The reason I chose this as a topic was this statement by Offit, in the chapter "Dr. Bob," where he discredits claims made by Dr. Robert Sears, one by one.
Offit says: "Arguably, a single infection with a common cold virus poses a much greater immunological challenge than all current vaccines combined.... Given [the capacity of various immune system components] babies could theoretically respond to about a hundred thousand vaccines at one time.
"The model isn't perfect.... [But] given that babies are constantly confronted with trillions of bacteria and that each bacterium contains thousands of epitopes, the notion that children could respond to a hundred thousand different vaccines shouldn't be surprising. In a sense, babies are doing that every day."
That assertion causes me pause every single time I read it. My inner childish "oh, YEAH?!!" wants to lash out with "how on earth do you get that?" Then the rational, thoughtful adult in me takes another minute to mull all the logical steps over. And I still come up with "oh, yeah?"
I have several thoughts. 1. Vaccine components are created in a lab. I realize they put a lot of effort to maintain quality and consistency and sterility, but they are still lab-created. By comparison, American cheese is not cheddar; cranberry cocktail is not juice; infant formula is not breastmilk. When we leave nature behind, and venture to replicate it, there are inevitably subtle differences that take a long time to perceive.
I'm tempted to pick apart that statement in every way I can, with my "untrained," biased, mother-bear mind. Useless bickering, though. Ok, ok, I have to say something. ;)
I can see (a little) the comparison between a cold and a load of vaccines. A baby gets much sicker with a cold than they do (barring a serious reaction) to a load of vaccine. Fever, irritability, congestion, etc, is much greater with an actual illness. But an illness is not usually accompanied by trace amounts of known toxins and carcinogens. Toxins that the body has a hard time eliminating, and carcinogens, by definition, take time to show their effects. Also, the common cold doesn't usually affect the brain, whereas heavy metals and other chemicals generally considered poisonous (even in small amounts) *do* often affect the brain. I think when Offit made that remark about 100,00 vaccines, he was only referring to the actual bacteria/microbe/natural components, and ignoring the artificial ingredients.
What do you think of his assertion?
3 comments:
Hmmm, my thought? I think this one is out of my bounds as well, but it looks like he is comparing the immunological challenge not necessarily any side effects. Not that this is a vote for yea or nay on his comment... but my thoughts wonder to newborn babies. Allowing for skin to skin contact with the mother starts prepping the newborn's immune system right away; kind of like a kick start. The newborn is immediately subjected to of bacteria that right now is harmless (assuming mother, environment et al are in good heath) and allows the immune system to fight off illnesses later on when the time comes. In essence the natural vaccine. I'm sure we're still doing the same as adults but our response has grown old and like many other things our adaptive skills slow down as well. In a "perfect" world if the "perfect" vaccine could be created and given to healthy young babies... could you imagine how strong their immune system would be? Now, now, stop cringing! LOL I did say in the perfect vaccine and I think it would be comparable to the newborn analogy and the miraculous way they respond to bacteria. We would be "teaching" their immune system much more and earlier on. It begs the question: ultimately, how much can we take? (Also assuming the method, device, timing, etc, were all "perfect.") The other thought I had for him was .... when is a cold ever "just" as simple as a single germ infection?
I do agree that the idea of vaccines, if it could be done "perfectly," is brilliant and beautiful. Give a small amount of pathogen so they can start an immune system response but not get the full-fledged disease-- it's one of the best ideas given to man.
I also cannot claim to understand immunology enough to make sense of his assertion, but it just niggles me.
Is "niggling" worthy of further investigation? Sure, called "mother's intuition," or "inspiration," it's responsible for lots of great out-of-the-box ideas that turned out to be important in their own way.
I also understand that there *have* to be preservatives and other chemicals used as a base, and in the production process.
All I can say is it niggles me. ;)
LOL... niggles is such a great word! :D
Post a Comment