Tetanus Risk: Immune Globulin Yes or No? - Page 2

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by katelove 

TIG is a suspension of antibodies. It doesn't contain C. tetani or any other micro-organism.

Antibodies are antigenic proteins.  It is still a vaccine.

vaccine /vac·cine/ (vak´sēn) a suspension of attenuated or killed microorganisms (viruses, bacteria, or rickettsiae), or of antigenic proteins derived from them, administered for prevention, amelioration, or treatment of infectious diseases.

The confusion surrounding the definition of the word "vaccine" was used to help railroad Andrew Wakefield.  He had filled out a patent for Royal Free Hospital for an injectible measles immunoglobulin treatment for persistent measles infection, which was therefore classified as a vaccine. Then Merck went after him, claiming that he was trying to compete with the MMR, even though his treatment had already been scrapped because it proved ineffective.

[ma2two]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

The confusion surrounding the definition of the word "vaccine" was used to help railroad Andrew Wakefield.  He had filled out a patent for Royal Free Hospital for an injectible measles immunoglobulin treatment for persistent measles infection, which was therefore classified as a vaccine. Then Merck went after him, claiming that he was trying to compete with the MMR, even though his treatment had already been scrapped because it proved ineffective.

I don't think Merck went after him. I don't think any of that was an issue until Brian Deer was commissioned to dig up "dirt" on him.

[katelove]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

Originally Posted by katelove 

TIG is a suspension of antibodies. It doesn't contain C. tetani or any other micro-organism.

Antibodies are antigenic proteins.  It is still a vaccine.

No they are not. Antibodies attach to antigens as part of the immune response. I guess it then follows that TIG contains antigens, attached to antibodies, but they are not capable of provoking an immune response in the recipient and a recipient of TIG will not develop an immunity to tetanus.

[lokidoki]

Originally Posted by Anastasiya 

I didn't realize there were any answers to my thread since I haven't been getting any updates. Sorry!
There was broken skin. It was a small cut around his fingernail...nothing punctured. His finger is STILL swollen with black spots on it (bruising?) and doesn't seem to hurt since he never mentions it. It is not red or infected looking....just swollen.

You mention it broke the skin...did it bleed? I would imagine that the dots you are seeing are likely blood blisters and *my reasoning* would be that the blood got to the area enough to create a bruise and blisters...I would imagine it would do the same for the cut. Tetanus is really an issue with circulatory issues ~ I posted previously in another thread regarding this question that you are really looking at such minute odds regarding contracting tetanus. Of the amount of cases reported each year...close to all of them are reported in persons over the age of 40 years old (in the states). If you need a link...let me know and I can go back and look up for you.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by katelove 

No they are not. Antibodies attach to antigens as part of the immune response. I guess it then follows that TIG contains antigens, attached to antibodies, but they are not capable of provoking an immune response in the recipient and a recipient of TIG will not develop an immunity to tetanus.

Did you not read the definition of vaccine?  A vaccine does not necessarily provoke an immune response. A vaccine can also ameliorate or treat infectious diseases.

[katelove]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

Originally Posted by katelove 

No they are not. Antibodies attach to antigens as part of the immune response. I guess it then follows that TIG contains antigens, attached to antibodies, but they are not capable of provoking an immune response in the recipient and a recipient of TIG will not develop an immunity to tetanus.

Did you not read the definition of vaccine?  A vaccine does not necessarily provoke an immune response. A vaccine can also ameliorate or treat infectious diseases.

I read it several times. I just don't agree that it's a good definition. I should have made that clear in my initial response. The Australian Immunisation Handbook offers this definition

Vaccine
a product often made from extracts of killed viruses or bacteria, or from live weakened strains of viruses or bacteria; the vaccine is capable of stimulating an immune response that protects against natural (‘wild’) infection.

which is a more useful one, IMO. However, we are unlikely to agree on this.

[emmy526]

Is is a federal law that ALL hospitals have TIG on hand?  

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by katelove 

I read it several times. I just don't agree that it's a good definition. I should have made that clear in my initial response. The Australian Immunisation Handbook offers this definition

Vaccine
a product often made from extracts of killed viruses or bacteria, or from live weakened strains of viruses or bacteria; the vaccine is capable of stimulating an immune response that protects against natural (‘wild’) infection.

which is a more useful one, IMO. However, we are unlikely to agree on this.

It's not a question of whether you think it's a good definition, or whether you and I agree.  The medical dictionaries define vaccine as I posted, as do PhD chemists/researchers.

The Australian Immunisation Handbook gives only a partial definition, which is certainly useful for the purposes of that handbook, but, nonetheless, it is an incomplete defintion.  You may not like it, but the rest of it IS a medically accepted definition.
 

[katelove]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

Originally Posted by katelove 

I read it several times. I just don't agree that it's a good definition. I should have made that clear in my initial response. The Australian Immunisation Handbook offers this definition

Vaccine
a product often made from extracts of killed viruses or bacteria, or from live weakened strains of viruses or bacteria; the vaccine is capable of stimulating an immune response that protects against natural (‘wild’) infection.

which is a more useful one, IMO. However, we are unlikely to agree on this.

It's not a question of whether you think it's a good definition, or whether you and I agree.  The medical dictionaries define vaccine as I posted, as do PhD chemists/researchers.

The Australian Immunisation Handbook gives only a partial definition, which is certainly useful for the purposes of that handbook, but, nonetheless, it is an incomplete defintion.  You may not like it, but the rest of it IS a medically accepted definition.
 

Ok, fair point, but TIG still doesn't meet the requirements for a vaccine because it doesn't contain any "microorganisms (viruses, bacteria, or rickettsiae), or [...] antigenic proteins" capable of stimulating the immune system to fight tetanus.

The only vaccines currently in use for the treatment of active disease are cancer vaccines, which work by stimulating the immune system of the patient to fight the cancer they have.

[WildKingdom]

TIG is not a vaccine, anymore than rhogham is.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

TIG is not a vaccine, anymore than rhogham is.

Because you say so?  I guess you'd better tell the medical dictionary editors, the chemists and researchers who work on these "non-vaccines," then, as well as the patent offices who grant patents for these treatments, defining them as "vaccines."

[WildKingdom]

You know what?  Yes, because I say so. It's not a vaccine. It does not induce an antibody response. It is a suspension of antibodies. It is totally different than a vaccine!

[Anastasiya]

Seriously, people? Seriously? Can we please quit the bickering?

Thanks to those FEW of you who actually answered my question. I appreciate it. :)

[Imakcerka]

It's not bickering.  It's actually interesting.  Not something I think about often but interesting. 

[Imakcerka]

The word vaccine is a dirty word around here.  I'm beginning to wonder if I can use it as an insult.

[AlexisT]

Originally Posted by Anastasiya 

Seriously, people? Seriously? Can we please quit the bickering?

Thanks to those FEW of you who actually answered my question. I appreciate it. :)

This isn't really bickering. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how vaccines work. Immunoglobulins are a form of passive immunity. They do not provoke an immune response. This is like saying breastmilk is actually a vaccine because it contains maternal antibodies that confer passive immunity on the baby. TIG is not a vaccine. Synagis is not a vaccine.

Taximom, you're quoting definitions without understanding what they mean.

[WildKingdom]

The difference between antigens and antibodies.

http://www.scienceclarified.com/Al-As/Antibody-and-Antigen.html

TIG is an antibody.  It is not a vaccine, and it does not contain antigenic proteins.

[katelove]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

TIG is not a vaccine, anymore than rhogham is.

Because you say so?  I guess you'd better tell the medical dictionary editors, the chemists and researchers who work on these "non-vaccines," then, as well as the patent offices who grant patents for these treatments, defining them as "vaccines."

I have actually searched for this and I couldn't find anywhere that called TIG a vaccine. I have also explained several times why it doesn't meet the criteria for a vaccine, under the definition you provided.

OP, I apologise for derailing your thread but I do consider this important. If you feel your original question wasn't answered and that this discussion is preventing it I am happy to open a new thread.

[Imakcerka]

She said her question was answered.  I think you're good to continue. 

Originally Posted by katelove 

I have actually searched for this and I couldn't find anywhere that called TIG a vaccine. I have also explained several times why it doesn't meet the criteria for a vaccine, under the definition you provided.

OP, I apologise for derailing your thread but I do consider this important. If you feel your original question wasn't answered and that this discussion is preventing it I am happy to open a new thread.

[slmommy]

I haven't really found anywhere saying tig is a vax either. Here is the insert for one tig brand:

http://www.talecris-pi.info/inserts/hypertet.pdf

It does not refer to it anywhere as a vax, although it does call it a "passive immunization" as opposed to an "active immunization" - a vax.

I guess there are other immune globulin treatments as well - like for Rabies? what else? just outta curiousity?

I also checked the FDA list of approved vaccines in the US and tig is not listed there.