Adjuvants

[ema-adama]

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0

We have recently shown that neonatal responses to a pannel of vaccine antigens and presentation systems differed qualitatively from adult responses by a bias towards a TH2 pattern.

Why would a neonate respond differently to an adult?

However, using this specific TH1-driving adjuvant only at time of boosting was not sufficient to fully circumvent the persisting influence of TH2-biased neonatal responses. Unexpectedly also, a significant local toxicity was observed in newborn and young mice, whereas only mild reactions occurred in adults.

Here it seems that the type of adjuvant is responsible for the type of immune response?

I've been thinking about adjuvants and Deborah's idea that little children have such deathly allergies as the adjuvants are triggering immune responses to more than just the injected antigen. (I hope I got that right and that is what you meant Deborah).

What I found interesting here was that it seems to be common knowledge that vaccines skew the neonatal immune system to a TH2 response and they are trying to work on this "problem".

I am wondering how much is known about the newborns immune system and whether this is not more stabbing in the dark in the hope that something will work and we'll figure it out later.

From the tiny bit of reading that I have done on adjuvants - I am getting the impression hardly anything in known about them and how they work, only that they do.
Which in my mind begs the question - if we don't know how they are working and what they are doing other than the desired effects, why it is such a good idea to be injecting so much into little babies and children?

I have read somewhere that they are only 4 adjuvants licensed for human use, but have been unable to pin that list down. Does anyone have it?
I know of aluminium and oil in water (which both seem to be controversial)

[luminesce]

We have recently shown that neonatal responses to a pannel of vaccine antigens and presentation systems differed qualitatively from adult responses by a bias towards a TH2 pattern.

This isn't surprising with the reading I've done so far on how the immune system works. Most humans are born with a bias toward making Th2 cytokines. Natural infection at an early age (not sure how early) helps balance the bias. I had not read, however, that vaccination skews the infant immune system toward a Th2 response. If indeed, vaccinated children have more allergies, this may certainly go a long way toward explaining it.

The "hygiene hypothesis" is based on these ideas as well. I, personally, don't think our immune system normally needs a "work-out" to work better, with this exception. The balance of Th1/Th2 mediated responses makes sense.
I'm really *just* getting started digging into the immune system though - so, take what I say with a grain of salt.

The more I read about our immune system, though, the more absolutely fascinated I am. I actually thought that the more I read, that the more of my fear surrounding vaccinations might be dispelled (somewhere inside of me, I'm still the little girl who doesn't want to see the wizard behind the curtain) but unfortunately, the more I learn, the more amazed I am that we have the arrogance to dink (isn't that a great scientific term, lol) with our immune systems on this level - especially in children without having a better understanding of what the heck we are doing.

[Th1Th2]

Adjuvants do not play a role for the re-shifting of immune response from Th2 to Th1. They cannot mimic what nature has intended for. In fact, vaccination is so designed for Th2 activation regardless of the subject---the cause of ABNORMAL immune response. Therefore, the only way to maintain the homeostatic balance is to STOP vaccinating.

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by serenitii

Most humans are born with a bias toward making T2 cytokines. Natural infection at an early age (not sure how early) helps balance the bias. I had not read, however, that vaccination skews the infant immune system toward a T2 response. If indeed, vaccinated children have more allergies, this may certainly go a long way toward explaining it.

Have you ever asked yourself why newborns are Th2-dominant?

Exposure of newborns to natural infection is not the right thing to do to maintain the balance.

ALL vaccines are designed to promote antibody response, in short, vaccines are created to target and activate the humoral immunity, that is, the Th2. This process, alone, leads to ABNORMAL immune response and the corruption of the immune system.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

Adjuvants do not play a role for the re-shifting of immune response from Th2 to Th1. They cannot mimic what nature has intended for. In fact, vaccination is so designed for Th2 activation regardless of the subject---the cause of ABNORMAL immune response. Therefore, the only way to maintain the homeostatic balance is to STOP vaccinating.

I am very much at the begining of looking into all of this.... so please be patient with me.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by adjuvants not playing a role in shifting the immune response to Th1. I thought that was the purpose of this new study - to see if they could find an adjuvant that would do this and also be safe.

I have understood the Th2 activation as being required as that is what gives you the antibodies, and with antibodies being the current measure of whether you are immune or not, it would make sense to trigger antibody formation. Is that what you mean when you say that vaccination is designed to trigger Th2 response? Ie bypass cellular/nonspecific immunity in an abnormal way?

In order for me to best understnad and learn, I am going to ask you Th1Th2 be specific in your answers. I find it very hard to follow your ideas when they are bolded and in capitals and you makes statements without going through your thought process that leads you to the conclusions you have come to. I do not want to offend you - I would very much like to understand you.

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

I am not sure I understand what you mean by adjuvants not playing a role in shifting the immune response to Th1. I thought that was the purpose of this new study - to see if they could find an adjuvant that would do this and also be safe.

I have understood the Th2 activation as being required as that is what gives you the antibodies, and with antibodies being the current measure of whether you are immune or not, it would make sense to trigger antibody formation. Is that what you mean when you say that vaccination is designed to trigger Th2 response? Ie bypass cellular/nonspecific immunity in an abnormal way?

In order for me to best understnad and learn, I am going to ask you Th1Th2 be specific in your answers. I find it very hard to follow your ideas when they are bolded and in capitals and you makes statements without going through your thought process that leads you to the conclusions you have come to. I do not want to offend you - I would very much like to understand you.

Adjuvants will not change the very nature and process of vaccination, that is, on how they derived the immunity from. Adjuvants can only improve immunogenicity of vaccines.

Th2-derived immunity is NOT the primary and ultimate immune response in humans and antibody production and seroconversion do not correlate protective immunity. Unfortunately, this is how vaccines are designed to work. They induce hyperactivation of the humoral immunity which in turn, suppresses cellular immunity. Yes, vaccines can produce neutralizing antibodies but who's gonna dispose these microbial/viral antigens? Antibodies do not kill microorganisms. This is the reason why some individuals develop immunity without the presence of antibodies because immunity is not about antibody production but cellular destruction of microorganisms.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

Adjuvants will not change the very nature and process of vaccination, that is, on how they derived the immunity from. Adjuvants can only improve immunogenicity of vaccines.

This makes sense to me - that adjuvants cannot change the nature of the immunity acquired from the vaccine - but it can change the strength of the immune reaction to the vaccine. MF59 seems to be more powerful than aluminium.

Th2-derived immunity is NOT the primary and ultimate immune response in humans and antibody production and seroconversion do not correlate protective immunity.

I have read before about antibody levels not being equated with immunity - with antibodies you can still get the disease and without you might not. I'm still learning here, but seroconversion is something I am not familiar with.

Unfortunately, this is how vaccines are designed to work. They induce hyperactivation of the humoral immunity which in turn, suppresses cellular immunity.

This I did not know - that the activation of humoral immunity suppresses cellular immunity. Do you have any sources? Can you walk me through how this happens?

Yes, vaccines can produce neutralizing antibodies but who's gonna dispose these microbial/viral antigens?

Why can the body not dispose of the antigens?

Antibodies do not kill microorganisms.

What is the role of the antibodies?

This is the reason why some individuals develop immunity without the presence of antibodies because immunity is not about antibody production but cellular destruction of microorganisms.

This makes sense to me, that the foundation of a healthy immune system would be the cellular destruction of a micro-organism. I do not understand why the body is unable to process the antigens introduced via injection.

I would still like to know what the list of licensed adjuvants is.

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

This makes sense to me - that adjuvants cannot change the nature of the immunity acquired from the vaccine - but it can change the strength of the immune reaction to the vaccine. MF59 seems to be more powerful than aluminium.

Which is bad. They are trying to suppress cell-mediated immunity so the body can produce more antibodies. This is the reason why most vaccines are given parenterally otherwise they will ALL get destroyed in the mucosa before reaching the plasma.

Originally Posted by ema-adama

I have read before about antibody levels not being equated with immunity - with antibodies you can still get the disease and without you might not. I'm still learning here, but seroconversion is something I am not familiar with.

Seroconversion or seropositivity is just a term they used to describe presence of antibodies in the serum after natural infection or vaccination. Seroconverted individuals can still acquire the same disease.

Originally Posted by ema-adama

This I did not know - that the activation of humoral immunity suppresses cellular immunity. Do you have any sources? Can you walk me through how this happens?

Yes, they are the opposite poles of immunity. If one is activated, the other is suppressed. It is taught in medical schools however the medical community is somewhat, oblivious about it. Try Wiki first until I can find you some resources.

Originally Posted by ema-adama

Why can the body not dispose of the antigens?

The cellular immunity does the job of destruction and disposal of microorganisms. However, because of vaccination, they are being suppressed and toxins are kept inside the body for a prolonged period of time. Anyway this is what they want of vaccines to be, isn't it? To have prolonged immunity---but ABNORMAL.

Originally Posted by ema-adama

What is the role of the antibodies?

Antibodies neutralize microorganisms by binding/agglutination

Originally Posted by ema-adama

This makes sense to me, that the foundation of a healthy immune system would be the cellular destruction of a micro-organism. I do not understand why the body is unable to process the antigens introduced via injection.

Like I said, vaccine materials are designed to stay in the body for a long time.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

Which is bad. They are trying to suppress cell-mediated immunity so the body can produce more antibodies. This is the reason why most vaccines are given parenterally otherwise they will ALL get destroyed in the mucosa before reaching the plasma.

The image I have in my mind is that the antigen is a weaker and weaker and a more removed version of the original virus/bacteria in the hope that this will make the vaccine safer. However, in order to get an immune response to such a weakened version of the original - there has to be a very strong kick in the adjuvant. I would be very happy to hear as many opinions on this as there are.

Seroconversion or seropositivity is just a term they used to describe presence of antibodies in the serum after natural infection or vaccination. Seroconverted individuals can still acquire the same disease.

Thanks

Yes, they are the opposite poles of immunity. If one is activated, the other is suppressed. It is taught in medical schools however the medical community is somewhat, oblivious about it. Try Wiki first until I can find you some resources.

OK, so if I have an illness and my immune system is fighting it off with cellular immunity, does that mean that my humoral immunity is not really working at that time, in general?

The cellular immunity does the job of destruction and disposal of microorganisms. However, because of vaccination, they are being suppressed and toxins are kept inside the body for a prolonged period of time. Anyway this is what they want of vaccines to be, isn't it? To have prolonged immunity---but ABNORMAL.

What about vaccination prevents cellular immunity from doing it's job? Why are toxins kept in the body for a prolonged period of time?

Antibodies neutralize microorganisms by binding/agglutination

I had understood in your previous post that antibodies do not kill micro-orgnaisms. What is the difference between neutralise and kill in this instance?

Like I said, vaccine materials are designed to stay in the body for a long time.

This part I do not get. Why are they designed to stay in the body? Do people who design vaccines want the toxins permanently in the body? Do they think that the antigen that is injected will remain there indefinitly? I had always thought that the aluminium was there to kick start a process and has then done it's job/served it's purpose. That it remains in the body or is being injected in doses that no one has a clue if they are safe or not seems to be irrelavent, certainly not by design. And that is just one of the ingredients, as you know.

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

The image I have in my mind is that the antigen is a weaker and weaker and a more removed version of the original virus/bacteria in the hope that this will make the vaccine safer. However, in order to get an immune response to such a weakened version of the original - there has to be a very strong kick in the adjuvant. I would be very happy to hear as many opinions on this as there are.

What's wrong is the kind of immunity that vaccines are inducing regardless of the antigen and adjuvants. The inoculation of antigens, adjuvants and other contaminants in the blood stream is the indelible evidence of harm in vaccines.

Originally Posted by ema-adama

OK, so if I have an illness and my immune system is fighting it off with cellular immunity, does that mean that my humoral immunity is not really working at that time, in general?

You are undergoing the disease process of toxic elimination i.e. natural infection or post-vaccination. So it depends. Not all symptoms of an illness is cell-mediated.

Originally Posted by ema-adama

What about vaccination prevents cellular immunity from doing it's job? Why are toxins kept in the body for a prolonged period of time?

Like I have said previously, vaccines are designed to trigger humoral immunity thereby causing prolonged ABNORMAL immunity. Toxins are retained in the body because cellular immunity are being suppressed by vaccines.

Originally Posted by ema-adama

I had understood in your previous post that antibodies do not kill micro-orgnaisms. What is the difference between neutralise and kill in this instance?

Antibodies neutralize microorganisms so that they are unable to adhere to cells causing infection. Once they are neutralized, they are presented for destruction by other killer cells i.e. macrophages. CTLs etc.

Originally Posted by ema-adama

This part I do not get. Why are they designed to stay in the body? Do people who design vaccines want the toxins permanently in the body? Do they think that the antigen that is injected will remain there indefinitly? I had always thought that the aluminium was there to kick start a process and has then done it's job/served it's purpose. That it remains in the body or is being injected in doses that no one has a clue if they are safe or not seems to be irrelavent, certainly not by design. And that is just one of the ingredients, as you know.

No component inside the vaccines is SAFE. None of them are indigenous to the human body.

[ema-adama]

List of adjuvants? Anyone?

[mamakay]

Aluminum phosphate, aluminum hydroxide, squalene (shark liver oil, iirc),...and there's some fancy new one from GSK (I think) and they're not telling anyone what it is yet. Very mysterious.

[luminesce]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

Have you ever asked yourself why newborns are Th2-dominant?

Since a fetus expresses paternal antigens, measures must be taken to avoid maternal cells from attacking the placenta. Cells of the placenta produce cytokines which influence maternal helper T cells to become Th2 cells. These also, however, have a strong influence on fetal helper cells often creating a bias in a newborn.

ETA: Could there be another reason why this is, though?

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

Exposure of newborns to natural infection is not the right thing to do to maintain the balance.

Natural infection is just one event that may help establish a balance.

[luminesce]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

I had understood in your previous post that antibodies do not kill micro-orgnaisms. What is the difference between neutralise and kill in this instance?

Antibodies flag or opsonize invaders for destruction. Basically, the antibody grasps bacteria or viruses with its "hands" and leaves its "tail" sticking out. Cells like macrophages then come along, attach to the tail, get extra hungry and eat the invader. In this flagging process, antibodies often also "neutralize" viruses by preventing them from exploiting and binding to receptors on our own cells.

[mamakay]

Cool video:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?...b=0&aq=-1&oq=#

[ema-adama]

With regards to adjuvants, how can they be made specific to the injected antigen?

[gardenmommy]

Fascinating! I think I need some floaties, since the water is very deep in this thread.

[ema-adama]

Another question, if anyone can help?

At what point in the process of vaccination is the adjuvant needed? Where in the body is it needed to stimulate the immune system?

Do all vaccines have adjuvants?

[Deborah]

I think live vaccines don't have adjuvants. But they have other problems.

[luminesce]

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/9615.php

ETA:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...gdbfrom=pubmed

Our results demonstrate for the first time a role for the NLRP3-inflammasome during development of the immune response elicited by alum-enhanced vaccination

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...gdbfrom=pubmed

The inflammasome not only plays a pivotal role in innate immune responses toward pathogens but also mediates the activity of aluminum adjuvants.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

We identify the Nalp3 inflammasome as a crucial element in the adjuvant effect of aluminium adjuvants; in addition, we show that the innate inflammasome pathway can direct a humoral adaptive immune response.