"Many measles vaccine efficacy studies relate to their ability to stimulate an antibody response, (sero-conversion or sero-response). An antibody response does not necessarily equate to immunity. The level of antibody needed for effective immunity is different in each individual immunity can be demonstrated in individuals with a low or no detectable levels of antibody. Similarly in other individuals with higher levels of antibody there may be no immunity. We, therefore, need to stay clear on the issue: How do we know if the vaccine is effective for a particular individual when we do not know what level of antibody production equals immunity?" —Trevor Gunn, BSc, A Jab in the Dark.

Antibody titers do NOT equal immunity, by  Sheri Nakken

Much of what conventional studies use for 'proof' a vaccine 'works' and gives immunity' are increased antibody titers after administration of the vaccine. As you can see—that is a fallacy. Antibodies are just one aspect of the immune system. They show there has been exposure. PERIOD. If there are antibodies after experiencing a disease, they may mean immunity as the rest of the immune system was mobilized—all aspects. With vaccines, much of the immune system is bypassed—TH1 (mouth, nose, throat, and all aspects of the immune system that gets mobilized there). Only TH2 responds (simplified a bit here). So antibodies do NOT mean immunity. All aspects need to be measured and for the most part, they have no clue how to do that or even what to measure and what actually indicates immunity.

Dr. Merrill W. Chase: antibodies don't equate to immunity

January 22, 2004. Merrill W. Chase Is Dead at 98; Scientist Who Advanced Immunology, by Anahad O'Connor. Dr. Merrill W. Chase, an immunologist whose research on white blood cells helped undermine the longstanding belief that antibodies alone protected the body from disease and microorganisms, died on Jan. 5 at his home in New York City, according to the Rockefeller University, where he worked for 70 years. He was 98.

Dr. Chase made his landmark discovery in the early 1940s while working with Dr. Karl Landsteiner, a Nobel laureate recognized for his work identifying the human blood groups. At the time, experts believed that the body mounted its attacks against pathogens primarily through antibodies circulating in the bloodstream, known as humoral immunity. But Dr. Chase, working in his laboratory, stumbled upon something that appeared to shatter that widespread tenet. As he tried to immunize a guinea pig against disease using antibodies he had extracted from a second pig, he found that blood serum did not work as the transfer agent. Not until he used white blood cells did the immunity carry over to the other guinea pig, providing solid evidence that it could not be antibodies alone orchestrating the body's immune response.

Dr. Chase had uncovered the second arm of the immune system, or cell-mediated immunity. His finding became the groundwork for later research that pinpointed B cells, T cells and other types of white blood cells as the body's central safeguards against infection.

"This was a major discovery because everyone now thinks of the immune response in two parts, and in many instances, it's the cellular components that are more important," said Dr. Michel Nussenzweig, a professor of immunology at Rockefeller University. "Before Chase, there was only humoral immunity. After him, there was humoral and cellular immunity."

Dr. Chase's breakthrough generated little interest at the time, but it set in motion the research that helped redefine the fundamental nature of the immune system.

"So many areas of medicine rely on this type of reaction that he clearly distinguished as not being antibody mediated," said Dr. Ralph Steinman, a professor of cellular physiology and immunology at Rockefeller University. "People never anticipated that there would be something other than antibodies. It was an amazing finding."

Born in Providence, R.I., in 1905, Merrill Wallace Chase earned his bachelor's degree and doctorate from Brown. He taught biology there for a year, before joining the faculty at Rockefeller in 1932 as an assistant to Dr. Landsteiner. He has published at least 150 scientific papers. In 1975, he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences.

Dr. John B. March

Dr. John B. March, a well-known scientist who develops animal vaccines in the UK said, "So animal vaccines are actually subjected to far more rigorous safety testing than human vaccines. But animal trials also raise another worrying question about the human triple jab: how effective is it? Human trials generally correlate antibody responses with protection—that is if the body produces antibodies (proteins) that bind to vaccine components, then it must be working and safe."

