If viruses don't exist what about antibodies?
The baby and the bath water
Smooth muscle actin in blood vessel walls and in the myoid cells surrounding the seminiferous tubules in the maturing testes of the harbour porpoise stained with a brown dye. (1)
The secretory canaliculi in the cytoplasm of acid producing parietal cells in the human stomach stained with two dyes, the membrane globulin stained red and the H K ATPase in the proton pump stained blue, co-localising and appearing purple.(2)
How is this differentiation and precise staining of cells and proteins achieved? NB I do not think there is ever any justification to experiment on other animals, though we may as well learn from what has already been done.
In short mice are injected with a human protein of interest, their serum is screened for reactivity against the protein. In order to make globulins in sufficient concentration to make staining observable, without using billions of mice, they are then sacrificed and B cells from their spleens fused with myeloma cells to make immortal cells lines (hybridomas). Preservatives such as PEG are added. The substance produced from these cell lines is added to a tissue section, and ultimately labelled with a dye. The substance appears to bind and stain only the target protein and leaves all the surrounding proteins untouched.
The localisation of the protein within the morphology of the tissue section provides convincing evidence that the substance is staining the target protein. The staining only occurs where the target protein, is expected to be, in the smooth muscle walls of blood vessels, or in enzyme producing canaliculi for example, and not in any of the other structures or proteins in the tissue section, which provide an internal negative control.
Substances to thousands of different proteins have been produced in this way and the visualisation technique shown to be reproducible literally millions of times a day in diagnostic and research labs around the world.
I don’t see how these staining properties could be achieved using human made chemicals and technology. No amount of fiddling with temperature and pH can make a food colouring or clothes dye accurately locate a part of one cell among a thousand, especially as humans don’t even know the structure and shape of the target proteins they are looking for. Admittedly it is unnatural to inject mammals with proteins and also to form hybridomas; but substances ARE produced by animals that have the remarkable staining properties observed for thousands of target proteins.
I am surprised at the resistance I have met when pointing this out. Chemistry is nowhere near advanced enough to produce this staining. Why should we not think the body makes these specific globulins misnamed ‘antibodies’?
The body has good reason to evolve the ability to ‘recognise’ and bind to all the different antigens that it is exposed to. The body can then judge whether to co-exist with them, such as the bacteria we can’t survive without, which provide barrier and many other functions in all of our organs, to assimilate them or to expel them.
What do ‘antibodies’ do in the body of a sick patient? The paper ‘Measles Virus: A Summary of Experiments Concerned with Isolation, Properties, and Behaviour’ from 1957 (3) is very informative. Enders and Peebles, who sound like butlers in English Manor houses, took samples from people thought to have the measles and added them to kidney cells in culture. They noted 2 cytopathic effects;-
formation of giant cells
and fibroblast-like structures.
The authors claimed that these effects were caused by a virus. However, the absence of cell culture controls using samples from healthy people and from sick patients without the measles, treated in exactly the same way; starving the cells, adding antibiotics and oxidants, makes this claim absurd.
The serum from the sick measles patient was then added to the cell culture. Some globulins in the serum reacted with the combination of proteins in the cell culture and were then referred to as the measles antibodies. The authors were puzzled by these antibodies being present in medium to low titre in 88% of measles history negative patients (asymptomatics anyone?) and decided that in this range nonspecific reactions occurred.
They also postulated that the presence of measles antibodies in normal lab monkeys explained why injecting the ‘virus’, that is cell culture, into their veins and squirting it up their noses did not make them sick.
The authors noted that measles antibodies increased up to 30 fold from the acute phase of the illness to the convalescent phase. This phenomena has been consistently noted for other diseases since then. They then added the serum of the convalescing patients to the cell culture and observed that it prevented both types of cytopathic effects seen above. The serum from the acute phase did not. They surmised that neutralising antibodies present in the serum destroyed the virus, and prevented the effects, although if the patient was already convalescing the antibodies were surely too late to be of use!
The disease ‘measles’ is the process of the body detoxifying. In the acute phase, at the beginning of the process, the body creates fever and inflammation, it activates ‘immune’ cells known as mucosal antibodies which may stimulate mucus production in the nose and eyes and develops spots and rashes in order to flush out and expel the toxins through the skin.
‘Shock’ proteins produced by the stress and oxidation of the cell culture are present in greater amounts in the serum of sick patients than in healthy people and may also be involved in stimulating the detoxification and healing process (4). For example the p24 protein associated with ‘HIV’ is present in greater amounts in sick than healthy people and genetic sequences associated with ‘HIV’ are found in tumours but not in surrounding normal tissue.
The body does not want to suppress its own detox symptoms in the acute phase, but as the toxins are removed and the patient convalesces, the symptoms need to be reduced and the body returned to a balanced condition. The increase in production of ‘neutralising’ antibodies may bind to these ‘shock’ proteins, suppress their action and prevent further cytopathic effects, both in cell culture and in the body. The ‘immune system’ and antibodies thus have a role, not in fighting infection, but in healing and homeostasis.
In the case of ‘SARS2’ one of these shock proteins is the so-called spike protein which has been observed in cell culture since the 90’s.
Mike Donio also makes some interesting points about what we call the ‘immune system’ which, if not fighting germs, but may still have a healing and detoxification function:- ‘What is the immune system? Have you really thought about that or just accepted what you have been told in the context that it is your defense against supposed invading pathogenic microbes? Have you considered what else the immune system is doing if there are no contagious diseases?
‘Let’s reason for a second that the immune system is not what we’ve been told. That it’s not actually an “immune system”. Just for the sake of this post, consider that it’s more of a healing and detox system, if you will. In that context, let’s view what might occur with respect to the vaccinations. Many are talking about this idea of detrimental effects on the immune system resulting from these shots. The claim is usually that there is some sort of immunodeficiency that occurs. What if that’s not entirely incorrect but we are just thinking about it the wrong way? It’s entirely possible that these experimental drugs are causing damage to what we call the immune system.’
I’m not ready to throw out the ‘immune’ system and the ‘antibody’ baby with germ theory bath water just yet.
1.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15379925/ Smooth muscle actin and vimentin as markers of testis development in the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)
W V Holt 1 , J Waller, A Moore, P D Jepson, R Deaville, P M Bennett
2. https://jcp.bmj.com/content/jclinpath/48/9/832.full.pdf Identification of parietal cells in gastric body mucosa with HMFG-2 monoclonal antibody
M M Walker, A Smolka, JM Waller, D JEvans
4 Nobel laureate lecture 1983 Barbara McClintock
I'm one of those 'throw the antibodies out with germ theory' guys. But good read nevertheless.