Respectful Insolence

Whenever I refer to an anti-vaccine activist as an “anti-vaxer” or an “anti-vaccinationist,” I can always count on outraged and self-righteous denunciations from the the person who is being labeled as “anti-vaccine.” “Oh, no,” she’ll say, “I’m not ‘anti-vaccine.’ I’m pro-safe vaccine.” or “I’m a vaccine safety activist.” Of couse, over the years, I’ve learned that the vast majority of such people are deluded in that they probably do really believe that they aren’t anti-vaccine, but everything they do and say is pretty much always anti-vaccine. It’s easy enough to tell just by asking a couple of simple questions. Often only one will suffice, and that question is: “What would it take to reassure you that vaccines are sufficiently safe that you would vaccinate your children?” Quite often, the answers will be levels of safety that are not feasible in the real world, such as demands for absolute safety, often slathering on a variant of the “toxins gambit” in the process. Alternatively, they’ll demand something like a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that demonstrates that vaccines don’t cause autism, even though such a study would be completely unethical. When I see either of these things, I know I’m almost certainly dealing with a hardcore anti-vaccinationist, and if I see conspiracy mongering sprinkled on top of it all, then I’m close to 100% sure. Sure, I’m occasionally mistaken–but only very occasionally.

One aspect of hardcore anti-vaccine activists is a certain callousness towards those who promote child health through vaccination, so much so that I often suspect that when anti-vaccine activists accuse me or other defenders of vaccine science of callousness towards them it’s a massive case of projection. Take, for instance, this article in the Santa Cruz Sentinel, near ground zero for anti-vaccinationism in California. Entitled Decades later, doctor still remembers the unvaccinated child who died, it’s the story of a pediatrician named Dr. Elizabeth Baskerville who’s been in practice 40 years and remembers an unvaccinated child who ultimately died of meningitis and blames herself for not having been more effective at assuaging the mother’s fears and persuading her to vaccinate her child. Indeed, the article ends:

“They’re trying to do their best, and what we have to offer them is our caring, our education, our personal experience and our desire to help them make good decisions,” she said. “We can’t make the decisions for them. And if we push, then why would they listen to us?”

Still, she never loses her sense of urgency about vaccines – or her memory of the diseases they prevent. And she never forgets that little girl.

“I thought, ‘is there something different I could have said?’” she says, her voice dropping to a whisper as she starts to cry. “All these years. It never stops hurting.”

Dr. Baskerville sounds like exactly what a good pediatrician should be: science-based, caring, and understanding of the fears of parents. So naturally, when the anti-vaccine activists descend, you’d think that, even though they disagree with her, they’d at least be respectful of her sorrow for not having been able to persuade that child’s mother to vaccinate, wouldn’t you?

I wouldn’t. Not anymore.

For instance, check out Ed Arranga in the comments:

Baskerville is the worst type of know-nothing pediatrician who believes one size fits all and 36 vaccines by the time a child is 5 is fine. Baskerville, try shedding a tear for the hundreds of thousands of vaccine-injured children and you would never stop weeping. Don’t you dare lecture me about hurt.

Then there’s Trudy Snyder:

I thought, “Is there something else I could have said”? I also thought, “Is there something else I could have been told”? My voice dropping to a whisper…”All these years. It never stops hurting”. The fact that my son is vaccine injured and lives with constant pain from the very thing I was told would save his life. That fact that I have to look my child in the eye every single day and KNOW that *I* didn’t research and believed everything that the doctor spoon fed to me. Have you shed any tears for MY child Dr. Baskerville? I know I have, many.

I bet that Dr. Baskerville would shed a tear for Ms. Snyder’s child if she met him, but not because vaccines caused his autism. They didn’t. The evidence is quite clear that they almost certainly do not. Of course, that doesn’t stop Michael Kohloff from chiming in:

Transparent pro-Vax propaganda. As if they really care.
Shoot the Drs.
With their own vaccines.

Stay classy Mr. Kohloff. Stay classy.

Naturally, when the anti-vaccine contingent descends, you can count on the fact that it won’t be long before Anne Dachel, from the anti-vaccine crank propaganda blog Age of Autism, won’t be able to resist weighing in, either, that is, after promoting the awful paean to vaccine pseudoscience Vaccine Epidemic and referring Dr. Baskerville to one of the oldest anti-vaccine groups, the National Vaccine Information Center. Then Dachel starts spewing the same old nonsense about an “autism epidemic”:

Dr. Baskerville has been a pediatrician for 40 years and over that time the vaccination schedule as grown exponentially. (The number of vaccines our children receive has more than tripled since 1983.) During the last 25 years, the autism rate has grown to epidemic proportions, now affecting one percent of children, including almost two percent of boys. No health official can explain this. The cause of autism is officially unknown. The only thing they’re sure of is that the ever-expanding vaccine program isn’t at fault and they’ve got lots of pharma-funded studies to prove it.

This is, of course, nonsense. While it’s not entirely certain that there hasn’t been a modest increase in autism prevalence over the last 20 years, expanded screening, broadened diagnostic criteria from the early 1990s, and diagnostic substitution can account for most, if not all, of the apparent increase in autism prevalence. In the meantime, there are mountains of evidence demonstrating that vaccines are safe and do not detectably increase the risk of autism.

The bottom line is that Dr. Baskerville comes across as a caring, competent pediatrician who’s been haunted by the memory of a child whom she could have saved if she had simply known what to say to the child’s mother to persuade her to vaccinate. From my perspective, she’s probably being too hard on herself. As Dr. Baskerville herself says, “We can’t make the decisions for them. And if we push, then why would they listen to us?” Given that she believes that, there’s no rational reason that she should blame herself for that child’s death. But she does, and that says everything you need to know about her as a pediatrician and a human being, no matter what sort of abuse anti-vaccine activists pour on her story.

Comments

  1. #1 Gary
    August 29, 2011

    What I find most astonishing about the anti-vaccers is their nastiness rather than their stupidity. I participate in a web forum devoted to a particular medical condition. It has a small cadre of these types who get really worked up over the mere posting of a report of an objective study of the risks of vaccines, such as that from the Institute of Medicine recently. Then there are some who are not specifically anti-vaccine, but who malign their doctors and the medical profession generally, whom they blame for their condition. Some people just can’t seem to accept that some of the adversity we are dealt is nobody’s fault. The hostility that these people project seems to me to be not merely unwarranted, but ultimately self-destructive.

  2. #2 nhoj
    August 29, 2011

    This is a great parallel to Offit’s explanation of why he wanted to create a rotavirus vaccine after watching the death of a child during his pediatrics residency (http://media.libsyn.com/media/booksandideas/25-booksandideas-vaccinesAREsafe.mp3).

  3. #3 Jason
    August 29, 2011

    Unfeasible levels of safety is right. I’ve seen antivaxers demanding large-scale phase 3 placebo controlled crossover studies, clearly having read the phrase somewhere without understanding it.

    As to how you can practicably do a crossover with a vaccine, well… I don’t know.

  4. #4 Chemmomo
    August 29, 2011

    I read the story and the comments, and I want to thank both Liz Ditz and Ken Reibel for their prompt responses to the other commenters.

  5. #5 novalox
    August 29, 2011

    Reading some of the comments on the article, the utter classlessness and psudedoscientific thinking of the anti-vax posts is appalling.

  6. #6 novalox
    August 29, 2011

    Also, I think it is utterly laughable that anne dachel used a link to whale.to as supposed “evidence” for the anti-vax side.

  7. #7 Chemmomo
    August 29, 2011

    Oh wait, novalox, is that the same Anne Dachel (and I do have to credit Ken Reibel for calling her out on it) who stated: “the vaccination schedule as grown exponentially. (The number of vaccines our children receive has more than tripled since 1983.)?

    Exponential, or tripled?

    Need we say more?

  8. #8 Rogo5
    August 29, 2011

    @ Jason

    They want crossover studies because they want to balance brains, that’s all. I mean, everybody knows that brain balancing works for preventing and treating various diseases, including autism.

  9. #9 lilady
    August 29, 2011

    I said it months ago…the editors and the posters at AoA are the nastiest bunch of yellow journalists and parents of disabled kids I have ever seen.

    Yes, my friends, that would be the same Ann Dachel whose website AnnDachel.com is linked to at AoA. And the same Ann Dachel who alerts the AoA readership and her own website’s readership to each and every article in the media…as well as providing her verbatim “my comment” to said article.

    I wonder who post under “white and nerdy” who deserves special mention here for calling Dachel out on her lies every time Dachel posts a comment…he/she is doing a commendable job.

  10. #10 Kat
    August 29, 2011

    @Gary – that’s what upsets me, that they immediately descend to such cruelty. I don’t know why they think that their children’s autism gives them license to wish other people dead, or to say that everyone except them is a mean-spirited fool. Let alone the making-up of statistics, and the complete lack of critical thinking.

    @Chemmomo… yes, exponential – I do not think it means what she thinks it means.

  11. #11 Daniel
    August 29, 2011

    Exponential vs. tripled – can’t something grow exponentially, with the one-point result being that it tripled after a certain time? With the right coefficients, I mean?

    I could tease it out, but I’m too lazy. And yes, I think I’m aware that Dachel only uses the word “exponentially” because it sounds dramatic.

  12. #12 herr doktor bimler
    August 29, 2011

    Does she write “literally” when she means “metaphorically”? Because that literally makes my blood boil.

  13. #13 Orac
    August 29, 2011

    Unfeasible levels of safety is right. I’ve seen antivaxers demanding large-scale phase 3 placebo controlled crossover studies, clearly having read the phrase somewhere without understanding it.

    Wow. That’s just…amazing.

  14. #14 Science Mom
    August 29, 2011

    Yes, why do the usual suspects show up to memememe in the comments? A rhetorical question for this deluded group of self-absorbed malcontents can’t resist crapping all over the very real and poignant stories of the damage that vaccine-preventable diseases do to insert their own tales of mis-placed blame and melodramatic woe.

    I want to feel sorry for them but any sympathy I can manage quickly evaporates when I think of the damage that they are doing to their children and others with their zealous ideology.

  15. #15 Greg Fish
    August 29, 2011

    Shoot the Drs. With their own vaccines.

    Um… they do. They have been since vaccines were invented. Do these people have such rage issues that when caught up in a temper tantrum they don’t even stop to think for two seconds and realize that oh, yeah, doctors have to take their shots too?

  16. #16 MI Dawn
    August 29, 2011

    @Greg Fish: doctors don’t take shots and they *never* have their own children vaccinated. I thought you knew that. Any tales of doctors getting vaccines and having their own children vaccinated are just propaganda from Big Pharma. (end AOA thought process).

    Thinking like that makes my brain hurt.

  17. #17 Adam
    August 29, 2011

    If children die or are seriously harmed from contracting an illness which was preventable with a vaccination, and the parents of the child waived vaccination, why doesn’t that classify as manslaughter or actual bodily harm? Perhaps paediatricians should be lobbying their states to ensure that it does. Make parents sign waiver forms which are lodged with the state and prosecute if the child later comes to harm or causes another child or immunosuppressed person to do so.

    If parents were held responsible for their stupid decisions, the anti-vax movement might suddenly lose it’s appeal. Sure there would still be a gnarly stump of idiots who wouldn’t vaccinate no matter what, but it might make the more reachable parents reconsider.

  18. #18 Jeeps
    August 29, 2011

    where can i find this study: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqC6yEnOlCU

  19. #19 Todd W.
    August 29, 2011

    For a while, I was playing whack-a-Dachel, too. It gets tiring, though, shooting down the same exact arguments over and over every time she pops up. I can’t recall how many times I’ve asked her to stop lying to people.

    And I must second the kudos to “White and Nerdy.” Whoever that is, they’ve been awesome in countering a lot of the anti-vaccine comments on news articles.

  20. #20 MikeMa
    August 29, 2011

    @Adam,
    While I agree with your sentiments that parents be held accountable for their stupid decisions, that is a very tough road. For many parents, they are following bad advice, aka Dachel, so in reality Dachel and her band of morons should take the punishment.

    My bigger concern is for the immune compromised kids and adults who cannot receive vaccines and get sick because of the selfish pricks who don’t vaccinate their precious little disease vectors. ‘Out damned spot’ guilt rests with every one of them.

  21. #21 augustine
    August 29, 2011

    If parents were held responsible for their stupid decisions, the anti-vax movement might suddenly lose it’s appeal.

    Then make the pharmaceutical company, medical doctor, nurse, and staff responsible for vaccine injury and death. Forced/coerced Mass vaccination might suddenly lose it’s appeal. Your number 1 sales people might not be so zealous.

    Since mass vaccine ideologists claim that vaccines aren’t 100% then there is NO WAY possible for you to claim that said illness would have been prevented with a vaccine.

    “Probably Preventable” or ” a chance at being preventable” would be more accurate coming from a science blogger who does not wish to engage in rhetoric.

  22. #22 Karen Summar, MD, FAAP
    August 29, 2011

    I am so glad that I ran across this blog. I’ve been practicing pediatrics for 30 years. I am completely discouraged and ready to quit and do anything else. It started with the venomous autism/antivaccine movement and now includes public policy decisions that will further regulate how I practice medicine (from both sides). Look at what happened in Florida when the gun lobby took offense at pediatricians counselling families about gun safety. Then look at Obamacare. At Ms. Pelosi’s suggestion, I have read much of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act. There is one little bit about how companies that give physicians items that cost $10 or more ($100 in a year), must report this gift and the physician to a public database. Companies who fail to comply must pay a penalty of $10,000 per incident. Now I feel quite sure that this was not to “get” me because I have a coffee mug that says Similac, but really a revenue generating idea to pay for the excesses of Obamacare. The American Academy of Pediatrics stated that they thought this was a good idea. Really????? The AAP quotes studies which show doctors tend to prescribe one way or another based upon advertising. This is mostly likely true. However, which is more likely to influence a doc – an ink pen with a brand name or a 60 second commercial that is on TV? Does the AAP really think that placing physicians’ names on a public database is a good idea? Already patients feel that we are answering to drug companies and vaccine companies.
    I feel that the medical societies are not always reflecting the combined intellect of physicians. The societies are sticking to the safe politically correct statements (why didn’t the AAP take on the vaccine/autism issue sooner?). So, I feel alone, that the professional societies are not acting in the best interest of doctors and therefore not of patients and I am at the point of leaving my profession to wait tables.

  23. #23 Reuben
    August 29, 2011

    There’s this short clip of a scene in the “Dark Knight Rises” teaser trailer where Batman looks to be exhausted and beat to a pulp. He has his arms raised and is still trying to move around to fight. All of a sudden, this imposing and very muscular figure, Bane, comes into the frame. He looks enormous, unbeatable. And you can’t help but think that something really, really bad is about to happen to Batman.

    If you’ve read the comics, you know what happens next.

    Replace Bane with the anti-vaxers and Batman with all the science and evidence-based healthcare providers, scientists, researchers, public health workers, etc., and you get a picture of the current state of things in this crazy world.

    They have money, PR firms, angry parents, more money, blogs, celebrities, even more money, and air time to spread their lies about vaccines. We don’t even have a bat cave or any of those wonderful toys.

  24. #24 Allie
    August 29, 2011

    If “anti-vaxxers” aren’t, in fact, “anti-vaxxers” then why do they describe people who disagree with them as “pro-vaxxers?”

    Food for thought.

  25. #25 Th1Th2
    August 29, 2011

    Sure enough, she had written in her notes that she had seen the girl as a 1-year-old. At that appointment, the child’s mother had decided to wait on vaccination. She said she’d think about it. She hadn’t come back.
    Baskerville only hopes the woman doesn’t remember refusing that vaccine[...]
    Along with the eradication of smallpox – also by vaccination – she calls the meningitis vaccines “the most wonderful thing that happened in my practice life.”

    Could Orac somehow verify some information before appealing to emotion? Because this is getting ridiculous that a one year old child should be getting a meningitis vaccine at that time.

  26. #26 Harold L Doherty
    August 29, 2011

    As a parent whose children have received all recommended vaccines (recognizing Canada may not have the schedule of US states) and who in fact has received vaccine shots in the last couple of years myself I wonder who you are trying to persuade with your incessant personal attacks on those who disagree with your views on vaccines? As a humble small town Canadian lawyer I would not, and I doubt any lawyer in North America, would be foolish enough to personally attack a presiding judge who had to decide whether my argument conformed better to the evidence than the evidence presented by opposing counsel.

    I realize that you have now lumped the recently deceased Dr. Bernadine Healey in your group of anti-vaxxers but the doctor did make specific observations that seemed rational to me. She called for observational studies of existing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations to compare autism rates. She pointed out that the existing epidemiological studies were not specific enough to determine the possible impacts of some vaccines/vaccine ingredients. She also highlighted the fact that some ingredients of vaccines administered to pregnant women, including thimerosal, cross the placenta.

    I am not asking you to retract your denunciation of Dr. Healey, as that would disappoint your fan club, but is the mere act of asking such questions sufficient to result in the anti-vaxxer label being applied as you do so frequently and loosely?

  27. #27 Todd W.
    August 29, 2011

    @Karen Summar, MD, FAAP

    There are a lot of resources available to counter the anti-vaccine nonsense. My own humble work at antiantivax.flurf.net has been used by a fair number of people to counter some of the arguments out there. The History of Vaccines and Shot of Prevention web sites are two others that I would highly recommend.

    As to the gifts from pharma companies, IIRC, that is largely the work of Sen. Insel and his drive to counter conflicts of interest. Some of the studies on the influence of little quid pro quos like pens and notepads have found that, while not as big a sources of influence as free samples or regular representative visits, they do influence doctor decisions more than they may be aware. If nothing else, it places the brand name in front of the doc every day, to the exclusion, say, of competing products. It nudges awareness just a little bit in one direction. The best thing for hospitals and other health care facilities to do is to just not allow any gifts like that (or dinners, golf outings, etc.) to be given to their physicians and to limit physician-representative contact. However, putting physician names in a database if they receive such minor tokens is a bit extreme, IMO.

    And don’t get me started on direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs.

  28. #28 augustine
    August 29, 2011

    MikeMa

    My bigger concern is for the immune compromised kids and adults who cannot receive vaccines and get sick because of the selfish pricks who don’t vaccinate their precious little disease vectors

    If all you do is see precious little children as “disease vectors” then you have a perception problem. I wouldn’t trust any unaccountable medical advice coming from someone such as this.

    The kill 1 to save 2 mentality is a philsophical question not a scientific one.

    I believe the decision should be in the hands of the parents with complete informed consent.

    You believe the decision should ultimately be in the hands of the government or the medical personnel acting as agents of the government.

    Sure, you may wave your hands about “educating parents” as a facade, because, ultimately, if they don’t do as you demand then you believe they are incompetent. This perceived incompetence should then be handled by the government.
    Is this is not the final analysis for most science bloggers? And if not then what are we arguing about?

    You want education but you don’t respect choice. That’s not education at all. That’s propaganda.

    http://i565.photobucket.com/albums/ss99/LakelandRainBarrels/AMAExemptions.jpg

  29. #29 augustine
    August 29, 2011

    Todd W.

    My own humble work at antiantivax.flurf.net has been used by a fair number of people to counter some of the arguments out there.

    Humble would be a quality that one bestows on another. The fact that you attributed this quality to yourself is an act of the ego. Likewise the perception that you have of your own work is likely biased.

  30. #30 MikeMa
    August 29, 2011

    @Harold,
    The studies of vax vs un-vaxxed populations have been covered here. Look back to May 2011 I think or search in the box. See how easy?

    As for Dr Healey, she screwed up. She backed a bad horse (a mule to carry the analogy to extremes) and was called out for it. Same as the others who regularly suffer at Orac’s hands for the sin of stupidity and ignorance.

    Are we still arguing thimerosal? It was removed. Autism rates did not drop. The dose was small and got even smaller before it was dropped. It is now only used in some flu shots in very small doses and flu shots can be requested without that ingredient. Vaccines do not cause autism. The ingredients, at the dosages given are not toxic or even dangerous.

  31. #31 gr8blessings
    August 29, 2011

    Here is another fine example of the vitriol expressed by anti-vaxers. In this video some “great” mothers threaten harm to people that have defended vaccines on the Vaccinate Your Baby Facebook page. The would like to give their opponents a “pepper spray enema” or a “battery acid douche”, among other equally horrific things. Their justification? Well, pro-vaxers are no better by advocating all those “toxins” be injected into babies by promoting vaccines.

    http://youtu.be/2k75UEvO4jc

  32. #32 Gray Falcon
    August 29, 2011

    Seriously, someone really needs to sit down with these people and explain to them the concept of “dosage”. And “chemical compounds”, for that matter.

  33. #33 Harold L Doherty
    August 29, 2011

    MikMa I don’t think you are correct about thimerosal removal. I know when the H1N1 shot was distributed in New Brunswick Canada the shots included thimerosal (both of my sons, my wife and I got the shots). It is also my understanding that thimerosal has not been removed from all vaccines. I did not post though with the view of arguing such issues on this site. I am genuinely amazed that on this site it is considered worthwhile to deliver personal attacks against people that the commenters including Orac would ostensibly be attempting to persuade to change their views. It strikes me as irrational to insult someone in an effort to have them change their views. Most people will dig in their heels. I also think it is dangerous to forbid questioning of any scientific conclusion. Particularly when that conclusion pertains to materials injected into pregnant women and young children. I do thank you for the polite discussion.

  34. #34 Dianne
    August 29, 2011

    I’ve seen antivaxers demanding large-scale phase 3 placebo controlled crossover studies, clearly having read the phrase somewhere without understanding it.

    Let’s take them at their word: The study design is vaccine versus placebo is given at time 0. At an appropriate time afterwards (say, one month for most vaccines), check for antibody formation and those who have not formed antibodies will cross over to the other injection. Exclusion criteria should include any contraindications to the vaccine and increased risk of exposure to the disease being vaccinated against, i.e. if there is a measles outbreak, this study can’t be done for measles at that point, everyone gets the real vaccine at once. It’d be a waste of time and money, but at least the crossover design, while completely inappropriate for the situation, will prevent damage to the control group.

  35. #35 Calli Arcale
    August 29, 2011

    Reuben:

    They have money, PR firms, angry parents, more money, blogs, celebrities, even more money, and air time to spread their lies about vaccines. We don’t even have a bat cave or any of those wonderful toys.

    Well, we do have science. It might not have the flair of a batarang, but in the long run it’s the best thing to have in one’s metaphorical utility belt.

  36. #36 Adam
    August 29, 2011

    @augustine, “Since mass vaccine ideologists claim that vaccines aren’t 100% then there is NO WAY possible for you to claim that said illness would have been prevented with a vaccine. ”

    Don’t be ridiculous. I am suggesting people who opt out should be required to sign a waiver. A piece of paper lodged with the state. If that child subsequently comes to harm, then there is a piece of paper right there which puts the culpability right with the parents.

    As for vaccine injuries, it has already been patiently explained to you and your ilk countless times (with supporting studies incl one just the other day) that the risks are vastly lower than the risk of not vaccinating. There is also mechanisms in place to seek redress in the very unlikely event that they occur.

    A parent who withholds vaccination to a child is, simply put, a negligent human being and there should be recourse to prosecute them for it.

  37. #37 Science Mom
    August 29, 2011

    As a parent whose children have received all recommended vaccines (recognizing Canada may not have the schedule of US states) and who in fact has received vaccine shots in the last couple of years myself I wonder who you are trying to persuade with your incessant personal attacks on those who disagree with your views on vaccines? As a humble small town Canadian lawyer I would not, and I doubt any lawyer in North America, would be foolish enough to personally attack a presiding judge who had to decide whether my argument conformed better to the evidence than the evidence presented by opposing counsel.

    Who is doing the personal attacking Harold? I don’t see you levying any criticisms at your comrades who troll the internet looking for fights? Any of what you perceive as personal attacks written on RI are what as known as criticisms to the rest of the world, backed by examples and facts. Contrast that to your band of miscreants who launch into ad hominem, outright lies and threats of violence.

    I realize that you have now lumped the recently deceased Dr. Bernadine Healey in your group of anti-vaxxers but the doctor did make specific observations that seemed rational to me. She called for observational studies of existing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations to compare autism rates. She pointed out that the existing epidemiological studies were not specific enough to determine the possible impacts of some vaccines/vaccine ingredients. She also highlighted the fact that some ingredients of vaccines administered to pregnant women, including thimerosal, cross the placenta.

    Harold, guess what? An observational study is an epidemiological study type and if you, via Dr. Healy are criticising an epidemiological study strength for detecting rare events, what makes you think making a group unvaccinated is going to do any good? Even if it was done, there aren’t enough unvaccinated to use in a study group to detect any rare events. Drop the thimerosal nonsense, it’s not the culprit. Dr. Healy was wrong and you are wrong and you are taking your cues from someone who defended real tobacco science, not someone I would look to for answers.

  38. #38 Vicki
    August 29, 2011

    Dr. Summar,

    I don’t think that $10,000 penalty is intended either to get you or to help pay for expanded health care. It’s meant as a deterrent, to stop the pharmaceutical companies from handing out those things with their names on them. I only hope that they don’t decide the occasional $10,000 fine is just part of the cost of doing business, as some companies do with fines for unsafe working conditions or polluting the air.

    As someone else noted, name recognition matters. Companies–not just in pharmaceuticals–hand out those notepads, and put their names on concert series and race t-shirts and such because it works. You’re human. (Or so I assume.) If you see the name “Prilosec” every time you write a note, you’ll be more likely to think of it when it comes time to advise a patient. If your patients are getting information on stationery with the name of a medication, they’re more likely to ask for it. That’s either going to influence your prescribing, or mean you have to waste time explaining why you are giving them something else, or no prescription at all.

  39. #39 Dianne
    August 29, 2011

    Now I feel quite sure that this was not to “get” me because I have a coffee mug that says Similac,

    You have a coffee mug that’s worth more than $10? Gee, pediatricians get all the good schwag! All drug companies have ever offered me is $0.25 cent pens.

    Actually, I have a theory that the drug companies themselves are behind the anti-schwag laws. I suspect them of having conducted their own studies and concluded that giving out pens, mugs, and USB sticks doesn’t actually make people use their medications more. But no company wanted to be the first to be “mean” and not give them out so they lobbied the government to get the money losing practice illegalized.

    It’s all good as far as I’m concerned: Either the presents make one more likely to use a given drug for non-rational reasons, in which case the practice needs to go or it doesn’t work at all, in which case the drug companies are wasting money on it, money they should be funneling into R and D so the practice needs to go. The only thing I regret is that Roche no longer provides crepes at ASH meetings. They were a lot better than the crappy food at the average convention center…

  40. #40 RRainsMD
    August 29, 2011

    @24 – Meningitis in infants and young children in the pre-vaccine era was most often caused by Hemophilus influenza B. It is now almost entirely prevented by the HIB vaccine of which infants are recommended to get 4 doses by 18 months. So in infants, the HIB vaccine IS a meningitis vaccine.

    Meningococcal meningitis is more of a problem in the teen and young adult years and the meningococcal vaccine is recommended for early teens. I’m sure the confusing wording of the article results from the reporter knowing about as much about vaccines as you.

    -RR-

  41. #41 Todd W.
    August 29, 2011

    @RRainsMD

    Don’t engage Th1Th2. She has her own set of warped definitions that are totally at odds with reality, no matter how many times these things are explained to her. And people have been trying for years, both here and earlier at Science-Based Medicine.

  42. #42 Denice Walter
    August 29, 2011

    A few days ago, our esteemed host mentioned that Mike Adams had not yet written about the IOM: well, he has now – see NaturalNews 8/28 & 8/29/11.

    If you read *any* of his articles about vaccination, pharma, or medicine, you’ll find deliberately inflammatory, spit-flecked, mouth-foaming hate-inspired rants that portray doctors, nurses, and ( yes) psychologists as villainous monsters *intent* on “destroying” children, “creating” cancer, and “poisoning” citizens ( see NaturalNews “cartoons” for full effect). Gary Null’s “speeches” ( The Gary Null Show/ archives/ progressiveradionetwork.com) are available for your “listening pleasure”- btw- he’s probably even worse than Adams ( if that’s at all possible). They charge malfeasance and criminal activities as casually as I might order a cup of tea.

    This vitriol drips down to AoA as it circulates the matrix of woo- and eventually affects general readers ( sometimes I find direct links and identical phrases). We hear the results of this trickle-down process in the comments quoted above. Who “started” this style of “instruction”? Who knows- but as a long-time listener, I think that it has gotten worse in recent years. Possibly in the wake of the economic crisis, they need to insure that customers will *invest* in their products rather than in other “necessities” of living. AoA has gotten worse post-Wakefield’s being struck off.

    Is painting an entire class of people with a broad brush as malevolent a type of hate-speech? Both of these rabble-rousers warn their audiences to avoid the mainstream ( “dinosaur”) media thus insulating them in a cult-like manner by confining them to the distorting echo-chamber or resonantly agreeable sites or books. We have seen the results of this “education” here @ RI- up close and personally- in the creative stylings of young Jake Crosby: it appears to me that even 4 years at a reasonably decent university didn’t interfere with his altie programming.

    So what’s a sceptic to do? Exposure is the first step. Fortunately, this material ( from the three sites above) is lovingly archived for posterity.

  43. #43 MikeMa
    August 29, 2011

    @Todd,
    Even though thingy will get nothing from RRainsMD’s response. I learned something so it isn’t a completely wasted effort!

    @Harold,
    I did state that thimerosal is still used in flu (H1N1 is flu) shots here in the US. I also tried to point out that the dosages are very small and well below any reality-based threshold for causing problems in an overwhelming majority of recipients. For those who still want less, a thimerosal-free version was available here in the US. Those folks should avoid tuna as well.

  44. #44 JayK
    August 29, 2011

    @MikeMa: Have you ever found evidence that the multidose vials of influenza vaccine are used in the US at any sort of numbers that would be significant? It appears that the US mostly offers single dose vials that don’t use Thimerosal preservative. I’d be willing to bet that Harold also is not absolutely sure that his H1N1 vaccinations contained Thimerosal, because he probably wasn’t aware that single dose syringes don’t need it.

    http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/thimerosal.htm

  45. #45 augustine
    August 29, 2011

    Adam

    If that child subsequently comes to harm, then there is a piece of paper right there which puts the culpability right with the parents.

    You make a good reminder. No parent should unknowingly or knowingly sign a form that says if your child becomes ill that you are criminally responsible BECAUSE you refused a vaccine which is NOT 100%.

    If they do then they should also have the doctor sign a form in which the doctor also shares in the consequences of the child.

    I have on this (day) __________ (month) ______________ (year) _________________administered this vaccination/medication/drug AFTER advising the above named patient/parent of minor patient that there is little or no risk involved with this vaccination/medication/drug therapy or treatment. I hereby do agree that should this patient/child at anytime suffer or develop any permanent condition deleterious or injurious to his/her health as a result of this treatment, I will pay for any and all costs involved related to the care and treatment necessary for this patient/child for the rest of his/her natural life. I further agree that if my earnings are insufficient to meet these costs, I will sell my home, my business and all material possessions and put those proceeds towards meeting the expenses of the patient involved.

  46. #46 MikeMa
    August 29, 2011

    @JayK
    I was more addressing the thimerosal boogeyman, not the actual reality. I was aware that the single dose versions were thimerosal-free but had no idea that version might be more prevalent than the multi-dose. Still doesn’t cause autism. Oh, well, reality moves on, while some remain fixed in the 90′s along with their fears.

  47. #47 Chris
    August 29, 2011

    Jeeps, first go to http://www.pubmed.gov and then put into the search window “Szatmari P”, and look for papers that look likely.

  48. #48 Th1Th2
    August 29, 2011

    @24 – Meningitis in infants and young children in the pre-vaccine era was most often caused by Hemophilus influenza B. It is now almost entirely prevented by the HIB vaccine of which infants are recommended to get 4 doses by 18 months. So in infants, the HIB vaccine IS a meningitis vaccine.

    The first meningitis vaccine was licensed in 1974 whereas the first Hib vaccine was given license in 1985. Am I the only one who smells fish here?

  49. #49 Robert M
    August 29, 2011

    @Harold

    I’m unclear as to what personal attacks you are referring to in Orac’s post. “Stay classy Mr. Kohloff. Stay classy.” seems like an appropriate response to “Shoot the Drs. With their own vaccines.”

    I personally don’t think hardcore anti-vaxers are open enough to persuasion as to be convinced by his, or any other doctor’s opinion. Their response to the article shows how some of them handle dissenting information, regardless of tone.

  50. #50 novalox
    August 29, 2011

    Ignore ignorant troll.

  51. #51 lilady
    August 29, 2011

    “Could Orac somehow verify some information before appealing to emotion? Because this is getting ridiculous that a one year old child should be getting a meningitis vaccine at that time.”

    Could Thingy somehow get an education and verify information before posting here? Thingy is still a ridiculous, clueless and disease-promoting troll.

    Thingy who has an imaginary job in some sort of health care field never heard of polio meningitis and mumps meningitis that lead to polio meningoencephalitis and mumps meningoencephalitis and deaths of children who were never vaccinated.

  52. #52 Science Mom
    August 29, 2011

    Thingy who has an imaginary job in some sort of health care field never heard of polio meningitis and mumps meningitis that lead to polio meningoencephalitis and mumps meningoencephalitis and deaths of children who were never vaccinated.

    Oh don’t you know, she nobly gave up her imaginary profession in protest of the ‘disease-promoting’ agenda of medicine to become a martyr for her speshul uneek cause. You should read the many droppings she has left on MDC if you don’t mind a permanent deskprint on your head.

  53. #53 augustine
    August 29, 2011

    Adam

    A parent who withholds vaccination to a child is, simply put, a negligent human being and there should be recourse to prosecute them for it.

    Prosecute them for what? For having a healthy child?

  54. #54 Gray Falcon
    August 29, 2011

    Here’s another way to look at herd immunity: If I drive safely, that’s no guarantee that I won’t get in an accident, but it will reduce the odds of one happening. This does not mean that defensive driving is useless. If most people drove defensively, then the number of accidents would go down significantly. A single reckless driver can hurt several people with his actions, and this is why they are prosecuted.

  55. #55 Lawrence
    August 29, 2011

    Ignore boring troll.

  56. #56 augustine
    August 29, 2011

    If most people drove defensively, then the number of accidents would go down significantly. A single reckless driver can hurt several people with his actions, and this is why they are prosecuted.

    Oh, I get it now. Vaccination is like safe driving! Silly me.

    I think I’ll drive very safely from now on. Thanks, Gray!

  57. #57 Brian
    August 29, 2011

    Re: Jason

    Oh, you could do a cross-over study. You just need a full bone marrow transplant in between the vaccine and the placebo. Bone marrow transplants are dangerous? Ethics? Oh, that sign was a dot in the distance hours ago… now full speed ahead for that cliff!

  58. #58 rnb
    August 29, 2011

    @Augustine:
    “Since mass vaccine ideologists claim that vaccines aren’t 100% then there is NO WAY possible for you to claim that said illness would have been prevented with a vaccine.”

    I don’t believe the Smallpox vaccine was 100% effective either.

    When was the last time you heard of someone getting smallpox? Oh wait, it no longer exists in the wild…..

    (Grumbles about polio….)

  59. #59 lsm
    August 29, 2011

    Gray Falcon (#31)
    “Seriously, someone really needs to sit down with these people and explain to them the concept of “dosage”. And “chemical compounds”, for that matter.”

    I think you actually hit on something when it comes to those trying to work through competing messages about vaccines, who don’t know what to believe.

    I have often wondered when reading these blogs, if there is a single chart or table that explains dosage and chemical compounds used in vaccines (which the antivaxxers find objectionable), in terms that the general population could understand. A quick reference that could be a link on an internet discussion. I have searched, but can only find either sporadic sentences that point out a single concept, or more long-winded posts (I save them all). When a scientist friend laid it all out for me in concise terms, there was an immediate paradigm shift, and the anti-vaxxers became not only irrelevant, but repugnant.

    Is there such a resource?

  60. #60 a- nonymous
    August 29, 2011

    Yes, Th1Th2, and Harold L. Doherty, Orac seems to be appealing to emotionality in this post of the good doctor recalling the death of a child due to meningitis. Seems kind of at odds with a science blog. Why not discuss the CATS study which shows a lack of heritability in autism, but rather the importance of the environment as causal.
    Karen Summar, MD – maybe you are in the wrong profession if you question “Obamacare.”

  61. #61 Gray Falcon
    August 29, 2011

    Tell me, a-nonymous@56, do you really not care about the deaths of children? Maybe we should do a medical study to see how you survive with neither blood nor tears. And the CATS study has already been covered here, if you bothered to search for it: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/07/what_is_generation_rescue_selling_now.php

  62. #62 lilady
    August 29, 2011

    @ Lawrence: I know I “took the pledge” and try to “keep the pledge”, but when a troll comes up with a new wrinkle on their *”speshul uneek germ theory”* or *”speshul uneek cause”*, I felt compelled to correct the disease-promoting troll.

    *Thanks, Science Mom

  63. #63 W. Kevin Vicklund
    August 29, 2011

    The first meningitis vaccine was licensed in 1974 whereas the first Hib vaccine was given license in 1985. Am I the only one who smells fish here?

    Not for those of us who can do math.

    The doc has been a pediatrician for over 40 years. That means starting sometime before 1971. She claims that for the first two decades, there was no vaccine [for the young children in her practice], but then a series became available. This would match up well with the 1985 date. Two decades ago would be 1991, leaving at least a three year span in which the child could have been unvaccinated at age 1 and died three years later with a date of death at least two decades earlier than present.

    So it is entirely possible for a child to have died decades ago of meningitis that had a vaccine available three years earlier.

  64. #64 Militant Agnostic
    August 29, 2011

    Lilady @51

    Thingy who has an imaginary job in some sort of health care field

    Thingy is probably a colon hydro-therapist. I think that qualifies as an imaginary job with respect to health care.

  65. #65 a-nonymous
    August 29, 2011

    @Gray Falcon- you linked to Jenny McCarthy’s rescue bullet. How is that a review of the CATS study?

  66. #66 Gray Falcon
    August 29, 2011

    It’s in the comments. The twin studies didn’t actually implicate vaccines, they only suggested an environmental cause: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/07/what_is_generation_rescue_selling_now.php#comment-4539531

  67. #67 Poodle Stomper
    August 29, 2011

    Why not discuss the CATS study which shows a lack of heritability in autism, but rather the importance of the environment as causal.

    Did it really show a “lack of heritability”? Methinks you should reread the study, not just the AoA version.

  68. #68 Lawrence
    August 29, 2011

    Understand lilady – I have to resist the urge to respond, but then I remember that boring troll is purposely contrarian & just trying to get attention and idiot troll refuses to use the same dictionary or reality as the rest of us, and it is useless to try to either correct or argue with it, since it isn’t playing the same game (on the same planet even).

  69. #69 Th1Th2
    August 29, 2011

    She claims that for the first two decades, there was no vaccine [for the young children in her practice], but then a series became available.

    There was a meningitis vaccine since 1974. I really smell fish.

  70. #70 laura
    August 29, 2011

    Yes he might have died by a vaccine preventable death but…..

    Lest we forget other tragedies- a mother who did the right thing and had her child vacccinated….

    -”Petitioners have satisfied the legal requirements for proving that Elias’s December 26, 2000 DTaP vaccination was a legal cause of his epilepsy and death. Respondent has not overcome Petitioners’ evidence by proving an alternative cause. Therefore, I find that Petitioners have established entitlement to compensation under the Vaccine Act

    .In the United States Court of Federal Claims
    OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
    No. 03-2820V Filed: November 29, 2010
    _________________________________________ HARRY TEMBENIS and GINA TEMBENIS, ) administrators of the estate of ) ELIAS TEMBENIS, )
    v. ) ) SECRETARY OF ) HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, )
    Respondent. ) _________________________________________ )
    Ronald C. Homer, Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C., Boston, MA for Petitioners. Ryan D. Pyles, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. for Respondent.

  71. #71 lilady
    August 29, 2011

    @ Ism: The CDC Pink Book Appendix B (Vaccine Excipients and Media Table) is a good resource for you to read.

    For information about vaccines for parents to read, the IAC (Immunization Action Coalition) has a huge listing of parent-centered information. Their website links you directly to the many pamphlets, brochures and web pages that address parents’ concerns about vaccine safety and the ingredients contained in every Recommended Childhood Vaccine; available by keying in:

    IAC Need help responding to vaccine hesitant parents?

    Ignoring disease promoting troll and filthy-mouth troll.

  72. #72 augustine
    August 29, 2011

    Lilady

    I know I “took the pledge” and try to “keep the pledge”, but when a troll comes up with a new wrinkle on their *”speshul uneek germ theory”* or *”speshul uneek cause”*, I felt compelled to correct the disease-promoting troll.

    That’s because you suffer from SIWOTI. It’s a genetic trait that affects 88% of all science bloggers, yet only 3% of the general population.

    http://xkcd.com/386/

  73. #73 Reuben
    August 29, 2011

    “My tragedy is worse than your tragedy!”

    “No, mine is worse!”

    Please, let’s stop playing that game. All tragedies are tragedies. (Is that a truism?) The difference is that tragedies from vaccine-preventable diseases are far and few in between because of vaccines. Before vaccines, they were common. My parents saw a wave of Diptheria take out several of their friends in grade school.

    On the other hand, tragedies from vaccines are far and few in between because vaccines are safe. No, they’re not 100% safe. No, they’re not 100% effective. But, holy crap, have they ever lowered the burden of diseases on Western Society. I mean, the burden is so low that we all have enough time and resources to argue this online, with total strangers!

    Seriously, if the anti-vaxers love graphs so much, why not just show us the graph where cases of vaccine-preventable diseases are really low but still not lower than cases of vaccine reactions? (Because that would ruin their game. That’s why.)

  74. #74 brian
    August 29, 2011

    @68

    Of course, that finding that DTaP vaccination was a legal cause of death according to the low standards of evidence (50% plus a feather) of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation program came before research showed that children who develop epilepsy following such vaccinations typically suffer from a genetically-determined epilepsy syndrome that happens to manifest as the mutant gene, which is expressed at very low levels at birth, increases to maximal expression at the time that seizures begin–which happens to be about the time that DTaP is administered–typically in the first 15 months of life. Such children develop seizures whether or not the first seizure happens to occur some time near vaccination. (The same pattern is found in rats and mice that carry these mutations–the animals appear normal at birth but then develop seizure disorders after a period of apparently normal development. One copy of such a mutation causes the delayed development of seizures; two copies cause the development of seizures and then death.)

    To date, in two different studies, nineteen children who experienced their initial seizures within days of vaccination against pertussis have been checked for mutations in the single most commonly-affected gene in this syndrome; sixteen children had mutations in that single gene, and the other three children had different defined epilepsy syndromes that have been associated with different mutations.

    BTW, it’s clear that affected children follow the same developmental trajectory whether or not their first seizure happens to occur in proximity to vaccination (as it does in a minority of cases) or the seizure occurs without any association with vaccination.

  75. #75 Narad
    August 29, 2011

    I really smell fish.

    Th1Th2, let me ask you something seriously: have you ever, anywhere, gained a convert? What venues have you tried other than here, SBM, and MDC?

  76. #76 herr doktor bimler
    August 29, 2011

    Humble would be a quality that one bestows on another. The fact that you attributed this quality to yourself is an act of the ego.

    Reading comprehension. Todd W. is not describing himself as “humble” (in the sense of “having or showing a consciousness of one’s defects or shortcomings; not proud; modest”), but his work (the other meaning of the word — “low in condition, rank, or position; lowly; unpretentious”). For instance, 400,000 Google-hits attest to the phrase “My humble abode”.

    If in fact humility is not something one bestows upon oneself, perhaps your lecture would be better directed at Harold Doherty for his self-description in the comment immediately before Todd W.’s as

    a humble small town Canadian lawyer

    Personally I suspect that Harold Doherty’s word usage is correct.

  77. #77 a- nonymous
    August 29, 2011

    gray Falcon: “it’s in the comments.” Priceless. Why wouldn’t a science blog person analyze the study at all?

  78. #78 Todd W.
    August 29, 2011

    @herr doktor bimler

    Thanks for that. I described my work as humble because, quite frankly, I have only been able to put a minimum of time into it and think that it could be improved upon quite a bit. Also, there are others who have compiled much better, IMO, sites and resources than what I’ve done.

  79. #79 Gray Falcon
    August 29, 2011

    @77- Because he didn’t need to. Seriously, do you think you get to choose the content on other people’s blogs?

  80. #80 herr doktor bimler
    August 29, 2011

    Apparently one can even start one’s own blog and present one’s own analysis of a published paper, if other bloggers have decided that they have nothing to add to it.
    Shocking, but there it is.

  81. #81 augustine
    August 29, 2011

    I described my work as humble because, quite frankly, I have only been able to put a minimum of time into it …

    “Otherwise it would be like me…Pure awesomeness. If only my super awesome research and writing skills had enough time…”

    @Todd W. Sorry, but half of awesome is not humble. It’s inferior arrogance.

  82. #82 W. Kevin Vicklund
    August 29, 2011

    There was a meningitis vaccine since 1974.

    Yes there was a vaccine in 1974, typically first administered at ages 11-12. Oddly enough, age 1 is a little bit younger than age 11. Even more surprising, the bulk of pediatrician’s patients are also younger than age 11. It’s almost as if a pediatrician would see very little effect on her practice from such a vaccination schedule.

    Of course, you have to understand math to understand the previous paragraph, which is something Thingy has repeatedly demonstrated she doesn’t understand.

  83. #83 D. Wu
    August 29, 2011

    An anti-vaxxer commented on Youtube today that he hopes my future kids die from vaccines. What wonderful people.

  84. #84 Rogo5
    August 29, 2011

    @ D. Wu

    People who say that are usually trolls. Whether that anti-vaxxer truly meant it or not, there’s still no excuse for him saying that. Despicable, isn’t it?

  85. #85 lilady
    August 29, 2011

    @ brian: I think you meant to direct some of your comments toward “laura” who provided a recent case decided in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

    You make some excellent points in your posting and after reading “laura’s” case, I find that there was a question about a pre-existing genetic syndrome (Sotos Syndrome) that appeared within the medical records of the child. In civil tort law it is known as the “eggshell plaintiff” which is interpreted as “you must take the plaintiff as you find him”.

    Then too, is the fact that the young plaintiff when admitted to the hospital with a febrile seizure after his second DTaP shot, was found to have an elevated WBC count…indicative of an infection and was immediately started on ceftriaxone IV antibiotics; he was diagnosed two days later with otitis media, thus confirming his elevated WBC count and most probably confirming the reason for his fever.

    The plaintiff’s expert witness Dr. Marcel Kinsbourne (neurologist) advanced the theory that the acellular pertussis in the DTaP vaccine contained pertussis toxin…which was rejected as not true by the Special Master.

    You can find out about “Expert Witness” Marcel Kinsbourne, M.D. by viewing Brian Deer’s website where he describes Kinsbourne’s role and remuneration from the lawyers in the U.K. who recruited the parents for Wakefield’s bogus study and recruited Wakefield as another “expert witness” in the lawsuit against the MMR vaccine manufacturers. Paul Offit also discusses “expert witnesses” in his book Deadly Choices and Kilbourne’s name is prominently mentioned.

  86. #86 brian
    August 29, 2011

    lilady,

    Sorry for inadvertently directing my response to your post #68 rather than to laura’s post #70.

    Kinsbourne is an interesting character. He seems to have repeatedly testified that an initial seizure including the sort of febrile seizures experienced by about one in twenty children can cause lasting damage–but his understanding of the genetics of seizure disorders seems to be decades out of date. In particular, the fact that affected children (and unvaccinated rats or mice) follow the same trajectory with respect to seizures as the expression of the mutant gene increases seems not to have made much of an impression on him, nor has the fact that almost all of the few children who experienced alleged vaccine-induced encephalopathy and seizures (as in the cases dramatized in the recent article from the Pace Environmental Law Review) who have been checked turned out to have mutations in a gene that (with or without vaccination) causes the sudden onset of seizures and the development of autistic traits.

  87. #87 lilady
    August 29, 2011

    @ D. Wu: You don’t have to go to YouTube or Age of Autism to view the lengths these anti-vax posters will go to; we have our own anti-vax trolls right here.

    Several of our anti-vax trolls have described my deceased disabled son as being vaccine/medically damaged. Nice, huh?

  88. #88 Medicien Man
    August 29, 2011

    well, I am not exactly anti-vaccine. I am all for safe, effective vaccines.

    Also I am in favor of vaccinating liberals against stupidity. That vaccine seems in short supply.

    Now just today we are hearing the next big bird brain flu scare of the season and all the vaccinologists will be pushing their toxic needles on everyone. This ole boy has never had one and is not going to start today. Any attemp to force vaccination and my lawyers, Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson will have to be called in. If you brain dead pagans wish to participate in the art of toxic needle slurping then be my guest but leave me out of it.

    I have a new foreign policy if ever elected to office.

    My policy simply states that we allow illegal aliens to go free and roam about as they so choose and in return we just deport all the vaccine slurpers and global warming frauds. We should deport them to the south pole. I bet they wish global warming was real then.

  89. #89 DaveD
    August 29, 2011

    I have a new foreign policy if ever elected to office.

    You’re far too cretinous, troll, to ever be elected to anything. I suspect you’d lose if your candidacy was unopposed.

  90. #90 augustine
    August 29, 2011

    liladay

    Several of our anti-vax trolls have described my deceased disabled son as being vaccine/medically damaged. Nice, huh?

    Lildady, former bachelor’s degree nurse, after displaying vitriolic blogging behavior, you sure do clutch your pearls alot.

    I don’t think anyone has claimed that your son was vaccine damaged unless you have claimed it yourself.

  91. #91 Reuben
    August 29, 2011

    well, I am not exactly anti-vaccine. I am all for safe, effective vaccines.

    You are? Tell us more!

    Also I am in favor of vaccinating liberals against stupidity. That vaccine seems in short supply.

    Total non sequitur, but what the hell, tell us more.

    Now just today we are hearing the next big bird brain flu scare of the season and all the vaccinologists will be pushing their toxic needles on everyone.

    You mean H5N1, which has been around for years, killing over 80% of the people that contract it, for which there is no vaccine yet? That one? The one we knew all about for a while now? That’s the news? Yawn. But, please, keep digging going.

    This ole boy has never had one and is not going to start today.

    Yes, you have. But why say you never had? Because you’re not anti-vaccine, right?

    Any attemp to force vaccination and my lawyers, Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson will have to be called in.

    Ah, yes, threats of violence. Is anyone being forcefully vaccinated in the United States? I mean with guns and sh!t? Tell us more Mr. Anti-Vaccine who swears he’s not.

    If you brain dead pagans wish to participate in the art of toxic needle slurping then be my guest but leave me out of it.

    But you’re not anti-vaccine, right? What else?

    I have a new foreign policy if ever elected to office.

    Wait for it. This is going to be right on point…

    My policy simply states that we allow illegal aliens to go free and roam about as they so choose and in return we just deport all the vaccine slurpers and global warming frauds.

    Ah, yes, let’s get people all riled up with the immigration and climate change debate. But, as Dave Chappelle once said, “bring this b!tch home!”

    We should deport them to the south pole. I bet they wish global warming was real then.

    It would be more of an exile, being as how no government runs the south pole. And it’s quite seasonable in the summer.

    I suppose that “Medicien Man”, who can’t spell medicine in his own goddamn handle, will next tell us that he’s not a climate change denier; he’s just all for cleaner burning of fossil fuels… and nothing else.

  92. #92 Medicien man
    August 29, 2011

    @ daveD

    That’s the exact same thing I said about our current president. And just think. He is far more sinister and evil than I. I have never had communist, socialist, or terrorist ties. I guess That must be why I would not be a great leader eh?I guess these days you just have to be an evil overlord and world government nanny state man to be a leader right?

    We can’t have self sufficient people now can we dave?

    Oh, and for your information, I was elected last month.

    I was elected to Emperor of the Eternal Supreme Order of Causiads The highest honor that can be bestowed upon a person. Don’t believe me? Look it up. Furthermore, Rick Perry will win in 2012. Trust me. It has been predetermined by my own council and order. Even the Trilateral Commission and the Delta Red Triangle fear my order. Mark this post and look back on it in November 2012.

    Eventually we will reverse the damages that your evil organizations have caused.

  93. #93 brian
    August 29, 2011

    I usually miss Augie’s posts now that I use the killfile available in Firefox via Greasemonkey, but I happened to connect today using Google Chrome, which sadly doesn’t allow use of that killfile.

    So, now that Augie has again dissed lilady’s credentials, I have to ask:

    What degrees has Augie attained that suggest particular expertise in epidemiology, biology in general, infectious disease and virology, or medicine?

    Augie? I might have missed something by killfiling you, Th1Th2, and some few others, but I’m willing to read one more of your comments (in Google Chrome) if you’d like to reply. Otherwise, you should, well, you know . . .

  94. #94 Medicien man
    August 29, 2011

    @Rubbin Reubin

    I absolutely believe in climate change, but it doesn;t take hundreds of nations and trillions of dollars to tell people about the four natural seasons of the year.

    What fossil fuel do you speak of. Oil is a naturally produced substance. Fossils from what? Oh, the flood of Noah created most fossils sincle it literally wiped out every living creature on the planet in a few short days.

    Yes I am a global warming denier and and I also deny you refuge should you ever require it. Anyone who steals my money and lies about its cause is certainly not welcome on my sovereign territory unless I am at the brink of starvation and I should like to invite you to be my dinner.

    Global warming is a fraud and everyone involved should be inprison at the very least. I still say a good horsewhip is the answer to these loons. It is and always has been about global redistribution of wealth. By the way, if ever I did get to be president the very first thing I would do is to put most EPA policy makers on deportation watch and then defund the whole damned shithole there. Next I would never allowed another penney to be sent anywhere that even mentions climate change. I would restrict any funding from any one anywhere just for thinking it.

    Now as for you anr you cute little answers to my mini tirade …

    I have a medical procedure for you you to try in your spare time . Stick you arm up your butt, grab your uvula, and pull REAL hard.

    Violence? Hardly. My lawyers Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson is capable of handling any threat forced upon me, my sovereign territory, or my being. Violence never occurs unless first induced. In other words, don’t piss people off with stupid stuff and then ask them to pay for it.

    South Pole seasonable in the summer eh? Well I guess 269 trillion centuries of global warming caused by dinosaurs driving SUVs and using real light bulbs has indeed had an impact.

    Speaking of impact, I would love to shove a 150 CFL bulb up someone’s ass at the EPA. It’s the only entertaining use I find in one.

    Damned good thing I started stockpiling thousands of light bulbs in a storage facility. Those things will be worth a fortune once the communist overlord’s ban takes effect. Plus, I get to still use exactly what I want without a dickhead in the government teling me otherwise.

    Go ahead and get your smartgrid crapology. When you cut me off I’ll have enough diesel generators to keep me going for months. Better luck next time chump.

    and I speel my handle like that intentionally to make fun of nerds who think mercury is medicine.

  95. #95 Gray Falcon
    August 29, 2011

    Medicien man, have you been drinking?

  96. #96 Chris
    August 29, 2011

    Oh, wow, Medicien Man/Dr. Smart is still an idiot.

    A little background for those new here: This is a guy who pops in every so often to spew his nonsense. He claims to treat people with herbs, even though in real life he is an electronics technician of some sort. He challenged us that he could cure anything we mentioned with his special medicinal herbs, so I mentioned type 1 diabetes. His answer was a link to herbal supplement sales site. He actually thinks the sales hype is real science and evidence!

    He’s good for a few laughs, don’t take him too seriously. And don’t try engaging him unless you are really really bored.

    And he thinks answering him and mentioning his past is “stalking.” He is more than a half wit, he is a complete idiot.

  97. #97 Medicien man
    August 29, 2011

    one more thing about “fossil fuels” as so many call it.

    I have heard amny nerdy terdy liberals gripe and bitch and moan about the precious little environment and how we do not need to burn oil any longer. I have a real good question for those people.

    WHAT THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO RUN OUR AUTOMOBILES ON IF NOT GASOLINE?

    Of course hydrogen is sort of an alternative except it EVAPORATES IF NOT USED SOON.

    Then we have alcohol. Wait there is already corn in the gas and at 10 percent ethanol it robs horsepower, burns dirtier, and clogs up injectors and filters and creates rust all over everything. So that’s out.

    We coal is out becuase terds at the EPA know better than all of us uejucated folks here in the boonies.

    So, Mr. smartass liberals, what the hell do we power america with?

    Electricity? Okay. Even if you put up 100 trillion solar panels and 250 trillion windmills per state you would not even begin to make enough electricity to power this nation.

    Electric casrs are out of the question. They are very unreliable. at best only 100 miles of travel can be achieved before having to wait 12 hours to recharge. Now, if I were to travele cross country it would tke less time to travel by HORSEBACK!

    Horseback? Nah, too much global warming coming out the rear end.
    So, again I ask you smart education men of society .. WHAT THE HELL DO WE POWER OUT CARS WITH? Electric is crap. Forget it. Forget food too. We need it to eat and population control is out as well, so figure out a real way of getting things done.

    GASOLINE is the most effective way of powering the automobile. If assholes at the EPA would leave us alone we could have an ample supply forever. We know where it is, we just need to deport some EPA assholes to be able to go get it. When done right, oil is the answer. When we are allowed to have a good supply, it is cheap, plentiful, and its uses range from powering automobiles and generators to killing fire ants and yellow jackets and everything in between.

    Oil is the answer. We should not let a bunch of asshole socialists stand in the way of progress. If they do, we can always move them out of the way.

    Better luck next time with your mercury vaccines. I pass.

  98. #98 Gray Falcon
    August 29, 2011

    That had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our topic. Are you sober?

  99. #99 Chris
    August 29, 2011

    It must be some new herbal tincture he is taking to prevent diseases. It must be about 190 proof (which is illegal in my state, except for those who make herbal tinctures).

  100. #100 Medicien man
    August 29, 2011

    @ gay falcon

    Yes. I drink kool-aid. Wait. that’s you. nevermind.

    @ Chris, my personal stalker:

    A little background for those new here: This is a guy who pops in every so often to stalk me. We had an argument over type one diabetes and I offered him an answer that he has still refused. Now, I did exactly what I said I would do. I gave him information on treatments of both types of diabetes. Now, if he refuses it, that’s not my problem. Hell, he still thinks mercury vaccines cures the flu.

    He’s good for a few laughs, don’t take him too seriously. And don’t try engaging him unless you are really really bored.

    I am an electronics technician. Not an engineer. Stalkerman Chris still thinks that engineers do all the world and technicians are simple minded little lab rat slaves willing to do whatever master instructs. This technician is plenty capable of thinking for himself and making decisions that an “engineer” would make. In my field I have had some ideas on improving our product that the society man engineer said would not work. I di not try the idea in a production model but my own model that I use. Conclusion. My idea worked. it still works. It has been working for years. Conclusion. An engineer is just a gloried flunky given a piece of paper that says he knows it all.

    Any man can work at something long enough and know much more about it than a new engineer. Experience trumps a peice of paper with your name on it any day of the week.

    Example. Who would you trust. A brand new electrician with multiple PHds in multiple sciences who has not had one day of experience or an electrician who has had forty years experience with an extremely great record of good service? Bet the experienced man knows more about the real world.

    Would the secret service put a phd in criminal science with no experience to serve the president? According to Chris they would. According to chris book knowledge is the only thing that counts. Real world knowledge is where its at.

    Chris, stop stalking me.

    oh and also for those of you new here. Chris cannot accept the fact that Docotr Smart is my brother. Guess all that mercury in vaccines has Chris’s brain a little loopy.

  101. #101 Gray Falcon
    August 29, 2011

    Medicien man, your years of age don’t make you intelligent. They just mean you’ve been a fool for a long time. Would you trust an electrician who insists he’s an expert, but refuses to tell you of his prior work experience? We need evidence, not claims. Any evidence that the thimerosal (which is not the same as mercury) is a cause of problems? Not just your observations, which, like any mortal’s, are fallible, but real evidence, which we can confirm for ourselves.

  102. #102 Chris
    August 29, 2011

    As I said, he is good for a laugh.

  103. #103 Th1Th2
    August 29, 2011

    Kevin,

    Yes there was a vaccine in 1974, typically first administered at ages 11-12. Oddly enough, age 1 is a little bit younger than age 11.

    I can’t be wrong. There’s a rotten fish in this house.

    When did the meningococcal vaccine become available?

    The first meningococcal vaccine in the United States was licensed in 1974 and was effective against only one of the five major subtypes of meningococcus.

    A meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine or “MPSV4″ (Menomune by sanofi pasteur) was licensed in 1978 for people ages 2 years and older. It protects against four subtypes of meningococcus—A, C, Y, and W-135.

  104. #104 Medicien man
    August 29, 2011

    what topic? The topic being sort of discussed is as useless as tit on a boar hog. Who gives a rats wether my neighbor gets vaccinated for type 7 nyphoid rectal fever? What difference does it make.

    The point is this. People who do not wish to get vaccinated will not get vaccinated. End of story. Get over it. It;s about freedom and personal choice and personal repsonsibility. I choose out of my own free will that God, not government, gave me not to get vaccinated. I really do not care if some nerd on a blog bitches about it. If he wants me vaccinated, then tell him to get up off his ass, come to my house and make me get vaccinated. I would love to see that happen. That incident would make the news. headline reads : “CRAZED MAN WEARING LOIN CLOTH RIPS OFF TESTICLES OF VACCINE WEILDING AGENT THEN HARPOONS PHARMA CEO. I have loin cloth for every day of the week.

    You should see the one I wear to work on friday.

  105. #105 novalox
    August 29, 2011

    Ignore ignorant troll

  106. #106 Militant Agnostic
    August 29, 2011

    Gray Falcon @ 95

    Medicien man, have you been drinking?

    I think he may be into the CH3-O-CH3 rather than the C2H5OH.

    There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge

    Hunter S. Thompson

    Either that or he has brewed up another batch of crystal meth.

  107. #107 augustine
    August 29, 2011

    Chris

    A little background for those new here:

    Chris is business in the front. Party in the back.

  108. #108 Gray Falcon
    August 29, 2011

    Yeah, it was pretty clear from his first post that “Medicien Man” is neither capable nor interested in coherent discussion. Sadly, hope triumphed over experience, and I tried to reason with him. Seriously, he thinks he can decide the topic on someone else’s weblog?

  109. #109 Narad
    August 29, 2011

    There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge

    It’s not true.

  110. #110 Moderation
    August 30, 2011

    Wow! It appears that the rest of you have found a card carrying member of the Sovereign
    Society, in Medicien Man. Careful the tinfoil hat does not poke you in the eye.

  111. #111 augustine
    August 30, 2011

    BRIAN

    What degrees has Augie attained that suggest particular expertise in epidemiology, biology in general, infectious disease and virology, or medicine?

    What does that have to do with an ancient out of date nursing degree? Who cares about Lilady’s 1960 pre scientific bachelors degree? Everybody knows she’s a pre-scientific vaccine ideologist. She can’t defend that. It is what it is.

  112. #112 lilady
    August 30, 2011

    On Orac’s blog “The 2011 measles outbreak and vaccines in Nature (May 27, 2011), I posted about a reported case of measles in an infant. Troll, who continually stalks me with vile (and filthy mouthed) remarks, posted this remark:

    “So is this what the crux of the vaccine argument has come down to? You do it for the medically fragile? The theoretical ones for whom the vaccine fails?

    Well why don’t you just state that from the beginning? Let the public and all of the mothers know what your true intentions are. Them vaccinating is not really for them it’s for the idea of supposedly protecting medically damaged children. If they(vaccine recipient) so happen to benefit also, then great but it’s not really about them it’s for the others who have co-morbidity issues.”

    Posted by: augustine | May 27, 2011 4:14 PM

    This is not the first time…or the last time…that the troll and his alter ego Thingy has lashed out at me and other posters who are mothers of disabled children by the name calling and labeling our children as medically/vaccine damaged.

    My reply to Augustine:

    “@ Augustine: Your (too) obvious dig at my deceased son who was medically labile…not medically damaged…is a new low even for you. My son received his immunizations against measles in infancy. Tell us again how your two (imaginary) healthy children are un-immunized.

    Medically labile (not medically damaged) children include children who are undergoing treatment for cancer or have an immuno-suppressive disorder or disease. Children and adults who have undergone stem cell therapy and those who are on immuno-suppressive treatments following organ transplants are also at great risk. “Healthy” infants, who are too young to have received MMR vaccine depend on the herd immunity in their community to protect them from this potentially deadly virus.”

    I just want to set the record straight…filthy-mouthed ignorant troll is also a pathological liar.

  113. #113 augustine
    August 30, 2011

    Meier:Well, first of all, the polio study was the most elaborate trial that was ever done, and you had to doit that way because polio was very scarce.

    Wait, I thought children were running out of school houses, in black n white, like it was the last day of school, just to get away from polio.

    mEIR:

    Next, we said, the diagnosis of polio is tricky, but
    we need to have the entire country’s physicians
    participate, because we can’t look over every case
    where there’s some kind of paralysis

    Tricky? wHAT? It’s not a straightfoward diagnosis? That’s lilady nonsense.

    So physicians reported the cases they thought were polio according to the protocol, and we accepted those cases. Now,
    about half those cases were probably not polio at all,

    They “thought were polio”? what kind of SBM is that? Half were not polio at all? Well, that’s some awesome SBM.

    Paul Meir:

    Yes. I was worried about the safety issue because, before the results were announced, I had a
    seminar in my department [at Hopkins] with
    the people involved in polio attending.

    What an unscientific smut. He was actually worried about the safety. How scientifica unsounding he is. No real sckeptic would be worried about scientism ideology or vaccines.

    Paul Meir:

    Well, NFIP did form an advisory committee. And
    they reformed it Ž ve or six times. Each time
    somebody didn’t agree, they dropped them and
    got somebody who might agree. By the time they
    were done forming the committee, everybody on it
    was distinguished, but very agreeable.

    Imagine that. Scientific consensus playing dirty politics to get what scientific consensus wants.

    Paul Meir

    He(Sabin) said that the Committee should at least study the report and then they might
    vote. “Give us time to read it,” he argued. The
    NFIP gave them two hours. The NFIP was quite
    powerful. They had anybody engaged in public
    health, paediatric groups, all supporting the
    vaccine. Almost everybody said it was an excellent
    vaccine and it should be immediately released
    for vaccine injections.Then, two weeks later, the Cutter incident
    broke.

    Uh, oh!

    Meir:

    but there were
    various other companies that had the same polio
    virus in their samples, although not as much as the
    samples from Cutter Laboratories.
    But because there were so many improperly
    diagnosed cases out there, and because the
    other manufacturers went around to various
    newspapers and threatened to cut their advertising,
    it was dumped on Cutter.

    Yeeouch!

  114. #114 lilady
    August 30, 2011

    According to Thingy:

    “I can’t be wrong. There’s a rotten fish in this house.

    When did the meningococcal vaccine become available?

    The first meningococcal vaccine in the United States was licensed in 1974 and was effective against only one of the five major subtypes of meningococcus.

    A meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine or “MPSV4″ (Menomune by sanofi pasteur) was licensed in 1978 for people ages 2 years and older. It protects against four subtypes of meningococcus—A, C, Y, and W-135.”

    Well Thingy is wrong: Here are the 2011 recommendations for Menomune and other polysaccharide vaccines for ages two and older…the vaccine has only ever been recommended… and continues to be only recommended for two year olds with certain risk factors

    “Summary of meningococcal vaccination recommendations, by risk group…”

    “Persons with persistent complement component deficiency (including C5-C9, properdin, factor H, factor D), or functional or anatomic asplenia
    - for ages 2 through 55 years Give 2 doses of MCV4, 2 months apart Boost every 5 years with MCV43
    - for age 56 years and older Give 1 dose of MPSV Boost every 5 years with MPSV3″

    Note: Children ages 2 through 10 years and adults ages 19 years and older without any of the risk factors listed above are not recommended for routine vaccination against meningococcal disease. If an adult patient requests vaccination against meningococcal disease, ACIP states that you can vaccinate them.

    (ACIP 2011 Recommendations for Vaccines)

    @ The “other” troll…I’m calling you on your lies with a comment stuck in moderation.

    It seems as though we have hit the trifecta here…2 trolls and the insane gun totin’ tough talking right wing loon.

  115. #115 g729
    August 30, 2011

    Here’s a leetle thought experiment for y’all:

    Imagine if the charge leveled against vaccines was that they somehow caused the development of antisocial personality disorder, and that affected children grew up to become charming liars and manipulators with a taste for power.

    Would their parents be weeping and wailing?

    Probably not. Because charming liars and manipulators with a taste for power, if they channel their traits into the white-collar world rather than the low-hanging-pants world, typically end up bringing home lots and lots of money, and making their parents proud of their “success.” (Actually the low-hanging-pants types may also become “successful” but they have a larger probability of ending up in prison.)

    How much better to brag that Sonny Boy is a sharp negotiator and capable speculator, than to meep and moan that he’s just a bump on a log who can play classical music pieces on a piano after having heard them only once.

    As it turns out, antisocial personality disorder is pandemic in our society, affecting an estimated 3% of males and about 1% to 1.5% of females (Hare et. al.) For a classic example, look at Lloyd Blankfein at Goldman Sachs (and for a classic example of narcissistic personality disorder, Newt Gingrich).

    If we’re so darn concerned about psychiatric pandemics, we should certainly be concerned with the personality disorders. But somehow they remain neglected despite the vast damage they cause, and it’s autism, which has practically zero risk to innocent bystanders, that comes in for the Big Oh Noes.

    And vaccines become nothing more than the scapegoat chosen by parents whose hopes are suddenly dashed that their kid will provide for them the means to “live in the style to which they are accustomed” in their older years. In decades past, the culprit might have been weekly garbage collection, depriving people of the “natural benefits” of occasionally having bacteria-laden flies all over their food.

    BTW, hats off to MikeMa for #17: “…selfish pricks who don’t vaccinate their precious little disease vectors.” Right on target on both counts: “selfish pricks” because that’s what those parents are, and “precious little disease vectors” because nature doesn’t give a hoot whether a contagious carrier is cute as a button or ugly as a bug. Those cute little unvaccinated kids are as dangerous as hand grenades amongst the general public, and their parents deserve all the opprobrium they get for letting them run loose in society to spread diseases.

    BTW, it would not surprise me if Rick Perry subscribes to the anti-vax BS, or at least gives it a pander or two during his campaign.

    But it did surprise the hell out of me that Santa Cruz CA, despite being a University town, has a nest of both little and big walking disease vectors. I thought that crap was confined to Marin County, home of the 30% who won’t rent their properties to “colored people.” Sigh. Live and learn. Looks like we have that battle to fight on yet another front.

    I’m in Oakland, which is between Marin and Santa Cruz. Presumably people around here are too smart to fall for the antivaxer crapola, but none the less two potential hot spots are too many. Rats! (and fleas and bubonic plague!).

  116. #116 Harold L Doherty
    August 30, 2011

    JayK, I live in the Canadian province of NB (it borders Maine). The NB government disclosed the existence of thimerosal in our MULTI-DOSE H1N1 shots as set out in an October 8 2009 new release:

    “As a multi-dose vaccine, the H1N1 influenza vaccine will contain a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal to prevent contamination of the vaccine by serious infectious agents from the growth of bacteria. Thimerosal also has a stabilizing effect on the vaccine, ensuring its effectiveness.”

    http://www.gnb.ca/cnb/news/he/2009e1521he.htm

    In fact thimerosal was also contained in some American H1N1 supplies as stated in the Ipswich (Massachusetts)Chroincile story “Another shot at H1N1 Vaccination”. The article also stated that seasonal flu vaccines also contain thimerosal:

    “The Ipswich Board of Health has scheduled another two free H1N1 influenza vaccination clinics in February that are open to all.

    Read more: Another shot at H1N1 vaccination – Ipswich, MA – Ipswich Chronicle … Just like the seasonal flu vaccine, many formulations of the H1N1 vaccine contain a preservative called thimerosal. The vaccine that will be used at the clinic contains thimerosal.

    http://www.wickedlocal.com/ipswich/news/lifestyle/health/x1103043214/Another-shot-at-H1N1-vaccination#axzz1WVhjZonI

  117. #117 Reuben
    August 30, 2011

    I absolutely believe in climate change, but it doesn;t (sic) take hundreds of nations and trillions of dollars to tell people about the four natural seasons of the year.

    But it does take and act of God to put in an apostrophe where it needs to be, I guess. But never mind that. We all make mistakes. What else?

    What fossil fuel do you speak of. Oil is a naturally produced substance. Fossils from what? Oh, the flood of Noah created most fossils sincle (sic) it literally wiped out every living creature on the planet in a few short days.

    Hmmm… Someone who reads the Bible literally. Interesting. I haven’t run into one of you around here since Schecter. Give me more…

    Yes I am a global warming denier and and I also deny you refuge should you ever require it. Anyone who steals my money and lies about its cause is certainly not welcome on my sovereign territory unless I am at the brink of starvation and I should like to invite you to be my dinner.

    Yes, I have a reply to that: WHAT?

    Global warming is a fraud and everyone involved should be inprison (sic) at the very least. I still say a good horsewhip is the answer to these loons. It is and always has been about global redistribution of wealth. By the way, if ever I did get to be president the very first thing I would do is to put most EPA policy makers on deportation watch and then defund the whole damned shithole there. Next I would never allowed another penney to be sent anywhere that even mentions climate change. I would restrict any funding from any one anywhere just for thinking it.

    Well, then it’s a good thing that we as a society – and sadly – will never elect someone with mental disease. By the way, “another penney”? JC Penney?

    Now as for you anr (sic) you cute little answers to my mini tirade …

    I have a medical procedure for you you to try in your spare time . Stick you arm up your butt, grab your uvula, and pull REAL hard.

    I saw that in a movie once.

    Violence? Hardly. My lawyers Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson is capable of handling any threat forced upon me, my sovereign territory, or my being. Violence never occurs unless first induced. In other words, don’t piss people off with stupid stuff and then ask them to pay for it.

    Apparently, your lawyers (plural) ARE incapable of telling you how to use grammer grammar, though. I’d fire them for making you read like an idiot.

    South Pole seasonable in the summer eh? Well I guess 269 trillion centuries of global warming caused by dinosaurs driving SUVs and using real light bulbs has indeed had an impact.

    That’s a lot of years. Which is it? Either the Earth is young or it is old. You can’t have it both ways.

    Speaking of impact, I would love to shove a 150 CFL bulb up someone’s ass at the EPA. It’s the only entertaining use I find in one.

    You’ve moved from plain old violence to rape. This is called “circling the drain”. Unless you’re referring to a donkey. In that case I ask: What did the donkey do to you? Why the inter-species erotica?

    Damned good thing I started stockpiling thousands of light bulbs in a storage facility. Those things will be worth a fortune once the communist overlord’s ban takes effect. Plus, I get to still use exactly what I want without a dickhead in the government teling (sic) me otherwise.

    Thousands? It’s going to take you a lot of years to get through them, double the lifespan of the Earth, according to you.

    Go ahead and get your smartgrid crapology. When you cut me off I’ll have enough diesel generators to keep me going for months. Better luck next time chump.

    and I speel my handle like that intentionally to make fun of nerds who think mercury is medicine.

    Months? I guess those years of light bulbs will seem like a bad investment at that point, won’t they? I thought you Unabomber types were all about planning?

    Speel? Spiel? Did you mean “spiel”? And, no, Mercury is not medicine, it’s a planet.

  118. #118 Jesse
    August 30, 2011

    Getting back to something way earlier in the thread.

    A few people asked why anti-vax folks — especially those with autistic children it would seem (though I can’t verify this) throw around the kind of invective they do. I’m going to throw this out there based on experiences of my mother, an OBGYN.

    An OBGYN is basically responsible for anything that is related to a birth injury until the kid is 21. That means that in a lot of jurisdictions you can get sued (assuming you retire at 65) until you are 86 years old, i.e. likely the rest of your life.

    As the standards of evidence in civil cases are not always that rigorous, from a scientific perspective, you can see where this leads.

    Everybody wants a good outcome. Nobody likes it when things go wrong. But people have a touch time accepting that sometimes you just have terrible luck. No meaning. No punishment. No reward. Just bad luck. Sometimes a doctor can do everything in their power to help you and you will still die, or be maimed, or whatever. It happens.

    But doctors do have a rather special place in our society and in people’s minds. They are people that are trusted. You pour your hearts out to them. It’s why confidentiality rules are so strict. In many ways they have taken the place of priests. (The tradition of the “long coat” for people who have completed their residency is no accident in that respect, it is not unlike the priestly vestment).

    So when bad stuff happens people get mad. “You’re supposed to help us, how could you betray us this way?” is the question in their heads. “Why can’t you answer?”

    Well, docs are human, that’s why. Science has its limits. They are not gods. But many people in their grief and pain expect that. Especially, I think, those that have a more tenuous grasp of the way medicine works. (I can’t prove that, but that’s the sense I get).

    Now, this is really unfair to doctors. Based on the science available there is only so much they can do.

    But when I read the anti-vax stuff, I just get this sense that people feel betrayed. “Why was my child autistic?” is a common refrain. As though it couldn’t just be bad luck. It can’t be that a perfectly good parent can have bad things happen. Because after all, good parents have healthy children. But if we accept that it isn’t the parent’s fault, the blame has to be somewhere. And Doctors, because of the special spot they have in people’s minds, are going to be right in the line of fire.

    The larger problem is the mismatch between what people know of science and the results it gets. That is, science-based medicine has become so successful that people expect what would once have been miraculous on a daily basis. Take childbirth. By now childbirth deaths are unusual at the very least so people might have a tougher time accepting it. In 1911 that was not the case — you expected that some women would die. If the doctor or midwife couldn’t save your loved one you didn’t get mad at them. (Reading the literature and personal accounts of people in earlier periods is striking in that respect — not as many people seemed to be accusing docs of a huge conspiracy to keep people sick).

    Science has been a gigantic success– but the general public’s understanding of it has not kept pace. Yet we see all the technological goodies and the medicine and it seems to come out of nowhere. I don’t think it takes a sociologist to see where this leads.

  119. #119 augustine
    August 30, 2011

    Lielady

    I just want to set the record straight…filthy-mouthed ignorant troll is also a pathological liar.

    Uh, what lie? If you stopped clutching your pearls then you could regain your senses.

    @g729

    Those cute little unvaccinated kids are as dangerous as hand grenades amongst the general public, and their parents deserve all the opprobrium they get for letting them run loose in society to spread diseases.

    You sure know how to put things in perspective. You must be an esteemed scientist. Science blogs thanks you for contributing. Please share with us your other scientific research and findings. You are a force to be reckoned with in the scientific profession.

    One more thing, If I may. How does being not vaccinated “spread” diseases around? Doesn’t one have to actually become infected. How long is that time period of infection? Aren’t vaccinated persons protected?

  120. #120 Todd W.
    August 30, 2011

    Sorry, I just have to comment on this one:

    Of course hydrogen is sort of an alternative except it EVAPORATES IF NOT USED SOON.

    Psst. Hydrogen is a gas. Gases don’t evaporate.

  121. #121 W. Kevin Vicklund
    August 30, 2011

    Wow, Chris’s stalker has just gone Full Mental Straitjacket. I didn’t know Markuze had a brother.

  122. #122 Th1Th2
    August 30, 2011

    lilady,

    Well Thingy is wrong: Here are the 2011 recommendations for Menomune and other polysaccharide vaccines for ages two and older…the vaccine has only ever been recommended… and continues to be only recommended for two year olds with certain risk factors

    Your argument is not with me, it is with Orac. Tell him to stop writing tabloid. I’ve been smelling fish since #24.

  123. #123 Krebiozen
    August 30, 2011

    I initially thought that Medicien man was a very funny parody. Is he actually for real?

  124. #124 Epic Fail
    August 30, 2011

    I went to the link of the article.

    She says (paraphrasing), “as a parent, how do you forget? That you could have prevented something with a vaccine?”

    That is just remarkably irresponsible. Why would you say something that you know cannot be proven? And if you don’t know that the aforegoing statement cannot be proven, you don’t need to be in the public health sector. The article is vague, doesn’t address any co-morbidities and the doctor hadn’t seen this patient since she was a year old.

    It’s real easy for me to arm-chair quarterback the shitty White Sox game last night, but the difference is if I publish an article about what I would have done differently… I get called out on my arrogance.

  125. #125 Krebiozen
    August 30, 2011

    I’ve been smelling fish since #24.

    That’ll be the dogfish that chased your squirrel up the wrong tree.

  126. #126 Panda
    August 30, 2011

    @medicien man

    Herp. Derp.

    Herp. Derp.

    Herp. Derp.

    That’s what I read in your comment.

  127. #127 Vicki
    August 30, 2011

    Yes, it’s partly for the medically labile children, and the immune-suppressed people of all ages.

    What kind of person thinks I’m horrible because I’ll ask to be vaccinated partly to save other people’s lives?

  128. #128 lilady
    August 30, 2011

    @ Jesse: You have made some very astute observations about how people “adapt” or don’t “adapt” to a situation. Some seemingly intelligent people simply won’t “adapt” to a child who has some developmental delays. Yes, science has advanced so quickly, but so has the dissemination of information on the internet.

    Now a reasonable parent who may be mourning the loss of a dream to have a perfect child…we all assume that our children will be perfect…uses the internet to find out how, in a medical sense, could my child have a disability and how does one get help for my child. Unfortunately, some parents “blow past” information that is science-based and start plugging into websites such as AoA with their ever-changing theories of the genesis of autism and Jenny McCarthy with her ever-changing story about her Indigo Child.

    It is so much easier for them to blame the doctor who administered immunizations and Big Pharma, rather than blame the possible genetic causes or the prenatal environment.

    I could almost feel sorry for them because they have not accepted their child fully and for pursuing cures, but then I realize that the “blame” games they indulge in has done so much harm to their kids, society in general and to new parents.

  129. #129 Th1Th2
    August 30, 2011

    Vicki,

    What kind of person thinks I’m horrible because I’ll ask to be vaccinated partly to save other people’s lives?

    No you’re not saving them. That would be ridiculous. You’re a threat.

  130. #130 augustine
    August 30, 2011

    vicki

    What kind of person thinks I’m horrible because I’ll ask to be vaccinated partly to save other people’s lives?

    I don’t know. Who?

  131. #131 Stu
    August 30, 2011

    Wait, did Thingy just say

    I can’t be wrong

    Really?

    Really?

  132. #132 augustine
    August 30, 2011

    Yes, it’s partly for the medically labile children, and the immune-suppressed people of all ages.

    Can you point me to the RCT, the gold standard of science, that shows vaccines significantly impact all cause mortality in this immunodeficient population. And could you quantify the difference that EACH vaccine makes. I want to be educated, scientifically, with evidence about this argument. Thank you very much.

    Liladay and Chris, you are health care scientists. You should have this quantified evidence at your fingertips. What does it have to say? Anyone else?

    Surely you wouldn’t keep making this argument up without actual facts and conclusive evidence for it would you?

  133. #133 lilady
    August 30, 2011

    @ Thingy:

    “lilady,

    Well Thingy is wrong: Here are the 2011 recommendations for Menomune and other polysaccharide vaccines for ages two and older…the vaccine has only ever been recommended… and continues to be only recommended for two year olds with certain risk factors

    Your argument is not with me, it is with Orac. Tell him to stop writing tabloid. I’ve been smelling fish since #24.”

    Hello Thingy, my argument is with you. I directed a posting at you at #51 about mumps and polio meningitis, which you never replied to.

    You also choose to ignore the information I provided about the very restrictive use of Menomune vaccine which you mistakenly posted about.

    Why do you continually ignore posters who correct your obvious mistakes? Why do you continually “disappear”…only to return and post another unscientific factoid? Why do you still “smell fish”?

    I’m smelling a dead troll here…I need to “terminally disinfect” my computer screen every time dying troll comes posting.

  134. #134 Th1Th2
    August 30, 2011

    lilady,

    Hello Thingy, my argument is with you. I directed a posting at you at #51 about mumps and polio meningitis, which you never replied to.

    See? When did it occur in Orac’s tabloid that the vaccine in question is in fact Hib and not mumps or polio? And how did you know that the cause of the child’s death is Hib and not mumps or polio? Yeah you keep arguing from ignorance just like Orac.

    You also choose to ignore the information I provided about the very restrictive use of Menomune vaccine which you mistakenly posted about.

    I know that since #24. Fishy.

  135. #135 novalox
    August 30, 2011

    Ignore ignorant troll.

  136. #136 lilady
    August 30, 2011

    “Lielady

    I just want to set the record straight…filthy-mouthed ignorant troll is also a pathological liar.

    Uh, what lie? If you stopped clutching your pearls then you could regain your senses.”

    Ugh Troll, that would be the lie that you haven’t viciously attacked me and other mothers of disabled children.

    Do you also want to deny that you are a “filthy-mouthed” troll?

    BTW, I’m not a “former bachelor’s degree nurse”…but you wouldn’t understand that once a higher education degree is awarded it doesn’t “expire”…just like the highest education degree (Junior High School?) that was awarded to you hasn’t expired. I also am a licensed registered nurse in good standing. What professional license do you possess? (licenses for your imaginary pets don’t count).

  137. #137 MikeMa
    August 30, 2011

    Descent into troll madness imminent. Time to move on.

  138. #138 lilady
    August 30, 2011

    Thingy chooses to retreat into his/her/its own reality. No where in the article does it say that the doctor offered a “meningitis” vaccine and at my posting I informed Thingy that a parental refusal to have their child immunized against mumps and/or polio…vaccines that were recommended 40 years ago, could result in cases of mumps and/or polio and result in mumps and/or polio meningitis and mumps and or/polio meningoencephalitis and death.

    Thingy with her “make believe” career in the health care field then posts about a vaccine (Menomune) that specifically prevents a bacterial meningitis and states it is given to all two year olds…which it isn’t…and which I pointed out to the Thing.

    Troll with a “make-believe” career thinks that it is not possible to have meningitis associated with a virus and is clueless that “meningitis” is a generic medical term for inflammation of the meninges…whether caused by a virus, bacterium, fungus or amoeba.

    I smell dead Troll.

  139. #139 augustine
    August 30, 2011

    Lilady

    meningitis” is a generic medical term for inflammation of the meninges…whether caused by a virus, bacterium, fungus or amoeba.

    … or vaccine.

  140. #140 Reuben
    August 30, 2011

    Troll with a “make-believe” career thinks that it is not possible to have meningitis associated with a virus…

    Thing was obsessed with herpes just a few weeks ago, claiming to know a lot about it. Yet she misses this:

    Viral Meningitis, most of it is caused by… wait for it… HERPES!

    The troll is quite ignorant, I’m afraid. Not really worth our time unless we’re bored. Which I am.

  141. #141 D. Wu
    August 30, 2011

    Got to love the anti-vaccine movement. The entire movement is ignorant, tainted with libertarian rhetoric, and totally blind to their own failings. Their like a horse with blinders on. Except this horse is walking into the water and happens to be dragging innocent kids along with them.

  142. #142 Th1Th2
    August 30, 2011

    Thingy chooses to retreat into his/her/its own reality. No where in the article does it say that the doctor offered a “meningitis” vaccine[...]

    Getting old lilady? How ironic the pediatrician still “remembers the unvaccinated who died” and you don’t.

    CAPITOLA – It may be decades later, but Dr. Elizabeth Baskerville still cries when she remembers the little girl. Four years old. Dead of meningitis[...]Baskerville only hopes the woman doesn’t remember refusing that vaccine[...]she calls the meningitis vaccines “the most wonderful thing that happened in my practice life.”

    Well I wish you’re right that the vaccine in question was indeed a mumps or polio vaccine. Oh wait one commenter #39 said it was Hib. Or maybe it’s a meningococcal vaccine? Who knows? That’s why tabloids are there because it’s worth fun reading. Thanks Orac.

    Thingy with her “make believe” career in the health care field then posts about a vaccine (Menomune) that specifically prevents a bacterial meningitis and states it is given to all two year olds…which it isn’t…and which I pointed out to the Thing.

    You’re old and sluggish. Check #24. You’re very late.

    Troll with a “make-believe” career thinks that it is not possible to have meningitis associated with a virus and is clueless that “meningitis” is a generic medical term for inflammation of the meninges…whether caused by a virus, bacterium, fungus or amoeba.

    Or drugged up by doctors. Well, that happens most of the time.

  143. #143 Th1Th2
    August 30, 2011

    Viral Meningitis, most of it is caused by… wait for it… HERPES!

    So now the child could have died of herpes?

    Gee wheez Orac what have you done?

  144. #144 lilady
    August 30, 2011

    Typical Thingy behavior when confronted with his/her/its wrong germ theory and made-up credentials. *Trying to communicate with Thingy; it’s like trying to nail jello to the wall”*

    Notice how the Thing hasn’t “shut down this blog”?

    * One of Dr. Harriet Hall’s greatest statements

  145. #145 a- nonymous
    August 30, 2011

    @Jesse: so your society is litigious. So what! That has nothing to do with the cause of autism. People are already cluing in that it is something to do with the environment.

  146. #146 Chris
    August 30, 2011

    a-nonymous, and what would that environment be? The study in twins is about a shared environment, which really only exists prior to birth. This excludes vaccines. If you are interested in another perspective look here: Genetic Heritability and Shared Environmental Factors Among Twin Pairs With Autism.

    Also, that high litigious bit on the DTP vaccine was big in the UK before the USA. The effect of pertussis vaccine scaremongering has cost the lives of many children, and it is not just in one country: Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story

  147. #147 Yojimbo
    August 30, 2011

    @MikeMa

    Descent into troll madness imminent. Time to move on.

    Actually, we passed the event horizon some weeks back. Now almost every thread is just a new episode of the Itchy and Scratch… uh, I mean, the Augy and Thingy Show. Which would be okay if they weren’t all re-runs :(

    @ a- nonymous

    People are already cluing in that it is something to do with the environment.

    People are “cluing in”? You know “da troof” and see that people are starting to catch on? How do you know autism has anything to do with the environment.

    What the heck is wrong with saying “we don’t know”? We don’t even know if anything at all is “happening” with autism – it could well be that it has a stable incidence of occurance, just like left-handedness. Saying “it must be the environment”, or “the mercury” or “the genes” or “the flying saucers” is not just pointless, it’s counterproductive. Let the people who know what they’re doing do their work. When they have an answer, we’ll know.

  148. #148 CG
    August 30, 2011

    Thingy, from the timetable and age of the kid, it is extremely likely we are talking about Hib here.

    Which used to affect a significant number of kids but is now essentially unheard of.

    Gee, I wonder why?

  149. #149 lilady
    August 30, 2011

    Ugh Troll: How about answering the two questions I posed to you?

    Do you also want to deny that you are a “filthy-mouthed” troll?

    What professional license do you possess? (licenses for your imaginary pets don’t count).

    @ CG: Thingy will never answer your questions about Hib disease…or perhaps Thingy will reply that the incidence of invasive Hib disease was already decreasing before vaccine licensing, due to “better sanitation and a purer water supply”.

  150. #150 redacted
    August 30, 2011

    “autism” has been marked by several environmental factors. Go read Wing 1993 where they mark the 2/3rds of the population that made up the 3rd subgroup from DSM 3 described as extremely mentally retarded children and listen the causes including rubella. Wing also lists added groups when she uses her trinity of impairments to try and “bleed other conditions into the norm” creating the “spectrum” in Wing 1981. Heller’s disease and De Sanctus’ condition despite Kanner’s explicit mentioning of both conditions as not autism in Kanner 1943. They are also mentioned in Kanner 1965. Seriously, go back and read the original stuff.

  151. #151 anandine
    August 30, 2011

    Chemmo commented on: “the vaccination schedule as grown exponentially. (The number of vaccines our children receive has more than tripled since 1983.)

    by asking Exponential, or tripled?

    Exponential, with an exponent of about 1.177.

  152. #152 meiji
    August 30, 2011

    Such a hard thing to have to decide, how safe is a vaccine against the risk of contracting a disease.

  153. #153 Chris
    August 30, 2011

    meiji:

    Such a hard thing to have to decide, how safe is a vaccine against the risk of contracting a disease.

    Then familiarize yourself with the CDC Pink Book. Each chapter explains the disease and the vaccines. There are good explanations of the risks of the disease, plus that of the vaccines.

    And as far as getting the disease, there is always a risk. Don’t be complacent because a disease has been absent in your community, because there are airplanes and people move around freely. But the risk is less if you are vaccinated. This is especially true for pertussis and measles, as there have been outbreaks of both of these recently.

    And remember, there is no such think as herd immunity from tetanus. If you live in this world you will have some contact with soil, and the bacteria that live in soil. One of them being Clostridium tetani. I’ll leave it up to you to read the CDC Pink Book chapter on tetanus.

  154. #154 Healthy
    August 30, 2011

    In my opinion the definitive argument is: vaccination can make you children a bit sick 1/1000 times but if they don’t vaccinate they have a 1/1000 chance of getting really ill or even die. I see it pretty plain simple. Would you risk a possible complety lost for a possible litle reward?

    To find research ideas and funding check out the non-profit Aging Portfolio.

  155. #155 Th1Th2
    August 30, 2011

    meiji,

    Such a hard thing to have to decide, how safe is a vaccine against the risk of contracting a disease.

    No it’s not when you’re not playing Russian Roulette.

  156. #156 Gray Falcon
    August 30, 2011

    I’d ask Th1Th2 how one is supposed to not play “Russian Roulette”, but she seems to think that if you eliminate one risk, you’ve eliminated all of them.

  157. #157 Medicien man
    August 30, 2011

    @ Rubbin Reubin

    hey chump. Saw that in a movie eh? Let me guess, you were the raped ape?

    I guess that must be why you insist evolution is true. You like ape rape.

    Nice little comebacks to my mini tirade, but I’ve seen horseflies that wasn’t as annoying as you. Oh well. I guess taht’s why they still make liberals. They have to be useful for something.

    Now, if you don’t mind I have a pet rock to smash against someone’s arse holes. Liberals usually have two holes. That’s what happened after they accpeted gayism as something normal. Beleive me there is dnothing normal about one man shoving his pecker up another man’s ass and getting shit on his dick. Just think. Our government endorses this. I guess that’s what they mean by a shitty government. Terdtapper endorsements usually bring doom and gloom. At least it did to Sodom.

    Mercury is a planet. It was created roughly about 6000 to 10000 years ago when the rest of the universe was spoken into existance.

    Now, please, if you will excue me while I await for your highly intelligent yet comical reply to which I shall further comment. Be careful not to piss me off though. I have a brother that comes on this site when I get him involved. My stalker Chris knows him as Doctor Smart. He has already been banned from captain blackbeard’s (Ed Brayton)website becuase Ed couldn’t handle him. He also upset The Poll Fornicator (PZ MYers) over at Pharyngula.

    If you run into the poll fornicator, let him know I still correct his mistakes. He’ll know what you mean.

  158. #158 Th1Th2
    August 30, 2011

    Gray Falcon,

    I’d ask Th1Th2 how one is supposed to not play “Russian Roulette”[...]

    Are you really that dumb? Why even ask? Is it “recommended” and “life saving”?

    This is all Orac’s fault. Time to downgrade this blog.

  159. #159 novalox
    August 30, 2011

    Ignore willfully ignorant trolls.

  160. #160 Chris
    August 30, 2011

    Medicien Man/Dr. Smart/IM Stupid:

    Mercury is a planet. It was created roughly about 6000 to 10000 years ago when the rest of the universe was spoken into existance.

    Oh, and who did that? And where did that entity come from?

    And isn’t it past your bed time?

  161. #161 Julian Frost
    August 31, 2011

    Don’t feed the Troll…
    Don’t feed the Troll…
    Don’t feed…Heck with it! I want a chew toy.
    So tell us, Th1Th2, given that people can get infected by wild-type diseases and be infectious without showing symptoms, how do you intend avoiding getting infected?

  162. #162 Chris
    August 31, 2011

    Thingy:

    This is all Orac’s fault. Time to downgrade this blog.

    Honey, admit it. You are only here because this a popular blog. You just can’t control the negative reaction to your idiocy, and that annoys you. But one of the reasons it is a popular blog is because your stupidity is not excised, it is there for was to gawk at, roll our eyes at and eventually laugh at. Keep it up, you crazy loon.

  163. #163 Chris
    August 31, 2011

    Why do I see the atrocious grammar errors only after I hit the “Post” button! The phrase “it is there for was to gawk at,” should read “it is there for us to gawk at,”! Aaagh!

  164. #164 lilady
    August 31, 2011

    I see that Thingy has not shut down or downgraded this blog. The blog is officially open and the blog is “upgraded” when Thingy crawls back beneath its rock.

    Julian: Go for it!

    Not that I am a grammar Nazi, but I thought Chris’ posting of “was” was a typo and nothing compared to my typos.

    P.S. I am still the undisputed queen of run-on sentences.

  165. #165 Fleegman
    August 31, 2011

    Thingy said:

    This is all Orac’s fault. Time to downgrade this blog.

    Does that mean your leaving? I mean, don’t get my hopes up, if you don’t mean it.

    Complete ignorant idiot said:

    One more thing, If I may. How does being not vaccinated “spread” diseases around? Doesn’t one have to actually become infected. How long is that time period of infection? Aren’t vaccinated persons protected?

    This is proof, if proof were ever needed, that there really is no getting through to this idiot. I say idiot, and I don’t use the word lightly. I use that word because you would have to be an idiot of the highest order to continue to ask these questions that have been answered over and over and over and over… It’s just… Wow…

    To the Troll King that posted that comment – are you really asking that question seriously? Do you really not know the answer to that one? I mean, really?

    I realise that no one here takes what you say seriously; that’s not the point. The point is do you really think anyone is going to take you seriously when you ask questions like that?

    Until I read that comment, I didn’t think my opinion of you could drop any lower. Well, apparently, it can! Inconcievable! — or, at least, it was.

    All hail, King Troll: Son of the Tenth Asylum of Nincompoops, Drinker from the Sacred Chalice of Ignorance, and Heir to the Hallowed Texts of Crazy.

    Here’s your crown, my king. You’ve earned it…

  166. #166 Reuben
    August 31, 2011

    @Medicine Man

    Meh. You’re no fun anymore. Too many misspellings and grammer grammar errors to correct. Now it’s just tiresome and boring. Have fun cleaning up all the rabid spittle on your computer screen and keyboard. (Wear gloves, though. You don’t want to give what you have to your husband.)

  167. #167 Th1Th2
    August 31, 2011

    Julian Frost,

    So tell us, Th1Th2, given that people can get infected by wild-type diseases

    When are you going to start?

    and be infectious without showing symptoms, how do you intend avoiding getting infected?

    Without symptoms then I will have to doubt. But if the person is symptomatic, then I will have to limit close contact and take necessary precautions.

  168. #168 Gray Falcon
    August 31, 2011

    Th1Th2, do you honestly believe that was an honest answer to Julian’s question? If it were as easy to avoid the wild-type diseases as you claim, they would have been extinct long ago.

  169. #169 Th1Th2
    August 31, 2011

    Chris,

    Honey, admit it. You are only here because this a popular blog. You just can’t control the negative reaction to your idiocy, and that annoys you.

    On the contrary, I am flattered that I managed to close down some of Orac’s popular cesspool.

    But one of the reasons it is a popular blog is because your stupidity is not excised, it is there for was to gawk at, roll our eyes at and eventually laugh at. Keep it up, you crazy loon.

    Vaccine disabled children are so popular nowadays but I don’t LOL at them. I thought their parents were stupid.

  170. #170 Todd W.
    August 31, 2011

    @Gray Falcon

    You’re forgetting that in Th1Th2′s world, children always stay on the sidewalk and never ever play in dirt or put random things in their mouths. Also, everyone who is contagious, even when asymptomatic, walks around with a big neon sign above them letting everyone know to stay clear. Oh, and finally, when it comes to diseases like measles, any room that a contagious person has been in within the last 2 hours likewise has a magical neon sign letting people know not to enter until the virus is no longer active in the air or on surfaces.

    Truly, Th1Th2′s world is a wonderful magical place filled with unicorns and pots o’ gold at the ends of rainbows.

  171. #171 Gray Falcon
    August 31, 2011

    Th1Th2, why do you believe you have the ability to shut down comment threads on another person’s blog? Have you ever convinced anyone, anywhere, that your beliefs are correct?

  172. #172 Nomen Nescio
    August 31, 2011

    ok, i had to google the term “crossover study”. (at least i did it before jumping to try and use the phrase.) it would, i do think, be a rather difficult type of study to apply to vaccinations… an interesting tool, from what i read, but clearly with some serious limitations.

    now i realize the antivaxers managed to teach me something, however unintentionally. i’d feel dirtied, except it appears to be a lesson they haven’t managed to learn for themselves yet.

  173. #173 Th1Th2
    August 31, 2011

    Gray Falcon,

    If it were as easy to avoid the wild-type diseases as you claim, they would have been extinct long ago.

    It would have been extinct had there been no stupid people who still continue to inoculate and promote infection.

  174. #174 Vicki
    August 31, 2011

    I stayed home from work yesterday because I was in the first day of a cold, sneezing frequently and my nose running the rest of the time, and I didn’t want to chance infecting random strangers on the subway or at my office. (It’s down to an intermittent dry cough today.)

    I have a job where I can do that: many Americans are not so fortunate. If I’d still been working temp, for half the money and no benefits, it would have been a harder decision. I would like to live in a world where everyone could afford to stay home when they were sick, but I don’t fool myself into thinking that I do. (Even then, we’d be dealing with the people who consider themselves indispensable.)

  175. #175 Gray Falcon
    August 31, 2011

    The disease was around far longer the vaccine, Th1Th2. Seriously, you were asked about infected people not showing symptoms. How do you avoid them?

  176. #176 Narad
    August 31, 2011

    It would have been extinct had there been no stupid people who still continue to inoculate and promote infection.

    So it’s all just a case of bad timing? The diseases that are vaccinated for were on the verge of going “poof” until infection-promoters set up the infrastructure to keep them going?

  177. #177 Th1Th2
    August 31, 2011

    Todd W.,

    You’re forgetting that in Th1Th2′s world, children always stay on the sidewalk and never ever play in dirt or put random things in their mouths.

    That’s why the blame is always on the parents if something happens to the child.

    Also, everyone who is contagious, even when asymptomatic, walks around with a big neon sign above them letting everyone know to stay clear.

    Surprisingly, the vaccinated never do that following inoculation. Of course that is part of grand infection promotion scheme of vaccinators.

    Oh, and finally, when it comes to diseases like measles, any room that a contagious person has been in within the last 2 hours likewise has a magical neon sign letting people know not to enter until the virus is no longer active in the air or on surfaces.

    lilady knows how it is done or does she. (hint: terminal disinfection)

    Yup they put signs but not neon signs.

  178. #178 Fleegman
    August 31, 2011

    Excuse me Th1Th2,

    Can you clarify something for me? Are you saying that the reason these diseases are still around today is because of vaccination?

    I just need to check that that’s what you’re saying. I mean, it seems like that’s what you’re saying.

    Is that what you’re saying? I mean, is that actually your position on the subject? Or have I got it totally wrong and turned what you actually meant, into something sounding completely stupid?

    If that is your position on the subject, would you mind explaining why you think that? I’m genuinely interested in how someone could possibly hold such an ignorant world view in the face of so much opposing evidence.

    Your pal,

    Fleegman

  179. #179 Lawrence
    August 31, 2011

    Don’t feed the idiot troll – she isn’t using the same vocabulary (or reality) as the rest of us.

    She also never addressed why, if diseases die out on their own, why they didn’t before the advent of vaccines. In her world, all disease should have been eliminated (at least the human to human ones) just by themselves – which again, makes no sense at all – not that she ever does.

    So, just stop responding to her – she’s a sockpuppet moron.

  180. #180 Th1Th2
    August 31, 2011

    Gray Falcon,

    Seriously, you were asked about infected people not showing symptoms. How do you avoid them?

    How did you know they were infected without you arguing from ignorance?

  181. #181 Th1Th2
    August 31, 2011

    Gray Falcon,

    The disease was around far longer the vaccine, Th1Th2.

    Not all. VDPV and atypical measles are a few exceptions..

  182. #182 novalox
    August 31, 2011

    Ignore moronic troll

  183. #183 lilady
    August 31, 2011

    Has anyone ever compiled the collective brain droppings of Thingy? Dumb Thingy, when questioned about “containment” of measles for a possible exposure in a hospital Emergency Room, stated “In the hospital WE ‘terminally disinfect’ an examination room”.

    Of course we know that Thingy has his/her/its own reality and an “imaginary” career in health care.

    I suspect, after crawling out of his/her/its abode, that Thingy dons hospital scrubs, tin foil hat and drapes a stethoscope around the neck…the better to think scientifically.

    Why doesn’t Thingy go to another site to post where his/her/its brain droppings might be appreciated?

    Delusional Troll needs to be “terminally disinfected”.

  184. #184 Th1Th2
    August 31, 2011

    Can you clarify something for me? Are you saying that the reason these diseases are still around today is because of vaccination?

    Absolutely.

  185. #185 Science Mom
    August 31, 2011

    Can you clarify something for me? Are you saying that the reason these diseases are still around today is because of vaccination?

    Absolutely.

    Rhinderpest?

  186. #186 Dangerous Bacon
    August 31, 2011

    “Ignore moronic troll”
    “Don’t feed the idiot troll”
    “Don’t feed the Troll…”
    “Ignore willfully ignorant trolls.”
    “Ignore ignorant troll.”

    According to a newly published paper in the Journal of Irreproducible Results, admonitions to ignore trolls are completely ineffective in clinical trials.

    Feel free to ignore that conclusion if you like.

  187. #187 novalox
    August 31, 2011

    @Dangerous Bacon

    Well… shoot.

  188. #188 Krebiozen
    August 31, 2011

    Dangerous Bacon,

    According to a newly published paper in the Journal of Irreproducible Results, admonitions to ignore trolls are completely ineffective in clinical trials.

    A study in the same journal suggests that attempts to educate trolls are similarly ineffective. There may be some bystander effects, though the claims of some trolls contradict both common sense and undeniable facts to such a degree that it seems unlikely that anyone foolish enough to believe them would have sufficient skills to find their way here and read them. Or, indeed, the ability to find their own backside in a darkened room using both hands.

  189. #189 Th1Th2
    August 31, 2011

    Science Mom,

    And what is rinderpest? Measles?

  190. #190 Narad
    August 31, 2011

    Th1Th2, please pick up the blue courtesy phone. It seems to be about how many converts you’ve garnered over the years or something.

  191. #191 augustine
    August 31, 2011

    Can you point me to the RCT, the gold standard of science, that shows vaccines significantly impact all cause mortality in this immunodeficient population. And could you quantify the difference that EACH vaccine makes. I want to be educated, scientifically, with evidence about this argument. Thank you very much.

    Any takers? This seems to be a big emotional talking point for rabid skeptic/atheists. Where’s the evidence?

  192. #192 Th1Th2
    August 31, 2011

    And as far as getting the disease, there is always a risk. Don’t be complacent because a disease has been absent in your community, because there are airplanes and people move around freely. But the risk is less if you are vaccinated. This is especially true for pertussis and measles, as there have been outbreaks of both of these recently.

    The USG must be so complacent they rescinded routine smallpox vaccination in 1971 and that was before global smallpox eradication. That, I would have to assume airplanes were not invented yet and people were catanonic during that period.

  193. #193 Science Mom
    August 31, 2011

    And what is rinderpest? Measles?

    Related but no not measles, rhinderpest is eradicated. How did this happen?

  194. #194 Agashem
    August 31, 2011

    Only catatonia I see starts with Th1……..how else to explain the lack of its ability to interact with others in any meaningful way?

  195. #195 Th1Th2
    August 31, 2011

    And remember, there is no such think as herd immunity from tetanus.

    That.

  196. #196 Agashem
    August 31, 2011

    Did anyone say there was? And I thought you shut this down a while ago…………

  197. #197 Anton P. Nym
    August 31, 2011

    No, Agashem, sadly for the state of this comments section Thingy is not in the least bit catatonic. However disconnected and inappropriate the responses, s/he still does respond. Delusional, I would grant in my highly-inexpert opinion, but decidedly not catatonic.

    — Steve IANAD, NDIPOOT*

    *I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV.

  198. #198 Th1Th2
    August 31, 2011

    Science Mom,

    Related but no not measles, rhinderpest is eradicated. How did this happen?

    I don’t think rinderpest was ever eradicated hence you call people “herd”. Make sense?

  199. #199 Agashem
    August 31, 2011

    I was actually trying to see if it understood some of the words it uses. But since it is off in LaLa land somewhere I won’t wait any longer for a coherent response to any of the questions put to it.

  200. #200 herr doktor bimler
    August 31, 2011

    On the contrary, I am flattered that I managed to close down some of Orac’s popular cesspool.

    This sounds awfully like a Denial-of-Service attack.

  201. #201 Science Mom
    August 31, 2011

    Science Mom,

    Related but no not measles, rhinderpest is eradicated. How did this happen?

    I don’t think rinderpest was ever eradicated hence you call people “herd”. Make sense?

    Yup, been eradicated, ceases to be. No longer circulating through bovine populations. How did this happen? Feel free to post evidence that it hasn’t been eradicated. And no, you never make sense.

  202. #202 Krebiozen
    August 31, 2011

    The USG must be so complacent they rescinded routine smallpox vaccination in 1971 and that was before global smallpox eradication. That, I would have to assume airplanes were not invented yet and people were catanonic during that period.

    Sigh. Just in case anyone is wondering, you could not enter the USA during that period without certification that you had been vaccinated against smallpox. Smallpox had been eradicated in Mexico and Canada, so there was no risk of anyone infected sneaking across the border.

  203. #203 Antaeus Feldspar
    August 31, 2011
    And remember, there is no such think as herd immunity from tetanus.

    That.

    Actually, it may be of interest to those who reject vaccination that even if vaccination did not exist, herd immunity still would, as long as there was some method that sufficiently lowered the chances of individuals contracting disease.

    For instance, a certain individual well-known to regular readers of this blog is famous for claiming (among other things) that vaccination does nothing to protect an individual against disease, but that whatever “superfood” he is promoting at the moment provides a significant protective effect. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that both those claims were true, and eating, oh, I don’t know, dandelion roots provided an individual with 99.7% protection against measles.

    If those premises were true, a sufficient number of people eating dandelion roots would help to protect through herd immunity even those people who didn’t eat dandelion roots. Even in our wholly imaginary scenario where vaccination doesn’t work, herd immunity still does!

    Why? Because herd immunity is a simple mathematical consequence of how contagious diseases spread in a population. Every person who catches a case of wild-type measles is at the end of a long chain of people who transmitted the disease to each other – Alan gave it to Becky, who gave it to Celia, who gave it to Damon, who gave it to Ernest, who gave it to Fiona… If we suddenly make one person in the chain 99.7% resistant to measles, however, there’s a 99.7% chance that we’ve just prevented all the transmissions that would have happened “downstream” from that person (if Celia doesn’t get Becky’s measles, she doesn’t give it to Damon, who doesn’t give it to Ernest, who doesn’t give it to Fiona…) If only a few people along the chain get that protection, no “herd immunity” effect kicks in, because there is too likely to be an alternate chain of transmission that “succeeds” (Celia doesn’t get the measles from Becky, but Damon also sees Celia that day; he catches measles from her, passes them on to Ernest…) But when most possible chains of transmission now depend on people who are actually extremely unlikely to catch the disease or pass it on, that means that even people who cannot themselves use the method that provides protection nevertheless receive protection from others in the population using it.

    So why doesn’t this work with tetanus? Because tetanus is actually not transmissible from person to person; even if dandelion roots were 100% effective at preventing tetanus in a person who ate them, that would not disrupt any chains of transmission. Tetanus is unique, however, among vaccine-preventable diseases (or dandelion-root-preventable, in our imaginary scenario!) in being infectious but not contagious.

  204. #204 Th1Th2
    August 31, 2011

    Science Mom,

    Yup, been eradicated, ceases to be. No longer circulating through bovine populations. How did this happen? Feel free to post evidence that it hasn’t been eradicated. And no, you never make sense.

    Isn’t it funny that in two occasions (smallpox and rinderpest) there was a long period of nonvaccination for a number of years preceding the so-called “eradication”? Coincidence? Not. It’s a fact hence #173.

    So back to your question. No. There was no eradication. You just merely stopped infecting the herd!

  205. #205 Agashem
    August 31, 2011

    Well, great. Thingy can you tell us how long, if we were to follow your lead and stop all vaccinations, would it take for all these diseases to stop infecting people? Let’s just look at measles, since that seems to be one of your favourites. What should we do during the outbreaks that will occur? How can we protect ourselves while the disease is being eradicated????

  206. #206 Narad
    August 31, 2011

    Th1Th2, is there some reason why you continue to ignore the simple question whether you have ever engaged someone, anywhere, who didn’t come to the conclusion that you’re simply full of shit?

  207. #207 herr doktor bimler
    August 31, 2011

    Isn’t it funny that in two occasions (smallpox and rinderpest) there was a long period of nonvaccination for a number of years preceding the so-called “eradication”? Coincidence?

    I’m awarding Th1Th2 points for genuinely witty trolling there, what with “no diagnoses for nine years” (and therefore no vaccinations) being part of the FAO’s criteria before they were certain that rinderpest was gone. In other words, not coincidence, but part of the definition.

  208. #208 Science Mom
    August 31, 2011

    So back to your question. No. There was no eradication. You just merely stopped infecting the herd!

    In light of herr doktor bimler’s addition (who is correct), tell us how rhinderpest was eradicated.

  209. #209 Th1Th2
    August 31, 2011

    Well, great. Thingy can you tell us how long, if we were to follow your lead and stop all vaccinations, would it take for all these diseases to stop infecting people?

    It depends. You did it without smallpox vaccine for nine years prior to eradication.

    Let’s just look at measles, since that seems to be one of your favourites. What should we do during the outbreaks that will occur? How can we protect ourselves while the disease is being eradicated????

    And who’s eradicating the diseases???? The vaccinators? No way Jose!

    Just send the uninfected children home from school. That’s one way. And please keep your vaccinated kids on leash after inoculation please.

  210. #210 Th1Th2
    August 31, 2011

    Sigh. Just in case anyone is wondering, you could not enter the USA during that period without certification that you had been vaccinated against smallpox. Smallpox had been eradicated in Mexico and Canada, so there was no risk of anyone infected sneaking across the border.

    I would assume there are other countries that exist other than Mexico and Canada during that time. Who said that smallpox virus from an infected traveler could not enter the United States? What about the herd immunity your bragging about? Where is your source?

  211. #211 lilady
    August 31, 2011

    “And who’s eradicating the diseases???? The vaccinators?”

    I think Thingy meant to state:

    And the WHO is eradicating the diseases, by vaccinating.

    Why doesn’t Thingy “terminally disinfect” itself?

  212. #212 Gray Falcon
    August 31, 2011

    Th1Th2, are you aware that just you because you have an idea, it may not be true? That you need evidence as well? You’re basically trying to prove wrong something that we’ve seen with our own eyes!

  213. #213 Narad
    August 31, 2011

    Just send the uninfected children home from school. That’s one way.

    Well, there’s a novel proposal. I take it the uninfected children don’t get to go home from school or something?

  214. #214 Narad
    August 31, 2011

    ^ “uninfected,” sorry.

  215. #215 Th1Th2
    August 31, 2011

    I’m awarding Th1Th2 points for genuinely witty trolling there, what with “no diagnoses for nine years” (and therefore no vaccinations) being part of the FAO’s criteria before they were certain that rinderpest was gone. In other words, not coincidence, but part of the definition.

    Of course, that’s part of their job description which is infection promotion. But you got it reversed. The correct way is “Therefore no vaccinations, no diagnoses for nine years”.

  216. #216 Krebiozen
    August 31, 2011

    Who said that smallpox virus from an infected traveler could not enter the United States?

    No one said it couldn’t, just that it was unlikely because of strict vaccination regulations for all people entering the country. Surveillance was set up to isolate any cases, and vaccinate all contacts, just in case an infected traveler did get in. As it happened smallpox was not reintroduced, so the right decision was clearly made.

    In the UK similar regulations did not prevent an outbreak of smallpox in 1962, brought in by immigrants who had certificates of vaccination but nevertheless developed smallpox after getting to England. This outbreak was contained by isolation and vaccination, resulting in only 26 deaths, just as an outbreak in the USA would have been dealt with.

    What about the herd immunity your bragging about?

    Bragging? I didn’t invent it, it’s a natural phenomenon, that is obvious to anyone who spends a few minutes thought on the subject.

    Where is your source?

    You don’t need herd immunity if a disease has been eliminated from a population, and can be prevented from being reintroduced. I explained this to you recently, but for some reason you kept ignoring the important bit about preventing reintroduction. It’s not that difficult to understand. That’s why we don’t need herd immunity to smallpox now, because we can be confident it won’t be reintroduced.

  217. #217 Science Mom
    August 31, 2011

    Of course, that’s part of their job description which is infection promotion. But you got it reversed. The correct way is “Therefore no vaccinations, no diagnoses for nine years”.

    You are claiming that rhinderpest was an anthropogenic event yet pre-dates inoculation or vaccination by thousands of years. How was rhinderpest eradicated?

  218. #218 Th1Th2
    August 31, 2011

    Well, there’s a novel proposal.

    No it’s not. It has been an effective strategy in dealing with communicable diseases like measles during an outbreak. Uninfected children, unless they are convinced and threatened to kiss the vaccinator’s filthy and infected injection butt, are usually sent home and not permitted to join the already infected group (those with natural measles or the vaccinated.) I wonder why.

    I take it the infected children don’t get to go home from school or something?

    Of course, they get to go home after school but they are not excluded from the already infected group.

  219. #219 Th1Th2
    August 31, 2011

    No one said it couldn’t, just that it was unlikely because of strict vaccination regulations for all people entering the country.

    I wonder what Chris would say to you during that time, Oh wait here it is:

    Don’t be complacent because a disease has been absent in your community, because there are airplanes and people move around freely. But the risk is less if you are vaccinated.

    Surveillance was set up to isolate any cases, and vaccinate all contacts, just in case an infected traveler did get in. As it happened smallpox was not reintroduced, so the right decision was clearly made.

    Just imagine smallpox, prior to global eradication, was not reintroduced even in the absence of routine vaccination and on top of that– 0% herd immunity.

    In the UK similar regulations did not prevent an outbreak of smallpox in 1962, brought in by immigrants who had certificates of vaccination but nevertheless developed smallpox after getting to England. This outbreak was contained by isolation and vaccination, resulting in only 26 deaths, just as an outbreak in the USA would have been dealt with.

    Do you think UK was complacent?

    Bragging? I didn’t invent it, it’s a natural phenomenon, that is obvious to anyone who spends a few minutes thought on the subject.

    This is hilarious. I just LOL. So now herd immunity is a natural phenomenon. But the US has been smallpox-free since 1949 so where is that “natural phenomenon” thingy you’re talking about before global eradication? And why are you vaccine nuts always brag about vaccine-induced herd immunity threshold all the time? Is that what you call a “natural phenomenon” too? Holy Jebus, Jener must be a God reincarnate!

    You don’t need herd immunity if a disease has been eliminated from a population, and can be prevented from being reintroduced.

    Will that still holds true today? Say polio. What can you say about the current “herd immunity threshold” for polio? What are the numbers? Say that again.

  220. #220 Science Mom
    August 31, 2011

    Th1Th2, please answer my question.

  221. #221 Making the explanation even simpler
    August 31, 2011

    It’s hard to know just how basic an explanation is required to get through to you, but just this once I’ll try. Smallpox is a disease that only humans get. Therefore, it’s relatively easy to isolate. Once the disease is known to exist only in a few small areas, where outsiders rarely go, and inhabitants rarely leave, you can stop vaccinating the outside world, and concentrate your efforts on the areas were the disease still exists. Your imaginary vaccine-pushers would, of course, never stop vaccinating, but in the real world, it was no longer necessary, and so it was stopped.

  222. #222 Th1Th2
    August 31, 2011

    Science Mom,

    You are claiming that rhinderpest was an anthropogenic event yet pre-dates inoculation or vaccination by thousands of years. How was rhinderpest eradicated

    Well, it’s not yet “eradicated” since it is, like smallpox, still in the hands of infection promoters. They know when to infect and the most opportune time to declare “eradication”.

  223. #223 Science Mom
    August 31, 2011

    Well, it’s not yet “eradicated” since it is, like smallpox, still in the hands of infection promoters. They know when to infect and the most opportune time to declare “eradication”.

    That is not not eradicated but we know that you have alternate nomenclature as it suits what passes for a brain in you. You need to resort to conspiracy theories to explain your assertions, not evidence. Rhinderpest pre-dates vaccination, do you dispute this? Rhinderpest is no longer found in its host/reservoir, i.e. eradicated. How did this come about?

  224. #224 Th1Th2
    August 31, 2011

    Once the disease is known to exist only in a few small areas, where outsiders rarely go, and inhabitants rarely leave, you can stop vaccinating the outside world, and concentrate your efforts on the areas were the disease still exists. Your imaginary vaccine-pushers would, of course, never stop vaccinating, but in the real world, it was no longer necessary, and so it was stopped.

    In the real world, smallpox has been eradicated in the US in 1949 and if I were to follow your logic, routine vaccination should have been stopped right? Why 1972 and not earlier? Hmmm I smell fish.

  225. #225 Th1Th2
    August 31, 2011

    Science Mom,

    Rhinderpest pre-dates vaccination, do you dispute this? Rhinderpest is no longer found in its host/reservoir, i.e. eradicated. How did this come about?

    Just like natural infection pre-dates all vaccines. Rinderpest is no longer found in the host because infection promoters have stopped inoculating and infecting the host.

    Of course, there are also infection promoters who go “natural”. MDC for example.

  226. #226 Derek
    August 31, 2011

    I hardly know how to contain my disgust for the anti-vaxers (however they may describe themselves).
    As a child, I was vaccinated against the diseases for which vaccination existed (other than smallpox, etc., which were “travel vaccines”, since the diseases did not exist in my country – I was vaccinated against smallpox when I did travel).
    My daughter, born in the US received every appropriate vaccination (plus a bunch of “travel vaccinations” when she *and I* left the US for countries with epidemic vaccine-preventable diseases).
    Now I’m getting vaccinations that didn’t exist when I was a child (shingles vaccine – I don’t need post-herpetic neuralgia again; flu vaccine – I don’t want to get sick because of dead ducks in China/Vietnam/wherever; etc.), and I’m delighted to do so; plus I may die of these preventable diseases if I don’t do so.
    Hang in there Orac and your colleagues!!!!!!

  227. #227 Chris
    August 31, 2011

    Even though Thingy is delusional, unlike Little Augie and Medicien Man/Dr. Smart/IM Stupid she is fairly intelligent. She will be manipulative, redefine vocabulary and lie to avoid answering the question. Watch her bob and weave in total avoidance.

    Remember she lives on Htrae. Every day is “opposite day” for her.

  228. #228 lilady
    August 31, 2011

    @ Chris: Just remember what Harriet Hall said about trying to get Thingy to answer a question…”Like trying to nail jello to the wall”.

    And, I’m still not convinced that Thingy is not “linked with”, “morphs into” or “channels” the Ignorant Filthy-Mouthed Troll.

    We have had fun with Thingy…now let’s just ignore it.

    Derek, we look forward to more of your comments.

  229. #229 Th1Th2
    September 1, 2011

    This is getting crazy. Dumb people just keep on inventing definitions of herd immunity. Too many versions not to mention tons of contradictions. First, Orac failed to define it and misconstrued it as herd protection. But what kind of protection and how is it achieved? Obviously Chris according to her own definition, herd immunity is achieved (although she’s not too confident to say it directly) by vaccination. But wait, didn’t Krebiozen say herd immunity is a “natural phenomenon”? And there’s another goofy by the name of Antaeus who claimed “herd immunity is not tied to vaccination” but he brags about vaccine compliance. Geez who else has their own definition?

    Listen up please. You guys are trying so hard to define a myth. Relax. It’s just an imagination.

  230. #230 novalox
    September 1, 2011

    Ignore delusional troll

  231. #231 Science Mom
    September 1, 2011

    Just like natural infection pre-dates all vaccines. Rinderpest is no longer found in the host because infection promoters have stopped inoculating and infecting the host.

    Completely contradictory. How did “stopping inoculating” eradicate rhinderpest?

  232. #232 Krebiozen
    September 1, 2011

    So now herd immunity is a natural phenomenon. But the US has been smallpox-free since 1949 so where is that “natural phenomenon” thingy you’re talking about before global eradication? And why are you vaccine nuts always brag about vaccine-induced herd immunity threshold all the time? Is that what you call a “natural phenomenon” too?

    I don’t believe anyone can be as dumb as Th1Th2 is pretending to be. Is this some weird attempt to get attention?

    Of course herd immunity is a natural phenomenon. It occurred long before vaccination, when enough people in a population have had a contagious disease and are immune, the incidence of the disease falls. Once the proportion of immune people in the population falls far enough below the herd immunity threshold there will be an epidemic. That’s why before vaccination there were constant cycles of epidemics, of smallpox as well as other diseases.

    Vaccination is a way of utilizing the natural phenomenon of herd immunity without everyone having to go through the dangerous and unpleasant process of infection with the wild disease.

    Your insistence that anyone has claimed that herd immunity is the only way to control a contagious disease is a huge strawman, as I’m sure you are aware. We could easily avoid all infections living in plastic bubbles, and only breathing filtered air, as I assume you do. Luckily we have safe, effective vaccines, so we don’t have to.

  233. #233 Th1Th2
    September 1, 2011

    Krebiozen,

    Of course herd immunity is a natural phenomenon. It occurred long before vaccination, when enough people in a population have had a contagious disease and are immune, the incidence of the disease falls.

    Now that’s utter BS. Following your definition and according to vaccine nuts, what occurred in the pre-vaccine era is the massive mortality rate arising from this “natural phenomenon” that you call herd immunity. Am I right? What is “enough people in a population”? What is the herd immunity for smallpox before the vaccine? Goodluck finding it.

    Once the proportion of immune people in the population falls far enough below the herd immunity threshold there will be an epidemic. That’s why before vaccination there were constant cycles of epidemics, of smallpox as well as other diseases.

    Your insistence that anyone has claimed that herd immunity is the only way to control a contagious disease is a huge strawman, as I’m sure you are aware.

    No you’re not really controlling infectious diseases either by promoting natural infection or vaccination because that’s ridic there is no herd immunity. It’s a myth and it does not exist

    But according to your definition of herd immunity that is going to be a good thing because “when enough people in a population have had a contagious disease and are immune, the incidence of the disease falls.” Ergo, epidemics are good and it shows that you are supportive of it.

    Vaccination is a way of utilizing the natural phenomenon of herd immunity without everyone having to go through the dangerous and unpleasant process of infection with the wild disease.

    But vaccination is a way to prevent a “natural phenomenon” a contradiction to your your definition of herd immunity. For example, the herd immunity threshold for smallpox is 83-85%. Where did this number come from when you’re not vaccinating the herd from 1971 and the last smallpox case was in 1949? How about measles. Should you be glad when vaccine rates fall and an epidemic occurs because it will not contradict your definition of herd immunity let alone will result to long lasting immunity?

  234. #234 Th1Th2
    September 1, 2011

    Krebiozen,

    Of course herd immunity is a natural phenomenon. It occurred long before vaccination, when enough people in a population have had a contagious disease and are immune, the incidence of the disease falls.

    Now that’s utter BS. Following your definition and according to vaccine nuts, what occurred in the pre-vaccine era is the massive mortality rate arising from this “natural phenomenon” that you call herd immunity. Am I right? What is “enough people in a population”? What is the herd immunity for smallpox before the vaccine? Goodluck finding it.

    Once the proportion of immune people in the population falls far enough below the herd immunity threshold there will be an epidemic. That’s why before vaccination there were constant cycles of epidemics, of smallpox as well as other diseases.

    But according to your definition of herd immunity that is going to be a good thing because “when enough people in a population have had a contagious disease and are immune, the incidence of the disease falls.” Ergo, epidemics are good and it shows that you are supportive of it.

    Vaccination is a way of utilizing the natural phenomenon of herd immunity without everyone having to go through the dangerous and unpleasant process of infection with the wild disease.

    But vaccination is a way to prevent a “natural phenomenon” a contradiction to your your definition of herd immunity. For example, the herd immunity threshold for smallpox is 83-85%. Where did this number come from when you’re not vaccinating the herd from 1971 and the last smallpox case was in 1949? How about measles. Should you be glad when vaccine rates fall and an epidemic occurs because it will not contradict your definition of herd immunity let alone will result to long lasting immunity?

    Your insistence that anyone has claimed that herd immunity is the only way to control a contagious disease is a huge strawman, as I’m sure you are aware.

    No you’re not really controlling infectious diseases either by promoting natural infection or vaccination because that’s ridiculous.There is no herd immunity. It’s a myth and it does not exist. You’re apparent obfuscation in finding the definition is a red flag.

  235. #235 Th1Th2
    September 1, 2011

    Science Mom,

    Completely contradictory. How did “stopping inoculating” eradicate rhinderpest?

    And how is that contradictory? There are only two sources of infectious rinderpest; one coming from natural infection (wild-type)and the other from the vaccine.

  236. #236 Gray Falcon
    September 1, 2011

    So what happened to wild rhinderpest? Why is it no longer around?

  237. #237 Krebiozen
    September 1, 2011

    Th1Th2,
    You poor thing, you’re still struggling with this aren’t you? Let me put this very simply:

    Herd immunity through repeated cycles of epidemics = lots of sickness, disability, disfigurement or death = bad

    Herd immunity through vaccination = hardly any (or in some cases zero) sickness, disability, disfigurement or death = good

    Where did I say that cycles of epidemics and periods of herd immunity (among the damaged and disfigured survivors) was a good thing? Only an idiot would interpret what I wrote that way. Oh…

    What is “enough people in a population”?

    Diphtheria 85% Measles 83 – 94% Mumps 75 – 86%
    Pertussis 92 – 94% Polio 80 – 86% Rubella 80 – 85% Smallpox 83 – 85%

    But vaccination is a way to prevent a “natural phenomenon” a contradiction to your your definition of herd immunity.

    No, it’s a way to exploit a natural phenomenon. If enough people in a population are immune to a disease by whatever means (natural immunity or immunity through vaccination), the disease cannot spread. If I have an infection but everyone I come into contact with is already immune, I don’t pass it on. If everyone I come into contact with is not immune, then they will catch it, and spread it to others. It really is that simple!

    For example, the herd immunity threshold for smallpox is 83-85%. Where did this number come from when you’re not vaccinating the herd from 1971 and the last smallpox case was in 1949?

    Why do you have such trouble understanding this? It was public health policy to vaccinate against smallpox between 1949 and 1971 because rightly or wrongly the risks of an outbreak of smallpox were considered to exceed the risks of routine vaccination. Once smallpox had been largely eliminated in the rest of the world and was mostly confined to remote villages in India and Africa the risks of vaccination were, rightly we know with hindsight, considered to exceed the risks of an outbreak of smallpox, so routine vaccination was stopped. Smallpox was eliminated in the US, the chances of it being reintroduced were minimal, so herd immunity was no longer considered necessary.

    Ergo, epidemics are good and it shows that you are supportive of it.

    Maybe you need some lessons in English comprehension and in basic logic if you really think that.

    There is no herd immunity. It’s a myth and it does not exist. You’re apparent obfuscation in finding the definition is a red flag.

    And the moon is made of cheese, the sky is green, and the whole science of epidemiology and mathematical modeling of contagious diseases are based on a huge misunderstanding that only you are smart enough to see through. Of course they are.

  238. #238 Science Mom
    September 1, 2011

    And how is that contradictory? There are only two sources of infectious rinderpest; one coming from natural infection (wild-type)and the other from the vaccine.

    Your claim that rhinderpest was eradicated due to the cessation of vaccination is contradictory to your previous statements and also patently false. I won’t even bother addressing your assertion that vaccination is an alternate infection source because of your speshul definitions. So how did wild-type rhinderpest become eradicated?

  239. #239 Th1Th2
    September 1, 2011

    And here’s another definition of herd immunity from the infamous SBM entitled “You Can’t Ride in the Herd”

    Herd immunity is a fascinating effect, and one of the mainstays of a public vaccination effort. The idea is that if enough people in the community are immune to a particular disease, then those who are susceptible will rarely come into contact with a person who is contagious, and the disease will be unable (or find it difficult) to spread. This results in a greatly reduced risk of infection for the entire population regardless of their individual immunity.

    But then Krebiozen said herd immunity is a natural phenomena and “when enough people in a population have had a contagious disease and are immune, the incidence of the disease falls.” But the goofy who wrote this article doesn’t want a “natural phenomenon” thingy to happen instead he wants to reduce contagiosity thus infection thru vaccination. Now if infection falls, the incidence of the disease falls right? Not quite at least according to Krebiozen.

    Now what will happen if people don’t vaccinate? Will this support Krebiozen’s “natural phenomenon” or contradicts the author’s own definition?

    BTW, who belongs to the herd? I want Science Mom to define it. I know she has her own definition as well.

  240. #240 novalox
    September 1, 2011

    Ignore willfully delusional troll

  241. #241 Th1Th2
    September 1, 2011

    Krebiozen,

    Where did I say that cycles of epidemics and periods of herd immunity (among the damaged and disfigured survivors) was a good thing? Only an idiot would interpret what I wrote that way.

    Now fess up. You said herd immunity is a natural phenomenon and it occurred long before vaccination, right? And what has occurred before vaccination, epidemics right? Do you disavow this? And what will happen “when enough people in a population have had a contagious disease and are immune”? You said “the incidence of the disease falls.” Is this good or bad?

    Diphtheria 85% Measles 83 – 94% Mumps 75 – 86% Pertussis 92 – 94% Polio 80 – 86% Rubella 80 – 85% Smallpox 83 – 85%

    What do these numbers tell you about? Are these numbers the result of a “natural phenomenon” or from the vaccine? Where is your source and how did the herd acquire an immunity of 83-85% from smallpox from 1971 onwards?

    Why do you have such trouble understanding this? It was public health policy to vaccinate against smallpox between 1949 and 1971 because rightly or wrongly the risks of an outbreak of smallpox were considered to exceed the risks of routine vaccination.

    Yo don’t understand it, do you? There had been no smallpox outbreak in the US since 1949! Where’s the risk? Someone commented this:

    Once the disease is known to exist only in a few small areas, where outsiders rarely go, and inhabitants rarely leave, you can stop vaccinating the outside world, and concentrate your efforts on the areas were the disease still exists.

    And when you abandoned routine vaccination in 1971, why not also say “the risks of an outbreak of smallpox were considered to exceed the risks of routine vaccination,” especially when smallpox is still prevalent and has not yet eradicated during that long period of nonvaccination.

    Double standard and double the contradiction. I see.

    No, it’s a way to exploit a natural phenomenon.

    But you said, you didn’t invent herd immunity. I see is it because herd immunity is a “natural phenomenon”? Then where did you get the idea of “Herd immunity through vaccination”?
    Of course, you invented the idea.

    Maybe you need some lessons in English comprehension and in basic logic if you really think that.

    Holy Jenner! You said incidence of diseases falls because there’s enough people who got contagious diseases and thus getting immuned. And this occurred before vaccination. And what happens when you vaccinate? I know. You will only contradict yourself.

  242. #242 Narad
    September 1, 2011

    Ignore willfully delusional troll

    Take your own advice.

  243. #243 Th1Th2
    September 1, 2011

    Science Mom,

    Your claim that rhinderpest was eradicated due to the cessation of vaccination is contradictory to your previous statements and also patently false. I won’t even bother addressing your assertion that vaccination is an alternate infection source because of your speshul definitions. So how did wild-type rhinderpest become eradicated?

    Now you’re just repeating the same crap all over. Re-read #204. At least one commenter got it. You know what? You’re just like any other vaccine apologists here in RI. You’re in a vicious cycle of being an infection promoter and a germ-denialist at the same time and round and round you go.

  244. #244 Gray Falcon
    September 1, 2011

    Then why did rhinderpest and smallpox exist before vaccination?

  245. #245 Th1Th2
    September 1, 2011

    Then why did rhinderpest and smallpox exist before vaccination?

    That’s #225 for you.

    In return, why did VDPV exist?

  246. #246 Gray Falcon
    September 1, 2011

    So basically, you are conceding that vaccination did eliminate rhinderpest, is that right?

  247. #247 Narad
    September 1, 2011

    You’re in a vicious cycle of being an infection promoter and a germ-denialist at the same time and round and round you go.

    Oh, the irony. Th1Th2, while you are, I am sure, composing a measured response regarding how many people you have converted to your insightful way of thinking, I seem to recall previously wondering aloud what the practical downside to being, in your view, an “infection promoter and a germ-denialist” is aside from being called “an infection promoter and a germ-denialist” by, you know, you. So if you could add that to this list, it might be helpful.

  248. #248 Science Mom
    September 1, 2011

    BTW, who belongs to the herd? I want Science Mom to define it. I know she has her own definition as well.

    Krebiozen provided the rationale and basis for herd immunity so I won’t be distracted with that knowing your alternate reality. I just want an answer to my very straight-forward question. How was rhinderpest eradicated?

  249. #249 Th1Th2
    September 1, 2011

    So basically, you are conceding that vaccination did eliminate rhinderpest, is that right?

    Here’s what you can call basic. Re-read #204.

  250. #250 Gray Falcon
    September 1, 2011

    Let’s start with the basics. Tell me, Th1Th2, can diseases be caused by something other than vaccines?

  251. #251 Chris
    September 1, 2011

    The last case of smallpox was in 1977. My last smallpox vaccination was in 1974. There is more to this planet than the USA and UK. I was not living in either of those countries in 1974.

    Amazing how trolls define their world to be just their country. No comprehension of anything outside of it. Even when they are not delusional and living on Htrae.

  252. #252 Th1Th2
    September 1, 2011

    Gray,

    Let’s start with the basics. Tell me, Th1Th2, can diseases be caused by something other than vaccines?

    Order up #235.

  253. #253 Gray Falcon
    September 1, 2011

    So I’m assuming your answer is yes. If that’s the case, why would eliminating the vaccine eliminate the disease entirely? Wouldn’t it still be able to spread naturally?

  254. #254 Science Mom
    September 1, 2011

    Comment #204:

    Isn’t it funny that in two occasions (smallpox and rinderpest) there was a long period of nonvaccination for a number of years preceding the so-called “eradication”? Coincidence? Not. It’s a fact hence #173.

    So back to your question. No. There was no eradication. You just merely stopped infecting the herd!

    That’s not an answer, just more hand-waving. It doesn’t take into account, rhinderpest existed prior to vaccination. You also don’t provide any evidence that it is still circulating. Please do so.

  255. #255 Chris
    September 1, 2011

    Rinderpeste Through the Years:

    Rinderpest is the most fatal disease affecting cattle. … The first great epizootic of which there seems to be records occurred about 1709 and spread over nearly all of the countries of Europe. It is reported that 1,500,000 cattle died from its effects during the years from 1711 to 1714.

    (quote from The Pathology and Differential Diagnosis of Contagious Diseases of Animals. Veranus Alva Moore. Taylor and Carpenter. Ithaca, N.Y. 1902)

  256. #256 Th1Th2
    September 1, 2011

    Science Mom,

    Krebiozen provided the rationale and basis for herd immunity so I won’t be distracted with that knowing your alternate reality.

    But your alternate version is this:

    You have undoubtedly read about herd immunity and how important it is to reduce or eliminate transmission of vaccine-preventable diseases.

    Are you trying in any way to diminish Krebiozen’s credibility that there must be “enough people in a population to have a contagious disease and are immune,” so “the incidence of the disease falls.”?

    I just want an answer to my very straight-forward question. How was rhinderpest eradicated?

    So you think rinderpest was only eradicated recently and was never before prior to vaccines? Well, think again.

    Don’t argue from ignorance. You’ll be severely humiliated.

  257. #257 Gray Falcon
    September 1, 2011

    Really, do you have any evidence that rhinderpest was eliminated before vaccines, and details of how this happened? Or are you just trying to avoid inconvenient facts?

  258. #258 Th1Th2
    September 1, 2011

    Gray,

    So I’m assuming your answer is yes.

    True.

    If that’s the case, why would eliminating the vaccine eliminate the disease entirely?

    Because the other source of infectious rinderpest from the vaccine will be eliminated. One down, one to go. But the last case of rinderpest occurred years before the vaccine was stopped. What gives?

    Wouldn’t it still be able to spread naturally?

    No not naturally, but vaccine-induced rinderpest hence it has to be stopped when the only remaining source of infectious rinderpest is the vaccine.

  259. #259 Science Mom
    September 1, 2011

    Don’t argue from ignorance. You’ll be severely humiliated.

    You should know, it’s what you have been doing all along. Thank you for demonstrating, once again, your profound lunacy.

  260. #260 Gray Falcon
    September 1, 2011

    You still haven’t answered the key question: What happened to wild rhinderpest? Why is it now extinct? Did it just suddenly decide to die off?

  261. #261 Th1Th2
    September 1, 2011

    Gray,

    Really, do you have any evidence that rhinderpest was eliminated before vaccines, and details of how this happened? Or are you just trying to avoid inconvenient facts?

    GLOBAL ERADICATION OF RINDERPEST

    CHAPTER SEVEN

    RINDERPEST ERADICATION STRATEGIES

    The principles of rinderpest eradication were formulated in 1713 when Dr. Giovanni Lancisi recommended to the College of Cardinals in Rome specific measures for the suppression of the cattle plague then ravaging the herds of Romagna. The one measure not available to Lancisi was vaccination. Nevertheless, the application of the recommended measures eradicated the disease within months whereas it raged elsewhere in Europe for decades. The key to success was the prohibition of all trade in cattle and animal products.

    So how do you want the crow served now?

  262. #262 Th1Th2
    September 1, 2011

    This blog should be closed to protect the naive from these infection promoters.

    This thread is DONE.

  263. #263 Gray Falcon
    September 1, 2011

    Where did you get that information? Do you have any evidence large-scale embargoes of cattle and animal products were responsible for the total elimination of the disease. Eighteenth century Rome was only a small part of the world.

  264. #264 Gray Falcon
    September 1, 2011

    I asked how it was eliminated. Do you have any evidence that it was eliminated worldwide without the use of vaccines? Because that only covered a single city.

  265. #265 Yojimbo
    September 1, 2011

    Does Thingy remind anyone else of the Black Knight in “Holy Grail”?

  266. #266 herr doktor bimler
    September 1, 2011

    I admit, I’m a little puzzled as to why the agronomists of the FAO became part of this medical plan to spread disease through vaccination (indeed, spreading it so effectively that it no longer exists!). The conspiracy reaches further than I thought!

  267. #267 Narad
    September 1, 2011

    This blog should be closed to protect the naive from these infection promoters.

    This thread is DONE.

    You know, if you’re just going to declare victory and run away when pressed, you could always declare victory and not show up in the first place.

  268. #268 Anton P. Nym
    September 1, 2011

    @Krebiozen (#232 as of this post)

    I don’t believe anyone can be as dumb as Th1Th2 is pretending to be. Is this some weird attempt to get attention?

    There is no bottom in the Well of Stupid.

    That being said, though, I disagree with the characterisation of Th1Th2 as “stupid”. Deeply deluded and highly invested in defending said delusion, perhaps, but I wouldn’t be surprised if s/he had a reasonably-high IQ.

    (Which is not to say that Th1Th2 is making any great discovery or even much sense on the issue. IQ primarily measures one’s ability to see patterns; it doesn’t, so far as I know though if I’m wrong please correct me, measure the ability to distinguish which patterns are meaningful and which are not. MENSA has interest groups on palmistry, astronomy, crystal auras, and all sorts of woo… one reason I declined to join.)

    — Steve

  269. #269 Anton P. Nym
    September 1, 2011

    (Argh… post above sent in error, sorry, and contained an error. Please discard and consider the one below.)

    @Krebiozen (#232 as of this post)

    I don’t believe anyone can be as dumb as Th1Th2 is pretending to be. Is this some weird attempt to get attention?

    There is no bottom in the Well of Stupid.

    That being said, though, I disagree with the characterisation of Th1Th2 as “stupid”. Deeply deluded and highly invested in defending said delusion, perhaps, but I wouldn’t be surprised if s/he had a reasonably-high IQ.

    (Which is not to say that Th1Th2 is making any great discovery or even much sense on the issue. IQ primarily measures one’s ability to see patterns; it doesn’t, so far as I know though if I’m wrong please correct me, measure the ability to distinguish which patterns are meaningful and which are not. MENSA has interest groups on palmistry, astrology, crystal auras, and all sorts of woo… one reason I declined to join.)

    — Steve

  270. #270 Gray Falcon
    September 1, 2011

    I have to confess, I’m mostly just fascinated by Th1Th2′s weird grasp of logic. If she really did work in healthcare, and somebody came to her with a gaping knife wound in their shoulder and a papercut on their finger, would should just put a Band-aid on that person’s finger and declare her job finished? After all, she stopped one source of bleeding, so that should be sufficient to stop all of them, right?

  271. #271 Krebiozen
    September 1, 2011

    I know, I know, I shouldn’t encourage her, but I’m honestly curious about how someone comes to believe something so bizarre, so I’ll continue this for the moment, though I suspect I won’t learn much.

    Now fess up. You said herd immunity is a natural phenomenon and it occurred long before vaccination, right?

    Right.

    And what has occurred before vaccination, epidemics right?

    Right.

    Do you disavow this?

    No.

    And what will happen “when enough people in a population have had a contagious disease and are immune”?

    When the percentage of people who have survived the latest epidemic and are immune to the disease (though possibly permanently disabled and disfigured) exceeds the herd immunity level, the number of new cases of the disease will fall as a consequence.

    You said “the incidence of the disease falls.”

    That’s right, for a few years until the next epidemic, when enough children have been born to bring the percentage of immune people back down to below the herd immunity threshold. That’s why we have to vaccinate children, to prevent this from happening.

    Is this good or bad?

    It’s only good for the few remaining non-immune people who have avoided infection until the next epidemic, but bad for the vast majority of people who had to suffer the disease and its (sometimes permanent) consequences. What’s your point?

    What do these numbers tell you about?

    They tell you how many people need to be immune to each disease to prevent the disease from spreading exponentially through the whole population. There’s a mathematical equation you can use to calculate this based on how contagious each disease is and how it is spread.

    Are these numbers the result of a “natural phenomenon” or from the vaccine?

    The numbers depend on how contagious the disease is, the more contagious the higher the percentage of people who have to be immune to prevent the disease from spreading. It doesn’t matter what the source of the immunity is. If enough people wore airtight suits with air filters, that would work too, though that’s a little impractical. If more than 94% of people wore airtight suits and breathed filtered air, the remaining 6% of the population would not need to be vaccinated against measles, as long as they weren’t clustered in schools run by some weird anti-airtight suit cult.

    Where is your source and how did the herd acquire an immunity of 83-85% from smallpox from 1971 onwards?

    The source of herd immunity to smallpox in the USA from 1971 onwards? There was no herd immunity to smallpox in the USA from 1971 onwards. There still isn’t herd immunity to smallpox. You only need herd immunity when a disease is endemic or there is a risk of the disease being reintroduced to the population.

    Yo don’t understand it, do you?

    Maybe you aren’t explaining yourself very well, as it seems perfectly clear to me. Anyone still bothering to read this who understands Th1Th2 but doesn’t understand me? Looks like you’re on your own Th1Th2.

    There had been no smallpox outbreak in the US since 1949! Where’s the risk?

    I’m sure we’ve been through this before. I don’t think repeating myself yet again is going to help.

    And when you abandoned routine vaccination in 1971, why not also say “the risks of an outbreak of smallpox were considered to exceed the risks of routine vaccination,” especially when smallpox is still prevalent and has not yet eradicated during that long period of nonvaccination.

    You display the same inability to understand relative risk, and the same propensity for black and white thinking as other trolls. The risk of smallpox being reintroduced to the USA in 1949 was considerably higher than it was in 1971.

    But you said, you didn’t invent herd immunity. I see is it because herd immunity is a “natural phenomenon”?

    I do believe you’re beginning to get it. It’s a natural consequence of a large proportion of a population having immunity from any source.

    Then where did you get the idea of “Herd immunity through vaccination”?
    Of course, you invented the idea.

    Herd immunity through natural immunity, herd immunity through vaccination, herd immunity through wearing an airtight suit, it’s all herd immunity.

    You said incidence of diseases falls because there’s enough people who got contagious diseases and thus getting immuned. And this occurred before vaccination. And what happens when you vaccinate? I know. You will only contradict yourself.

    You really can’t see that immunity can result from either natural infection, which carries higher risk of morbidity and mortality, or from vaccination, which has a much lower risk, and that herd immunity can result from either or from a combination of the two? Are you so rigid in your thinking that you believe that only one thing can cause herd immunity, and that only one thing can prevent the spread of a disease?

  272. #272 Dedj
    September 1, 2011

    “Anyone still bothering to read this who understands Th1Th2 but doesn’t understand me? Looks like you’re on your own Th1Th2.”

    No, Th1Th2 is pretty much all alone in having trouble understanding all of this.

    “but I wouldn’t be surprised if s/he had a reasonably-high IQ.”

    I wouldn’t be surprised if he/she does have a high IQ and internally justifies his/her knowledge, idiosyncratic misuse and baseless redefinition of simple common terms, and lack of proper work on this subject with his/her high IQ.

  273. #273 herr doktor bimler
    September 1, 2011

    Haunted by memories

    I hear there’s a homeopathic remedy for that.

  274. #274 Th1Th2
    September 1, 2011

    Krebiozen,

    That’s right, for a few years until the next epidemic, when enough children have been born to bring the percentage of immune people back down to below the herd immunity threshold. That’s why we have to vaccinate children, to prevent this from happening.

    But according to you, herd immunity is already established because people are getting diseased but immuned and this occurred long before vaccination. So now why are you preventing something of a “natural phenomenon” that’s causing “incidence of diseases to fall”?

    It’s only good for the few remaining non-immune people who have avoided infection until the next epidemic, but bad for the vast majority of people who had to suffer the disease and its (sometimes permanent) consequences. What’s your point?

    Following your definition, how could there be a “vast majority of contagious people” when herd immunity is applied, “incidence of diseases fall”? 

    They tell you how many people need to be immune to each disease to prevent the disease from spreading exponentially through the whole population. There’s a mathematical equation you can use to calculate this based on how contagious each disease is and how it is spread.

    But again based on your definition, in order that “incidence of diseases to fall”, you must allow people “to have contagious diseases so that they’ll be immuned”. Why are you contradicting yourself now?

    The numbers depend on how contagious the disease is, the more contagious the higher the percentage of people who have to be immune to prevent the disease from spreading. It doesn’t matter what the source of the immunity is.

    Now here’s what I think is the unscientific thus the mythological aspect of every vaccinators attempt to define herd immunity. So it doesn’t matter what the source is but hey they have sacred numbers in their Bible that they have to keep up otherwise if it falls below the threshold they are going to blame those who are also promoting the other source of immunity and the non-participants as well.   Nuts. Incidentally, that sacred number is a direct reflection of vaccine compliance!

     

    If enough people wore airtight suits with air filters, that would work too, though that’s a little impractical. If more than 94% of people wore airtight suits and breathed filtered air, the remaining 6% of the population would not need to be vaccinated against measles, as long as they weren’t clustered in schools run by some weird anti-airtight suit cult.

    Just as I thought and why their fall is imminent. I’ll explain later. Airtight suits? Are you serious?

    I do believe you’re beginning to get it. It’s a natural consequence of a large proportion of a population having immunity from any source.

    The why don’t you list down the source.

    The source of herd immunity to smallpox in the USA from 1971 onwards? There was no herd immunity to smallpox in the USA from 1971 onwards. There still isn’t herd immunity to smallpox. You only need herd immunity when a disease is endemic or there is a risk of the disease being reintroduced to the population.

    Smallpox has not been eradicated on your planet in 1971,  why did you abandon routine vaccination when the risk was still present during that time? On the contrary, when smallpox was eradicated in 1949 and when it’s no longer endemic in the US, why keep vaccinating? 

     Since there was no herd immunity from 1971, do you admit now that vaccine did not eradicate smallpox? 

    The risk of smallpox being reintroduced to the USA in 1949 was considerably higher than it was in 1971.

    How could it? There are more airplanes and travelers in 1971 than in 1949 as Chris has said. And besides, there’s not a single case of smallpox in the US  in between these periods. Therefore people back in 1949 were not complacent. Also remember, there was an epidemic that occurred in 1947- only two years before eradication was declared. It was so good I can smell fish  especially when surveillance and containment have not been adopted yet during that time.

    Herd immunity through natural immunity, herd immunity through vaccination, herd immunity through wearing an airtight suit, it’s all herd immunity.

    Now here’s the dagger. Where in Grimm’s fairy tale did you read that airtight suit is a type of herd immunity? Of course, you cannot dispute the fact that herd immunity did not eradicate smallpox because you have admitted that it did not exist in 1971 thru 1980.

    that immunity can result from either natural infection, which carries higher risk of morbidity and mortality, or from vaccination, which has a much lower risk, and that herd immunity can result from either or from a combination of the two? Are you so rigid in your thinking that you believe that only one thing can cause herd immunity, and that only one thing can prevent the spread of a disease?

    One thing is for sure, vaccination prevents the spread of your definition of herd immunity. 

  275. #275 Dedj
    September 1, 2011

    “But according to you, herd immunity is already established because people are getting diseased but immuned and this occurred long before vaccination.”

    This isn’t what was said at all. What was said was that herd immunity arises out of several factors, or which one can be widespread acquired natural immunity.

    “So now why are you preventing something of a “natural phenomenon” that’s causing “incidence of diseases to fall”?”

    Relative risk vs benefit.

    “Following your definition, how could there be a “vast majority of contagious people” when herd immunity is applied, “incidence of diseases fall”?”

    Krebiozen has already answered this by pointing out that new members are introduced to the population all the time.

    “But again based on your definition, in order that “incidence of diseases to fall”, you must allow people “to have contagious diseases so that they’ll be immuned”. Why are you contradicting yourself now?”

    He/she isn’t. You’re doing exactly what he/she said you do – you are misunderstanding a multi-factoral process and trying to apply a monofactoral cause.

    I would suggest that your concerted attempts at distorting the discussion is due to some form of bias or lack of willingness to admit to, or even recognise, any form of error.

    I feel pity for the people that have to put up with you in meatspace if your behaviour here is typical for you.

    “Airtight suits? Are you serious?”

    No, it appears to be used as an anology or homolog for the susceptibility part of herd immunity. That you can’t seem to grasp illustrative use of language does not bode well for the estimation of your abstract thinking.

    “The why don’t you list down the source.”

    He/she already has. Natural immunity, vaccine induced immunity.

    “Where in Grimm’s fairy tale did you read that airtight suit is a type of herd immunity?”

    Reduction in susceptibility is part of herd immunity. The immune part of herd immunity refers to the resistance of diseases moving through the ‘herd’, as well as individual immunity.

    One would have thought you would at least know what the definition is before criticising the concept……

    “One thing is for sure, vaccination prevents the spread of your definition of herd immunity.”

    False, to the utter and complete degree. Her/his definition is entirely compatible with vaccination. Immunity acquired from vaccines is immunity. Sufficient individual immunity contributes to herd immunity.

    I’ll repeat – no-one here is struggling with this like you clearly are. You really are so utterly confused that you are badly misunderstanding simple explanations, missing out on simple and clear points, and are generally demonstrating severe difficulty in understanding how/why population and disease changes interact with herd immunity.

  276. #276 Narad
    September 1, 2011

    Ich rieche Fisch. Yah, I think this one can be called.

  277. #277 Krebiozen
    September 1, 2011

    Th1Th2,
    Nothing you wrote in your last comment makes any sense to me at all. At least you haven’t started babbling nonsense about squirrels this time.

  278. #278 Chris
    September 1, 2011

    Does Thingy have a point?

    I, an American, got my last smallpox vaccine in 1974. I was not in the USA, but my actions prevented any transmission of smallpox when I returned the next year. I was prevented from giving blood for three years to prevent spreading malaria (which I did not have, but apparently it sleeps in the liver for about that amount of time). Though that frame of thought might be too much for Thingy’s simplistic delusional view of reality.

    Thingy, completely missed my point. Plus there was plenty of international travel in 1949.

  279. #279 Dedj
    September 1, 2011

    “”Following your definition, how could there be a “vast majority of contagious people” when herd immunity is applied, “incidence of diseases fall”?”

    Krebiozen has already answered this by pointing out that new members are introduced to the population all the time.”

    Just to add that it appears that Krebiozen didn’t say anything approaching “vast majority of contagious people” at all. This would imply that those people had the disease and were infectious.

    Krebiozens point appears to be that a fall in the incidence of disease is only beneficial to the people that avoided the disease and not to the people that had to suffer it.

    No wonder Thingie is having such a hard time if she/he is hallucinating entire sentences that no one else can see.

  280. #280 lilady
    September 1, 2011

    He/she/it “may” have a high IQ, but is a total failure as a person. It derives please from being contrary, lives a delusional life and has zero, nada, nil, zilch education in the health care science, disease processes, medical epidemiology and immunology. Stick a fork in Thingy it is overdone…he/she/it needs “terminal disinfecting”.

  281. #282 Th1Th2
    September 1, 2011

    Dedj,

    This isn’t what was said at all. What was said was that herd immunity arises out of several factors, or which one can be widespread acquired natural immunity.

    Here’s what he said loud and clear, “Of course herd immunity is a natural phenomenon. It occurred long before vaccination, when enough people in a population have had a contagious disease and are immune, the incidence of the disease falls.”

    Relative risk vs benefit.

    If you’re going to apply Krebiozen’s definition, the benefit of allowing a “natural phenomenon” outweighs the risk because the “incidence of diseases will fall”.

    Krebiozen has already answered this by pointing out that new members are introduced to the population all the time.

    And all the time, these new members are also getting diseased and immuned too yet “the incidence of the disease falls”. That’s his definition. He also said of “enough people”. What is that supposed to mean? If the herd immunity threshold for measles is 94%, does he mean “enough people” are diseased or a “vast majority” are diseased?

    He/she isn’t. You’re doing exactly what he/she said you do – you are misunderstanding a multi-factoral process and trying to apply a monofactoral cause.

    What multi-factoral process? There are only two and he’s referring to a “natural phenomenon” and the other one prevents the former. That’s clearly a contradiction of his definition of herd immunity.

    I would suggest that your concerted attempts at distorting the discussion is due to some form of bias or lack of willingness to admit to, or even recognise, any form of error.

    I smell fish that’s why I’m trying to find out the culprit of this superstitious belief.

    I feel pity for the people that have to put up with you in meatspace if your behaviour here is typical for you.

    Pity them for their manipulative and deceitful behaviour will not work on me.

    No, it appears to be used as an anology or homolog for the susceptibility part of herd immunity. That you can’t seem to grasp illustrative use of language does not bode well for the estimation of your abstract thinking.

    Even in analogy, you guys fail miserably. Air suits are designed to protect the host by preventing infection. Natural infection and vaccination, on the contrary, inherently promote primary infection.

    He/she already has. Natural immunity, vaccine induced immunity.

    But his definition only applies to a “natural phenomenon” which is natural infection. Vaccination is not natural. It is an artificially acquired active immunity!

    One would have thought you would at least know what the definition is before criticising the concept……

    It appears you’re the ignorant one.

    Reduction in susceptibility is part of herd immunity. The immune part of herd immunity refers to the resistance of diseases moving through the ‘herd’, as well as individual immunity.

    That’s not what he said. He said, enough people must have contagious diseases so that they can be immuned and when they become immuned, incidence of diseases will fall.

    False, to the utter and complete degree. Her/his definition is entirely compatible with vaccination. Immunity acquired from vaccines is immunity. Sufficient individual immunity contributes to herd immunity.

    No it isn’t. According to Krebiozen, herd immunity is a natural phenomenon. Vaccination is something not natural and prevents enough people to have a contagious disease and becoming immune.

    I’ll repeat – no-one here is struggling with this like you clearly are. You really are so utterly confused that you are badly misunderstanding simple explanations, missing out on simple and clear points, and are generally demonstrating severe difficulty in understanding how/why population and disease changes interact with herd immunity.

    No, it doesn’t seem that way. There’s too many versions of herd immunity and this embarrassing dissonance inside their own community is very typical of superstition and imaginary thinking.

  282. #283 Krebiozen
    September 1, 2011

    @Dedj,

    Krebiozens point appears to be that a fall in the incidence of disease is only beneficial to the people that avoided the disease and not to the people that had to suffer it.

    Precisely. Before and in the early years of vaccination, smallpox epidemics arrived every few years, so people would have a welcome break from the disease before its return. Regular epidemics seem to me to be a high price to pay for a few years of relative health between them.

    Incidentally, when an epidemic was due, or news of an approaching epidemic came from another region, there was often a drive to inoculate as many people as possible to ameliorate the epidemic. Antivaxxers have seized upon these numbers as evidence that inoculation had caused the smallpox epidemic, as inoculation rates rose before the epidemic arrived, and of course correlation always equals causation. Sandbags cause floods too.

    The periodicity of epidemics fascinates me. Smallpox outbreaks came every 5-12 years, but pertussis has a period of 4-5 years, and varicella one year. No one seems to be sure of the reason for this. There must be some math behind it, but none of the papers I have looked at has a definitive explanation. It’s presumably somehow related to birth rate and herd immunity threshold.

    I noticed the invented quote too – it isn’t the first time she has either misquoted or only quoted part of what I have written in an attempt to distort my meaning. People who don’t have a good factual basis for their arguments often have to resort to dishonesty, it seems.

  283. #284 Chris
    September 1, 2011

    Krebiozen:

    I noticed the invented quote too – it isn’t the first time she has either misquoted or only quoted part of what I have written in an attempt to distort my meaning. People who don’t have a good factual basis for their arguments often have to resort to dishonesty, it seems.

    That is why she has been labeled as a manipulative liar.

  284. #285 Th1Th2
    September 1, 2011

    Dedj,

    Krebiozens point appears to be that a fall in the incidence of disease is only beneficial to the people that avoided the disease and not to the people that had to suffer it.

    Nonsense. Avoiding the disease does not make someone immune, does it? So that’s a contradiction when Krebiozen reiterated that enough people must have a contagious disease thereby becoming immune. How do you know that a person has avoided a disease? And more importantly, if for example the herd immunity threshold for measles is 94% (of any source and regardless of symptomatology, it doesn’t matter right?), who are those people representing the remaining 6%? Are they the ones who have avoided the disease and consequently the ones you also refer as the leechers, parasites, infectious vectors, unprotected, susceptible, non-immuned, and a threat?

    So how does one avoid the disease?

  285. #286 Krebiozen
    September 1, 2011

    Th1Th2,
    I have tried to explain this in the simplest language possible, but you still don’t get it at all.

    There’s too many versions of herd immunity and this embarrassing dissonance inside their own community is very typical of superstition and imaginary thinking.

    Herd immunity is a well defined and well understood concept. You appear to have some weird mental block about this, but I can’t quite pin it down. It seems to be about black and white thinking, an inability to construct a logical train of thought, a liking for odd non sequiturs and an inability to tolerate ambiguity.

    You seem to think that if something is natural, like herd immunity, then it cannot be exploited by humans because then it would be unnatural, and since I said it is a natural phenomenon, it must be a myth, which does not logically follow. Fermentation is a natural phenomenon, even when it is carried out in big vats using genetically modified yeast.

    You also seem to believe that if there is a situation where there was no herd immunity and no disease, then herd immunity doesn’t prevent disease, which doesn’t follow logically either. Here’s another analogy for you to misunderstand and misinterpret: spraying forests with water prevents forest fires, but you cannot conclude that because a forest that has not been sprayed with water has not had a forest fire, water does not prevent forest fires; it could be that forest rangers did their job very effectively in preventing fires from starting.

    You also seem to think that if natural immunity leads to herd immunity, then immunity from vaccination cannot lead to herd immunity, because “the other one prevents the former”, which, surprise, surprise, doesn’t logically follow at all. Another analogy: both burglar alarms and electrified fences prevent burglaries. Electrified fences prevent burglars from setting off burglar alarms, but that doesn’t mean they don’t prevent burglaries.

  286. #287 herr doktor bimler
    September 1, 2011

    I have tried to explain this in the simplest language possible

    I think I see the problem.

  287. #288 Krebiozen
    September 1, 2011

    In response to:

    Krebiozens point appears to be that a fall in the incidence of disease is only beneficial to the people that avoided the disease and not to the people that had to suffer it.

    Th1Th2 wrote:

    Nonsense. Avoiding the disease does not make someone immune, does it?

    No it doesn’t, and that is my point which you have missed completely it seems. The people who did not get the disease are protected by herd immunity after an epidemic.

    So that’s a contradiction when Krebiozen reiterated that enough people must have a contagious disease thereby becoming immune.

    You really have spectacularly misunderstood this haven’t you?

    who are those people representing the remaining 6%? Are they the ones who have avoided the disease and consequently the ones you also refer as the leechers, parasites, infectious vectors, unprotected, susceptible, non-immuned, and a threat?

    Yes! I do believe you have it at last. Those are the people protected by herd immunity, by the majority who are immune (by whatever means).

    So how does one avoid the disease?

    Vaccination works well, and is remarkably safe these days I hear.

    BTW the word ‘immuned’ is, IMO, a horrible abuse of the English language.

  288. #289 Th1Th2
    September 1, 2011

    Krebiozen,

    I noticed the invented quote too – it isn’t the first time she has either misquoted or only quoted part of what I have written in an attempt to distort my meaning. People who don’t have a good factual basis for their arguments often have to resort to dishonesty, it seems.

    Here’s what you said when I asked “What about the herd immunity you’re bragging about?”

    Your response is this ad verbatim:

    Bragging? I didn’t invent it, it’s a natural phenomenon, that is obvious to anyone who spends a few minutes thought on the subject.

    So who’s lying now?

    Of course, I didn’t say you invented the vaccines. Of course someone else did it but you being a devout apologist always brag about herd immunity created by vaccination which surprisingly according to your own definition is also a “natural phenomenon”?

    Jenner out, Mother Nature in. Is it also a natural thing to pay for vaccines or should I just pray to the Gods for vaccines?

  289. #290 Gray Falcon
    September 1, 2011

    Air resistance is a natural phenomenon. Does that mean a parachute, which is artificial, cannot work because it cannot create a natural phenomenon like air resistance?

  290. #291 Th1Th2
    September 1, 2011

    Krebiozen,

    No it doesn’t, and that is my point which you have missed completely it seems. The people who did not get the disease are protected by herd immunity after an epidemic.

    But these people don’t have immunity such as they don’t vaccinate or they stay away from sick persons. Do you also brag about these non-immune people? So how do you make them immune? Make them part of the herd who are already immune, right? So how do you make them part of the herd who are already immune? According to you, make these people have a contagious disease to make them immune, so that incidence of diseases falls. By your logic, those who are not immune are protected by those who are having a contagious disease. Nuts. Unmistakably, you are supportive of epidemics and outbreaks for which you derived the definition of herd immunity.

    Vaccination works well, and is remarkably safe these days I hear.

    That one will contradict to your definition of herd immunity as being a natural phenomenon, it will prevent contagious diseases and becoming immune, and thus prevents incidence of diseases to fall.

  291. #292 Th1Th2
    September 1, 2011

    So who invented air resistance?

  292. #293 Gray Falcon
    September 1, 2011

    Grammar error in @292: Air resistance and herd immunity were not invented, they were discovered. Invented implies creation of something that did not exist previously, discovery means finding something that existed prior to discovery.

  293. #294 Th1Th2
    September 1, 2011

    Gray,

    That’s exactly the point hence the question and you just validated it. You cannot apply your faulty analogy to explain science.

    Don’t make any more mistake.

  294. #295 Th1Th2
    September 1, 2011

    Gray,

    So who discovered herd immunity through vaccination?

  295. #296 Gray Falcon
    September 1, 2011

    Probably Edward Jenner.

  296. #297 Gray Falcon
    September 1, 2011

    Unless there is some fundamental difference between the air drag of a human body and the air drag of a parachute, I still don’t see where I made a mistake. Also, you still haven’t answered why rhinderpest is extinct. The passage you gave me only accounted for one city in a single time period, the same solution would not scale up globally.

  297. #298 Th1Th2
    September 1, 2011

    Herd immunity is a well defined and well understood concept.

    Since when?

    You seem to think that if something is natural, like herd immunity, then it cannot be exploited by humans because then it would be unnatural, and since I said it is a natural phenomenon, it must be a myth, which does not logically follow.

    My argument is not about herd immunity being natural is a myth. My contentions are the claim that vaccines have eradicated diseases and that herd immunity exists. Both of these are myths simply because they are unfounded, fabricated and most of all unscientific.

    You also seem to believe that if there is a situation where there was no herd immunity and no disease, then herd immunity doesn’t prevent disease, which doesn’t follow logically either.

    Well, it does. In fact, herd immunity was not existent during 1971 up to the eradication of smallpox. But despite that, there had been no re-introduction of the disease to the NON-IMMUNE herd.

    You also seem to think that if natural immunity leads to herd immunity, then immunity from vaccination cannot lead to herd immunity, because “the other one prevents the former”, which, surprise, surprise, doesn’t logically follow at all.

    Correction: Exposure to natural infection leads to, no not immunity, but primary infection. Ditto for vaccination. Of course, the putative belief is that vaccination would prevent natural infection and that is a myth.

  298. #299 Th1Th2
    September 1, 2011

    Probably Edward Jenner.

    Probably. Do you have any evidence to suggest that Jenner indeed discovered herd immunity through vaccination?

  299. #300 lilady
    September 1, 2011

    Ignore delusional repetitive troll.

  300. #301 Narad
    September 1, 2011

    Since when?

    Since $R_0 = N(\beta/\nu)$?

  301. #302 Krebiozen
    September 2, 2011

    Well, I have pointed out more than one logical non sequitur to Th1Th2, but she simply repeats herself, and accuses me of lying for writing something that’s true. Meanwhile she denies lying when she quoted me as writing, “vast majority of contagious people”, which I didn’t. I think I do understand a little more about how someone acquires such bizarre beliefs.

    Time to take Lilady’s advice.

  302. #303 Dedj
    September 2, 2011

    “Nonsense. Avoiding the disease does not make someone immune, does it? So that’s a contradiction when Krebiozen reiterated that enough people must have a contagious disease thereby becoming immune. ”

    Of course it doesn’t make individual people immune, but……….

    how can I put this gently…..

    that wasn’t the point being made, was clearly not the point being made, and it is very, very difficult to read your response and hold the dual belief that you are being honest in your response and that you are of at least average intelligence.

    No one here is arguing, or has argued, that not getting the disease provides INDIVIDUALS with an ACTIVE immunologic ability against the disease. We are talking about HERD immunity, which is the resistance to a disease propagating trhough the community.

    It doesn’t take a genius to work out that if enough people have immunity to a disease then the disease will have trouble spreading to non-immune members.

    Remember, herd immunity refers to the difficulty a disease has in spreading through a ‘herd’ due to the collective immunity of the herd. It does not refer to people being conferred individual active immunity by being members of the herd. This may be why you’re struggling so much, you appear to be taking the use of ‘immunity’ to refer to individual active immunity – that is the very opposite of ‘herd immunity’.

    I’m really struggling to see how you can take the interpretations that you are, without having to resort to suggesting that you are taking similar trains of thought to many of my former psychiatric clients. I’d much rather merely suggest that you are either willfully obtuse, a Poe, or simply biased and ignorant. I don’t want to offend people by suggesting you are like them.

    Herd immunity IS a very well defined concept. There are multiple dictionary definitions easily available (tip: none of them are remotely like the definition you are using), there are multiple easy-read pages from well respected organisations that detail what herd immunity is (tip: none of them are remotely like what you appear to think herd immunity is), there are about 1800 articles available through google scholar for this year alone that use or look at herd immunity, including several that work out how to guage the effect for individual vaccines and diseases.

    It would be hard for all that to exist if it was supposedly poorly researched.

    *if herd immunity didn’t exist you would have thought someone more important and educated than you would have noticed. How meek of you to put yourself above and beyond entire populations of scientists and researchers. You odious, narcissitic, time wasting, lazy little prick.

    Fuck off and stop wasting the time of all the good people here with your piss-poor Poe/grade school ignorance.

  303. #304 Dedj
    September 2, 2011

    “Here’s what he said loud and clear, “Of course herd immunity is a natural phenomenon. It occurred long before vaccination, when enough people in a population have had a contagious disease and are immune, the incidence of the disease falls.”

    But what he said didn’t relate to your response. There was nothing in his/her original quote that would have, or should have, lent you to believe there was any contradiction.

    “Relative risk vs benefit.

    If you’re going to apply Krebiozen’s definition, the benefit of allowing a “natural phenomenon” outweighs the risk because the “incidence of diseases will fall”.”

    But this is what will happen if you also have immunity from an ‘artificial’ source. It’s much better to have immunity without suffering the disease, than suffer the disease.

    It’s not a hard concept to grasp – why do you fail so hard everytime?

    “And all the time, these new members are also getting diseased and immune too yet “the incidence of the disease falls”. That’s his definition.”

    And this process is not static. It’s not a case of ‘one gets the disease, one person enters the population’. Disease prevalance fluxuates – you may have heard of such things as epidemics – of which only one of the factors may be that enough people have immunity.

    You should already know all this. It’s pre-college human biology.

    “He also said of “enough people”. What is that supposed to mean? If the herd immunity threshold for measles is 94%, does he mean “enough people” are diseased or a “vast majority” are diseased?”

    I’m not sure why you can’t work this out for yourself. You appear to be fixed on getting exact definitions to things.

    The only people I know of who like to get fixed, strict and literal definitons to the same extent that you do are all friends and former clients with autism.

    “What multi-factorial process?”

    Natural and artificial immunity. That should have been clear from my post.

    “There are only two and he’s referring to a “natural phenomenon” and the other one prevents the former.”

    But they work in concert to produce the overall effect, hence ‘multi-factorial’. Go look it up.

    “That’s clearly a contradiction of his definition of herd immunity.”

    No, both parts are required to meet his definition. No contradiction is apparent to anyone but you.

    “Even in analogy, you guys fail miserably. Air suits are designed to protect the host by preventing infection.”

    Umm, that’s precisely why they work so well as an analogy. The suit acts as a buffer against infection – just like the herd.

    “Natural infection and vaccination, on the contrary, inherently promote primary infection.”

    Only you appear to use infection to include the immunologic response to vaccines. You don’t get to redefine terms to suit your agenda. Either use them properly or don’t bother, boyo.

    “But his definition only applies to a “natural phenomenon” which is natural infection.”

    No, it applies to the immunity, not the infection. Do keep up dear.

    “Vaccination is not natural. It is an artificially acquired active immunity!”

    And thusly immunity and therefore admissable as a factor in herd immunity. Again, the source is irrelevant, as you’ve already been told. Again.

    “That’s not what he said.”

    Didn’t say he did. I refer the honourable person to my earlier comment about hallucinating entire sentences. Seriously, learn to read.

    “No it isn’t. According to Krebiozen, herd immunity is a natural phenomenon. Vaccination is something not natural and prevents enough people to have a contagious disease and becoming immune.”

    How stupid are you? Herd immunity refer to the phenomenon of enough people having immunity – from any source – not to the original source of the immunity. Immunity from vaccines still counts if it results in the immune system being able

    It is the immune system response that is natural. You do know that vaccines don’t sit around in your immune system waiting for the disease to come along? You do know that ‘natural’ and ‘articial’ refers to the source, not the process by which the immune system develops the immunity? You do know that vaccine don’t give you an articial immune system, don’t you?

    You do know that, don’t you?

    Krebiozen has directly and explicitly stated that the source of the immunity is irrelevent, yet you wish to continue to cheat and lie about what he said. That is an incredibly stupid move, as anyone who knows how to use Find: can easily see that he/she said the complete opposite to the idea you wish to dishonestly misattribute to him.

    “No, it doesn’t seem that way.”

    You may have noticed that a increasing number of people are calling you a troll, Poe, confused, ignorant, a liar, dishonest, a cheat, a waster and other things…….

    ” There’s too many versions of herd immunity…..”

    Given how much difficulty you’re having understanding Krebiozen (I mean, you’ve basically attributed the exact opposite of his/her arguements to him/her several times for crying out loud!), I am under no doubt that your perception of there being ‘too many versions’ is down to your difficulty in grasping the concept.

    You think there are ‘too many versions’ due to difficulty in uinderstanding that there might be disagreement over the minuatae, or, more likely, you have difficulty understanding that the many different models and explanations are merely modelling or explaining the same thing in slightly different ways.

    Again, I refer the honourable person to my earlier comment about friends and clients with autism…

  304. #305 Th1Th2
    September 2, 2011

    Dedj,

    But what he said didn’t relate to your response. There was nothing in his/her original quote that would have, or should have, lent you to believe there was any contradiction.

    Because he’s confused and so are you. His definition of herd immunity and how vaccines work contradict each other.

    But this is what will happen if you also have immunity from an ‘artificial’ source. It’s much better to have immunity without suffering the disease, than suffer the disease.

    No, it has to be a “natural phenomenon”. That was he said. If nothing else, vaccination will only prevent that natural phenomenon to persist, thus not allowing enough people to have a contagious disease and becoming immune. And of course, if the herd is not immune, incidence of diseases will rise. In short, he wants people to have contagious diseases regardless if one has to suffer or not. What matters most is that one has to be immune to maintain herd immunity.

    And this process is not static. It’s not a case of ‘one gets the disease, one person enters the population’. Disease prevalance fluxuates – you may have heard of such things as epidemics – of which only one of the factors may be that enough people have immunity.

    Well it’s pretty clear that he supports epidemics. First of all it’s natural. And second, his definition of herd immunity is established on epidemics. Lastly, contagious people are also the one guarding the non-immune and one reason why  epidemics occur.   Of course, that’s his method of recruiting to make the non-immune become part of the herd.

    “He also said of “enough people”. What is that supposed to mean? If the herd immunity threshold for measles is 94%, does he mean “enough people” are diseased or a “vast majority” are diseased?”
    I’m not sure why you can’t work this out for yourself. You appear to be fixed on getting exact definitions to things.

    Well just answer the question and show me what you got and stop beating around the bush.

    Natural and artificial immunity. That should have been clear from my post.
    But they work in concert to produce the overall effect, hence ‘multi-factorial’. Go look it up. 
    No, both parts are required to meet his definition. No contradiction is apparent to anyone but you.
    .

    Haha. Let’s see. One prevents the other (hint: VPD). There’s only one that you always brag about while the other you condemn. There’s only one that you promote and tout about its effectiveness while the other you criticize.  There’s only one which is recommended to have full compliance while the other you refer to as hotspots. Wow that is such a harmonious relationship.

    Only you appear to use infection to include the immunologic response to vaccines. You don’t get to redefine terms to suit your agenda. Either use them properly or don’t bother, boyo.

    Idiot. You’re the one who’s guilty of re-defining terms in your disingenuous attempt to change the original and valid “primary infection” caused by vaccines to a more sissy street word “priming”.

    “But his definition only applies to a “natural phenomenon” which is natural infection.”
    No, it applies to the immunity, not the infection. Do keep up dear.

    But natural infection precedes naturally acquired active immunity. According to his definition of a natural phenomenon,  if one has to become immune, one must have a contagious disease. Do you dispute this? You’re the one who should keep up unless you want to cheat around.

    “Vaccination is not natural. It is an artificially acquired active immunity!”
    And thusly immunity and therefore admissable as a factor in herd immunity. Again, the source is irrelevant, as you’ve already been told. Again.

    So are you saying herd immunity is nothing but an artificial immunity and it’s irrelevant if it is? Or you go by Krebiozen’s definition that it should be a natural phenomenon?

    How stupid are you? Herd immunity refer to the phenomenon of enough people having immunity – from any source – not to the original source of the immunity. Immunity from vaccines still counts if it results in the immune system being able

    So now you’re contradicting what Krebiozen has stated that herd immunity occurred  long before vaccination. That’s the original and that’s what he meant. You said “from any source” but “not the original source”, does that mean you’re referring to the “artificial” source? Because I can’t think of any other source other than those two. Why would vaccines count when it’s meant to prevent the original source?

    It is the immune system response that is natural.

    True hence the immune system does not differentiate between an infection from vaccines and infection from wild-type.

    You do know that vaccines don’t sit around in your immune system waiting for the disease to come along?

    Ever heard of persistent antigenic stimulation? That’s what vaccines do best (or worse).

    You do know that ‘natural’ and ‘articial’ refers to the source, not the process by which the immune system develops the immunity?

    I’ve explained that already. The immune system does not differentiate between two infectious source.

    You do know that vaccine don’t give you an articial immune system, don’t you?

    Vaccines promote primary infection.

    Krebiozen has directly and explicitly stated that the source of the immunity is irrelevent, yet you wish to continue to cheat and lie about what he said.

    The other source, which is the artificial source, is quite irrelevant to his original definition of herd immunity which is solely a natural phenomenon. Of course, if the two comes together, it will only contradict his own definition.  To make him admit his mistakes, is also irrelevant on his part.

    That is an incredibly stupid move, as anyone who knows how to use Find: can easily see that he/she said the complete opposite to the idea you wish to dishonestly misattribute to him.

    Go check his definition again. If you find vaccines being anywhere close to a natural phenomenon then Jenner must be God.

    You may have noticed that a increasing number of people are calling you a troll, Poe, confused, ignorant, a liar, dishonest, a cheat, a waster and other things…….

    That’s their right. I don’t mind. I can do the same.

    I am under no doubt that your perception of there being ‘too many versions’ is down to your difficulty in grasping the concept.

    Too many contradicting version indeed. Check #229.

    Again, I refer the honourable person to my earlier comment about friends and clients with autism…

    The burden of proof is yours but until then you’re simply barking up the wrong tree. Just saying.

  305. #306 Gray Falcon
    September 2, 2011

    Th1Th2, your argument boils down to:
    1) Herd immunity is a natural process.
    2) Vaccines are artificial.
    3) Therefore vaccines cannot cause herd immunity, or herd immunity cannot be a natural process.
    I just pointed out what happens when you apply that logic to other areas:
    1) Air resistance is a natural process.
    2) Parachutes are artificial.
    3) Therefore parachutes cannot cause air resistance, or air resistance cannot be a natural process.

  306. #307 lilady
    September 2, 2011

    While I am so enjoying the lively comments directed toward the delusional repetitive troll…let’s not forget that Thingy derives some sort of sick satisfaction/pleasure (jollies) by being contrary. He/she/it also derives its “jollies” by engaging and seeing the inane comments he/she/it posts on the internet.

    Three hundred postings now…more than half of them are Thingy’s. Can we ever forget the 600 postings, the majority of them Thingy’s…during a recent discussion about Tetanus.

    It really is time to ignore delusional repetitive Thingy and “terminally disinfect” this odious troll.

  307. #308 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 2, 2011

    Hey, Thingy, is blood clotting a natural phenomenon?

  308. #309 Narad
    September 2, 2011

    Idiot. You’re the one who’s guilty of re-defining terms in your disingenuous attempt to change the original and valid “primary infection” caused by vaccines to a more sissy street word “priming”.

    Speaking of sissies, are you going to get around to ponying up an example of anyone signing on to the Original and Valid Th1Th2 Way of Seeing?

  309. #310 Gray Falcon
    September 2, 2011

    I’d just like to know where Th1Th2′s getting her definitions from. What evidence does she have that the vaccine causes primary infection, and why there aren’t large numbers of cases of infant mortality and encephalitis because of this?

  310. #311 Th1Th2
    September 2, 2011

    Dedj,

    that wasn’t the point being made, was clearly not the point being made, and it is very, very difficult to read your response and hold the dual belief that you are being honest in your response and that you are of at least average intelligence.

    That was the point being made because no one can argue that vaccine apologists hold the distinction of being proteans. They always circle around between two opposing poles of germ-denialism and infection promotion. If I have to ask you whether natural infection causes herd immunity. What’s gonna be your answer? Do you agree vaccines cause primary infection?

    No one here is arguing, or has argued, that not getting the disease provides INDIVIDUALS with an ACTIVE immunologic ability against the disease. We are talking about HERD immunity, which is the resistance to a disease propagating trhough the community.

    Then who are these people resistant to the disease?

    It doesn’t take a genius to work out that if enough people have immunity to a disease then the disease will have trouble spreading to non-immune members.

    How does one become immune to a disease? Are you applying Krebiozen’s definition? Or you have other version of it?

    Remember, herd immunity refers to the difficulty a disease has in spreading through a ‘herd’ due to the collective immunity of the herd. It does not refer to people being conferred individual active immunity by being members of the herd. This may be why you’re struggling so much, you appear to be taking the use of ‘immunity’ to refer to individual active immunity – that is the very opposite of ‘herd immunity’.

    And the collective immunity of the herd is represented by vaccine compliance? Do you deny this? I’m “struggling” so much because of too many versions. For example Chris would disagree with you when you said herd immunity does not refer to individual immunity. Check #203. Chris claimed that herd immunity is determined by a personal score of resistance to a disease (like measles). What now? You’re a clear contradiction to Chris’ version of herd immunity.

    Herd immunity IS a very well defined concept.

    Again the question: Since when?

  311. #312 Chris
    September 2, 2011

    Gray Falcon, she is pulling her definitions out of thin air. Go up and look at the link where she redefined the term “intravenous.” In it she made a stupid mistake and tried to cover it up by redefining the term.

    It is either a sick game she plays, or she is just delusional. I got a hint of her kind of thinking when I listened to the hypnotist at a Qestival. He explained how someone was convinced that “seven” did not exist, and created all sorts of logic to explain it away.

  312. #313 Chris
    September 2, 2011

    She has even mixed me up with Antaeus Feldspar… and is, of course, lying again.

  313. #314 Th1Th2
    September 2, 2011

    No Gray, my argument boils down to this:

    1. Herd immunity is a myth.

    Ergo,

    2. X
    3. X

    Fact. Herd immunity did not exist during 1971 up to the eradication of smallpox in 1980. Air resistance and parachutes did. Like I said, you cannot apply your erroneous analogy to explain science. Again, make no more mistake.

  314. #315 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    September 2, 2011

    Natural infection COULD create “herd immunity” if a sufficient portion of the population were to contract the disease in a short enough time period. Of course, that’s indistinguishable from an epidemic and involves everyone actually catching the disease.

    Live vaccines do cause a mild infection. Killed vaccines and ones created without the actual pathogen do not.

  315. #316 Gray Falcon
    September 2, 2011

    If herd immunity didn’t exist, why weren’t there any smallpox outbreaks during the period between 1971 and 1980?

  316. #317 Gray Falcon
    September 2, 2011

    Correction: There had been an outbreak in Yugoslavia in 1972, contained before it could spread further. Still, why aren’t smallpox and rhinderpest still around? Hint: Isolation is only a strategy for local eradication, it can’t scale up to a global level.

  317. #318 Narad
    September 2, 2011

    my argument boils down to this:

    1. Herd immunity is a myth.

    That’s not an “argument.” What part of the basic SIR model do you dispute?

  318. #319 Th1Th2
    September 2, 2011

    If herd immunity didn’t exist, why weren’t there any smallpox outbreaks during the period between 1971 and 1980?

    Well, there’s no doubt that herd immunity did not exist during that period unless you have evidence to prove otherwise. As to the question as to why there weren’t any smallpox outbreaks then you have to look at other essential factors like active surveillance, case reporting, better sanitation, hygiene, etc. that contributed to the supposed eradication of smallpox. Of course, those are more credible evidence than wishing upon a star when the USG voluntarily abandoned routine vaccination and left the NON-IMMUNE herd unprotected despite the presence of risk.

  319. #320 Th1Th2
    September 2, 2011

    Correction: There had been an outbreak in Yugoslavia in 1972, contained before it could spread further.

    Contained by what means?

    Still, why aren’t smallpox and rhinderpest still around?

    They are all in stockpiles in the hands of infection promoters.

    Hint: Isolation is only a strategy for local eradication, it can’t scale up to a global level.

    How did you know?

  320. #321 Gray Falcon
    September 2, 2011

    The same reports that mention the other factors in the eradication of smallpox also mention vaccination as a factor. Why are they reliable for one but not the other?

  321. #322 Th1Th2
    September 2, 2011

    The same reports that mention the other factors in the eradication of smallpox also mention vaccination as a factor. Why are they reliable for one but not the other?

    Oh you mean the cherry on top of the frozen yogurt? Apparently, that cherry was missing in the period between 1971 and 1980. Nevertheless, thait didn’t stop them to eradicate smallpox. Can you eat yogurt without the cherry?

  322. #323 Gray Falcon
    September 2, 2011

    Can you build the top floor of a building without the lower floors?

  323. #324 Gray Falcon
    September 2, 2011

    Better question: After a large fire engulfs a city, and most of it either burns itself out or is extinguished through extensive effort. Surveying the damage, a small flame has been spotted and extinguished with a glass of water. Could the entire blaze have been put out with a glass of water?

  324. #325 Th1Th2
    September 2, 2011

    Mephistopheles,

    Natural infection COULD create “herd immunity” if a sufficient portion of the population were to contract the disease in a short enough time period. Of course, that’s indistinguishable from an epidemic and involves everyone actually catching the disease.

    Who determines what is “sufficient portion” and what is not? Do you support epidemics and outbreaks of a sufficient portion in order to create herd immunity?

    Live vaccines do cause a mild infection.

    Then you’re an infection promoter.

    Killed vaccines and ones created without the actual pathogen do not.

    That’s germ denialism. Killed, inactivated, fragmented, subunit, and rDNA vaccines cause non-transmissible infection.

  325. #326 Th1Th2
    September 2, 2011

    Hey, Thingy, is blood clotting a natural phenomenon?

    Yes.

  326. #327 herr doktor bimler
    September 2, 2011

    stop wasting the time of all the good people here with your piss-poor Poe/grade school ignorance.

    To be fair, the people are wasting their own time. Th1Th2 is merely enabling them.

  327. #328 Gray Falcon
    September 2, 2011

    Sorry, I’m just destruct-testing Th1Th2′s convictions. I really shouldn’t do that, should I? On the other hand:

    Killed, inactivated, fragmented, subunit, and rDNA vaccines cause non-transmissible infection.

    Th1Th2, how do you know this? What evidence do you have? Why aren’t these vaccines causing the same effects as the diseases?

  328. #329 Krebiozen
    September 2, 2011

    Should anyone be interested, I think the phenomenon of herd immunity was first noticed by A. W. Hedrich in 1933 when he observed that epidemics of measles only occurred when the number of children immune to measles fell below 68%. If you add immune adults to that figure you get close to the currently accepted measles herd immunity threshold of 83-94%. I don’t know if Hedrich originated the term as I can’t get access to the full paper. That was a long time before a measles vaccine was available. So it is a natural phenomenon that can be exploited by inducing immunity through vaccination instead of it occurring through natural infection. Seems pretty simple to me…

  329. #330 lilady
    September 2, 2011

    Puhleeeez….ignorant this delusional troll. He/she/it needs “terminal disinfection”

  330. #331 Dedj
    September 2, 2011

    “If I have to ask you whether natural infection causes herd immunity. What’s gonna be your answer?”

    Yes, it can contribute to herd immunity. Remember, it is the spread of the immunity – not the infection – that leads to herd immunity.

    “Do you agree vaccines cause primary infection?”

    The second question does not follow on from the first. You appear to be using primary infection in a way that I have yet to come across and which I can find no reference to in any source.

    Primary infection typically refers to the novel acquisition of the disease state. Vaccines typically do not cause the disease state.

    In either case, if we hold you to your definition, then vaccines cause immunity and are thusly admissable as agents in herd immunity.

    I would suggest that it was not your intention to shoot yourself in the foot in this way, but you did it anyway.

    “Then who are these people resistant to the disease?”

    This question doesn’t make sense in the context of talking about herd immunity. Individuals may have variant resistance – including full immunity – to a disease. The emergent effect of sufficient people being sufficiently resistant to a disease will be that the disease will be resisted at the population level. The resistance or ‘immunity’ is derived from the herd level – it’s why the word is in there.

    “How does one become immune to a disease?”

    I’m not willing to train you in understanding immunity, nor should you have to ask if you believe you are sufficiently educated on this subject.

    “And the collective immunity of the herd is represented by vaccine compliance?”

    Where the feck did you get this from?

    “For example Chris would disagree with you when you said herd immunity does not refer to individual immunity.”

    I’d disagree with it as well, as I’ve expressly included individual immunity as a factor in herd immunity.

    “Check #203.”

    Which is not a post by Chris…..

    “Chris claimed that herd immunity is determined by a personal score of resistance to a disease (like measles).” What now? You’re a clear contradiction to Chris’ version of herd immunity.”

    You’re taking a post and claiming it said the opposite of what it clearly says. Stop doing that.

    The post you refer to did nothing of the sort. The post at @203 uses the example of how high personal immunity contributes to herd immunity, but – as it clearly pointed out – high personal immunity is not herd immunity in and as of itself.

    What it did argue was that sufficient individual immunity can have a collective effect of protecting people other than those with sufficient personal immunity. That is, herd immunity is the population level effect, not the individal one. This is precisely my definition.

    Again , no contradiction exists, except in your head. Given that you managed to get my point exactly backwards when no other person has, I would suggest that the blame for you seeing contradictions is entirely yours and yours alone.

    “Again the question: Since when?”

    Why do you need to know ‘since when’? If you cannot take the existance of multiple independant concordant definitions, multiple independant concordant usages and proficient usage in high-ranking technical, clincial and academic journals as evidence that there may be something to it – why would anyone trust you if you claimed you would be willing to change your mind if given an exact date?

    I’m having real trouble taking you as an honest person who is merely misunderstanding things. You always seem to take exactly the right misunderstanding and make exactly the right misquote in the right place. You’re just too perfectly obtuse to be real.

    Please shape up and stop wasting everyones time.

  331. #332 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    September 2, 2011

    Th1Th2 – you asked (someone else) the question of whether natural infections could lead to herd immunity. I answered, giving the conditions under which it would. This was not intended as advice, nor do I recommend such an action.

    You can’t be both an infection promoter and a germ denialist. Saying that things that aren’t live germs don’t cause infections is merely a statement of reality.

  332. #333 Chris
    September 2, 2011

    Krebiozen:

    Should anyone be interested, I think the phenomenon of herd immunity was first noticed by A. W. Hedrich in 1933 when he observed that epidemics of measles only occurred when the number of children immune to measles fell below 68%.

    Wow, very cool. Thanks.

  333. #334 Th1Th2
    September 3, 2011

    Some of Thingy’s greatest hits:

    Thingy redefining what is “intravenous.”

    I didn’t see any redefinition. What I clearly explained was the different parenteral route in vaccine administration. Chris is just having a chronic denial that an intravenous vaccine did exist.

    Thingy tripping out as she refuses to answer how the USA reduced measles by 90% in one decade.

    Of course, I have explained that pretty well along with the evidence that the touted 90% reduction of measles cases is attributed ONLY to the reduction of measles symptoms (clinical measles). That number does not represent the vast majority of measles cases primarily caused by the measles vaccine. Meaning those persons who were inoculated were never reported as primary measles infection regardless of symptomatology. It’s also the same diagnostic BS they apply to varicella vaccine, such that they merely count the number of skin lesions and other symptoms in order to exclude the vaccinated from getting a diagnosis of primary varicella infection, hence, the reduced number of varicella case.

    Of course, Chris wouldn’t understand this because she’s ignorant and misinformed.

    And worst, a germ denialist!

  334. #335 Narad
    September 3, 2011

    That number does not represent the vast majority of measles cases primarily caused by the measles vaccine. Meaning those persons who were inoculated were never reported as primary measles infection regardless of symptomatology.

    And we’re back to ritual purity.

  335. #336 Gray Falcon
    September 3, 2011

    So, Th1Th2, why weren’t all the people with measles from the vaccine showing the expected levels of infant mortality and encephalitis?

  336. #337 Krebiozen
    September 3, 2011

    the touted 90% reduction of measles cases is attributed ONLY to the reduction of measles symptoms (clinical measles)

    What you mean measles vaccination reduces the incidence of clinical measles? You’ll be telling me that the pertussis vaccine prevents whooping cough next.

  337. #338 Narad
    September 3, 2011

    You’ll be telling me that the pertussis vaccine prevents whooping cough next.

    You will suffer the words, germ denialist and infection promoter!

  338. #339 Th1Th2
    September 3, 2011

    Gray,

    So, Th1Th2, why weren’t all the people with measles from the vaccine showing the expected levels of infant mortality and encephalitis?

    Simple. Because it is expected that any symptomatic manifestation following measles inoculation will and should not be associated with primary measles infection. Any vaccinee who experiences such symptoms is given different diagnoses other than measles (viral encephalitis, aseptic meningitis) more so any fatalities following measles inoculation are given a different cause of death. Hence, the only cases of measles encephalitis and mortality are reserved for those unvaccinated individuals with primary measles infection. That’s the only number you see because that’s the only thing they need to report. In short, you are oblivious and ignorant about the ongoing public deception, gross misrepresentation, false claim and absolute lie made by these vaccine proponents.

  339. #340 Th1Th2
    September 3, 2011

    Krebiozen,

    What you mean measles vaccination reduces the incidence of clinical measles? You’ll be telling me that the pertussis vaccine prevents whooping cough next.

    In order to assess the purported effectiveness of any vaccine, the vaccinated must be re-exposed to the same pathogen. Hence, the 90% reduction of classic measles symptoms is attributed to the vaccinated who have had secondary exposure. Therefore, the vaccine did not prevent primary measles infection and what’s worse is the vaccine has promoted the disease but intentionally were not reported.

  340. #341 Th1Th2
    September 3, 2011

    And we’re back to ritual purity.

    No Narad. You’re just back to your usual germ denialism escape mode.

  341. #342 Gray Falcon
    September 3, 2011

    Th1Th2@339: Any evidence for this claim? It’s not exactly easy to cover up thousands of deaths.

  342. #343 Narad
    September 3, 2011

    No Narad. You’re just back to your usual germ denialism escape mode.

    “Escape mode”? You have advanced nothing to escape from other than being called, by you, a germ denialist and infection promoter. You’ve got nothing but ritual purity.

  343. #344 Doug Hayden
    September 4, 2011

    Folks, I dunno if I can help here, but I’m gonna try..

    – First, Th1Th2 has a a ‘variant’ (to be polite) definition of INFECTION from the rest of us.

    I believe the typical understanding of ‘infection’ is (no dictionary consulted): “Infestation of a host organism by another (micro)organism for the benefit and reproduction of the (micro)organism, to the detriment of host organism.” If that’s the case, then IMMUNITY (if it occurs), is the host organism developing defenses to slow / stop / reverse the spread of the infestation / invasion. Immunity doesn’t always occur, and in this case the (micro)organism invasion can result in the death of the host.

    Th1Th2′s definition of INFECTION appears to be, “Any mechanism that makes the body’s immune defenses aware of a possible invading (micro)organism.” This may occur through natural infection, as described above, OR (and for Th1Th2 this is important), through introduction of identifiable BUT INERT elements of such a (micro)organism that would provoke the body’s immune defenses WITHOUT such elements having the necessary equipment / tools to reproduce (vaccination / inoculation). As such, this second method ‘warns’ the immune system, training it so it’s prepared to recognize an active attack by a reproducing (micro)organism if that should occur.

    To sum up, Th1Th2′s definition of INFECTION is any method of making the host organism’s immune system aware of an invasion, possible or actual. The reproduction of a (micro)organism to the detriment of the host organism is an unimportant detail, in Th1Th2′s definition. That the host organism’s defenses / immune system are no longer naive to the existence of the (micro)organism is Th1Th2′s definition of infection.

    So, and I’m guessing here, even if a totally human-constructed molecule was created, which was made from totally sterile chemical components, that mimicked the appearance / signature / ‘warning’ of an infectious (micro)organism to the host organism’s defenses / immune system, but had absolutely no chance of reproducing to the detriment of the host, if said molecule was mechanically manufactured in a sterile environment in sufficient quantity, and the resultant was used as a vaccination, Th1Th2 would still refer to that as an INFECTION, in it’s worldview.

    It bears a striking resemblance to the idea of Original Sin, as I look at it. In that story, Adam and Eve weren’t evil after eating of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they were the same people they were before, simply with more knowledge that changed their worldview. Just so, when the vaccine has warned the host organism’s defenses / immune system, it’s still basically the same, just having more information with which to work.

    Until we nail down Th1Th2 on why it’s definition of ‘infection’ varies from the commonly accepted version, this argument is going to continue. While it’s educational to see all that is introduced to bring Th1Th2 around, it can also get tiresome because of variant definitions of at least one critical term.

    Th1Th2, I address you directly here: Please refine my definition of *your* understanding of INFECTION, if such is necessary. I feel I’ve delineated it pretty well, not that I agree with the nonsense that ‘lack of naivete’ = ‘infection’, but until we understand each others’ definitions (note I didn’t say ‘accept’, merely ‘understand’), you’ll get no farther than have the great majority of the posters / readers here.

  344. #345 Doug Hayden
    September 4, 2011

    forgot one point of the typical definition of ‘infection’: the (micro)organism uses the host not just as a food source, but also as a vector to spread to other hosts.

    This is yet another way that infection differs from inoculation / vaccination. Infection can be passed on to other possible hosts. Inoculation / vaccination, being of inert or at least biologically capable of reproduction inactive elements, CAN’T be passed on to other possible hosts, which is why it has to be actively performed at each possible host. Otherwise, parents would pass immunity to their children, and casual contact in society would pass immunity along. Since this doesn’t happen, and infestations of (micro)organisms DO pass host to host, there must be some difference of type, not merely of degree.

  345. #346 lilady
    September 4, 2011

    Please ignore delusional troll. He/she/it derives sick pleasure (“jollies”) out of being contrary. Rule #14.