Yet, Dr. March says antibody response is generally a poor measure of protection and no indicator at all of safety. Particularly for viral diseases, the 'cellular' immune response is all important, and antibody levels and protection are totally unconnected.

Meryl Dorey, Director of AVN

An extract from an email exchange:

Jamie, why are you asking me a question when you already know what my answer will be. I have no doubt you could explain my point of view much better than I. Well, two reasons, I guess. One is to play the devil's advocate a bit. :-) I mean, I was brought up in a house where we were not happy unless we were having a discussion about two sides of some issue. Debating was a family hobby. Also, I was interested to hear what your reasoning was, and to be honest, I have to say that you have learned what they taught you in school, very well, I'm sure. But you have not done any investigation on your own.

For instance, the theory that antibodies = protection from disease was disproven a long time ago. And I mean a LONG TIME! Study after study has shown that people with high levels of serum antibodies have contracted illnesses they are serologically immune to whilst those with low to no antibodies have been protected. I will quote below a section from an article on the Polio vaccine which is coming out in the next issue of Informed Choice Magazine:

Two studies which were published in 1939 and 1942, investigated the diphtheria antibody concentration in people who contracted diphtheria in England and Wales." It reported, "on repeated occasions, it was found that a sample of serum, taken from a patient with a clear history of inoculation who had yielded diphtheria bacilli from nose or throat swabs (a sure sign of diphtheria infection) was found to contain quite large quantities of diphtheria antitoxin.

( SEROLOGY is the scientific study of serum and other body fluids. In practice, the term usually refers to the diagnostic identification of antibodies in the serum. Such antibodies are typically formed in response to an infection, against other foreign proteins, or to one's own proteins. )

In other words, they were serologically immune to diphtheria yet they contracted it. Ironically, they found. The occurrence of several instances of non-inoculated persons having no circulating antitoxin, harbouring virulent organisms and yet remaining perfectly well." They were unvaccinated, had active diphtheria bacteria detectable in their nose and throat and yet displayed no symptoms of illness. We know now and have known for over 60 years that our method of measuring immunity is completely wrong. Despite this, we continue to use these useless tests to show that vaccines work because after vaccinating someone develops antibodies!

You said that: "To answer your question more directly: natural infection will stimulate antibodies, but often too late. And, natural infection (when you survive) doesn't protect you against future infection."

And yet, think about it, Jamie. If the antibody production from the natural infection will not protect you from future infection (which you admit it will not), then how will the antibodies from vaccines do so? Also, since tetanus and diphtheria are both toxin-mediated illnesses (as is pertussis), how can antibodies EVER prevent the multiplication of toxin since, upon exposure to our own body's natural defenses, clostridium tetani, bordetella pertussis, and diphtheria will ALL produce toxins which, regardless of our antibody status, will produce symptoms of infection? So, to boil it down to two questions:

1) If it has been shown in studies that the existence of antibodies does not equal immunity to infection, how can we show that vaccines protect?

2) If the production of antibodies does not protect against toxin-mediated diseases, why do we continue to vaccinate against them?

Antibodies are just ONE part of the immune system

Maybe antibodies meant something after experiencing a disease as antibody titers were there AS WELL as the rest of the immune response (which isn't measured). But in vaccines, antibodies just mean exposure and do NOT mean the immune system went through all it needed to give lasting immunity or any immunity.

Bronwyn Hancock

She is NOT a homeopath but words of wisdom: http://www.vaccination.inoz.com/ (Bronwyn's Website, Vaccination Information Service). I would say, Meryl that, you are not immune in the technical sense, but at the same time you are not susceptible if that makes sense to you. At least you weren't susceptible when you were exposed to it anyway. A mother had her daughter sleep at the home of another couple of children who had chickenpox so that she could contract it, and she did not for ages, though she eventually did after 6 weeks. It is apparent that the body will only contract a particular disease if and when it needs to, and it may be that you could go all your life without it ever needing to, even though you are not fully immune.

I think it is good to have the exposure though, because then at least the body has the opportunity to go through it if it will benefit from it. Many factors would influence our susceptibility to contracting a particular infection in the first place, including health (which is affected by nutrition, clean water, fresh air, etc), mental state, genes and the body's metabolism and biorhythms. So, if immunity can't be measured by the level of serum antibodies, does anyone know of any other tests that can be performed to determine immunity? If antibodies ARE present, and the person has not been vaccinated, then you would know that the antibodies were produced as a result of going through the disease naturally, which does bring immunity, provided the immune system is functioning normally. So combining all of the above. Antibodies in non-vaccinated person will signal immunity.

If you do NOT have antibodies though, you still do not know if you are susceptible or not. By the way, (vaccine) research has found that IgA antibodies are a much better indication of immunity than IgG antibodies, but when you have gone through the infection naturally (i.e. the antigen has entered through the natural portals of entry), both would be present anyway. When you inject the vaccine ingredients directly into the system, however, you basically bypass the production of IgA, which is another reason why we know immunologically that vaccines are ineffective. Indeed it is the quiet realisation of this significant error that is prompting efforts to produce vaccines that are inhaled instead of injected, e.g. the flu vaccine (though they will still be pointless and contain harmful ingredients).

It has been theorised by some that vaccines overstimulate the humoral immune response (which incorporates the production of antibodies) at the expense of the other major part of the immune system—the cell-mediated immune response (the production of T cells). I would say that even this is being too kind to vaccines, because it clearly does not even stimulate a normal humoral immune response.

The immune system is very complex and with important inter-relationships between its components. The development of immunity requires many processes to occur and complete, requiring the whole teamwork of all the required immune system components. This simply will not occur other than when the body contracts the infection naturally, and this is only when IT, THE BODY, wants to, not when man wants it to, say at 3:15 in the afternoon between getting the shopping done and going around to leave baby at nanna's in time to get to the gym, etc.

Adjuvanticity is more often evaluated

( ADJUVANTICITY is the degree to which a substance acts as an adjuvant. ADJUVANT is a treatment that enhances an existing medical regimen, as a pharmacological agent added to a drug to increase or aid its effect. )

In terms of antigen-specific antibody titers induced after parenteral immunization. It is known that, in many instances, antigen-specific antibody titers do not correlate with protection: "Vaccine. 2001 Oct 15; 20 Suppl 1:S38-41. PMID: 11587808 Vaccine. 2001 Oct 15; 20 Suppl 1:S38-41. What are the limits of adjuvanticity? Del Giudice G, Podda A, Rappuoli R. IRIS Research Center, Chiron SpA, Via Fiorentina 1, 53100, Siena, Italy."

Vaccines developed traditionally following empirical approaches have often limited problems of immunogenicity, probably due to the low level of purity of the active component(s) they contain. The application of new technologies to vaccine development is leading to the production of purer(e.g. recombinant) antigens which, however, tend to have a poor immunogenicity as compared to vaccines of the previous generation. The search for new vaccine adjuvants involves issues related to their potential limits. Since the introduction of aluminum salts as vaccine adjuvants more than 70 years ago, only one adjuvant has been licensed for human use. The development of some of these new vaccine adjuvants has been hampered by their unacceptable reactogenicity.

In addition, some adjuvants work strongly with some antigens but not with others, thus, limiting their potentially widespread use. The need to deliver vaccines via alternative routes of administration (e.g. the mucosal routes) in order to enhance their efficacy and compliance has set new requirements in basic and applied research to evaluate their efficacy and safety. Cholera toxin (CT) and labile enterotoxin (LT) mutants given along with intranasal or oral vaccines are strong candidates as mucosal adjuvants. Their potential reactogenicity is still a matter of discussion, although available data support the notion that the effects due to their binding to the cells and those due to the enzymatic activity can be kept separated. Finally, adjuvanticity is more often evaluated in terms of antigen-specific antibody titers induced after parenteral immunization. It is known that, in many instances, antigen-specific antibody titers do not correlate with protection.

