We have known from early last century VACCINES work for 85% of citizens----meaning 15% can be vaccinated and still get that disease. The US has not seen polio, TB, typhoid fever et al because of MASS VACCINATION. When they started school vaccination requirements those disease viruses slowly had no body from which to reproduce ----so mass vaccination was good----it killed dangerous disease viruses. Today, the US is seeing a reintroduction of those disease viruses so we will see 15% of US citizens exposed to those viruses get that disease even though they vaccinated.
WE MUST ALLOW TIME TO ERADICATE THESE DANGEROUS VIRUSES ONCE AGAIN BEFORE WE THINK ALL 99% OF US CITIZENS WILL BE SAFE.
Tonsils and appendix for example are part of that immune system and we have become used to making these ordinary surgeries. Most definitely there are times when these organs NEED to be removed---but we would not do so unless necessary.
'A key point is that recurrent strep tonsillitis nearly always gets better with age no matter what we do. This makes tonsillectomy look good, because the natural history of the illness is to improve. I’ve met dozens of parents who say their child (or themselves as children) had constant strep infections until the tonsils came out. Often these same parents (and especially their grandparents) had had their tonsils out as children and more or less regarded tonsillectomy as something children need, like vaccinations. But frequent courses of penicillin, one of the safest medications on the planet (if your child is not allergic to it, of course), nearly always ultimately lead to the same favorable result as the tonsillectomy. (If your child is allergic to penicillin, we have other safe options'.)
Tonsillectomy Confidential: doctors ignore polio epidemics and high school biology
FROM THE BOING BOING SHOP
Seth Roberts is the author of The Shangri-La Diet and posts at Seth's Blog about personal science, self-experimentation, and the scientific method.
In 2008, Rachael Hoffman-Dachelet's eight-year-old son started having frequent sore throats. He'd run a fever, feel stiff and tired, and miss a few days of school. After six sore throats in a year, her pediatrician said This is crazy. I'm going to refer you to an ear nose and throat specialist. I think he'll recommend a tonsillectomy (tonsil removal).
Rachael and her son saw the specialist, who did recommend a tonsillectomy. Tonsils are part of the lymphatic system, a network of tiny tubes and nodes all over the body. It is mostly a drainage system. Lymph drains into the tubes, which carry it to the heart, where it reenters the blood. En route to the heart, lymph passes through nodes. How can lymph move through the system if you remove part of it? Rachael asked the specialist. If there were any bad long-term consequences we'd know because so many tonsillectomies have been done, he said. The correct answer is that lymph does not pass through the tonsils. Rachael asked about the benefits of the surgery. Your son will miss a lot less school, he said.
Rachael teaches art at a Minnesota middle school. Her experience with doctors had made her skeptical of their predictions. To decide for herself if a tonsillectomy was a good idea, she googled "pubmed tonsillectomy meta-analysis" and found a Cochrane Review about tonsillectomies and tonsillitis. There are thousands of Cochrane Reviews. Each tries to summarize the evidence about the effect of a treatment on a health problem (e.g., "Antibiotics for sore throats"). They are meant to be practical -- to help everyone, including outsiders like Rachael, make treatment decisions (such as "should my son have a tonsillectomy?"). They are produced by the Cochrane Collaboration, a British non-profit, which says its reviews are "internationally recognised as the highest standard in evidence-based health care".
The Cochrane Review that Rachael found ("Tonsillectomy or adeno-tonsillectomy versus non-surgical treatment for chronic/recurrent acute tonsillitis") was published in 2009. It describes four experiments that compared tonsillectomy to the care a sick child would otherwise receive. All four involved children like Rachael's son, and all four had similar results: Tonsillectomies had only a small benefit. (Contrary to what Rachael was told.) During the year after random assignment to treatment -- the point at which some children had their tonsils removed, other children did not -- children whose tonsils were removed had one less sore throat than children who were not operated on (two instead of three for children like Rachael's son). Because the benefits were small, the decision was easy. "The time, expense, and risk of surgery vs. one [sore throat]," Rachael wrote on my blog, "Not a tough choice."
Rachael believes "when things are going badly with your body, nutrition is a good place to start" looking for help. After she decided against tonsillectomy, Rachael and her son went to see a naturopath that a neighbor had recommended. The naturopath was especially knowledgeable about nutrition and supplements. After an hour interview, she suggested Vitamin D3 (5000 IU/day), a multivitamin, Vitamin C (500 mg/day), and powdered larch bark. Rachael searched for research about these recommendations. She found many studies that suggested Vitamin D might help. Her son is a pale redhead and used sunblock a lot. It was easy to believe he wasn't getting enough Vitamin D. Because Vitamin D won't work properly without other vitamins (called co-factors), a multivitamin was a good idea. Rachael found studies that implied that a multivitamin was very unlikely to be very harmful. She found few relevant studies about Vitamin C. Maybe extreme claims about its benefits had scared off researchers -- "Linus Pauling burned that bridge," said Rachael. But she took the Vitamin C recommendation seriously because the naturopath had made other reasonable recommendations, the recommended dose was not large, Vitamin C is easily excreted in urine (in contrast to building up in the body), and Rachael had never heard of anyone having trouble at that dose. The naturopath had said that larch bark had reduced ear infections in children with chronic ear infections. A little bit of theory supported this, Rachael found, but overall the larch-bark research was "dodgy," she said. A considerable virtue of the naturopath's recommendations was that if they didn't work or had bad effects, you could stop them (e.g., stop taking Vitamin D). A tonsillectomy is forever.
As it happened, the larch bark tasted awful and her son only took it for a few days. He took Vitamin C for a month or two. He still takes Vitamin D3 and a multivitamin. Because he took the Vitamin D3 at 7 am, maybe it improved his sleep (and better sleep = better immune function). He had no more sore throats.
Tonsillectomies are ancient and, as the ear nose and throat doctor said, very common. "For much of the twentieth century," says this book,"tonsillectomy (generally with adenoidectomy) was the most common surgical procedure in the United States." They are still very common. In 2006, half a million were done just in America.
What do tonsils do?
Tonsils, like other parts of the lymphatic system, contain large numbers of lymphocytes. Lymphocytes are usually called a type of white blood cell, but that is misleading because relatively few are in the blood. Almost all your lymphocytes are in your lymphatic system, which is why they're called lymphocytes. As recently as the 1950s, their function was unknown. In 1953, for example, this ignorance was called "a disgraceful gap in medical knowledge". Failure to understand what lymphocytes do made it unclear what tonsils do. It is dangerous, to say the least, to cut off part of the body whose function you don't know. In spite of this, tonsillectomies were extremely popular from the 1920s through the 1940s. Tens of millions were done.
