Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Investigating Self-Boosting Vaccines
An anonymous reader writes "Vaccines, contrary to opinions from the anti-science crowd, are some of the most effective tools in modern medicine. For some diseases, a single shot is all it takes for lifetime immunity. Others, though, require booster shots, to remind your immune system exactly what it should prepare to fight. Failure to get these shots threatens an individual's health, and the herd immunity concept as well. Scientists are now looking into 'self-boosting' vaccines in order to fix that problem. Some viruses are capable of remaining in the body for a person's entire lifetime. If researchers can figure out a way to safely harness these, it may be possible to add genes that would create proteins to train the immune system against not just one, but multiple other viruses (abstract). This is a difficult problem to solve; changing the way we do vaccinations will itself have consequences for herd immunity. It also hinges on finding a virus that can survive the immune system without having uncomfortable flare-ups from time to time."
It's the weekend, yet Australia is mentioned only three times on Slashdot.
Let the "vaccine-carrying" virus be infectious, using people as "immunity carriers".
use it to fight disease and work for us, not against us... where have I heard that before?
Oh that's right, just before 90% of human race died, and 6% turned into zombies that ate the rest... except for Will Smith of course.
"...contrary to opinions from the anti-science crowd, " Any article that begins with a put-down of a generalized segment of the population in my opinion is already tainted with bias. I'll look elsewhere for reliable information, thanks.
Sent from my ENIAC
I'm pro-vaccine, but engineering a virus to live in your system for an extended period of time (up to the life of the carrier) is scary in a number of ways.
Others have mentioned the possibility of a mutation taking the previously harmless virus into harmful territory, which is bad enough, but remember this virus has been engineered to survive in your hostile immune system, so if it does mutate, good luck in getting rid of it afterward.
Less obviously, if it survives in your body indefinitely and activates your immune system, it's not clear what the long-term effects of that would be. How much energy would your body expend pumping out antibodies? Would that distract it from fighting other diseases? Can your immune system become fatigued? Studies show people with poor dental hygine are more succeptible to heart disease, and the reason given for this is that the immune system is busy fighting the bacteria in your mouth which makes it less able to take care of the internal stuff.
Regular vaccines are in your body for a couple days, tops, and generally only given while you are already in good health. Even in the unlikely event that the vaccine temporarily weakened your immune system enough that you catch another disease, the trade-off is good because the vaccine is generally preventing something much worse.
One of these vaccines would put constant stress on your immune system. Is that ok? It's really hard to say.
The entire "anti vaccinaion" movement is about as correct and responsive as the "pro annorexia" movement. It's based on misunderstandings _deliberately_ peddled to the ignorant by the evil. None of which is science.
The pivotal techniques are about as sane as Jan Brady yelling "Exact Words Marcia!!!"
The problme is tha the "anti-vaxx movement" doesn't want actual and reliable information, they want people who will tell them they are "just fine and smart for deciding against proof"
Put simply, you yourself know personally, or know of _billions_ _of_ _poeple_ who were vaccinated and sufferend no ill effects. If even a tiny fraction of what was said against vaccination were true, someone would have had to hide a chain of fifty million body bags and about 100 million "vaccine injuries" or whatever. It just _didn't_ happen.
The classic "I'll just go elsewhere for reliable informaton" is classic avoidance. You prove the "anti science" part true right there.
You don't have to be "unbiased" if the facts are already biased. You don't have to service the stupid, you just have to keep them and their kids away from yours so your's dont suffer from their stupidity. There is no honor or reason to treat one persons stupidity as "just as valid" as everbody elses' reasoned fact.
I've heard of all those "proud parents of unvaccinated children", well "pride goeth before distruction"... We are just trying to keep that distruciton at bey for as long as possible.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
I though the reason why we had to vaccinate each year, was because the virus had mutated in that time, making the vaccine ineffective.
So I understand now, it's actually the body that forgets how to fight it, and so it needs to be reminded every year.
Still confused, so if someone could clear it up, I would welcome it.
Re: virus living in your system for a long period of time: Chickenpox already does this. Chickenpox is caused by the Varicella zoster virus. After the initial infection, the virus lays dormant in the nervous system of the human infected, and then can flare up in the adult as Herpes zoster also known as Shingles because it can appear on the skin in a shingle like shape because of the spreading pattern of the nerve level which is infected by the virus (dermatome).
.
I didn't RTFA to see whether it's modified chickenpox that they are proposing to use for this.
"Opinion" is not science. Period. Science is a process intended to discount opinion and selection bias as much as possible.
Treating a question of science as if it's a matter of opinon is the _definitoin_ of "anti scientific".
As far as a "more gradual vaccination schedule" there is no reason to beleive it woudl be any better. You would deliver the same atteunated pahtogens, you would deliver _more_ secondary material that people find so disturbing. More trips to the doctor. More injections. More trauma to the child for having to go to the doctor and get injected.
Meanwhile in my lifetime alone, the number of elements in the vaccination schedule (counting by number of protiens and adjunctavants) has _fallen_ by two full orders of magnitued. So there are more shots that contain fewer protiens by hundreds of times.
Deciding to take your child and make it an experimental subset of _one_ in an uncontrolled setting with no oversight is (wait for it) _unscientific_, again by defintion. It just makes you feel special because you bought into the bullshit. It makes you feel like you found "a middle ground"... But settling for a middle ground is not good nor scientific. It's blatant feel-good bull crap.
Calling "beleiving a hundred years of research" "blindly following" isn't intellectually honest.
What we are saying is that NO _SCIENTISTS_ SUPPORT B, and every SCIENTIFIC STUDY says B IS WRONG, which makes supporters of B fools if they think "science" is a good thing.
The burden of proof is on the descenters, and most desenters I have heard don't know the difference between "an adverse reaction" and "an adverse report", and will say that these three cases of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" ANECDOTES are "proof" that the fully natural process of vaccination (it was discovered not invented) that has been done _BILLIONS_ of times in the last fifty years, were all happy accidental success stories that these three actors can prove wrong because its what they truely feel AS ACTORS...
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Think it through. (I am absolutely pro-vaccine BTW.) The Varicella Zoster lives in your body. You _must_ get chicken pox in order to later get shingles. you don't just "catch shingles". This means that a virus (like zoster) can hang out in your body while your body "forgets" its immune response.
So this theoretical self-recurring "vaccination" could easily have unintended consequences that wouldn't be knownt until the second or Nth recurrance.
And every viral recuuance destroys or damages tissue. The sucky thing about shingles is not that it happens, but that the nerve it errupts out of can become perminantly inflamed.
So the model virus for the idea is kind of a strong example of why the idea might just suck donkey balls. The only way to really test such a long-lasting recurrent phenomonia for a whole lifetime. Think of how long the average hip replacement or surgical mesh was in a body before they started to go bad and people discovered the unintended consequences. And those are just innert physical objects.
We should be _very_ suspicious of anything "active" that we intend to engineer and put into our bodies as effective viral symbiotes. We haven't even gotten "piece of steel", let along "heart valve", right yet. Self replicating virus is a little ambitious just now.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22386268
I believe the global vaccination programs are kind of vendor lock-in for human race. Without vaccinations we will be vulnerable because natural selection is disrupted.
Is there any study which tries to foresee the effect of this kind of global treatment on all people in long period of time?
This just can not have any good effect. I'm not against medicine and saving people lives but sometimes science is just playing too much in the realm where they should not touch anything! We are now in lost position because scientists already started putting their hands into it. Now it is only a matter of 100 or 200 years to realize all the disaster they did - but it will be too late...
I like.
But anybody who takes one case, particularly as adjuged by an actor or public figure, as "credible science" is not qualified to judged the credibility of science.
So the problem is that, in the same way that I wouldn't buy meat from a butcher who took cleanleness advice from a twelth century book on procedures for health as published in paris of the time, I don't tend to beleive people who MISTtake ANECDOTES as SCIENCE.
If you are going to beleive McCarthy as a true case, but you aren't going to balance it against the TWO to FIVE BILLION CASES of complicaiton-free vaccination that have happened since the discovery of vaccination, then you are demonstrated to automatically be No Sane Judge Of Science.
In short, anybody who beleives Jenny DESPITE the Evidence that PROVES JENNY UTTERLY WRONG, is yes, automatically anti science.
Anti-Vaccination people are Medical Flat Earthers.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
That isn't even a citation. They have recently said that the Flu Vaccine (and only that one vaccine) is nowhere near as effective in the very young and very old as was originally thought. With those numbers ranging from only fifty-something (injected) to eight-nine percent (nasal spray) efficacy in those groups. This makes it _more_ important that the median age (not very young or very old) get the vaccine as that protects the young and old from initial exposure more effectively than the direct applicaiton to the extremes.
That doesn't change the theory of vaccination at all.
It also doesn't say "getting a flu shot is bad".
It just says "we need to do better", which is kind of the refrain of science. We always need to do better.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Cause I would just love to get treated for something serious by doctors 100 years back. Get a limb sawn off or perhaps a few leeches to suck the evil spirits out of me! Yes, we are far beyond those days, but while I sit here and watch all these commercials about lawsuits for this drug or that drug. Or how about the new drugs with a laundry list of warnings about my liver. Lets face it... vaccines may be our best bet against virus X, but removing choice from the patient... um, no. It is good to see technology progress on this front, but to make light of the distrust some have of medicine ignores history.
Fact, 100 years from now, at best, doctors will think what we used was innovative. At worst, "leech kin technology". Still, they would likely have strong reservations against using said vaccine against virus X (even if it was killed off 50 years ago). Don't make light of those who are distrusting of new medical technology. There are far too many "oops" drugs and remedies to make such a stance appropriate.
How many of you had taken all vaccine shots "offered" and " ordered" by the state? Are you plethora of health? Do you belive so strongly in vaccine industry so that you would risk your child with it? Or will you demand independent (if that is still possible) evaluation of results of the new vaccines? Instead of flaming war between pro and anti vaccination ,there should be logical view of the stands.
I am pro science, also I do not beleive in truthfullnes of "scientific" results offered by the vaccine industry.
And since there are no independent studies ( untainted by donations or personal contact with the industry) I stay by "do not harm" doctrine.
Obviously you do not know all the efects of "modern" vaccine ofered on the market, so "do no harm" principle should point "take no vaccine if not urgently needed" direction.
I would like to see if the owners and board of directors of the vaccine industry take all the vaccines they sell , also does their children take all those offered vaccines.
I would also like to see do the doctors that preach vaccination take the doctrine and offer public data about vaccination of their children and family.
Without that , vaccines are just a product that sells good in time of public fear, but it won't give you a more healty life othervise.
The technique of introducing rogue DNA/RNA engineered to periodically re-activate has been shown to be safe or my name's not Dr. Henry Jeckyll.
You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle.
And what if things go wrong, and the immune system is somehow directed into boosting an allergy reaction instead? I'm sure this is just another genius plan where nothing can go wrong.
for those who have bad reactions to a given vaccine it could mean death or a lifetime of ongoing issues.
only those in denial won't accept the fact there are exceptions and why most all medical treatments come with warnings.
Jenner was a fraudster. Nobody, NOBODY, has refuted Dr. Hadwen's talks on 'vaccination'. Why is that?
http://www.whale.to/v/hadwen1.html
While at the hospital, I asked a nurse if she had seen Guillain-Barré syndrome from the Yellow Fever vaccine. She said that this was the first time she had seen it from the Yellow Fever vaccine but they see regularly caused by the Flu vaccine.
I am cautious with other vaccine also--weighing the benefit against the know effects of Guillain-Barré syndrome.
Knowing the about, I would say that BMO is ignorant of the science of vaccines and his comments are only his opinions. Autism is not the only affliction to be concerned with.
The parent is probably classic anti-vaccine logic. The flu itself causes Guillain-Barré at a much, much greater rate than the vaccine. An extra 1 in 100000 people who got the swine flu shot in 1976 developed Guillain-Barré. And since no real direct mechanism can be found, that still might be correlation and not causation.
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/guillainbarre.htm
As much as they want to figure out how it works to make their own 'products' they can sell and last forever in your body, maybe this research into making vaccines that last forever will give insight in how to get rid of viruses that last forever. Getting rid of HIV etc? that'd be sweet.
Even better: "Not getting your shorts [sic] threatens the herd immunity concept'. This last one is really a blatant admission that their crap doesn't work in the first place. It shouldn't matter if the person next to you wasn't dumb enough to take their shots, after all you took the vaccine, you're protected, right??
No, you Anonymous Coward dumbass - That's not how herd immunity works.
Imagine everyone in a kindergarten is vaccinated against smallpox but Fred's vaccine didn't work and for whatever reason Fred isn't immune to smallpox (biology is never 100%). However, Fred remains protected against smallpox because the rest of his class ("his herd") is immune, so the virus doesn't get the chance to leap to him.
Now imagine 10 kids in Fred's class are NOT vaccinated against smallpox - Now the virus has a chance to take hold and infect Fred, even though he's vaccinated. Fred has lost the benefit of the immunity of the herd.
Vaccination works because a) the immunity takes hold on the majority and b) we live in herds.
You dare question anything related to vaccines?! You must be anti-science.
Now tow the line like a good little slashdotter, I've got to go get my pay-che... Ahem... science text book.
"contrary to opinions from the anti-science crowd..."
What is the point of this statement? I mean seriously, what's the point? I've been reading this site for years and it just seems to be getting more and more like this—which is not a good thing.
Who cares what the "anti-science" crowd thinks? Why even bother mentioning them? Why acknowledge their existence, particularly when NOT responding to one directly?
Just report the fucking story. What some other childishly labeled crowd thinks about it is irrelevant. I can't even get through a remotely interesting story about geology without some asshole making a "the earth is only 6000-years-old" joke. Who... fucking... cares? It's not. We know. We get it. The joke is old and tiresome. I really wish I was coming here to read interesting discussions about the science at hand. Instead, I'm constantly deluged with this kind of childish bullshit.
Building on that theme: http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html#Some_quotes_on_social_problems_in_science
====
Some quotes on social problems in science
Here are some related broad quotes on social problems in science, some of which relate to competition for funding.
From an article about a sociologist and anthropologist who studies science and technology, Bruno Latour:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Latour
"In the laboratory, Latour and Woolgar observed that a typical experiment produces only inconclusive data that is attributed to failure of the apparatus or experimental method, and that a large part of scientific training involves learning how to make the subjective decision of what data to keep and what data to throw out. To an untrained outsider, Latour and Woolgar argued the entire process resembles not an unbiased search for truth and accuracy but a mechanism for ignoring data that contradicts scientific orthodoxy."
A quote from another academic, Brian Martin, involved with Science and Technology Studies:
http://www.suppressedscience.net/physics.html
"Textbooks present science as a noble search for truth, in which progress depends on questioning established ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel myth. They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous - especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it suppression of intellectual dissent. The usual pattern is that someone does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body. As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic's ideas or the critic personally-by censoring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors. (1)"
From David Goodstein, who was Vice Provost of Caltech:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html
"Peer review is usually quite a good way to identify valid science. Of course, a referee will occasionally fail to appreciate a truly visionary or revolutionary idea, but by and large, peer review works pretty well so long as scientific validity is the only issue at stake. However, it is not at all suited to arbitrate an intense competition for research funds or for editorial space in prestigious journals. There are many reasons for this, not the least being the fact that the referees have an obvious conflict of interest, since they are themselves competitors for the same resources. This point seems to be another one of those relativistic anomalies, obvious to any outside observer, but invisible to those of us who are falling into the black hole. It would take impossibly high ethical standards for referees to avoid taking advantage of their privileged anonymity to advance their own interests, but as time goes on, more and more referees have their ethical standards eroded as a consequence of having themselves been victimized by unfair reviews when they were authors. Peer review is thus one among many examples of practices that were well suited to the time of exponential expansion, but will become increasingly dysfunctional in the difficult future we face. "
About a book by Jeff Schmidt, a previous editor of Physics Today magazine:
http://www.disciplined-minds.com/
"In this
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Let the "vaccine-carrying" virus be infectious, using people as "immunity carriers".
I imagine that will be exceedingly hard to achieve. You need to make a virus which triggers an immune response but which does not get wiped out by it to the point where it is no longer transmissible. At the same time, since the virus will remain within you all your life, you have to ensure that any future event which might suppress your immune system will not cause the virus to flare up and cause an illness.
I could imagine medicine perhaps achieving the first two goals but how can you be sure that you have solved the last one without large scale trials which, by the very nature of the virus, would involve all humanity? In fact even if you had a non-infectious virus providing the immunity I imagine it will be a long time before we know whether it is safe for large scale use because you need to have your trial subjects live a good portion of their lives because the virus will be with them for their entire life and may mutate and/or flare up.
Mod me troll if you like, but: 1) The original article would have read perfectly well without including the inflammatory and derogatory phrase "contrary to opinions from the anti-science crowd." Go back and read it and see. So, the article itself begged to be called out as flamebait, which I did. I find it hypocritical of /. to allow inflammatory comments to be embedded directly within an article.
2) There are instances in which vaccines have had effects other than which they are purported to create. For example, in October this year, Italy banned all flu vaccines because of their documented side-effects. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-24/italy-bans-novartis-flu-vaccines-citing-side-effects.html . I'm not saying that all vaccines are bad, or -good-, but let's not put down people who question their veracity, because it is true that not all vaccines are good.
3) I am particularly sensitive to anything which purports to be "news" and contains spin. This article pushed my hot button because it contained a wealth of good information, and yet managed to wrap it with tainting bias. Enough already. Be news, or be irresponsible. There is no crossover in my mind. If the reporting is irresponsible, it should be recognized as such. There are too many people in the world who do not recognize it for me to let it go. We all need an education in what is really information, and what is unfounded speculation. /. needs to maintain a sterling reputation for knowing the difference, and labeling speculation for what it is.
The entire gamut of science is based on ensuring there is no bias in our assertions, so let's all keep an open mind.
Sent from my ENIAC
The argument is devolved to a binary straw-man: a "pro/con" proposition - to the end of stifling nuanced inquiry and actual understanding.
Mary Shelly wasn't anti-science when she wrote "Frankenstein".
Goethe wasn't "anti-science" when he wrote "The Sorcerer's Apprentice". If you aren't immediately familiar with the fable, it is worth revisiting. The story concerns the casual nature of hubris, particularly in the domain of technical insight.
There is a very real delusional aspect to a culture that uses scientific method in an atomised scope and then applies one technical outcome in a pervasive manner.
The operative phrase here is: "knows enough to be dangerous." Another such is "unintended consequences".
Let us quote from the article, and allow the unintended consequences aspect to unfold its manifest possibilities in our imaginations:
I don't want this in the hands of the same people who made Vioxx, Thalidomide or Lipitor.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
"Vaccines, contrary to opinions from the anti-science crowd, are some of the most effective tools in modern medicine. For some diseases, a single shot is all it takes for lifetime immunity. "
Substantiate. Who is the "anti-science" crowd? I refuse, as a conscientious, well educated, science-based person who questions the national vaccine policy, to be placed in that group.
Vaccines are actually on the whole about 60% "effective" and there are none that grant lifetime immunity. The influenza vaccine is nearly worthless. The pertussis vaccine is quickly losing its grip. Most of the diseases targeted are not all that dangerous anyway. Far fewer will be maimed by measles than by the MMR.
The most effective tool in the arsenal of medicine is clear thinking. It's rare.
The most effective anti-viral is a healthy immune system and an individual with a brain in the same package. These are, especially in the US (land of the lazy), hard to find. No wonder there is such reliance on drugs.
The US public health policy is one that takes technology far ahead of the science upon which is should be more firmly based. It represents the next Fukushima.
Its interests are not actual public health but rather profitability of pharmaceutical companies, and to do this we must take risks. Risks with everyone else, just not our risk. The drug manufacturers and the government have zero risk. They are unencumbered from lawsuit should (when) a product fail. If maimed, debilitated, or killed, it doesn't matter. Pharma, the FCA, the CDC, all of them are off the hook. Imagine on the one hand a medical community that says "take this drug, it's 100% safe and effective", while at the same time these same medical professionals lack the conviction to stand behind their work. They even refuse to take their own treatment (nurses refusing vaccines as a condition of employment). If only other manufacturers could be so.. coddled, and enjoy such fawning P-R.
Blind acceptance of information from the US government and its enabling medical/industrial subculture is irresponsible. The author of this screed should go back and do a little independent reading on their own. Or, perhaps they too fail the test of having both a healthy immune system and some clear thinking to round it out.
The article is paywalled, but I expect they remove the genes that make the virus able to replicate, while leaving in the genes that make it able to reinitiate production of viral proteins after a long period of dormancy. This would normally make a load more virus, but if you've removed the viral polymerase gene (as one example) it won't be able to make new viral genomes to package into new virus particles and therefore won't be infective. There's a fair chance it might not even be able to assemble into a functioning virus properly. However, it will/can make a flood of viral proteins in the cell, and these get processed and presented to the immune system, leading to an immune response.
I am not an immunologist, but what I'd be worried about with these vaccines is that if viral protein is made, but not enough of it to lead to serious distress in the cell/ to inflammation in the host, the "immune response" that's provoked might be tolerance of viral protein because your immune system interprets it as being a protein from your own body (which are presented to the immune system in the same way). This would mean that if you get infected by the real virus, your adaptive immune response wouldn't work, and it could be very bad news for you indeed.
I personally wouldn't touch these vaccines with a ten-foot pole.
One of the big points about viruses that remain in the body long-term, is that they somehow manage to find shelter in which to evade the immune system -- at least for most of the time, and at least from those parts of the immune system that might otherwise eradicate them. (See for example 'virus latency' at http://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/abstract/S1931-3128(10)00217-9?script=true/).
Many of the mechanisms of that sheltering are still unknown, or incompletely known. That means, in turn, that it's at least not going to be a surefire winner to have an extra protein -- against which you want a really strong protective immune response -- tagging along with the sheltering virus.
Plus, it would seem that the main article is reporting a theoretical study (from the 'supporting information' for the PNAS paper referred to in the main story -- which is all that I could so far access -- here http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2012/11/14/1209683109.DCSupplemental/pnas.201209683SI.pdf -- other than the abstract).
The status of the matter appears to be that this is an 'if only . . . ' -- so far.
-wb-
Would you like to have Gardasil? I'm willing to pay for all your medical expenses in obtaining the 3-shot Gardasil regimen
please let me know and I will get in touch with you. Please tell me what doctor you would like me to get in touch with
to prepay for you treatment. Thanks.
Funny how things get a little bit less clear-cut once one gets to hear the other side intead of what's parrotted repeatedly on TV. For those who are actually curious, please view Dr. Mercola's interview with Dr. Wakefield, then be the judge on whether you've been presented with a simplified version of the story.
In case the "pro-science" crowd thinks otherwise, plenty of people do not develop immunity after receiving a vaccine. For example, Gardasil is only about 38% effective in preventing cervical cancer. In some cases, the vaccine can cause the disease itself. Or is that too heretical for the pro-science crowd?
