Normally, these days I greet the month of October with a mixture of anticipation and dread. The anticipation stems from October’s position as Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Now that somehow I’ve managed to have a variety of responsibilities with respect to how breast cancer is managed at our cancer institute, suddenly I find that I’m sometimes called upon to do media appearances, and Breast Cancer Awareness Month is one time we can use to get our message out about breast health and breast cancer detection and treatment, not to mention to highlight for the local media some of the cool research that goes on here. Every year (or so it would seem) the quacks, cranks, and haters of science-based medicine come out of the woodwork to use October as an excuse either to attack “conventional” medicine (particularly anything related to breast cancer), promote quackery, or both. Be it Christiane Northrup promoting thermography, as she did last year and is doing again this year, Mike Adams really bringing home the crazy over Breast Cancer Awareness month year after year, Dan Olmsted trying to co-opt the month for his anti-vaccine views (I kid you not), or Dennis Byrne promoting the scientifically discredited idea that abortion causes breast cancer, usually I can count on attacks on breast cancer science and medicine so full of napalm-grade burning stupid that no neuron can withstand the heat. Oddly enough, this October has been pretty quiet so far. Other than Mike Adams taking a couple of swipes at Susan G. Komen for the Cure and Whole Foods, the latter of which committed the crime (in Mike Adams’ eyes) of supporting “pink” breast cancer awareness campaigns, there’s been surprisingly little breast cancer-related activity on the crank front.

Oh, well. There’s still more than a third of the month left for quacks to make me cringe. At least I often get blogging material about it.

However, apparently October has other significance to cranks. True, the month is more than half over, which makes it odd that I hadn’t really noticed this before. Or maybe it’s not so odd. Apparently anti-vaccine loons are trying to co-opt Breast Cancer Awareness Month by making it their own. That’s right. Somehow, somewhere, anti-vaccine loons got the idea in their head that October should be “Vaccine Injury Awareness Month.” And the anti-vaccine movement is piling on, including the anti-Gardasil site The Truth About Gardasil and, perhaps most prominent of all, Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, founder of the crunchy, “holistic” Homefirst practice in the Chicago area who has bought into Mark and David Geier’s Lupron protocol. Many of them are linking or embedding this video:


Regular readers of this blog will recognize the panoply of anti-vaccine canards in the video above, including the toxin gambit, the “too many too soon” gambit, and other misinformation about vaccines, including claims that no safety studies are done and that we don’t study the effects of multiple vaccinations when in fact all new vaccines are studied within the context of the current vaccination schedule. And then, embedded in that video, we find:

It defies common sense to think that injecting our bodies, especially babies, with these chemicals and biological agents has no negative effects on the health and function of those who use them? To say there is no link is insane!

Not nearly as insane as the video and the nonsense being promoted by the anti-vaccine movement. Actually, what we have here is a classic appeal to incredulity. Just because the creator of the video, who appears to be a woman named Joanne, who is responsible for an ant-vaccine blog I had never heard of before, Are Vaccines Safe?, can’t understand how vaccines don’t have massive negative health effects, she assumes they must be very harmful. It’s also a straw man argument in that no one claims that vaccines are absolutely safe. Incredibly safe under any reasonable definition of the word “safe”? Definitely. Far safer than the risk of the diseases they prevent. Almost always. So safe that serious adverse reactions are incredibly rare? Of course. But no one says that vaccines never cause injury. What science does say is that the claims of anti-vaccine propagandists that vaccines cause autism, autoimmune diseases, dementia, and other chronic diseases are without a basis in science.

The rest of the video parrots classic anti-vaccine canards such as the “vaccines damage the immune system” gambit (they don’t). It all concludes with a plea to “educate before you vaccinate.”

Meanwhile, on NaturalNews.com, Paul Frassa is spewing stuff like this:

The launching of Vaccine Injury Awareness Month this October coincides with this month`s annual Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Unlike the cancer industry`s drive for more cash donations and customers (while exposing women to dangerous mammograms and withholding cancer prevention information), the Vaccine Awareness Month is a real effort to honor the vaccine injured and educate those unaware of vaccination hazards.

This event is just in time for the flu season drive to vaccinate as many as possible with shots that combine both seasonal flu and swine flu vaccines, even though the CDC has recently declared the current swine flu as harmless.

If the CDC has declared the current swine flu (H1N1) as “harmless,” I have not seen the declaration. In fact, if you peruse the CDC website about H1N1, you’ll find this passage:

What Are Common Flu Complications?

The most common flu complications include viral or bacterial pneumonia, muscle inflammation (myositis), and infections of the central nervous system or the sac around the heart (pericarditis).

Other flu complications may include ear infections, sinus infections, dehydration, and worsening of chronic medical conditions, such as congestive heart failure, asthma, or diabetes.

Those at highest risk for flu complications include adults over 50, children ages 6 months to 4 years, nursing home residents, adults and children with heart or lung disease, people with compromised immune systems (including people with HIV/AIDS), and pregnant women.

Funny, that doesn’t sound as though the CDC has declared H1N1 “harmless” to me.

Oddly enough, I don’t see much evidence that the NVIC and Generation Rescue, the two most active anti-vaccine organizations, have anything to do with this. It appears to originate from a small anti-vaccine blog and then picked up upon by the “big dogs,” like Mike Adams at NaturalNews.com and Mayer Eisenstein, who is undoubtedly a big name in the anti-vaccine movement. Indeed, he’s been out there saying things like:

October is the month to acknowledge and honor those families whose loved ones have been injured by vaccines. These faceless (in many cases), nameless and numerous families are hurting and they need our help.

One of the ways we can assist them is by spreading the word that vaccine injuries are real and they are far more common then we have been led to believe.

If you are on facebook or twitter, please use the image below as your profile image for the month of October. Please spread the word amongst your own networks.
Bring the issue of vaccine injuries out into the public’s eye.

And:

I want to raise doubt in your mind as to the safety, efficacy and moral issues of vaccines. My goal is for you to do further research into all of the vaccines, use libraries, bookstores, our internet web site (homefirst.com) and ask questions. Only after fully weighing the evidence can you make an informed decision. An informed consumer is a wise consumer. This journey is a beginning of better understanding the issues surrounding childhood vaccinations.

As a devout anti-vacciner, I just have one thing to tell Dr. Anderson and all of the doctors who are tools of the pharmaceutical industry.

Read my books, all vaccines cause brain damage.

Well, at least Dr. Eisenstein is honest. No “I’m not ‘anti-vaccine’; I’m pro-safe vaccine” for him! He lays it all out on the line, letting his freak flag fly high! If ever Dr. Eisenstein ever claims that he isn’t anti-vaccine again, I’ll point you, my readers, to this statement by him. Whoever thought up the boneheaded, brain dead idea of trying to declare October Vaccine Injury Awareness Month, Mayer Eisenstein has glommed onto it like fleas on a dog–or maybe a better metaphor would be maggots on a rotting corpse, because the ideas and anti-vaccine lies that Eisenstein promotes are very much like a rotting corpse: dead, bloated, and stinky.

Personally, I find this video to be a far more accurate description of Eisenstein:

Months after I first discovered that video, I find it amazing that Dr. Eisenstein appears not to be the least bit embarrassed by it.

Obviously, this attempt by the anti-vaccine movement to associate itself with Breast Cancer Awareness Month by trying to claim October for its own is laughable and pathetic in the extreme.

You know, even though October is only a little more than half over and I haven’t (yet) seen stupid-based attacks on science-based medicine for breast cancer, given that it’s Breast Cancer Awareness Month, it’s obvious that I have encountered even more stupid-based attacks on the science of vaccines, courtesy of “Vaccine Awareness Month,” courtesy of Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, Paul Frassa, and a blogger named Joanne. Think of it this way: If Age of Autism won’t bite when it comes to promoting Vaccine Injury Awareness Month, that ought to tell you something.

Certainly it told me something.

Comments

  1. #1 Todd W.
    October 19, 2011

    @Prometheus

    [Note: even Ms. Stagliano appears to have ignored this “inconvenient truth”, so Mr. Bateson is not alone in his denial.]

    I seem to recall that she rationalizes it as being due to vaccines that she received somehow transferring their evil autism-causing properties to her daughter while she was pregnant.

  2. #2 TBruce
    October 19, 2011

    The Banhammer question:

    Pharyngula has a fairly ruthless policy for banning trolls and other idiots – mind you, it’s justified, considering the number of these pustules that appear there. Here is PZ’s policy:

    What gets people put into the Pharyngula killfile dungeon? This is a list of annoyances; it usually takes more than one incident to get thrown in the slammer, though. The people who’ve been incarcerated are typically persistent and have a known history of pulling these stunts over and over again.
    Concern trolling A particularly annoying form of trolling in which someone falsely pretends to be offering advice to favor a position they do not endorse; a creationist who masquerades as someone concerned about the arguments for evolution as an excuse to make criticisms.
    Godbotting Making an argument based only on the premise that your holy book is sufficient authority; citing lots of bible verses as if they were persuasive.
    Insipidity A great crime. Being tedious, repetitive, and completely boring; putting the blogger to sleep by going on and on about the same thing all the time.
    Morphing Changing pseudonyms to avoid killfiles.
    Slagging Making only disparaging comments about a group; while some of this is understandable, if your only contribution is consistently “X is bad”, even in threads that aren’t about X, then you’re simply slagging, not discussing.
    Sockpuppetry Like morphing, but with a specific intent: creating multiple identities supporting a position to create a false impression of popularity
    Spamming Using the comments to sell real estate, mortgage assessments, little blue pills, porn, or Russian mail-order brides. Spammers are not tolerated at all; they are expunged without comment.
    Stupidity Some people will just stun you with the outrageous foolishness of their comments; those who seem to say nothing but stupid things get the axe.
    Trolling Making comments intended only to disrupt a thread and incite flames and confusion.
    Wanking Making self-congratulary comments intended only to give an impression of your importance or intelligence.
    Just for clarification: being a Christian or a Republican is not grounds for being banned, nor is disagreeing with your host. Try it, you can call me all kinds of names while praising Jesus and GW Bush, and I won’t care…unless you turn it into a crusade and disrupt threads with constant iterations, of if you bore me by saying nothing else but jingo.

    The Thing manages at least 5 of these offenses repeatedly.

    I’m in favour of this. As far as I can tell, the discussions in Pharyngula are not harmed by use of the Dungeon, and it certainly doesn’t prevent disagreement in the comments. Commenting is a privilege, and abuse of this privilege should not be tolerated.

    If this is implimented, perhaps instead of the Dungeon, RI could have a Morgue?

  3. #3 Chris
    October 19, 2011

    Luna_the_Cat:

    Sorry to butt in, but I think BadDragon has a point. Many of the standard anti-vaxx followers (note, I’m not talking about most of the “luminaries” that the anti-vaxxers hold up as authorities, I’m talking about the passionate lay audience who support them) are not well educated.

    I was first offended by way he phrased the notion about the education in North America.

    But I will say it is not quite that simple. I’ve seen too many of the anti-vax followers post up their credentials like badges of honor, and they include nurses, engineers, lawyers and the like. And some that used to be reasonable that have fallen into some kind of denialist loop.

    I recently read the book Among the Truthers by Jonathan Kay. It was a disappointing read, but he did try to figure out why these people who should know better were spouting nonsense. This review gives some of his ideas on why they are what they are. It should give you an idea of where I am coming from… oh, and read Todd W.’s article.

  4. #4 T-reg
    October 19, 2011

    @Lynxreign:

    Oh, I’m not bothered by thingy. She is but an ignorant troll who has no qualifications to be judging anyone here. However, as an agent provocateur she is effective in that many of the questions posed by her are in fact the sort of questions many would like answered. Thus answering her provides us with an opportunity to address those very questions for the benefit of lurkers seeking their answers.

    Arguing with her, however, is futile because her lack of understanding of basic sciences makes her unable to grasp many things, while her undue focus on semantics (and a lack of understanding of that too) and quote mining makes matters worse. Worse still is that even basic logic is out of her reach and her strawman fallacies gradually derail the whole thread.

  5. #5 Th1Th2
    October 19, 2011

    Oh, I’m not bothered by thingy.

    Not bothered? Great. Then answer #140, if you don’t mind.

  6. #6 Prometheus
    October 19, 2011

    I was puzzled by the apparent contradictions between what C. Sommers (#172) posted (and what has been all over the news lately) about a malaria vaccine and the comments made by “Th1Th2” (#192). Unfortunately, “Th1Th2” has such a history of confabulation that I initially shrugged off the contradictions as further evidence of poor reality testing by “Th1Th2”. However, I think I may have uncovered the source of (at least some of) the confusion.

    C. Sommers’ link was to a recent CNN “article” about the phase III study of the RTS,S vaccine, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine yesterday (18 October 2011). This vaccine, which is a recombinant fusion protein of the hepatitis B surface antigen and the malarial circumsporozite protein, is given intramuscularly (IM) and had an efficacy (in the 5 – 17 month age group) of 55%.

    “Th1″Th2” (#192), on the other hand, cited news reports of a Science article that was published (online) on 8 September 2011 and was about the PfSPZ malarial vaccine, which is irradiated (attenuated) whole sporozites. This vaccine, which is not as far in development as the RST,S vaccine, was given intramuscularly (IM) and subcutaneously (SC) in a small group of volunteers (80) for safety testing. The only previous human testing of the PfSPV vaccine had used irradiated infected mosquitos as the “injection apparatus” (PM – per mosquito?).

    In the Science paper, the small clinical trial did not yield any information about the efficacy of the vaccine in humans. However, an in vitro assay for hepatocyte protection showed between 16% and 59% probability of protection from malaria.

    They also performed studies in mice, which got the vaccine intravenously (IV) (possibly the source of the “Th1Th2” confusion) and – based on a similar in vitro assay – had greater than 80% protection. Note, however, that none of these studies showed actual clinical protection from malaria, so comparing the two is like comparing apples and orangutans.

    Prometheus

  7. #7 Gray Falcon
    October 19, 2011

    Th1Th2, you completely ignored #139, which quoted the source you used. Do you feel that was honest?

  8. #8 Prometheus
    October 19, 2011

    Ooops! The last sentence in #204 should have read:

    “Note, however, that none of these studies nothing in this study (the 9 Sept 2001 Science study) showed actual clinical protection from malaria, so comparing the two is like comparing apples and orangutans.”

    Prometheus

  9. #9 C. Sommers
    October 19, 2011

    Prometheus #204:

    Thank you for the clarification. My education isn’t as good as most of the other posters here, but I was curious about that as well.

    This would be an excellent moment to thank everyone else on this blog (ORAC especially) for all the information. I started lurking here roughly a year ago to get some info on vaccine safety after putting up with family members telling me that vaccines cause autism, are full of mercury, will turn you into a mutant, etc…

    The discussions, as well as the numerous links to other resources have provided me with an education on the subject that I could not have gotten otherwise.

    Thank you all of you. Seriously.

  10. #10 T-reg
    October 19, 2011

    Read #129 again, and you tell me whether I said that.

  11. #11 Prometheus
    October 19, 2011

    Gray Falcon (#205),

    “Th1Th2” has, in the past, asserted that injecting “killed” virus, killed bacteria and even recombinant viral proteins constitutes an “infection”, despite the fact that none of these immunogenic agents is capable of replication.

    Do you really think it will be concerned about the difference between a clinically inapparent “infection” and a clinically relevant “disease”?

    These are distinctions “Th1Th2” has already demonstrated – repeatedly – are too fine for it to distinguish. I also don’t think that there is any further need to show that “Th1Th1” is eccentric, inconsistent and irrational (not to mention insulting and juvenile) – those facts are beyond dispute.

    If you wish to “…gild refined gold, to paint the lily, to throw a perfume on the violet…”, please feel free to demonstrate – once again – the errors and inconsistencies of “Th1Th2”. To my eye, it has already become synonymous with blind, irrational objection to reality.

    Prometheus

  12. #12 Gray Falcon
    October 19, 2011

    A more useful question for Prometheus: If the efficacy of the malaria vaccine in is 55%, does that mean it will provide moderate protection, but one still shouldn’t go into the jungle without mosquito netting? A bit like still needing a seat belt if you have an airbag.

  13. #13 Lynxreign
    October 19, 2011

    T-reg

    Oh good. I’m glad she didn’t annoy you into leaving, you have some nice posts here today. I can understand why the constant stream of smug ignorance from thingy would drive some people away and I’m glad you’ll continue to post facts in response instead.

  14. #14 Th1Th2
    October 19, 2011

    Or that if one vaccine is intravenous (and that is because the parasite hangs out in blood cells, not muscle cells), that it makes all vaccines intravenous.

    I know it’s useless to argue with a non-medical person. So Chris, what made that intravenous pertussis vaccine, intravenous?

  15. #15 Gray Falcon
    October 19, 2011

    I was hoping in #205 to get Th1Th2 to notice how dishonest she was being, but now that she just attributed her own argument to Chris, I think that’s a lost cause.

  16. #16 Th1Th2
    October 19, 2011

    Read #129 again, and you tell me whether I said that.

    This.

    Just as there is infection by the herpes zoster virus (which may or may not cause disease)which is different from the chicken pox (a disease which may result from that infection) which is different from shingles (another disease which may result from that infection).

    So is shingles a primary infection caused by HZV? Why do you find that so difficult to answer?

  17. #17 Todd W.
    October 19, 2011

    Quick primer for lurkers on the herpes zoster virus (aka, varicella).

    The virus is a bundle of genetic material. It is not a disease. However, it does cause disease. Chicken pox is one disease caused by the virus. Shingles is a different disease caused by the same virus. If you have never had chicken pox, you can be infected by the virus and get chicken pox, but not shingles. You can only have the disease shingles if you have previously had chicken pox, even though the same virus is involved.

  18. #18 Dangerous Bacon
    October 19, 2011

    TBruce: “As far as I can tell, the discussions in Pharyngula are not harmed by use of the Dungeon, and it certainly doesn’t prevent disagreement in the comments. Commenting is a privilege, and abuse of this privilege should not be tolerated.

    If this is implimented, perhaps instead of the Dungeon, RI could have a Morgue*?”

    Sounds good, with the added requirement that the Living Dead are only allowed to post in zombie discussions (i.e. older than 1 year). That way they can babble on to their heart’s content (and get the last word!) without their trollishness getting on people’s nerves.

    *and as long as you do the autopsies.

  19. #19 Lynxreign
    October 19, 2011

    Thingy @212

    I know it’s useless to argue with a non-medical person

    Since you’re a “non-medical person” are you telling us it is useless to argue with you?

  20. #20 Th1Th2
    October 19, 2011

    I was hoping in #205 to get Th1Th2 to notice how dishonest she was being, but now that she just attributed her own argument to Chris, I think that’s a lost cause.

    Haha. You’re late Gray, you’re late. Read my comment on that October 1, 2011 12:12 AM

    h ttp://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/09/mark_blaxill_and_dan_olmsted_merrily_con.php#comment-5374622

  21. #21 Prometheus
    October 19, 2011

    Gray Falcon,

    A malaria vaccine with 55% efficacy may not sound too good, but given that there are an (estimated) one million deaths each year from malaria (and 300-500 million cases each year), the public health benefits from such a vaccine are potentially immense.

    That said, if I were to go out in malaria-endemic region after getting this malaria vaccine, I’d still take prophylaxix and use mosquito repellant and netting (the vaccine won’t prevent itchy bumps from mosquito bites, either). It may seem a bit of overkill, but malaria (especially falciparum) is a bad actor – I’ve seen people sick with malaria and I’d rather not get it.

    As I see it, the vaccine “backs up” the phycial barriers (netting, clothing) and repellants, and the prophylaxis protects me if the parasite load I get is too great for the vaccine to block.

    From a pure public health viewpoint, dropping the malaria incidence by 55% is a huge win, not only because of the dramatic reduction in human suffering (you listening, Mr. Shecter?) but also because fewer people infected with malaria means – eventually – fewer mosquitos carrying malaria.

    Up to today, the “standard” approach to eradicating malaria (as it was done in the Southern US) was to eradicate the mosquitos long enough to get rid of the human reservoir. An alternate approach is to remove the human reservoir – which has worked in a few isolated cases (primarily islands), but has never, to my knowledge, been used as with the intention of eradicating malaria.

    With the vaccine, we have an opportunity to start reducing malaria transmission to uninfected people by reducing the reservoir of infected people that the mosquitos feed upon. Modeling I’ve done suggests that a 50% reduction in malaria-infected humans (which can be done with a vaccine or by rigorous treatment of malaria) will eventually lead to malaria dying out over several generations (human generations, not mosquito generations, sad to say). A malaria vaccine could do this at significantly less cost and with a much more meager medical infrastructure (see: sub-Saharan Africa) than medical treatment of malaria would require.

    Prometheus

  22. #22 Gray Falcon
    October 19, 2011

    That comment had nothing to do with you your statement, and my response to that comment was: “Once again, Th1Th2 believes that something that partially agrees with her is enough to prove her point. Not a sign of a healthy mind.”

  23. #23 Gray Falcon
    October 19, 2011

    Sorry, #220 was addressed to Th1Th2 in #218. I’m not entirely sure what she was hoping to accomplish, save for a distraction.

    Prometheus:

    From a pure public health viewpoint, dropping the malaria incidence by 55% is a huge win, not only because of the dramatic reduction in human suffering (you listening, Mr. Shecter?) but also because fewer people infected with malaria means – eventually – fewer mosquitos carrying malaria.

    Ah, so it isn’t just a small layer of protection, as I initially thought. Thanks.

  24. #24 Todd W.
    October 19, 2011

    @Gray Falcon

    Maybe view it like this: malaria-carrying mosquitoes are an invading army, with you being the keep of a castle. The vaccine is kinda like camouflaged tiger pits or a spiky moat: it has a chance of stopping the army, but there’s a chance some will still get through, at which point they encounter your wall and defenders (netting and repellant). Again, this should stop most, but there’s still a chance that some invaders will get over the wall. Prophylaxis are the guards around the keep; there to try to take out any invaders that make it that far.

  25. #25 Gray Falcon
    October 19, 2011

    @Todd W.

    That’s better than my analogy. I work in engineering, so I understand the importance of backup controls. Malaria’s a big killer, so this is a major medical advance.

  26. #26 T-reg
    October 19, 2011

    @Lynxreign: Thanks for the compliment. Orac’s splendid posts and the interesting discussions by others after that are far more effective as incentives to stay than is the deterrent that is thingy.

    @Thingy:
    Good… now you are asking the right question. In response to your question

    Haha. Are you saying that shingles is a primary infection with HZV?

    : after reading #129 again, I hope you got the answer that that is not what I said.

    My original point was in response to your scare mongering that the measles vaccine causes measles (the disease) based on the premise that it infects the vaccinee with the (attenuated strain of the) measles virus. Thus I had to make the point that an infection by an organism is distinct from the disease which that infection MAY cause.
    That “MAY” is based on many factors, not the least of which is the strain of the virus – virulent vs attenuated. Hence just because a vaccine infects you doesn’t mean that it causes the disease (infection and disease being separate entities). This infection without the disease is precisely how the vaccine provides immunity.
    Comparing this (vaccination) with naturally acquiring the immunity (getting infected with the virulent strain of the virus and thus risking getting the disease and even dying due to the disease) – vaccination wins hands down,

    Your question regarding shingles being a primary or a secondary infection is a strawman as it has nothing to do with the discussion – it doesn’t change the fact that an infection and a disease are two different things and an infection caused by a vaccine (attenuated virus) is not the same as spreading the disease (caused only by being infected by a virulent strain of the virus).

    BTW, there is actually no scope for argument on the semantics here – infection and disease differ from each other on the very basis of their definition. They are two different words assigned to represent two different (though not mutually exclusive) ideas.
    Your confusion stems from the fact that the layman uses these two words interchangeably. This is erroneous and misleading.

  27. #27 W. Kevin Vicklund
    October 19, 2011

    You can only have the disease shingles if you have previously had chicken pox, even though the same virus is involved.

    With one exception. If your chickenpox vaccination doesn’t “take” and you only get partial and fading immunity, it is possible to later get a wild-type HZV infection without getting chickenpox. This infection can then result in shingles later on. (This seems to be the real source of “vaccine-induced” shingles – the vaccine itself isn’t the source of shingles)

    This is similar to what happens in atypical measles. The vaccine only caused partial and fading immunity, so that when a later wild-type measles infection occurs, the course of the disease is altered. This is why we stopped using inactivated measles vaccines.

  28. #28 Tdoc
    October 19, 2011

    I am continually amazed that these people have no memory. In my grade school there were always 2 or three kids wearing braces on their legs and there were wards for the kids in iron lungs all because of polio. Kids with congenital rubella born blind, deaf or mentally handicapped. I have seen people die with tetanus and sat by the bedside of children with pertussis and epiglotitis hoping like hell that I wouldn’t have to do a tracheotomy. Where the hell were these idiots then? Do they really want to go back to those days?

  29. #29 Marry Me, Mindy
    October 19, 2011

    The malaria vaccine is kind of like the ultimate in herd immunity, right? Where the herd protects the mosquitoes, which in return protects the herd?

    From what Prometheus describes, what I see is that if you have half the number of people infected with malaria, then only half the mosquitoes that bite those humans would pick up the virus to transmit on to someone else. So when that group goes on, the likelyhood that someone will be bit by an infected mosquito gets cut in half, and since half the people are protected, the number of malaria cases is now 1/4 of the initial. But now only 1/4 of the mosquitoes pick it back up, and so only 1/8 of the people are bit by an infected varmint, etc

  30. #30 Todd W.
    October 19, 2011

    @W. Kevin Vicklund

    Thanks for the clarification.

  31. #31 MI Dawn
    October 19, 2011

    Just to reinforce what Todd W said (waves, Hi, Todd!) and to break my rule and answer Thingy only for the benefit of others who really want to know:

    No, Thingy. Shingles is NOT a “primary infection” of HSV. By definition, shingles is a reactivation of the HS virus, which has lain dormant since the person has chicken pox. You can’t get shingles unless you have has chicken pox. NOT the vaccine. The chicken pox vaccine has not been shown to cause shingles in the person who received the vaccine.

    Personally, I’d rather my kids had the vaccine over the disease, I could have avoided hours of crying, a child in so much distress she needed narcotics for pain, and 4 weeks of sick children. My kids could have avoided some of the scars they now carry. If you asked them, they would have gone for the vaccine, too.

  32. #32 Narad
    October 19, 2011

    They also performed studies in mice, which got the vaccine intravenously (IV) (possibly the source of the “Th1Th2” confusion)

    That was actually the first thing that occurred to me, as it’s pulled this routine in the past.

  33. #33 Beamup
    October 19, 2011

    @ Tdoc:

    According to the loons, vaccination had nothing to do with stopping those diseases. It was all improved sanitation. (All those open sewers in the 1950s, I guess.)

    Alternatively Big Pharma just needs to remove all the poisons they stick in vaccines for the sole purpose of making people sick, and then they’d be fine.

    Or we should be using homeopathy instead.

    Or all the kids in iron lungs were deliberately harmed by Big Pharma to deceive people into thinking there was such a thing as polio, so that they could sell vaccines.

    Probably other even loonier delusions too, which I simply haven’t run across.

    Of course, the fact that they don’t WANT to cause that doesn’t mean that it’s not what will happen if they get their way.

  34. #34 Queen Khentkawes
    October 19, 2011

    @Tdoc #226:

    The answer to your last question is Yes. I suspect they think this will result in the “strengthening” of the human race. I also suspect none of them has ever had said diseases, or cared for loved ones who had them.

  35. #35 Th1Th2
    October 19, 2011

    With one exception. If your chickenpox vaccination doesn’t “take” and you only get partial and fading immunity, it is possible to later get a wild-type HZV infection without getting chickenpox. This infection can then result in shingles later on. (This seems to be the real source of “vaccine-induced” shingles – the vaccine itself isn’t the source of shingles)

    Haha. So you’re actually saying shingles can be a primary infection with HZV, yes or no?

  36. #36 TBruce
    October 19, 2011

    *and as long as you do the autopsies.

    Well, at least the brain examinations would be extremely brief.

  37. #37 W. Kevin Vicklund
    October 19, 2011

    So you’re actually saying shingles can be a primary infection with HZV, yes or no?

    What part of “later on” do you not understand? No, I’m not saying that at all, which anyone who understands modern American English should have understood.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Disease is not the same thing as infection.

    Is my point clear?

  38. #38 Th1Th2
    October 19, 2011

    Maybe view it like this:

    [Enter straw man]

  39. #39 Th1Th2
    October 19, 2011

    You can’t get shingles unless you have has chicken pox. NOT the vaccine.

    NOT the vaccine? [Citation needed]

    The chicken pox vaccine has not been shown to cause shingles in the person who received the vaccine.

    [Citation needed]

  40. #40 Th1Th2
    October 19, 2011

    Disease is not the same thing as infection. Is my point clear?

    You’re like T-reg. Between chicken pox and shingles, which one are you referring to?

  41. #41 Gray Falcon
    October 19, 2011

    Th1Th2, what do you think “straw man” means?

  42. #42 Todd W.
    October 19, 2011

    Please ignore Thingy. She is, as usual, derailing the thread.

  43. #43 Th1Th2
    October 19, 2011

    That “MAY” is based on many factors, not the least of which is the strain of the virus – virulent vs attenuated. Hence just because a vaccine infects you doesn’t mean that it causes the disease (infection and disease being separate entities). This infection without the disease is precisely how the vaccine provides immunity.

    The measles vaccine, to be effective, MUST not only infect but MUST replicate inside the host. Do you dispute this?

    Comparing this (vaccination) with naturally acquiring the immunity (getting infected with the virulent strain of the virus and thus risking getting the disease and even dying due to the disease) – vaccination wins hands down,

    You’re an infection promoter. It’s your job. But are you claiming that measles vaccines are more immunogenic thus more protective than natural infection? Wherever did you learn that?

  44. #44 Th1Th2
    October 19, 2011

    Your question regarding shingles being a primary or a secondary infection is a strawman as it has nothing to do with the discussion

    Of course, it has everything to do with the discussion since the only lucky candidates for shingles are those persons who have had primary VZV infection either by natural infection or vaccination. Your straw man is this, you are confused whether to call chicken pox as primary infection or a disease.

  45. #45 Th1Th2
    October 19, 2011

    This is similar to what happens in atypical measles. The vaccine only caused partial and fading immunity, so that when a later wild-type measles infection occurs, the course of the disease is altered. This is why we stopped using inactivated measles vaccines.

    That is demonstrably false. The pathogenesis of shingles and atypical measles is NOT similar. Atypical measles is caused by re-infection by exposure to exogenous measles virus whereas shingles is reactivation of a latent virus, and not the result of subsequent re-infection or exposure.

  46. #46 Sauceress
    October 19, 2011

    It seems quite fitting that the antivaxx cultists have been roaring out their ignorance and deception throughout the comments on a post re antivaxx month. The deliberate misinformation, misrepresentation and dodging tactics typical of the cult mindset scream out in stark contrast to the rest of the comments here.

  47. #47 Antaeus Feldspar
    October 19, 2011

    Your confusion [between the terms ‘infection’ and ‘disease’] stems from the fact that the layman uses these two words interchangeably.

    Actually, Thingy’s confusion between these two stems from her being crazier than a sh*thouse rat. She actually believes that if you get injected with a DNA vaccine, one that generates antigens but has never even been in contact with the pathogen whose antigens it is emulating, you’re actually getting the disease. Yes, she’s that crazy.

    Frankly, count me among those who don’t think we’d be missing anything if Thingy was banned. I believe strongly in the good that can come from correcting “Goofuses”, but Thingy is almost valueless even for this purpose. Contrast this with, say, Sid Offit. Sid is reprehensible and racist, but he at least will try to put forth arguments for what he believes. Thingy just attempts to bludgeon and browbeat everybody, and now she’s attempting to silence others who don’t agree with her.

  48. #48 Th1Th2
    October 19, 2011

    Prometheus,

    Do you really think it will be concerned about the difference between a clinically inapparent “infection” and a clinically relevant “disease”?

    Are you inventing words?

  49. #49 adelady
    October 19, 2011

    “Are you inventing words?”

    This merry-go-round needs music.

  50. #50 W. Kevin Vicklund
    October 19, 2011
    Do you really think it will be concerned about the difference between a clinically inapparent “infection” and a clinically relevant “disease”?

    Are you inventing words?

    Infection and disease are real words. Do you dispute that?

  51. #51 Ken
    October 19, 2011

    Lynxreign @195: “secret knowledge” that only she has access to and she’s not telling where it comes from.

    Voices in the head, probably. It would explain the claims of extensive medical experience (if only on the receiving end), and being off the prescribed meds would explain everything else.

  52. #52 Th1Th2
    October 19, 2011

    Infection and disease are real words. Do you dispute that?

    Not those. But your words, like “clinically inapparent infection” and “clinically relevant disease”.

  53. #53 Narad
    October 19, 2011

    This merry-go-round needs music.

    That one’s easy (I’m too lazy to find a higher quality version).

  54. #54 Sauceress
    October 19, 2011

    Not those. But your words, like “clinically inapparent infection” and “clinically relevant disease”.

    Pssst…Th1Th2
    Your ignorance of the terminology used in the field of medicine is showing.

  55. #55 Hinterlander
    October 19, 2011

    ARRRRRG the troll comments are doing my head in! How do they keep it up?? I have more sensible conversations with my toddler…

  56. #56 Thanks Tony
    October 19, 2011

    Tony’s reasoning is very helpful. Since I’ve never met anyone who believes that vaccines cause autism, by his reasoning, no one actually believes that (note: I have read posts from people who claim to believe that – but until I see polygraph results, there’s no real evidence that such people exist).

  57. #57 Denice Walter
    October 19, 2011

    You know, how *la* Ding** intrudes into a discussion, heaping inconsequentialities upon irrelevancies, is somewhat analogous to what pseudo-scientists like anti-vaxxers and HIV/AIDS denialists do to a conversation about consensus in science: ” But.. but.. there’s mercury in vaccines!”,” No one has ever isolated HIV!”, or start throwing in the kitchen sink. Any port in a storm.

    After a lengthy explanation that precisely details the error, we’ll hear, “But the mercury”,” They never isolated HIV”, or about bits of DNA or suchlike. So *la Ding* is an exaggerated personification of pseudo-scientifc argument: going nowhere at breakneck speed.

    ** I know, I know, I mixed 2 languages but what the hey, it *is* English.

  58. #58 https://me.yahoo.com/a/PSPW0GU_zfVn3qhjy1tC0lwbbxJLm3O14w--#c1afa
    October 19, 2011

    Thingy,

    Not those. But your words, like “clinically inapparent infection” and “clinically relevant disease”.

    Educated people know these terms. You don’t. Draw the obvious conclusion.

  59. #59 lilady
    October 19, 2011

    Notice how Thingy never answers the questions I had posed to it months ago…when it claimed to be working in a hospital:

    Where did you to university?

    What university degree do you have?

    What professional licensing do you have?

    Where are you employed in any health care field?

    I’ve been out of town for the past two days. Do I get to vote twice to vote Thingy off the island?

  60. #60 Th1Th2
    October 19, 2011

    I think those words are way overdone and redundant. Kevin is just trying to impress.

  61. #61 Th1Th2bot Service Center
    October 19, 2011

    We regret to report that the rap fragment we were able to salvage after the bot ran into hardware problems doesn’t look like it’s going to make it out of moderation.

  62. #62 Gray Falcon
    October 19, 2011

    Th1Th2, I only had to put those terms into Google to find references to them in medical journals. Why didn’t you?

  63. #63 Valerie
    October 19, 2011

    @Helantius (48) Nitpick: “citric acid [aka vitamin C]”
    Actually, these are two different molecules: vitamin C’s correct name is ascorbic acid.
    Citric acid is that the lemon uses as a buffer to kept itself acidic (and kept the vitamin C active).

    Oh crap. I knew I was making a mistake when I wrote that. I even went so far as to search for the two terms together and didn’t pay attention to the results. Thanks for the corrections.

    For lurkers: scientists like me like to be told we were wrong about something so that we can figure out the truth. Pretty minor in this case, but the idea is the same generally. Contrast with people who aren’t interested in the truth, who tend to use insults, write nonsense, and usually don’t answer direct evidence-based challenges to their nonsense.

  64. #64 Stu
    October 19, 2011

    Orac, I vote for a long, long time-out for Thingy. It was fun for a while, but now it’s simply watching a mind disintegrate into complete clinical insanity. It’s not fun, and makes me feel dirty.

  65. #65 W. Kevin Vicklund
    October 19, 2011

    I think those words are way overdone and redundant. Kevin is just trying to impress.

    If you think “Do you dispute that?” is way overused, you might want to reconsider saying it over and over.

  66. #66 T-reg
    October 20, 2011

    Of course, it has everything to do with the discussion since the only lucky candidates for shingles are those persons who have had primary VZV infection either by natural infection or vaccination. Your straw man is this, you are confused whether to call chicken pox as primary infection or a disease.

    *Sigh
    @lurkers:
    Natural history of HZV infection:
    *HZV infects a person not immune to it.
    *HZV enters epithelial cells of the host (where it is active) and causes chicken pox.
    *At this stage, where the immune system doesn’t yet have specific defenses against the virus, it may spread to other systems to complicate chicken pox with CNS, lung, heart etc involvement.
    *HZV also enters peripheral sensory ganglia (type of neurons) – but is dormant here.
    *Immune system eventually produces antibodies against the virus – virus is caught and cleared from the system if it exits the cell (antibodies don’t enter cells) – thus can’t hop to other cells.
    *However, it is safe from the immune system inside the neurons where it lies inactive.
    *Chicken pox eventually subsides (infected epithelial cells are shed off or, like other cells with the ACTIVE virus, are destroyed by cytotoxic t-cells).
    *Following the development of specific immunity against HZV: When the immunity goes down due to any reason, the virus lying dormant in the sensory ganglion is activated – comes out of the ganglion and enters the epithelial cells in the area supplied by that ganglion and causes Shingles.

    Scenario in a previously immune person:
    *HZV infects the immunized individual i.e. enters the body.
    *Antibodies bind to it and render it unable to enter other cells, including neurons.
    *No chincken pox or shingles – no disease.

    So, we learn that HZV causes chicken pox as the primary DISEASE and shingles as the secodary DISEASE when it infects a non-immune individual. However, this still doesn’t change the fact that HZV INFECTION MAY NOT CAUSE DISEASE as seen in the second scenario.
    So, whether shingles is the primary or secondary disease, it has no bearing on the fact that “infection and dise’ase are 2 separate (although not mutually exclusive) entities.

    @Thingy:

    Your straw man is this, you are confused whether to call chicken pox as primary infection or a disease

    • You don’t really understand what is a strawman fallacy
    • You are clearly the one confused regarding the terminology used in medical science
  67. #67 T-reg
    October 20, 2011

    Of course, it has everything to do with the discussion since the only lucky candidates for shingles are those persons who have had primary VZV infection either by natural infection or vaccination. Your straw man is this, you are confused whether to call chicken pox as primary infection or a disease.

    *Sigh
    @lurkers:
    Natural history of HZV infection:
    *HZV infects a person not immune to it.
    *HZV enters epithelial cells of the host (where it is active) and causes chicken pox.
    *At this stage, where the immune system doesn’t yet have specific defenses against the virus, it may spread to other systems to complicate chicken pox with CNS, lung, heart etc involvement.
    *HZV also enters peripheral sensory ganglia (type of neurons) – but is dormant here.
    *Immune system eventually produces antibodies against the virus – virus is caught and cleared from the system if it exits the cell (antibodies don’t enter cells) – thus can’t hop to other cells.
    *However, it is safe from the immune system inside the neurons where it lies inactive.
    *Chicken pox eventually subsides (infected epithelial cells are shed off or, like other cells with the ACTIVE virus, are destroyed by cytotoxic t-cells).
    *Following the development of specific immunity against HZV: When the immunity goes down due to any reason, the virus lying dormant in the sensory ganglion is activated – comes out of the ganglion and enters the epithelial cells in the area supplied by that ganglion and causes Shingles.

    Scenario in a previously immune person:
    *HZV infects the immunized individual i.e. enters the body.
    *Antibodies bind to it and render it unable to enter other cells, including neurons.
    *No chincken pox or shingles – no disease.

    So, we learn that HZV causes chicken pox as the primary DISEASE and shingles as the secodary DISEASE when it infects a non-immune individual. However, this still doesn’t change the fact that HZV INFECTION MAY NOT CAUSE DISEASE as seen in the second scenario.
    So, whether shingles is the primary or secondary disease, it has no bearing on the fact that “infection and disease are 2 separate (although not mutually exclusive) entities” and infection doesn’t necessarily translate into disease.

    @Thingy:

    Your straw man is this, you are confused whether to call chicken pox as primary infection or a disease

    *You don’t really understand what is a strawman fallacy.
    *You are clearly the one confused regarding the terminology used in medical science.

  68. #68 Julian Frost
    October 20, 2011

    @Th1Th2:

    The measles vaccine, to be effective, MUST not only infect but MUST replicate inside the host. Do you dispute this?

    Yes, we do dispute this. The virus does not need to replicate to provoke an immune response.

  69. #69 T-reg
    October 20, 2011

    Of course, it has everything to do with the discussion since the only lucky candidates for shingles are those persons who have had primary VZV infection either by natural infection or vaccination. Your straw man is this, you are confused whether to call chicken pox as primary infection or a disease.

    *Sigh
    @lurkers:
    Natural history of HZV infection:
    *HZV infects a person not immune to it.
    *HZV enters epithelial cells of the host (where it is active) and causes chicken pox.
    *At this stage, where the immune system doesn’t yet have specific defenses against the virus, it may spread to other systems to complicate chicken pox with CNS, lung, heart etc involvement.
    *HZV also enters peripheral sensory ganglia (type of neurons) – but is dormant here.
    *Immune system eventually produces antibodies against the virus – virus is caught and cleared from the system if it exits the cell (antibodies don’t enter cells) – thus can’t hop to other cells.
    *However, it is safe from the immune system inside the neurons where it lies inactive.
    *Chicken pox eventually subsides (infected epithelial cells are shed off or, like other cells with the ACTIVE virus, are destroyed by cytotoxic t-cells).
    *Following the development of specific immunity against HZV: When the immunity goes down due to any reason, the virus lying dormant in the sensory ganglion is activated – comes out of the ganglion and enters the epithelial cells in the area supplied by that ganglion and causes Shingles.

    Scenario in a previously immune person:
    *HZV infects the immunized individual i.e. enters the body.
    *Antibodies bind to it and render it unable to enter other cells, including neurons.
    *No chincken pox or shingles – no disease.

    So, we learn that HZV causes chicken pox as the primary DISEASE and shingles as the secodary DISEASE when it infects a non-immune individual. However, this still doesn’t change the fact that HZV INFECTION MAY NOT CAUSE DISEASE as seen in the second scenario.
    So, whether shingles is the primary or secondary disease, it has no bearing on the fact that “infection and disease are 2 separate (although not mutually exclusive) entities” and infection doesn’t necessarily translate into disease.

    @Thingy:

    Your straw man is this, you are confused whether to call chicken pox as primary infection or a disease

    *You don’t really understand what is a strawman fallacy.
    *You are clearly the one confused regarding the terminology used in medical science.

  70. #70 puppygod
    October 20, 2011

    I have to cast a vote on ban thingy side. I understand argument about educating lurkers, but in case of thingy it doesn’t work anymore. See, you cannot get the right answers if your questions are wrong. All the effort is wasted and not only it’s not productive, but actually it’s counter-productive. At that moment I have thingy on killfile, so when I enter thread where she showed up I see dozens of “Comment by Th1Th2 blocked.” with – mostly contentless – interspersed posts by other posters reminding others about not-feeding trolls or replying to thingy and reinstating for the nth time some basic truism like “disease is not the same as infection”. And for every fifty or so posts like that there are maybe five or six that really explain things and maybe other two that are actually related to the topic in the first place. I mean, it’s like every thread is massive rail-road catastrophe. Not easy to sift through all that and find useful bits.

    Since I’m opposed to censoring and banning (Server-side, that is. User determined killfiles and filters are totally different story.), maybe instead of ban it would be possible to mark thingy as “always go through moderation”? It would at least helped to dilute nonsense and therefore improved actual content percentage in the replies. It has to be possible – for some reason all my posts sent from home computer (as opposed to workplace machine) are held for moderation – if I can live with that, then thingy should too.

  71. #71 T-reg
    October 20, 2011

    But are you claiming that measles vaccines are more immunogenic thus more protective than natural infection?

    @thingy:
    You have amply demonstrated that you are a moron who fails to understand the context of the statement. This new example to demonstrate that property of yours was really not necessary. We understood it the first time.

    @lurkers:
    I’m merely stating that acquiring immunity by vaccine induced infection is far SAFER than acquiring the immunity by natural infection (the former doesn’t cause the disease while the latter causes the disease and even death in some cases).
    Immunogenicity has nothing to do with it.
    Difference in immunogenitcity of the antigens doesn’t change the fact that an infection doesn’t always cause disease. It doesn’t change the fact that the vaccine infection is far safer than the natural (virulent strain) infection.
    Immunogenicity just determines the chance of developing immunity with a single exposure, and how long that immunity lasts. If the immnunogenicity is lower, increasing the frequency of exposure ensures development of effective immunity (simple property of probability) – booster shots.
    Again, practically no bearing on the safety of vaccines and no bearing on the fact that vaccine induced infection doesn’t cause the disease.

    The thingy method at argument:
    *Make a statement which makes an assertion based on the wrong premise that ‘A is the same as B’.
    *When you are shown that A and B are indeed different and hence the assertion based on it is wrong, try to confabulate by saying “oh so you are saying that ‘B and C are the same’?” (where the relationship between B and C has nothing to do with the relationship between A and B). This shall ensure that the focus is shifted from your actual fallacy.
    *Use technical Terms and phrases (which you do not understand) to sound sagacious (don’t worry about inappropriate usage – after all, no one will notice).

  72. #72 Delurked
    October 20, 2011

    mentally deranged troll said

    “The measles vaccine, to be effective, MUST not only infect but MUST replicate inside the host. Do you dispute this?”

    Absolutely ! Citations please to prove your statement otherwise, as a longtime lurker and fence sitter on your trip to the bottom of the lake to ‘sleep with the fishes’ in Orac’s sandbox, I will join the chorus in saying “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”

    Put up or shut up Thing

  73. #73 Th1Th2
    October 20, 2011

    Julian Frost and Delurked,

    1.

    Yes, we do dispute this. The virus does not need to replicate to provoke an immune response.

    2.

    Absolutely ! Citations please to prove your statement otherwise, as a longtime lurker and fence sitter on your trip to the bottom of the lake to ‘sleep with the fishes’ in Orac’s sandbox, I will join the chorus in saying “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”
    Put up or shut up Thing

    Principles of Vaccination
     

    To produce an immune response, live attenuated vaccines must replicate (grow) in the vaccinated person. A relatively small dose of virus or bacteria is administered, which replicates in the body and creates enough of the organism to stimulate an immune response. Anything that either damages the live organisms in the vial (e.g., heat, light) or interferes with replication of the organism in the body (circulating antibody) can cause the vaccine to be ineffective.

    As usual, everyday is a learning process for science-free, ignorance-based RI.

    Good night.

  74. #74 Sauceress
    October 20, 2011

    Just in case my comment @243 may have been misconstrued (due to an unfortunate timing) as a desire to see Th1Th2 continue on, it wasn’t.
    Th1Th2 really needs to go chill out somewhere for awhile.

    @Th1Th2
    Seriously Th1Th2, stop and have a think about what you are doing to yourself here.

  75. #75 Militant Agnostic
    October 20, 2011

    As far as Jay Gordon is concerned April would be a better month since it is already “Safe Digging Month”.

  76. #76 Reuben
    October 20, 2011

    Reading comprehension 101, Thing. Viruses DO NOT need to multiply to have an immune response. Vaccines from live attenuated viruses require the virus to multiply to work. Both are not mutually exclusive nor collectively exhaustive concepts. You’re embarrassing yourself.

    Pop quiz, Thing:

    “Everyday” is a learning process? Or “every day” is a learning process?

    Which one is right, troll?

  77. #77 lilady
    October 20, 2011

    Thingy: Why do you continue to bring up live attenuated viral vaccines and confusing infection with disease…it has already been explained to you upteen times…most recently by T-Reg.

    Your reference to the CDC Pink Book and twisted the words to fit your own delusions about vaccines and the diseases they prevent are evidence of your lack of education, your lack of professional licensing and your lack of employment in any health care field.

    Information is gathered from the patient about pre-existing conditions that might constitute a medical contraindication against receiving a live attenuated vaccine, such as SCID (Severe Combined Immune Deficiency)and history of a anaphylaxis to any of the components of the MMR vaccine…all of which have been discussed in prior RI blogs…which Thingy has argued about in hundreds of aimless delusional derailing posts. That is the reason why only licensed medical professionals are permitted to administer vaccines.

    The problems with Thingy’s arguments against vaccine have also been discussed:

    It is delusional

    It has no education at all in the sciences

    It has no professional licensing

    It has no gainful employment, no less employment in the health care field.

    I again vote for actual banning or extensive long moderation of its comments to prevent it from derailing each and every blog.

    Here is another statement from the CDC for laypersons who have questions about the MMR Vaccines:

    What kind of vaccine is given to prevent measles?

    The MMR vaccine prevents measles and 2 other viral diseases—mumps and rubella. These 3 vaccines are safe given together. MMR is an attenuated (weakened) live virus vaccine. This means that after injection, the viruses grows and causes a harmless infection in the vaccinated person with very few, if any, symptoms. The person’s immune system fights the infection caused by these weakened viruses and immunity develops which lasts throughout that person’s life. (CDC Measles-Q & A about Disease & Vaccine)

  78. #78 Collin
    October 20, 2011

    He was honest in another way too:
    “… my books … cause brain damage”

    LOL

  79. #79 W. Kevin Vicklund
    October 20, 2011

    Reading comprehension 101, Thing. Viruses DO NOT need to multiply to have an immune response. Vaccines from live attenuated viruses require the virus to multiply to work. Both are not mutually exclusive nor collectively exhaustive concepts. You’re embarrassing yourself.

    Sorry, Reuben, but you failed reading comprehension yourself (as did Julian Frost and Delurked). Thingy’s statement was restricted to measles, which does require replication. You fell for her latest ploy, which is to pretend that someone said the opposite of what they actually said.

    To recap, the part that was wrong was not the statement, but the question that implied the quote said the opposite of what was actually said.

  80. #80 Prometheus
    October 20, 2011

    W. Kevin Vicklund states:

    “…measles [vaccine], which does require replication.”

    Yes and no. The current world standard measles vaccine – a component of the MMR vaccine – is an attenuated strain of measles virus, which does replicate and stimulates an immune response.

    However, if the attenuated measles strain was unable to replicate (as is seen in some people with mutations of the CD46 cell surface protein), it can still stimulate an immune response, although that response will be inadequate (in most cases) because the amount of virus in the MMR is so low.

    Additionally, there was an inactivated measles vaccine (I got it as a child) which – by definition – didn’t require replication to work. By way of illustration, “Th1Th2” claims that administering this sort of vaccine also constitutes an “infection”.

    None of this, of course, validates anything that “Th1Th2” has said (about anything). I rather strongly suspect that “Th1Th2” is simply rigidly contrarian and would vehently protest that the Earth is flat if Orac said it was round.

    Prometheus

  81. #81 Th1Th2
    October 20, 2011

    Kevin,

    Thingy’s statement was restricted to measles, which does require replication.

    No it wasn’t. ALL live vaccines MUST infect and replicate inside the host. Don’t be a fool.

  82. #82 novalox
    October 20, 2011

    I have to say, T-reg, I do enjoy your posts. Very educational and easy to read, as well as based in scientific fact.

  83. #83 Th1Th2
    October 20, 2011

    Prometheus,

    Additionally, there was an inactivated measles vaccine (I got it as a child) which – by definition – didn’t require replication to work. By way of illustration, “Th1Th2” claims that administering this sort of vaccine also constitutes an “infection”.

    Well, it’s definitely an infection. Infection precedes replication however the latter is absent in inactivated vaccines. Following the link I posted above, it further states:

    Inactivated vaccines are not alive and cannot replicate. The entire dose of  antigen is administered in the injection. These vaccines cannot cause disease from infection, even in an immunodeficient person.

  84. #84 W. Kevin Vicklund
    October 20, 2011

    However, if the attenuated measles strain was unable to replicate (as is seen in some people with mutations of the CD46 cell surface protein), it can still stimulate an immune response, although that response will be inadequate (in most cases) because the amount of virus in the MMR is so low.

    And thus not effective.

    Additionally, there was an inactivated measles vaccine (I got it as a child) which – by definition – didn’t require replication to work.

    But there was a problem. All too often, it wasn’t effective, in a manner that made later infection by wild-type measles to lead to atypical measles, which is generally worse than regular measles. The frequency at which this happened was high enough to justify stating that the inactivated measles vaccine was not effective. (I can see the other side of the argument, but think about this: the inactivated vaccine is no longer available)

  85. #85 Reuben
    October 20, 2011

    @W. Kevin Vicklund (is there a Roman numeral after your name by any chance? Because it should.)

    That’s what I get for coming into an idiotic conversation late into it.

  86. #86 W. Kevin Vicklund
    October 20, 2011

    W. Kevin Vicklund (is there a Roman numeral after your name by any chance? Because it should.)

    No, my middle name is not the same as my father’s or grandfather’s (and their middle names aren’t the same either). So no Jr. or Sr. or III or any such silliness.

    Don’t feel too bad; Thingy has only recently started this particular brand of outright dishonesty. Take it as a cautionary warning.

  87. #87 W. Kevin Vicklund
    October 20, 2011

    ALL live vaccines MUST infect and replicate inside the host.

    Nonetheless, your statement as written was restricted to measles vaccine.

  88. #88 Prometheus
    October 20, 2011

    “Th1Th2” (#283):

    “Well, it’s definitely an infection. Infection precedes replication however the latter is absent in inactivated vaccines.”

    QED. “Th1Th2” thinks that injecting anything is an “infection”. Thus, by his/her/its definition, injecting hepatitis B surface antigen is an “infection” with hepatitus B and, by extension, injecting sterile wood splinters is an “infection” with Pinus strobus, injecting insulin is an “infection” with insulin, injecting penicillin is an “infection” with Penicillium notatum, etc…

    W. Kevin Vicklund,

    I didn’t mean to say that you were completely incorrect, just that there are some nuances involved. You can develop an effective immunity with the attenuated measles vaccine in the absence of replication if the vaccination is given often enough. Likewise, although the inactivated measles vaccine had problems with efficacy, it did provide useful immunity to the majority of people who received it.

    Of course, none of that supports whatever it was that “Th1Th2” was trying to say vis a vis her/his/its eccentric (and incorrect) concept of “infection”. There really isn’t any point in trying to debate someone who is either feigning mental illness or is legitimately mentally ill – all we can do is correct the misinformation she/he/it spews forth.

    Prometheus

  89. #89 Edith Prickly
    October 20, 2011

    I have to say, T-reg, I do enjoy your posts. Very educational and easy to read, as well as based in scientific fact.

    I heartily concur. the Thing’s responses get weaker every time T-reg smacks it down.

    And I would agree that a time-out for the Thing (whether outright ban or moderation purgatory) is a good idea. It’s rapidly losing its entertainment value and is now reduced to using endless variations on the Pee Wee Herman gambit (“I know you are, but what am I?”) to draw attention to its nonsensical arguments.

  90. #90 Th1Th2
    October 20, 2011
    However, if the attenuated measles strain was unable to replicate (as is seen in some people with mutations of the CD46 cell surface protein), it can still stimulate an immune response, although that response will be inadequate (in most cases) because the amount of virus in the MMR is so low.

    And thus not effective.

    Horrible assertion after horrible assertion. It’s not the measles vaccine would stimulate an inadequate or ineffective immune response but instead the vaccine virus (being unrestricted) would cause considerable tissue damage if given to the immunocompromised (e.g., CD46-deficient) not to mention persistent and chronic infection.

  91. #91 Th1Th2
    October 20, 2011

    I’m merely stating that acquiring immunity by vaccine induced infection is far SAFER than acquiring the immunity by natural infection (the former doesn’t cause the disease while the latter causes the disease and even death in some cases).

    But the fact still remains that you are an infection promoter and that you’re not really preventing nor controlling infectious diseases. You have admitted that measles vaccines cause measles infection. How is this different for the measles disease that you’re trying to define (actually you have not define what a disease is)?

    Immunogenicity has nothing to do with it.
    Difference in immunogenitcity of the antigens doesn’t change the fact that an infection doesn’t always cause disease.

    Again that is demonstrably false. Immunogenicity is sacred to vaccine makers. It could mean vaccine failure or disaster (e.g. High-titer measles vaccine). And you’re implying that such highly immunogenic vaccine “doesn’t always cause the disease”. Well, you’re right. It didn’t at least for the said vaccine. Only an increased incidence of mortality. Thank you come again.

  92. #92 Queen Khentkawes
    October 20, 2011

    I miss Happeh. He was lots of fun.

    Sid and Jen are just your garden-variety cranks. I can take ’em or leave ’em.

    While reading Augie’s posts, it always amused me to picture him as Oliver Crangle at the climactic moment of four o’clock when the avian theropod stared at him with a thoughtful look in its eye.

    But what about Thang-Thang? Sure, he was mildly funny with that keeping naive children away from dirt and grass and crap. But now the thrill is gone, and I am warming to the idea that Orac should send him to katorga.

  93. #93 Prometheus
    October 20, 2011

    “Th1Th2” (#290):

    “It’s not the measles vaccine would stimulate an inadequate or ineffective immune response but instead the vaccine virus (being unrestricted) would cause considerable tissue damage if given to the immunocompromised (e.g., CD46-deficient) not to mention persistent and chronic infection.”

    Not that anybody is looking to “Th1Th2” as a source of information, but “CD46-deficient” is not the same as a CD46 mutation. In addition, the only disorder associated with absent or truncated CD46 is atypical haemolytic-uremic syndrome (not immunodeficiency).

    CD46 is a cell-surface protein that is a complement cleavage co-factor. It is also used as a binding site for measles virus and HHV-6, so mutation of certain domains can make people non-permissive (as opposed to “immune”) for measles and, presumably, HHV-6.

    I’m not sure where “Th1Th2” is getting his/her/its “facts”, but they aren’t consistent with what we know in this Universe.

    Prometheus

  94. #94 lilady
    October 20, 2011

    @ Thingy: Why don’t you just go away. Your posts are the result of your delusional mental problems. And, no we are not going to provide you with any education about immunology, rational thinking and basic science….which you are so sorely missing.

    Why don’t you provide us with your “credentials”?:

    Your degree from any school, your professional licensing and your experiences working in the health care field.

  95. #95 Th1Th2
    October 20, 2011

    CD46 is a cell-surface protein that is a complement cleavage co-factor. It is also used as a binding site for measles virus and HHV-6, so mutation of certain domains can make people non-permissive (as opposed to “immune”) for measles and, presumably, HHV-6.

    And what is the implication of this mutation to the immunocomprised if given the measles vaccine?

    And your answer was, “inadequate immune response”? Meaning less effective vaccine and more importantly the host will just be fine, no?

  96. #96 Th1Th2
    October 20, 2011

    Nonetheless, your statement as written was restricted to measles vaccine.

    Now that you’re done making an alibi, let’s discuss the other live vaccines shall we? Or are you still going to dispute the fact that ALL live vaccines MUST infect and replicate in the host?

  97. #97 Th1Th2
    October 20, 2011

    But what about Thang-Thang? Sure, he was mildly funny with that keeping naive children away from dirt and grass and crap.

    [Citation needed]

  98. #98 Gray Falcon
    October 20, 2011

    Th1Th2, you never give any citations. Stop demanding what you don’t give.

  99. #99 Prometheus
    October 20, 2011

    “Th1Th2” (#295):

    “And what is the implication of this mutation [CD46] to the immunocomprised [sic] if given the measles vaccine?”

    [1] Immunocompromised people are not generally given live virus vaccines, although there are exceptions based on their particular type of immune dysfunction (there are many different types and degrees).

    [2] If an immunocompromised patient with a CD46 mutation (as mentioned above, the two are not related – no CD46 mutation has been found that leads to immunodeficiency) that made them non-permissive (meaning that the virus cannot replicate in their cells) received the attenuated measles vaccine, there would be no replication of the virus and no detectable immune response. However, they would already be protected from (most strains of) the wild-type measles virus by their CD46 mutation.

    The rest of the question from “Th1Th2” was a non sequitur.

    Prometheus

  100. #100 Queen Khentkawes
    October 20, 2011

    @ Th1Th2 #297:

    Always happy to oblige.

    http:// http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=7223#comment-57549
    (I put 2 spaces after the slashes to get this past moderation.)

  101. #101 Narad
    October 20, 2011

    Always happy to oblige.

    It is peculiar that it’s been responding in this fashion to invocations of what is perhaps its most well known and widely mocked comment.

  102. #102 W. Kevin Vicklund
    October 20, 2011

    Or are you still going to dispute the fact that ALL live vaccines MUST infect and replicate in the host?

    I have NEVER disputed that, though the statement is a bit redundant.

    Now that we have that cleared up, have you stopped slaughtering naive children in areas where polio is endemic?

  103. #103 Th1Th2
    October 20, 2011

    [1] Immunocompromised people are not generally given live virus vaccines, although there are exceptions based on their particular type of immune dysfunction (there are many different types and degrees).

    Like?

    there would be no replication of the virus and no detectable immune response.

    Again you’ve failed to point out the implication of a nonreplicating virus inside the host cell more so in the absence of detectable immune response from the host. Is this something good?

    Worse, is that you had the audacity to falsely conclude that in such events the host would still be “protected” from subsequent infection. What a horrible idea. (Hint: vaccine failure)

  104. #104 Th1Th2
    October 20, 2011

    Now that we have that cleared up, have you stopped slaughtering naive children in areas where polio is endemic?

    That was your idea.

  105. #105 Sauceress
    October 20, 2011

    #280 Prometheus

    if the attenuated measles strain was unable to replicate (as is seen in some people with mutations of the CD46 cell surface protein), it can still stimulate an immune response, although that response will be inadequate (in most cases) because the amount of virus in the MMR is so low.

    #290 Th1Th2

    It’s not the measles vaccine would stimulate an inadequate or ineffective immune response but instead the vaccine virus (being unrestricted) would cause considerable tissue damage if given to the immunocompromised (e.g., CD46-deficient) not to mention persistent and chronic infection.

    #293 Prometheus

    I’m not sure where “Th1Th2” is getting his/her/its “facts”, but they aren’t consistent with what we know in this Universe.

    Prometheus
    All that Th1Th2 did @290 was to take your comment, twist it around some, substitute “deficient” in place of mutation and then mix in some garbage.

    Like this..

    It’s not the measles vaccine….but instead the vaccine virus (being unrestricted)…

    Th1Th2 is just desperately trying to convince others that it knows what it is talking about.

  106. #106 Prometheus
    October 20, 2011

    “Th1Th2” (#303):

    “Again you’ve failed to point out the implication of a nonreplicating virus inside the host cell more so in the absence of detectable immune response from the host. Is this something good?”

    If the measles virus (wild-type or vaccine strain) is unable to bind with CD46 – because it is absent or mutated – the virus cannot enter the cell. CD46 is necessary for the fusion of the viral membrane with the cell membrane, so a non-permissive mutation would prevent the virus from entering the cell. [Note: some studies show that CDw150/SLAF1 is an alternate binding protein]

    Secondly, the measles virus has a (-) sense ssRNA genome, so a measles virus that did enter the cell but was unable to replicate (for whatever reason) would be rapidly degraded by cellular RNAses.

    Finally, an intracellular virus is not accessible to the humoural immune system (antibodies), but viral proteins expressed on the cell (either as a consequence of the virus replication or displayed on MHC molecules) would target the cell for destruction by T-cells.

    The remainder of the question from “Th1Th2” was a non sequitur.

    Prometheus

  107. #107 Sauceress
    October 20, 2011

    Excellent post Prometheus.

  108. #108 LW
    October 20, 2011

    “The remainder of the question from ‘Th1Th2’ was a non sequitur.”

    The rest of the question was gibberish. Even the part you answered didn’t make sense — what does “more so” even relate to?

    Thank you for your clear explanations, by the way, here and many other times. I remember reading once that some people are naturally immune to measles, but I didn’t know why. I appreciate your explanation.

  109. #109 W. Kevin Vicklund
    October 20, 2011

    Nope, it was yours:

    Th1Th2, do you think Jansici’s method of rinderpest eradication should be used in measles and poliomyelitis eradication efforts?

    Yes.

    Lancisi’s method included slaughtering those animals not immune.

    So, answer the question:

    Have you stopped slaughtering naive children in areas where polio is endemic?

  110. #110 Prometheus
    October 20, 2011

    Sauceress,

    Thank you for your concern. I do realise that “Th1Th2” is using the “build-a-bear” method of coming up with retorts and rhetorical questions, but I’ve decided that when – through random recombination – he/she/it comes up with a reasonable question, I’ll answer it, just in case there are people out there who’d like to have the answer.

    I don’t have any illusions that “Th1Th2” is actually seeking information – she/he/it is either mentally ill or feigning mental illness for reasons only he/she/it can fathom. I do hope to help other people better understand the strange world of micobiology and molecular biology.

    LW,

    Quite so – gibberish is definitely more a accurate term than non sequitur. I think I’ll use that instead.

    W. Kevin Vicklund,

    Nicely played, Sir! However, I suspect that the humour is lost on “Th1Th2”.

    Prometheus

  111. #111 Th1Th2
    October 20, 2011

    If the measles virus (wild-type or vaccine strain) is unable to bind with CD46 – because it is absent or mutated – the virus cannot enter the cell. CD46 is necessary for the fusion of the viral membrane with the cell membrane, so a non-permissive mutation would prevent the virus from entering the cell. [Note: some studies show that CDw150/SLAF1 is an alternate binding protein]

    Again you’re deliberately dodging the question: What would happen to the unbound virus? Since the virus cannot replicate inside of the host cell because of mutation, where does it go then?

    Secondly, the measles virus has a (-) sense ssRNA genome, so a measles virus that did enter the cell but was unable to replicate (for whatever reason) would be rapidly degraded by cellular RNAses.

    How is that possible when you claimed there is no immune response?

    Tell me you’re bluffing.

  112. #112 Th1Th2
    October 20, 2011

    Lancisi’s method included slaughtering those animals not immune.

    Of course, [Citation needed].

  113. #113 Gray Falcon
    October 20, 2011

    Here’s the citation: http://www.bluesci.org/?p=1960

    His solution was to control its spread by slaughtering ill and suspect animals, burying carcases in lime, controlling the movement of cattle and inspecting meat.

  114. #114 Th1Th2
    October 20, 2011

    Finally, an intracellular virus is not accessible to the humoural immune system (antibodies), but viral proteins expressed on the cell (either as a consequence of the virus replication or displayed on MHC molecules) would target the cell for destruction by T-cells.

    Haha. So you’re going to state the obvious because there is a strong necessity for you to flip-flop?

  115. #115 Th1Th2
    October 20, 2011

    His solution was to control its spread by slaughtering ill and suspect animals, burying carcases in lime, controlling the movement of cattle and inspecting meat.

    That doesn’t sound like “genocidal” to me which Kevin was trying to portray, does it?

  116. #116 Gray Falcon
    October 20, 2011

    “Suspect”, in this instance, would mean anyone exposed to the disease that wasn’t immune. In the case of measles, that would be an entire town.

  117. #117 Th1Th2
    October 20, 2011

    “Suspect”, in this instance, would mean anyone exposed to the disease that wasn’t immune. In the case of measles, that would be an entire town.

    And how about those non-immune who were not exposed to the disease? I bet Kevin would kill them too including you if you were one of them.

  118. #118 Gray Falcon
    October 20, 2011

    Th1Th2:

    And how about those non-immune who were not exposed to the disease? I bet Kevin would kill them too including you if you were one of them.

    No, that wasn’t part of Lancisi’s solution. Which, I might add, you advocated without bothering to read. Did it ever occur to you to actually learn something about what you’re talking about?

    By the way, you have no real right to talk about morals:

    It’s easy to see you’re in a bargaining stage. Sorry but you can’t turn back time. It’s a tragedy to have an autistic child, not a blessing. Nobody wants to have an autistic child. You should be blamed for everything but you were in denial for a long time. You’re just digging yourself deeper into the hole. Learn from your mistakes. Sorry, but there’s no second chance. Poor kiddo.

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/05/the_2011_measles_outbreak_and_vaccines_i.php#comment-4065513

  119. #119 Th1Th2
    October 20, 2011

    No, that wasn’t part of Lancisi’s solution. Which, I might add, you advocated without bothering to read. Did it ever occur to you to actually learn something about what you’re talking about?

    I’m confused. Who are you arguing with? For Kevin, Lancisi’s method was a “genocidal technique” which I disagree. Now stop wasting my time.

  120. #120 Gray Falcon
    October 20, 2011

    Th1Th2, I’m arguing with you, you vile thug. Are you suggesting killing entire villages and towns because they were exposed to measles isn’t genocidal? Because that’s what using Lancisi’s method to contain measles would entail. Did you even bother to read about Lancisi beyond that he contained rhinderpest without vaccines? Why do you believe that if part of something agrees with you, that you can safely ignore the rest? Are you truly incapable of understanding basic concepts of human honesty?

  121. #121 LW
    October 20, 2011

    “Are you truly incapable of understanding basic concepts of human honesty?”

    Is that a rhetorical question?

  122. #122 Gray Falcon
    October 20, 2011

    @LW: Probably. She seriously crossed the moral event horizon with the comment I referenced in #318. I don’t think she’s capable of recognizing how hurtful that was.

  123. #123 Th1Th2
    October 21, 2011

    Th1Th2, I’m arguing with you, you vile thug. Are you suggesting killing entire villages and towns because they were exposed to measles isn’t genocidal?

    So you actually believed Lancisi’s method was genocidal? That all naive children are suspects therefore should be slaughtered?

  124. #124 W. Kevin Vicklund
    October 21, 2011

    I bet Kevin would kill them too including you if you were one of them.

    Unlike Thingy, I don’t advocate slaughtering humans (I’m even against the death penalty).

  125. #125 W. Kevin Vicklund
    October 21, 2011

    What would happen to the unbound virus? Since the virus cannot replicate inside of the host cell because of mutation, where does it go then?

    Nothing happens. Or rather, the virus faces one of the following fates: it eventually dies and is scavenged, it is eventually killed by the innate immune system, or it is eventually excreted. It fails to cause any damage in any of the cases (you are aware that a virus can only cause damage if it gets inside a cell, right?).

    Secondly, the measles virus has a (-) sense ssRNA genome, so a measles virus that did enter the cell but was unable to replicate (for whatever reason) would be rapidly degraded by cellular RNAses.

    How is that possible when you claimed there is no immune response?

    Cellular RNAses are not part of the immune system. They recycle RNA in the cell without regard to whether it is “self” or “other”.

  126. #126 Th1Th2bot Service Center
    October 21, 2011

    Now stop wasting my time.

    On behalf of the bot, which is still in delicate shape, we its caretakers would like to mention that the surfeit of free time that you yourself seem to have on your hands is perhaps matched only by the abundance accompanying your having apparently fallen into an inheritence of an otherwise disused gall factory, which vaguely reminds us of Eli Wallach’s performance in Circle of Iron. And we do mean vaguely.

    The poor bot has in all likelihood expended more cycles prior to its convalescence than you have in toto. (The recovered fragment of its final communiqué did make it out, @176.) There’s one thing to remember: On the free market, the bot will always win out, because it has class.

  127. #127 lilady
    October 21, 2011

    @ Gray Falcon: It is such an odious troll which has taken over this blog repeatedly…and it always resorts to vile inhumane comments about disabled kids.

    At the risk of stuffing the ballot box to black-ball this delusional disease-promoting nasty troll, I again state I am in favor of banning this POS evil Thingy. Let it get its “jollies” some other way, not by its crass, vulgar postings.

  128. #128 T-reg
    October 21, 2011

    Thank you novalox and Edith.

    @Prometheus:
    excellent post at #306.

    @Thingy:
    Could you please tell us why and how you disagree with prometheus @#306? Some pearls of your knowledge regarding how a virus affects the body and how the immune system responds to it?

    As far as the difference between disease and infection goes:
    * Infectious diseases, also known as communicable diseases, contagious diseases or transmissible diseases comprise clinically evident illness (i.e., characteristic medical signs and/or symptoms of disease) resulting from infection – presence and growth of pathogenic biological agents in an individual host organism.

    * Infection is the presence of and replication of a parasitic organism in the host.
    * Infectious Disease results when tissues or organ systems are destroyed by the organism (eventually leading to clinically evident signs and symptoms).
    * In case of infectious diseases where a long time elapses between the infection and clinically evident signs and symptoms, laboratory tests can give evidence of characteristic sub-clinical tissue damage or organ system damage.
    * A disease is defined by its characteristic signs and symptoms or derangement in the laboratory test values – mere presence of the infecting organism isn’t enough to define a disease.

    As an example, the gut is normally colonized by a variety of organisms, including E.coli. But we don’t say that we have a disease till there is clinically evident signs and symptoms (e.g. diarrhea, vomiting, haematochezia etc).

    If you want to delve deeper into it than what most people have given you here, why don’t you go to college/university and take up a course in the life sciences/Health care? I presume that you are an adult and there is only so much one can be spoon-fed.

  129. #129 Denice Walter
    October 21, 2011

    @ Th1Th2bot Service Center:

    In admiring tribute to the bot, I’ve been singing, “We got the bot!”** recently.

    ** my apologies to George Clinton & Co.

  130. #130 Prometheus
    October 21, 2011

    “Th1Th2” (#311):

    Secondly, the measles virus has a (-) sense ssRNA genome, so a measles virus that did enter the cell but was unable to replicate (for whatever reason) would be rapidly degraded by cellular RNAses.

    How is that possible when you claimed there is no immune response? Tell me you’re bluffing.”

    Ah, so “Th1Th2” isn’t aware that RNAses are found inside every cell – bacterial, archaeal and eukaryotic. I wonder what else he/she/it doesn’t know – I’d wager there are entire libraries full of the biological and medical information “Th1Th2” lacks.

    And I note that “Th1Th2” – who claims to be so knowledgable about the immune system – is also unaware of how the MHC system works.

    Prometheus

  131. #131 Th1Th2
    October 22, 2011

    Nothing happens.

    That’s it? Nothing happens? Wow. Of course you know that that is one big pile of crap. Are you saying that people with CD46 mutation are not susceptible to measles?

    Or rather, the virus faces one of the following fates: it eventually dies and is scavenged, it is eventually killed by the innate immune system, or it is eventually excreted.

    That’s a contradiction to your previous statement. Again how are these possible when there is “no detectable immune response” like you said?

    Cellular RNAses are not part of the immune system. They recycle RNA in the cell without regard to whether it is “self” or “other”.

    Let me ask you why do you keep recycling crap?

  132. #132 W. Kevin Vicklund
    October 22, 2011

    That’s it? Nothing happens? Wow. Of course you know that that is one big pile of crap. Are you saying that people with CD46 mutation are not susceptible to measles?

    People with certain CD46 mutations are not susceptible to measles by strains that rely on the CD46 receptor – as mentioned earlier, there are some non-CD46 strains. The only way for the measles virus to cause measles is for it to enter cells. If it can’t enter cells, it can’t cause measles. This is basic virology.

    Or rather, the virus faces one of the following fates: it eventually dies and is scavenged, it is eventually killed by the innate immune system, or it is eventually excreted.

    That’s a contradiction to your previous statement. Again how are these possible when there is “no detectable immune response” like you said?

    First of all, I never made that statement – stop lying about what I have said. In any case, two of those scenarios don’t involve the immune system, and the third is the innate immune system, much of which involves no detectable immune response, not the adaptive immune system, which does involve a detectable immune response. So there is no contradiction.

  133. #133 Captain Quirk
    October 22, 2011

    I am highly supportive of people becoming more aware of vaccine injuries. Namely, that they are very rare and don’t include autism.

    But trying to hijack Breast Cancer Awareness for pseudoscience? Low…

  134. #134 Th1Th2
    October 26, 2011

    Prometheus,

    People with certain CD46 mutations are not susceptible to measles by strains that rely on the CD46 receptor – as mentioned earlier, there are some non-CD46 strains.

    Again who are these persons with CD46 mutations that you claimed not susceptible to measles.

    The only way for the measles virus to cause measles is for it to enter cells. If it can’t enter cells, it can’t cause measles. This is basic virology.

    True, hence why you are an infection promoter. 

    First of all, I never made that statement – stop lying about what I have said.

    Of course you did. Why do you have to deny it?

    At #299 you said,

    [2] If an immunocompromised patient with a CD46 mutation […]received the attenuated measles vaccine, there would be no replication of the virus and no detectable immune response.

    In any case, two of those scenarios don’t involve the immune system,

    Are you saying the virus spontaneously dies off in the host sans any interaction by the immune system?

    and  the third is the innate immune system, much of which involves no detectable immune response, not the adaptive immune system, which does involve a detectable immune response. So there is no contradiction.

    What are you looking for when you mean by “no detectable immune response”?

  135. #135 Th1Th2
    October 26, 2011

    OK. #334 is for Kevin not Prometheus. I don’t think it matters nonetheless.

  136. #136 Reuben
    October 26, 2011

    Shut up, Lloyd. Go suck a lemon.

  137. #137 DLC
    October 26, 2011

    It really is quite simple. See if you can follow along: The risk of injury, illness or death from vaccines is so very small that there have only ever been a handful of actual verified cases. (VAERS reports alone are not verified cases as they are based on self-reporting, and include reports from a cartoon mouse) On the other hand, the amount of diseases and deaths prevented by vaccines is so large a number as to include billions. This, dear friends, is called a risk to benefit ratio, and is the prime metric by which all medical interventions are evaluated.

  138. #138 jon
    January 1, 2012

    Call it nonsense all you want, but you’re paying for my damages and the damages of all the kids being injured and killed. The total keeps adding up, but until vaccine manufacturers man up and stop bribing the government to provide them with legal immunity you will all be paying higher taxes to pay for the disabilities caused by vaccines. So I appreciate your paycheck, but I’d much rather sue the vaccine manufacturer and put an end to this.

  139. #139 novalox
    January 1, 2012

    @jon

    And why the hell are you necroing a thread, idiot?

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