Vaccine Theory Questionable: Study by NIH?

[Mirzam]

http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-07-04/vaccine-theory-proven-wrong-study-by-nih/

Quote:

It is held that adaptive immunity, that is, the creation of antibodies, is necessary to protect against many diseases. This idea is central to vaccination theory. The study produced in the journalImmunity⁽¹⁾ found that, in the case of vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), that is not true. In fact, the implication is that no antibody response can be effective against rapidly replicating viruses, especially those associated with skin breaks like tetanus.

 

[Rrrrrachel]

I found a link to the original article after a little digging.

http://labs.idi.harvard.edu/vonandrian/Pages/_Moseman%20Immunity%20online%20'12.pdf

It seems to be talking about. Specific exception to the rule rather than something that turns all of vaccinology on its head. Basically saying some viruses replicate so quickly antibodies don't have time to do their job.

[Rrrrrachel]

Also from the article:

"Our experiments in mice that lack anti- bodies but possess B cells and normal lymphoid tissues confirm that both B cells and antibodies are critical to survive a systemic infection after i.v. bolus administration of VSV."

"Although neutralizing antibodies are undoubtedly effective prophylaxis against rhab- doviruses, our findings indicate that antibody therapy may be insufficient to treat existing rhabdoviral infections in nonimmune subjects, at least in the case of VSV. "

So the rabies vaccine is effective at preventing rabies, but not treating it once someone has been infected.

Starting to paint a very different picture then that Gaia health article.

[Rrrrrachel]

I thought this was interesting, too, especially in light of the "the body is only prepared to handle toxins through the gut" argument that goes around.

"Most viral pathogens, including rabies and VSV, must breach the body’s external barriers to cause disease. Viruses deposited in the interstitial space of peripheral tissues are readily drained via lymph vessels to downstream LNs"

[Taximom5]

I think we need to be very careful about jumping to sweeping conclusions.

I don't think the Gaia article/NIH study proves the vaccine theory wrong.  It shows that something different goes on in the case of VSV.

I think it shows that there is an enormous amount that is not completely understood, or even misunderstood, about immunity, autoimmunity, vaccines, etc.

One study doesn't prove an entire theory wrong, just as one study can't prove an entire theory right, either.  And flaws in studies are often not found until much later.

Let's try to avoid making the same mistakes made by those who look at the flawed Danish studies and scream out headlines like "Danish study proves vaccine/autism theory wrong!"

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

I think we need to be very careful about jumping to sweeping conclusions.

I don't think the Gaia article/NIH study proves the vaccine theory wrong.  It shows that something different goes on in the case of VSV.

I think it shows that there is an enormous amount that is not completely understood, or even misunderstood, about immunity, autoimmunity, vaccines, etc.

One study doesn't prove an entire theory wrong, just as one study can't prove an entire theory right, either.  And flaws in studies are often not found until much later.

Let's try to avoid making the same mistakes made by those who look at the flawed Danish studies and scream out headlines like "Danish study proves vaccine/autism theory wrong!"

You are right, no one study can prove anything. However, the question remains does antibodies equal immunity? Medical science knows next to nothing about the immune system. Here are a series of articles by Hilary Butler on just how little medical science knows:

Back to Basics 

Eminence Based Medicine Part 1

Eminence Based Medicine Part 2

Eminence Based Medicine Part 3

[Taximom5]

I agree that it is questionable at best.

But perhaps you might like to change the title of the thread to something like "Vaccine Theory Questionable: Study by NIH?"  Otherwise, I think it opens the door to a Pandora's Box.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Taximom5 

I agree that it is questionable at best.

But perhaps you might like to change the title of the thread to something like "Vaccine Theory Questionable: Study by NIH?"  Otherwise, I think it opens the door to a Pandora's Box.

I don't appear to be able to.

[marsupial-mom]

Mods, please change thread title!

[WildKingdom]

Well, according to Mirzam's quote, the authors of the Gaia Health article think that tetanus is a virus.

That is enough to tell me I shouldn't waste my time reading any further.

[Mirzam]

No doctor they don't. The author is quoting another piece of research that demonstrates that a high level of antibodies is not necessarily protection against tetanus.
But it is fine with me if you don't want to "waste your time", it is obviously much more productive to make fun of non vaxers elsewhere.

[chickabiddy]

Why do you use "doctor" as a pejorative term?  I've seen you do that a few times.

[Mosaic]

Keep it on TOPIC, not personal, folks.

I'll edit the title as requested.