Emphasis mine.When a disease pathogen gets into your system, your immune system responds by producing antibodies. These antibodies attach themselves to substances called antigens on the surface of the microbe, which sends a signal to your body to attack. Your immune system keeps a record of every microbe it has ever defeated, so that it can quickly recognize and destroy invaders before they make you ill.
Vaccines circumvent this whole process by teaching your body how to defeat a pathogen without ever getting sick. The two most common types—and the ones you’re probably most familiar with—are inactivated and live vaccines. Inactivated vaccines contain pathogens that have been killed. Live vaccines, on the other hand, are made of living pathogens that have been weakened (or “attenuated”). They’re highly effective but more prone to side effects than their inactivated counterparts.
Cite: https://www.gatesnotes.com/Health/What- ... XB5yrdvEko
Well, that does it.
How many times can Gates' publication use the terms pathogen / microbe and not once use the word VIRUS.
Moreover, virus are not living therefore they cannot be killed as a pathogen may be nor can they be in a weakened state of being as this also implies living which cannot be. Reminds me of the scene from the beginning of Army of Darkness where the knights are clanging away with their swords against the time-traveling car -- what a piece of armor this is!
What a fraud. Virus are cellular shedding. The issue then becomes identifying the actual pathogen which the vaccine maker claims to have identified (and killed) but how can this be so?
This is why there may be a "vaccine" available for some and not others.
Also explains how you can become infected however asymptomatic for some period and why one would no longer be contagious after some period of disease (sickness is the wrong term). The pathogen enters the living system and the body naturally, defensively reacts. The cellular damage done by the pathogen takes some time to elapse and so one is infected but yet asymptomatic and YET may or may not test positive for those signature antibodies (not virus) in their system.
The pathogen being absolutely communicable could then be mistaken for the virus. One could claim virus loading in sputum and other bodily fluids as a general indicator of a disease condition but this does not necessarily imply causality. Those same contaminated samples would also contain the pathogen -- so long as the carrier is symptomatic -- and therefore would also provide for contagion properties.
Has a true study ever been conducted in which only viral particulate matter are isolated and used to prove the hypothesis of spread of disease from virus? I am unable to locate the study which supports these conclusions.