Little Sally gets a vaccine grown in eggs, and dies from allergic reaction. Little Henry gets a vaccine that wasn't entirely rendered inactive, and dies while his brother is maimed for life. All because of dumb-asses like you that think it's moral to force people to inject things into their children's bodies.
Care to give some examples for Sallies, Henries and their brothers?
And as a site note, if 1 of 1,000,000 dies due to an illness comming from vaccination, that is far better than if 300,000 from 1,000,000 die because no one is vaccined.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The point of my post was entirely to identify a negative and inflammatory statement embedded in the lead article. I don't like remarks like that; I find they stifle original thought and are generally counter-productive. However, by the negative and inflammatory remarks found in your reply, you appear to disagree. You are welcome to. You should know however, that the "put-other-people-down because their opinion differs from mine" kind of attitude will win you no followers except the blind. Personally, I want to converse with people who can think, and will expend the energy to fashion well-informed opinions for themselves. I really don't want to have to hold your hand, or lead you to water you don't want to drink. Who mentioned autism? Not me. So why are your ranting about it? Before you spend more energy trying to argue this or other points that I did not make, follow this bouncing ball: SOME vaccines CAN have dangerous side-effects, including death, by the CDC's OWN admission: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm That is my entire point. If you would like to argue that, please argue with the CDC. Thank-you. And if you want to argue that the side-effects are always minor compared to what they prevent, please note that Guillain-Barré Syndrome has been caused by the flu vaccine, and the Yellow Fever vaccine, and it's no joke. Personally, I'd rather risk the flu than a vaccination that could give me GBS. But hey, as long as you have -all- the facts, you personally are welcome to take that risk. And I personally should be free to inform others that the risk exists, and that people who rate vaccinations in the "less-than-perfect" category are not "anti-science," and are not evil. So thanks for ranting so as to to be an example to others of the dangers of spewing predefined opinions and giving me yet another chance to re-iterate how potentially destructive it is to have such a closed mind, especially about vaccinations, which as of October, 2012, can still be a dangerous thing: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-24/italy-bans-novartis-flu-vaccines-citing-side-effects
Sent from my ENIAC
Flu shots often result in delayed side effects and long-term injury, and according to the CDC, "The following substances are found in vaccines: aluminum,(brain toxin) antibiotics, formaldehyde (now listed as carcinogenic), MSG or monosodium glutamate (a known neurotoxin),and thimerosal(neurotoxic mercury)." http://www.naturalnews.com/033891_vaccines_delayed_injury.html The FDA admits in a court case that vaccines still contain mercury: http://www.naturalnews.com/035432_vaccines_mercury_court_case.html Thanks in advance for all reasoned responses. I believe there is still much to learn about vaccinations, their ingredients and the body's responses to them, provided we have an open mind. (jab, lol)
Sent from my ENIAC
>italy
Did you read your own link? They *suspended* *only* *novartis'* vaccine. They did not ban vaccines. They suspended over foreign matter.
In light of your other post, I have to conclude that you're nuts.
Lastly, learn how to make your wall of text readable.
--
BMO
Since vaccines don't conferr "immunity" they conferr "resistance", herd immunity is actually more than just about Fred.
If you are vaccintated against Anthrax, the white powder doesn't flee the room when you enter, nor does it bounce off your skin. The Anthrax enters your system and your system fights with it. In effective vaccination you are pre-armed to fight the disease off before it becomes fully contageous and, more importantly, before it can become fully harmful and do significant damage to your body and its subsystems.
So lets say there is this disease and everone in a classroom is vaccinated against it, but a substitute teacher brings it into the classroom by teaching a single day durring the communicable phase. All the kids get "a little sick" after suffering one exposure. In effect none of the kids get meaningfully sick, their exposure results in a "sub clinical" illness.
Now lets say that the vaccine is 95% effective. So in a class of twenty kids, one has received no real benefit of from the vaccination. The susbstitute provides one exposure. The one child gets sick and, for ease of numbers, is contageous for three days before being weithdrawn from school. Now each of the ninteen other students was exposed to the disease four times.
Remember that each exposure is a strain on the immune system. There is a small chance that a second child will get sick.
Now lets add one completely unvaccinated child. There is now the substitute and two children who get sick. This is a total of seven exposures to the disease. There each of the vaccinated children is now seven times more likely for their exposure to become intense enough for the disease to become symptomatic and contageous.
Now assume that the unvaccinated child has unvaccinated siblings. That family becomes a hotspot. All the kids get sick. Each kid returns to school and mabye one adds an exposure or three to just one more of the kids in that class. That child is now ten times more likely to become symptomatically sick. Which, should it happen, would cause another three exposures to the entire class.
So put two unvaccinated children in the class,and have a 95% efficacy there is a good chance that one more child will be unprotected and the class will end up with a mortality rate more than the 15% represented by the unprotected kids. 30%, 80% or even 100% normal morbidity (clinical infections with a typical spread for results of disease X) becomes the expected result set.
This is the kind of thing where the anti-vaxxers then see statistics (that they don't understand) that demonstrates that "during such-and-such outbreak most of the overcome were vaccinated" and then conclude that vaccination is unsafe because "most of those overcome were vaccinated." Sure. That is mathematically certian in any community where most people are vaccinated. This is because the distribution is over "most of the people". Doh.
The magic number for herd immunity is about 90 percent. Above ninety percent the herd is effectively immune, below ninety, well "not so much". So a community wide vaccination is only as good as its weakest local links. Given that vaccination is never 100% effective, you need to get nearly 100% vaccinated to become protected above the 90% needed for the herd.
Small, concentrated communities of unvacinated persons act as echo chambers, or detonation zones, so lets say a small community has ten anti-vaxx famlies that all like to get together at the same "health center" or church... Whoops...
Having unvaccinated people in your midst is like inviting suicide bombers to your market place. They are primed, ready to explode with some disease if they get exposed themselves, and they will take out the vaccinated as well. Most of the people killed by terrorists are not terrorists so it is unsafe to not be a terrorist! That's anti-vaxx logic turned into highest hyperbole. But its not terribly wrong.
This video below is narrated by a jackass, but it will give you a nice visual verson of this topic:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRclbfK5q08
Sorry for his tone, but the math is right, if super-simplified. The "non-classroom" version is kind of funny for its vitriol, but I didn't post that here.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Since I am _not_ in the studied and approved demographic, I would require you fund my injection as part of a rational and scientific study with control group(s) and proper blinds. But if you got the cash, I am down for participation.
Meanwhile I would not hesitate a heartbeat in recommending the vaccine for the young females, or even the young males, in my life.
I've had HPV and it sucks donkey balls. I've had family members die of cancer. I've read the risk papers enought to know which is the best risk.
Please tell me where to have Johns Hopkins or a similar medical institution capable of proper scientific research send the paperwork for the study grant you propose.
Oh, you were proposing it be done "off lable"... e.g. as an uncontrolled sample trial of one? What would that prove beyond your complete failure to understand the first principles of science?
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Citing "Natrual News", which also carries bigfoot sightings and the most cracked-of-pot theories as fact is the Goodwin of health arguments. Nothing on that site is true or accurate as near as I can figure. You might as well cite something you heard in the girl's locker room in junior high as "peer reviewed".
That you beleive or agree with anything on "natural news" is proof that you have disavowed all of science in favor of the four humors and blood-letting.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
In the century plus sinc vaccination was discoverd -- you do know vaccination is a natural process that was discoverd not invented right -- there have easily been FIBE BILLION vaccinations administered world wide.
I'd say that there are hundreds of times _less_ active component protiens in the modern vaccination schedule as compared to the bulk of those done when I was getting those scheduled vaccinations back in the sixties.
I'd say that there is a negative correlation between autism and the contents of vaccines since autism rates are on the rise while vaccinations are getting milder and weaker in content and are being spread out over a longer period of time.
I would strongly suggest that someone with an agenda and a book to seel you, or a set of homeopathic remedies to bring to market, tossed together the phrase "neuroimmune disfunction" to lend an air of credibility to their fear mongering and general scam.
I'd assay that you are more likely to actuall get cash from that Nigerian Prince In Exile than to suffer "neuroimmune disfunction".
I'd wager you, for presenting this idea, have no idea what the study if immunology is about, nor the first bit of what this medical discipline has taught us in the fist-full of decades it has been studied as a separate discipline.
I'd also bet that you are immune to any argument that doesn't support the piss-poor health care discisions you have made for yourself and family.
And I go so far as to posit that you don't know the difference between anecdote and evidence.
So take your pusdo-scientific meta-jargon and go away before you get someone killed.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
I used 90% as a stable (oversimplified) value. The actual numbers depend on real math I didn't present (and I don't even know how to format in a slashdot posting) and in which I am not going to claim any expertese at all. The real numbers are like 1-(1/R0) where R0 is the number of people one person is likely to be able to infect. The real numbers for any disease get all differential and such once you bring in efficacy and real immunity. The real numbers are up there in the ninety-or-so for most every well understood disease to date for which we have a vaccine if I understand all that I have read.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Little Sally gets a vaccine grown in eggs, and dies from allergic reaction. Little Henry gets a vaccine that wasn't entirely rendered inactive, and dies while his brother is maimed for life. All because of dumb-asses like you that think it's moral to force people to inject things into their children's bodies.
If we assume this was the smallpox vaccine, Sally and Henry represent the 1 or 2 out of a million people who suffer a fatal reaction, either through allergic reaction or contracting the illness. If we skip talking about specific types of smallpox, the average death rate from the illness is 50% and the vaccines effectiveness is around 95%.
So basically what you're saying is that you'd rather have given Sally and Henry a 50% chance of dying, along with a million other children, instead of roughly a 5% chance of dying either directly to the vaccine or having it not actually work.
Or to put it in perspective without using numbers, you'd rather have your kids play in traffic to avoid the possibility of an airplane crashing into the back yard.
So how does VZV stay in your body?
That's the problem. We don't understand it. I'm completing my PhD on a specific aspect of VZV. For such a common childhood illness there is still so much we don't know about it. It only grows in human tissues, so it's so very difficult to study.
Try HSV. That grows in mice.
Oh the irony, vaxer talking about "anti-science"??? Thats exactly what vaccines are, anti science, no long term studies, failed logic, immune system corruption due to altered infection path (normally the pathogen gets through your mucosa where a first reaction takes place) but vaccines bypass this system and it goes directly to your blood, which causes harms. I will leave some references for the science crowd, i mean those that know that science was never meant to be a closed groups of people interested in showing only on side of the coin to keep their profits going.
Landmark ruling in an Italian court has said Valentino Bocca's autism was provoked by the MMR jab he had at aged nine months
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160054/MMR-A-mothers-victory-The-vast-majority-doctors-say-link-triple-jab-autism-Italian-court-case-reignite-controversial-debate.html
vaccines not science
http://preventdisease.com/news/09/102809_9_arguments_to_win_any_vaccine_debate.shtml
Vaccine hoax
http://foodfreedomgroup.com/2012/09/29/the-vaccine-hoax-is-over-by-andrew-baker/
Anonymous contributor with a gratuitous insult in very first sentence of summary.
Hard to take this article seriously.
Next.
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Care to give some examples for Sallies, Henries and their brothers?
And as a site note, if 1 of 1,000,000 dies due to an illness comming from vaccination, that is far better than if 300,000 from 1,000,000 die because no one is vaccined.
