Study Disproves CDC's Primary Justification for Vaccination

Study
Disproves CDC's Primary Justification for Vaccination








According to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "Immunity to a disease is
achieved through the presence of antibodies to that disease in a person’s
system."
This, in fact, is the main justification for using vaccines to "boost" immunity,
and a primary focus of vaccine research and development.

And yet, newly
publish research has revealed that in some cases no antibodies are required for
immunity against some viruses.

Published in the journal [i]Immunity
in March, 2011, and titled, "B cell maintenance of subcapsular sinus macrophages
protects against a fatal viral infection independent of adaptive immunity,"
researchers found that mice infected with vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) can
suffer fatal invasion of their central nervous system even in the presence of
high concentrations of "neutralizing" antibodies against VSV.[ii]

The researchers found that while B-cells were essential
for surviving a systemic VSV infection through the modulation of innate
immunity, specifically macrophage behavior, the antibodies they produce as part
of the adaptive immune response were "neither needed nor sufficient for
protection." These findings, according to the study authors, "…contradict the
current view that B cell-derived neutralizing antibodies are absolutely required
to survive a primary cytopathic viral infection, such as that caused by
VSV."

The discovery that antibodies are not required for protection
against infection, while counterintuitive, is not novel. In fact, not only are
antibodies not required for immunity, in some cases high levels are found in the
presence of active, even lethal infections. For example, high serum levels of
antibodies against tetanus have been observed failing to confer protection
against the disease. A report from 1992 published in the journal
Neurology found severe
tetanus in immunized patients with high anti-tetanus titers, one of whom
died as a result of the infection.[iii]

These
research findings run diametrically opposed to currently held beliefs regarding
the process by which we develop immunity against infectious challenges.
Presently, it is a commonly held view that during viral infections, innate
immunity must activate adaptive responses in order to achieve effective
immunity. It is believed that this is why the immune system has developed a
series of innate defenses, including complement, type I interferon, and other
"stopgap measures," which work immediately to lower pathogen burden and "buy
time" for the much slower adaptive immune response to develop.

This
view, however, has been called into question by the new study: "Although this
concept may apply to other viral infections, our findings with VSV turn this
view upside down, indicating that during a primary infection with this
cytopathic virus, innate immunity can be sterilizing without adaptive immune
contributions."

Does this strike a mortal blow to the antibody theory
which underlies vaccinology, and constitutes the primary justification for the
CDC's focus on using vaccines to "boost" immunity?

Indeed, in
vaccinology, which is the science or method of vaccine development, vaccine
effectiveness is often determined by the ability of a vaccine to increase
antibody titers, even if this does not translate into real-world effectiveness,
i.e. antibody-antigen matching. In fact, regulatory agencies, such as the FDA,
often approve vaccines based on their ability to raise antibody titers, also
known as "vaccine efficacy," without requiring proof of vaccine effectiveness,
as would seem logical.

The obvious problem with these criteria is that
the use of vaccine
adjuvants like mercury, aluminum
hydroxide, mineral oil, etc. – all of which are intrinsically toxic
substances -- will increase antibody titers, without guaranteeing they will
neutralize the targeted antigen, i.e. antibody-antigen affinity. To the
contrary, many of these antibodies lack selectivity, and target self-structures,
resulting in the loss of self-tolerance, i.e. autoimmunity.

Here is
another way of understanding vaccine-induced antibody
elevations….

Introducing foreign pathogenic DNA, chemicals, metals,
preservatives, etc., into the body through a syringe will generate a response
not unlike kicking a beehive. The harder you kick that beehive, the greater will
be the "efficacy" (i.e. elevated antibodies), but the actual affinity that these
antibodies will have for the antigen (i.e. pathogen) of concern is in no way
ensured; to the contrary, the immune response is likely to become misdirected,
or disproportionate to the threat.

Also, valuable immune resources are
wasted by generating "false flag" responses to threats which may not readily
exist in the environment, e.g. there are over 200 forms of influenza A, B &
C which can cause the symptoms associated with annual influenza A,* so the
seasonal trivalent flu vaccine only takes care of little more than 1% of the
possible vectors of infection - and often at the price of distracting resources
away from real threats, as well as exhausting and/or damaging the entire immune
apparatus.

It is clear that one can create a synthetic
immune response through vaccination, but it is not likely to result in
enhanced immunity, insofar as real-world effectiveness is concerned, which is
the only true judge of whether a vaccine is valuable or not. One might view the
basic criteria used by vaccine researchers, namely, that generating elevated
antibody titers proves the value of the vaccine, oppositely: proving the vaccine
is causing harm to the body, especially that of the developing infant and child,
by generating unnecessarily elevated antibodies by any means necessary, i.e.
throwing the chemical and biological kitchen sink at the immune system, e.g. aluminum,
phenol, diploid
(aborted fetal) cells, peanut oil, pertactin, etc.

We leave the
reader with a series of quotes addressing the inherent weaknesses of the
antibody theory of immunity:
<blockquote class="tr_bq">Just because you give somebody a vaccine, and perhaps
get an antibody reaction, doesn’t mean a thing. The only true antibodies, of
course, are those you get naturally. What we’re doing [when we inject vaccines]
is interfering with a very delicate mechanism that does its own thing. If
nutrition is correct, it does it in the right way. Now if you insult a person in
this way and try to trigger off something that nature looks after, you’re asking
for all sorts of trouble, and we don’t believe it works."- Glen Dettman Ph.D, interviewed by
Jay Patrick, and quoted in "The Great American Deception," Let’s Live, December
1976, p. 57. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">The fallacy of this (antibody theory) was exposed
nearly 50 years ago, which is hardly recent. A report published by the Medical
Research Council entitled 'A study of diphtheria in two areas of Gt. Britain,
Special report series 272, HMSO 1950 demonstrated that many of the diphtheria
patients had high levels of circulating antibodies, whereas many of the contacts
who remained perfectly well had low antibody. - Magda Taylor, Informed
Parent </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">Human trials generally correlate 'antibody' responses
with protection - that is if the body produces antibodies (proteins) which bind
to vaccine components, then it must be working and safe. Yet Dr March says
antibody response is generally a poor measure of protection and no indicator at
all of safety. 'Particularly for viral diseases, the 'cellular' immune response
is all important, and antibody levels and protection are totally unconnected.' -
Private Eye
24/1/2002 </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">Whenever we read vaccine papers the MD researchers
always assume that if there are high antibody levels after vaccination, then
there is immunity (immunogencity). But are antibody levels and immunity the
same? No! Antibody levels are not the same as IMMUNITY. The recent MUMPS vaccine
fiasco in Switzerland has re-emphasized this point. Three mumps vaccines-Rubini,
Jeryl-Lynn and Urabe (the one withdrawn because it caused encephalitis) all
produced excellent antibody levels but those vaccinated with the Rubini strain
had the same attack rate as those not vaccinated at all, there were some who
said that it actually caused outbreaks. Ref: Schegal M et al Comparative
efficacy of three mumps vaccines during disease outbreak in Switzerland: cohort
study. BMJ, 1999; 319:352-3.- Ted Koren
DC</blockquote>
Source:-
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/06/study-disproves-cdcs-primary.html