Doctors regularly miss the blindingly obvious. And from the work I've done on cases I know full well to never trust what doctors tell parents. I would never take a doctors word for anything now. They would have to hand all the test results to me, because I've been on far too many cases and been in far too many court rooms when doctors have sworn blue murder this and that, and when handed the actual hospital files have looked around wanting to find a hole to die in. Aurora's mum says
the tests were normal. Tell me CallMeIshmael, have you ever seen a baby with an extensive brain bleed resulting in long term seizures, where the coags were normal?
Shouldn't you be enlightening me CallMeIshmael? You are the expert, not me.
However, since it would appear that you don't know your immunology on this matter, perhaps I should.
Why do you think that a babies "first" vaccine is necessarily, immunologically, their first exposure to IgG?
I'm astonished that you would think that.
Surely you know this? If not, why not?
Nelson's Textbook of Pediatrics On Line 2006. 710 Reference Ranges for Laboratory Tests and Procedures John F. Nicholson Michael A. Pesce
The human infant is born with an adult level of maternally derived immunoglobulins G
Immunoglobulin G (IgG)
S Cord blood 636-1606 mg/dL
1 mo 251-906 2.51-9.06
2-4 mo 176-601 1.76-6.01
5-12 mo 172-1069 1.72-10.69
1-5 yr 345-1236 3.45-12.36
6-10 yr 608-1572 6.08-15.72
The prime candidate for An Arthus reaction is actually a baby given the Hepatitis B vaccine AND immunoglobulin at the same time, because its well known and you have just said....., that these two "items" can combine. But that isn't the only way that a baby having the first Hep B vaccine can have such a response as you should know.... :
So bear with me, while we talk some other basic immunology please:
"Vaccination in humans generates broad T Cell Cytokine responses including IL-1, IL-12, IFN- d and TNF- α. In the course of hepatitis B infection (sepsis), immune complexes that consist of HBsAg, anti-HBsAg and complement are formed. These immune complexes cause a variety of diseases" E. Sindern et al. Inflammatory polyradiculoneuropathy with spinal cord involvement and letal outcome after hepatitis B vaccination. Journal of the Neurological Sciences 186 2001 81–85
The symptoms we see representing immune complex disease is caused by the antigen/antibody complex which fixes complement, so the same range of immune complex disease seen with wild type Hepatitis B disease will be seen, with vaccine induced reactions caused by the same trigger. This fact is acknowledged by entries in the manufacturers' package inserts reported in the Physician's Desk Reference (PDR) ( PDR Enerix-B GalaxoSmithKline, and PDR Recombivax HB Merck) as well as in the peer reviewed medical literature.
And I put all those about eight other references up before, in case you missed them.
But before we take this to its logical conclusion, lets refresh your memory on something else you should know well:
Haemolytic anaemia caused by antibodies from the mother when the mother is Rh- and the baby is Rh positive IF the mother's antibodies mix with the babies. Correct? So you use the Coombs test which detects a coating of immunoglobulin or complement on the surface of the red blood cells... i.e. isoimmune haemolytic anemia which results in erythroblastosis fetalis, correct?
Using the Hepatitis B vaccine as an example, if the mother has high levels of antibody which are passed on to the baby, and the baby subsequently gets the "first" vaccine, it is possible that something called extramedullary haematopoesis can happen with a hepatitis b antigen/antibody complex, which looks identical to sepsis and erythroblastosis fetalis.
Extramedullary hematopoesis in the newborn liver is commonly seen in hemolytic disease of the newborn (Wagle, S. Hemolytic Disease of Newborn: March 14, 2003 emedicine. http://www.emedicine.com/PED/topic959.htm
) and furthermore extramedullary haematopoesis is often seen in infants who die shortly after the Hepatitis B vaccine. (Niu, M.T. et al. Neonatal Deaths After Hepatitis B Vaccine. 1999 Arch Pediart Adolesc Med; 153: 1279-1282 )
In the past it has been thought that serum sickness can only happen on rechallenge, but for some of these babies a first vaccine, of any type
can be a rechallenge if they have high levels of maternal IgG for those "items" therefore, on that basis their first vaccine is actually (according to commonsense logic) not their first, is it... it is essentially a rechallange, as proven by the medical literature quoted before, and the admissions by the vaccine manufacturers themselves.
In some of the cases I've been on, CallMeIshmael, we have been fortunate enough to have been able to prove it with samples from before and after.
The biggest problem you will see, if you look at clinical trials, for instance here:http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/
is that these groups, are the very groups that are excluded
from vaccine trials at all phase levels, and we only discover these things when having excluded just about every tom dick and harry of interest to real life, the experts then say that the vaccine is "safe" for everyone, incluidng the groups excluded from the trials.
That isn't true. If you want to be true to science, the vaccine is only safe in the very narrow spectrum of people it was trialled on in the first instance, which begs the question as to why these groups weren't part of the trial, and I'll wager you can work out the answer to that. Because they are the very groups they would EXPECT to see problems in.
We discover these cases when the vast array of anomalies
show up as vaccine damage cases, and then we have to fight our tails off trying to prove something, WHICH ~~~ had the trials been designed with real life in mind ~~~~ we shouldn't be in the position of having to prove at all.
The pro-vaccine people sit there all smug and say "prove it" when it is they who should be proving why it is even thought to be safe to use vaccines in the very groups they refused entry to any phase trial whatsoever
And on a personal note CallMeIshmael, if you feel I'm snitty with you for asking me to enlighten you, I am.
I'm snitty, because I feel that you don't really mean "enlighten me" you mean "I don't believe you."
And I say the same to you as I say to any of these so-called provaccine experts in court... it should be YOU who is educating me as to why all these excluded groups suddenly become "safe" and it shouldn't be "me" telling you, how it can happen, when YOU of all people should know and understand the basic immunology of the processes involved. nd why is it that you don't know enough basis immunology 101 that you have to ask me to enlighten you?
Yes, I resent that. I think you should have gone away, done some research, reading and thinking to see whether or not there was actually proof of biological plausibility rather than come here and carefully infer that neither I, nor an immunologist would know what they were talking about.