  346. #347 Scottynuke
    September 4, 2011

    Doug;

    Ever heard of the Allman Brothers song “Wasted Words?” Entirely appropriate here, despite your good intentions.

  347. #348 Doug Hayden
    September 4, 2011

    @LiLady & ScottyNuke, I’m afraid you’re right…but acknowledgement of a position, definition of the difference, and a request ‘why’ can’t hurt, I hope.

    So it’s the whole Hope vs. Fear thing….let’s see if anything comes of it.

  348. #349 Denice Walter
    September 4, 2011

    @ Doug Hayden:

    You’ve made a valiant effort *and* it’s not a waste because there is an unseen group of lurkers ( some who may not be fully versed in this area and/or “on the fence”) who benefit from reasonable instruction.

    Here is an anecdote ( totally true):

    Rik is a young guy who teaches tennis to kids and adults; he is well liked and successful. One day, Jan signs up to take his adult class. Although she is weaker than the others, he makes an exception and lets her in. She argues with him, questions his instruction- which she doesn’t follow- and disrupts the class.

    After 6 months, exasperated Rik tells me, “I’ve tried everything! I go into detail explaining *why* you have to hold the racquet or move a certain way. I illustrate “good” vs “poor” form! I’ve used both visual and verbal instruction. I’ve tried *reasoning* with her!!! What am I doing wrong?”

    I tell Rik that reasoning doesn’t work because she doesn’t *use* reason. She is bi-polar. She over-rates her own performance while under-rating the other students. She disputes Rik’s expertise although she pays him good money for lessons: which makes no sense.

    Reasoning ( like general instruction) ain’t gonna work.

    Was this a total waste? No, Rik became a better instructor, the club learned how to deal with “difficult patrons” better, and I have an anecdote, as do the people in the class and Rik.

    Doug, if you try to instruct certain people, you may not affect them in the least ( there’s a possibility, you might even make cement themselves more adamantly to their position) but “others” are reading and may benefit and enjoy what you have to say.

  349. #350 Th1Th2
    September 4, 2011

    Doug Hayden,

    I believe the typical understanding of ‘infection’ is (no dictionary consulted): “Infestation of a host organism by another (micro)organism for the benefit and reproduction of the (micro)organism, to the detriment of host organism.”

    Hence, infection is also the infestation of host organism by live measles vaccine, OPV, live rotavirus, etc for the benefit and reproduction of the microorganism and to the detriment of host organism.
     

    If that’s the case, then IMMUNITY (if it occurs), is the host organism developing defenses to slow / stop / reverse the spread of the infestation / invasion.

    Well, the immunity that occurs during this initial infestation is called primary immune response. Don’t confuse this as  anamnestic response. And also primary immune response is an adaptive immunity so it does occur to slow, stop or reverse the initial infestation. The only reason adaptive immunity does not take place is when the invading microorganism is successfully neutralized, destroyed and repelled by physical, chemical and anatomical barriers of the body called innate immunity –  the type of immunity that is non-essential to vaccinators thus they  deliberately breach this protective immunity in order to promote infestation.

    Immunity doesn’t always occur, and in this case the (micro)organism invasion can result in the death of the host.

    Well immunity does always occur as I have explained earlier.   It was there even before the invading microorganism can establish itself. Also, there are only two factors that contribute to disease mortality like the health status of the host and the rest is iatrogenesis.

    Th1Th2′s definition of INFECTION appears to be, “Any mechanism that makes the body’s immune defenses aware of a possible invading (micro)organism.” This may occur through natural infection, as described above,[...]

    True but is not limited to natural infection because there are stupid people who can exploit this. 

    [...] OR (and for Th1Th2 this is important), through introduction of identifiable BUT INERT elements of such a (micro)organism that would provoke the body’s immune defenses WITHOUT such elements having the necessary equipment / tools to reproduce (vaccination / inoculation).

    Haha. Well, what you call INERT elements  incidentally are also the most potent, immunogenic or stinking part of the microorganism also called virulence factors. So the more microorganisms are replicating the more virulence factors are being produced. This is true with live vaccines whereas killed or inactivated vaccines, although having lost the capacity to replicate, still contain the necessary virulence factor. Yup they have been reproduced and prepared and then added to the vaccine.

    As such, this second method ‘warns’ the immune system, training it so it’s prepared to recognize an active attack by a reproducing (micro)organism if that should occur.

    Is this how you conveniently explain this to parents who mostly are ignorant of science? Don’t tell me this never happens naturally such as in the event of natural infection? You know the same minions (macrophage/neutrophils) who are responsible for recognizing an ongoing attack and trumpeting  “warning” signals to the rest of the immune system as a sign of an early infection? Of course, they are prepared to slow, stop or reverse the offending microorganism not just the way you would want it to be because you are confusing this event to a later scenario that is a result of this initial infestation (anamnestic response). Remember, this stage we are in is called primary immune response where all your so-called “training” happens not just during primary vaccination but  also during the initial exposure to natural infection. And the primary immune response to both is against the primary infection regardless whether the infection causes symptoms or not.

    To sum up, Th1Th2′s definition of INFECTION is any method of making the host organism’s immune system aware of an invasion, possible or actual.

    Correct. Also it’s an invasion so how do you know if you’ve invaded something? When you’ve come to reach that place when you’re not supposed to be in that place in the first place. That’s why there are vaccinators and their job is infection promotion. 

    The reproduction of a (micro)organism to the detriment of the host organism is an unimportant detail, in Th1Th2′s definition.

     All the necessary stinking virulence factors have been prepared in every killed or inactivated vaccines and made convenienty available to infection savvy people like you. Also, the reproduction of the microorganism is important at least in measles vaccine because just like any live vaccines, it MUST infect and replicate in the host.

     

    That the host organism’s defenses / immune system are no longer naive to the existence of the (micro)organism is Th1Th2′s definition of infection.

    Of course because that’s exactly the point why you vaccinate. To make them naive no more and this happens after the initial recognition of the microorganism during primary infection. 
    The evidence that the host is longer naive is the resultant immunological memory that was developed after primary infection (by natural infection or vaccines). Is this the one you and the rest of vaccinators keep bragging all the time?

    So, and I’m guessing here, even if a totally human-constructed molecule was created, which was made from totally sterile chemical components, that mimicked the appearance / signature / ‘warning’ of an infectious (micro)organism to the host organism’s defenses / immune system, but had absolutely no chance of reproducing to the detriment of the host, if said molecule was mechanically manufactured in a sterile environment in sufficient quantity, and the resultant was used as a vaccination, Th1Th2 would still refer to that as an INFECTION, in it’s worldview.

    Well, ALL vaccines contain PAMPs. It is a MUST otherwise, it’s not vaccine. As simple as that. And the more similar a vaccine is to disease-causing form of the microorganism the better the immune response to the vaccine.  Of course, PAMPs are indicators of  infectious agents and are recognized by the immune system. 

     

    Just so, when the vaccine has warned the host organism’s defenses / immune system, it’s still basically the same, just having more information with which to work.

    More information? I disagree. Vaccines are specific but not broad. Meaning it’s incomplete. Hence, the best immunogenic “vaccine” is natural infection.  Like I said, early warning signals occur as an adaptive response against primary infection caused by natural infection or vaccination. It’s not just a sole vaccine thingy you know.

    Until we nail down Th1Th2 on why it’s definition of ‘infection’ varies from the commonly accepted version, this argument is going to continue.

    On the contrary, I have already managed to nail down a few covert germ denialists (commonly known as vaccinators, pro-science, evidenced-based) in this blog and they have clearly admitted that they are in fact infection promoters.

    I feel I’ve delineated it pretty well,[...]

    Unfortunately, you have not. 

  350. #351 Th1Th2
    September 4, 2011

    Doug Hayden,

    @345

    My comment in response to #344 is still being held up by the moderator. So I’ll answer this one to prove that vaccination is indeed an infection by just using three letters Mr Moderator if you may.

    OPV.

  351. #352 Chris
    September 4, 2011

    Doug Hayden:

    Until we nail down Th1Th2 on why it’s definition of ‘infection’ varies from the commonly accepted version, this argument is going to continue.

    Dr. Harriet Hall said that trying to reason with Th1Th2 was like trying to nail jello to the wall. Just think of Th1Th2 as a delusional manipulative liar molded out of jello.

    Denise Walter, I recognize the “Jan” type. There was an adult student whose lesson was just before my daughter’s violin class. The violin teacher tried very hard to work with this person, but she finally had to tell her there would be no more lessons. The day the woman stormed out of the studio before my daughter’s lesson was very difficult. But as my daughter’s lesson commenced the teacher was very much relieved, and it was like a huge weight was lifted from her shoulders.

  352. #353 Doug Hayden
    September 4, 2011

    Th1Th2 @350,

    OPV

    Three letters is singularly unhelpful, particularly without a definition or a link.

    And concerning my post @344, there is absolutely no need for links. Your language abilities are more than enough to explain your point and correct my description of your position, based on what you’ve displayed here.

    Of course, if you’re not trying to come to a plain understanding, that is easy to say also…and if so, why not just do it?

    I will make a bet, while 349 is in moderation, that what you wrote will NOT address the point I made or the description of your worldview that I attempted to delineate. If so, you will have shown your colors to be a mere obstructionist and I can, with a clear conscience, killfile your future textual excreta.

  353. #354 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    September 4, 2011

    And what of the Salk polio vaccine, which does not cause an infection?

  354. #355 Th1Th
    September 4, 2011

    Hey Snoop Doug,

    Relax. My comment for #344 will come out soon. Patience is a virtue. For the meantime why don’t you augment your understanding on the mechanism of OPV and new the kid on the block called VDPV.

  355. #356 Th1Th2
    September 4, 2011

    Mephistopheles,

    And what of the Salk polio vaccine, which does not cause an infection?

    Are you saying asymptomatic poliomyelitis is not polio?
    Remember Cutter?

  356. #357 Th1Th2
    September 4, 2011

    And concerning my post @344, there is absolutely no need for links.

    Well I’m quite baffled as to why my comment for that is still in limbo when there isn’t any links in it.

    “Just plain understanding” like you said.

  357. #358 Gray Falcon
    September 4, 2011

    If the polio vaccine was the same as the virus, where are the tens of thousands of paralysis cases that it should have caused? One percent of a million is ten thousand.

  358. #359 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    September 4, 2011

    The Salk vaccine, being a killed virus, does not cause polio – symptomatic or asymptomatic. The oral polio vaccine, as a live attenuated virus, does cause an asymptomatic, non-contagious infection in the vast majority of cases. Note that the incidence of symptoms from the oral polio vaccine is many of orders of magnitude lower than from the wild virus.

  359. #360 Th1Th2
    September 4, 2011

    Hey Chris,

    Dr. Harriet Hall said that trying to reason with Th1Th2 was like trying to nail jello to the wall. Just think of Th1Th2 as a delusional manipulative liar molded out of jello.

    Since you didn’t answer me back in #334, does that mean you’re a germ denialist and a manipulative liar?

  360. #361 Gray Falcon
    September 4, 2011

    What was there to answer? You basically flat-out admitted that the vaccine wasn’t as bad as the disease, which pretty much undermines your whole argument.

  361. #362 Narad
    September 4, 2011

    Since you didn’t answer me back in #334, does that mean you’re a germ denialist and a manipulative liar?

    Uh-oh, somebody’s getting pissy. Pray tell, dear Th1Th2, how have you been “manipulated”?

  362. #363 Th1Th2
    September 4, 2011

    Gray Falcon,

    If the polio vaccine was the same as the virus, where are the tens of thousands of paralysis cases that it should have caused? One percent of a million is ten thousand.

    The same virulent poliovirus that causes paralytic polio is also the same virulent poliovirus that cause asymptomatic poliomyelitis. So where are the expected vaccine-related primary poliomyelitis infection and paralytic events that should have been reported? Check #334. It’s the same diagnostic screening BS that excludes the vaccinee from getting a polio diagnosis.

  363. #364 Th1Th2
    September 4, 2011

    Mephistopheles,

    The Salk vaccine, being a killed virus, does not cause polio – symptomatic or asymptomatic.

    The Salk vaccine is an inactivated vaccine, hence the Cutter incident.

    The oral polio vaccine, as a live attenuated virus, does cause an asymptomatic, non-contagious infection in the vast majority of cases.

    The OPV is not only limited to causing primary poliomyelitis, paralytic or not, but secondary spread as well. Of course, this secondary transmission would sound negative thus will be easily dismissed by vaccinators because to them it’s only a “rare” event but simply rephrasing it to “passive” immunity to reach their low level of intelligence would put smile back in their idiot mind because now a vast majority of people will be “passively” immune thanks to OPV and thus protected. Nuts.

    Note that the incidence of symptoms from the oral polio vaccine is many of orders of magnitude lower than from the wild virus.

    Well, the same virulent poliovirus that causes asymptomatic poliomyelitis is also “many of orders of magnitude lower” than the same virulent poliovirus that causes paralytic poliomyelitis. Buy hey you’re still infected.

  364. #365 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    September 4, 2011

    Here’s the whole thing in a nutshell—Thingy at #334:

    Of course, I have explained that pretty well along with the evidence that the touted 90% reduction of measles cases is attributed ONLY to the reduction of measles symptoms (clinical measles). That number does not represent the vast majority of measles cases primarily caused by the measles vaccine. Meaning those persons who were inoculated were never reported as primary measles infection regardless of symptomatology.

    She doesn’t give a damn about symptoms. Preventing symptoms, including suffering, permanent disability, and death, are of no interest to her. All that matters in her fearful little psyche is the breaching of her Purity of Essence™—P. O. E.—by having her immune system alerted to the existence of some antigen. Then she’s been “infected”—violated! Her purity has been compromised. These disease organisms or parts thereof used in vaccination, being the only such organisms in the world, have spoiled her virginal snow-white purity. The millions of other microorganisms that we’re constantly exposed to, that cause no disease and therefore are not vaccinated against, don’t exist in her delusional little fantasy world—and those bad, vaccine-preventable diseases can be seen floating around in the air and avoided by exercising “due diligence”.

    Now a message from reality: Symptoms are what we’re trying to prevent, numbnuts! If an organism causes no symptoms, we don’t vaccinate against it. If the organisms we vaccinate against caused no symptoms, we wouldn’t care aboout them. We’d just be “infected” (in trollspeak) by 1,000,020 different organisms rather than 1,000,000. And We don’t care that our Purity of Essence—P. O. E.—has been violated. That’s just you, General Ripper!

  365. #366 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    September 4, 2011

    Well, the same virulent poliovirus that causes asymptomatic poliomyelitis is also “many of orders of magnitude lower” than the same virulent poliovirus that causes paralytic poliomyelitis. Buy hey you’re still infected.

    This point is senseless, as it appears to equate the effects of a virus that’s been deliberately modified in order to seriously reduce its virulence with one that has not.
    And the infection is not, frankly, an issue if you’re not contagious, have no symptoms, and have no long term negative effects.

  366. #367 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    September 4, 2011

    And the Cutter incident involved the contamination of the inactivated virus with live virus due to improper procedures. The inactivated virus did not cause an infection; the live virus contaminant did.

  367. #368 Th1Th2
    September 4, 2011

    What was there to answer? You basically flat-out admitted that the vaccine wasn’t as bad as the disease, which pretty much undermines your whole argument.

    That’s laughable Gray. Just like Chris you’re just basically too busy looking for your brain. The 90% reduction of measles symptoms pertains to subsequent exposure to measles virus and not to primary infection. Hence, a person who have had primary measles infection from natural infection or vaccines would usually have reduced to absent symptoms, shorter duration and quick recovery upon secondary exposure.

    And for Gray to assert that I have admitted that the vaccine weren’t as bad as the disease is like telling everyone that Russian Roullete is not as bad as an execution by firing squad. Sorry Gray, I don’t play your lethal game.

    What are you going to do now for those who opt out?

  368. #369 lilady
    September 4, 2011

    Time to “terminally disinfect” this delusional troll.

  369. #370 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    September 4, 2011

    What are you going to do now for those who opt out?

    There is only one known way to opt out, which is to die before being exposed – so the question is pointless. You are in the game regardless of your intent.

  370. #371 Th1Th2
    September 4, 2011

    There is only one known way to opt out, which is to die before being exposed – so the question is pointless. You are in the game regardless of your intent.

    See. You’re gonna shoot them even before they turn their back. That’s for you Mr. Executioner.

  371. #372 Gray Falcon
    September 4, 2011

    How do you plan on opting out? You’ve admitted that it’s possible to be contagious and not show symptoms. How do you avoid people like that?

  372. #373 Chris
    September 4, 2011

    Mephistopheles O’Brien:

    You are in the game regardless of your intent.

    Ignore the troll. I do not respond to her, but I will warn others that she is a delusional manipulative liar.

  373. #374 Th1Th2
    September 4, 2011

    And the Cutter incident involved the contamination of the inactivated virus with live virus due to improper procedures. The inactivated virus did not cause an infection; the live virus contaminant did.

    Haha. Myth. What a shame. The Salk vaccine is prepared from actual, live and intact poliovirus just add some formalin and there you go. So it’s not surprising that some poliovirus were not inactivated and as a result, VAPP. And BTW, the Cutter incident is not the first infamous and humiliating stupidity created by these infection promoters. It happened before in early 1930′s where attempts to make a polio vaccine was proven to be a disastrous event among the vaccines who were deliberately paralyzed.

    You should learn from history.

  374. #375 Gray Falcon
    September 4, 2011

    Th1Th2, where are all the victims of polio that somehow got reported as something else? What evidence do you have?

  375. #376 Th1Th2
    September 4, 2011

    *vaccinee

  376. #377 Agashem
    September 4, 2011

    Must never let trolls have last post…..Is anyone else getting more and more creeped out by the Thing??? I feel like her screen must be covered in spittle and maybe that explains why she so misunderstands everything….and also doesn’t answer questions.

  377. #378 Narad
    September 4, 2011

    Is anyone else getting more and more creeped out by the Thing???

    Not I. It’s mostly a constant of the motion. It just gets less coherent when encouraged to paint itself into a corner, but it will forget about that in no time.

  378. #379 augustine
    September 5, 2011

    agashem, bless you!

    Must never let trolls have last post…..

    Is this some sort of neurosis that the science blogger/atheist types have? Chris really gets into this type of thing with her Barney Fife necromancer police role. I think Chris may have an intellectual “disability”.

  379. #380 Th1Th2
    September 5, 2011

    (I don’t mind if this is a repost. This should been up yesterday Mr Moderator)

    Doug Hayden,

    I believe the typical understanding of ‘infection’ is (no dictionary consulted): “Infestation of a host organism by another (micro)organism for the benefit and reproduction of the (micro)organism, to the detriment of host organism.”

    Hence, infection is also the infestation of host organism by live measles vaccine, OPV, live rotavirus, etc for the benefit and reproduction of the microorganism and to the detriment of host organism.
     

    If that’s the case, then IMMUNITY (if it occurs), is the host organism developing defenses to slow / stop / reverse the spread of the infestation / invasion.

    Well, the immunity that occurs during this initial infestation is called primary immune response. Don’t confuse this as  anamnestic response. And also primary immune response is an adaptive immunity so it does occur to slow, stop or reverse the initial infestation. The only reason adaptive immunity does not take place is when the invading microorganism is successfully neutralized, destroyed and repelled by physical, chemical and anatomical barriers of the body called innate immunity –  the type of immunity that is non-essential to vaccinators thus they  deliberately breach this protective immunity in order to promote infestation.

    Immunity doesn’t always occur, and in this case the (micro)organism invasion can result in the death of the host.

    Well immunity does always occur as I have explained earlier.   It was there even before the invading microorganism can establish itself. Also, there are only two factors that contribute to disease mortality like the health status of the host and the rest is iatrogenesis.

    Th1Th2′s definition of INFECTION appears to be, “Any mechanism that makes the body’s immune defenses aware of a possible invading (micro)organism.” This may occur through natural infection, as described above,[...]

    True but is not limited to natural infection because there are stupid people who can exploit this. 

    [...] OR (and for Th1Th2 this is important), through introduction of identifiable BUT INERT elements of such a (micro)organism that would provoke the body’s immune defenses WITHOUT such elements having the necessary equipment / tools to reproduce (vaccination / inoculation).

    Haha. Well, what you call INERT elements  incidentally are also the most potent, immunogenic or stinking part of the microorganism also called virulence factors. So the more microorganisms are replicating the more virulence factors are being produced. This is true with live vaccines whereas killed or inactivated vaccines, although having lost the capacity to replicate, still contain the necessary virulence factor. Yup they have been reproduced and prepared and then added to the vaccine.

    As such, this second method ‘warns’ the immune system, training it so it’s prepared to recognize an active attack by a reproducing (micro)organism if that should occur.

    Is this how you conveniently explain this to parents who mostly are ignorant of science? Don’t tell me this never happens naturally such as in the event of natural infection? You know the same minions (macrophage/neutrophils) who are responsible for recognizing an ongoing attack and trumpeting  “warning” signals to the rest of the immune system as a sign of an early infection? Of course, they are prepared to slow, stop or reverse the offending microorganism not just the way you would want it to be because you are confusing this event to a later scenario that is a result of this initial infestation (anamnestic response). Remember, this stage we are in is called primary immune response where all your so-called “training” happens not just during primary vaccination but  also during the initial exposure to natural infection. And the primary immune response to both is against the primary infection regardless whether the infection causes symptoms or not.

    To sum up, Th1Th2′s definition of INFECTION is any method of making the host organism’s immune system aware of an invasion, possible or actual.

    Correct. Also it’s an invasion so how do you know if you’ve invaded something? When you’ve come to reach that place when you’re not supposed to be in that place in the first place. That’s why there are vaccinators and their job is infection promotion. 

    The reproduction of a (micro)organism to the detriment of the host organism is an unimportant detail, in Th1Th2′s definition.

     All the necessary stinking virulence factors have been prepared in every killed or inactivated vaccines and made convenienty available to infection savvy people like you. Also, the reproduction of the microorganism is important at least in measles vaccine because just like any live vaccines, it MUST infect and replicate in the host.

     

    That the host organism’s defenses / immune system are no longer naive to the existence of the (micro)organism is Th1Th2′s definition of infection.

    Of course because that’s exactly the point why you vaccinate. To make them naive no more and this happens after the initial recognition of the microorganism during primary infection. 
    The evidence that the host is longer naive is the resultant immunological memory that was developed after primary infection (by natural infection or vaccines). Is this the one you and the rest of vaccinators keep bragging all the time?

    So, and I’m guessing here, even if a totally human-constructed molecule was created, which was made from totally sterile chemical components, that mimicked the appearance / signature / ‘warning’ of an infectious (micro)organism to the host organism’s defenses / immune system, but had absolutely no chance of reproducing to the detriment of the host, if said molecule was mechanically manufactured in a sterile environment in sufficient quantity, and the resultant was used as a vaccination, Th1Th2 would still refer to that as an INFECTION, in it’s worldview.

    Well, ALL vaccines contain PAMPs. It is a MUST otherwise, it’s not vaccine. As simple as that. And the more similar a vaccine is to disease-causing form of the microorganism the better the immune response to the vaccine.  Of course, PAMPs are indicators of  infectious agents and are recognized by the immune system. 

     

    Just so, when the vaccine has warned the host organism’s defenses / immune system, it’s still basically the same, just having more information with which to work.

    More information? I disagree. Vaccines are specific but not broad. Meaning it’s incomplete. Hence, the best immunogenic “vaccine” is natural infection.  Like I said, early warning signals occur as an adaptive response against primary infection caused by natural infection or vaccination. It’s not just a sole vaccine thingy you know.

    Until we nail down Th1Th2 on why it’s definition of ‘infection’ varies from the commonly accepted version, this argument is going to continue.

    On the contrary, I have already managed to nail down a few covert germ denialists (commonly known as vaccinators, pro-science, evidenced-based) in this blog and they have clearly admitted that they are in fact infection promoters.

    I feel I’ve delineated it pretty well,[...]

    Unfortunately, you have not. 

  380. #381 Th1Th2
    September 5, 2011

    Re: #344

    (OK so my comment is still in limbo, double posting didn’t even work. What gives?Anyway here it is in installments)

    Doug Hayden,

    I believe the typical understanding of ‘infection’ is (no dictionary consulted): “Infestation of a host organism by another (micro)organism for the benefit and reproduction of the (micro)organism, to the detriment of host organism.”

    Hence, infection is also the infestation of host organism by live measles vaccine, OPV, live rotavirus, etc for the benefit and reproduction of the microorganism and to the detriment of host organism.
     

    If that’s the case, then IMMUNITY (if it occurs), is the host organism developing defenses to slow / stop / reverse the spread of the infestation / invasion.

    Well, the immunity that occurs during this initial infestation is called primary immune response. Don’t confuse this as  anamnestic response. And also primary immune response is an adaptive immunity so it does occur to slow, stop or reverse the initial infestation. The only reason adaptive immunity does not take place is when the invading microorganism is successfully neutralized, destroyed and repelled by physical, chemical and anatomical barriers of the body called innate immunity –  the type of immunity that is non-essential to vaccinators thus they  deliberately breach this protective immunity in order to promote infestation.

  381. #382 Th1Th2
    September 5, 2011

    Immunity doesn’t always occur, and in this case the (micro)organism invasion can result in the death of the host.

    Well immunity does always occur as I have explained earlier.   It was there even before the invading microorganism can establish itself. Also, there are only two factors that contribute to disease mortality like the health status of the host and the rest is iatrogenesis.

    Th1Th2′s definition of INFECTION appears to be, “Any mechanism that makes the body’s immune defenses aware of a possible invading (micro)organism.” This may occur through natural infection, as described above,[...]

    True but is not limited to natural infection because there are stupid people who can exploit this. 

    [...] OR (and for Th1Th2 this is important), through introduction of identifiable BUT INERT elements of such a (micro)organism that would provoke the body’s immune defenses WITHOUT such elements having the necessary equipment / tools to reproduce (vaccination / inoculation).

    Haha. Well, what you call INERT elements  incidentally are also the most potent, immunogenic or stinking part of the microorganism also called virulence factors. So the more microorganisms are replicating the more virulence factors are being produced. This is true with live vaccines whereas killed or inactivated vaccines, although having lost the capacity to replicate, still contain the necessary virulence factor. Yup they have been reproduced and prepared and then added to the vaccine.

  382. #383 Th1Th2
    September 5, 2011

    As such, this second method ‘warns’ the immune system, training it so it’s prepared to recognize an active attack by a reproducing (micro)organism if that should occur.

    Is this how you conveniently explain this to parents who mostly are ignorant of science? Don’t tell me this never happens naturally such as in the event of natural infection? You know the same minions (macrophage/neutrophils) who are responsible for recognizing an ongoing attack and trumpeting  “warning” signals to the rest of the immune system as a sign of an early infection? Of course, they are prepared to slow, stop or reverse the offending microorganism not just the way you would want it to be because you are confusing this event to a later scenario that is a result of this initial infestation (anamnestic response). Remember, this stage we are in is called primary immune response where all your so-called “training” happens not just during primary vaccination but  also during the initial exposure to natural infection. And the primary immune response to both is against the primary infection regardless whether the infection causes symptoms or not.

    To sum up, Th1Th2′s definition of INFECTION is any method of making the host organism’s immune system aware of an invasion, possible or actual.

    Correct. Also it’s an invasion so how do you know if you’ve invaded something? When you’ve come to reach that place when you’re not supposed to be in that place in the first place. That’s why there are vaccinators and their job is infection promotion. 

    The reproduction of a (micro)organism to the detriment of the host organism is an unimportant detail, in Th1Th2′s definition.

     All the necessary stinking virulence factors have been prepared in every killed or inactivated vaccines and made convenienty available to infection savvy people like you. Also, the reproduction of the microorganism is important at least in measles vaccine because just like any live vaccines, it MUST infect and replicate in the host.

  383. #384 Th1Th2
    September 5, 2011

    That the host organism’s defenses / immune system are no longer naive to the existence of the (micro)organism is Th1Th2′s definition of infection.

    Of course because that’s exactly the point why you vaccinate. To make them naive no more and this happens after the initial recognition of the microorganism during primary infection. 
    The evidence that the host is longer naive is the resultant immunological memory that was developed after primary infection (by natural infection or vaccines). Is this the one you and the rest of vaccinators keep bragging all the time?

    So, and I’m guessing here, even if a totally human-constructed molecule was created, which was made from totally sterile chemical components, that mimicked the appearance / signature / ‘warning’ of an infectious (micro)organism to the host organism’s defenses / immune system, but had absolutely no chance of reproducing to the detriment of the host, if said molecule was mechanically manufactured in a sterile environment in sufficient quantity, and the resultant was used as a vaccination, Th1Th2 would still refer to that as an INFECTION, in it’s worldview.

    Well, ALL vaccines contain PAMPs. It is a MUST otherwise, it’s not vaccine. As simple as that. And the more similar a vaccine is to disease-causing form of the microorganism the better the immune response to the vaccine.  Of course, PAMPs are indicators of  infectious agents and are recognized by the immune system. 

     

    Just so, when the vaccine has warned the host organism’s defenses / immune system, it’s still basically the same, just having more information with which to work.

    More information? I disagree. Vaccines are specific but not broad. Meaning it’s incomplete. Hence, the best immunogenic “vaccine” is natural infection.  Like I said, early warning signals occur as an adaptive response against primary infection caused by natural infection or vaccination. It’s not just a sole vaccine thingy you know.

  384. #385 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    September 5, 2011

    You’ll notice that only one person is actually talking about shooting people. I’m not suggesting anything, merely pointing out a fact.

  385. #386 lilady
    September 5, 2011

    Ignore delusional troll which needs to be “terminally disinfected”.

  386. #387 Th1Th2
    September 5, 2011

    (this is the last part)

    Until we nail down Th1Th2 on why it’s definition of ‘infection’ varies from the commonly accepted version, this argument is going to continue.

    On the contrary, I have already managed to nail down a few covert germ denialists (commonly known as vaccinators, pro-science, evidenced-based) in this blog and they have clearly admitted that they are in fact infection promoters.

    I feel I’ve delineated it pretty well,[...]

    Unfortunately, you have not. 

  387. #388 Th1Th2
    September 5, 2011

    Th1Th2, where are all the victims of polio that somehow got reported as something else? What evidence do you have?

    Just to give you an idea on how it’s easy to diagnose or misdiagnose polio.

    1. [The differential diagnosis of poliomyelitis and other acute flaccid paralyses].
    Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex. 1993 Feb;50(2):136-44.

    2. Diagnosis of acute flaccid paralysis: injection injury or polio?
    Natl Med J India. 2003 May-Jun;16(3):156-8.

    3. Unnecessary injections and paralytic poliomyelitis in India.
    Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1992 Sep-Oct;86(5):546-9.

    4. Acute flaccid paralysis: a misdiagnosis of poliomyelitis.
    Niger J Med. 2009 Jan-Mar;18(1):110-2.

    5. Vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis and other diseases with acute flaccid paralysis syndrome in Belarus.
    Cent Eur J Public Health. 2003 Dec;11(4):213-8.

  388. #389 Th1Th2
    September 5, 2011

    Th1Th2, where are all the victims of polio that somehow got reported as something else? What evidence do you have?

    Just to give you an idea on how it’s easy to diagnose or misdiagnose polio.

    1.  [The differential diagnosis of poliomyelitis and other acute flaccid paralyses].
    Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex. 1993 Feb;50(2):136-44.

    2.  Vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis and other diseases with acute flaccid paralysis syndrome in Belarus.
    Cent Eur J Public Health. 2003 Dec;11(4):213-8.

  389. #390 Th1Th2
    September 5, 2011

    3. Diagnosis of acute flaccid paralysis: injection injury or polio?
    Natl Med J India. 2003 May-Jun;16(3):156-8.

    4. Unnecessary injections and paralytic poliomyelitis in India.
    Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1992 Sep-Oct;86(5):546-9.

    5. Acute flaccid paralysis: a misdiagnosis of poliomyelitis.
    Niger J Med. 2009 Jan-Mar;18(1):110-2.

  390. #391 Gray Falcon
    September 5, 2011

    Th1Th2, where are all the victims of polio that somehow got reported as something else? What evidence do you have?

  391. #392 Chris
    September 5, 2011

    Gray Falcon, Th1Th2 doesn’t need no stinking evidence! She just has to rely on those little voices in her head.

  392. #393 Th1Th2
    September 5, 2011

    Does a kookaburra ever argue?

  393. #394 The Christian Cynic
    September 5, 2011

    Since it’s a holiday here and I am feeling a little dialectically masochistic today, I’ll engage Thingy on a few points:

    Hence, infection is also the infestation of host organism by live measles vaccine, OPV, live rotavirus, etc for the benefit and reproduction of the microorganism and to the detriment of host organism.

    Assuming that we’re talking only attenuated vaccines here, what exactly are the detrimental effects on the host organism (i.e. the vaccinated person)? We know of the potential of reversion (hence why we avoid IPV in areas where polio vaccination is more established), but that would make those instances infections, not every vaccination.

    On the contrary, I have already managed to nail down a few covert germ denialists (commonly known as vaccinators, pro-science, evidenced-based) in this blog and they have clearly admitted that they are in fact infection promoters.

    There are two problems. First, you keep using the term “germ denialists” (or sometimes “germ deniers”) as though it actually meant something here. Nobody here is denying that germs (microbes, etc.) cause disease; there is simply not agreement that “infection” applies in the case of vaccines (leaving aside your contentious definition).

    Second, assuming for the sake of argument that your definition is an accurate description of “infection,” you continue to use it as a pejorative with little logic behind it. Rhetorically, the accusation of “infection promoter” simply builds on a negative connotation, which is assuredly why you insist on throwing it around; but if vaccines do in fact provoke an immune response using a largely asymptomatic, non-communicable infection and prevent symptomatic, communicable infections, then clearly the insinuation that such people are trying to promote something bad (insert scary sound effects here) is meaningless. It says a lot about how you have decided to approach the issue of vaccines: with heavy rhetoric and little substance. Then again, when you don’t have substance to work with, sometimes you just have to overcompensate in other areas.

  394. #395 Th1Th2
    September 5, 2011

    You’ll notice that only one person is actually talking about shooting people. I’m not suggesting anything, merely pointing out a fact.

    Well, the fact is 18 people die of measles every hour. Are you saying they have a better chance of survival if they play your game of Russian Roulette?

  395. #396 Gray Falcon
    September 5, 2011

    Yes, they do have a better chance of survival if the vaccinate. Do you have a better solution? And you still haven’t told me where I can find all the hidden victims of the polio vaccine.

  396. #397 Narad
    September 5, 2011

    Well, the fact is 18 people die of measles every hour. Are you saying they have a better chance of survival if they play your game of Russian Roulette?

    You don’t wear desperation well, Th1Th2. How many people died of measles “every hour” in 2000? What happened in the meantime? (Hint: It doesn’t seem to involve your elevation to the clergy.)

  397. #398 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 5, 2011

    Well, the fact is 18 people die of measles every hour. Are you saying they have a better chance of survival if they play your game of Russian Roulette?

    Yes. That is the whole point of vaccination. Also fewer people will get seriously ill.

  398. #399 Th1Th2
    September 5, 2011

    The Christian Cynic,

    Assuming that we’re talking only attenuated vaccines here, what exactly are the detrimental effects on the host organism (i.e. the vaccinated person)?

    Just a few but not limited to:

    1. Primary infection
    2. Latent infection
    3. Escape mutation

    There are two problems. First, you keep using the term “germ denialists” (or sometimes “germ deniers”) as though it actually meant something here. Nobody here is denying that germs (microbes, etc.) cause disease; there is simply not agreement that “infection” applies in the case of vaccines (leaving aside your contentious definition).

    Just as I thought. You are in fact a germ denialist. Because everytime vaccines are involved the germ theory of disease is so easily forgotten. So what is the germ theory in the evolution of Vaccine Derived Poliovirus causing paralytic poliomyelitis?

    Second, assuming for the sake of argument that your definition is an accurate description of “infection,” you continue to use it as a pejorative with little logic behind it.

    VDPV is real and a direct consequence of germ theory of disease you’re vigorously promoting.

    Rhetorically, the accusation of “infection promoter” simply builds on a negative connotation, which is assuredly why you insist on throwing it around;

    Well, that’s also equivalent to providing or acquiring “immunity” to the non-immune? Does that make you smile now? OPV works very well in promoting secondary spread to the non-immune aka the uninfected. Therefore, you are indeed an infection promoter.

    but if vaccines do in fact provoke an immune response using a largely asymptomatic, non-communicable infection and prevent symptomatic, communicable infections, then clearly the insinuation that such people are trying to promote something bad (insert scary sound effects here) is meaningless.

    Since you just admitted that vaccines do not prevent primary infection, that means you lied about VPD.

    It says a lot about how you have decided to approach the issue of vaccines: with heavy rhetoric and little substance. Then again, when you don’t have substance to work with, sometimes you just have to overcompensate in other areas.

    Funny. That’s the problem when you believe in myth and pretend it as Science. There’s is no escape to this contradiction. You can’t get away from it. Like I said, you’re just merely circling around between two opposite poles of germ denialism and infection promotion. And it’s very very very obvious.

  399. #400 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    September 5, 2011

    Per http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/overview.html:

    Measles is very rare in countries and regions of the world that are able to keep vaccination coverage high. In North and South America, Finland, and some other areas, endemic measles transmission is considered to have been interrupted through vaccination. There are still sporadic cases of measles in the United States because visitors from other countries or US citizens traveling abroad can become infected before or during travel and spread the infection to unvaccinated or unprotected persons.

    Worldwide, there are estimated to be 20 million cases and 197,000 deaths each year.

    According to http://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccination.html:

    In the decade before the measles vaccination program began, an estimated 3–4 million people in the United States were infected each year, of whom 400–500 died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and another 1,000 developed chronic disability from measles encephalitis. Widespread use of measles vaccine has led to a greater than 99% reduction in measles cases in the United States compared with the pre-vaccine era, and in 2009, only 71 cases of measles were reported in the United States.

  400. #401 The Christian Cynic
    September 5, 2011

    Just a few but not limited to:

    1. Primary infection
    2. Latent infection

    Wait, the detrimental effects of infection on the host organism include infection? Did you even think about the fact that that’s circular logic? You basically just said, “Infection is bad because it causes infection.” Uh, no.

    Just as I thought. You are in fact a germ denialist.

    And you think the moon is made out of edible green cheese. We can throw around unsubstantiated accusations if that’s the level of discourse you prefer.

    Because everytime vaccines are involved the germ theory of disease is so easily forgotten. So what is the germ theory in the evolution of Vaccine Derived Poliovirus causing paralytic poliomyelitis?



    VDPV is real and a direct consequence of germ theory of disease you’re vigorously promoting.

    That’s pretty simple. We know that OPV has the potential to cause reversion (via mutation) so that the strain becomes virulent again. That is a clear example of infection. That doesn’t happen in the vast majority of vaccines. If you think it does, evidence to the contrary is required.

    And I didn’t deny that VDPV exists. I know that would have made your day, but you made that assumption.

    Well, that’s also equivalent to providing or acquiring “immunity” to the non-immune? Does that make you smile now? OPV works very well in promoting secondary spread to the non-immune aka the uninfected. Therefore, you are indeed an infection promoter.

    Are you trying at a record for most non sequiturs in a single comment? None of that at all follows from what you quoted, which was simply pointing out that you’re using “infection promoter” as some sort of scary oogedy-boogedy kind of term without any real substance.

    Since you just admitted that vaccines do not prevent primary infection, that means you lied about VPD.

    You really don’t understand counterfactual statements, do you? When I say, “assuming for the sake of argument,” or use “if” in a statement, that does not mean I have agreed with you but have instead chosen to argue against your arguments based on your presumptions. Seriously, this is Logic 101 stuff.

    Funny. That’s the problem when you believe in myth and pretend it as Science.

    To see you respond to accusations of a lack of substance with a lack of substance makes me laugh. Thanks for the chuckle on my day off.

  401. #402 Th1Th2
    September 5, 2011

    Yes, they do have a better chance of survival if the vaccinate.

    Well, that’s the same thing I heard from the other group of infection promoters (you know those stupid moms who would sign up for measles), that initial measles infection in early childhood would promote less symptoms, shorter duration and faster recovery than the first after re-exposure let alone lifelong immunity. Isn’t that called science-based? Of course it is and so is primary infection where it all begun.

    And you still haven’t told me where I can find all the hidden victims of the polio vaccine.

    Are you still looking for your brain?

  402. #403 Gray Falcon
    September 5, 2011

    Well, where are they? Seriously, if you can produce evidence tens of thousands of people paralyzed by the vaccine, then I might believe you. So where are they?

  403. #404 lilady
    September 5, 2011

    Ignore delusional troll with its make believe education, make believe health care career and make believe expertise in infectious diseases. It needs “terminal disinfection”.

  404. #405 Krebiozen
    September 5, 2011

    You can’t argue with someone who simply doesn’t understand logic. Vaccines cause infections because they do, vaccine-induced “infections” are bad because they are infections. I don’t think you you will get anything more coherent out of Th1Th2 than that.

  405. #406 Th1Th2
    September 5, 2011

    Cynic,

    Wait, the detrimental effects of infection on the host organism include infection? Did you even think about the fact that that’s circular logic? You basically just said, “Infection is bad because it causes infection.” Uh, no.

    Well you’re the one who’s utterly stupid for not realizing that your question pertains to vaccine ONLY, no? And my answer is clear. Vaccines cause primary infection and latency. Fact. The varicella vaccine causes primary varicella infection, latency and then a later reactivation called herpes zoster.  And the only thing you can do right now is a circular escape mechanism called germ denialism.

    That’s pretty simple. We know that OPV has the potential to cause reversion (via mutation) so that the strain becomes virulent again. That is a clear example of infection. That doesn’t happen in the vast majority of vaccines. If you think it does, evidence to the contrary is required.
    And I didn’t deny that VDPV exists. I know that would have made your day, but you made that assumption.

    Great so you wouldn’t deny VDPV exists then it means you’re an infection promoter. Wait I’m not done exposing your stupidity just yet. What if Science tells you that majority of primary poliomyelitis infection is caused by Vaccine-Related Poliovirus (less than 1 percent sequence divergence from OPV) which is genetically distinguishable from VDPV and WT poliovirus. Are you going to deny this again germ denialist?

    You really don’t understand counterfactual statements, do you? When I say, “assuming for the sake of argument,” or use “if” in a statement, that does not mean I have agreed with you but have instead chosen to argue against your arguments based on your presumptions. Seriously, this is Logic 101 stuff.

    Ladies and gentlemen, we have a vaccine denier in the house! That’s something new.

    To see you respond to accusations of a lack of substance with a lack of substance makes me laugh. Thanks for the chuckle on my day off.

    I’m a mythbuster for a reason. Don’t get offended.

    Are you trying at a record for most non sequiturs in a single comment? None of that at all follows from what you quoted, which was simply pointing out that you’re using “infection promoter” as some sort of scary oogedy-boogedy kind of term without any real substance.

    Non-answer. That’s a sure way for you to avoid utter humiliation. I see.

  406. #408 Agashem
    September 5, 2011

    La di da dum doo doo doo…..just making sure the Thing doesn’t feel like he closed the posts…..La da di da doo da dum………

  407. #409 Gray Falcon
    September 5, 2011

    A better choice would have been: Th1Th2, I have no idea what you were trying to say.

  408. #410 Narad
    September 5, 2011

    Well, that’s the same thing I heard from the other group of infection promoters (you know those stupid moms who would sign up for measles)

    I swear, this one never gets old (well, I guess it even got a little fresher, since the reference is usually to “pox”). Did you have a lot pinned on that effort or something?

  409. #411 Agashem
    September 5, 2011

    I don’t know, the Thing uses so many words that mean nothing. Occassionally I feel like we are all part of some weird performance art. However, I would be willing to part with $5.00 (Canadian which is virtually at par) to understand what this art piece is all about……

  410. #412 Narad
    September 5, 2011

    Laura, you do understand that this not only doesn’t mean anything but, in construction, demonstrates that it doesn’t mean anything, right? It is by definition impossible to develop JIA in the space of 24 hours.

    The mother of a sexually naïve adolescent girl who developed acute onset Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis within 24 hours of her last injection of the Gardasil™ series contacted SANE Vax Inc. looking for more information.

  411. #413 The Christian Cynic
    September 5, 2011

    Well you’re the one who’s utterly stupid for not realizing that your question pertains to vaccine ONLY, no?

    You apparently didn’t follow the thread very well. Here are a few bits to remind you:

    I believe the typical understanding of ‘infection’ is (no dictionary consulted): “Infestation of a host organism by another (micro)organism for the benefit and reproduction of the (micro)organism, to the detriment of host organism.”

    Hence, infection is also the infestation of host organism by live measles vaccine, OPV, live rotavirus, etc for the benefit and reproduction of the microorganism and to the detriment of host organism. [emphasis mine]

    So, if you think that vaccination constitutes an infection and that an infection requires harm to the host organism, you cannot claim that infection is a harm because that is circular logic.

    I know I said that this is a holiday and I’m bored, but responding to such inanity is in fact no longer worth it to me. When you can’t even give a distinct harm that would constitute infection under a definition you’ve agreed to, then you aren’t worth responding to.

  412. #414 Th1Th2
    September 5, 2011

    Kevin,

    Yes. That is the whole point of vaccination. Also fewer people will get seriously ill.

    The way you’re justifying that everyone MUST play Russian Roullete because the chance of survival is greater than execution by firing squad, really is fascinating.

    I’m wondering what kind of penalty awaits for those who opt out.

  413. #415 Science Mom
    September 5, 2011

    Wait I’m not done exposing your stupidity just yet.

    I’m a mythbuster for a reason. Don’t get offended.

    It’s all so clear now; Th1Th2 wanks endlessly on because…

    She’s on a mission from Gad.

  414. #416 Gray Falcon
    September 5, 2011

    I’m wondering what kind of penalty awaits for those who opt out.

    Opt out of what? If people could opt out of getting sick, disease would have been eradicated ages ago.

  415. #417 Narad
    September 5, 2011

    The way you’re justifying that everyone MUST play Russian Roullete because the chance of survival is greater than execution by firing squad, really is fascinating.

    Remember, there’s never a bad time to try to change the subject in this enterprise.

  416. #418 Th1Th2
    September 5, 2011

    Cynic,

    You apparently didn’t follow the thread very well. Here are a few bits to remind you:

    Well, that’s basically you moving the goalpost. My response are vaccine-specific because that’s what you demanded of me to answer. This was your question:

    Assuming that we’re talking only attenuated vaccines here, what exactly are the detrimental effects on the host organism (i.e. the vaccinated person)?

    Are you gonna deny this again?

    So, if you think that vaccination constitutes an infection and that an infection requires harm to the host organism, you cannot claim that infection is a harm because that is circular logic.

    Are you saying that an asymptomatic poliomyelitis caused by wild-type or vaccine-type poliovirus is not and cannot be called an infection simply because it doesn’t cause harm to the host? You cannot justify that OPV causes less harm than its parental poliovirus strain because both can cause asymptomatic infection not to mention paralysis.

    I know I said that this is a holiday and I’m bored, but responding to such inanity is in fact no longer worth it to me. When you can’t even give a distinct harm that would constitute infection under a definition you’ve agreed to, then you aren’t worth responding to.

    First don’t move the goalpost. Second, I don’t care if you move it. There’s no escape. It’s either you’re a germ denialist or an infection promoter.

  417. #419 Agashem
    September 5, 2011

    I, for one, am a germ promoter and an infection denialist.

  418. #420 Th1Th2
    September 5, 2011

    Gray,

    Opt out of what? If people could opt out of getting sick, disease would have been eradicated ages ago.

    Opt out of what infection promoters are vigorously promoting. Can I say “No”?

  419. #421 Gray Falcon
    September 5, 2011

    Th1Th2, your initial sentence implied you were trying to opt out of getting sick altogether.

  420. #422 Chris
    September 5, 2011

    Laura, when evaluating information from the internet you need to be sure to understand what the website is about. I tried to check their “About us”, but got just a “Not Found, Error 404″ page. Not a good sign.

    Then I went to their list of “Vaccine Groups.” There I found the National Vaccination Information Center (run by Barbara Loe Fisher, check this website on opinions about her), the Australian Vaccination Network (a group that is facing several legal problems in Australia, including charity fraud and copyright violations), Age of Autism, Generation Rescue and others who have been known to lie, like Alan Phillips and ThinkTwice.

    So I can assume that website is just as truthful as their list of groups. “Sane Vax, Inc” is not a reliable website.

  421. #423 Th1Th2
    September 5, 2011

    Th1Th2, your initial sentence implied you were trying to opt out of getting sick altogether.

    No one offered me to get sick and I never thought of any plan of getting sick either. Is that normal?

    -OR-

    Are you recommending that I should play Russian Roulette?

  422. #424 The Christian Cynic
    September 5, 2011

    Oh, for crying out loud. Let me explain this veeeeery slowly for you, Thingy:

    1) You agreed that infection requires harm to the host organism, citing live virus (attenuated) vaccines in your response.
    2) Based on this, I asked you to show harm just for these kinds of vaccines. Your concerns about mutation and virulence wouldn’t apply to inactivated vaccines, so I was setting the bar lower for you to establish some harm. Note also here that I even mentioned reversion from OPV and that that specific vaccine isn’t generally recommended (the inactivated version is preferred under most circumstances).
    3) You mentioned “infection” as a harm despite the fact that I was asking you to show a harm to demonstrate that we are even talking about an infection in the first place.

    So I will ask you one last time: what is the clearly defined harm caused by all or even most attenuated vaccines? “Infection” is not an option because that is what we are trying to establish.

    Are you saying that an asymptomatic poliomyelitis caused by wild-type or vaccine-type poliovirus is not and cannot be called an infection simply because it doesn’t cause harm to the host?

    You said that. You agreed to an earlier definition from Doug Hayden @344 which explicitly had “to the detriment of host organism” as a criterion. You then affirmed this phrase verbatim in your response @378. Again, if you can’t even keep up with what you yourself have agreed to previously, then there’s no point arguing with you. Jello to the wall indeed.

  423. #425 Krebiozen
    September 5, 2011

    It really isn’t important if vaccination does or doesn’t cause an infection. Arguing about semantics is a futile exercise (especially when one party refuses to accept dictionary definitions of words) What is important is that vaccination has unequivocally been demonstrated to dramatically reduce illness and mortality.