In addition, very little is known on parameters of cell-mediated immunity which could be considered as surrogates of protection. Tailoring of new adjuvants for the development of vaccines with improved immunogenicity/efficacy and reduced reactogenicity will represent one of the major challenges of the ongoing vaccine-oriented research.PMID: 11587808 [PubMed, indexed for MEDLINE]

Antibody theory

Dr. Stefan Lanka said, "Normal trials on a new vaccine were not possible in Britain because of the relatively small numbers of people who contracted the disease. Instead, scientists had tested whether the vaccine produced sufficient antibodies."

Media report on meningitis C vaccine Antibodies not a measure of immunity: "Human trials generally correlate 'antibody' responses with protection—that is if the body produces antibodies (proteins) which bind to vaccine components, then it must be working and safe. Yet Dr. March says antibody response is generally a poor measure of protection and no indicator at all of safety. Particularly for viral diseases, the 'cellular' immune response is all important, and antibody levels and protection are totally unconnected."

Private Eye Magazine, January 24, 2002. "The fallacy of this (antibody theory) was exposed nearly 50 years ago, which is hardly recent. A report published by the Medical Research Council entitled 'A study of diphtheria in two areas of Great. Britain, Special report series 272, HMSO 1950 demonstrated that many of the diphtheria patients had high levels of circulating antibodies, whereas many of the contacts who remained perfectly well had low antibody." —Magda Taylor, Informed Parent

"Just because you give somebody a vaccine, and perhaps get an antibody reaction, doesn’t mean a thing. The only true antibodies, of course, are those you get naturally. What we’re doing, when we inject vaccines, is interfering with a very delicate mechanism that does its own thing. If nutrition is correct, it does it in the right way. Now if you insult a person in this way and try to trigger off something that nature looks after, you’re asking for all sorts of trouble, and we don’t believe it works." —Dr. Glen Dettman, Ph.D, interviewed by Jay Patrick, and quoted in "The Great American Deception," Let’s Live, December 1976, p. 57.

The antibody business

The antibody business: Millions of screening tests are distributed, each blood sample needs to be tested (4 million in Germany alone).

The therapy business: Antiviral medication, 3 or 4 or 5 fold combinations, AIDS can´t be topped in this department. With intoxication hypotheses on the other hand, you cannot make any money at all.

"The simple message is: Avoid the poison and you won't get sick. Such hypotheses are counterproductive insofar as the toxins (drugs, alcohol, pills, phosmet) bring high revenues. The conflict of interests is not resolvable: What virologist who does directly profit millions from their patent rights of the HIV or HCV tests (Montagnier, Simon Wain-Hobsen, Robin Weiss, Robert Gallo) can risk to take even one look in the other direction." —Claus Köhnlein

When they say immunogenicity what they actually mean is antibody levels. Antibody levels are not the same as IMMUNITY.

"The recent MUMPS vaccine fiasco in Switzerland has re-emphasized this point. Three mumps vaccines—Rubini, Jeryl-Lynn and Urabe (the one we withdrew because it caused encephalitis) all produced excellent antibody levels but those vaccinated with the Rubini strain had the same attack rate as those not vaccinated at all (12), there were some who said that it actually caused outbreaks." —Dr Jayne Donegan

"Whenever we read vaccine papers the MD researchers always assume that if there are high antibody levels after vaccination, then there is immunity (immunogenicity). But are antibody levels and immunity the same? No! Antibody levels are not the same as IMMUNITY. The recent MUMPS vaccine fiasco in Switzerland has re-emphasized this point. Three mumps vaccines-Rubini, Jeryl-Lynn and Urabe (the one withdrawn because it caused encephalitis) all produced excellent antibody levels but those vaccinated with the Rubini strain had the same attack rate as those not vaccinated at all, there were some who said that it actually caused outbreaks. Ref: Schegal M et al Comparative efficacy of three mumps vaccines during disease outbreak in Switzerland: cohort study. BMJ, 1999; 319:352-3." —Dr. Ted Koren, DC

