A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Antibody titers do NOT = immunity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 18th 06, 09:32 AM posted to misc.kids.health
Sheri Nakken RN, MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

Antibody titers do NOT = immunity, Part 2 of 2


"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. 2001 Oct 15;20 Suppl 1:S38-41. PMID: 11587808

Vaccine. 2001 Oct 15;20 Suppl 1:S38-41.

What are the limits of adjuvanticity?

Del Giudice G, Podda A, Rappuoli R.

IRIS Research Center, Chiron SpA, Via Fiorentina 1, 53100, Siena,
Italy.

Vaccines developed traditionally following empirical approaches have
often limited problems of immunogenicity, probably due to the low level
of purity of the active component(s) they contain. The application of
new technologies to vaccine development is leading to the production of
purer (e.g. recombinant) antigens which, however, tend to have a poorer
immunogenicity as compared to vaccines of the previous generation. The
search for new vaccine adjuvants involves issues related to their
potential limits. Since the introduction of aluminium salts as vaccine
adjuvants more than 70 years ago, only one adjuvant has been licensed
for human use. The development of some of these new vaccine adjuvants
has been hampered by their inacceptable reactogenicity. In addition,
some adjuvants work strongly with some antigens but not with others,
thus, limiting their potentially widespread use. The need to deliver
vaccines via alternative routes of administration (e.g. the mucosal
routes) in order to enhance their efficacy and compliance has set new
requirements in basic and applied research to evaluate their efficacy
and safety. Cholera toxin (CT) and labile enterotoxin (LT) mutants
given along with intranasal or oral vaccines are strong candidates as
mucosal adjuvants. Their potential reactogenicity is still matter of
discussions, although available data support the notion that the
effects due to their binding to the cells and those due to the
enzymatic activity can be kept separated. 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. In addition, very little is known on parameters of
cell-mediated immunity which could be considered as surrogates of
protection. Tailoring of new adjuvants for the development of vaccines
with improved immunogenicity/efficacy and reduced reactogenicity will
represent one of the major challenges of the ongoing vaccine-oriented
research.

PMID: 11587808 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

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

***************
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-p...m=6&db=m&Dopt=b
--------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK
$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account
voicemail US 530-740-0561
(go to
http://www.paypal.com) or by mail
Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
Vaccine Dangers On-Line course -
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm
Reality of the Diseases & Treatment -
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm
Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm

  #2  
Old October 18th 06, 11:08 AM posted to misc.kids.health
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default Antibody titers do NOT = immunity



Great Sheri. We need such articles for getting closer to the truth. The
truth is WE HAVE BEEN CONNED.

Your articles will sting the (p)harmaceutical b(l)oggers in this group
very hard. I can hear them yelping already.

Jagannath.

Sheri Nakken RN, MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath wrote:
Antibody titers do NOT = immunity, Part 2 of 2


  #4  
Old October 19th 06, 10:07 AM posted to misc.kids.health,misc.health.alternative
Sheri Nakken RN, MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

Antibody titers do NOT = immunity, Part 1 of 2

Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

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/...8&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/...%22%5BAuthor%5D
Del Giudice G, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...%22%5BAuthor%5D
Podda A,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...%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, 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 center 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-p....=6&db=m&Dopt=b


**********


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

  #5  
Old October 19th 06, 10:07 AM posted to misc.kids.health,misc.health.alternative
Sheri Nakken RN, MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

Antibody titers do NOT = immunity, Part 2 of 2


"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. 2001 Oct 15;20 Suppl 1:S38-41. PMID: 11587808

Vaccine. 2001 Oct 15;20 Suppl 1:S38-41.

What are the limits of adjuvanticity?

Del Giudice G, Podda A, Rappuoli R.

IRIS Research Center, Chiron SpA, Via Fiorentina 1, 53100, Siena,
Italy.

Vaccines developed traditionally following empirical approaches have
often limited problems of immunogenicity, probably due to the low level
of purity of the active component(s) they contain. The application of
new technologies to vaccine development is leading to the production of
purer (e.g. recombinant) antigens which, however, tend to have a poorer
immunogenicity as compared to vaccines of the previous generation. The
search for new vaccine adjuvants involves issues related to their
potential limits. Since the introduction of aluminium salts as vaccine
adjuvants more than 70 years ago, only one adjuvant has been licensed
for human use. The development of some of these new vaccine adjuvants
has been hampered by their inacceptable reactogenicity. In addition,
some adjuvants work strongly with some antigens but not with others,
thus, limiting their potentially widespread use. The need to deliver
vaccines via alternative routes of administration (e.g. the mucosal
routes) in order to enhance their efficacy and compliance has set new
requirements in basic and applied research to evaluate their efficacy
and safety. Cholera toxin (CT) and labile enterotoxin (LT) mutants
given along with intranasal or oral vaccines are strong candidates as
mucosal adjuvants. Their potential reactogenicity is still matter of
discussions, although available data support the notion that the
effects due to their binding to the cells and those due to the
enzymatic activity can be kept separated. 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. In addition, very little is known on parameters of
cell-mediated immunity which could be considered as surrogates of
protection. Tailoring of new adjuvants for the development of vaccines
with improved immunogenicity/efficacy and reduced reactogenicity will
represent one of the major challenges of the ongoing vaccine-oriented
research.

