Natural Immunity in Contrast to Vaccines
Three Differences Between Natural Immunity & That Produced by Vaccines
by Mary Rucker
For those who are honestly trying to weigh the pros and cons of vaccines, the fundamental questions arises: “What are the basic differences between natural immunity and vaccines?” Each time we scratch our finger we are inoculated with bacteria. When we inhale cold or flu viruses from a sick person, we experience a form of immunization. Also consider mosquito bites, bee stings, and other attacks. After all, we must ask ourselves, what can be the harm of vaccines when we are exposed to infectious agents many times in the course of an ordinary day in our lives? This question is easily answered. A little analysis, based on recent scientific findings, will reveal that there are very fundamental, perhaps irreconcilable, differences between vaccines and so-called natural immunity. For the sake of simplicity we will place these in three categories.
1. The first difference is the quantity of antigenic stimulation in vaccines. In the case of natural immunity, it has been estimated that the frequency of in-apparent infections outnumbered clinical illnesses by at least one-hundredfold (Maxcy-Rosenaw Preventive Medicine & Public Health, 10th edition, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1973, p. 117). Evidence for this is provided by the high proportion of adults who have virus-neutralizing substances in their serum and the number who during epidemics excrete virus without being ill.If the immune system is maintained "battle ready" by healthful living, adequate rest, sanitation, simple and wholesome nutrition, then many diseases will pass as sub-clinical infections without actual illness, or if there is illness, it will be relatively mild.
Under these circumstances, we may assume that small amounts of antigenic, infectious material break through the outer defenses (such as the tonsils in the nasopharynx, lymphatic patches in the small intestines, referred to as Peyer's patches, and peripheral lymph nodes in the arm pits, groin, neck). This limited penetration, we may assume, is sufficient to produce the immune response but not enough to cause illness or to overwhelm the immune system. [Nature heals homeopathically (by small doses). Probably natural immunity is based on the same principle.]With vaccinations, on the other hand, the system is challenged with massive amounts of concentrated antigens injected directly into the blood stream, or, as in the case of the oral Sabin polio vaccine, with rapid penetration from the intestines into the blood stream. Such massive challenges, cannot help but have a depleting effect on the immune system and its reserves. Such effects, in all probability, are comparable to a severe attack of disease or repeated illnesses. (It should be noted that there is a great difference in the effects of a substance, depending on how it is given. Snake venom can be deadly when injected, but is relatively harmless when swallowed).
2. The second basic difference is the time of life that childhood vaccines are given. According to present vaccine schedules, vaccines are started in infancy at 2 months of age or shortly thereafter and continued at regular intervals through the first and second years. If we would stop and reflect on this, it should be obvious that this period of early infancy is one of extreme susceptibility, with effects far greater than they would result in later life when organ systems are more developed and stabilized.As reviewed in contemporary texts dealing with pediatrics and immunology, the human newborn infant comes into the world with a relatively underdeveloped immune system. The lymph nodes are small, the plasma cells are sparse in bone marrow and lymph nodes, and immunoglobulin synthesis is low. Normally, soon after birth, the infant begins to respond to multiple antigenic stimuli from the bacterial flora which rapidly populate his skin, upper respiratory tract, and bowel, as well as the microbial and parasitic infections (estimated at one every six weeks until age 12) acquired from the environment.
If the immunologic system is normal, this immunologic experience is reflected in progressive hyperplasia of the follicles and gradual appearance of plasma cells in lymphoid tissues throughout he body, including enlargement of tonsils and lymph nodes from their relatively small size at birth. As the child's immunologic experience expands, there is an increase in immunoglobulin synthesis, with gradually rising globulin levels in the blood until approximately six years of age.According to this model, the immune system of a newborn infant depends on antigenic stimulation for its development. If this stimulation comes in the form of natural environmental challenges, which filter through the series of natural body defenses, then the immune system is developed, strengthened, and matured in the process. If, on the other hand, the immature immune antigenic system is compelled to respond to a series of immunizations which bypass the outer defenses and inject massive antigenic material directly into the body, then the immune system must divert a large portion of its resources and reserves in responding to this immunologic "shock treatment." The immune system must, in all probability, commit an inordinately large portion of its resources in responding to these challenges.
The combined effects of massive, repeated antigenic stimulation from vaccines, which short-circuit the processes of natural immunity, given at an extremely vulnerable time of life, cannot help but have adverse effects on the immunological system of the child, with the possibility of leaving this system crippled in its ability to protect the child throughout life.
3. The third difference between vaccines and natural immunity concerns the viral vaccines (influenza, measles, mumps, rubella, smallpox, rabies, polio, yellow fever). With present methods all of the viral vaccines are cultured in animal tissues such as chick embryo, duck embryo, dog kidney, and monkey kidney. The work of Drs. Phillipe Anker and Maurice Stroun in Switzerland has shown free exchange of genetic DNA and RNA among bacteria and plant and animal cells, resulting in RNA-DNA hybridization. American virologists have shown that RNA viruses, although not containing DNA material within their structure, are able to form DNA and become integrated with the cells that they infect.Although final links of proof are as yet lacking, the harm from viral vaccines may not be so much the viruses themselves as from the fact that, having been cultured in animal tissues, they become carriers of animal genetic material or patterns. It has been shown that genetic exchange is common -- perhaps universal -- among live plant cells, animal cells, and bacteria. It is not unreasonable to assume that this exchange also occurs among viruses, animals, and humans, although it is as yet unproven. If such a phenomenon does occur, the live attenuated viruses used for vaccines would implant the foreign, alien material derived from animal culture tissues into the human genetic system.
By their very nature, live viruses might be considered as genetic messengers, made up entirely of DNA or RNA material. Theoretically, it would be difficult to conceive of more ideal agents than live viruses to serve as genetic carriers if we were attempting to bring about genetic transmutations in the human body. (Heaven forbid that we should ever attempt to do this deliberately!)[Sources: The Immune Trio, Nelson Textbook of Pediatrics, Allergic Diseases of Infancy, Childhood, and Adolescence, Immunologic Disorders of Infants and Children, Immunology II]
This article is reprinted from the website http://childvaccinesinjury.homestead.com. We recommend that you visit it for much more information on vaccines and their use.