Vaccine Antibody Theory Is False

New Failed Vax Study Proves Vaccine Antibody Theory Is False


Vaccination theory is false, never proven but not questioned. A failed new vaccine against MRSA, V710, demonstrates this fact clearly. Increasing antibody titers, the standard measure of a vaccine’s efficacy, is not the same as natural immunity.
Death in an Eye
Photo by Doug Wheller
A study has clearly documented that the basic theory behind vaccinations—that immunity is provided by the development of antibodies—is wrong. Sadly, it was dead wrong, as people died for the presumption.
The vaccine, V710, is for a disease that was caused by modern medicine: MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, also referred to as the flesh-eating bacteria disease. So, they tried to create a vaccine to fix a problem that the system itself created.
The V710 vaccine was expected to become a blockbuster, as it was intended for use before surgeries and on people entering hospitals to prevent MRSA. What a system: Create a disease and then try to find a treatment for the disease you’ve created and reap giant profits from it!
The study’s failure, though, reveals something highly significant about the entire vaccine industry. It’s based on a theory that clearly does not stand up to inspection. If the development of antibodies were the key to “strengthening the immune system”, as is routinely declared by doctors and health agencies, then V710′s failure would not have been possible.
By all accounts, the vaccine resulted in a “robust immunologic response”, which means that lots of antibodies were created. But when given to people in advance of cardiothoracic surgery, moreinfections happened, and more people died of multiple organ failure.

The Study

The study was funded by Merck. The lead researcher, Dr. Fowler, was the chair of Merck’s V710 Adivsory Committee. He also has received grants and research support from Merck, Cerexa, Pfizer, Novartis, Advanced Liquid Logics, and MedImmune, plus has been a paid consultant to Astellas, Cubist, Cerexa, Merck, Pfizer, NovaDigm, Novartis, The Medicines Company, Biosynexus, MedImmune, Galderman, and Inimex, and has received honoraria from Astellas, Cubist, Merck, Pfizer, Theravance, and Novartis.
We probably shouldn’t be too surprised that Fowler has no idea why the results were so dismal in light of the good antibody responses, saying, according to Medscape:
I can’t think of a biologically plausible reason for it.
The study included 3,958 patients who were given the active V710 vaccine and 3,967 who received a saline placebo. 201 people (5.08%) given the vaccine died, compared to 177 (4.46%) who received the placebo. That was 13.9% more deaths in people who were vaccinated.
NOTE: The results were translated into person-years, a construct that strikes me as meaningless in this context. The issue is how many people undergoing a single instance of specific types of surgery succumbed, not how it looks in terms of person-years.
Of the vaccinated patients, 22 got MRSA and 7 of those died. Of the unvaccinated control group, 27 got MRSA and 2 of them died.
Vance Fowler Jr., MD, MPH, study leader and professor of medicine at Duke University, stated:
V710 was not efficacious in preventing S. aureus bacteremia and/or deep sternal wound infection, despite eliciting a robust antibody response. Overall mortality rates were not significantly different for vaccine and placebo recipients.
13.9% more people who got the V710 vaccine died. That was 24 more deaths. Considering the size of the market that was being addressed, had the vaccine made it to market, that would have rapidly translated into thousands of extra deaths directly caused by the vaccine. Overall mortality rates weren’t significant?
Reported here are the MRSA rates only, but Medscape also reports that those who got the V710 vaccine and developed S. aureus were 5 times more likely to die than those in the placebo group.

Implications on Vaccine Theory

What we need to take home from all of this is that the basic theory behind vaccinations isn’t based on reality. It’s based on assumptions. It assumes that triggering the immune system unnaturally to create antibodies is equivalent to developing them from a natural disease process. The fact is that it’s not. It’s a method of circumventing nature, not duplicating it.
Titers Are Not Immunity
The reality is that no consideration has been given to what happens to the immune system as a whole after vaccination. The only thing of interest has been getting the titers up as high as possible, that is, making the concentration of antibodies as high as they can. That’s used as the definition of a vaccine’s success. It’s used in spite of the fact that titers resulting from vaccines are often far higher than titers that result from natural infections. Yet, natural immunity is usually 100% and lifelong, while vaccine-induced immunity is virtually never anywhere close to 100%, nor does it last more than a few years.
There’s obviously a lot more involved in disease immunity than how high the titers can be driven. But you’d never know that. The only thing that’s considered is whether an arbitrary titer is reached, not the overall effect of a vaccine.
Antibodies Are Just Part of the Immune System
In the rush to vaccinate, no one considers the effects on the body as a whole, or even on the rest of the immune system. Resistance to disease is far more than antibodies.
The immune system is divided into two parts: humoral and cell-mediated. The humoral immune system is the one that vaccines address. It produces antibodies to infectious agents. When overactivated, it can also create antibodies to the self, resulting in autoimmune disorders, such as rheumatoid arthritis and lupus erythematosus. As is clearly shown by the V710 fiasco, vaccines are not able to duplicate what the body does naturally in fighting an infectious agent—and no one knows exactly what’s wrong or has the slightest idea of how to duplicate nature.
The cell-mediated part of the immune system is managed by T-lymphocytes, the T-cells that HIV patients focus on. The T-cells mediate, that is, they manage and control macrophages, natural killer (NK) cells, and antigen-specific cytotoxic lymphocytes and cytokines in response to antigens. The cell-mediated portion of the immune system is the part that you cannot do without. This is the standing part that’s ready to respond to virtually any sort of infectious attack or cancer. Yet, vaccine makers pay little attention to it when addressing infectious diseases.
In once respect, it’s probably a good thing that cell-mediated immunity is ignored. At least, there’s little attempt to manipulate it, although—Alas! it’s becoming the focus of some of the newer vaccines that aim at targets other than infectious diseases. However, no consideration is given to whether vaccinations may be harming it, just as virtually all harms done by vaccines are handled by pretending they don’t exist.
The fact is that measuring titers is clearly not an adequate way to determine immune system health or strength. The claim that vaccines “strengthen the immune system” is just that—a claim. It has no basis in fact. There is no reason to believe, and every reason to disbelieve, that forcing the increase of titers is equivalent to immunity from disease. It’s equally clear that the injection of toxic materials along with antigens is a dangerous practice. We surely don’t need to prove that! Nonetheless, the vaccine industry and its minions are injecting heavy metals, deadly chemicals, and substances like squalene that are virtually guaranteed to cause system toxicity and autoimmune disorders.
Perhaps one good thing can come of the failed V710 MRSA vaccine. Perhaps sane heads will pop up and say:
Stop this madness. 
Let’s look at what we’re doing. 
Let’s ask why more than half our children are systemically sick and will never enjoy good health.
Surely a bit of temporary easing of risk against infectious disease is not worth the results that we can see all around us!
Surely we can stop this madness.