Aetiology

"All your B-cell are belong to us!!" MUWAHAHAHA!

But seriously, Google University is a dangerous place. I find it hard to tolerate the folks who endanger their kids and others' kids. But it's the folks actually disseminating this trash that really piss me off.

Posted by: PalMD | March 24, 2008 7:25 PM

Note to parents: everything you read on the inter-webs is not necessarily true.

Especially this crap.

Man I hope a whole new generation of non-immunized, home-schooled kids isn't going to kill us all!

Posted by: Joseph | March 24, 2008 8:45 PM

Evolution in action. It will take a while, but eventually these genes will be removed from the gene pool.

Posted by: Beach Bum | March 24, 2008 9:16 PM

This is and has always been a direct reflection on the sorry state of science education in this country. In high school, the parents are more than half the battle. The other half is just keeping order in the classroom so the teacher can teach.

In college, everything has to be dumbed down lest the teacher "trample on the dreams" of the students. Tests have to be written such that the students are able to regurgitate information without thinking. When does it end? Will we be granting PhD's to people that know nothing?

Sorry to rant.

Posted by: boomer0127 | March 24, 2008 9:34 PM

if they don't vaccinate they pretty much dead end on the genetic scale.

But perhaps not before they spread disease to others (as Pal pointed out), including me and you. Not all vaccines protect us forever, and continued protection for older individuals depends partly upon 100% vaccination in the young.

Ignorant, uneducated people such as Ms. Carlson are sacrificing their own children and the rest of us for nothing...except maintaining their own smug but foolish sense of superiority.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | March 24, 2008 10:27 PM

@Mountain Man: You say "mostly". So then they have somewhere between 1 and 49% "non-bulshit". Please explain this percentage of redeeming value you place on vaccines.

Oh, and I agree - Natural Immunity is much stronger - for those who survive to lead a normal life.

When you say placebo, are you implying they are ineffective? That is incorrect. When's the last time we had a smallpox outbreak? Or are you meaning that they give a false sense of security to parents? Or maybe they help to keep parents at work by lessening symptoms, thereby saving mostly money but some lives, like the VZV vaccine?

Just curious about your thought process, assuming you mean what you say.

Posted by: boomer0127 | March 25, 2008 12:07 AM

Yeah I guess smallpox and polio were just figments of everyone's imagination.

Posted by: Phil | March 25, 2008 2:54 AM

Vaccinations are mostly bullshit. Natural immunity is much stronger and much more efficient. You don't need all these silly shots -- they're just, essentially, placebos for parents.

Posted by: Mountain Man | March 24, 2008 11:44 PM

The dichotomy you're drawing between vaccines and "natural immunity" sounds like it's got some bullshit in it, too.

Posted by: Wes | March 25, 2008 7:37 AM

As an anthropologist I often look a how people acquire and act on their beliefs. This is always an irrational process, though usually with an empirical basis (even so-called 'urban legends usually have some legitimate concern behind them). People tend to see in black and white, so if vaccines involve a certain amount of risk (and they do) , then people tend to react, 'all bad.' Then there are the scientists who, on the other extreme act equally irrationally and conclude 'vaccination, all good'. Parents have legitimate concerns about vaccination, but are usually not well informed as to the real risks. However, mocking their concerns and calling them stupid and denying that there are risks does not seem to me to be the proper reaction of responsible scientists.

Posted by: Ron | March 25, 2008 8:16 AM

Oh, and before I get grouped into the "irrational" saying vaccines are "all good" - I'd like to go on record saying I am concerned that the VZV vaccine may not be "all good".

Yes, it lowers disease symptoms, keeps parents at work instead of home with their kids during chicken pox, saves lots of $$$ for hospitals, and likely saves the lives of the few kids who would die of VZV naturally. But I do not believe that the vaccine is capable of completely blocking wild-type infection and the vaccine's attenuation may not provide complete protection against shingles outbreaks. Time will tell.

