Talk:Immunity (medicine)

From Talk:Maternal Passive Immunity
May be better to have different types of passive immunity as separate pages. Snowman 11:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)thanks 4 da help

Page merger
I think it might make more sense to combine these two articles into one "immunity" page since they discuss the same general concepts.--DO11.10 20:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I created the page on artifical induction of immunity because there were a lot of pages on the individual section topics in it, but none of them presented their topic as being part of a whole, or a continuum.  Some of the discussion and contrary editing around them seemed to me to reflect a lack of appreciation - due, for those who read the material rather than just adding their own, to a lack of coverage of the historical progression.  Combining it with other articles is not ridiculous, and building the history of a topic into the current state of the topic page seems not unreasonable.  A disadvantage is that the artifical induction article is a convenient length at present, the immunity (medical) one is stubby and I'd expect it to become a very long article particualrly if we get into tailor-made immune molecules and the result is either going to be rather long, cut down inconveniently, or liable to lose detail.    On balance I'm against that merger, but interested in discussion.  Midgley 11:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The proposed merger is in the wrong direction, mind you. Midgley 11:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I do agree with you about the lack of continuum in regards to this topic, which is why I combined two pages that were very similar into one page, and attempted to expand this page a bit more (immunity (medical) originally redirected to immune system, which I thought was a bit odd). Although this statement perplexes me: "Some of the discussion and contrary editing around them seemed to me to reflect a lack of appreciation - due, for those who read the material rather than just adding their own, to a lack of coverage of the historical progression." Are you referring to other specific articles, or to me combining the pages that I did? I also agree with your concerns about the page length issue, and on further thought, perhaps the pages should not be merged. Perhaps this page should serve as a summary-type page for the different types of immunity (including history/discoveries of the different types, and bits about humoral and cell-mediated, etc...). "Artificial induction of immunity" could be linked to it as a detail page. Does that sound reasonable?
 * This page discusses maternal transfer of immunity, which I would have to argue is not "artificial". That is why I suggested the merge direction that I did. Cheers--DO11.10 02:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I was referring to some of the editing around vaccine articles and a few others, not here. The placental transfer of maternal immunity prevents artificial induction of immunity to various diseases in the first year or so of life.  I agree though it isn't absolutely in the same topic and might even be trimmed.  Midgley 21:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:CB to me...
[Jump to top of this page] ...in addition to other problems. But I could be wrong. So I am moving it here until it can be sourced by the author.

Heritagely acquired passive immunity The Sami people(native people of Finland, Norway and Sweden) have an immunity to mosquitos, that they have herited from their forefathers. The immunity has made the blood smell an odor that the mosquitos dont like. --DO11.10 17:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Does donating blood affect your immunity?
[Jump to top of this page] If you donate blood are you more vulnerable to getting the flu? If you have recieved the flu vaccine before you have donated blood are you still as resistant to the flu? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith152 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

adoptive transfer
[Jump to top of this page] "Adoptive transfer" should read "adaptive transfer"? The subsection "Passive transfer of cell-mediated immunity" begins as follows:"Passive or "adoptive transfer" of cell-mediated immunity, is conferred by the transfer of "sensitized" or activated T-cells from one individual into another." "Adoptive transfer" should read "adaptive transfer"? --Tossh eng (talk) 05:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Single letter difference is not an error. You can find the term adoptive immunity.--Tossh_eng (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

toxoid
[Jump to top of this page] At the third category of vaccines, in the last section "Artificially acquired active immunity", it is described that: Would it be that the last phrase reads "used prior to an encounter with the toxin of the organism"? --Tossh eng (talk) 07:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Toxoids are inactivated toxic compounds from micro-organisms in cases where these (rather than the micro-organism itself) cause illness, used prior to an encounter with the toxiod.

What Mithridates VI has done?
[Jump to top of this page] The last but one paragraph of the section "History of theories of immunity" begins with as follows:


 * The birth of passive immunotherapy may have begun with Mithridates VI of Pontus, who sought to harden himself against poison, and took daily sub-lethal doses of poison to build tolerance.

Then did Mithridates VI make active immunization by incorporating poisons? --Tossh eng (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

To take orally the blood of the animals which fed on venomous snakes was done to develop a similar resistance to the animals against the venome. The idea was similar to the reason to take orally other toxins. He just wanted to develop immunity to the toxins. This was aimed at developing active immunity. The immunoglobulin against the venome was of his own. He might have not approached the modern passive immunotherapy, that is, to transfer the immunoglobulin which had specific binding property to the toxin and neutralizing it into the blood himself. This immunoglobulin was of the animal's own. The reason that he also recommended taking orally the blood of animals which fed on poisonous plants might have been similar to the reason above for the snake venome.--Tossh_eng (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

How to be resistant against snake venoms? What Mithridates VI has done?
[Jump to top of this page] The pertaining part of the original French text of J. Maleissye's book at page 165 is as follows:


 * Peut-être a-t-il encore pressenti la sérothérapie en cherchant la meilleure manière de se rendre réfractaire au venin des vipères. La méthode était simple, il ajoutait à son antidote préféré, le sang des animaux réputés pour se nourrir de serpents venimeux, car ces prédateurs étatient présumés dépositaires de l'antidote parfait contre les venins. Le sang devait contenir, selon Mithridate, les principes venimeux atténués ou modifiés car, croyait-il, la prise de venin sous cette forme ne provoquait aucune manifestation d'empoisonnement, mais possédait un effet préventif contre ces types de toxique, en raison de l'immunisation artificielle qu'elle conférait.

Dictionary.com translator robot exhaled the following English:


 * Perhaps it still had a presentiment of the serotherapy by seeking the best manner of going refractory to venom vipers. The method was simple, it added to its preferred antidote, the blood of the animals considered to nourish poisonous snakes, because these predatory e'tatient supposed agents of the perfect antidote against venoms. Blood was to contain, according to Mithridate, the poisonous principles attenuated or modified because, he believed, the catch of venom in this form did not cause any demonstration of poisoning, but had a preventive effect against these types of poison, because of the artificial immunization which it conferred.

Though it is so much imperfect as English, Mithridates might not think any detoxifying property of the venom in the animal's blood feeding on the snake and he might not think the property was transferred to him by drinking the blood.--Tossh_eng (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Immunity in Health and Disease
I have tagged the above article for merge here, although it reads like an essay and I don't know if anything in it is worth rescuing. I trust you editors here will know how to deal with it. I found it in the backlog of articles to be wikified since September 2007. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirected to Immune system. --DO11.10 (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

maternal immunity
from early in the article: "Naturally acquired immunity occurs through contact with a disease causing agent, when the contact was not deliberate, whereas artificially acquired immunity develops only through deliberate actions such as vaccination." However, later on it is stated that maternal immunity "refers to antibody-mediated immunity conveyed to a fetus by its mother during pregnancy. Maternal antibodies (MatAb) are passed through the placenta to the fetus by an FcRn receptor on placental cells." If natural immunity requires "contact with a disease causing agent", and maternal immunity comes when "Maternal antibodies are passed through the placenta to the fetus", then why is maternal immunity listed as "Naturally acquired passive immunity" when it does not fit the definition as stated in this article? --98.70.129.246 (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Because: 1) The person who gets the passive immunity (i.e. the fetus) has not had contact with a disease causing agent. The mother came into contact with the agent and developed antibodies through an active process, but the fetus got those antibodies without having to make its own immune response to the agent. This is passive immunity. 2) The mother passed on the antibodies to the fetus through a natural (re: non-deliberate) process. Hence the passive immunity provided by the mother to the fetus is naturally acquired. --DO11.10 (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Immunological memory (immunology) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Immunity (medical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060721232232/http://www.rhodes.edu/biology/glindquester/disimm/history.html to http://www.rhodes.edu/biology/glindquester/disimm/history.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070102170207/http://nfs.unipv.it/nfs/minf/dispense/immunology/immun.html to http://nfs.unipv.it/nfs/minf/dispense/immunology/immun.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929162613/http://www2.cdc.gov/nip/isd/ycts/mod1/courses/genrec/10300.asp?student_id= to http://www2.cdc.gov/nip/isd/ycts/mod1/courses/genrec/10300.asp?student_id=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

mRNA Vaccines Should be Mentioned
Someone more knowledgeable than I should update the article to mention the use of mRNA vaccines. As it stands, a naive reader could decide that such vaccines are not real vaccines, as they are not mentioned at all. I have interacted with people online who claimed that the mRNA vaccines are not vaccines, and one cited an old page on the cdc.gov web site, which oversimplified vaccines to say that they must contain live virus. I'd be concerned that this article might be used for the same sort of misinformation.

John Saunders (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that the absence of mRNA is problematic, but I see several problems with the list of vaccine types in the "Artificially acquired" section:
 * It lists the "four traditional types of vaccines", but then has the awkward sentence fragment "Two future vaccinations" followed by mention of DNA and recombinant vector vaccines, implying those are the only other types (as noted, seemingly excluding mRNA). That contradicts the Vaccine article, which lists the traditional four, plus seven others in use (including mRNA), and seven more experimental ones beyond that.
 * I think "recombinant vector vaccines" refers to Viral vector vaccine, but the link just redirects to the Types section of the Vaccine article, making its meaning unclear.
 * The "recombinant" bullet says "They are used widely in veterinary medicine.", which seems to imply they are not used in humans, but they are (assuming it means viral vector).
 * The paragraph with these two bullet points is, in part, copied word for word from HHS Vaccine Types (which it also references).
 * I don't think it makes sense to simply add another bullet mentioning RNA vaccines, given the other problems here, but it's not clear to me how to resolve all of them.
 * One option is to simply delete the list of vaccine types, and instead explain that there are several types of vaccines, relying on the link to the Vaccine article to elaborate. However, in an article about medical immunity, there is value in briefly elaborating on the mechanisms by which different types of vaccines confer immunity, but I would need to do some further reading before attempting something like that. Smcpeak74 (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I have a proposed draft replacement paragraph at User:Smcpeak74/Artificially acquired. Feedback would be welcome. Smcpeak74 (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I have now made the proposed change to the article: diff. Smcpeak74 (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)