Having antibodies against COVID-19 provides children with little or no protection against infection, a study published in JAMA has found. Instead, the main determinant of protection is cellular immunity (i.e., T cells). Worse, against Omicron having antibodies actually increased the risk of infection, which may help to explain the negative vaccine effectiveness seen in a number of studies, where infection rates are higher in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.
The study assessed protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection in 79 children aged four to 11 years in England. The results are depicted below.
Notice that the two cellular-positive bars (pink and beige) are much lower than the two cellular-negative bars. This shows that being cellular positive entailed much lower infection risk than being cellular negative, regardless of whether the person had antibodies (i.e., was seropositive). Having antibodies here did result in a slightly reduced risk of infection, but not much.
The chart above shows the infections over time. The most striking aspect is the huge green column in January for Omicron, which is for the cellular-negative. Note also that the pink bar in January is slightly higher than the beige bar. The pink bar is antibody-positive whereas the beige bar is not (both are cellular positive), suggesting antibodies here were a disadvantage against Omicron.
This unexpected result is confirmed in the next chart (above) for Omicron, which shows the infection risk in the seropositive (pink) considerably higher than the seronegative (beige) among the cellular-positive. This means that while T cells were highly protective against Omicron, antibodies appear to have been anti-protective (or at least coincided with something anti-protective or higher risk). The authors note that the small size of the study means its findings need confirming in larger studies as many of its results are not statistically significant.
The authors remark that these results are important in light of results showing the Pfizer vaccine offering just 11% protection for children aged five to 11 against Omicron – far less than the protection indicated here by cellular immunity. The authors might also have noted studies which find negative vaccine efficacy, which fit with the anti-protection from antibodies observed here.
The authors note that an earlier study had found that around two thirds of children aged four to 11 who tested negative for antibodies nonetheless had cellular responses against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and such cellular responses were even present in four pre-pandemic samples. This is yet further indication that children gain little or nothing from Covid vaccination (both before and after infection). Yet they do bear the adverse effects, with one recent study finding up to one in every 500 children aged under five being hospitalised by the Pfizer jab.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Apart from a snake bite antidote injection I’m beginning to think that all childhood vaccinations should be scrutinised ! It’s a pity there’s not a doctor out there to delve into them ! Oh wait a minute – Dr Wakefield did & look what happened !
A link to 160 papers which support the autism link FYI
There are a few who are delving into this.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/220807175/160-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link
This might be of interest.
https://odysee.com/@IvorCummins:f/Amazing_Short_Docu_on_the_History_of_Vaccine_Effectiveness:c
Having learnt a bit about this lot, it seems that antibodies are short term structures created as part of a reaction to an infection, and should normally be thrown out as junk after recovery, with relevant T-cells being used for longer term records and future defence against the culprit, or it’s near-neighbours. Assuming that is the case, it’s no surprise that measuring antibody levels in various people leads to junk results. Lots of other places on this topic, but this is one of them – but note the date on it – about 2 years old: https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/what-is-the-role-of-t-cells-in-covid-19-infection-why-immunity-is-about-more-than-antibodies/
If the so-called vaccines actually created long term memory, it would not look so good for the Pharma balance sheet, a cynic might say. They’re probably glad that the viruses mutate themselves – after all, that assists the corporate cash flow.
T cells are first responders, and kill the body cells invaded by the virus to stop them being used for reproduction. Antibodies are secondary line of defence.
This T cell activity is at the site of infection, nasopharynx mucosal surface, and if successful greatly reduces viral load leaving antibodies as ‘mop up’ in the blood stream to kill the virus that have escaped.
If the T cell activity is not successful, the viral load may be so high that there are not enough antibodies to fight it.
This is fairly accurate — the antibodies are the ‘mopping up” agents, not the primary focus for infection control.
The entire so-called ‘protection’ provided by these shots has always and only been claimed to be based on the production of antibodies.
At the same time, the UKHSA vaxx surveillance report keeps stating that it is not known precisely what role antibodies play in protection, what level of antibodies, if any, actually provides protection. I believe various ‘scientists’, on the pfisser payroll and otherwise have also indicated that precisely what antibodies do in the grand scheme of things is not really known.
And still they inject this garbage into people, even after saying they have no idea whether the only active mechanism really does anything, even after a 1 1/2 years of seeing poke after poke fail, even as those poked suffer AEs and as time goes by they are at greater risk of infection than those unpoked.
I would also like to see similar studies for different age groups, were they ever even done? The poke seems to do a run-around of T-calls, causing the body to skip straight to antibody production – surely this applies to people of all ages? I believe it is worse in children in the sense their immune system is still developing and is being corrupted to work in an unnatural way, but I suspect the corruption of the immune system applies at all ages. And we still have no idea of possible long term damage to and corruption of the immune system.
And yet plenty of so-called scientists and medical professionals still back this garbage. Presumably they have always secretly believed that the sun revolves around the earth as well and that leeches will cure all ills.
There is a fair bit about it here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5826622/ If you look at figure 3 it presents a graphical summary of what seems to happen to us across age groups. The term T-cell is a bit of a wide spectrum of subsets. In the graph, the term Trm (Tissue resident memory) is used. A point worth noting is that a lot of work is done on mice, but it appears that we are a bit more complex than those – after all, we live a lot longer! Thus the capability of hanging on to long term memory of certain things is more useful to us. Note that the article I sent a link to is dated as 2018 – well before the panic ensued.
What an astonishing set of results from this study.
Anyone might think that there’s more to immunity than antibodies (Hello Mr. Patrick Vallance – and thanks for your BBC lecture to the nation during the early “pandemic”) and that the immune system must have some sort of reliable memory system.
Unless it’s been trashed by some form of genetically engineered therapy.
Vaccine induced ADE and or OAS anyone….
Just the start of the problems for the jabbed.
Sadly. Dr.Geert Vanden Bossche told us this would happen.
Indeed, without T-cells (and probably NK cells and whatever else), antibodies alone are useless or worse than useless. No wonder natural immunity is superior to the jabs.
Let’s get the terminology right. Infection = a pathogenic irgsnism such as a virus entering the body. Vaccination infects an individual with a dead, deactivated or similar harmless virus.
The immune response occurs ONLY if there is an infection, ie virus in the body, to fight it to stop it developing into disease (symptoms), although there may be some mild, short-lived noticeable symptoms.
Antibodies kill pathogens once inside the body but cannot stop them entering (infection) the body.
Mr Jones is traditionally unwilling to accept that. That’s why he’s publishing article after article about another study again detailing that umbrellas don’t prevent rain and that the coronation of Charles III did not revive his mother. Etc.
Some new ones: Turning the heating on in winter doesn’t cause a transition to summer. And switching the light on in the night doesn’t accelerate sunrise. All stuff socio-vaccinologists could publish an endless amount of studies about: In a recent experiment in Glasgow, fifteen randomly selected, quintuple-vaccinated SNP members simultaneously openend their umbrellas. But the effect on the rain was again uncertain. It stopped after a while but this also happened in areas not subject to the experiment. The science has again spoken!
It has been known for some time that protection against coronavirus (in general, ie ‘some colds’) is mediated by cellular and not antibody immunity.
Quite why we’ve had the barrage of ‘ANTIBODIES!’ over the past two years is beyond me.
It’s not just the quantity of antibodies either. Quality matters as well. The wrong kind can be useless or even worse than useless.
A brave attempt to educate “the system”. Thank you.