Knowing what you are destined to blog about on a given night three days beforehand is a two-edged sword. On the plus side, I don’t have to worry about writer’s block or lack of suitable material to use as fodder for my Insolence, Respectful and not-so-Respectful, and that’s usually a good thing. On the other hand, by the time the evening rolls around, my attention can easily stray to other things, and I might not be as enthusiastic about deconstructing the latest example of, for example, anti-vaccine idiocy as I was when I first learned of its impending arrival. Yet not blogging about it after I said I would seems like breaking a promise to my readers.

So it is, now that I’ve sat down to write about the “study” or “report” (or whatever you want to call it) that was touted late last week as “proof” that the government has compensated vaccine-injured children based on their having autism. Maybe the buildup was just too much. After all, the anti-vaccine flacks at Age of Autism have been flogging this report relentlessly since the press release was first announced. So have other anti-vaccine groups. A little known fact is that I’m on the mailing list for a number of anti-vaccine groups. I do it for you, to keep my finger on the pulse of the anti-vaccine loons and as an early warning system to let me know when they’re up to various chicanery. Between being plugged in to anti-vaccine blogs and various mailing lists, I can report that the entire anti-vaccine crankosphere was abuzz with excitement over the release of this report, so much so that I was starting to wonder if there would be anything there that might be be worth paying attention to. Heck, even FOX News took the bait:

I needn’t have worried. Now that the report, written by anti-vaccine stalwarts Mary Holland, Louis Conte, anti-vaccine lawyer Robert Krakow, and Lisa Colin and entitled Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury, has been published, I sort of wish I hadn’t promised to blog about it, because now that I’ve actually read the damned thing I can’t believe it. It’s just that bad.

The things I do for you! One thing that I didn’t do for you, I will admit, is to watch the press conference announcing the report. After all, why bother with the spin when I can look at the report itself, which has plenty of spin, all wrapped up in legalese and logical fallacies commonly used and abused by lawyers?

If there’s one thing that cranks routinely do when they can’t win on science is to shift to other venues to try to win their case and to convince people that they are not, in fact, cranks. After all, if they stuck to arguing facts, science, and evidence, they wouldn’t be cranks. They also wouldn’t have a prayer of obtaining influence because the science is so much against them. So, failing at science yet again, what the anti-vaccine movement has done is to move over to law, in essence claiming that legal decisions mean that there is a scientific case to be made in favor of the hypothesis that vaccines cause autism. This is a fallacious argument at its core, because findings of law all too often have very little to do with findings of science. Examples abound, but my favorite one is the scare over silicone breast implants during the 1990s. The science supporting the claims that silicone from these implants was causing systemic diseases, such as cancer, autoimmune diseases, and a panoply of other conditions, was weak to nonexistent; later, as more studies were carried out, it was found that there was no correlation between silicone implants and the conditions attributed to them. It wasn’t until 2006 that the FDA approved these implants again for cosmetic use. None of that stopped flood of lawsuits that bankrupted Dow-Corning in 1995.

No, law is not science. In law, for example, the object is to win your case, not to find out how nature works and develop models (i.e., theories) that accurately describe it and predict its behavior. In law, there are no truly objective right or wrong answers about issues of science. There is only the law and how it has been interpreted by courts. Advocacy for one’s position, using every tool at one’s disposal and denigrating or ignoring evidence that conflicts with that position, is not just acceptable, but mandatory. And that’s what Holland et al do, with little exception. In fact, they go so far as to use the common legal tactic of making like Humpty Dumpty in this passage from Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass:

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. ‘They’ve a temper, some of them — particularly verbs: they’re the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!’

And that’s what Holland et al also appear to say, as well. Impenetrability based on legal jargon is their shield and their sword. They also fall back on the famous “just asking questions” ploy, so beloved of cranks and commonly known as JAQing off, which they do blatantly here:

This assessment of compensated cases showing an association between vaccines and autism is not, and does not purport to be, science. In no way does it explain scientific causation or even necessarily undermine the reasoning of the decisions in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding based on the scientific theories and medical evidence before the VICP. Nor does this article have anything to say about state childhood immunization mandates in general.

What this article does point to are unanswered questions about vaccines and autism, a thorny issue that affects approximately one in one hundred and ten children.10 On this point, this study strongly suggests the need for further Congressional and scientific investigation to explore the association between vaccine-­induced brain injury and autism and the integrity of this federally-­administered compensation program.

If you admit that what you are peddling is not science (and it most definitely is not), and you can’t show convincing evidence of an association between vaccines and autism, then why even bother?

The core of the argument in Holland et al appears to boil down to three claims. First, they claim to have found 83 cases of autism associated with vaccine-induced brain injury, which, they claim, makes autism three times more prevalent in children compensated by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). Second, because they base this estimate primarily on children for whom there are reports of “autistic-like” symptoms or who ultimately developed autism. Finally, they claim that this means that autism is three times more prevalent in VICP-compensated children than in the general population. Let’s look at these one at a time.

Looking at the second claim first, only a non-physician could make such an utterly brain-dead argument as this:

Because autistic disorder is defined only by an aggregation of symptoms, there is no meaningful distinction between the terms “autism” and “autism-­like symptoms.” This article makes the distinction only to accurately reflect the terms that the Court of Federal Claims, caregivers, and others use. It is not a distinction to which the authors attach significance.

It is not as uncommon as we would like in medicine for conditions and diseases to be defined primarily (or even only) by aggregations of symptoms. Irritable bowel syndrome is an example. Ditto tension headache. Moreover, it is often the context within which those symptoms arise that distinguish one diagnosis from another. In any case, the DSM-IV provides fairly clear diagnostic criteria for autism. If the child doesn’t have enough of these criteria to be diagnosed as autistic, that child could have “autism symptoms” but not autism. This is not a difficult concept, except apparently for Holland et al, who seem to be arguing that any child with autism-like symptoms must have autism. This is akin to arguing that anyone who has a belly ache or diarrhea must have irritable bowel syndrome or that someone who experiences a headache must have migraines.

Regarding the first claim, if we take at face value the claim that there are 83 children compensated by the VICP, it is first essential to compare this number to the number of children compensated by the VICP. This the authors try to do but utterly miss the point in doing it:

This discussion must start with the caveat that we are able only to interpret the subgroup of eighty-­three compensated cases that we have located. Out of a total number of approximately two thousand five hundred compensated vaccine injury claims,137 we recognize that this is a small subset. It is our hope that this preliminary study will lead to more complete study of all cases of compensated vaccine injury. Such a study might provide a far more comprehensive understanding of vaccine injury.

83/2500 results in an estimated prevalence rate of approximately 3.3%. On the surface, this seems to support the claim that the prevalence of autism is three-fold higher in VICP-compensated children than it is in the general population. Of course, there’s at least one problem, and that’s that the authors admit that, of these 83 children, they could only find documentation of autistic symptoms for only 39. This results in an estimated prevalence of autism of around 1.6%. This is rapidly falling into the range of what we would expect in the general population. Given that the VICP population is a skewed sample, many of whom have developmental disabilities, I’d be shocked if the prevalence of autism in this group wasn’t at least slightly higher than it is in the general population. Of course, this “study” is not good evidence that it is. Taking into account the skewed population and the noise inherent in looking at a small population over 20 years, the prevalence of autism in VICP-compensated children does not appear to be detectably different than it is in the general population. That’s even accounting for very loose criteria used by the authors to define who might be autistic. As Prometheus put it:

If the prevalance is higher among people compensated by the VICP, there is a basis for further investigation. It still wouldn’t “prove” that vaccines cause autism – it would simply be an indication for further study.

If, on the other hand, the prevalence of autism among people compensated by the VICP is the same as the general population (or less – see below), the argument that “vaccines cause autism” receives yet another (totally redundant) nail in its coffin.

The problem is that the autism prevalence numbers for the general population – even the educational numbers – use much tighter criteria than used by the authors of this study.

According to a Generation Rescue telephone survey (in other words, a “study” by the anti-vaccine movement iteself), the prevalence of autism is even higher than what Holland et al found in the VICP-compensated group of children.

It’s even worse than that. In fact, the timing of this study’s release is very, very bad indeed. In an ironic twist of fate that leads me to think that there might justice in the universe after all, shortly before the anti-vaccine movement tried to make hay out of this poorly argued, scientifically nonsensical report, a real scientific study, was released out of South Korea that found the prevalence of autism to be considerably higher than previously believed. Basically, in this study, researchers administered a screening test for autism spectrum disorders in a population and then did more detailed tests on children who screened positive. Their results were stunning. The study estimated that the prevalence of autism spectrum disorders was 2.64% in the population studied and that 2/3 of those cases were undiagnosed. True, this study will need to be replicated, but it adds more support for the hypothesis that autism spectrum disorders are more common than previously thought and that a significant proportion of them are subclinical and thus undiagnosed. The timing of this study, of course, couldn’t be worse for Holland et al, because it simply reemphasizes that the prevalence of autism that they think they measured in the VICP population is almost certainly not higher than the prevalence in the general population.

In other words, they did all that work and wrote all those words in order to add yet more evidence to support what we already know from copious evidence from a large and robust existing body of studies: That vaccines do not cause autism. They just refuse to realize or admit that that’s what they’ve done.

That realization provided sufficient motivation for me to power through this turgid mess of a “study.”

Comments

  1. #1 Th1Th2
    May 22, 2011

    Prometheus,

    In short, you can’t reason with someone who is irrational.

    Trans: Just get the goddamn vaccine and don’t ask questions!

  2. #2 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    May 22, 2011

    Th1Th2 – Golly, if you’d give better answers I’d ask better questions.

    Since when is it the same thing to have something that reproduces inside the body, as opposed to having a dose prepared outside the body?

    Since when is can you claim that a dead microorganism consumes energy just because the human body it’s injected into consumes energy?

    Since when do dead microorganisms produce either toxins or toxoids?

    In the context of infection, you said “Injury to the host—Well, it’s a needlestick injury and it’s intentional.” I asked what infection has a symptom of a needlestick injury. Do you disavow your own words now?

    In short, you make silly arguments that mean nothing. And I’m tired of playing.

    And lest there be any confusion, in the vernacular of the internets – I totally pwned you. Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.

  3. #3 Sauceress
    May 22, 2011

    Th1Th2
    Inflammation is necessarily a result of, nor does it necessarily lead to, infection and disease…not in the real world anyways. Your arrogant self perception that you have some level of understanding of even basic immunology is a self- made delusion.

    As what I have readd here, you are simply an ignorant and obnoxious troll. By the minuscule probability that you are simply lacking basic knowledge of immunology, at least go away and learn the correct meanings of the immunological terms and concepts you throw around here with obviously no understanding of any of them. Janeway’s Immunobiolgy, as well as Mim’s Medical Microbiology, are freely accessible to anyone at NCBI’s Bookshelf webpage.
    Both are quite suitable beginners.
    There is no excuse for willfull ignorance!

    Now let the rest of us pray..

    Oh Dear Noodly FSM,
    In view of saving us all from any further neuron battery by the willfully ignorant, please send us a troll who at least possesses rudimentary compehension of basic immune system physiology, immunological concepts and immunological terminology. This one has bastardised versions of which itself alone is aware.
    RAmen

  4. #4 Sauceress
    May 22, 2011

    By the way, the context in, and the condescension with which Th1 Th2 throws the term “dyslexic” at posters (seems to be a favourite when it has been backed into a corner) says a lot about its mentality and level of maturity. One of my lecturers at uni was genuinely dyslexic and quite happy to inform others of the fact. He has since then risen to the level of Associate Professor.

    As was pointed out upthread…most of us simply don’t read/comprehend Thinglish!

  5. #5 Th1Th2
    May 23, 2011

    Mephistopheles,

    Since when is it the same thing to have something that reproduces inside the body, as opposed to having a dose prepared outside the body?

    Both are foreign nonself and both are acquired infections.

    Since when is can you claim that a dead microorganism consumes energy just because the human body it’s injected into consumes energy?

    Killed vaccines are immunogenic and chemoattractants.

    Since when do dead microorganisms produce either toxins or toxoids?

    Toxoid-containing vaccines are commercially prepared. You neither need live microorganisms in the vaccine to produce toxins in the body unless your intention is to kill nor dead microorganisms, they are dead. Do you understand that? They are dead. If they are dead, there’s no way they can produce toxins. Understood? Again, what are toxoids? These are toxins which have been weakened. And those are one example of waste products you’re getting from the vaccine. Since when did you produce an intelligent question?

    In the context of infection, you said “Injury to the host—Well, it’s a needlestick injury and it’s intentional.” I asked what infection has a symptom of a needlestick injury. Do you disavow your own words now?

    Oh I get it. I’m not just familiar on how to create stupid questions. OK, it’s called vaccine-induced infections associated with clinical signs and symptoms of [insert disease] concomitant with signs and symptoms of physical injury (needlestick), battery, brutality and barbarism. Happy now?

    I totally pwned you.

    Delusion of grandeur

  6. #6 Jarred C
    May 23, 2011

    Even though they don’t reproduce…

    Remember, Th1Th2 believes that biological reproduction is equivalent to factory production. As a bonus, she is intentionally obtuse.

    Maybe you should stop using “reproduction,” and start using “procreation.”

  7. #7 Th1Th2
    May 23, 2011

    Sauceress,

    Inflammation is necessarily a result of, nor does it necessarily lead to, infection and disease…not in the real world anyways. Your arrogant self perception that you have some level of understanding of even basic immunology is a self- made delusion.

    For someone who’s ignorant about Janeway’s Immunobiology Chapter 1 you sure have a lot to say.

  8. #8 Sauceress
    May 23, 2011

    Ok…

    Inflammation is necessarily a result of, nor does it necessarily lead to, infection and disease

    …should have read “Inflammation is not necessarily a result of nor does it necessarily lead to, infection and disease”

    Th1Th2

    For someone who’s ignorant about Janeway’s Immunobiology Chapter 1

    So apart from my lack of proofreading in the above post, could you be more specific?

    Perhaps you could explain, provide evidence and maybe even provide a quote from Janeway to support the basis of your assertion of my ignorance? I have a 2001 5th edition (same as NCBI)paper copy of Janeway here, so fire away at will.

    Oh and please provide to links to any quotes or references used so others may follow.

  9. #9 Th1Th2
    May 23, 2011

    Jarred C.

    Remember, Th1Th2 believes that biological reproduction is equivalent to factory production.

    Bad news for you. Well, yes it is. It’s the General Rule in vaccine production.

    The more similar a vaccine is to the disease-causing form of the organism, the better the immune response to the vaccine

    Maybe you should stop using “reproduction,” and start using “procreation.”

    I know how and where to park my car. Do you remember that? This is not a trans. (Hint: You really are ignorant.)

  10. #10 Sauceress
    May 23, 2011

    Another thing Th1Th2, you keep babbling on about an injection bypassing the innate/non-specific immune system/response. Do you believe that an innate immune response is confined to particular dermal layers?
    Is it confined to specific tissues in your mind? Do you believe that no innate immune response occurs in deeper tissues and organs?
    Have you any understanding of the effector cells and mechanisms which activate an adaptive/specific immune response?

    If so could you describe in specific detail the mechanisms and effector cells leading to an adaptive immune response?

    Can you describe, in your own words, the difference between innate and adaptive immune system effector functions?

    Have you actually read Chapter One of Janeway? If so, has your understanding of the concepts detailed there been supported by other literature?

  11. #11 Chris
    May 23, 2011

    he Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge:

    Cornelius Scipio hasn’t been banned yet.

    Well, that is no longer a true statement. 😉

    Crimes include: Stupidity, slagging. godbotting, trolling

    Other comment: Pompous and ahistorical ass.

  12. #12 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    May 23, 2011

    Aw shucks! I never did manage to get in on a Skippy thread in time to join in the troll evisceration!

    Seriously, I wonder if Orac needs to be a little freer with the banhammer over here. Has little Augie been banned or is he just on vacation? Thingy is totally hopeless, a malfunctioning bot as near as I can tell. Maybe practice on her….?

  13. #13 Chris
    May 23, 2011

    Orac very seldom uses the ban hammer. I believe you can count the banned on one hand. He does leave the trolls for us to play with, it helps keep our teeth sharp and our fur shiny and smooth. So you are welcome to go for it, though by being a one note loony she is just incredibly boring.

  14. #14 Th1Th2
    May 24, 2011

    He does leave the trolls for us to play with, it helps keep our teeth sharp and our fur shiny and smooth.

    All I see are dogs barking up the wrong tree while others wag their tail out of submission.

  15. #15 Narad
    May 24, 2011

    All I see are dogs barking up the wrong tree while others wag their tail out of submission.

    And you are trying to hit the moon with a stick.

  16. #16 MI Dawn
    May 24, 2011

    @Chris: some trolls keep our teeth sharp and fur sniny, but I think this troll has been left out in the sun too long and is getting too smelly. Which is why I have not been dealing with him/her/it.

    But, carry on, those with more patience than I have with thingys.

  17. #17 Heliantus
    May 24, 2011

    @ Th1Th2

    You seem to believe that you cannot have a specific immune response without an infection first.

    Could you then explain to me what’s happening in these cases?

    – a number of businesses are providing scientists with antibodies targeting mice or human proteins. Ex: Abnova .
    They typically use a process derived from “killed” vaccine technology: they inject the purified protein into an animal, like a horse, a goat, a rabbit or a mouse.
    (disclaimer: I have no link to Abnova, I picked up this company at random)

    – and then there is the all-natural (and all-harmful) mother’s reaction to her baby’s D antigen, when the mother developed IgG against proteins of her baby because of prior exposure to such proteins.

    In both cases, the triggering proteins are not from a pathogen. And yet immune response is triggered. So, I am curious. Where is the infection?

  18. #18 W. Kevin Vicklund
    May 24, 2011

    You seem to believe that you cannot have a specific immune response without an infection first.

    Actually, I think it’s the other way around. It seems Th1Th2 believes that you can’t have an infection without a specific immune response first.

  19. #19 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    May 24, 2011

    All I see are dogs barking up the wrong tree while others wag their tail out of submission.

    See, this is why I think Thingy is a bot. It will quote a block of your post, but what it says back never actually connects with what you said; it’s just a canned response triggered by a keyword in your quote. Then if it can’t come up with even that, it’s something about dogs and trees. Like I told whoever’s running it long ago: it has decisively flunked the Turing test—time to junk this version and try again.

  20. #20 Antaeus Feldspar
    May 24, 2011

    Goofus has expressed a belief that if someone makes a statement in the form of “X believes that Y is true”; then that party is under an obligation to prove the truth of two things:  first, that X actually does believe that Y is true, and second, that Y actually is true, independently of whether X believes Y to be true.

    Therefore, since Goofus has claimed that someone here believes that “Doctors are always right when it comes to medical diagnosis and intervention no matter what,” Goofus now must prove both that the person she claimed to be “translating” for actually believes that, and that doctors are always right when it comes to medical diagnosis and intervention no matter what.  Otherwise, Goofus is, by her own standards, “goddamn too lazy to check and verify the accuracy of [her] statements” before posting.

    Of course, the alternative is that Goofus is merely a dishonest troll practicing a double standard, trying to insist that everyone else be bound by a code of conduct she doesn’t even attempt to follow herself.

  21. #21 Sauceress
    May 25, 2011

    Hmm…Th1Th2 has gone quite here.
    Perhaps its still trying to read Chapter 1 of Janeway.
    After all its incessant and arrogant posturing on its vast and “superior” knowledge of immunology here on this thread, I thought it would have jumped at the chance to show us that it has some genuine knowledge.

    Keep reading Th1Th2.

    May save you posting your ignorance and making such a fool of yourself in future.

    @419 Th1Th2

    …it cannot penetrate and bypass an intact human skin, mucosa and other innate barriers.

    …They have to use a syringe to allow these dead pathogens to penetrate and bypass the innate barriers allowing them to contaminate the underlying tissues which are physiologically free of pathogens blah blah blah

    Keep reading. If you could learn and understand the basic principles of immunology, you may learn something about the principles underlying vaccination.

    From Janeway (Chapter 14) My bolding.

    The ideal vaccination provides host defense at the point of entry of the infectious agent; stimulation of mucosal immunity is therefore an important goal of vaccination against those many organisms that enter through mucosal surfaces.

    Oooops!

  22. #22 Th1Th2
    May 25, 2011

    Sauceress,

    From Janeway (Chapter 14) My bolding.

    The ideal vaccination provides host defense at the point of entry of the infectious agent; stimulation of mucosal immunity is therefore an important goal of vaccination against those many organisms that enter through mucosal surfaces.

    Oooops!

    Yeah, oooopsie oooops for you. You do know you’re talking about killed vaccines @419 right? You know being dead and all, which cannot penetrate through an intact skin let alone a mucosal barrier causing infection, right? Good. So give an example of an ideal killed vaccine that is introduced mucosally?

    Don’t go running.

  23. #23 Sauceress
    May 25, 2011

    You know being dead and all, which cannot penetrate through an intact skin let alone a mucosal barrier causing infection, right?

    Irrelevent.

    I’ll answer your questions when you’ve answered mine. You have yet to demonstrate that you have any knowledge, or understanding of basic immunology. Why do you evade demonstrating that you have some understanding of basic immunological principles and physiology while arrogantly proclaiming a superior knowledge all the way through this thread?

    I’ll answer your questions when you have answered mine.

    Untill you can demonstrate that you have some sort of handle on the basics, any of my responses to you would be a waste of my time at this stage.

    Don’t go running.

    You wish 🙂
    I’ll be around. Some of us do work in the real world.

  24. #24 Sauceress
    May 25, 2011

    causing infection

    Oh, and please define the term “infection”.

  25. #25 Th1Th2
    May 25, 2011

    Sauceress,

    My suggestion. Stop barking up the wrong tree. You’ll just humiliate yourself.

    Next.

  26. #26 dedicated lurker
    May 25, 2011

    Sauceress,

    My suggestion. Stop barking up the wrong tree. You’ll just humiliate yourself.

    Next.

    I bent my wookie.

    (For anyone who’s noticed a theme here, I feel like I’m debating Ralph Wiggum.)

  27. #27 Sauceress
    May 26, 2011

    You do know you’re talking about killed vaccines @419 right? You know being dead and all, which cannot penetrate through an intact skin let alone a mucosal barrier causing infection, right?

    The issue is your insistence that the vaccine is injected to bypass the mucosa.

    The problem is your ignorance of the inseparable interactions between mucosal epithelium surfaces and mucosal immunity (MALT). You’d understand this if you weren’t too lazy to learn the basics!

    So give an example of an ideal killed vaccine that is introduced mucosally?

    What do you mean by “introduced mucosally”?

    Once again if you were capable of learning the basic principles of inmmunology, you wouldn’t need to go around the internet throwing around terminology you don’t understand, thus pretending you know what you are talking about.

    You’re fooling no one but yourself.

    I’ll continue using Janeway as a reference seeing as Th1Th2 has professed a familiarity with it and seems to at least recognize its authority.

    What do you make of the following Th1Th2?
    Janeway Chapter 14

    Other bacterial adjuvants include killed B. pertussis, bacterial polysaccharides, bacterial heat-shock proteins, and bacterial DNA.

    Adjuvants trick the immune system into responding as though there were an active infection, and just as different classes of infectious agent stimulate different types of immune response (see Chapter 10), different adjuvants may promote different types of response, for example, an inflammatory TH1 response or an antibody-dominated response.

    Some adjuvants, for example, pertussis toxin, stimulate mucosal immune responses, which are particularly important in defense against organisms entering through the digestive or respiratory tracts.

    Is pertussis vaccine “introduced mucosally”?

    #625

    Stop barking up the wrong tree.

    How so? Please explain.

    You’ll just humiliate yourself.

    Thanks for your concern. I’ll take my chances. 🙂

    Next

    So you freely admit that you’re ignorant of basic immunology?
    You blatantly gave the impression that you were familiar with, at least, Chapter One of Janeway?

    Really “Next”?
    Such a poor, not to mention lazy, evasion tactic commonly used by trolls the internet over when they can’t produce anything of substance or relevance.

    At least try to come up with something original.

    I know Th1Th2 is a clueless and deliberate troll, but I’m working some odd hours an present and Th1Th2 is providing me with some brief amusing moments of distraction which help pass time during some of those longer and more boring hours.

  28. #28 Sauceress
    May 26, 2011

    So give an example of an ideal killed vaccine that is introduced mucosally?

    Oh, and please define what you mean by “an ideal killed vaccine”.
    Do you mean a vaccine which is ideally dead? One that was ideally killed?
    How does one kill a vaccine?

  29. #29 Th1Th2
    May 26, 2011

    Sauceress,

    The problem is your ignorance of the inseparable interactions between mucosal epithelium surfaces and mucosal immunity (MALT).

    Well, the problem is you. You keep barking up the wrong tree. You are falsely attributing killed vaccines to having the capacity to trigger a mucosal immune response which they don’t. Why not? Because killed vaccines are not mucosal vaccines unlike OPV and rotavirus. Killed vaccines are designed to be administered intramuscularly or subcutaneously bypassing the skin/mucosal surface thus will not activate the MALT. These killed pathogens are mediated through the bloodstream and the lymphatics by the spleen and regional lymph nodes respectively. So you are terribly lost.

    Some adjuvants, for example, pertussis toxin, stimulate mucosal immune responses, which are particularly important in defense against organisms entering through the digestive or respiratory tracts.

    The pertussis toxin described here was derived from a live B. pertussis bacteria and was administered as a mucosal vaccine, either orally or through nasal or intraperitoneal inoculation. This is different from killed B pertussis which can only be given parenterally.

    Is pertussis vaccine “introduced mucosally”?

    No, they are introduced below the mucosa into the subcutaneous and muscle tissues. That’s why killed vaccines, like acellular pertussis vaccine which are administered parenterally, do not activate mucosal immune response.

    A new animal model of Bordetella pertussis infection and immunity

    The acellular pertussis vaccine that is currently in use, however, induces an immune response with a Th2 bias and does not elicit mucosal immunity[…]

    Stop barking up the wrong tree.
    How so? Please explain.

    You just did.

    You’ll just humiliate yourself.
    Thanks for your concern. I’ll take my chances. 🙂

    Don’t tell me I didn’t warn you.

    So you freely admit that you’re ignorant of basic immunology?

    Check yourself in the mirror first.

    Like I said, don’t go running.

  30. #30 Th1Th2
    May 26, 2011

    Sauceress,

    Oh, and please define what you mean by “an ideal killed vaccine”.
    Do you mean a vaccine which is ideally dead? One that was ideally killed?
    How does one kill a vaccine?

    I was referring to what you have quoted here since you quoted me @419 regarding killed vaccines.

    The ideal vaccination provides host defense at the point of entry of the infectious agent; stimulation of mucosal immunity is therefore an important goal of vaccination against those many organisms that enter through mucosal surfaces.

    So tell me, what is an ideal killed vaccine we have in the market today that will stimulate mucosal immunity? Need help? Just list all the available killed vaccines in the schedule and choose among them the ideal vaccine that will provide mucosal immunity to the host.

    Good luck.

  31. #31 Gray Falcon
    May 26, 2011

    Th1Th2 still fails to comprehend one basic fact: His/her say-so does not constitute scientific evidence. No citations, no evidence, just her assertions. Not very convincing.

  32. #32 Sauceress
    May 27, 2011

    Th1Th2

    The pertussis toxin described here was derived from a live B. pertussis bacteria and was administered as a mucosal vaccine, either orally or through nasal or intraperitoneal inoculation.

    You’ll need to reference for both the assertions above.

    You are falsely attributing killed vaccines to having the capacity to trigger a mucosal immune response which they don’t.

    Janeway: (Try reading really slowly)

    Pertussis toxin, produced by B. pertussis, has adjuvant properties in its own right and, when given mixed as a toxoid with tetanus and diphtheria toxoids, not only vaccinates against whooping cough but also acts as an adjuvant for the other two toxoids. This mixture makes up the DPT triple vaccine given to infants in the first year of life.

    Wiki:DPT vaccine

    DPT (also DTP and DTwP) refers to a class of combination vaccines against three infectious diseases in humans: diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough) and tetanus.
    The vaccine components include diphtheria and tetanus toxoids, and killed whole cells of the organism that causes pertussis (wP)

    Adjuvants trick the immune system into responding as though there were an active infection, and just as different classes of infectious agent stimulate different types of immune response (see Chapter 10), different adjuvants may promote different types of response, for example, an inflammatory TH1 response or an antibody-dominated response. Some adjuvants, for example, pertussis toxin, stimulate mucosal immune responses, which are particularly important in defense against organisms entering through the digestive or respiratory tracts.

    Keep reading.

  33. #33 Sauceress
    May 27, 2011

    So tell me, what is an ideal killed vaccine we have in the market today that will stimulate mucosal immunity?

    And there’s the bait and switch.

  34. #34 triskelethecat
    May 27, 2011

    OK. I usually ignore Thingy’s posts, but this hit me with a major WTF moment (bolding mine):

    The pertussis toxin described here was derived from a live B. pertussis bacteria and was administered as a mucosal vaccine, either orally or through nasal or intraperitoneal inoculation. This is different from killed B pertussis which can only be given parenterally.

    INTRAPERITONEAL????? Does Thingy even have a CLUE as to what that word means? And Thingy complains about a parenteral injection????

    I’m stunned and speechless.

  35. #35 Th1Th2
    May 27, 2011

    Sauceress, 

    Don’t you have any other references apart from Janeway? You’re simply telling me that DPT vaccine contains killed pertussis toxin and that the Px is an adjuvant are not at all a revelation. Like I said, you keep on barking up the wrong tree.  Killed vaccines do NOT stimulate mucosal immunity.

    Introduction to modern virology By N. J. Dimmock, Andrew J. Easton, Keith Leppard

    Another problem is that killed vaccine does not reach and stimulate mucosal immunity in the intestinal and respiratory tracts where virus normally gains entry to the body (see Fig. 12.3), and may not stimulate the type of immunity needed for protection.

    End of story. Now go back to your master. 

    And there’s the bait and switch.

    Did you find one? Nada? Don’t tell me I didn’t warn you. Now, it’s time for you to eat crow.

  36. #36 Th1Th2
    May 27, 2011

    Tri-tip,

    INTRAPERITONEAL????? Does Thingy even have a CLUE as to what that word means? And Thingy complains about a parenteral injection????

    I have a clue and you sure are ignorant.

  37. #37 MI Dawn
    May 27, 2011

    Thingy: VIRUS vs BACTERIA. It makes a difference. Most of the VIRAL vaccines contain live viruses for that reason. Pertussis is a BACTERIUM. (And you haven’t addressed the “intraperitoneal” remark yet…)

    And, BTW, Dimmock, et al, is an introductory textbook. It’s meant for BEGINNING classes. Janeway is the definitive reference/textbook meant for medical students and those persons who work in areas where they need more in-depth knowledge. Rather like comparing “You and your body” to Gray’s Anatomy (and no, I am not talking about the TV show).

  38. #38 MI Dawn
    May 27, 2011

    Oh, Geez, Thingy. NOT the mice study again. And again, do you KNOW what intraperitoneal is? Not just linking to the study. Please. Tell me you actually understand why this study is not totally appropriate to apply as applicable to humans. Tell me WHAT they actually did in this study because I don’t think you understand it at all. And don’t just quote the study. Tell me in your own words, because I think you are totally clueless.

  39. #39 Th1Th2
    May 27, 2011

    MI Dawn,

    Thingy: VIRUS vs BACTERIA. It makes a difference. Most of the VIRAL vaccines contain live viruses for that reason. Pertussis is a BACTERIUM

    Yup it really makes a difference when you are absolutely clueless that we’re discussing about killed vaccines.

    Anyway, back to the real world, how do you want the crow served?

    Acellular Pertussis Vaccines for Adolescents

    The search for a correlate of immunity for pertussis continues. However, B. pertussis is a mucosal pathogen, and mucosal immunity was not assessed in infant or adult efficacy trials. It can, therefore, be concluded that a clear serologic correlate may not emerge.

  40. #40 Th1Th2
    May 27, 2011

    MI Dawn,

    Tell me WHAT they actually did in this study because I don’t think you understand it at all.

    It’s in the title, […]to study Bordetella pertussis pathogenesis: growth and toxin production in vivo. That’s how Science works and then test that knowledge through experiments to produce a mucosal vaccine for a mucosal pathogen like B. pertussis.

    Like in this experiment; intranasal vs intraperitoneal pertussis vaccine

    To evaluate the protection offered by BPZE1, we compared the effect of a single intranasal administration of this strain to 8-wk-old Balb/C mice on the subsequent colonization by the wild-type challenge strain BPSM with that of two intraperitoneal (ip) immunizations with 1/5 of a human dose of aPV. This aPV immunization protocol has been described as the best to correlate with pertussis vaccine efficacy in human clinical trials

    So what do you prefer?

  41. #41 Denice Walter
    May 27, 2011

    @ MI Dawn: As much as I admire your perseverance in the face of adversity: it *ain’t* gonna work.

    Those whose sources of “knowledge” are purely due to, um… “revelation”( i.e. that which arises from within and is *totally* independent of information from, and experience in, the hard, cruel, real world) are not influenced one iota by information from external sources.

  42. #42 MI Dawn
    May 27, 2011

    @Denice Walter: I know. But I was bored and felt like playing with the troll because my fangs were getting dull and since I might have a hot date this weekend, I needed to get my fur sniny.

    @Thingy: you still haven’t shown you actually understand what the study did and how it did it. Copy/pasta doesn’t work for that. Explain in your own words what the study was and how they did the study. Then you will understand why we aren’t impressed when you post it.

    And I’ll eat crow when you actually prove me wrong. The study you posted says nothing in relation to what I said to you. Cherry picking doesn’t become you, and I can play that game too – from your linked article:

    It should be emphasized that B. pertussis is a mucosal pathogen. There is no systemic invasion or bacteremic phase in the illness. Data from 40-50 years ago indicate that subjects who received whole cell pertussis vaccine and had high serum antibody levels that caused B. pertussis to agglutinate (high serum agglutinins) were protected from disease.38-40 It is now known that the agglutinin response is a composite to a number of agglutinogens of B. pertussis, including PT and FHA (weaker agglutinogens) and PRN, FIM-2, and -3 (stronger agglutinogens).41 Because B. pertussis is a mucosal pathogen, serum agglutinin antibodies most likely transudate to the mucosal surface of the tracheobronchial tree, causing agglutination of bacteria in that location and subsequent phagocytosis and bacterial killing.

    Now, please explain what the mice have to do with this, and let me know when you want your intraperitoneal dose of vaccine. Personally, I’ll stick with normal injections.

  43. #43 Th1Th2
    May 27, 2011

    MI Dawn,

    Because B. pertussis is a mucosal pathogen, serum agglutinin antibodies most likely transudate to the mucosal surface of the tracheobronchial tree, causing agglutination of bacteria in that location and subsequent phagocytosis and bacterial killing.

    Only proves the inability of current killed pertussis vaccine to stimulate mucosal immune response (secretory Ab) compared when it’s prepared live and administered mucosally. Since aP vaccine is given parenterally, the humoral response (serum Ab)is Th2-bias. “Most likely transudate”–yeah sounds like SWAG to me.

    Furthermore, there are reasons as to why aP is ineffective. It’s in the next paragraph.

    The interpretation of FHA antibody levels seems particularly problematic. It has been speculated that FHA antibodies participate in the development of pertussis immunity, but the correlation is unclear, because FHA has many epitopes shared with other Gram-negative bacteria. Therefore, some of the antibody measured for FHA may not be specific for B. pertussis-FHA antigen or may be of much lower avidity and reduced functionality than other antibodies. Secondly, the importance of PT in the pathologic effect of pertussis infection is irrefutable. Circulating antibody to PT neutralizes the toxin, which, in turn, provides substantial protection against severe disease. Thirdly, the information on cell-mediated immunity, particularly Th-1-mediated immunity, is confusing. B. pertussis is an extracellular pathogen, and current understanding of Th-1 immunity would suggest that it is an effector for cytotoxic T cells relevant to intracellular pathogens. Surely, T cell memory is longer lasting than B cell memory, and, therefore, it is likely that T cells are important, but their precise role remains unclear. Lastly, it is also possible that the more important immune response occurs at the mucosal level and involves IgA. Although serum antibody responses and titers may predict mucosal antibody levels, this is not always the case.42 Therefore, the dissociation between serum antibody levels and pertussis protection in some patients may be a result of or can be explained by the inability to measure and precisely quantify mucosal immune responses to B. pertussis. In summary, various combinations of antibodies are most likely to correlate with protection.

    So how do you want the crow served?

  44. #44 Th1Th2
    May 27, 2011

    MI Dawn,

    Because B. pertussis is a mucosal pathogen, serum agglutinin antibodies most likely transudate to the mucosal surface of the tracheobronchial tree, causing agglutination of bacteria in that location and subsequent phagocytosis and bacterial killing.

    Only proves the inability of current killed pertussis vaccine to stimulate mucosal immune response (secretory Ab) compared when it’s prepared live and administered mucosally. Since aP vaccine is given parenterally, the humoral response (serum Ab)is Th2-bias. “Most likely transudate”–yeah sounds like SWAG to me.

