Guest guest Posted May 7, 2004 Report Share Posted May 7, 2004 [AVN] Immunity and antibodies > Hi Suzan, > > <snip> I > think an example may be the fact that I am immune to chicken pox (having > been exposed to it a million times at least, including nursing all 4 of my > children through it about 2 years ago) and yet I have no serum antibodies at > all. Zilch! So how would medicine explain that? 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 -------------------------------------------------------- Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Classical Homeopath Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK $$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account vaccineinfo@... 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 Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm ANY INFO OBTAINED HERE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION TO VACCINATE IS YOURS AND YOURS ALONE. ****** " Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information and religions destroy spirituality " .... Ellner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2004 Report Share Posted May 7, 2004 " they continue to use titres as an indication of immunity and THEY ARE NOT. " Along these lines~ I have a question... Have " they " changed the numbers for the titers to be considered immune? I had rubella as a child. Through my first 7 pregnancies, my blood work came back that I was immune to rubella. Pregnancies 8 & 9, all of a sudden, I was Not " immune " to rubella anymore... and my OB " warned " me about this (and of course offered the vax after I had the babies *roll eyes*). I told him that was impossible since I HAD rubella and I knew I couldn't get it again. He kept insisting that the bloodwork showed I wasn't immue to it. I told him to forget the vax, I knew I was immune. The only thing I could think of was that maybe they'd changed the numbers to be " immune " ? I'm pretty sure they've changed cholesterol numbers as well... probably to get more people to take statins (IMO). Jan G. El Paso, TX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2004 Report Share Posted May 8, 2004 Again, you are assuming that titres indicate immunity They do not. Maybe they changed the numbers, I don't know. But just because you have a titre does not mean you are immune................ And there is concern now that lifelong immunity requires continual exposure to the disease out in the environment. Maybe titres did mean immunity after disease and lasted the whole life if you are exposed to the disease over and over after you have had it. And many now since so many sensitized with vaccine, you are not exposed to the disease and therefore your titre goes down. OR titres never meant immunity to begin with. Antibodies are just one part of the immune system. Sheri At 04:48 PM 05/07/2004 -0600, you wrote: > " they continue to use titres as an indication of >immunity and THEY ARE NOT. " > > >Along these lines~ I have a question... Have " they " changed the numbers for >the titers to be considered immune? > >I had rubella as a child. Through my first 7 pregnancies, my blood work came >back that I was immune to rubella. > >Pregnancies 8 & 9, all of a sudden, I was Not " immune " to rubella anymore... >and my OB " warned " me about this (and of course offered the vax after I had >the babies *roll eyes*). I told him that was impossible since I HAD rubella >and I knew I couldn't get it again. He kept insisting that the bloodwork >showed I wasn't immue to it. I told him to forget the vax, I knew I was >immune. > >The only thing I could think of was that maybe they'd changed the numbers to >be " immune " ? I'm pretty sure they've changed cholesterol numbers as well... >probably to get more people to take statins (IMO). > >Jan G. >El Paso, TX > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2004 Report Share Posted May 8, 2004 " you are assuming that titres indicate immunity " No, actually I don't think titres mean anything, per se... but that's what OBs use for telling pregnant moms whether they're " immune " to rubella or not. I was just curious if anyone knew if the actual numbers had changed. " And there is concern now that lifelong immunity requires continual exposure to the disease out in the environment. " I didn't realize this... that actually makes a lot of sense now that I'm thinking about it. So that would " explain " why I'm suddenly not immune to rubella after having it as a child and being naturally immune for so long. Interesting :-) Thanks~ Jan G. El Paso, TX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2004 Report Share Posted May 8, 2004 At 10:08 AM 05/08/2004 -0600, you wrote: > " you are assuming that titres indicate immunity " > >No, actually I don't think titres mean anything, per se... but that's what >OBs use for telling pregnant moms whether they're " immune " to rubella or >not. I was just curious if anyone knew if the actual numbers had changed. > > " And there is concern now that lifelong immunity requires continual exposure >to the disease out in the environment. " > >I didn't realize this... that actually makes a lot of sense now that I'm >thinking about it. So that would " explain " why I'm suddenly not immune to >rubella after having it as a child and being naturally immune for so long. >Interesting :-) Hi Jan, Yes you are still using the thinking that titres = immunity by your last sentence. ;-) It may OR may not after actually having the disease - we just don't know. But, if it does mean immunity, after disease and we require continual exposure, that may be why titre is down. But we still don't know if your low titre means no immunity And again Rubella is a virus so what that article said was that antibodies mean nothing anyway with viruses. Sheri > >Thanks~ >Jan G. >El Paso, TX > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.