Articles

126 thoughts on “Why Universal Hepatitis B Vaccination Isn’t Quite Universal

  1. provaxmom says:

    “”Every time I hear the “too many too soon” mantra, it’s relating to chickenpox and hep b, and I’d like to know how to respond.”"

    I hear those same arguments, and these are the responses I give. As far as chicken pox, my ped told me (and I’m too busy right now to look for studies, maybe later, I have them bookmarked at home) that they are seeing increased cases of MRSA secondary to the cpox. Either as the skin infection or the MRSA-related pneumonia. Second is the herd immunity concept. Sure, to a normal healthy kid, it’s “just the chicken pox.” But to a high-risk or immunocompromised person, it’s not. To my neighbor going thru chemo or the student in my class with lupus, it’s not “just the chicken pox.”

    As far as hep B, it’s about compliance. My kids are done with their Hep B shots. Complete, finished–don’t have to think about it anymore. And science has not given us any reason to think that it is not safe to vax against this at this young age. I have a friend who also is very pro-vax, and took her kids to the ped the other day, only to realize that her older kid had a Hib shot to make up, from when there was a shortage. Poor little kid was a mess because she now is older and more afraid of shots. It took her forever to regroup and stop crying.

    I really feel for these kids whose parents do the staggered/delayed thing and the poor kids are subjected a shot every month for almost 2 years or some such thing. I’m exaggerating and referring to the published Sears protocol. Who wants to put their kid through that? Get it over with when they are young and have no memory of it. Again, there is no evidence out there that doing it at this young age is unsafe.

  2. Calli Arcale says:

    provaxmom:
    You can get all sorts of unpleasant sequelae from chickenpox, and bacterial infections are one of them.

    MRSA is a growing problem. I’m a bit of a space geek, so I have to mention that one of the cool bits of research going on aboard the International Space Station right now involves vaccines. It’s a special kind of research that requires sustained microgravity, and therefore can be done nowhere else. Basically, to find an effective vaccine for MRSA, you need to work out which antigens are common to the nasty staph. After all, Staphylococcus aureus is actually a very common species of bacterium. How do you know which genes uniquely identify the ugly methycillin resistant varieties, the actual MRSA ones? By taking a sample and then breeding the hell out of it. This is time consuming, but scientists years ago stumbled upon something rather surprising: bacteria reproduce much more quickly and efficiently in microgravity than they do in a petri dish on Earth. This may be simply because it’s easier to spread three-dimensionally up there. (That’s a fact that is exploited in some cancer research done in space; it’s hard to grow a representative model of an ovarian tumor on Earth, even using real ovarian tumor cells, because gravity will flatten it out in a way that doesn’t happen in the body. That’s not a problem in orbit, so ovarian tumor cells have been cultured aboard the ISS to provide better research material.) Last August, STS-128 delivered a canister full of growth medium and MRSA to the ISS. It’ll breed there for a while, then be returned to Earth, probably also aboard the Shuttle. (Note: it might have come back with STS-129, which landed last Friday. The AstroGenetix website doesn’t say.) It would be years before they’d have an effective vaccine, but it could be a very valuable prophylaxis for people at greater than usual risk of contracting a bacterial infection — or, theoretically, even a way of treating an actual MRSA infection. My grandfather has chronic MRSA, so this is something that has personal interest for me.

    Zoe237:

    Yes, that makes sense to me. Dr. Albeitz’s explanation was great from a public health perspective. What I still don’t understand is why *my* (or any low risk) kids can’t wait until age 11 or 12 to have the vaccine, given that I’m negative, my husband is negative, and we don’t live with anybody else. Our risk factors are pretty much non-existent. So it’s the individual benefit to children in low risk households that I don’t get. I have read that something like 30% of people don’t know how they got HBV, but I’m assuming those people at least had some risk factors (perhaps living with multiple people).

    One of the risk factors is having a mother with HBV; considering how many people are believed to carry HBV without knowing it, I can see where a single sexual misdeed four generations ago could lead to an active case of hepatitis now in a person who has no idea how they could have gotten it. What it comes down to is that you really don’t know what your risk factor really is. You can know that it’s less than, say, a heavily promiscuous gay man who uses heroin and “recycles” the needles. But you can’t know just how much lower. The vaccine is a way of hedging your bets.

    There’s also the problem that Chris described: there are more ways to be exposed than by having sex with somebody, and these ways will be more significant to children than adults. One of the big reasons that public health wants to target children is because they are such good vectors for disease. They don’t know you shouldn’t pick your friends nose and eat the boogers. At my elementary school, there was a game that went around for a short while before the teachers found out and put a stop to it. Kids would dare each other to scrape skin off the backs of their hands until it bled. It was all about pain tolerance, but we were kids; we didn’t know about blood-borne pathogens. If one of us had been positive for the virus, could they have unknowingly infected others? (For the record, it was stopped before anybody dared me; I found out about it when the teachers were lining us all up in the hallway to inspect our hands and see who had been involved so far.)

  3. Watcher says:

    Did you notice the order of events? Recognition before presentation. Of course macrophages are the first to recognize exogenous antigens.

    Ahh this is fun. First, this is totally irrelevant to what I’m talking about. You keep harping on the order, when I could really care less. Second, it backs up my point! Recognition happens when the macrophage binds the antigen through surface proteins, not intracellularly. Where does recognition occur? For all steps in the process of immune response, it happens on the surface of cells. That’s my point, and you’ve done nothing (other than call me crazy and recite back to me passages from my immunology books) to show me otherwise.

    Vaccine antigens, whether live or killed, MUST infect the cells to enable an immune response.

    Disagree. Infection is an active, parasitic, process which antigens themselves cannot do on their own.

  4. weing says:

    “” Vaccine antigens, whether live or killed, MUST infect the cells to enable an immune response. ”

    Disagree. Infection is an active, parasitic, process which antigens themselves cannot do on their own.”

    You have to realize that Th1Th2 here holds the belief that if he has a picture of Megan Fox with him in bed it is the same as if she was actually there.

  5. Archangl508 says:

    Th1Th2,

    The accepted medical definition of infection is:

    “An infection is an invasion and multiplying of pathogenic microbes in the body tissues in which they are not usually present.”

    For a pathogen to be infectious it need to fulfill both of those requirements for invasion and multiplication. The HepB vaccine, being a recombinant protein, has no DNA to provide for viral replication. There is no possible way that it could actually infect a cell. Feel free to show otherwise.

    Uptake of viral pieces by phagocytosis or any other protein antigen, receptor mediated or otherwise, is not even remotely the same as viral invasion. If that were the case, then you would say your body is constantly being infected by cytokines, chemokines, and a whole host of other proteins that you make yourself. All of those proteins enter your cells through receptor mediated endocytosis or phagocytosis. You are incorrectly using terminology to promote your rhetoric.

  6. Zoe237 says:

    “What it comes down to is that you really don’t know what your risk factor really is. You can know that it’s less than, say, a heavily promiscuous gay man who uses heroin and “recycles” the needles. But you can’t know just how much lower. The vaccine is a way of hedging your bets.”

    Yes, but I know my risk factor is zero, because, one, I’ve been tested, and two, we’ve been vaccinated as adolescents. I guess I would have to see numbers to be convinced that there is really any chance that a child could pick up hepatitis b at preschool. I have looked into it and can only find that children are infected by perinatal transmission or by actually living with somebody who has it. E.G. sharing toothbrushes. Has there ever been a documented case of spread of hep b in children in public?

    Chris, I did look up numbers of my county (very briefly) and the only thing I could find was 9 cases for HBV reported for 2005, and 11 for 2004 (acute and chronic combined). We live in a small county (about 250,000), and I’m sure underreported, but this still seems very low. I suppose that could also be the number of new cases.

    Gross story Calli! But fascinating about MRSA research in space.

    Provax mom: I don’t think it would be any more shots if low risk kids were vaccinated against chicken pox and hepatitis B at ages 11-12. And it’s the same thing with MRSA and CP- what is the actual number of times this happens? If it’s 1/500, I get it. If it’s 1/500,000, I don’t. Good point about the immunocompromised kids.

  7. Th1Th2 says:

    watcher said, “Recognition happens when the macrophage binds the antigen through surface proteins, NOT INTRACELLULARLY. Where does recognition occur? For all steps in the process of immune response, it happens on the surface of cells. That’s my point, and you’ve done nothing (other than call me crazy and recite back to me passages from my immunology books) to show me otherwise.”
    (Emphasis added)

    Please read and learn:

    Intracellular Recognition of Lipopolysaccharide by Toll-like Receptor 4 in Intestinal Epithelial Cells

    http://jem.rupress.org/cgi/content/full/198/8/1225

    You intentionally eliminated antigen PRESENTATION from your response because you were shocked to know that antigen presentation also occurs INTRACELLULARLY. You’ve been debunked, unfortunately.

    “Antigen processing and presentation are processes that occur WITHIN a cell…”
    http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/bowers/ant-pres.htm

    watcher said, “Disagree. Infection is an active, parasitic, process which antigens themselves cannot do on their own.”

    Archgl said, “For a pathogen to be infectious it need to fulfill both of those requirements for invasion and multiplication. The HepB vaccine, being a recombinant protein, has no DNA to provide for viral replication. There is no possible way that it could actually infect a cell. Feel free to show otherwise.”

    For the sake of argument, the first stage of infection is the introduction of antigen in the cells and then followed by replication, in the case of live vaccines. Killed vaccines are able to infect but not to replicate for obvious reason. Vaccine antigens, whether live or killed, are designed to infect/invade/penetrate/intrude/infest/corrupt/contaminate naive cells. This is an essential requirement for vaccines to work. Without infection there would be no resultant primary response. Vaccine failure is attributed because of no cellular uptake. HbsAg is the surface antigen gene of HBV. It does not carry the gene for replication but it contains the genetic make-up of HBV needed for infection. Remember, infection occurs before replication.

    Archgl said, “If that were the case, then you would say your body is constantly being infected by cytokines, chemokines, and a whole host of other proteins that you make yourself.”

    Don’t worry our innate immune system is capable of recognizing self-antigens from non-self like vaccine antigens.

  8. Th1Th2 says:

    weing,

    “You have to realize that Th1Th2 here holds the belief that if he has a picture of Megan Fox with him in bed it is the same as if she was actually there.”

    I will keep a pic of Megan Fox because she is not a threat to me. Wouldn’t be amazing if I had a date with her personally?

    On the other hand, extraneous antigens are invaders that are destined for immediate clearance.

  9. Archangl508 says:

    “because you were shocked to know that antigen presentation also occurs INTRACELLULARLY”

    That is an incorrect statement. Antigen presentation occurs at the cell surface. Antigen processing and attachment to MHC occurs intracellularly. The link you provided makes that statement incorrectly, unless the author means to include the “cell surface” as still being within a cell. Antigen presentation cannot occur intracellularly, as what cell would be recieving the presentation intracellularly. It doesn’t make sense at all.

    “Vaccine antigens, whether live or killed, are designed to infect/invade/penetrate/intrude/infest/corrupt/contaminate naive cells.”

    Again, you are using incorrect terminology and understanding of biological terms in order to advance your rhetoric. Non-live vaccine antigens, whether inactivated or recombinant, are incapable of infecting a cell. They may be brought inside the cell by a variety of mechnisms, however, that does not encompass infection. If that is the case, then cells also become infected by a host of other proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, and other substances that cross the cell membrane by either active or passive mechanisms using your definition of infection. The definition you are using for “infect” is incorrect in the biological sense.

    “Don’t worry our innate immune system is capable of recognizing self-antigens from non-self like vaccine antigens.”

    That statement does not apply to the point I was making at all. It also shows how little you understand innate immunity. The innate immune system does a good job of recognizing non-self, i.e. Toll Like Receptors recognizing LPS, but it does not have any mechanism for removing self-reactive cells similar to what is seen in T cell selection. The innate system does not differentiate between self/non-self at all in the way the adaptive system does. The innate system, therefore, has evolved to recognize molecular patterns rather than a hugely diverse array of protein antigens as would be seen in adaptive immunity.

  10. Th1Th2 says:

    Archangl,

    “The link you provided makes that statement incorrectly, unless the author means to include the “cell surface” as still being within a cell. Antigen presentation cannot occur intracellularly, as what cell would be recieving the presentation intracellularly. It doesn’t make sense at all.”

    Because your opinion dose not make any sense. Please do not “read between the lines” haha

    “They may be brought inside the cell by a variety of mechnisms, however, that does not encompass infection.”

    A syringe that contains HbsAg is the same as
    1. needle stick that carries HbsAg.
    2. ocular, mucous membrane exposure to blood known or presumed to contain HBsAg
    3. human bites by known or presumed HBsAg carriers, that penetrate the skin,
    4. intimate sexual contact with known or presumed HBsAg carriers

    Hepatis B vaccine is not presumed to contain HbsAg because it does actually contain HbsAg.

    “That statement does not apply to the point I was making at all. It also shows how little you understand innate immunity. The innate system does not differentiate between self/non-self at all in the way the adaptive system does.”

    Your comments only translates to selective attention to details and of course consistently opinionative.

    Read and learn, what else can I say.

    Decoding the Patterns of Self and Nonself
    by the Innate Immune System

    The innate immune system evolved several strategies of self/nonself discrimination that are based on the recognition of molecular patterns demarcating infectious nonself, as well as normal and abnormal self. These patterns are deciphered by receptors that either induce or inhibit an immune response, depending on the meaning of these signals.

    http://people.scs.carleton.ca/~soma/biosec/readings/medzhitov-innate.pdf

  11. Archangl508 says:

    “Because your opinion dose not make any sense. Please do not “read between the lines” haha”

    Who was reading between the lines? Why don’t you try a new tact, rather than just being a troll….actually try to put together a coherent thought. You said “antigen processing and presentation occurs intracellularly.” That is an incorrect statement. It is not opinion, its fact.

    Your contention is the HbsAg is the same as an intact Hepatitis B virion, correct? I just want to make sure what you are claiming since you tend to lack clarity.

    “Your comments only translates to selective attention to details and of course consistently opinionative.”

    What I wrote was entirely accurate. The innate system does not differentiate between self/non-self at all in the way the adaptive system does. Your reference doesn’t really matter since I already agreed that the innate system does recognize self vs. non-self (as a matter of fact I read that paper earlier today when writing my previous response).

    In fact, I would say I have a much better grasp on the details of immunity and virology than you will ever get to. Shall we compare immunological resumes? The problem with you is you often get stuck on a particular terminology or sentence without actually understanding the complexity and nuances of the system you are trying to discuss, as you have shown over and over again with your “HbsAg is infecting cells” comments.

  12. weing says:

    “I will keep a pic of Megan Fox because she is not a threat to me. Wouldn’t be amazing if I had a date with her personally? ”

    Using your logic just having the picture is the same as having a date with her personally. So it is amazing already.

  13. Th1Th2 says:

    Archangl508,

    “You said “antigen processing and presentation occurs intracellularly.” That is an incorrect statement. It is not opinion, its fact.”

    I based my answers from reliable sources, that’s part of learning, isn’t it? (with emphasis)

    1. Antigen processing and presentation are processes that occur WITHIN a cell that result in fragmentation (proteolysis) of proteins, association of the fragments with MHC molecules, and expression of the peptide-MHC molecules at the cell surface where they can be recognized by the T cell receptor on a T cell.

    http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/bowers/ant-pres.htm

    2. Antigen presentation requires intracellular processing of native antigens to produce immunogenic peptides that bind to major histocompatibility complex class II (MHC-II) molecules. The APC that is responsible for this form of presentation is a macrophage. These cells internalize the antigen constructs through phagocytosis, since cytochalasin B inhibited presentation. Processing of the antigen and association with MHC class I molecules appears to occur INTRACELLULARLY as presentation was observed under conditions where there was no detectable release of peptides into the extracellular fluids.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC54363/

    In many antigen-presenting cells, these processes occur in intracellular endosomal compartments.

    “Your contention is the HbsAg is the same as an intact Hepatitis B virion, correct?”

    My point is that naive cells of healthy and non-diseased newborns are NOT supposed to be exposed and inoculated intentionally with HbsAg or any other genes that make up the HBV. It’s more than a simple glycoprotein or lipid antigen.

    Would you rather prefer to have your own naive cells contaminated with HbsAg or not?

    “What I wrote was entirely accurate. The innate system does not differentiate between self/non-self at all in the way the adaptive system does. Your reference doesn’t really matter since I already agreed that the innate system does recognize self vs. non-self (as a matter of fact I read that paper earlier today when writing my previous response).”

    I didn’t ask for comparison between the two. Now since you recognized the importance of the innate immune system, then it’s fine with me. Thank you.

  14. Watcher says:

    You intentionally eliminated antigen PRESENTATION from your response because you were shocked to know that antigen presentation also occurs INTRACELLULARLY.

    Lol I did no such thing :) When I’m debating something, you can be sure I’m not going to intentionally mislead or misstate something just to make my point.

    You’ve been debunked, unfortunately.

    Which is what I’ve been asking you do the whole time, provide evidence and I’ll change my mind gladly. It seems like there’s a body of evidence that shows some recognition occurs in a specific subset of cells.

    Presentation is still up for grabs right? Presentation in the sense that everyone but you is talking about, is between an APC and a T or B cell and doesn’t happen intracellularly. MHC complex formation isn’t what everyone here is talking about.

    So how does a NK cell intracellularly recognize a cancerous cell like the example you gave from before?

  15. Archangl508 says:

    “Now since you recognized the importance of the innate immune system, then it’s fine with me.”

    I never said I didn’t recognize the importance of the innate immune system. Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, is it?

    “Processing of the antigen and association with MHC class I molecules appears to occur INTRACELLULARLY”

    Which is exactly what I said. PROCESSING is intracellular, but presentation is not. It can’t be. What would you present antigen to intracellularly? None of the links you gave talk about that. Watcher hit the nail on the head when he said:

    “Presentation in the sense that everyone but you is talking about, is between an APC and a T or B cell and doesn’t happen intracellularly. MHC complex formation isn’t what everyone here is talking about.”

    And that is your biggest issue. You seem to get stuck on particular wording or phrasing while completely missing the overall concept of what is actually occurring. As I said above, reading comprehension isn’t exactly your strong suit.

    I’m still waiting to see if you’d like to compare immunological resumes.

    “My point is that naive cells of healthy and non-diseased newborns are NOT supposed to be exposed and inoculated intentionally with HbsAg or any other genes that make up the HBV. It’s more than a simple glycoprotein or lipid antigen.”

    What HBV genes are people inoculated with? The vaccine is a recombinant protein, it is not made of genetic material.

    “Would you rather prefer to have your own naive cells contaminated with HbsAg or not? ”

    I would prefer my cells to not be naive. As a matter of fact, I had my HBV vaccine booster a few weeks ago as my antibody titer was low and I work with human source material, so I would prefer to not take that risk.

