Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Antibody titers do NOT EQUAL immunity!


Antibody titers do NOT EQUAL immunity
- Sheri Nakken
Much of what conventional studies use for 'proof' a vaccine 'works' and'gives immunity' are increased antibody titres after administration of thevaccine. As you can see - that is a fallacyAntibodies are just one aspect of the immune system. They show there hasbeen exposure. PERIOD. If there are antibodies after experiencing adisease, they may mean immunity as the rest of the immune system wasmobilized - all aspects. With vaccines, much of the immune system isbypassed - TH1 (mouth, nose, throat and all aspects of immune system thatgets mobilized there). Only TH2 responds (simplified a bit here). Soantibodies do NOT mean immunity. All aspects need to be measured and forthe most part they have no clue how to do that or even what to measure andwhat actually indicates immunity.

*************http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/22/ny...AS.htmlJanuary 22, 2004Merrill W. Chase Is Dead at 98; Scientist Who Advanced ImmunologyBy ANAHAD O'CONNORDr. Merrill W. Chase, an immunologist whose research on white blood cellshelped undermine the longstanding belief that antibodies alone protectedthe body from disease and micro-organisms, died on Jan. 5 at his home inNew York City, according to the Rockefeller University, where he worked for70 years. He was 98.

Dr. Chase made his landmark discovery in the early 1940's while workingwith Dr. Karl Landsteiner, a Nobel laureate recognized for his workidentifying the human blood groups. At the time, experts believed that thebody mounted its attacks against pathogens primarily through antibodiescirculating in the blood stream, known as humoral immunity.But Dr. Chase, working in his laboratory, stumbled upon somethingthatappeared to shatter that widespread tenet.As he tried to immunize a guinea pig against a disease using antibodies hehad extracted from a second pig, he found that blood serum did not work asthe transfer agent.Not until he used white blood cells did the immunity carry over to the oherguinea pig, providing solid evidence that it could not be antibodies aloneorchestrating the body's immune response.

Dr. Chase had uncovered the second arm of the immune system, orcell-mediated immunity. His finding became the groundwork for laterresearch that pinpointed B cells, T cells and other types of white bloodcells as the body's central safeguards against infection."This was a major discovery because everyone now thinks of the immuneresponse in two parts, and in many instances it's the cellular componentsthat are more important," said Dr. Michel Nussenzweig, a professor ofimmunology 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 setin motion the research that helped redefine the fundamental nature of theimmune system."So many areas of medicine rely on this type of reaction that he clearlydistinguished as not being antibody mediated," said Dr. Ralph Steinman, aprofessor of cellular physiology and immunology at Rockefeller. "Peoplenever anticipated that there would be something other than antibodies. Itwas an amazing finding."Born in Providence, R.I., in 1905, Merrill Wallace Chase earned hisbachelor's degree and doctorate from Brown. He taught biology there for ayear, before joining the faculty at Rockefeller in 1932 as an assistant toDr. Landsteiner. He has published at least 150 scientific papers.In 1975, he was elected to the
National Academy of Sciences

**********Dr John B March, a well-known scientist who develops animal vaccines UK,"So animal vaccines are actually subjected to far more rigorous safetytesting than human vaccines. But animal trials also raise another worryingquestion about the human triple jab: how effective is it? Human trialsgenerally correlate "antibody" responses with protection - that is if thebody produces antibodies (proteins) which bind to vaccine components, thenit must be working and safe. Yet Dr March says antibody response isgenerally a poor measure of protection and no indicator at all of safety."Particularly for viral diseases, the 'cellular' immune response is allimportant, and antibody levels and protection are totally unconnected.""a well - known and respected vaccine researcher and even he says the above

