Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

    > Just because the disease doesn't appear to be there. Just because
    > symptoms
    > don't appear to be there, does that mean there is immunity?

    >I think the usual measure of immunity (in this context) is antibody
    >response. Of course that is imperfect, but I think it is taken as the
    >standard--with correlation to the statistics, of numbers of
    >recognizable acute cases. If we mean something different, we need to
    >*say* so!
    >>
    >Shannon

    Much of what conventional studies use for 'proof' a vaccine 'works' and
    'gives immunity' are increased antibody titres after administration of the
    vaccine. As you can see - that is a fallacy

    Antibodies are just one aspect of the immune system. They show there has
    been exposure. PERIOD. If there are antibodies after experiencing a
    disease, they may mean immunity as the rest of the immune system was
    mobilized - all aspects. With vaccines, much of the immune system is
    bypassed - TH1 (mouth, nose, throat and all aspects of immune system that
    gets mobilized there). Only TH2 responds (simplified a bit here). So
    antibodies do NOT mean immunity. All aspects need to be measured and for
    the most part they have no clue how to do that or even what to measure and
    what actually indicates immunity.

    **********
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

    From the journal - Vaccine. PMID: 11587808
    ARTICLE: What are the limits of adjuvanticity? Del Giudice G, Podda A,
    >Rappuoli R.

    "Finally, adjuvanticity is more often evaluated in terms of antigen-specific antibody titers induced after parenteral immunization. It is known that, in many instances, antigen-specific antibody titers do not correlate with protection." Vaccine. PMID: 11587808
    ********
    ARTICLE:
    What are the limits of adjuvanticity?
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...22%5BAuthor%5D
    Del Giudice G, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...22%5BAuthor%5D
    Podda A,
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...22%5BAuthor%5D
    Rappuoli R.

    "Finally, adjuvanticity is more often evaluated in terms of antigen-specific antibody titers induced after parenteral immunization. It is known that, in many instances, antigen-specific antibody titers do not correlate with protection."

    *************
    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/22/nyregion/22CHAS.html
    January 22, 2004
    Merrill W. Chase Is Dead at 98; Scientist Who Advanced Immunology
    By ANAHAD O'CONNOR

    Dr. Merrill W. Chase, an immunologist whose research on white blood cells helped undermine the longstanding belief that antibodies alone protected
    the body from disease and micro-organisms, died on Jan. 5 at his home in New York City, according to the Rockefeller University, where he worked for
    70 years. He was 98.

    Dr. Chase made his landmark discovery in the early 1940's while working with Dr. Karl Landsteiner, a Nobel laureate recognized for his work
    identifying the human blood groups. At the time, experts believed that the body mounted its attacks against pathogens primarily through antibodies
    circulating in the blood stream, known as humoral immunity.

    But Dr. Chase, working in his laboratory, stumbled upon something that appeared to shatter that widespread tenet.

    As he tried to immunize a guinea pig against a disease using antibodies he had extracted from a second pig, he found that blood serum did not work as
    the transfer agent.

    Not until he used white blood cells did the immunity carry over to the oher guinea pig, providing solid evidence that it could not be antibodies
    alone orchestrating the body's immune response.

    Dr. Chase had uncovered the second arm of the immune system, or cell-mediated immunity. His finding became the groundwork for later
    research that pinpointed B cells, T cells and other types of white blood cells as the body's central safeguards against infection.

    "This was a major discovery because everyone now thinks of the immune response in two parts, and in many instances it's the cellular components
    that are more important," said Dr. Michel Nussenzweig, a professor of immunology at Rockefeller. "Before Chase, there was only humoral immunity.
    After him, there was humoral and cellular immunity."

    Dr. Chase's breakthrough generated little interest at the time, but it set in motion the research that helped redefine the fundamental nature of the
    immune system.

    "So many areas of medicine rely on this type of reaction that he clearly distinguished as not being antibody mediated," said Dr. Ralph Steinman, a
    professor of cellular physiology and immunology at Rockefeller. "People never anticipated that there would be something other than antibodies. It
    was an amazing finding."

    Born in Providence, R.I., in 1905, Merrill Wallace Chase earned his bachelor's degree and doctorate from Brown. He taught biology there for a
    year, before joining the faculty at Rockefeller in 1932 as an assistant to Dr. Landsteiner. He has published at least 150 scientific papers.

    In 1975, he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences.

    **********


    Dr John B March, a well-known scientist who develops animal vaccines UK,
    "So animal vaccines are actually subjected to far more rigorous safety
    testing than human vaccines. But animal trials also raise another worrying
    question about the human triple jab: how effective is it? Human trials
    generally correlate "antibody" responses with protection - that is if the
    body produces antibodies (proteins) which bind to vaccine components, then
    it must be working and safe. Yet Dr March says antibody response is
    generally a poor measure of protection and no indicator at all of safety.
    "Particularly for viral diseases, the 'cellular' immune response is all
    important, and antibody levels and protection are totally unconnected.""

    a well - known and respected vaccine researcher and even he says the above
    *******
    From Meryl Dorey, Director of AVN on AVN email list.......


    Hi Jamie,

    >But Meryl, why are you aking me a question when you already know what my
    answer will be. I have no doubt you could explain my point of view much
    better than I. :)

    Well, two reasons, I guess. One is to play the devil's advocate a bit ;-) I
    mean, I was brought up in a house where we were not happy unless we were
    having a discussion about two sides of some issue. Debating was a family
    hobby. Also, I was interested to hear what your reasoning was and to be
    honest, I have to say that you have learned what they taught you in school -
    very well, I'm sure. But you have not done any investigation on your own.

    For instance, the theory that antibodies = protection from disease was
    disproven a long time ago. And I mean a LONG TIME! Study after study has
    shown that people with high levels of serum antibodies have contracted
    illnesses they are serologically immune to whilst those with low to no
    antibodies have been protected. I will quote below a section from an article
    on Polio vaccine which is coming out in the next issue of Informed Choice
    Magazine:

    "Two studies which were published in 1939 and 1942, investigated the
    diphtheria antibody concentration in people who contracted diphtheria in
    England and Wales. It reported, "on repeated occasions, it was found that a
    sample of serum, taken from a patient with a clear history of inoculation
    who had yielded diphtheria bacilli from nose or throat swabs (a sure sign of
    diphtheria infection) .was found to contain quite large quantities of
    diphtheria antitoxin." (in other words, they were serologically immune to
    diphtheria yet they contracted it)
    Ironically, they found, ".the occurrence of several instances of
    non-inoculated persons having no circulating antitoxin, harbouring virulent
    organisms and yet remaining perfectly well." (they were unvaccinated, had
    active diphtheria bacteria detectable in their nose and throat and yet
    displayed no symptoms of illness).
    We know now and have known for over 60 years that our method of measuring
    immunity is completely wrong. Despite this, we continue to use these useless
    tests to show that vaccinates work because after vaccination someone
    develops antibodies!"

    You said that:
    "To answer your question more directly: natural infection will stimulate
    antibodies, but often too late. And, natural infection (when you survive)
    doesn't protect you against future infection."

    And yet, think about it Jamie. If the antibody production from natural
    infection will not protect you from future infection (which you admit it
    will not), then how will the antibodies from vaccines do so? Also, since
    tetanus and diphtheria are both toxin-mediated illnesses (as is pertussis),
    how can antibodies EVER prevent the multiplication of toxin since, upon
    exposure to our own body's natural defenses, clostridium tetanii, bordetella
    pertussis and diphtheria will ALL produce toxins which, regardless of our
    antibody status, will produce symptoms of infection?

    So, to boil it down to two questions:

    1- if as has been shown in studies, the existence of antibodies does not
    equal immunity to infection, how can we show that vaccines protect?

    2- If the production of antibodies does not protect against toxin-mediated
    diseases, why do we continue to vaccinate against them?

    Take care,
    Meryl

    *******


    Antibodies are just ONE part of the immune system response.........maybe
    antibodies meant something after experiencing a disease as antibody titres
    were there AS WELL as the rest of the immune response (which isn't
    measured). But in vaccines antibodies just mean exposure and do NOT mean
    the immune system went through all it needed to to give lasting immunity or
    any immunity.
    Sheri


    Antibody Theory
    http://www.whale.to/vaccines/antibody.html

    Quotes Disease theory

    Antibodies used as measure of immunity:
    "He said the normal trials on a new vaccine were not possible in Britain
    because of the relatively small numbers of people who contracted the
    disease. Instead scientists had tested whether the vaccine produced
    sufficient antibodies."--Media report on meningitis C vaccine

    Antibodies not a measure of immunity:
    "Human trials generally correlate "antibody" responses with protection -
    that is if the body produces antibodies (proteins) which bind to vaccine
    components, then it must be working and safe. Yet Dr March says antibody
    response is generally a poor measure of protection and no indicator at all
    of safety. "Particularly for viral diseases, the 'cellular' immune response
    is all important, and antibody levels and protection are totally
    unconnected."--Private Eye 24/1/2002

    "The fallacy of this (antibody theory) was exposed nearly 50 years ago,
    which is hardly recent. A report published by the Medical Research Council
    entitled 'A study of diphtheria in two areas of Gt. Britain, Special report
    series 272, HMSO 1950 demonstrated that many of the diphtheria patients had
    high levels of circulating antibodies, whereas many of the contacts who
    remained perfectly well had low antibody."--Magda Taylor, Informed Parent

    "Just because you give somebody a vaccine, and perhaps get an antibody
    reaction, doesnt mean a thing. The only true antibodies, of course, are
    those you get naturally. What were doing [when we inject vaccines] is
    interfering with a very delicate mechanism that does its own thing. If
    nutrition is correct, it does it in the right way. Now if you insult a
    person in this way and try to trigger off something that nature looks
    after, youre asking for all sorts of trouble, and we dont believe it
    works."Glen Dettman Ph.D, interviewed by Jay Patrick, and quoted in "The
    Great American Deception," Lets Live, December 1976, p. 57.

    "Many measles vaccine efficacy studies relate to their ability to stimulate
    an antibody response, (sero-conversion or sero-response). An antibody
    response does not necessarily equate to immunity......... the level of
    antibody needed for effective immunity is different in each
    individual.....immunity can be demonstrated in individuals with a low or no
    detectable levels of antibody. Similarly in other individuals with
    higher levels of antibody there may be no immunity. We therefore need to
    stay clear on the issue: How do we know if the vaccine is effective for a
    particular individual when we do not know what level of antibody production
    equals immunity?"--Trevor Gunn BSc

    A jab in the dark

    " The antibody business: Millions of screening tests are distributed, each
    blood sample needs to be tested (4 millions in Germany alone) ... The
    therapy business: Antiviral medication, 3 or 4 or 5 fold combinations, AIDS
    can´t be topped in this department. ....... With intoxication hypotheses on
    the other hand you cannot make any money at all. The simple message is:
    Avoid the poison and you won´t get sick. Such hypotheses are
    counterproductive insofar as the toxins (drugs, alcohol, pills, phosmet)
    bring high revenues. The conflict of interests is not resolvable: What
    virologist who does directly profit millions from their patent rights of
    the HIV or HCV tests (Montagnier, Simon Wain-Hobsen, Robin Weiss, Robert
    Gallo) can risk to take even one look in the other direction."--By Claus
    Köhnlein

    "When they say immunogenicity what they actually mean is antibody levels.
    Antibody levels are not the same as IMMUNITY. The recent MUMPS vaccine
    fisaco in Switzerland has re-emphasised this point. Three mumps
    vaccinesRubini, Jeryl-Lynn and Urabe (the one we withdrew because it
    caused encepahlitis) all produced excellent antibody levels but those
    vaccinated with the Rubini strain had the same attack rate as those not
    vaccinated at all (12), there were some who said that it actually caused
    outbreaks."--Dr Jayne Donegan

    "Whenever we read vaccine papers the MD researchers always assume that if
    there are high antibody levels after vaccination, then there is immunity
    (immunogencity). But are antibody levels and immunity the same? No!
    Antibody levels are not the same as IMMUNITY. The recent MUMPS vaccine
    fiasco in Switzerland has re-emphasized this point. Three mumps
    vaccines-Rubini, Jeryl-Lynn and Urabe (the one withdrawn because it caused
    encephalitis) all produced excellent antibody levels but those vaccinated
    with the Rubini strain had the same attack rate as those not vaccinated at
    all, there were some who said that it actually caused outbreaks. Ref:
    Schegal M et al Comparative efficacy of three mumps vaccines during disease
    outbreak in Switzerland: cohort study. BMJ, 1999; 319:352-3."--Ted Koren DC

