Over the last several years, more and more people have become aware of the enormous dangers of vaccination. This is due, in large part, to the tireless work of a number of researchers and activists who have pointed out the horrific side effects attached to the use of toxic vaccine ingredients such as aluminum, polysorbate 80, thimerosal, and squalene among a host of other harmful results of vaccination that can manifest in lasting impairment and even death.
Yet, the pharmaceutical industry, medical doctors, and corporate media outlets continue to push toxic injections as the only way to prevent disease and ridicule those individuals who refuse to take seasonal flu shots and other vaccinations as crackpots and paranoid conspiracy theorists. Even those individuals who have been afflicted with the negative side effects of vaccines are themselves attacked and marginalized after coming forward with their injuries.
Still, after all of the available evidence proving vaccine dangers and lack of efficacy, and after all of the suffering so easily seen amongst those who have experienced side effects of vaccines, the pharmaceutical and medical industries still maintain that vaccines are both safe and effective. However, despite the nature of the vaccine debate, one area of vaccination theory is scarcely mentioned in regards to the question of whether or not vaccines are even effective – the presence of antibodies and what they mean in terms of vaccine efficacy.
Part of the theory behind vaccination is that the injection of specific antigens in vaccine form mimics natural infection which then causes B cells, a type of white blood cell of the immune system, to produce antibodies to the antigen as part of the adaptive immune system, thus producing immunity to the disease by “teaching” the overall immune system how to respond the specific infection before the body ever comes in contact with it.
The immune system has two main branches, innate immunity and adaptive immunity. Innate immunity is a first line of defense that relies on cells and mechanisms that provide non-specific immunity. The more sophisticated adaptive immunity, which counts antibody-producing B cells as part of its arsenal, is thought to play a major role in the specific response to viral infections in mammals. However, adaptive immune responses require time to become fully mobilized.
However, recent mainstream medical research is starting to point to what many natural researchers and medical doctors skeptical about the ability of vaccines to prevent disease have been saying for many years; namely that immune system antibodies are not able to fight infection by themselves nor are they an accurate indication of the presence of immunity.
Indeed, in the Science Daily article quoted above and entitled, “Antibodies Are Not Required For Immunity Against Some Viruses,” the authors report on a study that “turns the well established theory that antibodies are required for antiviral immunity upside down and reveals that an unexpected partnership between the specific and non-specific divisions of the immune system is critical for fighting some types of viral infections.”
The study, entitled “B cell maintenance of subcapsular sinus macrophages protects against a fatal viral infection independent of adaptive immunity,” examined mice that had been infected with vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV). The results of the experiment were quite surprising to the scientists. As Dr. Ulrich H. von Andrian of Harvard Medical School stated, “Mice infected with vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) can suffer fatal invasion of the central nervous system even when they have a high concentration of anti-VSV antibodies in their system. This observation led us to revisit the contribution of adaptive immune responses to survival following VSV infection.”
The scientists also studied infected mice who had B cells but did not produce antibodies. Coming as a surprise to the researchers, “although the B cells themselves were essential, survival after VSV exposure did not require antibodies or other aspects of traditional adaptive immunity.” Co-author of the study, Dr. Matteo, stated that “We determined that the B cells produced a chemical needed to maintain innate immune cells called macrophages. The macrophages produced type I interferons, which were required to prevent fatal VSV invasion.”
The researchers concluded that antibodies are not required to survive infection and that the actual relationship they play to immunity needs to be investigated further. Dr. von Andrian stated,
Our findings contradict the current view that antibodies are absolutely required to survive infection with viruses like VSV, and establish an unexpected function for B cells as custodians of macrophages in antiviral immunity. It will be important to further dissect the role of antibodies and interferons in immunity against similar viruses that attack the nervous system, such as rabies, West Nile virus, and Encephalitis.
In short, while the science may still be out in regards to what role and significance the presence of antibodies hold, it is quite possible that antibodies play no role legitimate role whatsoever in preventing or fighting off infections.
Yet the von Andrian study is not the only examination of antibody testing that has yielded such surprising results. That is, surprising to the medical community which has relied on the presence of antibodies as an indicator of immunity for so long.
For instance, in a study entitled “What are the limits of adjuvanticity?” researchers stated a similar conclusion when it came to the relationship between the presence of antibodies and immunity. The researchers write, “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.” Indeed, it is important to note the acknowledgement of prior evidence of the lack of correlation between antibody presence and immunity.
Similarly, in a study published in Neurology entitled “Severe tetanus in immunized patients with high anti-tetanus titers,” it was also demonstrated that titers (the measurement of the levels of antibodies in the bloodstream) were poor indicators of immunity. As is evidenced by the title of the study, three patients were infected with tetanus after having been vaccinated and tested for the presence of high numbers anti-tetanus antibodies.
A study which produced similar findings actually prompted theBritish Medical Journal to produce a letter to practicing physicians stating “Shimoni et al illustrate a needed caution to clinicians: do not exclude a diagnosis of tetanus in a patient who has been fully immunized.” See the Shimoni article entitled, “Tetanus in an immunised patient.”
In addition to the above studies, however, many other MDs have warned about relying upon titers and antibody presence to assess immunity. For instance, Dr. F.M. Burnet writes in his article, “Measles As An Index Of Immunological Function,” published in The Lancet in 1968, that
One of the most disconcerting discoveries in clinical medicine was the finding that children with congenital agammaglobulinaemia, who could make no antibody and had only insignificant traces of immunoglobulin in circulation, contracted measles in normal fashion, showed the usual sequence of symptoms and signs, and were subsequently immune. No measles anti-body was detectable in their serum (the water part of blood minus clotting factors and cells).
A titer test does not and cannot measure immunity, because immunity to specific viruses is reliant not on antibodies, but on memory cells, which we have no way to measure. Memory cells are what prompt the immune system to create antibodies and dispatch them to an infection caused by the virus it “remembers.” Memory cells don’t need “reminders” in the form of re-vaccination to keep producing antibodies. (Science, 1999; “Immune system’s memory does not need reminders.”)
Immunologist John B. March has also stated clearly the lack of correlation between antibody levels and immunity. In an interview with Private Eye Magazine published on January 25, 2002, Dr. March, who develops animal vaccines, asserted that measuring antibody response is usually a very poor method of measuring immunity. He stated, “Particularly for viral diseases, the ‘cellular’ immune response is all important, and antibody levels and protection are totally unconnected.”
The concept of antibodies evolved from the research on toxins, such as diphtheria or tetanus toxins. Initially, antibodies were referred to as ‘anti-toxins’—some mysterious entities that were appearing in the blood of toxin-injected research animals that could neutralize the pathological effects of those toxins.
I would like to mention that based on clinical research described in the book by Dr. Thomas Levy, Curing the Incurable, ascorbic acid would fall into the definition of an
“anti-toxin,” as it is known to effectively curb the symptoms of most toxin-mediated as well as infectious diseases when given intravenously at very large doses.
But immunologic research on anti-toxins went into a very narrow direction and led to the idea that anti-toxic ability is restricted to a certain class of immunoglobulins, which we now call antibodies.
Immunologists then realized that such “antibodies” could be raised not only against toxins, but also against practically any substance that is presented to the immune system in a certain way. Some of the requirements for such “immunogenicity” (i.e.—ability to induce antibody production) are: 1) a substance must be of non-self origin; and 2) it must be accompanied by a “danger” signal, usually provided by an irritating or cell-damaging substance called adjuvant or by pathogen-associated pattern molecules of bacterial or viral origin.
The science of Immunology then got caught up in uncovering excruciatingly minute details of antibody production process, none of which needs to be of interest to non-immunologists. Yet, most of the 20th century in basic immunologic research was devoted to this endeavor, encouraged and rewarded by numerous Nobel prizes. This only reinforced the notion of the importance of antibodies, creating the antibody-centered paradigm in immunology.
Needless to say, the sole purpose of vaccines is to raise antibodies that bind the microorganisms and toxins, based on the antibody-centered paradigm of protection. But seeing so many reports of disease outbreaks occurring in properly vaccinated individuals, as well as reports of the disease in vaccinated individuals with documented high titers of antibodies only reinforces my conviction that an antibody-centered paradigm needs to be re-examined with great scrutiny.
With all of the evidence such as that compiled in this article, the underlying foundation of claims by the medical and pharmaceutical industries regarding vaccine effectiveness is clearly a shaky one. The evidence that vaccines work – without even taking into account the many studies which have demonstrated that they do not – is thus wholly unreliable even when demonstrating the “proof” claimed by the researchers.
In short, neither vaccination nor antibody response equals immunity.
 Science 12 November 1999: Vol. 286 no. 5443 p. 1267 DOI: 10.1126/science.286.5443.1267a
 Kaja Murali-Krishna, Lisa L. Lau, Suryaprakash Sambhara, Francois Lemonnier, John Altman, and Rafi AhmedScience 12 November 1999: 1377-1381.
 Susan L. Swain, Hui Hu, and Gail Huston Science 12 November 1999: 1381-1383.