In the more than a decade since I first discovered, to my shock, that there are actual people out there who not only don’t believe that vaccines are safe despite overwhelming evidence that they are but in fact believe that they don’t work and are dangerous, I thought I had seen every antivaccine argument out there. After all, I just wrote about the tactics and the tropes of the antivaccine movement in which I reviewed, well, the tactics and tropes of the antivaccine movement. One of the favorite (and therefore most commonly used) tropes of the anti-vaccine movement is that vaccines are somehow “unnatural.” There are many variants of this particular trope, for example the claim that “natural” infection is better than vaccination. This delusion sometimes reaches the point where some antivaccine parents will do something as stupid as to try to send lollipops licked by their children with chickenpox through the mail to other parents, the aim being to allow those parents to expose their children the chickenpox in order to give their children the “benefit” of “natural immunity.”

Yes, I thought I had seen every variation of the “unnatural” trope so beloved by antivaccinationists that, I must admit, the following took me rather by surprise. It’s on a website whose name GreenMedInfo.com tells you just about all you need to know about it. My brief perusal of the site reveals that it’s chock full of “natural” medicine quackery. Consistent with this, it appears to be rabidly antivaccine, as evidenced by a little dittie by someone named Sayer Ji, who is the person responsible for this website, entitled The Vaccination Agenda: An Implicit Transhumanism/Dehumanism. it’s a crank trifecta, combining antivaccine tropes, conspiracy mongering, and the natural fallacy in heaping helpings, all topped off with fear mongering implying that vaccines are somehow responsible for making us less “human.” At this late date, having been in the trenches for a while, even I don’t recall having seen a screed so full of crazy. It’s perfect for a Friday, when, even though I rarely do “Your Friday Dose of Woo” anymore, this might have been a good candidate for it. You’ll see what I mean right away:

In fact, ever since the adaptive, antigen-specific immune system evolved in early vertebrates 500 million years ago, our bodies have been doing a pretty good job of keeping us alive on this planet without need for synthetic, vaccine-mediated immunity. Indeed, infectious challenges are necessary for the development of a healthy immune system and in order to prevent autoimmune conditions from emerging as a result of TH2 dominance. In other words, take away these natural infectious challenges, and the immune system can and will turn upon itself; take way these infectious challenges and lasting immunity against tens, if not hundreds of thousands of pathogens we are exposed to throughout our lives, would not be possible.

Ah, yes. The appeal to nature gussied up with a bit of evolution. In other words, according to Ji, because we co-evolved with pathogens, living with pathogens is “natural.” And so it is. So are cancer, old age, and death. These are all completely “natural” too, as are strychnine and any number of “natural” toxins. (If you’ll recall, a “toxin” is by definition something made by a living organism.) The point, of course, is that just because something is natural does not make it good, benign, or even just neutral. Nature is harsh, and the battle for survival brutal, and it’s completely “natural” for all manner of animals to be eaten by bigger, faster, and hungrier animals. Yet the mindset behind so much of “alternative” medicine and antivaccine views is that natural is always good and that anything synthetic should be viewed with extreme suspicion. It’s silly, because even “natural” nutrients and medicines are just as much chemicals as any synthetic nutrient or chemical. We have to judge whether such chemicals are harmful based on science and where the evidence leads us, not based on whether the chemical is “natural” or not. Yet it is this assumption that leads Ji to ask:

Can vaccines really co-opt, improve upon, and replace natural immunity with synthetic immunity?

How many will this require?

Are we not already at the critical threshold of vaccine overload?

By “improving” on our humanness in this way, are we not also at the same moment departing dramatically from it?

I’m really at a loss to figure out how, even if we were in a state of “vaccine overload” (we’re not) vaccines would somehow be “departing dramatically” from our humanness. Is there a “vaccine skeptic” out there who can explain this to me using actual science rather than prescientific understandings of the function of the human body and how it is disrupted by disease? I doubt there is, but you never know. In any case, the entire argument behind Ji’s article is that vaccines are somehow stripping us of the things that make us human. The first way they’re doing it, according to Ji, is by challenging us to way too many–get this!–antigens.

Yes, antigens. Scary, scary antigens. Plus the dread aluminum, of course:

A new paper published in the journal Lupus entitled Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations, points out that as many as 125 antigenic compounds, along with high amounts of aluminum (AI) adjuvants are given to children by the time they are 4 and 6 years old, in some “developed” countries. The authors also state: “Immune challenges during early development, including those vaccine-induced, can lead to permanent detrimental alterations of the brain and immune function. Experimental evidence also shows that simultaneous administration of as little as two to three immune adjuvants can overcome genetic resistance to autoimmunity.”

I actually have already seen and read this paper, even though it just came out within the last few days. In fact, I had even thought of blogging this paper. Then I remembered. This paper looked mighty familiar. So I searched my blog on the names of the author, and, sure enough, I quickly found that I had dealt with this sort of thing before just last month. I read my old post, and quickly became apparent to me that this article in Lupus is basically the same article as the one in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry that I had likened to an “argumentum ad pirates,” or confusing correlation with causation the way that was so deftly illustrated a few years ago when global warming was linked to the decrease in the number of pirates. And that, dear readers, is why I didn’t bother with this article. I didn’t need to. It’s more or less the same article; at least it uses very much the same arguments. So I’ll just point you to my original deconstruction and leave it at that. Let’s just say that both articles are a pair of fetid dingo’s kidneys.

What follows next is a rapid-fire listing of common antivaccine tropes, most related to the “natural” gambit. For example, we have what I like to call the “toxins gambit”:

Common adjuvants include: aluminum, mineral oil, detergent stabilized squalene-in-water, pertactin, formaldehyde, viral DNA, phosphate, all of which are inherently toxic, no matter what the route of exposure.

We have the “naturalistic fallacy” applied to the route of administration of vaccines:

Many parents today do not consider how dangerous injecting adjuvants directly into the muscle (and sometimes blood, due to incorrect and/or non-existent aspiration techniques), especially in non-infected, healthy offspring whose immune systems are only just learning to launch effective responses to the innumerable pathogens already blanketing their environment.

I’ll give Mr. Ji minimal credit. He at least seems to know the difference between injecting vaccines intramuscularly and injecting them “directly into the bloodstream,” which appears to be the approved description favored by antivaccine activists. (Don’t believe me? Google “vaccine injected directly into bloodstream.”) Realizing the difference, he had to mention “incorrect and/or non-existent aspiration techniques” as a way to imply that vaccines are frequently injected “directly into the bloodstream” by accident. It’s all nonsense, of course, particularly the bit about how injecting antigens into the muscle is harmful when administered to babies “whose immune systems are only just learning to launch effective responses to the innumerable pathogens already blanketing their environment.” I suppose in this natural world babies never suffer injuries that introduce pathogens into their subcutaneous and even intramuscular spaces. Perhaps the most telling line is when Ji characterizes humans as having “strayed from their mammalian roots by creating and promoting infant formula over breast milk and then promoting synthetic immunity via vaccines over the natural immunity conferred through breastfeeding.”

Do I really need to say it again? If breast feeding was so effective in saving babies from infectious disease, then why was the smallpox vaccine needed? Why did the measles affect so many thousands of children before the development of the measles vaccine? Why did Hib affect so many children, even kiling some, until just around 20 years ago. The disease only came under control after the vaccine against it came into widespread usage. Don’t get me wrong. In most circumstances, breastfeeding is undeniably best. But the passive immunity conferred by breast milk is not long-lasting and can’t be counted upon to prevent diseases that vaccines can prevent.

Then my irony meter exploded.

Ji likens vaccination to transhumanism, which he apparently abhors because he views it as a “movement which intends to improve upon and transcend our humanity, and has close affiliation with some aspects of eugenics.” He then continues:

The CDC’s immunization schedule reflects a callous lack of regard for the 3 billion years of evolution that brought us to our present, intact form, without elaborate technologies like vaccination — and likely only because we never had them at our disposal to inflict potentially catastrophic harm to ourselves. The CDC is largely responsible for generating the mass public perception that there is greater harm in not “prophylactically” injecting well over 100 distinct disease-promoting and immune-disruptive substances into the bodies of healthy children. They have been successful in instilling the concept into the masses that Nature failed in her design, and that medical and genetic technologies and interventions can be used to create a superior human being.

In this culture of vaccination, the non-vaccinated child is “inferior,” “dirty,” perhaps even “sub-human” to those who look upon vaccination as the answer to what perfects the human immune system. Transhumanism participates in a dialectic which requires a simultaneous and systematic dehumanization of those who do not share the same way of thinking and behaving. The eugenic undertones of mass vaccination and the cult of synthetic immunity are now only thinly veiled, as we move closer to the point where a psuedo-scientific medical dictatorship lays claim to our very bodies, and the bodies of our children.

“Eugenics undertones” to mass vaccination programs? How ridiculous! How is it “eugenics” to administer a preventative measure that saves children from infectious disease? Isn’t that saving the “weak” and “subverting nature’s intent”? The whole idea behind eugenics is that modern medicine is saving the “unfit” (who would normally have died if it weren’t for modern society, science, and medicine preventing that) and thereby “weakening” the gene pool by letting the “unfit” reproduce. In the U.S., eugenics led to mandatory sterilization of the mentally ill and developmentally disabled. In Nazi Germany, it lead to the killing of children who were deemed Lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy of life”), either because they were developmentally disabled, had serious illnesses, or were deemed to be of “inferior” racial stock, among other reasons.

Now that’s eugenics. Vaccination to save all children? Not so much.

Not surprisingly, as well, there is a strong undercurrent of “health freedom” in Ji’s argument. Note the appeals to fear of a “cult of synthetic immunity” (actually that’s one cult I could actually get behind–what’s wrong with immunity?) and to a medical dictatorship that “lays claim to our very bodies, and the bodies of our children.” It’s not about science, given the copious evidence that vaccines are safe and effective. It’s about fear of the government and big pharma. It’s also about fear:

The point of no return (if not already traversed) is only around the corner: the mass introduction of DNA and Recombinant Vector Vaccine technology. Vaccines moved through the following stages (a tortured history of failures and massive “collateral damage”): Live Vaccines > Attenuated Vaccines > Subunit Vaccines > Toxid Vaccines > Conjugate Vaccines, only now reaching towards converting our living tissue into “vaccine-making factories” through the use of DNA and Recombinant Vector Vaccines, which are designed to directly alter cells within the vaccinated person’s body so that they create the antigens normally provided by vaccines themselves.

That’s right! Those evil scientists are, like the plot of a 1950s B-grade science fiction or horror movie, usurping Nature (with a capital “N,” of course!) and accessing Forbidden Knowledge and Making Themselves Into Gods. You know, all the horror movie cliches. In this instance, to Ji vaccines are the fruits of such forbidden knowledge and are turning us into monsters as a result. There are reasons to be very careful and conservative about vaccines designed to infect cells and thereby generate antigens that provoke an immune response, but Ji goes really overboard. DNA vaccines are nothing more than injecting naked plasmid DNA into the muscle, whose cells take up the DNA and express the proteins encoded therein. They don’t integrate into the genome or permanently alter the cells.

Ji’s article is the naturalistic fallacy on megadoses of steroids. To him, science isn’t just subverting Nature (with a capital “N,” again!) but it’s producing vaccines that are allegedly going to permanently alter us to make us no longer “human.” Vaccine scientists and doctors are somehow “callous lack of regard for three billion years of evolution,” as though evolution could never be improved upon. What is medicine, after all, if not interfering with evolution. Antibiotics interfere with evolutionary selection in that they save lives that might otherwise have been lost, allowing reproduction that might never have happened. So does surgery, a whole host of medicines, and a number of other treatments. That’s the idea.

It’s an idea Sayer Ji appears to reject utterly. This would be bad enough if he just rejected it for himself and his family, but he’s not content with that. He wants to persuade others to follow his boneheaded example, too.

Comments

  1. #1 evilDoug
    January 29, 2012

    “Thingy really is astonishingly dim, isn’t it?”

    That’s why I’ve always thought of Th1Th2 as “Thick Cubed” or “Thick to the Third”, rather than “Thingy”.

  2. #2 Narad
    January 29, 2012

    The fully vaccinated are susceptible to asymptomatic reinfection.

    And, again, the example didn’t concern vaccination. But let’s graft them together for the hell of it, as it bears somewhat on your inability to understand simple SIR models (and heaven help us come SEIR). The population of Scoresbysund is under 500, which would control the time evolution of an actual virgin-soil outbreak. I’m curious what you think the source of the “inapparent measles infection” was.

  3. #3 Big Blue
    January 29, 2012

    Lord Draconis, Imperator of Terra and Mars, ArchDuke of Jovian Moons and Elector of Sol, etc etc.

    My warmest thanks for the new Rolls Ghost. I’m not sure I understand the highly-customized seating mechanism, but Cindy tells me it will fit just fine after the new health insurance plan goes into effect.

    I’ve submitted the expense report for the Goji Berry Flavor Oncology test market contract out of Berkeley–it’s going “swimmingly”, haha, as we find that the webbing falls off subjects’ fingers after a few days out of water.

    Hope you enjoyed the red velvet cupcakes! Of course, we all look forward to the Rolling Stones playing at the next staff meeting.

    Big Blue

  4. #4 Niche Geek
    January 29, 2012

    Th1Th2, you wrote “You’ve confused natural immunity (innate immunity) to infection-induced naturally acquired immunity.” Putting aside your idiosyncratic terminology, it seems that your position is that the only “real” immunity is innate immunity and further that innate immunity should be sufficient for dealing with any potential threat. Is this the case?

  5. #5 LW
    January 29, 2012

    Innate immunity is great when it works. It plainly doesn’t work very well against measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, polio, or smallpox. If it did, there would never have been epidemics of those diseases. But I do enthusiastically encourage Thingy to rely exclusively on innate immunity and due diligence to avoid disease.

  6. #6 Narad
    January 29, 2012

    @Niche Geek: No, it also requires “exercising due diligence.”

  7. #7 Krebiozen
    January 29, 2012

    Isn’t a pathogen generally speaking a microorganism that has evolved to evade or overcome innate immunity? That excludes opportunistic pathogens that can include things like baker’s yeast. I very much doubt there is any diet, lifestyle or dietary supplement that can reliably strengthen innate immunity enough to make a person without acquired immunity resistant to measles, for example.

  8. #8 Niche Geek
    January 29, 2012

    LW, Narad and Krebiozen,

    Yes, I agree, but I was curious about Th1Th2’s perspective. I’ve been reading her comments for at least 2 years and wanted to explore the interplay between “due diligence” and probability in the Th1Th2-verse.

  9. #9 Marry Me, Mindy
    January 29, 2012

    If we had “innate immunity” we wouldn’t need to vaccinate or “acquire natural immunity by getting the disease” in the bloody first placve.

    Like Kreb says, if we were immune to their effects, they wouldn’t be pathogens in the first place.

  10. #10 Th1Th2
    January 30, 2012
    The fully vaccinated are susceptible to asymptomatic reinfection.

    And, again, the example didn’t concern vaccination.

    Check the title of the article germ denialist. Unbelievable.

    I’m curious what you think the source of the “inapparent measles infection” was.

    Since you’re in for a curiosity quest let me give you a hint. There are only two sources of infectious measles virus and you all know they had already acquired one. So how did they get reinfected? And where did the other source come from?

  11. #11 Th1Th2
    January 30, 2012

    Th1Th2, you wrote “You’ve confused natural immunity (innate immunity) to infection-induced naturally acquired immunity.” Putting aside your idiosyncratic terminology, it seems that your position is that the only “real” immunity is innate immunity and further that innate immunity should be sufficient for dealing with any potential threat. Is this the case?

    No that’s not case. My point is the innate immunity, although it confers immediate protection to the host, is not sufficient for dealing with actual threats like these infection promoters (pro-pox and pro-vax), hence, there is a secondary defense called an adaptive immunity in case there would be a breach in the innate immunity. Even though how thick your skin is, it’s no match to a needle-yielding infection promoter.

  12. #12 Th1Th2
    January 30, 2012

    Innate immunity is great when it works.

    First, you are an infection promoter so why do you care about innate immunity? Do you know how many infections are prevented just by the inmate immunity alone?

    It plainly doesn’t work very well against measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, polio, or smallpox. If it did, there would never have been epidemics of those diseases.

    Well it did work for atypical measles, rinderpest, and smallpox after you had stopped promoting the infection.
    But I do enthusiastically encourage Thingy to rely exclusively on innate immunity and due diligence to avoid disease.

  13. #13 Th1Th2
    January 30, 2012

    Innate immunity is great when it works.

    First, you are an infection promoter so why do you care about innate immunity? Do you know how many infections are prevented just by the inmate immunity alone?

    It plainly doesn’t work very well against measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, polio, or smallpox. If it did, there would never have been epidemics of those diseases.

    Well it did work for atypical measles, rinderpest, and smallpox after you had stopped promoting the infection.

  14. #14 Th1Th2
    January 30, 2012

    But I do enthusiastically encourage Thingy to rely exclusively on innate immunity and due diligence to avoid disease.

    Well, I wish you luck in your infection-promoting agenda.

  15. #15 lilady
    January 30, 2012

    Time to shut down the Thingy troll. It is only looking for “engagement”. It is a delusional, ignorant, uneducated, disease-promoting, health care professional wannabe, SFB troll.

  16. #16 Th1Th2
    January 30, 2012

    If we had “innate immunity” we wouldn’t need to vaccinate or “acquire natural immunity by getting the disease” in the bloody first placve.

    Well the truth is we have innate immunity so logic tells you to stop being a stupid infection promoter.

  17. #17 LW
    January 30, 2012

    And we see again the pointlessness of trying to have a rational discussion with Thingy.

    Thingy denies the existence of herd immunity. I give an example @173 of herd immunity occurring naturally. Thingy acknowledges the example @192, quoting from it (“But the odds of the sailor coming in contact…”) and disputes it on the grounds that vaccines are not always effective. I and others refuse to enter into that argument, pointing back again and again to the example @173, which does not involve vaccination. So Thingy @209 pivots hard ( how does it avoid whiplash?) and pretends that it thinks this whole discussion of an example relates to an example in the original post.

    I take it that means we win and even the Thingy troll can’t dispute the reality of herd immunity.

  18. #18 Th1Th2
    January 30, 2012

    Thingy denies the existence of herd immunity. I give an example @173 of herd immunity occurring naturally.

    Define “naturally”. Do you mean these people have “natural immunity” (innate immunity) against disease without acquiring the disease or these people have had a wide array of recent and acute infection (naturally acquired)? Well?

    Thingy acknowledges the example @192, quoting from it (“But the odds of the sailor coming in contact…”) and disputes it on the grounds that vaccines are not always effective.

    Not just the vaccinated but the naturally immune as well are susceptible to reinfection.

    I and others refuse to enter into that argument, pointing back again and again to the example @173, which does not involve vaccination.

    So what did you prove in 173? People acquiring diseases and passing it on to others. Is that good?

    I take it that means we win and even the Thingy troll can’t dispute the reality of herd immunity.

    You have not explained the mechanism by which that “phenomenon” would protect a little baby.

  19. #19 Anton P. Nym
    January 30, 2012

    Thingy’s world-view does not include probability or statistics; in the Thingyverse, all acts are determinate (action x always leads to result y) and all causes are proximate (action x only affects those present).

    The idea that an entire population can become effectively immune by having a large enough proportion of members have actual immunity, innate or acquired or whatever, is completely alien to such a world-view.

    I suspect that there’s almost zero chance of conveying the concept of herd immunity to him/her as, from this viewpoint, it’s all just spooky action at a distance.

    — Steve

  20. #20 Krebiozen
    January 30, 2012

    On Planet Thingy you can avoid infection by “due diligence” i.e. avoiding contact with people who are contagious. But she doesn’t believe that reducing the number of people in a population who are contagious will reduce the number of people who get infected in that population. That’s why it’s pointless trying to educate her.

  21. #21 Th1Th2
    January 30, 2012

    The idea that an entire population can become effectively immune by having a large enough proportion of members have actual immunity, innate or acquired or whatever, is completely alien to such a world-view.

    Well if you’re going to create a large enough proportion of members having actual immunity by requiring them to “acquire” something then you MUST breach the innate immunity. Therefore, innate immunity is NOT included in that proportion. Does that make sense?

  22. #22 LW
    January 30, 2012

    Thingy @220 : “Does that make sense?”

    No, in point of fact. Epidemics occur naturally. They have always occurred naturally. They occur even when human beings don’t want them too. Nobody needs to “require” anyone to catch a disease in an epidemic. It is entirely possible, and has happened, that nearly everyone in a community has caught a disease despite their best efforts to avoid it.

    I wonder if Thingy is even aware that the world existed before it was born and that large areas of the world exist outside of its immediate surroundings.

  23. #23 Th1Th2
    January 30, 2012

    But she doesn’t believe that reducing the number of people in a population who are contagious will reduce the number of people who get infected in that population.

    Yes that can be done through a lot of ways by breaking the chain of infection (i.e. isolation, exclusion, quarantine, PPEs etc.) and not just by reducing the symptoms (i.e. asymptomatic or subclinical infection caused by vaccination). But then again, you are an avid infection promoter.

  24. #24 Anton P. Nym
    January 30, 2012

    Does that make sense?

    No. Because the mechanism doesn’t depend on the means by which the actual immunity was attained; once a sufficiently large proportion of the population has immunity against an illness, the entire population is protected by the lack of disease vectors.

    To define my terms, “innate” immunity is an inborn response sufficently strong that the body can fight off a wild-strain contagion without becoming infectious. “Acquired” immunity is a similar immune response resulting from previous exposure, be it a previous (infectious) case of the contagion or a weakened/killed version in a vaccine.

    In this case I’m only considering immunological response.
    Dermal and mucosal protection are NOT considered components of this immunity because they are:
    a) almost universally present in the human population (ie: virtually everyone has ’em) yet historical records indicate disease transmission anyway;
    b) easily compromised, and are therefore insufficient without other immunological responses anyway.

    — Steve

  25. #25 Gray Falcon
    January 30, 2012

    Th1Th2, if you make a statement, is it up to you to prove it, or for somebody else to disprove it?

  26. #26 Th1Th2
    January 30, 2012

    No. Because the mechanism doesn’t depend on the means by which the actual immunity was attained; once a sufficiently large proportion of the population has immunity against an illness, the entire population is protected by the lack of disease vectors.

    I did just demonstrate from the previous articles that fully vaccinated and the naturally immune can also become disease vectors, didn’t I? What made you think otherwise?

    Again, stop the alibis, where is the mechanism? Don’t act like a child with an imaginary friend.

    In this case I’m only considering immunological response.

    And that immunological response is against the infection (oh yes, the infection you’re promoting) whether it be a primary immune response or anamnestic response.

    Dermal and mucosal protection are NOT considered components of this immunity because they are:

    Albert Sabin must be LOL from the grave. And I always knew Paul Offit is a crook.

  27. #27 Anton P. Nym
    January 30, 2012

    I did just demonstrate from the previous articles that fully vaccinated and the naturally immune can also become disease vectors, didn’t I?

    No, you didn’t.

    anamnestic

    I fail to see the relevance; the medical term relates to patient medical histories, not immune responses, and the other uses that Wikipedia dredges up generally involve reincarnation or very small servings of crackers and wine.

    — Steve

  28. #28 W. Kevin Vicklund
    January 30, 2012

    I did just demonstrate from the previous articles that fully vaccinated and the naturally immune can also become disease vectors, didn’t I?

    No, all those previous articles show is that many people who are partially vaccinated (since we now know that full vaccination for measles requires two doses – they only got one dose) are susceptible and that a few people with previous naturally acquired infection are suceptible. What you did not demonstrate was that all fully vaccinated individuals are susceptible or that all individuals with previous naturally acquired infections are susceptible.

    As stated above, vaccination and naturally acquired infection do not always convey immunity. That does not mean that they never convey immunity. And quite often when they don’t actually convey immunity, they reduce or eliminate the symptoms, and may even reduce the susceptiblity or the transmissibility.

  29. #29 Th1Th2
    January 30, 2012

    Th1Th2, if you make a statement, is it up to you to prove it, or for somebody else to disprove it?

    It all started with this claim in #83.

    And no, the phenomenon is not acquired by babies. Babies do benefit from it.

    I was curious so I asked about the mechanism.

  30. #30 Dangerous Bacon
    January 30, 2012

    Speaking of subversion –

    Did anyone notice that story surfacing in the news media about how we supposedly confirmed that bin Laden was living in his hide-in-plain-sight compound in Pakistan? It’s claimed that a Pakistani doctor (who was subsequently arrested) was carrying out a faux hepatitis B vaccination program and was allowed into the compound, from which he was able to bring out enough blood to provide DNA profiles which were linked to OBL.

    I am now waiting for the antivax lunatic fringe* (certain posters’ antennae commence quivering) to pick up on this. “MANDATORY VACCINATION PROGRAMS ARE COVER FOR BIG BROTHER’S ASSEMBLING OF UNIVERSAL DNA DATABASE AND MICROCHIP INSERTION!! NATURALNEWS EXCLUSIVE!!!”

    *yeah, it’s hard to tell the fringe from the mainstream these days.

  31. #31 Narad
    January 30, 2012

    Again, stop the alibis, where is the mechanism?

    “Alibis”? You’re simply demonstrating that your grasp of mathematics is even weaker than your handle on vocabulary. Nothing that you have pointed out amounts to more than a small input to S or I. All the rest is moronic attempts at diversion.

  32. #32 Gray Falcon
    January 30, 2012

    Th1Th2, the fact that smallpox is no longer around is strong evidence that herd immunity works. And don’t go around claiming it’s all “sub-clinical infections”, you have yet to provive a better alternative.

  33. #33 Th1Th2
    January 30, 2012

    No, all those previous articles show is that many people who are partially vaccinated (since we now know that full vaccination for measles requires two doses – they only got one dose) are susceptible and that a few people with previous naturally acquired infection are suceptible.

    Even if you give the measles vaccine for the umpteenth time, it will not protect them from asymptomatic reinfection. They would still be susceptible.

    Repeated subclinical booster reinfections may be important in maintaining immunity to diseases such as measles and rubella.

    As stated above, vaccination and naturally acquired infection do not always convey immunity.

    They convey infection. And the initial immune response is against that infection you’re promoting. The secondary immune response (the “immunity”) would be realized on subsequent exposure or reinfection. So please do mind your place.

    That does not mean that they never convey immunity. And quite often when they don’t actually convey immunity, they reduce or eliminate the symptoms, and may even reduce the susceptiblity or the transmissibility.

    That is demonstrably false. Again, check the previous articles.

  34. #34 Th1Th2
    January 30, 2012

    Th1Th2, the fact that smallpox is no longer around is strong evidence that herd immunity works. And don’t go around claiming it’s all “sub-clinical infections”, you have yet to provive a better alternative.

    Is this another repeat? Apparently, there was no herd immunity between 1971 though 1980, just FYI.

  35. #35 Th1Th2
    January 30, 2012

    What is the plural for alibi?
    In: Plural Nouns [Edit categories]
    Answers.com > Wiki Answers > Categories > Literature & Language > English Language > Grammar > Parts of Speech > Nouns and Pronouns > Plural Nouns >

    What is the plural for alibi?

    Answer:

    The plural for alibi is alibis

    Read more: h_ttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_plural_for_alibi#ixzz1kypjqOrI

    What’s the plural for Bozo the Clown, Narad?

  36. #36 Narad
    January 30, 2012

    I just dying to hear what made you think I was complaining about the pluralization.

  37. #37 Th1Th2
    January 30, 2012

    anamnestic

    I fail to see the relevance; the medical term relates to patient medical histories, not immune responses, and the other uses that Wikipedia dredges up generally involve reincarnation or very small servings of crackers and wine.

    I wonder about other things vaccinators don’t know. You have to read more buddy.

  38. #38 lilady
    January 30, 2012

    @ Dangerous Bacon: I don’t think it was a faux immunization program…kids were immunized against hepatitis B, IIRC.

    Yes, conspiracists will say that using a ruse to get into Bin Laden’s compound to “eliminate” this terrorist, is wrong.

    My take on the this is that “conspiracists” support terrorism or are members of al qaeda.

    Last night (60 Minutes TV interview), Defense Secretary Leon Panetta confirmed that the physician who organized the immunization program has been arrested by the Pakistani government and charged with treason. It was also announced recently that our “partner in fighting terrorism” Pakistan, will have 800 million (USD) removed from U.S. military aid money…due to Pakistan’s non-cooperation with anti-terrorism activities.

  39. #39 Narad
    January 30, 2012

    Even if you give the measles vaccine for the umpteenth time, it will not protect them from asymptomatic reinfection. They would still be susceptible.

    You are insinuating that this is always the case, which you have not demonstrated. In particular, the one item that you provided found a susceptibility to secondary immune response upon reexposure after natural infection of under 4%. It does nothing to support your claim that herd immunity is a “myth.”

    Moreover, let’s look again:

    Although viral transmission between protected individuals has never been directly demonstrated, the data describe a population in which protected but infectious persons could potentially be of epidemiological importance.

    Note that actual transmission to seropositive individuals isn’t claimed. What you’re trying to do, whether you realize it or not, is to assert a carrier state (which would be an input to I in any event, but the word “susceptible” apparently can somehow be detached from its qualifier) that also presumably is intended to imply that measles vaccination in and of itself makes eradication impossible. You have failed.

  40. #40 Narad
    January 30, 2012

    Oh, and…

    I’m curious what you think the source of the “inapparent measles infection” was.

    Since you’re in for a curiosity quest let me give you a hint. There are only two sources of infectious measles virus and you all know they had already acquired one. So how did they get reinfected? And where did the other source come from?

    I will take this to mean that you assert it was exposure to imported wild-type measles. (In a population that, absent vaccination, would have been entirely susceptible, BTW, and wound up with a disease effect of bupkis.) What is such a reexposure colloquially referrred to as?

  41. #41 Th1Th2
    January 30, 2012

    You are insinuating that this is always the case, which you have not demonstrated

    Apparently, this is always the case whenever a naive child goes to the clinic just to get infected primarily (“priming”) by the vaccine and even more so on subsequent re-infection (“booster”), symptomatic or otherwise.

    In particular, the one item that you provided found a susceptibility to secondary immune response upon reexposure after natural infection of under 4%. It does nothing to support your claim that herd immunity is a “myth.”

    It’s reinfection while the rest have had primary infection. So where’s the immunity?

    Note that actual transmission to seropositive individuals isn’t claimed.

    It’s stated there: through viraemia. How do you think measles virus is acquired?

    What you’re trying to do, whether you realize it or not, is to assert a carrier state (which would be an input to I in any event, but the word “susceptible” apparently can somehow be detached from its qualifier) that also presumably is intended to imply that measles vaccination in and of itself makes eradication impossible. You have failed.

    Like the OPV, measles vaccination in and of itself makes eradication impossible. If you want to eradicate measles infection then you have to stop promoting the disease. As simple as that.

    And for the carrier state, no. The vaccinated and the naturally immune having an asymptomatic reinfection would only be infectious throughout the period of communicability.

  42. #42 Marry Me, Mindy
    January 30, 2012

    Dear People Who Bloody Ought To Know Better

    Stop feeding the blinkin troll! For Pete’s sake, it thinks that intramuscular injection is intravenous because it gets there eventually. That is all lurkers need to know about the idiocy of said thing.

    Ignore it.

  43. #43 Th1Th2
    January 30, 2012

    I will take this to mean that you assert it was exposure to imported wild-type measles.

    In the absence of “booster” re-infection, the only remaining source of measles virus re-infection would be from the wild. Don’t you always blame it from the “imports” whenever there’s an outbreak?

    (In a population that, absent vaccination, would have been entirely susceptible, BTW, and wound up with a disease effect of bupkis.) What is such a reexposure colloquially referrred to as?

    You tell me.

  44. #44 Narad
    January 30, 2012

    And for the carrier state, no.

    Wrong. It doesn’t matter who is in the bucket, just that someone is. A transition from R to I without symptoms is the defintion of being a carrier. What is left as an exercise that you will surely never complete is the net effect on the gross dynamics.

    The vaccinated and the naturally immune having an asymptomatic reinfection would only be infectious throughout the period of communicability.

    This would be the “period of communicability” that you have not demonstrated the existence of with your chosen example? The “period of communicability” that you utterly deny the significance of in case of primary infection? That one? Congratulations, you have just allowed the “due diligence” routine to be turned against yourself.

  45. #45 Th1Th2
    January 30, 2012

    This would be the “period of communicability” that you have not demonstrated the existence of with your chosen example? The “period of communicability” that you utterly deny the significance of in case of primary infection? That one? Congratulations, you have just allowed the “due diligence” routine to be turned against yourself.

    Let’s see if exercising due diligence works.

    Period of Communicability
    A person can spread measles 4 days prior to the appearance of the rash up to 4 days following the appearance of the rash.

    So what appears prior to the onset of measles rash from a person suspected of having acute measles? Cough, coryza (sneezing, nasal congestion and nasal discharge)and conjunctivitis. Therefore, a duly diligent person would keep out of distance from people with cough, coryza, (sneezing, nasal congestion and nasal discharge)and conjunctivitis whether or not it’s measles.

    What are you going to do now, infection promoter?

  46. #46 Stu
    January 30, 2012

    What are you going to do now, infection promoter?

    Continue to laugh at you, you clinically insane sociopath?

  47. #47 Th1Th2
    January 30, 2012

    Wrong. It doesn’t matter who is in the bucket, just that someone is. A transition from R to I without symptoms is the defintion of being a carrier. What is left as an exercise that you will surely never complete is the net effect on the gross dynamics.

    There is no carrier state for measles.

  48. #48 Narad
    January 30, 2012

    There is no carrier state for measles.

    You have just spent a good amount of time invoking one. It’s not my fault that you don’t understand this.

  49. #49 LW
    January 30, 2012

    Thingy is proudly ineducably, and everyone else got the picture long ago. I will desist.

  50. #50 Narad
    January 30, 2012

    So what appears prior to the onset of measles rash from a person suspected of having acute measles?

    I see, I can suspect someone into having nasal congestion. Good to know. That, and that I have to be sure to get close enough to check people for conjunctivitis and nasal discharge so as to avoid them. All in a day’s work.

    What are you going to do now, infection promoter?

    Point out that somebody’s going to have haul you around in a wagon, which the diving helmet will presumably turn into a nuisance, if you keep shooting yourself in the foot. The fact that contagiousness peaks during the prodromal phase doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist otherwise, and it is you who was trying to play the margins in the first place.

  51. #51 Th1Th2
    January 30, 2012

    You have just spent a good amount of time invoking one. It’s not my fault that you don’t understand this.

    Now it’s my time to say: “I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    Haha Next time Narad, next time.

  52. #52 Narad
    January 30, 2012

    Now it’s my time to say: “I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    Another routine entry in the Annals of I Don’t Understand the Quip But I’ll Try It Anyway isn’t an improvement. You’re not proposing an SIS model, you’re advancing an SIR feedback.

  53. #53 Old Rockin' Dave
    January 31, 2012

    @Jen, #137:
    Since comments were still showing up here as of last night, here I go with another. While I was specifically responding to a silly claim about the number of challenges to the infant immune system, your return to harping on adjuvants and route is to the left of my point. I will answer anyway.
    The adjuvants straw man is the most abused dummy since Adam and Jamie’s Buster. As has been pointed out here and elsewhere innumerable times, many of the “toxins” that antivaxers yell have been out of vaccines for many years, or else never were. Those that are used are used in small amounts and the dosage of vaccines are tiny. As for injection vs ingestion, children continue to receive penetrating wounds even in homes where everything with a point of a corner has been taken away out of reach. Except for the homes of poisoned-arrow hunters, the greatest danger in those wounds is bacteria, not tiny amounts of inert materials. There is also another source of injected material that all but the most carefully guarded children face, and that is insect bites, a source of biologically active substances as well as live bacteria. By your reasoning, a bee sting even in the non-allergic should lead to all kinds of deadly dangerous sequelae. Oh, but I forgot, insect venoms are natural and organic, so they don’t count.
    Having seen someone die of tetanus, and as a parent and polio survivor, I am damned glad we have the vaccines we do and I wish we had more of them and they were more widely distributed than they are. Anyone who doesn’t think that the vaccines we use are far better than letting the diseases they are meant to prevent run wild is pretty seriously reality-deficient. And yes, Jen, I mean you.
    If you like, go ahead and flame me; just watch out that you don’t set all your straw men on fire.

  54. #54 Janet.J
    February 11, 2012

    ORAC – Your character assaults apparently have blown back on you….

    Orac Unmasked – David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D. (Updated)

    (Posted by Patrick Sullivan Jr.)

    GorskioracCompliments of Ashleigh Anderson, the infamous Orac of “Respectful Insolence” has been unmasked.

    David H. Gorski
    Assistant Professor
    UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
    Department of Surgical Oncology
    The Cancer Institute of New Jersey

    From Ashleigh Anderson’s post on the EOH Yahoo board. (You have to be an approved member of the group to view posts, so I’ve posted the whole thing here):
    You know, I was reading the oracknows site the other night & you know how all the pro-poisoning people are – they have this little skeptics circle or whatnot. Well anyways, I did a mouse over of his Blogarama button and noticed the name gorski came up.

    So I googled – gorski orac

    Try it. You will be amazed. Orac’s secret identity is secret no more. And man, has he been a nasty boy. What a slimey sleaze.

    No wonder he kept his identity secret. See what he has been doing on the web & his affilication with the Renses/Ratbags.

    Now he loses all his credibility.

    http://www.cyclingforums.com/t136864.html
    http://www.mesotheliomaresource.org/news/alternative-health/alternative-health-p-9016-4.htm
    http://www.medicalconversation.com/showthread.php?t=56548
    http://www2.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/m/michael.david/ftp.py?people/m/michael.david/2001/michael.0109
    http://www.ianag.com/health/archive/index.php/t-555193.html
    http://www.groupsrv.com/science/viewtopic.php?p=535231

    To Professor Gorski’s credit, he did say that if you look hard enough, you can figure out who he is. (And one clue that I noticed was when a friend of his commented on his blog, “Dave, where do you get the time for this? It’s cool.”)

    So basically, this “unmasking” is pretty much a non-event. HOWEVER, after arguing ad nauseum with “Gorac,” it is good to finally have some disclosure. It would have been much more credible if it had come from him directly, especially after the repeated calls for disclosure from numerous commentors.

    Professor Gorski, I do have one question: In your blog profile, you say, “I’m an academic surgeon and scientist…” and in the description of your blog, you say “Miscellaneous ramblings of a surgeon/scientist…” and in your medical disclaimer, you say “…the author’s hospital, university, surgical practice, or partners.”

    So why don’t you have any initials after your name? It seems to me that you have allowed everyone, including me, to believe that you are a real doctor.

    UPDATE 9/14 8:27pm from Pat and Patrick Jr. – After discussing this post and the comment by Kev regarding Professor Gorski’s contact info being posted, we decided that we didn’t want to give the impression of this being a character assasination. So we pulled out the contact information from the post. (As Patrick Jr. notes in his reply to back to Kev, the contact info is still available from his profile page, so it is sort of a moot point, but…)

    It is not our intention to “unmask” Orac so that anyone can cyber-stalk/spam/etc. him!! We are proponents of civil debate and discussion. We don’t want to promote the type of character assasination that is unfortunately, quite common on Orac’s blog.

    We have both spent way too much time trying to defend what we believe are highly plausible reasons for numerous things that we believe on Orac’s blog, only to then be ridiculed and attacked personally, all the while ignoring and dodging our arguments. (There are many others who have experienced this as well.)

    Orac believes what he believes and has every right to express that. We happen to think he is very biased, closed-minded, and often just plain wrong. He also loves to call people terrible names assasinating their character instead of simply stating why he disagrees. And I don’t think I’ve ever see him concede any point, ever! (It is not unlike the near total breakdown in civil discourse at the national political level.)

    The “unmasking” is still appropriate because at least now we know who and what we are dealing with.

    UPDATE 9/14 8:57pm from Patrick Jr. – I just read Ashleigh’s comment on this post which lead to this page. Searching for “orac” I found this:

    From: dgorski@xsi-te.net (ORAC)
    Date: 10 Dec 1997 15:05:57 GMT

    (snip)

    ORAC |”A statement of fact cannot be
    a.k.a. | insolent.” ORAC
    David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D. |
    University of Chicago |

    The MD and PhD shocked me considering that I was under the impression he wasn’t a doc. So I googled “University of Chicago” “David H. Gorski” which led to this 1998 Univ of Michigan newsletter. Bottom of page 20 has:

    David H. Gorski (BSC 1984, MD 1988;
    PhD 1994, Case Western Reserve (Cellular
    Physiology)) is a Fellow in Surgical
    Oncology at the University of Chicago.

    I would say that I stand corrected from my earlier question to Gorac…He’s a doc after all. No way a Michigan newsletter from 1998 was faked.

    UPDATE 9/14 9:07pm from Patrick Jr. – I changed the title of this post from “Orac Unmasked – Assistant Professor David H. Gorski” to “Orac Unmasked – David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D. (Updated)” It seemed like the right thing to do.

    UPDATE 9/14 10:02pm from Patrick Jr. – I emailed Orac earlier today, so after my new discovery, I thought it was only fair to own up to my mistake and email him again:

    —Original Message—
    From: Patrick Sullivan
    Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 9:25 PM
    To: ‘oracknows@gmail.com’; ‘gorskidh@umdnj.edu’
    Subject: RE: This is you right? CORRECTION

    Dave, I did a few more googles on my own tonight and found out that lacking initials on your UMDNJ page, you actually do appear to be a real MD and PhD. There’s no way I’m going to believe that a Michigan newsletter from 1998 was faked, as much I did sort of like the idea of you not being a real doctor. (Trading places, I’m sure you’d have felt the same way… 😉

    So since I was wrong, I quickly updated/corrected Pat’s blog. Not sure if you’ll actually care, but I thought it was only fair to ping you.

    Here’s to disclosure and civil discourse.

    Patrick Jr.

    —Original Message—
    From: Patrick Sullivan
    Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 12:01 PM
    To: ‘oracknows@gmail.com’; ‘gorskidh@umdnj.edu’
    Subject: This is you right?

    Professor Gorski/Orac, it’s nice to finally meet you.
    http://www.patsullivan.com/blog/2005/09/orac_unmasked_a.html

    Patrick Sullivan Jr.
    President
    480.212.9000 | patrick@jigsawhealth.com

    Jigsaw Health
    14500 N. Northsight Blvd. Ste 112
    Scottsdale, AZ 85260
    http://www.JigsawHealth.com
    The leading resource for chronic conditions.

    Pat Sullivan Blog: http://www.PatSullivan.com

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