Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

March 3, 2009

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.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 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 ,

>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 . 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

**********

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

*************

" 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/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=1\

1587808 & 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 , 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 , 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,

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 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. (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. --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

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, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

Vaccines - http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm

Vaccine Dangers & Childhood Disease & Homeopathy Email classes start April 18

March 4, 2009

At 04:41 PM 3/4/2009, you wrote:

>Hello Sheri, and the list,

>

>I have quickly skimmed through the articles you sent (wish I could read

>more carefully, but I'm in a nap schedule transition ... not my nap ...

>very hard to find my own time) and have a couple of questions. I know

>very little about immunity.

>

>Sheri Nakken wrote:

>

> > Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

>

><snip>

>

>Q1) So, I think there was a question somewhere included in the article,

>but is there a test that accurately measures how immune or not immune a

>person is to a particular disease? This topic intrigues me, because I

>was told I'm not immune to Rubella only one year after I received the

>MMR shot. I don't know how my doctor came to that conclusion (I wish I'd

>known better to ask) but my guess is that she (the lab) performed some

>sort of titers test - is there any other types of tests that you know

>are in use?

Yes, they perform a titer test and if you don't have any antibody

titers they say you are not immune

Antibodies are just one aspect of the immune system

After getting a vaccine, if you have raised antibody titers, it just

means exposure, because they aren't the end result of the whole

immune system being stimulated

After you have a disease and the whole immune system is stimulated

and antibodies are the end result, then it often does mean immunity.

But I can't say that it is 100%

We also have something called susceptibility - if we are not

susceptible to a disease we will not 'get' it.

>Q2) If antibody titers are not an accurate measure of immunity, then I'm

>curious about what types of errors they result in. Do they produce false

>positives (titers show I'm immune to Rubella when I actually am not) or

>false negatives (titers show I'm not immune to Rubella when I actually

>am), or both?

Antibody titers do not measure immunity after a vaccine

>Q3) Are you aware of any correlation of titers result *and* real

>immunity which may make titers somewhat useful, if not always, for

>making a reasonable guess about a person's immunity?

as above

>That is to say, if

>titers show I'm immune to Rubella, is it more " likely " that I'm really

>immune to it than not, or is it totally unreliable?

Totally unreliable if you had a rubella vaccine

If you did NOT have a rubella vaccine, it is likely that you are

immune because you had the disease

But nothing is a sure thing when it comes to antibody titers

Sheri

>Thank you in advance for your input,

>Ayako

>

>------------------------------------

>

March 4, 2009

Susceptibility is a term the Allopaths use to hide their ignorance of

the laws of Nature. It goes like this. You get sick you were susceptible.

You don't get sick you are not susceptible. Duh.

This is because they haven't the slightest clue to cause. That's why they deal

with symptoms.

Jim

________________________________

From: Ayako Kato <ayako.kato.vax@...>

Vaccinations

Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 12:14:25 PM

Subject: Re: Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

Sheri,

I think I understand it better. Thank you!

I think that, since I had the MMR shot and a year later I did not have

antibody to Rubella, (I had already contracted the M and M so I

naturally am immune to those) I probably have never had it.

My mother says I did get M, M and CP as a child, but when I asked about

Rubella she said she wasn't sure, that it was called three-day measles

back then and that it would have been hard to tell from a mild cold.

> We also have something called susceptibility - if we are not

susceptible to a disease we will not 'get' it.

Wish there was a way to test for susceptibility.

Ayako

March 4, 2009

No, it is not only allopaths

Susceptibility is a term homeopaths use in a different way

You are toxic you are more susceptible.

You come in with certain inheritance you are more susceptible.

There are others who use this term

Sheri

At 06:32 PM 3/4/2009, you wrote:

>Susceptibility is a term the Allopaths use to hide their ignorance of

>the laws of Nature. It goes like this. You get sick you were susceptible.

>You don't get sick you are not susceptible. Duh.

>This is because they haven't the slightest clue to cause. That's why

>they deal with symptoms.

>

>Jim

>

>________________________________

>From: Ayako Kato <ayako.kato.vax@...>

>Vaccinations

>Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 12:14:25 PM

>Subject: Re: Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

>

>Sheri,

>

>I think I understand it better. Thank you!

>

>I think that, since I had the MMR shot and a year later I did not have

>antibody to Rubella, (I had already contracted the M and M so I

>naturally am immune to those) I probably have never had it.

>

>My mother says I did get M, M and CP as a child, but when I asked about

>Rubella she said she wasn't sure, that it was called three-day measles

>back then and that it would have been hard to tell from a mild cold.

>

> > We also have something called susceptibility - if we are not

>susceptible to a disease we will not 'get' it.

>

>Wish there was a way to test for susceptibility.

>

>Ayako

>

March 4, 2009

I know I was just using the Allopaths as an example. Actually laypeople use the

term all the time also, which they mistakenly justify as cause.

My point was that there is no measurement for the word. At what point would

someone say a person is 20% susceptible to a particular disease?

When a person is sick, the excuse is they were susceptible because cause is not

known.

In other words the word doesn't carry much weight, and is used rather

meaninglessly.

If a person is toxic they are either sick or on their way to being sick. Until

a symptom shows up there is no way to tell if they are susceptible or not. Once

a person is sick or showing symptoms then the word is applied, which gives no

insight as to why the person became sick.

Its like the vaccine damage issue. There is no way to tell who will be injured

in advance.

Either you show a symptom (damage) or you do not.

Jim

________________________________

From: Sheri Nakken <vaccineinfo@...>

Vaccinations

Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 1:44:49 PM

Subject: Re: Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

No, it is not only allopaths

Susceptibility is a term homeopaths use in a different way

You are toxic you are more susceptible.

You come in with certain inheritance you are more susceptible.

There are others who use this term

Sheri

At 06:32 PM 3/4/2009, you wrote:

>Susceptibility is a term the Allopaths use to hide their ignorance of

>the laws of Nature. It goes like this. You get sick you were susceptible.

>You don't get sick you are not susceptible. Duh.

>This is because they haven't the slightest clue to cause. That's why

>they deal with symptoms.

>

>Jim

>

>___________ _________ _________ ___

>From: Ayako Kato <ayako.kato.vax@ gmail.com>

>Vaccinations

>Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 12:14:25 PM

>Subject: Re: Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

>

>Sheri,

>

>I think I understand it better. Thank you!

>

>I think that, since I had the MMR shot and a year later I did not have

>antibody to Rubella, (I had already contracted the M and M so I

>naturally am immune to those) I probably have never had it.

>

>My mother says I did get M, M and CP as a child, but when I asked about

>Rubella she said she wasn't sure, that it was called three-day measles

>back then and that it would have been hard to tell from a mild cold.

>

> > We also have something called susceptibility - if we are not

>susceptible to a disease we will not 'get' it.

>

>Wish there was a way to test for susceptibility.

>

>Ayako

>

March 4, 2009

Hi Jim, in my experience the word susceptibility has only been used as a term to

describe a person who is either prone to get sick or not. It is not really

intended to be a measurement of any kind. For instance a person who smokes is

likely to be more susceptible to lung cancer. But how susceptible really

depends on the persons overall health. I have never really considered that

susceptibility is the cause of anything. Not from a homeopathic perspective

anyway. I do understand what you are saying. But I highly recommend you do

Sheris homeopathy class. It would give you a better understanding of homeopathy

overall. You seem to compare it to allopathy in some ways. It is the total

opposite. It is an energy medicine as opposed to a physical substance. You

have to look at the whole thing from a metaphysical perspective.

I am not arguing your point, just offering my understanding of the term which

doesn't quite fit your description. I can also sense frustration in some of

your posts when it comes to homeopathy, because you don't quite have a grasp on

how it really works. The remedies don't halt symptoms, they just give them a

push along to help the immune system put more into the task at hand. The reason

people say that homeopathy is only a placebo, is because the remedies are so

diluted that the actual substance is no longer present. But the energy of the

remedy is still there. It works on a vibratory level. It makes a lot of sense

to me because i study metaphysics as well as reading all the wonderful stuff

shared on this list. All that said though, I rarely use my homeopathy kit. I

have always believed that healthy lifestyle, and the bodies own natural defences

are all we need. Because of this, nothing we catch ever causes any concern.

Just a day of rest usually fixes things.

I have gained much knowledge from your posts btw. To me, you are living proof

that prevention is way better than the cure. The improvement in my entire

families health has also reinforced that outlook too.

Anyway, I better post this before i lose connection. Having internet probs

lately. Hope I have made sense.

Take care

Fieldman

From: Jim O

Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 6:21 AM

Vaccinations

Subject: Re: Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

I know I was just using the Allopaths as an example. Actually laypeople use the

term all the time also, which they mistakenly justify as cause.

My point was that there is no measurement for the word. At what point would

someone say a person is 20% susceptible to a particular disease?

When a person is sick, the excuse is they were susceptible because cause is not

known.

In other words the word doesn't carry much weight, and is used rather

meaninglessly.

If a person is toxic they are either sick or on their way to being sick. Until

a symptom shows up there is no way to tell if they are susceptible or not. Once

a person is sick or showing symptoms then the word is applied, which gives no

insight as to why the person became sick.

Its like the vaccine damage issue. There is no way to tell who will be injured

in advance.

Either you show a symptom (damage) or you do not.

Jim

________________________________

From: Sheri Nakken <vaccineinfo@...>

Vaccinations

Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 1:44:49 PM

Subject: Re: Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

No, it is not only allopaths

Susceptibility is a term homeopaths use in a different way

You are toxic you are more susceptible.

You come in with certain inheritance you are more susceptible.

There are others who use this term

Sheri

At 06:32 PM 3/4/2009, you wrote:

>Susceptibility is a term the Allopaths use to hide their ignorance of

>the laws of Nature. It goes like this. You get sick you were susceptible.

>You don't get sick you are not susceptible. Duh.

>This is because they haven't the slightest clue to cause. That's why

>they deal with symptoms.

>

>Jim

>

>___________ _________ _________ ___

>From: Ayako Kato <ayako.kato.vax@ gmail.com>

>Vaccinations

>Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 12:14:25 PM

>Subject: Re: Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

>

>Sheri,

>

>I think I understand it better. Thank you!

>

>I think that, since I had the MMR shot and a year later I did not have

>antibody to Rubella, (I had already contracted the M and M so I

>naturally am immune to those) I probably have never had it.

>

>My mother says I did get M, M and CP as a child, but when I asked about

>Rubella she said she wasn't sure, that it was called three-day measles

>back then and that it would have been hard to tell from a mild cold.

>

> > We also have something called susceptibility - if we are not

>susceptible to a disease we will not 'get' it.

>

>Wish there was a way to test for susceptibility.

>

>Ayako

>

March 5, 2009

Hi

I guess I wasn't making my point clear. So let me try again.. I understand

perfectly the general idea that if someone has a bad habit, smoking, drinking,

poor diet that they would be susceptible(likely) to suffer from a disease. That

would be a cause of disease. My point was in response to someone who wanted to

know if there was a test for susceptibility. My answer was that when a person

gets sick then the Allopath simply says

they got sick because they were susceptible instead of understanding or knowing

the cause of disease.

In this usage the word is meaningless because no one can predict for certainty

when a so-called susceptible person will show actual symptoms of a disease. I

was not talking about anyone else's opinion of the word. That's why I

specifically used the term Allopath.

You say you think I don't know much about Homeopathy. if you have been

reading my quotes, then you should know that not only do I understand it and

have books on it but I have rejected it. It appears that most on this list

haven't read much or understand Natural Hygiene, how about you?

We reject Homeopathy on the same principals as we reject Allopathy. We reject

the idea of taking any kind of drug for any reason. I don't understand how you

don't classify belladonna which the Allopath used to dispense freely in the

1800s as a drug. I am taken aback when you say my understanding is limited.

Perhaps I understand it a little more than you.

Here is what Websters Dictionary says, Homeopathy, n. method of treating disease

with small doses of drugs that in a healthy person would cause symptoms like

those of the disease.

Here is from Mosby's Medical Dictionary, homeopathy a system of therapeutics

based on the theory that like cures like. The theory was advanced in the late

eighteenth century by Dr. Hahnemann, who believed that a large amount of

a particular drug may cause symptoms of a disease and moderate dosage may reduce

those symptoms; thus some disease symptoms could be treated by very small doses

of medicine. In practice, homeopathists dilute drugs with milk sugar in ratios

of 1 to 10 to achieve the smallest dose of a drug that seems necessary to

control the symptoms in a patient and prescribe only one medication at a time.

Compare allopathy. Are these dictionarys wrong. Do they not use the words drugs.

If they are wrong, please set the record straight, so I can stand corrected.

Hahnemann according to the above " believed a large amount of a drug may cause

symptoms. " A large amount of the drug would cause the disease of which the

sympton is the effect.

Both allopathy and homeopathy believe in giving a pill to someone who is sick.

The allopath says the drug will kill the germs and somehow assist the body in

its healing process. The homeopath says the smaller dose of the drug will

somehow help the body build up its immune system to heal the symptoms by giving

the symptoms. The Hygienist believes in taking nothing. Not drugs, not foods,

just water. If you have not personally tried this when you were sick, then you

would have no way of knowing how much healing power the body has or the fact

that the body will heal without help from any kind of substance.

The hygienist says that there is no action on the part of the drug whether it

comes from the allopath or the homeopath. All action is taken by the body. The

pill has no power to act, it is dead, an inert substance with no power of

action. The same principle applies to the food faddist who says spinach or some

other food has curative power. It has no such power. All action taken on the

food is carried out by the human body. So far from there being any such ability

on the part of the dead inert drug-any special affinity between a poison and a

living tissue--the relation between them is one of absolute and eternal

antagonism. The drug does not act at all. All the action is on the part of the

living organism. And it ejects, rejects, casts out , expels, as best it can, by

vomiting, purging, sweating, etc., these drug poisons, and the doctors have

mistaken this warfare against their medicines for their action on the living

system. All curring power

comes from the body, not food or any type of drug. People just don't want to

take responsibility for their own or their children's health. How many times

have you heard someone say, they have a cure for cancer, the government just

won't tell us about it because there is to much money in the treatment.

Now you have assumed that I know little about homeopathy, that I haven't

read on the subject. I have read much including a book called who is your doctor

and why, written by an M.D. who practiced homeopathy. I agreed with 90 per-cent

of his philosophy, but he and I part ways when he attributes the healing power

of the body to a pill. Now let me ask you. Have you read just one book on

Natural Hygiene? Have you read anything By Dr. Shelton, Bragg, Or Dr's

Trall, Jennings, Oswald, Graham, Tilden or Bernarr Macfadden,just to name a few.

At the risk of repetition, I am going to explain again why I am a believer in

Natural Hygiene. So please read this carefully. Spend a little time and think

about it, not to change your mind in your belief, but to understand mine.

I do not believe there are 400 diseases only 400 symptoms and just one disease.

The allopaths classify each symptom as a separate disease. I reject that concept

as being false. Disease is toxemia. Toxemia is caused by the normal by-product

of metabolism. A healthy body will eliminate the dead body cells, body waste and

other poisons as fast as it can. If something happens to the immune system then

the poison accumulates.

That is the beginning of disease. That is when the symptoms show. Pain,

inflammation, colds, etc. When the symptoms appear that is the time to fast.

When one goes on a fast, the body's functions of digestion and absorption cease

and the elimination process speeds up. When the body cleans itself of the putrid

matter health is restored, its as simple as that. The name of a particular

disease just tells the location of the disease not that it is different or has a

different cause. When one has a so-called disease, cold, boil,etc this is an

effort of Nature to throw off this unwanted poisonous matter, it is called a

healing crises. This mucus, pus, obstruction is to be found in every case of

disease. It is the disease. Eliminate the poison from the body and health is

restored, there are no cures. The procedure of Natural Healing, on the other

hand, is to cleanse the body of its obstruction, its poison, thereby reliving

the symptom or pain by relieving the

cause. Nothing could be more simple.What you call being sick is in reality a

Healing crises an effort to heal the body by cleansing it of poisons. The only

disease is the filth and the poison in the system. Illnesses are what save our

lives. Can you imagine what would happen if the body could not eliminate all

that pus and mucus when your sick. When people die in hospitals, do you not

realize that they die from the poison in their body and then are overloaded with

more poison (drugs). Sickness is our salvation if we don't interfere with the

healing power of Nature.

I totally, categorically without a doubt reject germs as the cause of disease.

This theory is over 150 years old, promoted by a medical profession who knew no

more then about the relation of disease and lifestyle than they do now.

Prevention is of course the best way to keep healthy, but I don't want anyone to

think I am a saint, eating all the right foods everyday or never getting a cold.

I have been sick, but I simply don't take anything because I believe it would

interfere with the healing process.

I have on two occasions ask questions to both Sheri and Winnie about homeopathy.

They gave me their beliefs. I understood what they said even thou I did not

agree with them. I realize this is a vaccination forum.

But everybody from time to time gives advice on disease and treatments. I think

much of that advice is wrong and could even be dangerous. No one knows the

lifestyles or states of mind of the people on this list. I quote from the books

on Natural hygiene with the idea someone may be interested and want to read

more. I have never suggested for anyone to go on a fast, and would not do so

because one would need a clear understanding of what to expect.

So in a nutshell this is my conclusions after 30 plus years reading and personal

experience with the allopath.

Germs do not cause disease.

Toxemia is the sole cause of disease.

Healthy lifestyle is the prevention.

Fasting restores health.

Viruses do not exist.

Drugs are poisons and have no healing power.

Vaccines do not protect, vaccines cause disease, disability and death.

I have a complete understanding of the belief of homeopathy, and reject it along

with the other healing arts.

I hope this gives you a better understanding of my beliefs.