Live attenuated virus vaccines need to be engineered, not just attenuated by passage in culture. This vaccine *was* foisted upon the population before the actual attenuation was completely understood. Yes, now the specific mutations are known.

I'm not saying this vaccine is "all bad" - it has its purpose, and that was pretty much to save money in the short term - both my kids have had the vaccine. My boss is happy I didn't take two weeks off of work like my parents had to. But now there is talk of multiple boosters throughout life to protect the elderly from shingles, etc. I think there was a rush to get this on the market in the name of $$$, not in the name of protecting the lives of children.

Herpes vaccination is a tough nut to crack.

Posted by: boomer0127 | March 25, 2008 8:58 AM

Far be it from me to think that the pharmaceutical industry would ever 'foist a drug upon the population' merely for their own profit, or that the FDA would fail to catch such cynical behavior.

Posted by: Ron | March 25, 2008 10:12 AM

Don't you know we have a constitutional *right* to avoid immunology?!
It comes under "cruel and unusual punishment". Believe me, I've sat through an immunology class, it's right up there with waterboarding.

Posted by: Becca | March 25, 2008 1:13 PM

@MRW : I knew that! Mea Culpa!

@Chad: "irradiating meat and dairy products." Yes, but was it organic and DNA free?

@Dr. Tara: "Incivility can also wear a smile and use pretty words. " over at the Intersection.

Love it! Keep up the good work!.

Posted by: N 'Man O' Rage' R | March 25, 2008 1:28 PM

Antivax mom Sybil says: "I refuse to sacrifice my children for the greater good."

What she means: "I am totally OK with sacrificing other children so mine don't have to go near any kind of risk."

Posted by: isles | March 25, 2008 3:13 PM

"HPV DNA was detected in 1739 of the 1918 patients with cervical cancer (90.7 percent) and in 259 of the 1928 control women (13.4 percent"

This does not prove causality, for there is no attempt to culture the microbe and inoculate animals, aka Kochs Postulates.

Duesberg debunks once again.

Latent Viruses and Mutated Oncogenes: No Evidence for Pathogenicity
Peter H. Duesberg and Jody R. Schwartz

B. Herpes Virus, Papilloma Viruses, and Cervical Cancer
Inspired by the SV40/adenovirus-cancer models, infection by herpes simplex virus (HSV) was postulated in the 1970s to be the cause of cervical cancer based on epidemiological correlations with HSV DNA (3). The virus is sexually transmitted and is latent in about 85% of the adult population of the U.S. (3). Infection by intact HSV typically kills the cell. However, defective and intact viruses that become latent do not kill cells (3).

The viral DNAs in cervical cancers are defective and integrated with cell DNA. Cervical cancers with defective HSV DNA are clonal, just like virus-free cancers (191-194). In agreement with the SV40/ adenovirus models, HSV does not replicate in the tumors. But, unlike the SV40/adenovirus models, no set of viral genes is consistently present or expressed in human cervical cancers. Therefore, the "hit-and-run" mechanism of viral carcinogenesis was proposed (195). It holds that neither the complete HSV, nor even a part of it, needs to be present in the tumor. Obviously, this is an unfalsifiable, but also an unprovable, hypothesis.

Also inspired by the SV40/adenovirus models, and based on epidemiological correlations, infection by human papilloma virus (HPV) was postulated in the 1980s by zur Hausen to be a causative factor in cervical and anogenital cancers (3, 191, 196).

Papilloma viruses are transmitted by sexual and other contacts, like the herpes viruses, and are widespread or "ubiquitous" in at least 50% of the adult population of the U.S. and Europe (3, 191). For example, using the PCR to amplify sequences of one particular strain of papilloma virus, 46% of 467 women in Berkeley, California, with a median age of 22 were found to carry HPV, but none of them had cervical cancer (199). Many other strains of HPV exist (3, 191) that could not be detected with the assay used in this study (199). Like the SV40/ adenovirus models, HPV does not replicate in the tumors. But, unlike these models, HPV naturally replicates nonlytically (13), forming polyclonal warts with unintegrated viral DNA plasmids (200).

zur Hausen reports that cervical cancers occur in less than 3% of infected women in their lifetime, but the incidence in HPV-free controls was not reported (191). In the U.S., the incidence of cervical cancer in all women, with and without HPV, per 70-year lifetime is about 1% (197). In a controlled study of age-matched women, 67% of those with cervical cancer and 43% of those without were found to be HPV-positive (198). These cancers are observed on average only 20-50 years after infection (191).

Different sets and amounts of viral DNA are integrated into cell DNA of different carcinomas (191), and viral DNA is poorly expressed in some cancers and not expressed at all in others (3, 191, 201). Moreover, different HPV strains are found in different cancers (3, 191, 196). Viral antigens are found in only 1-5% of carcinomas (3). Accordingly, HPV does not replicate in the cancer cells and there are no reports of HPV-specific histological or physiological markers that set HPV DNA-positive apart from negative carcinomas (191). There is also no virus-specific integration site in HPV DNA-positive cancers (191), indicating that no specific cellular gene is activated, or that a tumor suppressor gene is inactivated by integration of viral DNA. HPV DNA-positive tumors are clonal and carry clonal chromosome abnormalities, just like virus-negative tumors (191-194).

The HPV-cancer hypothesis of zur Hausen proposes that HPV encodes a "transforming factor" that is suppressed in normal cells by a cellular interference factor (CIF). Inactivation of both CIF alleles by mutation is postulated to result in viral carcinogenesis (191). The low probability of developing mutations in both suppressor alleles is said to explain the long intervals between infection and cancer. This hypothesis correctly predicts that only a small fraction of infections lead to cancer. It further predicts clonal tumors with active HPV DNA and mutations in both alleles of the suppressor genes, and it predicts no effects on the karyotypes of cells.

Howley et al. proposed that a viral protein neutralizes the proteins of the retinoblastoma and p53 tumor suppressor genes, and that neutralization of these suppressor proteins causes cancer (202). The proposal is modeled after the hypothesis that retinoblastoma is caused by a cellular cancer gene, provided that a complementary suppressor gene, termed the retinoblastoma gene, is inactivated (see Section IV). This hypothesis predicts polyclonal tumors.

The following epidemiological and biochemical arguments cast doubt on these HPV-cancer hypotheses:

1. Random allelic mutation of suppressor genes, as postulated by zur Hausen, predicts a few cancers soon, and more long after infection. Since cancers only appear 20-50 years after infection, cooperation between HPV and mutations cannot be sufficient for carcinogenesis.

2. Further, the proposal of zur Hausen that inactivation of host suppressor genes is necessary for viral transformation is not compatible with HPV survival. Since HPV, like all small DNA viruses, needs all of its 8-kb DNA for virus replication (13), suppression of one or more HPV proteins by normal cellular genes would effectively inhibit virus replication in all normal cells. Conversely, if viral transforming proteins were not suppressed by normal cells, virus-replicating wart cells should be tumorigenic because all viral genes are highly expressed in virus replication (1, 13, 191).

3. The clonality of cervical cancers rules out the Howley hypothesis.

4. The lack of a consistent HPV DNA sequence and of consistent HPV gene expression in HPV DNA-positive tumors is inconsistent with the zur Hausen and Howley hypotheses and indicates that HPV is not necessary to maintain cervical cancer.

5. The presence of HPV in no more than 67% of age-matched women with cervical cancer (198) also indicates that HPV is not necessary for cervical cancer.

6. The hypothesis also fails to explain the presence of clonal chromosome abnormalities consistently seen in cervical cancer (16, 192-194)-except if one makes the additional odd assumption that only cells with preexisting chromosome abnormalities are transformed by HPV.

It follows that neither HPV nor HSV plays a direct role in cervical carcinomagenesis. Moreover, the HPV-cancer hypothesis offers no explanation for the absence of a reciprocal venereal male carcinoma.

Thus, detecting inactive and defective viral DNA from past infections in non-tumorigenic cells with a commercial hybridization test (Vira/Pap, Digene Diagnostics, Silver Spring, Maryland) or with the PCR (199) seems worthless as a predictor of rare carcinomas appearing decades later, in view of the "ubiquity" (191) of these viruses in women and the total lack of evidence that cervical cancer occurs in women with HPV more often than in those without. This test, at $30-150, is currently recommended for the 7 million Pap smears that appear "atypical" in the U.S. per year (Digene Diagnostics, personal communication, 1991). By contrast only 13,000 cervical cancers are observed annually in both HPV-positive and -negative women in the U.S. (197). Indeed, the test may be harmful, considering the anxiety a positive result induces in believers of the virus-cancer hypothesis.

An alternative cervical carcinoma hypothesis suggests that rare spontaneous or chemically induced chromosome abnormalities, which are consistently observed in both HPV and HSV DNA-negative and -positive cervical cancers (192-194), induce cervical cancer. For example, smoking has been identified as a cervical cancer risk (204). The controlled study of age-matched women described above suggests that 52% of the women with cervical cancer were smokers compared to only 27% of those without (198). Indeed, carcinogens may be primary inducers of abnormal cell proliferation rather than HPV or HSV. Since proliferating cells would be more susceptible to infection than resting cells, the viruses would be just indicators, rather than causes of abnormal proliferation. Activation of latent retroviruses like HTLV-I (Section III,A) (2), herpes viruses (12), and lambda phages (205) by chemical or radiation-induced cell damage and subsequent proliferation are classical examples of such indicators. Indeed, Rous first demonstrated that the virus indicates hydrocarbon-induced papillomas; it "... localized in these and urged them on ..." and suggested that enhanced proliferation is a risk factor for carcinogenesis (203).

According to this hypothesis, HPV or HSV DNAs in tumor cells reflect defective and latent viral genomes accidentally integrated into normal or hyperplastic cells, from which the tumor is derived. This hypothesis readily reconciles the clonal chromosome abnormalities with the clonal viral DNA insertions of the "viral" carcinomas. The inactive and defective viral DNA in the carcinomas would be a fossil record of a prior infection that was irrelevant to carcinogenesis.

Posted by: cooler | March 25, 2008 3:40 PM

There is now some discussion of modifying California's personal belief exemption. And the family of the index case has had some negative social consequences from their decision not to vaccinate...

Posted by: san diego | March 25, 2008 4:33 PM

I believe in vaccinations but one can't help but note that a child who is not vaccinated has zero chance of developing a serious vaccine related complication and very little chance of developing the disease (especially now that the majority of children ARE vaccinated), let alone a serious complication of the disease which, although more common than a vaccine related complication, is still relatively rare. A child who is vaccinated has a lower than the already low chance of developing the disease or one of its complications but also a low chance of developing a complication related to the disease. All the probabilities involved are low - but the problems that they are associated with can be quite serious. I can see where a parent could have a hard time making a decision.

Posted by: Dale | March 25, 2008 5:13 PM

I hadn't been formally introduced to the Duesberg article until now. Thanks, I think.
I was going to ask why such a smart guy was being so stupid but then I realized that (1) Duesberg seems more devil's advocate than serious scientist, and (2) the (overbearingly long) excerpt was from 1992. For instance, even cooler can cite data refuting Duesberg's point #5. A few interesting points but overall, pedantic; if the causation between HPV and cervical cancer has not yet been proven on a molecular level via Koch, then the correlation is about as strong as you can find in nature, with a corresponding pathological basis (cervical dysplasia, anyone?).
But to bring it all around, many people (such as cooler) are incapable of weighing strength of evidence, believing alties and fringe elements are acceptable and equal alternatives to mainstream science. In a post-modern, relativistic world, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey carry just as much authority as Julie Gerberding and Elias Zerhouni...if not more, since fear and "motherly instinct" will often trump reason and research. Add in a healthy dose of American independence, Ayn Rand-influenced selfishness, and a fair-to-middling science education, and--voila--a perfect recipe for vaccine phobia!
Too bad I don't have a good recipe for countering it. Instead, I'm brushing up on what measles looks like, because we're definitely heading for less than 95% coverage...bye-bye, herd immunity...hello, measles encephalitis...

Posted by: Dr Scott | March 25, 2008 5:32 PM

Nooo, not another thread lost to cooler's stupidity!!!

While I agree that confronting misinformation is admirable, can we please just post a link to one of the dozens of other threads he's sent into a denialist death spiral, ten ignore him here while we focus on the subject at hand?

Posted by: Left_wing_fox | March 25, 2008 6:43 PM

Re Adele

Prof. Duesberg is a clinical example of a one-time reputable scientist who goes off the rails. I have pointed out on many occasions several such individuals, e.g. Linus Pauling, J. Allen Hynek, Brian Josephson, and William Shockley. It might make for an interesting paper or even book to examine what makes a reputable scientist with a good track record of reputable work turn into a whackjob.

Posted by: SLC | March 25, 2008 7:28 PM

Left wing fox is just an idiotic tool from planet ghoul.

The reason there is such a correlation with HPV is Described by Duesberg.

"Since proliferating cells would be more susceptible to infection than resting cells, the viruses would be just indicators, rather than causes of abnormal proliferation"

"The controlled study of age-matched women described above suggests that 52% of the women with cervical cancer were smokers compared to only 27% of those without (198). Indeed, carcinogens may be primary inducers of abnormal cell proliferation rather than HPV or HSV. Since proliferating cells would be more susceptible to infection than resting cells, the viruses would be just indicators, rather than causes of abnormal proliferation. Activation of latent retroviruses like HTLV-I (Section III,A) (2), herpes viruses (12), and lambda phages (205) by chemical or radiation-induced cell damage and subsequent proliferation are classical examples of such indicators."

Posted by: cooler | March 25, 2008 8:18 PM

Re cooler

OK Mr. cooler. Whackjob Peter Duesberg says that HIV doesn't cause AIDS but refuses to take a blood transfusion from an HIV positive donor. I challenge Mr. cooler to do what Prof. Duesberg has refused to do, namely take a blood transfusion from and HIV positive donor. Mr. cooler, put up or shut up.

Posted by: SLC | March 26, 2008 9:14 AM

micro student good you are asking questions, I had a expensive appliance broke last week. I didn't give it to my husband gods help us he would kill it!! and I didn't do it on myself I took it to a repair place.

Bc the repair guy studied this stuff and I trust him to do it right, if he doesn't or lies and cheats I will complain to BBB. I trust him, its not like I'm automaticly, OK this guy is going to cheat me and the thing will break again and cut my kids finger off. I'm not like, lets go on the internet and find about how repair people suck they always want money and your worse off after. BC when you get info you have to think where it is from, a profi or an activist who doesn't know what the are doing.

They did alot of research about parents that don't take care of their kids with vaccines. They some times say education is factor but not always. Money may be but not always also. Biggest thing is, parents that think doctors are lying and companies are lying government to, they are against vaccines. They will not believe info from experts like Tara just gave, they will believe info from alternative med and anti vaccination orgs and parents that they like that think like they do. Oh and they all most always get their info from the internet.