*******From Meryl Dorey, Director of AVN on AVN email list.......Hi
Jamie,>But Meryl, why are you aking me a question when you already know what myanswer will be. I have no doubt you could explain my point of view muchbetter than I. Well, two reasons, I guess. One is to play the devil's advocate a bit ;-) Imean, I was brought up in a house where we were not happy unless we werehaving a discussion about two sides of some issue. Debating was a familyhobby. Also, I was interested to hear what your reasoning was and to behonest, 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 wasdisproven a long time ago. And I mean a LONG TIME! Study after study hasshown that people with high levels of serum antibodies have contractedillnesses they are serologically immune to whilst those with low to noantibodies have been protected. I will quote below a section from anarticle on Polio vaccine which is coming out in the next issue of InformedChoice Magazine:"Two studies which were published in 1939 and 1942, investigated thediphtheria antibody concentration in people who contracted diphtheria inEngland and Wales. It reported, "on repeated occasions, it was found that asample of serum, taken from a patient with a clear history of inoculationwho had yielded diphtheria bacilli from nose or throat swabs (a sure signof diphtheria infection) .was found to contain quite large quantities ofdiphtheria antitoxin." (in other words, they were serologically immune todiphtheria yet they contracted it) Ironically, they found, ".the occurrenceof several instances of non-inoculated persons having no circulatingantitoxin, harbouring virulent organisms and yet remaining perfectly well."(they were unvaccinated, had active diphtheria bacteria detectable in theirnose and throat and yetdisplayed no symptoms of illness).We know now and have known for over 60 years that our method of measuringimmunity is completely wrong. Despite this, we continue to use theseuseless tests to show that vaccinates work because after vaccinationsomeone develops antibodies!"You said that:"To answer your question more directly: natural infection will stimulateantibodies, but often too late. And, natural infection (when you survive)doesn't protect you against future infection."And yet, think about it Jamie. If the antibody production from naturalinfection will not protect you from future infection (which you admit itwill not), then how will the antibodies from vaccines do so? Also, sincetetanus and diphtheria are both toxin-mediated illnesses (as is pertussis),how can antibodies EVER prevent the
multiplication of toxin since, uponexposure 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 notequal immunity to infection, how can we show that vaccines protect?2- If the production of antibodies does not protect against toxin-mediateddiseases, why do we continue to vaccinate against them?Take care,Meryl*******Antibodies are just ONE part of the immune system response.........maybeantibodies meant something after experiencing a disease as antibody titreswere there AS WELL as the rest of the immune response (which isn'tmeasured). But in vaccines antibodies just mean exposure and do NOT meanthe immune system went through
all it needed to to give lasting immunity orany 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 atthe same time you are not susceptible, if that makes sense to you. At leastyou weren't susceptible when you were exposed to it anyway. A mother had herdaughter sleep at the home of another couple of children who had chickenpox so that she could contract it, and she did not for ages, though sheeventually did after 6 weeks. It is apparent that the body will onlycontract a particular disease if and when it needs to, and it may be thatyou could go all your life without it ever needing to, even though you
arenot fully immune. I think it is good to have the exposure though, becausethen at least the body has the opportunity to go through it if it willbenefit from it.Many factors would influence our susceptibility to contracting a particularinfection in the first place, including health (which is affected bynutrition, clean water, fresh air, etc), mental state, genes and the body'smetabolism and biorhythms.So, if immunity can't be measured by the level of serum antibodies, doesanyone know of any other tests that can be performed to determine immunity?If antibodies ARE present, and the person has not been vaccinated, then youwould know that the antibodies were produced as a result of going throughthe disease naturally, which does bring immunity, provided the immune systemis functioning normally.So combining all of the above, ....antibodies in non-vaccinated person will signal
immunity. If you do NOThave 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 muchbetter indication of immunity than IgG antibodies, but when you have gonethrough the infection naturally (i.e. the antigen has entered through thenatural portals of entry), both would be present anyway. When you injectthe vaccine ingredients directly into the system, however, you basicallybypass the production of IgA, which is another reason why we knowimmunologically that vaccines are ineffective. Indeed it is the quietrealisation of this significant error that is prompting efforts to producevaccines that areinhaled instead of injected, e.g. the 'flu vaccine (though they will stillbe pointless and contain harmful ingredients).It has been theorised by some that vaccines overstimulate the humoralimmune response (which
incorporates the production of antibodies) at theexpense of the other major part of the immune system - the cell-mediatedimmuneresponse (the production of T cells). I would say that even this is beingtoo kind to vaccines, because it clearly does not even stimulate a normalhumoral immune response. The immune system is very complex and withimportant inter-relationships between its components. The development ofimmunity requires many processes to occur and complete, requiring the wholeteam work of all the required immune system components. This simply will notoccur other than when the body contracts the infection naturally, and thisis only when IT, THE BODY, wants to, not when man wants it to, say at 3:15in the afternoon between getting the shopping done and going around to leavebaby at nanna's in time to get to the gym, etc.Bronwyn

*************"Finally, adjuvanticity is more often evaluated
in terms ofantigen-specific antibody titers induced after parenteral immunization. Itis known that, in many instances, antigen-specific antibody titers do notcorrelate with protection."Vaccine. 2001 Oct 15;20 Suppl 1:S38-41. PMID: 11587808Vaccine. 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 oftenlimited problems of immunogenicity, probably due to the low level of purityof the active component(s) they contain. The application of newtechnologies to vaccine development is leading to the production of purer(e.g. recombinant) antigens which, however, tend to have a poorerimmunogenicity as compared to vaccines of the previous generation. Thesearch for new vaccine adjuvants involves
issues related to their potentiallimits. Since the introduction of aluminium salts as vaccine adjuvants morethan 70 years ago, only one adjuvant has been licensed for human use. Thedevelopment of some of these new vaccine adjuvants has been hampered bytheir inacceptable reactogenicity. In addition, some adjuvants workstrongly with some antigens but not with others, thus, limiting theirpotentially widespread use. The need to deliver vaccines via alternativeroutes of administration (e.g. the mucosal routes) in order to enhancetheir efficacy and compliance has set new requirements in basic and appliedresearch to evaluate their efficacy and safety. Cholera toxin (CT) andlabile enterotoxin (LT) mutants given along with intranasal or oralvaccines are strong candidates as mucosal adjuvants. Their potentialreactogenicity is still matter of discussions, although available datasupport the notion that the effects
due to their binding to the cells andthose due to the enzymatic activity can be kept separated. Finally,adjuvanticity is more often evaluated in terms of antigen-specific antibodytiters induced after parenteral immunization. It is known that, in manyinstances, antigen-specific antibody titers do not correlate withprotection. In addition, very little is known on parameters ofcell-mediated immunity which could be considered as surrogates ofprotection. Tailoring of new adjuvants for the development of vaccines withimproved immunogenicity/efficacy and reduced reactogenicity will representone 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=11587808 & dopt=Abstract