    Furthermore, there are reasons as to why aP is ineffective. It’s in the next paragraph.

    The interpretation of FHA antibody levels seems particularly problematic. It has been speculated that FHA antibodies participate in the development of pertussis immunity, but the correlation is unclear, because FHA has many epitopes shared with other Gram-negative bacteria. Therefore, some of the antibody measured for FHA may not be specific for B. pertussis-FHA antigen or may be of much lower avidity and reduced functionality than other antibodies. Secondly, the importance of PT in the pathologic effect of pertussis infection is irrefutable. Circulating antibody to PT neutralizes the toxin, which, in turn, provides substantial protection against severe disease. Thirdly, the information on cell-mediated immunity, particularly Th-1-mediated immunity, is confusing. B. pertussis is an extracellular pathogen, and current understanding of Th-1 immunity would suggest that it is an effector for cytotoxic T cells relevant to intracellular pathogens. Surely, T cell memory is longer lasting than B cell memory, and, therefore, it is likely that T cells are important, but their precise role remains unclear. Lastly, it is also possible that the more important immune response occurs at the mucosal level and involves IgA. Although serum antibody responses and titers may predict mucosal antibody levels, this is not always the case.42 Therefore, the dissociation between serum antibody levels and pertussis protection in some patients may be a result of or can be explained by the inability to measure and precisely quantify mucosal immune responses to B. pertussis. In summary, various combinations of antibodies are most likely to correlate with protection.

    So how do you want the crow served?

  45. #45 Sauceress
    May 27, 2011

    MI Dawn
    Just from your past few posts, I see your fangs are already gleaming and your fur already has an incredible snine on it.
    Looking great for that date.

  46. #46 Th1Th2
    May 27, 2011

    MI Dawn,

    Because B. pertussis is a mucosal pathogen, serum agglutinin antibodies most likely transudate to the mucosal surface of the tracheobronchial tree, causing agglutination of bacteria in that location and subsequent phagocytosis and bacterial killing.

    Only proves the inability of current killed pertussis vaccine to stimulate mucosal immune response (secretory Ab) compared when it’s prepared live and administered mucosally. Since aP vaccine is given parenterally, the humoral response (serum Ab)is Th2-bias. “Most likely transudate”–yeah sounds like SWAG to me.

    Furthermore, there are reasons as to why aP is ineffective. It’s in the next paragraph.

    The interpretation of FHA antibody levels seems particularly problematic. It has been speculated that FHA antibodies participate in the development of pertussis immunity, but the correlation is unclear, because FHA has many epitopes shared with other Gram-negative bacteria. Therefore, some of the antibody measured for FHA may not be specific for B. pertussis-FHA antigen or may be of much lower avidity and reduced functionality than other antibodies. Secondly, the importance of PT in the pathologic effect of pertussis infection is irrefutable. Circulating antibody to PT neutralizes the toxin, which, in turn, provides substantial protection against severe disease. Thirdly, the information on cell-mediated immunity, particularly Th-1-mediated immunity, is confusing. B. pertussis is an extracellular pathogen, and current understanding of Th-1 immunity would suggest that it is an effector for cytotoxic T cells relevant to intracellular pathogens. Surely, T cell memory is longer lasting than B cell memory, and, therefore, it is likely that T cells are important, but their precise role remains unclear. Lastly, it is also possible that the more important immune response occurs at the mucosal level and involves IgA. Although serum antibody responses and titers may predict mucosal antibody levels, this is not always the case.42 Therefore, the dissociation between serum antibody levels and pertussis protection in some patients may be a result of or can be explained by the inability to measure and precisely quantify mucosal immune responses to B. pertussis. In summary, various combinations of antibodies are most likely to correlate with protection.

    So how do you want the crow served?

  47. #47 Th1Th2
    May 27, 2011

    MI Dawn,

    Because B. pertussis is a mucosal pathogen, serum agglutinin antibodies most likely transudate to the mucosal surface of the tracheobronchial tree, causing agglutination of bacteria in that location and subsequent phagocytosis and bacterial killing.

    Only proves the inability of current killed pertussis vaccine to stimulate mucosal immune response (secretory Ab) compared when it’s prepared live and administered mucosally. Since aP vaccine is given parenterally, the humoral response (serum Ab) is Th2-bias. “Most likely transudate”–yeah sounds like SWAG to me.

    Furthermore, there are reasons as to why aP is ineffective. It’s in the next paragraph.

    Lastly, it is also possible that the more important immune response occurs at the mucosal level and involves IgA. Although serum antibody responses and titers may predict mucosal antibody levels, this is not always the case.42 Therefore, the dissociation between serum antibody levels and pertussis protection in some patients may be a result of or can be explained by the inability to measure and precisely quantify mucosal immune responses to B. pertussis. In summary, various combinations of antibodies are most likely to correlate with protection.

    So how do you want the crow served?

  48. #48 Th1Th2
    May 27, 2011

    MI Dawn,

    Now, please explain what the mice have to do with this, and let me know when you want your intraperitoneal dose of vaccine. Personally, I’ll stick with normal injections.

    Those mice also had their share of normal injections like you had before they were disposed of.

  49. #49 Krebiozen
    May 29, 2011

    Th1Th2 seems remarkably skilled at getting people to chase after irrelevant red herrings. The bottom line is that both live and dead vaccines are very safe and effective at preventing serious infections that cause suffering, disability and death. Give me a case of vaccinia over variola any day, or attenuated measles over the wild variety. I don’t think anything anyone writes here is going to rid Th1Th2 of her irrational fear of vaccine induced infections.

  50. #50 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    May 29, 2011

    @ Krebiozen:

    Yeah, or her faith that if you’re “smart” you won’t catch any infectious diseases. It reminds me of all the guys (yeah, they were all guys) 45 years ago who told me that cigarettes probably did cause lung cancer in the weak, but they could “handle it”. We see how this worked out for them. Problem with the anti-vax nuts is, it’s their kid’s lives they’re risking, not their own.

  51. #51 Th1Th2
    May 30, 2011

    Krebiozen,

    The bottom line is that both live and dead vaccines are very safe and effective at preventing serious infections that cause suffering, disability and death.

    Also known as The Litany of the Faithful.

    Give me a case of vaccinia over variola any day, or attenuated measles over the wild variety.

    Once again you’re barking up the wrong tree. Neither I am an infection-promoter nor I spread the disease. That kind of challenge speaks of your true self being an infection-promoter.