Except that the vaccine company lied about their studies, and it's actually more like 50,000 that die from the vaccination's side effects. They also lied about the effectiveness of the vaccine, so you still have another 200,000 get the disease and die anyway. And then, most diseases were on their way down due to people starting to wash their hands and things like that at the time vaccination was invented, so the 300,000 would actually be more like 150,000. So, I don't buy your argument at all.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
no, Sally and Henry will not die because they have greater chance of being struck by lightening than coming down with the diease. And your 95% is absurdly high number, more like one in ten likely will get no protection from the vaccine anyway. once you accept that over ten million will be unaffected by the vaccine and have no protection anyway, your argument comes crashing down.
Logic fails you, more than one in ten will get no protection from the vaccine anyway. they are the same as the un-inocculated in your arguments. it doesn't matter if a parent chooses to add one more to the ranks of tens of millions.
It seems that the idea is to use messenger RNA to get some cells to start producing signature protiens (e.g. the "N1" and "H1" parts of, say N1H1) so that the immune system will remain primed to combat whichever protiens those are.
The dangers I see are:
How will these protiens exit those cells?
How will the selection of cells be controlled and moderated?
Will this "burn up" white blood cells, causing them to wear out faster than normal. I know that one of the current anti-aging things being investigated is a way to purge the body of these used-up cells via complex filtration. So we "know", for small values of knowing, that the accumulation of these used-up cells is bad for us. I think increased arterial plaque is one of the direct results. (this is not my area).
We know that citokine (spelling?) storms can cause some diseases to harm the "healthy", which is part of why the spanish flu really tagged fit men in their twenties. So would such a self-continuing response to some protien make such storms more likely?
What if the cell that starts spewing this protien becomes cancerous?
In short, the doability isn't that remote, but the potential badness isn't that constrained. So the "should we" conversation is kind of more important than the "can we".
But in no case is the eternal vaccination "contageous" or "shedable"... /sigh.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
So better dumb than sorry? The phalacy behind virtually all "vaccine injuries" is called "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". E.g. "I decided to blame my broken hip on my flu shot because the flu shot happened monts before I fell down so I am sure it made me dizy.".
No really. The stories are less true, and less well connected, and less _credible_ that the average urban myth.
But, even if they were all true, which they are proveably not, the dozen or so scary stories you know have to be stacke up against FIVE BILLION safely administered vaccinations world-wide.
If the "vaccine injuries" were true, there would be a line of body bags fifty-million long behind the last sixty years of vaccinaiton. Do the math. Seriously.
As far as "medical warnings", have you looked at a carton of eggs lately? Did you know PEANUT BUTTER _MAY_ CONTAIN PEANUTS? Seriously, everything has a warning. Nothing is safe.
Only those afraid of their own breath would let this kind of fear endanger their children and so beleive that you can stop Measles from blinding your kid by getting them a back-rub. (no seriously folks, look up chiropractic clams for alternatives to vaccination. It's farking insane where these people go for solace after their unwarrented fears kick in.)
You are a public health threat if you don't vaccinate your kids, and I hope you live in a cabin far, far away from all human contact. It's the only way to be sure.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Is to point out that the crowd that ignores all the science behind the FIVE BILLION vaccinaiton performed world-wide wihtout harm, balances this overwhelming proof of safety agains a few fairy stories told around digital campfires; and that's just not science.
See this "calling people on their bullshit" is an immune response smart people have to stupidity. It serves to protect the credulous from the claims of the wildly misinformed.
Think of it as "herd immunity against the innane."
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
God forbid that you get some alluminium in your system. It's not like every fistfull of soil has aluminium. It's not like a single breath in a dusty room won't deliver as much or more aluminum into your system than any vaccine ever.
Thimerisol, which is only found in the flu shot, and only if it comes from the bottle (as opposed to premeasured single-shots). On and there's a trace amount in one other vaccine that I can't remember.
But you know, on average, you take in more thimerisol from changing your contact lenses ONCE than you get in a flu shot. OH THE HORROR!
Seriously, the "scheme" of "big pharma" that leads them to make vaccines is that if you vaccinate the public they live long enough to buy a lifetime supply of the cold remedies and NSAIDS and stuff that old people choke down. The average "big pharma" profit on a single vaccine is just about the same as on a single bag of cough-drops. And you only get a few of these shots as opposed to the number of over-the-counter crap you will consume all your life.
The very fact that you cite "big pharma" kind of proves you to be a "big tool".... how much have you spent on "big homopathy" so far? How many "organic" this, and how many books on "the dangers of" that?.
You have been had. Taken to the counter-culture cleaners. They waved a "big pharma" flag under your nose and then bilked you for cold hard cash. What an idiot.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Yea, fuck those girls! They deserve cervical cancer! They must have been tramps for getting HPV in the first place!
(A) There are no documented cases of Gardasil causing cancer.
(B) If I offered you a homeopathic remedy that had proven track record of blocking just under 40% of any cancer would you take it? Sure you would.
Remember that "just 38% protection from cancer" is 38 girls saved from cancer out of every 100 girls that would have gotten cancer if you did the _nothing_ you seem to be advocating.
So _when_ is saving 38% of women from cervical cancer a bad thing?
The fact that it saves many more girls from HPV in the first place is something you also ignore; you know, HPV, the thing the vaccine is for? Yea, that sucks all by itself. The cancer thing is just gravy.
Do you even _listen_ to the twat-waddle that pours out of your mouth?
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
All a-bluster with internet rage and your magical fairy belief that what you want' a forum to be is what it shall become.
You are so special for your insights that I cannot fathom how we could have all missed it so...
Quick, shake your little fist some more and prove yourself all "palidin" over all us content producing monsters.
How dare us!
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Yes, most of those terrible stories of vaccination injury are pure bullshit. The rest are a result of people not knowing how to figure out the real reason for their state.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Asking a question has nothing to do with logic.
Claiming that 1 out of ten vaccines will fail, deserve some quotation ;D
Sorry, you are full of nonsense.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Germany has only 80 Million inhabitants.
USA has about 350 Million.
