Elon Musk’s Immunology publication, a synopsis



Elon Musk’s 4000 SpaceX employees Covid-19 – A Guided Tour

The study publication is found at

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7884400  “Discrete SARS-Co-V-2 antibody titers with functional humoral stability”          

Elon Musk is one of 30 authors.

This review is informative and yet hopefully entertaining so you might actually consider reading it.  I mean it did require over 30 people to compile and write this paper so it has got to be about as boring as watching your toenails grow.   You will need to follow the link to the publication so you can look at the data as I walk you through this study.  I will provide you with the ability to comprehend this study, stripped of all the pompous Bullshit.  You will get the meat and potatoes along with my thoughts, opinions, and future next step experiments. 

When I heard Elon Musk was a coauthor on an Immunology study I had to read it!   I am not at all surprised by the number of coauthors on this publication – it is common for experimental based publications to have a large number of authors.   What does surprise me is why Elon allowed his name, and probably his money used on such a useless piece of crap as this “scientific”  publication.  I am honest and I am sick and tired of the “free press” feeding the fear with the Omnipresent Propaganda Dragon.  The powers that be continuing to hand off our tax dollars enabling Big Pharma’s profiteering from our suffering has me so damn mad at this point! 

So before I begin let me remind you, I think we should have done things differently from day one of this pandemic.  My current push is to educate people about immunology, antibodies, and memory B cells becoming antibody secreting cells.  Education is power,  and I believe if “We The People” begin demanding Reliable Neutralizing Antibody testing we will shut this pandemic down while answering some straight forward questions we all have.   

Summation of this “scientific” publication:

Elon must have been conned into believing these scientists have integrity and would design a beneficial study.   instead we get a huge amount of money and thirty people compiling Bull Shit.  I mean they give us huge amounts of data, but it all misses the mark.   This entire publication studies antibody concentration in the blood.  But true immunity is the ability to block an infection in the future and this is done by the ability to release antibody upon re-exposure.  If our immune systems worked only as long as we have the antibodies IN our blood then according to this publication we can be reinfected every 8 weeks even with vaccination.   Humoral immunity is antibody based immunity, B cells release antibodies, the antibodies attach to the virus both tagging it for destruction and preventing the viral docking proteins from binding to the host cells.  In this case the host cell docking sites are at the ACE-2 proteins (don’t worry about it ACE-2 is just a name like Jim Carrey is ACE Ventura).  See my previous blog video for visual of this   https://immunocure.org/demand-reliable-neutralizing-antibody-testing/   

What is so miraculous about our immune systems are once we have been exposed to a pathogen we gain the ability to recognize it and have a rapid response if we are re-exposed.  See earlier blog post https://immunocure.org/335-2/          In my opinion this would have been a magnificent publication if they studied the ability of the immune systems of these 4000 SpaceX employees:

  1. How do their immune cells respond upon first exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or its proteins 
  2.  How do their immune cells respond upon re-exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or its proteins.

These scientist in this publication demonstrated their “ability” to do this type of in vitro cellular experimentation when they cultured the peripheral blood cells and exposed them to SARS-CoV-2 proteins overnight.  They failed miserably by:

  • Only looking at Interferon gamma release and T cells
  • They did not look at antibody release and B cells
  • They did not run a time study of this experiment.   They only looked at one point in time, maybe the low antibody blood group would have produced large quantities of antibodies compared to time zero (addition of viral proteins) say at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, or 36 hrs. after exposure, but they only looked at their ability of T cells to release a single cytokine at a single time point.

Let me give you a quick run down.   SpaceX employees were asked to donate blood for a covid study, over 4000 agree.  Of these they find 120 to have antibodies in their blood (73 No symptoms).   The majority of the publication focuses on these 120 antibody producers (seroconverters).  They measure the amount of antibodies in the plasma at least 2 times discovering about half increase antibody concentrations and half decrease between the blood draws.   Meaning these 120 have either had and recovered from the Coronavirus (Abs ramping down), or recently exposed (Abs are just ramping up).   This is a huge amount of work and money spent just to figure our if they are ramping up or ramping down their antibody levels.  A third plasma sample was available for 48 of these and 44 were still seroconverters while 4 were not.  This study does inform us the antibodies stay at detectable levels in the blood for a couple months.  But what we really need to know is how well do our immune systems work against the SARS-CoV-2 virus upon re-exposure?  How protected are we once we have come out of this pandemic?  How many of us have had immunity this entire time?  How long will this immunity work?  And how well does this immunity work against the new variants? 

One thing this scientific publication does is demonstrate to everyone how much 21st century science CAN do if utilized.  Immunology is a complex science and there is not a one size fits all answer.  But we CAN figure out what occurs with most people.  We CAN determine if an individual has immunity and the ability to produce antibodies upon re-exposure.  We CAN send frozen blood cell (PBMCs) samples from previously infected or vaccinated individuals to OUR tax funded biohazard III-IV labs at CDC- USAMRIID- other to find answers.   Why are constantly inundated with fear of the unknown when the answers are available to us?   Why did Elon Musk fund a publication just investigating current levels of antibodies in the blood without any investigation into what occurs when these individuals are re-exposed or vaccinated?  These scientist demonstrated their ability to answer questions such as this, so why didn’t they?   If a low antibody individual’s blood were to be re-exposed to the viral proteins do they then increase their antibody production, and are the antibodies able to function enough to block infection?


The authors are stating the presence of antibodies isn’t enough to have immunity you need to determine if the antibodies will neutralize the threat.  By studying a community of volunteers – the SpaceX employees – they hope to elaborate on the symbiotic relationship between the amount of antibodies compared to the effectiveness of the antibodies (quantitative / qualitative) over time.  The study has 120 seroconverters (seroconvert: to produce antibodies specific and in response to a pathogen in the blood).  Their findings suggest an individual must have a threshold level of Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) specific antibodies present to elicit protection from future SARS-CoV-2 infections.  I referred to RBD as the docking site proteins.  The SARS-CoV-2 virus has a RBD specific for binding with the host cell RBD… i.e., GenScripts FDA-EUA -Emergency Use Authorization- neutralizing antibody tests (discussed in my earlier blog post accompanying  Wayne Gottstine’s music video https://immunocure.org/demand-reliable-neutralizing-antibody-testing/ ) determines if the antibodies will block the viral spike proteins from binding to the ACE-2 host docking proteins. ACE-2 =Angiotensin-converting enzymes-2, this is the name given to a set of cell membrane proteins found on the surface of cells found in the lungs, arteries, kidneys, and intestines.  ACE-2 is also the binding point for the SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins.  Viruses are only composed of a proteins and nucleic acids.  The protein structure transports the pay load, either DNA or RNA, to a host cell, the viral proteins dock onto specific host proteins, then the genetic material is off loaded into the host cell.  The foreign genetic material then enslaves the host cellular components forcing the replication and release of numerous viruses. The new mRNA vaccines do NOT contain a specific binding protein, the mRNA- foreign genetic material- is carried only by lipids, and since all cells have lipid membrane this means the mRNA will be able to enter any cell it encounters.  The SARS-CoV-2  virus is neutralized if it is unable to dock it’s spike protein onto the host’s ACE-2 proteins.


This study was started back in April 2020 and we have learned a lot since the design of this study, although the paper was recently written and published.  They state the length of time an individual has immunity is still undetermined.   Higher SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels are consistently observed among severely ill individuals.  “However, the relationship between binding titers and antibody effector function, particularly in individuals with mild-to-asymptomatic disease, is poorly understood.”  

My understanding of this study is they drew the blood from this large pool of volunteers, they then tested the plasma level of the blood.  All plasma will contain antibodies, proteins, cytokines etc., but the blood cells themselves will drop out.  They then studied the plasma level of the blood to determine the ability of these antibodies to block viral infection.   I might need to read this a few more times, but if they only have the current antibody concentration from the plasma level and they do not initiate a release of antibodies from the cells then this concentration is all they have to work with.  So if they want to know if the individual’s antibodies block binding to a host cell proteins and there are not enough antibodies to cover all the RBD of the virus, then the virus will bind at any site not blocked by antibodies.  Hmmm, I really need to dig into their methods here, for if I am reading this correctly there seems to be an elementary flaw to the experimental design.  Hopefully they have binding titers and they are truly assessing the functionality of the antibodies and not just the quantity.  It makes a difference if a viral protein is never blocked because there were not enough antibodies to block it, or if there are plenty of antibodies to block all the viral protein, but the antibodies function poorly and therefore do not block the sites.  If they are only investigating current antibody concentrations this makes a huge difference as well, because a person is considered immune if they have the ability to produce antibodies in a short amount of time.  The level present when there is no re-exposure doesn’t define immunity. 

Elon is smart, a smart guy comprehending the importance of studying antibody responses a full year ago.  To date, we are still lacking answers to some basic questions about individual / herd immunity and antibody release upon re-exposure.

Proposed Future Study

The study I wish to see worldwide is on individuals being reliably tested for neutralizing antibodies.  This will bring clarity and closure to this pandemic.  Furthermore, the compiling of this information along with symptoms /Covid-19+ will allow tracking of the duration of immunity. 

“Here we comprehensively probed the functional humoral immune response in a cohort of 120 seropositive individuals, identified through a community-based prospective seroprevalence study, to gain deeper insights into the spectrum and heterogeneity of functional humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2 over time. As previously observed, striking heterogeneity in antibody titers were observed across the infected population, positively correlated with the number of symptoms experienced by each individual. Limited antibody waning was noted over the study period, but a discrete titer threshold was observed across the population that discriminated individuals who evolved neutralizing and Fc-effector functions, as well as T cell immunity. These data suggest that a threshold of protective immunity may exist among naturally infected individuals, related to the functional potential of the humoral (and cellular) immune response.”

OMG I cannot even read the first sentence of the last intro paragraph… WTF did you do?  This is what scientists put up with! This pompous hot air crap is similar to lawmakers writing / passing laws thousands of pages long!  Seriously, we all know the only reason for this is to hide all the shit “We The People” would NEVER want passed into law.  Why isn’t there a law stating all laws need to be less than 8 pages long and only deal with the title of the law.   This hiding of empowerment / entitlement for the rich needs to stop!   And why do scientific publications feel the need to overly complicate the data?  I have read hundreds of scientific publications, always multiple times.  Wading through this extraordinary amount of useless verbosity is painful.  I have read this paper a number of times and I am still attempting to decipher exactly how they performed the experiments.  Did they only interpret the results based on current plasma levels?  And I have run thousands of cellular experiments!   One of my goals with ImmunoCure is to educate people on what is possible at the cellular level to improve our healthcare.


Baseline antibody levels track with symptomatology 

Of the 4300 volunteers they found 120 to be seroconverters (specific Antibody secreters).  “Strikingly, 73 (61%) of the seroconverters reported no COVID-19 related symptoms!”  So a year ago they determined 120 / 4300 people had antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 protein, and yet 73/120 NEVER knew they were exposed.  Really makes you wonder a year later how many people have immunity…

Demand Reliable Antibody Testing Looking over data can be very tedious, so I am going to start by seeing what jumps out at me. 

Fig 1D The amount of antibody versus the number of symptoms they encountered.  Most of the participants were asymptomatic.  The more symptoms someone had the higher their antibody count.  Figure 1 is the data collected of symptoms/ antibody  concentrations.  It makes sense if you collect blood on a day when someone has a higher antibody count then they also may have more symptoms.  The further away from the incident we tend to forget all our pains.  I want to know if these same volunteers are re-exposed are they then immune because they have already shown antibodies in their blood?  Reliably evaluating someone for neutralizing antibodies by exposing their whole blood to viral proteins will hopefully clear up this confusion.

Antibody time kinetics 

Here they are quantitating antibodies at least twice for 87 of the participants.  Looks like it is split pretty even between increasing / decreasing antibody amounts.   If a person’s immune cells have eliminated the threat the cells stand down and stop producing antibodies.  Antibody concentrations adjust to viral threat, i.e. was the individual ramping up or down on the immune response?  Recall most of these volunteers are asymptomatic, our bodies continually fight off pathogens without our knowledge. 

They seem to be assessing the amount of antibody present in the plasma at the time of blood draw as they state; “Remarkable stability for up to more than 60 days, pointing to a stabilization of the response.Although we cannot exclude possible re-exposure and possible boosting of these immune responses.”   This indicates they are quantitating the current antibody present and NOT stimulating a response in vitro with re-exposure.  Antibodies remaining in the blood for 60 days surprises me.  After an infection is cleared your body will stop putting energy into producing antibodies, and this is why antibody tests are notoriously “high false negative.”  So this virus seems to keep the body on it’s toes and antibodies in the blood stream longer than I would have predicted.   

Functional Implication of the titer heterogeneity 

“Why some individuals continue to get re-infected, despite the presence of antibody-titers is unclear.” “Beyond binding, the ability of antibodies to neutralize and leverage innate immune effector functions is key to protection across many clinically approved vaccines”  Then they reference a review paper on protective functional antibody responses from 2016 written by Galit Alter the last named author of this Musk paper.  This review provides the reasoning behind everyone getting reliably tested for neutralizing antibodies to determine their immunity prior to vaccination.  To be clear the data collection for this publication began in April 2020.  GenScripts neutralizing antibody tests did not get FDA-Emergency Use Authorization until late last fall, so they were not available for Elon Musk’s crew of scientists. 

They split the antibody producing (120 seropositive) into a high and low Ab producing (Fig 3A).   They found the more antibody present the more protection the individual had and these functions remained stable.  Remember these individuals were assessed starting in April 2020 months before any vaccines were released.  The group with the lower amount of antibodies has a lower neutralization titers as well.  This makes sense, if the amount of viral proteins are in excess of the number of antibodies present to block them, then there will be free and unblocked viral proteins capable of binding to the host docking site proteins.  This same logic holds for antibody compliment deposition and neutrophil phagocytosis score (Fig 3B).   The more antibodies present the more viral proteins can be blocked.  Again I am pleasantly surprised by the next data points indicating the amount of antibodies in the blood seems be maintained as does their ability to neutralize the virus (Fig 3C).  Figure 3D is a correlation of RBD-Receptor Binding Domain S-Spike protein or N-Neucleocapsid.  Again demonstrating the more antibody present the more viral proteins are blocked.

Figure 4 is a bit tricky to explain.  The flower plots show varying concentrations of types of antibodies, IgG, IgM, etc (red to blue) then the green yellow and grey colors represent the amount of protein or response of an assay.  Fig4 C-E is another representation supporting the more antibody present the more response.  Some assays are for blocking protein binding others are more functional as in increased phagocytosis (think Pac Man).   Figure 4 F-G, PBMCs (peripheral blood mononuclear cells) were isolated, frozen, thawed and then cultured for this study.  They cultured the cells from these volunteers with viral proteins overnight.   So they have the 3 groups; low Ab titer (10), high Ab titer (12), and Ab negative (14).  They exposed these 3 groups to a) SARS-CoV-2 S (Spike proteins) or b) SARS-CoV-2 N (Nucleocapsid proteins).  They quantitated the amount of INF-gamma secreting T cells present.  Both the low Ab titer and the negative antibody group showed little T cell response to the viral proteins.  However in the high antibody titer group 83% (10 of 12) had detectable T cell reactivity.   The authors also noted S and N specific T cells were readily detectible in hospitalized Covid-19 patients.   In this experiment they are expoing blood cells to viral proteins overnight to measure a response.  Unfortunately they do not seem to have collected data at varying time for this experiment.   If a person currently has a larger amount of antibodies in their blood stream, they are currently battling the virus, meaning their T cells are currently battling the disease.   What does the data look like if they collected this data at multiple time points instead of just after an overnight inoculation with the viral proteins?   I think the more important question to answer is how does the immune system respond after exposure to time.   Maybe the low titer individuals after 24hrs of re-exposure give an increase in T cell response.


“The data presented here point to a critical functional immunological threshold—simply captured at the level of antibody titers—that may exist in natural infection, that may guide surveillance efforts and provide insights for the prioritization of vaccine campaign efforts to immunize those most vulnerable to re-infection” 

So their discussion concludes with this sentence, indicating immunity may exist from natural infection, and that surveillance efforts will benefit prioritization of vaccinations. 

ImmunoCure Proposed additional experiment 

I propose a large in vitro antibody study to clarify some of the issues exposed in the “Elon Musk” study.  For instance if we can reliably detect an individual’s humoral immune response by quantitating the amount of antibody quickly released upon SARS-CoV-2 re-exposure, and subsequently determine if these antibodies are capable of neutralizing the virus we can eliminate a percentage of people from the vaccination pool.    

This publication’s finding suggest that half (60/120) of individual’s who have been exposed to this virus, even if they did not know they where exposed and developed no symptoms, where capable of producing a large quantity of neutralizing antibodies.  So the next logical step is to develop a whole blood assay (immune cells present) capable of predicting an individual’s immunity.   

Volunteers donate three small tubes of blood:

A)Whole blood assayed for antibodies 24hrs. after being drawn. 

B)SARS-CoV-2 spike protein from an antibody test such as GenScripts cPass Neutralizing antibody test*, added to whole blood then tested after 24hrs.        

*GenScripts cPass is currently the only Neutralizing Antibody test I have found with FDA-EUA (Emergency Use Authorization). 

C)Vaccine added to whole blood and then tested after 24hrs. 

Group A (control) is what is currently done, the blood is drawn and then the plasma (cells removed) is exposed to viral proteins and then the amount of antibodies currently in the blood is assessed.  This experiment determines if the antibody tests remain viable if the blood is not tested until 24hrs. after being drawn.

Group B is to determine if it is possible to get memory cells from individuals to secrete antibodies within 24hrs after a re-exposure to the viral spike proteins.  

Group C is determine how fast a vaccine will work with the cells in the blood to produce antibodies, and are those antibodies capable of preventing host cell binding.  This study is also a precursor for ImmunoCure’s in vitro vaccination work, where we vaccinated the cells and not the whole person.  Then the individual only receives their own B cells now prepared to fight.  Blood tubes from all three groups are placed on a rocker and incubated at 37C fro 24 hrs.  A rocker keeps the blood moving so it does not separate and 37 degrees Celsius is body temperature.  The 24 hour assay is a starting point and just one of several variables capable of providing more insight upon adjustment. 

After 24hrs. the chosen antibody test is conducted on the blood following the provided direction of the manufacturer.   This protocol will probably require the blood be spun to remove the cells as the antibodies and proteins will be in the plasma level.  Group B already has the antibody testing viral proteins present so they only need to be added to group A & C.  

The cPass assay in a neutralizing antibody test, therefore the next step is to add the samples to plates coated with ACE-2 host docking proteins.  This will determine the amount of neutralizing antibody the individual has:

A) Already present in their whole blood. 

B) After (possible) re-exposure to the viral spike proteins SARS-CoV-2 for 24 hrs.  

C) After exposing the whole blood to a vaccine and then determining if this has promoted antibody secretion within 24 hrs.


You may also like…

Demand Reliable Neutralizing Antibody Testing

Demand Reliable Neutralizing Antibody Testing

Demand Reliable Neutralizing Antibody Testing The ImmunoCure Foundation is not currently offering reliable neutralizing antibody testing. As far as we know it is not readily available to anyone who does not request a reliable neutralizing antibody test.  Unfortunately...

Review of Reuters Article: Reasons For Hope

Review of Reuters Article: Reasons For Hope

Review of Reuters Article listing the drugs, test and tactics.  First of all I am extremely happy to see the immunosuppressant drugs moving up in prominence for helping to stop this pandemic.  This article discusses two IL-6 inhibitors and a chemo drug, Jakavi, used...