***************Antibody Theoryhttp://www.whale.to/vaccines/antibody.htmlQuotes Disease theoryAntibodies used as measure of immunity:"He said the normal trials on a new vaccine were not possible in Britainbecause of the relatively small numbers of people who contracted thedisease. Instead scientists had tested whether the vaccine producedsufficient antibodies."--Media report on meningitis C vaccineAntibodies not a measure of immunity:"Human trials generally correlate "antibody" responses with protection -that is if the body produces antibodies (proteins) which bind to vaccinecomponents, then it must be working and safe. Yet Dr March says antibodyresponse is
generally a poor measure of protection and no indicator at allof safety. "Particularly for viral diseases, the 'cellular' immune responseis all important, and antibody levels and protection are totallyunconnected."--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 Councilentitled 'A study of diphtheria in two areas of Gt. Britain, Special reportseries 272, HMSO 1950 demonstrated that many of the diphtheria patients hadhigh levels of circulating antibodies, whereas many of the contacts whoremained perfectly well had low antibody."--Magda Taylor, Informed Parent"Just because you give somebody a vaccine, and perhaps get an antibodyreaction, doesn’t mean a thing. The only true antibodies, of course, arethose you get naturally. What we’re doing [when we inject vaccines] isinterfering
with a very delicate mechanism that does its own thing. Ifnutrition is correct, it does it in the right way. Now if you insult aperson in this way and try to trigger off something that nature looksafter, you’re asking for all sorts of trouble, and we don’t believe itworks."—Glen Dettman Ph.D, interviewed by Jay Patrick, and quoted in "TheGreat American Deception," Let’s Live, December 1976, p. 57."Many measles vaccine efficacy studies relate to their ability to stimulatean antibody response, (sero-conversion or sero-response). An antibodyresponse does not necessarily equate to immunity......... the level ofantibody needed for effective immunity is different in eachindividual.....immunity can be demonstrated in individuals with a low or nodetectable levels of antibody. Similarly in other individuals with higherlevels of antibody there may be no immunity. We therefore need to stayclear on the
issue: How do we know if the vaccine is effective for aparticular individual when we do not know what level of antibody productionequals immunity?"--Trevor Gunn BScA jab in the dark"The antibody business: Millions of screening tests are distributed, eachblood sample needs to be tested (4 millions in Germany alone) ... Thetherapy business: Antiviral medication, 3 or 4 or 5 fold combinations, AIDScan´t be topped in this department. ....... With intoxication hypotheses onthe other hand you cannot make any money at all. The simple message is:Avoid the poison and you won´t get sick. Such hypotheses arecounterproductive insofar as the toxins (drugs, alcohol, pills, phosmet)bring high revenues. The conflict of interests is not resolvable: Whatvirologist who does directly profit millions from their patent rights ofthe HIV or HCV tests (Montagnier, Simon Wain-Hobsen, Robin Weiss, RobertGallo)
can risk to take even one look in the other direction."--By ClausK√∂hnlein"When they say immunogenicity what they actually mean is antibody levels.Antibody levels are not the same as IMMUNITY. The recent MUMPS vaccinefisaco in Switzerland has re-emphasised this point. Three mumpsvaccines—Rubini, Jeryl-Lynn and Urabe (the one we withdrew because itcaused encepahlitis) all produced excellent antibody levels but thosevaccinated with the Rubini strain had the same attack rate as those notvaccinated at all (12), there were some who said that it actually causedoutbreaks."--Dr Jayne Donegan"Whenever we read vaccine papers the MD researchers always assume that ifthere 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 vaccinefiasco in Switzerland has
re-emphasized this point. Three mumpsvaccines-Rubini, Jeryl-Lynn and Urabe (the one withdrawn because it causedencephalitis) all produced excellent antibody levels but those vaccinatedwith the Rubini strain had the same attack rate as those not vaccinated atall, there were some who said that it actually caused outbreaks. Ref:Schegal M et al Comparative efficacy of three mumps vaccines during diseaseoutbreak in Switzerland: cohort study. BMJ, 1999; 319:352-3."--Ted Koren DC"In order to better grasp the issue of vaccine effectiveness, it wouldprove helpful for us to go back to the early theoretical foundation uponwhich current vaccination and disease theories originated. In simplestterms, the theory of artificial immunization postulates that by giving aperson a mild form of a disease, via the use of specific foreign proteins,attenuated viruses, etc., the body will react by producing a
lastingprotective response e.g., antibodies, to protect the body if or when thereal disease comes along.This primal theory of disease prevention originated by Paul Ehrlich--fromthe time of its inception--has been subject to increasing abandonment byscientists of no small stature. For example not long after the Ehrlichtheory came into vogue, W.H. Manwaring, then Professor of Bacteriology andExperimental Pathology at Leland Stanford University observed:I believe that there is hardly an element of truth in a single one of thebasic hypothesis embodied in this theory. My conviction that there wassomething radically wrong with it arose from a consideration of the almostuniversal failure of therapeutic methods based on it . . . Twelve years ofstudy with immuno-physical tests have yielded a mass of experimentalevidence contrary to, and irreconcilable with the Ehrlich theory, and haveconvinced me that
his conception of the origin, nature, and physiologicalrole of the specific 'antibodies' is erroneous.33To afford us with a continuing historical perspective of events sinceManwaring's time, we can next turn to the classic work on auto-immunity anddisease by Sir MacFarlane Burnett, which indicates that since the middle ofthis century the place of antibodies at the centre stage of immunity todisease has undergone "a striking demotion." For example, it had becomewell known that children with agammaglobulinaemia--who consequently have nocapacity to produce antibody--after contracting measles, (or other zymoticdiseases) nonetheless recover with long-lasting immunity. In his view itwas clear "that a variety of other immunological mechanisms are functioningeffectively without benefit of actively produced antibody."34The kind of research which led to this a broader perspective on the
