OT: vaccine and natural immune response differences

[Jamie M]

On 10/23/2014 1:00 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

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.

Hi,

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.

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.

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.

 

[John Devereux]

Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> writes:


[...]

Hi,

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

The immunity provided by *unsuccessfully* fighting off the infection is
even better. Lifetime protection against all future disease!


--

John Devereux

 

On Thursday, October 23, 2014 10:14:10 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

On 23/10/14 14:16, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
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.


Well, the level of re-infection for people who have had rabies rather
than a vaccine (which can be administered after infection, but before
symptoms occur) is absolutely zero. But that's because rabies is
(almost) invariably fatal - dead people don't get re-infected.

The initial therapy administration for rabies is an antibody serum along with a vaccine. It's kind of ridiculous to inject dead rabies virus particles into a person who already has plenty of live rabies particles to train their immune system. So the antibody serum clears the live particles and the vaccine introduces dead particles with which to develop immunity. The vaccine also contains other additives to spike the immune response.

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.

That's the key point.

Many vaccines work using slightly modified pathogens, and thus are
perhaps not quite as good as "the real thing" for training the immune
system. But the real disease would do significant harm to the body (we
don't bother vaccinating against harmless diseases), meaning it is
/always/ better to get the vaccine rather than the real disease.

And also note that the with real diseases, immunity is seldom life-long
- there is often a chance of re-infection after a long delay. Part of
that depends on the strength of the immune reaction (and therefore the
number of cells generating the antibodies), which explains why real
disease immunity is often a bit longer than vaccination.

It turns out that's not entirely true. When the government here realized that smallpox was a very possible bioterrorism threat, experiments were conducted to determine the immunity of people vaccinated against the disease nearly 40 years previous. It turned out the immune response was still intact, and spared us the effort to mass produce hundreds of millions of booster doses which the conventional wisdom dictated.

The main strength of vaccines and/or prior exposure to the disease is not the "strength" of the response but the speed. Generally, if the individual is starting from scratch in developing an immune response, it takes two weeks before the antibodies and T-cells are formulated effectively and put into mass production, whereas an experienced immune response gets to the same place within 100 hours. This makes all the difference in the world to the outcome.

The most serious vulnerability is age because the immune response is weak. It can be so weak that even a vaccine fails to induce an immunizing response. It is only recently they are attempting to double dose the influenza vaccine to overcome this here, as an example of the problem.

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.


That's true for some diseases, but in most cases a strong and healthy
person deals better with disease.

Strong and healthy people don't remain strong and healthy for very long with a serious infection.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 23/10/2014 6:53 PM, Jamie M wrote:

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!

It could just as easily be a matter of quantity. I seem to remember
being pretty ill when I had measles, mumps and chickenpox as a child.
There were probably a good deal more virus particles around before I got
better than with any vaccination I've had.

Fortunately, I didn't have to suffer the effects of catching smallpox,
which still existed when I was a child.

Ditto polio, which still exists now, in no small part due to the
scaremongering regarding autism.

Sylvia.

 

[David Brown]

On 23/10/14 14:16, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

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.

Well, the level of re-infection for people who have had rabies rather
than a vaccine (which can be administered after infection, but before
symptoms occur) is absolutely zero. But that's because rabies is
(almost) invariably fatal - dead people don't get re-infected.

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.

That's the key point.

Many vaccines work using slightly modified pathogens, and thus are
perhaps not quite as good as "the real thing" for training the immune
system. But the real disease would do significant harm to the body (we
don't bother vaccinating against harmless diseases), meaning it is
/always/ better to get the vaccine rather than the real disease.

And also note that the with real diseases, immunity is seldom life-long
- there is often a chance of re-infection after a long delay. Part of
that depends on the strength of the immune reaction (and therefore the
number of cells generating the antibodies), which explains why real
disease immunity is often a bit longer than vaccination.

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.

That's true for some diseases, but in most cases a strong and healthy
person deals better with disease.

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.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 23 October 2014 19:52:48 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

On 10/23/2014 1:00 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
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:

<snip>

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.

This is an implausible hypothesis that you are advancing - unsupported by any visible evidence. The fact that you reacted immediately to the claim, rather than waiting until you'd read my argument below, gives a depressing picture of your capacity for reasoned argument.

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

 

On Thursday, October 23, 2014 5:14:05 PM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:

On 10/23/2014 8:41 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 10:14:10 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 23/10/14 14:16, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
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.


Well, the level of re-infection for people who have had rabies rather
than a vaccine (which can be administered after infection, but before
symptoms occur) is absolutely zero. But that's because rabies is
(almost) invariably fatal - dead people don't get re-infected.

The initial therapy administration for rabies is an antibody serum along with a vaccine. It's kind of ridiculous to inject dead rabies virus

particles into a person who already has plenty of live rabies particles
to train their immune system. So the antibody serum clears the live

particles and the vaccine introduces dead particles with which to
develop immunity. The vaccine also contains other additives to spike the
immune response.






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.

That's the key point.

