A rare good move: the World Health Organization criticized “immunity passports” (April 24, 2020).



Last update and review: February 23, 2021.

COVID-19 “immunity passports” is another Nazi-style idea.

A number of mad criminal bureaucrats in different countries around the world simultaneously announced another Nazi-style idea, COVID-19 “immunity passports”. The announcement of “immunity passports” looks like another coordinated worldwide injection in which idiotic criminal bureaucrats are used as remotely controlled biological robots. Who holds the remote control that animates the bureaucrats?

The WHO, a globalist bureaucratic entity.

On April 24, 2020, the World Health Organization, a globalist bureaucratic entity involved in a lot of sabotage and disinformation, unexpectedly came up with a criticism of the idea of the “immunity passports”.



Support of ineffective vaccines by the WHO.

As an example of sabotage and disinformation involving the World Health Organization we can cite its support of many ineffective vaccines. Indeed, due to aging of the immune system, administration of flu and other vaccines does NOT result in seroconversion in a majority of older individuals. In other words, after receiving a vaccine, a majority of older people do not produce antibodies to the pathogen in question and, thus, are very unlikely to acquire any protective immunity.

https://medical-en.nneandersphysiologicalliteracy.com/covid-19-vaccines-are-unlikely-to-protect-those-who-are-at-a-higher-risk-a-2006-study-vaccines-fail-to-generate-protective-immunity-in-50-to-90-of-older-individuals/#Due_to_immunosenescence_flu_vaccination_does_not_work_in_the_elderly

An update from February 23, 2021: Astra-Zeneca-Oxford vector vaccine against COVID-19 is effective.

An update from February 23, 2021: Astra-Zeneca-Oxford vector vaccine against COVID-19 is effective. In an honest set of clinical trials, it was shown that Astra-Zeneca-Oxford COVID-19 vaccine provides 100% protection against hospitalization. This is the most important point: protection against hospitalization. The protection against SYMPTOMATIC COVID-19 is limited in duration and is only about 70%. After a single dose, the protection against symptomatic COVID-19 by Astra-Zeneca-Oxford vaccine is ONLY 3 months.

Vaccinated people are just as susceptible to get infected with SARS-CoV-2 as non-vaccinated.

Astra-Zeneca-Oxford COVID-19 vaccine does NOT protect against asymptomatic infection. Intramuscular vaccines (administered by an injection in muscle tissue), in general, do NOT influence mucosal (e.g. inside your nose) immunity. Therefore, vaccinated people are just as susceptible to get infected with SARS-CoV-2 as non-vaccinated.

A recent pre-print from the Institut Pasteur in France: Nasal swabs from vaccinated are NOT neutralizing.

The New Neander’s Medical on February 19, 2021:

Another one who does not understand the basics in his field.
In general, vaccination with intramuscular vaccines has no impact on mucosal immunity. The symptomatic period will be shorter, but the number of asymptomatic infections is not reduced at all.

2/n A recent pre-print from the Institut Pasteur in France:
Nasal swabs from vaccinated: NOT neutralizing.
Anthropology: Not only PhD plankton are not any kind of “experts” in their field, but they struggle to learn. Intelligence=how fast you learn. PhDs are not even intelligent?

The fact that vaccines do NOT protect at all against infection, but only protect against symptomatic disease, severe disease, and hospitalization, makes “immunity passports” even more absurd.

There is a working thread on Astra-Zeneca-Oxford vaccine on our raw blog on a social network. In that thread, there are our comments and screen clips. The link is below. Use with caution, it is a work in progress.

The situation with vaccines and COVID-19 in general evolves rapidly. If you need help and is interested in our latest analysis, do not hesitate to get in contact with us.

54/n In the screenshot, there is an important passage on asymptomatic transmission and the potential of AZ-Oxford vaccine to reduce transmission in general. pic.twitter.com/m3sUT7aebN

— The New Neander's Medical (@NNeanderMedical) February 20, 2021

It is good that the WHO criticized COVID-19 “immunity passports”.

So, the fact that the WHO came up with criticism of the “immunity passports” is a good thing.

The article published by the WHO on April 24, 2020, is reasonably informative and has a list of references. You can use the WHO article on “immunity passports” to influence people from the idiotic brainwashed majority. Anthropology: The idiotic majority is brainwashed and is ready to accept any Nazi-style restrictions and punishments. We, therefore, reproduce the entire text of the WHO article below, in case it gets removed or moved. Note that the validity of the text is limited to one year (see the endnote). It is reasonable since new data may emerge. However, no emerging new data will change the fact that “immunity passports” are a Nazi-style attack on human rights and freedom.

Conclusions: become literate and resist Nazi-style oppression at all times.

This and several other recent articles on our website talk about the current state of our civilization. When a Nazi-style regime is being imposed on a global scale, everybody has to resist it by all available means. Anthropology, Remember: “Nazism” starts when the masses and the bureaucrats start to collaborate with a small group of mad criminals.

---

The article published of the website of the WHO on April 24, 2020, at the following address:

https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19

WHO on the “immunity passports” in the context of COVID-19

“Immunity passports” in the context of COVID-19

Scientific Brief

24 April 2020

WHO has published guidance on adjusting public health and social measures for the next phase of the COVID-19 response.1 Some governments have suggested that the detection of antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, could serve as the basis for an “immunity passport” or “risk-free certificate” that would enable individuals to travel or to return to work assuming that they are protected against re-infection. There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection. 

The measurement of antibodies specific to COVID-19 

The development of immunity to a pathogen through natural infection is a multi-step process that typically takes place over 1-2 weeks. The body responds to a viral infection immediately with a non-specific innate response in which macrophages, neutrophils, and dendritic cells slow the progress of virus and may even prevent it from causing symptoms. This non-specific response is followed by an adaptive response where the body makes antibodies that specifically bind to the virus. These antibodies are proteins called immunoglobulins. The body also makes T-cells that recognize and eliminate other cells infected with the virus. This is called cellular immunity. This combined adaptive response may clear the virus from the body, and if the response is strong enough, may prevent progression to severe illness or re-infection by the same virus. This process is often measured by the presence of antibodies in blood. 

WHO continues to review the evidence on antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection.2-17 Most of these studies show that people who have recovered from infection have antibodies to the virus. However, some of these people have very low levels of neutralizing antibodies in their blood,4 suggesting that cellular immunity may also be critical for recovery. As of 24 April 2020, no study has evaluated whether the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 confers immunity to subsequent infection by this virus in humans. 

Laboratory tests that detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in people, including rapid immunodiagnostic tests, need further validation to determine their accuracy and reliability. Inaccurate immunodiagnostic tests may falsely categorize people in two ways. The first is that they may falsely label people who have been infected as negative, and the second is that people who have not been infected are falsely labelled as positive. Both errors have serious consequences and will affect control efforts. These tests also need to accurately distinguish between past infections from SARS-CoV-2 and those caused by the known set of six human coronaviruses. Four of these viruses cause the common cold and circulate widely. The remaining two are the viruses that cause Middle East Respiratory Syndrome and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. People infected by any one of these viruses may produce antibodies that cross-react with antibodies produced in response to infection with SARS-CoV-2. 

Many countries are now testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at the population level or in specific groups, such as health workers, close contacts of known cases, or within households.21 WHO supports these studies, as they are critical for understanding the extent of – and risk factors associated with – infection. These studies will provide data on the percentage of people with detectable COVID-19 antibodies, but most are not designed to determine whether those people are immune to secondary infections. 

Other considerations 

At this point in the pandemic, there is not enough evidence about the effectiveness of antibody-mediated immunity to guarantee the accuracy of an “immunity passport” or “risk-free certificate.” People who assume that they are immune to a second infection because they have received a positive test result may ignore public health advice. The use of such certificates may therefore increase the risks of continued transmission. As new evidence becomes available, WHO will update this scientific brief. 

