otherhealth.com  

Go Back   otherhealth.com > Homeopathy > Homeopathy List Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 6th January 2006, 07:51 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wales
Posts: 5
Sheri Nakken is on a distinguished road
Default 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

Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 6th January 2006, 07:53 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wales
Posts: 5
Sheri Nakken is on a distinguished road
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 7th January 2006, 05:07 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: India
Posts: 2,436
doctorleela is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via ICQ to doctorleela Send a message via AIM to doctorleela
Default

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

Quote:
"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
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 7th January 2006, 04:05 PM
Sheri Nakken
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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



Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 09:19 PM.



The information contained on OtherHealth.com arises by way of discussion between contributors and should not be treated as a substitute for the advice provided by your own personal physician or other health care professional. None of the contributions on this site are an endorsement by the site owners of any particular product, or a recommendation as to how to treat any particular disease or health-related condition. If you suspect you have a disease or health-related condition of any kind, you should contact your own health care professional immediately. Please read the BB Rules for further details.
Please consult personally with your own health care professional before starting any diet, exercise, supplementation or medication program.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2005-2012 otherhealth.com
For books in the UK visit our sister site Dealpond.com

SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2