Each child is born with a full immune system composed of cells, glands, organs, and fluids that are located throughout his or her body to fight invading bacteria and viruses. The immune system recognizes germs that enter the body as "foreign" invaders, or antigens, and produces protein substances called antibodies to fight them. A normal, healthy immune system has the ability to produce millions of these antibodies to defend against thousands of attacks every day, doing it so naturally that people are not even aware they are being attacked and defended so often (Whitney, 1990). Many antibodies disappear once they have destroyed the invading antigens, but the cells involved in antibody production remain and become "memory cells." Memory cells remember the original antigen and then defend against it when the antigen attempts to re-infect a person, even after many decades. This protection is called immunity.
Vaccines contain the same antigens or parts of antigens that cause diseases, but the antigens in vaccines are either killed or greatly weakened. When they are injected into fatty tissue or muscle, vaccine antigens are not strong enough to produce the symptoms and signs of the disease but are strong enough for the immune system to produce antibodies against them (Tortora and Anagnostakos, 1981). The memory cells that remain prevent re-infection when they encounter that disease in the future. Thus, through vaccination, children develop immunity without suffering from the actual diseases that vaccines prevent.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/howvpd.htm
Now that a basic knowledge of the purported function of immunizations has been obtained, it is time to delve into some of the more complicating factors for the theory.
The presupposition that the existence of antibodies in the blood stream is indicative of humoral (memory) immunity to it's assigned pathogens is highly questionable.
*It is also important to understand that a low titer count does not indicate susceptibility to a disease just as a higher titer count has nothing to do with immunity to a particular disease. Vaccines are licensed based on their ability to produce specific antibodies to a particular pathogen. Antibodies are protein molecules produced in the lymphatic system as a result of the body being exposed to a pathogen. The antibody theory proposes that antibodies specific to a pathogen will attack the invading foreign protein (pathogen), thereby neutralizing its ability to produce the disease in the body.
Titers are a measurement of the quantity of a particular antibody circulating in the bloodstream. The antibody theory holds that a high titer count is supposed to tell us the person is immune to the disease while a low titer count would indicate that the person is still susceptible to the disease. Titers are usually expressed in a ratio that represents how many times the blood can be diluted until no antibodies are found. For example, if someone’s blood is diluted a thousand times, the point at which no antibodies to the particular antigen are found, then the titer count would be expressed as 1:1000.
A titer test typically measures only one aspect of the immune system’s response. Considered essential for viral disease immunity are memory cells for specific viruses. There is no test for qualitative measuring of these memory cells. Memory cells are what prompt the immune system to create antibodies that are dispatched to an infection associated with the pathogen it "remembers." Memory cells don’t need reminders in the form of re-vaccination to keep producing antibodies.
What "medical science" considers an acceptable level of antibodies for determining "immunity" can be determined by taking an average titer level for individuals who have had the disease naturally. But it has been shown that individuals with high levels of particular antibodies can develop symptoms of the disease upon re-exposure to conditions that are the actual cause of the disease.
It should be noted that, based on the antibody theory, the only time one should have high titer levels is when the body is actively combating an acute infectious disease. It is clear from the research of many doctors and health researchers that high levels of antibodies in the blood have nothing to do with immunity to the disease.Dr. Tedd Koren, D.C. stated, "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.]
According to Trevor Gunn, B.Sc., "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?"Dr. John March wrote, "Particularly for viral diseases, the ‘cellular’immune response is all important, and antibody levels and protection are totally unconnected."
Raymond Obomsawin, MD wrote the following in his book, Universal Immunization: Medical Miracle or Masterful Mirage? "[W]e 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 scientists writing in the New England Journal of Medicine provide evidence for the position that immunity to disease is a broader bio-ecological question than 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.’
It is clear that immunity does not come from antibodies or even ‘memory cells’, although memory cells may play a small part in the much larger processes of protecting health. If a person is healthy, first time natural exposure to a virus does not necessarily result in disease. In fact, the majority of first time exposures result in no symptoms but do result in ‘antibodies’ which ‘prove the exposure’ but also prove that immunity was present before the exposure. Total body health is the only true immunity. The concept that immunity comes from ‘memory cells’ is none-the-less valuable in that it points out that booster shots are totally unnecessary. Knowing that total health equals immunity is a basic key to understanding that vaccinations are unnecessary and ineffective.
-January 2008 Idaho Observer article; available at www.proliberty.com/observer/20080110.htm
*Antibody titres are not equivalent to immunity. Studies show that antibody levels induced by vaccine are also lower than those following natural infection (Weibel RE, Sokes J Jr, Buynak EB, Whitman JE Jr, Hilleman MR. Live, attenuated mumps-virusvaccine: 3. Clinical and serologic aspects in a field situation. N Engl J Med 1967;276:245-51 and Weibel RE, Buyak EB, McLean AA, Roehm RR, Hilleman MR. Follow-up surveillance for antibody in human subjects following live attenuated measles, mumps, and rubella virus vaccines. ProcSoc Exp Biol Med 1979;162:328-32.)
*I'm absolutely sure that no antibody test in medicine has any absolute meaning. [1995] INTERVIEW DR. STEFAN LANKA
*A titer test does not and cannot measure immunity, because immunity to specific viruses is reliant not on antibodies, but on memory cells, which we have no way to measure. Memory cells are what prompt the immune system to create antibodies and dispatch them to an infection caused by the virus it "remembers." Memory cells don't need "reminders" in the form of re-vaccination to keep producing antibodies. (Science, 1999; "Immune system's memory does not need reminders.") ACCESS to JUSTICE. MMR10 - IN EUROPE
*"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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it would seem that antibodies are not in fact the be all and end all proof of immunity, that they are only a small part of a chain of processes involved in humoral immunity, and that a specific level of antibodies in the blood is not "the" determing factor in disease resistance. To promote as a fact that antibodies in the blood leading to a particular seroconversion rate equates to immunity is misleading at best.
Furthermore, if vaccinations served their function of activating or creating memory cells via antibody stimulation, re-vaccination with any single vaccine would be unnecessary because memory cells' remember an assigned pathogen for a lifetime. Vaccinations, conversely, have no guaranteed length of immune protection.
The topic of the antibody theory is interesting because it begs an even larger question than those mentioned here: where is the role of the mucosal system brought about in any of this talk of immunity conference? The mucosal system plays a vital role in both humoral (memory) and cellular (defense) immunity... Perhaps the reason this is not mentioned is because vaccinations, being injected into the bloodstream, bypass the mucosal system entirely.
More to come on this subject....
No comments:
Post a Comment