The usage of monoclonal antibodies in medicine, for varying diseases, is well established. I am sceptic about the mRNA (and DNA) vaccines, but not about the concept of antibodies.
How you explain that people with incapabilities to produce antibodies, can hardly survive and will die from any harmless infection?
Theey clearly do not die from 'any infection' as is pointed out in the article. 'Well established' does not make something useful. We have many traditions which are totally useless.
Sure, but the drugs made of monoclonal antibodies in fact DO help millions of people. There is no point in denying this.
Do they tho or is it a placebo effect?
'One of the most disconcerting discoveries in clinical medicine was the finding that children with congenital agammaglobulinaemia, who could make no antibody and had only insignificant traces of immunoglobulin in circulation, contracted measles in normal fashion, showed the usual sequence of symptoms and signs, and were subsequently immune. No measles anti-body was detectable in their serum (the water part of blood minus clotting factors and cells).[3]' [2013 Jan] Melanie’s Marvelous Measles: Is the provaccine backlash rational or hysterical? by Suzanne Humphries, MD
Also
[2004] Merrill W. Chase, 98, Scientist Who Advanced Immunology
http://whale.to/c/merrill_w.html
Yes, he had dicovered the cellular immune system which is ALSO very important, but this does not disprove the importance of antibodies.
It dissproves their function which is NOT to tag and flag germs and provide 'immunity'. If they are not anything to do with that then their tests are bogus. That is the point. I'm not saying these proteins don't exist, they do, they are globulins and they are produced for any injury in the body. They are not however 'antigen specific' nor confer immunity.