Around 1900, America started to have frequent polio epidemics. Starting in 1916, they happened every summer, which came to be called "polio season". Over the years, they got worse. In 1951, thousands of children died, and tens of thousands were crippled. The level of fear can be seen from a booklet called Polio Pointers for 1951. Along with practical advice ("keep [your children] away from new people"), it tried to reassure: "Remember -- at least half of polio patients get well without any crippling." As both tonsillectomies and polio increased, a horrifying correlation emerged: Children who'd had a tonsillectomy were more likely to get a certain type of polio (infection of the bulbar region of the brain stem) than children who had not had a tonsillectomy. This became common knowledge. Polio Pointers said "don't have mouth or throat operations during a polio outbreak." In 1954, the American Journal of Public Health ran an editorial summarizing the link between tonsillectomy and polio. The main evidence was that within a group of children with polio, the ones with bulbar polio were about three times more likely to have had their tonsils removed than the ones with spinal polio (infection of the spinal cord). This resembles some of the first evidence connecting smoking and lung cancer: Hospital patients with lung cancer were much more likely to be heavy smokers than hospital patients with other diseases. Although Polio Pointers implied that tonsillectomies were unsafe only "during a polio outbreak," this was false. The data implied they were always unsafe: "This higher proportion of bulbar cases in tonsillectomized persons occurs at all ages regardless of the time elapsed since operation," said the editorial. A 1957 paper about the tonsillectomy/polio association cited 19 studies that had observed it. "The association is generally regarded as an underlying causal relationship," said the paper, meaning that the usual explanation was that tonsillectomy increased risk of bulbar polio. The paper found more evidence for this explanation. Researchers considered other explanations for the polio/tonsillectomy association (for example, are tonsillectomies more common among rich children? among sickly children? ) but failed to find supporting evidence. The tonsillectomy/polio connection is probably why tonsillectomies became less popular starting in the 1950s. They declined from extremely common (the most common of any operation) to very common (the most common operation done on children).
By 1960, the tonsillectomy/polio association was firmly established, but its explanation was a mystery. If it reflected cause and effect, why would tonsils protect against infection? Around this time, work by James Gowans and others started to answer this question by figuring out that lymphocytes are the main cells of our immune system. They detect bacteria and viruses and make antibodies against them. T cells, B cells, and natural killer (NK) cells -- all lymphocytes. In one experiment, Gowans and his co-workers drained the lymphocytes from rats. The rats lost the ability to make antibodies. When the researchers put the lymphocytes back into the rats, they regained the ability to make antibodies. That's just an example. Our understanding of what lymphocytes do comes from thousands of experiments.
When the function of lymphocytes became clear, the lymphatic system made much more sense. Lymph washes germs out of tissue and into lymph nodes, where lymphocytes detect and try to kill them. The high density of lymphocytes in the nodes ensures that germs will bump into them and be detected. When lymphocytes detect more germs than usual, they multiply and the nodes enlarge. Tonsils do not filter lymph, as I said, but like lymph nodes are full of lymphocytes. Their shape and placement causes them to sample the bacteria in your mouth, so they protect you against the bacteria in your mouth. Tonsils become swollen and sore during infections because the number of lymphocytes inside has increased -- the lymphocytes are fighting off the infection. These facts about the immune system and the lymphatic system, including the function of lymphocytes, are part of high school biology. For example, this lecture.
Removal of your tonsils is removal of part of your immune system. Our understanding of the immune system implies that removal of tonsils reduces ability to fight off infection. We cannot say exactly what tonsils do, just as we cannot say exactly what many parts of the brain do, but our general understanding of the immune system (based on thousands of experiments) implies that removal of any part of it is very dangerous, just as our general understanding of the brain (based on thousands of experiments) implies that removal of any part of it is very dangerous. When a child gets a sore throat, it suggests that his immune system is not doing a good job fighting off infections; a better-functioning system would have killed the germs sooner. Cutting off part of the body that fights infections because of too many infections makes as much sense as getting rid of fire houses because of too many fires. If your outcome measure is narrow, you may conclude that damaging a vital organ is beneficial. For example, prefrontal lobotomies were once claimed to be a a good thing (some people became less disruptive). In rare cases, the benefits of removing part of a vital organ may outweigh the risks. If I were in intractable pain, I might agree to have part of my brain removed. But not because of six sore throats.
The tonsillectomy/polio association was the first large batch of evidence that tonsillectomies do serious harm. The studies that showed what lymphocytes do was the second large batch -- so large and clear that tonsillectomies should have stopped. But they didn't, and the evidence that they do serious damage has increased. In recent years, they have been repeatedly associated with obesity. A 2011 review of nine articles found that "a large population of normal and overweight children undergoing [adeno-tonsillectomy -- removal of both adenoids and tonsils] gained a greater than expected amount of weight postoperatively." Another study concluded "risk of overweight should be mentioned as a probable undesirable outcome of adenotonsillectomy." A third study points in the same direction. To see more evidence, search "obesity tonsillectomy".
Another recent association is with heart attacks. A 2011 study found that people who had had tonsillectomies before age 20 had a much higher rate of heart attacks (about 50% higher) than matched controls over the next twenty years. The study cites other evidence that immune dysfunction increases heart attacks. The same study found that hernia operations at a young age were not associated with heart attacks. A 2010 study based on different people found that "tonsillectomy before age 7 years was associated with a 1.5-fold increase in mortality" from age 18 to 44. This supports the association of tonsillectomies with a large percentage increase in a common cause of death (heart attacks). That tonsillectomies increase heart attacks is made more plausible by the well-established association of gum disease and heart disease. Gum disease is caused by bacteria in the mouth; tonsils protect against bacteria in the mouth.
After Rachael read the Cochrane Review about tonsillectomies, she decided they're a bad idea. This is like Vladimir Putin's party getting only 49% of the vote in the recent election in spite of ballot stuffing. Cochrane Reviews are supposed to be unbiased, but this one omitted (without saying so) a great deal of anti-tonsillectomy information:
1. It does not say that tonsils are part of the immune system, nor that removing the tonsils damages the immune system. It says nothing about lymphocytes and their function. It does not say that the tonsils are full of lymphocytes. It does not say that the nodes of the lymphatic system, including the tonsils, are the main places the immune system does its work.
2. It says nothing about the tonsillectomy/polio association. It says nothing about the tonsillectomy/obesity association.
3. "Those who choose surgery for themselves or their child must be fully informed of the risks of the procedure," say the authors. I agree. Do the authors follow the advice they give to others? Here is how they answer the question "what are the risks of [tonsillectomy] surgery?": "Tonsillectomy is associated with a small but significant degree of morbidity in the form of primary and secondary haemorrhage and, even with good analgesia, is particularly uncomfortable for adults." That's their whole answer.
If you search tonsillectomy/adverse effects on PubMed, you will get more than 1000 references. There is no sign in the review that the authors did that search or any other search for bad effects of tonsillectomies. If the authors had looked at the PubMed articles published before their review (about 900), they would have learned that the risks of tonsillectomy include polio, weight gain, vomiting (many articles), taste distortion (here, here, here), Hodgkin's disease (here, here, here, here, here, but here is evidence that disputes the association), Creutzfeld-Jacob disease (e.g., here, here), inflammatory bowel disease and Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, severe spine infection, neck infection (here, here), speech problems (here, here), hearing loss, ear pain, visual loss (here, here), depression, several other serious problems, and immunological abnormalities (e.g., here, here, here). They would have learned that tonsillectomy "is associated with a relatively high risk of postoperative complications" and that "the actual post-tonsillectomy haemorrhage rate is much higher than that recorded in hospital statistics." (The Cochrane Review says this risk is "small".) They would have learned, if they didn't already know, that "the tonsils have a large immune function."
4. At the end of the review, it says, "If adeno-/tonsillectomy has an effect on aspects of an individual’s health other than sore throats - general well-being, for example - these outcomes should also be evaluated." "If"? This is misleading. By 2009, as I've shown, there was plenty of evidence of bad effects.
The Cochrane Review deserves credit for summarizing some relevant evidence. It deserves criticism for silently omitting a large amount of anti-tonsillectomy information (polio, lymphocytes, obesity, and so on) and posing as a reasonable guide to the value of tonsillectomies. (It comes with a "plain language summary" that says nothing about omitted information.) The review is by Martin Burton and Paul Glasziou, both at Oxford at the time. Both declined to comment for this post on my criticisms. Burton now heads the United Kingdom Cochrane Centre. Glasziou specializes in evidence-based medicine (which I have criticized). He has co-authored a book on systematic reviews and a consumer's guide to evidence-based medicine. He now heads the Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice at Bond University in Australia.
Any review must omit information. The Cochrane Review, however, omits a vast amount of anti-tonsillectomy information that could easily have been included. It does not omit a vast amount of pro-tonsillectomy information. There has been no series of devastating epidemics in which tonsillectomy was associated with less disability and death. There have not been thousands of experiments that imply tonsils reduce resistance to infection. In that sense, the review is badly biased. One reason may be conflict of interest. Burton is an ear nose and throat surgeon; he does tonsillectomies for a living. This is not disclosed in the review. I don't know if his finances depend on how many tonsillectomies he does, but I am sure he has done many of them (biasing him to think they are good) and has many tonsillectomy surgeons among his friends and colleagues. He must care what they think. Negative comments about tonsillectomies would surely displease them. Burton declined to comment on this criticism.
In its omission of anti-tonsillectomy information, the Cochrane Review reflects this area of medicine. While doing research for this post, I was unable to find a single instance in which any doctor -- including pediatricians, ear nose and throat doctors, and tonsillectomy surgeons -- or doctor-run website told any parent (or anyone else) anything like the truth about the risks of tonsillectomies. On the Mayo Clinic website, for example, a pediatrician tells parents that "the decision to remove a child's tonsils must be weighed against the risks of anesthesia and bleeding, as well as the missed school days to recover from the procedure." That's all he says about risks.
False claims about tonsillectomies are nothing new. In 1933, an American writer named Kenneth Roberts (no relation) visited England. His shoulder started to hurt. It became so painful he had trouble sleeping. He consulted a London surgeon, who recommended a tonsillectomy:
"Then you think this pain in my shoulders is due to my tonsils?" I asked him.
"My dear boy!" he expostulated. "Of course! You're poisoned! It might crop out anywhere! Arms, legs, body, head, feet, brain -- positively anywhere! Not an instant to lose, my dear boy."
Roberts encountered similar behavior by other doctors. His account of it is called "It Must Be Your Tonsils". Given this history (overstatement of the benefits of tonsillectomy), it is especially remarkable that the Cochrane Review is so biased. Professional groups are worse. The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery currently recommends that "children who have three or more tonsillar infections a year undergo a tonsillectomy". The corresponding Canadian group has a higher threshold: six infections in a year. Those are low bars for cutting off part of a vital organ. Both groups claim that a good solution to too many infections may be removal of part of the body that fights infection.
Overtreatment -- wasteful and harmful medicine -- is an enormous problem. It is the subject of two recent books (Overtreated and Overdiagnosed) and a Newsweek article. Tonsillectomies are an example. The last sixty years have produced a mountain of anti-tonsillectomy evidence (polio, lymphocytes, obesity, heart attacks, and so on) that doctors, such as the Cochrane reviewers, seem to ignore. People like Rachael suggest a solution: help non-doctors look at evidence.
If parents would think how many chemicals a fetus is exposed to through 9 months of placenta transfer and then breast milk then we can see that the regime of vaccines after a few years old may not be as assaulting to our babies bodies as it sounds. Vaccines must have preservatives because they cannot be manufactured and used right away -----the use of aluminum in some vaccines occurs because that metal speeds the natural immune system to react to the vaccine weakened virus faster---aluminum is one of the least toxic of metals and the dosages of vaccines are too few to create that much damage----ONLY AN OPINION TO CONSIDER.
The age of two is the common age for many vaccines because that natural immunity from mother has ended and our babies generally have brothers and sisters older playing all day in that great outdoors with other children carrying viruses and bacteria----what we think about is what disease vector vaccinations are necessary at that age. HEP A, B, AND C----sexual viruses------flu vaccines----the chances of exposure at these early ages ----or the effects of a cold or flu maybe being good for natural immunity-----are what parents need to fight for or against-----
NOT MOVE AWAY FROM VACCINATING ALTOGETHER.
The debate over breast feeding and natural immunity is being used by promoters of breast feeding creating a BIAS -----the time a baby is exposed to breast feeding and receiving immunity occurs in just weeks and often are the same immunity received from placenta. We want choices for women and not mandatory guidelines moving all mothers from formula.
Passive Immunity 101: Will Breast Milk Protect My Baby From Getting Sick?
By Jody Segrave-Daly, RN, MS, IBCLC January 10, 2016
As a neonatal nurse specialist, mothers often ask me about the antibodies found in breast milk and how they can work to protect their babies. To explain it to them, and to you, I have to delve into immunology, and those conversations are usually too technical for most readers and mothers I meet in the NICU. Unfortunately, the information that is readily available to mothers that isn’t highly technical is a large body of conflicting information. So I’m here to talk more about this very important topic in a way that makes it straightforward! My goal is to answer very common reader questions like these:
“Why does my infant need any vaccines at all since she’s getting all the antibodies she needs from my breast milk?” and,
“Why does my seven-month old son need to get a flu shot if I received it during my pregnancy?”
Both, excellent questions! Parents, take note – there are 2 ways babies acquire immunity: through passive transfer, and active transfer (also known as acquired immunity).
Passive Immunity During Pregnancy
The first way for a baby to acquire immunity is before and just after birth, and it is called passive immunity. When a mother is pregnant, antibodies are produced by the mother’s immune system and then transported across the placenta to the fetus’s blood supply. These types of antibodies are called immunoglobulin g. You’ll see these abbreviated as “IgG,” and they are the only antibody type that passes through the placenta to the growing fetus. They are called passive maternal IgGs, because of what they are and how they’re transferred to the baby.
IgGs are the most common type of antibody in our bodies and protect us – as well as unborn babies – from viral and bacterial illness (you can learn more about antibody types by clicking here). Human babies are born with all of the passive maternal IgG antibodies they will ever have, regardless of their feeding method.
Maternal IgG antibodies are temporary, however, and gradually disappear within about 6-8 months after birth. Fortunately, after birth the baby begins to make their own IgG antibodies in response to viruses and bacteria in their environment. By six months, just when the mother’s IgG antibodies are no longer present, a health baby produces their own IgG antibodies at normal levels, due to their immune system maturing.
