I came across this article this morning, and my instantaneous thought was "He HAS to communicate the way he is DIRECTED to, because he has been bought and paid for... this isn't his full opinion."
"Why a positive Covid-19 antibody test doesn't mean much of anything yet" - even the title... I know he doesn't get to title these things, and I bet he is a little dismayed by the title he is stuck with, but the title is a little far-fetched when it comes to antibodies. Once again, as a natural healthcare doc, with a wife with a Lymes disease diagnosis, I have been researching antibodies, their presence, their testing, and their responsiveness for years.
One advantage I have as a natural doc, is that I don't have any drug therapy in my satchel which leaves me with a deep desire to understand the natural. I don't have any hopeful short-cuts, so I have been left with a desire, and dare I say an ability, to understand how to influence a positive natural response, and to monitor and evaluate that response. Medical docs living in the medical world tend to be less concerned with the natural. Not meant to be a sweeping generalization addressing all medical docs, but on average.
So with that lens to look through, I understand that doctor Gupta would automatically have a different opinion on immunity than I would, but let me tear into this article, and help you read between the lines.
That's the holy grail, of course — the ticket to freely visiting your parents, friends and loved ones again, to going back to work in the office again — basically, to getting your life back. Not so fast. In today's reality, testing positive for antibodies to Covid-19 means nothing of the sort. In fact, it may not mean much at all — at least right now.
When we see this ending comment, "In fact, it may not mean much at all - at least not right now", the article makes a huge claim, which is that antibody tests for covid-19 are relatively useless, but then backs up by saying "RIGHT NOW".
And the article then proceeds to fail to back up the statement, but rather gives a general statement without going anywhere - "There are still too many unknowns, both about the accuracy of the antibody tests that are available and about the nature of the virus itself." This lack of detail is the best cover-up for a pre-established narrative. The accuracy of antibody tests is the accuracy of antibody tests. 5% false positive, 15% false negative... this is a pretty standard level of accuracy for any test. Thus the value isn't in testing one person and telling that person "Yay! You are immune". But it is in testing 10,000 people, running the statistical regression, and then saying "Yay! We are more immune" or saying "Darn... we aren't that immune".
Here the article states a FACT that is disguised in the murk of the title of the article, as well as the focus of the article, but right here in this statement is the fact that you need to understand.
Even if you've never had any symptoms of Covid-19, the presence of antibodies in your blood would show your body has encountered the virus.
If you are positive, then you have encountered the virus. Not, you might have encountered seven different versions of SARS-CoV... no, you have encountered SARS-CoV-2... period. If you are a false positive, then you did not, but it says you did, and you just won't know. But if you are a false negative (much more likely), then you do have them, but won't know from this test. Guess what... a false negative only serves the narrative of "it has not spread that much" and "it is more deadly". My point is that a false negative only maintains the reason for fear and for staying home... so guess what, who cares?? No, seriously. To build on the idea that "these tests aren't reliable" because of a false negative, is throwing mud into a mudpit. It actually doesn't matter, because the only thing that anybody is going to hang their hat on, is a positive.
Next, we find more of the garbage trying to confuse with garbage in the following statement -
In addition, both antigen and rt-PCR tests can only give a "snapshot" of your status at that specific point in time. If you were exposed to Covid-19 the next day, you could easily become sick and not know it.
While the PCR test is most definitely a snapshot test of "you have it" or "you don't have it". An antigen based antibody test is and will always be a "you were exposed" test. And that means that you have an extremely high chance of having antibodies, at some level for some amount of time, and in almost all instances of viral interaction... longer than 6 months worth of protection. And in most cases, years and years. I heard somebody say "well you don't get immunity to a cold", to which I thought... "ugh, here we go again". No, you don't get immune to getting a cold, because there are at least 200 cold viruses circulating the globe at any one point in time, and potentially thousands of variants over several years. You can gain immunity to so many of those viruses, which is why people you know will say "I haven't gotten sick, not even a cold, in years... I don't know how I caught this one". Good job person, you are doing a wonderful job of building your immune system through interaction with viruses, and you are becoming more and more of a titanium immune system individual along the way. And, all you had to do to catch this one was connect with a completely unique virus, one that you have not fought it, or one of its cousins before. But what about people who are completely asymptomatic from SARS-CoV-2? They likely fought a cousin before. Something similar, with a similar protein shell, that their immune system mapped, and closely related this virus to that, and had a fabulous time kicking its butt before it ever got a grip on that person.
That... or it was a small enough dose... kind of like wiping a surface, then wiping your mouth vs. having an infected person cough in your face. We might call that an inoculating dose... just enough to get you an immune response. With a strong immune system, that kind of dose would be just enough to create antibodies and rid yourself of it. FYI - doctors like Fauci do not make it their life work to figure out how to have a stronger immune system. They simply look at viruses and try to find ways to create artificial immunity. An entirely different study than that which so many natural doctors have spent their life work with.
So to drive home the antibody point, imagine you are exposed to a rhinovirus, SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 on the same day. The cold virus develops some antibodies, but your body fights this infection off quickly, and without much effort. Where meanwhile, it has to mount a significant fight against these other viruses.
Your sensitivity to these viruses will change over time based upon factors that are not necessarily known or fully understood. This is why in the artificial immunity world, booster shots can become necessary in order to retain immunity. But vaccination doesn't guarantee immunity, just like infection doesn't. Infection does however give immunity in some period of time, where vaccine might not if the dose wasn't enough to develop full antibodies. Testing immune titers of everybody whom you hope to have an understanding of is the only way to be sure.
You can see, in the chart below, the hypothetical suggests you lose immunity to the cold virus faster than Covid-19 which is faster than SARS. But... we really don't know. I just know that to suggest NO immunity, is ludicrous, and it actually isn't even being suggested in this article, just ever so slightly hinted at. Serving the CNN narrative.
This statement has no place in the article, as the answer is "yes, all approved antibody tests have this ability"
The tests also need to be able to differentiate between past infections from SARS-CoV-2 and the other known set of six human coronaviruses, four of which cause the common cold and circulate widely.
And of course, any test that will be presented to peer-review for a published study will absolutely be put under the microscope for validation of this statement, and will be public knowledge in the write up of any such article, but would first concern anybody hoping to publish their results, and they would choose an approved test and approved methodology. Duh. Yes, I used the word duh, because I find this article so ridiculous.
"There are plenty of antibody tests floating around that haven't been reviewed or validated by the US Food and Drug Administration. It's been a big problem," Gupta said.
Again, I feel like Dr. Gupta generally has some quality information out there, and in this case he has less to do with being forced to fit the narrative, than what the article is attempting to portray. Shoddy news designed to be more of a politically fulfilling article, than to actually report any truth on what we will find from antibody testing. Sad, when the lives being lost from the virus deserve more, and when the lives being lost from the lockdown also deserve more.
My last point to make...
While studies of blood samples taken from people who have recovered from Covid-19 do show an immune response to the virus, some have "very low levels of neutralizing antibodies in their blood," WHO said.
Low levels doesn't mean low immunity. Antibodies rise and fall as they need to, and the low levels of antibodies post-infection suggest that they are looking at a fully recovered individual who is ready to produce more in a moment. The cascade of immunity doesn't mean you are walking around with 1 trillion antibodies to each of measles, mumps, rubella, pertussis, diptheria... at all times. In an infectious event, those numbers rise immediately. Otherwise we would, by definition, be more and more swollen with fluid and cells, the stronger our immune systems became. Now just picture that for a moment, and please laugh at the commentary with me.
But think about the narrative. The article finally supports the WHO at the end of it and does so in a very gentle manner. But nonetheless, I feel like I should trust the knowledge of the WHO by reading this article. It lends itself to supporting the idea that we aren't safe yet... having antibodies doesn't make you safe... well, I will call that an outright lie, and so far I have been found t