Slashdot Mirror
Study: Certain Vaccines Could Make Diseases More Deadly
sciencehabit writes: New research suggests that vaccines that don't make their hosts totally immune to a disease and incapable of spreading it to others might have a serious downside. According to a controversial study by Professor Andrew Read these so-called "imperfect" or "leaky" vaccines could sometimes teach pathogens to become more dangerous. Sciencemag reports: "The study is controversial. It was done in chickens, and some scientists say it has little relevance for human vaccination; they worry it will reinforce doubts about the merits or safety of vaccines. It shouldn't, says lead author Andrew Read, a biologist at Pennsylvania State University, University Park: The study provides no support whatsoever for the antivaccine movement. But it does suggest that some vaccines may have to be monitored more closely, he argues, or supported with extra measures to prevent unintended consequences."
The idea is that if you vaccinate people but they still get the disease and don't get it as badly, they might not die as quickly, or might not die.
So if they get sick but don't die, the disease has longer to spread.
So I suppose if you're an Anti-vaxxer it's a great argument for why only you should get vaccinated for highly virulent diseases, but you should just let everyone else die faster.
It doesn't matter *at all* that this effect has not been demonstrated in humans, nor does it matter that it only pertains to specific types of vaccine, and that all it means is that we need to monitor those specific types of vaccine more closely or differently. Nor does it matter that this is just one study and more are needed before any real conclusions are warranted.
All that matters is that a scientist just said that vaccines can make diseases worse. That is what people hear, and that is what the anti-vaxers will harp on. This study absolutely fuels the flames of that movement, whether it "shouldn't" or not.
Pathogens don't "learn". They evolve, ok. They adapt, ok. But they aren't sentient. They are not thinking. And especially they aren't thinking "hey, if they vaccinate, they won't die anyway, at least not as fast, so let's get more deadly!" This isn't the fucking Pandemic flash game for crying out loud!
There is no interest of killing a host for a parasite. It's an side effect. Unintended, and actually harmful for the parasite in the long run. Just like poisoning the seas is harmful for us. We ain't some comic book villain who does it for ... well, for being evil. We do it 'cause it cuts costs. The oil spill is only the side effect, not the reason we do it.
So yes, they COULD get more deadly because we don't die as fast and a more deadly mutated strain would kill itself off with the host if there was no vaccination. But that is hardly an argument against vaccination. It only means that at worst we're with vaccination where we are now without. AT WORST. If, and only if, the pathogens mutate in such a way that they get more deadly. Which is neither in their interest nor anything they would (evolutionary) strive for.
What's the benefit for a pathogen to be more deadly? Killing the host is actually bad for it, since that ends spreading (with this host at least).
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I mean really, it's in the name of science right?
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
We have for a real-world counter example the (live) attenuated disease vaccines.
Foe example, the live polio vaccine and we have the vaccinia vaccine. (anti-smallpox vaccine)
Have either of those resulted in increasedly virulent strains of those diseases?
I'm not 100% sure, but the eradicated disease that no one knows about, rinderpest, I believe, used an attenuated vaccine as well.
Was this sponsored by the Anti-vaxxer association?
The science behind the study does though.
"by keeping their hosts alive, such "imperfect" or "leaky" vaccines could give deadlier pathogens an edge, allowing them to spread when they would normally burn out quickly."
Vaccinated people would find the extra-deadly disease much like unvaccinated people see the normal disease. But the extra-deadly disease will kill off the anti-vaxxers. Thus these leaky vaccines are really vaccines against anti-vaxxers*.
Bring on the leak!
* Also deadly to babies.
Vaccines permanently damage your DNA, never ever take them
I have an hour commute (each way) on public transportation. On a typical commute I'll see half a dozen short range transmission events - i.e. someone coughing or sneezing directly on someone else. I'll also see a few fellow commuters touch some surface and them put a finger or two in their mouth or nose.
Of course, there are all kinds of different infectious pathogens. Some are very robust and can survive on exposed surfaces for many days. Others are very fragile and are destroyed as soon their aerosol droplet falls out of the air onto a solid surface. And, of course, different pathogens infect different tissues. For example, some viruses (only) infect lung cells while other pathogens (only) infect intestinal cells. A lung virus that is transferred off of an infected surface into the stomach (e.g. hand to mouth) isn't going going to successfully infect it's host.
Nonetheless, there are some really easy things that people could do to eliminate most infection events: don't touch a public surface and then put your hand in your mouth (or up your nose) and don't cough and sneeze on other people. Note that volume goes as the cube of distance so the short range transmission events are much more of a problem than the long range events (e.g. the risk is much lower when it's only someone letting out a light cough at the other end of the bus).
Fortunately, though, in roughly the next decade, DNA sequencing technology will have advanced to the point where people can be screened for infectious pathogens in near real time. For example, before each child enters their school building each day they will be required to spit in a tube and their saliva/mucus will be sequenced and analyzed for any sequence fragments of pathogens. If they are contagious, they will be either sent home or placed in some other quarantine. People will also be able to carry pathogen detectors with them when they go out in public. Much like dash-cams in cars to protect against hit-and-run "accidents", people will be able to detect when they have been the victim of a short range transmission event and seek justice against the perpetrator.
Essentially, in roughly a decade, we will have the technological ability to make infectious disease a distant ugly memory. There will be no need to worry about whether someone is vaccinated against the measles because it will be trivially easy to identify anyone who is infected with the measles (and to quarantine them until they are no longer contagious).
...they worry it will reinforce doubts about the merits or safety of vaccines...
This attitude about let's not discuss any possible downside because it will give the anti-vax people ammunition is part of the problem. Often forgotten is that a certain percentage of people who get vaccines die. That's an extreme form of take one for the team. At least some of these deaths could probably be prevented but rather than examine that more seriously we get polarized into vaccines are always good with no room for an opposing view. Any opposing views must be the opposite end of the spectrum and must be 100% against vaccines. While vaccines have been outstanding public policy in general that doesn't mean that it couldn't be improved upon. As long as people die from vaccinations there is room for improvement. The fact that we don't seem to be looking into how to lower that number is a problem.
OMG why do we vaccinate the children!!
The medical community doesn't have all the answers. This is why you can't force people to do this to their kids.
Edgar Cayce readings have always suggested to stay away from vaccination. James Douglas Cottrell has similar readings, suggests that vaccination be given after body has developed. Both giving psychic readings. But who would want to take a chance :-)
1.) Vaccines are really hard to make. Don't believe me try it.
2.) "Leaky" vaccines or better defined, vaccines that may prevent disease but do not prevent the host from carriage and potentially spend it to others (e.g. acelluar pertussis) are mainly a problem because seemingly "protected" and "healthy" people can carry the pathogen to susceptible hosts.
3.) Life will live. Bacteria/ viruses don't evolve to become more pathogen, they evolve to reproduce. If their mutation happens to be bad for us they are not terribly concerned.
So in short, if you are waiting for a perfect vaccine... keep waiting. What we have is the best a lot of really smart and dedicated people could come with.
P.S totally a sensationalized summary, in my opinion.
I'm impressed that slashdot can push out this clickbait Monday evening, and that less than 64 people dispute that vaccines suck (excepting those who responded: trolls.)
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_specter_the_danger_of_science_denial
I am not a biologist but the claim sound strange to me.
Our immune system does not act like antibiotic. Antibiotic act by various way, like making the lipid membrane more porous or attacking special site with a chemicals, and this lead to bacteria death or slow its growth (see bactericidal and bacteristatic) and bacteria evolve by either protecting the site of attack , or generating counter chemicals which stops the attack in the first place. Same applies to fungi and other stuff antibiotic acts upon.
But vaccine does not act that way. It provides an anti genes site which the immune system learn to recognize in a first time the a few source cells have this anti gene activated, when the anti gene site is detected a second time the source cell starts working again and produce anti gene which will bind on the site and kill the bacteria, then there is macrophage, then various T1,2,3,4 lymphocite, all of which have different mechanism of action. None of which the bacteria can act the same way as with antibiotic. What i could see is that the anti gene site mutating would helps the bacteria, but the other defense mechanism i doubt it. That anti gene site evolving would happen no matter what at the same rate for any attacks. So yeah I am a lay man but something here is not cogent in the claim.
> some scientists say it has little relevance for human vaccination;
Those people aren't scientists.
Doctors have known for many years that when an inoculation is given there is a risk that the person is already infected with the targeted disease and when that happens it makes the problem more severe. In other words it is safer to get that flu shot early in the season so that there is only the tiny chance that you are already infected. When flu is all around you taking that shot may not be such a great idea.
"...they worry it will reinforce doubts about the merits or safety of vaccines. It shouldn't, says lead author Andrew Read, a biologist at Pennsylvania State University, University Park: The study provides no support whatsoever for the antivaccine movement."
Clearly this guy doesn't understand how idiots work.
It would be nice if both sides would admit that they are wrong. Both pro and anti vax sides are wrong. It is always more complicated than the simple sloganeering that gets thrown around. Here is a great place to start
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h66beBrEpk
Dr Tetyana Obukhanych is the author of Vaccine Illusion: How Vaccination Compromises Our Natural Immunity and What We Can Do to Regain Our Health. In her book, she presents a view on vaccination that is radically different from mainstream theories
Dr Tetyana Obukhanych, has studied immunology in some of the world's most prestigious medical institutions. She earned her PhD in Immunology at the Rockefeller University in New York and did postdoctoral training at Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. and Stanford University in California.
This sounds like plain ol' natural selection to me.
The title of the paper is "Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens". Note the absence of any question marks or qualifiers such as "could...?"
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
I'm always disappointed when I read remarks about vaccine science from people who are clearly just repeating shit that they've made zero effort to understand.
In the USA we have corporations that do not give a shit what potential long term harm they do, yet give them the power and authority over us and public policy to push whatever product they want to.
If you are pro every vaccine, you are an idiot. No reasonable, intelligent competent medical person will tell you that every vaccine is necessary or a good idea.
You're being dumbed-down int he false name of "science".
It was done in chickens, and some scientists say it has little relevance for human vaccination; they worry it will reinforce doubts about the merits or safety of vaccines. It shouldn't, says lead author Andrew Read, a biologist at Pennsylvania State University, University Park: The study provides no support whatsoever for the antivaccine movement.
I'd place my bet that Mr. Read (Dr??) is wrong and 'some scientists' are right: The truth of the proposition will not stop the antivaxxers from twisting the facts in their favor. They have already DONE that to be antivaxxers.
The Disney Measles outbreak is an example of ineffective vaccination.
http://www.wired.com/2015/01/vaccinated-people-get-measles-disneyland-blame-unvaccinated/
"...But six of the cases got their measles-mumps-rubella vaccine—the MMR shot—and still managed to get infected. And all but two of them had gotten at least two doses, the standard recommendation. So what happened?..."
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-measles-spread-20150122-story.html
"...Disneyland measles outbreak: Cases not limited to the unvaccinated..."