Antigens/Adjuvants/Antibodies/Immunity

[Guest guest]

a review of the subject, repeated here

Antigens/Adjuvants/Antibodies/Immunity

Excellent summary by Bronwyn Hancock on AVN email

list (in response to a 'believer' in vaccine so-called science........)

I wanted to share as it shows a little clearer

what they are doing, trying to get a response out

of the immune system with adjuvants, etc. Sheri

http://www.vaccination.inoz.com/

(Bronwyn's Website - Vaccination Information Service)

" Indeed immunologists admit to feeling

uncomfortable about the fact that they have to

add aluminium compounds to get the body to even

produce significant levels of antibodies. If the

vaccination theory was correct, exposure to the

" germ " alone should be enough. After all, parents

are told how " natural " it is all supposed to be. "

" The body doesn't need anything to " make it aware

of disease " . Our immune systems are not asleep!

The reason it has trouble with infections when it

does is not due to it being caught by " surprise " ,

requiring you to give it just a little taste of

it in advance! Indeed the doses of the antigens

in the vaccines are not small, but large, host

susceptibility at the time being the primary key,

not the volume of the invasion. (As Louis Pasteur

himself ended up saying, " The seed is nothing, the soil is everything. " ). "

Bronwyn's full response.........

According to the definitions you provided, you

said that " sensitive " means, in respect of

vaccination, " 2b : capable of being stimulated or

excited by external agents " . In other words, when

vaccines make the immune system more sensitive,

they are making it " more capable of being

stimulated or excited by external agents " . Well

that is actually correct. The trouble is, immune

system is of course, to start with, ALREADY quite

capable of being stimulated or excited by

external agents. (In fact if it wasn't, it

wouldn't be able to create the antibodies, would

it?) Responding to external agents is exactly

what its whole job is. Thinking you need to annoy the immune

system to make it start working is a bit like

saying you need to give babies an injection of a

large dose of caffeine, or to make the parallel

closer, Coca Cola, to make their heart start beating.

Any further " sensitisation " makes the immune

system OVER-inclined to be excited by external

agents.Yet the whole idea of vaccines is SUPPOSED

to be to give the body the opportunity to

exercise its already INHERENT capability on ONE

occasion, i.e. the time of the injection, so that

the EFFECT will be that in the future it will be

LESS inclined to be excited by external agents,

because it already has its defence, i.e. its

" trusty " antibodies, all ready. Illness symptoms,

that vaccines are supposed to be trying to

prevent from occurring, ARE the signs of the

immune system being " stimulated or excited by

external agents " . In short, looking back at your

definition, vaccines are supposed to be providing

the STIMULUS itself, NOT the capability, for the

immune system to react on ONE occasion, they are

NOT supposed to be making it more inclined to

react than it would have done otherwise in an

ongoing sense in the future. Or to put it another

way, vaccines are not really supposed to be

sensitising the immune system, only providing the

stimulus for it at its current level of

sensitivity. So you seem to be confused as to the

meaning of sensitisation (or sensitization, since you're a yank).

And that's not all. Not only does it increase the

chance of experiencing disease symptoms when the

contents of the vaccines, including the targeted

antigen itself, is encountered in the future, but

the unnatural process of injection and the

poisons injected derail the immune system and

cause the kind of response to be different from

what it should be. Hence:- - the more serious

atypical forms of the diseases (look up " atypical

measles " for yourself in a medical dictionary,

but references are on the web site), - the

chronic forms where the handicapped immune system

fails to deal with the infection properly and

terminally, so the symptoms are weak and just

never go really away for long (we've all seen

this in vaccinated children), or similarly - the

multiple occurrences of the disease, showing that

the process of developing immunity has been

interfered with. It was the observation of the

fact that going through a disease once brings

immunity that brought on the idea of vaccination

to start with (without the understanding that you

can't try to cheat) and yet not only did it turn

out that vaccines do not bring immunity, but they

can even prevent it from developing. Dr Kalokerinos

mentions on the video that after a smallpox

vaccination campaign in the pines it was

ONLY the vaccinated that subsequently contracted smallpox more than once.

So, so much for, as you believe, enabling the

recipient to fight off the diseases better.

When the effects of poisons such as formaldehyde,

mercury and aluminium compounds are listed, the

list includes " immune system sensitiser " . In

other words they have an overall NON-SPECIFIC

effect of sensitising the immune system. It would

be funny if all the other effects of these

poisons were bad and yet somehow this particular

one was good. Indeed immunologists admit to

feeling uncomfortable about the fact that they

have to add aluminium compounds to get the body

to even produce significant levels of antibodies.

If the vaccination theory was correct, exposure

to the " germ " alone should be enough. After all,

parents are told how " natural " it is all supposed to be.

The articles I have read make it very clear what

they mean by " sensitise " (or U.S. spelling:

" sensitize " ). Here is one that even skips the use

of the word altogether and goes straight to its

meaning, in respect to VACCINATION: Effect of

Pertussis Toxin on Susceptibility of Infant Rats

to Haemophilus influenzae Type b, Samore and

Siber. Journal of Infectious Diseases

1992;165:945-8. Abstract: " Pertussis toxin is an

important virulence factor of Bordetella

pertussis that may also contribute to the toxicity of

pertussis vaccines. The effect of low doses of

pertussis toxin on response to Haemophilus

influenzae Type b (Hib) infection was examined in

infant rats. Pretreatment of rats with 10 or 100

ng of pertussis toxin increased blood bacterial

concentration (P < .01), serum endotoxin levels

(P < .01), and mortality (P < .05) relative to

saline pretreated controls challenged with 4000

Hib intraperitoneally. The 100-ng dose of

pertussis toxin, but not the 10-ng dose,

increased the leukocyte count. Thus, doses of pertussis

toxin less than the threshold dose for inducing

leukocytosis may enhance the susceptibility of infant rats to Hib infections. "

Here are some others:

* Kind, L.S. Sensitivity of pertussis-inoculated

mice to endotoxin. J Immunology 1959:82 p32-7

* Holt P, McMenamin C, D. Primary

sensitization to inhalant allergens during

infancy. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 1990;1:3-13.

* McMenamin C, Schon HM, Oliver J, Girn B, Holt

PG. Regulation of IgE responses to inhaled

antigens: cellular mechanisms underlying allergic

sensitization versus tolerance induction. Int

Arch Allergy Appl Immunol 1991;94:78-82.

* J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999;103:200-2.

Editorial. The gelatin story. M. Kelso MD:

... Thus prior injection with gelatin-containing

DTaP vaccine may be the cause of sensitization to

gelatin and the subsequent reaction to other gelatin-containing vaccines...

* Agents Actions 1984 Oct;15(3-4):211-5. Schreurs

AJ; Nijkamp FP. Bronchial hyper-reactivity to

histamine induced by Haemophilus influenzae vaccination.

These are some of the most relevant references

(explicitly about the sensitisation effect) on my

web site, which you say that you have visited,

and yet you claim that I have not provided any

references, so it could not have been a long visit:

* " Anaphylaxis or so-called encephalopathy in

mice sensitized to an antigen with the aid of

pertussigen (pertussis toxin). " (Munoz, Infect Immunol, April, l987)

* " Immunoglobulin E and G responses to pertussis

toxin after booster immunization in relation to

atopy, local reactions and aluminum content of

the vaccines. " (A human study from Sweden)

(Odelram, Pediatr Allergy Immunol, l994)

* " Comparison of vaccination of mice and rats

with Haemophilus influenzae and Bordetella

pertussis as models of atopy. " (Terpstra, Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol, l979)

* " Pertussis adjuvant prolongs intestinal

hypersensitivity. " (Kosecka, Int Arch Allergy Immunol, l999)

* " The pathogenesis of postvaccinal

complications " , Fortschr Med 1981 Mar 19;99(11):380-1.

* Aust Fam Physician 1976 Jul;5(6):734-55

* " The Jell-O® Story " , Jrnl of Allergy and Clinical Immunol: Feb 1999

* Insert for Tet-Tox tetanus vaccine, produced by

CSL Limited. Extract: " Occasionally, the reaction

may be due to persons having become sensitised to

the toxoid as a result of previous administration. " (Thankyou very much, CSL!)

Here are various articles by Raaijmakers JA,

Terpstra GK et al, regarding their observed

effects of the Hib vaccine, with extracts from the abstracts:

* Int Arch Allergy Appl Immunol 1980;61(3):352-7.

Mast cells as a possible source of Haemophilus

influenzae-induced changes in plasma and lung

histamine levels. Histidine decarboxylase

activity and histamine levels of peritoneal mast

cells were enhanced 4 days after intraperitoneal

Haemophilus influenzae vaccination of rats.These

data might explain the earlier observed enhanced

plasma and lung histamine levels in H. influenzae- vaccinated rats.

* Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 1979

Mar-Apr;6(2):139-49. Comparison of vaccination of

mice and rats with and Bordetella pertussis as

models of atopy. .In rats a single (Haemophilus

influenzae) vaccination resulted in a

dose-dependent effect on the blood eosinophil

count in a pattern comparable with that after

Bordetella pertussis vaccination. In a long-term

vaccination schedule (five times a week for 5

weeks) rats developed a constant eosinophilia.

* Ann Allergy 1979 Jan;42(1):36-40. Effects of

Haemophilus influenzae vaccination on the

(para-)sympathic- cyclic nucleotide-histamine

axis in rats. .Haemophilus influenzae vaccination

induced changes in the cholinergic system

compatible with higher cyclic GMP levels and enhanced histamine release...

* Eur J Respir Dis Suppl 1984;135:34-46. Changes

in beta-adrenergic responses as a consequence of

infection with micro-organisms .Impairment of

beta-adrenergic systems together with a reduction

in the number of beta 2-adrenoceptors was found after vaccination.

* Eur J Pharmacol 1980 Apr 4;62(4):261-8. The

effects of Haemophilus influenzae vaccination on

anaphylactic mediator release and

isoprenaline-induced inhibition of mediator

release. . These results indicate an increased

sensitivity to antigenic challenge and suggest

that the functioning of beta-adrenoceptors was

decreased as a result of H. influenzae vaccination.

(There are more references in " Vaccination " by Dr Scheibner.)

The body doesn't need anything to " make it aware

of disease " . Our immune systems are not asleep!

The reason it has trouble with infections when it

does is not due to it being caught by " surprise " ,

requiring you to give it just a little taste of

it in advance! Indeed the doses of the antigens

in the vaccines are not small, but large, host

susceptibility at the time being the primary key,

not the volume of the invasion. (As Louis Pasteur

himself ended up saying, " The seed is nothing,

the soil is everything. " ). The viruses are not

really inactivated either, because viruses are

very resilient and the less than 100% anyway that

are successfully impeded bounce back quickly.

Plenty of people come down with the 'flu from

their 'flu shot and yet the virus is supposed to

be inactivated. And if you want to warn the

immune system in order to prepare it, the LAST

thing you should be doing is DIRECTLY injecting

the stuff straight into the bloodstream! This

bypasses all the warning bells, because they are

activated when the antigen enters via the natural

portals of entry! Hence many have contracted

serious cases of the disease directly from the vaccine.

So diseases are NOT prevented by the presence of

antibodies, because the antibodies induced by

vaccines do NOT bring immunity. The antibodies

that hang around once a person has naturally

contracted a disease are a RESULT of developing

immunity, i.e. A (development of immunity) causes

B (antibodies). That does not mean that you can

do it the other way around - induce B in the

hope that B will cause A. An example, if it is

still needed, showing that antibodies do NOT mean

immunity is one I have only mentioned recently on

another post, i.e. BMJ 1999;319:1049-1049 (16 October). Clinical review.

Lesson of the week. Tetanus in an immunised patient

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/319/7216/1049 .

There are plenty more where that came from.

Detection of the presence of antibodies (produced

by one's own immune system) without any other

information available, means only one thing, and

that is that the person has had exposure to the

antigen. There is no such thing as

vaccine-induced " immunity " , only vaccine-induced antibodies.

I might add that an infant's immune system is not

even developed sufficiently to produce

specialised antibodies. A biomedical scientist

recently told me this: " In the spleen in the

marginal zone separating the white and red pulp,

is housed B-lymphocytes. In adults these will

express ONE antibody on the surface, which will

be IgG, IgM or IgD. In infants and young

children, however, they will express on the cell

surface a double or triple phenotype IgG, IgM or

IgD, indicative of immaturity. " In other words,

these cells have not even worked out yet which antibody they are.

A brave doctor in the Australian Government's own

immunisation department quietly told a mother who

rang (concerned about the MMR) that vaccines are

useless under the age of two. We know they're

useless over that age too, but this was still

quite a significant thing to say considering that

25 of the 32 vaccines in the childhood

" immunisation " schedule (prior to school age that

is), are given under the age of two.

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

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Washington State, USA

Vaccines -

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm or

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

Vaccine Dangers, Childhood Disease Classes &

Homeopathy Online/email courses - next classes start September 9 & 10

http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccineclass.htm or

http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm