Mainstream science has determined that Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) antibodies are “seasonal,” meaning people who get vaccinated will have to get jabbed again and again in order to maintain lasting “immunity.”
Since COVID-19 antibodies are said to “degrade” every 4-6 months, the apparent expectation is that members of the public will agree to get vaccinated annually, or possibly even twice a year, in order to stay “protected” against the novel virus.
Even if people were to get jabbed only once a year at the start of every co-called “COVID season,” this would help to keep them “safe” against infection, according to Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).
Within the next six months, Fauci says, COVID-19 vaccines will be ready for mass distribution, and people should line up to get them in order to stay “protected” against the virus.
Even though the COVID-19 reportedly continued to spread during this past summer, suggesting that it is not “seasonal,” Fauci and other “experts” are busy laying the groundwork for a narrative that claims the virus will come back with a vengeance every time it gets cold, just like seasonal influenza.
Regular exposure to coronavirus helps keep antibody levels high
Research conducted by Imperial College London (ICL) found that COVID-19 antibody prevalence within the population supposedly dropped from about 6 percent in June to just 4.4 percent in September. This is the basis behind the seasonality narrative.
The death of a Dutch woman who allegedly developed COVID-19 twice before passing away is also being touted as evidence that people will need to be regularly vaccinated on a seasonal schedule in order to keep the novel virus at bay.
The ICL analysis, which included 365,000 randomly selected adults, found that those exposed to COVID-19 develop antibodies only for a period of time. Eventually, those antibodies disappear, in other words.
Meanwhile, health care workers repeatedly exposed to COVID-19 were found to have lasting antibody levels, suggesting that routine exposure to the virus is actually a good thing.
Based on this observation, it would seem as though simply letting the virus run its course, as opposed to continually vaccinating everybody for it, is an optimal way to ensure that the public maintains lasting immunity.
“We can see the antibodies and we can see them declining and we know that antibodies on their own are quite protective,” says Wendy Barclay, head of the Department of Infectious Disease at ICL.
“On the balance of evidence I would say, with what we know for other coronaviruses, it would look as if immunity declines away at the same rate as antibodies decline away, and that this is an indication of waning immunity at the population level.”
One glaring problem with the study is that it relied on flawed PCR testing to determine who was allegedly exposed to COVID-19.
Instead of explaining that PCR tests are inherently flawed and “can find almost anything in anybody,” according to its now-deceased inventor, the study falsely claims that the PCR test is some kind of “gold standard” for testing.
“These ‘scientists’ keep conflating the number of antibodies with immunity,” explains one Zero Hedge commenter about another prominent error in the research.
“Antibodies can disappear completely, but the almighty white blood cells (granulocytes, monocytes, and lymphocytes) remember the threat they’ve already dealt with and they know how to fight it.”
Sources for this article include: