Why the Covid-19 "vaccines" don't prevent infection
We already know that the "vaccines" don't stop the "vaccinated" from getting (and transmitting) the virus. But do you know why?
Only 1 category of antibodies induced by the “vaccines”
In the Bhakdi and Burkhardt Autopsy Findings Report I mentioned in some of my previous posts, it states, on Page 2:
“Vaccines that are injected into the muscle – i.e., the interior of the body – will only induce IgG and circulating IgA, not secretory IgA. Such antibodies cannot and will not effectively protect the mucous membranes from infection by SARS-CoV-2. Thus, the currently observed ‘breakthrough infections’ among vaccinated individuals merely confirm the fundamental design flaws of the vaccines. Measurements of antibodies in the blood can never yield any information on the true status of immunity against infection of the respiratory tract.”
As the report also explains, there are two types of antibodies our bodies produce.
But, as the above quote states, the “vaccines” only trigger one class of antibodies: the IgG and circulating IgA, which occur in our bloodstream.
The category that doesn’t get triggered by the “vaccines” is the secretory IgA, which occurs in our mucus membranes.
And since Covid-19 is a respiratory virus, it typically enters our bodies through our noses and/or mouths.
See the problem?
It’s the antibodies in our mucus membranes, the secretory IgA antibodies, that destroy the invading virus in our noses or mouths.
But if the vaccines don’t produces these mucosal antibodies, then the viral invader is able to begin infecting our cells.
Thus, this explains how people who are vaccinated are still able to get infected with Covid-19. Case closed!
Finally, Nausicaa writes a short article!
Not so fast.
I wouldn’t want someone out there to say something like, “Pssh, a highly qualified doctor says that but so? He’s biased. You’re biased. If you want me to believe you, I need more proof. SCIENCE!”
Well, the following is just for you. :)
An expert corroborating what Dr. Bhakdi says
From this article, titled “We've never made a successful vaccine for a coronavirus before. This is why it's so difficult” published on April 17, 2020, let me provide a few quotes.
By the way, the information comes from an Australian expert in vaccine development who is also a professor at the University of Queensland, named Ian Frazer.
First quote:
“There are several reasons why our upper respiratory tract is a hard area to target a vaccine.
‘It's a separate immune system, if you like, which isn't easily accessible by vaccine technology,’ Professor Frazer told the Health Report.
Despite your upper respiratory tract feeling very much like it's inside your body, it's effectively considered an external surface for the purposes of immunisation. ‘It's a bit like trying to get a vaccine to kill a virus on the surface of your skin.’”
Another quote:
“This is partly because only the outer layer of cells (the epthelial [sic] cells) get infected, which, compared to a severe infection of internal organs doesn't produce the same immune response, so is harder to target.”
So, different wording, but same concept.
The “vaccines” only induce an immune response that creates antibodies in the bloodstream.
But to prevent infection with Covid-19, you need to have antibodies in the area where the virus enters your body (the mucus membranes).
And the “vaccines” don’t cause your body to produce antibodies in that area.
A supposed debunking of Dr. Bhakdi’s “claim”
Understanding what he said:
Now, the Autopsy Report linked above is not the first time Dr. Bhakdi has talked about the fact that the “vaccines” can’t prevent infection since they don’t induce secretory IgA antibodies.
He also explains it in a short video clip, which this article claims to debunk.
Oddly enough, the above article does not provide a link to the video. I wonder why they would do that?
Luckily for you, I went to the Facebook page the article said it came from and proceeded to sit there and scroll and scroll until I got to the video clip, posted on June 10, 2021. Here it is.
In the clip, Dr. Bhakdi uses an analogy to explain why the “vaccines” don’t prevent infection. He says the antibodies induced by the “vaccines” are floating around in the room (symbolizing the bloodstream) while the virus is entering through the front door (nose/mouth/mucus membranes).
It’s like if you had all of the bouncers for a popular club patrolling inside of the club instead of at the entrance. They might be helpful once an invader is inside, but that’s the point: the invader would already have to be inside, meaning you’d be already be infected.
He then makes a comparison with these “vaccines” to the vaccines for the meningococci bacteria, which disseminates through the blood stream.
Here is a separate source indicating that he is, indeed, correct:
“When you get meningitis, bacteria that have invaded your bloodstream move across to infect your 'meninges' - the membranes that surround and protect your brain and spinal cord.” (Source)
What a surprise! It’s almost like he actually knows what he’s talking about.
Dr. Bhakdi goes on to say in the video clip:
“Now, this virus does not disseminate in the blood. It kills people because it’s in the lung and because the lung suffers.
Dr. Bhakdi did not explicitly state this, but I believe he means the virus does not initially disseminate through the blood.
Another way of saying this is that the virus will only begin disseminating in the bloodstream if you are at an advanced stage in the disease and haven’t already died from the damage it’s done to your lungs.
This is corroborated by this scientific article, which states:
“Although the COVID-19 pandemic has been ongoing now for several months, very little attention has been given to mucosal immunity in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Yet this virus primarily infects the mucosal surfaces of the respiratory tract (and possibly also the digestive tract) at least until advanced stages of the disease when viral RNA may become detectable in the circulation (1). The virus may also be acquired through the mouth, and at the conjunctival surface of the eye whence it drains into the nasal passages through the lacrimal duct. This means that its interactions with the immune system, during both inductive and effector phases, must first occur predominantly if not exclusively at the respiratory and oral mucosae. This has profound implications for the outcomes and should guide our approach to investigating and comprehending adaptive immunity in COVID-19 disease, including its diagnosis, treatment, and effective vaccine development.”
The most important sentence from the above quote is, “Yet this virus primarily infects the mucosal surfaces of the respiratory tract (and possibly also the digestive tract) at least until advanced stages of the disease when viral RNA may become detectable in the circulation.”
Can the virus, in the late stages of the disease, possibly begin spreading to other organs in the body?
It seems the answer is yes, especially when we consider that it is possible, albeit rare, for someone with the virus to get myocarditis, indicating the virus has affected the cells of the heart.
Debunking the “debunkers:”
Okay, now that we have taken the time to actually understand what Dr. Bhakdi said in the clip, let’s take a look at how the “fact-checkers” debunked him.
Note: The article is written by Orla Dwyer and she uses quotes from Dr. Elizabeth Brint, so these are the people I’m referring to when I say “fact-checkers” or “debunkers.”
First, Dwyer writes:
Covid-19 is a respiratory disease, meaning it impacts the lungs, nose, throat and other parts of the respiratory tract.
However, studies have shown the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus can impact other organs and parts of the body.
Okay, yes. We already covered that above. Once the disease has progressed into the late stages, the virus may move on from your now severely damaged lungs to other organs.
But when someone is initially infected with SARS-CoV-2 and for quite a while after infection, the virus stays localized in the lungs. This is what Dr. Bhakdi was referring to.
Also, I’d just like to point out that she doesn’t link to the “studies” she references in her article.
Next.
Dwyer also says this:
Although antibodies are found in the blood, this doesn’t mean they can’t fight infection in organs, such as the lungs or other parts of the respiratory tract.
Dr Elizabeth Brint said: “Antibodies travel through your blood and lymphatic system and they leave the blood system to fight infection at the site of infection.”
Wow.
“…this doesn’t mean they can’t fight infection in organs…”
They “leave the blood system to fight infection at the site of infection.”
Sounds to me like the antibodies only do that once someone is, oh I don’t know, already infected!
Which is precisely Dr. Bhakdi’s point: the antibodies induced by the “vaccines” don’t protect you when it comes to infection, i.e. they don’t prevent you from getting infected.
It’s also the exact point that Dwyer’s article claimed to have debunked:
By the way, doesn’t the way she wrote the title of her article seem to imply she’s debunking the very narrative she’s trying to push, or is that just me?
Moving right along…
Dwyer later writes:
“This is why it’s untrue to say the antibodies created as a result of Covid-19 vaccination would not protect against infection.
Dr. Brint added that ‘antibodies are really small’ and it’s ‘farcical’ to say they wouldn’t have access to organs such as the lungs.”
The above sentences are two completely different points, so I’ll respond to them one at a time.