The second way a baby can acquire passive immunity is through breast milk. Colostrum is the first milk a woman produces when she begins to breastfeed, and it contains large numbers of antibodies called secretory immunoglobulin. You’ll see this abbreviated as IgA (first we discussed IgG, and now, IgA). Human babies are not able to absorb these passive maternal antibodies from milk or colostrum directly into their bloodstream. Instead, the IgA antibodies in milk and colostrum protect against infection by working inside the baby’s gastrointestinal tract, a clear protective role of human milk, which you can read more about here. These IgA antibodies penetrate and protect the mucous membranes in the baby’s mouth, airway, throat, and intestines.This passive breastfeeding IgA immunity continues until a baby is weaned.
This protection is invaluable to a newborn, and is absolutely necessary in developing countries where access to clean water is problematic. However, it only protects against infection through their digestive tract; it does not provide bloodstream antibodies to protect against various vaccine-avoidable illnesses, which is something that only the IgGs provide (see above).
So to answer our previous question,”why does my infant need any vaccines at all since she’s getting all the antibodies she needs from my breast milk”? The answer is, the antibodies we get from vaccinating ourselves against deadly illnesses aren’t the type that are transmitted through breast milk.
This means to best protect infants from illnesses, mothers should strongly consider following vaccination recommendations during and after pregnancy, to provide critical IgG antibodies to children.
Strengthen Passive Immunity By Getting Vaccinated During Pregnancy
Getting vaccinated in the 2nd and 3rd trimester improves an unborn baby’s immunity
Low levels of IgG antibodies are transferred from mother to baby starting in the early second trimester of pregnancy (between 13-27 weeks), and reach their peak transfer in the third trimester. Preemies, for example, are more vulnerable to infection and illness, because they were not able to gain the maximum level of maternal passive immunity available because they were born earlier.
Mothers can be vaccinated during pregnancy (or given booster shots) in order to produce IgG antibodies that transfer to their baby through the placenta, and protect the baby after birth.
Key vaccinations that a mother should consider getting during her pregnancy include the following:
Tdap Vaccine – Covering Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Pertussis (Whooping Cough): The Tdap vaccine is given in the third trimester, between 27 and 36 weeks, both to prevent mothers from contracting pertussis and to produce IgG antibodies which help protect babies after delivery. You can listen to an example of what an infant sounds like with whooping cough here, to get an idea of why prevention is so critical.
Click on the photo for the CDC’s Immunization & Pregnancy Guide
Influenza Vaccine (“The Flu Shot”):
The influenza vaccine is also recommended during pregnancy. Unlike Tdap, the flu shot can be given at any time during pregnancy, but especially when it first becomes available, as it is released seasonally in late summer and changes each year. The flu shot is an important one to get because pregnant women are more likely to get severely ill if they contract the flu while pregnant, and also because pregnancy complications, such as preterm birth and low birthweight are more common in women who contract influenza while pregnant. The IgG protection passed from mother to fetus also benefits newborns whose mothers received their flu shot while pregnant; some studies suggest a 50% lower risk of hospitalization for influenza in babies whose mothers were vaccinated during pregnancy compared to babies of unvaccinated mothers.
Any Remaining Childhood Vaccines:
For mothers who have not had all of their routine vaccinations, it is important to speak to your physician directly about what shots can and cannot be done during your pregnancy, and complete them as appropriate. Prior vaccinations still within their period of effectiveness will provide unborn children the passive IgG maternal immunity, so a catch up plan either prior to or during pregnancy may be needed for missing or expired vaccinations.
Active (Acquired) Immunity
Finally, a baby’s immune system is at its weakest right after birth. Since passive immunity from both forms of maternal immunity is temporary, and breastfeeding antibodies can only protect within the GI tract while breastfeeding is occuring, these measures are not enough to fully protect a child from infectious disease beyond the first 5-6 months of their life. At 6 months, a baby’s IgG antibodies – acquired passively from their mother – are gone. Their immune systems have begun to mature and if they are healthy, they are producing their own IgG antibodies from the germs they are encountering in their world. This is what is known as active or acquired immunity, the type of immunity that your body develops only after you’ve been exposed to a virus or germ.
Active immunity is the only way to protect children from infectious disease past 6 months of age (Courtesy: CDC)
To continue the process of protection, they need to actively acquire immunity, and fortunately, vaccination is a safe and effective way to achieve it.
When I’m asked questions such as,”why does my seven-month old son need to get a flu shot if I received it during my pregnancy”? My answer is, because your flu shot can no longer protect him. At seven months old, this child no longer has passive immunity from his mother.
Vaccines are tested again and again to be sure that they are safe for children and for nursing mothers. If you are concerned about whether or not a particular vaccine is safe to receive while breastfeeding, check the CDC’s list of vaccines that are safe for nursing women and babies. And finally, during the early months prior to receiving vaccinations, babies are counting on their parents, family, friends, caregivers, doctors, nurses, lactation consultants and anyone them to protect them from diseases. Making sure that everyone is up-to-date with their recommended vaccines is the best way for a community to support a newborn’s health.
VOX.COM is a global 1% neo-liberal media outlet so we would not look at what we know are predatory and profiteering institutions or media for REAL medical research ------
Here is the case we just posted------what has been a disease vector missing from US over several decades is seeing a resurgence----where are many of our global citizens coming ----to our US universities so yes, we will see common vaccinated immunity fail 15% of time.
As this article shows as well, vaccines were never thought to give a life-time of immunity. When our immune cells are created as children they age as all cells and often die as most cells. The US has seen long-term immunity because the DISEASE VIRUS was eliminated in US ----not because vaccines were working for a lifetime. It is reasonable to receive vaccine boosters as young adults. The belief is vaccines create immune cells that last around 15 years. We see this takes us to our college years.
IT IS NOT THE FAILURE OF VACCINES IF WE SEE THE RESURGENCE----PLEASE DON'T BE SOLD ON BIAS SAYING VACCINES DON'T WORK.
Why would we see this rise in disease virus exposure in Europe? They have been fighting OPEN BORDERS and the flooding of global labor pool these few decades longer than US so they have been seeing this reintroduction of disease viruses before we have in US. It is NOT that Europe does not require vaccinations for school----most European nations have similar requirements as US most of last century.
'LN: Why are so many Europeans getting mumps'?
Why college students keep getting the mumps — even though they’ve been vaccinated
Updated by Libby Nelson@libbyanelson Feb 15, 2016, 3:30pm EST
College students are coming down with an illness most people think hasn't been a problem in the US for years: the mumps.
Three students at Butler University, two at Indiana University, and two at Kansas State University have been diagnosed with the mumps in the past few weeks. Most had been fully vaccinated against the disease, according to their universities.
Mumps cases in the US dropped dramatically after vaccination for the disease began in 1977. But the disease has been making a comeback in the past 10 years, ever since a historic 2006 outbreak mostly among students at Midwestern colleges:
I spoke with Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University, about why the mumps vaccine doesn't work so well, why new mumps cases are probably being imported from Europe, and what can be done to stop this.
Libby Nelson: Most, if not all, of the students getting mumps recently had been vaccinated as kids. Why did they get sick anyway?
William Schaffner: The initial immunization is part of three vaccines that are given together — measles, mumps, and rubella. Of the three elements in the vaccine, the mumps portion is the least effective.
Although immediate protection is excellent, its capacity to protect wanes over time, for example, 10 to 15 years. So what happens is when you get to high school and particularly college age, many people in the population have waning immunity, such that if they encounter someone who’s excreting a lot of mumps virus, they’re likely to get infected.
When we get out to 10 to 15 years after immunization, effectiveness is thought to be somewhere between 80 percent and 85 or 86 percent. So that leaves a proportion, and it’s a substantial proportion, of people who were once vaccinated newly susceptible to at least what we call modified disease, a disease of lesser severity.
LN: But they still have to run into someone excreting the virus. Where are these cases coming from?
WS: [Mumps] is gone from the United States, basically. So it has to be imported from areas of the world where we still have mumps.
Usually someone in Europe is exposed to mumps, comes to the US during the incubation period, develops mumps here, and spreads it through close contact. That’s often the case in colleges, where there’s a lot of international interaction, and many of our cases of mumps introductions have been traced back to Europe.
LN: Why are so many Europeans getting mumps?
WS: Why don’t the Europeans do a better job? We’re nattering at them at the present time. They also have measles outbreaks, and some of the importations of measles come from our cousins in Europe — developed countries that do not have that tradition of enforcing immunization requirements the way we do.
They don’t have "no shots, no school" laws, for example, that we tell them they need to institute.
In some ways, Europe now has more measles and more mumps than many parts of the developing world, where the [World Health Organization] and its various agencies and the Gates Foundation have been very much more effective in distributing these basic vaccines. Now we have Europe as a major continuing reservoir of these so-called childhood communicable diseases.
LN: Many hear that these vaccine-preventable diseases are coming back and they blame the anti-vaccination movement in the US. Is it at fault here?
WS: It plays a lesser role in this particular circumstance. There are going to be some people affected in these outbreaks of mumps who avoided vaccination, but that’s not the primary issue here. The primary issue is that the protective effect of the immunization wanes.
Remember, as you said, the substantial majority of people who are affected are people who have actually been vaccinated, and that’s because the protection afforded by the vaccine diminishes over time. By the time you get into college, if you look at the entire population, assuming the entire population has essentially been vaccinated, the vaccine protects about 80 to 85 percent. So that leaves roughly 15 to 20 percent of people who once were vaccinated who are now newly susceptible.
LN: How serious of a disease is mumps?
WS: You can get complications of mumps: encephalitis, inflammation of the brain; meningitis, inflammation of tissues covering the brain. You can get complications of orchitis, which is inflammation of the testicles in males and the ovaries in women. There’s also a sense that if you get this mumps/encephalitis/meningitis, you can be left with hearing loss afterward. None of which is nice.
So there are potentially noteworthy complications, although deaths are pretty rare.
[People who have been vaccinated and have had their effectiveness wear off] are likely to have a modified illness. … It’s not as severe. The men are less likely to get orchitis, that is the testicles involved, and the ladies are less likely as well.
LN: Is there anything that can be done to fix the vaccine wearing off? What about a booster shot?
WS: That's recommended in outbreak circumstances — another dose of vaccine for populations at risk. It’s not a perfect solution, because the mumps vaccine itself is not a perfect vaccine. So this revaccination provides a partial answer, but it usually is not good enough to abruptly end the outbreak.
Please be weary of claims Europe does not vaccinate------some nations may only require the old-school basics and not the newer regimen of vaccines.
The anti-vaccine promoters are selling the idea that Europe doesn't require vaccines so why should US----as this article shows most common disease vector vaccines from last century HAVE been required---where European nations are slower---AND THEY SHOULD BE----is this expanded vaccine regime we in US are questioning as well. Where our global 1% Wall Street CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA pols and players are hawking any and all vaccines coming down the road---European nations are wanting more clinical research -----HOW CIVILIZED.
If an organization or media is JUKING THESE STATS so to speak----they are not the right source of information----educate broadly ---look outside US for these medical policy stances---US is now third world in its medical policy stance.
Immunization Schedules: What Vaccines Do Children Need?
Immunization Schedules in the U.S. and Abroad
By Vincent Iannelli, MD, a board-certified physician
Updated June 21, 2017
Immunization schedules vary from country to country, and usually, the recommended schedule depends on the type of vaccine, the disease the vaccine is designed for, and the age of the child at which the vaccine can be most beneficial. Immunizations are designed to protect infants and children when they are most vulnerable (which is early in life) and before they have been exposed to potentially life-threatening diseases.
Vaccination Schedule for Children
The latest immunization schedule recommended for kids by the Centers for Disease Control, American Academy of Pediatrics, and Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, states that by the time children in the United States start kindergarten, they should get:
- 3 doses of the hepatitis B vaccine
- 2 or 3 doses of the oral rotavirus vaccine (Rotarix or RotaTeq)
- 5 doses of the DTaP vaccine
- 3 or 4 doses of the Hib vaccine
- 4 doses of the Prevnar 13 vaccine
- 4 doses of the polio vaccine
- 2 doses of the MMR vaccine
- 2 doses of the chicken pox vaccine (Varivax)
- 2 doses of the hepatitis A vaccine
- yearly flu vaccines, available as a nasal spray once kids are at least 2 years old
Kids can also get fewer shots if combination vaccines are used, such as:
- Pediarix, a combination of DTaP, IPV, and the hepatitis B vaccine
- ProQuad, a combination of MMR and Varivax
- Pentacel, a combination of DTaP, IPV, and Hib
- Kinrix, a combination of DTaP and IPV
Kids should have booster shots when they are 11 to 12 years old:
- 3 doses of HPV vaccine (girls only)
Another way to think about the immunization schedule is that by the time they start kindergarten, most kids will get multiple doses of 10 vaccines to protect them against 14 vaccine-preventable infections.
Why is that better than the immunization schedules from the 1980s when kids only got 10 doses of 3 vaccines (1983) or 11 doses of 4 vaccines (1989)?
Sure, they got fewer shots back then, but the more important statistic is the much higher numbers of many infections that are now preventable with vaccines that people (mainly kids) got each year in the years before a routine vaccine was given for protection, such as:
- Pneumonia, meningitis, and blood infections from the Streptococcus pneumoniae bacteria – 63,067 cases and 6,500 deaths
- Meningitis, epiglottitis, and other serious infections from the Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) bacteria – 20,000 cases and 1,000 deaths
- Hepatitis A – 117,333 cases, 6,863 hospitalizations, and 137 deaths
- Hepatitis B – 66,232 cases, 7,348 hospitalizations, and 237 deaths
- Rotavirus gastroenteritis – 3 million cases, 70 hospitalizations, and 20 to 60 deaths
- Chicken pox – just over 4 million cases, 10,000 hospitalizations, and 100 deaths
Of course, not everyone in the world follows the CDC immunization schedule. Some people like to point out that other countries have immunization schedules with fewer vaccines, such as Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland. But are their immunization schedules that different?
According to the National Board of Health and Welfare in Sweden, all children "are offered vaccination against nine serious diseases: diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio, Hib infection (Haemophilius influenzae type B), pneumococcal infection, measles, mumps, and rubella. From January 1, 2010, all girls born 1999 or later are also offered vaccination against infection with the human papillomavirus (HPV).
Children who are at high risk of infection or serious illness are offered vaccination against hepatitis B, tuberculosis, influenza and pneumococcal infection (if not already vaccinated as infants)."
And according to the Finnish National Vaccination Programme, kids in Finland routinely get the rotavirus vaccine, DTaP, IPV (polio), Hib, MMR, the Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, and a yearly flu vaccine. Children in high-risk groups are vaccinated against tuberculosis (BCG), hepatitis B, and hepatitis A.
Iceland has added the Streptococcus pneumoniae vaccine to their routine immunization schedule, and others are studying adding it soon.
So the big difference in most European immunization schedules is a lack of a chicken pox vaccine and targeted vaccination against hepatitis A and hepatitis B, while we use universal immunization programs against these vaccine-preventable infections after previous failed attempts at targeted vaccination campaigns.
This makes sense, since:
- Hepatitis A is not endemic in most countries in Europe
- Hepatitis B is often found in very well-defined risk groups in many countries in Europe
However, many countries, such as Spain, already give the hepatitis B vaccine, are starting to give the HPV vaccine to teen girls, and even give the chicken pox vaccine to teens if they haven't had chicken pox yet.
Most countries in Europe are still studying the risk versus benefit analysis of routinely using the rotavirus vaccine.
The big takeaway from these other countries is not that they use fewer shots; it is what a good job they do in vaccinating their kids. In Finland, vaccination coverage statistics show that 98 to 99 percent of children are vaccinated.
Also, many countries have immunization schedules that are nearly identical to the CDC immunization schedule. Since 2007, infants in Australia, for example, have gotten five vaccines at two months of age, just like in the United States—hepB, DTaP, Hib, IPV, Prevnar 7, and a rotavirus vaccine.
Alternative Immunization Schedules
Other alternative immunization schedules that some people continue to promote include the:
- User-Friendly Vaccination Schedule—Beginning at age two years, one at a time, get individual pertussis (acellular pertussis), diphtheria, tetanus, and then IPV (polio) shots every six months, even though individual pertussis, diphtheria, and tetanus shots aren't available anymore
- Dr. Bob's Alternative Vaccine Schedule—Spaces out vaccines so that infants don't get more than two at a time, but they have to get monthly shots instead, delays hepatitis A and hepatitis B vaccine until kids are older, and recommends individual measles, mumps, and rubella shots instead of the combination MMR vaccine
'Safety of Controversial Hepatitis B Vaccine at Center of Debate
WASHINGTON – One of the newer vaccines, the shot to protect against Hepatitis B, is coming under heavy criticism from parent groups, lawyers and some scientists who claim it causes dangerous reactions and symptoms of chronic illness'.
This article speaks to the rapid release of newly patented vaccines in US where other developed nations are remaining tied to research and longer clinical trials. US citizens have seen this these few decades with lots of new PHARMA and medical devices------if we allow this dismantling of regulation and patient rights then we know it will be adverse in vaccines as well.
This is why we recommend citizens wait on new vaccines not necessary in our infants and young children. HEP A, B, AND C have become epidemic but as with HIV and communicable diseases we do have public health education and prevention needing to be that strong barrier to these diseases. If one lives in communities with high exposure maybe getting these vaccines is wise-----
IT IS THE EXPANDING NUMBER OF VACCINES AND THE BOOSTER REGIMES HAVING MANY PARENTS QUESTIONING----LET'S LOOK AT THAT AND NOT BE AFRAID OF VACCINATIONS AS A WHOLE.
Here we see Sweden recommending HEP B, FLU, Pneumonia ---not requiring it
'Children who are at high risk of infection or serious illness are offered vaccination against hepatitis B, tuberculosis, influenza and pneumococcal infection (if not already vaccinated as infants)'."
Safety of Controversial Hepatitis B Vaccine at Center of Debate
WASHINGTON – One of the newer vaccines, the shot to protect against Hepatitis B, is coming under heavy criticism from parent groups, lawyers and some scientists who claim it causes dangerous reactions and symptoms of chronic illness.
At particular issue is whether the shot should be given to babies.
State and federal public health officials are pushing for mandatory childhood vaccinations with the increasingly controversial HepB shots.
So far, 38 states and the District of Columbia have laws requiring the childhood inoculation – often mandatory for entrance into day care or kindergarten. Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend that all infants be injected with the first dose of HepB at birth before going home from the hospital. It is often the very first vaccination American newborns receive. They get two more shots, at an average $40 apiece, in their first year.
Critics claim this is too young, that the baby’s fragile immune system is still developing, is often harmed by the HepB shot – in very rare instances resulting in death.
They argue those most at risk from the disease are in older populations and people at risk through the exchange of infected blood, especially needle-using drug addicts, the sexually promiscuous, people who need repeated drug transfusions, health care workers exposed to infected blood and prison staffers.
The critics of federal policy contend the infants at high risk for contracting the disease are those born to infected mothers. So why, they ask, subject babies to a possibly reactive vaccine when they technology already exists to screen HepB in pregnant women?
Only 15 states, in contrast to the 38 mandating childhood shots, require expecting mothers to be screened for the disease.
"We are giving this vaccine to little-bitty babies before we have any reading on the health of the children," said northern Virginia lawyer Clifford Shoemaker, who has about 30 clients engaged in or preparing federal compensation claims for death and damage to their children after HepB shots.
The controversy is started to draw in governments.
Last month, the French health minister touched off an international row when he stopped mass inoculation of French 11 and 12-year olds in schools because of concern the shot might trigger neurological disorders. The French took notice of a court ruling that found evidence the shots might be connected to symptoms resembling multiple sclerosis. The French government is still inoculating infants and high risk adults.
The World Health Organization, which administers the vaccine in about 100 nations, reacted with condemnation of the move, claiming a "lack of scientific evidence" for it, and contending the French health ministry’s data "do not demonstrate a causal association between HepB immunization and central nervous system disease, including MS,"
World Health Organization officials in Switzerland said they were "concerned the decision may lead to a loss of public confidence in this vaccine," and prompt other countries to suspend usage.
In New Jersey earlier this year, Gov. Christie Whitman declined to sign into law – a move known as "pocket veto" – a bill that would have ordered HepB vaccination as a condition of entering grade school. She noted two reasons: a lack of clinical tests to prove that early shots confer lasting protection, and figures that show teens and adults are at much higher risk than children.
In asking for further study, Whitman said it would be "inappropriate" to mandate early age shots "without some assurance the immunization will protect them when they are at the highest risk of contracting hepatitis B." The governor’s Public Health Council had hearings on the matter in October and is expected to make a recommendation soon.
In Illinois, the state public health department last month stuck by its requirement that fifth and sixth graders be vaccinated with HepB or kept out of school, despite contentious hearings on the matter.
Parent groups in New Hampshire and Wyoming raised public protests in October against mandatory HepB shots before school entrance, with little effect.
Displays of a lack of confidence in the vaccine have spurred the CDC and World Health Organization to crank out publicity. The CDC routinely claims between 4,000 and 5,000 deaths a year in the United States from the disease, and that about 200,000 Americans are infected annually, including 36,000 "children" under the age of 20.
Yet, when the CDC’s own "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report" published HepB figures for 1996, the last statistically complete year, they showed 10,637 cases of the disease reported, with fewer than 300 of them in children under 14.
The CDC, other than noting a difference between estimated infections and reported cases, would not address the discrepancy. Instead, the CDC and World Health Organization answer most inquiries about the vaccine’s safety with barrages of "fact sheets" claiming HepB "is the first anti-cancer vaccine."
This is because HepB complications can sometimes evolve into liver cancer and cirrhosis.
The HepB shot, the World Health Organization claims in its releases "is the first vaccine against a major human cancer, as it is the chronic carriers of HepB who are at high risk of death from cirrhosis of the liver and liver cancer."
About 90 percent of adults, federal figures show, are able to fend off the typical month-long HepB symptoms that used to be called yellow jaundice (for the victim’s skin color); nausea, vomiting, fatigue, low fevers, joint pain, headache, cough, a tender liver.
When they do, lifelong immunity is thought to result. The other 10 percent are a problem, becoming chronic carriers at greater risk of liver damage and death.
The CDC claim is that when children or infants get it, they keep it, with 90 percent becoming chronic carriers who sometimes see the disease surface when they grow up.
Hepatitis B, notes CDC expert Dr. Eric Mast, is "a silent disease until people die as adults from the complications." That is one reason federal public health officials keep pressing for inoculation of babies and toddlers. Another: it is easier to prick a child than it is to round up at-risk populations such as addicts and prostitutes.
In the face of this approach, the medical journals are full of studies reporting symptoms of chronic immune and neurological disease symptoms after HepB shots: lupus, arthritis, diabetes, chronic fatigue, vascular disorders, various neuropathies, optic neuritis, and multiple sclerosis-like afflictions.
A huge debate is brewing over the scope and attribution of these reactions.
Typical is a recent study in the respected Journal of Rheumatology, a Toronto medical publication, in which Canadian scientists studied group reactions – including a cluster of five Swedish firefighters – among HepB vacinees.
Of the total 11 individuals studied, 10 developed "persistent arthritis," after the shots. The study concluded the vaccine "may trigger the development of rheumatoid arthritis" in genetically susceptible individuals.
There is no confirmed evidence that indicates that Hepatitis B vaccine can cause chronic illnesses, "the CDC’s National Immunization Program insisted.
Barbara Loe Fisher, president of the National Vaccine Information Center child advocacy group, said that’s just the point – no one has looked for it.
Testifying at the New Jersey public hearings on the HepB shots, she noted that even though public health officials and vaccine-makers admit the shot provides only temporary immunity, "It can take months and sometimes years for chronic auto-immune disease to develop such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis."
A HepB shot for children, she contended "is a national experiment; on our children; for a disease that is not highly contagious, except in high risk populations, and is not in epidemic form in the United States."
So, what will happen if a small percentage of US citizens decide NOT TO VACCINATE? We already are gearing up to reintroduction of ordinary disease viruses from our global labor pool and new immigrants from Africa and Asia-----meaning we will already have that increased chance of 15% of US population not being protected from vaccination. We want to continue to educate as to why those parents thinking of opting out of vaccines should reconsider but we don't need to HATE PARENTS OR CHILDREN not vaccinated or bringing these disease viruses to US----it is a natural cycle of having to eliminate these disease viruses again---the US did it once----as global labor pool immigration slows after these few decades we can do it again.
Moving away from OVER-ZEALOUS HEALTH CARE does not mean ending all access to what has been the strongest public health access and longevity in world history----it means we must move away from killing our NATURAL IMMUNE SYSTEM with too much immunization just as we did with too much ANTIBIOTICS.
BE KIND TO OUR NATURAL IMMUNE SYSTEM----THAT IS DAMAGED BY TOO MANY DRUGS (PRESCRIPTION AND ILLEGAL) AND TOO MUCH ALCOHOL.
A college that allows GREEK binge drinking is a college a parent wants to avoid literally like the PLAGUE...one of those dangerous disease vectors.
Human Immune System
- Introduction to the human immune system
- Different types of immunity
- Structure and organs of the immune system
Introduction to the human immune system
The human body is often described as being ‘at war’. By this, it is meant that the body is constantly under attack from things that are trying to do it harm. These include toxins, bacteria, fungi, parasites and viruses. All of these can, under the right conditions, cause damage and destruction to parts of the body and if these were left unchecked, the human body would not be able to function. It is the purpose of the immune system to act as the body’s own army, in defence against this constant stream of possible infections and toxins.
The human immune system is divided into two broad groups called the Acquired Immune System and the Innate Immune System. The details about these two systems and how they work is dealt with more under their specific pages. This page will deal more with the structures of the immune system, detailing the parts of the body that play a role in immunity. These include:
- The lymphatics
- Lymph nodes
Different types of immunity
The immune system is divided into two parts, called the Acquired Immune System and the Innate Immune System. While each of these plays a role in defending the body, there are major differences between the two.
The innate immune system is always working to protect the body and does not require any special preparation to stop infection.
The acquired immune system needs to be ‘primed’ before it can work to its full effectiveness though, and is only really effective after it has seen a possible infective agent before.
An overview of these different systems is given in the chart below, and for more details regarding the terminology used, refer to the specific pages linked above.
Click here to see a flowchart of the immune system
Information on re-publishing of our images
Structure and organs of the immune system
The lymphatic system
The lymphatic system is almost equivalent to the blood vessels, only instead of carrying blood through the body, the lymphatic system carries a substance called ‘lymph’. Lymph is excess tissue fluid that has been drained from the body compartments. Lymphatic fluid is usually clear, watery, and has the same constitution as the blood, but without any cells. The lymphatic system is a complex network of lymphatic vessels (that carry the lymph), along which there are occasional lymph nodes. After the lymphatic system has collected all the lymph, this passes through the lymph nodes before being put back into the blood via a large vein just below the neck. In the lymphatic system there are lots of cells called lymphocytes (the T and B cells) that circulate around and are part of the acquired immune system.
Lymphoid tissue is scattered throughout the body and is home to the lymphocytes. Lymphocytes are packed into clusters in the walls of parts of the body that are often exposed to foreign substances. These sites include the gastrointestinal system as well as the tonsils which play a role in protecting the body from any air-borne infections.
Lymph nodes are small, oval structures that can be anywhere from 1mm to 25mm big. Blood vessels and nerves attach to the lymph nodes, as well as two sets of lymphatic vessels – those that enter the lymph node and those that leave it.
The lymph enters from one side and slowly moves past all the cells of the lymph node before leaving through the other lymphatic vessel. This allows the lymph time to access as many of the lymphatic cells as possible. In the lymph node there is a dense packaging of immune cells such as macrophages. These are the ‘big eaters’ and will engulf and destroy anything dangerous that they can. They also play a role in showing these substances to the T and B cells (which is described in more detail under the Acquired Immune System). There are also areas of the lymph node called ‘germinal centres’ where all the b cells multiply to fight off infection. In another part of the lymph node, there are mostly T cells. When they need to, the lymphocytes leave the lymph node and enter the circulation to fight infection.
The lymph nodes are there as a filter for the lymph before it re-enters the venous system. 99% of all the foreign substances that arrive at the lymph node are removed. Lymph nodes are found in regions such as the base of the neck, the armpit and the groin. Swelling or inflammation of these nodes is usually in response to an infection in one of the areas that is drained by the lymph node. This is often what is meant when someone says that they have ‘swollen glands’.
