Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

December 9, 2008

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

December 10, 2008

>

> I think the assumption is that antibodies equal immunity without

ever proving it. After all, they would need to deliberately expose

people in studies to disease for a prolonged period of time in order

to truly test whether vaccines work. But they don't do that.

It would be nice to have someone on this forum who is an experienced

scientist or a biologist who has actually done these kinds of

experiments/studies. I believe from my readings that they do expose

animals to different diseases when they try vaccines and other

medications. Like in that article that Sheri posted about the doctor

who discovered another side to immune system, he used some test

animal and it showed that after injecting it with white blood cells

as well as antibodies, the animal was protected from whatever

diseases was studied. But when he injected it with just anitbodies,

the animal got the disease. As i mnetioned, it would be very helpful

to have some knowledgable person on this forum who has actually

participated in lab research pertaining to vaccines, then we can know

for sure what it actually being tested and how they do it.

Katarina

December 10, 2008

At 06:21 AM 12/10/2008, you wrote:

>I don't remember where I read it, it may have even been on this

>group, that vaccines are actually loss leaders. The pharmaceutical

>companies don't make any money off of them, they lose money.

They love to have you think that.

They are a HUGE money maker - why do you think there are so many

companies jumping on the bandwagon to research vaccines. Hundreds in

the pipeline.

> They

>make up for it with vaccine injuries and diseases caused by vaccines

>and the drugs that are generated and sold to treat these injuries and

>diseases.

That adds to the huge profits already made from the vaccines mandated.

Sheri

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

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 &

Childhood Disease & Homeopathy Email classes start in December 2008

December 10, 2008

it would be very helpful

> to have some knowledgable person on this forum who has actually

> participated in lab research pertaining to vaccines, then we can know

> for sure what it actually being tested and how they do it.

**** I have this on very good authority. In animal models, they do

expose the animal to the antigen. Sometimes naturally, sometimes not.

They measure immunity when the vaccinated animal ceases to show

symptoms, and this seroconversion point is what is then used. Not

showing symptoms is not the same as being immune, and " they " certainly

avoid publishing contagion levels of the subclinical animals.

**** These titer levels are what are then used to measure efficacy in

human trials. If " X " amount of human subjects seroconvert to the

levels demonstrated in the animal models, the vaccine is " effective " .

Has nothing to do with effective at preventing disease... and while the

symptoms might be milder due to the presence of antibodies, they are

still sick.

unherdof

December 10, 2008

There are a lot of knowledgeable people on this list about vaccines.

They are the people who either took vaccines or their children took them

and they got sick or died. What you need to understand is everything about

vaccines

preventing disease is either a theory or a lie. You can do the research your

self. Go back into the

history of vaccinations not the crap we learned in school or today's pro vaccine

media, but to the

medical dissenters who wrote the books on what really happened. They have no

PROOF of anything, if they did they wouldn't have to pass laws forcing us to

take the poison. We would beat the door down. The people on this list all, like

myself believed and never questioned the issue until it was too late. Viruses,

antibody's,germ theory are just that theory's. In America one needs to follow

the money trail to get to the truth. I could go on forever, but a good source of

factual information is 's Webb. Just one note. The fraud of Salk's polio

vaccine. They were puzzled because some people supposedly had polio with no

antibody's and some people had antibody's and no polio. So they just decided

that everybody had polio and didn't know it and more than one virus(that they

couldn't see) was the cause. The more you learn the more you will find out that

what they call science today is just junk science.

The real problem is that when people hear statements like, everybody has a

disease, but they just don't know it,

most people do not spend 5 seconds thinking about the absurdity of it. There is

no human that has any machine that can go into the body and actually see a cell

being destroyed by a poison. Which means there is no proof that a vaccine

prevents disease or causes disease. That's why they get away with it.

Jim

________________________________

From: absolutely_unherdof <moon.gemini.sun@...>

Vaccinations

Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 10:37:20 AM

Subject: Re: Antibody titers do NOT = immunity