or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › New here, what do you guys think about this woman who regrets not vaccinating?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New here, what do you guys think about this woman who regrets not vaccinating? - Page 4

post #61 of 119

The theory on how vaccines work is that they make the body produce antibodies. The theory is that if you have enough antibodies, then the antibodies will fight off the disease. The theory is that "enough" antibodies means that you are "immune" to the disease. Its a scam since this theory is only focusing on the antibody little part of the immune system (humeral a.k.a. TH2 immune system) whereas completely ignoring the cellular part of the immune system (cell-mediated a.k.a. TH1 immune system - which involves white blood cells, macrophages, lymphocytes, etc.), plus the immune system is way more complex than just those 2 parts- involving cells, tissues, mediators, etc. So its a scam to be completely ignoring that the body is a holistic complex system and to just be focusing on one little tiny part: how many antibodies do I have. Let me get this vaccine and let me produce a bunch of antibodies and now I'm magically immune & I'll completely ignore the rest of my complex immune system & its ok if I'm continually pumping vaccines into myself to make me have a humeral/TH2 dominant immune system. People with TH2-skewed immune systems (which would be caused by injecting yourself with vaccines to produce all these abnormal unnatural antibodies), end up with allergies and asthma if they're lucky and if they don't develop even worse auto-immune diseases. So that's why I think titer testing is a scam & vaccines are scams too.

post #62 of 119
MyLilPwny, thanks for answering my question! I was thinking about it while waiting for your response, and came up with more questions.

If I haven't been exposed to chicken pox in years, isn't it probable that I wouldn't have any antibodies to chickenpox left in my bloodstream? And isn't it also true that my body still remembers chicken pox and would quickly make the antibodies if I were exposed? So doesn't that make titer testing ineffective?
post #63 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

If I haven't been exposed to chicken pox in years, isn't it probable that I wouldn't have any antibodies to chickenpox left in my bloodstream? And isn't it also true that my body still remembers chicken pox and would quickly make the antibodies if I were exposed? So doesn't that make titer testing ineffective?

 

I agree!

post #64 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

MyLilPwny, thanks for answering my question! I was thinking about it while waiting for your response, and came up with more questions.

If I haven't been exposed to chicken pox in years, isn't it probable that I wouldn't have any antibodies to chickenpox left in my bloodstream? And isn't it also true that my body still remembers chicken pox and would quickly make the antibodies if I were exposed? So doesn't that make titer testing ineffective?

I think chicken pox is different from other viruses.


First of all, the virus never leaves your system.  It settles in one of the spinal nerves, and goes dormant. You do continue to produce antibodies that keep the virus in check (dormant); periodic re-exposure to chicken pox "reminds" your immune system to keep producing these antibodies that keep the virus in your system from re-activating as shingles.

 

Disruption of the immune system--chemotherapy, steroids, etc.--can interfere with the ability to keep one's own chicken pox virus dormant.

 

But another thing to consider is whether you might have been exposed to chicken pox without having known that you were?  It's not like you know what germs are left on the grocery cart handle--someone who was just coming down with either chicken pox or shingles could have used it just before you.  It is even possible to be exposed via someone else's Varivax (live virus varicella vaccine); according to 

 

http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/v/varivax/varivax_pi.pdf:

"Due to the concern for transmission of vaccine virus, vaccine recipients should attempt to avoid whenever possible close association with susceptible high-risk individuals for up to six weeks following vaccination with VARIVAX."

 

So I wouldn't assume that you haven't been exposed to chicken pox in years.

post #65 of 119
Ok. Chicken pox was a poor example. My point is ....it might be possible to have a titer test say I am no longer immune to a disease, when I would still not become ill if exposed, because my body would respond so quickly, recognizing the virus from my childhood illness. Perhaps whooping cough is a better example for this point. Or measles. Or mumps.
post #66 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

Ok. Chicken pox was a poor example. My point is ....it might be possible to have a titer test say I am no longer immune to a disease, when I would still not become ill if exposed, because my body would respond so quickly, recognizing the virus from my childhood illness. Perhaps whooping cough is a better example for this point. Or measles. Or mumps.

Well the Hep B vaccine is an example of this (although not via initial exposure to the disease). Boosters are no longer recommended because it has been found that, in people with lower titres, the body will respond to exposure by producing more antibodies.
post #67 of 119

pek64, I am still searching for the study, however, I did remember Heidi Stevenson writing about the failed MRSA V710 vax which despite creating antibodies in people, failed to protect them, more people died of MRSA after receiving the vaccine than those who did not.

 

http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-11-03/new-failed-vax-study-proves-vaccine-antibody-theory-is-false/

 

Okay, I found a reference to the NIH study I was looking for, also on Gaia Health with links to study for those that wish to bypass Heidi's interpretation.

 

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

post #68 of 119
I am not talking specifically about vaccinations. Actually, what was in my mind was having the disease. My question(s) is -- if I get a disease, and recover without complications, and don't come in contact with again for years (because of vaccination of the younger population, probably), is it possible that I wouldn't have antibodies in my bloodstream and would have a negative result for the titer, but if then exposed to the disease still react quickly and not get sick (because my body still remembers the disease from the previous illness)?

A lengthy hypothetical situation, perhaps. Still, given the vaccinating of so many, it seems possible, to me. If this is too far off topic, I'll understand. It might be deserving of a separate thread.
post #69 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

I am not talking specifically about vaccinations. Actually, what was in my mind was having the disease. My question(s) is -- if I get a disease, and recover without complications, and don't come in contact with again for years (because of vaccination of the younger population, probably), is it possible that I wouldn't have antibodies in my bloodstream and would have a negative result for the titer, but if then exposed to the disease still react quickly and not get sick (because my body still remembers the disease from the previous illness)?

A lengthy hypothetical situation, perhaps. Still, given the vaccinating of so many, it seems possible, to me. If this is too far off topic, I'll understand. It might be deserving of a separate thread.

I think it would depend a great deal on your general health--whether you have had adequate (or optimum) nutrition, exercise, rest, etc., what your stress levels are, even how happy you are.

Other factors might include whether your immune system is compromised in any way--say, an autoimmune disorder, cardiac/lung problems, or even whether youre fighting a common cold or flu virus, whether you've successfully encountered other illnesses with no complications, whether you've been exposed to any chemicals (pesticides? Herbicides medications?)...

In general, I'd say, yes, of course you would be able to fight off just about any illness you're likely to encounter. But all those variables can put quite a different spin on things....
post #70 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by katelove View Post


Well the Hep B vaccine is an example of this (although not via initial exposure to the disease). Boosters are no longer recommended because it has been found that, in people with lower titres, the body will respond to exposure by producing more antibodies.

That is interesting, because I have had two sets of 2 HepB vaxes (the full series is considered to be three). In both cases, I got fed up after 2 and dropped it for years . . . The second time was when I discovered Thimerisol after asking for the package insert . . . I have never titre'd immune to Hep B . . . 

post #71 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post


Um, I'm actually pro-vax in that there are vaccines that I give my children. It's just that people like Dr. Sears and I see complexities where you seem to see black and white.

It doesn't actually matter what he says on Facebook compared to what he says in a published book available @ public libraries across the country. He has convinced more parents to Vax in my experience than dogmatic books like "Your Baby's Best Shot" (oooo so punny!) which are all like 'just do it and stay away from NVIC and AoA!!!!!!

 

I have never gotten the impression from Facebook that he was AntiVax, but I do think he is not into poorly done CDC funded studies, and that's great because neither am I!

 

I am a little tired of the 'criticisms only apply to those who don't agree with me'. ORAC says some crazy things on his blog, like long paragraphs about his eyes are burning from the stupidity of woooooo, but no one representing the pro side on here seems to think these rants undermine his reputation as a sober objective scientist of the first order. So why would an occasional rant from Dr. Sears undermine his reputation then?


Edited by dinahx - 4/28/13 at 8:26am
post #72 of 119
It doesn't matter what he says on Facebook? Really? That's one of the more wtf statements I've seen on here. Why in the world do his public statements outside of his published books not matter?

He's probably more an example of how the labels pro and anti vax just don't work very well. My bigger issue is he's not very well informed and misrepresents the issues in his book. I don't think it's intentional, I just don't think he knows any better.
post #73 of 119

His book is straight up excellent and it just got updated. If he is uniformed of something, it is only the bizarre Pharma spin on the issues. Labeling those of us who do not buy the spin 'uninformed' is one of the most obvious tropes in the, well, Pharma spin.

 

I think Facebook is sorta more informal than published literature. If Joe/Jane Pediatrician can't possibly understand vaccines, then Houston, we have a problem. Every single national level figure in this debate is sorta wild in their own way. I have never heard an introduction as flamboyant as Paul Offit's (he actually refers to himself as a Rock Star). And I know y'all don't want to talk about Seth McNookin. LOL.

 

I would prefer if we don't swear in these debates tho.

post #74 of 119

Who swore?

post #75 of 119
I think she means the "wtf" though imo its kinda a stretch to label that an actual swear/curse, though I'm sure others will disagree.
post #76 of 119
When I read your post Rrrrrachel I read, "what the f***", not double u-tee-eff.
post #77 of 119
Well then you should stop cursing!
post #78 of 119
Ha!
post #79 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It doesn't matter what he says on Facebook? Really? That's one of the more wtf statements I've seen on here. Why in the world do his public statements outside of his published books not matter?

He's probably more an example of how the labels pro and anti vax just don't work very well. My bigger issue is he's not very well informed and misrepresents the issues in his book. I don't think it's intentional, I just don't think he knows any better.

Upthread you stated that Dr. Sears "isn't pro-vax." Specifically what would it take to meet your own golden standard of "pro-vax?"

Has it occurred to you that it's possible to favor/choose/advocate for one or more vaccines while still being critical of vaccine policy and research? That it's possible to see the good and bad in a single a vaccine? These positions really, really can juxtapose each other. I promise.
post #80 of 119
Like I said, turquesa, probably more a great example of how those labels aren't very meaningful.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › New here, what do you guys think about this woman who regrets not vaccinating?