Chicken Vaccines Combine To Produce Deadly Virus

stoilis sends this quote from an article at Science: "Vaccines aren't supposed to cause disease. But that appears to be what's happening on Australian farms. Scientists have found that two virus strains used to vaccinate chickens there may have recombined to form a virus that is sickening and killing the animals 'This shows that recombination of such strains can happen and people need to think about it,' says Glenn Browning, a veterinary microbiologist at the University of Melbourne, Parkville, in Australia and one of the co-authors on the paper."

Comments

This is Australia.

[Kenja]

Where they "accidentally" released a virus to kill all the rabbits. Just saying that they hav a mixed history with such things.

in 3..2..1

[marcello_dl]

Field day for anti vaccine people.

The problem is, they are not wrong.
Even if they usually don't see the problem.

It's not a matter of how many people vaccines have saved.
It's a matter of what is put into EACH vial of vaccine, for what purpose it is administered etc. etc. etc.

In this case, and in countless others, more precaution and testing should be performed. And vaccinations should not be the duct tape that keep the health of the poor chicken good enough, the animal should have good living conditions. No matter if the cost soars, because it simply approaches the real cost.

Re:in 3..2..1

[girlintraining]

The problem is, they are not wrong.

Nope. They're wrong. So are you. The vaccines protect against specific strains of virus. If another viral agent comes along and incorporates either, or both, strains into its genetic makeup and produces a viable virus, it is now transmissible whether the host is immunized or not. Immunization may have provided the raw materials, but the product, once manufactured, no longer requires them.

So if you forego immunization, you're vulnerable to all the strains the immunizations would have protected you against, as well as the new strain. So the anti-vaxxer is not only reducing herd immunity to the strains we can protect against, but also still just as vulnerable to the new virus. The only people who should be opting out of vaccines are those whose vaccination is counter-indicated due to a bona fide medical condition. If you aren't one of those people, and you refuse vaccination, your ass should be deported or jailed, as you pose a clear and present threat to public health -- you're in the same category to me as drunk drivers.

Re:in 3..2..1

[Anonymous Coward]

When characterizing your opponents, you choose the lowest common denominator. None of the critics I read "just make up stuff". Reason's first use was to dominate; to get what you want; to win. This explains double standards as exhibited in your post. (IE: YOU are just making stuff up!) If you were really interested, you would familiarize yourself with the most intelligent critics (some of whom are actually pro-vaccination in principle), with the wide variety of arguments out there, and with the curious lack of adequate testing. But you don't.... and you won't. Because you don't really want to know. You prefer sitting on the sidelines and ignorantly throwing mud at easy targets.

Re:in 3..2..1

[demachina]

As in most complex issues the truth is somewhere in the middle. The "anti vaccine" fanatics who are rabidly against all vaccines are probably wrong. So are people like you who are pro vaccine to the point of being blind to the risks.

Injecting vaccines, usually involving complex genetic material, preservatives, etc. in to people who are also composed of complex genetic material, is a not a no risk endeavor. Most of the time the benefits out weigh the risk, BUT. . . the more careless and cavalier the vaccines makers and advocates are the higher the risks become. Especially beware of vaccine makers who have a financial interest in everyone being injected with their vaccine.

When the pro vaccine crowd become completely blind to the risks and start pushing every vaccine under the sun to everyone for everything its just begging for trouble. Vaccines should be used appropriately to deal with real risks. If the risks of the vaccine outweigh or approach the risk of the pathogen, or the risks of exposure to the pathogen are very low, you pro vaccine bigots can do as much harm or even more than the anti vaccine fanatics. Performing science experiments on millions of people isn't a particularly great idea unless you need to deal with a real risk, and have a well understood solution.

Re:in 3..2..1

[cpu6502]

+ 1 insightful.

I am one of those who is pro-vaccination but also pro-choice. Just as I don't think a woman should be forced to carry a baby to end-of-term, neither do I think people should be forced to inject stuff in arms.

I have been fully-vaccinated because I think it's a good idea, but I would never force another person to do it: It's their body, not mine. They are free individuals, not serfs to be held-down and forced to carry a baby or vaccine.

Re:in 3..2..1

[the eric conspiracy]

The problem with your position is the fact that vaccines don't work unless a large percentage of the population is vaccinated.

Look what has happened in Nigeria with the effort to eliminate polio.

Cumulative decisions to not vaccinate have significant consequences to the rest of the population.

It is very unlike abortion.

Re:in 3..2..1

[Ol Olsoc]

As in most complex issues the truth is somewhere in the middle. The "anti vaccine" fanatics who are rabidly against all vaccines are probably wrong.

Sheesh. Probably. A lot of people's children died or were crippled or paralyzed. A trip back in time would probably cure a lot of anti-vaccine people.

So are people like you who are pro vaccine to the point of being blind to the risks.

Injecting vaccines, usually involving complex genetic material, preservatives, etc. in to people who are also composed of complex genetic material, is a not a no risk endeavor.

Everything entails risk

Especially beware of vaccine makers who have a financial interest in everyone being injected with their vaccine.

This is an interesting statement that I hear a lot. Vaccines are not a high profit item. maintenance drugs that a person has to take every day for the rest of their lives is where the money is. Plus liability. People do not want relative safety any more, they demand absolute safety. So the end game here may be many children dying because the liability caused by successful lawsuits of the very few affected by an adverse reaction may very well allow you to have your way. The end result will be more dead kids however. As a case in point, the most highest-revenue-generating vaccine - conjugate pneumococcal vaccine for children (Prevnar), the hvaccine, has annual gross U.S. sales of about $1 billion. Sounds interesting, but the markets for cholesterol-lowering agents; hair-loss products; potency drugs; and drugs for heart disease, obesity, or neurological problems are often $7 billion per drug or more.

Annual revenues for Lipitor, a cholesterol-lowering agent, are greater than revenues for the entire worldwide vaccine industry. So yeah, looks like those of us who survive will get to take our cholesterol reducing meds.

When the pro vaccine crowd become completely blind to the risks and start pushing every vaccine under the sun to everyone for everything its just begging for trouble.

Did you hear about Dayton Ohio, where the state police have been breaking down doors and forcibly administering vaccines? That's ridiculous of course, but your strawman is just as bad

Vaccines should be used appropriately to deal with real risks.

Ever had a child die of measles, or become paralyzed from polio? Whooping cough? The sheer lunacy of the anti-vaccine crowd, and don't deny you are one of them, is that because they work, you don't think they are necessary. When children were dying or permanently messed up from those diseases, people were clamoring for them.

I had whooping cough a few years ago, and I have to tell you that any parent subjecting their child to that is not a fit parent in my estimation. I almost passed out several times, and could have died. Fun stuff, the whoops tended to happen at the bottom of a breathing cycle, and you hack and hack but can't draw a breath . Then you get a brownout and finally the spasms go away. If you don't die first. It's really terrible, and if I subjected my child to that, my guilt would be Judas-esque. note: I got it because the vaccine doesn't last forever, and herd immunity is probably gone in my area. Perhaps you can count that as one little victory in the drive to eliminate vaccines?

If the risks of the vaccine outweigh or approach the risk of the pathogen, or the risks of exposure to the pathogen are very low, you pro vaccine bigots can do as much harm or even more than the anti vaccine fanatics.

Bigots? Har. Then what do you call anti-vaccine, anti-scientific people who get their science knowledge off of Jenny McCarthy, (who by the way is showing her intellectual credentials in Playboy again) and follow the advice of a thoroughly discredited British researcher who was working in conjunction with a lawyer in order to profit from fraudulent research?

Re:in 3..2..1

[Jason Levine]

Yeah I don't buy that argument. If I am immunized from polio, what do I care if the unvaccinated idiot gets it? The disease doesn't affect me.

I'm a parent. My kids happen to be old enough to have gotten some vaccinations (and are up to date on them), however at one point they weren't old enough to get them yet. Why do I care if someone doesn't get vaccinated? Because if enough people don't get vaccinated, herd immunity breaks down and babies (who aren't old enough to get the vaccinations), the elderly and those who can't get vaccinated for valid medical reasons (e.g. allergies) will get sick. If it was just a matter of only the unvaccinated getting sick, I'd agree with you and would argue for vaccines to be voluntary. However, since people's choices not to vaccinate can lead to the death of other people, I think it is well within the rights of the government to require them for all people (except for those with valid medical reasons).

Re:Does it affect humans

[girlintraining]

Can you catch it if you eat a chicken?

No. Cross-species viruses are rare... Viruses co-opt cells to produce more viruses by injecting their own viral code into the DNA/RNA of the host cell. As a rule, those genetic sequences aren't "cross platform" any more than binary code on a computer is. Cross-species bacterial infection is far more common, as bacterium contains all the materials required to reproduce... it only requires a hospitable environment.

Are aussie chickens exported? (If you order chicken at an Outback steakhouse do you get a bird grown in the USA?

Chickens are raised in almost every country, and exported between them routinely. So yes, it's possible that the chicken you're eating in the USA was raised in Australia. Or the UK. Or China. The real question is, why the hell are you ordering chicken at a steakhouse? I mean, I'm a girl and even I order the steaks there. I'm not gonna go there and order a fucking caesar salad, it'd be blasphemous.

Re:Not very stable -- good survivability

[thephydes]

Except that antibiotics do not kill virii - part of the problem with overuse of antibiotics is the general belief that they help with viral infections. Let me repeat...... antibiotics DO NOT kill virii.

Re:Does it affect humans

[Dr Fro]

Barack Obama is as Australian as Outback steakhouse is.

Re:Does it affect humans

[budgenator]

Cross-species viruses are actually quite common, and it has nothing to do with the genetic sequences either; DNA is DNA and the code is evolved to build viruses. Usually the factor that prevents a virus from being cross species is that the surface protiens of the virus doesn't fit the receptors sites, but that can also occure in the same species. I'd be surprized if chickens are exported from Australia to the US, the cost of keeping them frozen durring shipment from Australia would be considerable and chicken just isn't that expensive.

Re:Not very stable -- good survivability

[thephydes]

Thank you for demonstrating your superior knowledge and use of the English language.