Wrapping Your Head around Vaccination
While people believe that vaccination results in immunity against disease due to the artificial production of antibodies, this is not true at all. The science of vaccination is grossly out of date.
All the hair splitting on the extremely important vaccination fine print which nobody in authority bothers to tell the public about should be enough to make your head spin and give anybody a major headache.
The Vaccine Deception
It has been the position of the Natural Health Perspective for the last couple of years at least that vaccines and vaccinations are a big lie. Whether you call it double-speak, double-talk, gibberish, misleading, legalese, disinformation, out right lies, fine print, or word games; the devil is clearly in the details when it comes to our public health policy on vaccines and vaccination.
While the public often use vaccination and immunization interchangeably, the terms are not synonymous. While people of science often use natural immunity and artificial immunity interchangeably, they are totally wrong. While physicians often use research efficacy and clinical efficacy interchangeably, nothing could be further from the truth.
At best vaccination pushers are putting out misleading information, and at worst are deliberately being deceptive to the public.
Antibody Responses from Vaccination Do NOT Produce Immunity
Cutting to the short of it, all the questions being asked by the public about vaccine safety, effectiveness, and duration of vaccine protection are totally irrelevant once you finally realize that the science of vaccines and vaccination is grossly out of date, or in other words is not valid.
Historically, smallpox vaccines were first given to the public in the States in 1801. Further, the validity of the science of vaccination has not changed much since then even though the entire premise of the importance of creating antibodies with vaccination was proved to be wrong in the early 1940s by the work of Dr. Merrill W. Chase on guinea pigs. Chase had discovered TH1 cell-mediated immunity.
While conventional medicine steadfastly maintains that our adaptive immune system consists of two parts: Th1 cellular immunity and TH2 humoral immunity, their vaccination science all but ignores the TH1 side of immunity. While the vaccine industry pretends that vaccines create active immunity, when antibodies are artifically induced that is not true at all. Natural immunity creates antibodies, as a byproduct of obtaining immunity with the development of white blood cells. In other words, immunity produces antibodies rather than vice versa. Furthermore, thanks to the white blood cell research of Dr. Chase this fact has been known since the early 1940s.
Another immunologist, John B. March, in 2002 is credited for saying:
"Particularly for viral diseases, the 'cellular' immune response is all important. Antibody levels and protection are totally unconnected."
[Private Eye Magazine 2002]
We all know that natural in many cases is better than artificial, but when it comes to immunity, artificial immunity simply does not work because it is based upon a too simplistic model of immunity. When children are exposed to diseases, such as measles, it engages both the Th1 and Th2 sides of your adaptive immune system; whereas the artificial immune response from MMR vaccination only engages the TH2 side of immunity.
While the public often use vaccination and immunization interchangeably, the terms are not synonymous. Vaccination is "the physical act of administering a vaccine or toxoid," while immunization is "the process of inducing or providing immunity artificially by administering an immunobiologic," or vaccine.[CDC 1994, page v] But even this hair splitting is totally irrelevant since vaccine research establishes research efficacy, but never clinical efficacy or the ability to prevent the disease that people are getting vaccinated against. In other words, the precise level of protection provided by antibodies created from approved vaccines has never been determined by conventional medicine.
Under research efficacy the only thing that counts is whether or not a given vaccine produces antibodies. Whether or not the antibodies produced by a vaccine actually prevent people from getting sick (i.e., clinical efficacy) is considered totally irrelevant. Scientific research on antibody titers induced after immunization [Crone 1992] since the 1940s has shown that there is no one-to-one correspondence between antibodies and clinical immunity. People have died full of so-called protective antibodies, while others full of disease causing organisms do not get sick at all with absolutely no antibodies.
Of course, advocates of natural health have always known this. Healthy people with strong immune systems simply do NOT get sick, whereas immunocompromised individuals get sick and die in droves. Now, wrap your head around this. While logic would suggest that vaccination efforts should be targeted at immunocompromised individuals these are the very people who are most likely to experience a serious negative side effect from vaccination. The CDC, itself states in print, that the immune response of immunocompromised persons to repeated vaccinations may be suboptimal, which the Natural Health Perspective submits is legalese for does NOT work.
"Frequently, the immune response of immunocompromised persons to these vaccine antigens is not as good as that of immunocompetent persons; higher doses or more frequent boosters may be required, although even with these modifications, the immune response may be suboptimal." [CDC 1993]
Remember these basic rules of the Vaccine Industry word games.
- Just because you get vaccinated does not mean that you will develop an antibody.
- Just because you get vaccinated does not mean that you are immune.
- Just because you develop an antibody, does not mean that you are going to be protected from getting sick from what you were vaccinated against.
In short, the administration of vaccine cannot be automatically equated with developing immunity. Who says so? The CDC does. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has put this in print in at least one of their documents that was published back in January, 1994.
"The administration of an immunobiologic [i.e., vaccine] cannot be automatically equated with the development of adequate immunity." [CDC 1994, page vi]
Furthermore, the level of protection provided by antibodies created from approved vaccines has never been validated in the field. The vaccine pushers have absolutely no idea, just how clinically effective a given vaccine is, nor do they want to quantify it for obvious reasons.
Now, tell me, does this vaccination scenario make anybody want to get vaccinated especially since there can be substantial adverse side effects to vaccination in some individuals? In other words, do the benefits of vaccination exceed the potential risks? Again the vaccine pushers are anything but straight forward about vaccine safety issues.
In case anybody is still interested in vaccination safety, for starters, no vaccine has been adequately tested. Whenever a new vaccine is developed, it is always tested against another established vaccine, rather than against a true inert placebo.
In conclusion: It is the position of the Natural Health Perspective, that vaccination is NOT part of a healthy lifestyle.
The science of vaccination is still operating in the Dark-Ages. Vaccination is based upon a too simplistic model of immunity. Despite what you hear in all the slick vaccination commercials being thrown at the public by the vaccination industry, the lack of testing on the safety and effectiveness of the currently available vaccines is absolutely shocking.
Advocates of natural health have always been on the right path. The only primary preventative healthcare service offered by physicians today is vaccination. But, just like with tax returns just about every Tom, Dick, and Harry has gotten into the vaccination money making business. Flu vaccinations, for example, are even being given out in airport kiosks. The public should always keep in mind, that not a single preventive service offered by conventional medicine is remotely on the level.
Talking hours and hours, and writing page after page on the subject of vaccination would be doing the public a major disservice. There is nothing remotely valid about the vaccination industry. They are clearly in it for the money.
Belief in the power of vaccination to prevent disease, at best, is nothing but a classic example of superstitious behavior. Remember that good health never comes at the end of a needle.
Please read our Medical Advice Disclaimer.
References
- Interview of Dr. John B. March, MMR: Triple-Jumping to Conclusions, Private Eye Magazine, Jan 2002.
- CDC. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP): Use of Vaccines and Immune Globulins in Persons with Altered Immunocompetence.
MMWR Apr 1993; vol 42/No.RR-04, Apr 1993. - CDC. General recommendations on immunization: recommendations of the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee (ACIP).
MMWR Jan 1994;vol 43/No.RR-1:Page v (i.e., Adobe Reader Page 7). - CDC, Page vi (i.e., Adobe Reader Page 8).
- Severe tetanus in immunized patients with high anti-tetanus titers.
Crone NE, Reder AT.
Neurology. 1992 Apr;42(4):761-4.
PMID: 1565228
