or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › 32 million Americans now have antibodies that target their own tissues
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

32 million Americans now have antibodies that target their own tissues

post #1 of 67
Thread Starter 

http://preventdisease.com/news/12/011612_Study-Shows-32-Million-Americans-Now-Have-Antibodies-That-Target-Their-Own-Tissues.shtml

 

I am not surprised given that the Perdue study conducted on Great Danes showed that every vaccinated dog had auto antibodies while the unvaccinated ones did not. I am in no doubt the vaccines are one of the causes of ANA (auto antibodies) in people.

post #2 of 67

Makes perfect sense to me.  My autoimmune disorders were triggered by the 8 vaccines I received at once.  

 

I have a friend whose autoimmune disorders (far more severe than mine) were triggered when the hospital where she worked required her to "catch up" on all pediatric vaccines after her former pediatrician's office burned down--along with all records.  They gave her 3 weeks to catch up.

 

She's in a wheelchair now.

post #3 of 67

Autoimmune disorders  existed long before any vaccines. They have huge genetic component as well.

So, those studies prove nothing. Anecdotally, I have many friends who do not vaccinate , were never vaccinated and still have thing like RA and Grave;s decease.

post #4 of 67

No where in the study does it say that vaccines cause ANA or autoimmune disorders. It is interesting that "The first nationally representative sample looking at the prevalence of the most common type of auto antibody, known as antinuclear antibodies (ANA), found that the frequency of ANA is highest among women, older individuals, and African-Americans."

 

The women's part is of course has to do with reproductive biology. It is know fact that women have higher rates of autoimmune illness.African_American and elderly have lower vaccination rates...and yet, they have more ANAs.At any rate, I do not trust a "critical analysis" of http://preventdisease.com since they advertise Magnetico healing pads.

 

post #5 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alenushka View Post

No where in the study does it say that vaccines cause ANA or autoimmune disorders. It is interesting that "The first nationally representative sample looking at the prevalence of the most common type of auto antibody, known as antinuclear antibodies (ANA), found that the frequency of ANA is highest among women, older individuals, and African-Americans."

 

The women's part is of course has to do with reproductive biology. It is know fact that women have higher rates of autoimmune illness.African_American and elderly have lower vaccination rates...and yet, they have more ANAs.At any rate, I do not trust a "critical analysis" of http://preventdisease.com since they advertise Magnetico healing pads.

 



They have also published articles denying that HIV causes AIDS.  http://preventdisease.com/news/10/081110_HIV_AIDS.shtml

 

They appear to publish articles provided by freelance writes, so the site as a whole doesn't deliver a single, clear message.  In 2009 they published an article asserting that HIV is man-made.  More recently, they've got an article warning that oral sex can transmit AIDS-related cancers.  A quick search also turns up an article calling on wealthy nations to do more to fight the AIDS outbreak.  The site's overall editorial incoherence suggests that their editorial staff publishes anything they think will draw readers, who will then be exposed to the site's copious paid advertising, which I suspect is the real business.  

 

The "About Us" page at the site contains a mission statement, but no bios of editors or contributors, which further suggests that the site creators feel that their advertising is WAY more important than their personalities, credentials, or ideas.  But they would like you to buy a Magnetico bed.  

 

post #6 of 67

As someone with an Auto immune disease any trauma to your body could cause a dormant disease to come to head.  Food poisoning, vaccines, surgery even a car accident.  My mother has Guillian Berre... 2 weeks after getting the flu vaccine she was in the emergency room with numb arms.  Within 6 months she was practically a vegetable and her last rites were being read.  She pulled through and it's in remission.  She still has lingering affects.  To deny this happened because of a vaccine is ridiculous.  My brother had the Anthrax shot while he was in the marines.  While he has an Auto Immune disease they have not figured out exactly what he has.   And I got sick right after I broke vertebrae in my back.  It wasn't a month later that I was in the hospital with lupus like symptoms.  They narrowed it down to RA.  Yes, Auto immune diseases are hereditary but that doesn't mean you'll ever be afflicted with one if others in your family have them. 
 

So no, they do NOT cause them.  However they do allow them to become... active.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alenushka View Post

No where in the study does it say that vaccines cause ANA or autoimmune disorders. It is interesting that "The first nationally representative sample looking at the prevalence of the most common type of auto antibody, known as antinuclear antibodies (ANA), found that the frequency of ANA is highest among women, older individuals, and African-Americans."

 

The women's part is of course has to do with reproductive biology. It is know fact that women have higher rates of autoimmune illness.African_American and elderly have lower vaccination rates...and yet, they have more ANAs.At any rate, I do not trust a "critical analysis" of http://preventdisease.com since they advertise Magnetico healing pads.

 



 

post #7 of 67
Thread Starter 

stik yet another shoot the messenger post. Is countering with the AIDS denialist argument and that the website is out to make a buck off people the best you can do? How are you going to shoot down the Perdue Study? Are they selling dog food? The website is reporting the research, if you don't like that particular website, you are welcome to do a search for the original research work.

 

 

 

 

post #8 of 67

 

 

Quote:
if you don't like that particular website, you are welcome to do a search for the original research work.

I'm so glad you brought this up.  

 

I agree with Alenushka's assessment of the article, so I didn't feel the need to articulate my own critique (Alenushka, let me know if you don't believe in AIDS - if you subscribe to a denialist position I will need to retract my agreement and do my own homework).  In my effort to corroborate the information in the article you linked, I followed the links listed as sources at the bottom of the page on preventdisease.com. The sources listed include things that aren't sources at all.  There's one link to a publisher's website advertising a book on Environmental Health, one link to a package insert for a cell assay kit, and one link to the wikipedia home page.  They padded the list.  This does not increase my respect for the preventdisease.com editorial staff.  

 

I don't care about the Perdue study.  Great Danes aren't people.  Determining the applicability of those findings to humans will require further study.

post #9 of 67
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

 

 

I'm so glad you brought this up.  

 

I agree with Alenushka's assessment of the article, so I didn't feel the need to articulate my own critique (Alenushka, let me know if you don't believe in AIDS - if you subscribe to a denialist position I will need to retract my agreement and do my own homework).  In my effort to corroborate the information in the article you linked, I followed the links listed as sources at the bottom of the page on preventdisease.com. The sources listed include things that aren't sources at all.  There's one link to a publisher's website advertising a book on Environmental Health, one link to a package insert for a cell assay kit, and one link to the wikipedia home page.  They padded the list.  This does not increase my respect for the preventdisease.com editorial staff.  

 

I don't care about the Perdue study.  Great Danes aren't people.  Determining the applicability of those findings to humans will require further study.



Of course no where in the study did it say vaccines caused ANA which is why I also included the Perdue study. So you reject all animal studies because they are not applicable to humans. Okay..... ETA: And that would include the pathetic animal safety studies performed on vaccines by the pharmaceutical companies I presume?

 

Oh, and just who would be willing to do a similar study on humans as Perdue did on GDs exactly? And what would happen if the results were the same?

 

 

 

 

 

post #10 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post



They have also published articles denying that HIV causes AIDS.  http://preventdisease.com/news/10/081110_HIV_AIDS.shtml

 

.  In 2009 they published an article asserting that HIV is man-made. 

 



Ok, I've seen the subject of HIV/AIDS pop up recently, and I have to ask....How are you sure that HIV is not man made? Really,

It could have been man made and deliberately released, or it could have been an unfortunate, accidental side effect that got out of control. Reminds me of the SV40 in the early polio vaccine.

 

Now honestly, I know very little about HIV and AIDS (plan to learn more soon), but I do know this--question everything you think you know, and  look at the issue from all sides, even if it makes you uncomfortable. People are capable of more than you care to imagine. Hey, maybe a terrorist lab created it!?!

 

Why, look at everything we know about, and then ask yourself if it is within the realm of possibility that HIV might have been created.

*Cloning

*GMO

*Biological Weapons--yes, weapons. They exist. Could HIV be one? Why not?  Is it impossible because you can't believe it's true? Is that your only reason?

post #11 of 67

As for the dogs...........

 

When you feed dogs human "junk" food, they develop similar illnesses. We are all mammals!  The Perdue study is important, and until we have a REAL human study, we have to settle for the animal studies. (Sorry animals greensad.gif)

post #12 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post



Ok, I've seen the subject of HIV/AIDS pop up recently, and I have to ask....How are you sure that HIV is not man made? Really,

It could have been man made and deliberately released, or it could have been an unfortunate, accidental side effect that got out of control. Reminds me of the SV40 in the early polio vaccine.

 

Now honestly, I know very little about HIV and AIDS (plan to learn more soon), but I do know this--question everything you think you know, and  look at the issue from all sides, even if it makes you uncomfortable. People are capable of more than you care to imagine. Hey, maybe a terrorist lab created it!?!

 

Why, look at everything we know about, and then ask yourself if it is within the realm of possibility that HIV might have been created.

*Cloning

*GMO

*Biological Weapons--yes, weapons. They exist. Could HIV be one? Why not?  Is it impossible because you can't believe it's true? Is that your only reason?

Those are good questions.  I'm really sure HIV is not man made.  I'm especially sure that it was not man made by terrorists.  

 

Why it's not man-made:

 

Man-made organisms are made by combining pieces of other organisms.  E. Coli is usually involved because it's really good at transmitting itself, just for example.  You would then insert genetic material from another organism that has the effect you're looking for - bioluminescence, to use a benign if alarming-looking example, or insulin production, or a toxin.  At the time of its initial identification in the 1980s, HIV was difficult to understand because it does not work like other organisms.  It is not made from pieces people already understood.  Avert.org identifies cases of AIDS going all the way back to the 1950s.  The technology required to manufacture a virus didn't exist in the 1950s.  (And it was, at best, pretty new in the 1980s when the major outbreak started.)  

 

Why it's not made by terrorists:

 

Terrorists can't afford the equipment and facilities needed for a lab that could engineer any virus, let alone a brand new one.  Plus, they don't need to.  If you want to wreak world havoc, you don't need a new disease or a new toxin.  You can take advantage of some of the many diseases and toxins that are naturally occurring.  Blood-borne pathogens are also not particularly effective for creating mass terror, because while they can spread very far in not-yet-symptomatic carriers, they don't spread very fast until the outbreak reaches critical mass.  So even if a terrorist organization managed to build or co-opt the equipment and facilities required, it would be much more cost effective for them to use an existing horrible disease that can be spread through normal contact than to create a brand new blood-borne pathogen.  The anthrax attacks are one example of this.  But they could probably also come up with something using poisons (like they did when Japan was attacked with Sirin), or to exploit victims of a known icky disease - 40 or 50 measles cases passing through major public transportation hubs in the US would be one low-budget option.  
 

 

post #13 of 67

lurk.gif

post #14 of 67
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

As for the dogs...........

 

When you feed dogs human "junk" food, they develop similar illnesses. We are all mammals!  The Perdue study is important, and until we have a REAL human study, we have to settle for the animal studies. (Sorry animals greensad.gif)


FYI, many of the unvaccinated dogs in the study were raw fed. Not sure about the vaxed ones if any of them were raw fed.

 

stik I have a challenge for you. Please find and post a link to the primary research paper that identifies HIV, that shows how it was isolated, purified, categorized and photographed by EM. No text book references please, the original primary, published study. When you do could you also send a copy to the CDC, the Pasteur Institute and the Robert Koch Institute among others, because they don't have it. While you are at it, do the same for the measles virus because those august organizations don't have that either. Yes, I am being facetious. 

 

post #15 of 67

Ok, I'll be back later, but I found this http://www.originofaids.com/articles/early.htm

I have not read it yet--who wants to read it with me?? orngbiggrin.gif

 

It's by Dr.Horowitz, who is probably going to be unpopular with some of you. Still, I am going to read his article to see what he has to say.

 

Also, if HIV is not man-made, could it have been artificially introduced? A wild virus, added to the Hepatits B vaccine, perhaps? If you don't think our government is capable of such a thing, well, perhaps by a lone terrorist working in a well-funded lab? (That was the story with the weaponized Anthrax, right?) Isn't it possible that it could have been introduced to the public--either accidentally or intentionally? Much like the SV40? If it were an accident, I can see why they would want to cover it all up.....if it were intentional, I can really see why they would cover it up! Also, isn't HIV/AIDS the perfect bioweapon?

It sounds possible to me, but I'll have to read the Horowitz article to find out more. Can't wait!

post #16 of 67

reading it now...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

Ok, I'll be back later, but I found this http://www.originofaids.com/articles/early.htm

I have not read it yet--who wants to read it with me?? orngbiggrin.gif

 

It's by Dr.Horowitz, who is probably going to be unpopular with some of you. Still, I am going to read his article to see what he has to say.

 

Also, if HIV is not man-made, could it have been artificially introduced? A wild virus, added to the Hepatits B vaccine, perhaps? If you don't think our government is capable of such a thing, well, perhaps by a lone terrorist working in a well-funded lab? (That was the story with the weaponized Anthrax, right?) Isn't it possible that it could have been introduced to the public--either accidentally or intentionally? Much like the SV40? If it were an accident, I can see why they would want to cover it all up.....if it were intentional, I can really see why they would cover it up! Also, isn't HIV/AIDS the perfect bioweapon?

It sounds possible to me, but I'll have to read the Horowitz article to find out more. Can't wait!



 

post #17 of 67

Thought this was interesting...it is a copy of a letter sent to Science journal expressing concerns that the original paper of Robery Gallo (who supposedl;y discovered where the AIDS virus originated was fraudulant. I am not endorsing any viewpoint here. I just found this and thought it may be interesting to look into further.

 

http://www.sparks-of-light.org/LetterToScience-Public.pdf

 

http://www.sparks-of-light.org/SemmelweispressreleaseScience.pdf

post #18 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

stik I have a challenge for you. Please find and post a link to the primary research paper that identifies HIV, that shows how it was isolated, purified, categorized and photographed by EM. No text book references please, the original primary, published study. 



The conclusion that HIV is the cause of AIDS was not drawn from a single study, but from the rather stronger scientific evidence provided by a series of studies that reached the same conclusion.  This process is described here: http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-01-03#S1X

 

 

 

Quote:

Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) was first recognized as a new disease in the United States when clinicians in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco began to see young, homosexual men with Pneumocystis carinii (now P jiroveci) pneumonia (PCP) and Kaposi's sarcoma (KS), unusual diseases for young adults not known to be immunosuppressed. The first report in the medical literature that alerted the world to this new immunodeficiency syndrome appeared in June of 1981 and described five young, homosexual men in Los Angeles with PCP.(1) That observation was followed a few weeks later by a report of 26 homosexual men, from both New York and San Francisco, with KS (four of whom also had PCP).(2) Other reports followed of a similar syndrome in injecting drug users.(3) All of these individuals shared a profound immunodeficiency, the hallmark of which was a depletion of CD4-positive, or T-helper, lymphocytes. In mid-1982, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a report of 34 cases of KS and opportunistic infections (OIs) in Haitians living in several different states in the United States, none of whom reported homosexual behavior.(4) One week later, the CDC reported on PCP among persons with hemophilia.(5) The first case in a transfusion recipient was reported from San Francisco in an infant in late 1982. For a short time, the new disease was called gay-related immunodeficiency syndrome (GRIDS), but by September of 1982, the CDC had published a case definition, using the current designation of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) in print, and it was rapidly adopted by researchers.(6)

The prominence of homosexual men and injecting drug users in the early cases of AIDS suggested an agent that was both blood borne and sexually transmitted, although early speculation about the etiology of AIDS included the hypothesis that all the patients were immunosuppressed because they had a history of drug use or multiple sexually transmitted diseases or malnutrition (the "immune overload" hypothesis).(7) The majority of researchers thought that the likely agent was a sexually transmitted virus that would be found in the peripheral blood. HIV was first isolated in France in 1983 by Françoise Barré-Sinoussi in the laboratory of Luc Montaignier as lymphadenopathy-associated virus (LAV),(8) but strong evidence that it was the AIDS virus did not appear until 1984, when four papers were published in one issue of Science by Robert Gallo and colleagues, who designated their isolate HTLV-III.(9) The virus was also isolated in San Francisco in 1984 by Jay Levy, who published his findings a few months later in 1984 and named his isolate AIDS-associated retrovirus (ARV).(10) All three of these designations for the virus appear in the early literature. The International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses chose the designation human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in 1986. With the discovery by Montaignier's group in late 1986 of the related HIV-2 virus in West Africa, the original virus became HIV-1.(11)

 

The citations in the second paragraph of the quotation link to the articles you are looking for:

 

 

 

 

Any scientific library should have these available, and so should EBSCO or JSTOR, if you have access.  My access is pending PIN approval through BPL.  

 

As a stop-gap measure in the meanwhile, please enjoy this EM photograph of HIV, which I obtained from a website on electron microscopes posted by Leeds university in Britain (http://histology.leeds.ac.uk/what-is-histology/The_electron_microscope.php):

 

HIV_EM.gif

 

A google image search on "HIV virus EM photograph" also turned up this image, from the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (http://ictvdb.bio-mirror.cn/WIntkey/Images/em_retro.htm):

 

em_hiv.jpg

 

The top one is clearer, but the bottom one avoids your bias against textbooks.  

post #19 of 67

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

Also, if HIV is not man-made, could it have been artificially introduced? A wild virus, added to the Hepatits B vaccine, perhaps? If you don't think our government is capable of such a thing, well, perhaps by a lone terrorist working in a well-funded lab? (That was the story with the weaponized Anthrax, right?) Isn't it possible that it could have been introduced to the public--either accidentally or intentionally? Much like the SV40? If it were an accident, I can see why they would want to cover it all up.....if it were intentional, I can really see why they would cover it up! Also, isn't HIV/AIDS the perfect bioweapon?

It sounds possible to me, but I'll have to read the Horowitz article to find out more. Can't wait!



I could believe that the spread of the virus was aggravated by medical error that exposed people to contaminated tools or blood products.  

 

AIDS/HIV is not the perfect bioweapon.  The perfect bioweapon is spread through casual contact.  AIDS is not.

 

If it was a lone terrorist working in a lab, a la the Anthrax outbreak, I'm having trouble imagining what the goal was.  The more conventional approach to terrorist acts in sub-Saharan Africa, where the AIDS epidemic is at its worst, is to get out there and cut some people's hands off.  Sadly, multiple leaders have found that this method serves their personal and political goals very well.  

post #20 of 67
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post



The conclusion that HIV is the cause of AIDS was not drawn from a single study, but from the rather stronger scientific evidence provided by a series of studies that reached the same conclusion.  This process is described here: http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-01-03#S1X

 

 

 

 

The citations in the second paragraph of the quotation link to the articles you are looking for:

 

 

 

 

Any scientific library should have these available, and so should EBSCO or JSTOR, if you have access.  My access is pending PIN approval through BPL.  

 

As a stop-gap measure in the meanwhile, please enjoy this EM photograph of HIV, which I obtained from a website on electron microscopes posted by Leeds university in Britain (http://histology.leeds.ac.uk/what-is-histology/The_electron_microscope.php):

 

HIV_EM.gif

 

A google image search on "HIV virus EM photograph" also turned up this image, from the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (http://ictvdb.bio-mirror.cn/WIntkey/Images/em_retro.htm):

 

em_hiv.jpg

 

The top one is clearer, but the bottom one avoids your bias against textbooks.  

 

Re the bolded:

 

Nope, you did not give me what I asked for. I did not ask if HIV caused AIDS, I asked for the primary research paper that shows the virus isolation, purification and characterization. 

 

Re the photographs of HIV:

 

The first EM photograph are of endogenous particles, not the isolated virus and the second photograph leads to a broken link and therefore I have no way of knowing what it is but I suspect they are they same. These structures are well known and serve the intra- and intercellular transport. Unlike viruses of the same kind - that are always the same size and same shape (consistency) and therefore cannot be isolated.

 

Any luck with the measles virus?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › 32 million Americans now have antibodies that target their own tissues