The thymus is a lymphoid organ located in the lower part of the neck and the front of the chest. With age, the thymus becomes smaller and loses most of its active immune cells. The outside of the thymus contains lymphoid stem cells (which are immature cells, still capable of growing) that divide rapidly, producing cells that mature into T cells. These T cells then migrate to the middle of the thymus. Detail of their growth is discussed under the Acquired Immune System. There are also cells in the thymus that release hormones (signalling chemicals) that cause T cells to grow.
The spleen is the largest of the lymphoid organs. It is usually purple in colour, and located in the upper-left of the abdomen (the belly). The spleen is located behind the stomach, in front of the diaphragm (the muscle used for breathing), and next to the left kidney. The spleen can vary in size and shape dramatically; however, it is usually about 12cm long and 7cm wide (about the size of a clenched fist). The spleen contains large amounts of blood that is periodically pushes into the circulation by contraction of some tiny muscles that surround it.
There are two different ‘parts’ to the spleen, each with a different function. The ‘red pulp’ is named because of its colour and its role is to filter the blood. It does this by having tiny holes in its blood vessels that only allow some types of blood cells through. The blood cells that are a little older or in any way defective are not flexible enough to squeeze through these holes and so gets stuck. These stuck cells are then eaten by the macrophages.
The ‘white pulp’ is basically areas of lymphoid tissue in the middle of the spleen. There are areas filled with T cells and B cells. These make up about 5-20% of the spleen. There are lots more of the B cells in younger people than there are in older people, and their numbers in the spleen decrease with age.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet created WORLD HEALTH INITIATIVES filled with donations, taxpayer funding, and sheltered hundreds of billions of dollars through these FAKE ALT LEFT ALT RIGHT FOUNDATIONS-----all to build a global PHARMA CORPORATION using his Microsoft billions. Throughout these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA there has been a global trail of government watchdogs, global health justice organizations, and sovereign nations suing----calling Bill Gates and his GLOBAL BIG PHARMA corporation a wolf in sheep's clothing....and indeed that is what Gates is.
'In the poorest countries in the world, the price of fully vaccinating a child is now almost 70 times higher than it was in 2001. The increase is mainly due to the soaring prices of newer vaccines such as the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. This particular vaccine, which was the subject of Mr Gates criticism of MSF, is singly responsible for approximately 45% of the price for the total vaccination package for a child living in a developing country. In the meantime, GSK and Pfizer - who are the only producers of the pneumococcal vaccine - have made over $19 billion dollars since it’s arrival on the market in 2009'.
Bill Gates is top dog in breaking down our US strong public health care access----he is top dog in creating health policy via TRANS PACIFIC TRADE PACT based solely on patent rights----profiteering by fighting to dismantle public health systems, generics, et al globally. There is not one PHILANTHROPIC bone in Gates' body.
Gates is known to have skirted all US regulations and patient protections HIPPOCRATIC OATH DO NO HARM these few decades in his race for vaccines. He is the UNITED NATIONS/WORLD HEALTH poster child for their preventative care only pushing vaccines as that preventative care to be funded. Developing nation vaccination programs were well on their way to eliminating many of these disease vectors in third world until global Gates Foundation---as with Clinton Initiative created mass distrust and questioning as to goals of vaccinating. What was free and or very low priced vaccines have now become the $5,000 toilet of military ship fame.
'We believe that global access to vaccines will be best served by creating systemic change promoting competition in the vaccine market, not by continuing to pour escalating amounts of donor funding into the profit margins of pharmaceutical companies'.
Not free vaccines, Mr Gates, just sustainably-priced ones
- 19th Mar 2015
Sara Crager is currently a chief resident in the Department of Emergency Medicine at University of California Los Angeles-Olive View Medical Center. She has worked with Universities Allied for Essential Medicines on access to medicines issues almost ten years.
Advocates working to increase global access to medicines were frustrated by the recent comments made by Bill Gates publicly criticizing Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders, MSF) for calling for reductions in the prices of new vaccines. In doing so, Mr Gates stands by a system of pricing that requires raising billions of dollars in donor funding every year to support it. We believe that a system dependent on raising massive amounts of money to meet arbitrarily high prices set by the pharmaceutical industry is a failed system and should be acknowledged as such by donors like Mr Gates. Rather, true success in global vaccination requires mechanisms that can rapidly achieve long-term sustainable vaccine pricing. In the poorest countries in the world, the price of fully vaccinating a child is now almost 70 times higher than it was in 2001. The increase is mainly due to the soaring prices of newer vaccines such as the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. This particular vaccine, which was the subject of Mr Gates criticism of MSF, is singly responsible for approximately 45% of the price for the total vaccination package for a child living in a developing country. In the meantime, GSK and Pfizer - who are the only producers of the pneumococcal vaccine - have made over $19 billion dollars since it’s arrival on the market in 2009.
The justifications for current vaccine prices proffered by the pharmaceutical industry are undermined by their persistent lack of transparency in disclosing accurate figures on their research and development expenditures. These prices are particularly indefensible given the huge amount of taxpayer funding that has gone into vaccine development. For example, federally-funded research at Georgetown University, the University of Rochester, and the US National Cancer Institute was critical to the development of the HPV vaccine, which has made over $16 billion USD for Merck and GSK since it hit the market in 2006.
Mr Gates downplays the importance of vaccine pricing, while emphasizing the importance of improving immunization systems. We believe that the development of national immunization systems and sustainable-priced vaccines need not be mutually exclusive.
The funding model of GAVI (the Vaccine Alliance) – a key player in funding vaccine roll-out in developing countries – illustrates the underlying problems with the current system of vaccine pricing. The subsidies provided by GAVI to countries to finance new vaccines are intended to taper off over a 5-year period, once countries are no longer eligible. There is the expectation that, over time, prices will fall, allowing countries to finance their own vaccines. To date, however, this expectation has not been realized.
So what is the answer to the high cost of new vaccines? In his comments, Mr Gates expressed support for a tiered pricing strategy. We disagree. While tiered pricing has broad support from industry, it has demonstrated itself inferior to the consistently effective strategy of robust and open market competition to lower prices. For example, generic competition decreased the price of first-generation HIV drugs from approximately $10,000 USD per person per year to under $120 today. In contrast, the tiered pricing model used for second-line HIV drugs has resulted in middle-income countries paying up to $740 USD per person per year.
Due to the complexity of vaccine production, it is not possible to manufacture generic vaccines in the same manner that generic drugs are produced. Nevertheless, there is an emerging consensus that a parallel strategy of facilitating the market entry of multiple developing country vaccine manufacturers is the best way to rapidly achieve sustainable vaccine pricing, as well as to ensure long-term vaccine supply security. We question whether there is logic in continuing to concentrate donor funding downstream at the point where the end price is set by the pharmaceutical industry, and suggest that it may ultimately be most cost-effective to invest in upstream mechanisms to rapidly achieve sustained vaccine price reductions.
Mr Gates has accused advocacy groups of demanding that vaccines “cost zero”. We are not calling for free vaccines. We are calling for sustainably-priced vaccines. We believe that global access to vaccines will be best served by creating systemic change promoting competition in the vaccine market, not by continuing to pour escalating amounts of donor funding into the profit margins of pharmaceutical companies.