Here is three sources of what I said
Factors Associated With Refusal of Childhood Vaccines Among Parents of School-aged Children
A Case-Control Study
Daniel A. Salmon, PhD, MPH; Lawrence H. Moulton, PhD; Saad B. Omer, MBBS, MPH; M. Patricia deHart, ScD; Shannon Stokley, MPH; Neal A. Halsey, MD
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159:470-476.
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/159/5/470

Vaccine Beliefs of Parents
Who Oppose Compulsory Vaccination
KEnnedy Brown Gust 2005 Public Health Reports

Green and Lee, Utah Department of Health
http://cdc.confex.com/recording/cdc/nic2006/ppt/free/4db77adf5df9fff0d3caf5cafe28f496/paper10238_1.ppt#11

Posted by: Adele | March 26, 2008 12:52 PM

Microstudent,
If you want to see how fraudulent the IOM's studies that claim they debunked a link between autism and vaccines see Dr. Ayoub's lecture.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6890106663412840646

Then google the film Hiv fact or fraud to hear Deusberg in his own words.

Then do a pub med search on shyh ching lo and mycoplasma, then Google Project Day lily, about illegal biowarfare testing, then you will see the light.

Posted by: cooler | March 26, 2008 6:53 PM

Micro,
You might want to check out the aidstruth.org
site, and Dr. Ayoub beleives in the illuminati and black helicopters.

Stick to the peer reviewed evidence cited above, don't waste your time on trolls.

Posted by: truth | March 26, 2008 7:43 PM

Sigh, I see Cooler is back to the "Lo's research shows HIV doesn't cause AIDS" despite having been shown to be incorrect over and over. I guess he decided not to read any of Lo's later research after all.

Posted by: Poodle Stomper | March 26, 2008 9:44 PM

Never said that, just said that the new world order has weaponized mycoplasmas and spread them Project Day Lily (google it, Nicolsons new book) style, illegaly tested them on gulf war one vets. Dr. Lo was working for polar bear number #1, who forced him to illegally test on inmates and veterans, but the New World Order let Lo publish on the Academic points of the microbe,where he proved they were pathenogenic in their own right, just to test the intelligence of the scientific community.

The 3 polar bears that rule the world have instructed me that this is the truth. Do you deny that there are 3 polar bears that rule the earth and that spread weaponized mycoplasmas? Are you a polar bear denier?

Posted by: cooler | March 26, 2008 10:18 PM

I am now going to retire from further posts at scienceblogs for a long while, if people ignore me I am going away for good. Thanks its been fun.

Posted by: cooler | March 26, 2008 10:24 PM

Cooler,
I suppose it probably is best to "retire" from the board after citing someone who believes that the lizard-hybrid Illuminati are trying giving population reduction a go using vaccines as a credible source. Take a break, get some medical help, take a few college biology classes and maybe actually read Lo's work while you're on your break.

Posted by: Poodle Stomper | March 27, 2008 7:27 AM

"As usual, Duesberg is wrong: one doesn't need a grant from NIH to study HIV. "

Robert Willner didn't need one either when he supposedly pricked himself with a needle used on a person with HIV. I wonder why Duesberg doesn't simply follow Willner's example; find a person with HIV, take some blood, and inject it into himself. No grant needed or anything.

Posted by: Poodle Stomper | March 27, 2008 10:00 AM

Stick to substantive points and try to avoid the juvenile ad hominem stuff. I say that as a supporter of science and rationality, who hates to see science turned into a mob sport.

Well said, Anton, but most posters on this particular blog are not bright enough to post independent thoughts; thus, they assuage their significant insecurities by ferociously defending the herd.

In college, everything has to be dumbed down lest the teacher "trample on the dreams" of the students. Tests have to be written such that the students are able to regurgitate information without thinking. When does it end? Will we be granting PhD's to people that know nothing?

Sorry to rant.

No need to apologize for your rant. It's entirely apt. What you should apologize for is not realizing that you are directing your rant at the wrong population. It is the Phd-wielding psuedo-intellectuals commonly found on this blog who are failing to produce good Science.

Kevin

Posted by: Kevin | March 27, 2008 1:21 PM