Many vaccines work using slightly modified pathogens, and thus are
perhaps not quite as good as "the real thing" for training the immune
system. But the real disease would do significant harm to the body (we
don't bother vaccinating against harmless diseases), meaning it is
/always/ better to get the vaccine rather than the real disease.

And also note that the with real diseases, immunity is seldom life-long
- there is often a chance of re-infection after a long delay. Part of
that depends on the strength of the immune reaction (and therefore the
number of cells generating the antibodies), which explains why real
disease immunity is often a bit longer than vaccination.

It turns out that's not entirely true. When the government here realized that smallpox was a very possible bioterrorism threat, experiments

were conducted to determine the immunity of people vaccinated against
the disease nearly 40 years previous. It turned out the immune response

was still intact, and spared us the effort to mass produce hundreds of
millions of booster doses which the conventional wisdom dictated.

The main strength of vaccines and/or prior exposure to the disease is not the "strength" of the response but the speed. Generally, if the

individual is starting from scratch in developing an immune response, it
takes two weeks before the antibodies and T-cells are formulated

effectively and put into mass production, whereas an experienced immune
response gets to the same place within 100 hours. This makes all

the difference in the world to the outcome.


The most serious vulnerability is age because the immune response is weak. It can be so weak that even a vaccine fails to induce an

immunizing response. It is only recently they are attempting to double
dose the influenza vaccine to overcome this here, as an example of the
problem.





Hi,

The apparent advantages of vaccines could eventually be recognized as
disadvantages in the future, once more biochemical analysis is done.
The immune system is being shown to be tied into other systems in the
body, and related to diseases such as Alzheimer's etc. Simulated
infections from vaccines may be shown to have long term negative
effects since they interact with the bodies immune system differently
than a natural infection, and in the extreme case of a society that
vaccinates every possible infection, maybe this would be more apparent
that it is unhealthy if the body never fights even mild infections.

There haven't been many human inventions that didn't have serious
negative side effects, I wouldn't be surprised if many modern day health
problems (diabetes epidemic etc) are eventually explained as a result
of a combination of the modern processed food diet, pollution, stress,
vaccines etc, all at a biochemical level rather than the
epidemiological level that is more prone to uncertain interpretation.

cheers,
Jamie

That's a BIG unsubstantiated conjecture. In the meantime, what do you propose for diseases like polio which was crippling 50,000 people annually in the U.S. at the time of introduction of the Salk vaccine, equivalent to 100,000 people today? That is a rhetorical question, don't answer it.

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.


That's true for some diseases, but in most cases a strong and healthy
person deals better with disease.

Strong and healthy people don't remain strong and healthy for very long with a serious infection.

 

[Jamie M]

On 10/23/2014 8:41 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, October 23, 2014 10:14:10 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 23/10/14 14:16, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
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.


Well, the level of re-infection for people who have had rabies rather
than a vaccine (which can be administered after infection, but before
symptoms occur) is absolutely zero. But that's because rabies is
(almost) invariably fatal - dead people don't get re-infected.

The initial therapy administration for rabies is an antibody serum along with a vaccine. It's kind of ridiculous to inject dead rabies virus

particles into a person who already has plenty of live rabies particles
to train their immune system. So the antibody serum clears the live

particles and the vaccine introduces dead particles with which to
develop immunity. The vaccine also contains other additives to spike the
immune response.

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.

That's the key point.

Many vaccines work using slightly modified pathogens, and thus are
perhaps not quite as good as "the real thing" for training the immune
system. But the real disease would do significant harm to the body (we
don't bother vaccinating against harmless diseases), meaning it is
/always/ better to get the vaccine rather than the real disease.

And also note that the with real diseases, immunity is seldom life-long
- there is often a chance of re-infection after a long delay. Part of
that depends on the strength of the immune reaction (and therefore the
number of cells generating the antibodies), which explains why real
disease immunity is often a bit longer than vaccination.

It turns out that's not entirely true. When the government here realized that smallpox was a very possible bioterrorism threat, experiments

were conducted to determine the immunity of people vaccinated against
the disease nearly 40 years previous. It turned out the immune response

was still intact, and spared us the effort to mass produce hundreds of
millions of booster doses which the conventional wisdom dictated.

The main strength of vaccines and/or prior exposure to the disease is not the "strength" of the response but the speed. Generally, if the

individual is starting from scratch in developing an immune response, it
takes two weeks before the antibodies and T-cells are formulated

effectively and put into mass production, whereas an experienced immune
response gets to the same place within 100 hours. This makes all

the difference in the world to the outcome.

The most serious vulnerability is age because the immune response is weak. It can be so weak that even a vaccine fails to induce an

immunizing response. It is only recently they are attempting to double
dose the influenza vaccine to overcome this here, as an example of the
problem.


Hi,

The apparent advantages of vaccines could eventually be recognized as
disadvantages in the future, once more biochemical analysis is done.
The immune system is being shown to be tied into other systems in the
body, and related to diseases such as Alzheimer's etc. Simulated
infections from vaccines may be shown to have long term negative
effects since they interact with the bodies immune system differently
than a natural infection, and in the extreme case of a society that
vaccinates every possible infection, maybe this would be more apparent
that it is unhealthy if the body never fights even mild infections.

There haven't been many human inventions that didn't have serious
negative side effects, I wouldn't be surprised if many modern day health
problems (diabetes epidemic etc) are eventually explained as a result
of a combination of the modern processed food diet, pollution, stress,
vaccines etc, all at a biochemical level rather than the
epidemiological level that is more prone to uncertain interpretation.

cheers,
Jamie

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.


That's true for some diseases, but in most cases a strong and healthy
person deals better with disease.

Strong and healthy people don't remain strong and healthy for very long with a serious infection.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 24 October 2014 14:16:14 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

On 10/23/2014 4:14 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, 23 October 2014 19:52:48 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/23/2014 1:00 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
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:

<snip>

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.

This is an implausible hypothesis that you are advancing - unsupported by any visible evidence. The fact that you reacted immediately to the claim, rather than waiting until you'd read my argument below, gives a depressing picture of your capacity for reasoned argument.

It is easy to find evidence showing that a natural infection triggers
the immune system more than a vaccine simulated infection, I just
randomly came across this article today related to finding natural
alternatives to antibiotics to fight bacterial infections, in order
to avoid the antibiotic side effect of killing beneficial bacteria in
the body:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-10-body-defends-bacteria.html

It mentions how certain bacteria:

"trigger mitochondria dysfunction, presumably to promote infection,"
.. "In response, when the cells perceive that mitochondria function is
being perturbed, they turn on genes that launch an attack against the
bacteria."

This is obviously not the same as viruses but it is very related, since
viruses and bacteria both have genetic code in them, and it is highly
optimized for successful growth and reproduction in a hostile host (ie
the human body), so there are many systems at play between the bacteria
or virus and the human host, and the body will react to counter the
infection in many different ways.
The simulated infection that vaccines provide only account for a
fraction of the immune response triggered by a natural infection,
due to the simulated infection targetting specific areas of the immune
system instead of the whole genome of the virus functioning as occurs
in a natural infection.

On the other hand the body is being damaged by natural infection, and it's less than obvious that the extra defences being mobilised do all that much extra against the infection, while the damage being done by the natural infection is usually serious - otherwise you wouldn't notice it or classify the invasion as an infection.

Therefore it is common sense that the immune
response will differ in the two cases. The vaccine manufactures attempt
to select the antigens from the virus that trigger what appears to be a
strong immune response to the live virus, however that is a very narrow
immunity selection, whereas the natural infection results in a more
broad based resultant immunity as supported by more recent research.

Other defence mechanism - like fever - do come into play. Fever - on it's own - can be lethal, and is remarkably unspecific. The virtue of the vaccine is that it does generate a strong immune response without making the patient sick - or at least not to any significant expense.

Generating a more substantial defensive response and killing the patient in the process is the reductio ad absurdum of your preference for natural defences. It may be good for the gene pool but individual patients have an immediate interest in surviving and avoiding debilitation.

Vaccines role should be restricted to very serious infections for this
reason, however their role is expanding in many countries to include
infections that had historically been considered only a nuisance.

Influenza is that one that comes to mind - but while a bout of flu is a nuisance for a young healthy adult, it can kill the elderly.

Most likely this is a money making scheme, some first world countries have
a much shorter vaccination schedule that the USA and don't seem to
suffer as a result, but instead often have lower mortality stats.

The US has vile mortality stats for an advanced industrial country. This hasn't got much to do with it's choice of vaccinations, and everything to do with the fact that it pretty much unique in not having universal health care, and still spends half as much more per head as the most extravagant of the universal health schemes.

Direct your paranoia at an area where it might do some good.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jamie M]

On 10/23/2014 4:14 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, 23 October 2014 19:52:48 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/23/2014 1:00 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
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:

snip

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.

This is an implausible hypothesis that you are advancing - unsupported by any visible evidence. The fact that you

reacted immediately to the claim, rather than waiting until you'd read
my argument below, gives a depressing picture

of your capacity for reasoned argument.


Hi,

It is easy to find evidence showing that a natural infection triggers
the immune system more than a vaccine simulated infection, I just
randomly came across this article today related to finding natural
alternatives to antibiotics to fight bacterial infections, in order
to avoid the antibiotic side effect of killing beneficial bacteria in
the body:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-10-body-defends-bacteria.html

It mentions how certain bacteria:

"trigger mitochondria dysfunction, presumably to promote infection,"
... "In response, when the cells perceive that mitochondria function is
being perturbed, they turn on genes that launch an attack against the
bacteria."

This is obviously not the same as viruses but it is very related, since
viruses and bacteria both have genetic code in them, and it is highly
optimized for successful growth and reproduction in a hostile host (ie
the human body), so there are many systems at play between the bacteria
or virus and the human host, and the body will react to counter the
infection in many different ways.

The simulated infection that vaccines provide only account for a
fraction of the immune response triggered by a natural infection,
due to the simulated infection targetting specific areas of the immune
system instead of the whole genome of the virus functioning as occurs
in a natural infection. Therefore it is common sense that the immune
response will differ in the two cases. The vaccine manufactures attempt
to select the antigens from the virus that trigger what appears to be a
strong immune response to the live virus, however that is a very narrow
immunity selection, whereas the natural infection results in a more
broad based resultant immunity as supported by more recent research.

Vaccines role should be restricted to very serious infections for this
reason, however their role is expanding in many countries to include
infections that had historically been considered only a nuisance. Most
likely this is a money making scheme, some first world countries have
a much shorter vaccination schedule that the USA and don't seem to
suffer as a result, but instead often have lower mortality stats.

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.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 24 October 2014 19:27:51 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

On 10/23/2014 10:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, 24 October 2014 14:16:14 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

snip

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.

This is an implausible hypothesis that you are advancing - unsupported by any visible evidence. The fact that you reacted immediately to the claim, rather than waiting until you'd read my argument below, gives a depressing picture of your capacity for reasoned argument.

It is easy to find evidence showing that a natural infection triggers
the immune system more than a vaccine simulated infection, I just
randomly came across this article today related to finding natural
alternatives to antibiotics to fight bacterial infections, in order
to avoid the antibiotic side effect of killing beneficial bacteria in
the body:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-10-body-defends-bacteria.html

It mentions how certain bacteria:

"trigger mitochondria dysfunction, presumably to promote infection,"
.. "In response, when the cells perceive that mitochondria function is
being perturbed, they turn on genes that launch an attack against the
bacteria."

This is obviously not the same as viruses but it is very related, since
viruses and bacteria both have genetic code in them, and it is highly
optimized for successful growth and reproduction in a hostile host (ie
the human body), so there are many systems at play between the bacteria
or virus and the human host, and the body will react to counter the
infection in many different ways.
The simulated infection that vaccines provide only account for a
fraction of the immune response triggered by a natural infection,
due to the simulated infection targetting specific areas of the immune
system instead of the whole genome of the virus functioning as occurs
in a natural infection.

On the other hand the body is being damaged by natural infection, and it's less than obvious that the extra defences being mobilised do all that much extra against the infection, while the damage being done by the natural infection is usually serious - otherwise you wouldn't notice it or classify the invasion as an infection.

Therefore it is common sense that the immune
response will differ in the two cases. The vaccine manufactures attempt
to select the antigens from the virus that trigger what appears to be a
strong immune response to the live virus, however that is a very narrow
immunity selection, whereas the natural infection results in a more
broad based resultant immunity as supported by more recent research.

Other defence mechanism - like fever - do come into play. Fever - on it's own - can be lethal, and is remarkably unspecific. The virtue of the vaccineis that it does generate a strong immune response without making the patient sick - or at least not to any significant expense.

Generating a more substantial defensive response and killing the patient in the process is the reductio ad absurdum of your preference for natural defences. It may be good for the gene pool but individual patients have an immediate interest in surviving and avoiding debilitation.

Vaccines role should be restricted to very serious infections for this
reason, however their role is expanding in many countries to include
infections that had historically been considered only a nuisance.

Influenza is that one that comes to mind - but while a bou>t of flu is a nuisance for a young healthy adult, it can kill the elderly .

Most likely this is a money making scheme, some first world countries
have a much shorter vaccination schedule that the USA and don't seem to
suffer as a result, but instead often have lower mortality stats.

The US has vile mortality stats for an advanced industrial country. This hasn't got much to do with it's choice of vaccinations, and everything to do with the fact that it pretty much unique in not having universal health care, and still spends half as much more per head as the most extravagant of the universal health schemes.

Direct your paranoia at an area where it might do some good.

The human body has a highly advanced immune system making up a large
percentage of the body,

The human immune system doesn't seem to be wildly different from that of other placental mammals.

It doesn't make up "a large percentage of the body".

and in the case of a society where all
infections were vaccinated for, this defensive machinery would be at
idle,

Nobody except a nitwit like you could imagine that all infections would be vaccinated for. The common cold mutates far too fast for this to be practical and there would be no point in vaccinating against the least easily transmitted infections.

And the whole point of vaccinations is to artificially stimulate the immune system, so the defensive machinery would in fact being kept quite busy, albeit coping with non-dangerous threats.

except for the simulated infections it "fought" off, however
leaving most of the system in an idle state during this.

Which part of the system would be idle when coping with a vaccination, as opposed to a real infection? Can you identify this potentially idle area?

When
biological things are left idle they tend to diminish, I think
homeostasis might be the relevant concept there.

If an inherited system isn't tested every generation or so, it can accumulate deleterious mutations. The mouse has about 1100 active olefactory genes. We've lost about half of them - the genes are still there, but they don't code for anything that works.

If the immune system is being tested by vaccinations every generation, this isn't going to be an issue.

If the immune system was a totally isolated system in the body, this
would possibly not be a problem, but with all things in the body
everything is connected and has an impact on other systems, so an
essentially artificially grown immune system (in the case of having
never encountered a natural infection) will potentially be a source
of disease due to the fact that it is behaving in an unnatural way.

Twaddle. Define "unnatural". Tells us how the immune response generated by a vaccine looks different from one generated by the same proteins delivered by a "natural" infection.

If you forget, there are papers out there showing links with immune
system generated molecules and diseases so this isn't as far fetched
as you seem to think.

What I've noticed is that you don't understand what the papers are trying to tell you, and that you do seem prone to falsely perceiving them as supporting your arguments. This is mere wishful thinking on your part.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 24 October 2014 20:12:37 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

On 10/24/2014 1:27 AM, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/23/2014 10:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, 24 October 2014 14:16:14 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

<snip>

Also I should mention the immune system is a big part of what keeps
cancer in check, apparently there are cancer cells in most people,
but usually the immune system is able to clear them before they become
a danger. This is another reason why dealing with a natural infection
is advantageous over an artificial infection, as it allows the immune
system to grow or mature properly, whereas the artificial infections
don't operate the full spectrum of the immune system and shouldn't be
expected to give as much benefit to future unrelated infections or
cancer, or environmental toxins.

The immune system works by recognising certain proteins as foreign. Cancers cells are mutated versions of your own cells, and they aren't always recognised as foreign.

You seem to think that vaccines produce a different spectrum of foreign proteins from natural infections - which may be true, to some extent, in that natural infectious agents do produce toxic proteins and dead and attentuated vaccinating agents produce less. The effective part of the immune response generates reactions against the proteins of the infectious agent itself, rather than against the infectious agent's toxic products, so this is a plus for vaccination, not a minus.

Quite why you want the immune system to waste resources on reacting against non-reproducing entities escapes me, as does why this might help against cancers.

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about, and seem to think that calling something "unnatural" is enough to prove it undesirable.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jamie M]

On 10/23/2014 10:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, 24 October 2014 14:16:14 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:


snip


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.

This is an implausible hypothesis that you are advancing - unsupported by any visible evidence. The fact that you reacted immediately to the claim,

rather than waiting until you'd read my argument below, gives a
depressing picture of your capacity for reasoned argument.

It is easy to find evidence showing that a natural infection triggers
the immune system more than a vaccine simulated infection, I just
randomly came across this article today related to finding natural
alternatives to antibiotics to fight bacterial infections, in order
to avoid the antibiotic side effect of killing beneficial bacteria in
the body:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-10-body-defends-bacteria.html

It mentions how certain bacteria:

"trigger mitochondria dysfunction, presumably to promote infection,"
.. "In response, when the cells perceive that mitochondria function is
being perturbed, they turn on genes that launch an attack against the
bacteria."

This is obviously not the same as viruses but it is very related, since
viruses and bacteria both have genetic code in them, and it is highly
optimized for successful growth and reproduction in a hostile host (ie
the human body), so there are many systems at play between the bacteria
or virus and the human host, and the body will react to counter the
infection in many different ways.
The simulated infection that vaccines provide only account for a
fraction of the immune response triggered by a natural infection,
due to the simulated infection targetting specific areas of the immune
system instead of the whole genome of the virus functioning as occurs
in a natural infection.

On the other hand the body is being damaged by natural infection, and it's less than obvious that the extra defences being mobilised do all that much

extra against the infection, while the damage being done by the natural
infection is usually serious - otherwise you wouldn't notice it or
classify the

invasion as an infection.

Therefore it is common sense that the immune
response will differ in the two cases. The vaccine manufactures attempt
to select the antigens from the virus that trigger what appears to be a
strong immune response to the live virus, however that is a very narrow
immunity selection, whereas the natural infection results in a more
broad based resultant immunity as supported by more recent research.

Other defence mechanism - like fever - do come into play. Fever - on it's own - can be lethal, and is remarkably unspecific. The virtue of the vaccine

is that it does generate a strong immune response without making the
patient sick - or at least not to any significant expense.

Generating a more substantial defensive response and killing the patient in the process is the reductio ad absurdum of your preference for natural

defences. It may be good for the gene pool but individual patients have
an immediate interest in surviving and avoiding debilitation.

Vaccines role should be restricted to very serious infections for this
reason, however their role is expanding in many countries to include
infections that had historically been considered only a nuisance.

Influenza is that one that comes to mind - but while a bout of flu is a nuisance for a young healthy adult, it can kill the elderly.

Most likely this is a money making scheme, some first world countries have
a much shorter vaccination schedule that the USA and don't seem to
suffer as a result, but instead often have lower mortality stats.

The US has vile mortality stats for an advanced industrial country. This hasn't got much to do with it's choice of vaccinations, and everything

to do with the fact that it pretty much unique in not having universal
health care, and still spends half as much more per head as the most
extravagant

of the universal health schemes.

Direct your paranoia at an area where it might do some good.

Hi,

The human body has a highly advanced immune system making up a large
percentage of the body, and in the case of a society where all
infections were vaccinated for, this defensive machinery would be at
idle, except for the simulated infections it "fought" off, however
leaving most of the system in an idle state during this. When
biological things are left idle they tend to diminish, I think
homeostasis might be the relevant concept there.

If the immune system was a totally isolated system in the body, this
would possibly not be a problem, but with all things in the body
everything is connected and has an impact on other systems, so an
essentially artificially grown immune system (in the case of having
never encountered a natural infection) will potentially be a source
of disease due to the fact that it is behaving in an unnatural way.

If you forget, there are papers out there showing links with immune
system generated molecules and diseases so this isn't as far fetched
as you seem to think.

cheers,
Jamie

 

[Jamie M]

On 10/24/2014 1:27 AM, Jamie M wrote:

On 10/23/2014 10:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, 24 October 2014 14:16:14 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:


snip


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.

This is an implausible hypothesis that you are advancing -
unsupported by any visible evidence. The fact that you reacted
immediately to the claim,

rather than waiting until you'd read my argument below, gives a
depressing picture of your capacity for reasoned argument.

It is easy to find evidence showing that a natural infection triggers
the immune system more than a vaccine simulated infection, I just
randomly came across this article today related to finding natural
alternatives to antibiotics to fight bacterial infections, in order
to avoid the antibiotic side effect of killing beneficial bacteria in
the body:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-10-body-defends-bacteria.html

It mentions how certain bacteria:

"trigger mitochondria dysfunction, presumably to promote infection,"
.. "In response, when the cells perceive that mitochondria function is
being perturbed, they turn on genes that launch an attack against the
bacteria."

This is obviously not the same as viruses but it is very related, since
viruses and bacteria both have genetic code in them, and it is highly
optimized for successful growth and reproduction in a hostile host (ie
the human body), so there are many systems at play between the bacteria
or virus and the human host, and the body will react to counter the
infection in many different ways.
The simulated infection that vaccines provide only account for a
fraction of the immune response triggered by a natural infection,
due to the simulated infection targetting specific areas of the immune
system instead of the whole genome of the virus functioning as occurs
in a natural infection.

On the other hand the body is being damaged by natural infection, and
it's less than obvious that the extra defences being mobilised do all
that much

extra against the infection, while the damage being done by the natural
infection is usually serious - otherwise you wouldn't notice it or
classify the

invasion as an infection.

Therefore it is common sense that the immune
response will differ in the two cases. The vaccine manufactures attempt
to select the antigens from the virus that trigger what appears to be a
strong immune response to the live virus, however that is a very narrow
immunity selection, whereas the natural infection results in a more
broad based resultant immunity as supported by more recent research.

Other defence mechanism - like fever - do come into play. Fever - on
it's own - can be lethal, and is remarkably unspecific. The virtue of
the vaccine

is that it does generate a strong immune response without making the
patient sick - or at least not to any significant expense.

Generating a more substantial defensive response and killing the
patient in the process is the reductio ad absurdum of your preference
for natural

defences. It may be good for the gene pool but individual patients have
an immediate interest in surviving and avoiding debilitation.

Vaccines role should be restricted to very serious infections for this
reason, however their role is expanding in many countries to include
infections that had historically been considered only a nuisance.

Influenza is that one that comes to mind - but while a bout of flu is
a nuisance for a young healthy adult, it can kill the elderly.

Most likely this is a money making scheme, some first world
countries have
a much shorter vaccination schedule that the USA and don't seem to
suffer as a result, but instead often have lower mortality stats.

The US has vile mortality stats for an advanced industrial country.
This hasn't got much to do with it's choice of vaccinations, and
everything
to do with the fact that it pretty much unique in not having universal
health care, and still spends half as much more per head as the most
extravagant

of the universal health schemes.

Direct your paranoia at an area where it might do some good.


Hi,

The human body has a highly advanced immune system making up a large
percentage of the body, and in the case of a society where all
infections were vaccinated for, this defensive machinery would be at
idle, except for the simulated infections it "fought" off, however
leaving most of the system in an idle state during this. When
biological things are left idle they tend to diminish, I think
homeostasis might be the relevant concept there.

If the immune system was a totally isolated system in the body, this
would possibly not be a problem, but with all things in the body
everything is connected and has an impact on other systems, so an
essentially artificially grown immune system (in the case of having
never encountered a natural infection) will potentially be a source
of disease due to the fact that it is behaving in an unnatural way.

If you forget, there are papers out there showing links with immune
system generated molecules and diseases so this isn't as far fetched
as you seem to think.

cheers,
Jamie

Also I should mention the immune system is a big part of what keeps
cancer in check, apparently there are cancer cells in most people,
but usually the immune system is able to clear them before they become
a danger. This is another reason why dealing with a natural infection
is advantageous over an artificial infection, as it allows the immune
system to grow or mature properly, whereas the artificial infections
don't operate the full spectrum of the immune system and shouldn't be
expected to give as much benefit to future unrelated infections or
cancer, or environmental toxins.

cheers,
Jamie

 

On Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:16:14 PM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:

The simulated infection that vaccines provide only account for a
fraction of the immune response triggered by a natural infection,
due to the simulated infection targetting specific areas of the immune
system instead of the whole genome of the virus functioning as occurs
in a natural infection. Therefore it is common sense that the immune
response will differ in the two cases.

The solution is obvious then--get vaccinated, then go git yerself the disease
for added protection.

