© 2024 Blaze Media LLC. All rights reserved.
Horowitz: NIH study finds those with shots had fewer N antibodies even after COVID infection
Gilnature/Getty Images

Horowitz: NIH study finds those with shots had fewer N antibodies even after COVID infection

“The best vaccination is to get infected yourself. … It’s the most potent vaccination.” ~Dr. Anthony Fauci, 10/11/2004

It sure appears that the more we inject people with the mRNA gene therapy, the more the virus circulates and the more they get infected. All the data from the U.K., New Zealand, and our own Walgreens seems to indicate that the more you vax, the more you get infected. Just ask our very own vice president, who got infected just a few weeks after receiving her fourth jab, which is the supposed sweet spot of vaccine efficacy and antibody titer levels. Now, a new study by NIH researchers offers a possible glimpse into the mechanics of the leaky and illusory “immunity” of these novel shots.

In a preprint paper posted last week, the NIH researchers studied the N (nucleocapsid) antibody levels of those who participated in the Moderna clinical trial vs. the placebo group upon the unblinding of the participants. Their findings were earth-shattering.

“We analyzed data from 1,789 participants (1,298 placebo recipients and 491 vaccine recipients) with SARS-CoV-2 infection during the blinded phase (through March 2021). Among participants with PCR-confirmed Covid-19 illness, seroconversion to anti-N Abs at a median follow up of 53 days post diagnosis occurred in 21/52 (40%) of the mRNA-1273 vaccine recipients vs. 605/648 (93%) of the placebo recipients (p < 0.001).”

Kudos to Igor Chudov for finding this paper that clearly our government agencies are not excited to advertise. Overall, the study’s authors found, “For any given viral copy number, the odds of anti-N seropositivity were 13.67 times higher for the placebo arm than the vaccine arm.”

It’s truly hard to overstate the significance of this finding. These are the actual participants in the Moderna trial, and their levels were checked roughly seven weeks after being diagnosed with COVID, plus this was a study of the original strain of the virus when supposedly the vaccines were more effective. Yet just 40% of those with prior infection among the vaccinated group had anti-nucleocapsid antibodies, while 93% of the placebo group did. To be clear, this means that not only is the vaccine inferior to natural immunity, but it is so inferior that it might inhibit your acquisition of immunity to the nucleocapsid protein of the virus even if you wind up getting the virus, which you assuredly will because the vaccines don’t stop infection.

When you hear the proponents of the shots bragging about antibody titers, they are measuring the anti-spike protein (S) antibodies. The shots code your body to produce the most dangerous part of the virus, but on the other hand you don’t get the benefit of full immunity because your body is trained to recognize only the spike, not the main shell of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The implication of this study would be that the more you vaccinate, the more it erases your natural immunity, so not only do you still get the virus, but you will continue getting it because you can never achieve full immunity, as you might with natural infection without having been jabbed with a gene therapy that primes your body to respond inappropriately. It is an anti-herd immunity shot.

Last October, we were ridiculed for bringing this point to light based on a finding from the Public Health England vaccine surveillance report. The U.K. government researchers asserted (p. 23) that their serology tests were underestimating the number of people with prior infection due to "recent observations from UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) surveillance data that N antibody levels appear to be lower in individuals who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination." In other words, they seemed to believe that N antibodies are primarily produced with natural infection, but many people with the shots can never acquire those full-spectrum antibodies, even if they wind up catching the virus. This new NIH paper perfectly confirms the suspicion of the U.K. researchers.

Does the inhibition of anti-N antibodies explain why data continues to show the more you vax, the more you get infected?

Just consider the latest Walgreens data for the results of 66,000 tests nationwide for the week of April 17. Even though the unvaccinated were administered the most tests of any cohort (likely because of employer testing mandates), they account for the lowest share of the weekly positive results. It seems to get worse both as you go up in doses and in duration from the dose!

Here are the positivity rates by dose:

And here are the percentages of positive results by cohort juxtaposed to their share of testing:

Note that the triple-vaxxed account for 51.4% of the positive results (while only accounting for 45.1% of the tests), even though they only compose 30.4% of the population. 66.6% of the total population has at least two shots, but account for 79.4% of the total positives at Walgreens, and this data has been consistent for a while.

In other words, the vaccine campaign has been the ultimate exercise in perfidy, in which everything they accuse the unvaccinated of being guilty of actually applies to the vaccinated. Think of how many soldiers, doctors and nurses, and government workers are losing their careers to this day for not getting these shots, including those who already have immunity.

Now consider the fact that Pfizer has just applied for approval of a third dose for young children, even though:

  • It’s for a strain of the virus that no longer exists.
  • It’s for a virus that doesn’t affect them clinically.
  • A paper just published in the Lancet shows that even three doses wane in efficacy, even for serious illness, in adults after just a few months.
  • A recent Danish study shows zero all-cause mortality benefit (actually slightly negative) from Pfizer’s original clinical trial.
  • The CDC just posted data showing 75% of children already have more robust natural immunity.
  • The shot causes a 120-fold increase in heart inflammation over the background rate for some cohorts following the second shot, according to a Nordic study published in JAMA, among many other potential maladies and injuries.

This is on par with transgender science! Then again, these are some of the same doctors and “scientists” who want to treat men with obstetrics.

It’s also noteworthy that this NIH study tracked the Moderna study participants roughly around May 2021 and still found, that early on, that 52 of the 491 trial participants from the trial arm caught COVID. Yet they still marketed it for months later as stopping the spread. To this day, Pfizer (Comirnaty) has a printed FDA label stating fraudulently that its use is “for active immunization to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.” Indeed, the shots are actually “vaccines” against achieving what Fauci himself called “the most potent vaccination” in the form of natural infection.

Then again, in a society where criminal is victim, illegal alien is citizen, and man is woman, perhaps it’s not a stretch to label an agent that causes spread and prevents permanent immunization as a sterilizing vaccine.

Want to leave a tip?

We answer to you. Help keep our content free of advertisers and big tech censorship by leaving a tip today.
Want to join the conversation?
Already a subscriber?
Daniel Horowitz

Daniel Horowitz

Blaze Podcast Host

Daniel Horowitz is the host of “Conservative Review with Daniel Horowitz” and a senior editor for Blaze News.
@RMConservative →