Addendum Release form for Hep B (for infants)

[Guest guest]

Monday, February 04, 2002 8:33 PM

Addendum Release form for Hep B for infants

 

 

> Monday, February 04, 2002 7:44 PM

>

>

> > Dear Members and Friends -

> > Please save the following for your files. This could be important

> > for protecting your rights in the very near future. The following is why

> > I peppered the Hep B vaccine for newborns release with comments....

> >

> > Ingri

> >

> >

> > Antibody Theory http://www.whale.to/vaccines/antibody.html

> >

> > Quotes Disease theory

> > Antibodies used as measure of immunity:

> >

> > " He said the normal trials on a new vaccine were not possible in Britain

> > because of the relatively small numbers of people who contracted the

> > disease. Instead scientists had tested whether the vaccine produced

> > sufficient antibodies. " --Media report on meningitis C vaccine

> >

> > Antibodies not a measure of immunity:

> > " 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

> >

> > " 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

> > " Just because you give somebody a vaccine, and perhaps get an antibody

> > reaction, doesnt mean a thing. The only true antibodies, of course, are

> > those you get naturally. What were 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, youre asking for all sorts of trouble, and we dont believe it

> > works. " Glen Dettman Ph.D, interviewed by Jay Patrick, and quoted in " The

> > Great American Deception, " Lets Live, December 1976, p. 57.

> > " Many measles vaccine efficacy studies relate to their ability to

> stimulate

> > an antibody response, (sero-conversion or sero-response). An antibody

> > response does not necessarily equate to immunity......... the level of

> > antibody needed for effective immunity is different in each

> > individual.....immunity can be demonstrated in individuals with a low or

> no

> > detectable levels of antibody. Similarly in other individuals with

> > higher levels of antibody there may be no immunity. We therefore need to

> > stay clear on the issue: How do we know if the vaccine is effective for

a

> > particular individual when we do not know what level of antibody

> production

> > equals immunity? " --Trevor Gunn BSc

> >

> > A jab in the dark

> > " The antibody business: Millions of screening tests are distributed,

each

> > blood sample needs to be tested (4 millions in Germany alone) ... The

> > therapy business: Antiviral medication, 3 or 4 or 5 fold combinations,

> AIDS

> > can´t be topped in this department. ....... With intoxication hypotheses

> on

> > the other hand you cannot make any money at all. The simple message is:

> > Avoid the poison and you won´t get sick. Such hypotheses are

> > counterproductive insofar as the toxins (drugs, alcohol, pills, phosmet)

> > bring high revenues. The conflict of interests is not resolvable: What

> > virologist who does directly profit millions from their patent rights of

> > the HIV or HCV tests (Montagnier, Simon Wain-Hobsen, Robin Weiss, Robert

> > Gallo) can risk to take even one look in the other direction. " --By Claus

> > Köhnlein

> >

> > " When they say immunogenicity what they actually mean is antibody

levels.

> > Antibody levels are not the same as IMMUNITY. The recent MUMPS vaccine

> > fisaco in Switzerland has re-emphasised this point. Three mumps

> > vaccinesRubini, Jeryl-Lynn and Urabe (the one we withdrew because it

> > caused encepahlitis) all produced excellent antibody levels but those

> > vaccinated with the Rubini strain had the same attack rate as those not

> > vaccinated at all (12), there were some who said that it actually caused

> > outbreaks. " --Dr Jayne Donegan

> >

> > " 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

> >

> > " In order to better grasp the issue of vaccine effectiveness, it would

> > prove helpful for us to go back to the early theoretical foundation upon

> > which current vaccination and disease theories originated. In simplest

> > terms, the theory of artificial immunization postulates that by giving a

> > person a mild form of a disease, via the use of specific foreign

proteins,

> > attenuated viruses, etc., the body will react by producing a lasting

> > protective response e.g., antibodies, to protect the body if or when the

> > real disease comes along.

