a virus called HIV, and the reason they knew it caused AIDS is that they found elevated antibody levels in some (not all) AIDS patients. I remember turning to a fellow medical student at the time and saying, “Hey, who changed the rules?” In other words, after having spent the previous four years learning that people with antibodies to a virus were immune to that particular virus, we were now being told—with no explanation what-soever—that antibodies meant that the virus was actually causing the disease!
Thomas S. Cowan and Sally Fallon Morell, The Truth About Contagion: Exploring Theories of How Disease Spreads (New York, NY: Skyhorse Publishing, 2021), XVI.
And so HIV antibodies do not mean immunity. They fail to protect, and so having them might just mean that you could die.
What might this say about the efficacy of antibodies in general? This narrative by the vaccine propagandists themselves casts doubt on the entire vaccine paradigm.
Of course, there are reasons given as to why HIV antibodies don’t protect.
For instance, a 2022 Johns Hopkins article refers to HIV as “shape-shifting” and the “world’s most cunning virus.” (It’s alive and outwitting the antibody theory! More pro-vaccine science fiction?) The article covers current and past theories about why HIV antibodies do not work:
Most vaccines induce our body to make antibodies to fight different pathogens, but HIV disguises itself, so that even if we do make antibodies, the virus changes to escape them.
Early vaccine candidates targeted what we call the envelope protein that encapsulates the virus genome. When we found that antibodies against the envelope protein didn’t work, then we thought, maybe we can target different parts of the virus that induce T cells, which kill infected cells. But because the virus integrates itself into the host genome, the T cells didn’t recognize the viruses as separate from hosts.
Morgan Coulson, Why Don’t We Have an HIV Vaccine? (Johns Hopkins, November 29, 2022). Retrieved October 27, 2023, from https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/why-dont-we-have-an-hiv-vaccine
But is the assertion that “HIV disguises itself” — as this author states — the reason that antibodies don’t work?
That is, can it be proven scientifically? Or, is it just the latest in a train of changing HIV theories to explain away why HIV antibodies do not protect? Speaking of changing theories, not only does the author herself raises a prior theory about HIV antibodies (per the quote above), but we also have this in a 2009 article:
Some 25 years after the AIDS epidemic spawned a worldwide search for an effective vaccine against the human immunodeficiency virus, progress in the field seems to have effectively become stalled. The reason? According to new findings, it’s at least partly due to the fact that our body’s natural HIV antibodies simply don’t have a long enough reach to effectively neutralize the viruses they are meant to target.
Science Daily, “Why Anti-HIV Antibodies Are Ineffective At Blocking Infection” (California Institute of Technology, April 30, 2009). Retrieved November 1, 2023, from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090422151832.htm
Let me suggest that all of these theories might be gaslighting to protect the vaccine antibody narrative from reproach: “Antibodies normally suffice to protect from disease; this is just some odd exception. Trust us! The HIV virus is cunning. But please keep getting vaccinated for other diseases!”
Odd exception, eh? Would HIV antibodies normally protect against HIV if HIV was not “hidden”?
Not only do we need scientific proof that HIV “hides” itself from HIV antibodies, but we would also need further proof that HIV antibodies would otherwise actually neutralize HIV. These we don’t have. “Hiding” and “neutralization” are distinct things. In other words, we cannot simply assume the vaccine narrative that HIV antibodies would, in normal circumstances, neutralize the HIV virus — even if it were proven that HIV hides itself from antibodies.
Such theories about HIV antibodies become even less convincing when we consider that immunity to Measles can be attained via ZERO antibodies. (This is not to mention other articles we plan to release on problems with the vaccine antibody narrative regarding other specific illnesses.)
And it has already been shown that nutrition and the innate immune system — not antibodies (which make use of the humoral immune system) — are the crucial components in combating ill-effects of disease.
Per these last points, why have the HIV antibody theories, from the outset, ruled out the possibility that HIV antibodies don’t work because other aspects of the immune system — not antibodies — are the mechanisms to fight disease? Could it be a pro-vaccine bias that wants to maintain the vaccine narrative?
But, one might say — “Wait! What if some or all of the HIV narrative is false, including what we are told about HIV antibodies? Would then the popular narrative about HIV antibodies not be a reliable instance to cast doubt on the overall vaccine antibody narrative? That is, if those framing the narrative about HIV and HIV antibodies are not telling us the truth, then this might not be a true instance where antibodies don’t work. Perhaps they are not telling the truth about HIV and HIV antibodies not working for some hidden agenda.”
It may indeed be true that some or all of the HIV narrative is false. Including about antibodies — namely, testing for them. Here are some quotes from Jon Rappoport’s piece, “The Massive Fraud Behind HIV Tests”:
“The only way to distinguish between real reactions and cross-reactions is to use HIV isolation. All claims of HIV isolation are based on a set of phenomena detected in tissue culture, none of which are isolation and none of which are even specific for retroviruses… We don’t know how many positive tests occur in the absence of HIV infection. There is no specificity of the HIV antibody tests for HIV infection.” — Bio/Technology, 11:696-707, 1993
“The HIV antibody tests do not detect a virus. They test for any antibodies that react with an assortment of proteins experts claim are specific to HIV. The fact is that an antibody test, even if repeated and found positive a thousand times, does not prove the presence of viral infection.” — Val Turner, MD, Continuum magazine, Vol 3 No 5, 1996
Citations assembled at Alive and Well. Jon Rappoport, The Massive Fraud Behind HIV Tests (1988/2006, Adapted from material originally published in AIDS Inc. : Scandal of the Century). Retrieved October 27, 2023, from http://www.whale.to/b/rappoport1.html
However, even if the HIV antibody narrative — which says that antibodies don’t work against HIV — is suspect due to fake antibody tests, we still have an instance that casts doubt on the entire vaccine antibodies narrative.
Because: if they have been lying about antibodies here, then they can’t be trusted when it comes to antibody narratives anywhere. The whole idea that vaccine-induced antibodies protect us from other diseases could be just as much agenda-driven. The antibody narrative for any given disease could be tailored for a particular manipulative end, obscuring what antibodies actually do.
Take your pick — either option jeopardizes the vaccine antibody narrative:
- HIV antibodies don’t protect against disease, raising the question of antibody protection in general and casting the whole vaccine paradigm in doubt
- The HIV antibodies narrative is false (e.g., regarding the legitimacy of HIV antibody tests), raising the question of honesty about antibodies in general and casting the whole vaccine paradigm in doubt
In short, regarding HIV and antibodies, the vaccine paradigm is jeopardized if they are telling the truth, and it is jeopardized if they are lying.
Either way, what confidence can we have in antibodies for any disease to protect us?
(Some closing food for thought: are those ostensibly suffering from HIV/AIDS really suffering from the effects of vaccines? In many cases, I think so. But that is a topic for another day.)
If you find this site helpful, please consider supporting our work.