Enjoy, and Bob's yer uncle.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, 26 October 2014 08:47:03 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

On 10/24/2014 4:34 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, 24 October 2014 20:12:37 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/24/2014 1:27 AM, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/23/2014 10:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, 24 October 2014 14:16:14 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

<snip>

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about, and seem to think that calling something "unnatural" is enough to prove it undesirable.

I have noticed before your thought process lacks a certain capacity for
lateral thinking which is required to take the leap of faith outside the
vaccine dogma in this case and see the potential system wide differences
between vaccines and a natural immune response!

What you are describing is gullible ignorance. Academic training is designed to reduce one's vulnerability to this kind of intellectual error.

One example of a difference you have neglected to consider is the
process of inflammation, usually this is considered an undesirable
thing to have, but temporary inflammation caused by a mild infection
will most likely have long term benefits in the body in different
ways potentially.

Inflammation increase blood flow to the infected region, moving more white blood cells through it. This is the short term advantage. I don't know of any long term advantage - beyond allowing the extra while blood cells to clear the infection faster - and it's fairly clear that you don't either.

The vaccine will not produce this same immune
response as it is a simulated infection and there is not the same
level of inflammation present.

Why would you want it? Vaccination is designed to generate a larger population of while blood cells specialised to reaction to a particular protein, without making the patient ill.

You seem to subscribe to the no pain - no gain philosophy which lacks intellectual support.

<snipped contentless speculation>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Friday, October 24, 2014 1:39:20 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, 24 October 2014 14:16:14 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/23/2014 4:14 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, 23 October 2014 19:52:48 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

snip


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.

This is an implausible hypothesis that you are advancing - unsupported by any visible evidence. The fact that you reacted immediately to the claim, rather than waiting until you'd read my argument below, gives a depressing picture of your capacity for reasoned argument.

It is easy to find evidence showing that a natural infection triggers
the immune system more than a vaccine simulated infection, I just
randomly came across this article today related to finding natural
alternatives to antibiotics to fight bacterial infections, in order
to avoid the antibiotic side effect of killing beneficial bacteria in
the body:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-10-body-defends-bacteria.html

It mentions how certain bacteria:

"trigger mitochondria dysfunction, presumably to promote infection,"
.. "In response, when the cells perceive that mitochondria function is
being perturbed, they turn on genes that launch an attack against the
bacteria."

This is obviously not the same as viruses but it is very related, since
viruses and bacteria both have genetic code in them, and it is highly
optimized for successful growth and reproduction in a hostile host (ie
the human body), so there are many systems at play between the bacteria
or virus and the human host, and the body will react to counter the
infection in many different ways.
The simulated infection that vaccines provide only account for a
fraction of the immune response triggered by a natural infection,
due to the simulated infection targetting specific areas of the immune
system instead of the whole genome of the virus functioning as occurs
in a natural infection.

On the other hand the body is being damaged by natural infection, and it's less than obvious that the extra defences being mobilised do all that much extra against the infection, while the damage being done by the natural infection is usually serious - otherwise you wouldn't notice it or classify the invasion as an infection.

True. And suppose vaccination only partially prepared you against a pathogen--
I'll take partial preparedness over none!

Therefore it is common sense that the immune
response will differ in the two cases. The vaccine manufactures attempt
to select the antigens from the virus that trigger what appears to be a
strong immune response to the live virus, however that is a very narrow
immunity selection, whereas the natural infection results in a more
broad based resultant immunity as supported by more recent research.

Other defence mechanism - like fever - do come into play. Fever - on it's own - can be lethal, and is remarkably unspecific. The virtue of the vaccine is that it does generate a strong immune response without making the patient sick - or at least not to any significant expense.

Fever *is* the immune response. That's higher metabolism as you shift all
available resources into making proteins & cells to fend off the invader.
Ramping that faster than the pathogen can mobilize dictates the outcome.

Generating a more substantial defensive response and killing the patient in the process is the reductio ad absurdum of your preference for natural defences. It may be good for the gene pool but individual patients have an immediate interest in surviving and avoiding debilitation.

Vaccines role should be restricted to very serious infections for this
reason, however their role is expanding in many countries to include
infections that had historically been considered only a nuisance.

Influenza is that one that comes to mind - but while a bout of flu is a nuisance for a young healthy adult, it can kill the elderly.

Most likely this is a money making scheme, some first world countries have
a much shorter vaccination schedule that the USA and don't seem to
suffer as a result, but instead often have lower mortality stats.

The US has vile mortality stats for an advanced industrial country. This hasn't got much to do with it's choice of vaccinations, and everything to do with the fact that it pretty much unique in not having universal health care, and still spends half as much more per head as the most extravagant of the universal health schemes.

US mortality stats actually aren't vile at all--we're in there at the top
of the pack on outcomes. Proponents of socialism argue with ridiculous
meta-metrics that mix in cultural, demographic, and life-style issues.

The real measure is, if you're sick, in which country are you most likely to
get well? The U.S. tops that list.

Deficiency in the meta-measures and pseudo-ratings has nothing to do with
lack of any kind of care whatever AFAICT, much less lack of a socialized
system. Indeed, by dollars spent, our system was already over
half-socialized even before the Unaffordable Act.

Seventh Day Adventists' life expectancy is ten years longer than the general
US population. Do they have a secret, superior medical system? No.
(Humorously, they follow Jamie's advice re: nutrition (but have no super
w.r.t. unvaccinated exposures AFAIK).)

> Direct your paranoia at an area where it might do some good.

Wisely advised.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:47:18 AM UTC-4, John Devereux wrote:

Jamie M writes:


[...]


Hi,

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

The immunity provided by *unsuccessfully* fighting off the infection is
even better. Lifetime protection against all future disease!

Bumper sticker: Smoking cures cancer!

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Jamie M]

On 10/24/2014 4:34 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, 24 October 2014 20:12:37 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/24/2014 1:27 AM, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/23/2014 10:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, 24 October 2014 14:16:14 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

snip

Also I should mention the immune system is a big part of what keeps
cancer in check, apparently there are cancer cells in most people,
but usually the immune system is able to clear them before they become
a danger. This is another reason why dealing with a natural infection
is advantageous over an artificial infection, as it allows the immune
system to grow or mature properly, whereas the artificial infections
don't operate the full spectrum of the immune system and shouldn't be
expected to give as much benefit to future unrelated infections or
cancer, or environmental toxins.

The immune system works by recognising certain proteins as foreign. Cancers cells are mutated versions of your own cells, and they aren't

always recognised as foreign.

You seem to think that vaccines produce a different spectrum of foreign proteins from natural infections - which may be true, to some extent,

in that natural infectious agents do produce toxic proteins and dead and
attentuated vaccinating agents produce less. The effective part of the

immune response generates reactions against the proteins of the
infectious agent itself, rather than against the infectious agent's
toxic products,

so this is a plus for vaccination, not a minus.

Quite why you want the immune system to waste resources on reacting against non-reproducing entities escapes me, as does why this might help

against cancers.

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about, and seem to think that calling something "unnatural" is enough to prove it undesirable.

Hi,

I have noticed before your thought process lacks a certain capacity for
lateral thinking which is required to take the leap of faith outside the
vaccine dogma in this case and see the potential system wide differences
between vaccines and a natural immune response!

One example of a difference you have neglected to consider is the
process of inflammation, usually this is considered an undesirable
thing to have, but temporary inflammation caused by a mild infection
will most likely have long term benefits in the body in different
ways potentially. The vaccine will not produce this same immune
response as it is a simulated infection and there is not the same
level of inflammation present. Whole complicated systems are activated
in the body to control the inflammation from an infection, if you
think you can understand the consequences of interrupting this
evolved process by using simulated infections then you are "out
to lunch" so to speak.

cheers,
Jamie

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, 26 October 2014 10:10:08 UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Friday, October 24, 2014 1:39:20 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, 24 October 2014 14:16:14 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/23/2014 4:14 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, 23 October 2014 19:52:48 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

<snip>

The US has vile mortality stats for an advanced industrial country. This hasn't got much to do with it's choice of vaccinations, and everything to do with the fact that it pretty much unique in not having universal health care, and still spends half as much more per head as the most extravagant of the universal health schemes.

US mortality stats actually aren't vile at all--we're in there at the top
of the pack on outcomes. Proponents of socialism argue with ridiculous
meta-metrics that mix in cultural, demographic, and life-style issues.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

The US comes in at 42 on life expectancy at birth

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

and at 55 on infant mortality.

The real measure is, if you're sick, in which country are you most likely to
get well? The U.S. tops that list.

An interestingly formulated claim, but where is it documented?

Since 100% of people eventually get sick and die, the implication is that US residents get sicker often than everybody else. In reality, you health system churns its patients, so they are registered as getting sick - and being treated - more often than anywhere else, giving the medical industry more frequent opportunities to "cure" and, more importantly to get paid for "curing" them.

It's putting a positive spin on the well-known observation that US health care costs half-again more per head than the most extortionate of it's international competitors.

Deficiency in the meta-measures and pseudo-ratings has nothing to do with
lack of any kind of care whatever AFAICT, much less lack of a socialized
system. Indeed, by dollars spent, our system was already over
half-socialized even before the Unaffordable Act.

Clearly the wrong half. The argument isn't with the quality of care - which can be a good as anywhere else, though there's no evidence that it's significantly better - but rather the quantity of care being delivered to the fully insured, and the inadequacies if the care available to those who are less well-insured.

Seventh Day Adventists' life expectancy is ten years longer than the general
US population. Do they have a secret, superior medical system? No.
(Humorously, they follow Jamie's advice re: nutrition (but have no super
w.r.t. unvaccinated exposures AFAIK).)

In fact the biggest single factor seems to be that they don't smoke. Higher educational attainment does also seem to be a factor - somewhat to my surprise. The area where I grew up had a significant Seventh Day Adventist population, and they seemed to be obliged to believe in stuff which would make it difficult for them to do well on some exams.

https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1989/09/why-adventists-live-longer

Direct your paranoia at an area where it might do some good.

Wisely advised.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney