Antibodies are studied more than other immune proteins for association with disease. This does not mean that they are more decisive in disease outcomes. Type I interferon likely has far more impact.
I've read several pieces on the recent IgG4 study, all interesting and alarming to varying degrees. However, I believe all commentators should defer to Dr Huber who has the deepest understanding of the whole immune system.
Reading Dr Huber last summer was key to me not getting my kids the covid injections, a decision I'll never regret and for which I'm forever thankful to Dr Huber
Thank you for your take on this, Dr. Huber. My (oversimplified and dumbed-down, yet essentially true) opinion on the mRNA injections, is that they ‘mess up’ the immune system, in ways that, due to it being an experiment on the human race, as well as the complexities which you point out, we still don’t completely understand. I read in another Substack article this morning a phrase that seems apt: ‘derangement’ of the immune system.
I don't have a medical background, but was able to read through this entire post which I found to be a bit technical. The "pot of gold" for me was the last sentence, and it was well worth spending the time to get there. "Immune cells and cytokines, and their exquisitely coordinated and synergistic functions, must be protected from the destructive events initiated by irreversible experimental injections of novel products, such as the mRNA vaccines". Well said Dr. Huber! Well said, indeed!
Why can't GVB & Alexander et al write to this level of transverse understanding of the true Covid science.
One reason the Blue Pilled are this way is that any good science when presented to them in a "foreign language" , they dismiss or won't take the time to read or just plain cannot comprehend the message.
Pro Tip to GVB et al.
Translate your science into laymen terms.
You will become more effective persuade agents.
Great article! The cancers that result from the covid vaxxes are incubating and brewing now. Learn how to protect yourself and loved ones from cancer with fenbendazole, a safe, inexpensive, off patent, otc drug. So far it saved two people (make that THREE) close to me. Read the detailed Case Reports https://fenbendazole.substack.com
Breast, colon, prostate, glioma, lung, it doesn’t seem to matter, fenbendazole seems to eradicate them all. Case Reports in the queue are melanoma, ovarian, breast, myeloma, bladder are the next five.
"IgG4 has no known effector function"
I think eosinophils are the effectors related to IgG4. They have roles in parasite infections and IgG4-RD.
As for cancers, PEG is contaminated with a carcinogen as I warned in my comment posted in the Annals of Internal Medicine. Carcinogen + immunosuppression = turbo cancer
"PEG is contaminated with 1,4-dioxane, a carcinogen.
Tremendous food for thought - especially in your own study you linked near the top. (I assume page 29 was left blank intentionally.) I'd love to play with the numbers and compute the statistical significance of your treatment, but I think we all know the results will be exceptionally significant.
Interesting phrase: "Immune distraction". I would like to think that if there are any honest immunologists still on this planet, they would be tearing their remaining hair out at the public health policy choices made over the last 3 years, which amounted to throwing out all the knowledge gained slowly and painfully over the most recent centuries, and choosing instead the most destructive responses. "Psychosocial distraction" may be the more apt concept here.
I really appreciate this article, which focusses on antibodies. My main interest of research is in presenting evidence I think confirms that the novel coronavirus was circulating widely in the population months before has been acknowledged by "experts" and officials. The most convincing evidence would arguably come from positive antibody results, especially among "archived" blood samples collected before the "official" pandemic commenced .... as well as from early antibody results (test performed in Mach to May 2020). This evidence is copious as I have documented in many stories at my own Substack.
However, I think these results are under-counting the percentage of people who actually have antibody evidence of "early" cases because antibodies in some percentage of the tested population "fade" or "wane" to undetectable levels in a matter of months (or a small percentage of infected people never produce detectable levels of antibodies).
My interest in antibody results and studies is not so much whether they provide "neutralizing" protection and immunity, but whether they existed at one time. If they did exist, this would be compelling evidence of "early spread," per my hypothesis. My question to Dr. Huber is whether she agrees with this hypothesis and agrees with me that the hypothesis that antibodies may "fade" in some percentage of the population is important in any effort to try to provide better evidence of seroprevalence in the past?
From this article, it appears that IgG3 or IgG4 antibodies wane or disappear over time. In short, I think early antibody studies (when people were tested many months after they had symptoms) are not capturing all the people who were infected previously.
It also seems that IgG antibodies waned quicker or are more likely to fade in the population which had mild or asymptomatic cases, which is perhaps most cases of "Covid." The take-away from this hypothesis would be that many more people were previously infected than most people believe. That is, more people had "natural immunity" even before the lockdowns than we have been led to believe. In fact, I think this figure might be many millions of Americans.
So while T or B cells might play a more important role in conferring immunity (and not necessarily IgG antibodies), the fact you could measure these IgG antibodies in some percentage of the population is still significant. The previously-positive percentage would have been much higher if antibodies did NOT fade. I am also skeptical of the "authorized" or "certified" assays and labs that were used to test for antibodies. My hypothesis says that if officials wanted to conceal evidence of "early spread," they might have somehow manipulated the assays to produce less evidence of early spread. And they would malign and impugn antibody results from non-authorized labs or clinics that were producing a greater percentage of "positive" antibody results.
Any thoughts you might have on my hypothesis are greatly appreciated. People interested in this topic can visit my Substack site. For example, see my articles on "the dog that didn't bark" on the Red Cross antibody study and my article on the 17 Americans I found who were sick in November and December and later tested positive for antibodies (I have since heard from eight more Americans who claim to fit this profile).
Great article Colleen! I took my time to read it, and I almost understood it. Almost. Few gray areas in my pea-brain. I will continue to seek the knowledge necessary to really “get it”.
Hi Colleen, thank you for a great article, as usual, and balanced perspective after all the attention CD4 paper is getting.
I wanted to ask you if you can recommend a good immunology book that can explain various components of immune system, aimed at someone who is not quite a layman, but not a subject matter expert either.
Thank you not only for a well rounded, science-based article on a very salient topic, but for one I can understand—almost completely.
Thanks for filling in the blanks for us Colleen. Excellent article and easy to understand.
Fascinating, to say the least! Can’t wait to discuss!
Yes I agree we need to look at the body as a whole, not just a few immunoglobulins that are easy to study and therefore overstudied Here's my take on it https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/philadelphia-2023
Happy New Year 2023