My initial title for this was “Offit’s antigens and the myths of mass exposure” but somehow that didn’t work with “the system”. OK, I guess I’d better start with some:
Offit – Individual demonstrating how corrupted capitalism is an appalling form of governance. Major profiteer from inflicting the vaccination scam, yet regarded as the arbiter of safety in such matters. A fatal conflict of interests. Also “Godfather of jabs” and anointed assessor of permissible scientific input and critique of the topic.
Antigen – “…called antigens because they can stimulate anti–body generation” as “Immunobiology – the immune system in health and disease” – 6th edition, 2005, Janeway, Travers et al, puts it, succinctly and a touch condescendingly. They go on, later in the book: “An antigen is any substance that can bind to a specific antibody. All antigens therefore have the potential to elicit specific antibodies, but some need to be attached to an immunogen in order to do so. This means that although all immunogens are antigens not all antigens are immunogenic. …….. Carbohydrates, nucleic acids and other types of molecule are all potential antigens ……. but often [need a] protein carrier.”
And we now require a second paragraph (but this bit is important, so hang on in there): “Antisera generated by immunisation with even the simplest antigen will contain many different antibody molecules that bind to the immunogen in slightly different ways. [Think here, maybe, of a police chase comprising of a couple of dozen officers all reaching the suspect at the same time!] Some of the antibodies are [interestingly] cross-reactive. [No, I’ve dropped the police analogy now!] Cross-reaction is defined as the binding of an antibody to an antigen other than the immunogen; most antibodies cross-react with closely related antigens but, on occasion, some bind antigens having no clear relationship to the immunogen”.
All this, and so much more, can be found on pages 683, 684 of the above mentioned work. It is as a bible, a holy text for these quests for the Grails that are the New Vaccines. It starts with a worship of the Almighty Jenner, patron saint of vaccinologists. But I’ll NOT transcribe that as he comes at the opposite end of my spectrum.
Adjuvants – “Most proteins are poorly immunogenic or non-immunogenic when administered by themselves. Strong adaptive immune responses to protein antigens almost always require that the antigen be injected in a mixture known as an adjuvant. An adjuvant is any substance that enhances the immunogenicity of substances mixed with it. [They] do not form stable linkages with the immunogen(s)”
Shall we go on? Mmm, yes, let’s. This is so much fun: “Adjuvants can enhance immunogenicity in two different ways. First they convert soluble, protein antigens into particulate matter [ie solidify and/or almost certainly denature them] which is more readily ingested by antigen presenting cells eg macrophages”. [Here they cite the three crude apothecary/alchemist manipulations that they use.] They go on : “This enhances immunogenicity somewhat but such adjuvants are relatively weak unless they contain bacteria or bacterial products. Such microbial constituents are the second means by which adjuvants enhance immunogenicity, and although their exact contribution to enhancing immunogenicity is unknown, they are clearly the most important ingredient of the adjuvant.” No mention here of:
“Eye of newt, and toe of frog, wool of bat, and tongue of dog,
Adder’s fork, and blind-worm’s sting, Lizard’s leg, and howlet’s wing”
But clearly there is such threat! They finish this section with: “One of their effects is to induce the production of inflammatory cytokines and potent local inflammatory responses; this effect is probably intrinsic to their activity in enhancing responses, but precludes their use in humans.” Only, of course, it does not because, for example: “purified constituents of Bordetella pertussis are used both as antigen and adjuvant in the DPT vaccine”.
Actually, after all these definitions, I’m not sure there’s much else I need say!
What I do require now is another stage prop – the infamous Offit quotation:
“each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10 000 vaccines at any one time”. This was in Pediatrics,109, pp. 124 -129, January 2002 : http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/1/124.full#sec-1 . Dig that word “respond”, eh?
Anyway, this paper is a rationale for much of “Modern” Vaccinology and is full of assertions as to the supposed enormous capacity of reactivity, presumed positive, of the infant immune tissue to vaccine challenge. It assumes such challenge-response is functional:
- If the child survives it
- Shows some antibody production response.
and looks no further for other outcomes.
The paper concludes:
“Current studies do not support the hypothesis that multiple vaccines overwhelm, weaken, or “use up” the immune system. On the contrary, young infants have an enormous capacity to respond to multiple vaccines, as well as to the many other challenges present in the environment. By providing protection against a number of bacterial and viral pathogens, vaccines prevent the “weakening” of the immune system and consequent secondary bacterial infections occasionally caused by natural infection.”
And they continue walking blindly on, syringe in each hand, blase as one can be. Note, though:
- When they say “Current studies do not support the hypothesis that multiple vaccines overwhelm, weaken, or “use up” the immune system” they avoid the issue in classic Horatio Nelson “I see no ships” style.
- how they liken jabs with “other challenges present in the environment” although they are fundamentally different (see later in this article).
