Is Natural Immunity Better than Vaccine-Acquired Immunity?
Medically, immunity refers to the balanced and stabilized state of biological processes in organisms to fight invading pathogens, infections, and diseases, while developing a tolerance for the prevention of allergies and autoimmune diseases. There two primary types of immunity which are innate and acquired immunity. An immune system can contain both acquired or adaptive and natural or innate components. Innate immunity refers to the type if defense mechanism developed by the body as a result of genetic makeup and memory from previous infections. No external components are required for the natural immunity to be developed. This immunity can either be specific or non-specific innate immunity. Non-specific natural immunity allows the body to resist all infections that may affect the system generally. On the other hand, the specific natural immunity is the body’s resistance to a particular type of pathogens or disease-causing microorganisms. Due to the organism’s constitution, some do not suffer from some diseases or infections due to this type of resistance.
Conversely, adaptive immunity is the deliberate introduction of an infectious material into an organism to activate defense mechanisms in the body against the materials. This means that foreign materials are introduced into an organism to trigger an immune response through which the body develops the defense to fight the infection if it invades in the future. Vaccine-acquired immunity is developed through immunizations which are shots given to children and adults to prevent the occurrence of certain diseases and infections. The body’s immune system can function with both immunity components although some scholars argue that the vaccine-acquired immunity is better that than the innate immunity. However, I will argue that natural immunity is better that vaccine-acquired immunity for reasons such as cost, safety, effectiveness, and alternative methods for the promotion of natural immunity. Natural immunity induces better immune responses than vaccines, which are designed in calculated doses to trick the immune system regarding a pathogenic invasion.
First, natural immunity is cost effective as compared to the vaccine-acquired immunity (Haas & Sondra 96). Some vaccines are very expensive for many people to afford and this means that they have problems getting the vaccinations for certain diseases and infections. In my view, developing the natural immunity would protect the individuals from the diseases since the affordability of the vaccines is not improved (Becker & Laurence 40). Although medical practitioners advocate for vaccinations against various diseases, the body can protect itself from the infections. Considering the wide array of immune cells responsible for various pathogens such as bacteria and pathogens, the body can develop immunity against the pathogens through the activity of the cells. For instance, the various white blood cells help the body to fight against infections and diseases that may affect the body at any time whether during an outbreak or normal transmission from one individual to another (Bertok & Donna 4). While it is clear that the body has its defense mechanisms against diseases and infections, it is also clear that these mechanisms do not cost populations as much as vaccines do (Bertok & Donna 5). Natural immunity is developed by the body’s immune system and only requires the constitution of various aspects such as genetic makeup for an effective immunity to be obtained whereas vaccine-acquired immunity requires enough finances for the affordability of the vaccines. In the current economy where populations have to struggle with various financial constraints, focusing on innate immunity would be an opportunity to reduce the health care cost incurred as a result of vaccines.
Secondly, the safety of the different vaccines is a controversial aspect regarding immunity particularly for children (Bertok & Donna 4). In health care, safety is a primary aspect of consideration to ensure that all patients are protected from adverse effects that may arise from the medications administered including immunizations. Although vaccine manufacturers have argued that the vaccines are safe, it has become a controversial aspect in the field of medicine suggesting the importance of natural immunity versus the vaccine-acquired immunity (Kushi, Martha & Mark 100). In many countries, parents have questioned the safety of vaccines given to their children citing that the manufacturers cannot be trusted based on the fraud cases that face most of the vaccine producing companies. Some parents have focused on natural immunity to improve the health of their children rather than using vaccinations, and this has helped them to save the cost and improve safety (Herberman XX). Some researchers can argue that vaccines are always safe, but some have been proven to contain toxic materials that may affect the health of the populations in the long run. This means that supporting natural immunity would improve not only the health of the populations but also the safety of the immune system (Herberman XX).
Thirdly, vaccines have been found not to be 100% effective in the protection of the body against certain diseases and infections while natural immunity always lasts longer and provides considerable protection against diseases (Shengqiao 70). Studies have shown that the natural immunity is more effective in protections against diseases than the vaccine-acquired immunity because some vaccines only last in the body for a short time (Vivier & Bernard 17). Research has also shown that vaccinated people have a risk of being infected during outbreaks in the same probability with the unvaccinated people suggesting the ineffectiveness in the use of vaccines (Shengqiao 70). The aspects of the ineffectiveness of the vaccine lead to the question of the essence of spending on the vaccinations and later get infected with some infections during outbreaks. If people have the chance of being infected even with the immunizations and the adaptive immunity developed, then there is no need of incurring the vaccination cost for the populations. Conversely, the finances can be used in the strategies for the improvement of natural immunity among the populations rather than the expensive vaccines that are not always effective (Minnicozzi, et al. 106). It is clear that natural immunity is better than vaccine-acquired immunity because the populations would have safer, effective, and reduced costs for the prevention of diseases and infections.
Fourth, appropriate health promotion techniques such as cough etiquette and hand washing can be used to improve natural immunity as a result of the reduced spread of diseases and infections in a population (Groeneveld & Erik 660). Studies have proved that the techniques reduce and prevent transmission of diseases and infections in the populations. Most infections and diseases spread through contact between individuals and they compromise the innate immunity experienced by the individuals. If people reduced transmission of the diseases from one individual to the other, the innate immunity would be strengthened indicating that vaccines are not the sole preventatives against diseases (Minnicozzi, et al. 106). Based on the current trends, children are required to receive various vaccinations against certain infections and diseases, and this can be devastating for both the child and the parent as a few days old infant has to be injected. The children are subjected to pain through injections, and the parents have to deal with the consequences (Groeneveld & Erik 660). If appropriate alternative methods can be used to improve the innate immunity for the children, they would be saved from the pain experienced from the vaccine injections they receive from such a young age.
Finally, innate immunity has been proven to play crucial roles in certain diseases such as allergies and cancer (Godfrey & Don 1666). The various cells associated with natural immunity play key roles in ensuring that the pathogens invading the body are eliminated or reduced for the body’s functionality to be optimal. This means that innate immunity is beneficial because the body does not require vaccines to respond to the invading pathogens (Rubin 275). While the vaccine is introduced into the body as a component of a disease-causing pathogen in killed, attenuated, or live forms, the components can trigger adverse effects in the body (Groeneveld & Erik 660). An individual can develop a reaction from the components, which is not the case with natural immune cells. The natural immune cells are programmed to attack the pathogens only while tolerating autoimmune mechanisms as well as allergies that may arise (Rubin 275). Besides safety concerns, the vaccine-acquired immunity can lead to increased health effects in an individual while reducing the quality of life. In my view, vaccines can be avoided to prevent such reactions that may increase the health problems experienced in a population. This is because innate immunity poses no life-threatening issues to the health of the individuals (Groeneveld & Erik 660).
Considering the above reasons, it is evident that vaccine-acquired immunity is not effective, safe, and cost-effective, suggesting that innate immunity is beneficial to the populations since no reactions are experienced as a result of the immune cells’ activities. However, some researchers have counter-argued that vaccine-acquired immunity is better that innate immunity due to reduced risks (Quintana & Andrew 280). First, it has been argued that unvaccinated people are unhealthy and they are highly susceptible to certain diseases and infections (Rubin 280). While this may seem true, most individuals are susceptible to some diseases in cases of outbreaks including the vaccinated because some vaccinations lack life-long effects. Despite the being vaccinated, some individuals can possess genetic susceptibility to some diseases and infections and in the case of outbreaks develop the diseases while the unvaccinated individuals remain healthy (Bertok & Donna 5). This can be attributed to the less effectiveness of vaccines causing the vaccinated people to get diseases as well. Also, it has been proven that the number of vaccinated people who get sick during outbreaks is higher than those of the unvaccinated people because few individuals avoid vaccinations (Groeneveld & Erik 660). It is clear that vaccinations are only a financial burden in the population since diseases can be prevented through natural immunity which is cost free and only depends on the individual’s constitution genetically.
Secondly, some scholars have also argued that the natural immunity is not effective in the prevention of some diseases such as those that have been regarded as “disappeared disease” (Godfrey & Don 1670). This is a misconception that may seem true, but the natural immunity has been proven to possess the ability to attack all forms of invading pathogens and materials that pose a health risk to the body. In this case, the argument does not hold because the various natural immune cells can fight different pathogens to protect the body and attain either specific or non-specific innate immunity Herberman xx). If some diseases have been wiped out in some regions, vaccinations are not the sole reason underlying the disappearance of a disease since natural immunity also plays a crucial role in protecting individuals against the diseases. This argument can be refuted because, in the case of the spread of the disease from another region, the body’s defense mechanisms would fight the infections to develop immunity even without the vaccinations (Groeneveld & Erik 660). In my view, natural immunity provides better protective mechanisms for the body than the vaccine-acquired immunity because it can deal with all as well as specific infections and diseases. Unlike the natural immunity, the vaccine-acquired immunity would require individuals to be vaccinated against all existing diseases, which is not ideal because some vaccinations have not been developed yet.
Thirdly, some vaccines are thought to induce a better immune response than others which may not be the case (Becker & Laurence 45). In my view, the natural immunity induces better responses than the vaccines because the dosage and time of exposure are higher than that of the vaccinations. While vaccinations are meant to induce an immune response in the body, they are designed to contain the least dosage of the pathogenic material to avoid the onset of a full-blown disease (Godfrey & Don 1670). Vaccines do not allow the entry of the pathogens from the outside to the inside because they are injected directly into the body bypassing the filtration process. Due to the process of injection, the vaccine fails to induce a full immune response like the natural system does, and it tricks the immune system to produce antibodies against the pathogen (Quintana & Andrew 280). This is a shortcut theory on which vaccines are based, and it flaws the natural process if inducing immune responses in the body. Unlike the natural immunity, the vaccines provide a small dosage of the pathogen as live attenuated or killed component of the pathogen to trigger the risk of antibodies against the pathogen. This gives the natural immunity an upper hand because a better immune response is induced in the presence of a larger dose and a fully acting pathogen (Rubin 280).
Fourth, it has been argued that the components of the vaccines are safe and less toxic. This is used to promote the use of vaccines in the population and to promote the aspect of the importance of vaccines in prevention of diseases (Groeneveld & Erik 660). Although the vaccines have been shown to prevent various diseases and infections, it is clear that they contain some toxic materials such as mercury, formaldehyde, and aluminum to maintain the pathogen in an inactive form (Quintana & Andrew 280). However, it is clear that these materials can have adverse effects on the body, in the long run, considering the vaccinations individuals are exposed to during a lifetime. The vaccine manufacturers argue that the toxins are in trace amounts and cannot cause adverse effects in the body (Groeneveld & Erik 660). The primary concern with this argument is the overall toxins consumed during through the various vaccines administered in an individual’s lifetime (Groeneveld & Erik 660). In my view, the trace amounts accumulate to constitute levels that can cause harm to an individual in the long run. The chemicals used in vaccines have been shown to contributed to the development of diseases such as cancer and chronic illnesses, and I would argue that the vaccines are not worth the risk (Rubin 275). It is clear that administering multiple vaccines contributes to the increase of the toxins in the body and enhance the chances of suffering from adverse effects.
Finally, it has also been argued that multiple vaccinations do not cause an overload of the vaccine in the immune system (Groeneveld & Erik 660). This argument can be refuted because vaccines can overwhelm the immune system and trigger the development of some reactions that may adversely affect the system. The toxic and unnatural substances contained in the vaccines overwhelm the immune system, and an overreaction can result from the multiple vaccinations. This explains the risks that are posed to infants as a result of multiple vaccinations at once, a trend in the modern medicine (Quintana & Andrew 282). Besides the reactions, multiple tissue damage can occur from the toxic chemicals, and a healing response is required by the body to repair the tissues continuously. In my view, the body is overworked through the production of antibodies against unnatural and toxic substances. Since the body can maintain its defenses, it is not worth subjecting the immune system to the production of antibodies against unnatural substances (Herderman xx).
In conclusion, natural immunity induces better immune responses than vaccines, which are designed in calculated doses to trick the immune system regarding a pathogenic invasion. Both natural and acquired immunity are components of the immune system, and they can coexist to prevent diseases and infections. However, natural immunity can be regarded as a better defense mechanism since it induces better immune responses than the vaccine-acquired immunity. Natural immunity can be specific or non-specific indicating the ability to fight all and some infections, unlike vaccines which are only designed for certain diseases and infections. Vaccine-acquired immunity can also be regarded as less effective than natural immunity because it can only focus on specific diseases and the rest is prevented naturally. I have argued that natural immunity is better than vaccine-acquired immunity because of the concerns such as cost, safety, effectiveness, and alternative methods for disease prevention. Natural immunity is cost-free, safer, and more effective than the vaccinations because only the immune cells are involved in the defense mechanisms. However, vaccine-acquired immunity has been supported by some scholars and vaccine manufacturers to improve the use of vaccines. The counterarguments suggest that unvaccinated people are unhealthy, vaccines are effective, vaccines induce better immune responses, components are not toxic and unsafe, and multiple vaccinations have no effect on the immune system. The arguments can be refuted because vaccinated people have been found to get sick more than unvaccinated people in cases of outbreaks and the vaccines are not always a 100% effective. Also, multiple vaccines overload the immune system, cause the unnecessary production of antibodies due to the unnatural and toxic substances, and contribute to health dangers in the long run as a result of the accumulation of the toxins.
Becker, Daniel M, and Laurence B. Gardner. Prevention in Clinical Practice. Boston, MA: Springer US, 2010. Internet resource.
Bertók, Lóránd, and Donna A. Chow. Natural Immunity. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2012. Internet resource.
Godfrey, James and Don M. Benson. “The Role of Natural Killer Cells in Immunity against Multiple Myeloma.” Leukemia & Lymphoma, vol. 53, no. 9, Sept. 2012, pp. 1666-1676. EBSCOhost, doi:10.3109/10428194.2012.676175.
Groeneveld, A.B. Johan and C. Erik Hack. “The Role of the Innate Immune Response in Hospital- Versus Community-Acquired Infection in Febrile Medical Patients.” International Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 12, no. 6, Nov. 2008, pp. 660-670. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2008.03.009.
Haas, Elson M, and Sondra Barrett. Ultimate Immunity: Supercharge Your Body’s Natural Healing Powers., 2014. Print.
Herberman, Ronald B. Natural Cell-Mediated Immunity against Tumors. New York: Academic Press, 2010. Internet resource.
Kushi, Michio, Martha C. Cottrell, and Mark N. Mead. Aids, Macrobiotics, and Natural Immunity. Tokyo: Japan Publications, 2009. Print.
Minnicozzi, Michael, et al. “Innate Immunity in Allergic Disease.” Immunological Reviews, vol. 242, no. 1, July 2011, pp. 106-127. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/j.1600-065X.2011.01025.x.
Quintana-Murci, Lluís and Andrew G. Clark. “Population Genetic Tools for Dissecting Innate Immunity in Humans.” Nature Reviews Immunology, vol. 13, no. 4, Apr. 2013, pp. 280-293. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1038/nri3421.
Rubin, B. “Natural Immunity Has Significant Impact on Immune Responses against Cancer.” Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, vol. 69, no. 3, Mar. 2009, pp. 275-290. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/j.1365-3083.2008.02220.x.
Shengqiao, Li, et al. “Xenotransplantation: Role of Natural Immunity.” Transplant Immunology, vol. 21, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 70-74. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.trim.2008.10.004.
Vivier, Eric and Bernard Malissen. “Innate and Adaptive Immunity: Specificities and Signaling Hierarchies Revisited.” Nature Immunology, vol. 6, no. 1, Jan. 2005, pp. 17-21. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1038/ni1153.