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
(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 Phillippines 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, Nelson 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. John 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-OŽ 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
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.