> >

> > This primal theory of disease prevention originated by Paul

> > Ehrlich--from the time of its inception--has been subject to increasing

> > abandonment by scientists of no small stature. For example not long

after

> > the Ehrlich theory came into vogue, W.H. Manwaring, then Professor of

> > Bacteriology and Experimental Pathology at Leland Stanford University

> > observed:

> >

> > I believe that there is hardly an element of truth in a single one of

the

> > basic hypothesis embodied in this theory. My conviction that there was

> > something radically wrong with it arose from a consideration of the

almost

> > universal failure of therapeutic methods based on it . . . Twelve years

of

> > study with immuno-physical tests have yielded a mass of experimental

> > evidence contrary to, and irreconcilable with the Ehrlich theory, and

have

> > convinced me that his conception of the origin, nature, and

physiological

> > role of the specific 'antibodies' is erroneous.33

> >

> > To afford us with a continuing historical perspective of events

> > since Manwaring's time, we can next turn to the classic work on

> > auto-immunity and disease by Sir MacFarlane Burnett, which indicates

that

> > since the middle of this century the place of antibodies at the centre

> > stage of immunity to disease has undergone " a striking demotion. " For

> > example, it had become well known that children with

> > agammaglobulinaemia--who consequently have no capacity to produce

> > antibody--after contracting measles, (or other zymotic diseases)

> > nonetheless recover with long-lasting immunity. In his view it was clear

> > " that a variety of other immunological mechanisms are functioning

> > effectively without benefit of actively produced antibody. " 34

> >

> > The kind of research which led to this a broader perspective on the

> > body's immunological mechanisms included a mid-century British

> > investigation on the relationship of the incidence of diphtheria to the

> > presence of antibodies. The study concluded that there was no observable

> > correlation between the antibody count and the incidence of the

disease. "

> > " The researchers found people who were highly resistant with extremely

low

> > antibody count, and people who developed the disease who had high

antibody

> > counts.35 (According to Don de Savingy of IDRC, the significance of the

> > role of multiple immunological factors and mechanisms has gained wide

> > recognition in scientific thinking. [For example, it is now generally

held

> > that vaccines operate by stimulating non-humeral mechanisms, with

antibody

> > serving only as an indicator that a vaccine was given, or that a person

> was

> > exposed to a particular infectious agent.])

> > In the early 70's we find an article in the Australian Journal of

> > Medical Technology by medical virologist B. Allen (of the Australian

> > Laboratory of Microbiology and Pathology, Brisbane) which reported that

> > although a group of recruits were immunized for Rubella, and uniformly

> > demonstrated antibodies, 80 percent of the recruits contracted the

disease

> > when later exposed to it. Similar results were demonstrated in a

> > consecutive study conducted at an institution for the mentally disabled.

> > Allen--in commenting on herb research at a University of Melbourne

> > seminar--stated that " one must wonder whether the . . . decision to rely

> on

> > herd immunity might not have to be rethought.36

> >

> > As we proceed to the early 80s, we find that upon investigating

> > unexpected and unexplainable outbreaks of acute infection among

> " immunized "

> > persons, mainstream scientists have begun to seriously question whether

> > their understanding of what constitutes reliable immunity is in fact

> valid.

> > For example, a team of scientist writing in the New England Journal of

> > Medicine provide evidence for the position that immunityto disease is a

> > broader bio-ecological question then the factors of artificial

> immunization

> > or serology. They summarily concluded: " It is important to stress that

> > immunity (or its absence) cannot be determined reliable on the basis of

> > history of the disease, history of immunization, or even history of

prior

> > serologic determination.37

> >

> > Despite these significant shifts in scientific thinking, there has

> > unfortunately been little actual progress made in terms of undertaking

> > systematically broad research on the multiple factors which undergird

> human

> > immunity to disease, and in turn building a system of prevention that is

> > squarely based upon such findings. It seems ironic that as late as 1988

> > James must still raise the following basic questions. " Why doesn't

medical

> > research focus on what factors in our environment and in our lives

weaken

> > the immunesystem? Is this too simple? too ordinary? too undramatic? Or

> does

> > it threaten too many vested interests . .

> > ? " 38 " ---Dr Obomsawin MD

> >

> > " FROM REPEATED medical investigations, it would seem that antibodies are

> > about as useful as a black eye in protecting the victim from further

> > attacks. The word " antibody " covers a number of even less intelligible

> > words, quaint relics of Erlichs side-chain theory, which the greatest of

> > experts, McDonagh, tells us is " essentially unintelligible " . Now that

the

> > old history, mythology and statistics of vaccination have been exploded

by

> > experience, the business has to depend more upon verbal dust thrown in

the

> > face of the lay public. The mere layman, assailed by antibodies,

> receptors,

> > haptophores, etc., is only too pleased to give up the fight and leave

> > everything to the experts. This is just what they want, especially when

he

> > is so pleased that he also leaves them lots and lots of real money.

> > The whole subject of immunity and antibodies is, however, so extremely

> > complex and difficult, especially to the real experts, that it is a

relief

> > to be told that the gaps in their knowledge of such things are still

> enormous.

> > We can obtain some idea of the complexity of the subject from The

> > Integrity of the Human Body, by Sir Macfarlane Burnet. He calls

attention

> > to the factthe mysterythat some children can never develop any

antibodies

> > at all, but can nevertheless go through a typical attack of, say,

measles,

> > make a normal recovery and show the normal continuing resistance to

> > reinfection. Furthermore, we have heard for years past of attempts made

to

> > relate the amount of antibody in patients to their degree of immunity to

> > infection. The, results have often been so farcically chaotic, so

entirely

> > unlike what was expected, that the scandal has had to be hushed upor put

> > into a report, which is much the same thing (vide M.R.C. Report, No.

272,

> > May 1950, A Study of Diphtheria in Two Areas of Great Britain, now out

of

> > print). The worse scandal, however, is that the radio is still telling

the

> > schools that the purpose of vaccinating is to produce antibodies. The

> > purpose of vaccinating is to make money! " ---Lionel Dole

> >

> > Crone, NE; Reder, AT; Severe tetanus in immunized patients with high

> > anti-tetanus titers; Neurology 1992; 42:761-764;

> > Article abstract: Severe (grade III) tetanus occurred in three immunized

> > patients who had high serum levels of anti-tetanus antibody. The disease

> > was fatal in one patient. One patient had been hyperimmunized to produce

> > commercial tetanus immune globulin. Two patients had received

> immunizations

> > one year before presentation. Anti-tetanus antibody titers on admission

> > were 25 IU/ml to 0.15 IU/ml by hemagglutination and ELISA assays;

greater

> > than 0.01 IU/ml is considered protective. Even though one patient had

> > seemingly adequate anti-tetanus titers by in vitro measurement 0.20 IU

in

> > vivo mouse protection bioassays showed a titer less than 0.01 IU/ml,

> > implying that there may have been a hole in her immune repertoire to

> > tetanus neurotoxin but not to toxoid. This is the first report of grade

> III

> > tetanus with protective levels of antibody in the United States. The

> > diagnosis of tetanus, nevertheless, should not be discarded solely on

the

> > basis of seemingly protective anti-tetanus titers.

> >

>

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=1565228 & form=6 & db=m &

> > Dopt=b

> >

> > -----------------------

> > Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA

> > Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

> > $$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

> > vaccineinfo

> > (go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

> > PO Box 1563 Nevada City CA 95959 530-740-0561 Voicemail in US

> > http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

> > *****************************************************************

> > Ingri Cassel, President

> > Vaccination Liberation - Idaho Chapter

> > P.O. Box 1444

> > Coeur d'Alene, ID 83816

> > (208)255-2307/ 765-8421

> > vaclib

> >

> > www.vaclib.org

> > " The Right to Know, The Freedom to Abstain "

> >

>