    Furthermore, to say that cells are not supposed to be exposed to pathogenic material is nonsense. That is the exact reason an immune system evolved in the first place. To be exposed to pathogens and allow the immune system to attack the invading pathogen. You are aware that you are exposed to more pathogens on a daily basis than what you get in all the vaccines combined.

  16. edgar says:

    Good Lord, if you want data that badly, try to FOIA it and analyze it!

  17. Th1Th2 says:

    watcher,

    “When I’m debating something, you can be sure I’m not going to intentionally mislead or misstate something just to make my point.”

    You just did.

    “Presentation is still up for grabs right? Presentation in the sense that everyone but you is talking about, is between an APC and a T or B cell and doesn’t happen intracellularly”.

    In the sense that your opinion does not make any sense. I can’t help but bring this up again since it seems you are suffering from selective inattention to details.

    1. Antigen processing and presentation are processes that occur WITHIN A CELL that result in fragmentation (proteolysis) of proteins, association of the fragments with MHC molecules, and expression of the peptide-MHC molecules at the cell surface where they can be recognized by the T cell receptor on a T cell.

    http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/bowers/ant-pres.htm

    Also it seems that you are having a difficult time analyzing some basic vocabulary like INTRACELLULAR= within a cell, which in this case refers to APC alone. Remember, APC presents whereas T-cells receives. But since you brought up your alibi T-cell to create the relationship between the APC, it should be rightfully called INTERCELLULAR as evidenced by this:

    Intercellular transfer of antigen-presenting cell
    determinants onto T cells: molecular mechanisms
    and biological significance

    http://homepage.mac.com/atnjoly/travaux/Denis/publis/Fasebj2002.pdf

    Happy now?

    “So how does a NK cell intracellularly recognize a cancerous cell like the example you gave from before?”

    You just answered your own question:

    “MHC complex formation isn’t what everyone here is talking about.”

  18. Th1Th2 says:

    Archangl,

    “I never said I didn’t recognize the importance of the innate immune system.”

    It’s because you never admitted your own mistake either. I remember you said this:

    “The innate system does not differentiate between self/non-self at all in the way the adaptive system does. Your reference doesn’t really matter since I already agreed that the innate system does recognize self vs. non-self”

    WTH does that mean? Haha

    “Which is exactly what I said. PROCESSING is intracellular, but presentation is not. It can’t be. What would you present antigen to intracellularly? None of the links you gave talk about that.”

    Read the first link again, otherwise, I will throw this back to you–”reading comprehension isn’t exactly your strong suit.”

    “I’m still waiting to see if you’d like to compare immunological resumes.”

    What’s the point? Will this revert the health of innocent children that were damaged and injured by vaccines?

    “What HBV genes are people inoculated with? The vaccine is a recombinant protein, it is not made of genetic material.”

    This gene, no?

    A portion of the hepatitis B virus gene, coding for HBsAg, is cloned into yeast, and the vaccine for hepatitis B is produced from cultures of this recombinant yeast strain

    http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/r/recombivax_hb/recombivax_pi.pdf

    “I would prefer my cells to not be naive. As a matter of fact, I had my HBV vaccine booster a few weeks ago as my antibody titer was low and I work with human source material, so I would prefer to not take that risk.”

    You had the chance to live Hep B-free but you blew it when you contaminated yourself with HbsAg. The evidence of which is your anti-Hbs. Unfortunately, antibody titer does not correlate with protection.

    “Furthermore, to say that cells are not supposed to be exposed to pathogenic material is nonsense. That is the exact reason an immune system evolved in the first place. To be exposed to pathogens and allow the immune system to attack the invading pathogen. You are aware that you are exposed to more pathogens on a daily basis than what you get in all the vaccines combined.”