- how they assert “By providing protection against a number of bacterial and viral pathogens” when no such protection can be demonstrated – only a vague multiplicity of antibodies produced subsequent to the jab(s).
- and, most contrary to the truth: “vaccines prevent the “weakening” of the immune system ….occasionally caused by natural infection” which is a total fabrication as recovery from natural infection always leaves an improved natural resilience to future infection.
Now I must examine a bit more closely their attempts to move from Jenner’s medieval malpractices into some approximation of a modern, scientific methodology. Already, as I’m sure you can see, the odds are stacked against such a happy resolution. In “A Very High Potentiation” I looked at the issue of actual reduction in the total number of antigens and speculated as to whether the unforeseen outcome of this was a far greater collateral impact, due to the “response” (shall we say?) to greater concentrations of individual antigens. Implied there, of course, was the incidence of “cross-reactions” with the recipient’s tissue.
Now back to the cauldron! You see they have coined this deeply functional and apparently legitimate word “adjuvant” which implies assistance and helping and sounds like a simple bench reagent – “Oh yes, Bennie, just add 50ml of one molar bench hydrochloric and the same of adjuvant”. But this is oh so misleading except inasmuch as we are certainly talking laboratory and “in vitro” science. In vivo we are profoundly still into voodoo as we see the mixing of sophisticated modern tooling still with Jenner style witchcraft cookery and are still expected to be able to keep a straight face about the outcomes.
Take a protein. It is, say, 300 amino acids strung together on some ribosome somewhere to a very particular coding, copied off the nuclear DNA close by. It takes on a particular shape and will perform its particular designated task – be it structural, enzymic or whatever. As an antigen, however, it could be said to have a number of sites of recognition. Also it could be degraded into a series of derived peptides, each individually antigenic. So one protein type can still lead to a number of antibodies. Probably none of which are specific only to that protein.
Then take the “dead bacterial cell” as your “antigen” and there are so many antigenic fragments possible that it would probably be impossible to calculate the number of antibodies it could theoretically lead to the production of. Especially if we include matter other than proteins and their fragments, such as polysaccharides. Yet this has been the practice used to specifically “immunise” recipients against “particular” antigenic dangers such as measles or smallpox. Each time a host of fairly non specific antibodies are called up which can target the supposedly endangering micro-organism but have the powers to attack a specific antigenic sequence wheresoever they subsequently spot it.
“My, you look just a small bit like a measles virus” or, rather, “this particle is identical to a short sequence found in the measles virus’ genome” could be the cue for autoimmunity, allergy to specific foodstuffs and, of course, the gastro-intestinal problems that arise post vaccination. Wakefield’s team and the Irish reports subsequently have found measles virus genetic material in intestinal tissue. This could oh so easily be targeted by such an antibody system maybe leading to the alimentary stresses witnessed in autistic cases.
Echoing Offet, the Centre for Disease Control (and, my, what an Orwellian title that is!), the United States’ CDC, in providing context for their reassurance of their people that vaccines hold no risk suggest:
“An infant’s immune system is capable of responding to a large amount of immunologic stimuli and, from time of birth, infants are exposed to hundreds of viruses and countless antigens that are not associated with vaccination.” http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/Autism/antigens.html
This is a classic example of misdirection for they do not point out that these stimuli arrive on the skin, in the lungs and pass through the gut. They are NOT injected into the blood stream or muscle tissue. There is, in fact, an extremely low chance any will lead to any infective outcome and any immune system activity will be in its correct biological context – gut epithelial tissue, for example, filtering out unwanted pathogens (and aren’t all pathogens unwanted!) and so noting their parameters of identification for future reference. Is there any need to recognise fragments of such organisms or of their metabolic constructs? Somehow I doubt this profoundly!
It seems that although attempts have been made to reduce the “antigenic load” present in the “challenge” (their word, not mine!) it is still the case that any jab is giving rise to numerous different antibody types – not a single killer antibody, lying in wait just in case that mean bacterium dares to turn up – which is the impression the Vaccine Lobby would have you keep. Picking smaller parts of the bacterial structure or even supposedly unique proteins still gives rise to a spread of response. And the impact of “adjuvants” (as per above definition) is surely to increase further the range of antibody types.
Importantly, it seems “cross-reactions” and other adhesions to recipient tissue (eg gut epithelial tissue) are both possible and likely to cause allergic and other auto-immune type responses, leading through autism up to chronic degenerative states such as SSPE – in fact many of the disorders clearly associated with vaccine damage.
Vaccination is an unnatural assault on a naturally robust and sophisticated system. The mechanisms used to ensure that vaccines “take” underline how the process is still closer to sorcery than science and yet countless billions of Dollars, Pounds, Euros and the like are poured into research for and use of such products. I remain astounded, aghast and frankly bewildered as to how they manage to pull off this stunt. To me, it seems way beyond reason.