As discussed in the introductory essay in this series, standard doctrine surrounding vaccines – pertaining to clinical trials, licensing, marketing, and vaccination schedules – is largely a pseudoscientific façade, constructed on a shaky foundation of falsehoods. In this series, we examine each of the five Big Lies propping up vaccinology, plus two “Honorable Mentions.”
The Five Big Lies of Vaccinology
Big Lie #1: Equating Antibody Production with Immunity to Disease
Big Lie #2: Using Fake Placebos
Big Lie #3: Insisting My Immunity is Dependent on Your Vaccination
Big Lie #4: Declaring Multiple Simultaneous Injections to be Safe
Big Lie #5: Declaring Vaccines Fundamentally “Safe and Effective” as a Class
Honorable Mention 1: Declaring mRNA Gene Therapies to be Vaccines
Honorable Mention 2: Allowing Criminal Corporations to Conduct their own Clinical Studies
Big Lie #1: Equating Antibody Production with Immunity to Disease
Equating antibody production with immunity to disease is one of the foundational lies of vaccinology. Vaccine manufacturers promote this false equivalence in their clinical trials and in the promotion of their products, both to regulators and to the public.
For example, following President Trump’s public statement on September 1, 2025 that the manufacturers of the newest Covid-19 injections must reveal their data on the effectiveness of their shots to the public, Pfizer put out a press release on September 8. Pfizer’s top-line claim about their latest Covid-19 shot read:
- Phase 3 clinical trial cohort of adults 65+ and 18-64 with at least one underlying risk condition shows at least a 4-fold increase in LP.8.1-neutralizing antibody titers after receiving the LP.8.1-adapted COVID-19 vaccine 2025-2026 Formula.
This might sound impressive. After all, it is Pfizer’s self-chosen headliner. It is promoted as confirmation that the shot “works,” and placed on the top line of their press release.
What it actually says is that the shots caused the recipients to produce about 4 times as much of a particular antibody as before. That’s it.
It does not, as Pfizer claims, “reinforce pre-clinical data that supported the recent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the LP.8.1-adapted Covid-19 vaccine, which demonstrated improved [sic] immune responses against multiple circulating SARS-CoV-2 sublineages.”
It’s just hype.
It’s like a greedy, overzealous sports agent declaring his 18-year-old pitching prospect to be a perennial Major League All-Star, simply because his young player can chuck the ball at 98 miles per hour.
The kid may have a strong arm. But if he can’t throw a strike, he’s useless.
Antibody production, robust or not, is no guarantee of actual, real-world immunity. Not at all. The assertion that if a vaccine invokes a strong antibody response, it will therefore protect you from catching, spreading, or getting sick from an illness is a faulty inference based on false premises.
There are two key reasons why equating antibody production to immunity from disease is a lie:
- Immune system function involves much more than antibody response.
- The antibody measured in clinical trials may be irrelevant and/or obsolete to the disease in question.
Immune System Function Involves Much More Than Antibody Response
The first false premise is that antibody production is effectively the sum total of immune system function. The corollary – also false – is that if you can demonstrate antibody production from a vaccine, you have demonstrated it provides immunity from disease. This is a deliberate mischaracterization of the immune system.
This false means of measuring so-called “immunogenicity” has been adopted throughout the vaccine industry because it provides a predictable and measurable surrogate for effective immune function. However, this surrogate is both inadequate and misleading.
The human immune system is highly complex, beyond the understanding of humanity as a whole, much less the likes of Anthony Fauci, Albert Bourla, or any other vaccine zealot you care to name. Antibodies are just one of the elements of the immune response to infection. An important one, but only one.
Textbooks commonly describe two main branches of the immune system: the branch that focuses on “humoral” (antibody-mediated) immunity, and the branch focusing on “cellular” (cell-mediated) immunity. It is often stated that humoral immunity focuses on infectious diseases, whereas cellular immunity focuses on eliminating cancers.
The truth, however, is that these two branches are closely interconnected in complex ways, and that cellular (or if you like, non-antibody mediated) immunity is also a vital part of the response to infectious disease. It is through cellular immunity that the immune system recognizes virally infected cells in the body and destroys these. With viral illnesses in particular, destroying infected cells – which function as virus factories – is absolutely central to immunity from the disease.
Measurement of one or two antibodies over the course of a few weeks or months during a clinical trial of a vaccine says essentially nothing about the effectiveness of the total immune response that the vaccine in question may produce.
Remember that, contrary to the repeated claims of Pfizer, Fauci, Rochelle Walensky, the legacy media, and Joe “winter of severe illness and death” Biden himself, the original Pfizer Covid shots did not prevent recipients from catching or spreading the virus. Those shots did produce a vigorous antibody response, but they did not keep us from getting sick. Not even close.
(Interestingly, in their recent Phase 3 study for their proposed mRNA-based influenza shot, Pfizer made a small nod to cellular immunity. However, the surrogate they chose to measure in a small group of patients, namely the amount of Interferon-gamma produced by T cells, is oversimplified and misleading – just like their antibody measurements.)
The Measured Antibodies May Be Irrelevant and/or Obsolete for the Actual Disease
The second false premise involved in equating antibody production to immunity from disease is assuming that the antibody being measured to demonstrate “immunogenicity” is the correct one to fight the actual, real-world disease. It doesn’t matter how much antibody is produced if it’s the wrong antibody. (Again, if a pitcher can’t throw a strike, it doesn’t matter how hard he can throw.)
As we have seen, antibodies alone are not enough to provide immunity from disease. But even if they were, the antibody or antibodies that that vaccine stimulates production of in your body have to match well with the intended part of the virus – the antigen – to have a beneficial effect.
This frequently doesn’t happen for at least two reasons: because vaccine development methods are inexact to say the least, and because the antigens in the viruses themselves constantly evolve and change.
This huge problem is especially true – and easy to understand – when one considers respiratory viruses. Why do we “need” a new flu shot every year? Why on Earth have the “fully vaccinated” received up to seven or eight Covid-19 shots in less than five years?
If a virus mutates rapidly enough while the vaccine targeted against it is in development, the vaccine-induced antibodies, which are unavoidably designed for the “old” version of the virus, won’t recognize the new, mutated version of the antigen to which they are supposed to attach. In other words, they won’t “stick,” and they cannot do their intended job.
Small, simple RNA-based respiratory viruses, like the one that causes Covid, influenza, and most common colds, mutate rapidly and constantly. When we hear about the latest “variant” of Covid, this refers to the most recent product of this continual evolutionary process.
When it comes to simple, rapidly mutating viruses like SARS-CoV-2 or influenza, vaccine developers are like a would-be fashionista who only shops at Filene’s Basement. They are forever caught in a futile chase to keep up-to-date, although they only have access to last season’s designs.
However, if manufacturers like Pfizer can market their products effectively enough, this fatal flaw becomes a feature, not a bug. Provided Pfizer can keep people convinced they need repeated boosters, seasonal vaccines represent an unbeatable business model – public health by subscription.
Regulators and Patients Beware
The focus on bogus surrogate measures of health instead of actual, meaningful clinical benefit is a cornerstone of Big Pharma’s approach to getting drugs licensed and selling them to the public. With vaccines, it is much easier to show the presence of some pre-determined marker of effectiveness like “antibody production” than to demonstrate that the shot will actually keep you from getting sick or save your life.
Antibody production is not immunity to disease. The promotion of this false equivalency represents the first Big Lie of vaccinology. Given its long history of misuse within the industry, it should be rejected by regulators and patients alike as legitimate evidence of vaccine efficacy in the future.
Join the conversation:
Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.
