In <4d66kk$768 at brain.npiec.on.ca> ckoziol at freenet.npiec.on.ca
(Christopher Koziol) writes:
> That there are children with what is called A Gamma Globulin
Anemia [which means that they cannot produce antibodies], and yet
these same children develop and recover from measles and other
diseases as spontaneously as other children. <
So? Antibodies are much more important in viral disease prevention
(heavily dependent on humoral immunity) than they are in curing a viral
disease once you become ill (mostly cell immunity). We aren't talking
about recovery from measles with vaccines, we're talking about not
getting it in the first place. There's a difference.
> Now what this means is that there are children out there who
> produce antibodies. Nevertheless, antibodies are the things that
> vaccines are supposed to stimulate in you against the particular
> diseases they're designed for, and yet, as shown here by Dr. Alec
> Burton, even without those antibodies, you will get cured or you
> will naturally become healthy again after having this disease
> without any vaccination.
Wups, bad logic. Some fraction of kids who get a disease will
develop its dire consequences, like pneumonia, meningitis, and death.
No study shows that this doesn't happen to agammaglobulinemic kids.
Logically, the best way to make sure kids don't die of a disease is to
make sure they never get it in the first place.
So, folks, so much for the idea that
> vaccinations are the only way to protect you, and the basic
> that they are built on, namely stimulating antibodies, is totally
Again, nice try but bad logic.
> Okay. Another quote from Walene James' book. The mystery begins
to unravel when we look at the work of Drs. Dettman and Kalikerinos.
In one of their articles, they quote Dr. Wendall Bellfield of San
Jose, California, who says the following. "Antibodies are not needed
when the primary immunological defense which is leukocytes and
interferon, etc. is functioning at maximum capacity.<<
This is just a hot air statement, since this guy has no way of
proving it, and no way of even defining or measuring "maximum
capacity." Nature gave us antibodies for a reason, and kids without
them DO have problems that kids with them don't (though mostly with
bacterial infections). If somebody claims differently, let them show
us a group of agamaglobulinemic kids they've been able to make
perfectly healthy without gammaglobulin shots. Until then, let them
>> In short, folks, this means that vaccines do not protect you
against the diseases they are supposed to protect you from.<<
In short, this is hogwash. Numerous studies show that numerous
vaccines do protect against diseases, at least over the life of the
study. And the same is known to even greater certainty in animal
studies. This has been going on since Pasteur demonstrated his anthrax
vaccine in public for the Parisians. Come on.
>> doctors tend not to diagnose specific diseases if the subject
has already been vaccinated against those specific diseases. <<<
This explains neither the double-blind human studies, nor the
numerous animal studies (in which the endpoint is often death, which is
hard to mis-diagnose).
>>Vaccinations, unquestionably, do not guarantee you any
protection, their side effects are disastrous, and often worse than the
disease, itself, and worse still, the premise that vaccines are built
upon, are pure, unadulterated nonsense.<<
It is not nonsense that many diseases confer immunity for life
(examples-- measles, chickenpox, hepatitis B, etc). Vaccines simply
attempt to reproduce introduction of the disease organism into the
tissues, without causing the disease. This is the premise, whether it
works by stimulating antibodies, or if cell-mediated mechanisms are
involved also. The premise is not nonsense-- rather, it makes sense in
terms of everything we know about why the body *naturally* becomes
immune to diseases it has had before.
Steve Harris, M.D.