References

1. Considerations in adjusting public health and social measures in the context of COVID-19.https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/critical-preparedness-readiness-and-response-actions-for-covid-19 
2. Wölfel R, Corman VM, Guggemos W, et al. Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019. Nature 2020. 
3. To KK, Tsang OT, Leung WS, et al. Temporal profiles of viral load in posterior oropharyngeal saliva samples and serum antibody responses during infection by SARS-CoV-2: an observational cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 23. pii: S1473-3099(20)30196-1. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30196-1. 
4. Wu F, Wang A, Liu M, et al. Neutralizing antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in a COVID-19 recovered patient cohort and their implications. medRxiv 2020: 2020.03.30.20047365. 
5. Ju B, Zhang Q, Ge X, et al. Potent human neutralizing antibodies elicited by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Biorxiv 2020: 2020.03.21.990770. 
6. Poh CM, Carissimo G, Wang B, et al. Potent neutralizing antibodies in the sera of convalescent COVID-19 patients are directed against conserved linear epitopes on the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Biorxiv 2020: 2020.03.30.015461. 
7. Zhang W, Du R, Li B, Zheng X, et al. Molecular and serological investigation of 2019-nCoV infected patients: implication of multiple shedding routes. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2020 Feb 17; 9(1):386-389. doi: 10.1080/22221751.2020.1729071. 
8. Grzelak L, Temmam L, Planchais C, et al. SARS-CoV-2 serological analysis of COVID-19 hospitalized patients, pauci-symptomatic individuals and blood donors. medRxiv 2020 (submitted 17 April 2020). 
9. Amanat F, Nguyen T, Chromikova V, et al. A serological assay to detect SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion in humans. medRxiv 2020: 2020.03.17.20037713. 
10. Okba NMA, Müller MA, Li W, et al. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2−specific antibody responses in coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 doi: 10.3201/eid2607.200841 
11. Zhao J, Yuan Q, Wang H, et al. Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients of novel coronavirus disease 2019. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa344 
12. Guo L, Ren L, Yang S, et al. Profiling Early Humoral Response to Diagnose Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 21. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa310. 
13. Liu Y, Liu Y, Diao B, Ren Feifei, et al. Diagnostic indexes of a rapid IgG/IgM combined antibody test for SARS-CoV-2. medRxiv 2020; doi: 10.1101/2020.03.26.20044883 
14. Zhang P, Gao Q, Wang T, Ke Y, et al. Evaluation of recombinant nucleocapsid and spie protein serological diagnosis of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). medRxiv. 2020; doi: 10.1101/2020.03.17.20036954 
15. Pan Y, Li X, Yang G, Fan J, et al. Serological immunochromatographic approach in diagnosis with SARS-CoV-2 infected COVID-19 patients. medRxiv. 2020; doi: 10.1101/2020.03.13.20035428 
16. Li Z, Yi Y, Luo X, Xion N, et al. Development and clinical application of a rapid IgM-IgG combined antibody test for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis. J Med Virol. 2020 Feb 27. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25727. 
17. Li R, Pei S, Chen B, et al. Substantial undocumented infection facilitates the rapid dissemination of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV2). Science 2020. 
18. Lou B, Li T, Zheng S, Su Y, Li Z, Liu W, et al. Serology characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 infection since the exposure and post symptoms onset. medRxiv 2020; doi: 10.1101/2020.03.23.20041707 
19. Lin D, Liu L, Zhang M, Hu Y, et al. Evaluation of serological tests in the diagnosis of 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infections during the COVID-19 outbreak. medRxiv 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.03.27.20045153 
20. Liu W, Liu L, Kou G, Zheng Y, et al. Evaluation of nucleocapsid and spike protein-based ELISAs for detecting antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. medxriv [Internet]. 2020; Available from: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.16.20035014 medRxiv preprint 
21. Unity Studies: Early Investigation Protocols https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/early-investigations 

WHO continues to monitor the situation closely for any changes that may affect this interim guidance. Should any factors change, WHO will issue an update. Otherwise, this scientific brief will expire 1 year after the date of publication.