body'simmunological mechanisms included a mid-century British investigation onthe relationship of the incidence of diphtheria to the presence ofantibodies. The study concluded that there was no observable correlationbetween the antibody count and the incidence of the disease." "Theresearchers found people who were highly resistant with extremely lowantibody count, and people who developed the disease who had high antibodycounts.35(According to Don de Savingy of IDRC, the significance of the role ofmultiple immunological factors and mechanisms has gained wide recognitionin scientific thinking. [For example, it is now generally held thatvaccines operate by stimulating non-humeral mechanisms, with antibodyserving only as an indicator that a vaccine was given, or that a person wasexposed to a particular infectious agent.])In the early 70's we find an article in the Australian Journal of
MedicalTechnology by medical virologist B. Allen (of the Australian Laboratory ofMicrobiology and Pathology, Brisbane) which reported that although a groupof recruits were immunized for Rubella, and uniformly demonstratedantibodies, 80 percent of the recruits contracted the disease when laterexposed to it. Similar results were demonstrated in a consecutive studyconducted at an institution for the mentally disabled. Allen--in commentingon herb research at a University of Melbourne seminar--stated that "onemust wonder whether the . . . decision to rely on herd immunity might nothave to be rethought.36As we proceed to the early 80s, we find that upon investigating unexpectedand unexplainable outbreaks of acute infection among "immunized" persons,mainstream scientists have begun to seriously question whether theirunderstanding of what constitutes reliable immunity is in fact valid. Forexample, a
team of scientist writing in the New England Journal of Medicineprovide evidence for the position that immunityto disease is a broaderbio-ecological question then the factors of artificial immunization orserology. They summarily concluded: "It is important to stress thatimmunity (or its absence) cannot be determined reliable on the basis ofhistory of the disease, history of immunization, or even history of priorserologic determination.37Despite these significant shifts in scientific thinking, there hasunfortunately been little actual progress made in terms of undertakingsystematically broad research on the multiple factors which undergird humanimmunity to disease, and in turn building a system of prevention that issquarely based upon such findings. It seems ironic that as late as 1988James must still raise the following basic questions. "Why doesn't medicalresearch focus on what factors in our
environment and in our lives weakenthe immunesystem? Is this too simple? too ordinary? too undramatic? Or doesit threaten too many vested interests . .?" 38"---Dr Obomsawin MD"FROM REPEATED medical investigations, it would seem that antibodies areabout as useful as a black eye in protecting the victim from furtherattacks. The word "antibody" covers a number of even less intelligiblewords, quaint relics of Erlich’s side-chain theory, which the greatest ofexperts, McDonagh, tells us is "essentially unintelligible". Now that theold history, mythology and statistics of vaccination have been exploded byexperience, the business has to depend more upon verbal dust thrown in theface of the lay public. The mere layman, assailed by antibodies, receptors,haptophores, etc., is only too pleased to give up the fight and leaveeverything to the experts. This is just what they want, especially when heis
so pleased that he also leaves them lots and lots of real money.The whole subject of immunity and antibodies is, however, so extremelycomplex and difficult, especially to the real experts, that it is a reliefto 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 Integrityof the Human Body, by Sir Macfarlane Burnet. He calls attention to thefact—the mystery—that some children can never develop any antibodies atall, but can nevertheless go through a typical attack of, say, measles,make a normal recovery and show the normal continuing resistance toreinfection. Furthermore, we have heard for years past of attempts made torelate the amount of antibody in patients to their degree of immunity toinfection. The, results have often been so farcically chaotic, so entirelyunlike what was expected, that the scandal has had to
be hushed up—or putinto 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 ofprint). The worse scandal, however, is that the radio is still telling theschools that the purpose of vaccinating is to produce antibodies. Thepurpose of vaccinating is to make money!"---Lionel DoleCrone, NE; Reder, AT; Severe tetanus in immunized patients with highanti-tetanus titers; Neurology 1992; 42:761-764;Article abstract: Severe (grade III) tetanus occurred in three immunizedpatients who had high serum levels of anti-tetanus antibody. The diseasewas fatal in one patient. One patient had been hyperimmunized to producecommercial tetanus immune globulin. Two patients had received immunizationsone year before presentation. Anti-tetanus antibody titers on admissionwere 25 IU/ml to 0.15 IU/ml by hemagglutination and ELISA assays;
greaterthan 0.01 IU/ml is considered protective. Even though one patient hadseemingly adequate anti-tetanus titers by in vitro measurement 0.20 IU invivo mouse protection bioassays showed a titer less than 0.01 IU/ml,implying that there may have been a hole in her immune repertoire totetanus neurotoxin but not to toxoid. This is the first report of grade IIItetanus with protective levels of antibody in the United States. Thediagnosis of tetanus, nevertheless, should not be discarded solely on thebasis of seemingly protective anti-tetanus titers.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-p.... & Dopt=b

Whatif a “dirty bomb” exploded over a large segment of U.S.population that simultaneously exposed citizens to Hepatitis B,Hepatitis A, tetanus,
pertussis, diphtheria, three strains of polio viruses, three strains of influenza, measles, mumps, and rubella viruses, two types of meningitis, four strains of herpes viruses, the chickenpox virus, 7 strains of Streptococcus bacteria, and four strainsof rotavirus. 
• We would declare a national emergency.• It would be an “extreme act of BIOTERRORISM• The public outcry would be immense and our government would react accordingly.
And yet, those are the very organisms we inject into our babies and our small children in multiple doses, with immature, underdeveloped immunesystems, many at the same time with vaccines. 
But instead of bioterrorism, we call it “protection.” Reflect on that irony.- Dr Sheri Tenpenny, MD
-----------------
My favorite quote from your most excellent article:

"...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...."---Lionel DoleCrone

I have one more bit of information in this theme you may be interested to include...from the US CDC:

In the CDC (Centers For Disease Control) publication MMWR (December 1, 2006 / Vol. 55 / No. RR-15) there occurs the following clarification regarding "vaccination" and "immunization":

Vaccination and immunization. The terms vaccine and vaccination are derived from vacca, the Latin term for cow. Vaccine was the term used by Edward Jenner to describe material used (i.e., cowpox virus) to produce immunity to smallpox. The term vaccination was used by Louis Pasteur in the 19th century to include the physical act of administering any vaccine or toxoid. Immunization is a more inclusive term, denoting the process of inducing or providing immunity by administering an immunobiologic. Immunization can be active or passive. Active immunization is the production of antibody or other immune responses through administration of a vaccine or toxoid. Passive immunization means the provision of temporary immunity by the administration of preformed antibodies. Although persons often use the terms vaccination and immunization interchangeably in reference to active immunization, the terms are not synonymous because the administration of an immunobiologic cannot be equated automatically with development of adequate immunity."

(From the article [linked] that quotes this referenced MMWR passage:)
In other words, vaccination, as a rule, does not lead to developed immunity. Connected to this is the issue of whether antibody production equates to protection from disease. We will cover this in other articles, since vaccines are marketed on the basis of their "efficacy" in generating an antibody response. So there are two issues: a) Does being vaccinated lead to the conclusion that one has developed immunity? b) Does generation of antibodies lead to the conclusion that one has been protected from the disease?
The answers to both these questions is no.
http://www.vaccines.me/articles/ucpbx-vaccination-is-not-equated-automatically-with-development-of-immunity.cfm

Thank you for sharing your findings and progress, Jagannath. You're making a wnderful difference in a very big way.

No comments: