OT: vaccine and natural immune response differences

[Jamie M]

Hi,

Here's an article on a paper that shows that natural immunity is
superior to vaccine induced "immunity", since the natural immune
response is proven to strengthen the innate immune system:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-10-cd8-cells-virus-theyll.html

"Scientists think of CD8 T cells as long-lived cells that become tuned
to fight just one pathogen, but a new study finds that once CD8 T cells
fight one pathogen, they also join the body's "innate" immune system,
ready to answer the calls of the cytokine signals that are set off by a
wide variety of infections."

"So it may be profitable in vaccine development to try to push CD8 T
cells harder. When CD8 T cells are exposed to the specific virus they
are tuned for, they multiply greatly, a process called expansion."

That last quote shows that vaccine immunity is deficient compared to
natural immunity.

cheers,
Jamie

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 21/10/2014 5:46 PM, Jamie M wrote:

Hi,

Here's an article on a paper that shows that natural immunity is
superior to vaccine induced "immunity", since the natural immune
response is proven to strengthen the innate immune system:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-10-cd8-cells-virus-theyll.html

"Scientists think of CD8 T cells as long-lived cells that become tuned
to fight just one pathogen, but a new study finds that once CD8 T cells
fight one pathogen, they also join the body's "innate" immune system,
ready to answer the calls of the cytokine signals that are set off by a
wide variety of infections."

"So it may be profitable in vaccine development to try to push CD8 T
cells harder. When CD8 T cells are exposed to the specific virus they
are tuned for, they multiply greatly, a process called expansion."

That last quote shows that vaccine immunity is deficient compared to
natural immunity.

cheers,
Jamie

There are trade-offs, since there's always the danger of provoking an
auto-immune response.

Present vaccines seems to do the job perfectly well, provided enough
people use them. The main beneficiaries of stronger vaccines would be
those who don't vaccinate and rely on herd immunity for protection,
since stronger vaccines would produce a higher degree of herd immunity
for the same proportion of the population who use them.

That is, free-loaders would benefit from the increased risk taken by the
nonfree-loaders.

Sylvia.

 

[Jamie M]

On 10/21/2014 1:36 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 21/10/2014 5:46 PM, Jamie M wrote:
Hi,

Here's an article on a paper that shows that natural immunity is
superior to vaccine induced "immunity", since the natural immune
response is proven to strengthen the innate immune system:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-10-cd8-cells-virus-theyll.html

"Scientists think of CD8 T cells as long-lived cells that become tuned
to fight just one pathogen, but a new study finds that once CD8 T cells
fight one pathogen, they also join the body's "innate" immune system,
ready to answer the calls of the cytokine signals that are set off by a
wide variety of infections."

"So it may be profitable in vaccine development to try to push CD8 T
cells harder. When CD8 T cells are exposed to the specific virus they
are tuned for, they multiply greatly, a process called expansion."

That last quote shows that vaccine immunity is deficient compared to
natural immunity.

cheers,
Jamie

There are trade-offs, since there's always the danger of provoking an
auto-immune response.

Present vaccines seems to do the job perfectly well, provided enough
people use them. The main beneficiaries of stronger vaccines would be
those who don't vaccinate and rely on herd immunity for protection,
since stronger vaccines would produce a higher degree of herd immunity
for the same proportion of the population who use them.

That is, free-loaders would benefit from the increased risk taken by the
nonfree-loaders.

Hi,

The article is implying a fundamental deficit in vaccines, which is the
evidence of the CD8 T cells innate immunity benefit from fighting off
an infection. I doubt that vaccines will be able to successfully
create this innate immunity boost any time soon. I am also pretty sure
that the extra CD8 T cells are one of many beneficial things that are
absent in people who are vaccinated.

An argument for vaccines used to be that fighting off an infection
naturally doesn't make you stronger, but it is nice to see that is
actually proven it does make you stronger to naturally fight off
infections, and thus weaker the more vaccines you have.

cheers,
Jamie

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 21/10/2014 8:45 PM, Jamie M wrote:

On 10/21/2014 1:36 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 21/10/2014 5:46 PM, Jamie M wrote:
Hi,

Here's an article on a paper that shows that natural immunity is
superior to vaccine induced "immunity", since the natural immune
response is proven to strengthen the innate immune system:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-10-cd8-cells-virus-theyll.html

"Scientists think of CD8 T cells as long-lived cells that become tuned
to fight just one pathogen, but a new study finds that once CD8 T cells
fight one pathogen, they also join the body's "innate" immune system,
ready to answer the calls of the cytokine signals that are set off by a
wide variety of infections."

"So it may be profitable in vaccine development to try to push CD8 T
cells harder. When CD8 T cells are exposed to the specific virus they
are tuned for, they multiply greatly, a process called expansion."

That last quote shows that vaccine immunity is deficient compared to
natural immunity.

cheers,
Jamie

There are trade-offs, since there's always the danger of provoking an
auto-immune response.

Present vaccines seems to do the job perfectly well, provided enough
people use them. The main beneficiaries of stronger vaccines would be
those who don't vaccinate and rely on herd immunity for protection,
since stronger vaccines would produce a higher degree of herd immunity
for the same proportion of the population who use them.

That is, free-loaders would benefit from the increased risk taken by the
nonfree-loaders.

Hi,

The article is implying a fundamental deficit in vaccines, which is the
evidence of the CD8 T cells innate immunity benefit from fighting off
an infection. I doubt that vaccines will be able to successfully
create this innate immunity boost any time soon. I am also pretty sure
that the extra CD8 T cells are one of many beneficial things that are
absent in people who are vaccinated.

An argument for vaccines used to be that fighting off an infection
naturally doesn't make you stronger, but it is nice to see that is
actually proven it does make you stronger to naturally fight off
infections, and thus weaker the more vaccines you have.

I think you're misreading the article.

In any case, vaccines trigger an immune response, and the body fights
off the infection. Just that in that particular case, it wouldn't have
mattered if it had done nothing (except that no immunity would have been
conferred).

Sylvia.

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

Den tirsdag den 21. oktober 2014 11.45.35 UTC+2 skrev Jamie M:

On 10/21/2014 1:36 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 21/10/2014 5:46 PM, Jamie M wrote:

Hi,



Here's an article on a paper that shows that natural immunity is

superior to vaccine induced "immunity", since the natural immune

response is proven to strengthen the innate immune system:



http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-10-cd8-cells-virus-theyll.html



"Scientists think of CD8 T cells as long-lived cells that become tuned

to fight just one pathogen, but a new study finds that once CD8 T cells

fight one pathogen, they also join the body's "innate" immune system,

ready to answer the calls of the cytokine signals that are set off by a

wide variety of infections."



"So it may be profitable in vaccine development to try to push CD8 T

cells harder. When CD8 T cells are exposed to the specific virus they

are tuned for, they multiply greatly, a process called expansion."



That last quote shows that vaccine immunity is deficient compared to

natural immunity.



cheers,

Jamie



There are trade-offs, since there's always the danger of provoking an

auto-immune response.



Present vaccines seems to do the job perfectly well, provided enough

people use them. The main beneficiaries of stronger vaccines would be

those who don't vaccinate and rely on herd immunity for protection,

since stronger vaccines would produce a higher degree of herd immunity

for the same proportion of the population who use them.



That is, free-loaders would benefit from the increased risk taken by the

nonfree-loaders.



Hi,



The article is implying a fundamental deficit in vaccines, which is the

evidence of the CD8 T cells innate immunity benefit from fighting off

an infection. I doubt that vaccines will be able to successfully

create this innate immunity boost any time soon. I am also pretty sure

that the extra CD8 T cells are one of many beneficial things that are

absent in people who are vaccinated.



An argument for vaccines used to be that fighting off an infection

naturally doesn't make you stronger, but it is nice to see that is

actually proven it does make you stronger to naturally fight off

infections, and thus weaker the more vaccines you have.



cheers,

Jamie

fighting bears with you bare hands will make you stronger than just
shooting them but is carries a substantial risk


-Lasse

 

[Jamie M]

Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> Wrote in message:

Den tirsdag den 21. oktober 2014 11.45.35 UTC+2 skrev Jamie M:
On 10/21/2014 1:36 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 21/10/2014 5:46 PM, Jamie M wrote:

Hi,



Here's an article on a paper that shows that natural immunity is

superior to vaccine induced "immunity", since the natural immune

response is proven to strengthen the innate immune system:



http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-10-cd8-cells-virus-theyll.html



"Scientists think of CD8 T cells as long-lived cells that become tuned

to fight just one pathogen, but a new study finds that once CD8 T cells

fight one pathogen, they also join the body's "innate" immune system,

ready to answer the calls of the cytokine signals that are set off by a

wide variety of infections."



"So it may be profitable in vaccine development to try to push CD8 T

cells harder. When CD8 T cells are exposed to the specific virus they

are tuned for, they multiply greatly, a process called expansion."



That last quote shows that vaccine immunity is deficient compared to

natural immunity.



cheers,

Jamie



There are trade-offs, since there's always the danger of provoking an

auto-immune response.



Present vaccines seems to do the job perfectly well, provided enough

people use them. The main beneficiaries of stronger vaccines would be

those who don't vaccinate and rely on herd immunity for protection,

since stronger vaccines would produce a higher degree of herd immunity

for the same proportion of the population who use them.



That is, free-loaders would benefit from the increased risk taken by the

nonfree-loaders.



Hi,



The article is implying a fundamental deficit in vaccines, which is the

evidence of the CD8 T cells innate immunity benefit from fighting off

an infection. I doubt that vaccines will be able to successfully

create this innate immunity boost any time soon. I am also pretty sure

that the extra CD8 T cells are one of many beneficial things that are

absent in people who are vaccinated.



An argument for vaccines used to be that fighting off an infection

naturally doesn't make you stronger, but it is nice to see that is

actually proven it does make you stronger to naturally fight off

infections, and thus weaker the more vaccines you have.



cheers,

Jamie


fighting bears with you bare hands will make you stronger than just
shooting them but is carries a substantial risk


-Lasse

Hi,

Highly vaccinated diseases like Chicken pox or mumps have very low
mortality rates. Also if the focus was nutrition instead of
vaccination the mortality rates would be even lower. It is
possible that these types of non deadly viruses are in fact part
of the environment beneficially for humans. An idea like that
may seem strange, but saying "beneficial bacteria" also would
seem strane not too long ago, however it has been shown that
there is a symbiotic relationship with bacteria and also viruses
within each person.

Cheers,
Jamie

--

 

[Jamie M]

On 10/21/2014 4:35 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 21/10/2014 8:45 PM, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/21/2014 1:36 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 21/10/2014 5:46 PM, Jamie M wrote:
Hi,

Here's an article on a paper that shows that natural immunity is
superior to vaccine induced "immunity", since the natural immune
response is proven to strengthen the innate immune system:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-10-cd8-cells-virus-theyll.html

"Scientists think of CD8 T cells as long-lived cells that become tuned
to fight just one pathogen, but a new study finds that once CD8 T cells
fight one pathogen, they also join the body's "innate" immune system,
ready to answer the calls of the cytokine signals that are set off by a
wide variety of infections."

"So it may be profitable in vaccine development to try to push CD8 T
cells harder. When CD8 T cells are exposed to the specific virus they
are tuned for, they multiply greatly, a process called expansion."

That last quote shows that vaccine immunity is deficient compared to
natural immunity.

cheers,
Jamie

There are trade-offs, since there's always the danger of provoking an
auto-immune response.

Present vaccines seems to do the job perfectly well, provided enough
people use them. The main beneficiaries of stronger vaccines would be
those who don't vaccinate and rely on herd immunity for protection,
since stronger vaccines would produce a higher degree of herd immunity
for the same proportion of the population who use them.

That is, free-loaders would benefit from the increased risk taken by the
nonfree-loaders.

Hi,

The article is implying a fundamental deficit in vaccines, which is the
evidence of the CD8 T cells innate immunity benefit from fighting off
an infection. I doubt that vaccines will be able to successfully
create this innate immunity boost any time soon. I am also pretty sure
that the extra CD8 T cells are one of many beneficial things that are
absent in people who are vaccinated.

An argument for vaccines used to be that fighting off an infection
naturally doesn't make you stronger, but it is nice to see that is
actually proven it does make you stronger to naturally fight off
infections, and thus weaker the more vaccines you have.

I think you're misreading the article.

In any case, vaccines trigger an immune response, and the body fights
off the infection. Just that in that particular case, it wouldn't have
mattered if it had done nothing (except that no immunity would have been
conferred).

Hi,

"So it may be profitable in vaccine development to try to push CD8 T
cells harder."

That quote from the article is a diplomatic way of saying the vaccines
are deficient and need further development.

When scientific evidence shows a problem with a mainstream supported
technology like vaccines that's the type of wording researchers have
to use, but in reality it should be saying vaccines aren't as good as
the bodies own immune system which already carries out the function that
they say would be "profitable" to develop in vaccines.

cheers,
Jamie

Sylvia.

 

[Jamie M]

On 10/21/2014 4:35 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 21/10/2014 8:45 PM, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/21/2014 1:36 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 21/10/2014 5:46 PM, Jamie M wrote:
Hi,

Here's an article on a paper that shows that natural immunity is
superior to vaccine induced "immunity", since the natural immune
response is proven to strengthen the innate immune system:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-10-cd8-cells-virus-theyll.html

"Scientists think of CD8 T cells as long-lived cells that become tuned
to fight just one pathogen, but a new study finds that once CD8 T cells
fight one pathogen, they also join the body's "innate" immune system,
ready to answer the calls of the cytokine signals that are set off by a
wide variety of infections."

"So it may be profitable in vaccine development to try to push CD8 T
cells harder. When CD8 T cells are exposed to the specific virus they
are tuned for, they multiply greatly, a process called expansion."

That last quote shows that vaccine immunity is deficient compared to
natural immunity.

cheers,
Jamie

There are trade-offs, since there's always the danger of provoking an
auto-immune response.

Present vaccines seems to do the job perfectly well, provided enough
people use them. The main beneficiaries of stronger vaccines would be
those who don't vaccinate and rely on herd immunity for protection,
since stronger vaccines would produce a higher degree of herd immunity
for the same proportion of the population who use them.

That is, free-loaders would benefit from the increased risk taken by the
nonfree-loaders.

Hi,

The article is implying a fundamental deficit in vaccines, which is the
evidence of the CD8 T cells innate immunity benefit from fighting off
an infection. I doubt that vaccines will be able to successfully
create this innate immunity boost any time soon. I am also pretty sure
that the extra CD8 T cells are one of many beneficial things that are
absent in people who are vaccinated.

An argument for vaccines used to be that fighting off an infection
naturally doesn't make you stronger, but it is nice to see that is
actually proven it does make you stronger to naturally fight off
infections, and thus weaker the more vaccines you have.

I think you're misreading the article.

In any case, vaccines trigger an immune response, and the body fights
off the infection. Just that in that particular case, it wouldn't have
mattered if it had done nothing (except that no immunity would have been
conferred).

Hi,

The fact that there is a measurable difference in the immunity
conferred from vaccines or acquired naturally (ie the CD8 T cells),
could mean there are other differences as well on the molecular level.

For example the immune molecule "MHC class 1"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHC_class_I#Effect_of_viruses

This molecule is part of the immune system, and it may be expressed
differently depending on if it was involved with a natural immune
response or a vaccine induced immune response. This doesn't seem
like a big deal, unless you see that this molecule is now also
directly implicated in diseases such as Alzheimers, diabetes type2, and
autism:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-10-immune-proteins-moonlight-brain-cell.html

from that page:

"
MHCI proteins are known for their role in the immune system where they
present protein fragments from pathogens and cancerous cells to T cells
....
In the brain, however, the researchers found that MHCI immune molecules
are one of the only known factors that limit the density of synapses,
ensuring that synapses form in the appropriate numbers necessary to
support healthy brain function.
....
MHCI levels also are "dramatically altered" in the brains of people
with Alzheimer's disease, Boulanger said.
....
Links between MHCI and autism also are emerging, Boulanger said. People
with autism have more synapses than usual in specific brain regions.
"

It is possible that a vaccine immune response will produce "altered"
levels of the MHCI protein compared to a natural immune response.

cheers,
Jamie

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 22/10/2014 8:30 AM, Jamie M wrote:

On 10/21/2014 4:35 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 21/10/2014 8:45 PM, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/21/2014 1:36 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 21/10/2014 5:46 PM, Jamie M wrote:
Hi,

Here's an article on a paper that shows that natural immunity is
superior to vaccine induced "immunity", since the natural immune
response is proven to strengthen the innate immune system:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-10-cd8-cells-virus-theyll.html

"Scientists think of CD8 T cells as long-lived cells that become tuned
to fight just one pathogen, but a new study finds that once CD8 T
cells
fight one pathogen, they also join the body's "innate" immune system,
ready to answer the calls of the cytokine signals that are set off
by a
wide variety of infections."

"So it may be profitable in vaccine development to try to push CD8 T
cells harder. When CD8 T cells are exposed to the specific virus they
are tuned for, they multiply greatly, a process called expansion."

That last quote shows that vaccine immunity is deficient compared to
natural immunity.

cheers,
Jamie

There are trade-offs, since there's always the danger of provoking an
auto-immune response.

Present vaccines seems to do the job perfectly well, provided enough
people use them. The main beneficiaries of stronger vaccines would be
those who don't vaccinate and rely on herd immunity for protection,
since stronger vaccines would produce a higher degree of herd immunity
for the same proportion of the population who use them.

That is, free-loaders would benefit from the increased risk taken by
the
nonfree-loaders.

Hi,

The article is implying a fundamental deficit in vaccines, which is the
evidence of the CD8 T cells innate immunity benefit from fighting off
an infection. I doubt that vaccines will be able to successfully
create this innate immunity boost any time soon. I am also pretty sure
that the extra CD8 T cells are one of many beneficial things that are
absent in people who are vaccinated.

An argument for vaccines used to be that fighting off an infection
naturally doesn't make you stronger, but it is nice to see that is
actually proven it does make you stronger to naturally fight off
infections, and thus weaker the more vaccines you have.

I think you're misreading the article.

In any case, vaccines trigger an immune response, and the body fights
off the infection. Just that in that particular case, it wouldn't have
mattered if it had done nothing (except that no immunity would have been
conferred).


Hi,

"So it may be profitable in vaccine development to try to push CD8 T
cells harder."

That quote from the article is a diplomatic way of saying the vaccines
are deficient and need further development.

No it isn't. It's merely saying that it may be possible to make them
even better.

Sylvia.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:46:01 PM UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

Hi,

Here's an article on a paper that shows that natural immunity is
superior to vaccine induced "immunity", since the natural immune
response is proven to strengthen the innate immune system:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-10-cd8-cells-virus-theyll.html

"Scientists think of CD8 T cells as long-lived cells that become tuned
to fight just one pathogen, but a new study finds that once CD8 T cells
fight one pathogen, they also join the body's "innate" immune system,
ready to answer the calls of the cytokine signals that are set off by a
wide variety of infections."

"So it may be profitable in vaccine development to try to push CD8 T
cells harder. When CD8 T cells are exposed to the specific virus they
are tuned for, they multiply greatly, a process called expansion."

That last quote shows that vaccine immunity is deficient compared to
natural immunity.

I don't think that paper says that. What is says is that once you've got CD8 T cells by exposing them to 0one foreign protein they react to cytokine signals given off by cells exposed to other infections.

I don't see any suggestion in the article that vaccines are a better or worse way of getting CD8 T cells than exposure to "natural" infections. After all, how is the cellular machinery going to distinguish one from the other?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jamie M]

> I don't think that paper says that. What
is says is that once you've got CD8 T
cells by exposing them to 0one foreign
protein they react to cytokine signals
given off by cells exposed to other
infections.

I don't see any suggestion in the article

that vaccines are a better or worse way
of getting CD8 T cells than exposure to
"natural" infections. After all, how is the
cellular machinery going to distinguish
one from the other?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Hi,

"Subunit" vaccines an apparently common type:

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/vaccines/understanding/pages/types
vaccines.aspx

seem to rely on the adaptive immune system's ability to detect the
various antigens in the vaccine.
The article talks about how mice genetically engineered to develop
antigen based immunity (while lacking the STAT4 based innate
immunity) didn't develop immunity to subsequent infections.

I did make the assumption that the vaccine will only give an
antigen response, but I think this is true but it would be good
to see a study showing whether a vaccine creates the same STAT4
proteins in the CD8 T cells:

" That protein is one of the reasons that natural killer (NK)
cells, the acknowledged stalwarts of innate immunity, are
sensitive to cytokines."

From statements in the article I think it is safe to assume
vaccines don't provide STAT4 innate immunity benefit:

"So it may be profitable in vaccine development to try to push CD8
T cells harder."

Vaccines are an unhealthy choice for the majority of people, and
the proper way to be healthy is a good diet and low
stress.

Cheers,
Jamie

 

On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 2:46:01 AM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:

Hi,



Here's an article on a paper that shows that natural immunity is

superior to vaccine induced "immunity", since the natural immune

response is proven to strengthen the innate immune system:



http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-10-cd8-cells-virus-theyll.html

That paper says no such thing. Clearly you know next to nothing about immunology and you're just playing pretend.

"Scientists think of CD8 T cells as long-lived cells that become tuned

to fight just one pathogen, but a new study finds that once CD8 T cells

fight one pathogen, they also join the body's "innate" immune system,

ready to answer the calls of the cytokine signals that are set off by a

wide variety of infections."



"So it may be profitable in vaccine development to try to push CD8 T

cells harder. When CD8 T cells are exposed to the specific virus they

are tuned for, they multiply greatly, a process called expansion."



That last quote shows that vaccine immunity is deficient compared to

natural immunity.

Maybe in your hopelessly distorted world. The paper says no such thing. What's going on here is that you're a vaccine parasite, you don't believe they work and/or they cause harm. So you dig up some literature you can't begin to comprehend and misinterpret it to support your idiocy.

cheers,

Jamie

 

On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 2:10:02 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:46:01 PM UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

Hi,



Here's an article on a paper that shows that natural immunity is

superior to vaccine induced "immunity", since the natural immune

response is proven to strengthen the innate immune system:



http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-10-cd8-cells-virus-theyll.html



"Scientists think of CD8 T cells as long-lived cells that become tuned

to fight just one pathogen, but a new study finds that once CD8 T cells

fight one pathogen, they also join the body's "innate" immune system,

ready to answer the calls of the cytokine signals that are set off by a

wide variety of infections."



"So it may be profitable in vaccine development to try to push CD8 T

cells harder. When CD8 T cells are exposed to the specific virus they

are tuned for, they multiply greatly, a process called expansion."



That last quote shows that vaccine immunity is deficient compared to

natural immunity.



I don't think that paper says that. What is says is that once you've got CD8 T cells by exposing them to 0one foreign protein they react to cytokine signals given off by cells exposed to other infections.



I don't see any suggestion in the article that vaccines are a better or worse way of getting CD8 T cells than exposure to "natural" infections. After all, how is the cellular machinery going to distinguish one from the other?

There are two components to the human immune system: innate immunity which mobilizes against non-self invaders of any kind, and acquired/specific immunity which is mobilized against a specific pathogen. There are several varieties of NK (natural killer) CD8 T-lymphocytes. There is a family of non-specific NK CD8 part of the innate system, and there are specialized CD8 developed as part of of the adaptive immune system. The paper shows that under certain conditions the lines are blurred and the specialized CD8 are recruited into the defense in a way similar to the innate NK cells. The paper was about experiments attempting to prove that the protein STAT4 was responsible or this effect. It says nothing about challenge by a different pathogen inducing proliferation of the specialized CD8 cells as they would when challenged by the original pathogen for which they specialzed. Generally they are not effective unless produced in large numbers, the excess population subsiding when the threat is gone. It's all about an observation and the role of STAT4.

--

Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:32:45 PM UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

I don't think that paper says that. What
is says is that once you've got CD8 T
cells by exposing them to 0one foreign
protein they react to cytokine signals
given off by cells exposed to other
infections.

I don't see any suggestion in the article
that vaccines are a better or worse way
of getting CD8 T cells than exposure to
"natural" infections. After all, how is the
cellular machinery going to distinguish
one from the other?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Hi,

"Subunit" vaccines an apparently common type:

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/vaccines/understanding/pages/types
vaccines.aspx

seem to rely on the adaptive immune system's ability to detect the
various antigens in the vaccine.
The article talks about how mice genetically engineered to develop
antigen based immunity (while lacking the STAT4 based innate
immunity) didn't develop immunity to subsequent infections.

But that was because they'd been gene-engineered not to generate the STAT4 protein. Presumably, antigen-based immunity does lead to STAT4 generation, just like every other kind of challenge to the immune system.

I did make the assumption that the vaccine will only give an
antigen response, but I think this is true but it would be good
to see a study showing whether a vaccine creates the same STAT4
proteins in the CD8 T cells:

" That protein is one of the reasons that natural killer (NK)
cells, the acknowledged stalwarts of innate immunity, are
sensitive to cytokines."

From statements in the article I think it is safe to assume
vaccines don't provide STAT4 innate immunity benefit:

"So it may be profitable in vaccine development to try to push CD8
T cells harder."

Why do you think that? More CD8 T cells would probably be a good thing, but you could get them by throwing in extra antigens.

Vaccines are an unhealthy choice for the majority of people, and
the proper way to be healthy is a good diet and low
stress.

Sadly, natural infections can trump a good diet and low stress. They can be defeated by appropriate vaccination, and if a majority get vaccinated, you've got herd immunity, and the infections don't spread far enough to get to the unvaccinated.

There are low level risks from vaccination, but any real cost-benefit analysis show that plague-avoidance trumps individual anxieties.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 23 October 2014 18:48:03 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

On 10/21/2014 5:20 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 22/10/2014 8:30 AM, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/21/2014 4:35 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 21/10/2014 8:45 PM, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/21/2014 1:36 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 21/10/2014 5:46 PM, Jamie M wrote:
Hi,

Here's an article on a paper that shows that natural immunity is
superior to vaccine induced "immunity", since the natural immune
response is proven to strengthen the innate immune system:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-10-cd8-cells-virus-theyll.html

"Scientists think of CD8 T cells as long-lived cells that become
tuned
to fight just one pathogen, but a new study finds that once CD8 T
cells
fight one pathogen, they also join the body's "innate" immune system,
ready to answer the calls of the cytokine signals that are set off
by a
wide variety of infections."

"So it may be profitable in vaccine development to try to push CD8 T
cells harder. When CD8 T cells are exposed to the specific virus they
are tuned for, they multiply greatly, a process called expansion."

That last quote shows that vaccine immunity is deficient compared to
natural immunity.

cheers,
Jamie

There are trade-offs, since there's always the danger of provoking an
auto-immune response.

Present vaccines seems to do the job perfectly well, provided enough
people use them. The main beneficiaries of stronger vaccines would be
those who don't vaccinate and rely on herd immunity for protection,
since stronger vaccines would produce a higher degree of herd immunity
for the same proportion of the population who use them.

That is, free-loaders would benefit from the increased risk taken by
the
nonfree-loaders.

Hi,

The article is implying a fundamental deficit in vaccines, which is the
evidence of the CD8 T cells innate immunity benefit from fighting off
an infection. I doubt that vaccines will be able to successfully
create this innate immunity boost any time soon. I am also pretty sure
that the extra CD8 T cells are one of many beneficial things that are
absent in people who are vaccinated.

An argument for vaccines used to be that fighting off an infection
naturally doesn't make you stronger, but it is nice to see that is
actually proven it does make you stronger to naturally fight off
infections, and thus weaker the more vaccines you have.

I think you're misreading the article.

In any case, vaccines trigger an immune response, and the body fights
off the infection. Just that in that particular case, it wouldn't have
mattered if it had done nothing (except that no immunity would have been
conferred).


Hi,

"So it may be profitable in vaccine development to try to push CD8 T
cells harder."

That quote from the article is a diplomatic way of saying the vaccines
are deficient and need further development.

No it isn't. It's merely saying that it may be possible to make them
even better.

Hi,

The immunity that vaccines provide is inferior to the immunity provided
by the bodies immune system successfully fighting off an infection,

Why do you think this? Getting your immunity from vaccination has the definite advantage that you don't have to suffer from the other consequences of the infection to acquire the immunity.

This
is why some vaccines require periodic booster shots, and also have only
a fixed amount of time that they will provide immunity.

This has everything to do with the nature of the immune system, and nothing to do with the source of the antigens which have challenged the immune system.

The immune system isn't clever enough to work out where the antigens have come from.

When you say "make them even better" you are implying they are already better > than the bodies own immune system, but since they aren't therefore I think my
interpretation is more accurate!

Vaccination merely stimulates the body's own immune system - it doesn't
replace it in any way, so your "interpretation" is simply deluded nonsense.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jamie M]

On 10/21/2014 5:20 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 22/10/2014 8:30 AM, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/21/2014 4:35 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 21/10/2014 8:45 PM, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/21/2014 1:36 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 21/10/2014 5:46 PM, Jamie M wrote:
Hi,

Here's an article on a paper that shows that natural immunity is
superior to vaccine induced "immunity", since the natural immune
response is proven to strengthen the innate immune system:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-10-cd8-cells-virus-theyll.html

"Scientists think of CD8 T cells as long-lived cells that become
tuned
to fight just one pathogen, but a new study finds that once CD8 T
cells
fight one pathogen, they also join the body's "innate" immune system,
ready to answer the calls of the cytokine signals that are set off
by a
wide variety of infections."

"So it may be profitable in vaccine development to try to push CD8 T
cells harder. When CD8 T cells are exposed to the specific virus they
are tuned for, they multiply greatly, a process called expansion."

That last quote shows that vaccine immunity is deficient compared to
natural immunity.

cheers,
Jamie

There are trade-offs, since there's always the danger of provoking an
auto-immune response.

Present vaccines seems to do the job perfectly well, provided enough
people use them. The main beneficiaries of stronger vaccines would be
those who don't vaccinate and rely on herd immunity for protection,
since stronger vaccines would produce a higher degree of herd immunity
for the same proportion of the population who use them.

That is, free-loaders would benefit from the increased risk taken by
the
nonfree-loaders.

Hi,

The article is implying a fundamental deficit in vaccines, which is the
evidence of the CD8 T cells innate immunity benefit from fighting off
an infection. I doubt that vaccines will be able to successfully
create this innate immunity boost any time soon. I am also pretty sure
that the extra CD8 T cells are one of many beneficial things that are
absent in people who are vaccinated.

An argument for vaccines used to be that fighting off an infection
naturally doesn't make you stronger, but it is nice to see that is
actually proven it does make you stronger to naturally fight off
infections, and thus weaker the more vaccines you have.

I think you're misreading the article.

In any case, vaccines trigger an immune response, and the body fights
off the infection. Just that in that particular case, it wouldn't have
mattered if it had done nothing (except that no immunity would have been
conferred).


Hi,

"So it may be profitable in vaccine development to try to push CD8 T
cells harder."

That quote from the article is a diplomatic way of saying the vaccines
are deficient and need further development.

No it isn't. It's merely saying that it may be possible to make them
even better.

Hi,

The immunity that vaccines provide is inferior to the immunity provided
by the bodies immune system successfully fighting off an infection, this
is why some vaccines require periodic booster shots, and also have only
a fixed amount of time that they will provide immunity. When you say
"make them even better" you are implying they are already better than
the bodies own immune system, but since they aren't therefore I think my
interpretation is more accurate!

cheers,
Jamie

Sylvia.

 

[Jamie M]

On 10/22/2014 3:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:32:45 PM UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
I don't think that paper says that. What
is says is that once you've got CD8 T
cells by exposing them to 0one foreign
protein they react to cytokine signals
given off by cells exposed to other
infections.

I don't see any suggestion in the article
that vaccines are a better or worse way
of getting CD8 T cells than exposure to
"natural" infections. After all, how is the
cellular machinery going to distinguish
one from the other?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Hi,

"Subunit" vaccines an apparently common type:

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/vaccines/understanding/pages/types
vaccines.aspx

seem to rely on the adaptive immune system's ability to detect the
various antigens in the vaccine.
The article talks about how mice genetically engineered to develop
antigen based immunity (while lacking the STAT4 based innate
immunity) didn't develop immunity to subsequent infections.

But that was because they'd been gene-engineered not to generate the STAT4 protein. Presumably,

antigen-based immunity does lead to STAT4 generation, just like every
other kind of challenge to

the immune system.

I did make the assumption that the vaccine will only give an
antigen response, but I think this is true but it would be good
to see a study showing whether a vaccine creates the same STAT4
proteins in the CD8 T cells:

" That protein is one of the reasons that natural killer (NK)
cells, the acknowledged stalwarts of innate immunity, are
sensitive to cytokines."

From statements in the article I think it is safe to assume
vaccines don't provide STAT4 innate immunity benefit:

"So it may be profitable in vaccine development to try to push CD8
T cells harder."

Why do you think that? More CD8 T cells would probably be a good thing, but you could get them

by throwing in extra antigens.
>

Hi,

You mentioned before about how could the cellular machinery distinguish
between vaccines and a natural infection, implying that they have an
equivalent response on the body. Rates of re-infection are lower with
natural immunity that with vaccine induced immunity though so there must
be some difference in the cellular machinery, I thought the STAT4 might
be part of that but again I admit it is an assumption!

cheers,
Jamie

Vaccines are an unhealthy choice for the majority of people, and
the proper way to be healthy is a good diet and low
stress.

Sadly, natural infections can trump a good diet and low stress. They can be defeated by appropriate

vaccination, and if a majority get vaccinated, you've got herd
immunity, and the infections don't

spread far enough to get to the unvaccinated.

There are low level risks from vaccination, but any real cost-benefit analysis show that plague-

avoidance trumps individual anxieties.
>

 

[Jamie M]

On 10/22/2014 7:32 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 2:46:01 AM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:
Hi,



Here's an article on a paper that shows that natural immunity is

superior to vaccine induced "immunity", since the natural immune

response is proven to strengthen the innate immune system:



http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-10-cd8-cells-virus-theyll.html


That paper says no such thing. Clearly you know next to nothing about immunology and you're just

playing pretend.

"Scientists think of CD8 T cells as long-lived cells that become tuned

to fight just one pathogen, but a new study finds that once CD8 T cells

fight one pathogen, they also join the body's "innate" immune system,

ready to answer the calls of the cytokine signals that are set off by a

wide variety of infections."



"So it may be profitable in vaccine development to try to push CD8 T

cells harder. When CD8 T cells are exposed to the specific virus they

are tuned for, they multiply greatly, a process called expansion."



That last quote shows that vaccine immunity is deficient compared to

natural immunity.

Maybe in your hopelessly distorted world. The paper says no such thing. What's going on here is

that you're a vaccine parasite, you don't believe they work and/or they
cause harm. So you dig up

some literature you can't begin to comprehend and misinterpret it to
support your idiocy.

That's one way to look at it I prefer to think I made an assumption
that has a chance of being correct, but to each his own!

cheers,
Jamie

cheers,

Jamie

 

On Thursday, October 23, 2014 4:52:48 AM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:

The immunity provided by fighting the infection naturally
is not the same as given from a vaccine, which makes sense as
the body is undergoing two separate processes, one a simulated
infection and one real. The level's of re-infection are higher for
people who have been vaccinated than for people who have had the real
infection.

Really? Try that one on rabies or smallpox.

http://www.vaccines.gov/diseases/rabies/

The rabies vaccine and booster schedule works, these people are immune. There is also a rabies vaccine for animals, and that works quite well too, it is most often administered to domesticated animals. Within the past twenty years an oral rabies vaccine has been developed for wildlife, a fish flavored cookie treat, usually distributed by air over large areas. A sampling of animals is trapped and tested for vaccine induced antibodies to gauge the effectiveness of the program, and it works.

This
is why some vaccines require periodic booster shots, and also have only
a fixed amount of time that they will provide immunity.

This has everything to do with the nature of the immune system, and nothing to do with the source

of the antigens which have challenged the immune system.

No it is because the vaccine is a simulated infection, and doesn't
effect the immune system in the same way as a real infection - which
provides longer immunity.

Dunno about longer immunity but in many cases you don't want the real infection in any way, shape or form. Although a "simulated" infection by vaccine is not exactly the same, it works well enough, recipients are able to fight off challenge by the real deal.

And your idea of keeping strong and stress free to fight infections is flawed. Some types of viruses actually favor a strong immune response to do their damage, and the most fatalities occur among the strong and not the weak. This was the case in the 1918 flu.

cheers,
Jamie



The immune system isn't clever enough to work out where the antigens have come from.

When you say "make them even better" you are implying they are already better > than the bodies

own immune system, but since they aren't therefore I think my
interpretation is more accurate!

Vaccination merely stimulates the body's own immune system - it doesn't
replace it in any way, so your "interpretation" is simply deluded nonsense.

 

[Jamie M]

On 10/22/2014 3:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:32:45 PM UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
I don't think that paper says that. What
is says is that once you've got CD8 T
cells by exposing them to 0one foreign
protein they react to cytokine signals
given off by cells exposed to other
infections.

I don't see any suggestion in the article
that vaccines are a better or worse way
of getting CD8 T cells than exposure to
"natural" infections. After all, how is the
cellular machinery going to distinguish
one from the other?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Hi,

"Subunit" vaccines an apparently common type:

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/vaccines/understanding/pages/types
vaccines.aspx

seem to rely on the adaptive immune system's ability to detect the
various antigens in the vaccine.
The article talks about how mice genetically engineered to develop
antigen based immunity (while lacking the STAT4 based innate
immunity) didn't develop immunity to subsequent infections.

But that was because they'd been gene-engineered not to generate the STAT4 protein. Presumably,

antigen-based immunity does lead to STAT4 generation, just like every
other kind of challenge to

the immune system.

I did make the assumption that the vaccine will only give an
antigen response, but I think this is true but it would be good
to see a study showing whether a vaccine creates the same STAT4
proteins in the CD8 T cells:

" That protein is one of the reasons that natural killer (NK)
cells, the acknowledged stalwarts of innate immunity, are
sensitive to cytokines."

From statements in the article I think it is safe to assume
vaccines don't provide STAT4 innate immunity benefit:

"So it may be profitable in vaccine development to try to push CD8
T cells harder."

Why do you think that? More CD8 T cells would probably be a good thing, but you could get them by

throwing in extra antigens.

Vaccines are an unhealthy choice for the majority of people, and
the proper way to be healthy is a good diet and low
stress.

Sadly, natural infections can trump a good diet and low stress. They can be defeated by appropriate

vaccination, and if a majority get vaccinated, you've got herd
immunity, and the infections don't

spread far enough to get to the unvaccinated.

There are low level risks from vaccination, but any real cost-benefit analysis show that plague-

avoidance trumps individual anxieties.
>

Hi,

OT in an OT thread, but what do you think of this research showing
mitochondria have synchronized vibrations within individual cells and
also as well over whole areas of tissue?

http://phys.org/news/2014-10-cell-biology-focus-decades-old-mitochondrial.html

cheers,
Jamie