Spike Antibodies Drop After Japanese DFPP Treatment Then Rebound: What the Edogawa Case Means

A widely discussed case shows a vaccine-injured patient’s anti-spike antibody levels falling after double filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP) at Edogawa Hospital in Tokyo, only to rebound within six months. Shared by Dr. Mary Talley Bowden and patient Robert Benson, the observation has fueled debate about persistent spike production, the limits of blood filtration, and the McCairn-Edogawa protocol.

This article breaks down the case data, explains the treatment, examines the immunological context, and outlines what the findings do—and do not—establish.

What Is the McCairn-Edogawa Protocol?

The McCairn-Edogawa protocol is an experimental hospital-based program at Edogawa Hospital in Tokyo. It was developed with neuroscientist Kevin McCairn, PhD, and local clinicians for long COVID and post-vaccination injury presentations.

The core approach combines two elements:

• Dual/Double Filtration Plasmapheresis (DFPP or DFPA) — Blood is separated; plasma passes through secondary filters that retain larger molecules (antibodies, immune complexes, fibrinogen, potential amyloid-like aggregates or microclots). The cleaned plasma and cells are returned. Only modest albumin replacement is typically required.
• Stem cell growth factor (SGF) infusions — Secretome or growth factors derived from laboratory-cultured dental pulp stem cells (SHED). No live cells are administered; the intent is regenerative signaling and inflammation modulation after filtration.

Patients undergo cytokine panels, amyloid/microclot analytics, and clinical assessment. Multiple individuals have publicly reported subjective improvements in brain fog, fatigue, neuropathy, POTS, and other symptoms. The series remains largely anecdotal; peer-reviewed controlled data have not yet been published.

Related immunoadsorption columns are available in parts of Europe, and therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) has established uses in autoimmunity, but the specific DFPP + SGF combination and patient population are distinctive to this program.

The Case: Antibody Levels Before and After DFPP

Dr. Mary Talley Bowden posted serial SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody results from one of her sickest vaccine-injured patients who traveled to Japan for DFPP. The graph shows:

• Levels in the range of approximately 16,000–18,000 U/mL during 2025
• A drop to roughly 12,000 U/mL after DFPP
• A subsequent rebound toward approximately 16,000 U/mL over the following months

The patient, Robert Benson, has confirmed the data and described temporary clinical improvement. Cognitive symptoms (brain fog, vertigo), rashes, shingles, digestive issues, and circulatory changes in the feet improved for a period. Brain-related symptoms tended to return first. He reported no new COVID infections during the interval and has noted that he may be the only patient among roughly 65 treated in Japan to show this degree of antibody rebound.

Bowden interpreted the rebound as evidence of “no off switch,” suggesting ongoing spike production that temporary removal of circulating antibodies cannot permanently halt. She linked the observation to reports of clots in young athletes years after vaccination. Kevin McKernan and others have raised the possibility of residual plasmids or integration events as potential contributors.

Why Antibodies Can Rebound After Filtration

Antibody measurements are not the same as direct spike antigen measurements. DFPP physically removes circulating antibodies (and other large plasma components), so a temporary drop is expected. Rebound can occur for several well-established immunological reasons:

• Long-lived plasma cells continue to produce antibodies from immunological memory even in the absence of continuous antigen.
• Memory B cells can generate new antibody-secreting cells if residual antigen, re-exposure, or inflammatory signals persist.
• Antibody half-life and production rates vary widely between individuals; high anti-spike titers lasting years are documented after both infection and mRNA vaccination.
• Redistribution of antibodies from tissues and normal fluctuations can also influence measured levels.

Peer-reviewed studies have documented prolonged detection of vaccine-derived spike or mRNA fragments in subsets of people (sometimes hundreds of days), particularly among those with persistent symptoms. However, continuous, indefinite production at scale has not been independently confirmed, and one patient’s antibody curve cannot establish it. Symptoms correlating with antibody levels in an individual is noteworthy but does not prove causality.

Patient and Clinician Perspectives

Benson has stated that his symptoms lessen when antibody levels are lower and that available testing is limited. He has raised the possibility of tissue reservoirs. Other patients treated under the same protocol have described rapid or substantial functional gains, including reduced brain fog, improved autonomic symptoms, and better overall capacity, though durability varies.

Clinicians following these cases emphasize that filtration addresses the circulating compartment (antibodies, potential microclots, inflammatory proteins). It does not directly clear deep tissue or central-nervous-system reservoirs. Some observers note that the primary active component in the Edogawa filtration is an immunoadsorption column (Asahi TR-350 or equivalent), which is licensed in multiple European countries.

Limitations of the Observation

Several important caveats apply:

• This is a single, well-documented anecdotal case (even if described as unusual among the treated cohort).
• No controlled trial or large peer-reviewed series of the McCairn-Edogawa protocol has been published.
• Antibody titers are a proxy; they do not quantify free spike protein or prove continuous production.
• Clinical improvement is largely patient-reported; objective biomarkers beyond antibodies (e.g., microclot scores, cytokine panels, functional imaging) are still emerging.
• Cost, travel to Japan, procedural risks of apheresis, and variable durability must be weighed.

These limitations do not invalidate the observation or the reported temporary benefits. They do indicate that stronger evidence—direct antigen assays, larger cohorts, longer follow-up, and controlled comparisons—is required before firm mechanistic or therapeutic conclusions can be drawn.

Broader Implications for Vaccine Injury and Long COVID Research

The case sits at the intersection of several active research areas:

• Persistence of spike protein or mRNA fragments beyond original estimates in some individuals.
• Role of microclots and amyloid-like aggregates in persistent symptoms.
• Utility of apheresis and immunoadsorption as adjunctive tools when conventional care has limited options.
• Need for better biomarkers that distinguish circulating factors from tissue reservoirs.

For patients and clinicians exploring root-cause or metabolic approaches, the observation underscores both the potential of physical removal strategies and the biological reality that antibody production is a durable adaptive response. Temporary filtration may buy symptomatic relief while longer-term strategies (addressing possible reservoirs, immune dysregulation, or metabolic drivers) are investigated.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does antibody rebound prove ongoing spike production?

No. Rebound after removal is consistent with normal plasma-cell and memory B-cell activity. It is compatible with, but does not prove, continued antigen presence.

Is DFPP the same as therapeutic plasma exchange?

No. TPE replaces the entire plasma volume with albumin or donor plasma. DFPP uses sequential filters to selectively retain larger molecules while returning most smaller proteins, typically requiring less replacement fluid.

How many patients have been treated at Edogawa under this protocol?

Public reports reference on the order of several dozen patients (one account cited roughly 65). Outcomes are still primarily shared as individual case reports rather than formal trial data.

Is the treatment available outside Japan?

The specific DFPP + SHED-derived SGF combination is centered at Edogawa Hospital. Similar immunoadsorption and plasmapheresis modalities exist in Europe and elsewhere and are being explored for long COVID and related conditions.

Should patients pursue this treatment?

This is experimental. Decisions should be made with a knowledgeable clinician after reviewing individual history, available biomarkers, risks, costs, and the current evidence base. It is not a proven cure.

Conclusion

The Edogawa DFPP case documents a clear temporary drop in anti-spike antibodies followed by rebound, accompanied by patient-reported clinical improvement. It highlights both the potential of targeted blood filtration in complex post-vaccination presentations and the immunological reality that antibody production is resilient. Interpretations of “no off switch” remain hypotheses that require direct antigen measurement and larger datasets to confirm or refute.

As more patients complete the protocol and longer-term data accumulate, the field will gain clearer insight into which circulating factors can be meaningfully reduced and whether benefits can be sustained. Until then, the observation is best viewed as valuable real-world signal—not definitive proof—within an evolving area of integrative and investigational care.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Experimental treatments carry risks. Consult a qualified physician before pursuing any therapy. Laboratory and clinical data should be verified with primary sources.