If in any of those countries 50,000 would die on a vaccine, everybody would know some people who died to it.
You seem not to be good in numbers.
In germany no singel person died in the last 100 years on a vaccine ...
Claiming so is completely retarded.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Claiming nobody has died from a vaccine is retarded. So they call it death by infection instead, or whatever category they want to stick it under. There is a reason the vaccines have a huge list of side effects, including death, and it isn't for the fun of it. Vaccines are useful, but you must make a risk\benifit analysis or you are just another idiot who expects others to take care of you. Do you also think nobody dies due to being in a hospital. Plenty of people pick up infections in the hospital that kill them. That dosn't mean you don't go to the hospital if you have a serious problem, but it does mean you are stupid if you go there for little reason. Then when you pick up the infection and die, you can rest assured that the cold you went in for didn't kill you.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Your example about the hospital is right. However it makes your claims about vaccines not more true.
From most vaccines you can not get an infection.
Risk/benefit analysises on vaccines are done by the state/the government. As vaccines only work if they get mass deployed. Your own risk/benefit analysis only makes sense for yourself if you travel to an area which has infections that are dangerous for YOU ALONE (in other words it is not your business that the population there is suffering from it).
A risk/benefit analysis whether I should vaccine my child against measles or rubella will likely always show: no, not worth it. The likely hood it will get it is far below 1/1000.
However if all in your neighbourhood think so, one infected child coming from another country will infect a big deal of the population.
Hence the state requires that ALL in your neighbourhood take the vaccine.
Bottom line you are only exchanging the uncertain health problem (very unlikely death, even unlikely to occur at all) of the vaccine, with a very certain (they certainly will get ill and some may die) but very unlikely health problem (perhaps there never is an infection) of all around you.
Nevertheless your irrational angst of vaccines is in no way founded.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The vaccines don't work as well as the government and pharmaceutical companies will tell you. For one, Merck has been lying for 40 years about the effectiveness of the MMR vaccine. These companies have also been found to falsify the results of the side effects to make that look better than it is.
In the past, people would get measles and most of them would get over it fine. Then they have lifetime immunity. With the vaccine they don't get lifetime immunity, so they need constant boosters, or we end up with outbreaks in populations where most people are immunized. It seems very unscientific to me to say it is the un-immunized people's fault that people who got the vaccine are still getting sick. If the vaccine doesn't work so well, then why risk the side effects of getting it. When you look at all the possible side effects of the vaccine and compare it to the chance of possible problems from getting the disease, sometime there is more risk in getting the vaccine.
The government likes to push the vaccines onto young kids before their immune system has even developed. They aren't effective for young kids under 15 months old, but they still give them. In the past, the children would get immunity passed on to them from their mothers. But now that the mothers only have the vaccine immunity (which does not work as well), they don't get the immunity they would have gotten. So the medical profession says we must give more vaccines to the kids while they are even younger. Again, when something isn't working, you should not push for more of it.
There are also studies that have found getting a vaccine can increase you risk of getting sick later. Getting a flu shot will make you much more susceptible to getting swine flu. But getting the flu does not. The vaccine derived immunity is not the same as the real thing. It does not last as long, it is not as effective, and it can cause other unexpected results. There was an animal study I read about where different animals were given different types of the same vaccine. The interaction of the two vaccines used for the same thing created a new infectious disease. There is a lot more to vaccines than the "experts" will tell you about. Most doctors probably don't even know all the facts.
Research from the University of Melbourne has shown that two different vaccine viruses- used simultaneously to control the same condition in chickens- have combined to produce new infectious viruses, prompting early response from Australia's veterinary medicines regulator.
It is these issues and more that make me think about each vaccine individually. I do think the herd immunity is valuable and I don't think it is worth skipping a vaccine just because everyone else has it already. But when the disease is only as bad as getting diarrhea or even just a cold, why get a vaccine for that (there are vaccines for very mild diseases). Each shot has it's risk of complications, so minimize to only the ones that provide valuable protection. I also will wait till my child is older to get many of the shots. Once their immune system has developed they work better and have less risks. Plus, since my child got pertussis very young, I will not be giving her the DPT shot. I will instead get individual shots for diphtheria and tetanus. The actual disease has given her lifelong immunity that works way better than the stupid shot does, so why add the extra risks associated with the shot when it adds no benefit.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
The vaccines don't work as well as the government and pharmaceutical companies will tell you. For one, Merck has been lying for 40 years about the effectiveness of the MMR vaccine.
And? Evil corporation lied. So all other vaccines don't work either?
Sorry, you sound just like an anti vaccine nuts.
There are deseases that got wiped from the planet due to vaccination.
However here you write: Plus, since my child got pertussis very young, I will not be giving her the DPT shot. I will instead get individual shots for diphtheria and tetanus. The actual disease has given her lifelong immunity that works way better than the stupid shot does
Ofc she does not need the vaccine. However from the standpoint of the immune system it is irrelevant whether it worked against the real thing or against the vaccine.
Research from the University of Melbourne has shown that two different vaccine viruses- used simultaneously to control the same condition in chickens- have combined to produce new infectious viruses, prompting early response from Australia's veterinary medicines regulator. This is common knowledge. And in fact you don't need research for that.
Influenza viruses, combine. That means during an infection of virus A and B the viruses can combine to several new viruses C1, C2, C3. That happens in chickens, pigs and humans, too!
It is pretty obvious that a vaccine against A and another one against B has a chance to combine to a *real* virus C. Albeit both vaccines only had parts in them which could not evolve to a "living" A or B.
The government likes to push the vaccines onto young kids before their immune system has even developed. They aren't effective for young kids under 15 months old, but they still give them. In the past, the children would get immunity passed on to them from their mothers.
Well, scientists disagree. They claim vaccines work from the second month. OTOH the fact that babies don't get a working immune system comes from the fact that mothers to rarely give breast feeding.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.