By Clayton J. Baker, MD at Brownstone dot org.

As discussed in the introductory essay in this series, standard doctrine surrounding vaccines - pertaining to clinical trials, licensing, marketing, and vaccination schedules - is largely a pseudoscientific façade, constructed on a shaky foundation of falsehoods. In this series, we examine each of the five Big Lies propping up vaccinology, plus two "Honorable Mentions."

The Five Big Lies of Vaccinology

Big Lie #1: Equating Antibody Production with Immunity to Disease

Big Lie #2: Using Fake Placebos

Big Lie #3: Insisting My Immunity is Dependent on Your Vaccination

Big Lie #4: Declaring Multiple Simultaneous Injections to be Safe

Big Lie #5: Declaring Vaccines Fundamentally "Safe and Effective" as a Class

Honorable Mention 1: Declaring mRNA Gene Therapies to be Vaccines

Honorable Mention 2: Allowing Criminal Corporations to Conduct their own Clinical Studies

Big Lie #1: Equating Antibody Production with Immunity to Disease

Equating antibody production with immunity to disease is one of the foundational lies of vaccinology. Vaccine manufacturers promote this false equivalence in their clinical trials and in the promotion of their products, both to regulators and to the public.

For example, following President Trump's public statement on September 1, 2025 that the manufacturers of the newest Covid-19 injections must reveal their data on the effectiveness of their shots to the public, Pfizer put out a press release on September 8. Pfizer's top-line claim about their latest Covid-19 shot read:

Phase 3 clinical trial cohort of adults 65+ and 18-64 with at least one underlying risk condition shows at least a 4-fold increase in LP.8.1-neutralizing antibody titers after receiving the LP.8.1-adapted COVID-19 vaccine 2025-2026 Formula.

This might sound impressive. After all, it is Pfizer's self-chosen headliner. It is promoted as confirmation that the shot "works," and placed on the top line of their press release.

What it actually says is that the shots caused the recipients to produce about 4 times as much of a particular antibody as before. That's it.

It does not, as Pfizer claims, "reinforce pre-clinical data that supported the recent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the LP.8.1-adapted Covid-19 vaccine, which demonstrated improved [sic] immune responses against multiple circulating SARS-CoV-2 sublineages."

It's just hype.

It's like a greedy, overzealous sports agent declaring his 18-year-old pitching prospect to be a perennial Major League All-Star, simply because his young player can chuck the ball at 98 miles per hour.

The kid may have a strong arm. But if he can't throw a strike, he's useless.

Antibody production, robust or not, is no guarantee of actual, real-world immunity. Not at all. The assertion that if a vaccine invokes a strong antibody response, it will therefore protect you from catching, spreading, or getting sick from an illness is a faulty inference based on false premises.

There are two key reasons why equating antibody production to immunity from disease is a lie:

Immune system function involves much more than antibody response.

The antibody measured in clinical trials may be irrelevant and/or obsolete to the disease in question.

Immune System Function Involves Much More Than Antibody Response

The first false premise is that antibody production is effectively the sum total of immune system function. The corollary - also false - is that if you can demonstrate antibody production from a vaccine, you have demonstrated it provides immunity from disease. This is a deliberate mischaracterization of the immune system.

This false means of measuring so-called "immunogenicity" has been adopted throughout the vaccine industry because it provides a predictable and measurable surrogate for effective immune function. However, this surrogate is both inadequate and misleading.

The human immune system is highly complex, beyond the understanding of humanity as a whole...