passionless Droning about autism

8 Responses to "The Antigen Gambit Part 1 – Or – Can We Understand Immunology Through Addition?"

You’re right. This argument is very over-used and it’s clear that those who use it haven’t thought critically enough to realize the argument is flawed. When you try to point it out, the goal posts usually shift.

Oh, and where’s part II?

Hi cynic –

Thanks for visiting my blog.

I have a lot of material for part 2 in my head and on a variety of blog postings to answer the canard of vaccines as “background noise” against the “billions of pathogens” infants are exposed to everyday. It’s tiring though; I don’t know why I jumped in over there and then my habit is to not let go.

See you next time.

– pD

I know what you mean, I usually just lurk because I get too irritated to have any sort of discussion. I’ve been known to stoop to similar juvenile levels when called upon as well. You, on the other hand, do very well articulating the intricacies involved in early immune stimulation, and very likely resulting dysfunction. It stands in stark contrast to rabid provaxxers that are incapable of keeping their goal posts in place.

That place is a cesspool anyhow, I wish Gorski would find another pet topic upon which to bloviate. One can dream right?

Have a great weekend.

When you write part two, can you into part two the data and sources, to prove that the numbers of antigens in any vaccine as has been stated is correct in the first place?

How was the data for the old smallpox vaccine arrived at? There are various articles in the medical literature giving long lists of various contaminants – bacteria, fungi – a whole raft of ‘pathogens’ – is not each contaminating pathogen an antigen?

Same with the old whole cell pertussis vaccine.

Have a look at how diphtheria and tetanus vaccines are made today, and what comes through in the end product. Is it “just” a toxoid? is that the only antigen? Where’s the reference to show that?

Have a look at the MMR vaccine. Consider this:

http://www.ema.europa.eu/humandocs/PDFs/EPAR/proquad/062206en6.pdf

“Measles vaccine bulk is an unpurified product whose potency was measured through a biological assay for the active substance rather than through evaluation of integrity of physical form. Degradation products are neither identified nor quantified.”

If degradation products are neither identified nor quantified, then is number of antigens only 24?

Another example. If the rotarix vaccine has two porcine viruses in it, as contaminants, does that affect the antigen count? By how much?

What exactly has been counted as an antigen; what has been left out and why?

Do you know where that “evidence of proof” is?

Hi Hillary –

Thanks for stopping by my blog.

Unfortunately, I am afraid I have no idea how to answer most of your questions. Whether or not contaminants such as bacteria, fungi, or porcine viruses would “count” as antigens isn’t really meaningful to my mind. Technically speaking, I suppose they might, but concentration is likely meaningful in this context, and we have no way of achieving a measurement of that; another illustration of why just adding up the number of antigens in a vaccine is a good way to sound sciency and a bad way to determine anything of any utility.

If you would like to understand my concerns over the potential for vaccination to be having unintended consequences for our infants, check out my post on Early Life Immune Challenges. It isn’t about the number of antigens per se, but rather, a drastic change in the number, and likely potency, of the immune stimulations our infants are experiencing in the earliest months after birth.

– pD

Very interesting article. I like how you put this: “can vaccines modify the immune system in ways that we cannot predict?”

But I don’t think that ‘Vaccines Overload The Immune System’ is such a simplistic argument. When someone’s baby receives several vaccines at once and responds with very high fever, sometimes seizures, eczema, etc. it seems to me that the immune system has been overloaded. Yes, this is a simplistic description of something that is a very complex reaction, yet it is not just a gambit IMHO.

Thanks for writing in your own individual voice.

Hi Twyla –

This is a complicated issue that I need to try to address in a full blown posting; but from my perspective, the ‘Overload the Immune System’ is a gross over simplification, and indeed, one that ultimately does a great disservice to what I think you would like to accomplish.  We likely share some common ideas on the question of whether or not the vaccine schedule is affecting our children in unintended ways, but we may differ on some of the finer points, and the correct way in which this conversation should be approached.

I tried to explain my thoughts in a response to post @ AOA that the moderators let sit idle.  It reminded me of why I stopped bothering to try to post over there. 

I’d like to try to gather my thoughts on this in a way that takes more time than I have available now, but I wanted to thank you for stopping by my blog and providing your comments.

– pD

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 36 other followers

%d bloggers like this: