Source: Lew Rockwell | VIEW ORIGINAL POST ==>
Figure 1 of this paper has the all important graph in 1h. I will show you how devastating that plot is.
Executive summary
Any competent virologist will tell you that if you want to reduce the risk of infection of a respiratory virus, increasing the level of mucosal IgA antibodies is required. And you want to increase the receptor binding domain (RBD) antibodies especially because these antibodies prevent the virus from attaching to the entry point receptors (ACE2) on your cells.
So any vaccine that reduces your risk of infection has to increase the secretory IgA antibodies that target the RBD on the virus.
Well you’ll never guess what happens to these critical “first line of defense” antibodies after you get vaccinated.
So I’ll tell you now: in everyone they drop, and in most people, they drop to unmeasurable levels.
That’s right. This paper clearly and unambiguously showed that the COVID “vaccines” make you more susceptible to getting COVID, not less. It’s a disaster. And it was as clear as night vs. day 2.5 years ago when this paper came out. If anyone was paying attention that is.
Of course, the authors didn’t notice. Nothing in the abstract about this finding.
Nobody in the medical community noticed.
Nobody in the mainstream media or the medical media noticed it either.
And, AFAIK, nobody in the anti-vaccine community noticed as well.
As far as I know, I’m the first one to point this out.
This paper should have ENDED the COVID vaccine program 2.5 years ago.
It should have led to the CDC warning people that they lied to people about reducing the risk of infection. They should have warned the public that getting the COVID vaccine will increase your risk of getting COVID.
It’s all in one chart. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure it out.
I’ll show you the chart and explain what it means.
The papers
Paper in Nature published 25 April 2022: Systemic and mucosal IgA responses are variably induced in response to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination and are associated with protection against subsequent infection
There is also a newer paper published two years later (23 April 2024): Serum and Salivary IgG and IgA Response After COVID-19 Messenger RNA Vaccination. This isn’t nearly as good as the previous paper (it doesn’t look at absolute levels, it doesn’t look at RBD antibodies which are key), but it shows very clearly that Pfizer didn’t move the relative IgA levels at all.
The chart
Compare baseline to post dose 2. See how the dots are now mostly below the dashed line? The dashed line means “immeasurable.” So what little protection you had was wiped out by the COVID shots. How is that a success story? It isn’t. It’s a massive failure. And even after this paper appeared, nobody noticed.
What the chart means
The chart is from Fig 1h of the paper. The y-axis 100% mark is set based on the average RBD IgA levels of people who were naturally infected.
The two key items to look at are the Baseline and the 2-4 weeks post-dose 2.
For baseline, people had some immunity from prior infections from other viruses. But by 4 weeks post dose 2, nearly every is at or below the dashed line which is “too low to measure.” The solid black bar is the median line. So vaccinated people did go up for a few weeks after the first dose, but by 2 weeks post dose 2, it’s all gone and you are worse off than if you had not taken the vaccine at all.
The bottom line is this:
- Those who got the vaccine simply aren’t protected at all shortly after their second dose. All protection they had acquired from other viruses is stripped away by the vaccine. The CDC simply forgot to tell you that.
- Those who got the virus were at the 100% mark. Those who got the vaccine were at basically the zero mark. So you’re best protected by getting the virus, you’re much less protected by doing nothing, and your protection goes away if you get the shot. This paper shows they lied to you about it reducing your risk of infection.
Remarkably, it was never expressly mentioned by the authors that the RBD IgA was uniformly worse for the participants (in aggregate since they didn’t show each case individually) vs. their pre-vaccine level. This is a key result, yet it is nowhere to be found in the paper.
This means:
- The COVID phase 3 trials were fraudulent. If you decimate the saliva RBD IgA response, you cannot get 95% efficacy in preventing infection. You get 0% efficacy. There is no known mechanism of action to explain the 95% reduction in infection risk claimed in the trials.
- The CDC was lying to you about the vaccine reducing the risk of infection. It did the opposite.
- The scientific community is blind to this. Nobody said anything.
- The media isn’t doing its job.
In summary, people did have some amount of immunity to catching the virus before they got the shots, but after getting the shots, most everyone fell under the dashed line meaning “immeasurable” levels of the key RBD IgA antibodies. What a disaster. And yet, there it is, right in the peer-reviewed literature in plain sight.
