What do you know about the history of the scientific claims about antibodies and immunity?

I understand, I was wondering more about whether you've researched what individuals during what time periods were pushing these ideas in science? Or similar lines of thinking...

Thanks for this, you've given a nice thread that we can pull on.

They have certainly capitalized on the claims about immunity as a justification for the vaccine programs.

Thanks for introducing something new around here. Do you have anything more on this?

Your initial image is from Dr. William S. Starks course on Confocal microscopy and is noted as; "Rh1 labeled with a fluorescent antibody in the confocal." I believe your confusion might be with how the confocal processes imagery. You should contact the professor and ask him directly. I'm sure he wouldn't hesitate to help.

I wish you would have done your homework before posting. Although you have creative thinking there was little to no research done on the topic. It is a thought provoking topic though, perhaps some medical and scientific folks will shine some light.

I found the image you posted: http://starklab.slu.edu/neuro/Rh1Antibody.jpg

It is from a laser scanning confocal microscope, not an SEM.

I use SEM for work sometimes:

1 - you do not need to prepare samples with a microtome. You can seriously glob what ever you want onto the sample holder and your good to go. I'm not in the medical field, so I don't know their typical prep methods.

2 - you can cut thin sections to what ever thickness you want.

Naw man those look pretty 3d to me

And learn about protein folding. A particular type of protein will always be folded one way, otherwise it fucks shit up. Read up on prions.

Mad Cow Disease was a disease where misfolded proteins caused disorders in the cows.

True. That is because we live in harmony with bacteria, yeast, and fungus.

The world is teeming with an infinite assortment of microscopic organisms.

Every breath you take is saturated with them. Your body hosts them. Everywhere.

Sickness is not caused by bacteria.

One thing is certain. People's knowledge about nature is so small that it might as well be considered non existent.

Why are you leaving out viruses?

Because viruses don't exist.

Lol.

Lol?

"viruses," are really just cellular debris. They are without limbs, flagella, teeth, mouths, or other faculties, but it is claimed that they can attack and disable a large and self-sufficient cell millions of times large? This is illogical and ridiculous.

Viruses are the ultimate parasite: they don't even have to be alive to do their dirty work. They coopt the workings of a cell, and that's why they can be miniscule on their own - they don't need all the fancy self-sufficiency stuff if they can steal it.

By your logic, malaria is a preposterous disease since a tiny parasite manages to take out this massive mammal millions of times its size... Or a small amount of cyanide can't possibly kill a person...

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/alllife/virus.html

Got any proof for that claim?

The proof is that viruses were never proven to exist. They were made up. LIke all of the things in corporate science.

What is "corporate science"?

And how do you explain the pictures of virus' here?

Corporate science is business science. Motivated by profits and lusting for power. They lie, cheat and steal. Because they don't give a Damn about the truth.

Real science is about knowledge and understanding and searching for truth. And nothing more.

And that blurry, grainy, false color photo? Do I just taken your word for it that that is in fact a "virus"? It could be any number of different cell structures, or something else entirely?

I was not referring to the original photo, did you go to my link? Those are not nearly as grainy, and taken from multiple sources.

So are you saying that science can never be profited from without being distorted? That as soon as a single penny can be made, the entire discovery and all those involved become corrupt? I'm not saying that corporations never lie, I'm just doubting the claim that there does not exist valid, proven science that corporate rely on to make a profit. Hell, many applications of the sciences literally cannot be distorted or else they would not work, for example, cold medicine. Many companies sell cold medicine, so you would call it "corporate science." But the effects of the drug is clear: your symptoms are reduced when you take it. How do you conflate the idea of a corporation making money off of proven cause and effect, or "real science".

Sickness is not caused by bacteria

Well, cholera is one disease that begs to differ.

Cmon man this is literally taught in middle/high school.

It's taught in middle school.

So that makes it true? How in depth did you study this theory in order to confirm or deny it proposal? Lots of things are taught in school. Most of those things are false. But by all means, continue to consume and regurgitate what exactly is fed to you. Most people are incapable of critical thinking.

Sickness exists. The reason why is not what you were taught. It's not bacteria. Bacteria is everywhere. Use your common sense.

The it's taught in middle school is about the discovery of cholera, not bacteria.

But by all means, continue to consume and regurgitate what exactly is fed to you. Most people are incapable of critical thinking.

How lovely. Thanks for assuming something about me despite having no knowledge about me or anything I have or have not done in life.

Bacteria is everywhere. Use your common sense.

I am using my common sense. There are a millions types of bacteria. There are types that your body doesn't react to because they don't cause issues.

There are types that do, like cholera. A simple proof is the Broad Street pump discovery which is what I was referring to. The logical conclusions are quite simple and easy to achieve. People get sick more when drinking water that has high amounts of the cholera bacterium in it. Those whose pumps were not infected didn't have a high number of cases, if any.

That's why we vaccinate as well, to ensure our body doesn't get overwhelmed by unknown bacteria and can defend itself. It's called having a known enemy and is a universal fact even in human warfare.

Simply by saying "there are bacteria in the air and I'm not sick so there" is complete hogwash. Your body has a resistance to many if not all types if bacteria around you right now due to simple exposure if not immunity from exposure at a younger age.

I assumed nothing. The evidences for your beliefs were stated as such by you: it is taught in school. Apparently, that's good enough for you. We'll it's not good enough for me.

And you can't have a "known enemy" when the variety of different bacteria and fungus is so astronomically large.

Ask yourself this. If we are surrounded by, and our own body is permeated with microscopic organisms then how come we are not sick all the time? The "known enemy" theory cannot apply, since there are constant mutations and infinite varieties of organisms all around us.

I don't think you read my comment. The taught in school part was the Broad Street pump discovery. It's part of history.

And yes you can have a known enemy when they mutate. Its like asking someone to identity pi. Even if you change a few digits in the 10000th ish places, your average person will still recognize it as pi.

Random mutations are very very minor in most cases.

As for the bigger mutations, viruses mutate much faster due to their style of reproduction and the fact they are basically just rogue RNA. Example: the flu

Bacteria don't mutate so quickly because they are living organisms and dont reproduce the same way.

The bacteria in our gut are helpful and thus our body doesn't try to fight them off. When foreign bacteria come in, our body gets alerted and then a fever happens.

So yeah 'known enemy' works since our body doesn't look for the full pattern to recognize bacteria, but instead looks for certain key elements and proteins on the surface. Taking the pi analogy again, it's like identifying a number as pi based on seeing 3.14 at the start.

By the way, how do you explain AIDS and other such immunodeficiency disorders? If there is no immune system and bacteria don't exist, how does AIDS occur and a normally healthy person start getting sick of every disease they come across?

Sickness is not caused by bacteria

This such a ridiculous claim, I don't know how to respond to it.

So please, can you give me explanation in regards to the discovery of antibiotics? If bacteria didn't cause sickness, then why is the thing that kills bacteria ultra-effective at curing infections?

The vast majority of bacteria & viruses you run into aren't targeting humans - or even animals. Of those that do target humans, a significant chunk are warded off by the immune system pretty effectively, leaving only a thin sliver of properly dangerous stuff. A good chunk of that last sliver is counteracted with vaccination, too.

Also nature lives in 'harmony' only in the sense that there's a precarious cold war going on, complete with the occasional arms race. Red in tooth and claw, you know?

Interesting. What's your take on immunity - for instance, if you get measles as a kid, you won't get it again as an adult?

Maybe after measles the tissue is permanently changed in some way

Nope, because almost every cell in the human body is entirely replaced after about 2 years iirc.

Indeed, immunity is only a theory, as are many concepts in micro-science. But a few things for you to ponder on:

• how can the technique of immunoassay be so effective at creating practical results if antibodies/antigens does not exist

• how does the process of allergy occur, i.e. what catalyses the reaction of inflammation, etc (and would this not be the immune system 'fighting'? Coming up with a fever?)

• What is your interpretation therefore of AIDS as a disease of failing immune system?

I was going to post the immunoassay one. It's not a small thing if antibodies don't exist, they create antibodies to all kinds of things specifically to develop tests all the time. If there aren't any antibodies we need new explanations for why everything from HIV tests to pregnancy tests work.

For your answer to immunoassay I really can't agree, it's much much more specific than a simplistic technique like gram staining (you say "...experiments WE do..." do I understand then that you have personally performed an immunoassay?

now the video of the bacterium morphing into blood cell....this is something i had never heard about and looks super interesting, thank you for the link

Finally I would like to say, you can maintain your argument that the immune system does not exist while still conceding that antigens-antibodies do exist, their concept is not so ridiculous, very similar to the concept of ligand-receptor (or do you not believe in ligand-receptor?)

Wait. My daughter and I are both sero negative for mononucleosis, measles, chickenpox and shingles. That literally means that we've had those infections under observation, had a blood test for the antibody, came back negative, had a full blood culture and tested positive for the virus. That leads me to believe that antibodies do, indeed, exist or they wouldn't have sent us for culture testing.

Logic? Reason? In MY fartsnotfacts thread? Get the hell out of here.

I like this thread. A non-political conspiracy theory to discuss. But before we go on, we probably need to identify a motive. So who gains from faking Antibodies?

Oh, god, it's fartsnotfacts again:

If they [proteins] are scattered randomly, then we should see a random assortment of orientations

That is false. Proteins fold into specific shapes. Look up "protein structure alpha helix" and "protein structure beta sheet".

There is a deep science into protein structure, and endless amounts of ample proof that it is factual science, confirmed by thousands of scientists in hundreds of nations around the world.

I am not going to bother with explaining the whole subject. Certainly, interested parties can buy the book "Introduction to protein structure." and educate themselves on their own time.

I'm here to say that I was browsing "new" section looking for good posts and shit posts. No surprise I found this shit post spouting lies about a subject. No shock that it was an anti-science post by this particular user, fartsnotfacts.

If you see a post by FartsNotFacts, you can be 100% certain that any claim it makes about science or any related type of subject is 100% complete bullshit.

hmm, the three in the lower right actually turn the other way, so the premise that they are all oriented in the same way is wrong.

Why are you assuming that evidence for antibodies rest solely on visualizing them? I mean, I'm a chemist, I can't "see" the molecules I make, but I can infer their structure, from NMR, IR, and mass spec. measurements. How do you dispute every single other piece of evidence for antibodies and the immune system?

This is the same guy who thinks volcanoes doesn't exist in our world and viruses are a hoax..

Need to say more?

I was not referring to the original photo, did you go to my link? Those are not nearly as grainy, and taken from multiple sources.

So are you saying that science can never be profited from without being distorted? That as soon as a single penny can be made, the entire discovery and all those involved become corrupt? I'm not saying that corporations never lie, I'm just doubting the claim that there does not exist valid, proven science that corporate rely on to make a profit. Hell, many applications of the sciences literally cannot be distorted or else they would not work, for example, cold medicine. Many companies sell cold medicine, so you would call it "corporate science." But the effects of the drug is clear: your symptoms are reduced when you take it. How do you conflate the idea of a corporation making money off of proven cause and effect, or "real science".