Hooray For Antibodies


Yesterday I gave a blood sample for SARS CV2 antibody testing and today I got back encouraging results.


In Canada (and elsewhere including US and UK) Roche provides a panel of two serum antibody tests.  First developed was the N test to identify antibodies against the Nucleocapsid protein. This test will accurately detect responses to natural infection, but not an immune response triggered by a vaccine.

The S test seeks antibodies against the S (Spike) proteins.  The Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay characteristics are described at Roche diagnostic website.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

A positive result means that you have developed protective IgG antibodies to the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Our report will also provide you with a numeric count of these antibodies which is standardised and allows you to compare with other available tests and published WHO standards.

This test will detect antibodies amongst individuals who have been naturally infected but also received one of the following vaccines: AstraZeneca, Pfizer / BioNtech, Moderna.

If antibodies are detected, it means that the immune system will recognise the SARS-CoV-2 virus if met in the future and this will prevent serious reinfections from occurring. There is no way of predicting the level of that protection.

A negative result tells you that you likely have not been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 or that the level of protective antibodies have subsequently decreased to a point where they can no longer be detected.

How Immunity Deploys Antibodies

Testingforall in UK provides this helpful information Understanding your Roche Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (S) test result

The body has a range of ways to fight off infection, but the scientific community has centred the development of vaccines for COVID on triggering the creation of antibodies to the spike protein of coronavirus. These “spikes” are what gives coronaviruses their name, and it is through this spike mechanism that the virus binds to healthy human cells in order to replicate itself.

A natural infection creates a wide ranged defence, often involving a T cell response to destroy human cells infected by SARS-SoV-2 to stop virus from replicating, and by the creation of a range of antibodies to different proteins in the virus that attempt to deactivate it before it can bind to host cells. The original COVID-19 Home Total Antibody Test we launched in Sept 2020 detects antibodies to the Nucleocapsid protein that surrounds the RNA of the coronavirus, and is useful for detecting previous exposure, which has provided many people with an understanding of whether past or ongoing symptoms that they experienced were related to a coronavirus infection that occurred before PCR testing was widely available.

The COVID-19 Immunity Test provides an accurate calibrated measurement of the level of antibodies to the spike protein, and is therefore considered to be a good view of your immune response and status. In the testing that we have carried out with our laboratory partner, we have compared the result of the both the Roche N and S test tests on positive blood samples and see very good agreement so if you tested positive on our COVID-19 Home Total Antibody Test then you will very likely test positive on the COVID-19 Immunity Test. The difference between the two tests is that they are looking at different viral protein targets, and that the Immunity Test gives you a calibrated antibody titer that can be compared to other tests and the emerging WHO standard.

To enlarge open image in new tab, or double-click.

The Results in My Case

My N test was negative while my S test was highly positive at >2500 U/ml.  Here is the range of reported results:

Result Type Level (U/mL)
Negative –
Antibodies not found
< 0.4 (less than 0.4)
Between 0.4 and 0.8
Positive –
Antibodies found
Between 0.8 and 10
Between 10 and 100
Between 100 and 250
Between 250 and 1,000
Between 1,000 and 2,500
> 2,500 (more than 2,500)

Conclusion:  My Pfizer jab #1 was in April, #2 in June.  Six months later I have the highest rating for antibodies against the Spike protein, a combination of natural and vaccine-induced immunity.

Footnote:  For a review of all the ways Ivermectin defeats SARS CV2, see How Much Does Ivermectin Fight Covid19? The Count is 20 ways.


I noted that 2500 units per milliliter is the same number as the air molecules (mostly N2 andO2) surrounding each CO2 molecule in the atmosphere.  The analogy is clear:  Just as IR-inactive gases keep our planet warm without overheating, our immunity antibodies keep us from Covid19 fever.


  1. HiFast · December 22, 2021

    Reblogged this on HiFast News Feed.


  2. Virtual Reality · December 23, 2021

    Hi Ron
    Just wanted to wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

    Thanks again for your great work here at this website.

    All the best for the coming year!
    Virtual Reality


    • Ron Clutz · December 23, 2021

      Thanks VR for your comments and contributions here. Best Wishes for 2022 seeing the end of coronavirus hysteria. Remember: “The panic is optional.”


  3. Bob Webster · December 29, 2021


    Merry Christmas & Happy New Year.

    I always look forward to your interesting material… thanks for your contributions to sanity in a world that sometimes seems insane!

    Thought you might find this interesting, “Looking out the Window / Are humans really responsible for climate change / the trial of carbon dioxide in the court of public opinion” … it just appeared on Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble prior to Christmas. The book is the result of seven years of effort.

    From the back cover:
    “The hot dry seasons of the past few years have caused rapid disintegration of glaciers in Glacier National Park, Montana…Sperry Glacier…has lost one-quarter or perhaps one-third of its ice in the past 18 years… If this rapid rate should continue…the glacier would almost disappear in another 25 years…”

    “Born about 4,000 years ago, the glaciers that are the chief attraction in Glacier National Park are shrinking so rapidly that a person who visited them ten or fifteen years ago would hardly recognize them today as the same ice masses.”

    Do these reports sound familiar? Typical of frequent warnings of the dire consequences to be expected from global warming, such reports often claim modern civilization’s use of fossil fuels as being the dominant cause of recent climate warming.

    You might be surprised to learn the reports above were made nearly thirty years apart! The first in 1923 prior to the record heat of the Dust Bowl years during the 1930s. The second in 1952 during the second decade of a four-decade cooling trend that had some scientists concerned that a new ice age might be on the horizon!

    Did the remnants of Sperry Glacier disappear during global warming of the late 20th century?

    According to the US Geological Survey (USGS), today Sperry Glacier “ranks as a moderately sized glacier” in Glacier National Park.

    What caused the warmer global climate prior to “4,000 years ago” before Glacier National Park’s glaciers first appeared?

    Are you aware that during 2019 the National Park Service quietly began removing its “Gone by 2020” signs from Glacier National Park as its most famous glaciers continued their renewed growth that began in 2010?

    Was late 20th-century global warming caused by fossil fuel emissions? Was it really more pronounced than early 20th-century warming? Or was late 20th-century warming perfectly natural, in part a response to the concurrent peak strength of one of the strongest solar grand maxima in contemporary history?

    These and other questions are addressed by “Looking out the Window.”

    Be a juror in the trial of carbon dioxide in the court of public opinion and let the evidence inform your verdict.

    The book is written for both non-scientists and scientists… loosely in a trial format. The IPCC is the prosecution, the book offers the case for the defense, the reader is a juror. Guided by The Scientific Method and informed by the evidence, jurors should reach a correct verdict.

    Illustrations created for the non-scientists should provide a better understanding of the relationship (such as it is) between changing atmospheric CO2 and changing climate.

    Bob Webster


    • Ron Clutz · December 29, 2021

      Thanks Bob, best wishes to you as well for an end to Covid madness in 2022


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s