OT: vaccine and natural immune response differences

Really? Try that one on rabies or smallpox.

The rabies vaccine and booster schedule works, these people are immune. The re 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 flavor ed 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.

y

hing to do with the source

Dunno about longer immunity but in many cases you don't want the real infec tion 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 figh t off challenge by the real deal.

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

ve come from.

better > than the bodies

nse.

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.

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.

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.

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

The initial therapy administration for rabies is an antibody serum along wi th 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 the ir immune system. So the antibody serum clears the live particles and the v accine introduces dead particles with which to develop immunity. The vaccin e also contains other additives to spike the immune response.

It turns out that's not entirely true. When the government here realized th at smallpox was a very possible bioterrorism threat, experiments were condu cted to determine the immunity of people vaccinated against the disease nea rly 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 do ses which the conventional wisdom dictated.

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

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 respons e. It is only recently they are attempting to double dose the influenza vac cine to overcome this here, as an example of the problem.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

y

hing to do with the source of the antigens which have challenged the immune system.

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

ve come from.

better than the bodies own immune system, but since they aren't therefo re I think my interpretation is more accurate! :)

nse.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

g with a vaccine. It's kind of ridiculous to inject dead rabies virus

e g

d that smallpox was a very possible bioterrorism threat, experiments

ot the "strength" of the response but the speed. Generally, if the

ak. It can be so weak that even a vaccine fails to induce an

That's a BIG unsubstantiated conjecture. In the meantime, what do you propo se for diseases like polio which was crippling 50,000 people annually in th e U.S. at the time of introduction of the Salk vaccine, equivalent to 100,0

00 people today? That is a rhetorical question, don't answer it.

with a serious infection.

which have challenged the immune system.

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:

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

but since they aren't therefore I think my interpretation is more accurate! :)

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 depressin g picture of your capacity for reasoned argument.

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 inf ection is usually serious - otherwise you wouldn't notice it or classify th e invasion as an infection.

Other defence mechanism - like fever - do come into play. Fever - on it's o wn - can be lethal, and is remarkably unspecific. The virtue of the vaccine is that it does generate a strong immune response without making the patie nt 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 def ences. It may be good for the gene pool but individual patients have an imm ediate interest in surviving and avoiding debilitation.

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

ve

The US has vile mortality stats for an advanced industrial country. This ha sn'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 car e, and still spends half as much more per head as the most extravagant of t he universal health schemes.

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

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

d by any visible evidence. The fact that you reacted immediately to the cla im, rather than waiting until you'd read my argument below, gives a depre ssing picture of your capacity for reasoned argument.

e a

t's less than obvious that the extra defences being mobilised do all that m uch extra against the infection, while the damage being done by the natura l infection is usually serious - otherwise you wouldn't notice it or clas sify the invasion as an infection.

pt

a w

's own - can be lethal, and is remarkably unspecific. The virtue of the vac cineis that it does generate a strong immune response without making the p atient sick - or at least not to any significant expense.

t 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.

a nuisance for a young healthy adult, it can kill the elderly .

s o

s 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 hea lth care, and still spends half as much more per head as the most extravag ant of the universal health schemes.

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

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

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 practi cal and there would be no point in vaccinating against the least easily tra nsmitted 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, al beit coping with non-dangerous threats.

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

If an inherited system isn't tested every generation or so, it can accumula te 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.

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.

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

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

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

You seem to think that vaccines produce a different spectrum of foreign pro teins from natural infections - which may be true, to some extent, in that natural infectious agents do produce toxic proteins and dead and attentuate d vaccinating agents produce less. The effective part of the immune respons e generates reactions against the proteins of the infectious agent itself, rather than against the infectious agent's toxic products, so this is a plu s 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 c ancers.

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

always recognised as foreign.

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.

against cancers.

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. :D

cheers, Jamie

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

that calling something "unnatural" is enough to prove it undesirable.

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

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 a ny long term advantage - beyond allowing the extra while blood cells to cle ar the infection faster - and it's fairly clear that you don't either.

Why would you want it? Vaccination is designed to generate a larger populat ion of while blood cells specialised to reaction to a particular protein, w ithout making the patient ill.

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

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

d by any visible evidence. The fact that you reacted immediately to the cla im, rather than waiting until you'd read my argument below, gives a depress ing picture of your capacity for reasoned argument.

s less than obvious that the extra defences being mobilised do all that muc h extra against the infection, while the damage being done by the natural i nfection 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 pathog en-- I'll take partial preparedness over none!

t

own - can be lethal, and is remarkably unspecific. The virtue of the vacci ne is that it does generate a strong immune response without making the pat ient 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.

in the process is the reductio ad absurdum of your preference for natural d efences. It may be good for the gene pool but individual patients have an i mmediate interest in surviving and avoiding debilitation.

uisance for a young healthy adult, it can kill the elderly.

have

hasn't got much to do with it's choice of vaccinations, and everything to d o with the fact that it pretty much unique in not having universal health c are, 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 t o 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 genera l 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).)

Wisely advised.

Cheers, James Arthur

Bumper sticker: Smoking cures cancer!

Cheers, James Arthur

s 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.

ank.html

The US comes in at 42 on life expectancy at birth

ank.html

and at 55 on infant mortality.

to

An interestingly formulated claim, but where is it documented?

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

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

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 signi ficantly better - but rather the quantity of care being delivered to the fu lly insured, and the inadequacies if the care available to those who are le ss well-insured.

ral

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 surp rise. The area where I grew up had a significant Seventh Day Adventist popu lation, and they seemed to be obliged to believe in stuff which would make it difficult for them to do well on some exams.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney