The stupendous vaccine-antibody contradiction that nobody talks about anymore

As my readers know, I’ve been taking two positions on the subject of viruses.

The first and real position is: they’re fictions.

But at the same time, for purposes of discussion ONLY, I’ll assume they’re real, meaning I’ll momentarily enter the fantasy bubble of conventional medical research, and show that within that fake bubble, there are piles of lies and internal contradictions.

That’s what I’m doing in this piece.

Here we go.

The official view of vaccines is: they produce antibody reactions against the “the virus in the vaccine.” This is the accepted outcome that proves the vaccine is working as it should.

Up until AIDS and HIV, it was generally assumed that if a person NATURALLY produced antibodies against a virus, it meant the person’s immune system was working properly: it had encountered and defeated the virus. Immunity had been achieved.

But then everything changed.

People who tested positive for HIV—meaning a blood test showed they were making antibodies against HIV—were told they were infected with a lethal virus. Infected, not immune.

In fact, during research for my 1988 book, AIDS INC., an FDA spokesperson told me that if a vaccine were developed for HIV, every person who got the shot would be given a letter to carry around with him:

The letter would essentially state that the vaccine recipient’s antibodies were the result of vaccination—and that was a good thing—a sign that he was immune—not a sign that he was infected with the lethal HIV.

In other words, it was suddenly the official position that THE SAME ANTIBODIES had two different and opposite meanings, depending on how they were acquired:

If they occurred naturally, as a consequence of contacting the virus in real life, that meant disease and potential death. If they were acquired from vaccination, that meant the person was immune and protected.

THE SAME ANTIBODIES.