Activist Post
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "Immunity to a disease is achieved through the presence of antibodies to that disease in a person’s system."[i] This, in fact, is the main justification for using vaccines to "boost" immunity, and a primary focus of vaccine research and development.
And yet, newly publish research has revealed that in some cases no antibodies are required for immunity against some viruses.
Published in the journal Immunity in March, 2011, and titled, "B cell maintenance of subcapsular sinus macrophages protects against a fatal viral infection independent of adaptive immunity," researchers found that mice infected with vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) can suffer fatal invasion of their central nervous system even in the presence of high concentrations of "neutralizing" antibodies against VSV.[ii]
The researchers found that while B-cells were essential for surviving a systemic VSV infection through the modulation of innate immunity, specifically macrophage behavior, the antibodies they produce as part of the adaptive immune response were "neither needed nor sufficient for protection." These findings, according to the study authors, "…contradict the current view that B cell-derived neutralizing antibodies are absolutely required to survive a primary cytopathic viral infection, such as that caused by VSV."
The discovery that antibodies are not required for protection against infection, while counterintuitive, is not novel. In fact, not only are antibodies not required for immunity, in some cases high levels are found in the presence of active, even lethal infections. For example, high serum levels of antibodies against tetanus have been observed failing to confer protection against the disease. A report from 1992 published in the journal Neurology found severe tetanus in immunized patients with high anti-tetanus titers, one of whom died as a result of the infection.[iii]
This view, however, has been called into question by the new study: "Although this concept may apply to other viral infections, our findings with VSV turn this view upside down, indicating that during a primary infection with this cytopathic virus, innate immunity can be sterilizing without adaptive immune contributions."
Does this strike a mortal blow to the antibody theory which underlies vaccinology, and constitutes the primary justification for the CDC's focus on using vaccines to "boost" immunity?
Indeed, in vaccinology, which is the science or method of vaccine development, vaccine effectiveness is often determined by the ability of a vaccine to increase antibody titers, even if this does not translate into real-world effectiveness, i.e. antibody-antigen matching. In fact, regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, often approve vaccines based on their ability to raise antibody titers, also known as "vaccine efficacy," without requiring proof of vaccine effectiveness, as would seem logical.
The obvious problem with these criteria is that the use of vaccine adjuvants like mercury, aluminum hydroxide, mineral oil, etc. – all of which are intrinsically toxic substances -- will increase antibody titers, without guaranteeing they will neutralize the targeted antigen, i.e. antibody-antigen affinity. To the contrary, many of these antibodies lack selectivity, and target self-structures, resulting in the loss of self-tolerance, i.e. autoimmunity.
Here is another way of understanding vaccine-induced antibody elevations….
Introducing foreign pathogenic DNA, chemicals, metals, preservatives, etc., into the body through a syringe will generate a response not unlike kicking a beehive. The harder you kick that beehive, the greater will be the "efficacy" (i.e. elevated antibodies), but the actual affinity that these antibodies will have for the antigen (i.e. pathogen) of concern is in no way ensured; to the contrary, the immune response is likely to become misdirected, or disproportionate to the threat.
Also, valuable immune resources are wasted by generating "false flag" responses to threats which may not readily exist in the environment, e.g. there are over 200 forms of influenza A, B & C which can cause the symptoms associated with annual influenza A,* so the seasonal trivalent flu vaccine only takes care of little more than 1% of the possible vectors of infection - and often at the price of distracting resources away from real threats, as well as exhausting and/or damaging the entire immune apparatus.
It is clear that one can create a synthetic immune response through vaccination, but it is not likely to result in enhanced immunity, insofar as real-world effectiveness is concerned, which is the only true judge of whether a vaccine is valuable or not. One might view the basic criteria used by vaccine researchers, namely, that generating elevated antibody titers proves the value of the vaccine, oppositely: proving the vaccine is causing harm to the body, especially that of the developing infant and child, by generating unnecessarily elevated antibodies by any means necessary, i.e. throwing the chemical and biological kitchen sink at the immune system, e.g. aluminum, phenol, diploid (aborted fetal) cells, peanut oil, pertactin, etc. We leave the reader with a series of quotes addressing the inherent weaknesses of the antibody theory of immunity:
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.
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
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
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*PubMed Health
Notes:[i] CDC.gov, Basics and Common Questions: Immunity Types
[ii] B cell maintenance of subcapsular sinus macrophages protects against a fatal viral infection independent of adaptive immunity. Immunity. 2012 Mar 23 ;36(3):415-26. Epub 2012 Mar 1. PMID: 22386268
[iii] Severe tetanus in immunized patients with high anti-tetanus titers. Neurology. 1992 Apr ;42(4):761-4. PMID: 1565228
This article first appeared at GreenMedInfo. Please visit to access their vast database of articles and the latest information in natural health.
BE THE CHANGE! PLEASE SHARE THIS USING THE TOOLS BELOW
18 comments:
CDC justification for vaccination?
www.tinyurl.com/88w88rp
Your reasoning is flawed. The study provides that the mechanism of surviving the infection was not adaptive immunity in this instance.
So to conclude that vaccines aren't needed is like saying that because some people survive falling out of planes, we don't need parachutes.