    "In order to better grasp the issue of vaccine effectiveness, it would
    prove helpful for us to go back to the early theoretical foundation upon
    which current vaccination and disease theories originated. In simplest
    terms, the theory of artificial immunization postulates that by giving a
    person a mild form of a disease, via the use of specific foreign proteins,
    attenuated viruses, etc., the body will react by producing a lasting
    protective response e.g., antibodies, to protect the body if or when the
    real disease comes along.
    This primal theory of disease prevention originated by Paul
    Ehrlich--from the time of its inception--has been subject to increasing
    abandonment by scientists of no small stature. For example not long after
    the Ehrlich theory came into vogue, W.H. Manwaring, then Professor of
    Bacteriology and Experimental Pathology at Leland Stanford University
    observed:
    I believe that there is hardly an element of truth in a single one of the
    basic hypothesis embodied in this theory. My conviction that there was
    something radically wrong with it arose from a consideration of the almost
    universal failure of therapeutic methods based on it . . . Twelve years of
    study with immuno-physical tests have yielded a mass of experimental
    evidence contrary to, and irreconcilable with the Ehrlich theory, and have
    convinced me that his conception of the origin, nature, and physiological
    role of the specific 'antibodies' is erroneous.33
    To afford us with a continuing historical perspective of events
    since Manwaring's time, we can next turn to the classic work on
    auto-immunity and disease by Sir MacFarlane Burnett, which indicates that
    since the middle of this century the place of antibodies at the centre
    stage of immunity to disease has undergone "a striking demotion." For
    example, it had become well known that children with
    agammaglobulinaemia--who consequently have no capacity to produce
    antibody--after contracting measles, (or other zymotic diseases)
    nonetheless recover with long-lasting immunity. In his view it was clear
    "that a variety of other immunological mechanisms are functioning
    effectively without benefit of actively produced antibody."34
    The kind of research which led to this a broader perspective on the
    body's immunological mechanisms included a mid-century British
    investigation on the relationship of the incidence of diphtheria to the
    presence of antibodies. The study concluded that there was no observable
    correlation between the antibody count and the incidence of the disease."
    "The researchers found people who were highly resistant with extremely low
    antibody count, and people who developed the disease who had high antibody
    counts.35 (According to Don de Savingy of IDRC, the significance of the
    role of multiple immunological factors and mechanisms has gained wide
    recognition in scientific thinking. [For example, it is now generally held
    that vaccines operate by stimulating non-humeral mechanisms, with antibody
    serving only as an indicator that a vaccine was given, or that a person was
    exposed to a particular infectious agent.])
    In the early 70's we find an article in the Australian Journal of
    Medical Technology by medical virologist B. Allen (of the Australian
    Laboratory of Microbiology and Pathology, Brisbane) which reported that
    although a group of recruits were immunized for Rubella, and uniformly
    demonstrated antibodies, 80 percent of the recruits contracted the disease
    when later exposed to it. Similar results were demonstrated in a
    consecutive study conducted at an institution for the mentally disabled.
    Allen--in commenting on herb research at a University of Melbourne
    seminar--stated that "one must wonder whether the . . . decision to rely on
    herd immunity might not have to be rethought.36
    As we proceed to the early 80s, we find that upon investigating
    unexpected and unexplainable outbreaks of acute infection among "immunized"
    persons, mainstream scientists have begun to seriously question whether
    their understanding of what constitutes reliable immunity is in fact valid.
    For example, a team of scientist writing in the New England Journal of
    Medicine provide evidence for the position that immunityto disease is a
    broader bio-ecological question then the factors of artificial immunization
    or serology. They summarily concluded: "It is important to stress that
    immunity (or its absence) cannot be determined reliable on the basis of
    history of the disease, history of immunization, or even history of prior
    serologic
    determination.37
    Despite these significant shifts in scientific thinking, there has
    unfortunately been little actual progress made in terms of undertaking
    systematically broad research on the multiple factors which undergird human
    immunity to disease, and in turn building a system of prevention that is
    squarely based upon such findings. It seems ironic that as late as 1988
    James must still raise the following basic questions. "Why doesn't medical
    research focus on what factors in our environment and in our lives weaken
    the immunesystem? Is this too simple? too ordinary? too undramatic? Or does
    it threaten too many vested interests . .
    ?" 38"---Dr Obomsawin MD

    "FROM REPEATED medical investigations, it would seem that antibodies are
    about as useful as a black eye in protecting the victim from further
    attacks. The word "antibody" covers a number of even less intelligible
    words, quaint relics of Erlichs side-chain theory, which the greatest of
    experts, McDonagh, tells us is "essentially unintelligible". Now that the
    old history, mythology and statistics of vaccination have been exploded by
    experience, the business has to depend more upon verbal dust thrown in the
    face of the lay public. The mere layman, assailed by antibodies, receptors,
    haptophores, etc., is only too pleased to give up the fight and leave
    everything to the experts. This is just what they want, especially when he
    is so pleased that he also leaves them lots and lots of real money.
    The whole subject of immunity and antibodies is, however, so extremely
    complex and difficult, especially to the real experts, that it is a relief
    to be told that the gaps in their knowledge of such things are still enormous.
    We can obtain some idea of the complexity of the subject from The
    Integrity of the Human Body, by Sir Macfarlane Burnet. He calls attention
    to the factthe mysterythat some children can never develop any antibodies
    at all, but can nevertheless go through a typical attack of, say, measles,
    make a normal recovery and show the normal continuing resistance to
    reinfection. Furthermore, we have heard for years past of attempts made to
    relate the amount of antibody in patients to their degree of immunity to
    infection. The, results have often been so farcically chaotic, so entirely
    unlike what was expected, that the scandal has had to be hushed upor put
    into a report, which is much the same thing (vide M.R.C. Report, No. 272,
    May 1950, A Study of Diphtheria in Two Areas of Great Britain, now out of
    print). The worse scandal, however, is that the radio is still telling the
    schools that the purpose of vaccinating is to produce antibodies. The
    purpose of vaccinating is to make money!"---Lionel Dole