PMID: 11587808 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

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

***************
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-p...m=6&db=m&Dopt=b

  #6  
Old October 19th 06, 01:51 PM posted to misc.kids.health,misc.health.alternative
Mark Probert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,876
Default Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

Sheri Nakken RN, MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath wrote:
Antibody titers do NOT = immunity, Part 1 of 2


Hmmm... a repost...what is Sherri Nakken afraid of?

Here is the answer:

dis·cus·sion (d-skshn) KEY

NOUN:

Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.
A formal discourse on a topic; an exposition.

-----------

She is just another anti-vac liar who likes to see dead children.
  #7  
Old October 19th 06, 03:56 PM posted to misc.kids.health,misc.health.alternative
JohnDoe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 72
Default Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

Mark Probert wrote:

Sheri Nakken RN, MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath wrote:

Antibody titers do NOT = immunity, Part 1 of 2



Hmmm... a repost...what is Sherri Nakken afraid of?

Here is the answer:

dis·cus·sion (d-skshn) KEY

NOUN:

Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.
A formal discourse on a topic; an exposition.

-----------

She is just another anti-vac liar who likes to see dead children.


Apparently not only children. She seems to have a problem with tetanus
vaccines as well. *And* claims tetanus can be treated with homeopathy.
  #8  
Old October 19th 06, 11:32 PM posted to misc.kids.health,misc.health.alternative
Peter Bowditch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,038
Default Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

JohnDoe wrote:

Mark Probert wrote:

Sheri Nakken RN, MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath wrote:

Antibody titers do NOT = immunity, Part 1 of 2



Hmmm... a repost...what is Sherri Nakken afraid of?

Here is the answer:

dis·cus·sion (d-skshn) KEY

NOUN:

Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.
A formal discourse on a topic; an exposition.

-----------

She is just another anti-vac liar who likes to see dead children.


Apparently not only children. She seems to have a problem with tetanus
vaccines as well. *And* claims tetanus can be treated with homeopathy.


If I were to be allowed to subscribe to anti-vaccination mailing lists
I might even be able to find that she opposes HPV vaccine, which would
indicate that she must hate adult women as well. I wonder what she
thinks about mammograms.

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
  #9  
Old October 19th 06, 11:59 PM posted to misc.kids.health,misc.health.alternative
Mark Probert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,876
Default Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

JohnDoe wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:

Sheri Nakken RN, MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath wrote:

Antibody titers do NOT = immunity, Part 1 of 2



Hmmm... a repost...what is Sherri Nakken afraid of?

Here is the answer:

dis·cus·sion (d-skshn) KEY

NOUN:

Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.
A formal discourse on a topic; an exposition.

-----------

She is just another anti-vac liar who likes to see dead children.


Apparently not only children. She seems to have a problem with tetanus
vaccines as well. *And* claims tetanus can be treated with homeopathy.


Mea Culpa!

Maybe she has a similar relationship to the one Hulda Clark has with the
guy in the blue car?

  #10  
Old October 20th 06, 03:22 AM posted to misc.kids.health,misc.health.alternative
David Wright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 718
Default Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

In article ,
JohnDoe wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:

Sheri Nakken RN, MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath wrote:

Antibody titers do NOT = immunity, Part 1 of 2


Hmmm... a repost...what is Sherri Nakken afraid of?

Here is the answer:

dis·cus·sion (d-skshn) KEY

NOUN:

Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.
A formal discourse on a topic; an exposition.

-----------

She is just another anti-vac liar who likes to see dead children.


Apparently not only children. She seems to have a problem with tetanus
vaccines as well. *And* claims tetanus can be treated with homeopathy.


You can treat tetanus with homeopathy. Whether you can treat it
successfully is a separate matter.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"George Bush is a gruesome boob." -- Bill Maher

 




Thread Tools
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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Antibody titers do NOT = immunity Sheri Nakken RN, MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath Kids Health 0 October 18th 06 09:32 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 [email protected] Info and FAQ's 3 April 20th 06 05:33 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 [email protected] Info and FAQ's 3 April 30th 05 05:24 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 [email protected] Info and FAQ's 3 June 28th 04 07:41 PM
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 2/4 [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 December 15th 03 10:41 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.