Vaccination is a theory, not science

In order to better grasp the issue of vaccine effectiveness, it would prove helpful for us to go back to the early theoretical foundation upon which current vaccination and disease theories originated. In simplest terms, the theory of artificial immunization postulates that by giving a person a mild form of a disease, via the use of specific foreign proteins, attenuated viruses, etc., the body will react by producing a lasting protective response e.g., antibodies, to protect the body if or when the real disease comes along. This primal theory of disease prevention originated by Paul Ehrlich—from the time of its inception—has been subject to increasing abandonment by scientists of no small stature.

For example, not long after the Ehrlich theory came into vogue, W.H. Manwaring, then Professor of Bacteriology and Experimental Pathology at Leland Stanford University observed: I believe that there is hardly an element of truth in a single one of the basic hypothesis embodied in this theory. My conviction that there was something radically wrong with it arose from a consideration of the almost universal failure of therapeutic methods based on it. Twelve years of study with immuno-physical tests have yielded a mass of experimental evidence contrary to, and irreconcilable with the Ehrlich theory, and have convinced me that his conception of the origin, Nature, and physiological role of the specific 'antibodies' is erroneous.

To afford us with a continuing historical perspective of events since Manwaring's time, we can next turn to the classic work on auto-immunity and disease by Sir MacFarlane Burnett, which indicates that since the middle of this century the place of antibodies at the centre stage of immunity to disease has undergone "a striking demotion." For example, it had become well known that children with agammaglobulinemia  a group of inherited immune deficiencies characterized by a low concentration of antibodies in the blood due to the lack of particular lymphocytes in the blood and lymph)—who consequently have no capacity to produce antibodies—after contracting measles, (or other zymotic diseases) nonetheless recover with long-lasting immunity. In his view, it was clear "that a variety of other immunological mechanisms are functioning effectively without the benefit of actively produced antibody."

The kind of research which led to this a broader perspective on the body's immunological mechanisms included a mid-century British investigation on the relationship of the incidence of diphtheria to the presence of antibodies. The study concluded that there was no observable correlation between the antibody count and the incidence of the disease. The researchers found people who were highly resistant with extremely low antibody count, and people who developed the disease who had high antibody counts. According to Don de Savingy of IDRC, the significance of the role of multiple immunological factors and mechanisms has gained wide recognition in scientific thinking. For example, it is now generally held that vaccines operate by stimulating non-humeral mechanisms, with antibodies serving only as an indicator that a vaccine was given, or that a person was exposed to a particular infectious agent.

In the early 1970s, we find an article in the Australian Journal of Medical Technology by medical virologist B. Allen (of the Australian Laboratory of Microbiology and Pathology, Brisbane) reported that although a group of recruits were immunized for Rubella, and uniformly demonstrated antibodies, 80 percent of the recruits contracted the disease when later exposed to it. Similar results were demonstrated in a consecutive study conducted at an institution for the mentally disabled. Allen—in commenting on herb research at a University of Melbourne seminar—stated that "one must wonder whether the decision to rely on herd immunity might not have to be rethought."

As we proceed to the early 1980s, we find that upon investigating unexpected and unexplainable outbreaks of acute infection among "immunized" persons, mainstream scientists have begun to seriously question whether their understanding of what constitutes reliable immunity is in fact valid. For example, a team of scientists writing in the New England Journal of Medicine provide evidence for the position that immunity to disease is a broader bio-ecological question than the factors of artificial immunization or serology. They summarily concluded: "It is important to stress that immunity (or its absence) cannot be determined reliably on the basis of the history of the disease, history of immunization, or even history of prior serologic determination."

Despite these significant shifts in scientific thinking, there has unfortunately been little actual progress made in terms of undertaking systematically broad research on the multiple factors which undergird human immunity to disease, and in turn, building a system of prevention that is squarely based upon such findings. It seems ironic that as late as 1988, James must still raise the following basic questions.

"Why doesn't medical research focus on what factors in our environment and in our lives weaken the immune system? Is this too simple? Too ordinary? Too undramatic? Or does it threaten too many vested interests?" —Dr Obomsawin, MD

FROM REPEATED medical investigations, it would seem that antibodies are about as useful as a black eye in protecting the victim from further attacks. The word "antibody" covers a number of even less intelligible words, quaint relics of Erlich’s side-chain theory, which the greatest of experts, McDonagh, tells us is "essentially unintelligible". Now that the old history, mythology, and statistics of vaccination have been exploded by experience, the business has to depend more upon verbal dust thrown in the face of the lay public. The mere layman, assailed by antibodies, receptors, haptophores, etc., is only too pleased to give up the fight and leave everything to the experts. This is just what they want, especially when he is so pleased that he also leaves them lots and lots of real money.

The whole subject of immunity and antibodies is, however, so extremely complex and difficult, especially to the real experts, that it is a relief to be told that the gaps in their knowledge of such things are still enormous. We can obtain some idea of the complexity of the subject from The Integrity of the Human Body, by Sir Macfarlane Burnet. He calls attention to the fact—the mystery—that some children can never develop any antibodies a tall, but can nevertheless go through a typical attack of, say, measles, make a normal recovery and show the normal continuing resistance to reinfection. Furthermore, we have heard for years past of attempts made to relate the number of antibodies in patients to their degree of immunity to infection.

The results have often been so farcically chaotic, so entirely unlike what was expected, that the scandal has had to be hushed up—or put into a report, which is much the same thing (vide M.R.C. Report, No. 272, May 1950, A Study of Diphtheria in Two Areas of Great Britain, now out of print).

"The worst scandal, however, is that the radio is still telling the schools that the purpose of vaccinating is to produce antibodies. The purpose of vaccinating is to make money!" —Lionel Dole Crone

NE; Reder, AT; Severe tetanus in immunized patients with high anti-tetanus titers; Neurology 1992; 42:761-764; Article abstract: Severe (grade III) tetanus occurred in three immunized patients who had high serum levels of anti-tetanus antibody.

The disease was fatal in one patient. One patient had been hyperimmunized to produce commercial tetanus immune globulin. Two patients had received immunizations one year before presentation. Anti-tetanus antibody titers on admission were 25 IU/ml to 0.15 IU/ml by hemagglutination and ELISA assays; greater than 0.01 IU/ml is considered protective. Even though one patient had seemingly adequate anti-tetanus titers by in vitro measurement 0.20 IU invivo mouse protection bioassays showed a titer less than 0.01 IU/ml, implying that there may have been a hole in her immune repertoire to tetanus neurotoxin but not to toxoid. This is the first report of grade IIItetanus with protective levels of antibody in the United States. The diagnosis of tetanus, nevertheless, should not be discarded solely on the basis of seemingly protective anti-tetanus titers.

Vaccination is biological warfare

What if a “dirty bomb” exploded over a large segment of the U.S. population that simultaneously exposed citizens to Hepatitis B, Hepatitis A, tetanus, pertussis, diphtheria, three strains of polioviruses, three strains of influenza, measles, mumps, and rubella viruses, two types of meningitis, four strains of herpes viruses, the chickenpox virus, 7 strains of Streptococcus bacteria, and four strains of rotavirus.

  • We would declare a national emergency
  • It would be an “extreme act of BIOTERRORISM
  • The public outcry would be immense and our government would react accordingly.

And yet, those are the very organisms we inject into our babies and our small children in multiple doses, with immature, underdeveloped immune systems, many at the same time with vaccines.

But instead of bioterrorism, we call it “protection.” Reflect on that irony.

—Dr Sheri Tenpenny, MD

For more information: http://www.whale.to/vaccines/antibody.html