Vaccination theory crumbles as science reveals antibodies not needed to fight viruses

"Bedrock of vaccination theory crumbles as science reveals antibodies not necessary to fight viruses
Tuesday, March 27, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) While the medical, pharmaceutical, and vaccine industries are busy pushing new vaccines for practically every condition under the sun, a new study published in the journal Immunity completely deconstructs the entire vaccination theory. It turns out that the body's natural immune systems, comprised of both innate and adaptive components, work together to ward off disease without the need for antibody-producing vaccines.

The theory behind vaccines is that they mimic infection by spurring B cells, one of the two major types of white blood cells in the immune system, to produce antibodies as part of the adaptive immune system. It is widely believed that these vaccine-induced antibodies, which are part of the more specific adaptive immune system, teach the immune system how to directly respond to an infection before the body becomes exposed to it.

But the new research highlights the fact that innate immunity plays a significant role in fighting infections, and is perhaps more important than adaptive immunity at preventing or fighting infections. In tests, adaptive immune system antibodies were shown unable to fight infection by themselves, which in essence debunks the theory that vaccine-induced antibodies serve any legitimate function in preventing or fighting off infection. ..."

www.naturalnews.com...


Not the best source. But I haven't had a shot since I left the service and been healthier since I stopped getting all of shots. I have been studying alternative medicine for the last several months bought a few supplements and this is the best I have felt in years.

Originally posted by chevy369
by: Ethan A. Huff,
www.naturalnews.com...

Oh god, its the habitual liar at naturalnews writing some more misleading garbage again.

There really out to be penalties for anyone posting a link from naturalnews.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by chevy369
by: Ethan A. Huff,
www.naturalnews.com...

Oh god, its the habitual liar at naturalnews writing some more misleading garbage again.

There really out to be penalties for anyone posting a link from naturalnews.

Oh, like there should be a law against free speech, owning guns, and be able to eat what you want when you want without government intervention.

How do you know this writer is a "habitual liar". You are using troll/disinfo tactics. back up your claim.

Originally posted by Skada
How do you know this writer is a "habitual liar". You are using troll/disinfo tactics. back up your claim.

How do I know?
Because every single time someone here quotes an Ethan Huff article, it turns out to be lies.

Anyway, I found the original paper here....
B Cell Maintenance of Subcapsular Sinus Macrophages Protects against a Fatal Viral Infection Independent of Adaptive Immunity.

If you read it, what they're actually saying is that instead of providing *only* a response in the adaptive immunity system, in some cases B cells can also provide a response in the innate immunity system.
As in, a secondary function on top of the well known systems we know about and have known about for all this time. An extra function.

It does *NOT* completely deconstruct the entire vaccination theory as Ethan Huff says.
It does *NOT* debunk the theory already known, as Ethan Huff says.
It does *NOT* proof a myth that vaccinations serve any sort of legitimate medical purpose, as Ethan Huff says.
It does *NOT* show the current knowledge is a dustheap of outmoded pseudoscience, as Ethan Huff says.

Thats the way garbage like creation science works - by attempting to show that if scientists are still learning and finding new things, then supposedly everything already known should be thrown away.
Science doesnt work like that.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by chevy369
by: Ethan A. Huff,
www.naturalnews.com...

Oh god, its the habitual liar at naturalnews writing some more misleading garbage again.

There really out to be penalties for anyone posting a link from naturalnews.

People should get a penalty for posting anything from the mainstream news as well, fox, cnn, nytimes, cbs. Should i go on? Bet this is more truthful than anything you'd get from there.

This is why smallpox was eradicated back in 1744. Because the bodies own immune systems were able to defeat the virus....oh...wait.... that's not how it happened.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by chevy369
by: Ethan A. Huff,
www.naturalnews.com...

Oh god, its the habitual liar at naturalnews writing some more misleading garbage again.

There really out to be penalties for anyone posting a link from naturalnews.

funny
posts from Natural news have been verified on several threads
maybe you should suffer the fate you prescribe for natural news for taking the atitude you have without sourcing it.

Prove vaccines actually do work:
and don't mention how the 1018 flu was started by a vaccine on an army base or how GULFWAR disease is started by army vaccine programs. or the articles that show more Canadians who are vaccinated GET THE FLU then those who are NOT VACCINATED...etc

I wonder, do you think such disinformation leads to actual deaths???

Is spreading such things dangerous?

reply to post by alfa1

How do I know?
Because every single time someone here quotes an Ethan Huff article, it turns out to be lies.

better back that up
or guess what YOU end up wearing your own spit

11 Shocking Things You Now Realize To Be True, page 1

www.abovetopsecret.com...

B Cell Maintenance of Subcapsular Sinus
Macrophages Protects against a Fatal Viral Infection
Independent of Adaptive Immunity

labs.idi.harvard.edu...
seems pretty straight forward to me.

antibodies have everything to do with preventing viral replication, they block the HA molecules from allowing viral rna to be transferred to host cells and duplicated.


Antibodies have everything to do with fighting virusus; this headline is absolute crap. Vaccine's may not be effective, but antibodies are.

Here is a good video to explain:

reply to post by chevy369


If vaccines did'nt work there would still be plagues such as TB, Polio, Small pox, ETC, ETC! So Your Headline is utter BS! I think what this post should have read something like "new vaccines like H1n1 don't seem to work"!
When someone writes a post trying to discredit something like vaccines or anything for that matter, it needs to make sense and not contain any lies or disinfo cause when it does it a seems to discredit all other Posts of similiar nature. Now this is the kind of disinfo that the Intelligence agencies protecting the major power heirarchies seem to use! Though i'm not saying this person is connected to one of these! It's damn hard to read inbetween the lines to find reality and i think we need to maintain some professionalism like the MSM used to during the early years of journalism. It's hard to see they truth in this day and age but since the advent of the net at least we have a chance to. The problem of today is there is too much info and much of it disinfo but if we read through the comments many times we can gain perspective on fact from fause! Then do our own research and this is how we can gain a proper perspective. It's just unfortunate we don't have a source where they can do the research for us! It's unfortunate that Integrity is lacking in society today! When we decide to sacrifice some of these luxuries we possess we may gain some of it back and God help us if we don't!

"independant of adaptive immunity"

as far as vaccines being effective ummm
there ought to be some proof posted

polio is somewhat reduced because the ENVIORONMENT was CLEANED UP
which preceded and occured conqruently with the deployment of vaccines

and of course we all know about MK 40 which is exrememly cancer causing and which was disseminated through the polio vaccine...not to mention all the native women sterilized via Tetanus vaccines
we all know there are no horse poop covered nails lying in the streets these days

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Skada
How do you know this writer is a "habitual liar". You are using troll/disinfo tactics. back up your claim.

How do I know?
Because every single time someone here quotes an Ethan Huff article, it turns out to be lies.

Anyway, I found the original paper here....
B Cell Maintenance of Subcapsular Sinus Macrophages Protects against a Fatal Viral Infection Independent of Adaptive Immunity.

If you read it, what they're actually saying is that instead of providing *only* a response in the adaptive immunity system, in some cases B cells can also provide a response in the innate immunity system.
As in, a secondary function on top of the well known systems we know about and have known about for all this time. An extra function.

It does *NOT* completely deconstruct the entire vaccination theory as Ethan Huff says.
It does *NOT* debunk the theory already known, as Ethan Huff says.
It does *NOT* proof a myth that vaccinations serve any sort of legitimate medical purpose, as Ethan Huff says.
It does *NOT* show the current knowledge is a dustheap of outmoded pseudoscience, as Ethan Huff says.

Thats the way garbage like creation science works - by attempting to show that if scientists are still learning and finding new things, then supposedly everything already known should be thrown away.
Science doesnt work like that.

I noticed Alex Jones was similarly jaded during one of his rants. ME TOO. My wife is the worst that way...

YOU SAID _____ therefore ____boo hoo or you ### or _____.

In other words the mainstream with vested interests use misconstrued interpretation of statements to blast holes in the credibility of those delivering information they don't want to hear.

My wife is bad enough - she's not holding onto much other than a food choice here or there, a religious/political POV or perceived put-downs vs expressing concern over her health. But up against $Bs of established pharma with Dr Pushers and the FDA on their side... without blogs like these many more of us would be dying already. And not just vaccines. BTW, here's a recent battle over the "Natural news" article I posted on this toppic for DR

Vaccines & Antibiotics are dangerous to self and others! (drudge retort thread). Quoting myself from the opening of that thread:

Like if 100 people have 8% chance of flu mor than 3 days, If no shots 8 get flu (prolly only 6 for 3 days)... OR??? Flu shots to 100 then 6 still get flu! 90 GET COLDS AND SOAR ARMS. THE CURE IS WORSE THAN THE DISEASE.

... they called me "dangerous" and expressed anger for that POV. BTW, I was interpreting this "mainstreme" research while pointing out the "spin" errors of its conclusion and context: Comparative Efficacy of Inactivated and Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccines

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by chevy369
by: Ethan A. Huff,
www.naturalnews.com...

Oh god, its the habitual liar at naturalnews writing some more misleading garbage again.

There really out to be penalties for anyone posting a link from naturalnews.

Oh thank god somebody beat me to it. There was so much wrong and missing with the explanation of acquired immunity in that snippet that I didn't know whether to laugh because it was so ridiculous or cry because people take it seriously.

Edit to add some brain juice:

I thought it was already well established that the clonal B cell response and antibody production weren't always necessarily able to confer immunity to viruses? The clonal T cell response is necessary for viruses and this is only able to occur if the viral antigens are present on the surface of a human somatic cell which really only occurs if the virus has infected a cell. That's why vaccines for viruses use live attenuated viruses (or DNA vaccines, but that's still a few years away from being mainstream) because their ability to infect human cells just enough to trigger the clonal T cell response but not at a rate which is able to cause serious illness( the reason that you feel mildly sick sometimes after the flu shot). You can get a strong B cell and antibody response but without the T cell response to a virus you're not likely to fight it off effectively. Bacteria, that's all antibodies(except for endosymbiotic bacteria but I mean that's just being nitpicky now isn't it?). Viral immunity is driven by T cells which do not produce antibodies.

Originally posted by reitze
...I was interpreting this "mainstreme" research while pointing out the "spin" errors of its conclusion and context: Comparative Efficacy of Inactivated and Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccines (New England Journal of Medicine)

Copying my own text from another blog-site:

I posted the best research offered here about the question at-hand at the time regarding effectiveness of the flue shot... here (same link as in post #29 above): Comparative Efficacy of Inactivated and Live
Attenuated Influenza Vaccines (N Engl J Med 2009)

In table 3 it indictes these sample-results (of 1952 enrolled participants who still got the flu):
------------|--TIV----|---
LAIV----|--Placebo--
Influenza A--22 (2.7%)--55 (6.8%)---31 (9.5%)

So what's the claims made? and WTF are they saying about 95% confidence? Well for intuitive sake consider that if you divided up your sample sets into evenly divided smaller sets you could go with 10 each and have "relative" ratio#s as well as a sense of getting to 90% confidence in the significant digits. And use the %#s to stay pop-normalized. So /10 youd get:

(TIV=3, LAIV = 7, and Placebo = 10)/3 = 1:2:3. So you could claim w/ 95% confidence a 5x reduction (or 80%) in the rate of people getting the flu with the shot - that says it works.

HOWEVER, what it doesn't do is relate it back to the difference it makes for the individual. So doing that - again in round/intuitive means for discussion sake... of the 1952 enrolled, the individual would have a 10% chance of the flue w/o the shot, or a 3% chance w/ the shot but a more certain pain in the arm and 2 day cold. Is that worth it? Obviously for the drug/pharma companies. Also prolly worth it for schools and factories where people work close together, etc. But for someone healthy and not in contact w/ too many people... prolly not.

Corrections/improvements here:
(TIV=3, LAIV = 7, and Placebo = 10)/3 = 1:2:3. So you could claim w/ 90% (intutive est per sample sizes) confidence a 3x reduction (or 60%) in the rate of people getting the flu with the shot.

HOWEVER, what it doesn't do is relate it back to the difference it makes for the individual, NOR does it cover the likelihood of the shot covering the intended strain.

So doing that - again in round/intuitive means for discussion sake... of the 1952 enrolled, the individual would have a 10% chance of the flue w/o the shot, or a 3% (OR HIGHER PER THE STRAIN) chance w/ the shot but a more certain pain in the arm and 2 day cold. That means the 60% reduction in flu-rate wouldn't be as good. How good? hard to tell - perhaps 30% is best-estimate (conservative-midpoint) for finite but unknown aspect (while not claiming anything about confidence either).

So with that INFORMATION, is it worth it? For an individual? That's if the average infection rate is 10%, you could get the shot - with a 90% likelihood of a 2 day cold and some arm pain - to reduce your likelihood of getting flu to about 6% (+/- 3%'ish).

In addition, consider that if you rarely get the flue its of even less benefit while if you often get it and have other risk factors then it might be way more worth the pain, risks, costs.

And notice I didn't elaborate on the "risks" either - mercury injection? WTF? But of course there are opposing risks too. Vested interests too, like the drug/pharma companies.

So all in all its prolly worth it for schools and factories where people work close together, etc. But for someone healthy and not in contact w/ too many people... prolly not.