I concluded last week with the dismantling one of the more bizarre stories I’ve seen spun by the merry band of anti-vaccine propagandists over at Age of Autism. As you might recall, Mark “Not a Doctor, Not a Scientist” Blaxill had teamed with Dan “Where are the Autistic Amish?” Olmsted (or, as I call them, B&O) to produce what was at that time a five part “epic” of pseudoscientifically and enthusiastically confusing correlation with causation. I’m referring to what they called “The Age of Polio,” a title that made me wonder if B&O are terminally without imagination in that they seem to like to call everything the “Age of”…whatever. First we had “the age of autism”; now we have “the age of polio.” What’s next? No, wait. Don’t answer that. I don’t want to know.

In any case, the “Age of Polio” is a multipart “expose” of what B&O claim is the real story behind polio, and it’s a doozy. According to B&O, polio isn’t caused by the polio virus. Well, not exactly. Their claim is that polio epidemics came about not because of the virus but because somehow the virus interacted with pesticides, first lead arsenate compounds first introduced in the Boston area in 1893 and then, when the use of lead arsenate compounds was on the wane in the 1940s, DDT, which was introduced in the late 1940s. As I pointed out before, it’s truly amazing how two pesticides with such different chemical compounds and mechanisms of action could somehow both interact with the same virus to cause the same neurotoxicity in the spinal cord leading to paralysis, but plausibility was never anything that bothered anti-vaccine activists much. Certainly it didn’t bother B&O at all, because they then proceeded to cherry pick data to make it look as though there were a perfect correlation between these pesticides and polio epidemics. An even more egregious offense against epidemiology, math, and science, they tried to demonstrate a “breakpoint” around 1893 when they thought that the number of polio outbreaks made an abrupt increase, apparently based purely on visual cues, rather than doing any sort of unbiased statistical analysis to identify whether (1) there actually was a break point in the curve and (2) when it was. By “eyeballing it” alone, one could just as easily have chosen a point 10 or 20 years earlier.

Be that as it may, towards the end, B&O pointed out that polio outbreaks are still a problem in many parts of the world and left us with a teaser, in which they promised to explain how, given that lead arsenate compounds and DDT have phased out, there could still be polio outbreaks if their “theory” (and I do use the term incredibly loosely) were true. I facetiously speculated that they’d somehow figure out a way to bring mercury into the picture. Sadly, I was mistaken. Even more sadly, the real answer was more brain meltingly idiotic than anything I could possibly have thought of. You’ll see what I mean in am minute. In the meantime, I will add the two links for the newest parts of B&O’s epic of pseudoscience, so that you can see all seven parts in their stupid glory:

So let’s pick right back up with part 6. I’ll cut to the chase. The answer to the reason why there are still polio outbreaks despite the fact that lead arsenate pesticides were phased out decades ago is…arsenic. No, really. I kid you not. After noting that there are two areas where polio has resisted elimination, namely South Asia (Afghanistan, Pakistan, northern India), and Africa (basically, Nigeria), B&O go on to speculate wildly:

If one considers the toxin idea, however, another explanation jumps out, especially in South Asia. Erase national borders for a moment. While outbreaks are small and have waxed and waned over the past decade, the primary sites have been directly south of the Himalayan range in a smiley-face arc that runs west from Nepal and Bangladesh, through the Northern India districts of West Bengal, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, into Pakistan and Afghanistan.

This also happens to be the area with the worst mass poisoning from arsenic in human history. This is not ancient history – it didn’t even begin until the 1980s. It is a story of the single-minded war against microbes gone badly wrong. What happened is beautifully outlined in an American Scientist article, “No one checked: Natural Arsenic in Wells.”[ii]

The mind boggles. In particular, there’s a huge inconsistency in B&O’s story. In fact, it’s a hole big enough to drive an arsenic-laden freighter through. Remember back in part 2 of their saga, when B&O tried to claim that it was the rise in the use of lead arsenate-based pesticides that led to an interaction between the lead arsenate compounds and the polio virus, making the virus more virulent and paralytic? Basically, that’s the whole reason they picked 1893-1894 as their break point after which the number of polio outbreaks supposedly skyrocketed. They even pointed out that Paris Green and London Purple, the two state-of-the-art arsenic compounds that were potent against most pests and used as pesticides at the time, didn’t work at all against the Gypsy moths that were threatening agriculture in late 19th century New England. In fact, according to B&O, the gypsy moth invasion was the impetus that lead to experimenting with lead arsenate compounds to make them deadlier to the moths.

So here’s the inconsistency. B&O point out that arsenic compounds were widely used as pesticides before 1893 but that it was only in 1893 that lead arsenate was developed and shown to be effective against the gypsy moth. It was only in 1893-94 that lead arsenate compounds began to be widely used as pesticides. It was also in 1893, according to B&O, that the first bigger polio outbreaks were noted in the Boston area, outbreaks that, according to B&O presaged the huge outbreaks to come in the early part of the 20th century. To them, this is evidence that it was lead arsenate compounds combining with the polio virus that lead to outbreaks of paralytic polio. it’s a massive confusion of correlation with causation, but apparently B&O are more than happy to let their story mutate when the facts become “inconvenient.” No more lead arsenate compounds? Well, then, it must have been the DDT! No more DDT? Then it must have been the arsenic contamination of groundwater! But wait! Didn’t they say earlier in the series that there were few outbreaks of polio back when arsenic-based pesticides were widely used, back…oh, you know…before 1893. So, basically, arsenic plus polio doesn’t cause paralytic polio outbreaks, but lead arsenate plus polio does; that is, except when it’s convenient to say that arsenic plus polio can cause outbreaks.

Of course, consistency never was one of B&O’s strong points. Purity of message is, and they never let inconsistencies, major or minor, get in the way of their purity of message. In fact, even while blaming arsenic for recent polio outbreaks they have to try to explain away inconvenient facts, such as why there are have been no recent polio outbreaks in Bangladesh, an area that apparently has had some of the worse arsenic contamination of its drinking water:

Why, given the arsenic disaster in Bangladesh, are there no recent polio cases there? It appears the virus has been wiped out. “Concerted efforts to eradicate polio in Bangladesh, resulted in the country being declared polio free in August 2000.”[xii]

B&O just undermined their entire implication that the polio vaccine isn’t as great as scientists believe. After all, B&O just admitted that vaccination campaigns eradicated polio in Bangladesh, and that’s why, despite the arsenic contamination problem, there hasn’t been any polio there. Not that this stops B&O from declaring:

Polio outbreaks, we believe, are persisting today for the same reason they arose. South Asia is simply a place where toxic interactions are triggering outbreaks that highlight the presence of the virus, like Luminol bringing out hidden blood splatters at a crime scene.

That would seem to spell trouble for programs guided by the belief that going after polio outbreaks will eradicate the virus – despite the vast resources currently being thrown at the effort.

Not surprisingly, a far more likely (and plausible) explanation besides a fantastical alleged interaction between arsenic and the polio virus is one that does not reflect well at all on the anti-vaccine movement. That explanation for the persistence of polio outbreaks in Afghanistan, northern India, Pakistan, and West Africa is the persistence of reservoirs of unvaccinated people. Indeed, I wrote about that very issue a very long time ago, back when this blog was still new, in a post entitled Polio returns, thanks to anti-vaccination zealots. For instance, in Pakistan in 2007 clerics declared polio vaccination an “American plot“:

The parents of 24,000 children in northern Pakistan refused to allow health workers to administer polio vaccinations last month, mostly due to rumours that the harmless vaccine was an American plot to sterilise innocent Muslim children.

The disinformation – spread by extremist clerics using mosque loudspeakers and illegal radio stations, and by word of mouth – has caused a sharp jump in polio cases in Pakistan and hit global efforts to eradicate the debilitating disease.

The result was:

Even though only 24,000 children missed the vaccine, the WHO officials said failure to vaccinate in small pockets of the country gave the virus a fresh toehold to spread.

There have been similar campaigns in Nigeria:

“Muslim leaders in hundreds of northern Nigerian communities such as Batakaye limited or halted door-to-door polio immunization last year. They told millions of faithful in this Muslim-dominated region that the American government had tainted the vaccine with either infertility drugs or HIV, the virus that causes AIDS — statements later proved false by independent laboratory tests.

“Some leaders admitted in interviews late last year that they never believed such a thing. But they remained silent, they said, in order to stop anything associated with the United States. The US-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, several said, had led them to believe that America wants to control the Islamic world, and the polio vaccination effort gave them an opportunity to resist a US-funded initiative.

It is probably not a coincidence that Nigeria is one of the four countries in which polio remains endemic. Nor is it likely to be a coincidence that northern India is also one of the places where polio remains endemic. Heck, all B&O would need to do to know this is check out the Wikipedia entry on polio eradication, where it is explained:

The epidemic occurred after the number of planned polio vaccination campaigns was reduced in India in 2002. Additionally, as many as 15% of homes were not visited during the vaccination activities which did take place that year.

it was also noted that there seemed to be a higher transmission rate in Bihar district and Uttar Pradesh, and a relatively low (~80% after three doses against type 1) seroconversion response seen from the vaccine.

In all areas where polio remains endemic, medical infrastructure, and problems resulting from it, sometimes with resistance to vaccination mixed in to help depress vaccine uptake, result in vaccination rates too low to achieve herd immunity, leaving a reservoir of unvaccinated people from which the virus can emerge when conditions were right. A not inconsiderable obstacle has also been difficulties in maintaining the potency of the oral polio vaccine, which must be stored at 2° to 8° C, something that’s not always easy in tropical climates far from large cities.

The last part of the “age of polio” series is where B&O concentrate their most potent stupid into a flaming blast of idiocy that will consume the reader like flame from the Human Torch. However, this flaming stupid does reveal an insight into the mind of an anti-vaccine activist. Basically, they hate and fear the success of vaccination programs, and few vaccination programs in history have been as successful as that against polio. Over the last five decades, polio has been beaten back from a world wide endemic disease to isolated pockets in a few backwater areas in Asia and Africa. There, the polio virus can only hold out because of a combination of factors, including religion-inspired anti-vaccine loons, that prevent the populations there from being vaccinated to levels that allow herd immunity to take hold. Yet, to B&O, pointing this out is “triumphalism” that is hateful to them:

Yet triumphalism is an ongoing legacy of The Age of Polio. Merely invoking the word today can shut down debate over public health, especially concerns over any aspect of vaccination policy.

Not exactly. A better way of looking at it is that anti-vaccinationists like to try to minimize and downplay the power of vaccination to eradicate infectious disease and don’t like it when examples are given that prove their dismissal of the power of vaccines to promote public health to be not based in science, evidence, or reason. That’s why B&O need so desperately to downplay the significance of the virus and add environmental toxins to the mix. Downplay the importance of the virus, and you downplay the importance of the vaccine. Exaggerate the importance of environmental toxins (or make up a correlation out of whole cloth), and you make the vaccine-autism hypothesis suddenly sound somewhat plausible. Add on top of that stories about the risks of the oral poliovirus, such as the Cutter incident, and it’s so much the better for vaccine denialists.

So B&O conclude:

The suffering of polio’s victims is honored by learning all of its lessons, including the danger of environmental toxins and the perils of ignoring their role in modern disease; the risk of focusing all of our energy on vaccinations as magic bullets, and the fundamental ethical obligation to search for the truth without fear or favor. Only then can we work out the real nature of illnesses that confront us here and now, ranging from autism to Parkinson’s to the persistence of poliomyelitis itself. Only then can we begin to prevent such disasters as The Age of Polio.

Except that B&O profoundly dishonor the suffering of polio’s victims by trying to use pseudoscience and the willfully ignorant confusion of correlation with causation to obfuscate and confuse, to blur the true cause of polio and simultaneously to make their vaccine pseudoscience sound superficially plausible. In their “Age of Polio” series, B&O just took a huge, steamy, stinky dump on the suffering of polio’s victims in order to advance their anti-vaccine agenda.

Comments

  1. #1 lilady
    September 29, 2011

    Keep ’em coming Th1Th2bot.

    @ Sauceress:

    Shouldn’t we be wondering where B&O will going with this? I wonder if they will be “investigating” Big Chemical now or making allegations against the EPA…blaming them for the “autism epidemic”.

    Meanwhile, the editors of AoA have this headline:

    Offit’s CHOP gets $ 2.5 million to search for even more genes that have nothing to do with the autism epidemic

    Notice the innuendo that Dr. Offit is somehow benefiting by a donation from a family with an autistic child for the genetic origins of autism. Its always a conspiracy, the vaccines and the evils of government and science in the group-think tank that is AoA.

  2. #2 lilady
    September 30, 2011

    @ David N. Brown: I’m still stuck in moderation. Here is the article I wanted you to have about AD syringes:

    United Nations Foundation-Injection Safety Efforts Eliminate Immunization-Related Infections in Sub-Saharan Africa

  3. #3 Antaeus Feldspar
    September 30, 2011

    Meanwhile, the editors of AoA have this headline:

    Offit’s CHOP gets $ 2.5 million to search for even more genes that have nothing to do with the autism epidemic

    I could be wrong, but isn’t one of the AoA memes that the autism “epidemic” is undetectable by epidemological studies because it only affects children with a rare susceptibility? If so, how do they justify declaring that genes “have nothing to do with” the purported autism epidemic, when the rare susceptibility they posit could well be genetic?

  4. #4 Lynxreign
    September 30, 2011

    Now that the moratorium on engaging thingy is over

    I don’t wanna give clues, sorry

    That’s what I thought. You don’t actually want to educate. That response shows you probably don’t even belive the nonsense you’re spouting. If you did, you’d provide evidence and that’d include your sources. You just want people to argue with you. There are better ways to get attention, go join a club.

  5. #5 Beamup
    September 30, 2011

    If so, how do they justify declaring that genes “have nothing to do with” the purported autism epidemic, when the rare susceptibility they posit could well be genetic?

    They don’t bother to justify it. Which is nothing compared to the way they simultaneously claim that it’s too rare to pick up, but also causes most/all cases of autism and is therefore common.

    Remember, the way they think, vaccines are completely responsible and the whole story. Everything else is an attempt to deny how grossly inconsistent with the facts that is. They don’t care whether their claims are internally consistent, since they already know THE TRUTH and so it HAS to all hang together and make sense because if it didn’t it couldn’t be true.

    Start from the premise that vaccines are the cause of all ills, and their behavior actually becomes quite comprehensible.

  6. #6 lilady
    September 30, 2011

    @ Antaeus Feldspar: Actually, they are upset that the parents of an autistic child has chosen to fund science and to not fund their pet theory…environmental causes. Just like they are furious with Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett who are funding the vaccination program in 3rd world countries. They are livid that other people have made choices about their money and not chosen their pet theories.

    Today’s lead story at AoA is a continuation of that same theme:

    The New York Times and the Downplaying of the Autism Disaster-Anne Dachel

    She now dredges up all the anecdotal stories about some of their pet theories proponents who have tried and were unsuccessful to get “stories” developed and published that advance those theories.

    One other thing…a favored theme is the publishing of “Letters to the Editor” that weren’t chosen to be published and the “bias” associated with those rejections.

    That’s a very angry bunch of “editors and journalists” and readers over at AoA.

  7. #7 Th1Th2
    September 30, 2011

    That’s what I thought. You don’t actually want to educate. That response shows you probably don’t even belive the nonsense you’re spouting. If you did, you’d provide evidence and that’d include your sources. You just want people to argue with you. There are better ways to get attention, go join a club.

    My last source FYI (just fix the hyperlink) was at #127. Do you have anything to say against that in particular or you’re already educated? Huh? Because that was directed to Sauceress and it seems the person is in self-induced ignore mode.

  8. #8 Th1Th2bot
    September 30, 2011

    Do you have anything to say against that in particular or you’re already educated?

    It from means something relevant. A tiny moth swirling around a brain stem knows that. Think twice before you won’t be subclinical. Also an effective nine months: children.

  9. #9 Th1Th2
    September 30, 2011

    That’s the kind of evidence you’re looking for, #207, lynx.

    Of course, Orac, the moderator wouldn’t mind that.

  10. #10 Gray Falcon
    September 30, 2011

    So, you’re posting under both Th1Th2 and Th1Th2bot now?

  11. #11 Th1Th2
    September 30, 2011

    It would hurt I

  12. #12 Th1Th2
    September 30, 2011

    It wouldn’t hurt if you ask Orac, would it?

  13. #13 Lynxreign
    September 30, 2011

    Thingy

    So you’re saying you learned everything you’re spouting by googling random websites? It is telling that you say your last “source” is in 127, but that’s just a link to another thread. You’re making all these extraordinary claims and you haven’t one source in this entire thread?

    And what I asked is “where did you learn what you’re saying” and you didn’t want “to give clues”. That’s not the attitude of someone who believes what they’re saying. That’s either a paranoid, a troll or both.

  14. #14 Gray Falcon
    September 30, 2011

    As far as I can tell, there are two Th1Th2’s on this thread. One simply mindlessly assembles sentences from a collection of words that it recognizes without regard to what it is replying to or the meanings of the words. The other is a Markov chain generator. I think that’s enough said.

  15. #15 Th1Th2
    September 30, 2011

    You didn’t even bother to read what’s IN the link, did you? Just being lazy eh?

    273
    Sauceress,
    I wonder why you guys are still not up-to-date.

    IMMUNOGLOBULIN LEVELS IN INFANCY

    Serum immunoglobulin levels in infancy vary based upon the maturity of the newborn, placental transfer of maternal immunoglobulin, time since birth, and ability of the infant to produce immunoglobulin.
    Immunoglobulin G — At birth, most serum immunoglobulin (Ig) G is derived from the transfer of maternal IgG across the placenta during the third trimester of pregnancy. As a result, serum IgG levels at birth are commonly equal to or slightly higher than maternal serum IgG levels [2], and premature infants have lower IgG concentrations than full-term infants. Premature infants of 30 to 32 weeks gestation have cord IgG concentrations of approximately 400 mg/dL [3]. Small for gestational age (SGA) neonates may also have somewhat lower IgG levels than full-term neonates, reflecting possible impaired placental transport [4,5].

    So tell me Sauceress are uninfected mothers excluded to this rule?
    Yes or No?
    Grow up and act like a mature adult. And don’t let Gray answer for you anymore.
    Posted by: Th1Th2 | September 27, 2011 10:27 AM

  16. #16 Th1Th2
    September 30, 2011

    And here is where I got the source from

    h ttp://www.uptodate.com/contents/transient-hypogammaglobulinemia-of-infancy

  17. #17 Th1Th2
    September 30, 2011

    Enough botting you mean Gray? Why didn’t you report that to Orac?

  18. #18 Th1Th2bot
    September 30, 2011

    It wouldn’t hurt if you ask Orac, would it?

    Let’s see Orac with disease label me a non-sterile instrument which is secondary spread.

  19. #19 Lynxreign
    September 30, 2011

    Thingy,

    Nope, I followed the link and read what it linked to. That you posted a single source is irrelevant. First I’d have to check the general accuracy of the site you linked to as I’ve never heard of it before. Second, that is a very minor part of my criticism. You refuse to state where you learned most of what you’re stating, claiming you don’t want to give clues. That’s not how science works. Your attitude and presentation are all anti-scientific. Why should anyone accept your word for these things, especially given the paucity of your links to sources? When you do post a link to a source, it is to a site that itself needs vetting. Obscurity hinders your claims, it does not help them.

  20. #20 lilady
    September 30, 2011

    @ Gray Falcon: I find that I have a greater “understanding” of what the Th1Th2 bot is stating than the troll itself. I suspect that troll’s postings are from a broken-down Markov generator.

  21. #21 Th1Th2
    September 30, 2011

    Here’s another:

    Placental transfer of immunoglobulin G subclasses.

    The concentrations in cord blood of total immunoglobulin G (IgG) and the four subclasses of IgG were measured in 34 fetuses at a mean gestational age of 25 weeks (range, 18 to 35 weeks). The blood samples were obtained by percutaneous umbilical blood sampling, and results were compared with the respective IgG subclass concentrations of the mothers. The efficiency of transplacental transfer of the different IgG subclasses was determined. Transfer of IgG1 and IgG4 was found to be significantly more efficient than that of IgG3 and IgG2. IgG2 was the subclass least efficiently transferred from mother to fetus. These differences may partly explain the susceptibility of newborns to various pathogens, such as streptococcus group B.

    h ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC368387/

  22. #22 Gray Falcon
    September 30, 2011

    A Markov chain generator doesn’t really create meaning, but Th1Th2 is deliberately trying to obscure meaning.

  23. #23 Th1Th2
    September 30, 2011

    Keep them coming why don’t you,

    The placental transfer of IgG subclasses in human pregnancy.

    Abstract
    Total IgG concentrations and the concentrations of the four subclasses of IgG were estimated in thirty-four pairs of maternal and foetal sera from pregnancies of various gestations ranging from 28 to 42 weeks using the method of radial immunodiffusion. It was found that: (1) all subclasses of IgG cross the human placenta freely, (2) foetal levels of IgG and each subclass of IgG exceed maternal levels in full-term pregnancies and (3) there was a close linear relationship between gestational age and the placental transfer of IgG and each of its subclasses.

    h ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7438556

  24. #24 Lynxreign
    September 30, 2011

    Thingy,

    You really want to avoid addressing the question, don’t you. Why do you think you need to keep where you learned what you know secret?

  25. #25 Th1Th2
    September 30, 2011

    Not good enough, lynx? Don’t worry this is just the start.

    Maternal-fetal transport of immunoglobulin G and its subclasses during the third trimester of human pregnancy.
    Conclusion
    All four subclasses IgG1-4 were detectable in the umbilical circulation (28-42 WG). Whereas IgG3 and IgG4 in UA and UV had a similar concentration as in MV and remained unchanged, IgG2 increased with gestation from 0.67/0.74 g/l (UA/UV, 28-33 WG) to 1.29/1.58 g/l (UA/UV, 37-42 WG), but nevertheless remained lower than the level found in the MV (2.65 +/- 1.12 g/l). The main increase in IgG concentration, however, was due to the substantial rise in the transport of IgG1, which increased from 4.37 +/- 1.24 (UA) and 4.94 +/- 1.52 g/l (UV) at 28-33 WG to 8.94 +/- 1.66 (UA) and 10.89 +/- 1.96 g/l (UV) at the end of gestation, which was even higher than the overall IgG concentration in MV.

    h ttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7945815

  26. #26 Th1Th2
    September 30, 2011

    Lynx,

    You really want to avoid addressing the question, don’t you. Why do you think you need to keep where you learned what you know secret?

    Secret? I gave you all the links you have demanded. Oh you mean the callous disregard on your part right? Then that is going to be your problem.

  27. #27 Lynxreign
    September 30, 2011

    Thingy,

    Just the start? Just the start of what? You’re going to post every link that you’ve “learned” something from? It makes me wonder who you think you’re arguing with. You’re answering questions I haven’t asked and avoiding the one I did ask. You can post links to your heart’s content, but it doesn’t answer the primary question of where you learned what you’re espousing here.

  28. #28 Denice Walter
    September 30, 2011

    I think that the bot is a bit of a poet. Needs encouragement in its writing. Go, bot, go!

  29. #29 lilady
    September 30, 2011

    Yes, by all means go for it, bot!

  30. #30 Th1Th2
    September 30, 2011

    Lynx,

    You’re answering questions I haven’t asked and avoiding the one I did ask.

    First off, you’ve accused me of posting an irrelevant source. Do you dispute this?

    Secondly, you’ve accused me of not revealing where I learned these stuff. I gave you the links. Do you also dispute this?

  31. #31 Th1Th2bot
    September 30, 2011

    So proud of IgG to fetus and benefits of lies. Have you called herd immunity?

  32. #32 Th1Th2
    September 30, 2011

    It makes me wonder who you think you’re arguing with.

    Namely, Lawrence and Sauceress.

    Wow – so insane troll is saying that we can be immune from diseases we’ve never had? Wow……
    Posted by: Lawrence | September 24, 2011 7:15 PM

    Wow indeed! Can’t wait for humpty’s explanation of how a newborn acquires antigen specific antibodies which haven’t been passed from mother to baby via the placenta.
    Perhaps some weird version of the Vital Force(TM) puts them there.
    Won’t be holding my breath for it to provide the details though. Posted by: Sauceress | September 24, 2011 10:57 PM

    The above discussion is found here h ttp://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/09/mark_blaxill_and_dan_olmsted_polio.php#comment-5305423

  33. #33 lilady
    September 30, 2011

    Bot…translation please.

  34. #34 Th1Th2bot
    September 30, 2011

    Bot…translation please.

    Saying maternal antibodies as a nice to antigen healthy, and man up the secondary spread of antigen specific antibodies. Only a simple yes. It’s nice to see.

  35. #35 Lynxreign
    September 30, 2011

    No Thingy, I wasn’t asking for specific links, I was asking for where you gained your general knowledge, all the various things you’ve been spouting like your insistance that vaccines spread infections and all the rest. I don’t care about any specific link you may post, though your ususal lack of such postings is a symptom of your statement that you don’t want to give any hints about where you learned things.
    You were posting a bunch of links at me, but not about anything I asked, I don’t have any specific question about any specific medical issue, I want to know where you gained your underlying knowledge and philosophy of medicine.

    First off, you’ve accused me of posting an irrelevant source. Do you dispute this?

    Nope, your source is completely irrelevant to my question of where you gained your general knowledge of medicine. You’ve shown that you occasionally post a source, I stipulate this, but that’s not the real question, it is a distraction from that question.

    Secondly, you’ve accused me of not revealing where I learned these stuff. I gave you the links. Do you also dispute this?

    Really? All your underlying medical knowledge and philosophy are gained from those few links? That’s very strange.

    Here’s the original exchange, in case you’ve forgotten

    lynxreign,

    Th1Th2,
    Just out of curiosity, where did you learn all the things you’re saying here?

    I don’t wanna give clues, sorry.

    See? No question about a specific medical issue, making your links irrelevant. And you responded that you don’t want to “give clues” about where you learned what you know. In other words, you want to keep it secret. Lets try again:
    Out of curiosity, where did you learn all the things you say in the letters columns of this blog? Where did you obtain your general medical knowledge and philosophy of medicine. I don’t care if you’re a layperson that has taught him or herself, I just want to know what your starting point is.

  36. #36 Lynxreign
    September 30, 2011

    Sorry, thought I had the correct blockquote tags in there. The quote ends with the word “sorry.”

  37. #37 Sauceress
    September 30, 2011

    I see this thread has been reinThected.
    Bait…lies and slime.
    Ho hum.

  38. #38 Gray Falcon
    September 30, 2011

    Th1Th2 doesn’t seem to be aware why giving a partial answer to a question and deliberately shifting the subjects are bad things, then tosses out nonsense to justify her dishonesty. Not worth responding to.

  39. #39 Th1Th2
    September 30, 2011

    lynx,

    Liar. Check your original posts at #70 and #203! When did you ask me about “general knowledge of medicine”?

  40. #40 Gray Falcon
    September 30, 2011

    Also, Th1Th2 thinks we’re too stupid to scroll upwards and see how badly she’s lying.

  41. #41 Lynxreign
    September 30, 2011

    Thingy,

    Post 70. A very open ended, broad question. Even if you don’t want to consider it that way, I’m asking now. I believe you originally interpreted it as a question about your “general knowledge of medicine” because otherwise your response at post 96 makes no sense at all.
    I don’t understand why you wouldn’t want me to know the answer to this question as it could have no result but my understanding you better.

  42. #42 Th1Th2
    September 30, 2011

    lynx,

    Well, I didn’t want to give clues so then what? Your accusation at #203. I refuted your accusations and gave clues. You ignored them and moved the goalpost.

    What’s your version?

  43. #43 Sauceress
    September 30, 2011

    Th1Th2 thinks we’re too stupid to scroll upwards and see how badly she’s lying

    Humpty believes everyone is too stupid to scroll upwards and see how badly she’s lying.

  44. #44 Lynxreign
    September 30, 2011

    Thingy,

    You gave clues? What clues? That you google things? Is that your answer to where you gained your medical knowledge? Then just say so. I don’t see why you think it needs to be some kind of game. I just want to understand where you’re coming from. I didn’t move any goalposts, my question is the same as at the start: Where did you learn what you’re saying, in general. There’s no specific medical question here. Your answer about not wanting to give clues dumbfounded me and I jumped to a conclusion. Prove me wrong on that conclusion and just answer the question about where you gained your general medical knowledge and philosophy.

  45. #45 TBruce
    September 30, 2011

    Well, I didn’t want to give clues so then what?

    You can’t give something that you don’t have in the first place.

  46. #46 Th1Th2
    September 30, 2011

    lynx,

    Your answer about not wanting to give clues dumbfounded me and I jumped to a conclusion.

    I see what the problem is. You jumped recklessly to a conclusion. And after I had challenged your conclusion with several evidence, you ignored them and insouciantly moved the goalpost.

  47. #47 Th1Th2
    September 30, 2011

    You can’t give something that you don’t have in the first place.

    You’re basically arguing from ignorance. Prove it then.

  48. #48 Krebiozen
    September 30, 2011

    You can’t give something that you don’t have in the first place.

    Whether that be a clue, or antigen-specific antibodies…

  49. #49 Lynxreign
    September 30, 2011

    As I said, I jumped to a conclusion and I apologize for that, however I didn’t move any goalposts.
    Either way, how about simply answering the question where did you gain your general medical knowledge and philosophy?
    Go ahead and prove that earlier conclusion I jumped to wrong, let me know where you learned the basis for the many things you claim here so I can better understand you and what you’re saying.

  50. #50 Th1Th2
    September 30, 2011

    Either way, how about simply answering the question where did you gain your general medical knowledge and philosophy?

    I’m sorry but that’s something I tend not to share.

    Go ahead and prove that earlier conclusion I jumped to wrong, let me know where you learned the basis for the many things you claim here so I can better understand you and what you’re saying.

    Let’s just say I am no stranger to Medicine. Fair enough?

  51. #51 TBruce
    September 30, 2011

    You can’t give something that you don’t have in the first place.

    You’re basically arguing from ignorance. Prove it then.

    Whoosh!

  52. #52 lilady
    September 30, 2011

    “I’m sorry but that’s something I tend (never)to share”

    “Let’s just say I am no stranger to the mental health system. Fair enough?”

  53. #53 Reuben
    September 30, 2011

    Let’s just say I am no stranger to Medicine. Fair enough?

    You mean they have your picture and demographics in the medical record of a psychiatric facility, right? Because you’ve shown none, zero, zilch, nada of knowledge about medicine. Not an iota. The center of a donut. The space between atoms. What is left after a black hole is done with space and time.

    You don’t know jack about medicine, Thing, is the main bullet point of my comment.

  54. #54 Th1Th2bot Service Center
    September 30, 2011

    We regret that the Th1Th2bot will be out of service for several hours as a result of some critical input patches.

  55. #55 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    September 30, 2011

    Either way, how about simply answering the question where did you gain your general medical knowledge and philosophy?

    I’m sorry but that’s something I tend not to share.

    Snerk! Bwa-ha-ha-ha! Sniffle! Pardon me while I wipe away these tears….

    OK, Thingy, just share one thing. Consider the following events:

    1) Your body becomes the host to a living, reproducing pathogenic organism.

    2) You are inoculated with a dead, or just the outer shell of a dead, pathogenic organism.

    3) You are inoculated with bits and pieces of the outer shell of a pathogenic organism.

    4) You are inoculated with synthetic proteins which resemble bits and pieces of the outer shell of a pathogenic organism sufficiently to educate your immune system against the said organism.

    5) You are inoculated with a chemical product of a pathogenic organism in sufficient quantity to create an immune response against it.

    6) You are inoculated with a synthetic chemical resembling a chemical produced by a pathogenic organism.

    You have described all these events with the single word “infection”. Link to a recognized medical or scientific source which authorizes the use of the word “infection” to describe any one of the above events except the first, and we will accept your medical expertise.

  56. #56 Th1Th2
    September 30, 2011

    The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge,

    You have described all these events with the single word “infection”. Link to a recognized medical or scientific source which authorizes the use of the word “infection” to describe any one of the above events except the first, and we will accept your medical expertise.

    No problem.

    Modern Epidemiology
    By Kenneth J. Rothman, Sander Greenland, Timothy L. Lash

    Infection

    Definition

    Agent is present in host tissues without signs, symptoms, or laboratory evidence of tissue damage.

    Alternative Terms

    Subclinical Infection
    Asymptomatic Infection

    h ttp://books.google.com/books?id=Z3vjT9ALxHUC&pg=PA552&lpg=PA552&dq=incubation+period+nonreplicating&source=bl&ots=aPFFfJQNb_&sig=zvuxg7oQWuP2FR52P5OEKvBGX_M&hl=en&ei=2SypTfCbCcrOiAKkr53vDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=incubation%20period%20nonreplicating&f=false

  57. #57 Prometheus
    September 30, 2011

    I can’t resist.

    Th1Th2:

    “Let’s just say I am no stranger to Medicine. Fair enough?”

    Which medicine?

    I’d like to start a pool on how long it takes before Th1Th2 proclaims that he/she/it is a “Winner!”, a la Charlie Sheen. Any interest?

    Prometheus

  58. #58 Sauceress
    September 30, 2011

    Alternatively, it could just publish in a respected journal, detailing (providing research based evidence of course) how all the microbiologists,immunologists, epidemiologists and allied health professionals the world over have misconstrued the term “infection”. All it has to do is publish a research paper showing unequivocally why its comprehension of the term is the One True(TM) meaning.

  59. #59 Narad
    September 30, 2011

    Agent is present in host tissues without signs, symptoms, or laboratory evidence of tissue damage.

    You do realize that the text makes clear that they mean “infectious agent” to start with, making this a circular invocation for your purposes, right?

  60. #60 Sauceress
    September 30, 2011

    Infection

    Definition
    Agent is present in host tissues without signs, symptoms, or laboratory evidence of tissue damage.
    Alternative Terms
    Subclinical Infection
    Asymptomatic Infection

    Its deceit knows no limit. It obviously really believes that those readers it’s trying to convince are incredibly ignorant,
    not to mention stupid.

  61. #61 Th1Th2
    September 30, 2011

    You do realize that the text makes clear that they mean “infectious agent” to start with, making this a circular invocation for your purposes, right?

    So? What’s your point? You know where to find these infectious agents, don’t you?

  62. #62 Narad
    September 30, 2011

    So? What’s your point? You know where to find these infectious agents, don’t you?

    OK, let me type slowly. What was your point in posting that table cut-and-paste?

  63. #63 Sauceress
    September 30, 2011

    Oh well I’ve had my laughs for today. I know one shouldn’t laugh at the mentally challenged, but humpty’s brand of arrogance of ignorance makes it impossible not to.
    Reading its posts also always reminds me to feel glad that none of those around me have been suckered into some insidious cult like the antivaxxers, creationists or alt health nutters ect.

  64. #64 Th1Th2
    September 30, 2011

    Sauceress,

    Its deceit knows no limit. It obviously really believes that those readers it’s trying to convince are incredibly ignorant,
    not to mention stupid.

    I’ve been calling your attention many times already and I am waiting if you’re going to accept full responsibility for your damaging assertions and misinformation, injustice and discrimination you have posited against ALL uninfected pregnant women and newborns out there.

    Answer #214, you coward!

  65. #65 Sauceress
    September 30, 2011

    Alternative Terms
    Subclinical Infection
    Asymptomatic Infection

    Last thing…
    Subclinical Infection and Asymptomatic Infection are a sub-classifications of infection types. They wouldn’t be given as an alternative to a general definition of infection as the qualifier of those terms is that no symptoms are are evident.
    That doesn’t fit a general definition of the term infection.
    Seems to me humpty’s been up to a bit of deceitful editing.

  66. #66 Constant Mews
    September 30, 2011

    I see that Th was unable to find a text to establish its claims about the definition of infection. I didn’t expect it to, but that quote mine was particularly pathetic.

    Are there any even remotely intelligent antivaxers?

  67. #67 Narad
    September 30, 2011

    I’ve been calling your attention many times already and I am waiting if you’re going to accept full responsibility for your damaging assertions and misinformation, injustice and discrimination you have posited against ALL uninfected pregnant women and newborns out there.

    I think you’re just jealous that the bot is prettier, more creatively talented, and more popular than you are.

  68. #68 Th1Th2
    September 30, 2011

    OK, let me type slowly. What was your point in posting that table cut-and-paste?

    Simple. I was challenged in #254 to prove if all six were infection. It wasn’t really that hard after all. I’m just saying be careful what you wish for.

  69. #69 Militant Agnostic
    September 30, 2011

    Constant Mews asked

    Are there any even remotely intelligent antivaxers?

    I don’t believe that even Lord Draconis has access to technology for the remote control of antivaxxers. I understand that for mind control to work at that range there must be considerably more mind present than antivaxxers possess.

  70. #70 Gray Falcon
    September 30, 2011

    Th1Th2, how does that book define “infectious agent”?

  71. #71 Gray Falcon
    September 30, 2011

    Th1Th2, I’m willing to bet that the book’s definition of infectious agents does not include #2-#6. Tell me, do you believe it is honest to only give part of a definition, and lie about the rest?

  72. #72 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    September 30, 2011

    Thingy, since I never specified whether the pathological organism in case #1 was causing symptoms or not, your quote is just a restatement of a subset of that. It’s irrelevant, though, because I said except #1. Now find some justification for the use of the word “infection” for oneany one, of cases 2 through 6. The adulation of the multitude awaits you.

  73. #73 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    September 30, 2011

    P. S.— I’ll even spot you case # 1.5: Your body becomes the host to a living, reproducing pathogenic organism, which is lying dormant and not reproducing at the moment but may begin to at some time in the future, although probably not.

    That’s even a little inclusive than your asymptomatic subset, and I’ll agree that’s an “infection”. Question of course being, is it advantageous (like attenuated vaccine virii, for example) or disadvantageous (like chickenpox hiding out waiting to turn into shingles)?

  74. #74 Th1Th2
    September 30, 2011

    Thingy, since I never specified whether the pathological organism in case #1 was causing symptoms or not, your quote is just a restatement of a subset of that.

    The pathogen MUST be present in the host regardless of symptoms. You forgot that.

    It’s irrelevant, though, because I said except #1.

    ALL your cases were derived from the pathogen. Do you dispute this?

    Now find some justification for the use of the word “infection” for one—any one, of cases 2 through 6. The adulation of the multitude awaits you.

    I just did.

  75. #75 Gray Falcon
    September 30, 2011

    Why do you believe the definition you met Battleaxe’s requirements? Please describe you logic carefully, science is rarely, if ever, about the obvious.

  76. #76 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    September 30, 2011

    I just did.

    No, no, no, no, NO! You did not! You quoted justification for the use of the word to describe a subset of case #1. You did not cover cases 2 through 6 in ANY way, shape or form. If you can’t see that, that’s all the proof that’s needed that you need to be institutionalized for your own protection. But I suspect you already are.

  77. #77 Th1Th2
    September 30, 2011

    P. S.— I’ll even spot you case # 1.5: Your body becomes the host to a living, reproducing pathogenic organism, which is lying dormant and not reproducing at the moment but may begin to at some time in the future, although probably not.

    It’s called latent infection which occurs after initial or primary infection.

    That’s even a little inclusive than your asymptomatic subset, and I’ll agree that’s an “infection”. Question of course being, is it advantageous (like attenuated vaccine virii, for example) or disadvantageous (like chickenpox hiding out waiting to turn into shingles)?

    Varicella vaccine does the same thing. It promotes latent infection followed by reactivation causing shingles. Shocking? Not.

  78. #78 Gray Falcon
    September 30, 2011

    Th1Th2, do you understand the different between “part of something” and “something”? Seriously? Answering half our question is like giving us half a puppy: Nothing like the whole, and you seriously wonder about the mental state of the giver.

  79. #79 Antaeus Feldspar
    September 30, 2011

    Are there any even remotely intelligent antivaxers?

    It’s rare, but it happens.

  80. #80 W. Kevin Vicklund
    September 30, 2011

    The very first sentence in that chapter shows that Th1Th2 is lying about the definition:

    Infectious diseases are caused by transmissible agents that replicate in the affected host.

    The next full paragraph after the table Th1Th2 leaves no doubt that infection requires replication:

    Many terms have been used to describe the stages of progression of the infectious process. This inconsistent vocabulary can lead to considerable confusion. For many infectious agents, the terms infection and disease have been used interchangeably. This equivalence may be appropriate when all infected hosts progress to disease in a brief time, but for many agents this is not the case. For most epidemiologic studies it is important to distinguish invasion and replication of the infectious agent without signs, symptoms, or laboratory evidence of tissue damage from replication of the infectious agent with signs, symptoms, or laboratory evidence of tissue damage. We therefore use the term infection exclusively to refer to the state of tissue invasion without disease and use the term disease to refer to the state of clinical signs, symptoms, and abnormal laboratory findings, even though “infection” is usually also present in the disease state.

    The paragraph finishes with a description of latent infection, where the agent is in a non-replicating state but is still viable – that is, it retains the ability to resume replicating at a future date. Cases 2-6 are non-viable, so do not meet the definition in Thingy’s source.

  81. #81 Th1Th2
    September 30, 2011

    No, no, no, no, NO! You did not! You quoted justification for the use of the word to describe a subset of case #1. You did not cover cases 2 through 6 in ANY way, shape or form.

    A subset of a pathogen is also known as the virulence factor. Do you dispute this?

  82. #82 Th1Th2
    September 30, 2011

    Th1Th2, do you understand the different between “part of something” and “something”? Seriously? Answering half our question is like giving us half a puppy: Nothing like the whole, and you seriously wonder about the mental state of the giver.

    As I said, it’s called virulence factor.

  83. #83 Gray Falcon
    October 1, 2011

    Not every part of a pathogen is a virulence factor, and virulence factors can’t reproduce on their own. There’s a big difference between bread and a bakery. By the way, since bread has to be baked at temperatures that can kill a person, does that make bread lethal?

  84. #84 Th1Th2
    October 1, 2011

    The very first sentence in that chapter shows that Th1Th2 is lying about the definition:

    Infection does not require replication because infection precedes replication. The agent cannot replicate without establishing a primary site of infection. If the agent is replicating in the host, then it is termed as a disease. Check the table.

    The next full paragraph after the table Th1Th2 leaves no doubt that infection requires replication:

    Again, there MUST be an invasion (tissue invasion) to initiate an infectious process and it MUST occur prior to replication (if the infectious agent is replicating).

    The paragraph finishes with a description of latent infection, where the agent is in a non-replicating state but is still viable – that is, it retains the ability to resume replicating at a future date. Cases 2-6 are non-viable, so do not meet the definition in Thingy’s source.

    A latent infection or dormancy is a consequence of primary infection of the same pathogen. ALL vaccines cause primary infection but not all are capable of latent infection.

  85. #85 Gray Falcon
    October 1, 2011

    Once again, Th1Th2 believes that something that partially agrees with her is enough to prove her point. Not a sign of a healthy mind.

  86. #86 Th1Th2
    October 1, 2011

    Not every part of a pathogen is a virulence factor

    So you’re the one who doesn’t “understand the difference between “part of something” and “something” Haha.

    and virulence factors can’t reproduce on their own.

    That’s why there are vaccines readily available for infection promoters like you.

    There’s a big difference between bread and a bakery. By the way, since bread has to be baked at temperatures that can kill a person, does that make bread lethal?

    There’s a big difference between science and hypothetical situation. Oh no not again. Could you please explain why you’ve chosen the bread and bakery in relevance to pathogen and virulence factor?

  87. #87 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    October 1, 2011

    A subset of a pathogen is also known as the virulence factor. Do you dispute this?

    Do I dispute what? Do I dispute that a “subset” of a pathogen is a pathogen? Yes, emphatically.

  88. #88 Th1Th2
    October 1, 2011

    Do I dispute what? Do I dispute that a “subset” of a pathogen is a pathogen? Yes, emphatically.

    Carry on germ denialist.

  89. #89 Gray Falcon
    October 1, 2011

    There’s a big difference between science and hypothetical situation. Oh no not again. Could you please explain why you’ve chosen the bread and bakery in relevance to pathogen and virulence factor?

    One is made by the other, they are not the same thing. Simple concept, really. Anyone over five understands it.

  90. #90 Gray Falcon
    October 1, 2011

    From what I recall, Th1Th2’s logic is that since all of those cause an immune system reaction, they must cause infections, because obviously the immune system wouldn’t react to anything that wasn’t a pathogen. Which makes it clear Th1Th2 has no idea what allergens are.

  91. #91 lilady
    October 1, 2011

    @ Gray Falcon: We always come to that same conclusion with Thingy…so why even bother…its insane…its institutionalized…it is germ phobic…its sole pleasure in life is “engagement” on the internet and its overdone…stick a fork in it.

  92. #92 Th1Th2
    October 1, 2011

    One is made by the other, they are not the same thing. Simple concept, really. Anyone over five understands it.

    I see. If a pathogen is to bakery, what kind of “disease” does the bakery cause?

  93. #93 Th1Th2
    October 1, 2011

    From what I recall, Th1Th2’s logic is that since all of those cause an immune system reaction, they must cause infections, because obviously the immune system wouldn’t react to anything that wasn’t a pathogen. Which makes it clear Th1Th2 has no idea what allergens are.

    [Citation needed] for accusation otherwise you’re a hideous liar.

  94. #94 delurked lurker
    October 1, 2011

    Gray Falcon said:

    From what I recall, Th1Th2’s logic is that since all of those cause an immune system reaction, they must cause infections, because obviously the immune system wouldn’t react to anything that wasn’t a pathogen. Which makes it clear Th1Th2 has no idea what allergens are.

    Absolutely spot on, could bot of put it better. Judging by the things response it knows it lost.

  95. #95 Th1Th2
    October 1, 2011

    Good night Gray. Try next time liar!

    h
    ttp://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/05/another_swing_for_the_fences_and_a_miss.php#comment-3901802

  96. #96 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    October 1, 2011

    OK, Thingy—I know that microorganisms, being invisible and all (except to “due diligence” of course)—trigger that primitive, lizard part of your brain that goes “ZOMG!!!GERMZ!!!” and shuts down. So let’s take a more concrete example:

    1) Is a living, breathing human being a person?

    2) Is the corpse of a human being a person?

    3) Is a bucketful of cut-off human hands and feet a person?

    4) Is a bucketful of spray-on skin—that resembles the real thing sufficiently that fresh skin will grow into it when it’s used on burns—a person?

    5) Is a bucketful of human urine a person?

    6) Is a bucketful of water with synthetic urea dissolved in it a person?

    To be consistent with your declared opinions, you will have to answer “yes” to all six. Here on Earth, we answer “yes” only to number one.

  97. #97 delurked lurker
    October 1, 2011

    Yep

    Things latest comment indicates that it realizes it has lost.

  98. #98 Th1Th2
    October 1, 2011

    So let’s take a more concrete example:

    Concrete or lame? Why pick on humans? Please explain.

    To be consistent with your declared opinions, you will have to answer “yes” to all six. Here on Earth, we answer “yes” only to number one.

    You cannot extrapolate your faulty analogy to justify science. Try again.

  99. #99 Gray Falcon
    October 1, 2011

    Th1Th2, don’t demand evidence from others if you refuse to give any yourself.

  100. #100 Gray Falcon
    October 1, 2011

    Here’s a citation for you: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/05/another_swing_for_the_fences_and_a_miss.php#comment-3895848

    When did it happen that the immune system were able to recognize each vaccines as being “self” despite being foreign and pathogen-derived? I might have missed that.

    Now, do you have any citations for your claims?

  101. #101 Th1Th2
    October 1, 2011

    I see that Th was unable to find a text to establish its claims about the definition of infection. I didn’t expect it to, but that quote mine was particularly pathetic.

    Haha. It’s well defined in the textbook. All you have to do is read, lump.

    On the progression axis, a series of events must take place for an infectious disease to occur. This series is shown schematically in Figure 27-1A. First, the human host must be exposed to the infectious agent. Next, exposure must lead to infection with the agent, defined as invasion into host tissues. Finally, infection must lead to the development of the clinical signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings that we recognize as the disease.

  102. #102 Th1Th2
    October 1, 2011

    Th1Th2, don’t demand evidence from others if you refuse to give any yourself.

    I only demand evidence based on Science. So stop wasting my time with hypothetical situation and analogy.

  103. #103 Th1Th2
    October 1, 2011

    Now, do you have any citations for your claims?

    That was a question. And it has since been answered by Mephistopheles in #346 from that link to quote “They are not considered “self”, as witnessed by the immune response.”. But the problem as expected is that he denied killed vaccines, although being not-self, is an infection.

  104. #104 The Christian Cynic
    October 1, 2011

    Only in Thingy’s Htrae can you dismiss an analogy as being faulty without giving any justification for why it does not apply to the presumed analogous situation. (But then again, Thingy seems prejudiced against such crazy things as analogies, hypothetical statements, and syllogisms.)

  105. #105 Gray Falcon
    October 1, 2011

    How is infectious agent defined?

  106. #106 Gray Falcon
    October 1, 2011

    Actually, that thread she referenced contained even worse:

    Parents of handicapped kids who know science…really rock…

    Nope, they are losers and their damaged kids are like rock. That’s more appropriate.

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/05/another_swing_for_the_fences_and_a_miss.php#comment-3854137
    I’m sorry, but I’m not continuing this conversion with Th1Th2. There’s no point talking with pure evil.

  107. #107 Th1Th2
    October 1, 2011

    The Christian Cynic,

    Only in Thingy’s Htrae can you dismiss an analogy as being faulty without giving any justification for why it does not apply to the presumed analogous situation. (But then again, Thingy seems prejudiced against such crazy things as analogies, hypothetical statements, and syllogisms.)

    Hence, I always ask for justification of their use of hypothetical situation and analogy before they demand me to draw a conclusion. They should be thankful instead that I always remind them to be cautious so they will avoid logical fallacies. As an example, try asking Gray if he is still confident in using the bread-bakery analogy as an effective tool used in vaccine argument.

  108. #108 Gray Falcon
    October 1, 2011

    As an example, try asking Gray if he is still confident in using the bread-bakery analogy as an effective tool used in vaccine argument.

    Yes, because most people know the difference between a) something, b) part of something, c) a product of something.

  109. #109 Th1Th2
    October 1, 2011

    Then answer #291 Gray.

  110. #110 Gray Falcon
    October 1, 2011

    Well, if you stick your head in an oven, it could kill you! Could bread do the same? Now answer me this: How can you say such hateful things about disabled people and still sleep at night?

  111. #111 Prometheus
    October 1, 2011

    The Christian Cynic comments:

    “Only in Thingy’s Htrae can you dismiss an analogy as being faulty without giving any justification for why it does not apply to the presumed analogous situation. (But then again, Thingy seems prejudiced against such crazy things as analogies, hypothetical statements, and syllogisms.)”

    A friend of mine – who is a psychiatrist – mentioned that one of the clinical tests used in the diagnosis of certain psychiatric conditions is to ask the patient to interpret or explain simple analogies. According to him (and psychiatric texts), people with certain thought disorders cannot understand analogies (and, by extension, hypotheticals and syllogisms) and often misunderstand them as concrete statements.

    Thus, an analogy comparing an inactivated virus vaccine with a dead person would seem a non sequitur because the patient sees it as a comparison between things that have nothing in common.

    This may or may not be applicable to the present comment thread.

    Prometheus

  112. #112 Th1Th2
    October 1, 2011

    Well, if you stick your head in an oven, it could kill you! Could bread do the same?

    Haha. So the oven is designed specifically to cause human deaths, in your justification, like a human incinerator. Is that what you mean?

    Now answer me this: How can you say such hateful things about disabled people and still sleep at night

    I am against those parents who parade their disabled children because they claim they know science and they rock.

  113. #113 Chris
    October 1, 2011

    Gray Falcon:

    I’m sorry, but I’m not continuing this conversion with Th1Th2. There’s no point talking with pure evil.

    I could have told you that. Oh wait, I did.

    She is still a manipulative delusional liar.

    In the future, just point others to that particular quote, and just keep it at that. The best you can do is warn others of what she is like.

  114. #114 Gray Falcon
    October 1, 2011

    I’ll do that. I at least tried to reason with her because I thought she was a decent person, but now, not so much.

  115. #115 Chris
    October 1, 2011

    You will note that the toddler and sidewalk comment is from a year ago. Combined with the incredibly nasty remark you posted should give any newbies an accurate representation of her evil delusional personality.

  116. #116 TBruce
    October 1, 2011

    According to him (and psychiatric texts), people with certain thought disorders cannot understand analogies (and, by extension, hypotheticals and syllogisms) and often misunderstand them as concrete statements.

    Thus, an analogy comparing an inactivated virus vaccine with a dead person would seem a non sequitur because the patient sees it as a comparison between things that have nothing in common.

    This may or may not be applicable to the present comment thread.

    Well, the Thing did say that she was “no stranger to Medicine” – Haldol, perhaps?

  117. #117 Th1Th2
    October 1, 2011

    Thus, an analogy comparing an inactivated virus vaccine with a dead person would seem a non sequitur because the patient sees it as a comparison between things that have nothing in common.

    If your analogy is valid, you would then have to kill the newborn immediately after birth, yes or no?

  118. #118 Antaeus Feldspar
    October 1, 2011

    Only in Thingy’s Htrae can you dismiss an analogy as being faulty without giving any justification for why it does not apply to the presumed analogous situation.

    Hell, on Thingy’s Htrae, you can dismiss a hypothetical situation which isn’t even about vaccines, on the grounds that it doesn’t assume vaccines to be bad.

  119. #119 Th1Th2
    October 1, 2011

    Not only these people have claimed to know science, they are also murderers! Yet they rock.

    How lovely.

  120. #120 Th1Th2
    October 1, 2011

    Now what Prometheus? Show me your brilliance here. How do you justify using inactivated vaccine-dead human analogy? How do you inactivate a newborn by heat or formaldehyde? Either way just make sure it’s dead.

    Shut this thread down now. It’s so hideous. I have been telling Orac that his losing credibility by the day. Your vaccine world keeps getting smaller Orac.

  121. #121 Th1Th2
    October 1, 2011

    Now what Prometheus? Show me your brilliance here. How do you justify using inactivated vaccine-dead human analogy? How do you inactivate a newborn by heat or formaldehyde? Either way just make sure it’s dead.

    Shut this thread down now. It’s so hideous. I have been telling Orac that he’s losing credibility by the day. Your vaccine world keeps getting smaller Orac.

  122. #122 lilady
    October 1, 2011

    “Well, the Thing did say that she was “no stranger to Medicine” – Haldol, perhaps?”

    Actually, Thingy is “no stranger to the mental health system”.

    I suspect Thingy cycles in and out of the mental health system as well as being a “frequent flyer” in psych emergency rooms, prior to being taken to court for involuntary commitment procedures. Oh yes, Thingy makes the “circuit” frequently.

    Too bad, that psychiatric laws in the USA permits psych patients to refuse medication…so many of the them resort to “self-medication” with street drugs that they ingest, sniff or inject.

    Perhaps we can look forward to Thingy OD’ing? It would be called “terminal disinfection” of the Thing.

  123. #123 lilady
    October 1, 2011

    I officially declare that this thread is still open.

  124. #124 Narad
    October 1, 2011

    So stop wasting my time with hypothetical situation and analogy.

    Heh. I’d love to know what else you had on your dance card other than refreshing the page all day and praying for a response. Whomping up some Krautkrapfen?

  125. #125 Narad
    October 1, 2011

    Too bad, that psychiatric laws in the USA permits psych patients to refuse medication…

    No, it’s not in the least. There are plenty of flaws in the psychiatric care system to point to, but a lack of forcible medication isn’t one of them.

  126. #126 Prometheus
    October 1, 2011

    Th1Th2:

    “Now what Prometheus? Show me your brilliance here. How do you justify using inactivated vaccine-dead human analogy? How do you inactivate a newborn by heat or formaldehyde? Either way just make sure it’s dead.”

    I believe the applicable legal phrase is “res ipsa loquitur” – “the thing(y) speaks for itself.”

    Prometheus

  127. #127 lilady
    October 1, 2011

    @ Narad: You are correct…I misspoke. Trolls like Thingy know exactly what the regulations are regarding protection and advocacy of mentally ill persons and chooses to use them to scam the system.

  128. #128 Sauceress
    October 1, 2011

    Its against “those parents who parade their disabled children because they claim they know science and they rock.”

    That’s a fitting description of virtually the entire AoA congregation. Not to mention the consumers of all the other outlets belonging to the antivaxx franchise.

  129. #129 Sauceress
    October 1, 2011

    That’s “It’s”
    Those pesky grammar demons are haunting me again.

  130. #130 lilady
    October 1, 2011

    @ Sauceress: Thingy is just an insane troll with an imaginary education and imaginary career and totally warped when it expresses concern for children. It inhabits its own world and is just a nasty evil disease-promoting troll…with a particular delusion against immunization.

    The people who actually ascribe to the ever-changing B&O and AoA junk science theoris are seemingly beyond help. Shame on them for continuing their campaign to scare expectant parents and parents of older children away from protective vaccines.

  131. #131 delurked lurker
    October 1, 2011

    I can see some value in engaging thing. Thing is an example to all the readers of the mindset of the antivax crowd and reveals the twisted logic that leads to that mindset to anyone of reasonable intelligence.

    Consider it a public service 🙂

  132. #132 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    October 1, 2011

    I think we’re all agreed that Thingy is “crazy”, in the colloquial meaning of the word, but this absolute inability to process analogies, and the conviction that all subsets are improper subsets, surely must be indicative of some recognized disorder—any mental health professionals want to undertake a diagnosis?

    On the other hand, if it’s a new ailment, never before cataloged, maybe Thingy can achieve the immortality she so craves by having it named after her? Thingy’s dim-with-lemmas dilemma?

  133. #133 Narad
    October 1, 2011

    Thing is an example to all the readers of the mindset of the antivax crowd

    I don’t think so. It is on its own trip. Consider the following:

    I have been telling Orac that his losing credibility by the day. Your vaccine world keeps getting smaller Orac.

    This is presented in the face of Th1Th2’s being completely unwilling to respond to queries regarding whether it can demonstrate or even allude to somebody that might agree with it on the semantic tenets. Remember, it failed badly in presenting itself to the MDC antivax crowd (although it did pick up the “pox party” vocabulary element).

  134. #134 lilady
    October 2, 2011

    Thingy has mental problems big time…and it has latched on to this blog…for some reason.

    It really is delusional and has never been able to answer any questions put to it. Dr. Harriet Hall describes an encounter with Thingy and trying to get it to provide cogent answers as trying to nail jello to the wall.

  135. #135 TBruce
    October 2, 2011

    I think we’re all agreed that Thingy is “crazy”, in the colloquial meaning of the word, but this absolute inability to process analogies, and the conviction that all subsets are improper subsets, surely must be indicative of some recognized disorder—any mental health professionals want to undertake a diagnosis?

    The inability to process analogies is typical of concrete thinking, which is seen in early childhood, and as a consequence of brain injury, dementia and schizophrenia.

    The deliberate refusal to process analogies is typical of being an asshole troll, in my non-professional opinion.

    IANAS*. Any professionals want to venture an opinion?

    *I Am Not A Shrink.

  136. #136 Antaeus Feldspar
    October 2, 2011

    IANAS either, but I too have wondered similar things. Thingy seems to be able to recognize when some form of non-concrete thinking is being employed, but unable to understand what the various forms are and how they function. She’s referred to “metaphors and syllogisms” as if they were even close to being the same thing; she’s used “hypothetical situation” and “hypothesis” as interchangeable terms; she’s declared that a hypothetical situation is “wrong” if it doesn’t assume a premise that she believes to be true… she’s shown some ability to avoid previous mistakes once they’re pointed out to her, but she still shows no sign of actually grasping how non-concrete thinking functions and what benefits it provides.

  137. #137 Denice Walter
    October 2, 2011

    @ TBruce**: ( started out clinical, came to my senses)

    You’re correct- inability to process metaphor can be diagnostic of problems with higher mental processes, like in SMI, esp. thought disorder; also there may be anosognosia. Most likely. Also EFL/ESL as Narad says.

    Much less likely, it could be a writer who studied psychopathology and testing f–king with our heads. I could probably do this but *who would spend so much time* unless…..

    ** any relation to TRex?

  138. #138 Th1Th2
    October 2, 2011

    I’ll make it easier. You are all a sucker for logical fallacies. I hope everyone will agree. Thank you.

  139. #139 TBruce
    October 2, 2011

    ** any relation to TRex?

    Marc Bolan’s Australian cousin.

  140. #140 Antaeus Feldspar
    October 2, 2011

    Oh yes, I’d almost forgotten, Thingy shows an almost complete inability to correctly identify logical fallacies, claiming that an argument which is not attributed to anyone suffers from the fallacy of false attribution, and that an argument is “a clear-cut definition [sic] of fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam” simply because she thinks it contains an ignorant mistake. (Also, thinks that in order for Person A to claim “Person B thinks Claim C is true,” Person A must not only prove that Person B thinks that Claim C is true, but that Claim C actually is true.)

  141. #141 Prometheus
    October 2, 2011

    I think that we largely agree that Th1Th2 is at least simulating mental illness. My college chum (who is a “shrink”) tells me that it can be very difficult – even in person – to discriminate between someone with a thought disorder and someone who is trying to “fake” a thought disorder, since even the severely psychotic (old term) can have lucid intervals.

    At any rate, whether Th1Th2 is actually suffering from a mental illness or is simply simulating one for entertainment purposes, it seems rather pointless to engage in debate with her/him. I’m not saying that we should let Th1Th2’s outrageous statements stand without response, just that pointing out that he/she is inconsistent, illogical and irrational seems unproductive.

    If she/he is suffering from a mental illness, those behaviors are part of the disorder and won’t be “fixed” by pointing them out. If he/she is playing at being “crazy”, then getting us to respond to his/her irrational behavior is part of the fun.

    Prometheus

  142. #142 Th1Th2
    October 3, 2011

    Antaeus,

    Oh yes, I’d almost forgotten,

    How could anyone forget RI’s famous post hoc ergo propter hoc style of argument. You’re loving it by the way, loving it.

  143. #143 Reuben
    October 3, 2011

    Image and video hosting by TinyPicHere is the receipt of my $50 donation to the Rotary global polio eradication fund.

    Thank you, all who ignored the troll and didn’t give her a soapbox on which to spill her delusional brand of stupidity. Because of you, children will be spared this disease, and we’ll be a few inches closer to eradicating polio.

    *Yes, I’ve photoshopped my name and the confirmation numbers from the receipt, for obvious reasons. Those of you that know me personally can vouch for me, I’m sure.

  144. #144 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    October 3, 2011

    How could anyone forget RI’s famous post hoc ergo propter hoc style of argument.

    Wow! That’s some million-candlepower projection there, since post hoc ergo propter hoc is all the anti-vaxxers have. Presumably Thingy saw somebody use this phrase once and thought it sounded all intellekcherull and shit…cargo-cult logic-chopping at its finest.

  145. #145 Narad
    October 3, 2011

    You’re loving it by the way, loving it.

    *plonk*

  146. #146 Gray Falcon
    October 3, 2011

    One seriously has to wonder mental processes went into her statements. “They just accused me of using words to sound impressive without knowing what they mean! How do I respond? I know, I’ll use words to sound impressive without knowing what they mean!”

  147. #147 Th1Th2
    October 3, 2011

    Presumably Thingy saw somebody use this phrase once

    You are correct. Once veces. I’ve seen it abused far too many times.

  148. #148 JayK
    October 3, 2011

    @Th1Th2:

    Thank you for reminding my why I quit coming to this blog. Too bad, the comments used to actually be useful.

  149. #149 Lynxreign
    October 4, 2011

    Sorry for my absence, thingy, but I had more important things to do.

    Way back at 249:

    Either way, how about simply answering the question where did you gain your general medical knowledge and philosophy?

    I’m sorry but that’s something I tend not to share.

    Why in the world wouldn’t you share that? Either you think it is embarassing or you’re just making things up. Otherwise that’d be the first thing you should be willing to share. If people can see where you learned what you know, they can use the same sources and you’ve gained a step in making yourself understood.

    Go ahead and prove that earlier conclusion I jumped to wrong, let me know where you learned the basis for the many things you claim here so I can better understand you and what you’re saying.

    Let’s just say I am no stranger to Medicine. Fair enough?

    No. That’s not “Fair enough”. Your statements on this blog show that you are a stranger to medicine. Showing your educational background, whatever it might be, would go a long way to helping people understand where you’re coming from. As it is, you look like an uninformed nut. You demand people take your word for things without providing any reason for them to do so.

    Looks like the conclusion I jumped to was correct.

  150. #150 Beamup
    October 4, 2011

    Thingy isn’t just a stranger to medicine, but thought itself. And people. (Never forget, all toddlers instinctively know to walk on the sidewalk and not play in the grass!)

    Unless Thingy is the most successful Poe in history, it couldn’t have GOTTEN an actual education; it’s simply far too unhinged.

  151. #151 Lynxreign
    October 4, 2011

    Beamup,

    The sad thing is, I really did want to try to understand where Thingy was coming from. I knew his or her statments were utter nonsense, but I really wanted to know how and why he (or she) was making them. I was looking for some point of conversation, some way to understand her (him?) better.

    Instead, it is secrets and hidden knowledge and what looks like paranoia. If you’re not willing to explain yourself when you get into conversations about science, what other answer is there than you’re just trying to be a jerk?

  152. #152 Beamup
    October 4, 2011

    Where it’s coming from is either mental illness or deliberate deception. In neither case is engagement meaningful.

  153. #153 Th1Th2
    October 4, 2011

    Lynx,

    No. That’s not “Fair enough”. Your statements on this blog show that you are a stranger to medicine.

    Like?

    Showing your educational background, whatever it might be, would go a long way to helping people understand where you’re coming from. As it is, you look like an uninformed nut.

    Prove it.

    You demand people take your word for things without providing any reason for them to do so.

    Like?

  154. #154 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    October 4, 2011

    You demand people take your word for things without providing any reason for them to do so.

    Like?

    Like asking for proof that anyone, anywhere, has ever authorized the use of the word “infection” to describe scenarios 2-6 in #254 above. You were offered a chance to prove that you weren’t using a language all your own and you refused.

  155. #155 Minerva38
    October 5, 2011

    One of the problems with causation is that polio is defined by a certain virus. If polio is by definition this virus, the virus cannot be a cause of polio.

    I agree with Blaxill and Olmsted about their historical discussion of mercury in The Age of Autism. Their discussion of the various mercury compounds and their contribution to permanent vaccine injury is convincing to me. To those of you who claim that mercury has been eliminated from most vaccines, BO say it has been more than replaced in flu vaccines and in other ways. Thimerosal given to pregnant women, for example, can give the fetus even more of it than the vaccine schedule– and at an even more vulnerable time!– they say.

    However I have a bone to pick with BO (I’m also a railfan so won’t use B&O) about overusing their mercury arguments to discredit psychoanalysis and other functional psychotherapy. I agree with you that there is a real issue with untrained people writing on medical topics, but that doesn’t mean they are wrong about mercury in vaccinations!

    MMmmmmm – Why didn’t my HTML tag on the word “causation” work?

  156. #156 Chris
    October 5, 2011

    Minerva38:

    One of the problems with causation is that polio is defined by a certain virus. If polio is by definition this virus, the virus cannot be a cause of polio.

    That makes absolutely no sense.

    Each and every pediatric vaccine is available in a thimerosal form. There are at least four influenza vaccines without thimerosal. The blue letters are a link to a table of pediatric vaccines. The word “Free” under the “Thimerosal Status” column means that there is no thimerosal.

    Why do you insist on still using the “replaced in flu vaccines” lie?

  157. #157 Narad
    October 5, 2011

    One of the problems with causation is that polio is auto accidents are defined by a certain virus vehicle. If polio is auto accidents are by definition this virus vehicle, the virus vehicle cannot be a cause of polio auto accidents.

  158. #158 Chris
    October 5, 2011

    I have a comment in moderation with the link to the table of thimerosal in vaccines.

    Minerva38:

    BO say it has been more than replaced in flu vaccines and in other ways

    They lied.

    Which is an indication that you should definitely ignore anything they say. Because ignoring the four thimerosal-free influenza vaccines is a form of lying by omission.

  159. #159 Prometheus
    October 5, 2011

    Minerva38 seems to be a bit confused:

    “One of the problems with causation is that polio is defined by a certain virus. If polio is by definition this virus, the virus cannot be a cause of polio.

    “Polio” – or, more properly “poliomyelitis” – is a disease that is caused by the poliovirus. Since the disease “polio” is not defined as the virus (although it is often defined as “the disease caused by poliovirus”), your concern is misplaced.

    Minerva38 continues:

    “To those of you who claim that mercury has been eliminated from most vaccines, BO say it has been more than replaced in flu vaccines and in other ways.”

    Of course, B&O say this, but the numbers don’t work. The environmental exposure to mercury in the US (and in most of the world) has been decreasing since the 1980’s (as demonstrated by mercury deposition studies) and the amount in the influenza vaccine – even if children get a thimerosal-containing “flu shot” (not all have thimerosal) every year – is still much less mercury than children got prior to 2001.

    The charitable interpretation of B&O’s insistence that mercury intake hasn’t decreased since 2001 is that they are unable to do simple math.

    Are these people “convincing” to you? If so, you need to raise your standards.

    Prometheus

  160. #160 Th1Th2
    October 6, 2011

    The Very Reverend Infection Promoter,

    Like asking for proof that anyone, anywhere, has ever authorized the use of the word “infection” to describe scenarios 2-6 in #254 above. You were offered a chance to prove that you weren’t using a language all your own and you refused.

    As I said, be careful what you wished for. You want some more evidence, infection promoter? Certainly.

    Communicable disease epidemiology and control: a global perspective p.34
    Artificial infection is given by vaccination, or rather the objective is to administer the antigenic substances produced by the disease organisms without the host developing the disease. Vaccine can be given, but immunity does not always result due to poor administration, the vaccine no longer being potent, or the host not developing an immune response. Therefore, the term vaccination is mostly used in this book to indicate the administration of vaccine rather than immunization, which can be misunderstood as immunity has been given.

    The last sentence made me laugh.

  161. #161 The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
    October 6, 2011

    Congratulations, Thingy—You’ve advanced to case 1.5, which I already spotted you. If you think this authorizes the use of the word “infection” for cases 2-6, you’re a moron.

    And you really need to stop calling other people “infection promoters”. The only infection promoter on this forum is you, by opposing the immunizations that would prevent infection with real, dangerous diseases. Your callous attitude toward human death, disfigurement, and suffering in the pursuit of the Purity™ of your Precious Bodily Fluids™ is really among the most revolting displays I’ve ever seen.

  162. #162 W. Kevin Vicklund
    October 6, 2011

    Funny how, immediately following the paragraph Thingy quoted, there is a listing of the various types of vaccines. Only live attenuated vaccines (case 1) are listed as actual infections. An “artificial infection” is not necessarily an actual infection (it can be, but it doesn’t have to be). Once again, Thingy comes up short.

  163. #163 Th1Th2
    October 6, 2011

    Kevin,

    Funny how, immediately following the paragraph Thingy quoted, there is a listing of the various types of vaccines. Only live attenuated vaccines (case 1) are listed as actual infections. An “artificial infection” is not necessarily an actual infection (it can be, but it doesn’t have to be). Once again, Thingy comes up short.

    Artificial refers to steps involving human intervention.

    TABLE 18-1
                                   Acquired through

    Active Immunization   Natural Infection
                               Artificial Infection:
    1. Attenuated organisms
    2. Inactivated organisms
    3. DNA
    4. Purified microbial macromolecules
    5. Cloned microbial antigens
    6. Synthetic peptides
    7. Anti-idiotype antibodies
    8. Multivalent complexes

    Yes! You are definitely an infection promoter. 

  164. #164 Gray Falcon
    October 6, 2011

    From the exact same source:

    Advantages of inactivated whole organisms
    •By administering whole organism as a vaccine, it is easily
    phagocytosed and its antigens are presented to the Th cells.
    The full range of exogenous antigens is presented, ensuring
    that a broad immune response is generated..
    •Since the organism is dead, there is no chance of disease
    occurring in the host.

    •The vaccine is relatively heat stable, which is advantageous is
    places where refrigeration is not available.

    Th1Th2 has no idea was a lie by omission is.

  165. #165 Th1Th2
    October 6, 2011

    The Very Reverend Infection Promoter,

    And you really need to stop calling other people “infection promoters”. The only infection promoter on this forum is you, by opposing the immunizations that would prevent infection with real, dangerous diseases. Your callous attitude toward human death, disfigurement, and suffering in the pursuit of the Purity™ of your Precious Bodily Fluids™ is really among the most revolting displays I’ve ever seen.

    That’s pursuit of Ignorance for you infection promoter. Aren’t you proud of your Precious Bodily Fluids™?

    III. NORMALLY STERILE SITES IN THE HUMAN BODY: Colonization of one of these sites generally involves a defect or breach in the natural defenses that creates a portal of entry

    Brain; Central nervous system
    Blood; Tissues; Organ systems
    Sinuses; Inner and Middle Ear
    Lower Respiratory Tract: Larynx; Trachea; Bronchioles (bronchi); Lungs; Alveoli
    Kidneys; Ureters; Urinary Bladder; Posterior Urethra
    Uterus; Endometrium (Inner mucous membrane of uterus ); Fallopian Tubes; Cervix and Endocervix

    So let go of the ™ thing if I were you. It does not make you smarter unfortunately. But at least you’re trying to pretend. Such an embarrassment isn’t it?

  166. #166 Th1Th2
    October 6, 2011

    Th1Th2 has no idea was a lie by omission is.

    Hence, it’s called artificial infection, vaccination. Duh.

  167. #167 Gray Falcon
    October 6, 2011

    Was that last comment made by Th1Th2bot? Because that’s the only way it makes sense.

  168. #168 Th1Th2
    October 6, 2011

    And you really need to stop calling other people “infection promoters”. The only infection promoter on this forum is you, by opposing the immunizations that would prevent infection with real, dangerous diseases. Your callous attitude toward human death, disfigurement, and suffering in the pursuit of the Purity™ of your Precious Bodily Fluids™ is really among the most revolting displays I’ve ever seen.

    That’s pursuit of Ignorance for you infection promoter. Aren’t you proud of your Precious Bodily Fluids™ too?

    III. NORMALLY STERILE SITES IN THE HUMAN BODY: Colonization of one of these sites generally involves a defect or breach in the natural defenses that creates a portal of entry

    Brain; Central nervous system
    Blood; Tissues; Organ systems
    Sinuses; Inner and Middle Ear
    Lower Respiratory Tract: Larynx; Trachea; Bronchioles (bronchi); Lungs; Alveoli
    Kidneys; Ureters; Urinary Bladder; Posterior Urethra
    Uterus; Endometrium (Inner mucous membrane of uterus ); Fallopian Tubes; Cervix and

     
    h ttp://www.life.umd.edu/classroom/bsci424/HostParasiteInteractions/HostParasiteSummary.htm” rel=”nofollow

    So let go of that ™ thing if I were you. It does not make you smarter unfortunately. You just keep on embarrassing yourself.

  169. #169 Th1Th2
    October 6, 2011

    Your callous attitude toward human death, disfigurement, and suffering in the pursuit of the Purity™ of your Precious Bodily Fluids™ is really among the most revolting displays I’ve ever seen.

    Why are you complaining?

    III. NORMALLY STERILE SITES IN THE HUMAN BODY: Colonization of one of these sites generally involves a defect or breach in the natural defenses that creates a portal of entry

    Brain; Central nervous system
    Blood; Tissues; Organ systems
    Sinuses; Inner and Middle Ear
    Lower Respiratory Tract: Larynx; Trachea; Bronchioles (bronchi); Lungs; Alveoli
    Kidneys; Ureters; Urinary Bladder; Posterior Urethra
    Uterus; Endometrium (Inner mucous membrane of uterus ); Fallopian Tubes; Cervix and Endocervix

     

  170. #170 Th1Th2
    October 6, 2011

    Read #300 infection-promoting Gray.

  171. #171 Gray Falcon
    October 6, 2011

    For those who just arrived, #300 also contains a lie by omission, as Th1Th2 fails to provide the author’s definition of “infectious agent.” Now, read #305 to see why Th1Th2 is too vile to hold a discussion with.

  172. #172 delurked lurker
    October 9, 2011

    OK I have been convinced, there is no value whatsoever in engaging thing in any sort of debate. Thing has demonstrated that it is too stupid and too mentally deranged to make any salient point in an argument. I would like to put in a personal plea to Orac to kill the Thing once and for all. This mind boggling stupid individual is simply a total waste of time.

    So Orac please kill the thing….pretty please

  173. #173 Science Mom
    October 9, 2011

    @ dedicated lurker, I don’t mean to speak for our host but I have become familiar with his stance on nuking certain tormentors commentors. I will just say this, I appreciate and respect his stand on censorship (none to minimal) barring sock puppets or some that are so heinous that it is clear they post with the most egregious intent. I don’t think Th1Th2 falls under either of these categories (oddly) so it is completely up to us to ignore her.

    I have happily adopted this stance. And please consider this as well, as much as we may feel we have to counter her bollocks, no one who you would think may potentially listen to her will. We are the only fools giving her a stage for her speshul brand of performance art, therefore, it is completely within our own power to let her discursive obtuseness pass us by. I respectfully disagree that our host needs to protect us from her.

  174. #174 Narad
    October 9, 2011

    Moreover, it’s a lot more fun as a DIY project.

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