    The immune system was developed NOT to invite intruders but to defend the body from them. I am completely aware that in the US alone, newborns are INTENTIONALLY being exposed to at least 14 diseases through inoculation throughout the first year of life. Again, these newborns had the chance to live naive on these diseases but the medical community contaminated them.

  19. Archangl508 says:

    Th1Th2,

    This will be my last response as I can only abide those who willfully miscontrue what others say or are willfully ignorant for so long.

    “WTH does that mean? Haha”

    It meant exactly what it said. That the innate and acquired immune system have different mechanisms for recognizing self vs. non-self. If you can show that they recognize the two in the same manner, I will be happy to append my statement.

    Before you repost the same antigen processing link again, I will explain very simply the way I define antigen processing and presentation and why that link is not in line with my thinking.

    1. Antigen processing – The process by which antigens are attached to MHC Class I or II. This process occurs intracellularly by various pathways depending on the type of antigen being processed and where it comes from.

    2. Antigen presentation – The act of displaying an antigen on the surface of the cell in order to be recognized by T cells. This does not occur intracellularly as it is occuring upon the cell surface.

    “A portion of the hepatitis B virus gene, coding for HBsAg, is cloned into yeast, and the vaccine for hepatitis B is produced from cultures of this recombinant yeast strain”

    Yes, the gene is cloned into yeast. Then that gene is trascribed into RNA. Then that RNA is translated into protein. Then they take the yeast cells and purify out the protein that is made. You are aware it is quite possible to separate DNA from proteins, correct? The gene is not present within the vaccine as the company states, “The vaccine contains no detectable yeast DNA”. Therefore, you are getting protein, not DNA, and therefore no genes are in the vaccine. Basic biology 101…apparently you missed that course.

    “You had the chance to live Hep B-free but you blew it when you contaminated yourself with HbsAg. The evidence of which is your anti-Hbs. Unfortunately, antibody titer does not correlate with protection. ”

    So what you are saying is that antibodies do nothing? They do not protect you against disease. The just get produced and hang around for no reason at all? Furthermore, are you suggesting I will now contract Hepatitis B because of my vaccination? Please show one link that shows that that has occured.

    Do you have any evidence to support such an assertion? That only goes against everything known about immunology and virology. This is exactly why it is a waste continuing to have this discussion. Unfortunately, you cannot fix stupid.

    “The immune system was developed NOT to invite intruders but to defend the body from them. I am completely aware that in the US alone, newborns are INTENTIONALLY being exposed to at least 14 diseases through inoculation throughout the first year of life. Again, these newborns had the chance to live naive on these diseases but the medical community contaminated them.”

    And a newborn is exposed to far more than 14 pathogens on its first day of existence. The ability of the immune system to sucessfully defend against intrusion requires that you recieve exposure to pathogens. This allows for immunological memory. The acquired immune response is what keeps us alive and healthy, ask any AIDS patient who no longer has any T cells and is dying of yeast induced pneumonia. The innate immune response is very important as well, but cannot do the job on its own (again, ask an AIDS patient how their innate immune system does without T cells).

    As I said, this will be my last response to you. For some reason I have great difficulty in just letting things like this go even though I know you are simply doing it to provoke responses and actually have no interest in a discussion or, God forbid, leaning something. I’m sure my resolve will weaken again next time you come out from underneath the bridge.

  20. Th1Th2 says:

    Archangl,

    “If you can show that they recognize the two in the same manner, I will be happy to append my statement.”

    If you are just listening intently, you would know that I did not ask for comparison. I brought up the function of the innate immune system during the previous discussion but you kept on bitching with the adaptive type to downplay the former. Please try to get hold of yourself. You know fore sure that the innate system takes precedence over the adaptive type. Homeostatic order is essential. But since you are a vaccine apologist, I wouldn’t expect you to understand this “innate” process for as long you have a “syringe” in your mind.

    “Before you repost the same antigen processing link again, I will explain very simply the way I define antigen processing and presentation and why that link is not in line with my thinking.”

    In short that’s according to your opinion.

    “The gene is not present within the vaccine as the company states, “The vaccine contains no detectable yeast DNA”. Therefore, you are getting protein, not DNA, and therefore no genes are in the vaccine. Basic biology 101…apparently you missed that course.”

    You would not want an additional antibody for Saccharomyces cerevisiae, would you? You have forgotten easily that recombinant DNA technology involves 2 different DNA molecules from 2 unrelated organisms. The HbsAg gene molecule in the vaccine is the reason you developed your anti-Hbs antibody. And I called that common sense.

    “So what you are saying is that antibodies do nothing? They do not protect you against disease. The just get produced and hang around for no reason at all? ”

    Vaccines are worthless, that’s what I am saying. Antibodies are essential in identifying contaminants like vaccine antigens. They also have a limitation; they don’t kill intruders, they leave it to the higher up. Protection means having the resistance to be able to defend the body from any extraneous diseases or its components. Unfortunately, vaccines infiltrate the resistance.

    “Furthermore, are you suggesting I will now contract Hepatitis B because of my vaccination? Please show one link that shows that that has occured.”

    Your anti-Hbs tells you that you are no longer naive to Hepatitis B because you had it at some point in time, so why are you asking for another exposure?

    “And a newborn is exposed to far more than 14 pathogens on its first day of existence.”

    Yes and these ubiquitous antigens do not bypass and violate the NORMAL physiologic and homeostatic order. Put them all inside the vaccine and you will see the difference.

    “The ability of the immune system to sucessfully defend against intrusion requires that you recieve exposure to pathogens. This allows for immunological memory. ”

    Absolute nonsense. Exposure requires that antigens succesfully intrude and contaminate the cells. Immunological memory occurs after primary exposure and infection.

    “The acquired immune response is what keeps us alive and healthy, ask any AIDS patient who no longer has any T cells and is dying of yeast induced pneumonia. The innate immune response is very important as well, but cannot do the job on its own (again, ask an AIDS patient how their innate immune system does without T cells).”

    No, what’s keeping a person alive and healthy is the maintenance of other non-specific immunity, which is the first line of defense. General barrier like nutrition, physical barrier such as intact skin integrity and mucous lining and chemical and other biologic barriers. I know what an AIDS patient look like, I used to take care of them. They have “acquired” malnutrition from immunosupressive and toxic drugs, vaccines and other iatrogenic events caused by allopathic treatments.

  21. edgar says:

    Dumbfounded.

    Archangl508,
    THank your the elsson in immunology.

  22. Archangl508 says:

    Edgar,

    Thanks. As much as it pains me to want to continue to respond to Th1Th2′s diatribe of nonsense, there does come a time when one must stop feeding the trolls. The lack of understanding and clear willful misrepresentation of fact just grates on one’s like Freddy Krueger’s nails on a chalkboard.

    As I said, there does come a point where you cannot fix stupid. The only thing that really irks me is that he’s going to feel like he won the argument, but again, nothing I can do to fix that.

    I just wish someone would force him to change that nickname. Its just not fair that someone as woefully ignorant of immunology (especially someone who I’m sure has never done an ounce of research himself) should get to have a name that makes him look like he actually has some immunology knowledge.

  23. Harriet Hall says:

    I think of Th1Th2 as meaning “Thing 1 and Thing 2″ – the mischief-makers from the Dr. Seuss book “The Cat in the Hat.”

  24. weing says:

    I think that the cut and paste university he goes to has effectively vaccinated him against knowledge and understanding of immunology and the immune response. Just as he feels that vaccines give you the actual disease, that a picture of Megan Fox is as good as the real thing, so he also feels that cutting and pasting passages from articles, give him the real knowledge and understanding.

  25. Archangl508 says:

    Harriet,

    I think you just insulted the great Dr. Seuss. ;-)

    I bet even the Cat in the Hat had all his shots!

Comments are closed.