There is no flaw in reasoning. This study proves that in some cases NO antibodies are required to meet an infectious challenge and overcome it, which immediately discredits the CDC's view vaccine-induced immunity must be antibody-mediated.
Flakfizer:
A person falling out of an airplane is not programmed for such a manmade event.
People are programmed with an immune system from birth which has worked quite well, thank you, for keeping people healthy. Most vaccines are not acceptably tested for efficacy and/or safety and the rationales provided for commercialization are far more hokum than reality. That is not to suggest that no vaccine works- some do- but the present system of hope versus provision for rigorous unbiased scientific evidence which can be relied upon by the public is completely acceptable.
This is incredibly irresponsible science journalism. Do you have any idea how many of the most vulnerable in our society are put at risk by the promotion of anti-vaccine propaganda? There are many gullible people out there who for whatever reason will choose to trust a website like this rather than the overwhelming majority of qualified medical professionals. Do you really have the temerity to play with their children's lives?
You brainwashed propaganda moron
Talk about playing with children's lives! It's the pharmaceuticals companies that have the audacity to gamble with lives. These drug companies rush through the trials, never really giving enough time to test the true safety of the drug and those "qualified medical professionals" are trained in schools that are funded by pharmaceutical companies - a huge conflict of interest. It really boils down to GREED. They always say, follow the money. There's a reason Dr. Paul Offit is called the Doctor of Vaccine Profit - Merck pays him well to spread the lie.
The jig is up, little shills. People are on to the scam. Just ask any parent with a vaccine-injured child. They'll tell you the truth.
Thanks to vaccines, my brother is autistic. And at the age of 8 still doesn't fully speak. So f**k vaccines! They were never safe to begin with. You really think the corporations give two sh*ts about you?! Why do you think are they pushing vaccines and even offering discounts on you're groceries if you get one. One word. Depopulation!
Vaccines have been used for over 70 years, in the U.S. in all cases, after testing was done first. All vaccines have a potential to cause harmful side effects, but the numbers are incontrovertable: morbidity/mortality rates of the disease itself is far greater, sometimes by thousands of percent, than m/m of vaccines. In some cases, the disease causes death at a rate of 1 to 3 per 25,000 compared to its vaccine's rate of death of 1 per 2,000,000 or more. These are facts, not opinion and not anecdote. The data on preservatives needed in some vaccines shows that none have ever caused death, and side effects occurred only in rare instances of allergic reaction;this is because the amounts per dose are extremely small. Brain damage and autism are frequently cited as being "caused" by vaccine use. No actual research study has ever shown an autism/vaccine or autism/preservative connection. The supposed study by de-licensed medical doctor Andrew Wakefield showing an MMR-autism connection was revealed many years ago to have been fabricated to support a lawsuit against a vaccine maker because the law group could find no proof to back their argument. For a fee, Wakefield gave them a "proof". He subsequently (and for good cause) had his medical license revoked by Great Britain and is considered the cause of a dramatic drop in vaccination rates in U.K. which led to hundreds of thousands of cases of mumps, measles, and rubella with, as excpected, a number of deaths and many unneccessarily damaged children.
Want to know the truth!! Get to the basics of the matter, look into Dr. Antione Bechamp.... Vaccination is based on flawed science to begin with period. No one in the medical field can be believed because their education is flawed to begin with. That is a fact. People that can't think for themselves can't see the truth nor find it. Medicine is not an exact science that is why doctor's PRACTICE medicine!! The subject at hand is just another way of dividing people. If we are all busy fighting we can't find the truth!! We can't unite for a common cause.
I would support an oral vaccination program. I just oppose injectable vaccines. Polio used to be oral and in that it did not bypass the immune system and also allow other toxic vaccine ingredients to wreak havoc in the hippocampus of our children's brains where is does the most damage. How about a pro-ORAL-vaccine campaign!!!!
A newborn until about the age of 2 doesn't have a fully functioning immune system. They get some immunity from their mothers, through the placental blood and then through breast milk should they be so lucky as to have a mother that nurses them. Trying to stimulate their immune response by challenging their developing immune system with multiple vaccines on a rigorous schedule is insane!!!
I have NO problem with appropriate vaccinations at a more controlled pace; but we need to roll back the schedule to where it was about 50 years ago. Why are we vaccinating children against rubella, anyway? It's not a lethal disease, just uncomfortable. Vaccinate older girls before their first pregnancy as that is the population at risk.
Also, it is just bad medical judgment to inject known toxins directly into the bloodstream. There is NO reason for the toxic compounds being used in adjuvants. Alternatives are available that work quite well, although not as effective at preserving the cocktails quite as long.
Finally, how stupid to be angry at parents that choose to opt out. If you buy into vaccinations as being preventative, then your vaccinated children should be safe - if in fact vaccines are properly developed and work as advertised, that is. That is where you have to decide to trust or NOT trust what you are being told, based on the results that you see in the real world.
Mind bogglingly stupid. We live in a country free of polio a scourge on humanity that hit my mother and many others until it was eliminated by a vaccine. Where most of the terrible diseases that were plagues prior to the 20th century have been eliminated or controlled by vaccines. Where most if not all of those who have commented on this issue would have contracted one or many of these diseases without vaccines and you naively talk about vaccines being unnecessary and even harmful. A testament to the failing of our public schools.
If people want to trust vaccines let them be vaccinated. I don't like the mercury and squalene that they use to attach the antibodies. Having said that, I like to eat tuna fish once in a while. I would eat it a whole lot more if I were certain that there was no mercury in it. Use your judgement.
Vaccines are killing and maiming more innocent children than they are saving. A paper published in the April-June issue of the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics discusses the possibility that the 47,500
new cases of "non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP)" reported in 2011, which is clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice
as deadly, were directly proportional [i.e. casually linked] to doses of oral polio received. According to the authors of this paper: "Though this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated. The principle of primum-non-nocere [First, do no harm] was violated." In other words, instead of acknowledging the high prevalence of vaccine-associated polio paralysis (VAPP), those doing the adverse events surveillance simply reclassified the symptoms of the vaccine-injured to non-vaccine related by coining a new disease terminology, i.e. "non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP)," which describes essentially the same symptoms. When one considers the scale of Indian eradication campaign, 47,500 cases of NPAFP, while immense, are within the realm of feasibility. According to the article:The government of India used 2.3 million vaccinators, who visited over 200 million households to ensure that the nearly 170 million children (under five years in age) were repeatedly immunised with oral polio vaccine.
There are other causes for NPAFP then polio. It is actually difficult to diagnose polio. The report you cite is a little suspect because there is a push by the Indian government to sue/extort money from NGO's and other groups providing all forms of aid. This looks more like a self serving claim of harm vs an actual scientific study. A real scientific study could not have determined what the individual cases of NPAFP were caused by and assuming it is polio would be contrary to scientific methodology. India has a billion people more or less and has had hundreds of thousands of cases of NPAFP for over 100 years (since it has been identified) so you can understand why these 47,000 cases are a little suspect.
But ask yourself why no NPAFP in the U.S. where every child is vaccinated for polio (or receives oral vaccine). The why is simply that it isn't happening. So why is it supposedly happening in India and no where else? Again the answer is simple; the Indian government expects to extort money from Western aid organizations.
Also look at the sites where this story is posted. How stupid do you have to be to depend on "infowars" as a source of serious news???
"Mind bogglingly stupid. We live in a country free of polio a scourge on humanity that hit my mother and many others until it was eliminated by a vaccine."
Well that is what we have been TOLD by the same people who HAVE told us uncountable LIES. Please take a few hours to discover our wonderful "polio vaccines" have delivered into us perhaps the greatest bio-weapon of all time.
Polio Vaccination is NOT what we were SOLD
"Polio has not been eradicated by vaccination, it is lurking behind a redefinition and new diagnostic names like viral or aseptic meningitis. When the first, injectible polio vaccine was tested on some 1.8 million children in the United States in 1954, within 9 days there was huge epidemic of paralytic polio in the vaccinated and some of their parents and other contacts. The US Surgeon General discontinued the trial for 2 weeks." Doctor Viera Scheibner PhD
"The vaccinators then put their heads together and came back with a new definition of poliomyelitis. The old, classical, definition: a disease with residual paralysis which resolves within 60 days has been changed to a disease with residual paralysis which persists for more than 60 days. Knowing the reality of polio disease, this nifty but dishonest administrative move excluded more than 90% of polio cases from the definition of polio. Ever since then, when a polio-vaccinated person gets polio, it will not be diagnosed as polio, it will be diagnosed as viral or aseptic meningitis. According to one of the 1997 issues of the MMWR, there are some 30,000 to 50,000 cases of viral meningitis per year in the United States alone. That's where all those 30,000 - 50,000 cases of polio disappeared after the introduction of mass vaccination. One must also be aware that polio is a man-made disease since those well-publicized outbreaks are misrepresented that those huge outbreaks were causally linked to intensified diphtheria and other vaccinations at the relevant time." Doctor Viera Scheibner PhD
"New studies have found that SV-40, a major contaminant of the polio vaccine until 1963, not only existed as a latent virus for the lifetime of those exposed to the vaccine but was being passed on to the next generation, primarily by way of sperm, something called vertical transmission. This means that every generation from now on will be infected with this known carcinogenic virus. There is also compelling evidence that some polio vaccines manufactured after 1963 may contain SV-40 virus." Doctor Russell Blaylock MD
"What makes the SV-40 contamination disaster of such concern is its association with so many cancers – including mesothelioma, medulloblastoma, ependymoma, meningioma, astrocytoma, oligodendroglioma, pituitary adenoma, glioblastoma, osteosarcomas, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, papillary thyroid carcinomas, and anaplastic thyroid carcinomas." Doctor Russell Blaylock MD
http://healthyprotocols.com/2_vaccine_4.htm
By focusing on the most obvious harm done people miss the most subtle forms of damage.
You asshats wanna inject you and your children with animal DNA, ingredients you probably can't even pronounce much less spell go right ahead we won't stop you.
It's you and your kids shedding the virus on the rest of us you imbeciles.
Post a Comment