    It isn’t true to suggest that diagnostic substitution has been used to conceal the inefficacy of vaccines. For example in the US in 1952 there were 21,000 cases of flaccid paralysis (CDC Pink Book p249). From 1992 – 1998 the incidence of acute flaccid paralysis was “1.4 per 100,000 children/year (95% confidence interval = 1.2-1.6); predicting approximately 844 children/year in the United States” and declined 28% during the study period. Those flaccid paralysis cases were not caused by polio or polio vaccines. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20159431

    It is impossible to have a normal life, eating, drinking, breathing and having normal social contact with other human beings without infections being transferred between us. Th1Th2′s claims that “due diligence” can avoid infection are simply ludicrous.

  424. #426 Narad
    September 5, 2011

    There’s no escape. It’s either you’re a germ denialist or an infection promoter.

    Right, right, anybody who’s run into you more than a week ago is aware of this. You still seem to be holding out on the part where being called names by you is of any practical import whatever.

  425. #427 lilady
    September 5, 2011

    “My friend just alerted me to this- Gardasil safe- YES!!!!”

    See: Vaccine Safety Datalink-HPV Vaccine

    See: CDC-Reports of Health Concerns following HPV Vaccination

    Ignore germ phobic delusional troll; it needs “terminal disinfecting”

  426. #428 Th1Th2
    September 5, 2011

    Cynic,

    1) You agreed that infection requires harm to the host organism, citing live virus (attenuated) vaccines in your response.

    True. There was an “etc”. in the end so that means ALL vaccines.

    2) Based on this, I asked you to show harm just for these kinds of vaccines. Your concerns about mutation and virulence wouldn’t apply to inactivated vaccines, so I was setting the bar lower for you to establish some harm.

    Don’t be too reassured just because a vaccine is inactivated doesn’t mean it’s harmless. Have you ever wondered why there isn’t any inactivated measles vaccine in the market since it was discontinued a half-century ago? Don’t tell me the vaccine have never caused any harm because like you implied it’s just an inactivated measles vaccine. How about the Salk vaccine? Hey that one is inactivated. Of course, most had non-paralytic events but was that the end of the story?

    Note also here that I even mentioned reversion from OPV and that that specific vaccine isn’t generally recommended (the inactivated version is preferred under most circumstances).

    Is it because you’re afraid of the harm that it will cause?

    3) You mentioned “infection” as a harm despite the fact that I was asking you to show a harm to demonstrate that we are even talking about an infection in the first place.

    Exactly why you don’t believe in asymptomatic infection. If that is so, then you’re an anti-science, a medical heretic, or just plain ignorant. Obviously, the presence of an infectious agent in the host is the reason why it’s called asymptomatic infection. And that is the root of my argument.

    So I will ask you one last time: what is the clearly defined harm caused by all or even most attenuated vaccines? “Infection” is not an option because that is what we are trying to establish.

    You are not trying to establish a thing; you’re just merely denying that primary infection exist. It’s your escape mechanism.

    You said that. You agreed to an earlier definition from Doug Hayden @344 which explicitly had “to the detriment of host organism” as a criterion. You then affirmed this phrase verbatim in your response @378. Again, if you can’t even keep up with what you yourself have agreed to previously, then there’s no point arguing with you. Jello to the wall indeed.

    I said that because it’s a fact. The principle of vaccination, like natural infection, depends on the primary infection. Anamnestic response depends on initial infection. Acquired immunity is preceded by primary infection. Vaccine effectiveness is measured on secondary exposure to infection.

    What else are you going to deny?

  427. #429 Gray Falcon
    September 5, 2011

    Th1Th2:

    No one offered me to get sick and I never thought of any plan of getting sick either. Is that normal?

    If one could avoid being sick just by doing that, why aren’t all diseases extinct?

  428. #430 Th1Th2
    September 5, 2011

    If one could avoid being sick just by doing that, why aren’t all diseases extinct?

    Simple. Infection promoters.

  429. #431 Gray Falcon
    September 5, 2011

    Try again. Vaccination wasn’t invented until the 18th century. If one could avoid disease just by doing as you suggest, it would have been extinct long before then.

  430. #432 lilady
    September 5, 2011

    Ignore infection-promoting, pathologically germ phobic troll in need of “terminal disinfection.”

  431. #433 Th1Th2
    September 5, 2011

    Try again. Vaccination wasn’t invented until the 18th century. If one could avoid disease just by doing as you suggest, it would have been extinct long before then.

    Infection can be promoted naturally or by vaccines. Natural infection predates ALL vaccines. And when did Modern Medicine start adopting Universal Precaution, Standard Precaution and Transmission-based Precaution?

  432. #434 Rilke's Granddaughter
    September 5, 2011

    I must admit that Orac seems to have one or two of the most pig-ignorant, illogical, and just plain boring trolls I’ve ever seen at ScienceBlogs. Thingy is a great example: after defining what infection means: which INCLUDES symptoms; Thingy then claims that asymptomatic vaccination is an infection.

    I’ve never seen anything so stupid.

  433. #435 Narad
    September 5, 2011

    Ignore infection-promoting, pathologically germ phobic troll in need of “terminal disinfection.”

    Give it a rest.

  434. #436 Militant Agnostic
    September 5, 2011

    Thingy

    Are you recommending that I should play Russian Roulette?

    At this point yes, preferably with only one empty chamber as behooves the innumerate.

  435. #437 lilady
    September 5, 2011

    “And when did Modern Medicine start adopting Universal Precaution, Standard Precaution and Transmission-based Precaution?”

    Obviously the answer to Thingy’s question is prior to the start of Thingy’s imaginary illustrious professional career in medicine. When pressed about containment of a possible measles exposure in a hospital by Todd W., Thingy replies:

    “No, I don’t use any timer because I don’t need to. We only use that in the hospital for terminal disinfection of the room previously occupied by a known infectious patient.”

    (Thingy posting at #228-”Joe Mercola plays the religion card against vaccine”-July 11, 2011)

    Delusional troll needs to be terminally disinfected.

  436. #438 augustine
    September 6, 2011

    Liladay’s tick

    Delusional troll needs to be terminally disinfected.

    Why do you keep saying that? Is it because of age related dementia? Have you forgotten that you’ve said it 50 times in the past week?

    Narad told you, “give it a rest”.

    If you say it 50 more times, include the word “ignore”, some exclamation marks, I’m sure it will mean something and everybody will then listen to you.

    Also you should disparage someone’s knowledge and/or education of science by pointing out your educational superiority and touting your 1960 bachelor’s degree. It doesn’t fly. You get no credibility points for that.

  437. #439 lilady
    September 6, 2011

    Ignore ignorant filthy mouthed troll and infection promoting delusional troll.

  438. #440 Th1Th2
    September 6, 2011

    It really isn’t important if vaccination does or doesn’t cause an infection.

    I think what you’re saying is that it doesn’t matter whether you’re a germ denialist or an infection promoter. I see.

    Arguing about semantics is a futile exercise (especially when one party refuses to accept dictionary definitions of words)

    Well, the definition fits. Isn’t that what Jenner did to the naive?

    What is important is that vaccination has unequivocally been demonstrated to dramatically reduce illness and mortality.

    In a similar fashion, the discontinuance of inactivated measles vaccine “has unequivocally been demonstrated to dramatically reduce illness and mortality” from atypical measles. I think this one is more credible.

    It isn’t true to suggest that diagnostic substitution has been used to conceal the inefficacy of vaccines.

    Did you see how many paralyzed people  were excluded thus have avoided getting a polio diagnosis by just applying the clinician’s magnificent “clinical” eyes?

    It is impossible to have a normal life, eating, drinking, breathing and having normal social contact with other human beings without infections being transferred between us. Th1Th2′s claims that “due diligence” can avoid infection are simply ludicrous.

    You’re an infection promoter am I right? Apparently, exercising due diligence is none of your business. 

  439. #441 Th1Th2
    September 6, 2011

    Thingy is a great example: after defining what infection means: which INCLUDES symptoms; Thingy then claims that asymptomatic vaccination is an infection.

    An infection is diagnosed primarily based on the presence of an infectious agent in the host which means an asymptomatic infection is the same infection without clinical manifestation of the disease in question. Ditto for vaccination.

  440. #442 Gray Falcon
    September 6, 2011

    Th1Th2, can you give me the name of a disease that was wiped out without vaccination?

  441. #443 Gray Falcon
    September 6, 2011

    Actually, here’s what I should have posted in the first place. The exact point when Th1Th2 took a flying leap across the moral event horizon:
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/06/the_cost_of_the_anti-vaccine_movement.php#comment-4125264

  442. #444 Th1Th2
    September 6, 2011

    Th1Th2, can you give me the name of a disease that was wiped out without vaccination?

    Oxymoron. Vaccines are the leading cause of primary infection. You cant’ wipe out a disease when you’re also the one promoting it.

    1. Smallpox—Vaccination was stopped and was “eradicated” in the absence of herd immunity.
    2. Rinderpest—- first “eradicated” in the early 1700′s sans vaccines. Like smallpox, vaccination was stopped prior to eradication.
    3. Atypical Measles—the only known cause is the infamous inactivated measles vaccine. Good riddance they stopped it.
    4. VDPV—–Like #3, is a man-made disease. Don’t blame Mother Nature.

  443. #445 Gray Falcon
    September 6, 2011

    Where are the tens of thousands of people paralyzed by the polio vaccine? You still haven’t answered that question.

  444. #446 Narad
    September 6, 2011

    Oxymoron. Vaccines are the leading cause of primary infection. You cant’ wipe out a disease when you’re also the one promoting it.

    You seem to have misread the question. There’s no “oxymoron” unless you deny the concept of eradication, which in fact makes you an infection promoter.

  445. #447 Th1Th2
    September 6, 2011

    Actually, here’s what I should have posted in the first place. The exact point when Th1Th2 took a flying leap across the moral event horizon:

    I’ll post it don’t worry.

    The title is erroneous. It should be “The Cost of Having 20 Doctors.” True enough, too many cooks spoil the broth. Posted by: Th1Th2 | June 13, 2011 12:41 AM

    In Modern Medicine, it’s called iatrogenesis.

  446. #448 Th1Th2
    September 6, 2011

    Narad,

    You seem to have misread the question. There’s no “oxymoron” unless you deny the concept of eradication, which in fact makes you an infection promoter.

    Eradication by vaccination, that, is a myth. Understood?

  447. #449 Narad
    September 6, 2011

    Eradication by vaccination, that, is a myth. Understood?

    That’s irrelevant. You tried to distract from the question what diseases have been eradicated without vaccination. It matters not a whit if you want to assert that none have been eradicated with vaccination. Do you or do you not assert that no such thing has ever happened?

  448. #450 Gray Falcon
    September 6, 2011

    For those who don’t know, Th1Th2 diagnosed a death as iatrogenic based purely on her pathological hatred for the medical profession, without making any effort to actually learn anything about the case. She never provided any evidence to support her assertion, she simply assumed she was right based on her own high opinion of herself.

  449. #451 Th1Th2
    September 6, 2011

    Narad,

    That’s irrelevant.

    You mean #442.

    You tried to distract from the question what diseases have been eradicated without vaccination.

    I did not, hence diseases #1,2 & 3.

    It matters not a whit if you want to assert that none have been eradicated with vaccination. Do you or do you not assert that no such thing has ever happened?

    There was a celebration and that’s the only thing that ever happened.

  450. #452 Narad
    September 6, 2011

    There was a celebration and that’s the only thing that ever happened.

    And thus you have outed yourself as an infection promoter.

  451. #453 Gray Falcon
    September 6, 2011

    Th1Th2, if your claims about “due diligence” are correct, then several diseases for which no vaccine exists should already have been eradicated. Why haven’t they?

  452. #454 Th1Th2
    September 6, 2011

    And thus you have outed yourself as an infection promoter.

    Can’t be. I don’t have the stockpiles.

    You’re barking up the wrong tree.

  453. #455 Narad
    September 6, 2011

    You’re barking up the wrong tree.

    What were the diseases eradicated without vaccines again? “#1,2 & 3″?

  454. #456 Th1Th2
    September 6, 2011

    Th1Th2, if your claims about “due diligence” are correct, then several diseases for which no vaccine exists should already have been eradicated. Why haven’t they?

    Again, oxymoronic. Vaccines are just another infectious source, a vector. You’re just asking for more trouble.

  455. #457 Todd W.
    September 6, 2011

    @Narad and @GrayFalcon

    Can’t you see you’re causing far too much cognitive dissonance for her? To continue may be construed as torturing her poor neurons.

  456. #458 Th1Th2
    September 6, 2011

    What were the diseases eradicated without vaccines again? “#1,2 & 3″?

    Precisely. The vaccines were stopped, infection promotion was halted thus (drum rolling)…..”eradication”.

  457. #459 Narad
    September 6, 2011

    What were the diseases eradicated without vaccines again? “#1,2 & 3″?

    Precisely. The vaccines were stopped, infection promotion was halted thus (drum rolling)…..”eradication”.

    Are we having some tense-comprehension issues here on top of dictionary ones?

  458. #460 Th1Th2
    September 6, 2011

    Where are the tens of thousands of people paralyzed by the polio vaccine? You still haven’t answered that question.

    That should be the vast majority of people who should have been tested for the evidence of poliovirus despite the presence of paralysis but have been excluded in favor of the clinician’s superior “look and guess” screening BS.

  459. #461 Narad
    September 6, 2011

    That should be the vast majority of people who should have been tested for the evidence of poliovirus despite the presence of paralysis but have been excluded in favor of the clinician’s superior “look and guess” screening BS.

    And where are they?

  460. #462 Th1Th2
    September 6, 2011

    Could be among the more than 600,000 (since 1996) paralytics who are still in a limbo catch-all diagnosis called AFP.

  461. #463 Ken
    September 6, 2011

    I think typhoid fever in the US can qualify even though one needs a vaccine if
    traveling to 3rd world countries.

  462. #464 Composer99
    September 6, 2011

    460+ comments and counting, what did this thread ever do to deserve a troll infestation?

  463. #465 Th1Th2
    September 6, 2011

    For those who don’t know, Th1Th2 diagnosed a death as iatrogenic based purely on her pathological hatred for the medical profession, without making any effort to actually learn anything about the case. She never provided any evidence to support her assertion, she simply assumed she was right based on her own high opinion of herself.

    You do know that the child, according to the parents, was diagnosed for colds, don’t you? I don’t know what other diagnoses could have been in the mind of the other 20 doctors.

  464. #466 LW
    September 6, 2011

    “I think typhoid fever in the US can qualify even though one needs a vaccine if
    traveling to 3rd world countries.”

    I was going through my mother’s papers this summer and found a certificate showing that she was vaccinated against typhoid in the U.S. in 1946. I found no evidence that she had travelled outside the country. It looked to me like, at least where she lived, they were using vaccination as part of a typhoid eradication effort.

  465. #467 lilady
    September 6, 2011

    Ignore ignorant delusional heartless Thingy troll.

  466. #468 Narad
    September 6, 2011

    I think typhoid fever in the US can qualify even though one needs a vaccine if traveling to 3rd world countries.

    Who said anything about “in the U.S.”? Remember, Th1Th2 asserts that smallpox hasn’t been eradicated, because the infection-promoters (a plain psychological projection and distraction from its own original and valid infection-promotion) are hoarding what remains.

  467. #469 Agashem
    September 6, 2011

    Really, can we just let the Thing have its own page and leave it to talk to itself? It makes no sense – none at all and it keeps repeating the same stupid things.

  468. #470 Narad
    September 6, 2011

    Really, can we just let the Thing have its own page and leave it to talk to itself? It makes no sense – none at all and it keeps repeating the same stupid things.

    TINW. HTH. HAND.

    It does in fact have variations. Yes, these will attempt to cycle around at the first whiff of being caught in inconsistency. Still, just here one has Th1Th2 admitting that its notion of eradication is the doublespeak of an obvious infection-promoter, something in the future, to ultimately instantiate placeholder variables. The only answer left to tease from it is whether it is also a germ-denialist by its own definition.

  469. #471 Krebiozen
    September 7, 2011

    The belief that all the VPDs are still with us, but misdiagnosed as something else is common at the loonier end of the antivaxxer spectrum. Th1Th2′s favorite site whale.to claims that CFS is in fact polio, and that chicken pox, or monkey pox are actually smallpox for example. An even more common claim, repeated here by Th1Th2, is that polio is still just as common as it was pre-vaccination, but is misdiagnosed as acute flaccid paralysis (AFP). Since it is so common, I think this claim is worth refuting.

    I posted a link to a study that looked at 2,513,545 children seen in two large Californian emergency departments between 1992 and 1998 which found only 245 children with AFP. Extrapolating to the whole USA gives an estimate of 844 children/year with AFP as compared with 21,000 paralytic polio cases in 1952.

    Th1Th2 replied:

    Did you see how many paralyzed people were excluded thus have avoided getting a polio diagnosis by just applying the clinician’s magnificent “clinical” eyes?

    I have a comment in moderation about this, the short version is that the 3,297 children originally selected were not paralyzed, they had been given diagnostic codes that could possibly present with AFP, as the first step in looking for AFP cases. All their medical records were then examined and 615 paralyzed children selected. Of these 374 were rejected because of the existence of a preexisting diagnosis or chronic disease consistent with AFP, like spinal cord trauma or muscular dystrophy.

    This study clearly demonstrates that claims that paralytic polio is misdiagnosed as AFP are unfounded.

  470. #472 Th1Th2
    September 7, 2011

    I posted a link to a study that looked at 2,513,545 children seen in two large Californian emergency departments between 1992 and 1998 which found only 245 children with AFP.

    Where is that link?

    Extrapolating to the whole USA gives an estimate of 844 children/year with AFP as compared with 21,000 paralytic polio cases in 1952.

    Yeah right 21,000 paralytic polio in 1952, that’s three years before Salk saved the world. And what year AFP was “invented”? I said that because AFP didn’t come into picture before the polio vaccine particularly case re-definitions, monitoring and surveillance.

    I have a comment in moderation about this, the short version is that the 3,297 children originally selected were not paralyzed, they had been given diagnostic codes that could possibly present with AFP, as the first step in looking for AFP cases.

    Let me give you a clue. Before 1955, polio is a straightforward diagnosis. If you’re paralyzed, it MUST be polio hence the 21,000. And Salk was supposed to save the people from polio right? It didn’t happen. People who were fully inoculated also got the polio. It was only after this mess, that an escape goat diagnosis was invented now we call AFP which also included several attempts of case re-definition.

    Your assertion that the subjects in the selection group were not paralyzed is ignorance. In order to confirm a polio case, a subject must first qualify as a probable case- which requires paralysis hence the ridiculous “look and guess” diagnostic screening BS. Without this you’re not in the case.

    All their medical records were then examined and 615 paralyzed children selected. Of these 374 were rejected because of the existence of a preexisting diagnosis or chronic disease consistent with AFP, like spinal cord trauma or muscular dystrophy.

    By definition, AFP is paralysis without apparent cause. Since polio diagnosis requires a probable case, paralyzed individuals with secondary diseases can easily be excluded in the case definition, in contrast to your mere assertion.

    This study clearly demonstrates that claims that paralytic polio is misdiagnosed as AFP are unfounded.

    Well, that also goes to say that the vast majority of paralyzed people were excluded and were never tested for poliovirus.

    I initially thought worldwide AFP incidence of >600,000 since 1996 was an exaggeration but when I rechecked it I found out it was way over 800,000.

  471. #473 Narad
    September 7, 2011

    Let me give you a clue. Before 1955, polio is a straightforward diagnosis. If you’re paralyzed, it MUST be polio hence the 21,000.

    Bingo, germ-denialist as well.

  472. #474 Th1Th2
    September 7, 2011

    21,000 paralysis, germ denialism? I do not follow.

  473. #475 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 7, 2011

    And what year AFP was “invented”? I said that because AFP didn’t come into picture before the polio vaccine particularly case re-definitions, monitoring and surveillance.

    I found references to AFP in medical journals as far back as 1922, and I didn’t bother looking earlier than 1920.

    Let me give you a clue. Before 1955, polio is a straightforward diagnosis. If you’re paralyzed, it MUST be polio hence the 21,000.

    False. In fact, many of those pre-1955 articles I found were diagnosing AFP with non-poliomyelitis aetiologies.

    Your assertion that the subjects in the selection group were not paralyzed is ignorance. In order to confirm a polio case, a subject must first qualify as a probable case- which requires paralysis hence the ridiculous “look and guess” diagnostic screening BS. Without this you’re not in the case.

    First, it was your claim that polio was being misdiagnosed as AFP. That addressed that specific claim – stop moving the goalpost. Second, paralysis is not required for a probable case, though paralysis significantly increases the likelihood that a case will be considerd probable.

    By definition, AFP is paralysis without apparent cause.

    Wrong. It is a diagnostic criterion. Sometimes, it has no apparent cause – in which case, you’ve eliminated polio as a possible cause!

    Since polio diagnosis requires a probable case, paralyzed individuals with secondary diseases can easily be excluded in the case definition, in contrast to your mere assertion.

    It is possible that someone with two diseases that each cause AFP will be diagnosed with only one of those diseases. Care to quantify the amount of overlap that entails? Anything over 1% is so unlikely as to be laughable, and yet you’d need something close to 100% for your assertions to have any validity.

  474. #476 Th1Th2
    September 7, 2011

    I found references to AFP in medical journals as far back as 1922, and I didn’t bother looking earlier than 1920.

    Then post them here and prove that AFP was a clinical diagnosis before 1955.

    Wrong. It is a diagnostic criterion. Sometimes, it has no apparent cause – in which case, you’ve eliminated polio as a possible cause!

    It’s a clinical diagnosis specifically tailored to eliminate polio vaccine as a possible cause. No testing is done during this selection. This is how they establish a probable case by just merely “looking” at the symptoms in particular the presence and duration of the paralysis. In short, paralyzed individuals were never tested for the presence of poliovirus but will be excluded if they don’t suffice the above criteria.

    False. In fact, many of those pre-1955 articles I found were diagnosing AFP with non-poliomyelitis aetiologies.

    They were diagnosing IT as non-poliomyletic paralysis but not AFP. AFP is a blank diagnosis. In fact, AFP was never used as a criteria nor a description to suggest paralytic poliomyelitis before 1955. Paralytic poliomyelitis was simply called well, paralytic poliomyelitis.

    It is possible that someone with two diseases that each cause AFP will be diagnosed with only one of those diseases. Care to quantify the amount of overlap that entails? Anything over 1% is so unlikely as to be laughable, and yet you’d need something close to 100% for your assertions to have any validity.

    You don’t get it do you? The real reason why they established AFP monitoring after 1955 is to exclude and exonerate (easily and conveniently with only “clinical eyes”) polio vaccine as the number one culprit. By definition of a probable case, one should only have to exhibit AFP without apparent cause. That’s why it’s easy for them to manipulate the numbers; find a reasonable cause and then exclude the paralyzed individual from the case. Of course, you cannot hide paralysis no matter what hence the >800,000 AFP cases since 1996.

    What are you going to say next? Vaccines are not 100% effective? Wow, that’s some piss-poor job, isn’t it?

  475. #477 Gray Falcon
    September 7, 2011

    Th1Th2, do you seriously believe anything that you’re saying?

  476. #478 Rilke's Granddaughter
    September 7, 2011

    @Gray Falcon – it’s pretty clear that Thingy doesn’t UNDERSTAND anything that it’s saying. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone quite so confused about the point they think they’re making.

  477. #479 Th1Th2
    September 7, 2011

    First, it was your claim that polio was being misdiagnosed as AFP. That addressed that specific claim – stop moving the goalpost. Second, paralysis is not required for a probable case, though paralysis significantly increases the likelihood that a case will be considerd probable.

    You two are both ignorant. The criteria for polio diagnosis before 1955 only requires paralysis recognized within a short period of time like hours to a couple of days or so. But after 1955, the diagnostic screening changed which requires AFP and to rule out other cause. And this was the definition of a probable case they created. Not only many were excluded “clinically”, a lot more were dismissed because in order to confirm a case, the residual deficit must exist for a longer period of time.

    Probable case: a case in which AFP is found, and no other cause for the paralysis can be identified immediately.

  478. #480 Narad
    September 7, 2011

    21,000 paralysis, germ denialism? I do not follow.

    Your germ-denialist narrative parallels your infection-promotion: poliovirus, like eradication, can be switched into or out of existence as you find convenient.

  479. #481 Th1Th2
    September 7, 2011

    Your germ-denialist narrative parallels your infection-promotion: poliovirus, like eradication, can be switched into or out of existence as you find convenient.

    I still do not follow. Calm down. I can see you’re in a lot of stress. 21,000 paralysis caused by natural infection. That supports the germ theory of disease, isn’t it? Where’s the denialism there? Of course, I do not support promotion of any natural infection, hence I’m an “anti-pox” as well.

    Seriously, you’re barking up the wrong tree.

  480. #482 Gray Falcon
    September 7, 2011

    Th1Th2, you claim that before the vaccine was introduced, every case of paralysis was diagnosed as polio, whether or not it was something else. Then you claim that after the vaccine, every case of paralysis was caused by the vaccine. Which is it?

  481. #483 Krebiozen
    September 7, 2011

    Th1Th2,
    You are seriously going to argue about this? OK. I’m a little confused that you seem to be claiming that pre-vaccination lots of other conditions were misdiagnosed as polio, whereas now polio is misdiagnosed as those same other conditions. That seems a little tortuous to put it mildly.

    Where is that link?

    It’s at #425 and you responded at #440.

    And what year AFP was “invented”?

    AFP is not a definitive diagnosis, it’s a set of symptoms. Polio used to be the main cause of AFP in the US, before vaccination eliminated it in the US in 1994.

    Before 1955, polio is a straightforward diagnosis. If you’re paralyzed, it MUST be polio hence the 21,000.

    Even people with spinal injuries and muscular dystrophy? I don’t think so. There are definite diagnostic criteria for polio that were well known in 1952.

    Your assertion that the subjects in the selection group were not paralyzed is ignorance.

    Ignorance? It’s what it says in the study, here a direct quote:

    CASE ASCERTAINMENT A screening list was compiled of 52 disease codes from the International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition (ICD-9), each of which can present as AFP(Table1). Computerized ICD-9-based diagnosis data were used to identify potential AFP cases having at least one of these discharge diagnosis codes for any hospitalization or emergency department visit.

    These ICD-9 codes included everything from botulism to trauma of spinal cord to organophosphate poisoning, 52 ICD-9 codes in all. There were 3,297 children who had these discharge diagnostic codes. The selection criteria for AFP were then applied to these children, and only 619 were found to have AFP. Of these 374 were found to have a preexisting diagnosis or chronic disease consistent with AFP, like spinal cord trauma or muscular dystrophy.

    So even if you insist that all the children with paralysis (even those with spinal injuries) would have been misdiagnosed as having polio in 1952, that would still extrapolate to only 2,119 children/year or 10% of what it was in 1952. Since the population of the USA was only 156,954,000 compared to 307,006,550 now you could argue that you would expect the figure to be much higher today, expecially if polio is being spread by vaccination as you claim, instead of 90% lower.

    Since polio diagnosis requires a probable case, paralyzed individuals with secondary diseases can easily be excluded in the case definition, in contrast to your mere assertion.

    So now you claim all the polio cases now have other secondary diseases that also cause paralysis, like spinal injuries, muscular dystrophy etc.? But this still means at least 90% of the paralysed children you claim exist have mysteriously disappeared. My “mere assertion” is based on a scientific study of 2,513,545 children, what is yours based on?

    I initially thought worldwide AFP incidence of >600,000 since 1996 was an exaggeration but when I rechecked it I found out it was way over 800,000.

    That sounds about right, bearing in mind a global population of 2.2 billion children under 15. The WHO figures for global AFP in 2010 are 53,038 or 4.55 cases per 100,000 children 15 or under, as compared to 1.3 per 100,000 in the USA (which is a bit higher than in other developed countries). There are a number of other causes for AFP other than polio, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, botulism and stroke most commonly in the USA.

  482. #484 Krebiozen
    September 7, 2011

    Annoyingly my latest comment has been held for moderation, despite not containing any links. Suffice to say I have read the full study that I linked to and Th1Th2′s claims about it are simply wrong.

  483. #485 Th1Th2
    September 7, 2011

    Th1Th2, you claim that before the vaccine was introduced, every case of paralysis was diagnosed as polio, whether or not it was something else.

    Are you referring to 21,000? Is this not high enough or you have something else? You see this is the right time for you to brag about numbers. You know the usual cliche “Before the vaccine, there were [insert number of cases] people paralyzed by polio blah blah blah”

    Then you claim that after the vaccine, every case of paralysis was caused by the vaccine. Which is it?

    They had the evidence of the virus. The virus was acquired, it can shed and infect others. What is there to deny?

  484. #486 Gray Falcon
    September 7, 2011

    So, does that mean that the polio vaccine eradicated every other cause of paralysis?

  485. #487 Th1Th2
    September 7, 2011

    Dyslexia, Gray?

  486. #488 Narad
    September 7, 2011

    Calm down. I can see you’re in a lot of stress.

    Your concern is much appreciated. Indeed, you have reminded me to revisit the Allman Brothers’ take on “There Is a Mountain,” which is entirely apropos.

  487. #489 Gray Falcon
    September 7, 2011

    @486: No, just the logical conclusion of your statements.

  488. #490 Gray Falcon
    September 7, 2011

    In case Th1Th2 is still confused: I know it’s nonsense, but it’s the only logical way your claims would be consistent.

  489. #491 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 8, 2011

    Then post them here and prove that AFP was a clinical diagnosis before 1955.

    Very well. Here’s a small sample of the ones I found, spread out over time. I note that you haven’t backed up any of your statements, though…

    PERIODIC PARALYSIS
    EM Hammes – Journal of the American Medical Association, 1951 – Am Med Assoc

    Hereditary periodic paralysis in a family showing varied manifestations
    CP Oliver, MR ZIEGLER… – Archives of Pediatrics and …, 1944 – Am Med Assoc

    The Effects of Ultra Violet Rays on the Calcium and Inorganic Phosphate Content of the Blood Serum of Rachitic Infants
    FF Tisdall – Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1922 – ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

    So yes it was used before the vaccine. In fact, let’s look at the first 150 words of the first source I listed (no abstract, and the rest of the article is behind a paywall):

    There is perhaps no more challenging problem seen by the general practitioner or neurologist than that presented by the patient who is first examined a few hours or days after the onset of an acute flaccid paralysis, which may be confined to part of one extremity or may be so generalized as to threaten the patient’s life by involvement of the respiratory muscles. Several of the disease processes capable of causing this clinical picture respond rapidly to specific therapies. There is, accordingly, a marked responsibility upon the physician who first sees such a patient to arrive as rapidly as possible at an accurate diagnosis and to institute specific corrective measures when such are available.

    Most patients with acute paralysis suffer from one of three conditions: poliomyelitis, hysteria or the infectious polyneuritis of Guillain-Barré. A smaller percentage have postdiphtheritic neuritis, myasthenia gravis, some forms of toxic neuritis, tic paralysis, porphyria, necrotizing

    Note that this is from 1951.

  490. #492 Th1Th2
    September 8, 2011

    It’s at #425 and you responded at #440.

    I asked because I didn’t see the 2,513,545 children  that you mentioned from the link.

    AFP is not a definitive diagnosis, it’s a set of symptoms. Polio used to be the main cause of AFP in the US, before vaccination eliminated it in the US in 1994.

    That’s laughable. AFP, as a diagnosis, did not exist before 1955. It was invented as a diversionary tactic in order to bail out polio vaccine of the responsibility for causing paralytic poliomyelitis.

    Even people with spinal injuries and muscular dystrophy? I don’t think so. There are definite diagnostic criteria for polio that were well known in 1952.

    Haha. Then show me the 1952 WHO definition of paralytic poliomyelitis. Of course, if those conditions you mentioned above, would look like polio in the eyes of the clinician before 1955, who would stop them from getting the polio diagnosis? 

    So even if you insist that all the children with paralysis (even those with spinal injuries) would have been misdiagnosed as having polio in 1952, that would still extrapolate to only 2,119 children/year or 10% of what it was in 1952. Since the population of the USA was only 156,954,000 compared to 307,006,550 now you could argue that you would expect the figure to be much higher today, expecially if polio is being spread by vaccination as you claim, instead of 90% lower.

    It’s because you’re applying the  revised version of AFP screening which did not exist prior to 1955. Like I said, paralytic poliomyelitis before 1955,  in and of itself, is a clinical diagnosis. But since AFP has replaced polio, a paralyzed victim has to pass through the needle’s eye just to get an AFP diagnosis by using the ICD system for example.

    Are you saying that touted 21,000 cases paralytic poliomyelitis in 1952 could have been much lower had they applied  a “better diagnostic” criteria?

    That sounds about right, bearing in mind a global population of 2.2 billion children under 15. The WHO figures for global AFP in 2010 are 53,038 or 4.55 cases per 100,000 children 15 or under, as compared to 1.3 per 100,000 in the USA (which is a bit higher than in other developed countries). There are a number of other causes for AFP other than polio, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, botulism and stroke most commonly in the USA.

    Total cases poliomyelitis:

    Total cases from 1937-1950 … 226,306

    Total cases from 1951-1997 … 230,782

    Total cases from 1937-1997 … 457,088

    Source: h t t p://www.post-polio.org/ir-usa.html

    Of course, AFP is not included. Yeah sounds about right.

  491. #493 Gray Falcon
    September 8, 2011

    Where is your evidence that AFP was invented in 1955. There are records of it from before then.

  492. #494 Lawrence
    September 8, 2011

    Nice site – seems you didn’t quote the best part of the table:

    Year Paralytic Nonparalytic
    1951 10,037 18,349
    1952 21,269 36,610
    1953 15,648 19,944
    1954 18,308 20,168
    1955 13,850 15,135
    1956 7,911 7,229
    1957 2,499 2,986
    1958 3,697 2,090
    1959 6,289 2,136
    1960 2,525 665
    1961 988 324
    1962 792 148
    1963 396 53
    1964 106 16
    1965 61 11
    1966 106 7
    1967 40 1
    1968 53 0
    1969 18 2
    1970 31 2
    1971 17 4
    1972 29 2
    1973 7 1
    1974 7 0
    1975 8 0
    1976 12 2
    1977 17 1
    1978 9 6
    1979 26 8
    1980 8 1
    1981 6 0
    1982 8 0
    1983 15 0
    1984 8 0
    1985 7 0
    1986 8 0
    1987 6 0
    1988 9 0
    1989 11 0
    1990 6 0
    1991 10 0
    1992 6 0
    1993 4 0
    1994 8 0
    1995 6 0
    1996 5 0
    1997 3 0
    1998 1 confirmed
    1999 0 cases
    2000 0 reported cases
    2001 0 reported cases
    2002 0 reported cases
    2003 0 reported cases
    2004 0 reported cases
    2005 1 case of VAPP
    2006 0 reported cases
    Started to include paralytic and non-paralytic cases again in 2007.
    Year Paralytic Nonparalytic
    2007 0 0 reported cases
    2008 0 0 reported cases

  493. #495 Krebiozen
    September 8, 2011

    Th1Th2,
    You surely wouldn’t have accused me of ignorance after just reading the abstract and not the full study, would you?

    AFP, as a diagnosis, did not exist before 1955.

    You really shouldn’t believe what you read at whale.to as it is very often utter nonsense. AFP, as a diagnosis, has never existed. It is a set of symptoms, “acute” means of rapid onset, “flaccid” means the muscles are limp, “paralysis” means the patient is unable to move that limb or limbs. AFP has no ICD code because it’s not a diagnosis. That’s why the study’s authors had to look at all diagnostic codes that could present with AFP. There is a paper from 1954 ‘The differential diagnosis of flaccid paralysis’ here.

    Then show me the 1952 WHO definition of paralytic poliomyelitis. Of course, if those conditions you mentioned above, would look like polio in the eyes of the clinician before 1955, who would stop them from getting the polio diagnosis?

    Show me any evidence that doctors in 1952 were so stupid they would diagnose someone with spinal injuries with polio. Even in the 1930s they were quite capable of differentiating polio from other diseases – see PMID: 21312902 for example. That’s not to say there were no misdiagnoses, but to suggest that every one of the 21,000 cases of paralytic polio in 1952 was actually something else is ridiculous.

    It’s because you’re applying the revised version of AFP screening which did not exist prior to 1955. Like I said, paralytic poliomyelitis before 1955, in and of itself, is a clinical diagnosis.

    That’s simply not true. As I said, AFP is a collection of symptoms that have a variety of causes. Paralytic polio is still a clinical diagnosis, ICD-10 codes A80 and B91, it just isn’t found in the USA any more, something to do with vaccines I believe. Here are the criteria for AFP used in the study I cited:

    After review of the WHO case definition for AFP, the case definition for AFP was established as follows: (1) age 1 month to less than 15 years; (2) acquired AFP, not hereditary; (3) initial symptoms evaluated by a health-care provider within less than 2 weeks of symptom onset; (4) completed emergence, but not necessarily resolution, of symptoms within 60 days; (5) both decreased tone or strength and normal or decreased reflexes; (6) one or more of bulbar, truncal, or limb monoplegia, paraplegia, or quadriplegia; (7) absence of likely causative central nervous system disease, including closed head trauma and spinal or peripheral nerve trauma; and (8) no known chromosomal abnormality.

    I would be interested to know how those criteria would exclude a case of paralytic polio.

    But since AFP has replaced polio, a paralyzed victim has to pass through the needle’s eye just to get an AFP diagnosis by using the ICD system for example.

    You don’t use the ICD system to get an AFP diagnosis, there are several diagnosable conditions that can present with AFP. You have this back to front. If you wanted to find all people with a fever (a symptom) you might look at all patients who had been given a diagnostic code that might be associated with fever, and then look at their clinical notes. That’s what this study did with AFP, it looked for children who had those symptoms by first finding children with diagnostic codes that might (but might not) be associated with those symptoms.

    Are you saying that touted 21,000 cases paralytic poliomyelitis in 1952 could have been much lower had they applied a “better diagnostic” criteria?

    No! It’s you who appears to be claiming that. I’m saying that the vast majority of those 21,000 had AFP caused by paralytic polio (there were some misdiagnoses I’m sure), and today the estimated 844 children/year with AFP don’t have polio, they have GBS, botulism, stroke or other conditions that can cause AFP.

    Total cases from 1937-1997 … 457,088 Source: h t t p://www.post-polio.org/ir-usa.html.

    I don’t understand your point. That figure is for the USA over 60 years and includes both paralytic and non-paralytic polio so it has no relevance to this discussion.

    Of course, AFP is not included. Yeah sounds about right.

    That’s like giving a number of cholera cases and commenting that diarrhea is not included. Of course it isn’t! Polio among other conditions causes AFP among other symptoms, just as cholera among other conditions, causes diarrhea among other symptoms.

  494. #496 augustine
    September 8, 2011

    Krebz Cycle

    There are definite diagnostic criteria for polio that were well known in 1952.

    Well then, could you explain why Paul Meier said that HALF of the 1954 Salk Polio Vaccine Field Trials were not polio at all? Meaning if it was so “definite” then why was there only a 50% accuracy of diagnosis among physicians for the trials?

    “the diagnosis of polio is tricky, but
    we need to have the entire country’s physicians
    participate, because we can’t look over every case
    where there’s some kind of paralysis. So physicians
    reported the cases they thought were polio according
    to the protocol, and we accepted those cases. Now,
    about half those cases were probably not polio at all,”

    -Clinical Trials 2004; 1: 131–138

  495. #497 Th1Th2
    September 8, 2011

    Geez, I couldn’t even find the ICD code for AFP. So who invented AFP? It was WHO in 1960 and was revised in 1996.

  496. #498 Lawrence
    September 8, 2011

    So, I have a comment in moderation – the table that insane troll pulled those numbers from, which show the overall decrease in polio cases between 1937 & 1997 – with almost no reported cases (in the US) over the last several years of the table.

    So, all it has left it to hang on to some vapid conspiracy theory that hundreds of thousands of people are being misdiagnosed (either accidentally or on purpose) by tens of thousands of health care professionals.

    Just another example of how deranged insane troll actually is.

  497. #499 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 8, 2011

    Geez, I couldn’t even find the ICD code for AFP.

    That’s because, contrary to your assertions, AFP isn’t an actual diagnosis. It’s a clinical presentation of symptoms. It doesn’t apply when there is an obvious cause of paralysis, such as a broken spine. If there is no obvious cause, samples are supposed to be collected to eliminate polio and other such diseases as possible causes (per WHO).

  498. #500 Th1Th2
    September 8, 2011

    That’s because, contrary to your assertions, AFP isn’t an actual diagnosis.

    That’s what I said. AFP is a blank diagnosis. And who believes in blank diagnosis? Myth believers. What are you complaining about?

  499. #501 Gray Falcon
    September 8, 2011

    Th1Th2: AFP is a set of symptoms, after which the proper tests are done, to determine if the cause is polio or something else (such as botulism). You keep insisting no testing is done, and I honest doubt you really believe that.

  500. #502 lilady
    September 8, 2011

    @ W. Kevin Vicklund: I suspect the disease-promoting delusional troll is shooting for its “personal best” trolling record (remember the 600 plus “tetanus” postings?).

    Dumber than dumb disease-promoting delusional troll is absolutely clueless that Acute Flaccid Paralysis is a pattern of symptoms…not a diagnosis. It can be caused by polio and a host of other viruses, bacterial and zoonotic pathogens as well as a variety of myopathies.

    Ignore disease-promoting delusional Thingy troll.

  501. #503 Krebiozen
    September 8, 2011

    I have a comment in moderation too. Th1Th2 is spouting complete nonsense as usual. The study I cited looked at all cases presenting with AFP, and found only 619 met the case definition, which I give in my comment. This extrapolates to around 844 cases of AFP from all causes per year in the USA. Surprise, surprise, there is no epidemic of misdiagnosed vaccine-induced paralytic polio, it’s a fantasy made up by the lunatics at whale.to.

  502. #504 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 8, 2011

    AFP is a blank diagnosis.

    No. AFP is a clinical presentation of symptoms. A clinical presentation of symptoms is not a diagnosis. You are effectively proclaiming that (absent trauma) the possibility that a person would suddenly be unable to move because some muscle groups can no longer contract is a myth.

  503. #505 Narad
    September 8, 2011

    That’s what I said. AFP is a blank diagnosis. And who believes in blank diagnosis? Myth believers. What are you complaining about?

    Just by the by, when do you think that the laboratory ability to test for poliovirus became relatively commonplace?

  504. #506 Th1Th2
    September 8, 2011

    Th1Th2: AFP is a set of symptoms, after which the proper tests are done, to determine if the cause is polio or something else (such as botulism). You keep insisting no testing is done, and I honest doubt you really believe that.

    It’s because you’re ignorant for not knowing how they diagnose a case of paralytic poliomyelitis before 1955 compared to today. Prior to 1955, clinical assessment is enough; no lab or stool testing is needed. Unlike today wherein you must rule out AFP before even getting a diagnosis of polio.

  505. #507 Gray Falcon
    September 8, 2011

    I actually looked up Acute Flaccid Paralysis, and it’s listed as a set of symptoms by most medical websites, and a possible symptom of polio. Th1Th2, where are you getting your information from? Where?

  506. #508 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 8, 2011

    Unlike today wherein you must rule out AFP before even getting a diagnosis of polio.

    Wrong. AFP must be presented before a diagnosis of paralytic polio can be reached (by subsequent lab tests). AFP is what tells you you might have a case of paralytic polio on your hands.

  507. #509 Anton P. Nym
    September 8, 2011

    Th1Th2, where are you getting your information from? Where?

    Probably the same “source” as his/her/its idiosyncratic definition for “infection”; thin air.

    — Steve

  508. #510 Th1Th2
    September 8, 2011

    that Acute Flaccid Paralysis is a pattern of symptoms…not a diagnosis. It can be caused by polio and a host of other viruses, bacterial and zoonotic pathogens as well as a variety of myopathies.

    GBS anyone? What’s the ICD code?

  509. #511 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 8, 2011

    GBS anyone? What’s the ICD code?

    357.0

    Why do you ask?

  510. #512 Th1Th2
    September 8, 2011

    No. AFP is a clinical presentation of symptoms. A clinical presentation of symptoms is not a diagnosis. You are effectively proclaiming that (absent trauma) the possibility that a person would suddenly be unable to move because some muscle groups can no longer contract is a myth.

    Can doctors work on a patient without a diagnosis?

  511. #513 Th1Th2
    September 8, 2011

    I actually looked up Acute Flaccid Paralysis, and it’s listed as a set of symptoms by most medical websites, and a possible symptom of polio. Th1Th2, where are you getting your information from? Where?

    The original 1954 WHO definition of paralytic poliomyelitis.

  512. #514 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 8, 2011

    To clarify, 357.0 is the ICD for GBS. Not sure what Thingy thinks it will get out of that.

  513. #515 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 8, 2011

    Can doctors work on a patient without a diagnosis?

    Can doctors reach a diagnosis without a characteristic set of symptoms?

  514. #516 Th1Th2
    September 8, 2011

    GBS is a “set of symptoms” called syndrome. Why can’t AFP have an ICD code? I smell fish.

  515. #517 lilady
    September 8, 2011

    To clarify, 357.0 is the ICD for GBS. Not sure what Thingy thinks it will get out of that.

    That would be so that the disease-promoting delusional Thingy Troll can go off on another tangent…toward its “personal best goal” of derailing a thread.

    (Thingy should have looked up the ICD code itself-in its imaginary ICD code book available at its imaginary workplace in the imaginary hospital)

    Time to “terminally disinfect” this disease promoting delusional Thingy Troll.

  516. #518 Th1Th2
    September 8, 2011

    Wrong. AFP must be presented before a diagnosis of paralytic polio can be reached (by subsequent lab tests). AFP is what tells you you might have a case of paralytic polio on your hands.

    Precisely my point. That didn’t happen prior to 1955 because there’s no such thing as AFP screening. Paralytic poliomyelitis was diagnosed ONLY through clinical assessment based on the original definition of a case by WHO.

  517. #519 Th1Th2
    September 8, 2011

    Just by the by, when do you think that the laboratory ability to test for poliovirus became relatively commonplace?

    Since Salk started inoculating, infecting and paralyzing naive victims.

  518. #520 lilady
    September 8, 2011

    Ignore disease-promoting delusional troll and terminally disinfect Thingy Troll.

  519. #521 TBruce
    September 8, 2011

    Hoooooohummmmmmmm…

    Boring, stupid, crazy troll is boring, stupid and crazy.

    Time to move on.

  520. #522 lilady
    September 8, 2011

    @ TBruce: I’m on board with Rule #14 Don’t Feed The Trolls.

  521. #523 Lawrence
    September 8, 2011

    Agreed – insane troll has been dismantled here, what a loon.

  522. #524 Th1Th2
    September 8, 2011

    You surely wouldn’t have accused me of ignorance after just reading the abstract and not the full study, would you?

    You still are.

    There is a paper from 1954 ‘The differential diagnosis of flaccid paralysis’ here.

    Flaccid paralysis not AFP. More than 800,000 people were paralyzed since 1996 for no known reason?

    That’s not to say there were no misdiagnoses, but to suggest that every one of the 21,000 cases of paralytic polio in 1952 was actually something else is ridiculous.

    You said there was a definite diagnostic criteria in 1952, tell me about it.

    Here are the criteria for AFP used in the study I cited:

    Haha. And what year was the AFP screening they used?

    I would be interested to know how those criteria would exclude a case of paralytic polio

    Can’t you read it’s an AFP screening? Tell me that was used in 1952?

    No! It’s you who appears to be claiming that. I’m saying that the vast majority of those 21,000 had AFP caused by paralytic polio (there were some misdiagnoses I’m sure), and today the estimated 844 children/year with AFP don’t have polio, they have GBS, botulism, stroke or other conditions that can cause AFP.

    You’re dreaming. Even if you check your own resources, like the one you posted where the actual number is 21,269 in 1952, it’s pretty obvious that the paralysis would refer to paralytic poliomyelitis and not AFP. Liar.

    I don’t understand your point. That figure is for the USA over 60 years and includes both paralytic and non-paralytic polio so it has no relevance to this discussion.

    They are polio cases not AFP and that’s my point.

    That’s like giving a number of cholera cases and commenting that diarrhea is not included. Of course it isn’t! Polio among other conditions causes AFP among other symptoms, just as cholera among other conditions, causes diarrhea among other symptoms.

    Here’s the original 1954 WHO definition of paralytic poliomyelitis:

    “Signs and symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis with the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart.”

    There’s no such thing as AFP being described as a sign and symptoms of poliomyelitis. It is an invention.

  523. #525 Th1Th2
    September 8, 2011

    Kevin,

    Note that this is from 1951.

    Was AFP ever used as a clinical diagnosis?

  524. #526 lilady
    September 8, 2011

    Continue to ignore disease promoting “terminally disinfected” delusional Thingy

  525. #527 Krebiozen
    September 8, 2011

    Th1Th2

    There’s no such thing as AFP being described as a sign and symptoms of poliomyelitis. It is an invention.

    WTF do you think paralysis is? Are you claiming that there are cases of paralytic polio that don’t include paralysis as their symptoms?

    I give up, you are an idiot.

  526. #528 Krebiozen
    September 8, 2011

    Augustine #496

    could you explain why Paul Meier said that HALF of the 1954 Salk Polio Vaccine Field Trials were not polio at all?

    Of course. A lot of cases initially reported as polio subsequently turned out not to be, and that was realized at the time, as Meier pointed out and as the reports of the Salk Vaccine trials make clear, as they list the number of false reports. Do you have any evidence that the paralytic polio cases finally reported as such, like the 21,000 in 1952, were also misdiagnosed? Why would they include cases that were known to be false reports?

  527. #529 lilady
    September 8, 2011

    Continue to ignore disease promoting “terminally disinfected” delusional Thingy

  528. #530 Th1Th2
    September 8, 2011

    Kreb,

    The study I cited looked at all cases presenting with AFP, and found only 619 met the case definition, which I give in my comment. This extrapolates to around 844 cases of AFP from all causes per year in the USA. Surprise, surprise, there is no epidemic of misdiagnosed vaccine-induced paralytic polio, it’s a fantasy made up by the lunatics at whale.to.

    Are you saying that they were also looking for non-paralytic individuals? So how many paralyzed were discarded from the screening? Of course, you wouldn’t find any VAPP if you didn’t check for the virus–precisely what had had happened to the vast majority that were discarded.

  529. #531 lilady
    September 8, 2011

    Continue to ignore disease promoting “terminally disinfected” delusional Thingy

  530. #532 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 8, 2011

    Here’s the original 1954 WHO definition of paralytic poliomyelitis:

    Ok, let’s look at it:

    “Signs and symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis with the addition of

    So a reason to suspect polio, and;

    partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart.”

    Hey, isn’t that pretty much the definition of AFP?

    So the 1954 clinical definition of paralytic poliomyelitis was effectively “signs + AFP” and the modern definition is “signs + AFP + tests.” Gotcha.

  531. #533 Th1Th2
    September 8, 2011

    Except that there are no tests done in 1954.

    Gotcha

    And there is no such thing as AFP in the definition.

    Gotcha.

  532. #534 Th1Th2
    September 8, 2011

    WTF do you think paralysis is?

    As originally described.

    Are you claiming that there are cases of paralytic polio that don’t include paralysis as their symptoms?

    Nope.

  533. #535 Krebiozen
    September 8, 2011

    OK, once last try at getting through to Th1Th2…

    Are you saying that they were also looking for non-paralytic individuals?

    How many times have I explained this? They found every ICD diagnostic code (52 codes in total) that might possibly present with AFP among children aged less than 15 over a 7 year period, a total of 2,513,545 children. Of those children 2,397 had those diagnostic codes and their notes were then looked at. Only 619 of these children were paralyzed.

    So how many paralyzed were discarded from the screening?

    Only 374 paralyzed children were excluded. They were rejected because of the existence of a preexisting diagnosis or chronic disease consistent with AFP, like spinal cord trauma or muscular dystrophy. To quote directly from the study:

    The final clinical diagnosis for the 374 rejected cases were hemiplegia or hemiparesis(24%), nerve or spinal cord trauma (14%), muscular dystrophy(10%), paraplegia and other paralytic syndromes(9.2%), viral meningitis(5.3%), and a variety of other diagnoses each of which accounted for less than 5% of cases, including myasthenia gravis, transverse myelitis, postinfectious myositis, dermatomyositis, and Guillain-Barre syndrome.

    Even if you don’t exclude these children, and include the whole 619, that still extrapolates to only 2,100 children/year with what you claim is misdiagnosed paralytic polio, but which clearly isn’t. Whatever way you look at it, there are at the very least tens of thousands of paralyzed children missing which makes your claims wrong.

  534. #536 Th1Th2
    September 8, 2011

    How many times have I explained this? They found every ICD diagnostic code (52 codes in total) that might possibly present with AFP among children aged less than 15 over a 7 year period, a total of 2,513,545 children. Of those children 2,397 had those diagnostic codes and their notes were then looked at. Only 619 of these children were paralyzed.

    You didn’t answer the question, how many children were paralyzed from the original 2M?

    Only 374 paralyzed children were excluded. They were rejected because of the existence of a preexisting diagnosis or chronic disease consistent with AFP, like spinal cord trauma or muscular dystrophy. To quote directly from the study:

    So they have secondary diagnostic screening? I see.

    Even if you don’t exclude these children, and include the whole 619, that still extrapolates to only 2,100 children/year with what you claim is misdiagnosed paralytic polio, but which clearly isn’t. Whatever way you look at it, there are at the very least tens of thousands of paralyzed children missing which makes your claims wrong.

    I am more interested on the vast majority (2M children) that were never tested for poliovirus and were discarded.

  535. #537 Krebiozen
    September 8, 2011

    You didn’t answer the question, how many children were paralyzed from the original 2M?

    Yes I did, there were 619 paralyzed children from the original 2.5 million.

    I am more interested on the vast majority (2M children) that were never tested for poliovirus and were discarded.

    Why would you test them for polio if they didn’t have any symptoms of it and had another diagnosis entirely?

  536. #538 Krebiozen
    September 8, 2011

    FWIW in the unlikely event that anyone is in any doubt that Th1Th2 is full of it, here’s a definition of AFP from a paper published in 2000.

    Acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) is a clinical syndrome characterized by rapid onset of weakness, including (less frequently) weakness of the muscles of respiration and swallowing, progressing to maximum severity within several days to weeks. The term “flaccid” indicates the absence of spasticity or other signs of disordered central nervous system motor tracts such as hyperreflexia, clonus, or extensor plantar responses (1). When applied to voluntary muscles, “paralysis” means loss of contraction due to interruption of motor pathways from the cortex to the muscle fiber. It is preferable to use the term “paresis” for slight loss of motor strength and “paralysis” or “plegia” for severe loss of motor strength (1).

    The paper also notes that (my emphasis):

    AFP, a syndrome that encompasses all cases of paralytic poliomyelitis, also is of great public health importance because of its use in surveillance for poliomyelitis in the context of the global polio eradication initiative.

    So AFP is not a substitute diagnosis for paralytic polio as Th1Th2 claims, it is a syndrome that can be caused by paralytic polio, and that all cases of paralytic polio display, by definition.

  537. #539 Th1Th2
    September 8, 2011

    Yes I did, there were 619 paralyzed children from the original 2.5 million.

    No, you selected them from 2,397. What happened to the rest and how were they discarded?

    Why would you test them for polio if they didn’t have any symptoms of it and had another diagnosis entirely?

    ICD coding were only applied to the 2,397, am I correct?Are you afraid of the evidence going against you?

    FWIW in the unlikely event that anyone is in any doubt that Th1Th2 is full of it, here’s a definition of AFP from a paper published in 2000.

    That was in 2000. How do they define AFP back in 1952?

  538. #540 Th1Th2
    September 8, 2011

    So AFP is not a substitute diagnosis for paralytic polio as Th1Th2 claims, it is a syndrome that can be caused by paralytic polio, and that all cases of paralytic polio display, by definition.

    That’s easily debunked. If AFP indeed is distict from poliomyelitis how come there isn’t a case definition and case incidence back in 1952? I really smell fish.

  539. #541 Gray Falcon
    September 8, 2011

    Th1Th2:

    No, you selected them from 2,397. What happened to the rest and how were they discarded?

    They weren’t paralyzed, remember?

    Of those children 2,397 had those diagnostic codes and their notes were then looked at. Only 619 of these children were paralyzed.

    Now, where are you getting your information?

  540. #542 Krebiozen
    September 9, 2011

    This is another case where everyone but Th1Th2 seems to understand what I have explained. I’m persisting as this was one of the first arguments I came across when I first encountered the anti-vaccine movement, along with the claims that paralytic polio was actually organophosphate poisoning. At a first glance they might seem plausible to some, but a little thought and research reveals them to be mostly nonsense. There is a grain of truth in what Th1Th2 is arguing; since polio has been eliminated in many countries we are more aware of other conditions with similar symptoms, like other enteroviruses, GBS and West Nile encephalitis, which might have been misdiagnosed as polio in the past.

    Th1Th2 – why don’t you get hold of a copy of the paper and read it? I wrote to one of the authors and politely requested a copy, which often works.

    No, you selected them from 2,397. What happened to the rest and how were they discarded?

    The rest did not have acute flaccid paralysis according to their records, and you can’t have paralytic polio without acute flaccid paralysis, by the 1955 and 2000 definitions.

    ICD coding were only applied to the 2,397, am I correct?

    No you are incorrect. Maybe you don’t understand how ICD codes are used – I am assuming they are used in the same way in the US as in the UK which I am familiar with. When a patient is discharged from the hospital they are assigned one or more diagnostic codes which are stored on the hospital computer. Researchers can then search for cases with a specific diagnostic code. In this study they were looking for cases of unexplained AFP. Since AFP does not have a diagnostic code, because it is not a diagnosis, just a collection of symptoms, they looked for conditions that can sometimes present with AFP (which included acute poliomyelitis ICD-9 code 45 by the way) and then searched the hospital computer systems for those 52 diagnostic codes.

    Out of 2.5 million children there were 2,397 with these diagnoses that *might* present with AFP, including multiple sclerosis, hemiplegia and spinal cord injury for example. Their records were then examined and 619 of them actually did have AFP according to the case definition criteria that I quoted in full at #495.

    That was in 2000. How do they define AFP back in 1952?

    The medical definitions of the words “acute”, “flaccid” and “paralysis” have not changed since 1952. “Acute” means it is of sudden onset, excluding people who have been paralyzed from birth for example, polio is an acute disease, though its sequelae can be chronic – if it’s not acute it’s not paralytic polio. “Flaccid paralysis” is the characteristic paralysis seen in polio, caused by damage to the lower motor neurons, either in the anterior horns of the spinal cord, or in the peripheral nerves, as opposed to spastic paralysis caused by damage to the upper motor neurons along their route from the motor cortex to the spinal cord. If there is no flaccid paralysis it’s not paralytic polio.

    If AFP indeed is distict from poliomyelitis how come there isn’t a case definition and case incidence back in 1952?

    No one has claimed AFP is distinct from paralytic polio, any more than diarrhea is distinct from cholera. AFP is a syndrome, a collection of symptoms that can be caused by polio and several other conditions. The definition of paralytic polio you gave includes, “partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups”, in other words flaccid paralysis.

    If you find a population with a low incidence of diarrhea you can be confident in asserting that there is not a high incidence of cholera. Similarly in a population with a low incidence of AFP, there cannot be a high incidence of paralytic polio, by any definition.

  541. #543 Th1Th2
    September 9, 2011

    This is another case where everyone but Th1Th2 seems to understand what I have explained. I’m persisting as this was one of the first arguments I came across when I first encountered the anti-vaccine movement, along with the claims that paralytic polio was actually organophosphate poisoning.

    No. The closest thing to AFP is paralytic poliomyelitis. Can’t you see both of them are being monitored and reported in the same surveillance page. Check out the WHO website. They knew what went wrong. This surveillance thing is nothing but a vaccine damage assessment. 

    There is a grain of truth in what Th1Th2 is arguing; since polio has been eliminated in many countries we are more aware of other conditions with similar symptoms, like other enteroviruses, GBS and West Nile encephalitis, which might have been misdiagnosed as polio in the past.

    Did you ever believe for a moment that the AFP surveillance is custom-made for other diseases? Because if it is Salk developed the wrong vaccine.

    The rest did not have acute flaccid paralysis according to their records, and you can’t have paralytic polio without acute flaccid paralysis, by the 1955 and 2000 definitions.

    I know that. But we’ve only come to know about paralysis only after 619 were taken out from 2397.   Out of the original 2.5M, they have identified 3,297 as potential case. Were they all paralyzed too?

    Out of 2.5 million children there were 2,397 with these diagnoses that *might* present with AFP, including multiple sclerosis, hemiplegia and spinal cord injury for example.

    Here’s what your link says:

    In all, 3297 potential cases were identified; of these, 2682 cases (81%) did not meet the case definition, and of the remaining 615 cases, 245 (7% of the total) were included.

    There were 3297 potential case and all of them were paralyzed right? Now were these children vaccinated?

    The medical definitions of the words “acute”, “flaccid” and “paralysis” have not changed since 1952.

    You just butchered AFP into pieces. That wasn’t the original case definition by WHO of paralytic poliomyelitis in 1952.

    No one has claimed AFP is distinct from paralytic polio, any more than diarrhea is distinct from cholera. AFP is a syndrome, a collection of symptoms that can be caused by polio and several other conditions. The definition of paralytic polio you gave includes, “partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups”, in other words flaccid paralysis.

    But diarrhea is a symptom not a syndrome not to mention  diarrhea has an assigned ICD code–just to add some credibility you know. Flaccid paralysis is not an AFP. 

    What about AFP?  If this is a real threat separate from poliomyelitis, they should have at least a case definition and surveillance just as polio had  since 1937. When did you start recording AFP cases?

    If you find a population with a low incidence of diarrhea you can be confident in asserting that there is not a high incidence of cholera. Similarly in a population with a low incidence of AFP, there cannot be a high incidence of paralytic polio, by any definition.

    Now you’re being preposterous. If that’s true, what was the incidence of AFP when polio was its peak in 1952? Don’t tell me they’re taking “anti-diarrheal tabs”

    Seriously,  have you bothered checking the WHO database for AFP? In India, for example, as of this year, there is only one recorded case of polio. Sounds good right? Not until you see that there are 34806 people with AFP.

  542. #544 Gray Falcon
    September 9, 2011

    Th1Th2, here’s a simple self-test for you. Before you post something, ask yourself, “Do I understand the subject I’m talking about?” If the answer is no, then you do not understand the subject you are talking about. You’re welcome.

  543. #545 Th1Th2
    September 9, 2011

    Like the one you asked in 541? Yeah right.

    They weren’t paralyzed, remember?

    You see the difference?

  544. #546 Science Mom
    September 9, 2011

    Seriously, have you bothered checking the WHO database for AFP? In India, for example, as of this year, there is only one recorded case of polio. Sounds good right? Not until you see that there are 34806 people with AFP.

    You stupid bint, go back to the report: http://www.npspindia.org/bulletin.pdf And all known cases of AFP are reported, followed up with laboratory testing when possible and then binned accordingly. Most AFP cases are not polio in spite of your goofy definitions and magical-thinking. There is a lag between AFP reports and polio confirmation which you can see by looking at older surveillance data. Get another hobby, this one is not going well for you.

  545. #547 Gray Falcon
    September 9, 2011

    Th1Th2 honestly expects us to believe no testing is done, they just get an AFP diagnosis and throw up their hands in despair. The fact that the very report she referenced shows otherwise makes it clear she is either too delusional or too dishonest to reason with, the best we can do is expose her lies.

  546. #548 Th1Th2
    September 9, 2011

    Science Mom,

    Haha. So they were not polio by what means? Stool culture? Are you serious? I thought you were gonna say it wasn’t polio because the poliovirus antibody titer shows otherwise. Where does it say it wasn’t polio by serologic test? Talk about vaccine efficacy.

    Of course, you know why they test the stool right?

  547. #549 Lawrence
    September 9, 2011

    Only when it spews from your mouth, insane troll.

  548. #550 lilady
    September 9, 2011

    Brava for Science Mom…but I’m afraid that actual charts that detail the AFP investigation process are way beyond the skewed thinking processes of the disease-promoting uneducated delusional Thingy.

    (I’m wondering what are Thingy’s interpretations of SOB and FUO?)

    Time to “terminally disinfect” this disease-promoting uneducated delusional troll.

  549. #551 Th1Th2
    September 9, 2011

    You don’t want your highly esteemed evidence to go against you, then you might as well close this thread Orac.

    Stool culture? That’s laughable.

  550. #552 Gray Falcon
    September 9, 2011

    Th1Th2, what evidence are you talking about? The only source you gave also showed a severe drop in polio cases after 1955, which you chose to completely disregard.

  551. #553 Science Mom
    September 9, 2011

    Haha. So they were not polio by what means? Stool culture? Are you serious? I thought you were gonna say it wasn’t polio because the poliovirus antibody titer shows otherwise. Where does it say it wasn’t polio by serologic test? Talk about vaccine efficacy.

    Yes, stool sample seriously you dumb cow. Serological tests are of limited value. Of course it’s in the best interest of the global vaccine cabal to cover up polio cases so they can declare it eradicated because that’s what they’ve always done right? [end sarcasm, sort of] And oh look, they even distinguish between VAPP and wild-type, something serological tests can’t do. Oh the conspiracy!!!

    Of course, you know why they test the stool right?

    Yes, do you? Serology can’t distinguish between an acute case and prior case. Stool samples are subjected to assays which are more specific for acute disease and to type specimens. They also don’t require specialised training for collection. Of course some samples will be “false” negative but not to the tune of tens of thousands of cases as you claim. But your claims require an inordinate amount of conspiracy, which is why you are such a joke and credit to anti-vaxxers.

  552. #554 Narad
    September 9, 2011

    You don’t want your highly esteemed evidence to go against you, then you might as well close this thread Orac.

    Stool culture? That’s laughable.

    You seem to be giddy with stool all of a sudden. Would you like to discuss your feelings about stool?

  553. #555 Th1Th2
    September 9, 2011

    Salk vaccine in 1955, remember?

  554. #556 Th1Th2
    September 9, 2011

    Serological tests are of limited value.

    Of course if you’re going to blame the vaccine it is of little value, you’re not gonna incriminate yourself in the first place right? Good. But when assessing the effectiveness of any vaccine, isn’t it you always tout for the gold standard you know the neutralizing antibodies, highly specific antigen-antibody complex, immunological memory, right? And when someone die of a natural infection, don’t you always present serologic test to prove the deceased was not vaccinated?
    Stool culture? Yeah right.

    Yes, do you? Serology can’t distinguish between an acute case and prior case. Stool samples are subjected to assays which are more specific for acute disease and to type specimens. They also don’t require specialised training for collection. Of course some samples will be “false” negative but not to the tune of tens of thousands of cases as you claim. But your claims require an inordinate amount of conspiracy, which is why you are such a joke and credit to anti-vaxxers.

    I do think you’re ignorant and you’re a pretender. The only reason they do stool exam is to detect secondary spread(viral shedding). Conspiracy? Not. Ignorance? Yes.

    And oh look, they even distinguish between VAPP and wild-type, something serological tests can’t do. Oh the conspiracy!!!

    That’s not surprising. We all know polio is transmitted through feces and OPV causes secondary spread which all of you like to happen btw because it would result to “passive” immunity to the naive, right? Of course, serologic test would detect primary poliomyelitis infection and you wouldn’t let that test to be done because the evidence will only go against you, infection-promoter!

  555. #557 Gray Falcon
    September 9, 2011

    Still no evidence from Th1Th2. My parents grew up in the age before the Salk vaccine. Trying to convince me that polio is still around is about as likely as trying to convince me that the World Trade Tower is still standing.

  556. #558 Science Mom
    September 9, 2011

    Th1Th2′s arguments from assertion consist of
    1.) Ignorance of diagnostic assays
    2.) Ignorance of disease pathology
    3.) Must contain massive conspiracy theories
    4.) Deflection attempts when painted into a corner (which is early and often).

    Your last post reads like the teacher from Charlie Brown cartoons. Serological tests cannot differentiate between current and past infections, not a matter of “letting”. Stool samples are easier to collect and transport, this is fucking India dumbass, not suburban America. Stool samples will contain virus which can then be typed, you ignore that detail and ignore that VAPP is also reported, which is contrary to your ignorant assertions.

  557. #559 Gray Falcon
    September 9, 2011

    Th1Th2@476:

    It’s a clinical diagnosis specifically tailored to eliminate polio vaccine as a possible cause. No testing is done during this selection. This is how they establish a probable case by just merely “looking” at the symptoms in particular the presence and duration of the paralysis. In short, paralyzed individuals were never tested for the presence of poliovirus but will be excluded if they don’t suffice the above criteria.

    Th1Th2@556

    I do think you’re ignorant and you’re a pretender. The only reason they do stool exam is to detect secondary spread(viral shedding). Conspiracy? Not. Ignorance? Yes.

    Care to explain?

  558. #560 lilady
    September 9, 2011

    557 comments and still counting as Thingy is shooting for his/her/its “personal best” for trolling and derailing.

    What an odious ignorant disease-promoting delusional troll. Thingy needs an education in basic science and some strong anti-psychotic (Haldol? Prolixen?) medicine…or perhaps needs to be lobotomized…if a neurosurgeon could locate his/hers/its brain.

    Time to “terminally disinfect” Thingy and remember Rule #14.

  559. #561 Krebiozen
    September 9, 2011

    Th1Th2,
    I can’t believe you are still arguing about this, or that I am, come to that. Nailing jello to a wall indeed…

    The closest thing to AFP is paralytic poliomyelitis.

    No, AFP is a necessary symptom of paralytic polio. Back in 1952 the commonest cause of AFP was paralytic polio, today polio has been largely eliminated, the remaining cases of AFP are largely caused by other diseases.

    Can’t you see both of them are being monitored and reported in the same surveillance page.

    Of course they are on the same page, AFP cases and the number of these that are and are not caused by polio. Notice the column labeled, ” Annualized non-poliomyelitis AFP rate”?

    They knew what went wrong. This surveillance thing is nothing but a vaccine damage assessment.

    Unsubstantiated, paranoid BS.

    Did you ever believe for a moment that the AFP surveillance is custom-made for other diseases? Because if it is Salk developed the wrong vaccine.

    So because not all cases of AFP are caused by polio, eliminating polio is pointless? No point in getting rid of cholera, there are plenty of other causes of diarrhea?

    But we’ve only come to know about paralysis only after 619 were taken out from 2397. Out of the original 2.5M, they have identified 3,297 as potential case. Were they all paralyzed too?

    No, they were not paralyzed, which is why they didn’t fit the case definition. Only 619 out of the 2.5 million children had acute flaccid paralysis. Maybe some of them had been paralyzed from birth, maybe some had spastic paralysis, but if they did they didn’t have AFP and would never, not in 1952 and not now, be diagnosed as having paralytic polio.

    There were 3297 potential case and all of them were paralyzed right?

    It is at times like this that I wish I really believed in some supernatural entity to pray to to give me strength. No, they were not all paralyzed, only 619 of them were. Here’s the process described very simply so perhaps you might, finally, understand:

    The researchers run a search for relevant diagnostic discharge codes on the hospital records of 2.5 million children seen over 6 years in Californian ERs. Little Jane Doe, aged 7 has the diagnostic code ’952 Spinal cord injury without evidence of spinal bone injury’, so she is added to the group of 3,297 with relevant codes. Jane Doe’s records are examined, and it seems she was hit by a car causing spinal injuries but they were not serious enough to cause paralysis. She does not fit the case definition for AFP and is not added to the group of 619 who do. Little Jimmy Doe has the diagnostic code ’321.2 Meningitis due to viruses not elsewhere classified’. He has had meningitis caused by an unknown virus which has left him paralyzed, so he does fit the case definition for AFP, and ends up as one of the 619.

    You just butchered AFP into pieces. That wasn’t the original case definition by WHO of paralytic poliomyelitis in 1952.

    How can I butcher two adjectives and a noun into pieces? The words may be different, but they mean the same thing as the second part of the 1952 definition. If anything the definition of AFP includes more patients because it doesn’t demand the signs and symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis. The vast majority of patients with “partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart” will also fit the definition of AFP I gave above, “rapid onset of weakness, including (less frequently) weakness of the muscles of respiration and swallowing, progressing to maximum severity within several days to weeks”.

    But diarrhea is a symptom not a syndrome not to mention diarrhea has an assigned ICD code–just to add some credibility you know.

    My bad, I know you can’t process analogies, but I tried one anyway. Diarrhea = symptom with many different possible causes. AFP = symptom with many different possible causes. No? Ah well, never mind.

    Flaccid paralysis is not an AFP.

    Not all flaccid paralysis is AFP. Some people have flaccid paralysis from birth, or may slowly develop flaccid paralysis over a period of years, but they would never have been diagnosed with polio, because you can’t have paralytic polio without AFP.

    what was the incidence of AFP when polio was its peak in 1952?

    Somewhere in excess of 21,000, most of it caused by polio.

    Seriously, have you bothered checking the WHO database for AFP? In India, for example, as of this year, there is only one recorded case of polio. Sounds good right? Not until you see that there are 34806 people with AFP.

    So polio has almost been wiped out, and the remaining cases of AFP are caused by something else. Is that so hard to understand? The population of India is more than 2 billion with more than half of the population aged under 25. The incidence of non-polio AFP in the SE Asian region is 7.1 per 100,000 as compared to 1.4 in 100,000 in the USA. There’s a lot of disease in that part of the world and more work to do, eliminating polio is just one step, not helped by idiots who insist on spreading lies and misinformation about vaccination.

  560. #562 Composer99
    September 9, 2011

    Th1Th2 is wasting everyone’s time with pure unadulterated, unreconstructed crankery.

    I suggest following lilady’s instructions and ignoring Th1Th2.

  561. #563 Narad
    September 9, 2011

    Stool culture? Yeah right.

    I’m sorry, but this has Th1Th2 commemorative T-shirt theme written all over it.

  562. #564 Th1Th2
    September 9, 2011

    Serological tests cannot differentiate between current and past infections, not a matter of “letting”.

    Haha. How about some Immunology 101 for you kiddo. You know IgM and IgG.

    Stool samples are easier to collect and transport, this is fucking India dumbass, not suburban America.

    Where the poliovirus is easier to spread too right? Right.

    Stool samples will contain virus which can then be typed, you ignore that detail and ignore that VAPP is also reported, which is contrary to your ignorant assertions.

    Did I say “secondary spread”? Good. So it is not only limited to VDPV but also to the vast majority who had vaccine-related poliovirus or VRPV. VAPP is different, you’re confused.

  563. #565 lilady
    September 9, 2011

    We are presently at 564 comments…more than half of them from Thingy…now “fixated” on stool testing.

    Rule # 14 Don’t feed the troll and,

    Rule # 14 (a) Especially the Thingy Troll

  564. #566 Thi1Th2
    September 9, 2011

    No, AFP is a necessary symptom of paralytic polio. Back in 1952 the commonest cause of AFP was paralytic polio, today polio has been largely eliminated, the remaining cases of AFP are largely caused by other diseases.

    That, is what you should be calling “Unsubstantiated, paranoid BS.” You can’t even produce a single AFP case or surveillance report before 1955. Even if you ask WHO for succor, you won’t succeed.

    Of course they are on the same page, AFP cases and the number of these that are and are not caused by polio. Notice the column labeled, ” Annualized non-poliomyelitis AFP rate”?

    It’s called passing the buck and you are all gullible.

    “They knew what went wrong. This surveillance thing is nothing but a vaccine damage assessment.”
    Unsubstantiated, paranoid BS.

    Then prove once and for all that an AFP surveillance did exist prior to 1955.

    So because not all cases of AFP are caused by polio, eliminating polio is pointless? No point in getting rid of cholera, there are plenty of other causes of diarrhea?

    Or is it because you cannot produce a vaccine against a mysterious disease that does not exist called AFP? Nice.

    No, they were not paralyzed, which is why they didn’t fit the case definition. Only 619 out of the 2.5 million children had acute flaccid paralysis.

    Liar. Here’s what you said:

    Out of 2.5 million children there were 2,397 with these diagnoses that *might* present with AFP, including multiple sclerosis, hemiplegia and spinal cord injury for example.

    I asked how many paralyzed were discarded and you lied with the numbers.

    No, they were not all paralyzed, only 619 of them were. Here’s the process described very simply so perhaps you might, finally, understand:

    You just contradicted yourself when you said: “Out of 2.5 million children there were 2,397 with these diagnoses that *might* present with AFP,”

    My bad, I know you can’t process analogies, but I tried one anyway. Diarrhea = symptom with many different possible causes. AFP = symptom with many different possible causes. No? Ah well, never mind.

    Because resorting to faulty analogy will not save you from ridicule. So now, AFP is just a symptom. I thought it was a “set of symptoms” like what you said earlier. Fail.

    How can I butcher two adjectives and a noun into pieces? The words may be different, but they mean the same thing as the second part of the 1952 definition.

    You just admitted “Not all flaccid paralysis is AFP.” Enough said.

    Somewhere in excess of 21,000, most of it caused by polio.

    That’s the most putrid crap that I’ve ever heard so far today especially when you don’t have any single evidence to back it up.

    So polio has almost been wiped out, and the remaining cases of AFP are caused by something else. Is that so hard to understand?

    Since 1996, more than 800,000 people were paralyzed by “something else” and Modern Medicine has no clue but to request for stool culture? That’s some Darwin award you got there.

  565. #567 Th1Th2
    September 9, 2011

    Gray,

    Care to explain?

    Gladly. #476 is pre-1955 whereas #556 is current.

  566. #568 lilady
    September 9, 2011

    We have successfully “terminally disinfected” Thingy for the past 2.5 hours.

    Continue ignoring disease-promoting delusional troll.

  567. #569 Agashem
    September 9, 2011

    I am going to hate myself for asking but Thingy, where did you find the number 800,000?

  568. #570 Agashem
    September 9, 2011

    OOPS! Sorry, I didn’t see Lilady’s last comment. Mea culpa.

  569. #571 Krebiozen
    September 9, 2011

    My patience has run out.
    Killfile activated.

  570. #572 lilady
    September 9, 2011

    @ Agashem & Krebiozen: The air smells cleaner now that we have eliminated the reek of the troll…thanks.

  571. #573 Th1Th2
    September 9, 2011

    I am going to hate myself for asking but Thingy, where did you find the number 800,000?

    Here: h t t p://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/en/diseases/poliomyelitis/case_count.cfm

    You know what to do.

  572. #574 lilady
    September 9, 2011

    @ Agashem: “You know what to do.”…continue to ignore disease promoting delusional troll.

  573. #575 Narad
    September 9, 2011

    You know what to do.

    Attend to the column “AFP cases with adequate specimens”? Oh, right, hence your late copromania. You wouldn’t by any chance have inadvertently backed yourself into this one, would you?

  574. #576 Th1Th2
    September 9, 2011

    Attend to the column “AFP cases with adequate specimens”? Oh, right, hence your late copromania. You wouldn’t by any chance have inadvertently backed yourself into this one, would you?

    Geez. Did you even bother to read, understand, research and consult before posting especially the quoted part? I don’t think so. So what will happen in the case of inadequate specimen? Let’s see how intelligent or dumb Orac’s minions are?

  575. #577 lilady
    September 9, 2011

    It’s baaaaack. This troll needs permanent “terminal disinfecton”.

  576. #578 lilady
    September 9, 2011

    And….I need to use “spell check” (disinfection)

  577. #579 Narad
    September 9, 2011

    So what will happen in the case of inadequate specimen?

    You’ve just lopped off an order of magnitude from your Totentanz.

  578. #580 Th1Th2
    September 9, 2011

    So you don’t know? That’s quite embarrassing isn’t it? (Hint: Check #561, thank your pal Krebiozen)

  579. #581 lilady
    September 9, 2011

    Now at # 580 posts…odious disease-promoting delusional troll is going for its “personal best”

  580. #582 Th1Th2
    September 10, 2011

    I lost my count on how many threads I have closed so far but this one is so overdone. They played with fire, they got burned. Yup that’s exactly what will surely happen again and again when you apply the same science they preach all the time unto them. They won’t go anywhere near.

  581. #583 Gray Fakcib
    September 10, 2011

    Th1Th2, the only reason nobody is responding to you is because its become clear you have no concept of honesty and integrity.

  582. #584 Antaeus Feldspar
    September 10, 2011

    Thingy, I’m going to ask you a series of questions.  The first one will unavoidably be quite personal, but if you are willing to declare that a thread has been “closed down” when people do not respond (or do not respond as you had hoped) to your questions, you really can’t justify avoiding these questions being posed to you.

    The first question is this:  Do you have the capability of thinking about and analyzing hypothetical situations?

    Some people lack that capability.  Adults who are both intelligent and mentally healthy have that capability; they can discuss what the logical consequences of certain premises would be, even if they know those premises to not be true in the real world.  Their ability to say “I don’t believe that premise X is true; but if we accepted it for the sake of argument, it would then imply the following…” shows that they have a strong capacity for abstract thinking, and that they are not afflicted with any of the mental disorders whose symptoms include difficulty in comprehending metaphors, analogies, hypotheticals, or any other type of non-literal thought.

    So if you have answered that you are, in fact, mentally capable of dealing with hypothetical situations, let me present this one:  a new medical treatment is discovered – we’ll call it MDR, for Magic Dandelion Root.  The treatment has the following effects (and please remember that as this is a hypothetical situation, the direct effects are entirely what we hypothesize them to be; arguing that the treatment does not have those effects is admitting a failure in ability to process hypothetical situations):

    * In 95% of people, MDR treatment causes their immune system to become 95% resistant to a given contagious disease, let’s call it “CF fever.”  This immunity lasts for the rest of their life.  (“95% resistant” in this context means that a contact which could communicate the disease from an infected person to one who has had MDR treatment, will only do so 5% of the time.)
    * In the remaining 5%, MDR treatment has no effect, neither increasing nor decreasing their level of immunity.  We will call this population the “MDR-neutral.”
    * There are no other effects or side effects to MDR treatment.

    Now, imagine a large population where everyone has gotten MDR treatment.  Further imagine that a source of CF fever infection enters the picture:  visitors from a place where CF fever is endemic and MDR is not used, perhaps.

    1. Do you agree that 95% of the population being 95% resistant to CF fever means that fewer people in the population will come down with CF fever than if MDR treatment was not used?
    2. Do you agree that fewer people in the population having CF fever means that there are fewer people who could transmit the infection even to the MDR-neutral?
    3. Do you agree that the MDR-neutral are therefore going to have lower rates of CF fever than they would if the population around them was not MDR-treated?
    4. What would you call this phenomenon, where people in a population acquiring resistance to an infection for themselves reduce the rates of infection for people who can’t personally acquire that resistance?

  583. #585 Krebiozen
    September 10, 2011

    Lilady,

    It’s baaaaack.

    All I see is, “Comment by Th1Th2 blocked”. And that’s the way it’s going to stay.

  584. #586 Th1Th2
    September 11, 2011

    Mephistopheles,

    This thread has been dead ages ago. Let it rest in peace. Hard to accept but it’s true.

    The first question is this:  Do you have the capability of thinking about and analyzing hypothetical situations?

    Of course, I do. Do you have the capability of formulating a hypothetical situation? I don’t think so.

    So you’re using this analogy as an escape mechanism because you have failed to defend vaccines, right?  Why the dandelion root? How is it comparable to vaccines? The dandelion root comes from the plant whereas  vaccines are pathogens, you know, disease-causing microorganisms,  or derived from pathogens. Do you see the big difference? So in order for you to formulate a valid hypothesis, like in this example, you have to think of a thing that is just as BAD as the vaccine. Yeah just bad things since it’s inherent of vaccines. Hence, the rest of your questions are irrelevant.

  585. #587 Antaeus Feldspar
    September 11, 2011

    See, Thingy, you’re saying the words “I have the ability to think about hypothetical situations,” but then you run from the hypothetical questions you’re being challenged to consider. It strongly suggests that you cannot process hypothetical questions after all.

    Of course, you’re invited to prove that I am wrong, and that you can, like an intelligent and mentally healthy adult, think about hypothetical situations. Trust me, your stock won’t go down if you show you can discuss “what would happen if these ideas I don’t believe in were actually true?” On the contrary, the respect people have for you can only go up if you show yourself capable of processing hypotheticals, and your ideas will if anything be taken more seriously. Think about it, which of these people is going to convince others, the one who says “I’ve looked at every proposed analysis of the issue, and given each one a chance to convince me, and analysis X makes more sense than the others,” or the one who says “Analysis Z is the true one, and I refuse to even acknowledge any possibility that it isn’t, because that’s how convinced I am that Z is the right answer. I can’t even answer questions about what the implications would be if Z wasn’t right, because I refuse to entertain even for a second, even for the sake of argument, that it isn’t”?

    Haven’t we given time to your notions? No one here believes that the word “infection” has the broad, all-encompassing meaning that you think it does, but we’ve discussed what the implications would be if it did. No one here believes that your “due diligence” strategy can effectively protect people from infectious agents that aren’t obliging enough to give us warning signs of their presences, but we’ve discussed whether it would remove the need for vaccines, if it did.

    We’re not afraid to consider your point of view in detail; are you really okay with everyone seeing that you are afraid to consider ours?

  586. #588 Th1Th2
    September 11, 2011

    Antaeus,

    One word. Murphy’s law.

    You came up with a wrong hypothetical situation and from it you have made a faulty conclusion. What’s even worse is that you have treated the result as something similar as to what vaccines do.

    That is simply wrong. No wonder vaccine apologists use analogies all the time to justify vaccination. It’s fight or flight.

    Proof (as an aside to my previous post, MDR is not an infectious agent): What kind of immunity does MDR capable of inducing which is similar to vaccines? Yes, I am talking about the different immunological pathways and mechanisms involving the adaptive immune system.

    Haven’t we given time to your notions? No one here believes that the word “infection” has the broad, all-encompassing meaning that you think it does, but we’ve discussed what the implications would be if it did.

    Well because that’s the truth, infection is broad.

    No one here believes that your “due diligence” strategy can effectively protect people from infectious agents that aren’t obliging enough to give us warning signs of their presences, but we’ve discussed whether it would remove the need for vaccines, if it did.

    Like I said, I don’t think that teaching the people to exercise due diligence is your primary concern. You are an infection promoter and that is what you do best.

    We’re not afraid to consider your point of view in detail; are you really okay with everyone seeing that you are afraid to consider ours?

    Afraid? When did it happen? I know how you guys able to manipulate other commenters here. Unlike other antivax, I use the same and exact Science you guys are preaching all the time. The difference is I don’t play around with it. You guys love to do it thus you get burned so easily.

  587. #589 lilady
    September 11, 2011

    It is so tempting to engage disease-promoting uneducated delusional Thingy troll who is trying to achieve his/her/its “personal best record” of 600 PLUS posts…but please don’t engage this disease-promoting uneducated delusional Thingy.

  588. #590 Antaeus Feldspar
    September 11, 2011

    One word. Murphy’s law.

    That’s not one word, and it’s not relevant here.

    You came up with a wrong hypothetical situation and from it you have made a faulty conclusion. What’s even worse is that you have treated the result as something similar as to what vaccines do.

    I have not asked you to draw any conclusion from the hypothetical situation presented; I have simply challenged you to demonstrate that you can think about that hypothetical situation as a sane and intelligent person can. Talking about “a wrong hypothetical situation” only demonstrates failure in that regard.  Sane and intelligent people can think about hypothetical situations based even on premises they know to be false, such as “suppose we had a perpetual motion device” or “suppose water flowed uphill for five minutes out of every twenty-four hours.”  There is no “wrong hypothetical situation” which can justify your refusal to think about it.

    Proof (as an aside to my previous post, MDR is not an infectious agent): What kind of immunity does MDR capable of inducing which is similar to vaccines? Yes, I am talking about the different immunological pathways and mechanisms involving the adaptive immune system.

    A sane and intelligent person who nevertheless did not believe in vaccines could say “Here is my analysis of your hypothetical situation of MDR.  And now that I have demonstrated that I understand your hypothetical situation, here are what I think are the differences between the hypothetical situation, and our own real-life situation.”

    What you are trying to do, by contrast, is say “I know the answer that I don’t want to be applicable to our real-life situation; therefore I will deny the existence of any hypothetical situation that might work out the way I don’t want.”  You’re not even trying to reason backwards from a desired conclusion to premises that support that conclusion (which would already be a failure right there); you’re trying to reason backwards from your desired conclusion to a permission to stop thinking.

    Haven’t we given time to your notions? No one here believes that the word “infection” has the broad, all-encompassing meaning that you think it does, but we’ve discussed what the implications would be if it did.

    Well because that’s the truth, infection is broad.

    And you avoid the point, which is that we have the mental flexibility to give full examination to notions we don’t believe in, but when you are challenged to display that same capability, you fail.

    No one here believes that your “due diligence” strategy can effectively protect people from infectious agents that aren’t obliging enough to give us warning signs of their presences, but we’ve discussed whether it would remove the need for vaccines, if it did.

    Like I said, I don’t think that teaching the people to exercise due diligence is your primary concern. You are an infection promoter and that is what you do best.

    And you avoid the point, which is that we have the mental flexibility to give full examination to notions we don’t believe in, but when you are challenged to display that same capability, you fail.

    We’re not afraid to consider your point of view in detail; are you really okay with everyone seeing that you are afraid to consider ours?

    Afraid? When did it happen? I know how you guys able to manipulate other commenters here. Unlike other antivax, I use the same and exact Science you guys are preaching all the time. The difference is I don’t play around with it. You guys love to do it thus you get burned so easily.

    Those are brave words, but they’re empty.  Why would anyone believe that you can pit your grasp of science against ours and leave us “burned” when in this very thread everyone can see you running scared from simple hypothetical thinking?  In this very comment I’ve showed you how a sane and intelligent person who doesn’t believe in vaccines could respond successfully to the challenge you’ve been failing, without weakening their arguments against vaccines in the slightest.

    But I am confident that you will still run scared from the challenge, because you already know that answering question 4 will mean admitting that some of your dogma is wrong. And I want the record to display that failure.

  589. #591 Th1Th2
    September 11, 2011

    Antaues,

    I have not asked you to draw any conclusion from the hypothetical situation presented;

    You’re demanding me to draw a conclusion.

    I have simply challenged you to demonstrate that you can think about that hypothetical situation as a sane and intelligent person can.

    That’s what I said. Your hypothetical situation is simply wrong. Do you dispute this?

    Sane and intelligent people can think about hypothetical situations based even on premises they know to be false, such as “suppose we had a perpetual motion device” or “suppose water flowed uphill for five minutes out of every twenty-four hours.” There is no “wrong hypothetical situation” which can justify your refusal to think about it.

    Or like asking me to prove that fairies exist.

    A sane and intelligent person who nevertheless did not believe in vaccines could say “Here is my analysis of your hypothetical situation of MDR. And now that I have demonstrated that I understand your hypothetical situation, here are what I think are the differences between the hypothetical situation, and our own real-life situation.”

    You only did create a wrong hypothesis but a wrong conclusion as well. And you want me to follow your path? That’s nonsense.

    What you are trying to do, by contrast, is say “I know the answer that I don’t want to be applicable to our real-life situation; therefore I will deny the existence of any hypothetical situation that might work out the way I don’t want.”

    Geez. The subject of your hypothetical situation does exist. What doesn’t exist is the inherent nature and capability of your subject to cause infection. Understood?

    You’re not even trying to reason backwards from a desired conclusion to premises that support that conclusion (which would already be a failure right there); you’re trying to reason backwards from your desired conclusion to a permission to stop thinking.

    Well, that what makes me different from the rest. I don’t derive any conclusion from wrong premises. Yours is a typical logical fallacy.

    And you avoid the point, which is that we have the mental flexibility to give full examination to notions we don’t believe in, but when you are challenged to display that same capability, you fail.

    No, you are only bounded to either infection promotion or germ denialism. Anything else is wild imagination.

    Those are brave words, but they’re empty. Why would anyone believe that you can pit your grasp of science against ours and leave us “burned” when in this very thread everyone can see you running scared from simple hypothetical thinking?

    Am I the only who can smell fish?

    In this very comment I’ve showed you how a sane and intelligent person who doesn’t believe in vaccines could respond successfully to the challenge you’ve been failing, without weakening their arguments against vaccines in the slightest.

    Because you said so?

    But I am confident that you will still run scared from the challenge, because you already know that answering question 4 will mean admitting that some of your dogma is wrong. And I want the record to display that failure.

    Haha. That’s ridiculous. First, learn how to formulate a hypothesis. It’s pretty obvious you don’t have that capacity. Murphy’s Law, as simple as that.

  590. #592 Gray Falcon
    September 11, 2011

    Th1Th2, you seem to have descended into Ralph Wiggums levels of stupidity now. Seriously, do you know what science is? Or what honest is? Or for that matter, what “Murphy’s Law” means?

  591. #593 TBruce
    September 11, 2011

    Poor Thingy, stranded on her desert island of delusion, yelling at clouds passing by.

    Stick a fork in her, she’s done.

  592. #594 Narad
    September 11, 2011

    Well, that what makes me different from the rest. I don’t derive any conclusion from wrong premises.

    That’s a keeper.

  593. #595 The Christian Cynic
    September 11, 2011

    Seriously, any rational person should be able to look at this thread and conclude, even if they agree (for whatever reason) that vaccines cause some kind of harm, that Thingy is a horrible spokesperson for that viewpoint. There’s no reason to expect reasonable arguments from a person who thinks that any “wrong” conclusion indicates fallacious thinking. That’s a pretty clear indicator that someone needs to buy a copy of “Logic for Dummies” and brush up on the concepts of validity and soundness of arguments, among many other things.

  594. #596 Antaeus Feldspar
    September 11, 2011

    That’s a pretty clear indicator that someone needs to buy a copy of “Logic for Dummies” and brush up on the concepts of validity and soundness of arguments, among many other things.


    Thingy has proved herself helpless at logic before,
    but I think she’s demonstrated new lows today. I suspect that she may not even understand what a hypothetical situation is, and that it’s something different from a hypothesis.

  595. #597 Th1Th2
    September 13, 2011

    Antaeus,

    Thingy has proved herself helpless at logic before, but I think she’s demonstrated new lows today. I suspect that she may not even understand what a hypothetical situation is, and that it’s something different from a hypothesis.

  596. #598 Th1Th2
    September 13, 2011

    Antaeus,

    Thingy has proved herself helpless at logic before, but I think she’s demonstrated new lows today. I suspect that she may not even understand what a hypothetical situation is, and that it’s something different from a hypothesis.

    Lame. Talk about scientific thinkers. Let me give you a clue. Go pick on any antivaxxer and that might work but not for me. I know all your weakness—Science.

  597. #599 lilady
    September 13, 2011

    Thingy is still trying for his/her/its “personal best”….approaching the 600 postings mark now. Please ignore disease-promoting delusional troll.

    @ TBruce: Thingy is overdone…the fork should have used 500 postings ago.

  598. #600 Th1Th2
    September 13, 2011

    Here’s a list of people so far who proudly call themselves infection promoters.

    1. Krebiozen
    2. The Very Reverend Bull of Knowledge
    3. TBruce
    4. Mephistopheles O’Brien
    5. Gray Falcon

    Fess up and join their club.

  599. #601 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 13, 2011

    Th1Th2, do you think Jansici’s method of rinderpest eradication should be used in measles and poliomyelitis eradication efforts?

  600. #602 Anton P. Nym
    September 13, 2011

    Thingy is daft.

    (I guess that puts me on Thingy’s “club” list, and I’m curious how my ‘nym will get misspelled on it.)

    If you want this put more “scientifically”, then the immunology as described by Th1Th2′s postulations does not match that described by the vast majority (indeed, the nigh-unanimity) of health care practitioners and immunology researchers. Nor does it describe the world that I see in my own personal experience.

    I have much greater trust in those who can, for instance, use a dictionary consistantly than in Th1Th2… so it’s not even down to nose-counting to determine who’s right.

    Therefor, Thingy is daft.

    — Steve

  601. #603 Th1Th2
    September 13, 2011

    Kevin,

    Th1Th2, do you think Jansici’s method of rinderpest eradication should be used in measles and poliomyelitis eradication efforts?

    Yes.

  602. #604 Th1Th2
    September 13, 2011

    If you want this put more “scientifically”, then the immunology as described by Th1Th2′s postulations does not match that described by the vast majority (indeed, the nigh-unanimity) of health care practitioners and immunology researchers. Nor does it describe the world that I see in my own personal experience.

    Of course it does.

  603. #605 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 13, 2011
    Th1Th2, do you think Jansici’s method of rinderpest eradication should be used in measles and poliomyelitis eradication efforts?

    Yes.

    Let the record show that, in areas where polio or measles has not been eliminated, Th1Th2 is in favor of slaughtering all people who have not been infected with polio/measles, isolating the population until there is no longer any contagious disease, and forced abortion or infanticide of all new babies in the interim.

  604. #606 Th1Th2
    September 13, 2011

    And why would you slaughter the uninfected, perform abortion or infanticide? Are you nuts? Shows a lot about your personality?

  605. #607 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 13, 2011

    You’re the one advocating Jansici’s genocidal technique, Thingy, not us. I understand how it works, but I would never stand for it being applied to humans.

  606. #608 Th1Th2
    September 13, 2011

    Stop bluffing. Show me the evidence for your claim that it was a “genocidal technique”.

  607. #609 Lawrence
    September 13, 2011

    LOL – insane troll can’t even read the literature that it quoted.

  608. #610 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    September 13, 2011

    Golly, Thingy, why am I so far down the list? Was I really the third?

  609. #611 Th1Th2
    September 14, 2011

    No Kevin you don’t understand how it works. You’re just yacking because of severe ignorance intoxication. I might as well put you on the list.

  610. #612 Agashem
    September 17, 2011

    Just sayin.

  611. #613 amused
    September 21, 2011

    So very amusing. Thank you everyone. I’ve never seen such a big troll bagged and tagged. I can’t believe I read most of this page.

  612. #614 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 21, 2011

    I missed Thingy’s call for evidence. Because I have a feeling people will be referring back to this post, here it is:

    Rinderpest and peste des petits ruminants by William P. Taylor

    Lancisi’s recommendations and their success were underpinned by two thrusts (see also Chapter 9): zoo-sanity measures, including stamping out; strong legal enforcement of control measures.

    Thus, Lancisi’s technical recommendations included: slaughter to reduce spread, restricted movement of cattle, burial of whole animals in lime, and inspection of meat. (p 89)

    What does “stamping out” mean? From the MANUAL ON PROCEDURES
    FOR DISEASE ERADICATION BY STAMPING OUT
    (emphasis mine):

    Stamping out is a recognized and proven strategy for rapid elimination of an introduced exotic disease or other emergency livestock disease. The crucial elements of stamping out are:

    designation of infected zones;

    intensive disease surveillance to identify infected premises and dangerous-contact premises or villages within these zones;

    imposition of quarantine and livestock movement restrictions;

    immediate slaughter of all susceptible animals either on the infected and dangerous-contact premises or in the whole infected area;

    safe disposal of their carcasses and other potentially infected materials;

    disinfection and cleaning of infected premises;

    maintaining these premises depopulated of susceptible animals for a suitable period.

    Just to be clear, susceptible means not immune.

  613. #615 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    Dangerous Kevin,

    Just to be clear, susceptible means not immune.

    Just how do you know that an animal is susceptible and non-immune during that period?

    In humans, a perfectly normal and healthy newborn today, not born to infected mother, is also being labeled as susceptible just because the baby is HbsAg negative. Are you going to dispatch this innocent and uninfected newborn in front of the uninfected mother or  you are gonna dispatch them both?

  614. #616 Lawrence
    September 21, 2011

    Hey insane troll – don’t try to back out, you were the one the said you were in favor of that type of disease control (a definitive yes, was what you said).

  615. #617 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    Dangerous Kevin,

    I missed the part where they described “stamping out” as a “genocidal technique” as you had claimed it to be. Care to explain?

  616. #618 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    Lawrence,

    Hey insane troll – don’t try to back out, you were the one the said you were in favor of that type of disease control (a definitive yes, was what you said).

    Except that Lancisi’s method wasn’t a “genocidal technique” like what Kevin had been portraying not to mention Kevin is the one who defined susceptible as being “not immune”.

    Yup he’s got a lot of explaining to do.

  617. #619 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    Those are both generally accepted definitions. Th1Th2, despite what you might think, you don’t get to make up definitions.

    Another question. Is the same compound, despite having the same chemical make-up, pathogenic if it was created by a pathogen, but not pathogenic if it wasn’t?

  618. #620 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    Those are both generally accepted definitions. Th1Th2, despite what you might think, you don’t get to make up definitions.

    An HbsAg negative newborn is considered susceptible and this isn’t it my definition instead it’s the doctors’ who sell vaccines by exploiting FUD.

    Another question. Is the same compound, despite having the same chemical make-up, pathogenic if it was created by a pathogen, but not pathogenic if it wasn’t?

    Give an example. Good luck with that.

  619. #621 Reuben
    September 21, 2011

    *cough* Antibiotics *cough*

    *drops the mic and walks away*

  620. #622 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    An HbsAg negative newborn is considered susceptible and this isn’t it my definition instead it’s the doctors’ who sell vaccines by exploiting FUD.

    So if they were exposed to the germs, they wouldn’t get infected?

    Give an example. Good luck with that.

    Remember the last thread you highjacked, when we were discussing botulin toxin?

  621. #623 Todd W.
    September 21, 2011

    Wow. This thread is still going? No surprise that Th1Th2 has not changed her song at all.

    I am hereby declaring this thread over (for Th1Th2…please do not post any longer). Hey, if she can do that to threads, so can I. The rest of you, carry on. Hee hee.

  622. #624 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    Reuben,

    That’s microbial antagonism, antibiotics. An example should be a pathogen against the host. Nice try though.

  623. #625 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    So if they were exposed to the germs, they wouldn’t get infected?

    Kevin would have killed them before they even get exposed. No exception and no mercy to his “genocidal technique”.

    Remember the last thread you highjacked, when we were discussing botulin toxin?

    So?

  624. #626 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    Your technique, Th1Th2. You really should learn the definitions of the words you use. Th1Th2, you don’t know anything about science, you just couch mysticism (sympathetic magic and ritual purity) in scientific terms.

  625. #627 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    I’m waiting for your analogies Gray. Now you’re beginning to sound like lilady. Haha.

  626. #628 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    Here’s the last thread posted to:
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/08/dont_listen_to_these_medical_voices_or_h.php#comment-5247278

    Go back #214. It thought that was clear enough. No, the resultant toxin will remain nonpathogenic. What are you still arguing about?

    You basically suggest that there’s some previously-undiscovered subatomic particle of “pathogenesis” that can somehow turn one compound into a pathogen.

  627. #629 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    You basically suggest that there’s some previously-undiscovered subatomic particle of “pathogenesis” that can somehow turn one compound into a pathogen.

    Duh. You yourself have claimed that botulinum toxin causes botulism and not the bacteria. Do you dispute this? What other “undiscovered subatomic particle” of the pathogen could have caused botulism?

    You quoted me and yet you still failed to realize that in Narad’s example, the original toxin was derived from a nonpathogen, therefore the toxin cannot cause the disease– even if a pathogen is used to produce the same innocuous toxin.

  628. #630 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    Could you please clarify what you’re saying, Th1Th2?

  629. #631 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    So what you’re saying is that two substances with the same chemical makeup will have different effects on the human body based on how they were made?

  630. #632 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    So what you’re saying is that two substances with the same chemical makeup will have different effects on the human body based on how they were made?

    Going back to Narad’s example. The pathogen was only used as a vehicle to produce the innocuous toxin, not the pathogen’s native toxin. Therefore, only one is being produced and that is the harmless and non-disease-causing toxin.

  631. #633 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 21, 2011

    Okay, Thingy, what is your definition of susceptible? I would like to know who it is that you plan on mass slaughtering. Again, I reiterate that you are the person who is advocating that Lancisi’s methods be applied to humans, not us. It is you, not us, who is in favor of killing susceptible people, rather than vaccinate them.

  632. #634 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 21, 2011

    Narad never claimed that the toxin was innocuous (which is a contradiction in terms), nor did he claim that it was non-disease-causing.

  633. #635 Narad
    September 21, 2011

    Going back to Narad’s example. The pathogen was only used as a vehicle to produce the innocuous toxin, not the pathogen’s native toxin. Therefore, only one is being produced and that is the harmless and non-disease-causing toxin.

    You’re referring to the example of EtOH produced by S. cerevisiae?

  634. #636 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    Okay, Thingy, what is your definition of susceptible?

    Wiki-

    In epidemiology a susceptible individual (sometimes known simply as a susceptible) is a member of a population who is at risk of becoming infected by a disease, or can not take a certain medicine, antibiotic, etc if he or she is exposed to the infectious agent.

    So who are the susceptible? The uninfected. And who infects the uninfected? The infection promoters. And who are the infection promoters? Vaccinators and the pro-pox people.

    I would like to know who it is that you plan on mass slaughtering.

    Not mass slaughtering. But Lancisi’s method of breaking the chain of infection. In reality, by putting a leash on your infected children (from natural infection or vaccines) thereby protecting the susceptible from getting infected.

    Again, I reiterate that you are the person who is advocating that Lancisi’s methods be applied to humans, not us.

    Why don’t you answer that for yourself. The infected herd gets slaughtered. But who proudly calls themselves the “herd” and thinks as a “herd”? You tell me.

    It is you, not us, who is in favor of killing susceptible people, rather than vaccinate them.

    Once you vaccinate them, then they are infected hence they become the risk. Are you gonna kill these people to protect the uninfected? No. Just teach them to be responsible (even though you call yourself as part of the “herd”) and stop spreading the disease. But it’s useless since they are an avid infection promoters. Hence my solution: STOP vaccinating!

  635. #637 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    Narad never claimed that the toxin was innocuous (which is a contradiction in terms), nor did he claim that it was non-disease-causing.

    Come on Gray, show me some grey matter-of-fact. Here’s what Narad said:

    OK, so suppose one has a supply of some toxin that is of nonpathogenic origin. If one could engineer a pathogen that would produce this compound, would exposure to the previously existing toxin now constitute an infection?

  636. #638 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    How drunk does someone have to be to come up with that interpretation?

  637. #639 Narad
    September 21, 2011

    I’m not seeing where that has anything to do with being inocuous.

  638. #640 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    You’re referring to the example of EtOH produced by S. cerevisiae?

    I am referring to the fictitious toxin you gave in #636.

    Is S. cerevisiae a pathogen or not? If it is a pathogen, what makes it pathogenic?

  639. #641 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    How drunk does someone have to be to come up with that interpretation?

    Understandably, Narad was drunk when he made up that horrible story.

  640. #642 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    So who are the susceptible? The uninfected. And who infects the uninfected? The infection promoters. And who are the infection promoters? Vaccinators and the pro-pox people.

    Th1Th2, are you arguing that diseases don’t exist except for vaccines?

    Understandably, Narad was drunk when he made up that horrible story.

    It’s called a hypothetical situation. You do know what one is, don’t you?

  641. #643 Narad
    September 21, 2011

    I am referring to the fictitious toxin you gave in #636.

    Great. You might note that this came after my request for clarification, so there’s no need to set off a diversion grenade.

  642. #644 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    Th1Th2, are you arguing that diseases don’t exist except for vaccines?

    I did say “pro-pox people”, didn’t I? (Hint: Natural infection)

    It’s called a hypothetical situation. You do know what one is, don’t you?

    One word. Regression.

  643. #645 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    Correction: So, are you saying there are no other ways one can get infected other that what you consider deliberate infection?

    One word. Regression.

    Which means what?

  644. #646 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    Great. You might note that this came after my request for clarification, so there’s no need to set off a diversion grenade.

    You asked me about S. cerevisiae and I answered accordingly, where’s the diversion there? It seems though that your appeal to clarification is directed to your own cluelessness. I just verified it.

  645. #647 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    Th1Th2: Here’s what you said earlier: “I am referring to the fictitious toxin you gave in #636.” And now: “You asked me about S. cerevisiae and I answered accordingly, where’s the diversion there?” Did it ever occur to you to be honest?

  646. #648 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    Correction: So, are you saying there are no other ways one can get infected other that what you consider deliberate infection?

    No there are no other ways unless of course you have other plans on how to get infected.

    Which means what?

    Just like that.

  647. #649 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    No there are no other ways unless of course you have other plans on how to get infected.

    So why aren’t all diseases extinct?

    Just like that.

    Seriously, did it ever occur to you that we aren’t telepathic? What did you mean by “regression”?

  648. #650 Narad
    September 21, 2011

    You asked me about S. cerevisiae and I answered accordingly, where’s the diversion there?

    You attempted an irrelevant follow-on question.

  649. #651 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    Th1Th2: Here’s what you said earlier: “I am referring to the fictitious toxin you gave in #636.” And now: “You asked me about S. cerevisiae and I answered accordingly, where’s the diversion there?” Did it ever occur to you to be honest?

    Then asked him the name of the toxin he was referring to in #636. My response to his story is not in any way connected to S. cerevisae hence his request for clarification. But since he mentioned S. cerevisae, I thought of asking him as well because he knew exactly where he made that stupid mistake.

  650. #652 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    Th1Th2:

    Then asked him the name of the toxin he was referring to in #636.

    Do you understand the concept of hypothetical scenarios? There wasn’t a name for the toxin, it was hypothetical.

    No there are no other ways unless of course you have other plans on how to get infected.

    If disease could be avoided as easily as you say it can, nobody would ever have gotten sick in the first place.

  651. #653 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    So why aren’t all diseases extinct?

    Infection promoters.

    Seriously, did it ever occur to you that we aren’t telepathic? What did you mean by “regression”?

    Easy. This blog, like SBM, has regressed from being science-based to mere hypothetical situations and analogies.

  652. #654 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    What about before “Infection promoters” existed? Why didn’t people just decide not to get sick then? The Black Death wasn’t spread by “plague parties”.

  653. #655 Lawrence
    September 21, 2011

    And how about diseases that don’t have vaccines available? Why aren’t they extinct (for example – the common cold)?

    By insane troll’s reasoning – all diseases should have become extinct thousands of years ago, so why didn’t they?

    Also, it has never explained exactly what the “endgame” is – what is the intent of this so-called “infection promotion” conspiracy?

  654. #656 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    You attempted an irrelevant follow-on question.

    On #634, you were specific hence I tried to be also specific. Why are you complaining?

  655. #657 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    Th1Th2, the reason we were using “mere hypothetical situations and analogies” is to explain to you what science is, illustrating your elementary logical errors and demonstrating that your hypotheses make several inaccurate predictions. Why do you think that “mere hypothetical situations and analogies” aren’t science?

  656. #658 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    What about before “Infection promoters” existed?

    You mean before God created the Earth?

    Why didn’t people just decide not to get sick then?

    May be they don’t want to get sick, do you?

    The Black Death wasn’t spread by “plague parties”.

    Were they promoting Black Death?

  657. #659 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    So, Th1Th2 is a Young-Earth Creationist as well. Not surprised.

  658. #660 Narad
    September 21, 2011
    Why didn’t people just decide not to get sick then?

    May be they don’t want to get sick, do you?

    Did you have trouble understanding the question?

  659. #661 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    And how about diseases that don’t have vaccines available? Why aren’t they extinct (for example – the common cold)?

    Simple. Natural infection. Add a vaccine then you’ll have another source of infection. Hence, vaccination is irrelevant in infection control and disease eradication.

    By insane troll’s reasoning – all diseases should have become extinct thousands of years ago, so why didn’t they?

    Rinderpest in 1700s.

    Also, it has never explained exactly what the “endgame” is – what is the intent of this so-called “infection promotion” conspiracy?

    There is not a conspiracy. The consequence of vaccinating and not vaccinating is science-based. It’s just you’re promoting infection in a convenient way.

  660. #662 Lawrence
    September 21, 2011

    Nope – that isn’t an answer (or even answers).

    Again, you don’t seem to be able to provide an answer as to why? What is the point of your “infection promotion” conspiracy?

  661. #663 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    Earlier you said: “No there are no other ways unless of course you have other plans on how to get infected.” So now you say there are other ways of getting infected besides vaccination and pox parties?

  662. #664 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    Why do you think that “mere hypothetical situations and analogies” aren’t science?

    Because “mere hypothetical situations and analogies” are just anecdotes. Does it sound familiar?

  663. #665 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    Because “mere hypothetical situations and analogies” are just anecdotes.

    No, they aren’t. You don’t get to redefine words for your personal benefit.

  664. #666 Narad
    September 21, 2011

    Because “mere hypothetical situations and analogies” are just anecdotes.

    No, they’re not “anecdotes” at all. In your case, hypotheticals are probes of how well you’ve fleshed out your wholly idiosyncratic semiotics. It’s looking kind of ad hoc.

  665. #667 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    Again, you don’t seem to be able to provide an answer as to why? What is the point of your “infection promotion” conspiracy?

    I’ve already answered. There is not a conspiracy. Vaccination is science-based including the consequences. If this doesn’t suffice, then educate yourself more or remain in denialism.

  666. #668 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    Earlier you said: “No there are no other ways unless of course you have other plans on how to get infected.” So now you say there are other ways of getting infected besides vaccination and pox parties?

    I can’t think of anything else, can you?

  667. #669 amused
    September 21, 2011

    Wow. I have to contribute. Science IS asking questions. Imagining hypothetical scenarios IS science. Otherwise, why would anyone perform an experiment?
    Also, does this person think they’re really going to change anyone’s mind on this forum? If they’re not getting paid for making these arguments, then that’s an awful waste of many hours of their lives. Such bitterness and frustration they must be wallowing in every moment they spend reading this website.

  668. #670 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    Th1Th2, what is science? How do people discover it? If a hypothesis’ predictions do not match reality, what happens to the hypothesis?

  669. #671 Narad
    September 21, 2011

    I can’t think of anything else, can you?

    Haven’t you omitted failure to stay on the sidewalk and other “due diligence” here?

  670. #672 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    No, they aren’t. You don’t get to redefine words for your personal benefit.

    Then at least explain how you came up with a hypothetical situation or analogy of your choice. The only thing you keep on telling me is that it’s just a hypothetical situation or analogy and therefore I must accept it as is without refuting it.

  671. #673 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    Haven’t you omitted failure to stay on the sidewalk and other “due diligence” here?

    The question is with regards to “deliberate infection”.

  672. #674 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    The question is with regards to “deliberate infection”.

    The question is with regards to all infection, in that you were discussing whether people were susceptible to infection. Deliberately ignoring a source of infection is a critical flaw in your plans.

    Then at least explain how you came up with a hypothetical situation or analogy of your choice. The only thing you keep on telling me is that it’s just a hypothetical situation or analogy and therefore I must accept it as is without refuting it.

    Your attempts to “refute” our hypothetical scenarios consisted largely of “because I said so, that’s why.” Not exactly good science.

  673. #675 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 21, 2011

    The question is with regards to “deliberate infection”.

    And how the hell were we supposed to know that, seeing as the preceding questions were about all types of infection?

  674. #676 TBruce
    September 21, 2011

    I am haunted by memories of the consequences of replying to Insane Troll’s drivel.

  675. #677 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    Th1Th2, what is science? How do people discover it? If a hypothesis’ predictions do not match reality, what happens to the hypothesis?

    No Gray. The problem is your persistent use of hypothetical situation and analogy as an escape mechanism to evade an already established scientific fact. Because you couldn’t explain and defend your stance using science, you have found refuge in using faulty strategies to match it with reality. That’s why even in analogies, you guys are a big failure.

  676. #678 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    You didn’t answer my questions. Th1Th2, what is science? How do people discover it? If a hypothesis’ predictions do not match reality, what happens to the hypothesis?

  677. #679 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    The question is with regards to all infection, in that you were discussing whether people were susceptible to infection. Deliberately ignoring a source of infection is a critical flaw in your plans.

    Deliberately ignoring a source of infection which is the vaccine is one reason why diseases still exist.

    Your attempts to “refute” our hypothetical scenarios consisted largely of “because I said so, that’s why.” Not exactly good science.

    You didn’t answer the question as to how you came up with such hypothetical situation or analogy. Did you just make that up? Well, if you can see any relevance in connection to the already established fact, then it is valid. It seems though that you can’t hence, the non-answer.

  678. #680 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    And how the hell were we supposed to know that, seeing as the preceding questions were about all types of infection?

    It’s given. Deliberate infection of a child with 14 known pathogens and up to 36 exposures in just two years of life since birth. Of course, that is just the start.

  679. #681 Narad
    September 21, 2011

    Deliberately ignoring a source of infection which is the vaccine is one reason why diseases still exist.

    I think everyone is well aware of your conclusion in this regard. Was it ever settled whether you consider the source of a toxin to determine its status as representing “infection” and, if so, whether that status is mutable over time? The chaff gets in my eyes.

  680. #682 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    You didn’t answer my questions. Th1Th2, what is science? How do people discover it? If a hypothesis’ predictions do not match reality, what happens to the hypothesis?

    I did. And your deviating from science with the use of your faulty hypothetical situation and analogy.

  681. #683 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 21, 2011

    I am aware of the vaccine schedule. How is the mere existence of the vaccine schedule supposed to explain how we were to know that you had switched to talking about deliberate “infection” while in the middle of a discussion on all types of discussion?

  682. #684 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    You didn’t answer my questions. Th1Th2, what is science? How do people discover it? If a hypothesis’ predictions do not match reality, what happens to the hypothesis?

  683. #685 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 21, 2011

    Correction to my last:

    …discussion on all types of discussion“infection”?

  684. #686 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    I think everyone is well aware of your conclusion in this regard. Was it ever settled whether you consider the source of a toxin to determine its status as representing “infection” and, if so, whether that status is mutable over time? The chaff gets in my eyes.

    Yes, toxins are pathogen-specific and thus mutable (can be detoxified).

  685. #687 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    I am aware of the vaccine schedule. How is the mere existence of the vaccine schedule supposed to explain how we were to know that you had switched to talking about deliberate “infection” while in the middle of a discussion on all types of discussion?

    Have you thought about of any natural event wherein a child was deliberately infected with 14 pathogens and up to 36 re-infections in just a span of two years? I know the vaccine schedule is incomplete for there are still common childhood diseases without the corresponding vaccine.

  686. #688 Antaeus Feldspar
    September 21, 2011

    The only thing you keep on telling me is that it’s just a hypothetical situation … and therefore I must accept it as is without refuting it.

    Congratulations, Thingy, you finally grasp it! The point of a hypothetical situation is that we explore what the implications would be if it were true! Even when we know that it is not true! When someone says “I’m not going to respond to that hypothetical situation, because it isn’t true!” what they’re really saying is either “I don’t even understand what a hypothetical situation is,” or “I am afraid of the implications of this hypothetical situation, so I don’t dare think about it”!

  687. #689 Narad
    September 21, 2011

    Yes, toxins are pathogen-specific and thus mutable (can be detoxified).

    All toxins are “pathogen-specific”?

  688. #690 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    Congratulations, Thingy, you finally grasp it! The point of a hypothetical situation is that we explore what the implications would be if it were true! Even when we know that it is not true!

    Then why do you keep on using faulty hypothetical situation and analogy to justify an already established fact? It does not make any sense.

  689. #691 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    All toxins are “pathogen-specific”?

    Microbial toxins yes and they are identified with the pathogen.

  690. #692 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    When someone says “I’m not going to respond to that hypothetical situation, because it isn’t true!” what they’re really saying is either “I don’t even understand what a hypothetical situation is,” or “I am afraid of the implications of this hypothetical situation, so I don’t dare think about it”!

    Why it isn’t true is because it is irrelevant and not congruent to the already established fact. This common ruse is a disingenuous attempt to evade the use of scientific reasoning because you’re using the conclusion you derived from hypothetical situation and analogy to justify an already established fact. Some cheap shot.

  691. #693 Lawrence
    September 21, 2011

    Given that the average child is actually exposed to dozens & potential hundreds (and perhaps even thousands) of pathogens over the course of the first two years of its life, depending on circumstances – the current vaccine schedule is a very small portion of overall exposure.

    Having two children in daycare / preschool, I can say that they’ve definitely been in contact with a fair share of various illnesses, from common colds to pink eye, to sore throats, all the way up to the flu – and I, myself, have caught a variety of new and interesting illnesses as well, because of the exposures received (and in most cases, had no idea there was anything to be caught until it was far too late to do a thing about the exposure).

    So, insane troll is insane – and in refusing to answer the most basic questions regarding its philosophy & proving to be a complete and utter lack of anything at all, I’ll stop kicking the can down the road. At least the rest of us live on Earth, in this particular reality, whereas insane troll is obviously on another plane of existence.

  692. #694 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 21, 2011

    All toxins are “pathogen-specific”?

    Microbial toxins yes and they are identified with the pathogen.

    What about anatoxin-a? It is produced by bacteria spread across at least four genera.

  693. #695 Antaeus Feldspar
    September 21, 2011

    Why [the hypothetical situation I don't want to deal with] isn’t true is because it is irrelevant and not congruent to the already established fact.

    Even if it were true that the hypothetical situation was irrelevant (see? we aren’t afraid of your hypotheticals; why should you be so scared of ours?) that wouldn’t make it “untrue,” only irrelevant. Declaring it “not congruent to the already established fact” seems to be just a way of saying “If I run across an argument that doesn’t come to the conclusions I want it to, it must be a bad argument” – the way a tiny child thinks that anyone who wins at a game that he wanted to win at is “cheating.”

  694. #696 Narad
    September 21, 2011

    Microbial toxins yes and they are identified with the pathogen.

    And the presence of said microbial toxin in the body thus represents, by virtue of identification with the pathogen, infection with the pathogen regardless of the presence or absence of the pathogen, unless it has been produced purely independently of the pathogen, in which case it has been “detoxified”?

  695. #697 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    Given that the average child is actually exposed to dozens & potential hundreds (and perhaps even thousands) of pathogens over the course of the first two years of its life, depending on circumstances

    If you cannot prove that this is a deliberate infection with known pathogen then you are merely guessing and arguing from ignorance. I know this because you’re actually referring to antigens not pathogens in which an average child is exposed to in thousands.

    the current vaccine schedule is a very small portion of overall exposure.

    The current vaccine schedule for a two year old is already an infection with 14 pathogens with up to 36 exposures. Where on Earth is this happening naturally?

    Having two children in daycare / preschool, I can say that they’ve definitely been in contact with a fair share of various illnesses, from common colds to pink eye, to sore throats, all the way up to the flu – and I, myself, have caught a variety of new and interesting illnesses as well, because of the exposures received (and in most cases, had no idea there was anything to be caught until it was far too late to do a thing about the exposure).

    You’re the ones infecting each other, the vaccinated.

    So, insane troll is insane – and in refusing to answer the most basic questions regarding its philosophy & proving to be a complete and utter lack of anything at all, I’ll stop kicking the can down the road. At least the rest of us live on Earth, in this particular reality, whereas insane troll is obviously on another plane of existence.

    Well, the reality is that vaccination is not good.

  696. #698 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    The current vaccine schedule for a two year old is already an infection with 14 pathogens with up to 36 exposures. Where on Earth is this happening naturally?

    A typical breath of air.

  697. #699 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    What about anatoxin-a? It is produced by bacteria spread across at least four genera.

    Yes.

  698. #700 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    Even if it were true that the hypothetical situation was irrelevant (see? we aren’t afraid of your hypotheticals; why should you be so scared of ours?) that wouldn’t make it “untrue,” only irrelevant.

    You knew beforehand that your hypothetical situation and analogy would be irrelevant then why do you keep using it to justify a scientific fact?

    Declaring it “not congruent to the already established fact” seems to be just a way of saying “If I run across an argument that doesn’t come to the conclusions I want it to, it must be a bad argument” – the way a tiny child thinks that anyone who wins at a game that he wanted to win at is “cheating.”

    Except that you’re playing a different game and not the way the original game is played.

  699. #701 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 21, 2011
    All toxins are “pathogen-specific”?

    Microbial toxins yes and they are identified with the pathogen.

    What about anatoxin-a? It is produced by bacteria spread across at least four genera.

    Yes.

    So you admit that you were wrong about microbial toxins being pathogen-specific?

  700. #702 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    A typical breath of air.

    Prove it.

  701. #703 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    Here’s a good source:
    http://www.biology.ed.ac.uk/research/groups/jdeacon/microbes/airborne.htm
    See! Real science! Not that sympathetic magic and ritual purity that you engage in!

  702. #704 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    And the presence of said microbial toxin in the body thus represents, by virtue of identification with the pathogen, infection with the pathogen regardless of the presence or absence of the pathogen, unless it has been produced purely independently of the pathogen, in which case it has been “detoxified”?

    The toxin and the detoxified form of the toxin are pathogen-specific hence the immune response would be against both infectious agent.

  703. #705 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    So you admit that you were wrong about microbial toxins being pathogen-specific?

    You have already proven that the above toxin is produced by a bacteria. What else do I have to say?

  704. #706 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    Several different types of bacteria, meaning that it wasn’t specific to one pathogen. If the immune system reacts to the toxin, does that mean you’re infected with all of them?

  705. #707 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    See! Real science! Not that sympathetic magic and ritual purity that you engage in!

    OK. It’s real science. But do you know of a child who had suffered from all these diseases (17) in the first two years of life alone since someone has claimed that an average child would have been exposed to as much as thousand pathogens?

  706. #708 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    No. Which is proof that your view of the immune system is grossly incorrect. If we humans were a tenth as weak as you say we are, we’d all be dead.

  707. #709 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    Several different types of bacteria, meaning that it wasn’t specific to one pathogen. If the immune system reacts to the toxin, does that mean you’re infected with all of them?

    (Hint: HAB)

  708. #710 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    Th1Th2: All your difficulties in communicating with others have you as the common denominator. Seriously, don’t try to obfuscate your own points!

  709. #711 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 21, 2011

    HAB=Harmful Algal Blooms, which consist of many different types of pathogens. This doesn’t help your apparent contention that anatoxin-a is pathogen-specific toxin.

  710. #712 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    No. Which is proof that your view of the immune system is grossly incorrect. If we humans were a tenth as weak as you say we are, we’d all be dead.

    So no meaning the belief in that an average child is exposed to thousands of pathogen is a farce. But you still continue to use this faulty argument and that makes you even weaker.

  711. #713 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    Are you seriously denying the existence of airborne pathogens?

  712. #714 Heliantus
    September 21, 2011
    The current vaccine schedule for a two year old is already an infection with 14 pathogens with up to 36 exposures. Where on Earth is this happening naturally?

    A typical breath of air.

    Prove it.

    Easy.
    Pick a Petri plate covered with sterile tryptic-soy agar medium (a mix of nutrients designed to feed common bacteria).
    Open it, puff on it.
    Put at 37oC for one day or two.
    You will observe that the dish is now supporting one or two dozen of small disks, which are bacterial colonies. Each colony was settled by a distinct bacteria. If you are lucky, you may also get a fungus or two.
    Of course, you won’t see any virus this way.

    It was that we did on our first day in microbiology applied lessons at my university. That was fun.

    Yes, I know, most of these bacteria will most likely be harmless commensals rather than pathogens, although a good number will be opportunists.
    So what? Breath for a full hour in a public area, you will get your 36 exposures to pathogens.

    My preferred opportunistic bacteria are Staphylococcus aureus (got it at birth) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (passed my microbiology grade with it as the topic). Although I prefer them from far away. And you people? Any preferred germ?

  713. #715 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 21, 2011

    My sister averaged an ear infection a month the first two years of her life, which is ballpark 24 airborne infections. And she had other infections during that time. So there’s the anecdote you demanded.

  714. #716 Antaeus Feldspar
    September 22, 2011
    Even if it were true that the hypothetical situation was irrelevant (see? we aren’t afraid of your hypotheticals; why should you be so scared of ours?) that wouldn’t make it “untrue,” only irrelevant.

    You knew beforehand that your hypothetical situation and analogy would be irrelevant then why do you keep using it to justify a scientific fact?

    Now you’re getting your hypothetical situation confused with fact.  No one else thinks the hypothetical situations we’ve been discussing are irrelevant, only you.  Since we are mature adults, we would listen if you tried to put forth an argument to convince us that it was irrelevant … but you’re unlikely to succeed, because you already explained the logic underlying your conclusion, and it was illegitimate.  “What would be the population-level effects of people heightening their personal immunity to disease, through some means other than vaccines?”  “That hypothetical situation is wrong, because it doesn’t circularly assume and lead to the conclusion that vaccines are inherently bad!”  Do you think you’re going to convince anyone that way, Thingy?  Do you think anyone undecided reading this is going to say, “Wow, that Th1Th2 absolutely refuses to consider any evidence that even looks like it’s not going to point in the direction she wants; that must mean she’s right, because the conclusions you draw from the evidence are sure to be stronger the more of it you’ve ignored”??

  715. #717 Th1Th2
    September 22, 2011

    HAB=Harmful Algal Blooms, which consist of many different types of pathogens. This doesn’t help your apparent contention that anatoxin-a is pathogen-specific toxin.

    That wouldn’t be a problem if you can find the pathogen that’s producing it.

  716. #718 Gray Falcon
    September 22, 2011

    Anatoxin-a is produced by four different genera of bacterium. Seriously, why wouldn’t that be possible?

  717. #719 Stu
    September 22, 2011

    Oh hey guys,

    If you cannot prove that this is a deliberate infection with known pathogen

    I think we missed this part: for Thingy, it’s about intent. Probably because nobody taking proper precautions gets infected by accident.

    Right, Thingy?

  718. #720 Th1Th2
    September 22, 2011

    Are you seriously denying the existence of airborne pathogens?

    No I don’t deny it but I strongly disagree with the idea that an average child is being exposed to and infected with thousands of pathogens. You’re trying to make this like a typical childhood milestone.

  719. #721 Narad
    September 22, 2011

    The toxin and the detoxified form of the toxin are pathogen-specific hence the immune response would be against both infectious agent.

    And there are toxins that are wholly unrelated to any pathogen, right?

  720. #722 Gray Falcon
    September 22, 2011

    Read that page I linked to carefully. They have ways of showing how many bacteria are in the air, not to mention the soil and water. Note how science if formed: by evidence. Do you know what evidence is, Th1Th2?

    Here’s an example of science:
    Hypothesis: The measles vaccine causes primary infection.
    Prediction: There will be a number of cases of encephalitis and death corresponding to primary infection by measles among the vaccinated, or hundreds of deaths.
    Evidence: Almost no deaths from the vaccine.
    Conclusion: The measles vaccine does not cause primary infection.

  721. #723 Th1Th2
    September 22, 2011

    My sister averaged an ear infection a month the first two years of her life, which is ballpark 24 airborne infections. And she had other infections during that time. So there’s the anecdote you demanded.

    24 airborne infections? Then list all the corresponding 24 airborne pathogens (must be documented) that have caused your sister’s ear infections.

    Yup it’s an anecdote. Not credible.

  722. #724 Th1Th2
    September 22, 2011

    Now you’re getting your hypothetical situation confused with fact.  No one else thinks the hypothetical situations we’ve been discussing are irrelevant, only you.

    Liar. You said you would know beforehand that a hypothetical situation is not only relevant but also not true. Why be so adamant about it?

    Since we are mature adults, we would listen if you tried to put forth an argument to convince us that it was irrelevant … but you’re unlikely to succeed, because you already explained the logic underlying your conclusion, and it was illegitimate.

    Mature adults should play the same game fair and square. If I have to explain or justify a scientific fact using scientific reasoning then you must do the same. Argue with me using nothing but science. And I’ve been reminding anyone who uses  hypotheticals and analogy by asking them straight as to how they have arrived to such idea in relevance to the subject in question. Of course, their usual response is “Do you have any idea what a hypothetical situation is?”. If this is the case then it is delusion. 

     “What would be the population-level effects of people heightening their personal immunity to disease, through some means other than vaccines?”  “That hypothetical situation is wrong, because it doesn’t circularly assume and lead to the conclusion that vaccines are inherently bad!”  

    Yeah it’s wrong because vaccines do not promote immunity but affinity to the disease. 

    Do you think you’re going to convince anyone that way, Thingy?  Do you think anyone undecided reading this is going to say, “Wow, that Th1Th2 absolutely refuses to consider any evidence that even looks like it’s not going to point in the direction she wants; that must mean she’s right, because the conclusions you draw from the evidence are sure to be stronger the more of it you’ve ignored”??

    Well, the only evidence that you can use with regards to  vaccination occurs after it has promoted a primary infection. I would dare anyone to challenge that. No cheap shots allowed.

  723. #725 Th1Th2
    September 22, 2011

    Anatoxin-a is produced by four different genera of bacterium. Seriously, why wouldn’t that be possible?

    Gray you’re not in the discovery mode anymore. The pathogens have already been identified

  724. #726 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 22, 2011

    Thingy, do you even know what “pathogen-specific” means?

  725. #727 Krebiozen
    September 22, 2011

    According to Th1Th2, when a vaccine is injected or ingested or inhaled and the immune system responds to the antigens in it, eliminating them, that’s an infection. But when a natural pathogen is “injected” (through a cut or graze) or ingested or inhaled and the immune system responds to the antigens in it, eliminating the pathogens in the process, that is not an infection.

    That’s why the rest of the world only calls it an infection if it overcomes innate immunity and reproduces in or on the body causing disease. When the immune system promptly deals with it, as is happening constantly as we are continually exposed to potential pathogens, and as (almost always) happens with vaccines, it isn’t an infection. Redefining the meaning of the word in that way just isn’t at all useful, quite the opposite.

  726. #728 Th1Th2
    September 22, 2011

    I think we missed this part: for Thingy, it’s about intent. Probably because nobody taking proper precautions gets infected by accident.
    Right, Thingy?

    The intent of getting vaccinated is neither a precaution nor an accident.

  727. #729 Th1Th2
    September 22, 2011

    But when a natural pathogen is “injected” (through a cut or graze) or ingested or inhaled and the immune system responds to the antigens in it, eliminating the pathogens in the process, that is not an infection.

    Fool! When did I say that? What’s this cheap shot all about? Some mature adults.

  728. #730 Th1Th2
    September 22, 2011

    Thingy, do you even know what “pathogen-specific” means?

    Of course. The virulence factor,

  729. #731 TBruce
    September 22, 2011

    No cheap shots allowed.

    Why? Because they’re more than you deserve?

  730. #732 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 22, 2011

    No, pathogen-specific does not mean the virulence factor (though perhaps your comment got cut short for some reason and you were trying to say something else). It means “specific to one pathogen.” If a toxin is produced by multiple pathogens across multiple genera, it is not pathogen-specific.

    The virulence factor can be pathogen-specific, in that some pathogens produce more toxin than other pathogens.

  731. #733 Gray Falcon
    September 22, 2011

    Th1Th2, do you know what science is?

  732. #734 Th1Th2
    September 22, 2011

    That’s why the rest of the world only calls it an infection if it overcomes innate immunity and reproduces in or on the body causing disease.

    1. The vaccine overcomes the innate immune system (live or killed regardless)
    2. The live vaccine replicates actively to produce  virulence factors whereas the killed vaccine is a prepared inoculum. The former causes transmissible infection while the latter does cause a nontransmissible infection.

    When the immune system promptly deals with it, as is happening constantly as we are continually exposed to potential pathogens, and as (almost always) happens with vaccines, it isn’t an infection.

    You said that  it is an infection when it overcomes the innate system right? Vaccines, not only overcome the innate system, but trigger the adaptive system as well.  Therefore, you’re contradicting yourself.

     

    Redefining the meaning of the word in that way just isn’t at all useful, quite the opposite.

    But you’ve already confessed to be an infection promoter right? I see.

  733. #735 Gray Falcon
    September 22, 2011

    Here’s an example of science:
    Hypothesis: The measles vaccine causes primary infection.
    Prediction: There will be a number of cases of encephalitis and death corresponding to primary infection by measles among the vaccinated, or hundreds of deaths.
    Evidence: Almost no deaths from the vaccine.
    Conclusion: The measles vaccine does not cause primary infection.

  734. #736 Th1Th2
    September 22, 2011

    If a toxin is produced by multiple pathogens across multiple genera, it is not pathogen-specific.

    Well, it is pathogen-specific in relation to and only to pathogens under such genera. You’re just simply saying that the toxin is broad (how many genera?)

  735. #737 Narad
    September 22, 2011

    Well, it is pathogen-specific in relation to and only to pathogens under such genera. You’re just simply saying that the toxin is broad (how many genera?)

    That’s not very specific, now, is it? Are you going to answer the question of what “happens” if a toxin (say, plant toxin) that already exists has a pathogen engineered to produce it?

  736. #738 Th1Th2
    September 22, 2011

    Here’s an example of science:
    Hypothesis: The measles vaccine causes primary infection.
    Prediction: There will be a number of cases of encephalitis and death corresponding to primary infection by measles among the vaccinated, or hundreds of deaths.
    Evidence: Almost no deaths from the vaccine.
    Conclusion: The measles vaccine does not cause primary infection.

    No Gray, that is not science. That is the a morbid outcome of prolonged dependency to faulty hypothetical situation and analogy when applied to science, it disintegrates.

    Why? Because the primary infection caused by the measles vaccine is simply measles, not measles encephalitis. Ditto for natural measles infection. Don’t put the cart before the horse. Your claim that there are “almost” no encephalitis death caused by the vaccine is a result of your inability to define your own hypothesis. Epic fail by Murphy’s Law.

  737. #739 Gray Falcon
    September 22, 2011

    There’s no confusion here. Encephalitis occurs in 1 in a 1000 cases of primary measles infection. If the vaccine caused primary infection, then there would be thousands of cases of it a year. Why aren’t there?

  738. #740 Stu
    September 22, 2011

    The intent of getting vaccinated is neither a precaution nor an accident.

    That’s it. You are clinically insane.

  739. #741 Th1Th2
    September 22, 2011

    There’s no confusion here. Encephalitis occurs in 1 in a 1000 cases of primary measles infection. If the vaccine caused primary infection, then there would be thousands of cases of it a year. Why aren’t there?

    It’s pretty obvious science has been your weakness. And what occurs in the majority of primary measles infection- a typical, benign, self-limiting and uncomplicated disease process. What you’re doing is you’re using measles encephalitis to take on the classic definition of primary measles infection. Is measles encephalitis another childhood developmental milestone again?

    So “Why aren’t there?”

    1. Doctors don’t diagnose vaccine-induced primary measles infection (like you, they don’t know it) hence the vaccinated are always excluded from clinical diagnosis, unless there is serious CNS involvement to get their ass up to do a tap.

    2. Measles encephalitis, as always, is rare. A fatal case, most of the time, is caused by poor health and iatrogenesis.

    3. Like polio and AFP, there is a catch-all diagnosis to eschew cases of measles encephalitis called aseptic meningitis.

  740. #742 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 22, 2011

    You said that it is an infection when it overcomes the innate system right?

    Wrong. That is only one of three criteria he set forth. Most vaccines do not meet the second criteria (“replication in or on the body”), leaving only live vaccines. Only rarely do live vaccines meet the third criteria (“causing disease”).

  741. #743 Gray Falcon
    September 22, 2011

    Th1Th2, do you have evidence that there are thousands of cases of measles encephalitis being covered up?

  742. #744 Narad
    September 22, 2011

    Doctors don’t diagnose vaccine-induced primary measles infection (like you, they don’t know it)

    Maybe you should be out informing them of your insight rather than wasting your valuable time faling to convince anybody of anything on various forums. I’m sure you’d get plenty of attention.

  743. #745 Antaeus Feldspar
    September 22, 2011
    Now you’re getting your hypothetical situation confused with fact.  No one else thinks the hypothetical situations we’ve been discussing are irrelevant, only you.

    Liar. You said you would know beforehand that a hypothetical situation is not only relevant but also not true. Why be so adamant about it?

    If I said exactly that, post an HTML link to the post where I said it.  You will fail, because I never said that.  What I said was that mature, sane, intelligent people understand that a hypothetical situation can be worth discussing even when it is based on premises known to not be true, such as “If all contagious diseases had visible symptoms” (the false premise) “would ‘due diligence’ then be a sufficient method for all disease prevention?”  To even refer to a hypothetical situation as “true” or “not true” is to betray ignorance of what a hypothetical situation is.

    Mature adults should play the same game fair and square. If I have to explain or justify a scientific fact using scientific reasoning then you must do the same.

    Now that’s a completely hypothetical situation!  I can’t think of a single time you’ve used scientific reasoning to justify a single one of your claims.  You use unsupported assertion; you use insult; you use ignoratio elenchi; you try to redefine words to suit your needs of the moment; but if you used scientific reasoning to support your claims it would be a first for you.

    And I’ve been reminding anyone who uses  hypotheticals and analogy by asking them straight as to how they have arrived to such idea in relevance to the subject in question. Of course, their usual response is “Do you have any idea what a hypothetical situation is?”. If this is the case then it is delusion.

    False.  You’ve been telling people that the hypothetical situation is “false,” which betrays your ignorance of what a hypothetical situation is.  You only started claiming that hypothetical situations were not “relevant” when I explained to you that that was an adjective actually applicable to hypotheticals, unlike “true” and “false”.  Of course, your arguments that a hypothetical is “irrelevant” are always junk, because they amount to “it doesn’t lead to the conclusion I want it to, therefore it’s got to be false, or irrelevant, or Klingon, or whatever will justify my ignoring it.”

    “What would be the population-level effects of people heightening their personal immunity to disease, through some means other than vaccines?”  “That hypothetical situation is wrong, because it doesn’t circularly assume and lead to the conclusion that vaccines are inherently bad!”

    Yeah it’s wrong because vaccines do not promote immunity but affinity to the disease. 

    And that stands to everyone as a demonstration of just how completely blinded you are by your prejudices.  You can’t even process a hypothetical situation about something other than vaccines!  

    If your delusional obsession was about Communists instead of vaccines, conversations with you would go something like the following:  “So, Thingy, under which circumstances do you think it’s permissible for a democratic government to use tax revenues for improvement to public facilities?” “Your question is false, because Commies don’t end up bombed anywhere in it!” “… It’s not a question about Communists -” “Therefore it’s a wrong question!” “- I’m asking you, since you’re completely insistent that everything about Communism is wrong -” “It is!  I have proved that by the scientific reasoning of saying ‘Everything about Communism is wrong!’” “- I’m asking you what is your plan for putting together and sustaining a government that successfully takes care of its people while doing nothing, not even the slightest, most logical or most basic thing, that is the same as what Communist governments also do.” “… … No Commies were bombed as a result of the question, so it’s a false question!”  

    You think anyone’s going to listen to that and think “Boy, that guy really convinced me of the evils of Communism?”  No, they listen to that and they say “What a nutjob - the guy’s incapable of rational thought!”  And that’s what they think about you, when you say a question about the population-level effects of a non-vaccine medical intervention is “wrong” because it isn’t a condemnation of vaccines.

  744. #746 Krebiozen
    September 22, 2011

    I’m thinking aloud here, but I would be grateful for any feedback.

    Adaptive immunity is coded into the DNA of lymphocytes, right? So take a person with adaptive immunity to measles and sequence the DNA that codes for that adaptive immunity in their lymphocytes. Then if you inserted that DNA sequence into the right place in the DNA of the lymphocytes of another non-immune person, they would also acquire the same immunity to measles. Does that make sense?

    If that does make sense, would it be theoretically possible to genetically engineer a retrovirus that doesn’t replicate itself, but just attaches itself to lymphocytes and inserts the DNA sequence that confers adaptive immunity to measles into their nuclear DNA? You would then have a retrovirus that granted immunity to measles. You could theoretically figure out and sequence the DNA that codes for adaptive immunity and do the same thing for any pathogen.

    Obviously we don’t have the technology to do that right now, but I don’t see any major barriers to doing in in the not too distant future. Have I missed some major reason this would not work?

  745. #747 Denice Walter
    September 22, 2011

    @ Krebiozen:

    It might work but wouldn’t it be more cost-effective to stick to our current method?

    -btw- if the process you contemplate were ever implemented can you imagine the alt med expletive-laced invectives about “injecting foreign DNA into our pure and intact DNA”?
    Horrors!

  746. #748 Narad
    September 22, 2011

    And I’ve been reminding anyone who uses hypotheticals and analogy by asking them straight as to how they have arrived to such idea in relevance to the subject in question.

    Has it ever occurred to you that the “subject in question” might be the design of your ideation rather than its putative payload? Use science.

  747. #749 Krebiozen
    September 23, 2011

    Denice,

    It might work but wouldn’t it be more cost-effective to stick to our current method?

    Not if you had one virus that contained the DNA sequences for immunity to every known pathogen. One dose of my genetically engineered Immunovirus® and you would be immune to everything from anthrax to zoster. I’m not sure how you would prevent the immune system from responding to the Immunovirus® but I’m working on that.

    if the process you contemplate were ever implemented can you imagine the alt med expletive-laced invectives about “injecting foreign DNA into our pure and intact DNA”? Horrors!

    That’s true, though of course 5-8% of our DNA is from retroviruses that have already done exactly that. I suppose we would have to brew it up in big vats and spray it on the population from black helicopters without telling them ;-)

  748. #750 Th1Th2
    September 23, 2011

    Wrong. That is only one of three criteria he set forth. Most vaccines do not meet the second criteria (“replication in or on the body”), leaving only live vaccines. Only rarely do live vaccines meet the third criteria (“causing disease”).

    Haha. Infection precedes replication. Therefore infection is a MUST. The innate immune system MUST be overcome first. There MUST be a breach and invasion. A pathogen (live vaccines) cannot replicate without establishing an infection site. Some vaccines are killed hence would cause non-transmissible infection and most vaccines cause asymptomatic infection or subclinical disease. 

  749. #751 Gray Falcon
    September 23, 2011

    Th1Th2, do you have any evidence?

  750. #752 Th1Th2
    September 23, 2011

    If I said exactly that, post an HTML link to the post where I said it.  You will fail, because I never said that.  

    Order up #687 here: 

    The point of a hypothetical situation is that we explore what the implications would be if it were true! Even when we know that it is not true!

    What I said was that mature, sane, intelligent people understand that a hypothetical situation can be worth discussing even when it is based on premises known to not be true, such as “If all contagious diseases had visible symptoms” (the false premise) “would ‘due diligence’ then be a sufficient method for all disease prevention?”  To even refer to a hypothetical situation as “true” or “not true” is to betray ignorance of what a hypothetical situation is.

    And that would be a betrayal of a scientific fact. Infectious  diseases are  contagious primarily not because they are asymptomatic. The prodromes are sometimes mild, inapparent and nonspecific until symptoms become clinically evident. Of course maximal communicability is extended  after the resolution of symptoms. So there’s a lot more room for “due diligence”. Now stop butchering science.

    Now that’s a completely hypothetical situation!  I can’t think of a single time you’ve used scientific reasoning to justify a single one of your claims.  You use unsupported assertion; you use insult; you use ignoratio elenchi; you try to redefine words to suit your needs of the moment; but if you used scientific reasoning to support your claims it would be a first for you.

    How did you know I wasn’t using scientific reasoning or facts? Because your hypothetical situation and analogy has proven otherwise. See? The real reason  is because you don’t wanna get burned with science. Now face the music and man up.

    False.  You’ve been telling people that the hypothetical situation is “false,” which betrays your ignorance of what a hypothetical situation is.

    Because you knew beforehand that your hypothetical situation would be “untrue”. I’m just reminding you in advance. That’s why when I asked how you came up with the hypothetical situation in connection to the topic, you would never answer. 

    You only started claiming that hypothetical situations were not “relevant” when I explained to you that that was an adjective actually applicable to hypotheticals, unlike “true” and “false”.

    They are  NOT relevant to the topic because the mechanism of your hypotheticals is different and cannot be extrapolated to justify the topic. Therefore, if your hypothetical situation is true;  you cannot assume it would also be true to explain the topic. Two words. Logical fallacy.

    Of course, your arguments that a hypothetical is “irrelevant” are always junk, because they amount to “it doesn’t lead to the conclusion I want it to, therefore it’s got to be false, or irrelevant, or Klingon, or whatever will justify my ignoring it.”

    It’s not my fault while you always resort to hypothetical situation and analogy. You just cannot defend yourself using science because if you did, you’ll get burned.

     

    And that stands to everyone as a demonstration of just how completely blinded you are by your prejudices.  You can’t even process a hypothetical situation about something other than vaccines!  

    Why should I resort to hypotheticals when there are only two sources of infectious agents, 1. Natural infection 2. Vaccines.  Is there any thing else that your hypothetical situation can produce?

  751. #753 Th1Th2
    September 23, 2011

    If I said exactly that, post an HTML link to the post where I said it.  You will fail, because I never said that.  

    Order up #687 here: 

    The point of a hypothetical situation is that we explore what the implications would be if it were true! Even when we know that it is not true!

    What I said was that mature, sane, intelligent people understand that a hypothetical situation can be worth discussing even when it is based on premises known to not be true, such as “If all contagious diseases had visible symptoms” (the false premise) “would ‘due diligence’ then be a sufficient method for all disease prevention?”  To even refer to a hypothetical situation as “true” or “not true” is to betray ignorance of what a hypothetical situation is.

    No, that would be a betrayal of a scientific fact. Infectious  diseases are  contagious primarily not because they are asymptomatic. The prodromes are sometimes mild, inapparent and nonspecific until symptoms become clinically evident. Of course maximal communicability is extended  after the resolution of symptoms. So there’s a lot more room for “due diligence”. Now stop butchering science.

  752. #754 Th1Th2
    September 23, 2011

    Now that’s a completely hypothetical situation!  I can’t think of a single time you’ve used scientific reasoning to justify a single one of your claims.  You use unsupported assertion; you use insult; you use ignoratio elenchi; you try to redefine words to suit your needs of the moment; but if you used scientific reasoning to support your claims it would be a first for you.

    How did you know I wasn’t using scientific reasoning or facts? Because your hypothetical situation and analogy have proven otherwise? See? The real reason  is because you don’t wanna get burned with science. Now face the music and man up.

    False.  You’ve been telling people that the hypothetical situation is “false,” which betrays your ignorance of what a hypothetical situation is.

    Because you knew beforehand that your hypothetical situation would be “untrue”. I’m just reminding you in advance. That’s why when I asked how you came up with the hypothetical situation in connection to the topic, you would never answer. 

  753. #755 Gray Falcon
    September 23, 2011

    Th1Th2, what do you mean by scientific reasoning and facts?

  754. #756 Th1Th2
    September 23, 2011

    You only started claiming that hypothetical situations were not “relevant” when I explained to you that that was an adjective actually applicable to hypotheticals, unlike “true” and “false”.

    They are  NOT relevant to the topic because the mechanism of your hypotheticals is different and cannot be extrapolated to justify the topic. Therefore, if your hypothetical situation is true;  you cannot assume it would also be true to explain the topic. Two words. Logical fallacy.

    Of course, your arguments that a hypothetical is “irrelevant” are always junk, because they amount to “it doesn’t lead to the conclusion I want it to, therefore it’s got to be false, or irrelevant, or Klingon, or whatever will justify my ignoring it.”

    It’s not my fault why you always resort to hypothetical situation and analogy. You just cannot defend yourself using science because if you did, you’ll get burned. I certainly understand your situation.

     

    And that stands to everyone as a demonstration of just how completely blinded you are by your prejudices.  You can’t even process a hypothetical situation about something other than vaccines!  

    Why do you think I should resort to hypotheticals like the way you always do i.e. cheap shot, when a scientic fact can be explained and proven using its own science? There are only two sources of infectious agents, 1. Natural infection 2. Vaccines.  Is there any thing else that your hypothetical situation can produce?

  755. #757 Gray Falcon
    September 23, 2011

    Th1Th2, how is scientific fact determined? By shouting that it’s self-evident? Or observing the real world?

The site