Ehrlich’s antibody theory is wrong

“In simplest terms, the theory of artificial immunization postulates that by giving a person a mild form of a disease, via the use of specific foreign proteins, attenuated viruses, etc., the body will react by producing a lasting protective response e.g., antibodies, to protect the body if or when the real disease comes along. This primal theory of disease prevention originated by Paul Ehrlichfrom the time of its inceptionhas been subject to increasing abandonment by scientists of no small stature.

For example not long after the Ehrlich theory came into vogue, W.H. Manwaring, then Professor of Bacteriology and Experimental Pathology at Leland Stanford University observed: ‘I believe that there is hardly an element of truth in a single one of the basic hypothesis embodied in this theory. My conviction that there was something radically wrong with it arose from a consideration of the almost universal failure of therapeutic methods based on it… Twelve years of study with immuno-physical tests have yielded a mass of experimental evidence contrary to, and irreconcilable with the Ehrlich theory, and have convinced me that his conception of the origin, nature, and physiological role of the specific ‘antibodies’ is erroneous.’

As we proceed to the early 80s, we find that upon investigating unexpected and unexplainable outbreaks of acute infection among ‘immunized’ persons, mainstream scientists have begun to seriously question whether their understanding of what constitutes reliable immunity is in fact valid.

For example, a team of scientist writing in the New England Journal of Medicine provide evidence for the position that immunity to disease is a broader bio-ecological question then the factors of artificial immunization or serology. They summarily concluded: ‘It is important to stress that immunity (or its absence) cannot be determined reliable on the basis of history of the disease, history of immunization, or even history of prior serologic determination.’

Despite these significant shifts in scientific thinking, there has unfortunately been little actual progress made in terms of undertaking systematically broad research on the multiple factors which undergird human immunity to disease, and in turn building a system of prevention that is squarely based upon such findings.

It seems ironic that as late as 1988 James must still raise the following basic questions. ‘Why doesn’t medical research focus on what factors in our environment and in our lives weaken the immunesystem? Is this too simple? too ordinary? too undramatic? Or does it threaten too many vested interests…'”

— Raymond Obomsawin, MD

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s