Vaccination & Moral Obligations

[Dr. Atiq @ BT]

Ethiopia and Famine stricken area’s where poverty is rife..................
Where children are dying because of a variety of disease, and where you KNOW that the problem always lies with poor sanitation, low immunity, infections and so on, and you also know homeopathic remedies are NOT available, then..........vaccinate?

[Shannon Nelson]

Or, how about using that money and network to improve sanitation and
nutrition (thereby raising immunity)? Vaccination protects again *at
best* only the targeted diseases. (And some dispute whether they even
protect against those.) But sanitation, nutrition and education, those
would protect against so much broader a range of threats. You can't
vaccinate against deficieny diseases, starvation, war, overpopulation,
drought...

[d_rona2000]

Respectfully, I do not understand the argument. Homeopathic remedies
cost less than vaccinations. The workers required to give vaccinations
are 'medically trained' whereas homeopathic remedies may be
administered by locals with minimal training.
If the argument is a matter of funding - homeopathy seems the more
economical and efficient from a distribution standpoint (and certainly
more effective).

If sufficient funding exists for vaccination - I would think you could
use the same monies to buy and distribute homeopathic remedies and have
funds left over for food.

Donna
-- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Atiq @ BT" wrote:
rife..................
you KNOW
infections

[Tanya Marquette]

my thoughts exactly. however, the issue is how to get homeopathy into those countries.
it is very exciting to see the projects in kenya and ghana, but there is so much more
energy needed for that continents poor, weak and sick.
btw, it was great to read of a UN report that acknowledged organic farming as being
able to feed all of africa, where the gmo farming is producing less and costing more.
it seems that homeopathy and organic farming, with the ability of people to collect and
save their seeds would go a long way to helping those people get on their feet. but,
again, how to get it in there.
tanya

[Sheri Nakken]

At 08:08 AM 12/17/2008, you wrote:
Vaccines do NOT give immunity EVER, they just cause further injury to
the Vital Force
So why do it?
Sheri
------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm & http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases Reality
next classes start December 3 & 4

[Sheri Nakken]

At 08:48 AM 12/17/2008, you wrote:
"Their proof" of immunity is increase in antibody
levels and antibodies after vaccination do not prove immunity, only exposure

Antibody titers do NOT = immunity

Much of what conventional studies use for 'proof'
a vaccine 'works' and 'gives immunity' are
increased antibody titres 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 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.

*************
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/22/nyregion/22CHAS.html
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
micro-organisms, 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 1940's 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 blood stream, 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 a
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 oher 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. "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. "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, a well-known scientist who
develops animal vaccines UK, "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) 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.""

a well - known and respected vaccine researcher and even he says the above
*******
From Meryl Dorey, Director of AVN on AVN email list.......
Hi Jamie,

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 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." (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 vaccinates work
because after vaccination 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 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 tetanii, 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 as has been shown in studies, 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?

Take care,
Meryl

*******

Antibodies are just ONE part of the immune system
response.........maybe antibodies meant something
after experiencing a disease as antibody titres
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 to
give lasting immunity or any immunity.
Sheri
**********
From Bronwyn Hancock, AVN list (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 chicken pox 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 team work 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.

Bronwyn
*************
"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."

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 poorer 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 aluminium 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 inacceptable
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 matter of discussions, 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]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract

***************
Antibody Theory
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/antibody.html

Quotes Disease theory

Antibodies used as measure of immunity:
"He said the 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 24/1/2002
"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 Gt. 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."—Glen Dettman
Ph.D, interviewed by Jay Patrick, and quoted in
"The Great American Deception," Let’s Live, December 1976, p. 57.

"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

"The antibody business: Millions of screening
tests are distributed, each blood sample needs to
be tested (4 millions 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."--By 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
fisaco in Switzerland has re-emphasised this
point. Three mumps vaccines—Rubini, Jeryl-Lynn
and Urabe (the one we withdrew because it caused
encepahlitis) 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 (immunogencity). 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."--Ted Koren DC

"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.33

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
agammaglobulinaemia--who consequently have no
capacity to produce antibody--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 benefit of actively produced antibody."34

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.35
(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 antibody serving only as an indicator that a
vaccine was given, or that a person was exposed
to a particular infectious agent.])

In the early 70's 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) which 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.36

As we proceed to the early 80s, 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 scientist writing
in the New England Journal of Medicine provide
evidence for the position that immunityto disease
is a broader bio-ecological question then the
factors of artificial immunization or serology.
They summarily concluded: "It is important to
stress that immunity (or its absence) cannot be
determined reliable on the basis of history of
the disease, history of immunization, or even
history of prior serologic determination.37

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 immunesystem? Is this too simple? too
ordinary? too undramatic? Or does it threaten too many vested interests . .
?" 38"---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 at all, 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 amount of antibody 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 worse 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 in vivo 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 III
tetanus 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. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-p...m=6&db=m&Dopt=b
------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm & http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases Reality
next classes start December 3 & 4

[Grace Dasilva-Hill]

Hi Tanya, and everyone,

just for information, there may be something happening in Ethiopia soon; but I feel rather
concerned about sharing here, because as it is known, either David Colquhoun or one of
his supporters is trolling this group, so I don't feel so comfortable here now. Best, Grace

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "tamarque@..." wrote:
countries.