It is not untrue to say the antibodies induced from the “vaccines” don’t prevent infection. I already explained why above but I’ll do so one more time.
Secretory IgA antibodies are needed to prevent infection but the “vaccines” don’t cause your body to produce those types of antibodies.
As for the second sentence, here is my understanding of what occurs when someone gets infected with this virus. I’ll use myself as an example. I’ll have to pretend I’m one of those dreadful “vaccinated” people but I’m willing to take one for the team (it’s a joke).
I breathe in and inhale the virus. Some of it stays in my nose and gets caught on the mucus membranes while some goes down into my lungs. The virus in my nose is able to infect the cells that make up my nose since there aren’t any secretory IgA antibodies in my mucus membranes to prevent it from doing so.
And, unless something is seriously wrong with me, there is no blood in my lungs. What I mean by that is, there is no blood in the space where air normally is located when I breathe in and out.
If you think of a lung like an inflatable swimming pool, then there is no blood inside the empty space the pool creates, only air, but there is blood in the pool itself, inside the capillaries, veins, and arteries.
I hope that makes sense.
Anyway, so what happens is the virus goes into my lungs and infects some of my lung cells.
Once some of those lung cells are already infected, my body will recognize what is happening and try to kill off both the invading virus and the now infected cells. And since I am “vaccinated” in this scenario, the antibodies (memory B cells) that were created through me getting the jabs might be called upon to start creating more of them in order to deal with the invaders.
Note: This could explain why people like Fauci are clinging to the idea that, while the “vaccines” don’t prevent infection or transmission, they supposedly help prevent the “vaccinated” from getting severe disease. Unfortunately, if your immune system was damaged due to the “vaccines,” it’s not going to be able to properly respond to the invading virus.
So, Dr. Bhakdi wasn’t saying something as “farcical” as the idea that the blood filled with antibodies can’t travel into the lungs and get to the cells. Of course it can. Our cells need oxygen to survive and our blood is what carries oxygen to our cells. And our blood gets that oxygen from our lungs.
The fact that these “debunkers” actually pretended like a medical doctor would claim that the above is not possible is pathetic.
If you’re going to misrepresent his points so you can pretend to “debunk” them, at least make it believable. You do know he’s a highly qualified microbiologist, right?
From what I understand, he was saying that the virus doesn’t initially infect us through our bloodstream so the category of antibodies induced by the “vaccines” (IgG and circulating IgA) don’t have a chance to kill off the invaders before they can infect some of our cells.
Seeing as how vaccines are supposed to make us immune, i.e. prevent us from getting infected, this explains why Dr. Bhakdi says:
“‘So how can anyone think that by vaccinating oneself one can be protected against infection of the lung? This is completely naïve,’ he said.”
In conclusion, the entire main point of the article:
“A video shared online claimed that because antibodies produced as a result of the vaccine are in the blood, they don’t protect against Covid infection. This is false.”
is wrong, wrong, wrong.
It greatly saddens me to think that I, a non-scientist and non-doctor, have to educate Orla Dwyer and Dr. Brint on what Dr. Bhakdi is really saying in a less than two minute clip and why he is correct.
The only thing “farcical” here is that they actually believed they could turn his argument into a straw man, sloppily “debunk” it, and no one would notice.
Oh and one more thing.
Professor Frazer knew what could happen with the jabs
Prof. Frazer also states in the first linked article above, that:
“And if a vaccine elicits an immune response that misses the target cells, the result could potentially be worse than if no vaccine was given.
‘One of the problems with corona vaccines in the past has been that when the immune response does cross over to where the virus-infected cells are it actually increases the pathology rather than reducing it," Professor Frazer said.
‘So that immunisation with SARS corona vaccine caused, in animals, inflammation in the lungs which wouldn't otherwise have been there if the vaccine hadn't been given.’”
I believe what he is referring to here is the phenomenon of Antibody Dependent Enhancement or as Dr. Malone referred to it in his appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast, vaccine enhanced infection.
So is Prof. Frazer just another expert spreading misinformation about the “vaccines” back in April of 2020 before they even came out?
Anyway, just another reason not to take the “vaccines.”