In a recent video published by the "Vaccine Education Center" at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) where he works, Offit tries to make the case that antibody blood tests, which measure antibody levels as an indicator of immunity against disease, aren't medically useful. If this is the case, then everything that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) rely upon to create vaccine policy is also not medically useful, or accurate.
Using antibody blood tests to try to measure a protective immune response, in Offit's own words, is "not as easily done as you would think." And yet, the presence of antibodies in the blood has long been what government officials claim is, in fact, a valid indicator that a person is immune to disease – so which is it?
The answer is neither and both, depending upon what's trying to be accomplished. In Offit's case, the goal is to keep as many parents as possible on the vaccine train, which will ensure that vaccine manufacturers like himself continue to rake in massive profits. At the same time, Offit's very argument is invalidated by his own admissions towards this end, as he clearly states in the video that antibody titer does not necessarily correlate with immunity. Similarly, a lack of antibodies is not necessarily an indicator of a lack of immunity.
Using a measles outbreak that occurred during the late 1980s and early 1990s to try to make his point, Offit states in the video that, when looking back on this particular outbreak, it was discovered that "there were many people who had been vaccinated, but who didn't have antibodies against measles who were still protected." In other words, antibody tests aren't, in fact, a valid indicator of immunity, even though this is what the government uses as "evidence" that vaccines somehow work.
"The reason they were still protected is they had something called memory cells," Offit further explains.
"Memory immunological cells, like B- and T-cells, which then, when they were exposed to the virus, became activated, differentiated, made antibodies, which then protected them. So even though they didn’t have circulating antibodies in their bloodstream, they still have these memory cells in their immune system that could then respond when they were exposed. So, if you looked at those people and saw they didn't have antibodies, you would have falsely concluded they weren’t protected when they were."
For more news about the government's vaccine fraud, be sure to check out Vaccines.news.
Offit goes on in the video to admit that sometimes you can have antibodies in your bloodstream "and not be protected" – again, his own words. As it turns out, it appears to be some combination of antibody levels, cell-mediated immunity, and mucosal immunity that provides true protection against disease, depending on the disease, meaning vaccine science as it's currently being propagated by public health officials is wholly inaccurate and unreliable.
It remains unclear whether or not Offit truly realizes what he's confessed to, here, seeing as how the video in question is still available for viewing on the CHOP website. Or perhaps Offit is too dense to even realize what he's now publicly admitted, which only goes to show how deluded these vaccine-pushers are when it comes to their methods of persuasion.
Hilariously, Offit's conclusion in the video isn't that the entirety of vaccine science needs to be reevaluated due to these inherent flaws. Instead, he says that, because "titers are difficult," and "not a perfect indicator" of immunity, that "the best way of knowing that you're protected is to get the vaccines that are recommended at the time they are recommended."
In other words, nothing the vaccine lobby has been saying for decades makes an ounce of sense, and the whole thing is obviously a fraud. But keep on getting your vaccines, people, because that's the only way to keep yourself safe and healthy! One wonders: Who is actually buying this tripe anymore and subjecting their family to its illogical provisions?
"Far from providing parents with a convincing argument for why they should strictly comply with the CDC's childhood vaccine schedule, what Paul Offit and the CHOP have provided us with in this video is a strong argument for why the very process by which vaccines obtain licensure by the FDA is scientifically invalid," writes Jeremy R. Hammond, a contributing writer for Children's Health Defense (CHD).
"Indeed, the conclusion seems inescapable that the FDA's use of antibody titers as a surrogate measure of immunity for the purposes of vaccine licensure amounts to scientific fraud."
Be sure to read Hammond's full, in-depth analysis of Offit's video at Children's Health Defense.
Sources for this article include: