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 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?

  2. #2 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

  3. #3 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.

  4. #4 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.

  5. #5 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.

  6. #6 Th1Th2
    September 13, 2011

    And why would you slaughter the uninfected, perform abortion or infanticide? Are you nuts? Shows a lot about your personality?

  7. #7 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.

  8. #8 Th1Th2
    September 13, 2011

    Stop bluffing. Show me the evidence for your claim that it was a “genocidal technique”.

  9. #9 Lawrence
    September 13, 2011

    LOL – insane troll can’t even read the literature that it quoted.

  10. #10 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    September 13, 2011

    Golly, Thingy, why am I so far down the list? Was I really the third?

  11. #11 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.

  12. #12 Agashem
    September 17, 2011

    Just sayin.

  13. #13 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.

  14. #14 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.

  15. #15 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?

  16. #16 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).

  17. #17 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?

  18. #18 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.

  19. #19 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?

  20. #20 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.

  21. #21 Reuben
    September 21, 2011

    *cough* Antibiotics *cough*

    *drops the mic and walks away*

  22. #22 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?

  23. #23 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.

  24. #24 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    Reuben,

    That’s microbial antagonism, antibiotics. An example should be a pathogen against the host. Nice try though.

  25. #25 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?

  26. #26 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.

  27. #27 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    I’m waiting for your analogies Gray. Now you’re beginning to sound like lilady. Haha.

  28. #28 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.

  29. #29 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.

  30. #30 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    Could you please clarify what you’re saying, Th1Th2?

  31. #31 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?

  32. #32 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.

  33. #33 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.

  34. #34 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.

  35. #35 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?

  36. #36 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!

  37. #37 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?

  38. #38 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    How drunk does someone have to be to come up with that interpretation?

  39. #39 Narad
    September 21, 2011

    I’m not seeing where that has anything to do with being inocuous.

  40. #40 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?

  41. #41 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.

  42. #42 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?

  43. #43 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.

  44. #44 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.

  45. #45 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?

  46. #46 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.

  47. #47 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?

  48. #48 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.

  49. #49 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”?

  50. #50 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.

  51. #51 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.

  52. #52 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.

  53. #53 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.

  54. #54 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”.

  55. #55 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?

  56. #56 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?

  57. #57 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?

  58. #58 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?

  59. #59 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    So, Th1Th2 is a Young-Earth Creationist as well. Not surprised.

  60. #60 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?

  61. #61 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.

  62. #62 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?

  63. #63 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?

  64. #64 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?

  65. #65 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.

  66. #66 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.

  67. #67 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.

  68. #68 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?

  69. #69 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.

  70. #70 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?

  71. #71 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?

  72. #72 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.

  73. #73 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”.

  74. #74 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.

  75. #75 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?

  76. #76 TBruce
    September 21, 2011

    I am haunted by memories of the consequences of replying to Insane Troll’s drivel.

  77. #77 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.

  78. #78 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?

  79. #79 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.

  80. #80 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.

  81. #81 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.

  82. #82 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.

  83. #83 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?

  84. #84 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?

  85. #85 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 21, 2011

    Correction to my last:

    …discussion on all types of discussion“infection”?

  86. #86 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).

  87. #87 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.

  88. #88 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”!

  89. #89 Narad
    September 21, 2011

    Yes, toxins are pathogen-specific and thus mutable (can be detoxified).

    All toxins are “pathogen-specific”?

  90. #90 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.

  91. #91 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    All toxins are “pathogen-specific”?

    Microbial toxins yes and they are identified with the pathogen.

  92. #92 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.

  93. #93 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.

  94. #94 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.

  95. #95 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.”

  96. #96 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”?

  97. #97 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.

  98. #98 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.

  99. #99 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    What about anatoxin-a? It is produced by bacteria spread across at least four genera.

    Yes.

  100. #100 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.

  101. #101 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?

  102. #102 Th1Th2
    September 21, 2011

    A typical breath of air.

    Prove it.

  103. #103 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!

  104. #104 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.

  105. #105 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?

  106. #106 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?

  107. #107 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?

  108. #108 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.

  109. #109 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)

  110. #110 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!

  111. #111 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.

  112. #112 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.

  113. #113 Gray Falcon
    September 21, 2011

    Are you seriously denying the existence of airborne pathogens?

  114. #114 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?

  115. #115 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.

  116. #116 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”??

  117. #117 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.

  118. #118 Gray Falcon
    September 22, 2011

    Anatoxin-a is produced by four different genera of bacterium. Seriously, why wouldn’t that be possible?

  119. #119 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?

  120. #120 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.

  121. #121 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?

  122. #122 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.

  123. #123 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.

  124. #124 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.

  125. #125 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

  126. #126 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 22, 2011

    Thingy, do you even know what “pathogen-specific” means?

  127. #127 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.

  128. #128 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.

  129. #129 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.

  130. #130 Th1Th2
    September 22, 2011

    Thingy, do you even know what “pathogen-specific” means?

    Of course. The virulence factor,

  131. #131 TBruce
    September 22, 2011

    No cheap shots allowed.

    Why? Because they’re more than you deserve?

  132. #132 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.

  133. #133 Gray Falcon
    September 22, 2011

    Th1Th2, do you know what science is?

  134. #134 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.

  135. #135 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.

  136. #136 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?)

  137. #137 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?

  138. #138 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.

  139. #139 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?

  140. #140 Stu
    September 22, 2011

    The intent of getting vaccinated is neither a precaution nor an accident.

    That’s it. You are clinically insane.

  141. #141 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.

  142. #142 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”).

  143. #143 Gray Falcon
    September 22, 2011

    Th1Th2, do you have evidence that there are thousands of cases of measles encephalitis being covered up?

  144. #144 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.

  145. #145 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.

  146. #146 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?

  147. #147 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!

  148. #148 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.

  149. #149 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 😉

  150. #150 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. 

  151. #151 Gray Falcon
    September 23, 2011

    Th1Th2, do you have any evidence?

  152. #152 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?

  153. #153 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.

  154. #154 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. 

  155. #155 Gray Falcon
    September 23, 2011

    Th1Th2, what do you mean by scientific reasoning and facts?

  156. #156 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?

  157. #157 Gray Falcon
    September 23, 2011

    Th1Th2, how is scientific fact determined? By shouting that it’s self-evident? Or observing the real world?

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