About FLU Vaccines

[Wayward Son]

http://www.smartvax.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=66

Look at the chart....the US had three vaccines prior to 1988. After this point they add 7 all before the age of 1? I'm not saying these aren't good vaccines but I am suggesting that we should be looking at delaying some of these especially for those with poor mitochondrial function or poor liver function. Most if not all of these vaccines contain high heavy metal counts used a preservative.

I will never support safeminds by going to their site. Safeminds is a group of pathological liars whose books include "Evidence of Harm" and "The Age of Autism" which both were 100% convinced that vaccines caused autism. They were completely wrong, and based on lies. They have caused a lot of harm to a lot of vulnerable children.

The only part of the vaccines that I'm worried about is the heavy metals used for preservatives. They replaced mercury to try and prove it wasn't the trigger for all the issues around vaccines however what did they replace it with? Aluminum...another heavy metal. The people people affected by this have poor liver function and can't remove these heavy metals which wreaks havoc on various systems including brain function.

Aluminum has been used as an adjuvant in vaccines for 90 years. It didn't replace the preservative thiomersal, because the two have completely different purposes. People naturally consume far more aluminum then they could imagine in their normal everyday lives, which depending on the amount and the form it takes can be dangerous. 90 years of study have not found reasons to fear aluminum in vaccines. Of course, at the same time evidence showed that thiomersal was safe as well, but that didn't stop hysteria leading to its removal and making vaccines less safe in the process.

Can you cite this?

Here

Investigators who followed the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in six major pediatric hospitals in Australia found that ten percent of the flu patients had serious neurological complications, including death. One of the largest published series from the 2009 influenza pandemic, the data underscore the need for more routine influenza vaccines to reduce the risk of infection and the possibility for neurological symptoms, the study authors conclude.

They delayed the pandemic because they knew it was a moderate strain. Ultimately it became a risk management thing when they realized what it could do...not what it would do. I can appreciate the concern and certainly wouldn't want their job! I don't blame the WHO for calling it a pandemic even though it wasn't. They obviously had time to get an earful from those involved including the pharmaceutical reps. Interestingly enough, shortly after this event the laws changed on how doctors and pharmaceutical reps can do business. No more behind the scenes trips, dinners or other incentives! As for GSK...other could have done it but didn't. You don't think GSK had the most motive considering their share position?

1) It was a pandemic. One of the main reasons that the WHO delayed calling it that is because very few people actually understand what the terms endemic, pandemic and epidemic mean.

2) I am not sure what you mean when you say that others, besides GSK, could have done it but didn't. Many pharmaceutical companies created H1N1 vaccines.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Wayward Son

[Topaz]

I'm not saying not to get a flu or any other vaccine shot but most people have a poor immune system that leads them to the flu and other chronic sicknesses. Food is the best medicine but we eat poorly and the processes food aren't really good for our body even thoguh most of us crave all those carbs, fats and salts. Sugar is the worse for running down your immune system. BTW, how many boomers on here have had their boosters shots for mumps, chicken pox, polio, all the ones we had to get when we were children? I think you'll find not many.

[Accountability Now]

I will never support safeminds by going to their site. Safeminds is a group of pathological liars whose books include "Evidence of Harm" and "The Age of Autism" which both were 100% convinced that vaccines caused autism. They were completely wrong, and based on lies. They have caused a lot of harm to a lot of vulnerable children.

All I was doing was using that site to show that the number of vaccines have increased dramatically since the late 80s. If you don't beleive that chart then you can see the same info on the CDC website. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/vacc-timeline.htm The number of vaccines have increased and as such the rate at which kids get the vaccines increased dramatically.

Aluminum has been used as an adjuvant in vaccines for 90 years. It didn't replace the preservative thiomersal, because the two have completely different purposes. People naturally consume far more aluminum then they could imagine in their normal everyday lives, which depending on the amount and the form it takes can be dangerous. 90 years of study have not found reasons to fear aluminum in vaccines. Of course, at the same time evidence showed that thiomersal was safe as well, but that didn't stop hysteria leading to its removal and making vaccines less safe in the process.

You're right. Vaccines have used alumninum for 90 years and it was fine when kids were only getting a few shots here and there. After the 90s, they increased the number of vaccines and therefore the amount of alumninum directly injected (sometimes in a very short time). You are also right in that alumnium did not replace thiomersal as a presevative however the vaccines they used to replace the thiomersal ones contained high amounts of aluminum. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/09/21/could-this-be-the-most-dangerous-aspect-of-vaccines.aspx

The argument about injesting far more alumninum is misleading. We may in fact injest that much aluminum however only 1% of the ingested amount is absorbed into our bodies with the rest going out in the stool. However, 100% of the injected alumninum in vacciness directly enters the body and needs to be eliminated by the kidneys. If a child has properly functioning kidneys...then no problem. But for those who don't....big problem. http://vaccines-rvb.blogspot.ca/2008/09/difference-between-ingested-and_11.html In this post, you see the point about ingestion where Dr. Sears says "The toxic dose of aluminum for an adult is 350 mcg or .350 mg. A certain brand of OTC extra strength antacid tablets contains 160 mg of aluminum hydroxide in each tablet, and the directions say to take 2-4 tablets up to four times a day. So there has to be a difference between ingested and injected aluminum or else a single antacid tablet would be toxic"

Here

Investigators who followed the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in six major pediatric hospitals in Australia found that ten percent of the flu patients had serious neurological complications, including death. One of the largest published series from the 2009 influenza pandemic, the data underscore the need for more routine influenza vaccines to reduce the risk of infection and the possibility for neurological symptoms, the study authors conclude.

I couldn't access your link as you need a username/password however I trust your quote. Seems a little high. I believe they said 1 in 5 people were affected by H1N1. So with 35M people in Canada that would mean that 7M would have been affected and by your number 700K would have had neurological complications. I'm not sure but wouldn't we have heard about this? I need to see more on this before ceding to the 10%.

1) It was a pandemic. One of the main reasons that the WHO delayed calling it that is because very few people actually understand what the terms endemic, pandemic and epidemic mean.

2) I am not sure what you mean when you say that others, besides GSK, could have done it but didn't. Many pharmaceutical companies created H1N1 vaccines.

1. You're right. The officical definition of pandemic is widespread over a large area. The word pandemic carries the connotation of grave implications and considering only 18,000 people died compared to the normal 30,000 or so from normal flu has to put this 'pandemic' in context. Such seasonal flus carry the same criteria to be called a pandemic but they don't get called such because they are not as serious as what 'pandemic' should infer.

2. GSK was the major supplier that I was aware of here in Canada. Not sure about worldwide though. http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2009/08/06/swine-flu-vaccine.html

[Wayward Son]

Neither Sears or Mercola are reliable sources.

Mercola is an extreme nutcase who will promote anything as long as it has no evidence to support that it works. He has gone as far as writing an article back in 2009 promoting the idea that people can get all the sustenance that they need through staring at the sun. He recognizes that his supporters are so gullible and stupid they won't question him even then.

Sears is not as extreme, but his ideas, and his alternative vaccine schedule, have very little support from mainstream medical science, or medical governing bodies for a reason.

I have a very busy week, so while I would generally like to, I see no point in spending it knocking down the unscientific claims of unethical medical practitioners who make a lot of money off telling anti-science parents what they want to hear. Just as I see no point in tackling Topaz's claims that eating good food will protect you from viruses, and that sugar will lower immune system function. While it is true, significant malnutrition will hamper some components of immune response, such deficiencies are very rare in the first world. And while it is true that there was a study in the 1970s that showed a link between sugar consumption and weakened immune response, that study, despite still being promoted by all the cranks, has not been supported by subsequent studies with better methodologies. The immune system simply does not function the way that most people intuitively feel it should. Cranks everywhere take advantage of that gap between reality and desire.

[Accountability Now]

Neither Sears or Mercola are reliable sources.

Mercola is an extreme nutcase who will promote anything as long as it has no evidence to support that it works. He has gone as far as writing an article back in 2009 promoting the idea that people can get all the sustenance that they need through staring at the sun. He recognizes that his supporters are so gullible and stupid they won't question him even then.

Sears is not as extreme, but his ideas, and his alternative vaccine schedule, have very little support from mainstream medical science, or medical governing bodies for a reason.

Mercola and Sears are just some of the outspoken doctors on this matter. There are a growing number of researchers and physicians that can have done great research on this matter but of course until you are considered a nut job until you do the double blind placebo study that western medicine says you have to have. I understand the need for it but you can't discount common sense or anecodotal evidence either. I personally know people who after vaccines have lost feeling in their arms and the treatment....chelation. I can agree that some of these guys (Mercola included) can be a bit overboard but it somewhat balances out the rest of mainstream medicine who doesn't even look at this topic. The fact is there are metals in these things and we know that metals are toxins. If we turn a blind eye to this then what does that say about our ability to improve the system.

I have a very busy week, so while I would generally like to, I see no point in spending it knocking down the unscientific claims of unethical medical practitioners who make a lot of money off telling anti-science parents what they want to hear.

Telling parents what they want to hear? You most likely are aware of the DAN doctors who are main stream doctors and have devoted their lives to this. But are you familiar with the fact that the majority of DAN doctors are parents themselves who have now devoted their lives and research to this stuff after seeing their loved ones affected by vaccines and more imporatnly by their recovery through non-western based protocols. I personally know this too. My nephew was diagnosed with Austism and underwent this 'radical' treatment supported by anti-science which involved chelation. Main stream doctors stated that he would most likely live in a group home and one year after an intense biomedical treatement he was deemed neurotypical. Is our case an exception? Maybe...but we are seeing more and more expections as the years go on especially consideirng the number of autoimmune disorders (autism, allergies, ADD, etc) are all increasing at drastic rates. We are also seeing more cases being solved or aided by biomedical intervention.

The fear mongering from main stream medicine won't even allow for the thought of this because it risks people from not getting vaccines which I agree is not a good thing. The fact is that vaccines are good for the general population and the vast majority of kids can handle the heavy metals. But we need to do more reseach to find out who is ok to get these vaccines before just sticking a bunch of needles in these kids. Addressing this fact straight up will allow people to address their concerns and for us to get the majority of the people vaccinated. The others who don't have the ability to take the normal schedule will have to delay vaccines or look at other means.

The immune system simply does not function the way that most people intuitively feel it should. Cranks everywhere take advantage of that gap between reality and desire.

I know you have a busy week so sometime when you are not so busy, I would like to know what your interpretation of the immune system is. The doctors I have followed claim the immune system to be a gut based system that is affected by bacteria (good and bad), nutrition, and toxins arriving in the system. These guys understand the multiple related systems that are tied into the immune system including liver function, digestion and sleep. Does this view differ from what you feel is correct? To be honest I have found their view of the immune system to be quite developed.

I love how anyone who offers a different opinion than what is stated by western medicine is quickly labeled a crank. Those cranks doing accupuncture for thousands of years were always laughed at. It is now being offered as treatment plans for various ailments by western medicine now. Or how about those cranks that that thought bacteria was the cause of ulcers and not stress? The reality is that western medicine should NEVER feel comforatable in their ways. They should always be willing to listen and debate the issues and not hide behind statements like cranks and quacks. If the facts line up...then you have nothing to worry about.

[Wilber]

I had measles, mumps and chicken pox when I was a kid and known several others who had polio, Most people my age had one or more when they were children and I would much rather have been vaccinated against them than having to endure them.. Having had chicken pox also puts one at risk of shingles later in life. A very debilitating and potentially dangerous disease with side effects that can include blindness. A fellow airman of mine lost his medical from complications due to shingles that affected his eyes. It prematurely ended his career. According to my doctor, the shingles vaccine is only about 50% effective, much lower than the chicken pox vaccine. Any parent who puts their child at risk of those diseases because they won't get them vaccinated is a negligent fool IMO.

[GostHacked]

One thing to note. The difference between vaccinations and immunizations.

[Accountability Now]

I had measles, mumps and chicken pox when I was a kid and known several others who had polio, Most people my age had one or more when they were children and I would much rather have been vaccinated against them than having to endure them.. Having had chicken pox also puts one at risk of shingles later in life. A very debilitating and potentially dangerous disease with side effects that can include blindness. A fellow airman of mine lost his medical from complications due to shingles that affected his eyes. It prematurely ended his career. According to my doctor, the shingles vaccine is only about 50% effective, much lower than the chicken pox vaccine. Any parent who puts their child at risk of those diseases because they won't get them vaccinated is a negligent fool IMO.

I agree. I'm not talking about avoiding the vaccines...I'm talking about delaying them IF AND ONLY IF you are proven to have issues with your liver of kidneys. Its kind of like we thought penacillan was the wonder drug for all...until we found out that some were allergic to it.

[Wilber]

I agree. I'm not talking about avoiding the vaccines...I'm talking about delaying them IF AND ONLY IF you are proven to have issues with your liver of kidneys. Its kind of like we thought penacillan was the wonder drug for all...until we found out that some were allergic to it.

Might not be a bad idea to have a checkup and some blood work done beforehand. The whole idea behind vaccines is to be proactive so getting checked out first could be a part of that. If you do have issues, then you could make an informed decision as to which is the lesser of two evils and go from there.

[Accountability Now]

Might not be a bad idea to have a checkup and some blood work done beforehand. The whole idea behind vaccines is to be proactive so getting checked out first could be a part of that. If you do have issues, then you could make an informed decision as to which is the lesser of two evils and go from there.

Agreed!

[segnosaur]

Its nice to see Wayward Son bringing some science into the discussion here. (I'd normally do that myself, but I don't always have the time.)

Re: Using 'Safemeds' as a reference...

All I was doing was using that site to show that the number of vaccines have increased dramatically since the late 80s.

The problem is, nobody is disputing that the number of vaccines given has increased.

Your earlier post said that they had taken things "too far". Wayward Son was looking for actual evidence that there's actually been harm, not just vague feelings that "we're doing more and I think its risky".

You are also right in that alumnium did not replace thiomersal as a presevative however the vaccines they used to replace the thiomersal ones contained high amounts of aluminum.

Please define "High Amount" of aluminum, and show that that amount of Aluminum is actually causing harm.

1. You're right. The officical definition of pandemic is widespread over a large area. The word pandemic carries the connotation of grave implications and considering only 18,000 people died compared to the normal 30,000 or so from normal flu has to put this 'pandemic' in context. Such seasonal flus carry the same criteria to be called a pandemic but they don't get called such because they are not as serious as what 'pandemic' should infer.

A couple of things to keep in mind:

- From what I understand, the reason that previous cases of Seasonal flus weren't labeled "pandemics" is because the WHO actually changed its definition for the term a couple of years ago. Had they been using the "new" definition, some of those other outbreaks would likewise be labelled a "pandemic".

- Yes, you are right in that fewer people died as a result of H1N1. However, H1N1 was a bit different than previous cases of the flu... whereas in the past influenza primarily affected the elderly, H1N1 tended to affect children more. Now, I know you can't really put a "price" on a life. However, most people would consider it somehow sadder when (for example) a baby dies, compared to a senior citizen who has already lived a full, rich life.

Pharmaceuticals is after all a multi billion dollar industry.

When you're talking about drug and vaccine manufacturers, you are talking about multi-billion dollar industries. However, those figures have to be put into context. Vaccines actually make up a fairly small part of drug company sales ($6 billion/year for vaccines, $340 billion/year for drugs, according to the last figures I've seen.)

Furthermore, the influenza vaccine has a lot of problems from an economics point of view... companies don't know how popular vaccinations will be in any given year, and unlike many drugs/vaccines, the changes in virus frequencies mean this year's vaccine will be worthless next year. (In the past companies have ended up throwing out huge amounts of vaccine at the end of the flu season.)

Things were so bad at one point that there was only 2 manufacturers for the influenza vaccine in the middle of the last decade. Now, things have changes in the past couple of years... there are a few more manufacturers, etc. Still, its not exactly the cash cow that many people think.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38776-2004Oct16.html

Mercola and Sears are just some of the outspoken doctors on this matter. There are a growing number of researchers and physicians that can have done great research on this matter...

Please, give us some of these doctors that have done 'great research'... More importantly, give me some of the published papers that they've done on the subject.

but of course until you are considered a nut job until you do the double blind placebo study that western medicine says you have to have. I understand the need for it but you can't discount common sense or anecodotal evidence either.

Actually, yes you can discount "anecdotal evidence".

The human body is complex. Our experiences are complex. Whether we feel better because drugs/vaccines helped us or because of "dumb luck" can only be determined by actually looking at a proper double blind study.

Do you think smoking is dangerous? What if I told you that the oldest Canadian who ever lived was a smoker? Does that mean smoking is actually safe, or could it be that this individual also had other health factors that minimized the impact of smoking?

I personally know people who after vaccines have lost feeling in their arms...

This reminds me of a 'Family Guy' quote...

A guy at work bought a car out of the paper once. Ten years later, BAM. Herpes. - Peter Griffin

Assuming you're not just B.S.ing...

Were the vaccines the only think they had taken in the past (for example) months? No food? No drinks? Did they sit inside an empty room, not going outside, not going to work, not doing anything that might have exposed them to outside contamanents?

I can agree that some of these guys (Mercola included) can be a bit overboard but it somewhat balances out the rest of mainstream medicine who doesn't even look at this topic.

Keep in mind that in most cases "mainstream medicine" has looked into these topics. And there results tend to that there's little or no risk.

Secondly, keep in mind that not everything deserves "balance". If I tell you that humans evolved over millions of years from other life forms, and you tell me that humans were placed here by aliens, the fact that you're providing an "alternative viewpoint" doesn't necessarily mean your viewpoint is worth discussing (especially in a scientific forum). Similarly, if the results of dozens of studies and the opinion of hundreds of epidemiologists is that vaccines are safe/effective, that doesn't mean that an uninformed viewpoint of "vaccine dangers" from someone trying to sell "natural cures" is worth discussing either.

[segnosaur]

That same peer review that keeps telling us the earth is warming, that dietary fat causes heart disease, that vioxx was safe, etc, etc??? Right, you close your eyes like a lemming and go with that.

Actually, after being taken off the market in disgrace, it turns out that Vioxx might have actually been given a bad rap.

Yes, something like ~140k people ended up having heart problems. But guess what? The drug was actually prescribed more than 84 million times (so less than 0.1% had the problematic side effects). In fact, the health risks are about on the same level as Ibuprofin or Aspirin.

In fact, both the American and Canadian governments have actually asked the maker of the drug to bring it back on market, since for many people it was the only drug that was able to stop their crippling pain and give them something resembling a normal life.

http://www.cracked.com/article_20048_5-big-news-stories-that-left-out-most-important-part.html

[Accountability Now]

Your earlier post said that they had taken things "too far". Wayward Son was looking for actual evidence that there's actually been harm, not just vague feelings that "we're doing more and I think its risky".

I see what you are saying. He did ask if if this was just a hunch. Its definitely not just me coming up with this idea but other doctors who are far more informed that I who I choose to follow. Having said that...no I don't have any proof of the increased vaccination schedule causing harm. Just logic suggesting that increasing the amount of heavy metals into the blood MAY cause some issues.

Please define "High Amount" of aluminum, and show that that amount of Aluminum is actually causing harm.

It is well documented that aluminum is a toxin and causes bone and brain diseases. As per the CDC (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=190&tid=34)

"Some people with kidney disease store a lot of aluminum in their bodies and

sometimes develop bone or brain diseases which may be caused by the excess

aluminum. Some studies show that people exposed to high levels of aluminum may

develop Alzheimer's disease, but other studies have not found this to be true.

We do not know for certain whether aluminum causes Alzheimer's disease."

The people I have seen discussing the high values are not the ones that you or Wayward Son would probably listen to anyway but here is their take on aluninum in vaccines (http://thinktwice.com/aluminum.pdf)

Having said this, I am not saying the amount of alumnium is unsafe for the majority of people. Rather I am saying there is a small subset of people who can't handle the high dose of alumnium directly injected into their blood. Even the CDC quote above states that some people can't eliminate aluminum efficiently.

When you're talking about drug and vaccine manufacturers, you are talking about multi-billion dollar industries. However, those figures have to be put into context. Vaccines actually make up a fairly small part of drug company sales ($6 billion/year for vaccines, $340 billion/year for drugs, according to the last figures I've seen.)

$6 billion per year still makes it a multi billion dollar industry. No?

Please, give us some of these doctors that have done 'great research'... More importantly, give me some of the published papers that they've done on the subject.

As I said above, many of the Dan doctors are researching the effects of environmental toxins. Here is an example:

A Micro device for Immune Profiling of Children with Autism.

In connection with the requirement to predict how a given child will react to vaccination, there is an urgent need to develop technologies that enable multiplexed analysis of blood based on a small input of blood to ensure the compliance of small children and families. The project will design a miniature blood analysis system to distinguish early in life the immune patterns that could predict immune function and response to exogenous antigens, such as vaccines, using a small sample volume of whole blood. A microarray will be developed that is comprised of antibodies that will be used to capture and enumerate CD4 and CD8 T-cells, quantify T-cell secreted cytokines, and detect serum immunoglobulins. A miniature device will be designed that will allow researchers to perform differential multiparametric blood analysis on samples obtained from subjects compared to typically developing controls. Overall, the goal is to characterize and validate a novel technology for immune profiling of children with autism and healthy controls. In the future, the technology may be used prior to vaccination to determine immune competence of infants, and if necessary, to alter vaccination protocols.

(PI: Alexander Revzin, Ph.D. UC Davis Department of Biomedical Engineering. Davis, CA.)

Actually, yes you can discount "anecdotal evidence".

The human body is complex. Our experiences are complex. Whether we feel better because drugs/vaccines helped us or because of "dumb luck" can only be determined by actually looking at a proper double blind study.

Do you think smoking is dangerous? What if I told you that the oldest Canadian who ever lived was a smoker? Does that mean smoking is actually safe, or could it be that this individual also had other health factors that minimized the impact of smoking?

You can NOT discount "acute" anecdotal evidence like what I described above. The type where the person takes a needle and they have an immediate reaction. The example I gave above about the person losing feeling in their arm after the vaccine....that happend the SAME day. Not a week, month or year later. You can NOT discount that something went wrong. There are other personal accounts of incidents where neurotypical kids get a vaccine and the next day don't speak. Must have been something they ate...right? Make sure Mom doesn't make that sandwich again!

What you are trying to do with your 'smoking' example is show that you can't accept chronic cases for anectodal evidence. I agree with that and I try to avoid those stories when making judgements.

This reminds me of a 'Family Guy' quote...

A guy at work bought a car out of the paper once. Ten years later, BAM. Herpes. - Peter Griffin

Assuming you're not just B.S.ing...

How do I argue with Family Guy....I'm a big fan. However, no BS on my end. I don't need to convince you (or me) of anything.

Keep in mind that in most cases "mainstream medicine" has looked into these topics. And there results tend to that there's little or no risk.

Secondly, keep in mind that not everything deserves "balance". If I tell you that humans evolved over millions of years from other life forms, and you tell me that humans were placed here by aliens, the fact that you're providing an "alternative viewpoint" doesn't necessarily mean your viewpoint is worth discussing (especially in a scientific forum). Similarly, if the results of dozens of studies and the opinion of hundreds of epidemiologists is that vaccines are safe/effective, that doesn't mean that an uninformed viewpoint of "vaccine dangers" from someone trying to sell "natural cures" is worth discussing either.

You have clearly missed my entire point. I am NOT antivaccines. I am not anti western medicine. I am saying there is a subset of children who have issues with removing toxins from their bodies and that more work needs to be done to decipher which kids these are BEFORE we stick a bunch of needles in them. Once we single these kids out then we can develop a better plan to vaccinate either with non-metal based vaccines (if available) or vaccinate with the normal ones and provide chelation treatment to assist in metal removal. (Yes...chelation...that is done in western medicine using drugs. Oh my!) I am not looking at natural cures as I am fully aware of what vaccines and science have done for mankinds. I am suggesting that we use the science that we have to look deeper and make things better.

Its amazing how this issue polarizes this as "us" versus "them". Why can't people accept that science can always do better and look at better ways and challenge themselves. Or do you think its best to keep our heads in the sand and accept these issues as collateral damage? I will see your Family guy quote and raise you with a Simpons quote:

"Actually, I've been working on a plan. During the exam, I'll hide under some coats, and hope that somehow everything will work out." Homer Simpson

[bush_cheney2004]

Hey, back in the day they would show us people "living" in Iron Lungs just to quell any protests about getting polio vaccines. I always wondered how those kids would pick their noses.

[Wayward Son]

I know you have a busy week so sometime when you are not so busy, I would like to know what your interpretation of the immune system is. The doctors I have followed claim the immune system to be a gut based system that is affected by bacteria (good and bad), nutrition, and toxins arriving in the system. These guys understand the multiple related systems that are tied into the immune system including liver function, digestion and sleep. Does this view differ from what you feel is correct? To be honest I have found their view of the immune system to be quite developed.

.

A gut based system? I can't really give you my "interpretation" of the immune system on a forum - the topic is way too complex for that. My understanding of the immune system corresponds with Janeway's textbook "Immunobiology" because that is the standard, and while the textbook will be altered every couple years by new knowledge accumulated in the scientific literature, which I don't have time to follow, and while I assume that my copy of Janeway is already an edition or two out of date, it would be extremely arrogant for me to hold views on the immune system that contradict or do not conform with the general consensus of the experts in the field. In a short sentence or two, the immune system is the very complex system which aims to maintain our genetic integrity from the invasion of foreign genetic code. It reacts against foreign substances (it also reacts against altered self substances - which is also considered foreign genetic code, and sometimes it mistakenly considers part of the unaltered self to be foreign). It protects the whole body. So no, while the guy makes up a part, it is not a gut based system.

I have worked both as a front-line health care worker, and subsequently in the sciences. My experiences as a front-line health care worker was that others expected that I was knowledgeable about things like the immune system, and that simply was not the case. However, some others felt that they did have the background to have a certain amount of authority on the topic, while they knew as little as I did (and often held opinions on the immune system that were flat out incorrect) - or in other words, knowing just enough to be dangerous, and many others would elevate front-line health care workers to a position of authority on this scientific field without understanding that the health care worker barely knew the most basic information. An argument which I hear from time to time goes along the lines of "I know a nurse who doesn't vaccinate her children, and she clearly knows what she is talking about." It is extremely unlikely that she does.

Compared to other health care workers, medical doctors are the ones who have been taught about the basic sciences, but even then it is minimal and not more than what is required for the clinical side. There is simply no time for more, and the return on the investment for teaching them more basic sciences in terms of patient outcomes would be low at best. I know of no medical school that has a prerequisite of an immunology course. Most require a year of biology, but some have no science prerequisites at all. The first two years of medical school are generally in the classroom, and they

concentrate on basic sciences geared towards the clinical side. They are also teaching a lot of non-science material in there as well. There is simply no time to teach more than the basics of the basic sciences, and diagnosing and treating illness does not require detailed knowledge of the sciences. For instance probably every doctor out there can diagnose and treat most insect related bites and diseases, yet almost none of them would have ever opened a textbook on medical entomology. The few cases that are really unusual get sent to a specialist, but even then the specialist may have consult an entomologist at a university. In the United States they concentrate more on the basic sciences than we do in Canada, and even there the test after second year medical school (USMLE step 1) is where basic sciences will be tested, and it is much more geared towards to the clinical side. The popular set of study books for the USMLE step 1 called First Aid for the Basic Sciences General Principles includes 20 pages on principles of immunology. It is fairly basic stuff. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, as otherwise medical school would be 20 years long. By flipping through the pages I noticed that it has 4 paragraphs on the complement system, so that is what I will use as a point of reference, especially as the complement system is one of the first things that any immunology textbook will deal with.

The field of medicine where knowledge of the immune system is most important is internal medicine. Those are the people that are considered to be "the brains" and the amount of knowledge they need to possess is staggering. "The book" for internal medicine is Harrison's and more basic sciences knowledge is needed, but even then content on the immune system runs less than 200 pages and concentrates highly on the clinical side. There are 4 paragraphs on the complement system, but they are more dense than the USMLE book.

Of course if the IM has specialized in something like Infectious Diseases then he/she may have read a text like Essential Clinical Immunology which deals with the complement system over 3 pages (15 - 17). That book is still highly clinical based, and deals mostly with immunological concepts relevant for disease states.

However, coverage of the basic sciences in that text is still minimal compared to the undergraduate/graduate immunology textbook Immunobiology by Janeway, and even that just charts the course for immunology graduate students who use it as a jumping off point to hit the journal articles and specialize on a specific aspect of the immune system. Yes, there are some MD/PhD's like Offit who have spent their career studying immunology related issues. But Sears is not one of them.

Medical doctors understand the diagnosis and treatment of various cancers. But that doesn't mean that they have read Weinberg's Biology of Cancer. They could of course, and they would pick up the material quickly, but again, the time vs reward is low. They need to have some knowledge of cells, molecular biology and other basic sciences, but no one expects them to have read Albert's Molecular Biology of the Cell, which alone would take a couple years of dedicated study to master, or Watson's Molecular Biology of the Gene, Gilbert's Developmental Biology, Brock's Biology of Microorganisms etc (while on the other hand, almost no one on the science side will have read Robbins Pathologic Basis of Disease, but MDs will know much of that material cold). I have not read most of those texts either (but I have studied parts of all of them), which is all the more reason why I defer to those who actually are experts on the topic. People like Sears and Mercola don't. When they advocate a different paths based on their worldview and hunches, instead of accumulated scientific knowledge, it is nothing but arrogance and can be dangerous. When they advocate novel treatments given outside of legitimate clinical trials with ethical standards, they are being abusive towards those patients. It would be an outrage if a drug company did so, and it is no different when those far outside the mainstream do so. They experiment on a vulnerable sector of the population for their own gain, and they take advantage of uninformed, desperate parents (although, even saying they experiment is probably too kind. At least if their patients were participating in trials something could be gained).

Edited March 13, 2013 by Wayward Son

[Bonam]

A gut based system? I can't really give you my "interpretation" of the immune system on a forum - the topic is way too complex for that. My understanding of the immune system corresponds with Janeway's textbook "Immunobiology" because that is the standard, and while the textbook will be altered every couple years by new knowledge accumulated in the scientific literature, which I don't have time to follow, and while I assume that my copy of Janeway is already an edition or two out of date, it would be extremely arrogant for me to hold views on the immune system that contradict or do not conform with the general consensus of the experts in the field. In a short sentence or two, the immune system is the very complex system which aims to maintain our genetic integrity from the invasion of foreign genetic code. It reacts against foreign substances (it also reacts against altered self substances - which is also considered foreign genetic code, and sometimes it mistakenly considers part of the unaltered self to be foreign). It protects the whole body. So no, while the guy makes up a part, it is not a gut based system.

...

Very nice post Wayward Son. It definitely is important to understand the specific extent and scope of someone's expertise.

In regards to your brief description of the immune system here, you imply that it protects only against changes to "genetic integrity" from foreign genetic code. What do you mean by this? Because clearly the immune system also acts against bacteria that do not modify, nor have any capability to modify, your genetic code. In fact, as far as I am aware, viruses that can rewrite your genetic information are typically some of the most difficult for the immune system to fight off.

[Wayward Son]

Very nice post Wayward Son. It definitely is important to understand the specific extent and scope of someone's expertise.

In regards to your brief description of the immune system here, you imply that it protects only against changes to "genetic integrity" from foreign genetic code. What do you mean by this? Because clearly the immune system also acts against bacteria that do not modify, nor have any capability to modify, your genetic code. In fact, as far as I am aware, viruses that can rewrite your genetic information are typically some of the most difficult for the immune system to fight off.

Yeah, in trying to brief I wasn't clear. What I mean is that the immune system has to be able to tell the difference between cells, proteins etc that are self (meaning your own genetic code or the genetic code of your natural bacteria flora) and cells, proteins, antigens etc that are not-self. It keeps genetic integrity of ridding the body of anything that is non-self. That includes both viruses that can alter our genetic code along with bacteria and viruses that cannot. The immune system will have no idea whether the non-self it detected is dangerous, or has the ability to alter our own genetic code - just that it is non-self and therefore it has to go. That includes our own cells that have mutated (although it is imperfect at this) and which the immune system now classifies as non-self, which is why I classified it as maintaining genetic integrity - the immune system sees things as either self or non-self. (Food, of course, is non-self, but the digestive system alters it before it comes in contact with the immune system. At least normally. Most food allergies are not actually immune system reactions, but instead are various non-IgE processes - such as lacking the enzyme to digest lactose).

Edited March 13, 2013 by Wayward Son

[Pliny]

(Food, of course, is non-self, but the digestive system alters it before it comes in contact with the immune system. At least normally. Most food allergies are not actually immune system reactions, but instead are various non-IgE processes - such as lacking the enzyme to digest lactose).

I think better wording here is necessary, as an allergy is an immune system reaction, ergo all food allergies are immune

system reactions. You are only trying to differentiate between food intolerance and food allergies.

It would have been better to say, "Most reactions to food are not allergies but are food intolerances..." than to say,

"Most food allergies are not actually immune system reactions...."

I would also not accept the statement, "Food, of course, is non-self, but the digestive system alters it before it comes in contact with the immune system." Although you qualify that with, "At least normally." it is hard to tell what you

mean by that. But it would stand to reason that all food comes into contact with the immune system when ingested or else the body would not immediately react to any food, and we know it does.

The thread has been interesting to read especially the posts of Accountability Now and yourself. I would identify more

with Accountability Now as far as an overall view of the discussion.

[Accountability Now]

First off I would like to thank you for your well written and informative post. It is clear that you have a lot of experience and insight on this topic. I appreciate you taking the time to post it. I do have a few questions and comments:

So no, while the guy makes up a part, it is not a gut based system.

I may have been a bit misleading in saying its a gut based system when I should have said 'largely' a gut based system. I am not a researcher myself but from the doctors I have followed on this we find quotes like the following:

"Intestinal microbiota, or gut flora, and the gut barrier determine gut health. Inside the gut are about 100 trillion live microorganisms that promote normal GI function, protect the body from infection, and regulate metabolism and the mucosal immune system. In fact, they comprise more than 75% of the immune system" http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/060112p58.shtml

I know about 5 years ago when I first told my GP about leaky gut and the possibiltiy of a compromised immune system, he laughed and told me he had never heard anything about it. Last month, he unknowingly contradicted himself by telling me all about leaky gut!! I think its like you said, none of the day to day doctors are up to speed and involved in the research. Most doctors/nurses have a full work load just getting through their daily patients. I do feel that the ties to the gut are new and developing faster than before which is why we see all these allergen alternatives.

People like Sears and Mercola don't. When they advocate a different paths based on their worldview and hunches, instead of accumulated scientific knowledge, it is nothing but arrogance and can be dangerous. When they advocate novel treatments given outside of legitimate clinical trials with ethical standards, they are being abusive towards those patients.

I agree that Sears and Mercola are not researchers, rather they are spokesmen for a subset of medical researchers who have a hypothesis that is yet to be proven. It doesn't mean its false though. I believe some (not all) of the hypotheses presented are being starting to be researched more and more. In particular I follow the work being done with autism related to gastrointestinal issues and their relation to immune systems. Again...years ago anyone (including Sears and Mercola) suggesting things like leaky gut were considered to be cranks. Now mainstream medicine is all over it especially looking a lot closer at IG(G) allergies and their effects on chronic symptoms. Are there cranks out there? Absolutely. But not all people that have an idea should be considered cranks just because it doesn't coincide with western medicine. Furthermore, a scientific fact is an idea that has been proven over and over again until we accept it as fact. There are no absolute truths....just what we as humans accpet to be true. As such its ok to think outside the box to challenge our beleif in what we consider to be fact.

The reality is that we have so many things like autism, allergies and other autoimmune diseases that are on a drastic rise and there are no answers. Until we have answers, we must keep asking questions! For years our conventional system was looking at these as just neurological or just gastrointestinal or just limited to whatever part the symptom is from. However, the new approach takes into account the complexity of the muliple systems and their affects on each other. (ie the immune system being largely gut based).

Anyway...thanks again for your insight. It was a good read and appreciated on my end.

[Accountability Now]

At least normally. Most food allergies are not actually immune system reactions, but instead are various non-IgE processes - such as lacking the enzyme to digest lactose).

If you have time....can you comment on why you think we have so many new allergic reations compared to 50 years ago? Take the IG(E) reaction to peanuts for example. When i was growing up there were no kids and now today we can't even send PB sandwiches to school anymore. What do you think has caused this change?

[GostHacked]

If you have time....can you comment on why you think we have so many new allergic reations compared to 50 years ago? Take the IG(E) reaction to peanuts for example. When i was growing up there were no kids and now today we can't even send PB sandwiches to school anymore. What do you think has caused this change?

Some cases it is blamed on the vaccines (way more vaccines these days than 50 years ago) or in other cases, it's due to the GMO foods we are consuming. Might be a combination of the two. Throw in environmental degradation through toxic pollution as well I think.

I personally think the vaccines have a role in these types of things as they might be doing our immune system more harm than good in the long run. Not sure if that will result in more allergies.

[Accountability Now]

Some cases it is blamed on the vaccines (way more vaccines these days than 50 years ago) or in other cases, it's due to the GMO foods we are consuming. Might be a combination of the two. Throw in environmental degradation through toxic pollution as well I think.

I personally think the vaccines have a role in these types of things as they might be doing our immune system more harm than good in the long run. Not sure if that will result in more allergies.

Something in our genetic code has changed too I think. Its like they say, genetics loads the gun and environmental toxins pull the trigger.

[Accountability Now]

I just read this article today about how the recent flu vaccine was relatively ineffective against the flu this year in Canada suggesting that the actual vaccine was a mismatch to what was out there. Further proof that we need to dig deeper to find out more about the viruses and the so called vaccines before we start pumping a ton of money into something that isn't working.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/flu-vaccine-offered-only-modest-protection-in-2012-13-study-1.1745808

Tests showed the reference virus selected by the WHO would have offered good protection against the viruses they were collecting from sick Canadians. But the same tests showed the H3N2 component in the vaccine didn't mount that protection.

Skowronski described the realization that the problem related to an issue in production as an "Aha moment."

"We were going down the wrong path," she said.

"It wasn't antigenic drift" -- the term used to describe small changes in circulating viruses. "It was vaccine mutation."

Most of the world's flu vaccine supply is produced using a system where influenza viruses are grown in hen's eggs. In the process, the viruses have to adapt -- acquire some mutational changes -- to grow in eggs.

It's been known for decades that that process has the potential to introduce mutations that weaken the protection that vaccine virus can offer. But what some people felt was a theoretical problem is actually a current challenge with the H3N2 component of flu vaccine.

She suggested more work needs to be done to try to figure out if the adaptation process can be better controlled and to determine which mutations are likely to lead to lower vaccine effectiveness.

And if the process can't be improved?

"If we can't control that ultimately, well then we need to be advocating for a different approach than this egg-based manufacturing we've had since the 1940s," she said.

Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Diseases Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, has been a leading advocate for an overhaul of flu vaccine production approaches. He agreed that findings like these underscore the need for what he calls "21st century flu vaccines."

He praised Skowronski's paper, saying it adds to the understanding of how flu vaccines work -- or don't.

[Mighty AC]

If you have time....can you comment on why you think we have so many new allergic reations compared to 50 years ago? Take the IG(E) reaction to peanuts for example. When i was growing up there were no kids and now today we can't even send PB sandwiches to school anymore. What do you think has caused this change?

I think there may be something to the hygiene hypothesis as well as increased chemical exposure. " In short, our "developed" lifestyles have eliminated the natural variation in the types and quantity of germs our immune systems needs for it to develop into a less allergic, better regulated state of being." - Why are allergies increasing

The hypothesis suggests that now widely used practice of delaying the introduction of common food allergens, like peanuts and shellfish, to toddlers may actually create more food allergies.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Mighty AC

[Accountability Now]

The hypothesis suggests that now widely used practice of delaying the introduction of common food allergens, like peanuts and shellfish, to toddlers may actually create more food allergies.

Yes....I just heard on the radio the other day that researchers are really pushing for the introduction to such allergens much sooner than before. Interesting.

Looking at your link I noticed the see-saw which differentiated the developed countries from western countries. It explains that the reason for such allergies could be a result of high antibotic usage but then also claims that westerners have stable micro-intestinal flora. Maybe I'm misreading that but I think that that its our poor intestinal flora that is causing some of these reactions....which again the poor flora coming from high use of antibotics which kills off all the bacteria including the good bacteria.