    Crone, NE; Reder, AT; Severe tetanus in immunized patients with high
    anti-tetanus titers; Neurology 1992; 42:761-764;
    Article abstract: Severe (grade III) tetanus occurred in three immunized
    patients who had high serum levels of anti-tetanus antibody. The disease
    was fatal in one patient. One patient had been hyperimmunized to produce
    commercial tetanus immune globulin. Two patients had received immunizations
    one year before presentation. Anti-tetanus antibody titers on admission
    were 25 IU/ml to 0.15 IU/ml by hemagglutination and ELISA assays; greater
    than 0.01 IU/ml is considered protective. Even though one patient had
    seemingly adequate anti-tetanus titers by in vitro measurement 0.20 IU in
    vivo mouse protection bioassays showed a titer less than 0.01 IU/ml,
    implying that there may have been a hole in her immune repertoire to
    tetanus neurotoxin but not to toxoid. This is the first report of grade III
    tetanus with protective levels of antibody in the United States. The
    diagnosis of tetanus, nevertheless, should not be discarded solely on the
    basis of seemingly protective anti-tetanus titers.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-po...8&form=6&db=m&
    Dopt=b

    [Home]
    **********
    For Monday, 26 April

    From Bronwyn Hancock, AVN list (she is NOT a homeopath but words of wisdom)

    http://www.vaccination.inoz.com/
    (Bronwyn's Website - Vaccination Information Service)

    I would say Meryl that you are not immune in the technical sense, but at the
    same time you are not susceptible, if that makes sense to you. At least you
    weren't susceptible when you were exposed to it anyway. A mother had her
    daughter sleep at the home of another couple of children who had chicken pox
    so that she could contract it, and she did not for ages, though she
    eventually did after 6 weeks. It is apparent that the body will only
    contract a particular disease if and when it needs to, and it may be that
    you could go all your life without it ever needing to, even though you are
    not fully immune. I think it is good to have the exposure though, because
    then at least the body has the opportunity to go through it if it will
    benefit from it.

    Many factors would influence our susceptibility to contracting a particular
    infection in the first place, including health (which is affected by
    nutrition, clean water, fresh air, etc), mental state, genes and the body's
    metabolism and biorhythms.

    > So, if immunity can't be measured by the level of serum antibodies, does
    > anyone know of any other tests that can be performed to determine
    immunity?

    If antibodies ARE present, and the person has not been vaccinated, then you
    would know that the antibodies were produced as a result of going through
    the disease naturally, which does bring immunity, provided the immune system
    is functioning normally.

    So combining all of the above, ....
    antibodies in non-vaccinated person will signal immunity. If you do NOT have
    antibodies though, you still do not know if you are susceptible or not.

    By the way, (vaccine) research has found that IgA antibodies are a much
    better indication of immunity than IgG antibodies, but when you have gone
    through the infection naturally (i.e. the antigen has entered through the
    natural portals of entry), both would be present anyway. When you inject the
    vaccine ingredients directly into the system, however, you basically bypass
    the production of IgA, which is another reason why we know immunologically
    that vaccines are ineffective. Indeed it is the quiet realisation of this
    significant error that is prompting efforts to produce vaccines that are
    inhaled instead of injected, e.g. the 'flu vaccine (though they will still
    be pointless and contain harmful ingredients).

    It has been theorised by some that vaccines overstimulate the humoral immune
    response (which incorporates the production of antibodies) at the expense of
    the other major part of the immune system - the cell-mediated immune
    response (the production of T cells). I would say that even this is being
    too kind to vaccines, because it clearly does not even stimulate a normal
    humoral immune response. The immune system is very complex and with
    important inter-relationships between its components. The development of
    immunity requires many processes to occur and complete, requiring the whole
    team work of all the required immune system components. This simply will not
    occur other than when the body contracts the infection naturally, and this
    is only when IT, THE BODY, wants to, not when man wants it to, say at 3:15
    in the afternoon between getting the shopping done and going around to leave
    baby at nanna's in time to get to the gym, etc.

    Bronwyn


  • #2
    more on Antibody titers not equal immunity

    ***********



    Antibody Theory
    http://www.whale.to/vaccines/antibody.html

    Quotes Disease theory

    Antibodies used as measure of immunity:
    "He said the normal trials on a new vaccine were not possible in Britain because of the relatively small numbers of people who contracted the disease. Instead scientists had tested whether the vaccine produced sufficient antibodies."--Media report on meningitis C vaccine


    Antibodies not a measure of immunity:
    "Human trials generally correlate "antibody" responses with protection - that is if the body produces antibodies (proteins) which bind to vaccine components, then it must be working and safe. Yet Dr March says antibody response is generally a poor measure of protection and no indicator at all of safety. "Particularly for viral diseases, the 'cellular' immune response is all important, and antibody levels and protection are totally unconnected."--Private Eye 24/1/2002


    "The fallacy of this (antibody theory) was exposed nearly 50 years ago, which is hardly recent. A report published by the Medical Research Council entitled 'A study of diphtheria in two areas of Gt. Britain, Special report series 272, HMSO 1950 demonstrated that many of the diphtheria patients had high levels of circulating antibodies, whereas many of the contacts who remained perfectly well had low antibody."--Magda Taylor, Informed Parent

    "Just because you give somebody a vaccine, and perhaps get an antibody reaction, doesn’t mean a thing. The only true antibodies, of course, are those you get naturally. What we’re doing [when we inject vaccines] is interfering with a very delicate mechanism that does its own thing. If nutrition is correct, it does it in the right way. Now if you insult a person in this way and try to trigger off something that nature looks after, you’re asking for all sorts of trouble, and we don’t believe it works."—Glen Dettman Ph.D, interviewed by Jay Patrick, and quoted in "The Great American Deception," Let’s Live, December 1976, p. 57.

    "Many measles vaccine efficacy studies relate to their ability to stimulate an antibody response, (sero-conversion or sero-response). An antibody response does not necessarily equate to immunity......... the level of antibody needed for effective immunity is different in each individual.....immunity can be demonstrated in individuals with a low or no detectable levels of antibody. Similarly in other individuals with higher levels of antibody there may be no immunity. We therefore need to stay clear on the issue: How do we know if the vaccine is effective for a particular individual when we do not know what level of antibody production equals immunity?"--Trevor Gunn BSc


    A jab in the dark

    "The antibody business: Millions of screening tests are distributed, each blood sample needs to be tested (4 millions in Germany alone) ... The therapy business: Antiviral medication, 3 or 4 or 5 fold combinations, AIDS can´t be topped in this department. ....... With intoxication hypotheses on the other hand you cannot make any money at all. The simple message is: Avoid the poison and you won´t get sick. Such hypotheses are counterproductive insofar as the toxins (drugs, alcohol, pills, phosmet) bring high revenues. The conflict of interests is not resolvable: What virologist who does directly profit millions from their patent rights of the HIV or HCV tests (Montagnier, Simon Wain-Hobsen, Robin Weiss, Robert Gallo) can risk to take even one look in the other direction."--By Claus Köhnlein

    "When they say immunogenicity what they actually mean is antibody levels. Antibody levels are not the same as IMMUNITY. The recent MUMPS vaccine fisaco in Switzerland has re-emphasised this point. Three mumps vaccines—Rubini, Jeryl-Lynn and Urabe (the one we withdrew because it caused encepahlitis) all produced excellent antibody levels but those vaccinated with the Rubini strain had the same attack rate as those not vaccinated at all (12), there were some who said that it actually caused outbreaks."--Dr Jayne Donegan

    "Whenever we read vaccine papers the MD researchers always assume that if there are high antibody levels after vaccination, then there is immunity (immunogencity). But are antibody levels and immunity the same? No! Antibody levels are not the same as IMMUNITY. The recent MUMPS vaccine fiasco in Switzerland has re-emphasized this point. Three mumps vaccines-Rubini, Jeryl-Lynn and Urabe (the one withdrawn because it caused encephalitis) all produced excellent antibody levels but those vaccinated with the Rubini strain had the same attack rate as those not vaccinated at all, there were some who said that it actually caused outbreaks. Ref: Schegal M et al Comparative efficacy of three mumps vaccines during disease outbreak in Switzerland: cohort study. BMJ, 1999; 319:352-3."--Ted Koren DC

    "In order to better grasp the issue of vaccine effectiveness, it would prove helpful for us to go back to the early theoretical foundation upon which current vaccination and disease theories originated. In simplest terms, the theory of artificial immunization postulates that by giving a person a mild form of a disease, via the use of specific foreign proteins, attenuated viruses, etc., the body will react by producing a lasting protective response e.g., antibodies, to protect the body if or when the real disease comes along.

    This primal theory of disease prevention originated by Paul Ehrlich--from the time of its inception--has been subject to increasing abandonment by scientists of no small stature. For example not long after the Ehrlich theory came into vogue, W.H. Manwaring, then Professor of Bacteriology and Experimental Pathology at Leland Stanford University observed:
    I believe that there is hardly an element of truth in a single one of the basic hypothesis embodied in this theory. My conviction that there was something radically wrong with it arose from a consideration of the almost universal failure of therapeutic methods based on it . . . Twelve years of study with immuno-physical tests have yielded a mass of experimental evidence contrary to, and irreconcilable with the Ehrlich theory, and have convinced me that his conception of the origin, nature, and physiological role of the specific 'antibodies' is erroneous.33

    To afford us with a continuing historical perspective of events since Manwaring's time, we can next turn to the classic work on auto-immunity and disease by Sir MacFarlane Burnett, which indicates that since the middle of this century the place of antibodies at the centre stage of immunity to disease has undergone "a striking demotion." For example, it had become well known that children with agammaglobulinaemia--who consequently have no capacity to produce antibody--after contracting measles, (or other zymotic diseases) nonetheless recover with long-lasting immunity. In his view it was clear "that a variety of other immunological mechanisms are functioning effectively without benefit of actively produced antibody."34

    The kind of research which led to this a broader perspective on the body's immunological mechanisms included a mid-century British investigation on the relationship of the incidence of diphtheria to the presence of antibodies. The study concluded that there was no observable correlation between the antibody count and the incidence of the disease." "The researchers found people who were highly resistant with extremely low antibody count, and people who developed the disease who had high antibody counts.35
    (According to Don de Savingy of IDRC, the significance of the role of multiple immunological factors and mechanisms has gained wide recognition in scientific thinking. [For example, it is now generally held that vaccines operate by stimulating non-humeral mechanisms, with antibody serving only as an indicator that a vaccine was given, or that a person was exposed to a particular infectious agent.])

    In the early 70's we find an article in the Australian Journal of Medical Technology by medical virologist B. Allen (of the Australian Laboratory of Microbiology and Pathology, Brisbane) which reported that although a group of recruits were immunized for Rubella, and uniformly demonstrated antibodies, 80 percent of the recruits contracted the disease when later exposed to it. Similar results were demonstrated in a consecutive study conducted at an institution for the mentally disabled. Allen--in commenting on herb research at a University of Melbourne seminar--stated that "one must wonder whether the . . . decision to rely on herd immunity might not have to be rethought.36

    As we proceed to the early 80s, we find that upon investigating unexpected and unexplainable outbreaks of acute infection among "immunized" persons, mainstream scientists have begun to seriously question whether their understanding of what constitutes reliable immunity is in fact valid. For example, a team of scientist writing in the New England Journal of Medicine provide evidence for the position that immunityto disease is a broader bio-ecological question then the factors of artificial immunization or serology. They summarily concluded: "It is important to stress that immunity (or its absence) cannot be determined reliable on the basis of history of the disease, history of immunization, or even history of prior serologic determination.37

    Despite these significant shifts in scientific thinking, there has unfortunately been little actual progress made in terms of undertaking systematically broad research on the multiple factors which undergird human immunity to disease, and in turn building a system of prevention that is squarely based upon such findings. It seems ironic that as late as 1988 James must still raise the following basic questions. "Why doesn't medical research focus on what factors in our environment and in our lives weaken the immunesystem? Is this too simple? too ordinary? too undramatic? Or does it threaten too many vested interests . .
    ?" 38"---Dr Obomsawin MD


    "FROM REPEATED medical investigations, it would seem that antibodies are about as useful as a black eye in protecting the victim from further attacks. The word "antibody" covers a number of even less intelligible words, quaint relics of Erlich’s side-chain theory, which the greatest of experts, McDonagh, tells us is "essentially unintelligible". Now that the old history, mythology and statistics of vaccination have been exploded by experience, the business has to depend more upon verbal dust thrown in the face of the lay public. The mere layman, assailed by antibodies, receptors, haptophores, etc., is only too pleased to give up the fight and leave everything to the experts. This is just what they want, especially when he is so pleased that he also leaves them lots and lots of real money.
    The whole subject of immunity and antibodies is, however, so extremely complex and difficult, especially to the real experts, that it is a relief to be told that the gaps in their knowledge of such things are still enormous.
    We can obtain some idea of the complexity of the subject from The Integrity of the Human Body, by Sir Macfarlane Burnet. He calls attention to the fact—the mystery—that some children can never develop any antibodies at all, but can nevertheless go through a typical attack of, say, measles, make a normal recovery and show the normal continuing resistance to reinfection. Furthermore, we have heard for years past of attempts made to relate the amount of antibody in patients to their degree of immunity to infection. The, results have often been so farcically chaotic, so entirely unlike what was expected, that the scandal has had to be hushed up—or put into a report, which is much the same thing (vide M.R.C. Report, No. 272, May 1950, A Study of Diphtheria in Two Areas of Great Britain, now out of print). The worse scandal, however, is that the radio is still telling the schools that the purpose of vaccinating is to produce antibodies. The purpose of vaccinating is to make money!"---Lionel Dole

    Crone, NE; Reder, AT; Severe tetanus in immunized patients with high anti-tetanus titers; Neurology 1992; 42:761-764;
    Article abstract: Severe (grade III) tetanus occurred in three immunized patients who had high serum levels of anti-tetanus antibody. The disease was fatal in one patient. One patient had been hyperimmunized to produce commercial tetanus immune globulin. Two patients had received immunizations one year before presentation. Anti-tetanus antibody titers on admission were 25 IU/ml to 0.15 IU/ml by hemagglutination and ELISA assays; greater than 0.01 IU/ml is considered protective. Even though one patient had seemingly adequate anti-tetanus titers by in vitro measurement 0.20 IU in vivo mouse protection bioassays showed a titer less than 0.01 IU/ml, implying that there may have been a hole in her immune repertoire to tetanus neurotoxin but not to toxoid. This is the first report of grade III tetanus with protective levels of antibody in the United States. The diagnosis of tetanus, nevertheless, should not be discarded solely on the basis of seemingly protective anti-tetanus titers. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-po...=6&db=m&Dopt=b

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi SHeri,
      I ahven't gone through all your information. But this one caught my eye and need to be clarified.

      "The fallacy of this (antibody theory) was exposed nearly 50 years ago,
      which is hardly recent. A report published by the Medical Research Council
      entitled 'A study of diphtheria in two areas of Gt. Britain, Special report
      series 272, HMSO 1950 demonstrated that many of the diphtheria patients had
      high levels of circulating antibodies, whereas many of the contacts who
      remained perfectly well had low antibody."--Magda Taylor, Informed Parent
      the LEVELS of antibody titre are a measure of the ACTIVITY of infection and not of Immunity as such. So this is not stated appropriately in this quote. Low levels are not indicative of anything else except lack of active infection.

      Presence of the TYPE of antibody - I, G, M, etc gives a indication of WHEN the infection or immunity was acquired. So a understanding of whether long term imunity has been achieved is based on the TYPE of antibody present.

      YEs antibodies are NOT the first list of defence, but can be a quicker line of defence when it is not a NEW infection as the time period required for development of NEW antibodies is that reduced.

      Development of infection is not related ONLY to antibody status or the lack of it. There are various factors that go into WHY a person falls ill - and as homeoapths we all know that - antibodies are only a small part of it.
      Leela
      http://www.homeopathy2health.com

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Re: measles

        At 06:07 AM 1/7/2006 +0000, you wrote:
        >
        >Hi SHeri,
        >I ahven't gone through all your information. But this one caught my eye
        >and need to be clarified.
        >
        >> "The fallacy of this (antibody theory) was exposed nearly 50 years ago,
        >> which is hardly recent. A report published by the Medical Research
        >> Council
        >> entitled 'A study of diphtheria in two areas of Gt. Britain, Special
        >> report
        >> series 272, HMSO 1950 demonstrated that many of the diphtheria patients
        >> had
        >> high levels of circulating antibodies, whereas many of the contacts
        >> who
        >> remained perfectly well had low antibody."--Magda Taylor, Informed
        >> Parent

        >
        >the LEVELS of antibody titre are a measure of the ACTIVITY of infection
        >and not of Immunity as such. So this is not stated appropriately in this
        >quote. Low levels are not indicative of anything else except lack of
        >active infection.


        The point of this was that most say high levels mean immunity and they do not
        And most say low levels mean no immunity, and that is not true either.

        You are right saying it is just a sign of active or also of exposure.

        Antibodies aren't the indicator of immunity

        That was the point of this
        >
        >Presence of the TYPE of antibody - I, G, M, etc gives a indication of
        >WHEN the infection or immunity was acquired. So a understanding of
        >whether long term imunity has been achieved is based on the TYPE of
        >antibody present.


        Not necessarily true.
        See the other Info I sent on antibodies and immunity

        >
        >YEs antibodies are NOT the first list of defence, but can be a quicker
        >line of defence when it is not a NEW infection as the time period
        >required for development of NEW antibodies is that reduced.
        >
        >Development of infection is not related ONLY to antibody status or the
        >lack of it. There are various factors that go into WHY a person falls
        >ill - and as homeoapths we all know that - antibodies are only a small
        >part of it.
        >Leela
        >
        >


        I certainly know that and have clarified this MUCH in my email on
        antibodies not meaning immunity

        Did you see that?
        Sheri>
        --------------------------------------------------------------------
        Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
        Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
        Vaccination Information & Choice Network
        http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
        http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
        homeopathycures@tesco.net
        ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes
        ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes
        Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936



        Comment

        Working...
        X