Take care,

Jim

________________________________

From: Fieldman <lisafieldman@...>

Vaccinations

Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 3:32:06 PM

Subject: Re: Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

Hi Jim, in my experience the word susceptibility has only been used as a term to

describe a person who is either prone to get sick or not. It is not really

intended to be a measurement of any kind. For instance a person who smokes is

likely to be more susceptible to lung cancer. But how susceptible really depends

on the persons overall health. I have never really considered that

susceptibility is the cause of anything. Not from a homeopathic perspective

anyway. I do understand what you are saying. But I highly recommend you do

Sheris homeopathy class. It would give you a better understanding of homeopathy

overall. You seem to compare it to allopathy in some ways. It is the total

opposite. It is an energy medicine as opposed to a physical substance. You have

to look at the whole thing from a metaphysical perspective.

I am not arguing your point, just offering my understanding of the term which

doesn't quite fit your description. I can also sense frustration in some of your

posts when it comes to homeopathy, because you don't quite have a grasp on how

it really works. The remedies don't halt symptoms, they just give them a push

along to help the immune system put more into the task at hand. The reason

people say that homeopathy is only a placebo, is because the remedies are so

diluted that the actual substance is no longer present. But the energy of the

remedy is still there. It works on a vibratory level. It makes a lot of sense to

me because i study metaphysics as well as reading all the wonderful stuff shared

on this list. All that said though, I rarely use my homeopathy kit. I have

always believed that healthy lifestyle, and the bodies own natural defences are

all we need. Because of this, nothing we catch ever causes any concern. Just a

day of rest usually fixes

things.

I have gained much knowledge from your posts btw. To me, you are living proof

that prevention is way better than the cure. The improvement in my entire

families health has also reinforced that outlook too.

Anyway, I better post this before i lose connection. Having internet probs

lately. Hope I have made sense.

Take care

Fieldman

From: Jim O

Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 6:21 AM

Vaccinations

Subject: Re: Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

I know I was just using the Allopaths as an example. Actually laypeople use the

term all the time also, which they mistakenly justify as cause.

My point was that there is no measurement for the word. At what point would

someone say a person is 20% susceptible to a particular disease?

When a person is sick, the excuse is they were susceptible because cause is not

known.

In other words the word doesn't carry much weight, and is used rather

meaninglessly.

If a person is toxic they are either sick or on their way to being sick. Until a

symptom shows up there is no way to tell if they are susceptible or not. Once a

person is sick or showing symptoms then the word is applied, which gives no

insight as to why the person became sick.

Its like the vaccine damage issue. There is no way to tell who will be injured

in advance.

Either you show a symptom (damage) or you do not.

Jim

____________ _________ _________ __

From: Sheri Nakken <vaccineinfo@ tesco.net>

Vaccinations

Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 1:44:49 PM

Subject: Re: Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

No, it is not only allopaths

Susceptibility is a term homeopaths use in a different way

You are toxic you are more susceptible.

You come in with certain inheritance you are more susceptible.

There are others who use this term

Sheri

At 06:32 PM 3/4/2009, you wrote:

>Susceptibility is a term the Allopaths use to hide their ignorance of

>the laws of Nature. It goes like this. You get sick you were susceptible.

>You don't get sick you are not susceptible. Duh.

>This is because they haven't the slightest clue to cause. That's why

>they deal with symptoms.

>

>Jim

>

>___________ _________ _________ ___

>From: Ayako Kato <ayako.kato. vax@ gmail.com>

>Vaccinations

>Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 12:14:25 PM

>Subject: Re: Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

>

>Sheri,

>

>I think I understand it better. Thank you!

>

>I think that, since I had the MMR shot and a year later I did not have

>antibody to Rubella, (I had already contracted the M and M so I

>naturally am immune to those) I probably have never had it.

>

>My mother says I did get M, M and CP as a child, but when I asked about

>Rubella she said she wasn't sure, that it was called three-day measles

>back then and that it would have been hard to tell from a mild cold.

>

> > We also have something called susceptibility - if we are not

>susceptible to a disease we will not 'get' it.

>

>Wish there was a way to test for susceptibility.

>

>Ayako

>

March 5, 2009

This is the usual response from hygienists and I agree with some and

disagree with some.

I have gone around with other hygienists in this way.

We agree much more than we disagree.

In the case of homeopathy we are using the energy available to us in

nature (on an energy level not a material level) to assist our vital

force in healing.

I rely on the body's healing and detox in most cases for myself and

others, but we are in a pretty messed up state - the human race - and

I have found that we need assistance on an energy level, not a physical level.

>In this usage the word is meaningless because no one can predict for

>certainty when a so-called susceptible person will show actual

>symptoms of a disease.

Homeopathy can work with that susceptibility and help to assist the

vital force to shift things so that illness does not come about.

>We reject Homeopathy on the same principals as we reject Allopathy.

>We reject the idea of taking any kind of drug for any reason. I

>don't understand how you don't classify belladonna which the

>Allopath used to dispense freely in the 1800s as a drug. I am taken

>aback when you say my understanding is limited. Perhaps I understand

>it a little more than you.

But homeopathic remedies are not drugs - they are energy

>Here is what Websters Dictionary says, Homeopathy, n. method of

>treating disease with small doses of drugs that in a healthy person

>would cause symptoms like those of the disease.

Well Webster's isn't exactly an expert on homeopathy.

We don't give small doses of drugs

>Here is from Mosby's Medical Dictionary, homeopathy a system of

>therapeutics based on the theory that like cures like. The theory

>was advanced in the late eighteenth century by Dr. Hahnemann,

>who believed that a large amount of a particular drug may cause

>symptoms of a disease and moderate dosage may reduce those symptoms;

And again, Mosby's is not an expert in homeopathy.

It is an allopathic explanation of homeopathy

We don't give moderate dosage of drugs

>thus some disease symptoms could be treated by very small doses of

>medicine. In practice, homeopathists dilute drugs with milk sugar in

>ratios of 1 to 10 to achieve the smallest dose of a drug that seems

>necessary to control the symptoms in a patient and prescribe only

>one medication at a time. Compare allopathy. Are these dictionarys

>wrong. Do they not use the words drugs. If they are wrong, please

>set the record straight, so I can stand corrected.

Yes, they are wrong

>Hahnemann according to the above " believed a large amount of a drug

>may cause symptoms. " A large amount of the drug would cause the

>disease of which the sympton is the effect.

>

>Both allopathy and homeopathy believe in giving a pill to someone who is sick.

The remedy is the vehicle - we aren't giving a pill of something in a

material dose, in most cases.

Beyond 12C there is NO remaining molecule of the substance.

> The allopath says the drug will kill the germs and somehow assist

> the body in its healing process. The homeopath says the smaller

> dose of the drug will somehow help the body build up its immune

> system to heal the symptoms by giving the symptoms.

No the homeopath does not speak of the immune system. The immune

system is part of the body whole. We work with the energy of the

whole body and we term that the vital force. We don't build up immune systems

> The Hygienist believes in taking nothing. Not drugs, not foods,

> just water. If you have not personally tried this when you were

> sick, then you would have no way of knowing how much healing power

> the body has or the fact that the body will heal without help from

> any kind of substance.

I certainly do and first choice is always that.

> The hygienist says that there is no action on the part of the drug

> whether it comes from the allopath or the homeopath. All action is

> taken by the body.

And the body is acting when it resonates with the energy of a

substance in nature given to us as part of natural law

>The pill has no power to act, it is dead, an inert substance with no

>power of action.

We don't give a pill - we give energy - life giving energy

It can also be given by olfaction or other methods

>The same principle applies to the food faddist who says spinach or

>some other food has curative power. It has no such power. All action

>taken on the food is carried out by the human body. So far from

>there being any such ability on the part of the dead inert drug-any

>special affinity between a poison and a living tissue--the relation

>between them is one of absolute and eternal antagonism. The drug

>does not act at all.

You are talking material dose and that is NOT at all what homeopathy is.

> All the action is on the part of the living organism.

I agree totally.

>And it ejects, rejects, casts out , expels, as best it can, by

>vomiting, purging, sweating, etc., these drug poisons, and the

>doctors have mistaken this warfare against their medicines for their

>action on the living system.

And homeopathy helps these symptoms to become effective if they are

stuck and not effective only.

Homeopathy does NOT work against any symptom or against the wisdom of the body

It assists if stuck or ineffective

> All curring power

> comes from the body, not food or any type of drug.

Certainly - again we don't use drugs in homeopathy

> People just don't want to take responsibility for their own or

> their children's health. How many times have you heard someone say,

> they have a cure for cancer, the government just won't tell us

> about it because there is to much money in the treatment.

>

>Now you have assumed that I know little about homeopathy, that

>I haven't read on the subject. I have read much including a book

>called who is your doctor and why, written by an M.D. who practiced

>homeopathy. I agreed with 90 per-cent of his philosophy, but he and

>I part ways when he attributes the healing power of the body to a pill.

Well, the book you read then is not accurate. To judge homeopathy

when just reading one book and written by an MD no-less.

> Now let me ask you. Have you read just one book on Natural

> Hygiene? Have you read anything By Dr. Shelton, Bragg, Or Dr's

> Trall, Jennings, Oswald, Graham, Tilden or Bernarr Macfadden,just

> to name a few.

I have read much and see them working together very well

>At the risk of repetition, I am going to explain again why I am a

>believer in Natural Hygiene. So please read this carefully. Spend a

>little time and think about it, not to change your mind in your

>belief, but to understand mine.

>

>I do not believe there are 400 diseases only 400 symptoms and just

>one disease. The allopaths classify each symptom as a separate

>disease. I reject that concept as being false. Disease is toxemia.

>Toxemia is caused by the normal by-product of metabolism. A healthy

>body will eliminate the dead body cells, body waste and other

>poisons as fast as it can. If something happens to the immune system

>then the poison accumulates.

Certainly

A healthy body.................

>That is the beginning of disease. That is when the symptoms show.

>Pain, inflammation, colds, etc. When the symptoms appear that is the

>time to fast. When one goes on a fast, the body's functions of

>digestion and absorption cease and the elimination process speeds

>up. When the body cleans itself of the putrid matter health is

>restored, its as simple as that. The name of a particular disease

>just tells the location of the disease not that it is different or

>has a different cause. When one has a so-called disease, cold,

>boil,etc this is an effort of Nature to throw off this unwanted

>poisonous matter, it is called a healing crises. This mucus, pus,

>obstruction is to be found in every case of disease. It is the

>disease. Eliminate the poison from the body and health is restored,

>there are no cures. The procedure of Natural Healing, on the other

>hand, is to cleanse the body of its obstruction, its poison, thereby

>reliving the symptom or pain by relieving the

> cause. Nothing could be more simple.What you call being sick is in

> reality a Healing crises an effort to heal the body by cleansing it

> of poisons. The only disease is the filth and the poison in the

> system. Illnesses are what save our lives. Can you imagine what

> would happen if the body could not eliminate all that pus and mucus

> when your sick. When people die in hospitals, do you not realize

> that they die from the poison in their body and then are overloaded

> with more poison (drugs). Sickness is our salvation if we don't

> interfere with the healing power of Nature.

>

>I totally, categorically without a doubt reject germs as the cause

>of disease. This theory is over 150 years old, promoted by

>a medical profession who knew no more then about the relation of

>disease and lifestyle than they do now. Prevention is of course the

>best way to keep healthy, but I don't want anyone to think I am a

>saint, eating all the right foods everyday or never getting a cold.

>I have been sick, but I simply don't take anything because I believe

>it would interfere with the healing process.

>

>I have on two occasions ask questions to both Sheri and Winnie about

>homeopathy. They gave me their beliefs. I understood what they said

>even thou I did not agree with them.

My belief?

It isn't a belief.

>I realize this is a vaccination forum.

>But everybody from time to time gives advice on disease and

>treatments. I think much of that advice is wrong and could even be

>dangerous. No one knows the lifestyles or states of mind of the

>people on this list. I quote from the books on Natural hygiene with

>the idea someone may be interested and want to read more. I have

>never suggested for anyone to go on a fast, and would not do so

>because one would need a clear understanding of what to expect.

>

>So in a nutshell this is my conclusions after 30 plus years reading

>and personal experience with the allopath.

>Germs do not cause disease.

>Toxemia is the sole cause of disease.

>Healthy lifestyle is the prevention.

>Fasting restores health.

>Viruses do not exist.

>Drugs are poisons and have no healing power.

>Vaccines do not protect, vaccines cause disease, disability and death.

I agree totally

>I have a complete understanding of the belief of homeopathy, and

>reject it along with the other healing arts.

And I still would suggest that you do not have an understanding of it

- it is not a belief.

It is a science - an empirical science.

It can assist the body when stuck and unable to do the above on its own

>I hope this gives you a better understanding of my beliefs.

>

>Take care,

>

>Jim

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

Vaccines - http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm

Vaccine Dangers & Homeopathy Online/email courses - next classes March 18 & 19

March 5, 2009

Jim, I am sorry, but my connection will drop out soon. I will respond to this

post, but it is likely to appear later when hopefully I am back online. I do

want to apologise though for any offence you may have taken. I do not dispute

your hygienist outlook, and certainly understand you are well educated in the

information you share with the list. I am not trying to sound superior or more

educated in any way. I simply did not agree with a couple of statements you

made. I have been unable to keep up with the entire thread, and will be reading

emails for most of the day. So if my opinion was out of context, then I am

sorry for that also. I see that Sheri has responded with comments on your

understanding of homeopathy. There is no need for me to touch on that, as I am

only a mother who has not had the time to do the extensive reading necessary for

me to elaborate on that which has been said. I have many day to day

commitments. I have a job at a coffee farm where I spend 2 days a week out in

the full tropical sun planting coffee. Then I have a small home business which

takes up at least 2 days a week. Plus I have 2 small children to take care of.

Then, to maintain health my partner and I have a large vegetable garden to tend,

animals to feed etc. I usually keep up with posts by reading them as they come

in, but this has not been possible, and I have a huge amount to catch up on.

You respond to my post as if I am opposing you. That is not the case. I don't

know how you got that impression, but I am tired and could be missing something.

If I cannot state my opinion here in as simple terms as possible, then obviously

there is no point me posting at all. I was not aware that I had to be highly

educated and well read to simply state what I believe. I never suggested that

you need to believe the same. I would love to have the time to read the books

you suggest. Maybe when the kids are older I will get that chance.

At the end of the day, I just try and avoid toxins to the best of my ability.

Even to the point of buying property in a rural pollution free area, growing our

own organic food, and NOT treating illness in any way. Like I said in my post,

I have rarely used my homeopathy kit. When I say rarely, I mean twice. I may

not be as far along this road as you are, but I feel I am further along it than

you assume.

Anyway, my connection is still there. My satellite dish has been affected by

the rain. Thankfully it seems to be drying out now. The last thing I will say

is that I appreciate the knowledge people share on this list. But some of us

are only laypeople, and I feel as though I am being talked down to because of

that. I am here because I can learn. I don't know if you are also here for

that reason, or just to share your knowledge.

It would be so much better to have this conversation face to face. But that is

not possible. The written word can easily be taken out of context. I usually

spend more time reading over the things I say to avoid that happening. But I

really want to send this while I can. I am more than happy to carry on this

conversation if you wish, but it probably should be offlist, as we have veered

off topic.

Hope you have a great day

Fieldman

March 5, 2009

Hi

Not offended, but you did hit a sore spot with the assumption I wasn't

knowledgeable about homeopathy.

I am sorry if my points were so sharp. I meant you no harm.

I think the problem was that both you and Sheri read in my post that I was

saying that susceptibility was the cause of disease. When the question from a

poster " Is there a test for susceptibility " I was using a hypothetical example

of what an allopath would say to his sick patient if he didn't know the cause of

his patients ailment. In other words if a patient said to his doctor what caused

my illness, the doctor would just say well some people are just susceptible. He

would use that term to cover his own ignorance of not knowing cause.

And used in that sense would mean nothing.

And from that point it turned into I need to understand homeopathy.

This a vax form. I have no problem if Shari or anyone else wants to promote

homeopathy. And in all fairness anyone should be able to express their belief

in the other healing arts without suggestion to take a course in homeopathy. I

have suggested the reading of books on fasting, but have not actually told

someone to go on a fast when they are sick. There is an old Chinese proverb,

" when the pupil is ready the teacher will appear. "

I do not believe nor would have no intention of talking down to you. I have

respect for both you and your healthy lifestyle and your wisdom.

If you feel more clarification is needed please feel free to contact me off

list.

Sincerely,

Jim

________________________________

From: Fieldman <lisafieldman@...>

Vaccinations

Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2009 4:32:30 PM

Subject: Re: Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

Jim, I am sorry, but my connection will drop out soon. I will respond to this

post, but it is likely to appear later when hopefully I am back online. I do

want to apologise though for any offence you may have taken. I do not dispute

your hygienist outlook, and certainly understand you are well educated in the

information you share with the list. I am not trying to sound superior or more

educated in any way. I simply did not agree with a couple of statements you

made. I have been unable to keep up with the entire thread, and will be reading

emails for most of the day. So if my opinion was out of context, then I am sorry

for that also. I see that Sheri has responded with comments on your

understanding of homeopathy. There is no need for me to touch on that, as I am

only a mother who has not had the time to do the extensive reading necessary for

me to elaborate on that which has been said. I have many day to day commitments.

I have a job at a coffee farm

where I spend 2 days a week out in the full tropical sun planting coffee. Then

I have a small home business which takes up at least 2 days a week. Plus I have

2 small children to take care of. Then, to maintain health my partner and I have

a large vegetable garden to tend, animals to feed etc. I usually keep up with

posts by reading them as they come in, but this has not been possible, and I

have a huge amount to catch up on.