    I don’t think anything anyone writes here is going to rid Th1Th2 of her irrational fear of vaccine induced infections.

    It’s called smart thinking by exercising due diligence. Vaccinators do the opposite. Proselytizing the people to accept the sacrament of vaccination through the use of F.U.D.

  52. #52 Th1Th2
    May 30, 2011

    TVRBK,

    Problem with the anti-vax nuts is, it’s their kid’s lives they’re risking, not their own

    That’s a classic appeal to emotion you got there. I’ll answer nonetheless. There are no risks whatsoever for someone who is NOT willfully engaged. But there are also two groups of people who always engage in infection-promotion, namely the pro-vax and the pro-pox.

  53. #53 Gray Falcon
    May 30, 2011

    Th1Th2 still doesn’t understand that people can get sick without being vaccinated.

  54. #54 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    May 30, 2011

    Thingy, I know you think your Purity of Essence™ makes you immune to any and all infectious diseases. I know you think you can spot anyone with a communicable disease and somehow avoid breathing the same air as them. I know you think staying on the sidewalk will somehow protect you from infection. You are ludicrously wrong on all these points, but never mind that.

    According to you the billions and billions of people killed by smallpox since the Agricultural Revolution deserved to die because they just weren’t as smart as you. The Indian tribes in Minnesota being wiped out by smallpox before any Europeans got within 1,000 miles of them, just by the chain of infection from a few white men who barely set foot on the east coast—well, they just didn’t exercise “due diligence”.

    Eradicating that disease that has killed so many people over the millennia was a bad thing to do, because it “infected” people with “pathogens”—far better that millions die every year than have their “naive” immune systems tampered with.

    I don’t know whether you’re truly so insane that you can’t see the implications of your delusional beliefs, or whether you really are the moral monster your words brand you to be. I don’t really care which, because either way, if anyone listens to you, people die. Only 1 or 2 per 1,000 in the case of measles, but the 1 in 3 for smallpox would have been just fine with you. Thinning the herd of those too stupid to avoid invisible germs or stay on the sidewalk. I’ll tell you what I told augustine, and I mean this with all sincerity—Die. In. A. Fire.

  55. #55 Narad
    May 30, 2011

    That kind of challenge speaks of your true self being an infection-promoter.

    Am I still missing the part where you explain, granting full acceptance of your terms, what the practical negative consequence of continuing in my ways is other than “being called an infection-promoter by Th1Th2”?

  56. #56 TBruce
    May 30, 2011

    “being called an infection-promoter by Th1Th2”

    Frankly, I would consider that an honour.

  57. #57 Krebiozen
    May 30, 2011

    Yes, I’m an infection-promoter. I would like the whole world (the immunocompromised excepted) to be infected with attenuated measles virus. Then the wild measles virus would die out and future generations would not need to be vaccinated and would never get measles.

  58. #58 Th1Th2
    June 2, 2011

    Krebiozen,

    Yes, I’m an infection-promoter. I would like the whole world (the immunocompromised excepted) to be infected with attenuated measles virus.

    Speaking the Truth.

    Then the wild measles virus would die out and future generations would not need to be vaccinated and would never get measles.

    If you wanna be Miss America.

  59. #59 Chris
    June 2, 2011

    And the idiocy continues…

  60. #60 Krebiozen
    June 2, 2011

    If you wanna be Miss America.

    I rest my case.

  61. #61 Antaeus Feldspar
    June 3, 2011

    I propose that when it becomes necessary to discuss Thingy’s views, we use the term “Thinfection” to designate what she calls “infection.”  After all, just about the only reason to reply at all to Thingy is to debunk her views for the benefit of onlookers who might erroneously believe her to know what she’s talking about; we don’t want such onlookers to get confused and think that what Thingy calls “infection” has any relation to what the rest of the world calls “infection.”

    We here in the real world talk about infections, and vaccinations; Thingy lumps them both together as Thinfections.  To everyone else in the world, there is a big difference between infections and vaccinations, as their risk-benefit profiles are completely different; Thingy takes it as an axiom that anything she classifies as a Thinfection is automatically bad, regardless of the actual consequences.  If we looked at two children, one who had contracted a wild measles infection and as a result had lost their hearing, sight, or life, and a second who had received an immunization against measles and had as a result been prevented from getting a wild measles infection, the rest of the world would say that the second child was very fortunate compared to the first, but Thingy would say that both children were equally unfortunate, since both of them ‘suffered’ from Thinfections, and even when the result of a Thinfection is that you don’t lose your sight or your hearing or your life, Thingy still thinks it’s bad. 

    Of course, Thingy also thinks that Thinfections can be avoided by “due diligence” and frankly there’s nothing in the real world that can do what she claims “due diligence” can – unless “due diligence” actually means “walking around everywhere in a HAZMAT suit.”  It’s obvious to everyone except Thingy, but there is no set of reasonable precautions that can prevent you from ever coming in contact with an infectious agent.  That’s why we in the real world favor immunizing against those infectious agents, so that if we come into contact with the infectious agent in the wild, it’s much less likely to have any serious effects on us.  That’s a pretty smart thing to do – not that you can convince someone who believes in Thinfections.

  62. #62 Th1Th2
    September 13, 2011

    Antaeus,

    That’s why we in the real world favor immunizing against those infectious agents, so that if we come into contact with the infectious agent in the wild, it’s much less likely to have any serious effects on us.  That’s a pretty smart thing to do – not that you can convince someone who believes in Thinfections.

    See that. Science really is your weakness. You’re not immunizing against infectious agents, but rather promoting them. Induction of primary infection is a MUST in order for you to say that ” if we come into contact with the infectious agent in the wild, it’s much less likely to have any serious effects on us.” That’s not a hypothetical situation. It’s called secondary immune response.

    You should be therefore thanking yourself for being an infection promoter.

  63. #63 Narad
    September 13, 2011

    Feeling neglected or something, Th1Th2?

  64. #64 Th1Th2
    September 13, 2011

    Haha. Antaeus brought this thread up from the grave. I’m just reminding him that it’s over.

  65. #65 Gray Falcon
    September 13, 2011

    Th1Th2: No, he just referenced it. You brought it back, when you learned you didn’t get in the last word. Hint: You don’t get to define what science is.

  66. #66 lilady
    September 13, 2011

    Please don’t feed the disease-promoting delusional Thingy troll.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.